From what I understand their were trade offs between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray with neither format being declared to be better. HD-DVD had less storage but was harder to wreck with a scratch (more forgiving) while Blu-Ray cost a little more, had a lot more storage, but was a little more delicate.
- Status
yada yada yada. To all Sony haters, STFU already.
go hug ur 360 and shut ur hoe. jesus christ.
I dont give a crap about Activision, they make nothing but garbage. GH ? no thanks. its just another copy of Guitar freaks from Konami. and they're so full of it. kiss my ass.
go hug ur 360 and shut ur hoe. jesus christ.
I dont give a crap about Activision, they make nothing but garbage. GH ? no thanks. its just another copy of Guitar freaks from Konami. and they're so full of it. kiss my ass.
NuclearShadow
Distinguished
- Sep 20, 2007
- 670
- 0
- 18,940
I know Sony is making a loss with every PS3 being made and that explains the high cost but they really should reconsider the pricing despite the fact. If they could increase the sales of the consoles they can make more sales on accessories and games. Perhaps another alternative would be to keep the console price as is and simply bundle 5 older but great exclusive games with it with no extra charge this may be enough to attract more consumers.
THe ps3 and xbox 360 cost the same after you factor in all the acessories you need like wifi. Only idiots buy a 360. More expensive and higher failure rates plus most xbox "exclusives" are almost always ported to the pc
- Sep 6, 2008
- 3,485
- 0
- 20,730
I do realize that the recent gaming trend has shifted to more interactive and family oriented games, but I for one aren't buying into that.
I never really liked interactive/family games, I took them as not too practical. Probably the same reason I never liked the Wii - it was a cool gimmick for two weeks, and after that I didn't want to play it.
Maybe I'm just a hardcore gamer at heart. I'd rather play intense FPS or really complex and innovative RPG than play interactive games like Wii Sports.
I never really liked interactive/family games, I took them as not too practical. Probably the same reason I never liked the Wii - it was a cool gimmick for two weeks, and after that I didn't want to play it.
Maybe I'm just a hardcore gamer at heart. I'd rather play intense FPS or really complex and innovative RPG than play interactive games like Wii Sports.
[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]THe ps3 and xbox 360 cost the same after you factor in all the acessories you need like wifi. Only idiots buy a 360. More expensive and higher failure rates plus most xbox "exclusives" are almost always ported to the pc[/citation]
And what exactly does a gamer gain with a PS3 over an XBOX? (assuming blu-ray movies are not something he watches). Why should I pay almost double the price for the same games? Only idiots buy a PS3.
And what exactly does a gamer gain with a PS3 over an XBOX? (assuming blu-ray movies are not something he watches). Why should I pay almost double the price for the same games? Only idiots buy a PS3.
ubernoobie
Distinguished
- May 29, 2009
- 110
- 0
- 18,640
Aren't devolpers moving to the ps3 because of the performance? most devs say that the xbox360 is already maxed out on it's potental while the ps3 is no where near the limit yet
[citation][nom]ubernoobie[/nom]Aren't devolpers moving to the ps3 because of the performance? most devs say that the xbox360 is already maxed out on it's potental while the ps3 is no where near the limit yet[/citation]
It has to do with funding from a Publisher. Publishers don't like to lose money, so they contract developers to create games that will generate the most revenue. Not only does the PS3 SDK require more programmers as most comments pointed out, but the publishers incur the extra overage of buying and pressing Bluray discs for PS3 games (which is a large expense because of the technology and Bluray royalties). They like DVDs because they are cheap - so publishers would still likely favor Xbox and Wii games if PS3 sales did improve.
I read on TOm's back in March that the PS3 cost $468 (or something) US dollars to manufacture and assemble (80GB i think), so I don't think we'll ever see a price drop greater than $100.
As for the 360 reaching it's graphics potential - developers (specifically coders) don't really care about quality of graphics, only artists/designers and modelers do. So coders would still prefer the 360/Wii over the more capable PS3 dev environment.
It has to do with funding from a Publisher. Publishers don't like to lose money, so they contract developers to create games that will generate the most revenue. Not only does the PS3 SDK require more programmers as most comments pointed out, but the publishers incur the extra overage of buying and pressing Bluray discs for PS3 games (which is a large expense because of the technology and Bluray royalties). They like DVDs because they are cheap - so publishers would still likely favor Xbox and Wii games if PS3 sales did improve.
I read on TOm's back in March that the PS3 cost $468 (or something) US dollars to manufacture and assemble (80GB i think), so I don't think we'll ever see a price drop greater than $100.
As for the 360 reaching it's graphics potential - developers (specifically coders) don't really care about quality of graphics, only artists/designers and modelers do. So coders would still prefer the 360/Wii over the more capable PS3 dev environment.
It's so easy for some dweeb sitting in his living room to say what Sony should do, which is the impression I get from reading these inane comments.
Here's a reality check - Sony is the only console maker selling their machine for less than it costs to make it. Of the three, they are the only one that is under priced. To tell them they need to lose even more money with each console sale is purely idiotic, because it costs you nothing to say it, but it would cost them a lot to do it.
The reality is, the PS3 is still selling over 100,000 units a month, even at $399. If Activision doesn't have the programming talent to make games for it, that's an incentive for other makers since it leaves an opening. Also, costs for components DO go down, and Sony WILL lower the price when they do. Do you really think Activision will walk away from Sony knowing this? I don't, but if they do, they'll come walking back.
Also, ask yourself, would the $#itbox-360 sell as well as the Sony if it were selling for $399??? Clearly no. So, there are a lot of people that understand the value Sony offers, and the superiority of the product and services. Considering Sony really has weak competition - the Wii is a joke and really for a different market, and the $#hitbox-360 is an unreliable piece of junk with slightly inferior hardware capabilities, and a cost associated with going online, it's clear Sony is in a really good situation.
Their two problems - cost, and learning curve by programmers are both resolved by time. The strengths - better hardware and better features, are not ones that Microsoft or Nintendo can beat until they come out with a new console.
The PS3 is selling extremely well considering the cost in this economy. Even outside of that context, while 131,000 units is behind the Wii and $#hitbox, it's still a substantial amount that keeps the console relevant. When their costs come down and they can lower prices, and the economy recovers, it should really take off.
I'm reading now that Blu-ray will be costing roughly $50 to make very soon, and if that's the case, considering other component costs, it won't be too long until Sony can chop the price down, on their terms, instead of on the terms of people who know nothing about their business model, and probably too much about killing the evil Zargons.
Here's a reality check - Sony is the only console maker selling their machine for less than it costs to make it. Of the three, they are the only one that is under priced. To tell them they need to lose even more money with each console sale is purely idiotic, because it costs you nothing to say it, but it would cost them a lot to do it.
The reality is, the PS3 is still selling over 100,000 units a month, even at $399. If Activision doesn't have the programming talent to make games for it, that's an incentive for other makers since it leaves an opening. Also, costs for components DO go down, and Sony WILL lower the price when they do. Do you really think Activision will walk away from Sony knowing this? I don't, but if they do, they'll come walking back.
Also, ask yourself, would the $#itbox-360 sell as well as the Sony if it were selling for $399??? Clearly no. So, there are a lot of people that understand the value Sony offers, and the superiority of the product and services. Considering Sony really has weak competition - the Wii is a joke and really for a different market, and the $#hitbox-360 is an unreliable piece of junk with slightly inferior hardware capabilities, and a cost associated with going online, it's clear Sony is in a really good situation.
Their two problems - cost, and learning curve by programmers are both resolved by time. The strengths - better hardware and better features, are not ones that Microsoft or Nintendo can beat until they come out with a new console.
The PS3 is selling extremely well considering the cost in this economy. Even outside of that context, while 131,000 units is behind the Wii and $#hitbox, it's still a substantial amount that keeps the console relevant. When their costs come down and they can lower prices, and the economy recovers, it should really take off.
I'm reading now that Blu-ray will be costing roughly $50 to make very soon, and if that's the case, considering other component costs, it won't be too long until Sony can chop the price down, on their terms, instead of on the terms of people who know nothing about their business model, and probably too much about killing the evil Zargons.
I think everyone's comments are on track, but, there is a GLARING fact missing from all this. Sony's biggest mistake on the PS3 for not selling more. And IMHO the main reason that is hurting sales... the removal of backward compatability with the PS2. All the owners of PS2's don't feel or see the need to buy a PS3 when 90% of games released are also on the PS2. Probably why many are still buying the PS2.
And for reference to another poster who led his remark by saying that Bluray was the victor because Sony was coming out with the PS3, ummm, The PS3 was out way before Blu-ray won. And that was only when HP announced that it would not fund further into HD-DVD. Also, many people did buy the PS3 for the Blu ray feature when it first came out. When compared to then prices, $499 and up for standalone 1st gen blu ray players opposed to $399 for the PS3, it was a no brainer. In essence, getting a free console video game player built into a blu ray player. Now, of course, not so true...prices on standalones are lower now; and much better.
And for reference to another poster who led his remark by saying that Bluray was the victor because Sony was coming out with the PS3, ummm, The PS3 was out way before Blu-ray won. And that was only when HP announced that it would not fund further into HD-DVD. Also, many people did buy the PS3 for the Blu ray feature when it first came out. When compared to then prices, $499 and up for standalone 1st gen blu ray players opposed to $399 for the PS3, it was a no brainer. In essence, getting a free console video game player built into a blu ray player. Now, of course, not so true...prices on standalones are lower now; and much better.
[citation][nom]ubernoobie[/nom]Aren't devolpers moving to the ps3 because of the performance? most devs say that the xbox360 is already maxed out on it's potental while the ps3 is no where near the limit yet[/citation]
The PS3 has a non customized generic Nvidia 7800GTX for its GPU. So no. Even if the Cell CPU is as uber as they claim their GPU is subpar. This is shown in their sub 30 fps in many recent games.
The PS3 has a non customized generic Nvidia 7800GTX for its GPU. So no. Even if the Cell CPU is as uber as they claim their GPU is subpar. This is shown in their sub 30 fps in many recent games.
If they look at how far beyond their original life cycle of the PS2 they can probably take a risk, and most likely only viable option, to drastically cut prices and give themselves an opportunity to sell the advantages of the PS3 to more people.
I'm sure the PS3 is a great gaming machine but it is expensive especially 3 yrs after introduction which was already later than the Wii or 360.
A good selling console will have more and more good games and will sell well into the late adopters. It might not be surprising that 5 yrs later there will be a lot of new gamers picking up a cheap PS3 slim just to try it out.
I'm sure the PS3 is a great gaming machine but it is expensive especially 3 yrs after introduction which was already later than the Wii or 360.
A good selling console will have more and more good games and will sell well into the late adopters. It might not be surprising that 5 yrs later there will be a lot of new gamers picking up a cheap PS3 slim just to try it out.
[citation][nom]astrotrain1000[/nom]Sony wasn't amazing with the PS2 they were first to market giving the the same edge that the Xbox 360 has now. The PS2 was plagued with hardware problems(disc read error anyone?) just as the xbox 360 has now. The problem is: the xbox 360 is comparable graphic wise to the PS3 and alot of people don't care about blu ray. Why pay extra money for comparable graphics only. Sony needs their killer app. Yes, I know there are good games but there is nothing that appeals to the level of Halo 3, like it or hate it sells. Sony needed Final Fantasy 13 exclusivity, but oh well.[/citation]
This is a good point. While the PS3 technically is better, the XBOX 360 matches it 99% while having the lead with more games, accessories, and larger user base. I have a PS3 (some of you know it's been dead with a burned BluRay lens for the last 6 mos) and XBOX 360 and when viewing the games on a high def at 1080 or 720... it's amazing how good the XBOX 360 is considering it's older than the PS3. I can tell that the PS3 graphics are slightly better but I can only tell if I toggle between both machines.
The PS3 was supposed to come out swinging with mind blowing graphics over the XBOX 360. Now that both systems are widely used, it's clear that they are pretty much equal graphically.
Also - I have PS3's GranTurismo and compared to the XBOX 360 Forza 2... hands down Forza is much better (game play and graphics).
This is a good point. While the PS3 technically is better, the XBOX 360 matches it 99% while having the lead with more games, accessories, and larger user base. I have a PS3 (some of you know it's been dead with a burned BluRay lens for the last 6 mos) and XBOX 360 and when viewing the games on a high def at 1080 or 720... it's amazing how good the XBOX 360 is considering it's older than the PS3. I can tell that the PS3 graphics are slightly better but I can only tell if I toggle between both machines.
The PS3 was supposed to come out swinging with mind blowing graphics over the XBOX 360. Now that both systems are widely used, it's clear that they are pretty much equal graphically.
Also - I have PS3's GranTurismo and compared to the XBOX 360 Forza 2... hands down Forza is much better (game play and graphics).
anonymousdude
Distinguished
- Jun 20, 2009
- 152
- 0
- 18,660
Harby did you actually read my comment? You GAIN (not including blu ray) a more reliable gaming console, free online play (though it might not be as good as live), exclusives that will never be released on the pc unlike the 360 uncompressed audio wher I can clearly hear the differnece. Honestly how many "exclusive" xbox games aren't ported to the pc eventually if not immediately. It just makes business sense considering how similar the coding is. Have you even seen mgs4 ot killzone 2? Their graphics destroy the xbox's. Also less annoying little kids online. Halo 3 was a piece of $#it and was halo 2 with improved graphics. Mass Effect, Bioshock , and Gears of war were ported to the pc. $100 f***ing for a 120 gig hard drive. I could get a better quality faster 320 or 500 GB 2.5 in hard drive for the ps3. Have you seen any of the ps3 exclusives set for release during the holiday and early 2010. Heavy Rain, GT%, and GOW3. THough no longer an exclusive ff13 which was designed on the ps3 for the ps3 and all those trailers you saw were form the ps3. Let's be honest here square tried to port ff games to pc and it failed horribly so what's stopping a horribly buggy 360 version. Don't give me any bs about the price of it either. Xbox 360 pro $299.99 wireless adapter $99.99 already about $400 same as the cheapest ps3 minus bluetooth, a card reader and bluray.
anonymousdude
Distinguished
- Jun 20, 2009
- 152
- 0
- 18,660
Harby did you actually read my comment? You GAIN (not including blu ray) a more reliable gaming console, free online play (though it might not be as good as live), exclusives that will never be released on the pc unlike the 360 uncompressed audio wher I can clearly hear the differnece. Honestly how many "exclusive" xbox games aren't ported to the pc eventually if not immediately. It just makes business sense considering how similar the coding is. Have you even seen mgs4 ot killzone 2? Their graphics destroy the xbox's. Also less annoying little kids online. Halo 3 was a piece of $#it and was halo 2 with improved graphics. Mass Effect, Bioshock , and Gears of war were ported to the pc. $100 f***ing for a 120 gig hard drive. I could get a better quality faster 320 or 500 GB 2.5 in hard drive for the ps3. Have you seen any of the ps3 exclusives set for release during the holiday and early 2010. Heavy Rain, GT%, and GOW3. THough no longer an exclusive ff13 which was designed on the ps3 for the ps3 and all those trailers you saw were form the ps3. Let's be honest here square tried to port ff games to pc and it failed horribly so what's stopping a horribly buggy 360 version. Don't give me any bs about the price of it either. Xbox 360 pro $299.99 wireless adapter $99.99 already about $400 same as the cheapest ps3 minus bluetooth, a card reader and bluray.
[citation][nom]ubernoobie[/nom]Aren't devolpers moving to the ps3 because of the performance? most devs say that the xbox360 is already maxed out on it's potental while the ps3 is no where near the limit yet[/citation]
You misinterpreted that completely. Game developers were essentially saying that they can fully take advantage of the Xbox360 hardware. In the PS3's case, they are not able to do so. This does not translate to the PS3 being more capable. It means developers cannot take full advantage of its capabilities. Further, this means that Xbox360 games could potentially perform better than PS3 equivalents.
You misinterpreted that completely. Game developers were essentially saying that they can fully take advantage of the Xbox360 hardware. In the PS3's case, they are not able to do so. This does not translate to the PS3 being more capable. It means developers cannot take full advantage of its capabilities. Further, this means that Xbox360 games could potentially perform better than PS3 equivalents.
reichscythe
Distinguished
- Jul 3, 2008
- 47
- 0
- 18,580
@anonymousdude:
"...exclusives that will never be released on the pc unlike the 360"
Riiigghtt... like Final Fantasy XIV...
"Have you even seen mgs4 ot killzone 2? Their graphics destroy the xbox's."
Yes, I have... and no... they don't "destroy" anything... I don't even know why people keep bothering bringing up MGS4 anyway... Kojima already said that there was nothing about the game that couldn't be done on the 360... In his interview with 1UP.com. He even admitted he chose the PS3 because it was the NEWEST system, not the most "superior." In his estimation, the only REAL difference between the two versions would be the number of game discs shipped... (not that it even really matters that the game is on a single blu-ray, since the player has to wait for 12 minutes between chapters while the bloody game installs to the harddrive... Christ...)
"which was designed on the ps3 for the ps3 and all those trailers you saw were form the ps3."
Mmmhmm.. yes... well, all except for that massive, extended, E3 Demo that was running on a 360 -- the most recent in-game footage, I might add...
"Let's be honest here square tried to port ff games to pc and it failed horribly so what's stopping a horribly buggy 360 version."
Actually FFVII for PC did quite well, commercially... And everyone I knew who owned it, had no problems with the port (which was, graphically superior to the PS version AND exhibited better performance in general). FFVIII was such a poor port because Square got cocky and thought they could cut out the middlemen for a larger share of the profit.. which, would've been okay, except that the middlemen included Eidos' experienced collection of PC programmers... And Square is silly enough to make the same mistake twice: they aren't about to release a Final Fantasy game on the 360 that isn't just as spectacular as the PS3 version... The stakes are much higher this time around because Square really doesn't have the luxury of remaining platform exclusive anymore, they're in a position quite unlike smaller operations like Quantic Dream, which makes side money from tech-lending, research and mocap, or developers like Guerilla Games, Naughty Dog and Santa Monica, whose operations are ENTIRELY bankrolled by Sony. For Square, this release is about mass-saturation, maximum returns and --after a recent string of less-than-successful titles-- Square's own reputation as a development house...
"...exclusives that will never be released on the pc unlike the 360"
Riiigghtt... like Final Fantasy XIV...
"Have you even seen mgs4 ot killzone 2? Their graphics destroy the xbox's."
Yes, I have... and no... they don't "destroy" anything... I don't even know why people keep bothering bringing up MGS4 anyway... Kojima already said that there was nothing about the game that couldn't be done on the 360... In his interview with 1UP.com. He even admitted he chose the PS3 because it was the NEWEST system, not the most "superior." In his estimation, the only REAL difference between the two versions would be the number of game discs shipped... (not that it even really matters that the game is on a single blu-ray, since the player has to wait for 12 minutes between chapters while the bloody game installs to the harddrive... Christ...)
"which was designed on the ps3 for the ps3 and all those trailers you saw were form the ps3."
Mmmhmm.. yes... well, all except for that massive, extended, E3 Demo that was running on a 360 -- the most recent in-game footage, I might add...
"Let's be honest here square tried to port ff games to pc and it failed horribly so what's stopping a horribly buggy 360 version."
Actually FFVII for PC did quite well, commercially... And everyone I knew who owned it, had no problems with the port (which was, graphically superior to the PS version AND exhibited better performance in general). FFVIII was such a poor port because Square got cocky and thought they could cut out the middlemen for a larger share of the profit.. which, would've been okay, except that the middlemen included Eidos' experienced collection of PC programmers... And Square is silly enough to make the same mistake twice: they aren't about to release a Final Fantasy game on the 360 that isn't just as spectacular as the PS3 version... The stakes are much higher this time around because Square really doesn't have the luxury of remaining platform exclusive anymore, they're in a position quite unlike smaller operations like Quantic Dream, which makes side money from tech-lending, research and mocap, or developers like Guerilla Games, Naughty Dog and Santa Monica, whose operations are ENTIRELY bankrolled by Sony. For Square, this release is about mass-saturation, maximum returns and --after a recent string of less-than-successful titles-- Square's own reputation as a development house...
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question Can Minecraft 1.20.51 Apk be installed with high graphics on Realme 5?
- Started by BertramBlythe
- Replies: 0
-
-
Question low-cost laptop recommendations for gaming?
- Started by gutta
- Replies: 1
-
Blacklisting phone with various variables- Started by Blindcracker
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter