Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Games' started by gloss, Nov 17, 2006.
This is exactly the sort of press Sony doesn't need.
Well, I agree with the article for the moment; obviously he's trying to equally compare a 1 yr old system with a full head of steam vs a new system that just came out with room to grow into maturity.
The biggest killer of the Ps3 I see is the price tag; no matter what exclusives they have, all Microsoft has to do is say "our games look as good (if not better, as is the case I've seen several times recently with people comparing R:FoM to GoW on the 360) and our system is $100-$200 cheaper" and they'll get a lot of attention.
I would've never waited outside for a Ps3 even if I had the money right now, but time will tell. I think it's pretty retarded for anyone to write off the Ps3 on the first day of its 'life', but then again that's just my opinion. Ps2 wasn't that great at launch compared to the Dreamcast at the time, but eventually the Ps2 picked up steam and ended up in 1st. No console has ever launched and been an overnight success story; it takes time. (no pun intended)
That article puts into words exactly what I was thinking.
A game console is as good as its games. And unfortunately PS3 has no games the majority of people are all that interested in, yet. Perhaps in the future, like in a year or two there will be something out as great as Gears of War, but that's no guarantee.
The initial line up of games is not all that spectacular, and even the really good games that come out on the release date don't necessarily float my boat. It's not that surprising. As everyone point out it take a bit of time for developers to figure out how to maximize code, etc. .
I know there will be some awesome games coming out on the PS3, but it needs to play out a bit
He is comparing apples to oranges when it comes to the price. He says $400 max for the xbox but the xbox costs an extra $250 (I think) for the HD DVD player.
"And you smell better for it, too"
the FT in the UK also had a similar article about the PS3...
Obviously this guy is quite ignorant, the cell processor is an amazing innovation and it a few years it could certianly be the next biggest thing in personal computing, and every computer chip ever has had a name, and the name "Cell Processor" is a very generic name for that type of processer (much unlike the Intel Pentium Core 2 Duo, or something like that), the cell processor isn't reall the name of that specific processor.
And actually, lots of people care about Blu-Ray, in fact many large companies (Sony included, as well as an assortment of production companies etc) are counting on Blu-Ray to beat HD DVD and be the next biggest thing. Frankly, with Microsoft (the most powerful company in personal computing) behind HD DVD, I think it will beat the pants off of Blu-Ray (regardless of blu-rays higher storage capacity) in the long run.
He probably refers to the general public, most of which actually couldn't give a monkey's about it
Sony was stupid enough to put all their eggs in one basket with the PS3. They hoarded components for Blu-Ray and gave HD-DVD a healthy head start in the market at a far more affordable price point. The fact that you can still get an Xbox 360 + HDDVD for less than a PS3 means that their value proposition is seriously compromised. Besides the fact that they have HDMI on board.
And I think the guy was pointing out that Microsoft doesn't advertise the 360 with ZOMG XENON TRI-CORE PROCESSOR like Sony does with the Cell. In the next year on market, the Cell will be run-of-the-mill, as much as Sony likes to trumpet it now. They're pulling things out of their collective arse to hype this machine up.
Whereas the PS2 had a clear technological advantage over the Dreamcast that was obvious to lots of people just by looking at it, I can't see a meaningful technological difference between the XBox 360 and the PS3 just by looking at the games. Blu-ray and Cell tech means nothing to me until I see a game that takes my breath away.
no the hd dvd is a pure option, the games don't require it. i dont see your point
Try $200. $199.99, specifically.
This bit had my laughing
Its a well written article, and he brings up a lot of valid points, but I kind have to ask what's the point? Its not as if the PS3 will be in the hands of anyone but hardcore gamers anytime soon, and the hardcore gamers don't really need convincing.
I definitely don't think the Nintendo Wii is trying to compensate for anything...
A bunch of dumbed down CPU's? I hope to god it doesn't get popular. I like my branch prediction and fully functional CPU thank you. The future will be in multiple functional CPU's (Core Duo, Core Quadro, Core Octo?). Cell is good for lots of maths processing (for big massive supercomputers), but not good for all round work like how normal people use a computer.
I stand corrected.
In some areas, in other areas it was inferior to DC. It wasn't better in every regard. Same with 360/PS3 actually.
Whilst we think things couldnt get any worse for the ps3. There is an interesting article over on IGN right now.
They may not have anything to worry about, though I think to be honest its a BS figure.
^Indeed, I gave that a read this morning but in the end its still unknown.
you have a valid point for the next few minutes anyway. the hd dvd is purely option and anyone that has any experience with microsoft products knows that you don't have to have the newest $200 update for the thing to work with the next thing that they come up with to sell you. lets wait and see what format halo 3 comes out on and then tell me if the drive is an option. and since we are on a rumor site, rumor has it that the processing power needed to run the hd dvd drive multifunctions your 360 as a toaster.
as for the ps3, what does a blu ray player go for? not less than 999.99 on bestbuy.com. starting to sound like a good deal to me.
honestly I don't really care about either machine, I just wanted to blow off some steam after a hard last couple days of trying to get a ps3 to sell to some rich sucker on ebay for $6000.
and to dukebound85 this isn't really directed at you personally but ignorance in general.
good luck at school
Sorry if it was unclear. What I'm trying to say is that he is comparing an xbox to a ps3 price without adding in the $200 price of the HD DVD player that the xbox is lacking and the ps3 has.
It's like comparing a fully loaded car to a base model car. One of the consoles (PS3) has more bells and whistles and newer technology.
That's all I was saying.
They are right actually, beside R:FOM, the launch has Horrible game choice, its way too expensive for a console and also the availability of the console is a joke. They had half a thousand people at best buy here that came when the store opened, and only 20 console to sell... AND the damn sale people had bought half of them to resell on ebay.
I still want one... hurg
That right there is a BIG part of the problem... I would bet that 10-20% of the US allocation of PS3s at launch were taken by store managers (you just know that every GameStop and EBGames manager did this, and I bet a lot of Wal-Mart [spit] and Best Buy and Circuit City managers did, too), either for their own use or to resell on eBay or through Craigslist. I'm pretty sure the same thing happened, although perhaps not to such an extent, when the Xbox 360 was released.