So if Sony loses is System Wars gonna die?

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Will this site die? For the last 6 years this site has been Sony vs Microsoft with a sprinkle of Nintendo, well at least this thread, arguably the most popular on this site. The interesting thing about this dynamic is that usually there have been a few XBOX fans trying to hold the fort against a gang of Sony fans, though recently the ratio has become a little more balanced. But it seems like Sony is screwing themselves for the first year, at least! Already the Sony fanboys seem shell-shocked and in complete disarray, the only one still in abject denial is TheLastFool. As recently as a few weeks ago they were talking some hot chits! After talking sooo much stuff, for so long, especially about things such as price, dual skus, online network, and hdd, and now being behind the 8-ball on all of those issues, it seems like it would be impossible for anybody to defend Sony. And being that it is really going to be late 2007 early 2008 before PS3 will really show what its capabilities are, it could be very quiet around here.

Its funny to think 360 could have won system wars, LAST YEAR! LOL! It was over before the first shot was fired! Little did we know that in the board rooms Sony was planning its own demise! Little did we know that it wasn't MS that was reacting to Sony it was the 360 that was actually giving Sony fits(well I knew this). No wonder Sony was so vehement and venemous when they reacted to MS starting the nextgen early, remember all those comments from Sony execs? That was kinda bizzare. It was really strange for Sony to state that MS was wrong and that the nextgen doesn't start until we launch, and that they didn't care about what MS was doing. Its kinda like watching a boxer take a good punch and then smile as if to say it didn't hurt, sure it didn't!

When 360's specs were announced, I knew the system was a beast 3 custom powerPC CPUs, a beast of a GPU that ATI said they wished MS would let them license for their PC graphics cards, and a completely redesigned LIVE. I knew then that no matter what it would be REALLY hard for Sony to exceed that system and that it would COST them a fortune to do so. I give credit to Sony in that they have seemingly exceeded the tech in the 360, but credit to the 360's own marvelous power, it could be years before we ever see that advantage.

I thought system wars would be re-newed after PS3 launched, now this may become the weakest, calmest part of this VGR. Just weeks ago, if that, we were debating furiously and now post E-3, it may be that those battles we had may have been the most action we will see on these boards for this entire generation!

What makes it sooo bad, is I really don't understand at all the doom and gloom and sadness from PS fans. My gosh how did u NOT know this system was going to be expensive? Other than the expense, it seems like this is business as usual for Playstation and its fans. Launch a system with no games, so what PS2 launched with no games, as well as PSP, in fact for about a year both of those systems had no good games, so why is this a surprise that PS3 will only launch with 15 games? Best games coming for the fall of the year following launch, check! PS2 did that with metalgear2 and gt3 and GTA3 a year after release. A lot of hype about some new movie format revolutionizing game machines, okay sounds a lot like PSP and the UMD. UMD was suppose to revolutionize hollywood, we'd be watching movies on our bathroom breaks at work or on the subway! And you paid a hell of a price for the PSP, to me you paid more for the PSP than you will for the PS3!! The PSP was being bundled for $600 bucks in some cases, I think the average bundle was $500. The system alone, if u could find one at launch, was $250 for a friggin handheld. I remember saying back then that Sony was testing the market, if they get people to pay $250 for a handheld they would charge $500 for their console, well I was wrong they are charging $600!

But at least u will get some good games a year from now. I mean to me, the PS3 is a much better deal than the PS2. The PS2 cost as much as the XBOX and u had no online network, no 480P standard, and from a tech perspective horrible games, then most people got duped into buying a HDD or a second console! Hopefully with PS3 u only need 1 console, you can finally play some good FPS, u get the best digital media and hardware standards, no memory cards(which is sorta like defraying costs). Hell just hunker down and buy the system or just chill out and wait a year until the price drops and better games come. Now, here is the time for all u chumps to put your $$ where your mouth was. U all have been saying that u can stay with the PS2 and the system has such great games and how important backward compatiability is! Well just keep playing PS2 for a year.

Remember how important backward compatiability was according to everybody on this site? Damn, I haven't heard B/C mentioned at all since E-3!!! Well guess what guys, you are paying for that. I was such a fool back then, when I said it was not worth paying the extra cost to have a feature that would only be good for 3 months. U guys called me every name in the book and said how important it was! Well, buy a PS3 and play PS2 games for a year, after all that is what u said was so important. I tried to tell u guys that when u buy a new system, you don't want to play old games, u want new games that are so amazing they make u forget about the old games. But, no, I was a stupid Jack-hole! Well, guys your PS3 is more expensive so that you can play all of those old goodies, so be happy about the price, u got FULL b/c!

Same thing with the online network. U got it for free! We have to pay $6 a month. Sony is making u pay upfront, but u dont have to pay monthly, so be happy! Now of course publishers may charge u, or u may have to jump through hoops, but hey, anything is better than paying stupid old MS $6 a month!

And TheLastWord made a good point. If u don't care about HD movies, buy the Retard System! For $500 u still get HD games like 360, without HD movies or WI-FI, or rumble in a controller, but hey u get to pay $100 more than 360 to play worse games or the same games for a year, but after that year u might could maybe possibly get better games. And hey who cares about High Def anyway? Its way too soon for that, remember.

Come on guys, where is your fight! You still have Japan. FF13 is coming out! Oh but that is bad news also right? I mean it looks like it is not really a J-RPG anymore because they are biting western RPGs by changing it to a real-time fighting game. Still 360 is sucking wind in Japan, and Japan is all that matters remember! So guys keep up the fight, i think u got a lot more in your favor this time around. The 360 was a good deal at launch and it looks like the first few years after launch will be great. PS3 is NOT a good deal at launch, but after a few years your investment could pay off bigtime. Come on LastWord rally the troops, heck i'll even join your cause.....ahh in a few years! For now the time being make mine MS!

[slade]

Heh, I'm over at GAF at the moment. The sticker shock wore off on me last week. In terms of Canadian dollars at least, if the 20 gig version comes in at 549 Canadian like IGN said, it's only fifty dollars more then the Premium 360 package here. I'll be getting that one six months after launch and who knows, with the shrink to 65 nm's, there might be a price drop at next E3. Sony also has to convince me that they can hold on to their support and next E3 would be a good indicator of that.

[Mochan]

Eh? I'm too busy playing games and watching anime to really get into the fight. Work has also been especially hectic so I don't get my usual posting time at work. Don't worry I haven't given up on Sony yet and I'll be posting again when I get more ammo.

As for SysWars dying, I doubt it. Maybe a reversal of roles at worst... it will be XBox vs. Nintendo with a sprinkle of Sony, but somehow I don't think it'll end up that way. It will be more equal footing I think between the 3 factions, plus a sprinkle of PC.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Heh, I'm over at GAF at the moment. The sticker shock wore off on me last week. In terms of Canadian dollars at least, if the 20 gig version comes in at 549 Canadian like IGN said, it's only fifty dollars more then the Premium 360 package here. I'll be getting that one six months after launch and who knows, with the shrink to 65 nm's, there might be a price drop at next E3. Sony also has to convince me that they can hold on to their support and next E3 would be a good indicator of that.

All ribbing aside, I would just get the damn 60GB version if I were a Sony fan. Either just suck it up and buy it at launch or wait a year and hope the price drops. I don't see the point in the 20GB version because I believe at some point the WI-FI, BLU-RAY, and Extra storage space will become valuable. And if you are getting a PS3, then u may as well not let a measily $100 sway u into getting the 20GB one. Think about it, $100 extra over 5 years of usage(or longer with the power in this baby)! Blu-ray is probably going to win the format war, u will probably get an HD set in the next 3-5 years, and by then this will just be a distant memory. For a guy like u, who loves the PS franchises, I'd just bite the bullet. Now myself, I want one too, but 360 can hold me over and i'll get one next year, the 60GB version. I can tell u one thing I absolutely will NOT be buying and that is MS' HD-DVD add-on, bang-dat! That is a sucker's deal unless its gonna be $100, which I doubt. Honestly the only thing that puts me off about the PS3 is the launch games and losing vibration in the controller, but other than that I am starting to think that the $600 is NOT a bad deal. We know the games will turn around soon. The price is just shocking. But for what u get it isn't unreasonable. Just add it up. 360 = $400, 360 WI-FI = $100, 360 HD-DVD kit = $200(my guess), total cost to really equal PS3 = $700. Then u have to ask which format will likely win? Even though HD-DVD has cost on its side, blu-ray has way more movie studios. I don't think what Sony is charging is wrong, it is just shocking. Right now if u are only thinking as a non-bias gamer, the 360 is the best deal. But if u love Sony or if u like the idea of the latest technology such blu-ray movies, and u have the patience to wait for better games, PS3 in the long run might be the best deal.

Okay, after this I go back to being an XBOT!

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

All ribbing aside, I would just get the damn 60GB version if I were a Sony fan. Either just suck it up and buy it at launch or wait a year and hope the price drops. I don't see the point in the 20GB version because I believe at some point the WI-FI, BLU-RAY, and Extra storage space will become valuable. And if you are getting a PS3, then u may as well not let a measily $100 sway u into getting the 20GB one. Think about it, $100 extra over 5 years of usage(or longer with the power in this baby)! Blu-ray is probably going to win the format war, u will probably get an HD set in the next 3-5 years, and by then this will just be a distant memory. For a guy like u, who loves the PS franchises, I'd just bite the bullet. Now myself, I want one too, but 360 can hold me over and i'll get one next year, the 60GB version. I can tell u one thing I absolutely will NOT be buying and that is MS' HD-DVD add-on, bang-dat! That is a sucker's deal unless its gonna be $100, which I doubt. Honestly the only thing that puts me off about the PS3 is the launch games and losing vibration in the controller, but other than that I am starting to think that the $600 is NOT a bad deal. We know the games will turn around soon. The price is just shocking. But for what u get it isn't unreasonable. Just add it up. 360 = $400, 360 WI-FI = $100, 360 HD-DVD kit = $200(my guess), total cost to really equal PS3 = $700. Then u have to ask which format will likely win? Even though HD-DVD has cost on its side, blu-ray has way more movie studios. I don't think what Sony is charging is wrong, it is just shocking. Right now if u are only thinking as a non-bias gamer, the 360 is the best deal. But if u love Sony or if u like the idea of the latest technology such blu-ray movies, and u have the patience to wait for better games, PS3 in the long run might be the best deal.

Okay, after this I go back to being an XBOT!

If you look at the tech it may be worth it. But in the end it's a videogame Console and to ask the public to pay 2 to 3 hundred dollars more than there competitors I just don't see it flying. Personally I wonder if the jump between consoles will be as pronounced as the jump between last gen.

[Glockstar]

I can tell u one thing I absolutely will NOT be buying and that is MS' HD-DVD add-on, bang-dat!

Why would you.

I don't understand why anybody would buy a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player at this point - or at any point in the near future, the way it looks now. No matter which way you go there are going to be some movies that you are not going to be able get, because the Hollywood studios are split as to which format they support. The only way to remedy that then, is to buy both types of players.(!) Like I said, I don't know how anybody (any consumer) could commit either way, with a future so uncertain.

Now in the case of the PS3 you'll take Blu-Ray just because it's there, but on the list of plusses it's way down there, practically speaking.

I don't buy that whole 'the extra storage capacity will be great for games' crap. I think the only people that are touting that are the penny-pinching Eastern game-makers - i.e. the makers of J-RPGs. You know, the ones who've been recycling the same old story line over and over and over again, and who continue to use PS1 and SNES graphics and engines. Their idea of prolonging gametime is to include dozens upon dozens of hours of cutscenes. Pfffft. Nuts to them.

And double nuts, because it's not like they couldn't make the same game on DVDs! They'd just have to put in two disks instead of one. (Which is just how they used to do it, back in the days of the PS1.(!)) Oooooh! :rolleyes:

As a matter of practicality, switching disks does kind of suck. But it only takes a few seconds, really. And I always thought that multiple-disk games... multiple-disk anything... were...are... neat. I really don't know what it was about them, I just know that liked 'em - for the PS1 and for the GameCube; I thought those games (i.e. Oddworld: Abe's Exodus, RE4 and ToS) were just... cool to own.

Sorry for the rant. It's just that I've been wanting to say that for a while now.

-

Anyways, in answer to the questions: "So if Sony loses is System Wars gonna die? Will this site die?"... No. System Wars seems like it has always been more about slamming the consoles you don't like more than it has been about speaking positively about the one console you do like, so I really don't see how anything will change - no matter who's in the lead, or who's in last...

[ThaMaskedGamer]

If you look at the tech it may be worth it. But in the end it's a videogame Console and to ask the public to pay 2 to 3 hundred dollars more than there competitors I just don't see it flying. Personally I wonder if the jump between consoles will be as pronounced as the jump between last gen.

I agree. It appears based on all the games we currently know exist or are in development, from Halo3 to MetalGear4 and everything else in between for both systems, if all one cares about is games, then the 360 is by far the best console and easiest decision to make. Will that change much further down the road in 2008, 2009? Personally, I don't know. It is unclear if PS3 really has that much more power than the 360. Believe it or not, I hope it does. I believe Halo3 and Bioshock and Gears of War and Mass Effect are going to be incredible games and I wouldn't turn my nose up at all to the idea of a console capable of producing even greater games than those could be, that would be awesome. But, i'd have to see it first.


The other factor will be HD Movies. Right now I just don't know how cool 1080i or 720p Miami Vice The Movie will look. It could be mindblowing or I could so what. Personally, since I love movies I kinda believe it will be mind blowing. When I watch DVDs they look great and its nice to have a large screen with clarity, but when I watch HDNet or some other HD Channel where they are showing Rome or Paris in true 1080i, it just makes u sit down in awe and watch! No matter what the program. So personally I'm tired of seeing the Westminster Dog Show in 1080i, I wanna see Star Wars III in 1080i, I wanna see XMEN III in 1080i. And if people are as blown away as I am by those prospects when they stroll through Circuit City, they are gonna ask "how can I get that, I have an HDTV!" and the salesman will say u can buy that Pioneer Blu-ray machine for $1000 or u can buy the PS3 for $600. Now will this amount to a flood of purchases, probably not, but who knows. Last generation I overestimated the power of tech, so this generation I'm going to be more tepid and say it will just be slightly significant.

[GameLegend]

I've been extremely busy cramming two 4 months courses (bio and chem) into 6 week summer course with exams every 2 weeks, and lab reports due every week,. blah blah ...yuck.

Anyway, i think no matter how many times sony shoots itself in the foot, they'll still do very well. They have the third party support, they have the money, and they have their loyal fan support.

Common, people have been planning the fatal demise of Nintendo for years and years now, since the N64 days, telling the company in thier prespective what they should do with their money. And Nintendo (the least powerful of the 3 competitors) is still holding down its fort and dominating E3.

I think Sony can make the bold move, because its Sony. may not be the best move, but its a move from a influential company. We are all still going to be getting a ps3, just not maybe this or next year.

[Glockstar]

The other factor will be HD Movies. Right now I just don't know how cool 1080i or 720p Miami Vice The Movie will look. It could be mindblowing or I could so what. Personally, since I love movies I kinda believe it will be mind blowing. When I watch DVDs they look great and its nice to have a large screen with clarity, but when I watch HDNet or some other HD Channel where they are showing Rome or Paris in true 1080i, it just makes u sit down in awe and watch! No matter what the program. So personally I'm tired of seeing the Westminster Dog Show in 1080i, I wanna see Star Wars III in 1080i, I wanna see XMEN III in 1080i. And if people are as blown away as I am by those prospects when they stroll through Circuit City, they are gonna ask "how can I get that, I have an HDTV!" and the salesman will say u can buy that Pioneer Blu-ray machine for $1000 or u can buy the PS3 for $600. Now will this amount to a flood of purchases, probably not, but who knows. Last generation I overestimated the power of tech, so this generation I'm going to be more tepid and say it will just be slightly significant.

780p, 1080i, 1080p... who cares. It's practically all the same. You have to have a big honkin' tv in order to be able to tell the difference. Anything less than 50" and you're not nitpicking, you're guessing as to which tv has the better picture.

But I find that one comment of yours to be especially interesting. Because I think it's important to note the source. Those shows are broadcast in hi-def. But are movies filmed in digital? I'm asking, I don't know. I know George Lucas has been filming in digital, but is everybody else? Was X-Men III? Was The Da Vinci Code? Again, I'm only asking.

Anyways, my point here is that 99.99999% of all of the movies of yesterday were not. And yet 99.99999% of the best movies you're ever going to see are from "yesterday". I won't bother citing examples, because I know you guys know what I'm talking about. And the same goes for tv shows too. The Star Treks, the X-Files, The Simpsons... the shows worth watching, worth buying and owning - the movies and shows that you probably already own on DVD... there's nothing Blu-Ray, or HD-DVD, or 1080p, or HDMI can do to make those shows look better. In fact, all they'll probably do is reveal more fully how terrible the classics really looked. Which DVD already does a fine job of.

I think the whole thing is just a lot of big to-do - a whole lot of $$-$$ - over nothing. And it won't even begin to be worth anything for several years. Several years.

[Mochan]

Oh, there's no question. Just as with the 360, I firmly say there is no point in getting the tard pack.

Me? Wanting the PS3 has nothing to do with being a Sony lover, I just probably will want the franchises that will be staying on the PS3. Whether it's Sony or MS has nothing to do with it for me.

As long as the third party is support is there, I'm there.


And if people are as blown away as I am by those prospects when they stroll through Circuit City, they are gonna ask "how can I get that, I have an HDTV!" and the salesman will say u can buy that Pioneer Blu-ray machine for $1000 or u can buy the PS3 for $600.

You said you were going back to being an XBot! You LIED!!!


I think the whole thing is just a lot of big to-do - a whole lot of $$-$$ - over nothing. And it won't even begin to be worth anything for several years. Several years.

Well, I got a 20 year old 21" CRT TV in my living room. About 3 years ago I still watched anime on VHS on it. Its picture quality sure as hell sucks compared to the 17" LCD screen I am watching digital anime on DVD with in my bedroom.

So booyah, it's not all about nothing, there IS progress going on here. Maybe not as obvious as 8-bit to Xbox 360 but the progress is there.

[GameLegend]

Well, I got a 20 year old 21" CRT TV in my living room. About 3 years ago I still watched anime on VHS on it. Its picture quality sure as hell sucks compared to the 17" LCD screen I am watching digital anime on DVD with in my bedroom.

So booyah, it's not all about nothing, there IS progress going on here. Maybe not as obvious as 8-bit to Xbox 360 but the progress is there.

No one including Glock is saying that there isnt progress. There is progress, a new standard of film quality, but we just came from a time where DVD's were the big thing, what like 5-6 years ago? I dont know if consumers are ready to buy into the HD-era just yet.

The step from DVD to HD is a step towards better picture and sound quality, but personally i dont see it as much justification to add another accessary to my living room..(off topic: ) which already is packed with techno gizmos which practically every guest scratches their head and says, "whats that?". I'm used to be a tech buy junkie, but theres no point anymore.

really off topic: since 98 i have wierd looking satelightes connected from my computer to the tv, i have these camera look-a-likes which are really sensors for my surround sound.

[slade]

All ribbing aside, I would just get the damn 60GB version if I were a Sony fan. Either just suck it up and buy it at launch or wait a year and hope the price drops. I don't see the point in the 20GB version because I believe at some point the WI-FI, BLU-RAY, and Extra storage space will become valuable. And if you are getting a PS3, then u may as well not let a measily $100 sway u into getting the 20GB one.

I'd rather save the extra one hundred bucks for the games. With the 20 gig version, you'll be able to upgrade just about any feature so I can upgrade if I really need to in the long term.

[Superior Beatslayer]

I'd rather save the extra one hundred bucks for the games. With the 20 gig version, you'll be able to upgrade just about any feature so I can upgrade if I really need to in the long term.

Games? you mean Game? Singular? cuz we both know you won't be getting more than one Ps3 game with 100 bone. Maybe a game and a remote or something.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

780p, 1080i, 1080p... who cares. It's practically all the same. You have to have a big honkin' tv in order to be able to tell the difference. Anything less than 50" and you're not nitpicking, you're guessing as to which tv has the better picture. Yes u are right, but either way PS3 will be the only console to natively support 720p, 1080i, or 1080p movies. Granted you'd have to get the 60GB version.

<b>
But I find that one comment of yours to be especially interesting. Because I think it's important to note the source. Those shows are broadcast in hi-def. But are movies filmed in digital? I'm asking, I don't know. I know George Lucas has been filming in digital, but is everybody else? Was X-Men III? Was The Da Vinci Code? Again, I'm only asking. </b> Well what u are talking about is are the movies filmed using hi-def cameras and that is a big question. I would think that with Hollywood knowing a new standard of media is coming that most of the movies today are shot using hi-def cameras, probably not all. As far as the old movies, I think we are gonna be azzed-out there. They can format them as 1080i or 1080P but it won't be as crystal clear as watching a nature program on HDNet which was shot using hi-def cameras. And I don't think its possible to go back change it. But I am sick of old movies. What is it with u guys and holding on to the past. I agree that of course there were a lot of great older pictures, but I disagree that new pictures aren't as good, maybe u are just burnt out on movies. I think there are just so many crap movies that are pushed by hollywood that the really good ones get overlooked and missed by a lot of viewers. But I think in recent times we have had some great movies. But nowaday anybody can make a movie so there is just a lot of crap out there so the movie scene is really diluted, just like videogames.

<b>
I think the whole thing is just a lot of big to-do - a whole lot of $$-$$ - over nothing. And it won't even begin to be worth anything for several years. Several years.</b> There is nothing wrong with that perspective, most of America are just now getting comfortable with DVDs, many don't look forward to having their entire libraries they have invested in go up in smoke. These are reasons why HD-Movies are going to have a much longer road to acceptance, along with the format war, but the fact that both formats are b/c means that DVDs will eventually go bye-bye. Gradually as prices come down and people upgrade their DVD players they will move into a HD player and still be able to utilize their old dvd libraries, as the rental chains carry more and more HD movies, and as people see them playing at friends homes on big screens they will gain acceptance.

But that is why the PS3 could be an interesting component in all of this, because just for the measily incremental cost of $100, you are there BANG! So if you are a gamer and also typically an early adopter of A/V gear the PS3 is actually a dream come true. The only snag is if blu-ray loses lol! That's a pretty big snag. Other than that in the long-run the PS3 could be a steal. Just look at the people who said 360 shouldn't be bought at launch. To me it was great because I have played all of these games from Condemned to Oblivion in that time period and if I had of waited for PS3, I'd probably not even get a system and if i did the games will likely suck for a whole 'nother year. So for a Sony fan if u know u are gonna get a PS3 u may as well hunker down take the 1 or 2 gem games from launch and enjoy the HD Movies, you'll get a full year of usage less than $10 a month, instead of waiting a year and hoping they reduce the price by a $100. Now I will wait cause i'm not a huge Sony game fan, but for the Milkdrinkers here, if I were u, i'd buy it now. I happen to be a gamer and an early adopter. So I don't really care about the laggards who won't adopt the technology for another 5 years. Just as I didn't sit around the last five years and wait for the masses who thought FPS sucked on consoles, consoles weren't ready for online gaming or hdd, or 480P wasn't a big addition to console gaming, i'm not gonna sit around while people say HD-Movies isn't that big of a deal. Different strokes for different folks.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Oh, there's no question. Just as with the 360, I firmly say there is no point in getting the tard pack.

Me? Wanting the PS3 has nothing to do with being a Sony lover, I just probably will want the franchises that will be staying on the PS3. Whether it's Sony or MS has nothing to do with it for me.

As long as the third party is support is there, I'm there.



You said you were going back to being an XBot! You LIED!!!



Well, I got a 20 year old 21" CRT TV in my living room. About 3 years ago I still watched anime on VHS on it. Its picture quality sure as hell sucks compared to the 17" LCD screen I am watching digital anime on DVD with in my bedroom.

So booyah, it's not all about nothing, there IS progress going on here. Maybe not as obvious as 8-bit to Xbox 360 but the progress is there.


For once we are in total agreement, the world must be coming to an end lol. But now I wonder will u get UT, Splinter Cell, BIA2, Rainbow6 on the PC or the PS3?

Oh but about your last comment in the reply, I think the difference is vast between say a DVD on a 30inch 4:3 regular TV and a Blu-ray HD movie on a 50 inch 16:9 plasma, oh my that would be a night and day difference!

[ThaMaskedGamer]

I'd rather save the extra one hundred bucks for the games. With the 20 gig version, you'll be able to upgrade just about any feature so I can upgrade if I really need to in the long term.

Wow Slade even when we agree we find ways to disagree. Economically it just doesn't make sense. You'd rather spend that $100 on a game that will lose value, as opposed to a WI-FI and HD Movie capability that will give u value for the life of the console? Also when u go to upgrade, it is gonna cost u more upgrade it than it would to buy the 60GB version now. Trust me pal, 40GB, WI-FI, and HD Movies is definitely worth $100, the 20GB system is TRULY the retard pack, and though I think u are many things, i never thought of u as a 'tard! Come on dude suck it up, its just a C-Note!

[trebor]

I don't think I've ever read any post by Glock that I've agreed with on so many different points.

Why would you.

I don't understand why anybody would buy a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player at this point - or at any point in the near future, the way it looks now. No matter which way you go there are going to be some movies that you are not going to be able get, because the Hollywood studios are split as to which format they support. The only way to remedy that then, is to buy both types of players.(!) Like I said, I don't know how anybody (any consumer) could commit either way, with a future so uncertain.

Not to mention, there are many plain ol' DVD players that can upconvert the signal to near HD quality - and the upconversion technology is constantly advancing. Pretty soon you will be able to get nearly the same picture quality from standard DVDs and then what will happen with HD-DVD/Blu-Ray?

People stuck with VHS when Laserdisc came out, people stuck with cassette tapes when Mini-Discs came out and they will stick with DVDs over HD-DVD/Blu-Ray. Simply because DVDs will always have a superior selection over the new alternatives, because DVDs aren't an either/or situation like HD-DVD/Blu-Ray currently is with mixed studio support.


Now in the case of the PS3 you'll take Blu-Ray just because it's there, but on the list of plusses it's way down there, practically speaking.

I don't buy that whole 'the extra storage capacity will be great for games' crap. I think the only people that are touting that are the penny-pinching Eastern game-makers - i.e. the makers of J-RPGs. You know, the ones who've been recycling the same old story line over and over and over again, and who continue to use PS1 and SNES graphics and engines. Their idea of prolonging gametime is to include dozens upon dozens of hours of cutscenes. Pfffft. Nuts to them.

And double nuts, because it's not like they couldn't make the same game on DVDs! They'd just have to put in two disks instead of one. (Which is just how they used to do it, back in the days of the PS1.(!)) Oooooh! :rolleyes:

As a matter of practicality, switching disks does kind of suck. But it only takes a few seconds, really. And I always thought that multiple-disk games... multiple-disk anything... were...are... neat. I really don't know what it was about them, I just know that liked 'em - for the PS1 and for the GameCube; I thought those games (i.e. Oddworld: Abe's Exodus, RE4 and ToS) were just... cool to own.

Additionally, even printing multiple DVDs with supported packaging will be far, far cheaper to produce than printing one single Blu-Ray disc.

[slade]

Games? you mean Game? Singular? cuz we both know you won't be getting more than one Ps3 game with 100 bone. Maybe a game and a remote or something.

It's still something to play rather then features like WIFI and memory card readers that won't get used for a while.

Wow Slade even when we agree we find ways to disagree. Economically it just doesn't make sense. You'd rather spend that $100 on a game that will lose value, as opposed to a WI-FI and HD Movie capability that will give u value for the life of the console? Also when u go to upgrade, it is gonna cost u more upgrade it than it would to buy the 60GB version now. Trust me pal, 40GB, WI-FI, and HD Movies is definitely worth $100, the 20GB system is TRULY the retard pack, and though I think u are many things, i never thought of u as a 'tard! Come on dude suck it up, its just a C-Note!

Don't agree. Costs spread out over time actually work favorably for me. If it's a feature I actually want, I won't have much problem laying down money for it when the time comes. Right now, WIFI is the biggest deal and I'm not sure that's going to be much of an incentive over regular Ethernet. Mainly the reason Sony is including it is so people with PSP and PS3 can network the two machines. Since I'm not in the portable market and don't plan on it, this won't matter to me. As for memory stick readers, don't really care.

If the 20 gig version isn't going to hamper videogame playing in any way, why wouldn't you want it?

[Glockstar]

Well, I got a 20 year old 21" CRT TV in my living room. About 3 years ago I still watched anime on VHS on it. Its picture quality sure as hell sucks compared to the 17" LCD screen I am watching digital anime on DVD with in my bedroom.

So booyah, it's not all about nothing, there IS progress going on here. Maybe not as obvious as 8-bit to Xbox 360 but the progress is there.

You appeared to have missed the point at the time of this post, but I think you got it now.

Still, I want to make it clear: I'm not saying that Hi-Def isn't for nothing. Why, (unlike with my "780p" gaff: it's 720p) that's not a typo that I left off 480p... I think enough people can tell the difference between 720p and 480p. (And EDTV looks nice, btw!) But once you get to 720p...

720p and 1080i are going to look the exact same. On paper, 1080p is supposed to be better, but there are other factors that will decide how true that is... factors like tv size, manufucturer quality (because let's face it, all tvs are not made the same), and the environment in which you view it.

And 1080p just isn't being used for anything right now. It's a future thing. A future thing for other future things. Like I said, it's really not going to do anything for past - and to a still very large extent, present - media.

-

Economically it just doesn't make sense. You'd rather spend that $100 on a game that will lose value, as opposed to a WI-FI and HD Movie capability that will give u value for the life of the console? Also when u go to upgrade, it is gonna cost u more upgrade it than it would to buy the 60GB version now. Trust me pal, 40GB, WI-FI, and HD Movies is definitely worth $100, the 20GB system is TRULY the retard pack...

There's one thing you're forgetting Hav0k, and that's that a lot of people still don't have Hi-Def televisions. Or maybe you're not forgetting, per se, you're just taking HDTV for granted. That's (one of) Sony's big mistake(s). They're shooting for the high end - and for a future protocal - that is quite simply beyond the majority of people. Both for right now, and probably for many years still to come. $1500 is a lot for a tv! Maybe not to you, but for most people.

And of course, you know as well as I, that it doesn't stop there. There's also a Surround Sound system that needs addressing, as well as all of the hi-tech cables - which are as important as anything. All of which costs a lot of money. Heck, HDMI cables alone cost over $50, and upwards of $100.

Everybody's got to make sacrifices here. For some, like yourself, it's just money that you're giving up. But for others, they have to give up the hi-tech amenities.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

There's one thing you're forgetting Hav0k, and that's that a lot of people still don't have Hi-Def televisions. Or maybe you're not forgetting, per se, you're just taking HDTV for granted. That's (one of) Sony's big mistake(s). They're shooting for the high end - and for a future protocal - that is quite simply beyond the majority of people. Both for right now, and probably for many years still to come. $1500 is a lot for a tv! Maybe not to you, but for most people.

And of course, you know as well as I, that it doesn't stop there. There's also a Surround Sound system that needs addressing, as well as all of the hi-tech cables - which are as important as anything. All of which costs a lot of money. Heck, HDMI cables alone cost over $50, and upwards of $100.

Everybody's got to make sacrifices here. For some, like yourself, it's just money that you're giving up. But for others, they have to give up the hi-tech amenities.

First off, you don't have to spend $1500. U can get a rear projection capable of 720p or 1080i for much less now, but for some reason people just focus on LCD, Plasma. But irrespective of the TV, the 20GB version is still the idiots choice. Even if u just have a normal TV and no 5.1. The only way to say that the 20GB version is a good deal is to say that one won't EVER use the WI-FI, ever use the extra 40GB, and never use the blu-ray movie playback. If you can absolutely positively project into the future that you will NEVER ever for the life of owning the PS3 even think about those aspect, then guess what, the 20GB version is still the 'tard pack because that person should just buy a 360 for $400. The only way the PS3 makes any sense is the 60GB version. Will people buy the 20GB version of course, people will probably buy it in droves, and Sony knows this, and it is a total rip-off. What Sony is saying is this is a pure gaming machine. Okay cool, I can see paying extra for the 20GB HDD, MS passed that cost on and Sony can too. But that should be $100. Other than that, there is no reason Sony should charge a $200 premium over the traditional $300 console price for a pure gaming machine with a HDD. Where is the justification for an extra $100 over the 360? Right now in terms of gaming 360 has better games and will have them for a while, LIVE is better, so if anything the 20GB PS3 should be cheaper or the same price.

[slade]

The only way to say that the 20GB version is a good deal is to say that one won't EVER use the WI-FI, ever use the extra 40GB, and never use the blu-ray movie playback.

That's wrong on so many levels.

Where is the justification for an extra $100 over the 360? Right now in terms of gaming 360 has better games and will have them for a while, LIVE is better, so if anything the 20GB PS3 should be cheaper or the same price.

Better games is subjective. Personally, I liked Heavenly Sword more then any 360 game I saw at the show. MS isn't exactly playing to people like me by once again showing no third person action games in the vein of Ninja Gaiden in their lineup. And as for Ninja Gaiden itself, that probably won't get released until 2009.

[Gadfly2317]

I don't know if Sony will lose, but the upcoming war looks like it's going to be bloody and difficult for Sony. Virtually all the news right now is negative. Take the sampling of recent headlines at gamesindustry.biz. It has been revealed that Sony lied about rumble not being compatible with motion sensing tech, as well as very negative responses to their dual-sku scheme:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17279
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17140

Also grim for Sony is that 68 percent of Famitsu readers post-E3 said the Wii is their most wanted console and 6 of the 10 most wanted games are Wii titles. Also 89% of Famitsu readers said the Ps3 is too expensive. This seems to support my prediction that Nintendo will do heavy damage to Sony in the east, and MS and Nintendo in America will also give Sony a big run for their money.

http://www.nintendojo.com/infocus/view_item.php?1148657248

[Cuddly Knife]

Sony still has a chance if they are willing to drop the price of the most expensive version of the PS3 by 100 dollars. Or at least drop the price of the tard pack by the same amount instead. The 600 price isn't set in stone, is it?

[Mochan]

720p and 1080i are going to look the exact same

They don't! Only because you're new to 720p. I once thought I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 1024x768 and 1280x1024. How wrong I was.


Also 89% of Famitsu readers said the Ps3 is too expensive. This seems to support my prediction that Nintendo will do heavy damage to Sony in the east

I was expecting Sony to do better in Japan, but with an alternative like the Wii, it's really going to be tough. Will we finally see Squenix go back to Nintendo? Will Konami, Capcom and Tecmo finally renew their alliance with Nintendo? It will be very interesting to say the least.