PDA

View Full Version : Rockstar explains why PS3 is better.




Coded-Dude
May 2, 2007, 01:08 PM
TO DEVELOP FOR

"On PS3 you've got a guarantee that every machine is going to have a hard-drive and, with Blu-ray, you've got plenty of storage, whereas on Xbox 360 there's no guarantee of a hard-drive and you're working with the DVD format. Does that create limitations?" To which he replied, "Yep."
computer and videogames (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=163233)

I guess next-gen solutions are necessary after all.....please keep this topic to pros/cons of the 360/PS3 development platforms.



gkarris
May 2, 2007, 01:45 PM
You look at your bank account, then you look at the price of a PS3...

Sony says "yes", your bank account says, "no"...

Haoshiro
May 2, 2007, 03:11 PM
computer and videogames (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=163233)

I guess TRUE next-gen solutions are necessary after all.....:rolleyes:

Haha, so what? It's less of a limitation and more of an annoyance.

I prefer games to NOT have to install to play them... never liked it with PC games and hate the idea on consoles as well.

Obviously a stable platform is better, but that quote still overlooks a very important aspect: lack of hdd space. It can happen on PS3 as well, even if the HDD is present doesn't mean it'll have the necessary available space - it could be at full capacity.

Then what? You get a message saying "free up some hdd space so you can install the game"? Or the better alternative, you still get to play... but you might not be able to save. Either way, it's better to allow users to play a game regardless of how much (if any) hdd space they may have available.

killmoms
May 2, 2007, 03:40 PM
I've always found the price argument w/ the PS3 to be a little spurious. To get the Xbox to do all the same things as a PS3 costs more, actually. I should know—my wallet found that out.

That said, I've no religious preference one way or the other, and the usual fanboying of "OMGZ UR CONSOLE SUXXORS" tends to annoy me. Each has its ups and downs. The Xbox has a less homogenous hardware lineup, but it has way more games and an excellent online service. The PS3 has a lot of hardware power, but has a bit of up front sticker shock, not too many games (yet) and a pretty crap online service (which is getting better). The Wii has a unique, fun control scheme and a low cost of entry, but its graphics are distinctly last-gen (though not necessarily "bad"). I only own a 360 at the moment, but will likely own all three within a year.

Can't we all just get along?

Trogloxene
May 2, 2007, 04:30 PM
I don't exactly trust anything Rockstar has to say. These guys game the laws as much as they game everything else.

-T

Coded-Dude
May 2, 2007, 04:34 PM
I don't trust EVERYTHING anybody says, but that doesn't mean I disbelieve EVERYTHING any particular company says.
There is truth to the statements, whether or not some of you want to believe it or talk about in a PROFESSIONAL manner is not my problem.

I was merely posting an interview as well as my opinion
nothing over the top, but apparently enough to get attacked by haters.

evilgEEk
May 2, 2007, 06:24 PM
The Xbox 360's lack of a guaranteed hard disk is creating limitations in Grand Theft Auto IV's development, Rockstar has acknowledged.

I think this is wonderful news, because GTA is the worst game ever created, and anything that holds them back is good in my book. :p

I'm not necessarily against "installing" games on future consoles, but they better either include huge HDD's or drop the prices of games (yeah, right), or we're going to run in to problems like Haoshiro mentioned.

Coded-Dude
May 2, 2007, 06:41 PM
that is a wonderful example of expressing your opinion without attacking another member in the process.....thanks for your input evilgEEk, much appreciated.

Well, XBOX Elite is already 120GB, and once PS3 fabrication costs go down, you'll see their "premier" model go to at least 80GB(to keep consumer purchase price up), and granted - with all this HD content we are now starting to get access to, storage space will be a concern for many.

But you can alos use the network, external drives, and other resources(like FLASH, etc) to store data elsewhere.

Loading times is a big concern for many gamers...they don't like waiting several minutes between levels, and installing data on an HD remedies that.

It will have its pro's/cons as well, but I still think they are both making thins easier for devs.
(that is not me saying PS3 is overall easier to dev of either, it has its limitations as well)
It seems you have to fully qualify statements around here to get a simple point across.

sikkinixx
May 2, 2007, 07:01 PM
I wouldn't say that quote says PS3 is 'better' but we all knew that having a standard HDD was a good thing (how much of which is debatable, as is the advantage of BD). I dunno, I'm still expecting GTA IV to be a half assed port over to the PS3 like oh so many games thus far have been, lazy devs ya gotta love 'em.

Coded-Dude
May 2, 2007, 07:07 PM
yeah I know...like I said: "It seems you have to fully qualify statements around here to get a simple point across."

It says why they like developing for it more so than the 360, it also says they both have limitations, but those two key components(HDD+BD) are hindering their development the most ......it would seem.

People will still sit here and tell you that MS did a good thing by removing the hard drive and not adding a larger capacity optical disc.

JackAxe
May 2, 2007, 09:03 PM
This was one of my points about the x360 when it was first released, as developers would need to account for 2 different systems and then eventually HD DVD. It's all toooooo PC like, which is something I don't mind, but it's also something I never expected to see on the console front.

<]=)

Dagless
May 2, 2007, 09:07 PM
They will? I honestly don't think I've heard a positive comment about the Core lacking a HDD. It's something they should never have done.

Oh, and the "larger capacity optical disc" made the system not cost the price of a cheap car. £270 for Xbox with god knows how many bundled extras, £430 for PS3.

sikkinixx
May 2, 2007, 09:33 PM
They will? I honestly don't think I've heard a positive comment about the Core lacking a HDD. It's something they should never have done.

Oh, and the "larger capacity optical disc" made the system not cost the price of a cheap car. £270 for Xbox with god knows how many bundled extras, £430 for PS3.

Although paying $130 cdn for wifi then $30 for a charging cable turned my $500 360 into a $660 xbox 360 (same as a PS3) that has a smaller HDD and no BD/HD-DVD :( A crappy headset plus a mini remote hardly constitute a lot of extras...

Dagless
May 2, 2007, 10:10 PM
Don't they count extra wireless controllers and games as extras in Canada? A consumer goes into a shop, see's a £270 console with multiple free games, extra controllers with £40 games, or a £430 console with £50 games.
360 loses wireless, PS3 loses HD cables.

sikkinixx
May 3, 2007, 09:02 AM
Don't they count extra wireless controllers and games as extras in Canada? A consumer goes into a shop, see's a £270 console with multiple free games, extra controllers with £40 games, or a £430 console with £50 games.
360 loses wireless, PS3 loses HD cables.

Feels like the old forums again...

Well here the deal you get is it comes with Ghost Recon and the XBL arcade game that has 4 XBL games on it for the regular price, sometimes I see Kameo thrown in as well. PS3 now often comes with Formula 1 at Bestbuy or Futureshop so they both come at least one game. And the games are the same prices here between 360 and PS3 with Wii games being $10 less.

And while I picked up an HDMI cable for $19 at Bestbuy, my wireless still cost me $130 for the 360 :P Xbox isn't the most smoking deal in the world everywhere....

Sparky8
May 3, 2007, 09:56 AM
Resistance Fall of Man £29.99
Motorstorm £29.99
Ridge Racer 7 £29.99
NBA 2K7 £17.99

All other PS3 games £39.99


On Play.com, for argument sake

Dagless
May 3, 2007, 10:03 AM
Oh cool you might want to ring up Virgin Megastores and ask them why no 360 game goes beyond £45 and no PS3 game goes below £45.

If we're playing the online game then get back to me when you find the site that sells new, sealed 360 games for £25 (thanks, ghost of MRU :D ).

TBi
May 3, 2007, 10:04 AM
"On PS3 you've got a guarantee that every machine is going to have a hard-drive and, with Blu-ray, you've got plenty of storage, whereas on Xbox 360 there's no guarantee of a hard-drive and you're working with the DVD format. Does that create limitations?" To which he replied, "Yep."

All this basically means is that developers for the XBOX360 have to be smarter and program their games better so that they will run fast without a hard drive, whereas PS3 developers can be lazy.

As for DVD being a limitation, well i don't think any PS3 games make use of the full blu-ray capacity yet and when they do it will probably be in the form of cut-scene movies for the moment.

psychofreak
May 3, 2007, 11:52 AM
Halo 3 will give the 360 (the only console I currently own) a big boost. They need to cut the chip down to 65nm and improve the incredibly noisy drive.

There could be other niceties (e.g. built in wireless), but those would just bring up the price. I reckon I'll get the PS3 when it drops quite a lot in price...

fiercetiger224
May 3, 2007, 12:01 PM
Halo 3 will give the 360 (the only console I currently own) a big boost. They need to cut the chip down to 65nm and improve the incredibly noisy drive.

There could be other niceties (e.g. built in wireless), but those would just bring up the price. I reckon I'll get the PS3 when it drops quite a lot in price...

Problem with the 360 drive is that there is virtually no way for them to cut down the noise level any more than they have. It's running at 12x speed, so there will be a lot of noise period.

I think the PS3 will be getting a pricedrop sometime soon in the near future. Probably fall I'm guessing. Hopefully down to at least $479, battling against the Elite. :rolleyes:

TBi
May 3, 2007, 06:45 PM
It's running at 12x speed, so there will be a lot of noise period.


Hopefully now that the elite is out they'll release an update which copies the whole game to the hard drive and so they won't need to keep the dvd spinning.

mrgreen4242
May 4, 2007, 07:46 AM
This was one of my points about the x360 when it was first released, as developers would need to account for 2 different systems and then eventually HD DVD. It's all toooooo PC like, which is something I don't mind, but it's also something I never expected to see on the console front.

<]=)

I don't really see it as a problem. The HDDVD isn't used for games, so developers can ignore it's presence entirely. The HDD should be used for cache space. If it's there, load all the textures and maps you can onto it, and load from there. If it's not then get them from the disc and have (longer) load screens. That's it. Not really a big deal. MS SHOULD have included a HDD with every 360, I agree, but they didn't and I do think part of the reason was to make sure developers didn't rely on it for install space (of course, I'm aslo sure it was mostly to get the cost down/make more money).

Hopefully now that the elite is out they'll release an update which copies the whole game to the hard drive and so they won't need to keep the dvd spinning.

I've only got the 20gb drive and I would use that. There's about 14gb of space left on the HDD after you format it/setup Live/whatever else the 360 system uses, and I can't see needing more than 1gb for save games. I don't use the 360 for any media storage or playback, and if I did it'll be just streaming so I'd only need one or 2 free gigs for buffer. Throw another 2 gigs for demos and XBLA games and I've got 9-10gb of space free which is enough to store one game.

Now, that's not great, but since I tend to play one game most of the time for a large period of time (until I beat it, get bored, get a new game, whatever) it would be great to have 80% of my gaming time be 80% quieter.

Sparky8
May 4, 2007, 05:14 PM
Oh cool you might want to ring up Virgin Megastores and ask them why no 360 game goes beyond £45 and no PS3 game goes below £45.

If we're playing the online game then get back to me when you find the site that sells new, sealed 360 games for £25 (thanks, ghost of MRU :D ).

Play.com has new sealed Lost Planet for £25.

Even GAME sell ps3 gmes below £45 in store

Chone
May 4, 2007, 09:19 PM
You look at your bank account, then you look at the price of a PS3...

Sony says "yes", your bank account says, "no"...

Oh my talk about being dramatic. It is only $100-$200 more, get over it.

Seriously people, if you want to bash PS3 for lack of games or hardware failures or BBQ lookalikes or whatever, I'm all for it but if you are going to bash PS3 for price stop being ridiculous, hypocritical and be a little more realistic.

The truth is, if you can afford a Wii you can afford a PS3 ESPECIALLY if you are over 16 years old.

evilgEEk
May 4, 2007, 10:00 PM
The truth is, if you can afford a Wii you can afford a PS3 ESPECIALLY if you are over 16 years old.

Oh, I definitely don't agree with that. $250 vs. $600 is a huge difference.

Dagless
May 5, 2007, 06:18 AM
The truth is, if you can afford a Wii you can afford a PS3 ESPECIALLY if you are over 16 years old.

That is very Wrong. Heck, I'm over 16 and from a family of landowners and I can't afford one.

Max Payne
May 5, 2007, 06:30 AM
PS3 has Blu-ray. The price is spot on, if not a bit cheaper.

Dagless
May 5, 2007, 08:37 AM
PS3 has Blu-ray. The price is spot on, if not a bit cheaper.

PS3 is a games console. The price isn't spot on for that. If a car had an ion engine stuck to it and therefore cost a bucket load compared to other cars, but less compared to other ion engines - it's still a car and people who want to drive will not buy it.

Sparky8
May 5, 2007, 09:09 AM
The PS3 i expensive but for what u get its worth it.

High quality Blu Ray drive with games made on Blu Ray
Built in Wi-Fi
Free Online gaming
The games console itself whih is the most powerful
Blutooth functionality
and others

zap2
May 5, 2007, 09:59 AM
The truth is, if you can afford a Wii you can afford a PS3 ESPECIALLY if you are over 16 years old.

Lol..no, if you want games, controller, ect the difference adds up


But for me, you right. I could have bought a PS3, and less Wii stuff, but guess what? I like the Wii more, thats right, if the PS3 was 250 and the Wii was 250, I still would have bought the Wii!

Price is only one factor, games, fune etc are other factors

zap2
May 5, 2007, 10:19 AM
High quality Blu Ray drive with games made on Blu Ray

Is that a good or bad thing? I don't want Blue-Ray, Blue-Ray games , or anything else that makes the price so much.




Built in Wi-Fi That comes on a 250 dollar system,170 handheld and 130 handheld



Free Online gaming


Comes on a 250 System, 130 system, 170 handheld and 130 handheld



The games console itself whih is the most powerful

I've yet to see that....GoW still takes the best graphics


Blutooth functionality
250 system has that!! Or were we just talking about Wireless controller? Then all the next gen systems have that!




Others


Wow, every system has had other features!!

kuebby
May 5, 2007, 12:17 PM
This is turning into another console war forum and we don't want that. The point is that someone high up in the programming industry has finally said what we all knew, PS3 is more powerful. he also said that it's harder to program for but that is to be expected when one innovates.

There is one reason and one reason only that the PS3 is about 5x better for GTA than X360 and that's the storage capacity of the disc. GTA games have always pushed the limits of world size and quality in their games and GTA4 will be no different. That is why the 360 is the limiting factor in their development.

greatdevourer
May 5, 2007, 01:02 PM
This is turning into another console war forum and we don't want that. The point is that someone high up in the programming industry has finally said what we all knew, PS3 is more powerful. he also said that it's harder to program for but that is to be expected when one innovates. Uh... no he didn't. They didn't mention power or programmability - just storage :rolleyes: Stop warmongering, ye!

kuebby
May 5, 2007, 01:19 PM
I stand corrected, he didn't specifically mention programmability, but he did say, "both have enormous challenges" and that "both have their own particular pleasures and pains". Which certainly could point to programming for the cell since it has been cited by others as a difficulty.

Sparky8
May 5, 2007, 06:03 PM
Is that a good or bad thing? I don't want Blue-Ray,
That comes on a 250 dollar system,170 handheld and 130 handheld
Comes on a 250 System, 130 system, 170 handheld and 130 handheld
I've yet to see that....GoW still takes the best graphics
250 system has that!! Or were we just talking about Wireless controller? Then all the next gen systems have that!
Wow, every system has had other features!!

Ill ignore your last comment, i was trying to just point soe stuff out, no need to get sarcastic is there

Whether you want a blu ray drive is not the point. Most computers come with software you don't need, I don't use garage band but i have it. Blu ray is the most popular and powerful next gen DVD format. Its going to mean bigger and more High def games for the PS3. that is a good thing.

The wii does have online gaming that is true, except no game currently utilizes it and the only ones that look to do so are mario strikers (which im getting and Pokemon. Thats ignoring the complete lack of good wii games currently available. Its going the way of the cube if things don't pick up.

360 graphics have near enough peaked, Cell is hugely more powerful and what with Edge and such now he;ping devs get a hold of the PS3 more it wont be long (only a few months so far) that we'll see PS3 exclusives looking and playing very well. lair, heavenly Sword are out in a few months.

Wii
Cheap
Fun
Wi-Fi
Downloadable back catalog
Social games

360
great catalog of games
Great online service
moderately expensive for the basic

PS3
Blu Ray games
Blu Ray player
Most powerful system
Free Wi-Fi
Playstation Home and soon Youtube like functionality
Great catalog of games coming soon.

I don't see why if you say you don't need this that and the other on the PS3 that you feel the need to argue about it, if you don't want it fine just don't try to prove to other people just how right you are.

Dagless
May 5, 2007, 06:16 PM
I don't see why if you say you don't need this that and the other on the PS3 that you feel the need to argue about it, if you don't want it fine just don't try to prove to other people just how right you are.

Yet despite saying that you felt compelled to do so yourself...

So the PS3 has "great games coming", and the other 2 don't? Well okays thens let's forget about Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Halo 3, Forza 2...

The Wii has Home functionality, it's called the Wii menu. Only there's no characters to create. Oh wait there is, you just don't pay for the clothes they wear. The 360 has it too, it's called Xbox Live and has all the communication features on the free version too.

PS3 most powerful? From what I've picked up (I don't read into the inner workings of CPUs) the PS3 has a faster CPU but the 360 has a better GPU. Though feel free to correct me on that.

Finally, BluRay most "powerful" next gen format? I really think you need to stop using "powerful" in the wrong places.
Oh, and sorry this is getting convoluted (I'm finishing off a 13k word dissertation and have lost my stream of time), but BluRay makes games bigger? Whilst in theory yes; why does Oblivion fit on a DVD9? Why does Pokemon DS only take up 64mb? Crysis will be on a single DVD, too. The only limitation is devs not compressing.

"Going the way of the cube"... LOLlipops.

kuebby
May 5, 2007, 06:19 PM
Sparky8 said it perfectly.

Blu-ray discs now account for 7 out of every 10 hi-def discs sold. They've also now passed HD-DVD in total sales since inception, despite launching almost 6 months later.

zap2
May 5, 2007, 06:43 PM
Wii
Cheap
Fun
Wi-Fi
Downloadable back catalog
Social games
.
I agree with that all, but fun is a personal thing, and I'd say video games in general are "fun", some would disagree.




360
great catalog of games
Great online service
moderately expensive for the basic

One should also add "current best graphics" and get rid of expensive for basic's. Its less expensive then the PS3 FOR THE BASICS....maybe with all the extras their similar, but 400 is cheaper then 600 IMO(Core isn't even a system IMO shouldn't be used against the PS3)



PS3
Blu Ray games
Blu Ray player
Most powerful system
Free Wi-Fi
Playstation Home and soon Youtube like functionality
Great catalog of games coming soon.
.
Home isn't public yet, so thats not really a plus. Most powerful system, hasn't been showen yet. And great games are coming to all the system, its all about personal choose for games. Blue-Ray should be mentioned, as its a feature, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to want it. Just like not everyone will want what the other systems offer



Most computers come with software you don't need, I don't use garage band but i have it.
The only problem is, Gargeband doesn't make the computer cost 1/3 more then it would without it...Blue-Ray in the PS3 does. And since Blue-Ray Movies wouldn't really do anything for me(my HDTV is currently broken , and even still I don't buy many movies) that means all it does is allow game space. I'll take a few mutli disk games, and some good compression from Devs

Sparky8
May 5, 2007, 07:58 PM
Yet despite saying that you felt compelled to do so yourself...

So the PS3 has "great games coming", and the other 2 don't? Well okays thens let's forget about Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Halo 3, Forza 2...

I didnt say that, please dont put words in my mouth. I made the point because there current line up is thin while the 360's isnt, although id say the wii is thinner. Lair, Heavenly sword, Final fantasy, Loco Roco PS3, little big planet, killzone 3, etc etc. For argument sake i wuldnt expect to see Metroid hit europe this year

The Wii has Home functionality, it's called the Wii menu. Only there's no characters to create. Oh wait there is, you just don't pay for the clothes they wear. The 360 has it too, it's called Xbox Live and has all the communication features on the free version too.

Playstation Home is much like Second Life just with user generated content and much much more. The 360 doesnt ave anything like it aprt from voice chat whil personally the mii system isnt all that amazing

Please stop trying to antagonise me, im debating peacefully so do me the same courtesy

PS3 most powerful? From what I've picked up (I don't read into the inner workings of CPUs) the PS3 has a faster CPU but the 360 has a better GPU. Though feel free to correct me on that. Cell seems to be vastly superior while the GPU lends itself to that. RAM just holds it back)

Finally, BluRay most "powerful" next gen format? I really think you need to stop using "powerful" in the wrong places. How would you say its not powerful? DVD hods 9GB of data while HD DVD will hold 30GB. a two layer Blu Ray disc will hold 50GB and sony already have 200GB discs in their labs

Oh, and sorry this is getting convoluted (I'm finishing off a 13k word dissertation and have lost my stream of time), but BluRay makes games bigger? Whilst in theory yes; why does Oblivion fit on a DVD9? Why does Pokemon DS only take up 64mb? Crysis will be on a single DVD, too. The only limitation is devs not compressing. Crysis is a PC title and so can lend itself to the PC hard drive and what not. Although not to the point Crysis looks set to be ported to the PS3 if Crytek's job listings are anything to go by. Oblivion isnt all that huge anyway. Big landscape with average graphics, repeatable gameplay and large amounts of bugs

"Going the way of the cube"... LOLlipops.

Cuve lacked strong 3rd party support. What does the wii have? I have a wii and so far all ive seen wrth buying is Zelda, sports and mario strikers when its released. without Kart, metroid, mario, zelda etc its not worth the purchase.

Sparky8
May 5, 2007, 08:03 PM
I agree with that all, but fun is a personal thing, and I'd say video games in general are "fun", some would disagree.

I know what you mean but im sure you know what angle i was coming from


One should also add "current best graphics" and get rid of expensive for basic's. Its less expensive then the PS3 FOR THE BASICS....maybe with all the extras their similar, but 400 is cheaper then 600 IMO(Core isn't even a system IMO shouldn't be used against the PS3)

well like u say the core is much cheaper but it lacks a next gen disc drive and games are not made any on any next gen drive, no wifi and less powerful, no HDMI and free online gaming and much smaller HDD as well.

Home isn't public yet, so thats not really a plus. Its in invited public beta stageMost powerful system, hasn't been showen yet. And great games are coming to all the system, its all about personal choose for games. Blue-Ray should be mentioned, as its a feature, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to want it. Just like not everyone will want what the other systems offer not disputing this



The only problem is, Gargeband doesn't make the computer cost 1/3 more then it would without it...Blue-Ray in the PS3 does. And since Blue-Ray Movies wouldn't really do anything for me(my HDTV is currently broken , and even still I don't buy many movies) that means all it does is allow game space. I'll take a few mutli disk games, and some good compression from Devsnot much i can say apart from trust the fact that sont pushed CD ROM into the playstation and it paid off and they pushed DVD with the PS2 and it worked. I wouldnt buy a blu ray drive however if, and when, i buy a ps3 they will be the only movie format i do purchase

just writing stuff so it'll post lol

zap2
May 5, 2007, 08:11 PM
just writing stuff so it'll post lol

Just to put this out there



Your quote is stuff Jimmie and I wrote

Dagless
May 5, 2007, 08:15 PM
How would you say its not powerful?
Larger doesn't mean more powerful. It hasn't got "great power or strength", it just holds more. It's larger, or use a thesaurus for an alternative for that if you wish. Some ideas- substantial, immense, monstrous and my personal favourite- tremendous.

without Kart, metroid, mario, zelda etc its not worth the purchase.
Your sig says you have a Wii. Maketh your mind up. Oh and there's plenty of games, it's 6 months in, I'm only buying the utter best and I have a library of 6 games (and about 6-7 VC games). Hmm. It also says you're a newbie so I guess you didn't see the posts made that there was a surge in Dev Kit sales so bad that we had to wait months to get hold of one ourselves. OMGOSH do you know what that means? It already means it's beyond the Cube and that there is going to be a tidal wave of games from devs, spurred by the insane world domination of the Wii, hitting from late 2007 to god knows when. Be it for good or bad (most 3rd party games being terrible).

Crysis is a PC title and so can lend itself to the PC hard drive and what not. Although not to the point Crysis looks set to be ported to the PS3 if Crytek's job listings are anything to go by.
The game is shipping on a DVD9. FFS. Upping it to PS3 and using BluRay, WTF does that achieve? It was a point on storage and that a super huge friggin super game like that can live on a DVD9.


----
PS3
...
Great catalog of games coming soon.

So the PS3 has "great games coming", and the other 2 don't? Well okays thens let's forget about Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Halo 3, Forza 2...

I didnt say that, please dont put words in my mouth.

I've realised I'm talking to somebody who can't follow their own arguments so I'm out.

Chone
May 5, 2007, 09:09 PM
Why do you guys only consider the console's price? The biggest money drain is on games and accesores at the end of the day those 350$ will look meager to what you will spend on games on a generation, heck make that a single year. Unless of course, you pirate.

If you can afford the luxury as gaming you can afford a Wii just as much as you can afford a PS3, unless you are 14 and depend on your parents to get you stuff, parents have the same "imaginary money barrier" where they think 600$ + $2000 on games is unattainable but THAT minus 350$ is enough to send their kids to college :rolleyes:

Besides, its not like the PS3 is overpriced. Man can people be really greedy. If you don't want a PS3 just say it has crummy games but don't say its too expensive that you'll have to stop eating for a month.

I guess its clear now why people will go rampant on days like Black Friday and Boxing day or whatever it is on Canada, if they can save 2 freaking bucks on a $45 item then they will be willing to get up early, go through hell, push a few old ladies down the stairs, etc, just to do it.

Seriously I can't think of a situation where someone who can buy a Wii can not buy a PS3, honestly I can't, outside of kids with allowance money or something like that.

ghall
May 5, 2007, 09:13 PM
My only thing about the PS3 is that it's expensive. I wouldn't get one no matter the price, but still, that makes me mad!

gloss
May 5, 2007, 09:14 PM
My only thing about the PS3 is that it's expensive. I wouldn't get one no matter the price, but still, that makes me mad!

Expensive gaming machine, inexpensive Blu-ray player. Bad move on Sony's part.

Dagless
May 5, 2007, 09:22 PM
Seriously I can't think of a situation where someone who can buy a Wii can not buy a PS3, honestly I can't, outside of kids with allowance money or something like that.

21, student working arse off to graduate with First Class honours (the first class bit is as good as mine now, btw). Can afford to spend about £400 a term. Bought iMac and digital SLR. could afford to buy a Wii. couldn't afford to buy a PS3. DING.

That enough for you?

OMGOSH I'm not 14 and don't depend on my parents. Your thinking is broken.

evilgEEk
May 6, 2007, 12:44 AM
push a few old ladies down the stairs

Pssh... It doesn't have to be Black Friday to do that, it's fun every day of the year!

If you can afford the luxury as gaming you can afford a Wii just as much as you can afford a PS3

I really don't understand how you can say this. There is a huge difference between $250 and $600. It's like saying, I want a new car and if I can afford a Hyundai I can afford a Mercedes.

I'm simply baffled by your reasoning. I'm responsible with my money, I don't just go out and buy the best of everything because that would be foolish. I wanted a game console, the PS3 was too expensive for a game console, so I went with the Wii. Sure, if you are in the market for a Blu-Ray player then the PS3 is definitely the way to go.

Seriously I can't think of a situation where someone who can buy a Wii can not buy a PS3, honestly I can't, outside of kids with allowance money or something like that.

Again, the whole being responsible with your money thing should cover that.

pseudobrit
May 6, 2007, 02:52 AM
I really don't understand how you can say this. There is a huge difference between $250 and $600. It's like saying, I want a new car and if I can afford a Hyundai I can afford a Mercedes.

That's absurd. You can't just use percentages. Working your analogy backward, I could say there's a huge difference between a 1L bottle of Coke and a 2L bottle or between a Hershey bar and a Sharffen Berger bar.

In terms of absolute value, it's not a big deal. The difference only matters to the cheap and poor whiny bastards. Such consumers are obviously not in Sony's target market.
What I don't get is why someone who can only afford a Hyundai would **** all over Mercedes because they cost more due to features they personally would never use, as if there's some shame in putting out a premium product and demanding a premium for it.

I'm simply baffled by your reasoning. I'm responsible with my money, I don't just go out and buy the best of everything because that would be foolish. I wanted a game console, the PS3 was too expensive for a game console, so I went with the Wii. Sure, if you are in the market for a Blu-Ray player then the PS3 is definitely the way to go.

I use mine more for Blu-ray movies than games. But when GTA IV ships, the hours may tip heavily in favour of the games.

Sparky8
May 6, 2007, 04:21 AM
Just to put this out there
Your quote is stuff Jimmie and I wrote

???? it wouldnt let me post unless i wrote something outside the quote. why is this a talking point?

takao
May 6, 2007, 05:40 AM
too bad that rockstar went downhill after GTA2

on plattforms: blu ray outselling hd-dvd 10 to 7 ? whoopy do.. that's hardly a lot thinking about the so far rather low sales of both medias

also it's not really that relevant
blu-ray simply won't make a difference just like halo 3,metroid prime 3 or final fantasy 13: it's preaching to the choir, not expanding the marketshare: those who want those 3 things very likely already have their console

believe it or not: i like neither halo, nor metroid nor final fantasy


i just bought Rome: Total War 3 weeks ago for 10 bucks and i'm having more fun with it than with zelda twilight princess (borrowed from my brother) or any other single player next-gen game i played so far

2 days ago i installed the rome total realism mod for it and i'm having even more fun... it's beyond me why we don't get such great strategy games on consoles

Dagless
May 6, 2007, 06:30 AM
Rome: Total War is pretty damn awesome mind. I'm usually not interested in the genre too!

Going back to the "can afford a Wii, can't afford a PS3" bit, I'm still aghast at Chone for saying that. Especially the "long term cost" idea. Do you live in a world where you're born with all your money at once? Because where I'm from you get a wage, so you can buy a cheap console and spend thousands on games over a series of 4-8 years without any problem at all. But when a system costs 3 times as much, take however long it took you to save for a Wii (providing you have a mortage/rent to pay, food, student or any other kind of loan to pay off, kids to feed, car to afford, council tax, useful things to buy) and multiply that by 3.
Of course if you are living with your parents and have a well paid job, then you're on easy (sad?) street.

Right now I can't even afford a Wii, I didn't even buy one myself, its the family console in the living room. Again, I'm not 14 and sponging off my parents ;) I'm in full time education in a very expensive country.
Lecture me on how I should pay for a PS3 some more.

Osarkon
May 6, 2007, 06:43 AM
21, student working arse off to graduate with First Class honours (the first class bit is as good as mine now, btw). Can afford to spend about £400 a term. Bought iMac and digital SLR. could afford to buy a Wii. couldn't afford to buy a PS3. DING.

That enough for you?

OMGOSH I'm not 14 and don't depend on my parents. Your thinking is broken.

Thank you! Being over 16 really doesn't make a difference, especially in the UK where in some places it's next to impossible to get a job.

Also a student, working at a degree in Computer Science. There's absolutely no way I can afford to put down that kind of money on a ps3 and games. The money would be better put towards a car, but I can't even afford that.

The 'especially if you're over 16' comment is slightly untrue to say the least. Unless of course you're just lucky.

j26
May 6, 2007, 07:09 AM
The difference only matters to the cheap and poor whiny bastards. Such consumers are obviously not in Sony's target market.

A bit offensive don't you think?
People buy what represents value to them, or what they can afford. Don't mistake that with being cheap.

A better analogy than the car one might be the iPhone. Sure it does more, but for a person that only wants to make calls it doesn't represent VALUE when s/he can get a perfectly adeqate phone that has many features similar to the iPhone for much less. For me the iPhone might represent value (I want to see it in the wild first), but for my wife it would be a ludicrous waste of money.

Me, I could afford a top of the range MBP, a Mac Pro, and all 3 gaming consoles without skipping a heartbeat. I'm unlikely to get them (except maybe a Wii). Why? Because I have other priorities with my money and they don't represent value to me.


And to any kids who are expecting their parents not to notice the difference betwen $250 and $600 - FFS grow up :mad: $600 is a weeks wages (or more) for a lot of people.

Sparky8
May 6, 2007, 08:53 AM
I love RTW and all the Total War games, just throwing that out there

r1ch4rd
May 6, 2007, 09:32 AM
Right now I can't even afford a Wii, I didn't even buy one myself, its the family console in the living room. Again, I'm not 14 and sponging off my parents ;) I'm in full time education in a very expensive country.
Lecture me on how I should pay for a PS3 some more.

It made me laugh that the Virgin megastores in the Arndale center will sell you a PS3 for £375 with student discount (that's £50 off their normal price). I don't remember ever having £375 when I was a student lol. On a side note, are you at the University of Manchester Jimmi? It's a damned fine university, I graduated from there last year (2.1 in Computer Science).

Personally, I have an xbox 360 which I bought before the PS3 came out. I bought it because I liked the look of the games that were out and the price seemed reasonable. At the moment the PS3 doesn't appeal to me at the price it is. I already have a console from this generation so I can wait until it drops in price a little bit. I would rather have the cash in my hands rather than Sony's.

As to the price of the Wii vs PS3 I would rather have the Wii and £120 than a PS3.

I do agree with people that the price isn't neccessarily the most important factor but I do believe that the blu-ray drive and WiFi internet etc. has a lot to do with the PS3 costing more price. I don't need any of these things really, I just want to play games. I will buy a dedicated blu-ray player when the time comes as it is bound to be better quality (assuming you don't cheap out on it). Having said that though I am sure there are people who do value these features (as a lot of people posting here seem to) and if they deem £400 to be a good price (it probably is) then so be it. To each their own.

e²Studios
May 6, 2007, 11:10 AM
In terms of absolute value, it's not a big deal. The difference only matters to the cheap and poor whiny bastards. Such consumers are obviously not in Sony's target market.
What I don't get is why someone who can only afford a Hyundai would **** all over Mercedes because they cost more due to features they personally would never use, as if there's some shame in putting out a premium product and demanding a premium for it.

Agreed, Sony does have a market, I believe they even compared it to a high end luxury car. Then again those that can afford the Hyundai but not the Mercedes sometimes complain and crap on the Merc brand just as the Wii crowd is doing here to the PS3. Good post and observations.

Either try to argue my points or don't insult me

They will never answer your questions with real factual points, unless of course you would like some JPN/NPD sales numbers thrown in your face? Or possibly some other pointless information they can gloat over, but never a real factual point with a reference, thats far too much to ask here :p

Right now I can't even afford a Wii, I didn't even buy one myself, its the family console in the living room. Again, I'm not 14 and sponging off my parents ;) I'm in full time education in a very expensive country.
Lecture me on how I should pay for a PS3 some more.

When i was your age..... ;)

And to any kids who are expecting their parents not to notice the difference betwen $250 and $600 - FFS grow up :mad: $600 is a weeks wages (or more) for a lot of people.

And to some people $600 is around what they make in a day or less of wages. ;)

I own a Wii with 11 games and accessories, and a PS3 with 9 games and around 7 or 8 blu ray discs. I love playing Super Paper Mario for now, but once I finish that I am sure my Wii will resume its idle dust collector mode. My PS3 on the other hand gets played daily, it is a more enjoyable immersing experience. You get what you pay for, ultimately you can never expect German performance and luxury on a Hyundai budget.

Ed

j26
May 6, 2007, 11:20 AM
And to some people $600 is around what they make in a day or less of wages. ;)

Oooh yes, most of the world earns $150,000 (after tax) or more a year ;)

zap2
May 6, 2007, 11:20 AM
Our words have got ED to come out of hiding!!


Keep it up, and MRU might come back too!

e²Studios
May 6, 2007, 11:22 AM
Our words have got ED to come out of hiding!!


Keep it up, and MRU might come back too!

I just love you, thats all :)

I gots love for you too Jimmi, don't feel left out! :D

Dagless
May 6, 2007, 11:26 AM
They will never answer your questions with real factual points, unless of course you would like some JPN/NPD sales numbers thrown in your face? Or possibly some other pointless information they can gloat over, but never a real factual point with a reference, thats far too much to ask here :p

uhmm, we did answer his points :confused: . He just made ridiculous claims like "the Wii is the new Cube", laughable comparisons between systems, topped off with an unusual way of replying sort of discredits what he says and his attempts at arguments really.

My PS3 on the other hand gets played daily, it is a more enjoyable immersing experience. You get what you pay for, ultimately you can never expect German performance and luxury on a Hyundai budget.

The Wii has provided me with a much more immersive experience than the 360 or PS3. The DS has provided me with a much less immersive experience yet it gets more play time, oh that's right being immersed has nothing to do with how good or bad a game is (except Tetris DS, that just warps time). Nothing touches the PC for being immersed I find especially on games like Lemmings and Half Life 2.

It made me laugh that the Virgin megastores in the Arndale center will sell you a PS3 for £375 with student discount (that's £50 off their normal price). I don't remember ever having £375 when I was a student lol. On a side note, are you at the University of Manchester Jimmi? It's a damned fine university, I graduated from there last year (2.1 in Computer Science).
I spent 2 years there, now I'm down the road at Salford :) should be getting a First if I do a good job on my final coursework. Wrote out a 13k dissertation as an "extra" too :D desperate times, desperate measures I suppose.
Spotted that offer last night at the Trafford Centre. £50 off is a fair bit! I mean it basically adds up to a game from Virgin Megastores. A price cut I think the 360 should have at this stage.

mrgreen4242
May 6, 2007, 11:37 AM
The truth is, if you can afford a Wii you can afford a PS3 ESPECIALLY if you are over 16 years old.


Seriously I can't think of a situation where someone who can buy a Wii can not buy a PS3, honestly I can't, outside of kids with allowance money or something like that.

I just don't get you. I'm 27. I'm an old married man, who owns a house, looking at having kids very soon. I just bought a (used) 360 for about what a Wii costs. I might have got a Wii if I could have found one. There's no way I could have swung a Ps3. No way. I paid about $250 for a 360 Premium, and 2 used games for about $35 each. I didn't need any other controllers, but I did spend about $15 on a VGA adaptor. So, about $350 all said and done for system, cables, games. About what a new Wii would have set me back.

That wouldn't even get me the discontinued low end PS3, with no games, or HD cables. And that was the budget... $350 maxed out what I could "waste" on games. I almost just stuck with my Xbox, but I wanted to move the gaming rig into the office so I could play and be near my wife and not hog up the TV, etc, and I figured it would be silly to sink $50-100 on a VGA adaptor for the Xbox...

Anyways, $600 is a significant amount of money for most working people, where $250 falls into that expensive but not unreasonable area. The only people I can think of who wan afford the PS3 and not consider it to be a major expense are those under 16 and so it's not their money anyways, or they are fairly wealthy to begin with. Really, though, just drop that argument - there's no validity to it at all.

Chone
May 6, 2007, 11:47 AM
Okay you guys make a valid point and I admit I might have got a little carried away but I still think some people make a huge deal about this price issue... and money in general.

In order to avoid a heated discussion I'll just say its unfair to say the PS3 is overpriced because its not, Sony loses money on each PS3 made. Now whether you want/need those premium features or not is a different question altogether. I believe its worth it, if you'd buy a Wii over a PS3 even if they were the same price that is a great too, consoles are about games not features.

And I stick to my original statement, if you want to bash PS3, do it for anything but skip the price argument please.

As for the rest, I might have gotten a little carried away, yesterday/friday were not really good days for me... I apologize if I offended or made anyone angry with my comments...

Dagless
May 6, 2007, 01:04 PM
That's alright :)
Yea I do agree the PS3 is great value for what it contains, the 360 less so. It's frightfully short sighted not to stick in Wifi, and for a media/HD device a 20gb is disgusting.

sikkinixx
May 6, 2007, 01:06 PM
There is a huge difference between $250 and $600. It's like saying, I want a new car and if I can afford a Hyundai I can afford a Mercedes.

I'm simply baffled by your reasoning.


I'm baffled by yours. Its a $350 difference. Thats a few days pay for most people. Buying a Mercedes over Hyundai is what? $30-50k+? Thats a few YEARS pay. :rolleyes:

While the PS3 is double the price, it still comes down to a few hundred dollars so it's not THAT bad in the grand scheme of things. If you don;t think it's worth it then fine, but some people do.

zap2
May 6, 2007, 01:11 PM
I'm baffled by yours. Its a $350 difference. Thats a few days pay for most people. Buying a Mercedes over Hyundai is what? $30-50k+? Thats a few YEARS pay. :rolleyes:

While the PS3 is double the price, it still comes down to a few hundred dollars so it's not THAT bad in the grand scheme of things. If you don;t think it's worth it then fine, but some people do.

Agreed...consoles and cars don't really work, because this don't stay on that scale. The difference is large for the market, but not HUGE, and most people could buy it, if the truely wanted it, but they don't and thats ok

evilgEEk
May 6, 2007, 02:07 PM
Wow, the Hyundai/Mercedes comparison was intended to be ridiculous, didn't anyone get that? Sheesh..

Chone's orginal argument (which has since been recanted) was that he couldn't understand how anyone that could afford a Wii couldn't afford a PS3. This is because I give myself a budget for "toys", and $600 for a game console didn't fit in to my budget. Blu-Ray means nothing to me, so it would simply be a game console, and $600 for a game console is ridiculously high in my opinion.

The difference only matters to the cheap and poor whiny bastards.

I'm 26, married with a 17 month old son. I also own a real estate investment company and am doing very well financially. I am neither cheap nor poor, but I am responsible with my money, which is why I am where I am today.

So, please, don't call me a bastard.

sikkinixx
May 6, 2007, 02:14 PM
Wow, the Hyundai/Mercedes comparison was intended to be ridiculous, didn't anyone get that? Sheesh..


I don't see it because $350 isn't all that ridiculous. Dinner and a movie with my girlfriend costs me at least $75-80 so really its only a few dates worth of money.

But I think it's bad that people say its nothing because for people like yourself with house payments, kids, etc. that extra cash could go to more important things. But if you wanted a PS3 you could afford one no? It just would have required saving for longer period of time to get the money. You didn't want to, which is groovy, but you could have have eventually bought one if you really wanted to (or if you had wanted to break open the wallet ;))

evilgEEk
May 6, 2007, 02:50 PM
I don't see it because $350 isn't all that ridiculous. Dinner and a movie with my girlfriend costs me at least $75-80 so really its only a few dates worth of money.

But I think it's bad that people say its nothing because for people like yourself with house payments, kids, etc. that extra cash could go to more important things. But if you wanted a PS3 you could afford one no? It just would have required saving for longer period of time to get the money. You didn't want to, which is groovy, but you could have have eventually bought one if you really wanted to (or if you had wanted to break open the wallet ;))

Absolutely, but it's all relative.

I try to allow myself $1000 a year to spend on toys. This includes consoles, games, accessories, movies, etc... (Computers and things of that nature don't go towards that total because they're tax write-offs. ;)) But I try to stick to this budget as best I can, so to me spending over half of my yearly budget just on the console alone is a huge blow to my budget. That's $350 that I could spend on a new iPod! :)

So even though $350 isn't a lot of money to me in the grand scheme of things, it is a lot of money to my budget.

But the point is moot now anyway, the only reason I replied last time is because I don't particularly care to be called a bastard. I know, silly me. ;)

Dagless
May 6, 2007, 03:54 PM
I think the relative comparison is the best yet. With homes abroad all I pay out to have a holiday is the price of a flight which is around £200-400 depending where I go.
The price any games console or treat myself and Caroline to a few weeks away. £400 is halfway towards a new iMac, a Mac Mini, 2 Apple TV's, 2 iPods, a 24" monitor.
£180 is an iPod, almost an Apple TV...

JackAxe
May 6, 2007, 04:07 PM
I really don't see $600 as being pricey for what the PS3 is, but I really don't see the PS3 as being worth that price at this time do to its poor selection of games. (IMO) I might as well buy a PSP, which dropped in price, if I wanted to collect dust. ;)

<]=)

pseudobrit
May 6, 2007, 06:10 PM
I'm 26, married with a 17 month old son. I also own a real estate investment company and am doing very well financially. I am neither cheap nor poor, but I am responsible with my money, which is why I am where I am today.

Well, if you're so responsible with your cash why are you wasting any money on silly games?

So, please, don't call me a bastard.
... the only reason I replied last time is because I don't particularly care to be called a bastard. I know, silly me. ;)

I didn't call you a bastard, but if you want to step into the fast pitch...

LethalWolfe
May 6, 2007, 06:25 PM
Ah the cradle of civility... arguing about who's opinion is more right. ;)

Between this, the thread about the kid trying to scam an iPhone, and a running debate about Christianity in the "basement" I've kept myself pretty entertained today.


Lethal

Dagless
May 6, 2007, 06:38 PM
evilgEEk says that he won't spend that much on a video game system.
pseudobrit says says the price only is bothersome to cheap and poor whiny bastards.
evilgEEk says he has other things to spend money on.

I didn't call you a bastard.

hmms

evilgEEk
May 6, 2007, 08:34 PM
Well, if you're so responsible with your cash why are you wasting any money on silly games?

Ha ha ha! I don't even know how to respond to such a ridiculous comment.

I didn't call you a bastard, but if you want to step into the fast pitch...

Please refer to Jimmi's comment above. ;)

None of this matters anyway. Who cares if I think the PS3 is too expensive?? My opinion isn't going to change the world, nor will anyone elses here.

The original topic was about GTA IV being held back, how about we go back to that?

I still think it's a horrible game and couldn't care less if it was never released! ;)

fiercetiger224
May 6, 2007, 08:50 PM
Wow this thread is becoming like some of IGN's threads. :rolleyes:

Now settle down kids. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Don't try to sway others to like what you like, just because you're a so-called "fanboy". It's nice to provide advice once in a while though. :p

I'd like to state my input on what Rockstar has said. Both consoles have their strong points and weak points. BUT, Rockstar has stated that the main thing holding them back is the HDD on the Xbox360. What I'd really do, is if it really is holding them back, why not just make the game HDD ONLY? Then the people who bought the core system will have to buy the HDD just to play the game. This might relieve them of development costs. I mean, really, what's the ratio of between the core system and the premium system?

evilgEEk
May 6, 2007, 09:56 PM
What I'd really do, is if it really is holding them back, why not just make the game HDD ONLY? Then the people who bought the core system will have to buy the HDD just to play the game.

I agree, that would alleviate a lot of their problems, but do you think it would cut in to sales of the game too much?

I think HDD only games is where we're going to be in the future, simply because games are becoming so demanding. If everything was on a disk (whether it's Blu-Ray, HD DVD, etc...) you will still have painful load times, and I hate waiting for load times.

Chone
May 6, 2007, 11:26 PM
I agree, that would alleviate a lot of their problems, but do you think it would cut in to sales of the game too much?

I think HDD only games is where we're going to be in the future, simply because games are becoming so demanding. If everything was on a disk (whether it's Blu-Ray, HD DVD, etc...) you will still have painful load times, and I hate waiting for load times.

But then you'd have to wait for install times or have a solution similar to "Games for Vista" enabled games where you can play right away but it will be choppy for a few hours of play.

Install times are great, they just build up your excitement for a game but I'm sure many people would just loathe them.

pseudobrit
May 6, 2007, 11:45 PM
Ha ha ha! I don't even know how to respond to such a ridiculous comment.

You're not supposed to. It's ridiculous to be complaining that the price of a luxury item is too high. Especially when it's too high because it has luxuries you don't want.

I'm sick of people pissing on Macs for carrying a premium price tag (or saying they do when it's not true) and Apple for not lowering their prices every three weeks when something new comes out that isn't in the current systems. Buy it or don't, just don't act like the company has insulted you.

I'd like to state my input on what Rockstar has said. Both consoles have their strong points and weak points. BUT, Rockstar has stated that the main thing holding them back is the HDD on the Xbox360. What I'd really do, is if it really is holding them back, why not just make the game HDD ONLY? Then the people who bought the core system will have to buy the HDD just to play the game.

That's a good idea. Then people who would never have bought GTA IV anyway will be able to bash Rockstar for forcing anyone with a Core system to buy a hard drive.

michaelltd
May 7, 2007, 04:18 AM
That's a good idea. Then people who would never have bought GTA IV anyway will be able to bash Rockstar for forcing anyone with a Core system to buy a hard drive.

Eh, so what?

I think that's what should happen. I also think Microsoft needs to discontinue the Core System altogether.

EDIT: And I believe, then, that if this is to happen then there should be some kind of deal where you can get a discount on an HDD with the game purchase.

Sparky8
May 7, 2007, 05:27 AM
uhmm, we did answer his points :confused: . He just made ridiculous claims like "the Wii is the new Cube", laughable comparisons between systems, topped off with an unusual way of replying sort of discredits what he says and his attempts at arguments really.


If you can provide me with credible 3rd party support for the wii then i'll stop discussing this. Ive provided you with credible reasoning, you haven't.

r1ch4rd
May 7, 2007, 05:39 AM
Eh, so what?

I think that's what should happen. I also think Microsoft needs to discontinue the Core System altogether.

EDIT: And I believe, then, that if this is to happen then there should be some kind of deal where you can get a discount on an HDD with the game purchase.

Since everyone is talking about price and value for money, I think that the xbox 360 core may actually be the worst offender. If you want to save your games (which I think we can agree is a neccessity) then the core system plus a memory card is £210 on amazon.co.uk. With that you still don't get a wireless controller, a way to get Hi-Def to your TV and you can't use XBox Live. For another £50 you can get all of that in the premium system and £50 is less than the cost of the 20gb hard disc. It seems to me that the premium is too good of a deal to pass up (compared to the core system).

Dagless
May 7, 2007, 06:35 AM
If you can provide me with credible 3rd party support for the wii then i'll stop discussing this. Ive provided you with credible reasoning, you haven't.

I tried looking for the news post on Kotaku/Joystiq anc can't find it. Thing is in January out studio put an order on for a single Wii development kit (just like other devs we waited to see what the impact of the Wii would be like, and it was too big to just ignore), only to get weekly emails saying they don't have enough stock. Some time around mid-April we got one. Games sites early in the year ran articles about independent developers not being able to get developer kits as big studios were fighting tooth and nail for them.

edit: found it. (http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=100388)
regrettably informs them that the Wii Independent Developer Program is "on hold" until the end of February due to the overwhelming demand generated from the major third party publishers.

takao
May 7, 2007, 07:33 AM
If you can provide me with credible 3rd party support for the wii then i'll stop discussing this. Ive provided you with credible reasoning, you haven't.

hmm well recently the wii had quite a bunch of third party releases comapred to the first 2 months


you know how many games got in released in Japan for the Ps3 since the 01.01.07 ? .. 7
and how many are going to be released until end of july from now on ? 4
including first party games

last release: 3 weeks ago
next release: 6 weeks from now in mid june
9 weeks breaks between releases doesn't sound like awesome support either

luckily it looks better here with 8 upcoming ps3 games until end of june
11 for the wii
13 for the xbox 360

OMG the huge differences
(i used the upcoming lists of the local gamestore who always post them excluding imports and special editions)
obvious winner was of course the DS who has like as much as all others combined up until may

fiercetiger224
May 7, 2007, 11:07 AM
I agree, that would alleviate a lot of their problems, but do you think it would cut in to sales of the game too much?

I think HDD only games is where we're going to be in the future, simply because games are becoming so demanding. If everything was on a disk (whether it's Blu-Ray, HD DVD, etc...) you will still have painful load times, and I hate waiting for load times.

I don't think it'll cut into the sales of the game too much, just because people who want GTAIV will buy it to play it. It's just Microsoft's stupid marketing that we have to deal with multiple SKUs. Non-standardized HARDWARE specifications, etc. Is the 360 becoming more like a computer? Psh...At least Sony learned and pulled the 20 GB from the market. The Core 360 and the 20 GB PS3 are just marketing ploys to make it seem cheaper than it really is.

Anyway, back on topic. I definitely agree with you on the HDD issue. It's definitely where the future is at. Eventually developers will make big uses of the HDD to cache data on the fly, and make use of both the disc drive and HDD. It'll be much more seamless that way, if done correctly. As for GTAIV, it's more important than ever that it makes use of both the disc drive and HDD. If everyone remembers, every GTA game on the PS2 streamed data on the fly. It wasn't all loaded up into memory. But since we've got an an enormous amount of graphics involved, the HDD is faster transferring data than an optical disc drive is.

Dagless
May 7, 2007, 11:28 AM
On topic, I think the Elite should drop to the Premium price and do away with the other 2 SKUs and call it a day. I remember having a little giggle when they announced such varying SKUs. But hell with the mark up on them HDD's they're probably rolling in it too much to pull the Core model.

Coded-Dude
May 7, 2007, 11:50 AM
Price is not on topic Jimmi........

I'm 26, married with a 17 month old son. I also own a real estate investment company and am doing very well financially. I am neither cheap nor poor, but I am responsible with my money, which is why I am where I am today.

So, please, don't call me a bastard.

So, you've made you're budget and your decision(Wii)...so what do you have to gain by complaining about the PS3's price?
You made financial decision based on what you want out of your purchase and PS3 didn't fit the bill, thats fine, that does NOT automatically means its too expensive.

Most everyone here agrees that considering EVERYTHING it has, the PS3 is value-priced.

This topic is NOT why PS3 is better for the consumer, but I see we still can't seem to stay off that topic. Is it really that hopeless to avoid a dead horse?
Development companies are starting to see the value in the capacity PS3 offers. THIS IS JUST THE BEGINING! It will only become more apparent as time goes on.

Sparky8
May 7, 2007, 01:56 PM
Gamespot highest rated wii games:
Zelda OOT-Nintendo
Super Paper Mario-Nintendo
Zelda TP-Nintendo
Super Mario World-Nintendo
Zelda A Link to the Past-Nintendo
Madden-EA
Super Mario Bros-Nintendo
Monkey Ball-Sega
Gunstar-Sega

PS3 higest rated games
RFOM-SCEA
Tekken-Namco
NHL-2K
Virtua Tennis-Sega
Fight Night-EA
Marvel-Activision
COD3-Activision
Tiger Woods-EA Sports
NBA-2K Sports

What are wii owners looing forward too? Mario Kart, SSB, metroid, mario Galaxy, Animal Crossing etc.

figures speak for themselves, there isnt enough quality 3rd party games for the wii to really challenge n the long run. Ive looked at the upcoming releases and there isnt much this year.

Coded-Dude
May 7, 2007, 02:10 PM
Super Mario Galaxy, if it even arrives this year.....:(

Dagless
May 7, 2007, 02:23 PM
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=7974:JP&sid=aXvRwZ3iOQw4

April 27 (Bloomberg) -- Nintendo Co., the world's biggest maker of handheld game players, said it's developing 45 software titles for the Wii console, a device that helped drive profit sevenfold in the past quarter.

The company is also developing 79 games for the two-year-old DS portable player, President Satoru Iwata said at news conference in Tokyo today. The next batch of games will be introduced to the market at the end of "summer,'' he said.

Nintendo have also mentioned there will be a tidal wave (I believe the description was) by late 2007. And that's just Nintendo. 3rd party dev support surge in early 2007 will most certainly stride past the number of games from Nintendo alone.

Dagless
May 7, 2007, 02:32 PM
*list*

I'm sorry, but what does that list prove? That Nintendo consoles and games are selling by their bucket loads and retaining the highest sales? Well jolly gee, could it not be because they're headed by the only dev to get 3 platinum scores in Famitsu magazine, or the only 1st part dev to get knighted (or whatever that French award was)?

I keep forgetting that the highest rated current gen game (Twilight Princess) and the best game ever (OoT) are available for the same system. oh wait, no I don't :D but the list does point that out. So it has them 2, plus Smash Bros, Day of Disaster (I wonder if that will include the PS3 launch?), Mario Galaxy and Prime 3 coming out... Remind me why I need anything else?

evilgEEk
May 7, 2007, 02:38 PM
So, you've made you're budget and your decision(Wii)...so what do you have to gain by complaining about the PS3's price?

My comments were directed solely at Chone's statement (since recanted) about how he couldn't see any possible situation where someone that could afford a Wii couldn't afford a PS3. I wasn't saying the PS3 is priced too high for everyone, not once did I generalize my statements. I was very clear in that it was priced too high for me.

Everyone got so defensive and assumed I was generalizing my comments, which I wasn't. I was simply showing how someone that could afford a Wii couldn't necessarily afford a PS3, simple as that. No big deal.

Development companies are starting to see the value in the capacity PS3 offers. THIS IS JUST THE BEGINING! It will only become more apparent as time goes on.

Obviously when the "format war" is over for the next generation of disk storage (hopefully Blu-Ray), every system will eventually incorporate it, just as they did with DVD. But I'm still with fiercetiger in that HDDs are the real future. We will soon buy a console game, install it on our console HDD and then be able to play it.

If Sony and the PS3 can pioneer this marriage of seamless use of HDD and optical, then that's great, and it's great for everyone else. :)

Coded-Dude
May 7, 2007, 02:54 PM
My apologies, that was not a direct attack on you. It seems that most people who do complain about the price do usually have trouble coming up with such an amount. I saw your comment, and though if you can afford it why complain? It was a natural reaction.

HDD's are a far more expensive solution(currently) to produce and support.
Until its cheaper than optical, it will remain an optional alternative(for some)

Sony......? Pioneer.....? Surely they stole this idea form someone else! They are teh copiers! /sarcasm

Demetrio OS
May 7, 2007, 02:57 PM
computer and videogames (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=163233)

I guess next-gen solutions are necessary after all.....

And how did bethesda pull if off with out the need of a hard drive and only one DVD??

Coded-Dude
May 7, 2007, 03:03 PM
um......compression?

btw - the graphical advances made on PS3 Oblivion will be available on 360 as well
(but you'll need a HDD - DOH!)

Markleshark
May 7, 2007, 04:21 PM
Rome: Total War is pretty damn awesome mind. I'm usually not interested in the genre too!

Going back to the "can afford a Wii, can't afford a PS3" bit, I'm still aghast at Chone for saying that. Especially the "long term cost" idea. Do you live in a world where you're born with all your money at once? Because where I'm from you get a wage, so you can buy a cheap console and spend thousands on games over a series of 4-8 years without any problem at all. But when a system costs 3 times as much, take however long it took you to save for a Wii (providing you have a mortage/rent to pay, food, student or any other kind of loan to pay off, kids to feed, car to afford, council tax, useful things to buy) and multiply that by 3.
Of course if you are living with your parents and have a well paid job, then you're on easy (sad?) street.

Right now I can't even afford a Wii, I didn't even buy one myself, its the family console in the living room. Again, I'm not 14 and sponging off my parents ;) I'm in full time education in a very expensive country.
Lecture me on how I should pay for a PS3 some more.

Quoted for truth.

It is beyond me how anyone can say 'Well, if you can afford a Wii you have no reason not to be able to afford a Piss3' that is stupid, maybe you do actually need to step back for a second and think about how stupid that sounds.

um......compression?

btw - the graphical advances made on PS3 Oblivion will be available on 360 as well
(but you'll need a HDD - DOH!)

And I'm guessing that would be because you can't magically download and store stuff on this DVD that has already been printed. Would I be right? Or do you think they can just store these extras in the air inside the console?

However, if I am getting in on the argument, I might as well do it properly. We have a PS3 setup at work, it's actually managed to save us £1000's a year. Because with the heat that thing gives off, we've been able to get rid of our full heating system, so have next door. (Seriously, if you aint been near a switched on PS3, it's mental!).

Also, far from price, you just need to hold the controller to get a feel of how things are going to go down hill from here onwards. It has about as much feel as Tara Palmer Tompkinson's breasts. No rumble, light like you wouldn't believe.

Then, you have to switch it on with those stupid buttons on the front. THEN, when it locks up and you need to reset it, oh, no, you can't do that. It's like launching a nuke trying to get it to turn off then back on again. So much that I was wondering where we had to insert the keys simultaneously... Press and hold this, wait till it beeps... FFS!!

Anyway, have a nice day.

Coded-Dude
May 7, 2007, 04:32 PM
And I'm guessing that would be because you can't magically download and store stuff on this DVD that has already been printed. Would I be right? Or do you think they can just store these extras in the air inside the console?


Yes, thank you for pointing out the ORIGINAL TOPIC at hand

However, if I am getting in on the argument, I might as well do it properly.
I can bash the 360 and the Wii just as easiler as can bash the PS3....apparently you, like others,
have problem reading. This is not why its better for the consumer, but why its better for devs.

Markleshark
May 7, 2007, 04:34 PM
Yes, thank you for pointing out the ORIGINAL TOPIC at hand

Ah you see, but I have.

Because I pointed out reasons the PS3, isnt better. The topic doesn't say 'In terms of price, consoles sold, and the amount of games being shipped Rockstar explains why the PS3 is better' now, does it?

Also, your thread title doesn't have the word 'devs' anywhere near it.

Coded-Dude
May 7, 2007, 04:39 PM
well, had MS decided to put the HDD in boht SKU's every owner could enjoy these updates, not just "elite" 360 users.
Options are always better than no options, and devs prefer options.

Maybe its neede this time, maybe its not, but at leaast you have the OPTION available to ALL users.

Markleshark
May 7, 2007, 04:44 PM
well, had MS decided to put the HDD in boht SKU's every owner could enjoy these updates, not just "elite" 360 users.
Options are always better than no options, and devs prefer options.

Maybe its neede this time, maybe its not, but at leaast you have the OPTION available to ALL users.

You should prolly use 'all SKU's' instead of 'both SKU's' (With there now being 3, and all) and also "Elite" isnt reallyyyyyy the right word to use, since of course the Elite and Premium systems of course both come with the HDD.

However, I can't help but think your first statement contradicts its self. First you say they should have put the HDD in all the systems so all the owners can enjoy the updates, then you say options are better than no options. :confused:

However, I'd be willing to put a fairly good guess on the amount of people with Xbox Live Gold and the Amount of people with A Premium (or Elite) console stacks up, and the people without Xbox Live Gold and the people with a core system, also stacks up. Of course I'm not saying it'll be 100% the same, but I'd be willing to say there will be a correlation.

Also, slow down with your typing a little. ;)

Sparky8
May 7, 2007, 04:48 PM
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=7974:JP&sid=aXvRwZ3iOQw4

Nintendo have also mentioned there will be a tidal wave (I believe the description was) by late 2007. And that's just Nintendo. 3rd party dev support surge in early 2007 will most certainly stride past the number of games from Nintendo alone.

Games such as? Dont just give me software numbers because its likely that more are in development for the other next gen consoles, give me actual titles which people will want. Like Assassins Creed, GTA, Devil may Cry. 3rd party games that will make me want to buy a console.

I'm sorry, but what does that list prove? That Nintendo consoles and games are selling by their bucket loads and retaining the highest sales? Well jolly gee, could it not be because they're headed by the only dev to get 3 platinum scores in Famitsu magazine, or the only 1st part dev to get knighted (or whatever that French award was)?

I keep forgetting that the highest rated current gen game (Twilight Princess) and the best game ever (OoT) are available for the same system. oh wait, no I don't :D but the list does point that out. So it has them 2, plus Smash Bros, Day of Disaster (I wonder if that will include the PS3 launch?), Mario Galaxy and Prime 3 coming out... Remind me why I need anything else?

It proves firstly that Nintendo, like with the cube (which you didn't recognize) are again solely relying on in house support for their console. Without AAA 3rd party games there wont be enough diversity for gamers to want to buy the console and there wont be enough quality games being released. Short term success now doesn't guarantee that in 1 years time when the PS3 is established, lower in price with some quality AAA titles, that people are going to choose the Wii on price point alone.

Again youve simply proven my point that all they have at the moment is the usual games, it matters because there are other gamers with different tastes who unlike you are not satisfied by Metroid 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and Super Duper Mario Bros and Sisters 5

Peter Molyneux was recently given the same honour by France

Markleshark: have you read the article about the PS3 killing the 360 on 1UP? Brilliantly written. heat given off by the PS3 brings about the ring of death on the 360 lol

Markleshark
May 7, 2007, 04:53 PM
Again youve simply proven my point that all they have at the moment is the usual games, it matters because there are other gamers with different tastes who unlike you are not satisfied by Metroid 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and Super Duper Mario Bros and Sisters 5

Of course unlike the PS3, which has Ridge Racer 7, Call of Duty 3 (Also multi-platform), Fight Night Round 3 (Also multi-platform), Virtua Tennis 3 (Also multi-platform) and coming soon Spider Man 3 (Also multi-platform) yet another Grand Theft Auto... This is what happens on every console, you get a game that sells they make a sequel, or 3...

Coded-Dude
May 7, 2007, 04:54 PM
meh, most of my mistyped words are easy enough to make out.
* but I'll try harder ;) *

And like I said, you are talking about CONSUMER options, and I am talking about DEV options. The difference is paramount. Per your argument it woudl be better to not have the HDD, as some consumers may only buy optical discs, and never be online. They may never have a need for intenal storage(other than a small memory card, etc.), and I am sure they'll hapily save their $100 or so dollars getting the "cheaper" SKU.

But for devs the solution would better be suited if the feature was static(not optional). That gives them the option to use it now, use it later, or don't use it at all(if its not needed, much like your Bethesda statement). But now they have the option. MS took away that option with their SKU model, and that is why ROCKSTAR has openly admitted the lack of larger capacity discs and an internal drive may be somewhat of a nuisance.

While you currently have more options as a consumers(with 360), developers, at least Rockstar(I'm sure more will come forward as time goes on), have more options when developing PS3 games.

[EDIT] btw - Sir Howard Stringer(Sony Chaiman/CEO) was awarded a knighthood in the New Year Honours list released in December 1999.
whatever that has to do with anything is anybodies guess........

Sparky8
May 7, 2007, 05:04 PM
Of course unlike the PS3, which has Ridge Racer 7, Call of Duty 3 (Also multi-platform), Fight Night Round 3 (Also multi-platform), Virtua Tennis 3 (Also multi-platform) and coming soon Spider Man 3 (Also multi-platform) yet another Grand Theft Auto... This is what happens on every console, you get a game that sells they make a sequel, or 3...

These are 3rd party games thats the difference. They will sell in the shed loads and will come out of developers all throughout the year. There's enough diversity in there (you just mentioned a futuristic racer, world war 2 game, sandbox, boxing, tennis)

With Nintendo its not Virtua fighter tennis its Mario tennis, its Mario Kart not Riiiiiiiiidge Raaaaaacer (sorry). These games can be brought out all year. You cant ship 3 Mario karts each year. You can ship 5 different boxing games.

Anyway im off to bed, London tomorrow

Dagless
May 7, 2007, 05:57 PM
These are 3rd party games thats the difference. They will sell in the shed loads and will come out of developers all throughout the year. There's enough diversity in there (you just mentioned a futuristic racer, world war 2 game, sandbox, boxing, tennis)

With Nintendo its not Virtua fighter tennis its Mario tennis, its Mario Kart not Riiiiiiiiidge Raaaaaacer (sorry). These games can be brought out all year. You cant ship 3 Mario karts each year. You can ship 5 different boxing games.

Anyway im off to bed, London tomorrow

Hahahaha. I'm sorry, it hasn't been since fans actually believed "4D" have I laughed so much in a console thread.

Firstly you say "metroid 1-7", okay, (and Markleshark, you missed these gems!) where have you been with Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest? What about Resident Evil? Get your bloody mind in gear before you reply next time before accusing Nintendo of running in the sequel race. The only difference is Nintendo games are tied to their systems. Just as much as FF7-whatever we're up to now are tied to Sony systems.

Now, I respect C-D and (used to) Onizuka because they at least try to be slightly educated in their responses and arguments.


Games such as? Dont just give me software numbers because its likely that more are in development for the other next gen consoles, give me actual titles which people will want. Like Assassins Creed, GTA, Devil may Cry. 3rd party games that will make me want to buy a console.

Right. So you have no idea of how the hell the gaming industry works. You should have said that earlier. You think they order dev kits in January and announce games in what... May? Games are usually announced when they're about 50-90% completed unless they are mega projects or expected like Halo, Smash Bros, FF-million.

It proves firstly that Nintendo, like with the cube (which you didn't recognize) are again solely relying on in house support for their console. Without AAA 3rd party games there wont be enough diversity for gamers to want to buy the console and there wont be enough quality games being released. Short term success now doesn't guarantee that in 1 years time when the PS3 is established, lower in price with some quality AAA titles, that people are going to choose the Wii on price point alone.

ROFL! So. Nintendo. Who were the only company to believe in their product before it took the world by storm, the only major developers for it (I mean they were making ridiculous claims, who'd have thought they would have totally worked out? We didn't, hence our late dev kit order). They bring out killer games (highest rated this gen and re-release the one before last too, no less) and pretty much own the current console race. So. Other devs see what's happening and buy dev kits. They flock to where the attention is, any self respecting company wanting money will do this. These dev kits for the most sought after console were just ordered... oh I don't know... to go fishing with? As somebody who doesn't know anything about the industry at all could you please educate me on what they are doing?

That is in the past already.

Oh, also want to know why devs are flocking to the Wii? Lower dev price. A major publisher announced a while ago how much standard 360/PS3 and Wii games cost to be developed.

So. Devs go to the system that has massive public appeal (check) and will cost them less money to make a game for (check). Have you not even worked this out yet?

Again youve simply proven my point that all they have at the moment is the usual games, it matters because there are other gamers with different tastes who unlike you are not satisfied by Metroid 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and Super Duper Mario Bros and Sisters 5

My lovely white keyboard has pure orange juice all over the keys now :( See hypocrite, or the above messages mocking you. Bye bye, serious discussion.

Peter Molyneux was recently given the same honour by France
Right, and? He's tied to a system too. He got 3 platinum scoring games in Famitsu? (no really I don't know and would like to).

I don't mean to sound rude, but how old are you Sparky?

coffey7
May 7, 2007, 09:25 PM
I think the Wii is better because it has excite truck. Thats a great game. LOL

Dagless
May 7, 2007, 09:40 PM
I think the Wii is better because it has excite truck. Thats a great game. LOL

Ars Technica said the same thing too :) , minus the LOL bit.

Incidentally they had a Motorstorm advert at the cinema today. Laughibly with "representative of ingame footage", they can't even say "not ingame footage" anymore :D that deserves more than a LOL, a ROFL? Every gamer in the audience chuckled when that bit popped up.

killr_b
May 7, 2007, 10:06 PM
I think this is wonderful news, because GTA is the worst game ever created, and anything that holds them back is good in my book. :p

Best. Game. Ever. :cool:

…and improve the incredibly noisy drive.

A 12x DVD reader will never be quiet. That's why a 2x bluray is superior.
HD-DVD will never replace DVD because it isn't used for games. One more for bluray.

Oh, I definitely don't agree with that. $250 vs. $600 is a huge difference.

A difference of a few extra weeks of saving… shouldn't be hard if you want it.

The game is shipping on a DVD9. FFS. Upping it to PS3 and using BluRay, WTF does that achieve? It was a point on storage and that a super huge friggin super game like that can live on a DVD9.

Quieter operation, and possibly the only 1080p support. 360 may only do i.

And to any kids who are expecting their parents not to notice the difference betwen $250 and $600 - FFS grow up :mad: $600 is a weeks wages (or more) for a lot of people.

Anyone saying the PS3's higher price is downside while typing that response on a Mac, is a hypocrite.

That said, I can't wait for the new GTA!!!

Mackilroy
May 7, 2007, 11:01 PM
Quieter operation, and possibly the only 1080p support. 360 may only do i.
Much of the loudness factor was the DVD drive, which was solved with the consoles from December onwards, IIRC? And the 360 does 1080p. You lose two of those points.

TBi
May 8, 2007, 04:37 AM
A 12x DVD reader will never be quiet. That's why a 2x bluray is superior.

Don't know where you got that from. 2x for blu ray doesn't mean it is spinning slower than a 12x DVD.

2x just means it is reading data at twice the speed as a standard blu ray drive. The actual speed of the drive is not defined. If 1x blu ray was 10K RPM then 2x would be 20K RPM.

Dagless
May 8, 2007, 06:20 AM
I don't know where he got this from either-

Anyone saying the PS3's higher price is downside while typing that response on a Mac, is a hypocrite.

It's truly a dark day when you have to convince Mac users on a Mac forum that Macs being expensive is a myth :rolleyes:
I got the high end 17" iMac (latest model) for £700, and then a second one for £400. I would love to see a Dell or any other brand hardware manufacturer give me quality components at the same price :) Macs are priced alongside their spec competition. Oh, and aren't the MacPro's even loads cheaper than a spec identical Dell?
Lot's of real life ROFL's today.

fiercetiger224
May 8, 2007, 09:11 AM
Anyone saying the PS3's higher price is downside while typing that response on a Mac, is a hypocrite.

Haha to some degree it is. It's more like, if you spend $400 or $500 on an iPod, you could buy a PS3. The difference there is that EVERYONE loves music, and I don't know the percentage of consumers that likes videogames. Buying a Mac on the other hand is, probably on the same track as music; a computer is somewhat of a necessity. But you're somewhat right about some being a hypocrite. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I can't believe this thread is just a big argument over pricing. C'mon, we've had MILLIONS of threads like this already! This is definitely like some of IGNs threads. A whole lotta flaming and flamebait, and very little dicussion. :p

Dagless
May 8, 2007, 09:55 AM
^ and a blatant skipping over the fact that spec for spec, Apple aren't nearly as expensive as some Dells. The only way you'd get a cheaper system is by using substandard brands like AMD or naff hard drives and memory brands. :rolleyes:

You should probably retract the iPod/PS3 comparison soonish. Infact it's downright laughable, a brand new 80gb iPod Video costs £185.00 on Amazon. that's the same price as a Wii (or if you want, go extra and get the most expensive iPod on Amazon, £200, the same price as an Xbox 360 Core). And haven't we already had a "if you can afford a Wii you can afford a PS3" discussion. This is getting tiring.

TBi
May 8, 2007, 10:02 AM
^ and a blatant skipping over the fact that spec for spec, Apple aren't nearly as expensive as some Dells. The only way you'd get a cheaper system is by using substandard brands like AMD or naff hard drives and memory brands. :rolleyes:

Excuse me but AMD is not a substandard brand. For the last few years they've had the most powerful CPU's you could buy. Plus the most power efficient before the Core Duo's.

Remember that X86-64 is an AMD design that Intel copied. Intel wanted to kill off X86 in favour of the newer Itanium chip.

AMD is the company that forced intel to stop selling CPU's based on clock speed and make more power efficient CPU's. If it wasn't for them we'd all be running power hungry P4's. If you remember correctly the P4 is the CPU that Apple made fun of for heat and also had a talk about at a WWDC because of it's long pipeline compared to the G4.

If we didn't have AMD we wouldn't all have excellent and powerful Core Duo laptops.

Remember your history before you blatantly insult an excellent company.

Dagless
May 8, 2007, 10:06 AM
I know ;) we used to run AMD's in our main systems before we got our P4. Good chips, very cheap. Maybe it was the systems they were in but they didn't last that long. Still running an acquired P3 downstairs, our Thunderbird and Athlon chips died after 2-3 years. :o
Point is they're a cheap chip. Having them in a Mac would likely bring the cost down a bit, but you've just lost the efficiency of new Intels.

ChrisK018
May 8, 2007, 10:14 AM
Much like inevitable successful game and movie sequels, so is this thread discussion.

It is ridiculous to argue about Nintendo’s sameyness on a thread about GTA 4! EVERY SINGLE GAME COMPANY would gladly make a sequel/franchise if they hit the jackpot.

Coded-Dude
May 8, 2007, 10:16 AM
this thread is NOT about pricing, but users continually feel the need to bring that into the picture

Again, the TOPIC is about the PROS/CONS of 360/PS3 for DEVELOPERS
THE CONSUMER PURCHASE PRICE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!

Dagless
May 8, 2007, 10:32 AM
Price has nothing to do with a £430 being destroyed in the market by an 18 month old £270 and super weak £180 machine?

e²Studios
May 8, 2007, 10:36 AM
Price has nothing to do with a £430 being destroyed in the market by an 18 month old £270 and super weak £180 machine?

It's not ON TOPIC, read Jimmi.

Ed

Coded-Dude
May 8, 2007, 10:56 AM
if you want to moan and groan about consumer prices.......by all means, go start a thread
(I don't want to hear it here)

If you want to talk about developer prices.....by all means, state them here.

Again, I think some of you are having trouble grasping the concept of this topic.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU THE CONSUMER AND THE PRICE YOU PAY FOR YOUR CONSOLE!

It why developers prefer developing for specific platforms.

Dagless
May 8, 2007, 11:03 AM
ROFL :rolleyes:

Rockstar explains why the PS3 is better. I, and several others, post why it isn't better. I thought this had been established already... What about the SDF went offtopic? Or is it okay then?

Coded-Dude
May 8, 2007, 11:11 AM
Can you please post where you explained why other development companies think its worse.
Oh, and the comparison was between PS3/360.

More Ammo:

SteelMonkey's 2 Days to Vegas:
An in-house game engine was used and would feature global lighting and HDR lighting. They also included a "garbage generator" to simulate the clutter on the city streets. Talk about attention to detail. Loo comments on the Blu-Ray as a distribution media, "Blu-Ray solves a lot of our problems."


Jimmi, you posted your opinion as a consumer and offered no real reasons why that would be a rason a DEV company would think lesser of the PS3 dev platform.

sikkinixx
May 8, 2007, 05:11 PM
Its just like the good old pre-seperation days!

I thought this section was being modded?


Oh and I found a secret picture of Jimmi showing his absolute dedication to the gods of gaming:
http://modblog.bmezine.com/2006/10/20/nintendo-fanboy-sleeve/

pseudobrit
May 8, 2007, 07:38 PM
Rockstar explains why the PS3 is better. I, and several others, post why it isn't better.

Because it costs more. I'm sure Rockstar give a ****.

Markleshark
May 9, 2007, 02:03 AM
Because it costs more. I'm sure Rockstar give a ****.

They should do. Thats certainly one of the things they should be thinking about when Dev'ing games...

greatdevourer
May 9, 2007, 08:39 AM
Because it costs more. I'm sure Rockstar give a ****. They do. A lot.

It costs more to develop games nowadays, so you have to make sure that you're getting your money's worth out at the end. Now, if the product that you're developing said game for costs too much, it's likely to have a lower market share, thus having less users, thus having less potential customers, and thus making less profit. It's why so many devs are jumping ship and going multiplatform

Coded-Dude
May 9, 2007, 12:02 PM
Yep it matters so much so(consumer purchase price), that Xbox is getting one whole exclusive this year. Nintendo on the other hand, is obviously cheaper TO DEVELOP for, and considering its sales success due to CONSUMER PURCHASE PRICE, is getting a lot of attention(at least right now).

Namco Bandai plans to release only 23 titles for PS3 in the current fiscal year, compared to 24 games to be sold to Microsoft Corp's Xbox360 and 37 titles to be released for Nintendo Co Ltd's Wii console.

I'd be more apt to say they are concerned with installed userbase, and while consumer purchase price does somewhat affect that, its not something devs care about directly
(more indirectly if you ask me)

e²Studios
May 9, 2007, 12:07 PM
Yep it matters so much so(consumer purchase price), that Xbox is getting one whole exclusive this year. Nintendo on the other hand, is obviously cheaper TO DEVELOP for, and considering its sales success due to CONSUMER PURCHASE PRICE, is getting a lot of attention(at least right now).



I'd be more apt to say they are concerned with installed userbase, and while consumer purchase price does somewhat affect that, its not something devs care about directly
(more indirectly if you ask me)

The problem with the Wii is that its a loss for the consumer, the Wii is cheaper to develop for but it also sets us back a generation. It inspires developers to be lazy and sell software that isnt up to Next Generation standards, it lowers the bar rather than raising it. All in all the Wii hurts the industry more than it helps it, $250 although cheap is the biggest rip off of this generation considering how cheap and widely available the components for the wii are to produce. The Wii tells developers to screw off on innovation and taking things to the next level and to just be content, lazy and unmotivated to make forward strides in the industry.

Ed

it5five
May 9, 2007, 12:23 PM
Yep it matters so much so(consumer purchase price), that Xbox is getting one whole exclusive this year. Nintendo on the other hand, is obviously cheaper TO DEVELOP for, and considering its sales success due to CONSUMER PURCHASE PRICE, is getting a lot of attention(at least right now).



I'd be more apt to say they are concerned with installed userbase, and while consumer purchase price does somewhat affect that, its not something devs care about directly
(more indirectly if you ask me)

Oh come on. If you're saying the Wii's success is due to only the price, you're kidding yourself.

It's selling well because it is a great console and it happens to be cheaper. Funny how the Best Buy I was at yesterday had 0 Wii's, but 10 PS3's.

The problem with the Wii is that its a loss for the consumer, the Wii is cheaper to develop for but it also sets us back a generation. It inspires developers to be lazy and sell software that isnt up to Next Generation standards, it lowers the bar rather than raising it. All in all the Wii hurts the industry more than it helps it, $250 although cheap is the biggest rip off of this generation considering how cheap and widely available the components for the wii are to produce. The Wii tells developers to screw off on innovation and taking things to the next level and to just be content, lazy and unmotivated to make forward strides in the industry.

I'd say the Wii inspired devs to come up with creative new ways to play video games and to use the controller. I'd say that re-hashing boring FPS's over and over again hurts the industry far more than devs coming up with innovative ways to use the Wii. If the future of the industry is an assortment of FPS set in WWII or space, then I don't see myself playing video games much in the future. :rolleyes:

Coded-Dude
May 9, 2007, 12:33 PM
no no.......and if you are saying the success and the price are mere coincidence then I'd say your wrong.
I'm not trying to get into why a console is selling well, I'm trying to avoid that! please and thank you.

The Wii is irrelevant to me right now. Its the cheapest to develop for and has the largest install base, so obviously its getting the most support.

360 has a larger install base than PS3, a cheaper initial purchase price, and an alleged easier develpment platform....but namco gives PS3 just as much love? interesting.

[EDIT]
Yes, we've heard it before, but after spending time with the Wii now two independent developer sources claim the GameCube 1.5 moniker is mostly accurate, and a dev support person from Nintendo even admitted that the chipset is like a GameCube with added memory.

The Wii has been accused many times before of being "underpowered," but we all know that Nintendo was aiming for unique gameplay controls over supercharged visuals. That said, Microsoft's Robbie Bach, president of the Entertainment and Devices Division, recently fanned the flames when he told eWeek that the Wii doesn't even have the graphics horsepower that Xbox 1 had.

According to a couple of anonymous "technical experts at third-party publishers" who are familiar with the Wii's architecture, Bach isn't far off. Speaking with Newsweek's N'Gai Croal, the two sources indicated that the Wii is actually not a very flexible system, and Nintendo even admitted that its architecture is basically "GameCube 1.5."biz.gamedaily (http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=16099)

sikkinixx
May 9, 2007, 07:29 PM
The problem with the Wii is that its a loss for the consumer, the Wii is cheaper to develop for but it also sets us back a generation. It inspires developers to be lazy and sell software that isnt up to Next Generation standards, it lowers the bar rather than raising it. All in all the Wii hurts the industry more than it helps it, $250 although cheap is the biggest rip off of this generation considering how cheap and widely available the components for the wii are to produce. The Wii tells developers to screw off on innovation and taking things to the next level and to just be content, lazy and unmotivated to make forward strides in the industry.

Ed

I wouldn't slam the Wii THAT bad. The Wii is having problems with simply being a new control scheme on a Gamecube game (ie. Zelda, Paper Mario, upcoming RE4) and a lot of games aren't even as good as a Gamecube game graphic wise, but if devs take the time to actually make a good solid game then the Wii could be a really great system. The Wii needs some bad ass NON-NINTENDO games that really making a different gaming experience or the little white box is gonna be crushed in a few years time by the ever improving presentation of PS3/360/PC

GFLPraxis
May 9, 2007, 08:00 PM
The truth is, if you can afford a Wii you can afford a PS3 ESPECIALLY if you are over 16 years old.

Not at all.

On my part-time IT job as a university student, a PS3 is 1.5 paychecks. The XBox 360 is one paycheck (I pretend the Core does not exist). The Wii is slightly more than half a paycheck.

And everyone else in my age bracket thinks I'm highly paid.

That's assuming no expenses, mind you.

If the future of the industry is an assortment of FPS set in WWII or space, then I don't see myself playing video games much in the future. :rolleyes:

But...Resistance: Fall of Man is a WWII FPS...plus aliens from space! That's much better!



360 has a larger install base than PS3, a cheaper initial purchase price, and an alleged easier develpment platform....but namco gives PS3 just as much love? interesting.

Considering that Namco is a Japanese developer and originally planned to give the PS3 MORE support than the 360, dropping the PS3 support to less than 360 is actually a really bad sign.


Sony's Japanese support is rapidly dwindling. Look at last week's sales numbers.
http://www.nintendoplayers.com/images/articles/856.png

jimN
May 9, 2007, 08:09 PM
The problem with the Wii is that its a loss for the consumer, the Wii is cheaper to develop for but it also sets us back a generation. It inspires developers to be lazy and sell software that isnt up to Next Generation standards, it lowers the bar rather than raising it. All in all the Wii hurts the industry more than it helps it, $250 although cheap is the biggest rip off of this generation considering how cheap and widely available the components for the wii are to produce. The Wii tells developers to screw off on innovation and taking things to the next level and to just be content, lazy and unmotivated to make forward strides in the industry.

Ed

On the contrary, the PS3 has all this surplus power and storage that it essentially condones lazy programming. Pretty pictures do not make a next gen game, and all that gen stuff is pretty much nonsense when the real cutting edge stuff as far as graphics and physics goes is on the PC and that just evolves continuously. The Wii makes unique demands of gamers and developers alike and, in it Nintendo have created a fun and social console - how many other games machines can honestly claim to be that?

Chone
May 9, 2007, 08:25 PM
Not at all.

On my part-time IT job as a university student, a PS3 is 1.5 paychecks. The XBox 360 is one paycheck (I pretend the Core does not exist). The Wii is slightly more than half a paycheck.

And everyone else in my age bracket thinks I'm highly paid.

That's assuming no expenses, mind you.


If you had read all my posts you would know that most of my original statements were recanted (mainly because I wrote that while I was venting some anger from last weekend). I actually get your point and agree with you.

Dagless
May 9, 2007, 08:40 PM
Wii a step back? Pah, it's the biggest fresh air in the industry since they went 3D in '96. What has the leap been for other systems? Online, a step in the right direction. Better graphics, what sort of stagnant idea's development team comes up with this predictable rubbish? Systems normally go through a cycle of revolution and refinement.

The PS3 is still refining, the PS2 and 3 being logical progressions. Xbox are now refining what went wrong/could have been better with the Xbox 1.

Nintendo. Well, NES -> SNES. N64 -> Gamecube. Wii.
Sega. Master System -> Mega Drive. Saturn -> Dreamcast.

I don't know if I could live in a system cycle where the only thing we saw was refinement. I just wouldn't get excited as a developer knowing what I would be doing in 10 years time would be the exact same with more polygons, shaders and a higher resolution. Even as a consumer that bores me, as I was doing all that 5 years ago on the PC. I wasn't swinging a controller around to behave as a bat, gun, bow and arrow... That's why it's new and a step forward. That's why it's taking over the world because it's the first system in a decade to show us something different. The NES and PS1 were there. The DS and Wii are here now.
All the devs I've spoken to and worked with are excited coming up with new control ideas, some games and demos being born just out of the control method alone. Just as how devs were probably coming up with ideas of how to turn 2D gameplay into 3D back in the mid-90's.

fiercetiger224
May 10, 2007, 12:57 AM
Wii a step back? Pah, it's the biggest fresh air in the industry since they went 3D in '96. What has the leap been for other systems? Online, a step in the right direction. Better graphics, what sort of stagnant idea's development team comes up with this predictable rubbish? Systems normally go through a cycle of revolution and refinement.

The PS3 is still refining, the PS2 and 3 being logical progressions. Xbox are now refining what went wrong/could have been better with the Xbox 1.

Nintendo. Well, NES -> SNES. N64 -> Gamecube. Wii.
Sega. Master System -> Mega Drive. Saturn -> Dreamcast.

I don't know if I could live in a system cycle where the only thing we saw was refinement. I just wouldn't get excited as a developer knowing what I would be doing in 10 years time would be the exact same with more polygons, shaders and a higher resolution. Even as a consumer that bores me, as I was doing all that 5 years ago on the PC. I wasn't swinging a controller around to behave as a bat, gun, bow and arrow... That's why it's new and a step forward. That's why it's taking over the world because it's the first system in a decade to show us something different. The NES and PS1 were there. The DS and Wii are here now.
All the devs I've spoken to and worked with are excited coming up with new control ideas, some games and demos being born just out of the control method alone. Just as how devs were probably coming up with ideas of how to turn 2D gameplay into 3D back in the mid-90's.

You know, I think A LOT of games the past few years have really boring. Not once in the past couple years have I actually finished a game that I bought. I play it until near the end and then I just stop. Happened with Twilight Princess. It just got ridiculously boring near the end. It's like every developer is trying to make every game longer than 50-60++ hours. I don't want a game like that.

I need a game that's new, fresh, fun, and within a reasonable timeframe. 30-40 hours is fine by me. What happened to the old Super Nintendo days where every game that one company made was the holy grail? C'mon Secret of Mana, Final Fantasy IV-VI, Chrono Trigger, Super Mario RPG, etc. Nintendo's probably the only company right now that's producing quality titles, as they've always been. Hopefully Sony will deliver their promise with their own upcoming titles. I'm looking forward to those. Oh, and my Super Smash Bros Brawl and Metroid Prime. :D

TBi
May 10, 2007, 04:19 AM
You know, I think A LOT of games the past few years have really boring. Not once in the past couple years have I actually finished a game that I bought. I play it until near the end and then I just stop. Happened with Twilight Princess. It just got ridiculously boring near the end. It's like every developer is trying to make every game longer than 50-60++ hours. I don't want a game like that.

I thought that was all down to me getting old and not wanting to play games much any more :)

Maybe i'm wrong but i'm sure 10 years ago i would have loved Zelda: TP. I remember playing Zelda: Links Awakening to death on the game boy years ago, constantly wanting to finish it until it was finished. Recently i got a DS and Zelda: A Link to the Past, i've gotten half way and now i'm bored. It could be because i don't have a set amount of free time to play and now i forget the story.

(All that said i did love Star Wars: KOTOR 1&2 but i played them both through at christmas times when i had a week off work)

Dagless
May 10, 2007, 06:45 AM
Exactly. The industry is so hell bent on making a game to rival OoT or other classics. They failed, and rather than admitting no adventure game is going to take on LttP or OoT for a very long time they still go ahead and try to give us this adventure. Be it in HD, with new controls.
TP is exactly the same. It was a romp that had been played a million times before, it just so happened to be the best attempt since OoT.

This is why I play a lot more indie developed games. They seem to be attracted to innovative and creative gameplay as their selling point, rather than go up against commercial games in graphics. This is what I'm doing with Tormishire- a game based around a procedurally generated story.

Ever wonder why Guitar Hero and Wii Sports are such huge hits? They've ditched the controller and welcomed in non-gamers which is almost an entirely new concept in console game design.

ChrisK018
May 10, 2007, 09:23 AM
Judging by the various directions this thread has gone, trying to isolate a few points of PS3's superiority is futile.

As a number cruncher, sweet 1080p capabilities, the storage capacity of blu-ray, the PS3 has a nice advantage, but there are so many other factors, like price, developer interest and the installed consumer base. Like it or not all of these other factors contribute to the very arbitrary definition of a particular platform being 'better.'

This same reasoning also defends the Wii. YES. The processor is not that amazing, and the graphics are not on the same level as 360 and PS3. And for all of you that think remote controllers are for sissies-- or that Nintendo ripped off an idea from 1977, good for you. But come on. It's cheap, selling like hot cakes, and dang it, that remote is fine. It works pretty darn well. There are some good games for it too. Maybe not to the taste of all the sophisticated Mac Rumors Forums thread commenters, but right now they are selling the most, so they must be doing something right.

I can't wait until the PS3 has a game I want, and a lower price that will make me pick one up, because, without a doubt, I know that it is one sweet machine. I think this will happen very soon, but I don't give a rat's arse about Gears of War, or any of the other exclusive games on the PS3.

Until then I'll play Paper Mario, and have fun with my friends and the dopey no armed bowlers of Wii Sports. For me that makes the Wii the 'better' system right now.

e²Studios
May 10, 2007, 09:35 AM
YES. The processor is not that amazing, and the graphics are not on the same level as 360 and PS3. And for all of you that think remote controllers are for sissies-- or that Nintendo ripped off an idea from 1977, good for you. But come on. It's cheap, selling like hot cakes, and dang it, that remote is fine. It works pretty darn well.

http://radio.weblogs.com/0107064/MyImages/stuart-smalley.jpg

Dagless
May 10, 2007, 09:50 AM
And after 6 pages we've dropped from discussion, argument, praise and criticism to the low class internet standard of solo image posting.

ChrisK018- I can't wait until the PS3 has something too. Coming from an indie background I'm a huge fan of the underdog (check my recent topic on the Dreamcast and support of the Cube). I just need 2-4 games that completely hit bullseyes, just as I picked up the Xbox for just Halo, Panzer Dragoon and GTA. Content for customers and a diffused set of features aren't exactly making up for lack of killer game for me. I can leave BluRay and knowledge that the system contains a Cell CPU, just give me a real Halo killer or an absurdly open ended sandbox world.

e²Studios
May 10, 2007, 09:57 AM
And after 6 pages we've dropped from discussion, argument, praise and criticism to the low class internet standard of solo image posting.

ChrisK018- I can't wait until the PS3 has something too. Coming from an indie background I'm a huge fan of the underdog (check my recent topic on the Dreamcast and support of the Cube). I just need 2-4 games that completely hit bullseyes, just as I picked up the Xbox for just Halo, Panzer Dragoon and GTA. Content for customers and a diffused set of features aren't exactly making up for lack of killer game for me. I can leave BluRay and knowledge that the system contains a Cell CPU, just give me a real Halo killer or an absurdly open ended sandbox world.

And we won't even begin to discuss the levels you stooped down to in any thread that even hints at something positive for the PS3 ;)

Ed

Coded-Dude
May 10, 2007, 10:21 AM
I'd be curious to see the RATIO of first arty titles vs third party titles for the Wii, and their respective sales figures.
Somehow I feel more people are just buying Nintendo IP's.

[EDIT]
Wii

1. Super Paper Mario—Nintendo
2. Wii Play w/ Remote—Nintendo
3. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess—Nintendo
4. Warioware: Smooth Moves—Nintendo
5. Mario Party 8*—Nintendo
6. Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07—EA
7. Cooking Mama: Cook Off—Majesco
8. Rayman Raving Rabbids—Ubisoft
9. Excite Truck—Nintendo
10. Madden NFL 07—EA
source (http://www.nwiizone.com/nintendo-wii/nwii/amazon-top-10-wii-games-2/)

ChrisK018
May 10, 2007, 12:26 PM
I speak without curse words for the sake of moderators or getting banned for being a tool.

Clearly the ratio of the Wii's current games is slanted to Nintendo, as was the case with the GameCube, and as many people like to point out, the lack of third party support is what caused the GameCube to lose the last round of console sales figures.

Whether or not Nintendo learned a lesson from this is debatable. They are outselling the other platforms yet their third party development kits have been hard to come by... But, at least the 3rd party developers actually want kits this time.

Does this make the PS3 better or worse? There are going to be some excellent third party games coming out for the PS3, along with the in-house ones, like my favorite Sony franchise, Gran Tourismo. But I don't think this is going to cripple Nintendo, and hopefully, some innovative third party games that utilize what the Wii can do will contribute to better games for all.

Coded-Dude
May 10, 2007, 01:29 PM
173 Wii games listed on Nintendo's site.
25+ Nintendo Titles and 130+ Third Party Titles :rolleyes:
20-25% of Nintendo titles in top 10 and only 3-4% Third Party titles
(granted some of these titles are still in development, bu there is NO lack of 3rd party games, in fact its quite the opposite)

I think this has a lot to do with Nintendo Nostalgia
(sometimes loyal fans are too loyal)
However, being such cheap development platform is alos gonna cause a lot of crap to be pushed out for the sake of making a buck.
Nintendo would rather delay a title several times than put out a lot of garbage.

IMHO:
Wii is better(right now) because it is more profitable, but there is not a game that couldn't be done on the PS3/360 as well.
(unless you consider certain motion controls)
Thats why initially I was talking about PS3/360.

But I got an onslaught of Nintendo fans giving me consumer purchase prices and shelve space numbers.

Dagless
May 10, 2007, 02:02 PM
Cool yea. The 3 most popular (or 4, if you count Wii Play which folk might be buying for the controller) being TP, WarioWare and Wii Sports could not be done as well with a traditional controller. Even playing through TP on the Cube the lack of quick aiming (and on another level you can't sit back and use both armrests, something I've never been able to do with a console before and is a very comfy experience) and less enjoyable fishing methods put it in a lower place than the Wii version.

Coded-Dude
May 10, 2007, 02:07 PM
Good points Jimmi, however, that just further's there argument of Nintendo being innovative on their own hardware, adn third party devs just trying to make a buck.
Trauma center is an exception and there are others, but they are going to be fewer and farther between all the other crap third party titles/ports put out for the sake of capitalism.

Because of costs, a dev really has to focus on what they are making for PS3/360 if they want to make a profit.
Sure, crap can and will still come out, but not as much as on a cheaper platform.
They also have more power to work with, so while Wii gets innovatice game mechanics, PS3/360 get more innovative physics/ai.
and PS3 has the advantage(somewhat) there with more storage space options.

Dagless
May 10, 2007, 02:12 PM
Definitely. The 3rd party stuff I've played so far have been creatively sub par compared to Nintendo's own. The DS was in the same situation. Kirby and Nintendogs were the first games to truly use the touchscreen to any useful degree. It took a while for devs to pick up the pace. And now they're dropping it! Pokemon has throwaway touchscreen controls, the mic comes in handy for voice chat but the Chatter (a move that uses the mic) is more or less useless. Castlevania games never needed it, Tony Hawks, Tetris (for some modes), New Mario...

ChrisK018
May 10, 2007, 02:15 PM
173 Wii games listed on Nintendo's site.
25+ Nintendo Titles and 130+ Third Party Titles :rolleyes:
20-25% of Nintendo titles in top 10 and only 3-4% Third Party titles
(granted some of these titles are still in development, bu there is NO lack of 3rd party games, in fact its quite the opposite)

I think this has a lot to do with Nintendo Nostalgia
(sometimes loyal fans are too loyal)
However, being such cheap development platform is alos gonna cause a lot of crap to be pushed out for the sake of making a buck.
Nintendo would rather delay a title several times than put out a lot of garbage.

IMHO:
Wii is better(right now) because it is more profitable, but there is not a game that couldn't be done on the PS3/360 as well.
(unless you consider certain motion controls)
Thats why initially I was talking about PS3/360.

But I got an onslaught of Nintendo fans giving me consumer purchase prices and shelve space numbers.

To some people the differences between the PS3 and 360 are massive; I am not one of those people. Aside from the obvious built-in Blu-Ray, and big unique franchises, (and I am taking into account all the nitpicky things like noise, chips, hdmi output cables, etc). Hard drives I suppose?

I totally agree that games Wii could be done 'better' on the PS3 and 360, but I am not sure what that proves, besides the 360 and PS3 not fufilling their potential with good games. I really think this will not be the case by December.

Other threads have pointed out that as the two big players of Sony and Microsoft released their fancy systems, Nintendo took a chance with the under-powered yet innovative platform, and in the short term they are reaping the rewards. Will it last? I don't know, but it should not be brushed aside as the kiddie game platform the way that some people on here do.

sikkinixx
May 10, 2007, 06:47 PM
Cool yea. The 3 most popular (or 4, if you count Wii Play which folk might be buying for the controller) being TP, WarioWare and Wii Sports could not be done as well with a traditional controller. Even playing through TP on the Cube the lack of quick aiming (and on another level you can't sit back and use both armrests, something I've never been able to do with a console before and is a very comfy experience) and less enjoyable fishing methods put it in a lower place than the Wii version.

Only problem is WarioWare, Wii Play and Wii Sports are all just mini games that are basically tech demos and teach you how to use the system....

JackAxe
May 10, 2007, 07:03 PM
It's funny how people call the Wii underpowered. If its target were 1080p, then of course, but for its target rez it's more than ample. Nintendo designed the Wii for low power, but at a higher performance. It's a modern console by any standard with support for all of the latest greatest tricks. The Wii's GPU can handle the physics, as can its TEV be programmed to handle the lastest shader techniques. Given the right developer with the right experience, they can make a Wii game shine.

Stating that a game would be better on a 360 or PS3 really depends on the type of game. If't it's a simulation game that thrives of visuals, then yes, but to contradict this there's GT4 on the PS2, but for most games this is simply not true. The best games I've played were desigend for a MCGA and even playing them now, they are still better than most of the sub-par crap that has saturated the market.

Because it cost less to develop for the Wii or DS, publishers are more prone to take a chance on a new idea, where as if they're spending 10 times the cost to produce a PS3 or 360 game, they're more likely to stick with what has worked in the past. The problem with these high-budget games that require a drone-army of artists and programmers to complete, is that the passion to make a good game has been spread out too thin, and the production team is not flexible enough, nor do they have the budget or time to implement all of their ideas. The best games I'e played are visually poor by today's standards and produced by small teams of less than 30 people.

Hey Ed, were you this passionate about the PS2 and its capabilities when it was the slowest and least capable console of last generation? That obviously didn't stop it from being a massive success, nor stop developers from producing some great games on it.

<]=)

Dagless
May 10, 2007, 07:15 PM
Only problem is WarioWare, Wii Play and Wii Sports are all just mini games that are basically tech demos and teach you how to use the system....

*has a feeling any game I mention will be classed as a minigame so shuts up :D *


Hey Ed, were you this passionate about the PS2 and its capabilities when it was the slowest and least capable console of last generation? That obviously didn't stop it from being a massive success, nor stop developers from producing some great games on it.

<]=)

Relax Jackaxe, it's the first time a Sony fan has been able to claim they have the most powerful console. Let them have it :)
and re the power thing, see attachment. a great way to play games and not punch out such a huge carbon footprint.

RMD68
May 10, 2007, 09:05 PM
PS3 will win it in the end. It has the most potential. Xbox definitely will have good footing and way over its previous campaign. But in the end Sony will prevail. I love the PS3 and have never been happier with a system. By christmas when all the games start rolling in everyone will be singing a different tune.

Dagless
May 10, 2007, 09:12 PM
Yea, because the Xbox isn't getting Halo and Forza 2, the Wii isn't getting Smash Bros/Galaxy/Prime 3 either.

pseudobrit
May 10, 2007, 09:49 PM
*has a feeling any game I mention will be classed as a minigame so shuts up :D *



Relax Jackaxe, it's the first time a Sony fan has been able to claim they have the most powerful console. Let them have it :)
and re the power thing, see attachment. a great way to play games and not punch out such a huge carbon footprint.

WTF, dude? Did Sony kill your puppy when you were just a kid or something?

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ you are awful with this nonsense. :rolleyes:

sikkinixx
May 10, 2007, 10:14 PM
*has a feeling any game I mention will be classed as a minigame so shuts up :D *



*Has a feeling Jimmi thinks that he knows everything and is obviously right because he is an indie game developer (see?) so will stop trying to discuss things (after this) with him* :rolleyes:



^ to Pseudobrit
[shameless family guy rip off] It is clear that Sony killed his father......and raped his mother [/shameless family guy ripoff]

Ja Di ksw
May 11, 2007, 12:18 AM
jimmi, where did you get that chart? If those are accurate, that makes me feel much better about playing my Wii

JackAxe
May 11, 2007, 12:27 AM
Here be the original site for that power graph;
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-1.htm

I wonder i the Wii's power consumption will go up with a game like Metroid 3, or Super Mario Galaxy?

It's chilax, not relax raggedjimmi. :)

<]=)

RMD68
May 11, 2007, 10:42 AM
PS3= Gran Turismo HD

Dagless
May 11, 2007, 11:08 AM
I almost bought a PS3 today. Seriously.

My student loan just came in, all £2300 of it. I owed my folks £1600 and planned a spending spree. My mate said, and this just made it a more interesting deal- if I bought one, so would he. Anyroad. No shop stocked a VGA cable and I wasn't entirely sure if the PS3 could work with one. Hype was fading. Then I couldn't find a game I wanted for the bundle. everything fell apart so I bought an 80gb iPod instead.

Anyroad... What did Sony do? How about pissed up everything they had going for themselves? You'd think after the roaring success of their first 2 systems they would be dead set for a 3rd term as number 1. Their CEO told me to get a 2nd job and lessened the image of a nice machine until it felt like buying a Dell computer. Rootkit, dead goats, bad adverts. This isn't a company who deserve my money.

Coded-Dude
May 11, 2007, 11:56 AM
I almost bought a PS3 today. Seriously.

My student loan just came in, all £2300 of it. I owed my folks £1600 and planned a spending spree. My mate said, and this just made it a more interesting deal- if I bought one, so would he. Anyroad. No shop stocked a VGA cable and I wasn't entirely sure if the PS3 could work with one. Hype was fading. Then I couldn't find a game I wanted for the bundle. everything fell apart so I bought an 80gb iPod instead.

Anyroad... What did Sony do? How about pissed up everything they had going for themselves? You'd think after the roaring success of their first 2 systems they would be dead set for a 3rd term as number 1. Their CEO told me to get a 2nd job and lessened the image of a nice machine until it felt like buying a Dell computer. Rootkit, dead goats, bad adverts. This isn't a company who deserve my money.

...and I am sure Sony is happy to not have you represent them.....
you should've bought another GB/DS to help Nintendo's numbers some more.
*(i know you don't have every color version yet)

ChrisK018
May 11, 2007, 11:57 AM
If and or when the PS3 comes out with some games I want, like Gran Tourismo, and the price goes down a wee bit (no pun intended) I will gladly pull the box out of some dead goat.

Dagless
May 11, 2007, 12:04 PM
you should've bought another GB/DS to help Nintendo's numbers some more.
*(i know you don't have every color version yet)

A stab at Nintendo bringing out multiple versions of the same system?

PS1, PSone
PS2, PStwo, PSX

GB, Pocket GB (same as PS1)
GBC
N64
Gamecube
GBA, SP, Micro (same as PS2)
DS, DS Lite (same as PS1)

Yawn. Like I said previously though. This underdog status makes me want a PS3 so I'll probably get a 2nd hand one at some stage.

Coded-Dude
May 11, 2007, 12:09 PM
no....just a stab at you for making a ridiculously off-topic stab at Sony. ;)
What does you opinion on their advertising and stance on dead goats have to do with a consoles development platform? :rolleyes:

I bought one PlayStation, and one PlayStation2, though my GF bought me a PSTwo, after my friend broke my PS2.
(it was on the floor and he accidentally kick it walking by it)
I have also bought one PlayStationPortable, and one PlayStation3.

I wonh't buy a PSP "lite"(unless my PSP breaks), nor will I buy a PSThree

Dagless
May 11, 2007, 12:43 PM
no....just a stab at you for making a ridiculously off-topic stab at Sony. ;)
What does you opinion on their advertising and stance on dead goats have to do with a consoles development platform? :rolleyes:

Way to keep up with the thread. Why did I say that? Well jolly gee Batman it might be because I was asked for my reasoning...

WTF, dude? Did Sony kill your puppy when you were just a kid or something?

And another reason- the only Sony kit to still be working for me is my Sony MZ-R91. Best minidisc player I ever used. Even surpassed my original iPod on many levels. But that's another story, one C-D doesn't want to hear, even though again I was asked what I have against Sony. :cool:

Coded-Dude
May 11, 2007, 12:51 PM
A GOOD answer would have been: thats not really on topic, but I can PM you the info to prevent further derailment of this thread.

You are one of the biggest distractions in this thread(continually getting off topic with every post)

I thought we were discussing DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS(not reasons consumers, thats you, hate the competition)
Ipods, and mini disc players are irrelevant.

Markleshark
May 11, 2007, 02:01 PM
I thought we were discussing DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS(not reasons consumers, thats you, hate the competition)
Ipods, and mini disc players are irrelevant.

But isnt Jimmi... Never mind...

Coded-Dude
May 11, 2007, 03:48 PM
if you ask a the president about the presidency, and he starts talking about fishing......does that mean he's still on topic?:rolleyes:
(maybe, if all he does is spend time fishing at his ranch)

gloss
May 11, 2007, 04:03 PM
if you ask a the president about the presidency, and he starts talking about fishing......does that mean he's still on topic?:rolleyes:
(maybe, if all he does is spend time fishing at his ranch)

If you prompt him with a question concerning fishing, then yes.

I'm pretty sure 'What did Sony do to you?' gives Jimmi free reign to discuss his experience with Mini-disc.

And by this point you're not exactly on topic, yourself.

zap2
May 11, 2007, 04:06 PM
If you prompt him with a question concerning fishing, then yes.

I'm pretty sure 'What did Sony do to you?' gives Jimmi free reign to discuss his experience with Mini-disc.

And by this point you're not exactly on topic, yourself.

true...if Sony beat me up, I wouldn't buy stuff from them. If they shut down Lik-Sang, I'd be upset with them, but still be able to buy there stuff.

Coded-Dude
May 11, 2007, 04:10 PM
If you prompt him with a question concerning fishing, then yes.

I'm pretty sure 'What did Sony do to you?' gives Jimmi free reign to discuss his experience with Mini-disc.

And by this point you're not exactly on topic, yourself.

"if you ask a the president about the presidency"

and you are on topic?...the irony within the playstation threads is overwhelming :rolleyes:

zap2
May 11, 2007, 04:13 PM
and you are on topic?...the irony within the playstation threads is overwhelming :rolleyes:


you ask what did sony do to you...that opens it up to anything. If he didn't like Sony brand TVs, he can talk about that.


And as for being on topic, this is a forum, we don't have to only talk about one thing all the time

Coded-Dude
May 11, 2007, 04:15 PM
what did I ask?

Okay, I'll go over to one of your Nintendo threads and start up a discussion about drag racing.

gloss
May 11, 2007, 06:35 PM
what did I ask?

Okay, I'll go over to one of your Nintendo threads and start up a discussion about drag racing.

If someone asks you what tire rubber and nitroglycerine ever did to you, go for it.

JackAxe
May 11, 2007, 06:44 PM
If you swallow a PS3, it will probably cause cancer. http://www.bainne.com/fun/blah_happy.gif

Sorry, was a bit off-topic.

<]=)

pseudobrit
May 11, 2007, 06:52 PM
If someone asks you what tire rubber and nitroglycerine ever did to you, go for it.

I could probably hook that up.

Chone
May 13, 2007, 07:08 PM
Oh come on. If you're saying the Wii's success is due to only the price, you're kidding yourself.

It's selling well because it is a great console and it happens to be cheaper. Funny how the Best Buy I was at yesterday had 0 Wii's, but 10 PS3's.

I'd say the Wii inspired devs to come up with creative new ways to play video games and to use the controller. I'd say that re-hashing boring FPS's over and over again hurts the industry far more than devs coming up with innovative ways to use the Wii. If the future of the industry is an assortment of FPS set in WWII or space, then I don't see myself playing video games much in the future. :rolleyes:

The Wii is doing great because its an innovative console and its cheap to boot, you can't deny the influence of price on the Wii's success, it would be foolish.

And theoretically the Wii should be about new ways of playing games but tell me, how much has the Wii really innovated? I mean the best games for the Wii are just standard gen games with tacked on wii controls, same thing happens for the DS, some of the best games don't make much use of the dual screen/touch screen/mic, etc.

The point is you can create good games for any darned platform and the only reason the Wii is doing well is because it has Nintendo behind it and everyone knows Nintendo makes some of the best games around, couple that with a low price and an innovative feature set and you have a winner, it is not however, the revolution of gaming.

If devs really want to revolutionize games they better make intelligent and different games, graphics are good and all but art style will always be better, motion controls are good just as long as they are not tacked on. Just stop following the formula everyone seems to be following and create something awesome, Will Wright is this kind of developer, Bungie used to be this kind of developer until money ruined them. Blizzard was doing great until they made WoW.

And what you guys don't get is that its not a matter of the console, despite what you might like to think all consoles have the potential for ground breaking experiences, blame it all on developers and the industry as a whole. Games are great but they are declining more and more, the industry will never crash again but I'm afraid true classics will disappear and the gaming industry will become pretty much like the film industry. This is evidenced by even the most original and dedicated of developers like Blizzard and Bungie not striving to best themselves, just develop whatever comes out of their asses and follow the same industry recipe. Not that I hate WoW or Halo, its just that they really have nothing special compared to other titles of the companies... like Warcraft/Starcraft/Diablo and Marathon, it is almost as if they had sold their soul to the devil.

But I digress, really what I wanted to say is that all consoles have the potential to be great and have awesome games, it all depends on the developer not the platform.

zap2
May 13, 2007, 07:12 PM
the only reason the Wii is doing well is because it has Nintendo behind it and everyone knows Nintendo makes some of the best games around, couple that with a low price and an innovative feature set and you have a winner, it is not however, the revolution of gaming.
.

But then why did NGC come in last, and N64 get beat up by PS1 losing Nintendo their lead...Nintendo makes great game...I know that, but that hasn't always kept them market share.

It has to because of something else...the DS is huge, the Wii is HUGE, what do both those system bring to the table,thats new?


Control

Chone
May 13, 2007, 09:04 PM
But then why did NGC come in last, and N64 get beat up by PS1 losing Nintendo their lead...Nintendo makes great game...I know that, but that hasn't always kept them market share.

It has to because of something else...the DS is huge, the Wii is HUGE, what do both those system bring to the table,thats new?


Control

The N64 lost because the developers just thought a CD was more cost effective and you could cram tons of content in it so they just went with that, a crucial developer made this decision, released FF7 on PS1 with tons of FMVs and that was that.

The GameCube lost because it had no third party support and it was just the same as an xbox and ps2, nothing innovative about that.

Why is the DS and Wii succeding? Not because their control options are better because they are not they are just new and fresh and have a gimmicky happy feeling to it, coupled with a good price, some decent 3rd party support and Nintendo and its a winner, the Wii and DS are doing good because its something new not necessarily because the control is so good.

The PC has had better controls for FPS for years and yet the FPS market is huge on consoles, why? Because even if the Wii has superior control (which in my opinion it doesn't its just different but thats debatable and up to each person) it doesn't make it the better console or the one people will adopt the most.

In the end, most consumers do no research, they just buy on impulses and the Wii is doing great because its something different, different means people will want to try it, regardless of whether its better or not. That reels them in, Nintendo games keep them interested.

Just look at some of the best DS games... most could be done without all the DS's gimmicky features... take Mario Kart, Pokemon Diamond/Pearl, New Super Mario Bros, Final Fantasy remakes, Castlevania, etc as a few examples.

What was the most sold and arguably best Wii game of 2006? Twilight Princess of course... See where I am getting at?

mosx
May 14, 2007, 03:25 AM
Heres my 2 cents.

The differences in hardware power between the Xbox360 and PS3 are very debatable.

With the PS3 you've got 1 main CPU based off the same PowerPC technology the Xbox360 uses, with 8 co-processors tacked on and one disabled. The Xbox360 has 3 main processors, each with a co-processor of its own, and each CPU is capable of handling two threads at a time. So real world performance is likely to be vastly different than what each machine is capable of on paper. Look at the PS2 as a perfect example of this. It had the first racing game to run at 60fps at 1080i.

PS3 has the advantage with storage capacity. But that comes at a significant cost to the consumer and developer (more expensive discs to pay for). It also comes at the disadvantage of speed. One may argue that the Xbox360 DVD drive does not come close to its rated speed of 12x. That is true. On dual-layer discs you generally get 8-10x on the outer edge and 5-6x on the inner circle. The disc in the Xbox360 is spinning faster and has a lower capacity.. which means faster seek times. Which translates into faster loading times in the future once developers get a hand on things.

As for being a better development platform.... The Xbox360 makes more sense right now. Why? The Xbox360 has more units in homes right now than the Wii and PS3 combined. It's selling great outside of Japan. And it is getting the two biggest games of this year. Halo 3 and Grand Theft Auto 4. Grand Theft Auto 3, Vice City, and San Andreas sold a combined total of roughly 40 million copies on the PS2 alone.

GTA is a system seller no matter what some people say about the series. The fact that one can buy the Xbox360 Premium and 3 games for less than the cost of the PS3 alone (both after taxes) means that people will be buying the Xbox360 this fall for both Halo and GTA. On top of that, people are buying the Xbox360 Premium over the PS3 because it includes component (and HDMI in the elite) cables in the box, as well as a headset. While the $600 PS3 gives you RCA cables.

What does that mean for developers? That the Xbox360 will get more copies of your game sold because of the lower price, similar (if not exactly the same) hardware capabilities, and the fact that 10s of millions of people already own one. PS3 sales are slumping, most of the major 3rd party developers have already jumped to the Xbox360, and even Sony has said that Final Fantasy XIII's exclusivity is questionable.

So if you're a developer, why would you make your game for a system that costs more to develop for and your audience will be about 1/5th of what it could be?

From a consumer stand-point, the PS3 doesn't make sense. Yeah it has a blu-ray drive. But what benefit does that offer to me? I own more DVDs than there are blu-ray movies available. I'm certainly NOT "double dipping" and repurchasing my movies on blu-ray because the quality improvement does not justify the $30 per disc cost, especially for a movie I have already seen. So that leaves me with a $600 game machine. $600 to play videogames? The PS3 with 2 games will cost me more than $770 after taxes. Somebody made a comment in this thread about people complaining about the price of the PS3 being hypocrites if they were typing their complaint from a Mac. My $1407 MacBook offers me far more uses than a $600 PS3 would, and it can play some games pretty good as well. A Mac can be used for work, play, creative things, making things for family members, the list goes on and on. A PS3 is a..... game machine. $600 for the hardware, an additional $30 or more for quality component cables, and then $60 per game for a few hours of enjoyment? I don't think so. When, above all that, the people who make the games are making nearly all of the same games for the Xbox360. Sure I might miss out on Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, and Ratchet and Clank. R&C surely is a game I don't want to miss. But NO game is ever worth $600 to play. Not even $500. Gran Turismo? After Sony pulled all of the online features they had promised for GT4? No thanks. FF13? If its anything like FFX, X-2, or XII was then I'll pass.

I'll pass on the Wii too. Every game I have played so far would have played exactly the same, or better, on a real controller. The Virtual Console games are extremely expensive for what they are. The gameplay of the games is typical Nintendo fanfare, which I grew tired of with the N64. Another Mario? No thanks. Mario Galaxy looks too much like the mini-games from Ratchet 2 made into an entire game. Zelda? It hasn't been good since it went 3D (cue the flames). Super Smash Brothers? The definition of button mashing. People talk about the "success" of the Wii. But so far I've only seen the Wii being highly successful in Japan, same for the DS. I only know of one person, both online and off, that has a Wii and they are looking to trade it for an Xbox360 when GTA comes out.

Right now the Xbox360 is THE platform for both developers and consumers. Which I hate saying because I got my Mac to get away from Microsoft products. But I go where the good games are and I buy what is the best for my money. The Wii is a gimmick and the PS3 is overpriced and falling hard.

JackAxe
May 14, 2007, 07:16 AM
You lost me after 2 cents...

<]=)

gloss
May 14, 2007, 07:37 AM
I agree with about 90% of your post, but:

I'll pass on the Wii too. Every game I have played so far would have played exactly the same, or better, on a real controller.

Have you not played Wii Sports, Elebits, or Trauma Center? I'll be the first to admit that the majority of the games out right now, many of them ports, are not going to be the best showcase for the controller, but there are a select handful that completely rely on it.

Nym
May 14, 2007, 09:21 AM
Whoa, this issue has been beaten to a pulp but... I'll give my quick comment anyway :)

IMO the 360, Wii and PS3 are different consoles, but I would like to focus between the huge differences in the PS3/360 and the Wii, because it exists, and these threads lose their grip when people fail to realize that "to each their own" and that one side might as well accept the other.

The Wii is meant for a very vast group of people, you know who their target is, it's been said here 12939 times. The PS3/360 appeals to a completely different crowd and everyone knows it.

Why argue which one is better? there's a lot of criteria do be discussed and IMO it's impossible to put things in a "better/worse" box, the world is not b&w. I seriously believe that this "console war" stuff has been, above everything, hyped by the fans of each system. You should buy what you want, what it's good for you, what you can afford, your choice.

I can't see why people have to disagree and get into arguments because they prefer different CONSOLES! I wonder if I got into a discussion everytime I was with my PC loving friends... yet, these threads always end up the same way :(

my 2 cents, we can all coexist.

Coded-Dude
May 14, 2007, 12:38 PM
Heres my 2 cents.

The differences in hardware power between the Xbox360 and PS3 are very debatable.

With the PS3 you've got 1 main CPU based off the same PowerPC technology the Xbox360 uses, with 8 co-processors tacked on and one disabled. The Xbox360 has 3 main processors, each with a co-processor of its own, and each CPU is capable of handling two threads at a time. So real world performance is likely to be vastly different than what each machine is capable of on paper. Look at the PS2 as a perfect example of this. It had the first racing game to run at 60fps at 1080i.

PS3 has the advantage with storage capacity. But that comes at a significant cost to the consumer and developer (more expensive discs to pay for). It also comes at the disadvantage of speed. One may argue that the Xbox360 DVD drive does not come close to its rated speed of 12x. That is true. On dual-layer discs you generally get 8-10x on the outer edge and 5-6x on the inner circle. The disc in the Xbox360 is spinning faster and has a lower capacity.. which means faster seek times. Which translates into faster loading times in the future once developers get a hand on things.

As for being a better development platform.... The Xbox360 makes more sense right now. Why? The Xbox360 has more units in homes right now than the Wii and PS3 combined. It's selling great outside of Japan. And it is getting the two biggest games of this year. Halo 3 and Grand Theft Auto 4. Grand Theft Auto 3, Vice City, and San Andreas sold a combined total of roughly 40 million copies on the PS2 alone.

GTA is a system seller no matter what some people say about the series. The fact that one can buy the Xbox360 Premium and 3 games for less than the cost of the PS3 alone (both after taxes) means that people will be buying the Xbox360 this fall for both Halo and GTA. On top of that, people are buying the Xbox360 Premium over the PS3 because it includes component (and HDMI in the elite) cables in the box, as well as a headset. While the $600 PS3 gives you RCA cables.

What does that mean for developers? That the Xbox360 will get more copies of your game sold because of the lower price, similar (if not exactly the same) hardware capabilities, and the fact that 10s of millions of people already own one. PS3 sales are slumping, most of the major 3rd party developers have already jumped to the Xbox360, and even Sony has said that Final Fantasy XIII's exclusivity is questionable.

So if you're a developer, why would you make your game for a system that costs more to develop for and your audience will be about 1/5th of what it could be?

From a consumer stand-point, the PS3 doesn't make sense. Yeah it has a blu-ray drive. But what benefit does that offer to me? I own more DVDs than there are blu-ray movies available. I'm certainly NOT "double dipping" and repurchasing my movies on blu-ray because the quality improvement does not justify the $30 per disc cost, especially for a movie I have already seen. So that leaves me with a $600 game machine. $600 to play videogames? The PS3 with 2 games will cost me more than $770 after taxes. Somebody made a comment in this thread about people complaining about the price of the PS3 being hypocrites if they were typing their complaint from a Mac. My $1407 MacBook offers me far more uses than a $600 PS3 would, and it can play some games pretty good as well. A Mac can be used for work, play, creative things, making things for family members, the list goes on and on. A PS3 is a..... game machine. $600 for the hardware, an additional $30 or more for quality component cables, and then $60 per game for a few hours of enjoyment? I don't think so. When, above all that, the people who make the games are making nearly all of the same games for the Xbox360. Sure I might miss out on Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, and Ratchet and Clank. R&C surely is a game I don't want to miss. But NO game is ever worth $600 to play. Not even $500. Gran Turismo? After Sony pulled all of the online features they had promised for GT4? No thanks. FF13? If its anything like FFX, X-2, or XII was then I'll pass.

I'll pass on the Wii too. Every game I have played so far would have played exactly the same, or better, on a real controller. The Virtual Console games are extremely expensive for what they are. The gameplay of the games is typical Nintendo fanfare, which I grew tired of with the N64. Another Mario? No thanks. Mario Galaxy looks too much like the mini-games from Ratchet 2 made into an entire game. Zelda? It hasn't been good since it went 3D (cue the flames). Super Smash Brothers? The definition of button mashing. People talk about the "success" of the Wii. But so far I've only seen the Wii being highly successful in Japan, same for the DS. I only know of one person, both online and off, that has a Wii and they are looking to trade it for an Xbox360 when GTA comes out.

Right now the Xbox360 is THE platform for both developers and consumers. Which I hate saying because I got my Mac to get away from Microsoft products. But I go where the good games are and I buy what is the best for my money. The Wii is a gimmick and the PS3 is overpriced and falling hard.

one of the best posts i have seen in this thread yet.....THANK YOU!!!!

While I do agree that that, between PS3/360, 360 is currently preferred due to its current market share and development costs. However, that's not stopping devs from saying that the lack of a static HDD and larger capacity optical disc is somewhat of a nuisance. Will it keep games from being made, well...we all know the answer to that. This business is about money and money is the primary goal(for most). As for the Wii, well Nintendo needs to be nicer or harsher to third parties. As it stand the Majority of Wii games are 3rd party, but they are selling the least. Do they need more support from Nintendo, or merely a push to be more innovative? Well, thats debatable.

What gets me are the 3rd party companies that complain about costs/dev platforms.
"Its too expensive, It's too hard to program for....blah blah blah."

I say **** and take a look at First Party titles, the quality is definitely there!
If its too expensive, or not worth your time, then ignore it. But sooner or later it will take off.

Then you'll be like EA, who will be putting out as much crap as possible on Wii, just too take advantage of the market share. Sure there will probably be a quality title or two, but as for the other 2 dozen titles, well, I won't even be renting them.

JackAxe
May 14, 2007, 03:54 PM
Are you having a "Harriet Myers" moment? ;)

It's good to see that some peeps can agree in our daily exchange of hypocrisy.

<]=)

XNine
Jun 6, 2007, 02:39 AM
That's alright :)
Yea I do agree the PS3 is great value for what it contains, the 360 less so. It's frightfully short sighted not to stick in Wifi, and for a media/HD device a 20gb is disgusting.

W
T
F?????!

If the old forum were still up, I'd so throw so many of your old posts that said the exact opposite back in your face! :p Luv ya jimmy.
-Zuka

ReanimationLP
Jun 6, 2007, 03:54 AM
W
T
F?????!

If the old forum were still up, I'd so throw so many of your old posts that said the exact opposite back in your face! :p Luv ya jimmy.
-Zuka

Good to see you back Onizuka. :p

Dagless
Jun 6, 2007, 05:15 AM
W
T
F?????!

If the old forum were still up, I'd so throw so many of your old posts that said the exact opposite back in your face! :p Luv ya jimmy.
-Zuka

w00t. Please be back! Bit of an old thread though :p

Hey I've always protested against the 360's lack of WiFi. And now the PS3 is here with an actual final set of features and price it's easy to judge it on value ;)

Adamo
Jun 6, 2007, 07:19 AM
Yea I do agree the PS3 is great value for what it contains, the 360 less so. It's frightfully short sighted not to stick in Wifi, and for a media/HD device a 20gb is disgusting.

w00t. Please be back! Bit of an old thread though :p

Hey I've always protested against the 360's lack of WiFi. And now the PS3 is here with an actual final set of features and price it's easy to judge it on value ;)
Nonsense - the PS3 came out after the 360, it has a better form of wi-fi (a as well as b and g), and the hard drive isn't used as a "media/HD device" much at all. In America, it's used for the renting of films, plenty of space on a 20GB but if that doesn't suite, get an Elite. Microsoft don't charge you for the wi-fi, Sony do (and it's poor in comparison). Using the 360 as a media centre means streaming music and films from a computer, or playing films from disc or memory stick. That can be done with a Core.

The Wii is doing great because its an innovative console and its cheap to boot, you can't deny the influence of price on the Wii's success, it would be foolish.

And theoretically the Wii should be about new ways of playing games but tell me, how much has the Wii really innovated?
Right, this little essay of yours doesn't make sense. You cannot judge specifically how innovative a product is. You have already decided for yourself in your opening paragraph that it is innovative, but by how much you say? That's up to you.

I mean the best games for the Wii are just standard gen games with tacked on wii controls, same thing happens for the DS, some of the best games don't make much use of the dual screen/touch screen/mic, etc.

The point is you can create good games for any darned platform and the only reason the Wii is doing well is because it has Nintendo behind it and everyone knows Nintendo makes some of the best games around, couple that with a low price and an innovative feature set and you have a winner, it is not however, the revolution of gaming.
What's a "standard gen"? You seem to be making stuff up now. Do you mean last generation? Current generation? Neither? Who knows, I'd hoped you would. The controls are a fundamental part to enjoying Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wario etc, they were built with the controls in mind, otherwise the first two would be simply party games that got old quick. Here they have really taken it all on board and made it accessible to everyone.

Correct, some of the best DS games don't make use of every single feature, but most make use of two screens, most (if not all) use the touch screen in some way, it's called choice and the availability of options that the develop has open. They can use a feature, but they don't have to.

No, the reason it is doing so well is because it is marketed well and is very appealing to the mass-market, Nintendo haven't put their name all over it, it's slyly inserted onto the box and actual console, it's very discreet. If everything 'Nintendo' sold well, then the GameCube would have trounced the other consoles, but it didn't.

To me, it seems it is the revolution of gaming, it has brought everyone into gaming, rather than the teenagers that love the PS2, the alpha male stereotype for the Xbox and the kids of the DS. The Wii is for everyone, that is a revolution.
If devs really want to revolutionize games they better make intelligent and different games, graphics are good and all but art style will always be better, motion controls are good just as long as they are not tacked on. Just stop following the formula everyone seems to be following and create something awesome, Will Wright is this kind of developer, Bungie used to be this kind of developer until money ruined them. Blizzard was doing great until they made WoW.
Here, you lose yourself even more. Making intelligent games doesn't revolutionise gaming, it adds another intelligent game to the pile. Art style has always existed, art direction is a major part to games development. The "motion controls" haven't been tacked on for the Nintendo games on the Wii, they are developed with the controls in mind.

"Just stop following the formula.." - what? Nintendo have, and it's brought them great success. Do you realise what you're arguing against? Art direction is present, look at Rez, look at Okami, intelligent games? Depending on your interpretation they could be anything from Brain Training, Pokemon, Shenmue, Rez, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, any of them. Making them more intelligent doesn't make anything a revolution, it just makes them intelligent.

Blizzard is doing great, how can you not see that? They've made a MMORPG that appeals to everyone, they've made it accessible yet deep and rewarding. They're making millions and it has millions of fans. Bungie are doing great, they're making hugely successful games with the biggest software producer in the world behind them. How couldn't that be good?

And what you guys don't get is that its not a matter of the console, despite what you might like to think all consoles have the potential for ground breaking experiences, blame it all on developers and the industry as a whole. Games are great but they are declining more and more, the industry will never crash again but I'm afraid true classics will disappear and the gaming industry will become pretty much like the film industry. This is evidenced by even the most original and dedicated of developers like Blizzard and Bungie not striving to best themselves, just develop whatever comes out of their asses and follow the same industry recipe. Not that I hate WoW or Halo, its just that they really have nothing special compared to other titles of the companies... like Warcraft/Starcraft/Diablo and Marathon, it is almost as if they had sold their soul to the devil.
What's wrong with developers? They're making games that people want. How are they declining, exactly? You seem stuck in a time-warp, yet I don't know when exactly this time-warp is as this thing you speak of hasn't happened, nor does it look like it will. We have many independent developers and many major ones too. True classics exist in the games industry and are always being developed, we've had Oblivion, the Halo series, the Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy series, the Pokemon series, Capcom who are constantly bringing out classics (Dead Rising, Lost Planet), you're extremely jaded and it really doesn't seem like you have any interest in games anymore, I suggest something else to pass the time away. Film classics are always eing made too, what the heck are you on about?

Blizzard have bettered themselves, as have Bungie. Blizzard made a massively popular online RPG, that's a step up from what they were at before. They've launched the most successful add-on to a game ever, there, they've bettered themselves. Bungie released the sequel to Halo, it sold more, it had a great online element to it, now they're making it bigger and better and working on non-Halo products afterwards. They're bettering themselves. To the devil, you say? What bollocks, I say.
But I digress, really what I wanted to say is that all consoles have the potential to be great and have awesome games, it all depends on the developer not the platform.
What a terrible and blatantly obvious ending.


Next post..



The GameCube lost because it had no third party support and it was just the same as an xbox and ps2, nothing innovative about that.
It had third-party support, but the first-party games just weren't good enough, nor was the marketing.
Why is the DS and Wii succeding? Not because their control options are better because they are not they are just new and fresh and have a gimmicky happy feeling to it, coupled with a good price, some decent 3rd party support and Nintendo and its a winner, the Wii and DS are doing good because its something new not necessarily because the control is so good.
The control options cannot be called better or worse specifically, there is no certain or correct answer, as with anything, yet you continue to issue these points. The controls are better for tennis games (in my opinion) as it actually feels like you're playing tennis rather than clicking buttons on a pad.

Nintendo still don't have great third-party support, people buy Nintendo consoles to play Nintendo games, not many people bought a GameCube to play Need for Speed, they bought a PlayStation.

Again, your last point in that paragraph is silly, the form of control is innovative to people and appeals, people prefer it so it's better to them, right?
In the end, most consumers do no research, they just buy on impulses and the Wii is doing great because its something different, different means people will want to try it, regardless of whether its better or not. That reels them in, Nintendo games keep them interested.
What do they need to research, exactly? How silly.
Just look at some of the best DS games... most could be done without all the DS's gimmicky features... take Mario Kart, Pokemon Diamond/Pearl, New Super Mario Bros, Final Fantasy remakes, Castlevania, etc as a few examples.
Mario Kart only uses the map on the bottom screen, very helpful, Pokemon uses the 'Poketch' feature, showing what Pokemon you have with you, the time and other things, it's not essential, but it's there so why not use it? Most games can be done on a Spectrum, but we move on. You could argue all day about how we don't need new consoles and that the graphics were fine - of course they are. But if we stand still we get stagnant and stale.
What was the most sold and arguably best Wii game of 2006? Twilight Princess of course... See where I am getting at?
Wrong, actually. The best-selling game was Wii Sports. Twilight Princess didn't perform as well as they expected. Wii Play has also outsold it.

Haoshiro
Jun 6, 2007, 08:39 AM
one of the best posts i have seen in this thread yet.....THANK YOU!!!!

While I do agree that that, between PS3/360, 360 is currently preferred due to its current market share and development costs. However, that's not stopping devs from saying that the lack of a static HDD and larger capacity optical disc is somewhat of a nuisance. Will it keep games from being made, well...we all know the answer to that. This business is about money and money is the primary goal(for most). As for the Wii, well Nintendo needs to be nicer or harsher to third parties. As it stand the Majority of Wii games are 3rd party, but they are selling the least. Do they need more support from Nintendo, or merely a push to be more innovative? Well, thats debatable.

What gets me are the 3rd party companies that complain about costs/dev platforms.
"Its too expensive, It's too hard to program for....blah blah blah."

I say **** and take a look at First Party titles, the quality is definitely there!
If its too expensive, or not worth your time, then ignore it. But sooner or later it will take off.

Then you'll be like EA, who will be putting out as much crap as possible on Wii, just too take advantage of the market share. Sure there will probably be a quality title or two, but as for the other 2 dozen titles, well, I won't even be renting them.

And you're agreeing with him? LOL.

Man, sir... we've "fought" through so many lengthy threads where I and other people brought up nearly every point he makes and all I ever recall you doing is disagreeing and arguing... talk about a New Forum, haha.

Great comments mosx, you must have managed to present this in a way that just works... because plenty of people seem to agree with you where months ago it would have caused a PS3 user riot! :D

Maybe it's just the humbling experience of the PS3 actually being out now... ;)

zero2dash
Jun 6, 2007, 09:00 AM
I stop posting in "gaming" for awhile (since the forum split) and people start making sense and agreeing on meaningful things? WTF is going on? ;) Dogs and cats, living together, MASS HYSTERIA!!! :p j/k

Great post mosx, I agree with everything you said.

I think we'll be selling our Wii soon, we don't ever play it. My wife finished TP and I honestly don't really want to play it anytime soon. I don't think our Wii's been powered on in months.

I've played the 360 a lot lately since I've finally purchased some more XBLA games.

sikkinixx
Jun 6, 2007, 09:16 AM
I bet only people who read forums and game sites actually bitch about which system has the bigger dick. Most consumers probably just buy which system looks cooler, has cooler looking games, has cooler commercials or because their best friend johnny has it and they want it too.

Dagless
Jun 6, 2007, 09:34 AM
You mean marketing? That does usually help.

Mosx makes good points. But "good for developers" is too broad a claim to make. Large studios can afford a 360 dev kit and the production cost of these new games. Many more small and upcoming ones can't. This is why the PC and PS2 see an abundance of games - because just like consumers devs cannot simply afford the most expensive product.
Right now the Wii is the machine for smaller devs or large ones wanting to make more money, since the overall production cost for a Wii game is significantly lower than that of a 360/PS3 game.

Unfortunately, as I've been saying since PS2 days, this is not always a good thing. Good in that the system will have a varied library of games and some high-risk low-cost creative games. Bad in that there will be a lot of crap to trawl through.

ChrisK018
Jun 6, 2007, 09:59 AM
I feel like all three platforms are stagnating right now as they gear up for third and fourth quarter releases. (However, Forza 2 looks good for the 360.)
GTA4 is October. Halo 3 is September. Super Mario Galaxy is December 31st?

There should be a poll on here: how many people have been swayed by a forum posters' brilliant arguments if they are already predisposed to a particular platform (or two, or three)?

I certainly haven't. Even with the PS3's current line up games that I have no interest in, poor sales, and the price I am STILL waiting for some cool game that makes me want to pick it up. I think it will happen. The 360 has more games, more units sold, xbox live, and a moderately lower price than the PS3 depending on add-ons. Those reasons do not make me want to get it. The Wii is the cheapest, blah blah blah. I have that one, and what am I playing on it? Super Mario World.

I don't care that the Wii does not have a super duper game out that I want to play right now because I know eventually there will be some fun games out for it. Same goes for my DS (come on with the new Zelda game already) and PSP, which I did not play for months until I picked up Ratchet and Clank.

Games are entertainment, and what a person finds entertaining is a matter of taste. Taste is subjective. Your favorite band sucks. So does mine.

Coded-Dude
Jun 6, 2007, 11:45 AM
You mean marketing? That does usually help.

Mosx makes good points. But "good for developers" is too broad a claim to make. Large studios can afford a 360 dev kit and the production cost of these new games. Many more small and upcoming ones can't. This is why the PC and PS2 see an abundance of games - because just like consumers devs cannot simply afford the most expensive product.
Right now the Wii is the machine for smaller devs or large ones wanting to make more money, since the overall production cost for a Wii game is significantly lower than that of a 360/PS3 game.

Unfortunately, as I've been saying since PS2 days, this is not always a good thing. Good in that the system will have a varied library of games and some high-risk low-cost creative games. Bad in that there will be a lot of crap to trawl through.

Yep, you can look at average reviews of games for each current platform, and PlayStation actually wins in overall quality. While the 360 and WIi have more games, the PS3 games are getting higher ratings on a per game basis. Its true that the HD platforms are far more costly, and I think that is good and bad. It usually makes the smaller devs more focused on producing something of good quality that will actually sell so they can make their money back. The big companies are always gonna make ports and played out, rehashed versions of something that already sold(just to make a buck), but that doesn't mean you have to buy it. Although I am interested in titles like Army of Two, a new IP EA is trying out(i know, EA and NEW IP sound like oxymorons). :p

Dagless
Jun 6, 2007, 11:51 AM
Praxis! I could kiss you :eek: This emulator is incredible. It's leaps ahead of that last one I used (SnessyDS or something?). This is actually playable. Are there any good MegaDrive/Genesis emus?

Haoshiro
Jun 6, 2007, 04:24 PM
Yep, you can look at average reviews of games for each current platform, and PlayStation actually wins in overall quality. While the 360 and WIi have more games, the PS3 games are getting higher ratings on a per game basis. Its true that the HD platforms are far more costly, and I think that is good and bad. It usually makes the smaller devs more focused on producing something of good quality that will actually sell so they can make their money back. The big companies are always gonna make ports and played out, rehashed versions of something that already sold(just to make a buck), but that doesn't mean you have to buy it. Although I am interested in titles like Army of Two, a new IP EA is trying out(i know, EA and NEW IP sound like oxymorons). :p

But that tends to happen on platforms with not much going for them. People (including reviewers) are so happy to be getting something that the software gets rated higher then it would on another platform.

In that sense, reviews are often relative to what else is on the system.

Dagless
Jun 6, 2007, 05:05 PM
That much is true. Sonic the Hedgehog gets differentiating scores cross gen if you look at places like Metacritic.

gloss
Jun 6, 2007, 06:22 PM
I don't care what the 'average' scores are. A system can have ten absolutely amazing games along with 50 lousy ones and still have a lower 'average' than another console with a couple of dozen serviceable but not-that-great titles. Average means nothing.

Coded-Dude
Jun 7, 2007, 03:16 PM
so now having more titles is not always a good thing, but one of the main reasons to get a 360 over PS3(currently), is more titles.........:confused:

Dagless
Jun 7, 2007, 03:28 PM
Since most games are terrible-
More 3rd party games= bad. More games to look through to find a gem.
More diverse games= good.
More 1st party games (all consoles)= good. very very good.

I've always said that. The Amiga had games in the abundance. NES ports, arcade ports, even Mega Drive ports. It could run anything, was cheap to develop for and had a huge public domain scene so you had to search like a mad lepper to find the Turricans or Lemmings. Just look at the GBA too :(

greatdevourer
Jun 8, 2007, 12:12 PM
so now having more titles is not always a good thing, but one of the main reasons to get a 360 over PS3(currently), is more titles.........:confused: Because it's not yet at the point where you're looking for the needle in the haystack, and compared to the rather sparse current PS3 lineup, it's an advantage

Adamo
Jun 10, 2007, 10:37 PM
You mean marketing? That does usually help.

Mosx makes good points. But "good for developers" is too broad a claim to make. Large studios can afford a 360 dev kit and the production cost of these new games. Many more small and upcoming ones can't. This is why the PC and PS2 see an abundance of games - because just like consumers devs cannot simply afford the most expensive product.
Right now the Wii is the machine for smaller devs or large ones wanting to make more money, since the overall production cost for a Wii game is significantly lower than that of a 360/PS3 game.

Unfortunately, as I've been saying since PS2 days, this is not always a good thing. Good in that the system will have a varied library of games and some high-risk low-cost creative games. Bad in that there will be a lot of crap to trawl through.
The Wii is not good for smaller developers, the cost of getting games on the platform is excessive for what most of them want to do. The PC and 360 are great due to the zero licensing fee for the PC, and the Xbox Live Arcade on the 360 (which requires minimal financial investment). Wii games require a 'proper' studio with thousands (if not millions) behind the whole process, including a team of people who know the industry. It just doesn't happen like that.
Yep, you can look at average reviews of games for each current platform, and PlayStation actually wins in overall quality. While the 360 and WIi have more games, the PS3 games are getting higher ratings on a per game basis. Its true that the HD platforms are far more costly, and I think that is good and bad. It usually makes the smaller devs more focused on producing something of good quality that will actually sell so they can make their money back. The big companies are always gonna make ports and played out, rehashed versions of something that already sold(just to make a buck), but that doesn't mean you have to buy it. Although I am interested in titles like Army of Two, a new IP EA is trying out(i know, EA and NEW IP sound like oxymorons). :p
The PlayStation platforms don't 'win' in any particular quality, there are such a small amount of titles on the PS3 that there isn't an 'acceptable' average, only a handful of titles (five or less) are exclusive to the PS3 and out now, Fall of Man, F1, Motorstorm, Untold Legends...that's me done. The others are on the 360. Some multi-platform titles are rated higher simply because they're on the PS3, and the reviewers are happy to see them hit their desks early.

You clearly haven't an idea about EA then. They have many different divisions, but constantly back new IP and have developments going on all the time. The Sims, the Sim brand in general, Battlefield started with them too, Katamari Damacy was released on PS2 by them which no one expected. They're not just generic publisher number 113.
Since most games are terrible-
More 3rd party games= bad. More games to look through to find a gem.
More diverse games= good.
More 1st party games (all consoles)= good. very very good.

I've always said that. The Amiga had games in the abundance. NES ports, arcade ports, even Mega Drive ports. It could run anything, was cheap to develop for and had a huge public domain scene so you had to search like a mad lepper to find the Turricans or Lemmings. Just look at the GBA too :(

More third-party games = good, actually. More games can't be a bad thing, just like more music isn't. You don't have to play them all, it'd be pretty hard to conceive trying to do so. You pick the games that are suited to your tastes - simply because you don't like Barbie's Horse-riding doesn't mean it's bad for the console, marketplace or you. It's giving everyone something to play rather than restricting a specific console to a generic teenage boy's gunz-n-gutz type game. "More diverse games" - there's so many ways to intepret that it's untrue, being a bit more clear would help.

More first-party games, yeah, great. Except, first-party Sony ones have never been fantastic, and there is no real difference between third and first party, it's strange to suggest first-party games are in some way superior.

killmoms
Jun 11, 2007, 12:42 AM
More first-party games, yeah, great. Except, first-party Sony ones have never been fantastic, and there is no real difference between third and first party, it's strange to suggest first-party games are in some way superior.

Pshhhh. Sony Computer Entertainment spawned both ICO and Shadow of the Colossus. That makes them like unto GODS as far as I'm concerned. I can't think of a single other first party title that comes CLOSE to that level of quality, from anyone. (And now Team ICO is making TWO new games for the PS3, which means it's next on my "list of consoles to buy.")

Dagless
Jun 11, 2007, 05:55 AM
Lol, oh sorry Adamo. I'll take my experience of game deving for PC and consoles and go fly a kite with it.

A Wii dev kit is a mighty mighty small fraction of what a PS3 or 360 kit is. Back during the "revolution" phase we had numerous seminars from reps of Nintendo talking about how they'd give us all pretty remuneration breaks for small devs to work on their system, in some cases free dev kits and guides etc.
Anyways, I lost myself. After you take into account fees for a couple of games you're still saving money than buying a PS3/360 dev kit... obviously depending on license. Plus the whole money you save whilst making the game (I take it you didn't know a publishing firm released figures a while ago citing the extended dev time and heightened dev cost of producing for a PS3/360?).
The license itself has dropped significantly from Gamecube days (at least in Europe), even if you add AiLive ontop of that you're still paying less than the G5 required for a 360 game :D Sony pulled in devs originally with large storage spaces and lower license fee's. Since space isn't much an issue these days and Nintendo offers an overall cheaper production experience...

Killmoms - you don't find Metroid or Zelda quality filled? I give you Mario, yea, he's whored out. But them classics?

killmoms
Jun 11, 2007, 08:55 AM
Killmoms - you don't find Metroid or Zelda quality filled? I give you Mario, yea, he's whored out. But them classics?

It's not that I find them lacking in quality. They just don't speak to me on a gut-level like the other titles I mentioned do. Fumito Ueda is one of the few auteurs of the game industry, and his titles have such a consistency of vision and high level of artistry—qualities I have yet to find in such abundance in any other title that I've played.

ChrisK018
Jun 11, 2007, 10:19 AM
^ What are your feelings about Okami?

Regardless, I hear where you're coming from. Metroid doesn't have it.

gloss
Jun 11, 2007, 10:27 AM
It's not that I find them lacking in quality. They just don't speak to me on a gut-level like the other titles I mentioned do. Fumito Ueda is one of the few auteurs of the game industry, and his titles have such a consistency of vision and high level of artistry—qualities I have yet to find in such abundance in any other title that I've played.

I love you.

Coded-Dude
Jun 14, 2007, 11:52 AM
Ninja Gaiden Sigma director Yosuke Hayashi has spiritedly defended the PlayStation 3 in an exclusive interview with Eurogamer - and all but confirmed that Team Ninja will be working on further titles for the platform.

Speaking in London yesterday, Hayashi slammed developers who complain that the PS3 is difficult to create games for - saying that "if they think it's difficult, they should get out of the ring."source (http://www.n4g.com/ClickOut.aspx?ObjID=45396)

Looks like we'll be seeing more from good ol team ninja! :cool:

Sky Blue
Jun 14, 2007, 12:52 PM
If Rockstar says the PS3 is better, than why is Xbox360 the only platform getting episodic content?

Coded-Dude
Jun 14, 2007, 12:59 PM
there is no official word on that yet:

For 2007, Rockstar Games has released The Warriors, based on the Paramount Pictures film, for the PSP system and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for the PlayStation 2 in Japan in an arrangement with Capcom Co., Ltd. Rockstar will ship Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories for PlayStation 2 in March; and Manhunt 2 for the PlayStation 2, PSP system, and Nintendo's Wii™ this summer. Grand Theft Auto IV, the next-generation console debut of the genre-defining franchise, will be shipped simultaneously for the Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION®3 in October. Starting in 2008, Rockstar will introduce exclusive episodic content downloads for Grand Theft Auto IV. Rockstar will also release new titles based on its proprietary brands, including L.A. Noire developed by Team Bondi.

Dagless
Jun 16, 2007, 11:24 AM
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=25852

A Take-Two spokesperson has confirmed to GamesIndustry.biz that the episodic content planned for Grand Theft Auto IV will be exclusively released for the Xbox 360.

le lol. So it's confirmed now?

Sky Blue
Jul 26, 2007, 08:17 AM
Rockstar rep says 'complete experience' only on 360

http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?sectionId=1006&articleId=20070725111542242077&releaseId=20060313153735796095

Dagless
Jul 26, 2007, 08:24 AM
b-b-but GTA4 is too big to fit on a DVD9 with all them textures and fleshed out city.

SpankyPenzaanz
Jul 26, 2007, 08:30 AM
b-b-but GTA4 is too big to fit on a DVD9 with all them textures and fleshed out city.

Quiet we NEED blueray because they said so;)

Coded-Dude
Jul 26, 2007, 09:25 AM
Don't be surprised if if you have an extra DVD or a good amount of extras as downloads. :p

zero2dash
Jul 26, 2007, 09:36 AM
OH NOES
an extra disc/downloads filled with exclusives that the Ps3 won't have?

WHAT WILL I DO??? zOMG :rolleyes:

Coded-Dude
Jul 26, 2007, 10:20 AM
who ****ing cares.....PS3 will be getting Rockstar love soon enough.
(and they won't be whining about having to compromise anything to support 360 as well) :rolleyes:

Dagless
Jul 26, 2007, 10:21 AM
So the PS3 version literally has nothing up on the 360 version?

Crazy thing is (if following current trends) the PS3 version will be £49 and 360 version £35 in the ol' high street.
What a waste the PS3 is becoming :o

Coded-Dude
Jul 26, 2007, 10:25 AM
The only difference is Episodic content - that is all this PR douche meant when he said "complete experience."
I don't understand why this is such a big deal, as things like this(episodic content) are gonna go back and forth and back and forth throughout this gen(more than likely)


As stated by Phil, they have a great relationship with Rockstar and have some things in the works.
We'll be getting some of this "exclusive" love soon enough. In the meantime, enjoy your content(if you have a 360)

MS paid 50 million for this.......so yes R*'s pr guy is gonna stroke that ego.

e²Studios
Jul 26, 2007, 10:34 AM
The only difference is Episodic content - that is all this PR douche meant when he said "complete experience."
I don't understand why this is such a big deal, as things like this(episodic content) are gonna go back and forth and back and forth throughout this gen(more than likely)


As stated by Phil, they have a great relationship with Rockstar and have some things in the works.
We'll be getting some of this "exclusive" love soon enough. In the meantime, enjoy your content(if you have a 360)

MS paid 50 million for this.......so yes R*'s pr guy is gonna stroke that ego.

I think you will have a hard time convincing the local tool shed here of anything positive for the PS3. Let em stay jaded, & mis-informed in their dream land it makes it all the more fun to be able to say "I told you so" later.

Ed

zero2dash
Jul 26, 2007, 10:44 AM
People in glass houses... :rolleyes:

Steve Jobless
Jul 26, 2007, 01:26 PM
forget it....

i dont consider myself a fanboy of any system or item.

steamboat26
Jul 26, 2007, 01:43 PM
who ****ing cares.....PS3 will be getting Rockstar love soon enough.
(and they won't be whining about having to compromise anything to support 360 as well) :rolleyes:

rockstar is not going to have any exclusives for any consoles, it's not profitable enough.
All the consoles will have to rely on 1st party exclusives this generation, but considering that the 360 has games similar to the PS3 exclusives in almost all instances, i'll stick with the cheaper option.

Dagless
Jul 26, 2007, 01:49 PM
well who knows maybe the ps3 wont need to download such content, it will come on the blu ray.

i personally think rockstar likes sony more, why else would the be making manhunt 2 for playstation, psp and the wii but not 360?

Um, what?

I don't see Rockstars Table Tennis on the PS3, I just see semi-updated, quick buck games (GTA PSP, Manhunt 2) on other systems.

MacRumorUser
Jul 26, 2007, 01:53 PM
well who knows maybe the ps3 wont need to download such content, it will come on the blu ray.

i personally think rockstar likes sony more, why else would the be making manhunt 2 for playstation, psp and the wii but not 360?

Steve Jobless you really appear / come of as a 'fanboy' because your arguments lack any real logic or rational reasoning. :rolleyes:

Rockstar are releasing Bully on the 360 and Wii... So would you care to explain why no PS3 version ?

2nyRiggz
Jul 26, 2007, 01:58 PM
I'm sorry but for the people that think Rockstar won't give PS3 exclusive content then they are thinking in a box.

Both console will have different stuff at first then as time goes by they will be released on both platform just to make the extra buck.


Really need to stop thinking about 360 Vs. PS3...this has nothing to do with what Rockstar is doing..its about the cash and they stand to make a lot of it on both consoles.


Bless

MacRumorUser
Jul 26, 2007, 02:04 PM
Really need to stop thinking about 360 Vs. PS3...this has nothing to do with what Rockstar is doing..its about the cash and they stand to make a lot of it on both consoles.


Bless


Exactly. But you could also substitute 'Rockstar' with any other publisher 'konami', 'capcom', etc.... (other than first party ;) ) and it will also be true.