[PS3] PlayStation 3 Discussion Thread

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

So... we're "supposed" to be excited for the 60 gig hard drive...

But what I don't get is WHY. What are we supposed to be using this space for? If it's just for storing game saves, patches, and extra content, we could just as easily have an 8 gig drive like the original XBox and still not run out of room.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Wait a second. Does the PS3 not have spots for PS1/2 style memory cards?

If so, where's their fucking backwards compatibility fitting in here?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by RYU

PS3 also won't support PSP connectivity.It is ture?

I would assume that the 500 dollar version would not support wireless PSP connectivity. Instead, it would probably require a USB cable.

I don't see why the 600 dollar version wouldn't work with the PSP in both connection forms.

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

I think this is essentially a "boiling down" argument.

Some people may boil down the recent Iraq War for reasons of "oil."
The same idea applies to Sony.
Some people may boil down the PS3 for reasons of "securing Blu-ray as a media format."

Basically, if Sony didn't put this expensive behemoth of a drive in the PS3, Blu-ray would barely have a defense against HD-DVD. Where would Sony Pictures be then?

We're just unknowingly participating in the DVD format wars at the command of these giant companies. It's just a shame that Blu-ray didn't come out earlier than the PS3 (like DVD players did), because that would have allowed the console to debut at a much lower price.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Mobius One

Free online gaming with PS3? I'm sold. I don't like Microsoft's "Live" system where you have to pay for it, even if it is $80 a year, that's still $80!

It's $50 a year.

That's $4.16 a month for any online game on XBox and XBox360, with voice chat.

Most MMORPGs cost at least $15 a month. For a single game.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by SouthJag

$15 a month + $4.16 a month = $19.16 x 12 months = $229.92 a year. Not to mention the cost of the Xbox Live Starter Kit...that first year will run closer to $250 for, say, Final Fantasy 11.

It'd be $180 to play Final Fantasy 11 on either the PS2, PC, and assuming it makes it to the system, the PS3 as well. It's a good $70 difference.

Woah, woah, woah. What the fuck did you just do.

You just twisted my argument.

I never mentioned playing an MMORPG on an Xbox / Xbox360.

I compared the price of a single subscription fee for 1 game (take your pick from any major MMORPG) to the price of a single subscription fee for dozens, if not 100+ games with voice chat.

All you did was say "well, but the starter kit is..." Yes. The starter kit is $70. But you need to get a headset if you want to talk, don't you? That's 20 bucks of the price. A keyboard for the PS2 would be the same price.

FELIPE NO

My main point (just to finally clarify) was that millions of people pay $15 a month to play games like WoW or City of Heroes, but a $4.16 a month fee is somehow considered expensive even though it supports a ton of games and you're essentially guaranteed that servers are maintained properly.

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

Originally Posted by SouthJag

I used to think that paying for online services would "garner more dedicated servers and a more reliable service" until Guild Wars came out. They seem to be doing fairly well right now, and I haven't heard of them having any major malfunctions with their servers yet. Blizzard on the other hand...

We might as well split this off into another thread, but I felt I had to fix a few misconceptions with the Guild Wars analogy.

1) They don't handle nearly as many people as World of Warcraft does.
2) It's not a real MMORPG. It's equivalent to something more like Diablo 2, where you have a common lobby, then individual game rooms. Thus, lots less server strain.

And Sony already has a kind of online service for the PS2 and PSP, but it's decentralized and completely up to the game company on how to run it (in terms of quality control). Hopefully the free service for the PS3 won't be like this.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by SouthJag

I'm so anti-Halo it's ridiculous, but playing games online through consoles other than the PC wasn't something that had really broken through until the Xbox and Halo. I'm aware that other consoles were capable of gaming online, but I don't think any of them drew very large a crowd. If they did, it wouldn't have taken this long for online gaming to really hit.

Again, (and I'm sorry to keep picking at your posts like this, I really am) Halo isn't online.

Halo 2 is. However, Xbox Live took off way before Halo 2 ever came out. Crimson Skies, a few of the Tom Clancy games, MechAssault, etc...

Multi-player Halo 1 was played generally as a split-screen 4-player game. Some rich kids might have hooked a few consoles and screens up for LAN play, but it didn't have online play.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/s...ic_id=23921409

Originally Posted by From the article

While US Sony reps think the best way to deal with gossip is silence, Sony Europe spokespersons have apparently decided to put this particular rumor to rest.

According to the London Guardian's
tech blog, SCEE PR manger Jennie Kong blasted the rumor as " false speculation." "PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console," she told the Guardian.

I doubt Sony would go as far as to repeat the mistakes of the Divx DVD machines (where the machine would have to call in everytime you played a disc). EB and Gamestop would probably refuse to sell the system if they weren't able to profit off of the used games.

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

Originally Posted by Colonel Skills

While I have no issues with the PSP or PS3 (Or any Sony one for that matter) interface in question, I have to mention that the 360's UI is hardly bloated garbage like Cetra seems to believe.

The Dashboard for the 360 is intuitive, simple, and easy to use. It's actually QUITE similar to the XMB interface. Major menu items are accessed through a horizontally scrolling menu. Sub items are accessed vertically from there. Both the PSP and 360 have customizable wallpapers. The PS3 looks like it has customizable and personal profiles, much like the 360 has. From a pure usability standpoint, they are both pretty fucking good, and actually quite similar.

There might be technical differences and a different sort of system for dealing with buddies and such things, but the 360 solution to this is quite elegant and usable. I'd like to know why you think it's bloated garbage, Cetra.

And the 360's Blade system has probably gotten just as much praise as the PSX's. It's hard to find people who don't like it.

No, no, no.

I don't like the 360's blade system. It has too many redundant items.

You can select "Game trailers" or "Media" to view the same content. You can access the same downloadable content through either the game's name or "latest game movies" or "trailers" or "demos" on the marketplace.

It's excessive. What they needed was a simple "music/movies/games/options/internet" interface. That's it.

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

Originally Posted by Solis

Well, since PS2 games will be run through hardware, there likely aren't as many upgrades they can offer to it. If it was just software emulation they could probably offer additional features, but since PS2 hardware will effectively be running the games, they'll likely be in their original form. PS1 emulation I'm not sure about, potentially they could add a lot more to that since they aren't limited by the original hardware.

Assuming that they do offer enhancements (to the PS1 at least), they could easily enable AA for edges and anisotropic filtering for textures (basically makes the textures much sharper and detailed when viewed at an angle). Possibly higher resolution as well, or at the very least upscaling to HD, and progressive scan support for all games (hopefully even those that didn't support it originally). Increased disc reading speed as well, but like the PS2 with the PS1 it would have to be kept as a toggleable feature in order to ensure compatibility.

Wait, but if they're running ps2 through hardware, then why such low backwards compatibility? It should be up in the high 90% mark then, right?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by NoWittyComment

It's about time. US release?

Probably not, since Phantasy Star II, III, and IV will already be in the Sega Genesis Collection for PS2.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Other bad thing about the controllers: No user-replacable battery.

It's a permanent recharable battery. When the controller can't keep the charge as well anymore, you'll have to buy a new one. Apparently.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Slayer X

Hmmm... I thought as much. The reason why I thought it could be done thouh is because all the supported X-box1 games are upscaled and formatted to 16:9 on the X360. However while just going through my games I remembered that there were games that didn't have 720P support (Phantom Dust) and when I put it in the X360 it came up in 1080 but in 4:3. So I kind of stumbled upon this before your last post there. However someone else out there may have been wondering the same thing that I was earlier, so at the least we have this documented now.

The only Xbox games that are 16:9 on the 360 are the ones that supported it already on the old system.

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

Well, yeah, but there ARE games that support 16:9 on PS2, so I don't know where you're going with this.

Jam it back in, in the dark.