[PS3] PlayStation 3 Discussion Thread

Delay in a product that really never had a release date.

Something tells me there is a business perspective to this more than a hardware related delay. When Sony made a vague Spring 2006 release date last year I think they expected the XBox 360 to do much better than it has been and the PS2 support to taper off far more than it has. But here we are a year later and the PS2 is still dominating in hardware sales with a huge amount of AAA titles due out sometime this year. Seems like they would just like to get what they can out of the PS2 before introducing the PS3 to the market.

I'm not really considered about anything though. The developer support speaks louder than anything else could and it looks like the Playstation is going to be the best choice for games yet again.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Sweet, the hard drive will be standard. Developers having access to use it as a game data cache storage should allow for a much better game experience. Hopefully we won't see the mess that Oblivion turned out to be on the X-Box 360 with the game engine pausing often as it struggles to load data off of the DVD fast enough.

Also Kutaragi is Krazy as ever.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by SailorDaravon

What's odd is he stated that the HDD would be required, but didn't specifically mention that it would be INCLUDED. Logically it would have to be if it's required, but that's still odd. And yeah, the man is fucking insane.

I appear to be the only person on the internets not impressed with the PS 1 emulator (I need a huge stick to hold a couple games I already own that I get to pay for again? Not counting resolution issues, and few PS1 games have a save anywhere feature necessary for playing on the go), but other than that good news all around, I'm impressed.

This isn't exactly a public press meeting, but rather a business briefing which mostly talks to the developers. I know it's worded oddly if you have never attended something like this, but he has basically stated the HDD is now standard in the PS3 thus will be included. It also seems to reek with Japanese to English translation problems as well.

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

Originally Posted by SailorDaravon

Found the full press release. It's a full spec sheet, I can't imagine it not stating the HDD being included if it was:

http://www.playstation.jp/news/2005/pr_050517_ps3.html

From the press release:

Quote:

　PS3のスペックについては、2.5インチの60GバイトHDDやLinux OSを搭載することを明らかにした。また

Literal translation : Concerning PS3 specs it was made clear that a 2.5 inch 60 GB HDD with Linux OS will be mounted.

Mounted in this sense would be better translated as the HDD with Linux installed will be included. It's not saying something like 'there will be a HDD which would include the Linux OS already mounted on the drive.'

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

Originally Posted by SailorDaravon

On the spec sheet itself it says "デタッチャブル 2.5” HDD slot x 1" デタッチャブル is detachable. I can see them as meaning you can mount a detachable drive (say take it to a friend's house). The other reason I'm thinking it's not going to be included is you're looking at a system that has a high-speed GPU, a new Blue laser drive, wi-fi hardware, half a gig of high speed memory, etc etc, AND a 60G HDD for a $400-450 range? That's insanity. Regardless, within the day once we get some kind of US/English press release it'll probably clear it up one way or the other.

Edit: I'm seeing a Sony rep at another board say the HDD will not be standard, but God knows where he is on the information chain.

Yeah, something tells me the truth of the situation won't be made clear for a while. Sounds like Sony themselves might not know the answer yet at this point. Plus these guys that actually give the press speeches never seem to be able to fully answer the questions correctly. Usually there is someone with better knowledge that clears up any questions after the entire press release is over.

I wouldn't use cost to rule out it being included though. A standard 7200 RPM 60GB HDD costs about ten bucks to manufacture these days.

I was speaking idiomatically.

FYI: About there not being any game announcements. This was a business press release so it should be expected. Game development information should come in May during E3.

Quote:

I can't go without commenting on this.

First, I was unaware that Oblivion came out. I am quite certain that its next week tuesday since I have been following the game since it was announced.
And if that was the case, why don't the reviews mention this pausing of the game lol.

Two, what the fuck game are you talking about on the 360.

Here:

Quote:

The game enters a loading screen when moving through doors, and in open areas will take brief pauses to load new textures when traveling across the countryside. Across all instances of loading, they were consistently swift.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/691/691449p6.html

Quote:

Things get even worse when I jump on a horse. Now, I'm actually trotting at a steady clip, and Oblivion starts not just to have draw-in issues but framerate problems as well. It's chugging. It can't keep up with my speed, and quite frankly the horse isn't even going that fast. At some points, I keep seeing the "Loading Area..." message pop up every couple of seconds, which brings with it another framerate stutter. It's herky-jerky-all-over-the-place as I climb up the hill to the gate of Oblivion. My reation to the graphics has, over this sequence, gone from "unimpressed" to "nonplussed" to "annoyed."

http://blog.wired.com/games/index.blog?entry_id=1422030


I could quote from 1up Gamespy and a few others on the issue as well but I don't really feel like doing that much work. I think the point as been made. This is what happens when you attempt to remove the HDD requirement they orginally had for the game.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

And no one takes tht blog seriously, but not that that matters.

Obviously you don't know Chris Kohler is one of the most respected reviewers in the industry and has countless books and articles in his resume.

Quote:

As for the harddrive, people seem to think the console having a harddrive will magically make all loading times disappear entirely. Does anyone here play PC games or what?

No, but it reduces it a lot, and in the case of games like Oblivion for example which use a texture streaming technology, using a HDD would pretty much remove any pausing that would otherwise show up from just loading textures directly from the optical disc.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by SketchTheArtist

Didn't PHIL HARRISON said himself in an interview that nothing was running on actual hardware at E3?

Also, MGS4 was 'hailed' by PS3 fans because it was the first piece of actual Software shown.

Nothing to this date has been running 'off of the actual hardware' as it still is not finished. Plenty of games shown have been running off of the alpha kits including Unreal 3, Fight Night and MGS4. Many of the demo trailers show were also a DVD recording of a demo that was produced running off of a alpha development kit.

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

Originally Posted by www.sega.co.jp

You'd think that with such strong GPU and CPU power, the PS3 could do some anti-aliasing, even the Dreamcast could do that well. My Official US Playstation magazine has some PS3 game screenshots, that look like PS2 games with a very high polygon count. Their aliasing is extreme Untold Legends looks worse than Devil May Cry, a 2001 PS2 game. Obiviously SOE is not shooting for good graphics with that game. Stranglehold looks good though, Chow Yun-Fat (in the game) looks pretty close to real life counterpart. It'll be a while I guess until we see a PS3 game that looks even remotely good compared to the pre-renderd movies I've seen. Unreal Tournament 2007 and MGS4 are the only games that look to eclipse the PS2's best graphics in the near future.

The newest anti-aliasing methods use multiple frame analyzation and blending which results in better looking AA without the normal blur associated with using superscale FSAA, edge blur AA or even Z-buffer FSAA. As a result, you really cannot see the AA effect from single frame screenshots. I'm sure there will be tools that will take proper direct frame buffer shots for the PS3 later on, similar to the tools used to take PS2 screenshots for magazines and such.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LivingDreams

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/22/x...g-for-the-ps3/

Haha, yes because every game engine out there will have things like soft self-shadowing, HDR and bloom. I'm sure there are lots of games that use simpler graphics by nature (Guilty Gear, NIS games anyone?) that will be using 1080p and look awesome doing so.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Zip

looks like sony console still have problems with jaggyness.

Sorry about quoting myself, but I don't feel like explaining again.

Originally Posted by Cetra

The newest anti-aliasing methods use multiple frame analyzation and blending which results in better looking AA without the normal blur associated with using superscale FSAA, edge blur AA or even Z-buffer FSAA. As a result, you really cannot see the AA effect from single frame screenshots. I'm sure there will be tools that will take proper direct frame buffer shots for the PS3 later on, similar to the tools used to take PS2 screenshots for magazines and such.

Seriously, AA is a non-issue especially considering the graphic chip this time around was developed by Nvidia. I can say with certainty that FSAA, which has been a standard rastering ability on Nvidia cards for 5 generations, is also included on the RSX.

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

Originally Posted by Shonos

Third-party developers could also shy away from the PS3 because of the high costs needed to create the games. The draw of lower costs to develop with the Revo could bring in alot of people.

They could, but they aren't mostly because the increase in development costs are overinflated, mostly by Nintendo.

Quote:

Much like the original PlayStation and PlayStation 2, the PlayStation 3 will have strong third-party support, with most major third-party publishers and developers already working on titles for the machine, including EA, Konami, Namco, Capcom, Sega, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Square Enix, Atari, Activision, Midway, and countless others. At last count (TGS, in September '05), the list of Japanese publishers alone numbered 71. Suffice it to say that game companies seem to have every confidence that the PS3 will be just as successful as the PS2, if not more so.

Source

Just don't even bother bringing up a concern about 3rd party support for the PS3. It's already as strong for the PS3 as it was for the PS2 with pretty much every non Nintendo/Microsoft 1st/2nd party developer already in the process of making a game (if not games) for the PS3.

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

Originally Posted by RABicle

That's a 700% increase and these are old figures. Did you realise most games don't even turn a profit these days?

Orly? So I guess game developers stay in business by printing fake money right? Sorry, but while game cost has increased 700% the console industry has grown over 2000%. The holiday season of 2005 was the most profitable season in the history of video gaming for game developers. I have no idea where you got the idea that most games don't turn a profit, but I'm guessing from Nintendo PR.

The growth rate of the industry still far exceeds the growth rate of development costs. If developers were truly concerned about rising costs, they would not be showing such a strong backing for the PS3. But simple fact remains is the PS1 and PS2 have made 3rd party developers a LOT of money and they don't expect anything less of the PS3.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by RABicle

Have you guys been living under a rock?

The BBC differs, they say forcasted growth of the games industry is only 10% I don't know, where you got this 2000% idea from but certainly there aren't many more console sales this gen than last gen, let alone 20 times as many.

Uh, look at the value of the gaming industry when games costs 1 million to make. It was about half a billion dollars. The industry is now worth around 28 billion dollars. That is actually a 5600% growth.

Games have gone from $1 million to upward to $30 million maximum. 3000% growth rate only if you consider the maximum cost of game rather than the average cost. 5600% > 3000%, the industry is growing faster than the cost to be in the industry, hence companies are still making heavy profit even with the rising cost in developing games.

Will it last? No, but does it matter this generation? Again, no. The industry is still in the middle of major growth and development. All this worry about rising development costs is irrelevant until the industry begins to hit its equilibrium point. Until then, you simply cannot state something like "Games cost to much to make" while the industry continues to grow and an incredible rate. The value of the industry dictates when things start to cost too much.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Lair is looking pretty damned good. Needs more gameplay information though.

FELIPE NO

Well the memory usage is a bit of a concern, but the processor time used is a non-issue. More than likely the OS will be performing all the system I/O functions as well as some application level control meaning the games themselves won't need to do this. That pretty much evens out processor usage.

Also, from the the looks of memory usage, the OS is mostly suspended when a game is playing then requires more memory if you bring up some type of system console overlay or something. Again not a big deal as it's not like the game cannot make use of this memory. It just means there might be a small load delay (32 Megs would take at most 2 seconds to load from a Blu-Ray disc) when returning to the game if the requested OS memory was being used at the time.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by RYU

I don't think to be ture,sony say before will be price not less than 425$.

They also said there wouldn't be a hard drive in the PS3 which as now become standard. Things will change depending on how much they can refine their manufacturing process. Blu-Ray drives are already expected to cost half as much to built come this summer. I doubt will see a price point at E3 simply because the PS3 launch is still far off and Sony most likely doesn't even know what the price of the PS3 is going to be yet.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Infernal Monkey

Good thing her chest has enough bloom lighting to kill everyone who dares to take a peek.

But isn't not bloom...








...it's HDR lighting.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Kilroy

Good gods, the madness spreads. I seriously hope that the motion detection deal is nothing but a rumour...

Agreed. I have no desire to play my games though motion sensing controllers. People can just pick up the Wii if that is their thing.

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

I can only hope every single game allows you to turn off the motion sensing ability. Like I've said before, I have zero desire to ever play a game that requires me to move the controller to get results in the game.

But for $500, you get more than the $500 XBox 360 so really can't complain there. Can't say I'm happy with the end result, but can't exactly say I'm surpised either.

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

You're completely insane if you think the PS3 is going to flop. I'm sorry, but this simply shows a total lack of understanding of how the industry works and a total lack of knowing the history of the industry.

Here is a simple recap:

Developers flock to the system with the most potential profit.
Gamers flock to the system with the most developers.

This is how it works, and the only way it works. Now look at the developer list for each console. As you can see developers have already flocked to the PS3, just as they did with the PS2 and just like they did with the PS1 (note developers abandoned the N64 BEFORE it was released, not after). The PS3 already has more games in development from more developers that both the Wii and XBox 360. In the end the gamers will flock to the system with the greatest volume of games.

System price will have little effect on the result as shown with the PS2 and Gamecube. At even $200 more the PS2 still flew off the shelves compared to the Gamecube. Why? Because everyones favorite developers and favorite games were on the PS2, not the Gamecube. At $500-$600, the PS3 IS more expensive. However, it is still competitively priced for what it has to offer and all that matters is if the consumer perceives the system as being worth the cost. With the best graphics this generation, the most features, and Blu-Ray playback ability, I doubt Sony will have much trouble getting these things to sell. Seriously people, if you don't think the financial decision makers at Sony don't understand all of this, you need to take some basic financial classes.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

You are correct. But this is the question that is most up for debate. If you notice, this new generation is getting ALOT of cross-development already, and the systems aren't even out. EA is cross-releasing, SqEnix is, all the majors and most of the minors are. So this is generally a moot point.

Just having cross development isn't enough. What matters is which games are being cross developed and how many. Square-Enix made games for the Gamecube yet all they made was Crystal Chronicles. Ratio of games also plays a part. Look at the development lists. Konomi games in development for the Wii: 1, for the PS3: 6. Ubisoft Wii: 1, PS3:4, Square-Enix Wii: 2, PS3: 4. It's pretty much the same situation with any 3rd party developer. Obviously the major focus and major spending of these companies is on the PS3. They are investing a LOT of money into the PS3 compared to the Wii and this is going to have a huge effect on the volume of games available from 3rd parties for each platform.

Quote:

You say developers flock to the system with the most potential profit yes? Just because the PS3 has the best graphics we've ever seen doesn't mean that it will sell millions. Again, economics and disposible income are in major play here. With the system costing sooooo much, how much will be left over to buy games when you already squeezed out $600 this holiday season? That isn't good for developers no matter how you look at it. Not only that, these uber-games cost ALOT to even make. That was one of the major reasons that studios went with PSX instead of N64, costs/risks were too high. Same applies here.

Well here's the problem. You speak as it hasn't happened yet. Based on the huge development support for the PS3, developers have already decided the cost to risk ratio for the PS3 is low enough. All of the huge budget flagship projects are already being made for the PS3. This is more than enough proof that developers already believe the PS3 will be the system that will offer them the highest potential of profit. It's nothing like the N64 situation where developer support was declining before the system was even release. In fact, the exodus of 3rd party developers was already happening at the end of the SNES product cycle before any details of the N64 were even known.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

Also Cetra, the price difference between PS2 and the Cube was never more than 100 dollars at any point in time... if the Wii sells at 200 (which could actually be a maximum price, i don't know if anything official has been said about that) We're talking about a disparity of 200-300 dollars. This is enough to buy a Wii and an X360 (since it's also getting a price drop). That's unacceptable. It won't sell.

The PS2 was roughly $450 in Japan when the Gamecube was released for roughly $250. That's $200, and the PS2 continued to dominate sales. You also seem to forget people will see the major difference in graphics quality between the PS3 and Wii while the Gamecube actually had better graphics. Graphics sell regardless if you agree with the philosophy. It's also one time purchase which is expected to last at least 4-5 years. In the end people will be more than willing to spend the extra money if it is able to offer a gaming experience above the competition comparable to the PS2 vs the Gamecube and XBox.

80% of PS2 owners sit in the 23-35 age group. This group has an insane amount of disposable income. These are the same people that are willing to pay $300 for a slick looking MP3 player. How can you say the best looking game console with the most features and the (I'll say potentially at this point just to save some argument ) most diverse software lineup can't sell for a few hundred dollars more than its competition? If anything I would be more concerned about the competition being able to convince people that it is not worth the purchase. The Playstation produce name is immense, I think far larger that most people seem to think on this board. Do I even need to mention Microsoft can't even keep up with demand for their $500 product? There is simply no reason a $500-$600 PS3 won't sell.


Also about price drops. Don't expect one before launch, but there will be plenty down the road. The manufacturing cost of Blu-Ray drives alone is expected to be cut in half every six months from now.

FELIPE NO

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.

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

Originally Posted by Devo

Because a portable mp3 player should totally be compared to a console, that makes sense.

Why not? It's about perceived value. If the consumer is willing to pay $300 for an MP3 player, which costs twice as much as the next MP3 player which has the same capabilities, why wouldn't a game system with this generations best graphics, most features and (so far) highest volume of AAA (in terms of production value) games not sell for twice as much as say the Wii? It's a completely valid comparison to show the mindset of the consumer. The iPod completely dominates their market even with its much higher cost of alternatives because people believe it is worth the extra cost. Why can't the PS3 enjoy the same situation?

Jam it back in, in the dark.