Sony reveals PlayStation 3 prices

[hokiethang]

Originally Posted by sandor_

not exactly true, and a bit of chicken little. while it is possible for movie studios (probably not game titles) to limit the analog output from Blu-Ray, the majority of studios have been saying they will not adopt this protection for quite some time, even if it is fully ratified.

regardless, games will not be affected by AACS, and will be in HD over component if the manufacturer decides to do an HD game.

I have seen the exact opposite, most studios are in favor of the ICT (Image Constraint Token) which only works over the HDCP protection provided by HDMI. Games are different, but movie studios are paranoid about putting digital masters out without having some type of insane protection on their content. But the simple fact that sony decided to cut hdmi from the $499 console still makes the blu-ray drive useless, when later the studio start producing films with the ICT protection enabled.

I won't buy a system that doesn't give me an upgrade path to the best and latest. I also won't buy a system that relies solely upon pre-rendered trailers to sell games. I'll consider a PS3 when the premium PS3, drops to a reasonable price, and when games I want to play come out for it, because all of the sony exclusive games are pretty boring to me. MGS looks nice, but i'm not convinced it's not a pre-rendered trailer, and want to see actual gameplay before even considering spending $600 on a fundamentally flawed game console.

[AxlxA]

lol, what's with all this flame war between 360 and ps3. Both are magnificient machines and each deserves their own "value." We shall see if consumers believe those prices will be reflected in sales.

Personally i dont own ANY console system because I still believe PC games are the best.

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by Buba

Haha, you are the James May of the Console World?

Personally, I wouldn't wanna waste money on a non HD console, except it costs less then 100 Euros... Its just a pain to look at, IMO...

I feel it's more like the Lotus Elise amongst the Ferrari's and Lamborghini's. Nintendo is using innovation over brute force. Whats funny is I bet most of you guys will deny a car being good because it makes 500hp from 7litres, while others makes 200hp from a 2.0L.

Graphics come 3nd when it comes to games. Gameplay being first, and speed (Frames per second) being 2nd.

Games with nice graphics feel like the same old shit to me. Perfect example is doom 3. Great looking game (when it's not pitch black), but the same old trick is done to make if feel scary. Which is to have a monster in the dark, and when one walks in to a room, the door shuts behind you, and the monster jumps at you. That shit didn't scare me when I was 3, why would it do it to me now when I'm 22?

I guess my problem is I don't have A.D.D. like the fanboys.

Originally Posted by sandor_

not exactly true, and a bit of chicken little. while it is possible for movie studios (probably not game titles) to limit the analog output from Blu-Ray, the majority of studios have been saying they will not adopt this protection for quite some time, even if it is fully ratified.

regardless, games will not be affected by AACS, and will be in HD over component if the manufacturer decides to do an HD game.

The features can be activated when they want. IGN said they wouldn't be suprised if SquarEnix turns it on for the cut scene's so no one can rip them. Thats just speculation, but it is an example.

If your just buying for games, and have an older HDtv, the cheaper system ain't bad, but just seems stupid to not provide an upgrade path to the full system. It only means they can make more money in the end.

edit: I'd like to point out I'm not a fan boy, but I merely feel the Wii made the biggest impression. My fanboydom (is that even a word?) died with the Dreamcast.

Originally Posted by AxlxA

lol, what's with all this flame war between 360 and ps3. Both are magnificient machines and each deserves their own "value." We shall see if consumers believe those prices will be reflected in sales.

This is true. Problem is what the companies are doing with the machines aren't all that impressive yet.

[hokiethang]

Originally Posted by thedguy

This is true. Problem is what the companies are doing with the machines aren't all that impressive yet.

I don't agree it's not impressive. It's leaps and bounds better in preparing the industry for future gaming platforms (these new consoles all use multiple cores, something unheard of until now in gaming). Graphics may not impress you, but it's a big part of convincing someone the next generation of gaming has arrived.

Also, with the 360, Microsoft is planning on allowing people with Windows Vista machines to play games right along with someone playing on a 360, with Live Anywhere. That will allow people who are PC gamers, to experience the true power of xbox live.

Honestly, after all of the talk this week about the Wii, I'll seriously consider purchasing one (if they are available) on release. It's something that actually looks fun, regardless of the graphics quality, or anything of that sort.

[thedguy]

Hokie,
You make a decent point. Being able to play the PC and Xbox versions of games together will be nice, if they actually take advantage of it.

Sony and MS both have potential, but as I said, I don't think they've shown anything to say "Oooo! I gotta have that now."

-------------------------------------

What the sony guys don't seem to realize also is Sony proprietary formats don't last. Beta-Max, UMD, Mini-Disc, and for the most part, Sony Memory stick, all are failures. UMD hasn't completely gone yet, but it's not doing well and Movie studio's are abandoning it. Blu-ray will do the same. So if your rationalizing the PS2 on the basis that it will be a Blu-ray player, don't.

The other consideration is how much all this equipment costs Sony to make, and how cheap they are making it available. Even though they plan to lose money on each system, don't you think they'll cheapen up the hardware to make it less painful?

When the first ps2's came out, not long after enough started to develop problems that Sony had a class action lawsuit against them to replace any faulty unit.

I've gone thru 2 unit's personally, and my third only works because I have an HD mod, I have to rip games to my pc, load them on an HD and play them via a boot disc. That lovely dvd feature of my system is therefore useless as well, but atleast I don't scratch my discs since they sit in their box once I rip the disc.

[Koenig]

All this argueing. All I know is that the $950 I just got back from my tax returns is going into a special bank account known as "The PS3 account".

[///M]

Originally Posted by thedguy

Ooo! the same old shit as before. MGS4 is about the only game worth playing. Though like all the others, I'll get sick of playing it since i'll move 3 feet on screen and spend 20 minutes watching video I can't skip.

All those "exclusive games" are the same old shit. Tekken 6, I got bored after 3, and never played 1 or 2. Virtua Fighter 5...see Tekken 6, same game, different name. Warhawk, I'll probably play it for about 5 minutes.
Assassin's creed looks good, though I thought it was for xbox.

The only games that are appealing are GTAIV, which is on Xbox 360. Halo does nothing for me.

Skip a MGS video? You're missing out on all the fun, hell, I sit through all the Codec convos. Hideo is brilliant, but I guess his wit and humour flies over your head.

Of all things, the quality of the games should be the last thing on your mind when talking about the PS3. Remember, it's going to have the same great developers as the PS2, and look at how many insane franchises were born there. If we were to judge the PS2 at launch, it'd be worse than the Xbox :p. And again, how do you know for sure Sony is not going to provide an upgrade path?

It seems that some Xbox 360 owners are feeling a bit insecure about their purchase . All you have is a machine that's going to be used for PC ports and FPSs. The PS3 trumps it in power, as far as I can tell. That, added to the fact that all the good developers are exclusively making titles for the PS3, will make it a superior console. The X360 can have the FPSs, it does that genre very well. Other REAL games like RPGs and action/adventure games are always going to be better on the PS3.

Personally, I still wish Sega was making hardware. Oh well.

[///M]

Originally Posted by hokiethang

MGS looks nice, but i'm not convinced it's not a pre-rendered trailer, and want to see actual gameplay before even considering spending $600 on a fundamentally flawed game console.

No offense, but how long have you been into console gaming?

Hideo doesn't do pre-rendered. Period. MGS4 is going to look like it did, and better.

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by ///M

Personally, I still wish Sega was making hardware. Oh well.

Best statement you've made all day.

Skip a MGS video? You're missing out on all the fun, hell, I sit through all the Codec convos. Hideo is brilliant, but I guess his wit and humour flies over your head.

Of all things, the quality of the games should be the last thing on your mind when talking about the PS3. Remember, it's going to have the same great developers as the PS2, and look at how many insane franchises were born there. If we were to judge the PS2 at launch, it'd be worse than the Xbox :p. And again, how do you know for sure Sony is not going to provide an upgrade path?

It seems that some Xbox 360 owners are feeling a bit insecure about their purchase . All you have is a machine that's going to be used for PC ports and FPSs. The PS3 trumps it in power, as far as I can tell. That, added to the fact that all the good developers are exclusively making titles for the PS3, will make it a superior console. The X360 can have the FPSs, it does that genre very well. Other REAL games like RPGs and action/adventure games are always going to be better on the PS3.

Well I don't have the problem the xbox 360 owners have as you say. I don't own one. I bought a regular Xbox ages ago and sold it waiting for some good games.

MGS humour doesn't go over my head, it just gets very irritating after a while, and I just want to play. I don't mind a stop in play once in a while for video's but not all the time. Games used to make it a treat for the vids, Konami makes me wish they'd just go away and let me play.

As far as the franchises go... they were born on the ps1/ps2, and are only being continued on the PS3. Where's the original content? While Nintendo is rehashing old franchises, they are atleast inovating the way you play them.

And you keep metioning the trailers on MGS aren't pre-rendered. But rendering a cutscene on the machine compared to playing the game still allows them to mislead the buying public. Look at the cutscenes for FFX on ps2. Those scenes are also rendered on the PS2, but the in game graphics looks nowhere near as good. Same goes with MGS2.

If PS3's graphics look identical in actual game play as the cutscenes shown for MGS4, I will then give props to them. But since everyone else has been showing pre-rendered stuff and MGS only goes further than them in that, it's hard to believe it's NOT pre-rendered. The last comment will only make me being wrong all the better.

Now when will there be a game for the system that will make you need those graphics, not just go "oooh it look purdy"? Someone should make a game that requires the detail you get from an HD system.

As far as upgradability goes...I don't know. I always accepted others point that, the more expensive system has it built in. I guess Sony could just provide an aftermarket cable for the HDMI port, and USB wifi adapters etc... Hopefully anything they make USB that comes on the upmarket model will work like it's built in, not requiring the software makers to support it (cause they won't).

I would love for me to be wrong, and Sony release a bunch of kick ass new innovative games, that use the motion sensors in an innovative way, look as good as the trailer for MGS, and aren't just the same old rehashed shit. I liked my PS2 a lot, and it's got good games, but if the PS3 is merely going to slightly improve old games and add more to the story of the old ones, I have little interest.

MGS4 and GT vision/HD and Assassin's Creed and the sequels don't sell me on the system for $500 let alone $600.

[///M]

The thing is cutscenes in MGS have looked the same as in-game graphics. Always has, always will be. I don't know what you mean by MGS2, but the cutscenes in it were no different fron the in-game graphics. FF cutscenes are different. Most use in-game rendering, while the really special ones are pre-rendered.

Look at it this way, you have the same series you've had since the PS1, plus sequels to the new PS2 franchises, plus new franchises exclusive to the PS3. See what I mean? The same thing was said during the launch of the PS2, that it's simply going to be PS1 sequels, but look at how many new franchises came out of it. The only reason why I'm a Sony fan is that they have the right developers, namely the Japanese ones, and so long as you have Japanese developers working on the PS3, you're going to get fresh, new games.

[Koenig]

Originally Posted by ///M

The thing is cutscenes in MGS have looked the same as in-game graphics. Always has, always will be. I don't know what you mean by MGS2, but the cutscenes in it were no different fron the in-game graphics. FF cutscenes are different. Most use in-game rendering, while the really special ones are pre-rendered.

Look at it this way, you have the same series you've had since the PS1, plus sequels to the new PS2 franchises, plus new franchises exclusive to the PS3. See what I mean? The same thing was said during the launch of the PS2, that it's simply going to be PS1 sequels, but look at how many new franchises came out of it. The only reason why I'm a Sony fan is that they have the right developers, namely the Japanese ones, and so long as you have Japanese developers working on the PS3, you're going to get fresh, new games.

While I agree that Japanese developers = great games 95% of the time, let's not forget that one of the best titles to ever come out for PS2, which was God of War, was purely American.

[sandor_]

Originally Posted by hokiethang

I have seen the exact opposite, most studios are in favor of the ICT (Image Constraint Token) which only works over the HDCP protection provided by HDMI. Games are different, but movie studios are paranoid about putting digital masters out without having some type of insane protection on their content. But the simple fact that sony decided to cut hdmi from the $499 console still makes the blu-ray drive useless, when later the studio start producing films with the ICT protection enabled.

I won't buy a system that doesn't give me an upgrade path to the best and latest. I also won't buy a system that relies solely upon pre-rendered trailers to sell games. I'll consider a PS3 when the premium PS3, drops to a reasonable price, and when games I want to play come out for it, because all of the sony exclusive games are pretty boring to me. MGS looks nice, but i'm not convinced it's not a pre-rendered trailer, and want to see actual gameplay before even considering spending $600 on a fundamentally flawed game console.

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/bl...-support.shtml

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13198

and there are many more articles about it. google searches well...

yes studios are in favor of locking down content as much as possible - the internet connectivity is something they are waiting for as well, so they can do such things as limit the number of times a single disk can be viewed via internet checks. but, for now, most studios are saying they recognize that digital HD connections (let alone HDMI 1.3) is barely available in households, and component is still the most used connection, so they arent going to restrict the resolution of the initial waves of content.

[qube]

Just add my $0.02 I sold my PS2 as I couldn't find any exclusive games I liked other than GT. I bought a Cube and Xbox which could be bought for the same price as a PS2. Games like Ninja Gaiden, DOA, Ikaruga, Forza, PGR are enough to satisfy me with my purchase (and my lad loves Halo although I'm not a fan of FPS on consoles). The cross--platform games always looked much nicer on the Xbox too. I'm sure the PS3 will be nice but again you could buy a 360 and a Wii for the same money. The PS3 and 360 both have multi-core PowerPC CPU's and the ATI/nVidia GPU's are 99% identical plus they both have 512MB of RAM so graphically they'll be almost identical. The Blu-Ray DVD will be interesting but given that games at the moment are about 5GB and cost £45, how much will a 100GB game cost, and what will use all that extra space? I don't want to end up paying £100+ for a game just to be sat watching endless HD cut scenes!

Microsoft always said there were going to be 3 versions of the 360 so I'm sure we'll see the HD-DVD version next year which will level the playing field again or at least the drive will be an addon.

The biggest difference I believe will be down to the online content, MS has 30 years experience in this field and 5 years experience with Xbox Live, Sony have been very quiet with what they're going to offer.

I think also that most console users are fanboys where it will take a lot to convince them to entertain the concept of a rival machine (As a child of the 80's I still maintain that the Commodore 64 is the best machine ever made!).

Matthew

[ske]

PS3 for me, definitely... and remember: this console is set to be cheaper than the PS2 was at launch (at least here in Norway, I paid the equivalent of €550 for it back then...)

Main reasons? Names like Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo and the fact that they're sticking with the old controller design... I don't care about the tilt gimmick, infact I still don't care about dualshock... it's just a lot more comfortable to use, and that counts for a bit. Besides that, we all already know that PS3 games will be better than their xbox counterparts... and no, I don't care 1 mm about halo, personally I might as well play doom 1.

[hokiethang]

Originally Posted by ske

Besides that, we all already know that PS3 games will be better than their xbox counterparts

I'm curious as to why you seem to think that? Because Sony tells you it will be better? The screenshots i've seen from PS3 games aren't all that impressive, and i've seen better from my 360. Rendering videos using the PS3 is one thing, but actually playing games with it is a whole other story.

And on a semi unrelated note, I mean really, why do people buy things from companies that say "oh well, we could shit in a box and millions of people would buy it anyway" which a certain executive of Sony said, to the press, in the last week (may have been two weeks). I'd be insulted if I were a PS3 fanboy (which you'd have to be to spend $599 on a gaming system).

$599 is not a value for me, as the PS3 exclusive games are over-hyped as they stand now, and those that arent PS3 exclusive will look better because the developers will have had a year and a half to learn the devkits. The hardware model is not nearly as powerful as they promised, especially when the games will have to give up CPU time to the base system, on demand.

But I digress, I've seen the agreement about ICT, which only delays my argument about the blu-ray player, still being worthless, it'll just be worthless later. But then again it's a Sony product, you'll likely have to buy one or two more before the ICT really becomes a problem.

I want on the waiting list for the Wii, as it'll be my second console.