Jump to content

Sony PS3


Bigfoot
 Share

Recommended Posts

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?

I agree. Look how fast hardware of the old generation of consoles were outdated by PCs. Even though we look at PS3 and gawk at its specs, even they won't look that good given a few years.

I think the point is that Sony doesn't want to restrict its possibilities in a world where technology advances so quickly - in a little while, there will be a use for all that storage space that Blu-ray provides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't think Sony made a wise choice by using an untested format for a new console that will have enough challenges getting off the ground as is, there's really not any good way to get a new format established, and I think this is probably a better method than most.

Remember when DVD players were $1000? Bet you thought early-adopters were zany then, too ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?"

The thing is, it's not integral for playing games yet. Like I said, it is yet to be shown that the PS3 will have games unique from the Xbox 360 in that they will actually have to USE that extra space. Listen: I completely agree that more space is always better. It's just that right now, for people who don't own HDTVs, there's a question: Is that extra space worth $200 right now? Because buying a PS3 with a BluRay drive, not being able to take advantage of watching HD movies on it, the only way they can take advantage of using the BluRay drive they bought is by being able to buy games that put that disc space to use. The Playstation disc drive analogy is innacurate because for one, Playstation games DID use the space, and also it is irrelevant because the point I'm making is that you are paying extra money to have game discs that have more space. I never said having more space is bad.

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.

Why the heck do you keep bringing this up? It has nothing to do with anything. I NEVER said anyone was forcing anyone to buy a PS3. That is ridiculous.

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.

No, but the people who made the Xbox 360 do. The 360 is right in the same league as the PS3 in terms of games, last I checked, and the 360 is having no problems without that extra disc space.
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.
What does this have to do with anything? I'm only saying that for people who don't have HDTV, and there are still a lot, that the BluRay's value is questionable. When HDTV becomes more standard, this won't be much of a problem, but still; the 360 is a much better deal for anyone who doesn't have HDTV.

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?

Someone asked what made the PS3 worth $600 (or something along those lines) and I told them that it is actually a really good deal if you have an HDTV and plan on being able to watch HD movies. I also said that if you don't have an HDTV, you're spending money on something you basically won't use, and now I have revised that to: The value of the BluRay for non-HD owners is questionable, because it is to be shown whether PS3 games will be in a whole different league than 360 games, actually using the extra space.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the extra disk space Blu-Ray provides could eventually be a necessity for some games. But not for a few years.

Basically, the PS3 is ahead of its time and too expensive as a result.

The real question is whether the PS3 will hold out long enough for its power to be needed - and if Nintendo and/or Microsoft will launch new consoles then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the extra disk space Blu-Ray provides could eventually be a necessity for some games. But not for a few years.

Basically, the PS3 is ahead of its time and too expensive as a result.

The real question is whether the PS3 will hold out long enough for its power to be needed - and if Nintendo and/or Microsoft will launch new consoles then.

Well If i remember the Ps1 competed with the snes for a bit then with the 64. then the ps2 came along and competed with 64s latter days as well...

Sony is really good at keeping a system last for a good ten years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?"

The thing is, it's not integral for playing games yet. Like I said, it is yet to be shown that the PS3 will have games unique from the Xbox 360 in that they will actually have to USE that extra space. Listen: I completely agree that more space is always better. It's just that right now, for people who don't own HDTVs, there's a question: Is that extra space worth $200 right now? Because buying a PS3 with a BluRay drive, not being able to take advantage of watching HD movies on it, the only way they can take advantage of using the BluRay drive they bought is by being able to buy games that put that disc space to use. The Playstation disc drive analogy is innacurate because for one, Playstation games DID use the space, and also it is irrelevant because the point I'm making is that you are paying extra money to have game discs that have more space. I never said having more space is bad.

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.

Why the heck do you keep bringing this up? It has nothing to do with anything. I NEVER said anyone was forcing anyone to buy a PS3. That is ridiculous.

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.

No, but the people who made the Xbox 360 do. The 360 is right in the same league as the PS3 in terms of games, last I checked, and the 360 is having no problems without that extra disc space.
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.
What does this have to do with anything? I'm only saying that for people who don't have HDTV, and there are still a lot, that the BluRay's value is questionable. When HDTV becomes more standard, this won't be much of a problem, but still; the 360 is a much better deal for anyone who doesn't have HDTV.

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?

Someone asked what made the PS3 worth $600 (or something along those lines) and I told them that it is actually a really good deal if you have an HDTV and plan on being able to watch HD movies. I also said that if you don't have an HDTV, you're spending money on something you basically won't use, and now I have revised that to: The value of the BluRay for non-HD owners is questionable, because it is to be shown whether PS3 games will be in a whole different league than 360 games, actually using the extra space.

Dude, that was your 666th post... RAWK! :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can nab a Sony blu-ray player for $475 :o and one with a 40" LCD 1080p HDTV for $1500. :o

Ok now back to OCRers for bashing PS3 for little to no good reason.

Talk is cheap :P

links?

American Express members only

It's the Tuesday offer.

Fuck that. How about the $49,000 Porsche for $5,000? lol

My brother and I are trying for that one, but it's going to be insanely hard to get. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can nab a Sony blu-ray player for $475 :o and one with a 40" LCD 1080p HDTV for $1500. :o

Ok now back to OCRers for bashing PS3 for little to no good reason.

Talk is cheap :P

links?

American Express members only

It's the Tuesday offer.

Fuck that. How about the $49,000 Porsche for $5,000? lol

My brother and I are trying for that one, but it's going to be insanely hard to get. :(

But yeah, that's insanely insane at how much that TV and and Blu-Ray player is, let alone just the TV.

When you say you CAN get this deal, what you really mean is "I can TRY to get this deal". :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can nab a Sony blu-ray player for $475 :o and one with a 40" LCD 1080p HDTV for $1500. :o

Ok now back to OCRers for bashing PS3 for little to no good reason.

Talk is cheap :P

links?

American Express members only

It's the Tuesday offer.

Fuck that. How about the $49,000 Porsche for $5,000? lol

My brother and I are trying for that one, but it's going to be insanely hard to get. :(

But yeah, that's insanely insane at how much that TV and and Blu-Ray player is, let alone just the TV.

When you say you CAN get this deal, what you really mean is "I can TRY to get this deal". :P

Well, there are 20 of them available or so, and my internet connection has a low ping, so I'm pretty sure I can get it if I want.

Edit: Wow, it was insanely hard to even get a $50 free gift card for the UPS store which was poorly advertised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, guys. Have you heard?

http://www.blasteroids.com/news/news_item.cfm/8182/kutaragifired

Kutaragi, the "father of playstation" is no longer involved in the playstation at all. He's OUTTA THERE! :D

Yeah, I saw that too. Kinda sounds like what Nintendo did with Gunpei Yokoi after the Virtual Boy. Sending him off to work with something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namco Bandai's Takasu Says PS3 Game Titles Must Sell 500,000 to make profit.

With the low shipment of consoles, and this requirement to actually turn a profit, this will probably chase away game makers or maybe it won't. They may just wait longer until there are more people to own a PS3 that can actually buy these games.

PS3 has sold about 300,000 units so far, by the way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I still laugh at the laughably long loading times the PS3 will have. Trying to pump 4+ times the data, through something running as fast as a 4x DVD drive(2x BD-ROM=4x DVD-ROM stream speeds), when the PS2 had a 2x DVD drive in it. That means you'll be looking at no less than double the loading times.

I do too. I mean, when are we going to get rid of the fucking annoying load times if shitheads like this guys never do something about it? I've read of X360 games actually loading faster and working smoother than the ps3 counterpart, what the hell? I thought this generation load times could get lessened because the companies would include faster and more efficient reading devices. Alas, we are getting worse loads than in our old ps2's. This makes me sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namco Bandai's Takasu Says PS3 Game Titles Must Sell 500,000 to make profit.

With the low shipment of consoles, and this requirement to actually turn a profit, this will probably chase away game makers or maybe it won't. They may just wait longer until there are more people to own a PS3 that can actually buy these games.

PS3 has sold about 300,000 units so far, by the way.

No... PS3 has shipped 300 000 units. Slight difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namco Bandai's Takasu Says PS3 Game Titles Must Sell 500,000 to make profit.

With the low shipment of consoles, and this requirement to actually turn a profit, this will probably chase away game makers or maybe it won't. They may just wait longer until there are more people to own a PS3 that can actually buy these games.

PS3 has sold about 300,000 units so far, by the way.

No... PS3 has shipped 300 000 units. Slight difference.

I think they were talking about gametitles, not the console itself. uhh... I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namco Bandai's Takasu Says PS3 Game Titles Must Sell 500,000 to make profit.

With the low shipment of consoles, and this requirement to actually turn a profit, this will probably chase away game makers or maybe it won't. They may just wait longer until there are more people to own a PS3 that can actually buy these games.

PS3 has sold about 300,000 units so far, by the way.

No... PS3 has shipped 300 000 units. Slight difference.

I think they were talking about gametitles, not the console itself. uhh... I don't know.

Correct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namco Bandai's Takasu Says PS3 Game Titles Must Sell 500,000 to make profit.

With the low shipment of consoles, and this requirement to actually turn a profit, this will probably chase away game makers or maybe it won't. They may just wait longer until there are more people to own a PS3 that can actually buy these games.

PS3 has sold about 300,000 units so far, by the way.

No... PS3 has shipped 300 000 units. Slight difference.

I think they were talking about gametitles, not the console itself. uhh... I don't know.

Correct

I think everyone is slightly confused, so let me clarify.

A publisher has to sell 500K units of a title to make a profit.

There are only about 330K PS3 hardware units on the market.

No publisher can even hope to turn a profit on the PS3 until sometime next year, when there will be over 500K PS3 hardware units available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I still laugh at the laughably long loading times the PS3 will have. Trying to pump 4+ times the data, through something running as fast as a 4x DVD drive(2x BD-ROM=4x DVD-ROM stream speeds), when the PS2 had a 2x DVD drive in it. That means you'll be looking at no less than double the loading times.

I do too. I mean, when are we going to get rid of the fucking annoying load times if shitheads like this guys never do something about it? I've read of X360 games actually loading faster and working smoother than the ps3 counterpart, what the hell? I thought this generation load times could get lessened because the companies would include faster and more efficient reading devices. Alas, we are getting worse loads than in our old ps2's. This makes me sad.

Unfortunately for your argument, Blu-ray actually has a much higher read speed than DVD, so a 4x BD drive is far greater than a 2x DVD player. Look it up on Wikipedia if you want (I'm too lazy), or just trust me. Still, even if it is faster the load times are going to be pretty high.

Namco Bandai's Takasu Says PS3 Game Titles Must Sell 500,000 to make profit.

With the low shipment of consoles, and this requirement to actually turn a profit, this will probably chase away game makers or maybe it won't. They may just wait longer until there are more people to own a PS3 that can actually buy these games.

PS3 has sold about 300,000 units so far, by the way.

No... PS3 has shipped 300 000 units. Slight difference.

I think they were talking about gametitles, not the console itself. uhh... I don't know.

I think the point was that Sony couldn't possibly sell 500,000 copies of a game right now. There would have to be an attach rate of nearly 1.4.

Edit: Jacked!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...