Sony PS3

[Bigfoot]

So it's going to be a solid peice of hardware with many capabilities and a great game library? Sounds awful!

Anyway, it's too early to call anything of the sort really.

Nice great game library when 3rd parties can't even make games yet.

Yes, there will be no 3rd party games for the PS3. You heard it here first, folks!

Can you read? I said "yet".

And if I'm not mistaken, that article says 1 year.

Where does it say that? I read the article like three times and didn't notice anything about a year.

The guy is basically just whining "OMG THE PS3 IS HARD TO DEVELOP FOR!" Exactly the same as the PS2 launch. He even mentions the PS2 launch.

Nevermind then, Joystiq said that for some reason. "In other words, the GDC boss is giving it a year." Dunno where they got that from.

This doesn't mean the exact same thing will happen like the PS2. We'll just have to wait and find out.

[Evilhead]

Yes, no one can tell how it will turn out. Which is why it's kind of silly to say stuff like

Looks like the PS3 is turning out to be another PSP.

"So hows that movie player/ROM player you got there for $600?"

C'mon now Sony. This is not looking good for you at all.

[Petara]

Yes, no one can tell how it will turn out. Which is why it's kind of silly to say stuff like

Looks like the PS3 is turning out to be another PSP.

"So hows that movie player/ROM player you got there for $600?"

C'mon now Sony. This is not looking good for you at all.

kinda like saying: "You paid $600 for a freakin playstation?" (or more)

wait a sec...how is it that much better than the others to cost so much more?

is it?

call that a silly question.

After my reservation fiasco, I am way close to buying a 360 instead. almost like a get a second chance at this whole thing.

I'll wait a while longer...

[TheCatPhysician]

Yes, no one can tell how it will turn out. Which is why it's kind of silly to say stuff like

Looks like the PS3 is turning out to be another PSP.

"So hows that movie player/ROM player you got there for $600?"

C'mon now Sony. This is not looking good for you at all.

kinda like saying: "You paid $600 for a freakin playstation?" (or more)

wait a sec...how is it that much better than the others to cost so much more?

is it?

call that a silly question.

It's got Blue Ray, so it's actually a really good deal if you wanted to get Blue Ray anyway. But if you don't have HDTV, you're basically wasting money.

[Petara]

Actually bought a Phillips 32" HDTV 3 weeks ago (hooray davis-bacon wages all summer.) It's been great to play FF12 on it and I am looking forward to goin hdmi-style with a ps3, but sadly, I know not one of the fifty people who owns one in this city.

[PriZm]

The PS3 being the only console that can playback movies in HD is a big deal for some people, like me. It's nearly impossible to buy a new quality TV without HD now so I'm betting it will get pretty standard in something like 3 years.

[TheCatPhysician]

The PS3 being the only console that can playback movies in HD is a big deal for some people, like me. It's nearly impossible to buy a new quality TV without HD now so I'm betting it will get pretty standard in something like 3 years.

Of course, it's definetely good for people who have HD, especially those who want to watch HD moves; You get a BlueRay player for really cheap. I'm just saying that at the same time it's actually bad for people who don't have HDTVs, because you're obligated to pay for something you essentially aren't going to use. Also I really disagree that it's near impossible to buy a new quality TV that isn't HD. My parents bought a brand new LCD TV less than 2 months ago that isn't HD, and they don't even know what HD is; they just went and picked up a nice-looking new TV at RadioShack. Same thing with my friend a little while before. Look around; there are plenty of new TVs that don't have HD.

[Bahamut]

Conversely, my parents wasted $800 on an HDTV in which they don't use the HD for anything. I do see plenty of standard TVs that would be just fine for me though.

[Evilhead]

The PS3 being the only console that can playback movies in HD is a big deal for some people, like me. It's nearly impossible to buy a new quality TV without HD now so I'm betting it will get pretty standard in something like 3 years.

Of course, it's definetely good for people who have HD, especially those who want to watch HD moves; You get a BlueRay player for really cheap. I'm just saying that at the same time it's actually bad for people who don't have HDTVs, because you're obligated to pay for something you essentially aren't going to use. Also I really disagree that it's near impossible to buy a new quality TV that isn't HD. My parents bought a brand new LCD TV less than 2 months ago that isn't HD, and they don't even know what HD is; they just went and picked up a nice-looking new TV at RadioShack. Same thing with my friend a little while before. Look around; there are plenty of new TVs that don't have HD.

Who the hell buys TVs at Radio Shack? Yes, old clueless people.

Anyway, this argument has been made a thousand times, really. Yes, you are being forced to buy something. Wait, except you're not being forced to buy anything! Oh, and those shiny new PS3 games happen to use that Blu-Ray drive too. Looks like it's useful after all!

[Poiso]

i'm on the side of people who has and loves an HD-TV and i have this to say to those of you who don't:

shut up. stop whining. i am going to go enjoy my hd-tv now.

[Specter]

HDTV owner +1 here. Well, it's not mine, per se, but it is in my place of residence. Anyways, it's pretty old, like one of the first HD plasmas ever. I'm surprised it's held up for this long though. The colors and clarity are still as good as the day my dad bought it for a ridiculously inflated price. Of course, it only does 720i, but at this point I only use it to watch my favorite TV shows (all of which happen to be in HD, and none in 1080) so it doesn't rally matter.

[TheCatPhysician]

Who the hell buys TVs at Radio Shack? Yes, old clueless people.

The point I was making was that new TVs that don't have HD are still very common, which is true.

Anyway, this argument has been made a thousand times, really. Yes, you are being forced to buy something. Wait, except you're not being forced to buy anything!

Correct, nobody is forcing anyone to buy a PS3. But did I say that? No. You're taking this way out of context, completely missing the point and you know it. If you want to buy a PS3, you are also going to have to pay for the BlueRay whether you want it or not.

Oh, and those shiny new PS3 games happen to use that Blu-Ray drive too. Looks like it's useful after all!

Yeah, they provide a lot of space for that useful padding. Games don't need that much space; see the Xbox 360. If Xbox 360 and PS3 games are practically the same in graphics/size, then to someone who doesn't have an HDTV, buying a PS3 compared to a 360 would seem like spending $200 on nothing. Maybe in the future games will be made for the PS3 that actually use up enough space to make use of the BlueRay by adding craploads of music or something. Or who knows, maybe PS3 games will start to become completely unique from Xbox 360 games in size, actually requiring all that extra space for necessary things in the games, not just space to throw a bunch of extras. If that happens, then I'll admit I'm wrong. But as of now Xbox 360 and PS3 games are similar and roughly the same size.

And still, one of the main reasons people can justify spending $600 on the PS3 is because it has the BlueRay, but the main advantage they see is that it allows them to watch HD movies. It costs a lot more to buy just a regular BlueRay player to watch HD movies on. Now, of course it's better to have a console that uses discs with more disc space than less, but having seen that the games so far don't even need that space, and that some games even fake it by using padding just to push the actual used data to the outer parts of the disc, I'm not sure it would seem so beneficial for someone without an HDTV to spend $200 more than they would need to buy an otherwise similar system, the Xbox 360. Of course there are other factors that decide which they will choose, mainly what games are for each system, but looking at just the systems, the Xbox 360 seems to be a much better deal than the PS3 for someone without HD, because it is basically the same thing (to them, of course). At least it's not enough different to make the PS3 worth $200 more. Again, to avoid confusion, I'm talking about people WITHOUT HDTV. If you do have an HDTV, it's a different story.

[Bahamut]

I still wouldn't compare the XBox 360 & PS3 for graphics yet - it's still too early in the generation. I'm sure as the years go by, we'll see some more unique gems from the PS3. For example, Gears of War supposedly pushes the XBox 360 hard, but the PS3 launch titles are just that, launch titles.

[Sir_NutS]

I have a question to HDTV owners and techy fans around here. If I get a let's say 25" widescreen monitor with dvi input(or maybe HDMI too), can I in some way connect a ps3/x360 to it and get the HD output? does it looks as good as in a HDTV?

[Bigfoot]

I have a question to HDTV owners and techy fans around here. If I get a let's say 25" widescreen monitor with dvi input(or maybe HDMI too), can I in some way connect a ps3/x360 to it and get the HD output? does it looks as good as in a HDTV?

I think it depends on if it can display 1080p/720p or whatever.

[Devyn]

I still wouldn't compare the XBox 360 & PS3 for graphics yet - it's still too early in the generation. I'm sure as the years go by, we'll see some more unique gems from the PS3. For example, Gears of War supposedly pushes the XBox 360 hard, but the PS3 launch titles are just that, launch titles.

I really, really need to play that game. I have to see it myself. Is there anything that can compete with it graphically right now?

[atmuh]

I still wouldn't compare the XBox 360 & PS3 for graphics yet - it's still too early in the generation. I'm sure as the years go by, we'll see some more unique gems from the PS3. For example, Gears of War supposedly pushes the XBox 360 hard, but the PS3 launch titles are just that, launch titles.

I really, really need to play that game. I have to see it myself. Is there anything that can compete with it graphically right now?

nothing I've seen

[Evilhead]

Who the hell buys TVs at Radio Shack? Yes, old clueless people.

The point I was making was that new TVs that don't have HD are still very common, which is true.

Anyway, this argument has been made a thousand times, really. Yes, you are being forced to buy something. Wait, except you're not being forced to buy anything!

Correct, nobody is forcing anyone to buy a PS3. But did I say that? No. You're taking this way out of context, completely missing the point and you know it. If you want to buy a PS3, you are also going to have to pay for the BlueRay whether you want it or not.

Oh, and those shiny new PS3 games happen to use that Blu-Ray drive too. Looks like it's useful after all!

Yeah, they provide a lot of space for that useful padding. Games don't need that much space; see the Xbox 360. If Xbox 360 and PS3 games are practically the same in graphics/size, then to someone who doesn't have an HDTV, buying a PS3 compared to a 360 would seem like spending $200 on nothing. Maybe in the future games will be made for the PS3 that actually use up enough space to make use of the BlueRay by adding craploads of music or something. Or who knows, maybe PS3 games will start to become completely unique from Xbox 360 games in size, actually requiring all that extra space for necessary things in the games, not just space to throw a bunch of extras. If that happens, then I'll admit I'm wrong. But as of now Xbox 360 and PS3 games are similar and roughly the same size.

And still, one of the main reasons people can justify spending $600 on the PS3 is because it has the BlueRay, but the main advantage they see is that it allows them to watch HD movies. It costs a lot more to buy just a regular BlueRay player to watch HD movies on. Now, of course it's better to have a console that uses discs with more disc space than less, but having seen that the games so far don't even need that space, and that some games even fake it by using padding just to push the actual used data to the outer parts of the disc, I'm not sure it would seem so beneficial for someone without an HDTV to spend $200 more than they would need to buy an otherwise similar system, the Xbox 360. Of course there are other factors that decide which they will choose, mainly what games are for each system, but looking at just the systems, the Xbox 360 seems to be a much better deal than the PS3 for someone without HD, because it is basically the same thing (to them, of course). At least it's not enough different to make the PS3 worth $200 more. Again, to avoid confusion, I'm talking about people WITHOUT HDTV. If you do have an HDTV, it's a different story.

Remember when 32k of RAM was more than enough for anybody? Probably not, but being shortsighted is a big blunder. Look at the N64. Sticking with the old media lost them a lot of their treasured third parties like Square. Games are getting more and more expansive, so extra space is a good thing.

And no, no one is forcing you to buy a blu-ray player. If you don't need one, get an Xbox 360 instead. I'm sure there will be plenty of good games for it.

[Bigfoot]

Reviews are in for Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom

From Joystiq:

# IGN (65/100) wants more PS3 and less PSP: "Apart from the repetitive combat system, there's a ton of gameplay issues that you'd hope would've been fixed with the transition over to the PS3. Load times are surprisingly long when you're accessing new levels. Rocks and boxes, as well as hills or background objects can cause your character to freeze in mid-jumping animation for at least five or six seconds. You'll also run into a lot of camera problems during combat, where the camera will unexpectedly zoom in or out during a fight."

# GameSpot (60/100) thinks Dark Kingdom is ill-suited for looters: "Gear lust is one of the more prominent driving forces in dungeon crawlers, and it's here that Dark Kingdom comes up short. Pieces of armor with different names and radically different effects look identical on your character, limiting the joy of equipping new gear and seeing how it looks on your increasingly badass adventurer. Your character will use the same basic weapon, as well as most of the same combo attacks, from beginning to end."

# GameSpy (60/100) hopes Sony is planning to make better use of the PS3's storage capacity: "What surprises me the most about the whole pre-formed character shtick is how confining it seems for a next-gen console with the power of the PS3. Look at the character customization options in Oblivion and you might understand where I'm coming from with this. All that power and I only have three options to choose from?"

Looks like Resistance is still the game to get for the PS3.

[TheCatPhysician]

Remember when 32k of RAM was more than enough for anybody? Probably not, but being shortsighted is a big blunder. Look at the N64. Sticking with the old media lost them a lot of their treasured third parties like Square. Games are getting more and more expansive, so extra space is a good thing.

And no, no one is forcing you to buy a blu-ray player. If you don't need one, get an Xbox 360 instead. I'm sure there will be plenty of good games for it.

Once again, taking what I said WAY out of context and missing the point by a longshot. Usually you do crap like this just to make people mad, then after they respond you do your little "LOLZ i got a reaction," but for some reason you're still pressing it. So once again: IF you want to buy a PS3, you will also have to buy a BluRay, as it is part of the PS3. You buy a PS3, and money was spent on BluRay. Nobody is forcing you buy the PS3 in the first place, but I did NOT say that. Stop trying to make me look like an idiot.

And yeah, it's always better to have more space. The question is how much that space is worth. After reading the responses to my last post, I'll agree that it was too early for me to assume that, because so far we have only seen launch PS3 games, as someone said. But you can't deny that someone without an HDTV who buys a PS3 is missing out on a huge advantage that people who have HDTVs would have.

I know that from my perspective, I'm thinking I might buy either a PS3 or 360 sometime and I don't have an HDTV, so right now the 360 seems to be a much better deal, because until PS3 games prove that they can actually become unique using that much space, it's a waste of $200. And even if the games do, then you still have to decide if bigger games are worth paying $200 extra.

[Bahamut]

People who buy the PS3 for that price should have the money for an HDTV anyway.

[Bigfoot]

People who buy the PS3 for that price should have the money for an HDTV anyway.

Not necessarily true. I could have bought the PS3, but there's no way I can afford a 2000-3000 HDTV.

[Bahamut]

People who buy the PS3 for that price should have the money for an HDTV anyway.

Not necessarily true. I could have bought the PS3, but there's no way I can afford a 2000-3000 HDTV.

I meant with regards to proper management of ones finances.

[Bigfoot]

People who buy the PS3 for that price should have the money for an HDTV anyway.

Not necessarily true. I could have bought the PS3, but there's no way I can afford a 2000-3000 HDTV.

I meant with regards to proper management of ones finances.

Oh ok

[Evilhead]

Remember when 32k of RAM was more than enough for anybody? Probably not, but being shortsighted is a big blunder. Look at the N64. Sticking with the old media lost them a lot of their treasured third parties like Square. Games are getting more and more expansive, so extra space is a good thing.

And no, no one is forcing you to buy a blu-ray player. If you don't need one, get an Xbox 360 instead. I'm sure there will be plenty of good games for it.

Once again, taking what I said WAY out of context and missing the point by a longshot. Usually you do crap like this just to make people mad, then after they respond you do your little "LOLZ i got a reaction," but for some reason you're still pressing it. So once again: IF you want to buy a PS3, you will also have to buy a BluRay, as it is part of the PS3. You buy a PS3, and money was spent on BluRay. Nobody is forcing you buy the PS3 in the first place, but I did NOT say that. Stop trying to make me look like an idiot.

And yeah, it's always better to have more space. The question is how much that space is worth. After reading the responses to my last post, I'll agree that it was too early for me to assume that, because so far we have only seen launch PS3 games, as someone said. But you can't deny that someone without an HDTV who buys a PS3 is missing out on a huge advantage that people who have HDTVs would have.

I know that from my perspective, I'm thinking I might buy either a PS3 or 360 sometime and I don't have an HDTV, so right now the 360 seems to be a much better deal, because until PS3 games prove that they can actually become unique using that much space, it's a waste of $200. And even if the games do, then you still have to decide if bigger games are worth paying $200 extra.

If they PS3 only used the blu-ray player for watching movies, you'd have a point. But since it is integeral in playing games, you have NONE. It's like complaining that the PS1 had a CD drive. "Who needs 700 megs of space for a game? Any game I'd want to play could easily fit on this 32 meg cart. Those people without a fancy Hi-Fi Stereo Systems with $500 speakers are getting ripped off. My TV just has a crappy speaker, who needs CD sound?" Now it IS a little difference since blu-ray is not an established format yet, but no one is forcing you to buy the system. And just because you think games won't need more than 9 gigs of space (which is a joke because some games are already pushing the limits of DVDs), doesn't mean you know crap about making games. Are you a game developer? Programmer? Do you have any ideas for utilizing the blu-ray drives for games? No? Shut up?

When we got a 20 meg hard drive for our Mac Plus for $1,000, we never thought we could fill it up. Next, it was 120 megs. OMG, HUGE! Face it, technology is evolving. Just because you don't happen to own the next generation of display technology doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to wait for your ass. Sure, Sony could have cranked out a cheap non-HD, non-blu-ray PS3, but how would that fare in 4 or 5 years? When HD is standard? $600 is a pretty big chunk of money now, but I'd say it's a decent investment. The 360 sounds like it would be more suited for you at the moment though, so why not buy that instead of making the same point that has already been brought up 25 times in this thread alone?