Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Games' started by greatdevourer, May 15, 2006.
complete ripoff of xbox live
if by new controller you mean the same controller you've been using since you started making consoles, just finally getting around to offering wireless(but only on the high end model), and a cheap laughable attempt at copying wii functionality...
yes, it is unbelievable how compelled i am to buy one
consoles have always been in the under $300 price range. xbox 360 stretched this a little bit, but you just blew it out of the water.
well sony, you want me to buy a wii? ok, i will, and i'll save the extra $400 for something useful.
WTF planet are Sony's marketing men living on?
Money is obviously no object to them, I think there salaries should be brought down to this hemisphere.
Wait. Could Sony be performing a scorched earth strategy here? Maybe someone has something on Ken Kutathingy
I mean really. what on earth has Sony been doing for the past week
During that Article Phil Harrison try to make out that the cheaper PS3 will be able to play BluRay movies and leave you with the impression they will be in HD.... What a con man Sony have hired. No mention of HDCP - a copy protection that they approved as part of the DVD Forum... Tossers..
sony seem to be turning into a bunch of con artists. seriously.
i don't understand that company at all anymore.
he sounds like he works for MS at the end saying they are providing the customers with "choice"
Yup, the choice not to buy a 600 dollar piece of crap.
read a comment on Joystiq that made me laugh.
"Not only are Sony copying Microsoft's online service but PR stunts too"
Is Sony trying to fail?
I want solid proof this was not in development before the Wii. By the way, Nintendo copied that from other places. Motion sensing has been around for years, especially with VR equipment.
HEY! So am I!!!!!
Oh really? Atari Jaguar? In the early 90's that system was over 500 bucks.
*sigh* day what... 7 of this? obviously you people arent going to buy one so why dont you stop complaining about it?
Ok, thats not his point, its the same controller as the original dual shock for the PSX, except it lost rumble and it has BT+VR, but the N64 had a VR attachment, so have a lot of things, neither nintendo or sony invented, but the fact is, the Wii announced it first so its nothign special anymore. the PS3 controller is nothing special at all as far as current gen consoles are concerned, the Wii is totally revolutionary, weather its going to be good or bad, the fact is it is undeniably way different. and dont flame just because you are a sony fanboy
So yeah, even *I* am tired of the PS3 discussions.... **yawn**
I did think it was funny when Phil Harrison was saying 'early adopters are who will buy this system at launch, and they won't care about the high price', the statement is obvious, but it came off to me as "We're basically banking on being able to stick it to the early adopters."
But its all playing out like I thought before the pricing was even announced. Sony would charge a high price at the launch since they know they will sell out (so why not pull in all that extra cash?) and afterwards even a $50-100 price drop will seem great to the next wave of buyers.
A strategy that can often even be used in economy simulators: Hike the price really high, take the money from the people that would buy it anyway, then drop the price a marginal amount and consumers will look on the move favorably (even if the product still costs more then the competition).
It's basically a risk that, if pulled off, can bring in a bunch of extra money very fast.
Jaguar failed miserably. Case in point of predicting the high price system's failure.
Among other things that led to the Jaguar's demise
Those other things including: It had the name "Atari" on it, it had horrible games, horrible controller, and terrible developer support.
I've done plenty of ratting on PS3 but those "other" things just can't be said for the PS3.
whether or not you believe it was a complete ripoff, it certainly lacked any original ideas
oh give me a break, of course motion sensing technology has been around, nintendo didn't come up with that and no one is saying otherwise; they just came up with a different way of using it. And do you honestly believe that the motion sensing capabilities in the ps3 controller are there for any other reason then to try and steal a little of nintendo's thunder? are you that naive as to the way businesses trying to make money do things?
what was the point of that? you obviously knew i was being sarcastic...
oh, well, you can come up with one example, great. but how does that in any way change the point I was trying to make? How much was the ps2, xbox, gamcube, dreamcast, n64, ps1, snes, genesis etc... consoles have mostly been around the $200-$250 mark for the past decade, and sony decides it's time to triple that and they still have to balls to say it's cheap. release a $600 system? fine, but call it cheap when the market is used to a price of a third of that? ...
I don't know how solid you can get, except that NO ONE, not even Sony's own developers were told about this until recently. I don't think it's so much trying to rip off the Wii as it is find something to replace rumble so they can get away from having to pay Immersion.
I'm sure the PS3 will sell, but it does seem that it's not going to have the stranglehold on the market that the PS2 had. If the Wii is under 200, it'll make it a very interesting industry for the next 5 years.
Well, it is indeed cheap for everything that it contains. It is an impressive piece of hardware. I don't think it's ballsy of them to say it's cheap. I think it's ballsy of them to use it to further their blu-ray agenda and then act as if it's there for the consumer's benefit.
it may very well be cheap for a blu-ray player, but thats not my point. the primary function of the ps3 is to be a gaming console. i payed $150 for the last console i bought (gamecube), and my friends with ps2's and xbox's, payed right around the same thing. the market is used to those kinds of prices for a game console, and regardless of what else it does, a $600 game console is an expensive game console.
it should also be worth noting that of my ps2 friends, none have an HD tv, or give a **** about blu-ray, and their pissed because they don't want to spend $600 on a game console.
i certainly agree with you on that. my friends want to buy a game console, they don't want to have to pay extra hundreds of dollars for the HD movie player they didn't ask for and don't care about.
BZZZZ Wrong. The PS3 is meant as an entertainment hub as the primary function, combining gaming, movies, music, whatever. Sure the gamecube was 150 bucks, but it also couldn't play CD's, DVD's, nor was it backward compatible with prior systems. Sorry, but the Gamecube was JUST a console, nothing more. The PS3 (and 360 for that matter) are meant for much, much more.
Not noteworthy at all. I'm looking forward to buying an HDTV and for Bluray. So are numerous amount of people I know, and almost half of my close friends have HDTV's. It goes to show the market doesn't solely run off your friends, nor mine. Boohoo, they don't want to spend 600 bucks. So what? Tell them to shut up and quit whining then. They obviously don't get what the PS3 is for.
That's the way I think most people are going to feel. How many of you actually use your PS2 as a DVD player? I sure don't.
I like how you ignored how i said the people i know with dvd-playing backward-compatable ps2's payed the same as i payed for my gamecube. the whole entertainment hub thing is a crock; most people don't have HD tv's yet, their not buying the ps3 to watch blu-ray; do you know why they're going to buy it? to play games. why, because it's a game player. the dvd player in the ps2 was nice, and alot of people used it; i wish my gamecube could do the same thing. but that was done at a time when dvd's had been out for awhile, and were neither uncommon, nor ridiculously expensive, and sony did it primarily to make the ps2 more appealing with additional features. the main reason behind the blu-ray in the ps3 is because sony is trying to leverage it's dominance in the console market to win the format war.
the primary target audience of a game console is usually the 18-24 year old people. how many people in that age range can readily afford an HD set and a $600 console? you can talk about all this great value for the features and entertainment hub crap all you want, but it doesn't make a difference to 90% of the gaming market; they just want to play games, and a game console that is $600 is expensive.
so your saying sony wants loyal ps2 fans to shut up and quit whining; well, thats just great.
where the hell do you live that everyone is so rich that alot of them have HD tv's? i'm in college, and i have plenty of things i need to spend money on, I can't afford to go out and buy an HD tv, or a $600 console, but i do want to play games. your saying i should just quit whining and let sony do whatever they want? so i either have to abandon paying for my education to buy an HD tv and a $600 console, or just stop gaming? thats absolutely ridiculous. I'd wager that alot more 18-24 year olds are in my situation than in yours.
you've got an HD tv, your interested in blu-ray, and you want to use all the additional capabilities in the ps3, thats great, but what about the rest of us?
Can we really just shut down all of these kind of threads?
All they do is turn into flame wars.
Seriously, its annoying and stupid.
Seriously, you got Onizuka with his fanboyism of Sony, Clay with the 360, and Praxis with the Wii.
I love all 3 of the consoles and hope to own all 3, but it seriously is annoying that all people do is flame each other now in these threads.
Lets talk about the GAMES, not the hardware they run on. Seriously, hardware is junk unless theres good GAMES to run on the hardware.
Okay, here's an attempt at an actual discussion rather than just a flame war.
As much as I hate to say it (or anything positive about Micro$haft) I think they did it right with the Xbox360 and the add-on HD DVD drive.
The format war is still going strong and there is no clear winner, as far as I can see anyway. I'm personally a fan of blu-ray and I hope it does in fact win out, but what if it doesn't? If HD DVD wins the war then all these people that shelled out 600 bucks for a blu-ray drive/game console are stuck with a 600 dollar game console.
I think Sony would have been better off making the blu-ray drive an add-on rather than forcing it upon consumers. Of course, as others have already said, this is likely an attempt to use their dominant position in the gaming world to push blu-ray. But what about all those consumers out there that don't currently have an HDTV, but plan on getting one in the future? Why can't they just buy an add-on drive when they're ready instead of being forced to invest in a format that may or may not be around in the next three or four years.
That's my only beef, well, I still don't think consoles should be more than $300, but that's me. I'm not a serious gamer, so I find it very hard to rationalize spending that much money on a console when I would be better off taking that $300 and investing it somewhere.
Anyway, Sony fanboys, what are your thoughts on this? Was Sony ever planning on making it an external add-on or has it been internal from the start?