Sony PlayStation 3

RuneEdge said:
Could someone confirm that its £425 and not 425 euros?
Click to expand...
All I can say that it isnt 425 euros because the Euro prices are 499 and 599 for 20GB and 60GB respecitbely as they were announced by Sony in E3.
 
deftonesmx17 said:
Slow down. Blu-Ray is not solely owned by $ony(they are just the only ones who keep whoring it which makes it look like they solely own it), its actually just like DVD was. Im not talking about the current BDA(Blu-ray Disc Association) but rather the BDF(Blu-ray Disc Founders). This group is not $ony alone but contains the following.

20th Century Fox
Dell
Hewlett Packard
Hitachi
LG Electronics
Matsushita Electric Industrial (Panasonic)
Mitsubishi Electric
Philips
Pioneer
Samsung Electronics
Sharp
Sony
TDK
Thomson

Now Take a look at the founders of DVD.

Hitachi, Ltd.
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
Pioneer Electronic Corporation
Royal Philips Electronics N.V.
Sony Corporation
Thomson
Time Warner Inc.
Toshiba Corporation
Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (JVC)

See its not that much different than DVD was. :)
Click to expand...


Just want to point out that imo its a fantastic post. :) Something that Ive been banging on about, but never could find the info to back up my claim ;) Its a strong group, and thats why it will succeed.

But I totally agree, the price is appauling for a game console...BUT its value for money for what you get. Theres a happy medium in there somewhere, but you cant get past the fact that the price is too much for a console, whatever it does.
 
A movie critic I like a lot written this about the Blu-RAy disk and I thought it was interesting angle;

The New Laserdisc

Back in what I'll call "the VHS era," there was an alternative means for videophiles to get their fix - the laserdisc. Despite delivering suprior picture and audio quality than a standard videotape, the laserdisc never gained mass popularity. The main reason was that it was too bulky. At about the same size as an LP and twice as heavy, it was unwieldy. Also, unless you had a home theater setup of sorts (pretty rare in those days), the difference between VHS and laserdisc wasn't staggering. The smaller the TV set and the less impressive the speaker system, the closer in quality the two were. In fact, on an 18" set with no external speakers, you would be hard-pressed to tell the difference. Nevertheless, there were enough enthusiasts to keep laserdiscs alive. It was the DVD, not VHS, that killed them.

DVDs started becoming popular in 1997. By 1998 or 1999, they had eliminated laserdiscs as the format of choice for home theater buffs. A few years later, they effectively eliminated videotapes. (Technology marches in strange ways. I can remember when VHS was new and exciting.) DVDs possessed three major qualities that allowed them to supplant VHS. They were more portable and durable. They were cheaper. And they offered enough of an improvement in quality that even those people with 18" TVs and no speakers could tell the difference.

Now it's time for the next chapter to be written. The problem is in determining who the starring character is going to be. For a long time, it looked like high-def DVDs were going to be the next hot commodity. But now I'm betting they'll be the new laserdisc. There are significant issues that will likely prevent HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray) from achieving the kind of widespread accceptance enjoyed by conventional DVDs. The format war is only the tip of the iceberg. Players are expensive, and likely won't come down in price the way DVD players have. At this time, a majority of consumers don't have the equipment to support HD anything. And, perhaps most critically, while high def DVDs represent an increase in video/audio quality, it's not as dramatic as one might expect (certainly nothing close to what was gained by changing from VHS to DVD). It's better, but is it worth upgrading a system for? Is it worth re-buying a DVD collection (or a portion of one)?

Most consumers are probably going to answer this with a resounding "no." They're happy with conventional DVDs and the mild upside of the high def sibling won't be enough to lure them into the new camp. But the die-hards - those who adopted laserdiscs 10-15 years ago, will jump in feet-first. It's unlikely that high def DVDs will fail. But expecting them to have the same kind of success as DVDs in the late '90s and early '00s in not realitistic.

The longer the format war drags on, the more problematic any adoption of high def DVD will be. That's because the next generation of video - downloadable, super-quality movies - isn't far off. I'm not referring to the rip-offs about to be offered by the studios for $20 a pop. I'm referring to the next generation of on-demand movie-watching, where computers and video systems merge and massive libraries of stored content are available in soft copy. How far in the future is this? Five years? Seven years? No more than ten... When that arrives, it will represent the beginning of the end of the DVD, both conventional and high def. The longer it takes everyone to agree on one high def standard, the shorter the lifespan of the format will be. That's something to consider when you go holiday shopping this year.
Click to expand...
 
True PS3 games a few years after launch
by Justin Pinter

According to many game developers, the first generation of PlayStation 3 games will not be utilizing the systems true potenial.

Simon Jeffrey, America President of Sega stated, "...developers will release a first batch of games that don't use all the power of Sony's new Cell processor." Due to the delay in information/access to the Cell and delay in providing dev kits to developers, most launch games will not harness the real power of the machine. Also, Jeffery spoke about how there may not be many PS3 launch titles because game developers are just now getting their dev kits.

Mike Hickey, a video-games analyst for Janco Partners explained the cost of developing for next gen platforms saying, "Developing for Sony's platform is incrementally more complex than what you're looking at for Microsoft or Nintendo...With costs that could go over $25 million a game, you're not seeing third-party content where it needs to be at this stage to have a successful launch."

Some developers have been saying that they are fine with what they have to work with so far. Robert Kotick, chief executive officer at Activision stated, " First-generation games offered for the new PlayStation 3 won't use more than 20 percent of the Cell chip's capabilities...that's typical for a new platform because developers need several years to learn how to use the technology"

"While we may not have the final, final hardware, we know what the processor's capacity is...[and]We have active development under way...This is the most sophisticated piece of consumer hardware ever."
Click to expand...

http://www.ps3land.com/article-362.php
 
ThomasGOAL said:
True PS3 games a few years after launch by Justin Pinter
Click to expand...

No shit Sherlock!

It takes developers time to learn new skills and coding practices, this guy a journalist, hell I could of said that!!! ;)
 
Holio said:
No shit Sherlock!

It takes developers time to learn new skills and coding practices, this guy a journalist, hell I could of said that!!! ;)
Click to expand...

It's just the title Holio ;) but that :
"First-generation games offered for the new PlayStation 3 won't use more than 20 percent of the Cell chip's capabilities"
 
Dead Man said:
arnoldyaynay2rc.gif


Funny shit
Click to expand...
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
 
From Palgn.com.au

Key PS3 launch titles put back to 2007

Singstar could be there for launch, however.
Speaking to CVG, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe CEO David Reeves has revealed that a trio of key PlayStation 3 launch titles are set to miss the November 17 launch date, and will now emerge in 2007. Formula One and Motorstorm are amongst those affected, whilst Heavenly Sword, one of the few bright spots of Sony's performance at E3, will also miss launch day.

The delay of all three is something of a blow to Sony, which hasn't enjoyed the best of times recently, with the PS3 price and a rather underwhelming E3 showing both earning the company criticism. Nevertheless, Reeves has promised that the launch will see Sony "not just going for hardcore gamers," and announced that the launch window for PS3 will have a focus on social gaming, with My Singstar (which did look mighty nice at E3) scheduled to hit stores either on launch day or "certainly before Christmas." An EyeToy game was also promised by Reeves, and will appear after Christmas, but before March 2007.

So, which titles are going to be there at launch exactly? Well, a couple of days ago Kaz Hirai informed us that there'll be 15 games launching alongside the console. Insomniac's Resistance: Fall of Man will certainly be a launch title, according to Reeves, though aside from that things are still rather murky. However, old Reevesey remains confident in the powerful PlayStation brand, confidently declaring that, "We've built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even if it didn't have games," which is an interesting concept if you ask us.

More PS3 launch shenanigans as we get them, anyway.

Written by Chris-Leigh


I've been a Sony fan since the launch of Playstation 1. I still can't believe some people are considering going for a PS3 in November when for almost the same money you could buy a 360 today and then in a couple of years or three (when the PS3 capabilities start to make a difference) go for the other one as well.
Anyway, just an opinion.
 
I still can't believe people are comaping X360 and PS3 like they're equal.

Personally, I'm willing to pay + $200 for MGS, Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, and most importantly Socom 4, among others.

Such comparison IS NOT valid. Unless you eliminated 1st party and exclusive games. Which = impossible = invalid.




I work at a local target in my town and we've started getting x360 regularly this month. They were impossible to find for 6 months, not that they're finally here, no one is buying them. The last shipment has been sittin behind glass for the last week.

If Xbox had the games I want, I'd buy it without thinking twice now that they're available.

I have money set aside for a PS3, and I'm waiting for MS to sweep me off my feet and if they do, I'll buy their system. They still have 6 months to get my buck.
 
Last edited:
I didnt think Heavenly Sword was ever touted as a launch title.

However I laugh at that comment by Reeves about 'not going for the hardcore gamer', how stupid is Sony, really, who the fuck in there right mind is going to pay that money to play Singstar, a franchise that has only just came to America and an EyeToy game, give me a break you arse, your whole launch is based on early adopters who tend to be fanboys or technoholics. With Singstar all your aiming at is the younger market, aiming at being the Christmas number one toy, making the ebay market swell.

Jumbo mate, I understand you being a Sony fan, and wanting to play the MGS, DMC and other exclusives, but mate wake up and smell the coffee, THEY ARENT GOING TO BE LAUNCH TITLES!!!!!!!!!!! There is no need to pick a PS3 up at launch people, wait for a the price drop, MGS and many others wont hit the PS3 till 2007 some stage, GTA4 is Oct 2007, thats a year and half away, Virtua Tennis is being touted for about a year away too.

Dont get caught up in the hype, and dont pay over the odds for a machine that could offer very little till March 2007.
 
Holio said:
Jumbo mate, I understand you being a Sony fan, and wanting to play the MGS, DMC and other exclusives, but mate wake up and smell the coffee, THEY ARENT GOING TO BE LAUNCH TITLES!!!!!!!!!!! There is no need to pick a PS3 up at launch people, wait for a the price drop, MGS and many others wont hit the PS3 till 2007 some stage, GTA4 is Oct 2007, thats a year and half away, Virtua Tennis is being touted for about a year away too.

Dont get caught up in the hype, and dont pay over the odds for a machine that could offer very little till March 2007.
Click to expand...

I don't really need one at launch. I never really said I'll buy one at launch. Like you said, the best games are not coming out til later.

I'm saving money now so that when it comes to buying whenever that may be, I'll be ready.

On the other hand, the first PS2 price drop didn't come after 1 year. It is rather unavoidable that I'll still have to pay $500 in 2007. I belive the first PS2 cut happened in 2003 when PS2 went from 300 to 227, and then another 20% in the same year. I just found that article on gamespot.

If it doesn't happen in 2007, I'll GLADLY pay $500 or $600 (depending on what I need).




As far as hype. I've been playing games over a decade. No such thing as hype in my dictionary. I'm don't follow the masses. What counts for me is games and I'm buying systems for games, nothing else.

Final Fantasy (own all PSX, PS2 and some NES titles)
MGS (own all PS sequels)
Socom (been playing all Socom games online on PS2)
WE (own all PS games)
Tekken (played them all)
Resident Evil (played them all)
GTA (best series ever)
etc.


I'm not going with SONY coz of the hype. I want a PS3 because it's a proven brand with proven franchises. With new exciting franchises on the way, it's only going to get better.




If MS could give me all these games on X360 I'd ditch PS3 in a second.

So Guys, please - Hype only applies to casuals..

:)
 
Last edited:
By the way, Reeves DID say they are going to depend on the hardcore gamers this holiday season

Despite Sony's pledge to reach a broad audience with PS3 during its launch window, Reeves admitted that appealing direct to the hardcore games playing fraternity will quickly become vital for the company in the next-gen console war.

"Without being too arrogant about it, I don't think we worry too much about building up the hype in the first six months, but where the rubber hits the road is going to be when all those hardcore gamers have bought PS3", said Reeves. "They have also bought Xbox 360 and they have probably bought Nintendo Wii as well."

However, Reeves maintained that shifting PS3s in the early days won't be a problem, such is the strength of the PlayStation brand: "We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even it didn't have games."
Click to expand...

http://forums.e-mpire.com/showpost.php?p=1100271&postcount=2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom