The New Console Debates

[Cashed]

EDIT: Why would it play Blu-Ray games and not movies?

Because he's a Nintendo fanboy.

 

[ChRed2AKrisp]

ummm, i made an assumption and it was wrong. how does iut make me a fanboy? and specifically a nintendo fanboy?

And my other argument remains valid, if other blu-rays are twice as expensive its because they're better. Otherwise people would just buy the PS3 fort half the price, plus have incredible gaming on the side?

If the other blu-rays players weren't any better than the PS3, they'd just sell for less since they don't include a gaming system. Duh.

 

[Crimson King]

Blu-Ray Info:

"BLU-RAY"

bluray uses a different spectrum of light than HD-DVD, which is the 'other one' you are referring to. HD-DVD uses a red laser, like those used in current DVD players, while bluray, surprise surprise, uses blue-violet light.

The benefit of this blue light is that it has a finer wavelength than red, ~405nm vs ~650nm, and thus can be used to detect smaller pits and lands on the surface of an optical disc, thus allowing for greater data per area. Also, because the speed of which an opitcal disk can spin is limited to around 9000 to 11000 RPM, BluRay is able to read more data per spin and hence, have faster transfer rates.

Both bluray and hd-dvd can have multiple layers of data, 2 or four layers can be expected, and of course single layer.-- single layer will mostly be seen only with the consumer media writers, much like how current dvd burners are-- but not limited to single layer. Each layer multiplies the amount of data stored, I believe bluray can hold ~25gb per layer, while HD-DVD only has ~15gb per layer.

Its possible for bluray to be able to store 200gb per disc then, 4 layers double sided discs, but most likely you will be seeing only 50gb double layer discs. 50gb is not that much space considering the HD content, about two movies worth of data. HD DVD can then be expected to be only 30gb, also double layer discs, 30gb being enough for a single movie and some features. Both are adequate, but its arguable to say that it really isnt that much. Holographic discs for example can store at least as much as bluray, and potentially even terabytes worth. There are some other advances in technology though that might allow bluray discs to double or triple their capacitiy, special surface coatings and polarizing crap, but dont expect to ever see it actually being used.

Other than laser technology differences, there is a physical difference in the surface coating/thickness of the discs. this is important as a good surface can withstand scatches. There is a difference in their strategies to prevent scatches, but im still waiting to see in practice which is better.

Something that surprises me is that BLuray might be using MPEG2 as their videocodec. which is the same codec used in current DVD technology. There is a lot of debate as whether this is a good idea or not, the main point being that MPEG2 is old technology and 'better' codecs exists-- such as H.264, an mpeg4 derivative. Better as in they compress more at same video quality. It is yet to be seen if the advanced codecs will be used eventually. Generally they, in theory, support a wide variety of codecs.

There are other differences, such as DRM and interaction features, but bleh...

THe main point consumers should take home is that hd-dvd is cheaper to make than bluray since its essentially a modified DVD, while bluray is more or less something new, and will require greater new foundations being built for manufacturing of the discs/drives. but to some it might be important to know also that microsoft likes HD-DVD more than bluray, and will be more supportive of it.

*grumble*

If you didn't even read it, the Blu-Rays ARE NOT DVDs they can hold HD movies which, as it says, is about 15 GB. DVDs max out closer to 10. Blu-Ray is much, much larger than the HD-DVD.

Sony stated that the prices predicted were based, incorrectly, off how much Blu-Ray players will cost instead of how much they get it for. It's like when the PS2 came out and people assumed it would be as expensive just for the DVD drive which was a bit more than the PS2 listed for at the time.

 

[kaid]

I wouldn't say that a 5/3 ratio is "Much, much bigger." Just my two cents.

 

[Zink]

Plus there is a lot of other stuff in the PS3 like the CPU and GPU that will also drive up the price.
Anyway, anything above ~$300 is too much for a console IMO. Maybe the Rev will launch for $200, or even less. Look at that- a 3/2 comparison in price for a 5/3 comparison in media quality. That's not gonna cut it with me. And that's not even including the fact that the I expect the PS3 to launch at $400+.

 

[Deo_Smash]

Maybe Blue-Ray is going to help make games graphicly better but the price for them just doesn't seem worth it. Does blue-ray hold more memory? That too could help games but again, the price is whats going to hurt it the most. I should not need Financing on a gaming system, no matter how advanced it is.

 

[Crimson King]

A. If you read, the Blu-Ray will be about 27 gb. This means bigger games and less load times (like with GTA how it just loaded major points)
B. You will always have to pay for technology. If you don't want to pay, you don't have to play.

 

[Zink]

But if lots of people don't want to pay, Sony won't be able to play.

 

[Mic_128]

People will pay though. People love to have the newest, best products.

 

[Crimson King]

Yes, 100 million people bought a PS2 and most, like myself, had no objections to anything with it and would gladly pay again.

 

[kaid]

Also, as someone who is currently working in the gaming industry, the next gen buzz is all over the Revolution controller right now. I have several friends in game development and their sentiments are: 1. The 360 is boring to develop for. Everything except the arcade games are more of the same. 2. The PS3 is absolutely AWFUL to develop for. The new cell-chip technology is so frustrating to program for and causes so much extra work to get maximum efficiency out of that smaller studios are going to get pushed out and bigger studios are going to be spending a lot of time and money to make gmaes this generation. Although blu-ray, despite the costs, opens up the doors for LOTS of content. and 3. The revolution is cheap and efficient to develop for and the gameplay opportunities that the controller opens up to them has them extremely excited. It allows them to be truly creative in developing games, something that as of late hasn't been the primary focus of the big publishers out there. They want sequels and guaranteed money, not creative ideas and compelling gameplay.

Assuming M3D knows what he's talking about, (and given that preface, I'm wiling to take that at face value for now) I expect PS3 to lose much of it's 3rd party support. Oh, the big-name companies will stay, and make some truly mind-blowing games, but the massive quantities of games you saw for the Playstation and PS2? I expect they will go for pastures that let them keep more green. 360 will get it's share- I predict Microsoft will be the first to follow suit with another "remote" controller, and it's the only alternitive to sony when it comes to HD games. Nintendo, however, looks to be getting their mojo back after the 64 debacle. When you look at the systems that had the most games over the years, I believe it goes NES, SNES, PlayStation, PS2... and from M3D's report, I predict Rev will have the next slot. And that's not even counting the Virtual Console, which allows 3rd-party companies a chance to make money off of games for systems noone sells anymore. Also, there was one artical I remember reading that mentioned that there will be videogame-making software available for download through the VC, so we might actually see games made by college students make the rounds as cult classics.

 

[Deo_Smash]

That would be cool, specially since I'm going to collage soon. Maybe this can happen close the the revos launce because I'm really looking forward on how to make games for that crazy controller. I've picked up and looked at a Xbox360 upclose and it just felt weird. You know that tingly feeling that you get when you get your hands on something so awsoume that your jaw drop and all you can say is "Whoa..."? Yeah, I diddn't get that feeling. It was more along the line of: "Did I just step in cat poo?" kind of feeling. Ackward and uncomfortable.

 

[Crimson King]

That would be cool, specially since I'm going to collage soon. Maybe this can happen close the the revos launce because I'm really looking forward on how to make games for that crazy controller. I've picked up and looked at a Xbox360 upclose and it just felt weird. You know that tingly feeling that you get when you get your hands on something so awsoume that your jaw drop and all you can say is "Whoa..."? Yeah, I diddn't get that feeling. It was more along the line of: "Did I just step in cat poo?" kind of feeling. Ackward and uncomfortable.

You know in college, they can fail your for grammar.

 

[Paranoid_Android]

I wonder if Sony or Microsoft could come up with a similar motion/distance/etc. detecting controller and steal Nintendo's thunder? I'm guessing they're patent protected from every possible angle, but it's something to think about. They were the first to bring out wireless controllers, and every third party jumped on that bandwagon. What's to keep Sony or Microsoft from unvieling their own light-gun esque controller?

 

[Mic_128]

They were the first to bring out wireless controllers,

O RLY?

 

[Aruun]

Uh, Mic, I'm pretty sure by "they" he meant "Nintendo."

 

[kaid]

I wonder if Sony or Microsoft could come up with a similar motion/distance/etc. detecting controller and steal Nintendo's thunder? I'm guessing they're patent protected from every possible angle, but it's something to think about. They were the first to bring out wireless controllers, and every third party jumped on that bandwagon. What's to keep Sony or Microsoft from unvieling their own light-gun esque controller?

M$ claimed they already did.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=12101

Xbox corporate VP J Allard: We thought of it first but didn't go with it. I don't know if I like the implementation because it ain't my remote.


*yawn* Yeah, right Microsoft. I see you're as original as ever.

(yes, the link still works.)

This is part of the reason I see MS copying the Revmote before Sony.

 

[Paranoid_Android]

He said you couldn't play most EA games on the revmote, and I'd have to agree: EA has never originated anything. Of course, there's no proof that microsoft thought of it first, and even if they did, they didn't go ahead with it because they recieved a little criticism. Sounds iffy to me. In any case, copying Nintendo is inevitable if the revmote is any success.

 

[Crimson King]

He said you couldn't play most EA games on the revmote, and I'd have to agree: EA has never originated anything. Of course, there's no proof that microsoft thought of it first, and even if they did, they didn't go ahead with it because they recieved a little criticism. Sounds iffy to me. In any case, copying Nintendo is inevitable if the revmote is any success.

That proved your ignorance right there. EA does not make games, they publish games. On top of that you made the pretty wild claim that they have originated anything. Black and White 2, created by Lionhead when they were under EA, is largely one of the most interesting RTSes. Command and Conquer, by Westwood under EA, is THE modern RTS standard (Dune 2, the first true RTS was also by Westwood). The Sims and subsequent Sim titles, by Maxis under EA, is one of the most lucrative franchises in gaming, backed by one of the most intelligent in gaming, Will Wright.

Don't make claims unless you know what your talking about.

 

[Aruun]

Microsoft's "idea" wasn't really like the revmote at all. It was a TV remote that could sense slight up and down movements, so you could browse up and down channels and such without having to press any buttons. They never had the intention of using it as a way to play games.

 

[Paranoid_Android]

Oh well. I've never seen an EA published game that had anything original in it at all. Maybe I'm playing the wrong games. Worst of all are their sequals: FIFA Soccer 200N! NBA Basketball 2003,4,5,6! Their online game support is also awful, left with glitches and flaws that appear to be from them pushing their developers to put out games before they're ready. Out of my experience with EA, it's been nothing but crap. The one or two good games they may have produced aren't going to change my oppinion or mend my "ignorance".

 

[Crimson King]

I just listed a number of titles.

The Sim titles are the most original games on the market. Medal of Honor was the best World War 2 game when it came out due to being so accurate. Just because a company produces sports games doesn't mean they aren't original. Also, those sports games can be fun with friends.

You are generalizing way too much with EA. The ethics may be terrible but they have produced some QUALITY titles.

 

[Zink]

The big thing that will decide the Rev, I think, is those extentions. So far we have seen the nunchaku and the shell. That can't be all, but what can they add? The gun mock-ups were interesting but too specialized. Maybe one like a sword?


CK, I don't think the green is working out...

 

[kaid]

More bad news from Sony, hidden in the same Game Informer that tells us about Red Steel.

Sony says that one million (PS3s) will be available each month, with the goal being to ship six million worldwide by March 7. Kutaragi didn't specify if the first million PS3s would be allocated across all territories, but the company's worldwide goal of spring 2007 seems to be an indication that U.S. gamers will have to split each monthly shipment with the Japanese and European markets. Because of this and the likly high demand, it seems clear we can expect shortages to those that befell Microsoft's Xbox 360.

 

[Zink]

Wow, they're making exactly the same mistake. OR they are trying to downplay availability to ensure they will have more than they said.

 

[Mic_128]

Or they're trying to figure out how much they'll need to make per teritory. The 360 launch didn't have enough for the US but had dificulty trying to sell them in Japan. This way if they figure they're selling less in one area, they'll ship less, meaning that they won't be sitting on shelves in one country while another country can't get enough of them.

 

[Destiny Smasher]

And I think it's not so much a bad idea that Nintendo will be concentrating on different countries at different times.

I also can't believe that E3 is coming up so fast--Nintendo's opportunity to show people what the Rev. is all about. They'd better not blow it, because this is their big chance to pull off the curtain.

 

[Zero Beat]

You know, Microsoft is planning(Or should I say attempting) on realeasing Halo 3 the same day the PS3 comes out. Even if they get the date right and ship at the same time, Halo 2 didn't leave as much hype/real fun as much as Halo1 did. That's why Halo 2 was soo successful when it came out, owed it all to Halo1. From what it seems, Halo 2 has not left such a trace in backing up Halo3's hype so therefore, a greater amount of people will be getting a PS3 rather than H3. Me however, despite Halo2's failure at delivering what the first game did, will buy H3 because i'm such a Fanboy of the series and I am dying to finish the **** story.^_^

I don't see the big deal about finding a place with a 360 now. My local Best Buy has tons of them.

 

[Cashed]

You know, Microsoft is planning(Or should I say attempting) on realeasing Halo 3 the same day the PS3 comes out. Even if they get the date right and ship at the same time, Halo 2 didn't leave as much hype/real fun as much as Halo1 did. That's why Halo 2 was soo successful when it came out, owed it all to Halo1. From what it seems, Halo 2 has not left such a trace in backing up Halo3's hype so therefore, a greater amount of people will be getting a PS3 rather than H3. Me however, despite Halo2's failure at delivering what the first game did, will buy H3 because i'm such a Fanboy of the series and I am dying to finish the **** story.^_^

I don't see the big deal about finding a place with a 360 now. My local Best Buy has tons of them.

360s are available in most areas now, and Microsoft just announced last week that each warehouse will be doubling the amount of 360s they push out in a month.

Do you think that there isn't a lot of Halo 3 hyped because the company making the game hasn't even announced that they're making it yet? Do you think there could be little hype right now because nothing has been shown for the game, no concept art or info? If you think Halo 2 didn't do its job of making everyone want Halo 3, [something mean]. Halo 2 did what Bungie wanted it to do, it sold like mad, made them a lot of money and was (is) a very enjoyable game. Halo 1 didn't sell near what Halo 2 did, so that's another Halo 2 did right, get more followers to the series. As soon as Microsoft and Bungie show something (Perhaps at E3, in Bungie's Weekly What's Update they say their next project is fully playable and very pretty), expect the hype to really start showing. Also, the "Halo 3 on PS3 launch day" was just Bill Gates blowing smoke. Halo 3 isn't going to hit this year, Microsoft has too many other games coming out this fall and Bungie probably wants all the time they can get. Expect to see Halo 3 next spring at the earliest.

 

[commonyoshi]

From what it seems, Halo 2 has not left such a trace in backing up Halo3's hype so therefore, a greater amount of people will be getting a PS3 rather than H3. Me however, despite Halo2's failure at delivering what the first game did, will buy H3 because i'm such a Fanboy of the series and I am dying to finish the **** story.^_^

i thought halo 2 sucked at first, but when i realized that the game's multiplayer was a LOT better than the co-op missions, the game got a lot more fun. kinda like ssb. playing adventure is stupid but when all ur friends join togther, it is actually quite fun. i hope the developers keep the missions to a minimum and add more multiplayer goodness. halo 2 was ment to have awesome multiplayer, that is all.

 

[Zero Beat]

360s are available in most areas now, and Microsoft just announced last week that each warehouse will be doubling the amount of 360s they push out in a month.

Do you think that there isn't a lot of Halo 3 hyped because the company making the game hasn't even announced that they're making it yet? Do you think there could be little hype right now because nothing has been shown for the game, no concept art or info? If you think Halo 2 didn't do its job of making everyone want Halo 3, [something mean]. Halo 2 did what Bungie wanted it to do, it sold like mad, made them a lot of money and was (is) a very enjoyable game. Halo 1 didn't sell near what Halo 2 did, so that's another Halo 2 did right, get more followers to the series. As soon as Microsoft and Bungie show something (Perhaps at E3, in Bungie's Weekly What's Update they say their next project is fully playable and very pretty), expect the hype to really start showing. Also, the "Halo 3 on PS3 launch day" was just Bill Gates blowing smoke. Halo 3 isn't going to hit this year, Microsoft has too many other games coming out this fall and Bungie probably wants all the time they can get. Expect to see Halo 3 next spring at the earliest.

Halo 2 sold that much because of the hype Halo 1 left. Real Halo players would know what i'm talking about when it comes to gameplay. Like you said, Halo 2 did what bungie wanted it to do. Yes, it got them the money. But a sequel doesn't sell that much unless the original left an unbelievable mark. Halo got 10 out of 10, Halo 2 got 9.4 or something, see the difference? But the score doesn't really matter, the gameplay does.

I don't think, I KNOW that Halo 3 will not be more anticipated than Halo 2 was. Of that, I am 100% sure. I know that they're making it, and this whole "Forerunner" thing will be switched to Halo 3 near the end of the development following its official launch.

If you think Halo 2 didn't do its job of making everyone want Halo 3

I don't think, I know that Halo 1 caused more hype about its sequel than Halo 2 about its following installment. That, is for **** certain.

Also, the "Halo 3 on PS3 launch day" was just Bill Gates blowing smoke. Halo 3 isn't going to hit this year, Microsoft has too many other games coming out this fall and Bungie probably wants all the time they can get. Expect to see Halo 3 next spring at the earliest.

You're completely right. Halo 3 might come out(and I hope they take a long *** time so the game is worth the wait) after the movie.

 

[Mic_128]

Halo 2 sold that much because of the hype Halo 1 left.

They made a lot of Hype of Halo 2 from showing videos and such of what it was going to be before they had to scale it down.

 

[mouseboy20]

Best Revolution Video Ever!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS THE BEST
REVOLUTION VIDEO EVER!
THE NINTENDO REVOLUTION:mushroom:

 

[commonyoshi]

the say halo 1 was better only because the missions, levels, and stories were better. the multiplayer of halo 2 was much better though, and that is what i am going to be playing for 3 months. not the same missions over and over.

 

[Zink]

mouseboy that's old...
Also look how long it takes Bungie to port to the PC and even longer to go to the Mac. I can't help thinking this time could be cut down.

 

[Cashed]

Real Halo players would know what i'm talking about when it comes to gameplay.

"Real Halo players" hahahaha.

 

[Zero Beat]

They made a lot of Hype of Halo 2 from showing videos and such of what it was going to be before they had to scale it down.

Oh of course, but we're talking about the main reason as to why.

"Real Halo players" hahahaha.

I rest my case. I somehow knew you'd quote that, you seemed like the type of person who would quote that. No offense at all.

 

[commonyoshi]

THIS IS THE BEST
REVOLUTION VIDEO EVER!
THE NINTENDO REVOLUTION:mushroom:

the japanese guy in that vid has replaced veiwtiful joe as my hero. (the guy with the revmote who had the green shirt)

 

[Paranoid_Android]

Halo doesn't really have anything that special. Any of the "innovations" are things that any gamer would say "Well no ****, genius". Hmm... Vehicles in multiplayer? No one would have thought that up. CTF, KoTH, etc. are all standard game modes. Most of the maps aren't that interesting. The reason Halo was successful is simple: It was the first decent mutliplayer game online between consoles. I'm not saying it's a bad game - I'm saying people are giving it far too much credit for things that GoldenEye and it's other predecessors did long before. It's landmark can be summed up as a good online interface on a console.

 

[Zink]

Basically yes, if Perfect Dark had been online IMO it would have been better in some respects.