[PS3] PlayStation 3 Discussion Thread

Originally Posted by russ

Also, the main selling points that PS3 has right now is MGS4 and FFXIII? Ok, so basically it's nearing time for people to stop complaining about Nintendo milking its most successful franchises in order to get people to buy its console, since Sony is doing the same thing {except lol what if Konami and Square decide that Microsoft will give them a better deal to release their current flagship franchise on their console, Sony has nothing going for it anymore and they can't do anything about it since lol third party franchises are all it has}.

I was hoping to see Killzone and Motorstorm, but I guess we have absolute confirmation by their "no-shows" that neither currently even ressemble their trailers at last E3. They probably look like that "Resistance: Fall of Man," which was in my opinion one of the biggest embarrassments of the night.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I admit, I was expecting more from Sony this year, I was hoping they would surprise me. Well, they did, but not in a good way.

FELIPE NO

Not sure if this was brought up before, but...

http://www.armchairempire.com/images...tekken-6-2.jpg

compared to

http://www.gamersreports.com/grimage...1/gr.image.jpg

?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

HYPE

VERSUS

REALITY




FIGHT!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Stealth

PS3 can play BluRay, DVDs, and CDs. Not sure about other players.

Thanks man.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by sprouticus

HYPE

VERSUS

REALITY

That's how it was. That's how it always will be. I wish I could find these beta shots from Mission Impossible for N64. Compared to the actual released version they looked far superior. More like a GCN game.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Yeah, people were so waiting for this year for Sony to change it's habits of showing 'fake footage' but no, probably never.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

MGS4 looks a bit better then last time though.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Freddy Krueger

MGS4 looks a bit better then last time though.

Oh definitely. But it's Kojima and they ALWAYS do shit ahead of everyone, so it'll take 1-2 years for people to attain those graphics.

Even the fake Tekken shots could've been done, but not now.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Prime Blue

That's how it was. That's how it always will be. I wish I could find these beta shots from Mission Impossible for N64. Compared to the actual released version they looked far superior. More like a GCN game.

Dude, just check up any early playstation 2 game concepts. They look above Xbox quality.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by BurningRanger

Yes Cetra, price differences didn't help Nintendo sell well last generation, we know. As mentioned above, DVD helped off set the cost difference. BUT WAIT BLURAY. Let's make this perfectly clear about Blu-ray: absolutely NO ONE gives a fuck about it. I've never heard or seen that word outside of webpages, or Maximum PC magazine. Not a single person I've talked to has ever said "I can't wait to watch some blurays on my new PS3!" Even the ones who can't wait for it.

Well I can tell you this, I can't wait to watch some blurays on my new PS3! (and I mean it).

I pretty much agree with everything Cetra is saying.

The Wii is out of the competition, because it relates to a different market then the PS3 & Xbox360. Personally, I’m 23 and I could care less for the Wii, because the games on it will be in general “too childish” (if you will) for my taste, that’s all. On the other hand, my little bro which is 16 is only concerned about the Wii though. And for example, I think that’s why they’ve decided to ditch HD, since the younger audience don’t care as much for HD.

So, the real war will be between Xbox360 and PS3, the Wii will live just fine with its own market. Do the extra features of the PS3 (BD and better graphics) are worth the price difference? For me, yes, absolutely. And again, it depends on the person you’re asking, but I believe that as time goes, more and more people will acknowledge the PS3 value, as they will for HD, and as they did for already accepted technologies.

Just like the chicken and the egg… the answer is: they arrived progressively during the same time period, they evolved.

Look at it this way, cut the PS3 in half: you get a $300 Blu-ray player, and a $300 high-tech game console. In November 2006, it will be a pretty good deal.

Originally Posted by Stealth

PS3 can play BluRay, DVDs, and CDs. Not sure about other players.

It can play SACD too.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Mercury

The Wii is out of the competition, because it relates to a different market then the PS3 & Xbox360. Personally, I’m 23 and I could care less for the Wii, because the games on it will be in general “too childish” (if you will) for my taste, that’s all. On the other hand, my little bro which is 16 is only concerned about the Wii though. And for example, I think that’s why they’ve decided to ditch HD, since the younger audience don’t care as much for HD.

See, this is what I just don't understand. Not a criticism, don't take it as such. I'm 22 and I'm fucking DYING for a Wii. (yes, I know, I know) It looks to be perhaps more "childish," but an assload more fun. And childish can be good. Look at Katamari Damacy. The Wii looks to open doors that weren't thought of before (and sorry, Sony's half-assed imitation won't do it half as well, even though insipid news sites like IGN will give them credit for "innovating" on it), and to do so for far less money on the part of the end-user. If the Wii can be cheap, fun, and (most likely) more physically durable than the PS3 (PS2 D.R.E. problem I am looking at you), then I'm sold and the PS3 can get fucked.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Mercury

Look at it this way, cut the PS3 in half: you get a $300 Blu-ray player, and a $300 high-tech game console. In November 2006, it will be a pretty good deal.

Not when you're not interested in bluray.

Most amazing jew boots

...I get it. The $600 price tag on the PS3 is a challenge, isn't it? You HAVE to get the most expensive console to prove everyone that you're a grown-up with a paying job, so people don't think you're a loser who lives in his parents' basement. You're playing keeping-up-with-the-Joneses with video game consoles. Good God you fanboys are fucking idiots.

No, this is a clean sweep for Microsoft and Nintendo. Probably just Nintendo, since even a $250 Wii will look reasonable in comparison. Despite some of the assertions being thrown around here, the prime video game demographic is the 12-16 age group. Kids don't have $600, and parents will not shell out $600. Not when Microsoft drops the price on the Xbox just in time for the holidays, and not while Nintendo's over here with their cheap little console.

Study your history, chil'lun. You know what other console was $600? The Neo-Geo. Cut and run while you can; you're gonna have to go to Microsoft for your "grown-up" games.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Study your history, chil'lun. You know what other console was $600? The Neo-Geo. Cut and run while you can; you're gonna have to go to Microsoft for your "grown-up" games.

How about you study history properly. It was released in 1992.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ <--Inflation calculator. $600 in 1992 = $812.00 in 2005 which adjusted inflation. Not only that but the Neo-Geo games went for $125 compared to $60 for the PS3. Just to top it off, the Neo-Geo lacked any real developer support, unlike the PS3.

I'm so sick of the Neo-Geo argument. It's nothing but a stupid, uninformed comparison.

Another little interesting 'fact'. The Nintendo released in 1985 was $300. Adjusted for inflation for 2005 and that is $532.40. I was just a kid back then but I had no problem getting my parents to buy one for me. Just something to consider in a day where $200 can't even feed one person for a month anymore.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Hmm, Magic Box lists the official price as $50 cheaper.

Quote:

* PlayStation 3 w/ 20GB HDD - US$499 / CND$549 / 59800 yen / 499 euros
* PlayStation 3 w/ 60GB HDD - US$549 / CND$659 / open price in Japan / 599 euros

It's not a major difference, but it still helps (you could use the extra $50 for a game).

I was speaking idiomatically.

So does the controller have pressure sensitive buttons or is it just the L2 and R2?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Cetra

How about you study history properly. It was released in 1992.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ <--Inflation calculator. $600 in 1992 = $812.00 in 2005 which adjusted inflation. Not only that but the Neo-Geo games went for $125 compared to $60 for the PS3. Just to top it off, the Neo-Geo lacked any real developer support, unlike the PS3.

I'm so sick of the Neo-Geo argument. It's nothing but a stupid, uninformed comparison.

Another little interesting 'fact'. The Nintendo released in 1985 was $300. Adjusted for inflation for 2005 and that is $532.40. I was just a kid back then but I had no problem getting my parents to buy one for me. Just something to consider in a day where $200 can't even feed one person for a month anymore.

They bought it for you because it was $200, not $300. Source.

I don't know where you're getting these falses figures. Perhaps you're just 100 dollars off today. PS2 was released for about $300 in the States, and ¥39,800, which is about $350. Source

You might laugh at wikipedia as a source for info, but it's certainly better than no source.

FELIPE NO

I disagree with the posters saying that the system will still sell fine. While gamers over 20 may be able to afford a $600 system, that doesn't mean they'll buy it. $600 takes a nice chunk out of the 20-30 gamer's monthly expenses. Not to mention games they'll have to buy for it(which we don't even know the price for yet).

Also you have to factor in the people that aren't buying them from EB or Gamestop in person. Everywhere else pretty much sells their systems in bundles(including EB and Gamestop online). PS3 bundles could be around $900, which I'm sorry but no one is going to pay.

Basically my point is while people may be able to afford it, it doesn't mean they'll buy it. I mean I could blow all my money right now on a brand new flat screen TV if I wanted, but I won't do that. Plus, when you go into a store with $600, it's just hard to blow it all on one thing. I'm sure you've all gone to a store once in your life with the idea of spending a lot of money on one thing, and you have to think it through. You have to debate with yourself if you can't spend it better elsewhere or if it's worth it.

Plus the kids, unless their parents have a lot of money won't be getting one for Christmas either.

The PS3 will still get sales, but not the heavy sales some are thinking. Especially without a very strong launch lineup, and let's face it. Launch lineups are never all that strong.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Monkey King

Despite some of the assertions being thrown around here, the prime video game demographic is the 12-16 age group.

I just did a quick google search and I got an old economist article on the industry and the average gamer age is 28, a far cry from the 12-16 you mention. 18-34 is far more likely, a group that definitely has the disposable income needed to buy this thin.

Quote:

Study your history, chil'lun. You know what other console was $600? The Neo-Geo. Cut and run while you can; you're gonna have to go to Microsoft for your "grown-up" games.

Yeah, I forsee Sony dropping the price like it's hot once the dismal sales numbers roll in. At least they should, considering that they're risking the company's future as a whole on this all-on-one machine.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Metal Sphere

I just did a quick google search and I got an old economist article on the industry and the average gamer age is 28, a far cry from the 12-16 you mention. 18-34 is far more likely, a group that definitely has the disposable income needed to buy this thin.

I've heard that before and I just can't buy that. I don't know anyone over 30 who even owns a video game console, and if you walk into every house that has a 15 year old kid in it, it's going to have a PS2 in that house.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Cetra

I'm so sick of the Neo-Geo argument. It's nothing but a stupid, uninformed comparison.

OK then, we will use the 3DO instead from now on just for you.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by DragoonKain

I've heard that before and I just can't buy that. I don't know anyone over 30 who even owns a video game console, and if you walk into every house that has a 15 year old kid in it, it's going to have a PS2 in that house.

Err, that information's based on polls done and the like while what you're pointing out is anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I won't deny that lots of kids have consoles, it's just that going by poll after poll over the years the same demographic remains. Heck, it'll even get older as more gamers age and play into their golden years.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by evilboris

OK then, we will use the 3DO instead from now on just for you.

heh PS3DO

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by DragoonKain

I've heard that before and I just can't buy that. I don't know anyone over 30 who even owns a video game console, and if you walk into every house that has a 15 year old kid in it, it's going to have a PS2 in that house.

Walk into an EB and you'll see some prime examples.

There was a mid-40s woman talking about the latest RPGs with the clerks one time I went. Hell, I saw a black woman in her mid-30s come into an EB and excitedly ask if they had the new Dynasty Warriors game on its release day. Not to mention all the 20-30 year old guys I saw on line to pick up GTA:SA and PSPs at their respective midnight launches.

Perhaps it's just your particular neighborhood.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?