# PS3 launch shipments cut, Chaos rages forth.



## Foxstar (Nov 14, 2006)

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6161580.html?part=rss&tag=gs_news&subj=6161580

FYI-It's not just Gamestop. I've been checking around and Wal-Marts, Best Buys and any place looking to get units has been hit too. The local mangers
were joking about having Highway Patrol and local police there on Friday, but i'm bringing up at my store this morning at the meeting that they best do it.
Skinny is the PS3 shipment's being delivered via the armored truck that takes/delivers the store's money.

It's likely to fuck Ebayers more then anything.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

Heh heh. I was going to get a PS3 *just* so I could play older games with better hardware support for my HDTV... until I started reading reports that just about every single PS3 is having trouble playing damn near ever PSX and PS2 game.

*snrrk*

Yeah, I'm just that much more satisfied with my Xbox 360 now. I just have to finish modding it with better coolant and a better paint job.

Gears of War just tossed a big monkeywrench in PS3's early adopter plans.

"We can get 'true next gen' six months from now... or a 360 and a Wii *RIGHT* now! Hrmm..."


----------



## Bokracroc (Nov 14, 2006)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> Skinny is the PS3 shipment's being delivered via the armored truck that takes/delivers the store's
> *
> It's likely to fuck Ebayers more then anything.*


Not likely. Checked my PS3 topic? The person to grab a PS3 was a home-less Chinese man.
If anything, it just means more PS3's are going on eBay.


----------



## diarmaidhuthence (Nov 14, 2006)

I can understand wanting to be the first around to own the self-proclaimed Greatest Console Ever, but why on launch day? It would make more sense to wait for a few months or so, since by then, the true heavy-hitter games will arrive. Oblivion and Gears of War are good examples on the 360. Personally, I'm waiting for the first console to dip to the 200-300 euros mark before contemplating a purchase. Then there's the HDTV to sort out, and the broadband connection, and the price of games, and..... feck it, I'm just going to wait for God of War II, Okami and FF12 to come to Europe and play until my PS2 catches fire.


----------



## Emerson (Nov 14, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> "We can get 'true next gen' six months from now... or a 360 and a Wii *RIGHT* now! Hrmm..."



Next-gen? On a Wii? Hahahahaha, oh wow.

Seriously, the PS3 shortage is a good thing. It makes the impatient people hold off until Sony works out the mechanical bugs on the console.


----------



## TORA (Nov 14, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Heh heh. I was going to get a PS3 *just* so I could play older games with better hardware support for my HDTV... until I started reading reports that just about every single PS3 is having trouble playing damn near ever PSX and PS2 game.



This has been confirmed by Sony. You *CANNOT* play PS2 or PSX (PSone) games on your PS3. Have fun with your $599 paperweight! 

Wii all the way.


----------



## Emerson (Nov 14, 2006)

TORA said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*smack*

Stop that. You sound like a console fanboy.

Sony has not, to my knowledge CONFIRMED that the PS3 CANNOT PLAY legacy games. They have confirmed that some of the PS3 consoles are having problems, specifically playing sound from legacy games. They are looking into it.

Even if that wasn't the case, and PS3s currently could not play legacy games, it's far from a paperweight. Did you call your SNES or N64 or Gamecube a paperweight because it couldn't play old games?

Shame on you kids. :|


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> Even if that wasn't the case, and PS3s currently could not play legacy games, it's far from a paperweight. Did you call your SNES or N64 or Gamecube a paperweight because it couldn't play old games?


Yeah, the PS3 can play older games... but the reports of incompatibilities and problems are pretty high. Then again, never, EVER buy first gen hardware.

Always wait for them to work out the kinks (this is especially true with graphics cards).


----------



## Emerson (Nov 14, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Emerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, that's the smart thing. I bought a PS2 at launch and lucked out; the thing has run like a dream up until a month ago (it started getting picky about reading discs on the first try).

Anyhow, Sony will work out their issues, just like MS did. Didn't the 360 have a habbit of crapping out/catching on fire with the first wave? The point is to wait, be patient, and see. All three consoles have their high points, and all three will have their problems.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> Anyhow, Sony will work out their issues, just like MS did. Didn't the 360 have a habbit of crapping out/catching on fire with the first wave? The point is to wait, be patient, and see. All three consoles have their high points, and all three will have their problems.


I have a first gen 360 (had it day one). Granted, I paid a bit more for it than I wanted to, but I have no regrets.


----------



## Emerson (Nov 14, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Emerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wait, so you bought first gen hardware that was overpriced? Lulz at you, my purple friend.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> Wait, so you bought first gen hardware that was overpriced? Lulz at you, my purple friend.


But I had it day one! I ordered it from a distribution company that normally only sells by the thousands, but they kinda realized the potential of selling them individually due to demand.

Why by "at" price" when you can sell "for mad profit".

Mind you, I'm also insane. =)


----------



## Ansuru (Nov 14, 2006)

If Sony had any respect at all for the American market, they'd have had no problems rolling out as many as they needed to. One of these days, they're going to regret these stupid "launch day shortages" that they create PURPOSELY in order to get hype. I'm waiting for it to backfire, for people to realize what sheep they're being made into and lash back by going for the innovative console (Wiiiiiii!) instead of the hyped up megacorp crap.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

Ansuru said:
			
		

> If Sony had any respect at all for the American market, they'd have had no problems rolling out as many as they needed to. One of these days, they're going to regret these stupid "launch day shortages" that they create PURPOSELY in order to get hype. I'm waiting for it to backfire, for people to realize what sheep they're being made into and lash back by going for the innovative console (Wiiiiiii!) instead of the hyped up megacorp crap.


Eh, I hate to say it, but the launch day shortages give the products so much free advertising and the feeling of MASSIVE DEMAND that it makes people want it anymore just for the fact it's so damn hard to get.


----------



## Emerson (Nov 14, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Mind you, I'm also insane. =)



Yeah, we deduced that one, skipper. ^_^


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 14, 2006)

And how many Xbox games can the 360 still not play?

Btw, you guys are blowing it out of proportion.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/14/ps3s-b-c-problems-and-how-to-blow-it-out-of-perspective/


----------



## Ruiner (Nov 14, 2006)

> Greatest Console Ever



The greatest console ever was the SNES...

GET IT RIGHT.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 14, 2006)

Ruiner said:
			
		

> > Greatest Console Ever
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I disagree only because it was using expensive cartridges.  Great games, but most people couldn't afford more than a few of them.


----------



## Emerson (Nov 14, 2006)

You know, I don't remember games ever being that expensive, except the occassional N64 game. I guess I just spent money more frivoulously back then.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 14, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> You know, I don't remember games ever being that expensive, except the occassional N64 game. I guess I just spent money more frivoulously back then.



Final Fantasy games went for at least $80 a pop back then, and Star Fox was over $100 since it included a special graphics chip built into the cartridge.


----------



## Sukebepanda (Nov 14, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Emerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Non-fangirlism here, just curious..

But is this true for Nintendo consoles as well? In my experience, i've never had a Nintendo system malfuntion/break or anything like that. The closest I've came is with the Gamecube and sometimes a game will mess up, but that's due more to the game itself, than the console I believe. 

Back in the day my NES/SNES worked fine, it was the carts that had all the problems (I was blowing all day, har har!) So..does anyone know of any bad experiences with Nintendo consoles? I'm curious, since I'm getting a first gen Wii.


----------



## Emerson (Nov 14, 2006)

Sukebepanda said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think Nintendo has their issues, but they tend to be smaller scale. For example, the DSLite is known to develop cracks on the hinges, bad D-pads, and loose touch screens...but it's rare, and in the case of the crack its entirely asthetic. Of the three console kings, Nintendo tends to build a better machine, physically.


----------



## Aquin (Nov 14, 2006)

Im personaly waiting untill after x-mas to get mine. 

1. I wont have to wait in huge launch-date lines.
2. I likely wont have any problems with it. First-batch systems are usually the ones with the problems. 
3. Im gonna be hooked on Ridge Racer 7 so much that i likely wont be able to concentrate much on college xd.


----------



## Foxstar (Nov 14, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Emerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My god, where do you live?

FF3 cost me $60 on launch and Star Fox was $49.99..and I live in the south.


----------



## Rhainor (Nov 14, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> And how many Xbox games can the 360 still not play?
> 
> Btw, you guys are blowing it out of proportion.
> 
> http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/14/ps3s-b-c-problems-and-how-to-blow-it-out-of-perspective/



There's a difference.

IIRC, The PS3's backwards-compatibility uses hardware emulation, meaning the physical circuit-board components of the PS2 are inside the PS3 case along with the new stuff (that's part of the reason it's so f*cking huge).

The Xbox 360 uses software emulation, so someone has to code an emulator program for each and every BlackBox game before it can be played on an X360.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 14, 2006)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh I know there's a big difference.  Known that for a long ass time. :3

I'm just commenting about how many people are getting all up in arms about some games not working properly, and yet the 360 still doesn't support a huge library of Xbox games.  Is Psychonauts finally backwards compatible?



			
				Foxstar said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then your retailer was seriously undercutting MSRP. :3


----------



## Foxstar (Nov 14, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sony Defence Force, power up!

I'll be enjoying my next-gen on my Wii and my 360 thank you very much. You have my props however, spinning a console shortage as a good thing, when Sony should have the brains to launch at spring of next year. You think retailers like this? Anyone care to remember what happened when Sega pissed off a number of retailers with the early launch of one of it's systems?

They dropped Sega like a hot potato, shipped everything Sega in the warehouses back to Sega and refused to carry any and all Sega product for years. After the 360 and the PS3 mess, I know my place of employement is seriously thinking of giving the next person to pull this shit the finger. Sony might just be it, word came down today we are down from 15 to 6 systems. 

Mock Nintendo all you like, but they aren't rushing out the door half baked. All we need now is PS3's BSDing or catching fire and we can have the final notch in Sony's "Big ring of PR failure." that started months ago.


----------



## Foxstar (Nov 14, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Rhainor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




EB Games undercut MSRP? On two games that sold millions back in the day and had month long waiting lists? Never.


----------



## Rhainor (Nov 14, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> I'm just commenting about how many people are getting all up in arms about some games not working properly, and yet the 360 still doesn't support a huge library of Xbox games.  Is Psychonauts finally backwards compatible?



You seem to have missed my point.

Since there's effectively a PS2 inside every PS3, there's no good reason for any PS2 game to not play properly in a PS3; whereas X360 back-compatibilty has to be written on a game-by-game basis to run a game that was made specifically for an nVidia chipset to run on an ATI chipset.

As usual, Sony took the easy out...and still managed to screw something up.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 14, 2006)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most of the problems with older games have to do with audio difficulties.Â Â Could be from different hardware couldn't it?Â Â As far as I can tell, there's not a whole PS2 board in the PS3, I see one chip.Â Â See the one that says EE on it?

http://www.gamespot.com/events/ps3launch/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25128680&msg_id=279768522

And all the online references I can find state that the average MSRP for FF3 SNES was around $80.


----------



## Ruiner (Nov 14, 2006)

> Final Fantasy games went for at least $80 a pop back then, and Star Fox was over $100 since it included a special graphics chip built into the cartridge.



C'mon guys! The Super FX chip gave you 3D graphics... it was like... REAL LIFE! [/sarcasm]


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 14, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh that's right, we all forget that graphics are the end all of innovation.  It's not next gen till Sony says so.



			
				Aquin said:
			
		

> Im personaly waiting untill after x-mas to get mine.
> 
> 1. I wont have to wait in huge launch-date lines.
> 2. I likely wont have any problems with it. First-batch systems are usually the ones with the problems.
> 3. Im gonna be hooked on Ridge Racer 7 so much that i likely wont be able to concentrate much on college xd.


Unfortunately while Ridge Racer 7 may be a good game the 360 version is actually a fair bit more advanced than the PS3 one.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 14, 2006)

Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> Emerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Please, the Wii is hardly a next-gen console.  Yes it's not about the graphics, but all they're doing is taking a gamecube and giving it a new input system.  Replacing bongos with wiimotes.  Oh, I suppose you get an over glorified pointer too.



			
				Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> Aquin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've seen both in action and even if the 360 one is more advanced, the PS3 one looks nicer and runs at a constant 60fps.  The 360 one looks like they oversaturated the colors to try and hide imperfections.


----------



## Komamura (Nov 14, 2006)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Superman 64 was $80 when it first launched that game sucked


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 15, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Span_Wolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*screams fuck as he loses an entire page long post*

Who says they are repackaging the Gamecube?  Let me rephrase that, who intelligent is saying that?  Reports have said that the Wii is at the very least 1.5 times more powerful than the GC and more likely twice as powerful and most certainly more powerful than the xbox.  So look at Resident Evil 4, that game looks amazing and was a GC game.  Now take Ninja Gaiden Black which is one of the best looking games of the last console generation and still looks absolutely fantastic.  If the Wii is capable of consistently hedging out those visuals after the initial period of developer adjustment I think we will be rather well set for graphics even if they don't approach the 360 or PS3 in visuals.  I'm no pig, as long as a game has manageable graphics it is gameplay that I worry about and the Wii has potential in spades.

Now who are you to deride the Wii control system?  Are you saying that all the news reports, websites, magazines, professionals, annalists, and technological awards for innovation are wrong?  I have played a few games over the last few months and when used correctly the controls are just as innovative as everybody says.
A glorified pointer?  Way to grossly understate.  I would expect the kinds of disgraceful comments you have made about the Wii from a lunatic fanboy but I'm disgusted to hear them from you.
Oh and last I checked a glorified pointer is a far easier to input text with than a traditional controller, or play a lightgun game, or potentially much more fun for first person shooters (worked great when I played Metroid 3), etc.  And this one makes it much more fun to play a tennis game, or a golf game, or a bowling game.  I can keep going on.
Give the Wii a year, it has a chance to change the way we look and play games as well as make games into an activity for the whole family to rally around, and if that isn't next gen then I frankly don't know what ever can be.

As far as Ridge Racer goes.  The PS3 version runs at 1080p whereas the 360 version runs at 720p so the PS3 version looks sharper.  The PS3 version came out much after the 360 version and the PS3 version is Ridge Racer 7 whereas the the 360 version is 6, but it is shared tracks that are being compared and many people have noted that the 360 version in places still looked better.  Observe;

http://microsoftisawesome.blogspot.com/2006/11/xbox-360-has-better-graphics-than-ps3.html


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 15, 2006)

Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, talk about backing up your arguement with a reliable unbiased source.  Microsoftisawesome?  Btw, I read something else today in a blog about how screen shots don't do a game justice.  Sometimes some of the filtering doesn't show through well in a still shot so it looks worse than it is.  And I still go back to what I said earlier about the 360 version being oversaturated to cover up blemishes.

And yes, the GC was responsible for RE4, beautiful game but it's also responsible for Zelda, which looks TERRIBLE from a graphical stand point.  It's all up to who's hand's it is in, and Nintendo doesn't seem like they're the best at harnessing it like Capcom seems to be. And since the majority of games look to be first-party games, my assumption still stands.  Also, when you look at the current third party offerings, it doesn't look much better.  Red Steel looks like a Japanese Goldeneye.

And about the pointer, I'm not saying it's not innovative (obviously it is since it hasn't been done before) but that doesn't mean it can't be a glorifed pointer.  There are many special types of mice out there with very very different types of input methods but in the end they're all pointers.  And if you look at what it is in Zelda, it is a pointer!

Yes, you can use your the little tilt sensors (but tilt isn't really innovative, seeing as how it's been around for decades) to attack and fish but what is it any other time?  A floating fairy pointer!  And while it may be easier to input text over a standard controller (if the onscreen keyboard is big enough), obviously a bluetooth or USB keyboard trumps both.

Yes, I know the Wii is in fact 1.5x to 2x more powerful than the gamecube but compared to the other next-gen offerings, it doesn't even come close.  I was exaggerating and I apologize.


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 15, 2006)

Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Wow, talk about backing up your arguement with a reliable unbiased source.  Microsoftisawesome?  Btw, I read something else today in a blog about how screen shots don't do a game justice.  Sometimes some of the filtering doesn't show through well in a still shot so it looks worse than it is.  And I still go back to what I said earlier about the 360 version being oversaturated to cover up blemishes.


 I never said it was unbiased, lots of websites have reported on it, that is where I was able to find pictures still hosted that hadn't been taken down because people were linking them everywhere or just showing "bandwidth exceeded" icons.  Furthermore even if a source is biased does that automatically invalidate it?  That logic doesn't exactly follow when you say that you should never trust a biased source on anything because they are biased on one thing, that makes you the biased one.  When dealing with a biased source you just have to be more careful.
Now regardless of whether or not a screenshot does a game justice, a screenshot still shows that certain features are still removed from the environment in the same way that a bad photograph will still show you if a building is in a frame.  Certain elements are removed from the PS3 version, things in the horizon as if the draw distance isn't as good.  Also you can clearly see certain texture elements are sharper and more defined, for example the paint on the streets or the water.

And yes I agree that there are many games that just don't look good in screenshots and don't have screenshots do them justice, but that is simply not the case here.



> And yes, the GC was responsible for RE4, beautiful game but it's also responsible for Zelda, which looks TERRIBLE from a graphical stand point.  It's all up to who's hand's it is in, and Nintendo doesn't seem like they're the best at harnessing it like Capcom seems to be. And since the majority of games look to be first-party games, my assumption still stands.  Also, when you look at the current third party offerings, it doesn't look much better.  Red Steel looks like a Japanese Goldeneye.


You don't, you don't, you don't point at a bad looking game and use it as a measuring stick to a systems graphical capabilities, it makes no sense and is bad science.  You use a good looking game because you know that is at the very least what the system is capable of.

Also most of the launch titles are in fact not first party games but the exact opposite.

And if you want good looking Wii games I could name a few, Metroid Prime 3 or One Piece Unlimited Adventure for example.



> And about the pointer, I'm not saying it's not innovative (obviously it is since it hasn't been done before) but that doesn't mean it can't be a glorifed pointer.  There are many special types of mice out there with very very different types of input methods but in the end they're all pointers.  And if you look at what it is in Zelda, it is a pointer!


It was still meant in an incredibly condescending way.  Also if you are going to mention Zelda have you just ignored all the reviews coming out right now that say, "THE CONTROLS ARE AMAZING!  This is the definitive way to play the game."



> Yes, you can use your the little tilt sensors (but tilt isn't really innovative, seeing as how it's been around for decades) to attack and fish but what is it any other time?  A floating fairy pointer!  And while it may be easier to input text over a standard controller (if the onscreen keyboard is big enough), obviously a bluetooth or USB keyboard trumps both.


Tilt may have been around but the way it's being used is innovative.  You combine all the elements of the controller and you have something quite unique.
Who mentioned a keyboard?  Now the reason I made that comparison is because lots of games want us to input small amounts of text such as a name or registration info and 90% of the time instead of going through the inconvenience of getting up and hooking up an inconvenient/unwieldy keyboard for that one simple thing they just sit there and use the traditional controller for it.  With the Wiimote it is a whole lot less stress and hassle.



> Yes, I know the Wii is in fact 1.5x to 2x more powerful than the gamecube but compared to the other next-gen offerings, it doesn't even come close.  I was exaggerating and I apologize.


And what did I say?


----------



## diarmaidhuthence (Nov 15, 2006)

Gentlemen, please, show some consideration. There are people with short attention spans trying to read your posts.


----------



## Emerson (Nov 15, 2006)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, that's what I was going to say. I mean, I remember Zelda 64 (Harmonica of Time, whatever it was) being a bit more than norm, but for the better part of my life I've payed $50 for any given console game.


----------



## Emerson (Nov 15, 2006)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bingo. The PS3 essentially has a PS1 and a PS2 inside. The 360 emulates the legacy games. Which is the better idea? Who knows.


----------



## Emerson (Nov 15, 2006)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> Sony Defence Force, power up!
> 
> I'll be enjoying my next-gen on my Wii and my 360 thank you very much. You have my props however, spinning a console shortage as a good thing, when Sony should have the brains to launch at spring of next year.



Nope. Sorry. I'm a Nintendo fan myself, but I'm not so blindly loyal to them that I'm going to buy a console with last-gen power just because it has Zelda and a whacky new controller. If the Wii proves itself to me, and it's been walking a fine line for the last two months, I'll get it. But even if I do, I barely consider it "next-gen".

As I've said repeatedly, the DS is a major factor in my willingness to give the Wii the benefit of the doubt. I thought the DS was hysterical until I played a game I liked on it (Castlevania: DoS). Since then, it's actually been my most supported console.


----------



## Emerson (Nov 15, 2006)

Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> Oh that's right, we all forget that graphics are the end all of innovation.Â Â It's not next gen till Sony says so.



Nope, graphics are part of the whole picture. Graphics, sound, gameplay, innovation.

It's next gen when I look at it and go, "Holy cow, this is better than what I have, and it looks to get better".

Lets face it; the ultimate goal of gaming is to eventually put a f'ing holodeck in our living room. Complete immersion...and let me tell you, you ain't gonna' get there with mediocre graphics. You need the whole deal.


----------



## Emerson (Nov 15, 2006)

diarmaidhuthence said:
			
		

> Gentlemen, please, show some consideration. There are people with short attention spans trying to read your posts.



XD

Hold on, let me sum up:

LOL, video games.


----------



## Rhainor (Nov 15, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> Foxstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



N64 games were a bit more expensive because (at the time, at least) it was crazy hard to pack a 64-bit game into a cartridge and not have said cartridge be overly huge.


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 15, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> Foxstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know, the Xbox was the most powerful of the last generation and the Wii is significantly more powerful than that so that kinda just pushes it out of the last gen.  Don't forget the PS2 was the weakest of the last gen yet the most popular.



> As I've said repeatedly, the DS is a major factor in my willingness to give the Wii the benefit of the doubt. I thought the DS was hysterical until I played a game I liked on it (Castlevania: DoS). Since then, it's actually been my most supported console.


Funny enough while DoS is a great game it is one of the worst games show off the DS's potential with.  DS was a whipping boy for months, being disparaged as a hodge podge of useless gimmicks untill games came out that really capitalized on it's potential.  Now it is the #1 handheld despite being significantly less powerful than the PSP.  I see the Wii being treated the exact same way right now. 



			
				Emerson said:
			
		

> Span_Wolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Graphics, sound, gameplay, and innovation eh?  Funny how three out of four just doesn't cut it hu?

Nintendo has said that they are focusing on gameplay and innovation over graphics this time to pioneer new and never before seen ways to play games.  Also to make games affordable to a broader audience.  Sounds pretty revolutionary to me.

Also the system is capable of more than just "mediocre" graphics.  If the system is capable of putting out better graphics than these;





http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/567/567765/the-chronicles-of-riddick-escape-from-butcher-bay-developers-cut-20041119062027251.jpg






I'd say that for now it's still (for now) capable of doing "great graphics" and then as next gen rolls forward in the next couple years it will end with merely "good" graphics capabilities, but I don't think that the Wii will ever be ONLY capable of "mediocre" graphics.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 15, 2006)

Actually, I'd opt for 2 out of 4 there.  It won't be packing the high-end audio either.

And from hands-on experience with several of the Wii launch titles, while the interface and gameplay may be fresh, that doesn't mean it's necessarily good.  Most games controlled well, but there were titles like Red Steel that really hobbled around.  It won't be uncommon to see a lot of titles like this, if the DS is any indication.  First-Party games will be good/great.  Third party games will probably do only decent to terrible.

Only time will tell though, it's ridiculous to get up in arms over something when you can get your own hands-on in just four days.

And Span, just because Nintendo says they're focusing on gameplay and innovation over graphics, it doesn't excuse them from being compared with the other next-gen consoles (which is what it should be compared to, not these 'last-gen' consoles you're talking about) from a graphical standpoint.  It was a different route for them to take and they'll feel the reprocussions from it.


----------



## Emerson (Nov 15, 2006)

Span:

I'm not going to quote you, 'cause I don't want to make the thread messy with long posts and stuff, so pardon me if I just hit on your three points there.

1) PS2 ended up as the graphical underdog of last gen, but it was still leaps and bounds better than PS1, and that's what counts. So far, Wii hasn't been much better than most of what the Xbox could do.

2) Yeah, DoS wasn't exactly a showcase title for the DS, but it's what hooked me (I'm a big CV fan). The game that really made me buy into the DS mantra is MarioKart DS, because of the 3D, the multiplayer, and the online stuff.

3) I'm really not sure what you're getting at with the screenshots and whatnot. All I can say is that I EXPECT next-gen to look better than old gen. You can't do it half-assed and expect a pat on the back.

Now, don't get me wrong; I hope the Wii proves me wrong. I'd love to get back on the Nintendo bandwagon. I expect more from my home consoles than I do with handheld, though; what will fly for the DS isn't what I necessarily want to see on my big TV and hear on my home theater system, you know?

One Wii game that I keep going back to is Red Steel. I'm eagerly awaiting some reviews and news on how that handles in a real-user enviroment with real gamers. I have a feeling it could either be the coolest FPS game ever, or a taste of things to come - for better or worse.

EDIT: Aaaaand after I post this I see Silver's post. What's your pros and cons of Red Steel?

By the by, I'm off for awhile, kids. Gotta' pick of FFIII for the DS. :3


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 15, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Actually, I'd opt for 2 out of 4 there.  It won't be packing the high-end audio either.


The Wii may only have RCA audio, (which sounds fine) but they make up for the lack of high end inputs with the addition of the speaker in the remote and how it is used.  Being able to realistically hear sounds of a gun coming from your hand when you fire or the sound of a sword swinging through the air is a new direction for sound in games.  So yes while not strictly as technologically advanced as other systems in sound the way it is and can be used is innovative enough to consider it next gen. 




> And Span, just because Nintendo says they're focusing on gameplay and innovation over graphics, it doesn't excuse them from being compared with the other next-gen consoles (which is what it should be compared to, not these 'last-gen' consoles you're talking about) from a graphical standpoint.  It was a different route for them to take and they'll feel the reprocussions from it.


Of course they can be compared, what's the point if you can't?  But the problem is that people have a habit of and are content on using graphics as pretty much the only point of comparison and downplaying every other feature.



			
				Emerson said:
			
		

> 1) PS2 ended up as the graphical underdog of last gen, but it was still leaps and bounds better than PS1, and that's what counts. So far, Wii hasn't been much better than most of what the Xbox could do.
> 
> I'm really not sure what you're getting at with the screenshots and whatnot. All I can say is that I EXPECT next-gen to look better than old gen. You can't do it half-assed and expect a pat on the back.


It's quite simple, current gen systems when properly used are still capable of making absolutely amazing looking games, current gen still has games that look really good, hell when the 360 first launched there were still games that were being ported between the two without any graphical enhancements what so ever and being sold as next gen games.

Now if the Wii is significantly more powerful than the best of last gen then the point is that it is capable of making games that would still look great by todays standards and even look quite a bit better than anything the last gen could have produced.  With that in mind, while it can't approach the best of the next gen systems in graphics it is still quite capable once developers become accustomed to the architecture.

So the long and the short of it is that if last gen can still put out amazing looking games at the moment and the Wii is significantly more powerful than that, it has the potential to make rather good looking games over its lifespan as well, even if it isn't as powerful as the PS3 or 360. 

Though saying that Nintendo is expecting a pat on the back over their graphics is a huge fallacy.  They specifically said they weren't pushing for graphics, that doesn't sound like they are asking for a pat on the back over half assed graphics to me.  They achieved exactly what they aimed for.



> Yeah, DoS wasn't exactly a showcase title for the DS, but it's what hooked me (I'm a big CV fan). The game that really made me buy into the DS mantra is MarioKart DS, because of the 3D, the multiplayer, and the online stuff.


Wasn't arguing with you there, just making a point.


----------



## Emerson (Nov 15, 2006)

Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> They achieved exactly what they aimed for.



...half-assed graphics? 

Seriously, though. Guys, listen...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! XD

I went to Best Buy to buy FFIII for my ol' DS. I had to wade through - and I am not exaggerating here - a campground to get to the storefront. Tents and sleeping bags and coolers and all sorts of stuff. Dweebs camping out for a PS3, you see.

So, I go in, I pick up FFIII, and as I'm walking back out with my Nintend-ee game, I almost ran through them yelling "WIIIIIIIII!"

I was _this_ close, but there were a lot of them, and I was parked kind of far. I wasn't sure I'd make it. D:


----------



## Aquin (Nov 15, 2006)

Aquin said:
			
		

> Im personaly waiting untill after x-mas to get mine.
> 
> 1. I wont have to wait in huge launch-date lines.
> 2. I likely wont have any problems with it. First-batch systems are usually the ones with the problems.
> 3. Im gonna be hooked on Ridge Racer 7 so much that i likely wont be able to concentrate much on college xd.


Unfortunately while Ridge Racer 7 may be a good game the 360 version is actually a fair bit more advanced than the PS3 one.
[/quote]

Dont make me bop you on the head with a bonk stick... we both know RR7 is gonna be 10x better. Anything that touches a microsoft system gets ridden with errors. Namco's greatest mistake was making RR6 Xbox360 exclusive.


----------



## tundra_arctic_wolf (Nov 15, 2006)

I saw this article concerning the PS3, and PS1 and PS2 games on Gamespot's website.  Here's the link:

PS3 backward compatibility marred


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 16, 2006)

Aquin said:
			
		

> Aquin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dont make me bop you on the head with a bonk stick... we both know RR7 is gonna be 10x better. Anything that touches a microsoft system gets ridden with errors. Namco's greatest mistake was making RR6 Xbox360 exclusive.
[/quote]
I.. I don't even know where to begi...
I think I'm just going to smile and nod. :roll:


----------



## Bokracroc (Nov 16, 2006)

PS3, because the one that yells the loudest Wins.
How 'bout:
PS3, you buy anything we slap our label onto.


----------



## Aquin (Nov 16, 2006)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> PS3, you buy anything we slap our label onto.



Nah, thats more Microsoft then anything. They make you pay for litteraly everything besides messenger.


----------



## Bokracroc (Nov 16, 2006)

Aquin said:
			
		

> Bokracroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I dunno. Most major players have this power. Nintendo, MS, Sony, EA, Final Fantasy and many others.
EA and Sony push this the most. Check out the PS3 ad's. _DudeWTFOMGROFLCOPTERLAWL_, it explains jack yet it's awesome for somereason.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 16, 2006)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> Aquin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey, at least Sony isn't loading the PS3 with proprietary things.Â Â The HDD is a standard 2.5" SATA drive that is user replaceable (and much cheaper per GB) while MS will charge you $100 for one of their proprietary 20GB HDDs.

Or Sony allowing you to use your old Socom USB headset for voice stuffs or a third-party Bluetooth headset, while MS requires you to use their own new 360 headset.Â Â Even the wireless for their controllers is a proprietary format.


----------



## Hanazawa (Nov 16, 2006)

Ridge racer! Real-time weapon changing. We based these fights on real Japanese historical battles... and then the giant crab boss appears!!

(apologies if it was already linked in the thread, but anyone have a link to that video? I don't remember the source and I don't wanna hit YouTube for "playstation"  )


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 16, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Bokracroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The same could be said about either console, but with the 360 the headset comes with the Premium not with the PS3, and not everybody owns/owned Socom, or has bluetooth.  Also it plugs into the controller so if you are not tethered to your system if you are using the Socom one.  Also it may be a proprietary format, BUT it is not a restrictive one, I just tested my very old (and huge =P) cellphone headset with it and it worked fine, only downside is that you can't mute the mic because it lacks the button.

What do you mean by, even the wireless controller is a proprietary format?

Also as long as we are on controllers, don't forget that Sony forces their charge kits where with MS you have the option of using batteries and the Sony controllers that won't work without a charge kit don't come with one.

Also fuck MS for charging users 100 bucks for a 20 gig HDD.  I'm glad I got it with the Premium.


----------



## Foxstar (Nov 16, 2006)

Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes. Microsoft holds the lock and key on the wireless tech. It is indeed proprietary..why do you think after a year there's no third party wireless?


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 16, 2006)

Actually, there are no charge kits for the PS3.Â Â The system comes with the USB cable required to charge the controllers' Li-Ion batteries.

And even if some people don't have bluetooth headsets or played Socom, at least they have more options as to what they can use when it comes to using headsets.Â Â They're not stuck with using an MS one.

And yes, the controller's wireless is proprietary which is why there are no third party wireless controllers and why Guitar Hero 2 on the Xbox360 will be using wired guitars.


----------



## kontonno (Nov 16, 2006)

I'm proud to say that I'm an E-bayer (and so are two of my friends.) We've got our reserves in... and we're looking forward to some fat profits. :3

I know, I know... say what you like but hey! You can't say this isn't a golden oppertunity. Especially considering that a lot of wealthy international kiddies can't wait until next year to get one. I did the same to the Xbox 360 so please spare me your fanboyism.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 16, 2006)

kontonno said:
			
		

> I'm proud to say that I'm an E-bayer (and so are two of my friends.) We've got our reserves in... and we're looking forward to some fat profits. :3
> 
> I know, I know... say what you like but hey! You can't say this isn't a golden oppertunity. Especially considering that a lot of wealthy international kiddies can't wait until next year to get one. I did the same to the Xbox 360 so please spare me your fanboyism.



Anyone who isn't selling a first-gen retail PS3 is dumb, so I support what you're doing. :3

Patience pays off.  Yay for hardware revisions, reduced prices, and a bigger library.


----------



## kontonno (Nov 16, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> kontonno said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Indeed! However this is this HUGE lash against people who are getting the PS3 just for profit. It's mostly comming from PS3 fanboys for obvious reasons. Of course, if these fanboys were intelligent they would sell their PS3 on e-bay... get a potential double profit and basically have it pay for itself and have the extra money for games or whatever.


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 16, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Actually, there are no charge kits for the PS3.  The system comes with the USB cable required to charge the controllers' Li-Ion batteries.


Only one, any more would have to be purchased separately.  As I said before, if you buy a wireless 360 controller you have the option of using batteries or getting a play and charge kit for it. It is a great one or the other sentiment that won't leave anybody cold.  With the PS3 you only have the option that they give you to either use 1 charger for all your controllers which is wholly unacceptable or buy more charging cables.  So yes in essence if you buy extra wireless PS3 controllers you are all but forced to buy the cables as well.  



> And even if some people don't have bluetooth headsets or played Socom, at least they have more options as to what they can use when it comes to using headsets.  They're not stuck with using an MS one.


Did you even read what I said?  You are not stuck with the MS one, I was able to use an ancient phone headset that I found in a box this morning just to test it.  Any headset with the proper plug can be used.


----------



## Rouge2 (Nov 16, 2006)

The PS3 hit store on Friday in the US and the rush isn't over then, the Wii comes out 2 days later.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 17, 2006)

Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, because everyone has ancient phone headsets.  I still think that there are more options available to the PS3 when it comes to available headsets.


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 17, 2006)

> Yes, because everyone has ancient phone headsets.  I still think that there are more options available to the PS3 when it comes to available headsets.


I was saying that _even_ an ancient phone headset worked.  It's a very common 2.5mm jack/micro jack connection that's been around for years, just like a regular walkman headset connector but slightly smaller.  We have about 3 or 4 of hose just lying around the house because they are common as dirt (not to mention cheep as dirt, I'm pretty sure you could get one at the 99 cent store) and being as such I believe that the 360 still has a wider number of headset options available even if they aren't as advanced as the bluetooth options the PS3 has.  That comment was just snarky for the sake of being so.


----------



## Foxstar (Nov 17, 2006)

kontonno said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The lash is because the Ebayers are legon this go around and from the very start when preorders opened over a month ago, it's been nigh impossable to causal gamers to get a system because everyone wants to make profit. It makes me glad Sony cut launch shipments because now I can laugh myself silly at people who get mad because they miss their chance to make money.

I'd rather work for my money..and I do.


----------



## Rhainor (Nov 17, 2006)

I was checking Gizmodo this morning, and apparently one of the PS3 listings on eBay sold for *nine thousand dollars*.  See the link.

http://forums.gamertag.com/showthread.php?t=22389


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 17, 2006)

Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> > Yes, because everyone has ancient phone headsets.Â Â I still think that there are more options available to the PS3 when it comes to available headsets.
> 
> 
> I was saying that _even_ an ancient phone headset worked.Â Â It's a very common 2.5mm jack/micro jack connection that's been around for years, just like a regular walkman headset connector but slightly smaller.Â Â We have about 3 or 4 of hose just lying around the house because they are common as dirt (not to mention cheep as dirt, I'm pretty sure you could get one at the 99 cent store) and being as such I believe that the 360 still has a wider number of headset options available even if they aren't as advanced as the bluetooth options the PS3 has.Â Â That comment was just snarky for the sake of being so.



Alright then, I'll give you headsets, but I still believe the Xbox 360 is the more proprietary console at this point in time.Â Â I hold a grudge because rocking out to GH2 wirelessly would be the sex. :3

Also, you do have the option of even installing an alternate OS onto the PS3.  Currently Yellow Dog Linux has one made for it.


----------



## Twile (Nov 17, 2006)

I'm sorry, but I read this, and I just couldn't resist.



			
				silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Bokracroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ha ha ha ha ha o_o

Yeah, that's right. Sony's not loading you down with proprietary stuff. They are, however, more concerned about peddling their own damn technology than providing what consumers want. Sony makes lots of consumer electronics, including HD TVs, Blu-ray players, and things involving the Cell microprocessor. They want HD and Blu-ray to gain market-wide adoption as soon as they can so they can sell more new hardware. They want Blu-ray and the Cell to become more popular as soon as possible so production costs can go down. These technologies are so important to Sony that it seems to me like they're hedging the entire Playstation brand (minus the PSP) on them. Seriously, what are the big points for the PS3? Well you've got your cheap Blu-ray player, you have your HD resolutions, and you have plenty of processing power to add realism to your games. In fact I'd wager if Sony were to draw a diagram for a presentation about what the "pillars" of the PS3 are, they'd make a triangle with Blu-ray, Cell and 1080p/HD/RSX graphics processor. Blu-ray provides the data, Cell provides the processing, 1080p/HD/RSX graphics lets you see it.

Again, all technologies that Sony is very interested in, and not for the consumer. It's because you can only charge a couple hundred bucks for a standard-def TV, under 100 for a DVD player, and simply don't need the Cell in anything other than supercomputers and render farms. You can, however, push an HD TV or Blu-ray player for over $1000 apiece, and who doesn't want to establish their own processor as the new computing standard? Sony is so desperate to push these things that they had to delay the PS3 6 months, jack up the price $200, and cut availability to <300,000 units in the launch week _just for their precious Blu-ray baby_. Does this company have your best interests in mind, or their own? :/

Compare to Microsoft. They don't have interests in the hardware market or media formats so they were just fine with offering what people would find most useful: standard resolutions of 480p and 720p (though now they're up to 1080p, I don't know how that works in terms of performance however), standard PC components such as a PowerPC chip (you'd think they would be the last to adopt something based on PowerPC, which was more or less associated with Apple in the past) with a modified ATI desktop PC graphics chip, and standard optical media (DVD, though they're offering optional--NOT FORCED--HD-DVD attachments).

Just my thoughts. Any takers?


----------



## Pumeleon (Nov 17, 2006)

Twile said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but I read this, and I just couldn't resist.
> Yeah, that's right. Sony's not loading you down with proprietary stuff. They are, however, more concerned about peddling their own damn technology than providing what consumers want. Sony makes lots of consumer electronics, including HD TVs, Blu-ray players, and things involving the Cell microprocessor. They want HD and Blu-ray to gain market-wide adoption as soon as they can so they can sell more new hardware. They want Blu-ray and the Cell to become more popular as soon as possible so production costs can go down. These technologies are so important to Sony that it seems to me like they're hedging the entire Playstation brand (minus the PSP) on them. Seriously, what are the big points for the PS3? Well you've got your cheap Blu-ray player, you have your HD resolutions, and you have plenty of processing power to add realism to your games. In fact I'd wager if Sony were to draw a diagram for a presentation about what the "pillars" of the PS3 are, they'd make a triangle with Blu-ray, Cell and 1080p/HD/RSX graphics processor. Blu-ray provides the data, Cell provides the processing, 1080p/HD/RSX graphics lets you see it.
> 
> Again, all technologies that Sony is very interested in, and not for the consumer. It's because you can only charge a couple hundred bucks for a standard-def TV, under 100 for a DVD player, and simply don't need the Cell in anything other than supercomputers and render farms. You can, however, push an HD TV or Blu-ray player for over $1000 apiece, and who doesn't want to establish their own processor as the new computing standard? Sony is so desperate to push these things that they had to delay the PS3 6 months, jack up the price $200, and cut availability to <300,000 units in the launch week _just for their precious Blu-ray baby_. Does this company have your best interests in mind, or their own? :/



I seriously think you hit the nail on the head with this one. I think the sheer drawing power of the playstation brand combined with a Blu-ray player will hopefully esconce the Blu-ray format into hundreds of thousands of middle-class homes. They tried this with a proprietary format in the UMD on the PSP earlier. That failed as far as movies went due to the small number of studios publishing their movies on such a narrowly-spread medium. Blu-ray however, is going to have more than one manufacturer for the players, and publishers will be more than happy to ride the PS3 wave, given it's predicted (and actual) market impact. And as Sony conviently produces Blu-ray players, they'll be able to sell more hardware to more people when the price of the technology goes down.


----------



## Foxstar (Nov 17, 2006)

> Hey, at least Sony isn't loading the PS3 with proprietary things.  The HDD is a standard 2.5" SATA drive that is user replaceable (and much cheaper per GB) while MS will charge you $100 for one of their proprietary 20GB HDDs.



If Sony could get away with it, they could. Besides, they are too busy trying to push their propritary formats elsewhere. See also Memory Stick Duo, UMD, Blu-ray, Mini-Disc, Betamax, MagicGate..and about 20 other abortions over the years.


----------



## Twile (Nov 17, 2006)

Pumeleon said:
			
		

> They tried this with a proprietary format in the UMD on the PSP earlier. That failed as far as movies went due to the small number of studios publishing their movies on such a narrowly-spread medium.



I'm honestly confused about the UMD. I'm wondering if Sony even expected it to be a success for movies, really. Given the size of the PSP and the desire for optical media, mini DVDs and any new proprietary format would seem to be the only solutions. I guess by using a UMD they reduce piracy because you can't make those so easily (if at all). And just being able to watch movies, period, could be considered a nice feature.

But honestly, why would you pay twice for a movie (UMD and DVD, maybe pay a third time for Blu-ray or HD-DVD!)? Just so you can watch it on a hand-held like the PSP? Or would you just get the UMD version and forever condemn yourself to a lack of big screen-ness? I guess some people would be short-sighted enough. They're just trying to cater to the ignorant masses. Fortunately, it seems people spoke with their wallets and said they prefer portable DVD players or portable HDD-based media players, as evidenced by the relative lack-luster enthusiasm in the format.


----------



## Twile (Nov 17, 2006)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> > Hey, at least Sony isn't loading the PS3 with proprietary things.  The HDD is a standard 2.5" SATA drive that is user replaceable (and much cheaper per GB) while MS will charge you $100 for one of their proprietary 20GB HDDs.
> 
> 
> 
> If Sony could get away with it, they could. Besides, they are too busy trying to push their propritary formats elsewhere. See also Memory Stick Duo, UMD, Blu-ray, Mini-Disc, Betamax, MagicGate..and about 20 other abortions over the years.



Oh, but they are--see my post


----------



## tundra_arctic_wolf (Nov 17, 2006)

I heard on Gamespot's website that on EBay the Sony PS3 is selling for between $2,000 and $15,000.  That's way out my price range.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 17, 2006)

Foxstar said:
			
		

> > Hey, at least Sony isn't loading the PS3 with proprietary things.  The HDD is a standard 2.5" SATA drive that is user replaceable (and much cheaper per GB) while MS will charge you $100 for one of their proprietary 20GB HDDs.
> 
> 
> 
> If Sony could get away with it, they could. Besides, they are too busy trying to push their propritary formats elsewhere. See also Memory Stick Duo, UMD, Blu-ray, Mini-Disc, Betamax, MagicGate..and about 20 other abortions over the years.



Blu-Ray isn't a Sony proprietary format.  It was developed by a whole board of companies.  And Memory Stick Duo (and Pro Duo) is still very much alive and kicking thanks to their low-end digital cameras.

Gotta remember, they were involved with the CD-R too, and that was a brilliant success wasn't it?


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 17, 2006)

Twile said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but I read this, and I just couldn't resist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course they have their own interests at heart, all the companies do.    That's why Nintendo isn't selling the Wii at a loss and why Microsoft uses so many proprietary peripherals.

Sony is just doing it a different way.


----------



## Twile (Nov 17, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Of course they have their own interests at heart, all the companies do.    That's why Nintendo isn't selling the Wii at a loss and why Microsoft uses so many proprietary peripherals.
> 
> Sony is just doing it a different way.



My point still stands, though. Sony is more of a consumer electronics company than a gaming company. Microsoft is more of an OS company than a gaming company. Nintendo is nothing but a gaming company. This is apparent in their products. The PS3 is trying to push more CE features. If these benefit games, then great, a double bonus--if not, Sony will still try to stick them in there. The Xbox 360 has connectivity with networked computers running Windows software, especially Vista, which you'll need for the full media experience. And the Wii... well they don't have any hidden agenda as far as I can guess. SD or HD? Nintendo doesn't much care beyond what its customers want or can take advantage of, hence why they don't build a system off of that. Nintendo truly has the interests of gamers at its heart, second only to its own success--after all they're not pushing anything but games.

Sony, naturally, doesn't want to lose the gaming market as it's quite valuable. However, they are willing to push people to the breaking point by tacking on features they don't want or can't use, saying that it's the defining point of next-gen and it's got backwards compatability with everyone's favorite games (for the idiots who sell their old systems for a couple $20s). I believe that if Sony were to vanish and another company were to rise up and offer a PS3-like device, very few people would jump at the oppertunity. Sony is coasting on its fanbase, Sony-only games, and a minority of gamers who can take advantage of HD content to try and leverage its solution. In the coming years it might be a more reasonable solution, but right now it's not what the majority of gamers want or need. If high-def resolutions, online play, and built-in hard drives were what a game system is all about, PCs would be the dominant gaming platforms by far. But they're not. PCs show that people tend to have breaking points when it comes to their wallets. If they can choose between spending ~$2000 for a new screen, sound system, and game system... or spending ~$200 on a cheaper game system to go with their current equipment and still provide a lot of fun, which do you think they will go for? The very existence of consoles seems to prove this :?

It's been said before and I'll say it again. Look at the PS2. It's the weakest system of the 2000-2005 generation as far as graphics are concerned, but it did the best by far--about twice as well as its competitors added together I believe. If you want to know whether lower-end graphics will break a system, just ask Sony--their own history book tells the exact opposite story.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 17, 2006)

Though Sony had great third-party support and Blockbuster titles for the PS1 and PS2.  Not the case so far with Nintendo.


----------



## Revrant (Nov 17, 2006)

Man, I never intend to buy a PS#, four, five, on and on, and I will never own one, so I have to say all of the coverage can get on my nerves from time to time. I'm a bit confused as to why someone would want a launch unit of any console, especially considering the premiums usually attached, and the lack of good launch titles.


----------



## Twile (Nov 17, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Though Sony had great third-party support and Blockbuster titles for the PS1 and PS2.  Not the case so far with Nintendo.



And this isn't hard-coded into the system either. As far as I can tell, there's no reason that most of the companies making games for Sony couldn't simply say "screw you Sony, we're going with Nintendo and Microsoft" and leave. Support can change on the drop of a hat, so to say. Nintendo has years to bring new developers and IP to the Wii. Seeing as it sounds like a lot of people won't be getting the PS3 for at least a year (with many more getting it much later or never, due to prices or availability or concern over bugs), it sounds like the majority of gamers will have some time to observe launched and announced titles before they have to choose Wii/PS3/both/none. This will take some time to play out I believe.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 17, 2006)

Twile said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Though the market share leader usually keeps a hold of their third party support.Â Â The only reason that Nintendo lost all their third party support during the N64 era is because they stuck with an incredibly expensive and restrictive media format (cartridges).

Since then, Sony has been the marketshare leader and it's been the consistent excellence of their third party support that has kept them on top.

The PS2 launch was very similar to the PS3 one.Â Â Not very many high quality launch games and very limited supply (PS2 had 500,000 units compared to PS3's 400,000- units) and was also more expensive than its other competitor.Â Â It was also a very difficult machine to program for (while the PS3 is easier for most devs in comparison).Â Â It still took off and sold over 100 million consoles worldwide.

And while developers can change sides at the drop of the hat, usually there needs to be incentive for them to do it.


----------



## Twile (Nov 17, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Though the market share leader usually keeps a hold of their third party support.  The only reason that Nintendo lost all their third party support during the N64 era is because they stuck with an incredibly expensive and restrictive media format (cartridges).
> 
> Since then, Sony has been the marketshare leader and it's been the consistent excellence of their third party support that has kept them on top.
> 
> ...



The developers will go where the gamers go. A lot of gamers are excited about prospects the Wii brings to the gaming table. Ubisoft, for example, has signed on to make a number of games already. If initial sales and reviews for the Wii prove promising, then developers will embrace it because that's simply where the business is. Whether they drop support for the PS3 or make games for both depends on other considerations.

I do see a difference between the PS2 and PS3 though. So far as I know, there was no format war (DVD vs something some non-VHS product) going on, the Gamecube wouldn't even come out for the better part of a year, and the price difference was about $100 rather than $200-350 (depending on whether you compare to a loaded Xbox 360 or a Wii).

I had actually heard that the PS3 was hard to program for, at least compared to the 360. Additionally it's a lot harder to squeeze all the performance out of it. It's no secret that multi-threading games isn't a simple task--PC game developers have come right out and said they currently can't think of what to do with more than about 2 threads--and if you're dealing with a highly threaded processor such as the Cell, it'd make sense that it's hard to program for. However I won't dispute your sources, Sony could've since put out developer tools to make it easier to make games. Who knows.


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 17, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> The PS2 launch was very similar to the PS3 one.  Not very many high quality launch games and very limited supply (PS2 had 500,000 units compared to PS3's 400,000- units)


150-200k so sayeth industry analysts.  Sony wont give official numbers because they are too embarrassed to.


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 17, 2006)

Twile said:
			
		

> I had actually heard that the PS3 was hard to program for, at least compared to the 360. Additionally it's a lot harder to squeeze all the performance out of it.


This is true, developers have already stated that specific cross console games will be more advanced on the 360 because of the PS3 is so difficult to program for.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 17, 2006)

Twile said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Aye, it is harder to develop on the PS3 than it is the Xbox 360, but the PS3 is substantially easier than the PS2.  That was all I was getting at there.

And at least developers have the options to do heavy multi-threading.  Just because they're not sure how they'd use that many threads now, doesn't mean they won't find a way.  People used to say that CD-Rs held more than enough data and that DVD-Rs were overkill, but no sooner than they came out, we were already filling them. 

And yes, the developers will go where the gamers go, but gamers are buying up the PS3 (even if it is just to sell them on ebay, that means there's still someone receiving one on the other side of that transaction) and if the games on the Wii just don't take off than gamers aren't going to be going there.  If the third-party Wii games are any indication right now of what they'll be like down the line, than I'm not impressed and I doubt the gamers will either once they get their hands on the like of Red Steel.

And yes Span, I know that it's much less than 400,000 (hence why I put the minus at the end), I used that figure because it was the last official amount we were given.  Analysts can analyze all they want, doesn't mean they're right.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 17, 2006)

Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> Twile said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unless they're programmed for the PS3 first.


----------



## Twile (Nov 17, 2006)

Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let's be fair and say it was 200k. They had 88k in Japan I believe. Still that puts them at under 300k units, maybe under 250k.

I'm hesitant to go this far but I do think that all the agony and frustration people have experienced, including the guy who got shot waiting for a PS3 and any subsequent robberies of houses for PS3s (what else is prominently placed in a TV room, weighs just 7 kg and will sell for $2,000-15,000 on ebay with no questions asked?) are the fault of Sony. They chose a design and launch strategy that made the system extremely exclusive and desired. If they simply had dropped their stupid Blu-ray and started making them 6 months beforehand, they could've probably avoided people waiting in line period due to high availability.

To explain my perspective better, let me say that the only expensive, high-end product I've gotten within a week was a Radeon 9700 Pro graphics card back when they launched. It cost me $330 retail (not bad for a $400 card), I had it within 3 days of the announced launch, got it online, no issues whatsoever. This is how each and every product should be. With something like the PS3, you build hype for literally years. You know you have a massive fanbase. If you put something out there with only enough models to satisfy, 1 in every 300 of your previous customers, and many stores don't expect to get new shipments for at least a month, DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, you're just worthless. You can say many things about Microsoft, but so far as I know they had more than 100,000 Xbox 360s available for launch (proportional to the number of Xboxes vs PS2s), and their customers had only been waiting a max of 4 years for the 360--not 6 years, as Sony did.

The only other time I waited in line for something new was to see Matrix Revolutions, a Lord of the Rings movie, and to get the 6th Harry Potter book. In each case I didn't have to show up more than a half hour beforehand (2 minutes for the Harry Potter book) to get what I was after.

Edit: Heh, now that I think about it, my little rant is more along the lines of what this thread is supposed to be about--PS3 supply issues and crankiness that results, rather than PS3 vs Wii vs 360.


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 17, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Span_Wolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Two words; "Assassins Creed"



> And yes Span, I know that it's much less than 400,000 (hence why I put the minus at the end), I used that figure because it was the last official amount we were given.  Analysts can analyze all they want, doesn't mean they're right.


EBstops were getting a percentage of the original 400k sent out, that 400k has been slashed, and on top of that at the beginning of the week the EBstop shipments were cut in half.  Saying 400k- is still very misleading and with all the evidence common sense can tell you that it is closer to 200k.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 17, 2006)

Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Assassin's Creed, eh?Â Â We have yet to see which is a more advanced version or whether it was designed for the Xbox 360 initially anyway.Â Â Just because it was announced for the PS3 before it was announced as a multi-plat title doesn't mean that it was originally being programmed for the PS3 first.

And yes that figure may be misleading, but, to be blunt, to assume makes an ass out of you and me.Â Â People could call that 200k misleading.


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 17, 2006)

Assassins creed was originally touted as a PS3 exclusive, then months and months down the line Ubisoft went, guess what we are working on it for the 360 now too (saw it coming but that's not the point) and it will be better on the 360 because it's so much easier to develop for.  They specifically said that the AI would be distinctly better on the 360 than the PS3.

Also how is 200k misleading?  I was merely going on what most are reporting.  Now saying 400k- is distinctly misleading because you are quoting their original launch number and then putting a - on it which would lead people to believe that it is either 400k or less.  It is absolutely clear that it is not 400k and it is not just under 400k but significantly less than 400k.  How much less than 400k?  Well most news and analysts are reporting between 150k and 250k.  I'll put my money on them.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 17, 2006)

Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> Assassins creed was originally touted as a PS3 exclusive, then months and months down the line Ubisoft went, guess what we are working on it for the 360 now too (saw it coming but that's not the point) and it will be better on the 360 because it's so much easier to develop for.Â Â They specifically said that the AI would be distinctly better on the 360 than the PS3.
> 
> Also how is 200k misleading?Â Â I was merely going on what most are reporting.Â Â Now saying 400k- is distinctly misleading because you are quoting their original launch number and then putting a - on it which would lead people to believe that it is either 400k or less.Â Â It is absolutely clear that it is not 400k and it is not just under 400k but significantly less than 400k.Â Â How much less than 400k?Â Â Well most news and analysts are reporting between 150k and 250k.Â Â I'll put my money on them.



I know Assassin's Creed history.  Very well.  And if rumours served true, the original showing of Assassin's Creed at E3 06 was running off of an Xbox 360, before they had announced that it was no longer a PS3 exclusive.  So you bringing up Assassin's Creed is a moot point.

If you really want to get to the bottom of the amount available, go ahead and hand count them.  I'm sure that's the only real way to know for sure other than Sony coming forward with the total launch amount.  Any other figure is distinctly misleading.

Or you could just wait for the sales chart (since we know they will all sell out) for this month in the US.


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 17, 2006)

Wrong, I was at E3 06 and it was a PS3 exclusive at that time.  It was announced for the 360 at X05 under a different name and then quickly moved to the PS3 where it became an exclusive.  Then months after E306 it was once again announced for the 360 at X06.  But whatever.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 17, 2006)

Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> Wrong, I was at E3 06 and it was a PS3 exclusive at that time.Â Â It was announced for the 360 at X05 under a different name and then quickly moved to the PS3 where it became an exclusive.Â Â Then months after E306 it was once again announced for the 360 at X06.Â Â But whatever.



You missed the point.

Just because it was ANNOUNCED as a PS3 exclusive, doesn't mean it wasn't in development for the Xbox 360 already.


----------



## Twile (Nov 17, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Span_Wolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This discussion is over. Yanno why? I just got Painkiller for $9.99 at Best Buy, new. That game will run on most computers sold over the past few years. For $10. It's deliciously violent, has nice physics, and you get a steam-powered stake launcher that fires these sharpened phone line poles at zombies. LET ME SEE YOU BEAT THAT SONY >:3


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 17, 2006)

Three Words:Â Â Dead Rising 2

[size=xx-small](I'm just playing, don't take this seriously. :3)[/size]


----------



## Twile (Nov 17, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Three Words:  Dead Rising 2
> 
> [size=xx-small](I'm just playing, don't take this seriously. :3)[/size]



D:< BUT WHERE IS THE STAKE LAUNCHER!

And if there is one, do they have a whirly blade thing you can shoot at people? Huh? HUH!?


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 17, 2006)

Twile said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Rocket propelled Lawn mowers ftw!


----------



## Bokracroc (Nov 17, 2006)

PC = Mods
Suck on that


----------



## Twile (Nov 17, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Rocket propelled Lawn mowers ftw!



In all seriousness let's all at least agree that Sony cutting back on supply is totally a dick move. Unless you have enough parts to make 400k PS3s you don't publically announce it. Especially not on something that is already going to be in high demand.


----------



## Bokracroc (Nov 17, 2006)

All the rest of the parts went into the building of the Hype Machine you see.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Nov 17, 2006)

Twile said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree about that.  But there is a difference between promising 400k units and saying that you hoped to get 400k units out by launch day.  I can't remember which they said and frankly, I'm too lazy to look it up. :3


----------



## Evangeline (Nov 18, 2006)

This is how many PS3 were sold.





And thats the numbers of current 360's they both update automatically.


And here's the Wii.


----------



## Twile (Nov 18, 2006)

Booya. Who's the guy who said under 300k, possibly as low as <250k? :3


----------



## blackdragoon (Nov 18, 2006)

the wii hasn't come out yet evangeline. you must wait another day. just one more day for it to be out. the 360 came out a long while back and the ps3 on the 17th of november. the wii doesn't come out till the 19th of november so it isn't fair to point out it hasn't sold any when it's not available for purchase yet. however the clock is ticking so i'd doublecheck that place the day after tommorrow to see how many were sold on it's launch day. so that you can make a more accurate comparison between the 3 systems. 

oops my bad i didn't realise that date only applied to the N and S america launches.


----------



## Evangeline (Nov 18, 2006)

blackdragoon said:
			
		

> the wii hasn't come out yet evangeline. you must wait another day. just one more day for it to be out. the 360 came out a long while back and the ps3 on the 17th of november. the wii doesn't come out till the 19th of november so it isn't fair to point out it hasn't sold any when it's not available for purchase yet. however the clock is ticking so i'd doublecheck that place the day after tommorrow to see how many were sold on it's launch day. so that you can make a more accurate comparison between the 3 systems.
> 
> oops my bad i didn't realise that date only applied to the N and S america launches.



I know it doesn't come out till tomorrow because well I'm getting one, but thats there to show how many will be in the running, as the FA board only let you upload one image into your sig I couldn't put all in there.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Nov 18, 2006)

But in all fairness, why are people/fanboys arguing on which is better? Why?


----------



## Evangeline (Nov 18, 2006)

Because thats what people/fanboys do.

What really makes on system better then others is how much fun you have playing it, so if you have fun with all three then it shouldn't matter which has a better GPU or CPU.


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 18, 2006)

Twile said:
			
		

> Booya. Who's the guy who said under 300k, possibly as low as <250k? :3


Me?


----------



## Twile (Nov 18, 2006)

Span_Wolf said:
			
		

> Twile said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				Twile said:
			
		

> Let's be fair and say it was 200k. They had 88k in Japan I believe. Still that puts them at under 300k units, maybe under 250k.



D:< Me!


----------



## Span_Wolf (Nov 18, 2006)

Twile said:
			
		

> Span_Wolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was kidding, we both said it.  Well I argued the loudest about it. ;3


----------



## Hanazawa (Nov 18, 2006)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIGmwrbf_F4

video by a guy who attends the same University as me. Not 100% sure, but I think the "x-box fan" is his brother or something. it's pretty screwed up.

FIVE PS3s at Target? Sony, WTF.


----------



## Twile (Nov 18, 2006)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIGmwrbf_F4
> 
> video by a guy who attends the same University as me. Not 100% sure, but I think the "x-box fan" is his brother or something. it's pretty screwed up.
> 
> FIVE PS3s at Target? Sony, WTF.



 That's pretty funny.


----------



## Evangeline (Nov 18, 2006)

http://cgi.ebay.com/PS3-PLAYSTATION-3-60GB-IN-HAND-SEALED_W0QQitemZ230053458366QQihZ013QQcategoryZ62054QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


HOLY SHIT

3,000,100 for a PS3 two games and a movie!


----------



## foreverwhiteknight (Nov 19, 2006)

When I heard the shipment was cut, I just kinda stared at the TV.  It really seems like Sony is killing themselves with all this mess.  I was out shopping for Christmas stuff on this past Thursday and I saw both  K-Marts and the Toys R Us in this town had signs up that due to the cutbacks they wouldn't even have the PS3 until after New Years.  

The Target here said they only had 8.  Then we have two Wal-mart Supercenters, one had like 5 and the other had 0.  I don't know about Gamestop though, I haven't been by there in a while.  Target had campers though, and I was just laughing at them in my head as I went in there just killing time.  

Personally, I'm sticking with my PS2 right now.  Because 1.  I don't have that kind of money to spend on a game system, 2.  Theres not enough games for it yet and it wouldn't play my old ones well anyway, and 3.  honestly it doesn't seem GOOD ENOUGH.

I've seen screenshots of a lot of different games, and commercials for some different ones as well.  The ones I saw the most screens of though was Gran Turismo: HD and it looks great.. 

But Thursday.. in Wal-Mart.. I played the PS3.  The demo of NBA Live 07.. It wasn't that great.  I mean yeah it was just a basketball game.. 

but the crowd looked like something from a PS1 game, the players looked a lil better than PS2 but they were more SHINY than anything.  The only thing that looked *amazing* was the court/goals themselves.  And yeah it was on a 19" HD TV


----------

