PS3 NOT that expensive

[shmokes]

So...it is exactly as expensive as you've all heard -- $500 or $600 depending on the flavor.  But, as these charts show, in comparison with other consoles it is not that expensive and, in fact, it is less expensive than the Atari 2600 was, when adjusted for inflation.  Even without adjusting for inflation it comes in lower than the Neo Geo and the 3DO, though those consoles weren't exactly runaway successes.  The first chart shows the consoles in absolute dollars, or how much they actually cost.  The second shows their price when adjusted for inflation.  Still, I won't be buying it cos $500 or $600 is more than I can justify, but I digress....On to the data:

[Stingray]

Sony marketing horsepoo.

-S

[Hoagie_one]

adjusted or not, the 360 is still cheaper and the wii will be cheaper still

[shmokes]

Yeah....value is relative.  For my money Wii looks like not only the best value, but the most fun of the three even if they were all the same price.  I still really want a PS3, quite a bit more than a 360 (PS2 backward compatibility is a big selling point as I never owned one).  For that reason I really hope that the BluRay wins (making the PS3 that much more valuable), the console is a success (so lots of great games are made for it), and the price comes down to compete head-to-head with 360.  I want to like the PS3 more than the 360.

[Hoagie_one]

I never buy a console in their prime anymore.  I got a PS1 well after the ps2 came out.  Just got an xbox1.  I get it on the cheap and have my choice of all the games that came out so I don't have to settle for crap, I can only play the best.

I'll probably make an exception for the Wii if its $199, else I'll wait on this too.

Only thing that bugs me is the system originals.  Those games that you can only get on one system or another that you wish you had that system just to play.  (I.E. God of war, shadow of the collosus on PS2)  if you are an xbox guy, you cant play these.

[shmokes]

I don't buy systems at launch these days either, but I'm getting a Wii . . . not because it looks so great that I just can't wait.  I can.  I'm getting it because I want so badly for it to be a success.  I feel like I'm voting or something, but anyway, yeah.  Wii needs third parties and if people don't buy it in droves it'll be a repeat of the Gamecube/N64.  I feel like the failure of Wii will cement the standard gamepad's position as the primary interface between gamers and games for at least the next generation (PS4/Xbox 720) as the Wii will become a cautionary tale of, "Give gamers more of the same if you want to stay in business."

[Hoagie_one]

that is a very valid point

[GoPodular.com]

Interesting chart.  Nintendo has reduced the cost each generation.  If the WII is $200, it will also be in that trend.

I hope the WII does well because of the change in controls.  It's a good direction IMO.  I hope the P3 does well because of the hardware abilities.  Should be good eye candy... BUT...  it's going to be tough for people to justify the expense of the PS3 when they can get the same eye candy for their computer at a similar price.  I really think the success of the PS3 is going to lie with the game makers.  They need a couple top-notch titles that aren't available on the PC and put people side-by-side on the couch.

[shmokes]

It doesn't help Sony that the next GTA is going to be released for X360 simultaneously to PS3.  GTA is Sony's Halo.  Sony should have done anything, including forgoing any royalties, just to keep that as a system exclusive. 

[Stingray]

I don't buy systems at launch these days either, but I'm getting a Wii . . . not because it looks so great that I just can't wait.  I can.  I'm getting it because I want so badly for it to be a success. 

I'm also not someone who buys a console at launch, but I will this time and for the same reasons as you.

-S

[RayB]

If a person makes 3 times as much as they did in 1990, does that mean they will want to spend 3 times as much on a game console? I don't think so. Odds are all this "inflation" is sucking those extra earnings away into higher rents, mortgages and car payments.

[shmokes]

Inflation takes all that into account.  Prices rise due to inflation across the board, as do wages (hopefully).  It's not only good odds that extra earnings are being sucked away by higher rents, morgages and car payments (as well as everything else -- candy bars were 25 cents when I was a kid, now they're 70 cents), but it's exactly the way inflation works. 

The point of the charts is that back in 1977 paying $200 for an Atari 2600 wasn't the same as it is today.  $200 was A LOT of money then  -- a lot more than it is today.  You could buy A LOT more candy bars with $200 in '77 then you could buy with $200 today because they probably cost 15 cents back then.  But people made a lot less then, too, so it's not like everyone was rich.  Everyone had less money, but everything cost less so it more or less evens out.

So, back in 1977, shelling out $200 for an Atari 2600 was akin to shelling out almost $700 for it today.  Because a dollar then was worth a helluva lot more than it is today and people just didn't have nearly as many of them.

[versapak]

Interesting chart.  Nintendo has reduced the cost each generation.  If the WII is $200, it will also be in that trend.

I hope the WII does well because of the change in controls.  It's a good direction IMO.  I hope the P3 does well because of the hardware abilities.  Should be good eye candy... BUT...  it's going to be tough for people to justify the expense of the PS3 when they can get the same eye candy for their computer at a similar price.  I really think the success of the PS3 is going to lie with the game makers.  They need a couple top-notch titles that aren't available on the PC and put people side-by-side on the couch.

Correction...

It will be tough to justify the expense of the PS3, when they can get the same eye candy in an Xbox 360 for $200 less.


As for inflation...

Regardless of what that chart says...

I spent $300 on my first 2 Xboxes. I spent $200 on my N64. I spend $200 on my Dreamcast. I spent $300 on my first PS2. etc...


The impact of those costs on me back then were FAR less than the impact of a $600 price tag on me today. Especially so, when you consider that similar experiences are brought by Sony's competition for far less $$$.

They are using the PS3 to push their blu-ray format, which means paying more for everything, because of something I didn't want in the first place.

For people that are looking for a blu-ray player, then it may seem like a good deal, but I figure most people are looking for a gaming console.

[shmokes]

Well....yeah.  Those consoles didn't affect your pocket book as much because even adjusted for inflation none of them comes close to the PS3.  Those are all quite recent and they were relatively cheap, historically.  You have to look to the Saturn as the last system that launched with a price comparible to the cheaper version of the PS3.  Then you basically have to go clear back to the Ataris and the Intellivision to find systems that were as expensive as the PS3.  3D0, CD-i and Neo Geo don't count in my opinion because they basically failed.  Or maybe they do count and show what will happen to a modern console that tries to set such a high pricepoint.

[brophog]

adjusted or not, the 360 is still cheaper and the wii will be cheaper still

Exactly. If Sony had the market cornered, ala Atari, this would be an entirely different conversation.

No one really cares about inflation. They care about choices, and they have 3 of them, with 2 being significantly cheaper.

[pointdablame]

Or maybe they do count and show what will happen to a modern console that tries to set such a high pricepoint.

Ding ding ding.  That is, IMHO, what the case is.  I do not truly believe that the videogaming public will support a $600 console.  Sony's only hope is to drop the cost of the system the instant those blu-ray drives become affordable.  The Blu-Ray drive costs rougly $300 at the current point in time.  People are projecting that they will be in the $60-90 range within 12-18 months. 

If that change equates to a PS3 that is $200 cheaper, Sony may have a chance.  If not, I worry about the lifecycle of the PS3.

[versapak]

Or maybe they do count and show what will happen to a modern console that tries to set such a high pricepoint.

Ding ding ding.  That is, IMHO, what the case is.  I do not truly believe that the videogaming public will support a $600 console.  Sony's only hope is to drop the cost of the system the instant those blu-ray drives become affordable.  The Blu-Ray drive costs rougly $300 at the current point in time.  People are projecting that they will be in the $60-90 range within 12-18 months. 

If that change equates to a PS3 that is $200 cheaper, Sony may have a chance.  If not, I worry about the lifecycle of the PS3.

Of course in 12 to 18 months the 360 will have had that much time to broaden its installed base even more, and will be set to offer up a price drop of its own.

Sony looks at the PS2, and it seems to think that because the PS2 was a strong driving force behind popularizing DVD in Japan, that it can do the same thing with PS3 for the whole rest of the world, and I just don't think that will be the case.

DVD was already popular in the US before the PS2 ever hit, so its inclusion with the PS2 was a happy bonus, but with blu-ray we are talking another unproven sony media format, and all it is doing for us as a consumer so far is greatly increasing the cost of the PS3. When that is the sole reason for your console to be $200 more than the competition's, and the performance is right on par with them, then I gotta figure ya just f'd up by including it.

[SirPoonga]

I saw this too.  But there are other things you can use this data to spin.
First, look at just the last 10 years.

Next look at everything that is above the average $475 mark.  Other than the 2600 pretty much everything above that mark did not do that well compared to the other systems at the time.

BTW, did inflation go up that much in 6 months?  The adjusted price of the 360 is $409.  Another spin, you are getting a deal on the 360, it's actually worth more

Data can be spun to support your point of view.

[horseboy]

Well, I guess we need Bill O'Reilly to straighten all of this out then.

[Grasshopper]

I'd be very surprised if the PS3, or the 360 for that matter, was actually a failure. I'm pretty sure there is a plenty of scope for both consoles to be sharply reduced in price.

Micro$oft and Sony are companies that actually have a lot in common, and I'm not just talking about dodgy business practices. They both take a very long term view and their games consoles are only a part of a much wider strategy. Both companies also have deep pockets and recognise the overriding importance of gaining market share. I think they'll do whatever it takes to ensure that their respective products succeed at least in terms of unit sales. If, in order to gain significant market share, they have to sell their consoles at a price that means they won't be able to recoup their R&D costs, then they'll do so.

[Hoagie_one]

I don't understand why these companies take the risks they do regarding the huge losses.  Nintendo sells games, so they  actually like to make money I guess.

[shmokes]

Another spin is that the chart says that the N64 cost $200 and I swear it was $249.  Can someone back me up on that?

[GoPodular.com]

BTW, did inflation go up that much in 6 months?  The adjusted price of the 360 is $409. 

The Consumer Price Index rose 0.6% in the month of April.    I don't know what it has been for the past 6 months, but usually *expendable* income lags well behind inflation due to the time it takes for people to actually get raises.  If we see a sharp increase in the CPI, it may take up to a year before people actually have the same amount of income they did before.

What is Blu-ray really going to do for us anyhow?  The DVD offered an increase in quality, but  our TV's don't push the limit of a regular DVD yet (do they?)  I think Sony is going to have to show people WHY they need a Blu-ray player.  So far I'm not convinced.  I'd have to see the seek times and stuff for it before I could justify the "bigger is better" mentality.  Sure it may have 10x the info, but if it takes 10x as long to load... it sucks.

[Stingray]

Another spin is that the chart says that the N64 cost $200 and I swear it was $249.  Can someone back me up on that?

That sounds right to me. I didn't buy one at launch though, so I'm really not sure.

-S

[DaveMMR]

Another spin is that the chart says that the N64 cost $200 and I swear it was $249.  Can someone back me up on that?

You are correct.  That's what I paid when I bought one.

I personally think $500 ~ 600 for a PS3 is ridiculous.  While I'm sure Blu-Ray is the hot topic in videophile forums, it's a unnecessary expense for a videogame system. 

I'm kind of upset about it.  I really wanted to buy one (especially for it's backwards compatibility - my PS2 is starting to experience those laser snafus that plagued the PS1). 

Here's the way I see it:  I don't remember any game system being priced 100% more than its competitors ever doing well (e.g. 3DO, CD-I, etc.).  On the other hand, the Playstation is a very popular brand.  Still, I don't see how that price tag is going to convert to blockbuster sales.

Suddenly, the Wii sounds more attractive every day.

[SirPoonga]

Doing a search I am finding sites that say the N64 launch was $199.
At $250 was it a bundle?  I know Nintendo likes to bundle stuff.

[DaveMMR]

Ahh, you're right - I got it as a bundle (with SM64).  It is $199.00. 

Standing corrected.

[Luxury]

All I get out of looking at those charts is "Godamn it! Dreamcast was awesome!" 

[stellarola]

If anyone is planning on getting a x360, wait. When the PS3 is released, you know the price of the 360 will drop for sure. 

[versapak]

Another spin is that the chart says that the N64 cost $200 and I swear it was $249.  Can someone back me up on that?

The N64 was announced and advertised as $250, but was dropped to $200 right before release.

[versapak]

If anyone is planning on getting a x360, wait. When the PS3 is released, you know the price of the 360 will drop for sure. 

Yep, and if you wait even longer it will probably drop in price again, and then after waiting even longer, it will probably drop again.

Right now the wait is half a year.


You may pay more now, but you will be playing a hell of a lot longer.

[pointdablame]

If anyone is planning on getting a x360, wait. When the PS3 is released, you know the price of the 360 will drop for sure. 

That's a likely scenario, and a really good marketing move, but I'm not sure if 6months is enough time for MS to really lower the price.  The hardware likely will not have decreased in price as much as their price drop, so they'd effectively only be causing themselves to lose MORE money on each system.

My money is on MS keeping the 360 at its current price point when the PS3 launches, but creating a nice new bundle for that same price that includes 1 or 2 games, or maybe another controller, etc etc.

That's just my guess of course

[brophog]

Why would you drop the price when you're already undercutting the competition that much? If anything, the PS3 will allow MS to keep the price stable longer than they may have otherwise.

[Hoagie_one]

Why would you drop the price when you're already undercutting the competition that much? If anything, the PS3 will allow MS to keep the price stable longer than they may have otherwise.

Because its one thing to stab sony with the price differencial, but a whole other thing if you can bury that blade to the hilt.

[brophog]

MS is already losing money on the 360......you don't drop the price of something unless you have to, that's basic business 101.

What you're talking about is vengeance, not smart business. I'm telling you guys right now, you won't see an immediate price drop from MS. In fact, I give them atleast another year, which puts them around the normal business model of dropping the price to lure in additional consumers.

[shmokes]

Yeah, I don't think they'll drop the price right off.  You gotta think, if they drop the price by $50 that means that for every million units they push the company will take another $50 million loss.  Assuming they'll move another 5 - 10 million units in the year we're talking about a quarter of a bililion to a half a billion dollar loss.  Messing with price has ramifications.  They won't lower the price unless they have to in order to be competitive.  They're already more than competitively priced, so why take that kind of loss?

[Hoagie_one]

to hurt the dominant opposition.  Sony has a loyalty advantage.  Fanboys are stupid enough to go out and buy it at any cost, just to say they have a PS3.

While you are probably right, the gamble to hurt Sony might pay off in software sales.  Lets say that they lower the price by $50 and thus a new buyer says, I guess I'll get another game for $60.  Assuming MS makes $10 of the game, they only lost $40 on that console.  They look $50 cheaper, only take a loss of $40 and stop one more sale of a PS3.  I can see them doing it, because MS is nasty like that.

[shmokes]

Microsoft's style is more like they will increase the cost of Windows XP by $300 and give every XP user a "free" Xbox 360, LMAO.

[Hoagie_one]

Microsoft's style is more like they will increase the cost of Windows XP by $300 and give every XP user a "free" Xbox 360, LMAO.

lol, another nasty option, lol

[pointdablame]

to hurt the dominant opposition.  Sony has a loyalty advantage.  Fanboys are stupid enough to go out and buy it at any cost, just to say they have a PS3.

While you are probably right, the gamble to hurt Sony might pay off in software sales.  Lets say that they lower the price by $50 and thus a new buyer says, I guess I'll get another game for $60.  Assuming MS makes $10 of the game, they only lost $40 on that console.  They look $50 cheaper, only take a loss of $40 and stop one more sale of a PS3.  I can see them doing it, because MS is nasty like that.

you still have to think about the ramifications of that $40 loss... sell another 5 million units with that price structure and MS just lost another $200M on TOP of whatever they are already losing on each system.  That one game sale means nothign to them.

And in regards to stopping the sale of a PS3, as was mentioned, they already have a nice foothold in that argument.  They are $200 cheaper than the PS3 out of the gate.  Kids will have a much harder time saving up for a PS3, so they may get a 360 instead.  Parents will get their kids a new system... but why not save $200 by getting a 360?  People like us, even if we really WANT a PS3, are likely to hold off because of the high price.    I'd say MS is in a nice situation in regards to that.  A price drop would make the 360 look slightly better... but IMO, there is no business sense behind the move.

I still say they will go with a bundle.  Games cost next to nothing compared to systems.  Even peripherals are cheap comparatively.  They can throw in 2 or 3 games even, make it a really nice bundle... and they'll look a ton better than a bare $600 PS3 with no games.  Plus... with a price drop, you are stuck into it for the life of they system.  Short of a rebate or similar offer, you'll never be able to go back to a more expensive price after a price drop.   With a bundle, you can offer it for a few months to steal Sony's thunder, and then take it off if it is hurting your bottom line.

Microsoft is a lot of things, but they aren't stupid.

[brophog]

to hurt the dominant opposition.  Sony has a loyalty advantage.  Fanboys are stupid enough to go out and buy it at any cost, just to say they have a PS3.

That doesn't even make sense. It makes sense if MS were similiarly priced as Sony, but they're not. People are either going to be able to afford the PS3 or they won't. The primary factor, by far, in buying a PS3 is price.........not whether or not they like the 360.

At that point, the 360 has won against Sony in the price war. It's not like dropping the price of the 360 is going to steal anymore of Sony's customers. The only reason for the 360 to drop it's price is to either bring in customers that are using other consoles or customers that haven't bought any next generation console.

A price drop by MS will not effect Sony. Sony has effectively made that so with their high price.

[AtomSmasher]

People are either going to be able to afford the PS3 or they won't. The primary factor, by far, in buying a PS3 is price.........not whether or not they like the 360.

I've never liked the XBox and don't like the XBox 360, so I will be getting a PS3.  PS2 games just always appealed to me more then xbox games and I'm sure it'll be the same way in the next generation.  I also still love a lot of my PS2 games and the ability to only have one console to play both the old and new games is definately a selling point in my book.  I probably won't be buying a PS3 until 6-12 months after its release, but I will eventually be getting one.

[shmokes]

I've never liked the XBox and don't like the XBox 360, so I will be getting a PS3.  PS2 games just always appealed to me more then xbox games and I'm sure it'll be the same way in the next generation.  I also still love a lot of my PS2 games and the ability to only have one console to play both the old and new games is definately a selling point in my book.  I probably won't be buying a PS3 until 6-12 months after its release, but I will eventually be getting one.

I felt that way about the Xbox until the mod scene developed and I modded one.  Now it's by far my favorite console (I also got some wireless Microcon controllers which are amonth the best controllers ever made, IMO).  But I still feel that way about the Xbox 360.  As for PS3, I REALLY want to share your opinion.  I want to want a PS3.  I've said already that I never owned a PS2 and was REALLY looking forward to PS3 to give me the opportunity to revisit games like ICO and Colossus and God of War.  But we'll see.  The problem is, even the die-hards like you are saying, "I'm still sold on PS3...I'll just wait a year for the price to come down."  But if everyone does that third party support will disappear.  Why would third parites want to develop for a system that is hard to program, and doesn't have a big installed base (because EVERYONE is waiting for the price to come down)? 

What will happen if this scenario plays out, is in a year, when they drop the price (even if they drop it by a hundred bucks it'll still be at least as expensive as the 360 was TWO YEARS EARLIER), people like you might think twice because they'll say, "Wow....the price is a little lower, but now the 360 is only $200 and it has an enormous library of games and it doesn't seem like there are nearly as many people actually making games for the PS3 these days."

So even more people will buy the 360 which, in turn, will attract even more third party developers to make games for that system over the PS3, which will, in turn, cause even more consumers to buy the 360, and so on.  If Sony wants to stand a chance in this hardware war they need that price drop to happen in the first six months and they need to remain within $50 of the 360 price from then on.  Period.  If they do not do that they don't stand a chance.

That said, I hope they do.  I'm quite a bit more excited about PS3 than 360.

[Hoagie_one]

I like teh rumors about homebrew linux apps on teh PS3, other than that though, meh, I can wait till the PS4 comes out to get a PS3

[Hoagie_one]

Here is some added value for PS3 lovers.

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/ps3/ps3-online-is-like-really-really-free-174650.php

At Sony's E3 presser, the company announced the online service would be "free." But, as soon as bossman Kaz Hirai failed to mention online play, people jumped to the conclusion that "free" was cockamamy bull. However, Sony Computer Entertainment has told game site PS3 Land the following:

    Please note that online gaming will be free right out of the box.

Even Microsoft can't dangle this kind of carrot. A bonus like free online play just might make up for the console's astronomical price.

[brophog]

But if everyone does that third party support will disappear.

You guys are overestimating 3rd party support fluctuations. The development cycle for most games now is well over a year. There is plenty of 3rd party support for the first year of the PS3 and even moderate sales will keep these long term projects going for a number of years.

[Grasshopper]

Ironically the success of the PS3 and the 360 could partly hinge on how easily moddable they are. $600 is way too much for a games console but it's an ok price for a very powerful general purpose computer that just happens to be a games console as well.

Anyway I'm sure the price of the PS3 will drop significantly unless loads of people are willing to fork out $600 for the console which seems unlikely. Sony have already spent a massive amount on R&D and marketing and whatever happens they cannot get that money back. They'll sell the PS3 at whatever price it takes to gain significant market share because the alternative is far worse. If they cannot gain a critical-mass of market share in a reasonable timescale then they'll find themselves in a vicious circle. A small user base means that games developers lose interest in the platform which in turn leads to less consumer interest, which in turn leads to less developer interest. etc.

[brophog]

They'll sell the PS3 at whatever price it takes to gain significant market share because the alternative is far worse.

Maybe. They are indeed putting all of their eggs in this one basket. The reach of the PS3 for Sony extends far beyond just gaming.

However.......they are already losing a boatload of money on this. The $600 price tag is still atleast $100 less than many market analysts thought the PS3 would debut at, and they were factoring in the fact that $700 was losing money.

[AtomSmasher]

The problem is, even the die-hards like you are saying, "I'm still sold on PS3...I'll just wait a year for the price to come down."  But if everyone does that third party support will disappear.  Why would third parites want to develop for a system that is hard to program, and doesn't have a big installed base (because EVERYONE is waiting for the price to come down)? 

I'm hardly a sony die hard, I just don't like the xbox or xbox 360.  I've never bought a console right when it was released, the ps2 I just bought a couple years ago.  The reason I'm going to wait a while on the ps3 isn't because of the price, its because I'd rather wait for some good games to be available for it first.

[Howard_Casto]

Sony has always made crap in terms of hardware (and software imho) so they tried to make up for it.  Unfortuantely, like usual they are trying to push this insaine disc format that nobody wants on the American public.  They have tried this 3 or 4 times in the past and it has NEVER worked.

If blueray was cheap to add to a console then sony would have made a smart move, but blueray is literally making a 350 dollar system cost 600 bucks.  They have already killed themselves. 

Make no mistake about it, neither blueray or hd-dvd's storage capacity will be required to make games for several years... pretty much at the end of this generation's lifespan.  Sony is selling you a player format so sony electronics can make a buttload of money selling dedicated players later on.  It has NOTHING to do with gaming. 

Blueray is technically better than hd-dvd, but what (imho) will kill it is that blueray discs are going to cost significantly more than dvds. Hd-dvd's on the other hand, are estimated to cost only slighty more than dvds right out of the gate.  Money talks.  This is the same reason super audio discs never caught on.... they cost 10 bucks more than the traditional cd, and to the average person (who doesn't listen to a cd on a surround sound system) they sounded exactly the same.   


Here's the thing all of you blueray (and he dvd for that matter) fans are forgetting.  America and the world as a whole isn't ready for a new format yet.  There was a survey somewhere that only 10% of the US has an hd-ready set and of that 10% only 10% actually make use of the hd capability. (Grandma needs a big tv so she can see the picture, but now big tvs are only in hd, so she buys an hd one.)  So basically they are selling two hd formats to 1% of the population. 



Also that flow chart is complete b.s. for a simple reason. 

If you'll notice in the history of gaming the usual wait between a new generation of consoles is around 10 years.  This allows the technology to progress enough to where consumers can see a significant difference.  This generation only took around 5 years to come out.  In the past when systems came out too quickly the cheapest one always won. 

I guess what I'm saying is that the consoles costing twice as much as the last round could only be justified if you were getting twice as much preformance/prettiness, ect...  I think m$'s cost is about right, 1 and a half times the original cost for 1 and a half times the system. 

Also make no mistake about the ps3 hype so far.  Even though the ps3 is better on paper performance wise, the actual gameplay footage released for the ps3 so far looks about the same as a similar game on the 360.

I also have to giggle a little on the people saying that "I like sony because of the games they release" or "I like m$ for the games they release" for that matter.  Both consoles have exactly the same games.  Both sony and m$ have very weak first party, exclusive game libraries.  I think both released maybe half a dozen over their liefspans that were even good enough to mention. 

If you say you like "sony" games then you are saying you lke gta and ff basically as they are the only two exclusive games on the system worth mentioning.  If you say you like "m$" games then you like Halo and Project Gotham, as they are the only exclusive games on that system worth mentioning. 

For me, last time around the logic required for which system to buy was clear.  Both cost the same, the xbox came with more stuff (hd built in ethernet) and had significantly higher system specs.  So I enjoyed all the great 3rd party games the sony fanboys did with higher quality graphics and a free harddrive almost tailor made for hacking. 

This time around the logic required between those two systems is also clear.  The ps3 is only slighty more powerful than the 360 and has lost one of it's major exclusive titles (gta).  Not only that but the ps3 is considerably more expensive than the 360 and comes with even less stuff (no hd and a few other misc things).  So when you look at the bottom line, you can play the same games, for 200 bucks less and even a few franchises you can't play on the ps3 (halo gotham, gears of war). 


Just closing up on that argument, the ps3 puts me into mind of when snk released the home version of the neogeo for it's insaine price tag of around 400 bucks (which would be around 600 in todays standards).  Snk thought people would run to it because it sported true arcade graphics.  The problem with that logic was the snes offered *almost* true arcade graphics and the carts for the snes cost 20-60 bucks cheaper (80 bucks instead of 120).  Also their software library wasn't all that great because the system was hard to code for. 

People do care about graphics, but they don't care to spend more mony on them unless the difference is REALLY noticable.  The difference between the graphics on the ps3 and 360 is almost indestinguishable in most cases so the casual gamer (which has always been sony's market) is going to buy a 360. 


With that being said, it doesn't really matter anyway as everyone should go get a wii. 

 

Sony and m$ are offering more of the same with nintendo is doing the heavy lifting once again, inventing a whole new way to play.  I've never seen people so excited about a system since the nes came out.  Nintendo is going to dominate the entire market as they once did and imho this is a good thing.  You can think of plenty of stinkers in terms of game titles in recent history, but try to count the number of bad games on the nes.  That's when the "nintendo seal of quality" actually meant something.

[AtomSmasher]

I also have to giggle a little on the people saying that "I like sony because of the games they release" or "I like m$ for the games they release" for that matter.  Both consoles have exactly the same games.  Both sony and m$ have very weak first party, exclusive game libraries.  I think both released maybe half a dozen over their liefspans that were even good enough to mention. 

If you say you like "sony" games then you are saying you lke gta and ff basically as they are the only two exclusive games on the system worth mentioning.  If you say you like "m$" games then you like Halo and Project Gotham, as they are the only exclusive games on that system worth mentioning. 

Lets see, some of my favorite games for the ps2 are Soul Caliber 3, Katarmia Damacy, God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, the Devil May Cry series, the Rachet and Clank series, Guitar Hero, Kingdom Hearts, and the Metal Gear Solid games.  I don't believe any of those ever came out on the XBox, but your right, GTA and FF are the only games worth mentioning   

[shmokes]

Heh...the number of bad games on the NES is probably somewhere around 600 at least.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but there are a lot more exclusives on both systems -- especially on PS2. 

PS2: Gran Turismo, Shadow of the Colossus, Final Fantasy, ICO, Devil May Cry, God of War, Metal Gear, Tekken, Twisted Metal (Black was a great game and was the most recent, I think), Virtua Fighter, Jak, Ratchet & Clank, Guitar Hero, Dragon Quest, WWE: Smackdown, Dark Cloud, SOCOM, Katamari Damacy, and a ton of others. 

Xbox: Halo, Ninja Gaiden, Top Spin, Rallisport Challenge, Star Wars: KOTOR, Unreal, and probably some others.

Between the two, PS2 was a WAY better system in terms of quality games available.  I've never owned one because the Xbox is so great when modded, but simply as legit game systems the PS2 is absolutely the better of the two systems.

Both the PS and the PS2 were excellent systems.  Xbox and Gamecube were more powerful, but not by a huge margin and both came out later than the PS2 (IIRC).  And, as you already pointed out, horsepower is not what's important; good games are the only important factor.  Judged by that simple standard PS and PS2 were the clear leaders.

Again, lest you think I'm a Sony fanboy, remember that I don't plan on getting a PS3 unless it is a major success AND the price comes WAY down.  And I have never owned a PS2.  I just don't see how you can rationally discount the quality of the Playstation systems.  They were/are great systems.

edit:  someone else just posted some of the PS2 list, but I'm posting anyway cos there are more on mine and this post took a long time to write.

[DaveMMR]

Howard touched upon the exact reason I'm dreading the high-definition DVD battle: I don't want to upgrade!  I'm not into spending the money for a 'slightly better picture'.  And even if you tell me it's "a significant leap in quality over a standard DVD", I'm just not going to see it. 

Granted, HD television looks great - but I'm comparing that to regular ole television.  DVDs look pretty good on my regular TV (with component video cables) and really good on my computer.  Can "Blu-Ray" or whatever make them look horrible in comparison?  I doubt it. 

Then there's price...  Why am I going to spend an extra $10 - $20 for the same movie I could pick up for less than $20.00.  Heck, one weekend I was able to successfully buy four NEW DVD's for $20.00 (of course, not top of the line movies but still entertaining). 

I read a review on DVD-Verdict for a couple of HD-DVD releases.  The 'improvements' brought up I wouldn't have noticed if you shoved my face in it like a dog who had an accident.

What can I say?  I'm not a videophile.  But I am a gamer - a gamer who's being dragged down into the videophile's den of seduction by enticing me to buy a system with a new format I really would rather not pay for. 

I think I'm getting a Wii! 

By the way Howard, GTA is only a limited exclusive for Sony.  XBoxers didn't have to wait all that long for the series to hit their system.  And Halo was released on the PC.  Exclusitivity is dwindling - except for Nintendo.

[Howard_Casto]

I also have to giggle a little on the people saying that "I like sony because of the games they release" or "I like m$ for the games they release" for that matter.  Both consoles have exactly the same games.  Both sony and m$ have very weak first party, exclusive game libraries.  I think both released maybe half a dozen over their liefspans that were even good enough to mention. 

If you say you like "sony" games then you are saying you lke gta and ff basically as they are the only two exclusive games on the system worth mentioning.  If you say you like "m$" games then you like Halo and Project Gotham, as they are the only exclusive games on that system worth mentioning. 

Lets see, some of my favorite games for the ps2 are Soul Caliber 3, Katarmia Damacy, God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, the Devil May Cry series, the Rachet and Clank series, Guitar Hero, Kingdom Hearts, and the Metal Gear Solid games.  I don't believe any of those ever came out on the XBox, but your right, GTA and FF are the only games worth mentioning   

While I'll agree that SOME of those series are worth mentioning (I just forgot about them) most aren't.  Ratchet and clank, for example is a poor man's mario.  Devil may cry is extremely forgttable and got some of the worst reviews in gaming history.  God of war and Shadow of Colossus don't count as they came at the end of the ps2's lifespan and aren't a series. Besides, as I've said several times, I loved God of War, I just played it a few years prior when they called it PRINCE OF PERSIA!  Guitar Hero is a great series, but again it's too new and it  has already been announced that red-octane will be releasing future versions cross-platform, probably with the 360 versions coming out first (after this very quick ps2 re-hash of course).  SC2 was cross platform and by all critical accounts SC3 was basically the same game. 

Metal Gear, Katamari and Kingdom Hearts are all great games, I forgot about em.  Are they games you would buy a system over?  Probably not, but they are great none the less.  (Especially KH in which it took them 6 YEARS to get out two games that give you around 4 hours of gameplay a pop.)

[AtomSmasher]

Uh, I don't know where you get your info from, but a quick glance at gamerankings.com (which compiles reviews other other sites have given games) Devil May Cry and DMC 3 both got great reviews, although DMC 2 only got an average rankings (with good reason).  All 3 Rachet & Clank games also got great reviews, I'm guessing you never even played them since you think they're a mario clone.  Also, since we're talking about whether the PS3 will be worth buying for their exclusive games, why aren't we talking about newer PS2 releases?  Games that will have sequals exclusively on the PS3?  Seems like those games are the ones we should be focusing on.  Regardless, even if all the games I mentioned got horrible reviews (although none of them did) I thought they were great games and a ton of fun, which is why I like the ps2 and not the xbox.  I'm sure theres plenty of xbox games I would like, there just havent been any that made me want to buy an xbox.

You're obviously just a Sony hater (or maybe just an XBox die hard) since you seem to know nothing about them or their games, yet you argue as though you do.  Theres really no point in debating with you since your going to just keep making stuff up, I'm sure next you'll argue that Katamari Damacy is the same game as Marble Madness.  Whether or not you agree with me, in my opinion, there are more games I want to play on the PS2 then there are on the XBox and that is why I own a PS2 and plan on buying a PS3.

[geomartin]

I think you have to take into account that the earlier systems came with a game to get started.  You have to add $60 more to the price of today's system to account for the fact that you could play the others right out of the box if you wanted.  I played combat for weeks on the 2600 before I bought another cartridge. 

[brophog]

America and the world as a whole isn't ready for a new format yet.  There was a survey somewhere that only 10% of the US has an hd-ready set and of that 10% only 10% actually make use of the hd capability.

That's certainly Nintendo's argument. A correct one, imo. I definitely don't have an HD set because I don't watch nearly enough TV to justify one.

On to your 1st party argument, though. One of the things you are forgetting is that, while Sony has almost no 1st party support, they have nearly all of the third party support. Nearly every game gets released on the PS2 that isn't a Nintendo 1st party title.

That's why the PS2 sells. It has more games by a very large margin and anyone that will only buy 1 system is going to have a PS2 for that purpose.

[Howard_Casto]

Uh, I don't know where you get your info from, but a quick glance at gamerankings.com (which compiles reviews other other sites have given games) Devil May Cry and DMC 3 both got great reviews, although DMC 2 only got an average rankings (with good reason).  All 3 Rachet & Clank games also got great reviews, I'm guessing you never even played them since you think they're a mario clone.  Also, since we're talking about whether the PS3 will be worth buying for their exclusive games, why aren't we talking about newer PS2 releases?  Games that will have sequals exclusively on the PS3?  Seems like those games are the ones we should be focusing on.  Regardless, even if all the games I mentioned got horrible reviews (although none of them did) I thought they were great games and a ton of fun, which is why I like the ps2 and not the xbox.  I'm sure theres plenty of xbox games I would like, there just havent been any that made me want to buy an xbox.

You're obviously just a Sony hater (or maybe just an XBox die hard) since you seem to know nothing about them or their games, yet you argue as though you do.  Theres really no point in debating with you since your going to just keep making stuff up, I'm sure next you'll argue that Katamari Damacy is the same game as Marble Madness.  Whether or not you agree with me, in my opinion, there are more games I want to play on the PS2 then there are on the XBox and that is why I own a PS2 and plan on buying a PS3.

The only reviews that matter... xplay.  Xplay isn't corporate sponsored by any gaming companies, so they are only truthful reviews by qualified critics available.  Gamers can't be trusted on online polls because the die hard fanboys skew the curve (I've heard tale of ff fans voting 30 times for a single game on the polls).

I have played ratchet and clank and found it to be a very avarage platformer.  If you mean it's different from mario in that there are guns involved and it isn't as fun, you are correct.    All platformers are compared to mario because it is the greatest platforming fanchise ever made.  "A poor man's mario" refers to a game that isn't as good as mario and yet is a platformer. 

Now if you had said sly cooper (another great ps2 franchise I forgot about) you'd have an argument.  But ratchet and clank... nah. 

The reason that we don't count recent releases is because they weren't the reason for buying the ps2 (unless you bought one last year, which is unlikely) and many aren't confirmed to be continued exclusively on the ps3, or at all for that matter. 


I know a ton about sony and their games (or lack there of), I just don't happen to like them. 

I'm by no means a die-hard m$ fan either as they have the same lack-luster exclusive titles.  It's just given the choice, I'd rather buy from a company I like and gives me a better/more affordable console (m$) than one that gives me a shoddier, more expensive one (sony). 


If you want to buy a ps3 that's great for you... now they'll sell two. 

But this isn't really a thread about which one you like, we are talking about the ps3 price point, I just used the lack of confirmed exclusive titles on both sides as a point that games don't really equate into it yet and if anything the 360 has more confirmed, big-name titles than sony right now. 

Even assuming sony had a buttload of all their favorites confirmed, coming back and exclusive for the ps3, I don't think a lot of people (and by alot I mean as many people that'll buy a wii or 360) will buy one.  To be frank, the economy in middle america is bad right now and 600 bucks is just too much to ask for consumers to pay for a system that doesn't even come with a game. 

 

[Howard_Casto]

America and the world as a whole isn't ready for a new format yet.  There was a survey somewhere that only 10% of the US has an hd-ready set and of that 10% only 10% actually make use of the hd capability.

That's certainly Nintendo's argument. A correct one, imo. I definitely don't have an HD set because I don't watch nearly enough TV to justify one.

On to your 1st party argument, though. One of the things you are forgetting is that, while Sony has almost no 1st party support, they have nearly all of the third party support. Nearly every game gets released on the PS2 that isn't a Nintendo 1st party title.

That's why the PS2 sells. It has more games by a very large margin and anyone that will only buy 1 system is going to have a PS2 for that purpose.

First off ps2?  do you mean ps3?  Cause ps2 isn't even an issue I'm just using it as an example to predict this round.  If someone that wants a ps2 hasn't bought one yet, they probably never will. 

And just for the record I think I went over this.  What made the ps2 so popular was a shortage of dvd players in japan.  It resulted in a whole cause and effect thing that resulted in high inital sales for the ps2 (as a media player only), developers thinking that the system was popular for gaming, when at the time it wasn't, these developers getting conned into exclusive contracts, which resulted in a larger library for the ps2 by the time it reached the US. 

Mind you there is a lot of truth in what you say, but let's not make the mistake of thinking that will happen this time.  This time the 360 is out first and it's selling well, and thus a lot of third party developers are either going to skip the whole exclusivity cause and develop for both systems, or get wrangled into m$'s own exclusive deals before sony gets a chance. 

It's far too early to talk software yet.  (notice I said yet)

getting to your responses though....

Well there are even more issues than that about hd.  In my area, for example, there are only 6 hd channels available on cable, and those channels aren't the broadcast networks, they are hbo, showtime, ect..... Now if this were 1990 that'd be great but these days people don't actually watch hbo live if they have digitla cable, they watch it on demand.  On demand uses streaming video, with is only slightly higher than ntsc, and by no means hd quality in terms of sound or picture.  On top of that, on those channels, only a small percentage of the programs are hd. 

So even if you want to get a hd tv, in most areas hd programming makes up less than 1% of a day of television. 

Yes the ps2 does have all the third party games... as does the xbox, as does the gamecube. 

That's why they are third party, they are non-exclusive.  Each system has around 5-10% exclusive third party titles and of that 5-10% usually all but the top 1% are crap.  So like I was saying before, it usually comes down to around 5 or 6 major titles on each system (the exception being nintendo as a TON of their titles are nintendo exclusive).

Now if you are like me and find these 5 or 6 titles on BOTH systems to be crap.  And in case you guys are wondering I'll just post my opinons on the major titles right here:

 

God of War=Lame ripoff of POP: SOT
Metal Gear=Very average action title saved by a rather good (yet insaine) story.
Final Fantasy whatever=lame rpg crappage
GTA Series=the most overrated pos ever to set foot on the ps2, xbox or pc
Halo=Very good fps.... on the pc... you can't play fps's on a gamepad.
Halo2=very average fps
Grand Turismo Series=over-complicated sim that would have  been better suited for the pc (and ironically it was originally designed for the pc, but I wont bore you with the details). 
Project Gotham Series=A mildly successful attempt by m$ to cash in on the drifting scene.  The arcade style of racing is much more appropriate to a console but it is just missing something. 


(end rant)

Anyway, if you find most of the first party titles to be crap and the bulk of gamers (who are casual gamers) either do, or don't really love any of them enough to effect their decisions, then it comes down to what the system will do (and I don't mean lame media player features) how much it'll cost, and what kind of graphics it'll have. 

the wii "does" the most, the 360 has the best graphics (for the price) and right now, the ps3 has nothing going for it but the high price and I suppose some die-hard fans who can overlook the price. 


So I concluding for the third time, the ps3 price is rather high and I think it is really going to hurt sales, like borderline dreamcast sales.  And the dreamcast was an amazing system because of amazing titles, the ps3 hasn't proven itself to be that yet. 

[AtomSmasher]

The only reviews that matter... xplay.  Xplay isn't corporate sponsored by any gaming companies, so they are only truthful reviews by qualified critics available. 

I couldn't disagree with that more (I do watch and enjoy XPlay, but they are definately not the end all, be all of reviews), but regardless they gave devil may cry 3 (the only devil may cry review of theirs I could find) a 4 out of 5, hardly one of the "worst reviews in history" as you said earlier.  Heres a link I just found if you dont believe me: http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/375/Devil_May_Cry_3.html
and Rachet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal got 5 out of 5 stars - http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/422/Ratchet__Clank_.html  (once again its the only rachet and clank review I could find from them)

Since these are the only reviews you trust, these must be some great games and definately worth your time.  I did forget about sly cooper, but then I never actually played a sly cooper game so I couldn't exactly list it as one of my favorite games.

[/quote]
The reason that we don't count recent releases is because they weren't the reason for buying the ps2 (unless you bought one last year, which is unlikely) and many aren't confirmed to be continued exclusively on the ps3, or at all for that matter. 
[/quote]
I bought my ps2 2 years ago if your interested, so most of the games I listed were already out.  And no, many of them are not confirmed for sequals on the ps3, but I'm assuming that games that were best sellers on the ps2 are likely to have a sequal on the ps3, not exactly a giant leap in logic.

I'm tired an am going to bed now, theres no point in continuing this discussion, you think the ps2 and ps3 are pieces of crap, not worth your time or money and I disagree, simple as that.  You go buy your xbox 360 and enjoy it, I'll go buy my ps3 and enjoy it.

[AtomSmasher]

You keep bad mouthing god of war, but didn't XPlay (the only reviews that matter, according to you) not only give it 5 out of 5, but they also awarded it best ps2 game of the year.

[brophog]

Howard, I meant PS2. You've made the comments on the PS2 and it's games, and I was making a very necessary clarification.

Yes the ps2 does have all the third party games... as does the xbox, as does the gamecube.  

You're wrong. The PS2 has a LOT more 3rd party titles than the others. It has more than the other two combined! That's why I made my clarification above, I think you are incorrectly lumping together all 3rd party titles into one bin and distributing them amongst the consoles evenly. This is very much not the case. There are so many 3rd party titles for the PS2 that most of us have never, ever heard of many of them because they can't penetrate an overly saturated market.

Back on real topic though:

You're underestimating the number of 3rd party titles that Sony already has locked up for the PS3. I agree wholeheartedly with the notion on this board that hardware sales will hurt Sony by losing 3rd party developers, but I disagree on the time frame of that. Atleast for the first couple of years, Sony has a lot of developers locked up already. It will be in years 3 and 4, when most consoles hit their peak, that we see whether or not Sony can convince developers to spend the millions of dollars to produce titles for their expensive system.

What made the ps2 so popular was a shortage of dvd players in japan.  It resulted in a whole cause and effect thing that resulted in high inital sales for the ps2 (as a media player only), developers thinking that the system was popular for gaming, when at the time it wasn't,

No doubt that was a factor, but you can't accurately narrow it down that far. The PS2 had a very large fan base already from the PS1, and it had a head start on both Nintendo and MS. There are a lot of factors that made the PS2 popular besides the fact it played DVD's. Simply being the first out of the gate with a unit with far superior graphics than the past generation is enough to create a huge buzz, and the fact they were rather rare during a holiday made that factor even bigger.

I may be nitpicking at some of this because I find it inaccurate, but overall I agree with your point: The PS3 has probably shot itself in the foot with this price point.

I can't recall at any time when there were multiple major consoles on the market that such a high priced gamble has paid off. In the course of video game console history, many companies have tried to push out a superior hardware system with a high price point and were almost immediately shot down.

[spiffyshoes]

God of war and Shadow of Colossus don't count as they came at the end of the ps2's lifespan and aren't a series.

If games that came out towards the end of a the PS2's life span don't count then lets take a look at the hot titles that came out around the launch for both PS2 and Xbox.  Titles with stars by them remained exclusive and the ones with out stars were later ported to the other system around  1-2 years later.

XBOX Launch

**Halo - Nov, 14 2001
**Dead to Rights
**DOA3
**Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
**House of the Dead III
**Hunter: The Reckoning
**Jet Set Radio Future
**Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee
**PGR
**Shenmue II
  Splinter Cell


PS2 Launch

  Dynasty Warriors 2
**Devil May Cry
  Escape from Monkey Island
**Final Fantasy X
**Frequency
  Grand Theft Auto III
**Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec
**ICO
**Jak and Daxter
  Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
  Onimusha Warlords
**Rayman 2 Revolution
**Red Faction
  Star Wars Starfighter
  Silent Hill 2
**Soul Reaver 2
**Shadow Hearts
**Teken Tag Tournament
**Twisted Metal: Black
  Tony Hawks Pro Skater 3
**WWF! SmackDown! Just Bring It

Capcom vs SNK 2
  DOA2:Hardcore
**WinBack: Covert Operations
**Time Crisis II
**Vampire Night
Spy Hunter
**Resident Evil Code Veronica
**MDK2 Armageddon
  Guilty Gear X



As you can see the PS2 had almost twice as many exclusive hot titles much earlier on than the Xbox did.  So you can't say that people can't like one system over the other because of exclusive titles because even early in the launch there were lots of them.

As far as PS3 and Xbox360 goes at this point I still feel it is a toss up.  Things could go either way.  The last time around the PS2 had a much larger selection of games than the Xbox did.  But this time around the Xbox has a pretty big head start on the PS3 and by the time the PS3 gets hear the XB360 will have a much larger title base than the PS3.  Also this time around Microsoft has a much better line up of exclusive games than it did in the previous generation.  The problem is most of their really great games that are comeing out are new titles so they don't allready have a fan base built up.  Most of the PS3's hot release titles are games that have rather strong  fan bases.  So strong that there probably will be allot of people willing to fork over the extra $100 to get a PS3 instead of an XB360.  The main really big flaw I've had with Xbox is their lack of RPG games on their system.  There is a pretty big market for them out their and so far in the past the playstation has been the system to get if that is what you are into.  Although right now the only big RPG titles that have been anounced are FFXIII and Shin Megami Tensei.

PS3 Hot Titles

Assasin's Creed
Devil May Cry 4
Final Fantasy XIII
Gran Turismo
Metal Gear Solid 4
Ratchet and Clank
Teken 6
Unreal 2007
Virtua Fighter 5

[SirPoonga]

**WinBack: Covert Operations

This was on the N64 first.

As far as PS3 and Xbox360 goes at this point I still feel it is a toss up. ...The main really big flaw I've had with Xbox is their lack of RPG games on their system.  There is a pretty big market for them out their and so far in the past the playstation has been the system to get if that is what you are into.  Although right now the only big RPG titles that have been anounced are FFXIII and Shin Megami Tensei.

Not this time around.  Oblivion, FFXII (ported), Blue Dragon, Phantasy Star Universe, etc...
Microsoft realized their problem last generation.  Granted the launch titles did't show this as they were mainly sports, racing, and tactical shooters.  But before the PS3 comes out there will be a pretty good diversity among games for the 360.

PS3 Hot Titles
...
Unreal 2007

This will be on the 360 too.

I want a PS3 but not at that price.  If it was comparable in price to a 360 i would get it too.  Mainly because I would want to play PS2 games but have the ability to play exclusive PS3 titles.  However, because of hte price, I decided I will get a PS2 when it gets cheap after the PS3 launches.  I would like to play guitar hero and katamari among others

What I like now is how the Sony fanboys are laughing at the 360 owners because their netowrk system will be free.  Yeah, that's cool but how good will it be.  They are claiming ti will crush Live.  From a software engineer's point of view I don't see how that is possible, especially with gamespy.  Live has had at least a 4 year head start in development and real life testing.  Plus if you used gamespy on the pc you know it sucks compared to xfire.  I would say xfire is pretty close to Live.  However, the big thing you are paying for with Live is microsoft hosted servers.  This limits cheating, glitching mods, etc...

Having alot of titles doesn't mean anything.  They have to be good.  The ratio of good titles  to number of titles I'd say nintendo has that.  Then sony and microsoft are close.

I am about the games, not the hardware.  For FPS, Racing sims, RTS, and flight sims PCs are generally better.  For sport titles and platformers console are much betters.  I know alot of xbox folk are saying sony is copying everyone with their networking and the tilt controller.  But then again microsoft is copying sony with the camera that is coming out soon.  All of which have been possible on a PC for years.

However, being a 360 owner there is one thing I really hate, Halo fanboys.  Halo isn't that great of a game.  It's a normal FPS shooter on a console.  I'd rather play Unreal Tournament or Counter Strike on  he PC.  When the Halo 3 trailer came out pretty much every xbox forum got spammed by Halo fanboys.  Live was slow from people downloading the trailer on the Live Marketplace.

The big thing for Microsoft right now is they will have cross platform playing games.  The ability to have PC and 360 players playing together is pretty cool.  I always though sport games whould be like this.  They are the same no matter what system you are on.

I will say, as good as Live is and Sony's network maybe developers can still do their own thing.  EA is a good example of this.  EA has its own servers for Burnout Revenge.  There's a reason, they need to store alot of info about you.  If you haven't played Burnout Revenge online through the 360 you are missing out on a cool racing experience.  EA is storing tons of stats.  But the big thing is the Revenge system.  ti keeps track of who took you out and who you have taken out.  At the beginning of the races it will point out who is the biggest threat to you.  Also it will point out who you are the biggest threat to.  It will also point out who is the biggest threat to everyone.  When you take out someone who is your threat you get this cool revenge screen

[versapak]

blah blah blah

...A bunch of games...

blah blah blah

Didn't want to quote your entire post, so I summerized it.

For starters... Your idea of hot titles and mine are very different. It looks like you just started scraping the barrel finding whatever you could that was actually out.

Secondly, Resident Evil: Code Veronica was a Dreamcast game for all territories, and was so long before the PS2, so it is certainly not an exclusive.

Shenmue 2 was also on the Dreamcast first, but not in North America, so I do still count it as an Xbox exclusive.

As far as PS3 goes...

Devil May Cry is not a PS3 exclusive.



I personally owned all 3 1/2 consoles this last generation, and will eventually do the same for the next generation, but the cost of the PS3 is ridiculous. Until it takes a serious dive toward earthly pricing, I will miss playing GT4, but MS will be releasing Forza 2, and this time around they will actually have a force feedback wheel.

[AtomSmasher]

What I like now is how the Sony fanboys are laughing at the 360 owners because their netowrk system will be free.  Yeah, that's cool but how good will it be.  They are claiming ti will crush Live.  From a software engineer's point of view I don't see how that is possible, especially with gamespy.  Live has had at least a 4 year head start in development and real life testing.  Plus if you used gamespy on the pc you know it sucks compared to xfire.  I would say xfire is pretty close to Live.  However, the big thing you are paying for with Live is microsoft hosted servers.  This limits cheating, glitching mods, etc...

This I agree with.  Having a free network will be nice on the ps3, but I highly doubt it will be as good as Live.  I've actually never played any console online, I keep my online playing solely on my computer (which is where I play most of my games), but from what I've seen of Live, it does what it does extremely well and its very unlikely that sony will produce something superior to it.

[SirPoonga]

This I agree with.  Having a free network will be nice on the ps3, but I highly doubt it will be as good as Live.  I've actually never played any console online, I keep my online playing solely on my computer (which is where I play most of my games), but from what I've seen of Live, it does what it does extremely well and its very unlikely that sony will produce something superior to it.

Have you ever used xfire?  Live is alot like xfire, but then add in microsoft hosts servers for some games.  Pretty much all the features you see on xfire (friends list, automatic update games, chat with others while in game, etc...) is in Live.
I'm kinda suprised Sony didn't go after xfire because of that.  Well, maybe they did but xfire refused.

You know what is going to happen.  Since Sony will be running on gamespy they will come out with  cross platform playing game too.  This is where Sony could get an advantage.  Making a cross playing game that doesn't require Vista.  The only reason Vista is going to be required for Huxley and Shadowrun is because Microsoft is going to integrate Live into it.

BTW, I think we might see Live drop in price or maybe be free but with ads by the time the PS3 comes out.  Microsoft already does free weekends through sponsership.  During E3 the entire week was free sponsered by Adidas.  Advertising can be done an not be intrusive. I didn't realize till a couple weeks after playing PDZ that Samsung was all over the place int he game.  It was all suttle though, like Samsung brand equipment and such.

If a game had a billboard and the ads changed, like let's say the billboard in GTA, that would be kinda cool.  Not sure I'd pay attention to them but it actually sounds like a cool feature.

[spiffyshoes]

Not this time around.  Oblivion, FFXII (ported), Blue Dragon, Phantasy Star Universe, etc...
Microsoft realized their problem last generation.  Granted the launch titles did't show this as they were mainly sports, racing, and tactical shooters.  But before the PS3 comes out there will be a pretty good diversity among games for the 360.

Oblivion and Phantasy Star Universe doesn't mean Microsoft is racking up a larger RPG base.  Both of those series were on the origonal Xbox.  Add the Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic Series, Jade Empire, and Fable to that and you pretty much coverd Microsoft's entire RPG library.  As for FFXII I've never once seen any mention of that game getting a 360 port.  Not unless that was a typo and you meant FFXI which is a MMO that was ported to the 360. 

Devil May Cry is not a PS3 exclusive.

They haven't anounced what other systems it might be comeing out on.  Untill it is official I'm still going to consider it a PS3 exclusive.  They also have said that they are considering porting Assasins Creed to XB360 but it is still not official.

For starters... Your idea of hot titles and mine are very different. It looks like you just started scraping the barrel finding whatever you could that was actually out.

Ok, you are probably right.  A few of those titles shouldn't have been in there.  Also keep in mind those were hot titles back in 2001.  That doesn't mean that they still are considered hot titles now.  If you asked me if the Dynasty Warriors Series was any good now I'd probably say that those games are terrible.  But back in 2001 allot of people thought they were pretty cool.  Also the main point was just that each system had exclusive titles that the other didn't so you couldn't say that each system pretty much had the same exact games on them even back then.

[SirPoonga]

Like I siad, I am not a RPG person.  I know Blue Dragon is new.  I know elder Scrolls is an old series but apparrently it is good.  Either way that's quite a few.

There is one thing about the 360 that is cool that doesn't get mention much.  The achievement system.  Now, to me thenumbers don't mean anything.  especially after playing PDZ I got more points for 15 minutes of deathmatch than beating the game twice.  What they do bring to the table is replayability to games. Ther's more goals for you to achieve so you might play a game a second time through wee normally you woul ave traded it in for something else.
A good example of this would be Kameo.  Once you beat the gme, if it didn't have the achievement system, you'd probably never touch it again.  Storyline based ames tend to be that way.  Once you get throught he story there is no need to tel it again.  However, there are acievements to get so many points in a level.  Thatmight be a reason to go through it again.

[alexandro98]

http://tinyurl.com/ojw92

:: Hides ::

[versapak]

http://tinyurl.com/ojw92

:: Hides ::

heheheh


Saw that vid a few days ago. Definitely some funny stuff there. The mouth of Sony definitely spews some interesting stuff.

Kind of expected from them though. Ya know... PS2... Toy Story GFX...

[markrvp]

You know, that video is probably right - buy an Xbox360 and Wii - forget the PS3.


I'm halfway there. 

[alexandro98]

Ok, im not anti-sony, but you got to admit they blow their chance at E3 this year, and they are the ones not denying any of these rumors.

http://tinyurl.com/o5j6x

  If this is true, then sony has seriously lost it.

[Grasshopper]

Ok, im not anti-sony, but you got to admit they blow their chance at E3 this year, and they are the ones not denying any of these rumors.

http://tinyurl.com/o5j6x

  If this is true, then sony has seriously lost it.

I seriously doubt whether this story is true. A licensing system preventing consumers from reselling items they've legitimately purchased simply wouldn't be legally enforceable in most countries.

[SirPoonga]

That's a rumor.  Sony Euro said that is a rumor going around for sometime. 

[AtomSmasher]

Ok, im not anti-sony, but you got to admit they blow their chance at E3 this year, and they are the ones not denying any of these rumors.

http://tinyurl.com/o5j6x

  If this is true, then sony has seriously lost it.

Sony has now officially denied these claims.  http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/25/sony-denies-snafu-over-used-ps3-games/