PlayStation

[RoyalLance]

Well I did a little bit of my research and I found some interesting thing about Blu-ray technology.

First I Froogled "Blu-ray player" and got this:

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=blu-ray+player&hl=en&btnG=Search+Froogle

Does anyone still think that PS3 will be $600 if Blu-ray players are that much?

Here is what I read about how long a Blu-ray disc can last on the Blu-ray Disc Association offical website:

http://www.blu-raydisc.com/general_information/Section-13576/Section-13577/Index.html#2

The Blu-ray Disc format is designed to stay relevant for at least 10 to 15 years.

This system is Sony's big leap in gaming and they are using a disc format that promises only 10 to 15 years while DVD's and CD's are expected to last up to 100 years? That is not a good thing if you are a person who don't like ditching an old system. And what will happen when it comes to selling and buying pre-owned PS3 games a years later?

 

[Zink]

For anyone too lazy to click the first link, it gives results in the $1000 range. And Sony's very own Blu-ray player costs $2500 more than the nearest competitor... hmmmmm, significant?

 

[kaid]

That's the difference between how long the disks themselves last, and how long until they start looking like tape drives and 3.5" floppies, storage-wise

 

[kaid]

...sorry for the double post, but I just found this old E3 footage I havn't seen ANYWHERE else...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_4InHXPHvs&feature=Discussed&page=5&t=a&f=b

 

[RoyalLance]

I have to admit that any system is capable to freeze under certain conditions.

 

[Paranoid_Android]

"Owe, my pride" - Family Guy



Yeah, that definitely doesn't send a good message, but I don't think that's going to be a huge problem.

 

[McFox]

No. The $600 price tag and lack of any quality games coming out anytime soon are the huge problems.

 

[Mic_128]

What about Ridge racer? Rrriiiidge racerrrrrrr?

 

[Ky Kiske]

A lot of the quality titles won't be coming out for a while but I don't think that means it won't sell out. By the very nature of the business, it will sell out because they purposely don't make a lot of units in order to give the impression that there's a high demand. Then there's going to be the people who will buy at least 1 extra unit just so they can go sell it to all the desperate people on ebay.

 

[Chill]

They won't purposely manufacture less units. They can only make so many units in the first year.

 

[Crimson King]

...sorry for the double post, but I just found this old E3 footage I havn't seen ANYWHERE else...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_4InHXPHvs&feature=Discussed&page=5&t=a&f=b

Stop digging for flaws and just enjoy it. When the Xbox was first shown with Bill Gates, it crashed to the Blue Screen of death at a press conference.

The console isn't even out yet and already you are trying to bury it. How about you let it come out, PLAY IT, then make some type of ration judgement? Or is that too logical?

I can understand speculation, but this, like the "Massive Damage" clip, is just looking for stuff to make fun of. It was funny at first, but after a bit it's just childish.

 

[Chill]

Hm, Deja vu. Kind of ironic really.

 

[RoyalLance]

The console isn't even out yet and already you are trying to bury it. How about you let it come out, PLAY IT, then make some type of ration judgement?

I think I'll do that, I'm gonna ask Carson Daly if I can play with his PS3. I'll let you know what happens.

 

[McFox]

What are you talking about?

 

[RoyalLance]

Let me say it this way. Not everybody in the world will have $600 to shoot out for a video game system plus the additional money for games and components. Sony will either miss their target number of sales complete or be recognized for the brainwashing job of the century.

 

[cowwa-f'n-bunga]

You are a fanboy.

 

[Ky Kiske]

Back when PS2 was $300 did that stop people from buying it? No. Those who want one and have the money for it will buy it. nuff said.

 

[McFox]

Did you know that when you point a finger, there are three pointing back at you?

Really? Are you five?

 

[kaid]

Back when PS2 was $300 did that stop people from buying it? No. Those who want one and have the money for it will buy it. nuff said.

Do you know what the difference between $300 and $600 is?

Those who can scrape together the money for a $300 core 360 (the poor sods) would never be able to afford even the $500 idiot's package of the PS3.

 

[N4NO]

Did you know that when you point a finger, there are three pointing back at you?

That is, if your looking at three mirrors. Touche!

Ok, really. What's with this "PS3 has no good games"? WTF?! METAL GEAR!!! The VG Industry continues to baffle me. First, Halo is popular, then Sqaure Enix continues to milk the udders of Final Fantasy being the total greed-bags they are(All downhill since VII, except maybe for X), then the DS somehow manages to be popular(Yes, I actually DID have one for quite awhile and can say it is a waste of money. Then I bought a PSP and was much happier.), and now people think the PS3 is gonna suck? Ah, well. At least I have my SNES.

 

[Crimson King]

Let me say it this way. Not everybody in the world will have $600 to shoot out for a video game system plus the additional money for games and components. Sony will either miss their target number of sales complete or be recognized for the brainwashing job of the century.

First off, why Carson Daly? I haven't heard that name in like 6 years. Secondly, if you can't afford it, how are you on any grounds to criticize it? That's like me saying Alienware computers are garbage when I can't afford it.

Also, that's the Launch price. Consoles go down a while after launch, as seen in the past.

All I am saying is wait for it, play it, then make a logical decision. That's what I will do with the Wii when I buy it, that's what I will do when I buy a 360, and that's what I will do when I buy a PS3. WHEN I buy them is determined mostly on when I have the money and time. Could be at launch or at the end of their cycles, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and retract any past comments I said on either, that was flat out bashing because of topics like this. It makes you look kinda sad.

 

[McFox]

That is, if your looking at three mirrors. Touche!

Try pointing a finger forward, right now. Your middle, ring, and pinky fingers are now pointing at you.

Touche indeed.

Ok, really. What's with this "PS3 has no good games"? WTF?! METAL GEAR!!!

I said anytime soon. Metal Gear is not being released this year, is it?

then the DS somehow manages to be popular(Yes, I actually DID have one for quite awhile and can say it is a waste of money. Then I bought a PSP and was much happier.)

Yeah, it's a shame that the PSP is a portable media device, and not a game machine. The DS has games that are fun. The PSP has Loco Roco... and... uh... well, you can rebuy all of your movies and watch those.

, and now people think the PS3 is gonna suck? Ah, well. At least I have my SNES.

Now that's something we can all agree on.

 

[Ky Kiske]

Do you know what the difference between $300 and $600 is?

Those who can scrape together the money for a $300 core 360 (the poor sods) would never be able to afford even the $500 idiot's package of the PS3.

Your point being? All I said was that if people really want one badly AND they have the money for it, they WILL buy it. ie. The price won't affect their decision one way or another.

 

[Paranoid_Android]

I'll release my final judgement on the PS3 when I do what any logical person would do: Play the ****ing thing.



... Until then, I reserve the right to incessantly ridicule it like a fanboy...

 

[RoyalLance]

You are a fanboy.

Fanboys are the ones who skip three months of rent and sit in front of a Circuit City in November weather for five days to play a video game. That ain't me.

 

[Osco316]

No, those are fanatics.


You're being a fanboy for talking **** (with no real valid points and some random pop culture references) about a system you haven't even tried.

 

[Khanczar]

PSP's suck; as a gaming machine.
DS's Pwn; as a gaming machine ONLY

Not being a fanboy, just telling the facts.

Btw, in my opinion the only people who are going to spend 600 frikkin dollars on a VIDEO GAME, are the insane sony fanboys, and then the little spoiled rotten 10 year olds who play san andreas all the time.

Here is what I thiknk the "console wars" will boil down to-

1st place, Xbox 360. It launchede long before everything else, so by the time the ps3 comes out, its price will likely be lower. Plus, it has better games than the ps3.

2nd place- Wii. Cheap, fun, and with a numchuck. FTW

3rd place- PS3... NOT cheap, SORT OF fun, and its super mega nintendo killer motion sensitive controller is actually a GB pack from 1995... Sony isn't gettin the job done.

PC killer my a$$!

 

[Chill]

Those who can scrape together the money for a $300 core 360 (the poor sods) would never be able to afford even the $500 idiot's package of the PS3.

How is the $500 version the idiot's package? The $500 PS3 plays games and saves games. If someone's not going to be using the features on the $600 version why should they spend $100 more for it? Seems like that would be idiotic to me.

And why are you under the impression that anyone who bought the core had to "scrape" together money? This may come as a suprise to you but some people can actually, you know, buy things without it being a burden to them.

 

[Crimson King]

And why are you under the impression that anyone who bought the core had to "scrape" together money? This may come as a suprise to you but some people can actually, you know, buy things without it being a burden to them.

Exactly. Game companies want to make money so they target people who have money to spend. You won't see kids paying with Christmas money for a PS3 for a while (unless they just have awesome parents) and you won't see teenagers without jobs being targetted. You will see the splurging, college student with jobs as the target for the PS3 around launch. Why? Because if they can spend the $600, they will gladly spend the $60s over and over for all the games.

Has Sony announced how much their online plan will cost? I need to know how much to save for that later on.

 

[RoyalLance]

No, those are fanatics.


You're being a fanboy for talking **** (with no real valid points and some random pop culture references) about a system you haven't even tried.

The main issue of the PS3 its affordability and the response to that is "try the system first, fanboy". Doesn't anyone realize how naive that sounds? If a product costs way too much for one consumer, having her test that product out will not change the fact that it's way too much for.

Let's say two people are discussing the Rolls-Royce Phantom. One person says, "I'll never get the money to buy that thing," and the the other says, "You should try it first before you say that." The two go to a dealership to test drive a Phantom. The second guy asks "What do you think?" The first person says, "The car rides like a dream but I still will never have the money to get one."

I'm sure there are a lot of people who want to get a PS3 more than anything else. In reality, however, not every person who wants a PS3 will have a thick enough wallet to buy one. You can lock a bunch of people who are too broke to get a PS3 in the Sony labs until they are convinced into liking the system, that won't change the fact that those people are too broke to get a PS3.

 

[Chill]

The problem with your analogy is that you are not just saying the PS3 is not affordable to you like the people looking at the car. You're saying the PS3 sucks becuase you can't afford it.

You don't have to like the system, no one is saying that. What Osco was saying is if you're going to say the PS3 isn't good then at least say that because of the games not because of the price(something that goes down over time).

 

[Mr.GAW]

Wait, just for clarification, the PS3 will allow seven players in a room to play a game with 7 controllers, 1 console and 1 t.v?

 

[McFox]

Eric, Sony's online is free, a la Nintendo.

And yes, a single PS3 is supposed to support seven players.

 

[Osco316]

Just a quick point about the price, according to the ESA, the average videogame player is 33 years old. Most people around this age has a job and can choose what do with his/her money. The analogy to the Rolls Royce car is a little misleading, seeing as the difference between the Phantom and other cars can literally be hundreds of thousands of dollars. The difference between the PS3 and the Wii/360 is hundreds of dollars, something much easier to get. You won't see only very wealthy people owning a PS3 (though Carson Daly may get one, who knows), but really, you wont see the average person driving around in a Rolls Royce.

 

[Crimson King]

Also, as I stated earlier, I just spend $2000 to buy a computer to solely use for gaming. I am in NO WAY a hardcore gamer, I just like to play games. Keeping that in mind, $600 isn't that big of a deal for me and most like me. The fact of the matter is the only known flaw of the PS3 is price, so that's what's being attacked now. Wasn't 360 attacked a year ago for the same reason?

McFox: Really? Wow. I thought they said it would be charged since it was like Live. Cool news then.

 

[Zero Beat]

Eric, Sony's online is free, a la Nintendo.

And yes, a single PS3 is supposed to support seven players.

That's a very cool addition by Sony's part, but not everyone owns a HUEJ tv, unless they(sony)attempt to enable system link just like the Xbox. Also, not a lot of people will have a PS3 when it comes out.

 

[N4NO]

Try pointing a finger forward, right now. Your middle, ring, and pinky fingers are now pointing at you.

Touche indeed.



I said anytime soon. Metal Gear is not being released this year, is it?



Yeah, it's a shame that the PSP is a portable media device, and not a game machine. The DS has games that are fun. The PSP has Loco Roco... and... uh... well, you can rebuy all of your movies and watch those.



Now that's something we can all agree on.

Hey I never noticed the finger thing. Unless you sort of contort your fingers in a weird way, then they also are pointing forward.

And about Metal Gear, I didn't see the "anytime soon" thing sorry.

And the handheld thing. The DS DOESNT have ANY games that are fun. All it's well-reviewed games, save a few, are merely little minigame things. You could go online to Newgrounds or somewhere, and find a game that's basically the same thing, rather than paying 30 dollars. The PSP, on the other hand, has many good games. Syphon Filter, PoPoLoCrois, soon to have Valkyrie Profile, Wipeout Pure, and it goes on. I will give DS the innovation factor, with the touch screen. It was a good idea. On paper. In real life, the stylus/touch screen combo is an inconveniant hassle that ruins any fun the DS might've invoked. On the DS, I have not seen one game that's out or coming out(Except maybe Children of Mana) that I would be willing to pay with my own money for. The only good DS game is Pictochat, if that counts. And I did own a DS for quite awhile, so don't say I should play it first.

 

[Chill]

I just have one question. What exactly is your definition of "hardcore"?

Also, Osco, you really need to stop being so funny.

edit: That was for Crimson.

 

[kaid]

The DS DOESNT have ANY games that are fun. All it's well-reviewed games, save a few, are merely little minigame things.

MPH, Mario Kart DS, SM64 DS, NSMB, Sonic Rush, Super Princess Peach, Castlevania? Even Lost Magic was consistantly fan-reviewed several points highter than the official review.

 

[Crimson King]

I disagree with those DS titles. When I think of a game that is fun, I think of a game that is CONSTANTLY fun. Not just on the first run through if I can make it that much. Most DS games are just way too easy. Super Mario 64 DS was cakewalk compared to the original version. NSMB gave me too many extra lives to really fear losing the game. I like challenges and a game to be fun.

There was a kind of a critera I read somewhere, Chill, about how to define a hardcore gamer. Basically if you play over a certain amount of hours a week, and a few other things, by this critera you are a hardcore gamer. I would call someone hardcore who plays video games at least 2-4 hours a day, maybe more during summer hours, every day. I remember in early high school when I was into UO, Diablo 2, and Starcraft, I used to be able to go 4 hours per game, a day during summer. That's much since waned as I got busier and all that good stuff.