Welcome to Emulationworld

Forum Index | FAQ | New User | Login | Search

Make a New PostPrevious ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode


SubjectPS3 price drop rumor new Reply to this message
Posted byTerry Bogard
Posted on07/09/07 03:35 PM



Random link, with my best wishes to link police:

http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/playstation-3-100-price-cut-hits-july-15-275391.php

They must have decided the price was too high to compete with the 360 and the Wii.

How unpredictable.




SubjectRe: PS3 price drop rumor new Reply to this message
Posted byVmprHntrD
Posted on07/09/07 04:40 PM



You're partly right there, and it's not rumor, it's a fact as even major news outlets like FoxNews, etc in their tech sections are covering it.

Basically it's not a reduction per-say, but a shift. The $600 unit is going to $500, this is true, but there is a replacement version. For $600 now you can get a 120GB unit and 1 free game (motorsport) along with it, also uses some new micron level on the cell which reduced heat (bfd to average or most anyone really.)

Deal is, it's still equally so a ripoff. Hmm let's add this up some. PS3 $600=120GB HD unit+game...and currently 360 Elite is $480 and also has a 120GB HD and goodies.

SO where really is the savings? Get a 360 for $400 with the smaller drive, or the PS3 with the smaller 60gb drive for $100 more yet ...OR, get the bigboy setups they have and still save considerable cash with the 360. Sony fails again really on this move. I laugh not on that but how much they're losing considering the 60GB at $600 they'd lose $200/sale, this can't help.

Oddly seems Gamestop is NOW doing a 'special sale' through part of September so it can be had for $500, but officially I read on the AP wire that it wasn't until end of August the price was official. Go figure.




SubjectHuh new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on07/09/07 06:26 PM



> Basically it's not a reduction per-say, but a shift. The $600 unit is going to
> $500, this is true, but there is a replacement version. For $600 now you can
> get a 120GB unit and 1 free game (motorsport) along with it, also uses some new
> micron level on the cell which reduced heat (bfd to average or most anyone
> really.)

Actually, that pisses me off, I had to take mine out of the cabinet because the fan was so loud, that thing is hot as hell. It doesn't really get hot now, unless you play for a continuous 6 hrs or so, then you can hear the fan crank up, but when I had it in the cabinet the fan was so loud it was unbelievable.

>
> Deal is, it's still equally so a ripoff. Hmm let's add this up some. PS3
> $600=120GB HD unit+game...and currently 360 Elite is $480 and also has a 120GB
> HD and goodies.

I didn't really compare pricing, I just got a ps3 to play all my ps2 games, but I liked that it had 60gb, blu-ray, and wireless out of the box. Does the 360 come with all that stuff?

Not that it really matters, I have it now, but I did get a deal when I ordered through Dell - Got a coupon for Ridge Racer and a controller thrown in for free...

CSP


SubjectYou forgot to add in the HD-DVD drive new Reply to this message
Posted byRoushiMSX
Posted on07/09/07 07:31 PM



If we're going to make equal comparisons, let's also factor in that the PS3 can play BDs while the Xbox360 can not w/o the HD-DVD. Also take into account that the Xbox360 can't play all of the XBox games (or even half of them) while the PS3 can play almost all of the PS2 and PS1 games (in addition to upscaling PS1 and lowres PS2 games to at least 480i over HDMI for the cleanest fucking image PS1 games you'll ever get).

So Xbox360 Elite + HD-DVD (w/ free King Kong) = $680 vs PS3 (w/ free Motorsport) for $600. That's before tax, which depending on where you buy from will mean quite a bit.

It boils down to what you want to play. If you want to play PS3 games, watch BD movies, and replace both your PS2 and PS1 (especially since the PS3 can play games that the PS2 couldn't, such as Tomba), then the PS3 is an obvious decision.

If you want to play Xbox360 games, watch HD-DVDs, and a selection of Xbox games, then the 360 is obviously a better choice. Keep in mind that the higher-than-normal failure rates of the 360 also mean that you're going to go at least two weeks without your system at some point (and possibly multiple times), but at least it's covered. Either way, the 360 has had time to build up a pretty decent library and there's plenty of stuff to pick up new and used for under $25 these days.

The 360 has the piracy advantage since it supports HD-WMV. Pirates rip BD and HD-DVDs, encode them in HD-WMV, and release them on single and dual layer discs at 720p (single) and 1080p (dual), so if you're into movie piracy then a stock 360 will treat you right. On the other hand, the PS3 has better media streaming capabilities and works better with other forms of video. It may cater better to people who want to upgrade from their soft modded Xbox to watch their pirated anime and tv shows on a newer console.

You also have to factor in online services and what you expect from them. If you just want some simple online mulitplayer then the PS3's online capabilities are just peachy (and free), while the 360's are far more robust and better developed (though cost $$). Then there's the region coding, which the PS3 doesn't have for PS3 games (or demos! Have fun downloading the Hot Shots Golf 5 demo from the japanese store) while the 360 still has. Not like it much matters, because the only Xbox360 import worth getting right now that hasn't already been announced or released for US is Tetris Grand Master Ace (Fucking nazis).


tl;dr 1 - Neither is a rip off. Depending on what you're picking 'em up for, both are a great value.

tl;dr 2 - Oh look, Vamp is ripping on a Sony product again! Surprise surprise!




SubjectThank god for Amazon's Post-Order Price Guarantee! new Reply to this message
Posted bypostamessage
Posted on07/09/07 07:38 PM



Thank you for writing to Amazon.com.

The discounts we offer for items on our web site do vary from time
to time. I've checked your order, and found that we recently
offered a greater discount on "Sony PlayStation 3 (60GB)" than at
the time you placed your order.

Since this item was shipped so recently, I have requested a refund
of $100.00 to your credit card. This amount reflects the difference
between the price you were charged and the discounted price. The
refund should be processed in the next few days and will appear as a
credit on your next billing statement.

You may view returns and refunds by clicking the "Your Account" link
at the top of our web site, then clicking "Go!" next to "open and
recently shipped orders." Completed refunds will appear at the
bottom of an individual order's summary page.

I hope this solution is satisfactory. Thank you for shopping at
Amazon.com--we hope you will visit us again soon.


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


SubjectHow 'bout fuck the new video shit and say Sony fucked up? Reply to this message
Posted bySatsuNoHiTo
Posted on07/09/07 07:46 PM



I think MS did the right thing whether or not it was intentional. Games don't take up a shit load of space and if developers stopped being lazy fucks and would build real-time cut scenes actually making use of that nice hardware then they sure as hell wouldn't need over 9GBs for a game because retarded pre-rendered movies wouldn't be sucking up space.

MS isn't making you buy something you may rarely use. I rarely watch movies and I know damn well that games don't NEED 50GBs so Sony fucked up by putting that shit in their console and driving up the price. Look at it this way, Sony could've dropped in a DVD drive and sold the damn thing for $400 and it'd probably be difficult to find PS3's on the shelves; sell a $200 Blu-ray add-on and considering stand-alone Blu-ray players aren't cheap, they'd be able to sell the add-on without a problem to the people that would want to utilize it.

Sony F'd up and now MS is going to drop 360 prices, $250, $350, and $400 for their systems so Sony still has a way to go before they catch up unless they can get some really kick ass titles.




SubjectRe: How 'bout fuck the new video shit and say Sony fucked up? new Reply to this message
Posted byVmprHntrD
Posted on07/09/07 08:13 PM



Exactly, at least you're being rational.

I mean really if you're buying a system because it does movies and runs old shit, your priorities are seriously out of wack.

...and before pinhead calls me out, no I don't own a single virtual console game and until there's new content I don't intend to. Games for the system and controls caught my attention alone. The 360 I have my eye on too, but it's just out of my price range for the time being, needs to wait until after being hitched and a bit of a surplus can be recovered.




SubjectSony fuckedup new Reply to this message
Posted byRoushiMSX
Posted on07/09/07 08:40 PM



Sony didn't fuck up with the bluray inclusion, they fucked up when they screwed over developers by not getting them dev kits in a remotely reasonable time before launch. Devs got fucked hard and if the PS3 had a large enough library of exclusives at this point then the price discrepancy between the PS3 and 360 would be an even lesser issue.

The problem everyone has with the price is that you shell it out and there's only a small handful of unique games to pick up. There's poorly ported cross platform shit from Ubi and EA like always (Wii and Gamecube owners know all too well how little EA and Ubi care about cross platform ports), but then there's only a few exclusives and even then most of them have problems (Motorstorm's load times and lack of hard drive support in addition to its nerfed feature set pre-patch).

We're finally seeing more stuff trickle in, but the first year drought is still nearly as bad as the Saturn's and N64's. At least the PS3 is pretty damn functional as a media center piece (which is why a bulk of them are probably selling).




SubjectRe: How 'bout fuck the new video shit and say Sony fucked up? new Reply to this message
Posted byRoushiMSX
Posted on07/09/07 08:43 PM




> I mean really if you're buying a system because it does movies and runs old
> shit, your priorities are seriously out of wack.

If you bought a semi-decent (or better) HDTV and a 5.1 (or better) sound system just for videogames, then perhaps your priorities are completely out of whack.




SubjectOne thing we all can agree on new Reply to this message
Posted byJudgeInjury
Posted on07/10/07 02:53 AM



You guys are both wrong :) The real tragedy isn't price or setups, it's the seemingly unwillingness of the development community to push a boundary with a game.

Developers have really boned the consumer this generation with all of the half-baked sequels and ports more so than ever before. I know the way the economics work out it's crazy not to port and sequel, but the lack of creativity in what was once the most fertile environment for media (IMO) is shocking. They seem more interested in looking back and spit shining really recent stuff instead of making the future.

Where's the new IP? The new ideas? Ninja Gaiden with a girl is still Ninja Gaiden. And don't even get me started on the Wii's Godfather or Lego Star Wars compilations. Adding a waggle here and there doesn't justify what is essentially a $50 game "do-over"

The thrill of playing gamrd for many (myself included) is the variety of such. I've been a surgeon, a pilot, a cop, or whatever on my DS. On 360, I've shot stuff, hit stuff, played sports and shot more stuff.

I have hope for Assasin's creed and even some of the distant PS3 stuff, but so far in my opinion you've got a new Zelda, Gears of War, and Motorsport standing out for an ENTIRE wave of next gen systems and games across three huge companies and thousands of development houses. And the next big game to drop is either Space Marine 3 or Carjacker 4. How many NES games were mined to the 3rd or 4th iteration? SNES? PSX? There's a reason for that.

I remember debating very hard on whether or not to get a Genesis or SNES, a PSX or a Saturn, and then again a Dreamcast or a PS2. This time around, there isn't even one system that makes stop and think "I need this now!"




SubjectNext-Gen games cost too much to make these days new Reply to this message
Posted byBuveed
Posted on07/10/07 03:40 AM



Developers need a huge staff and a huge budget. You're not getting the innovative stuff you'd like to see because the risk of failure is too high. If the so-and-so FPS is selling, developers are going to stick to that genre, because they have the data on what works and what doesn't. Nintendo can afford to do this because the Wii and DS, & their games bring in enormous amounts of cash. If one of their games fail, big fucking deal, they've got 5 or 6 established game genres at their disposal that are guaranteed to be big sellers.




SubjectI know, I'm just wishing it was like the old days... new Reply to this message
Posted byJudgeInjury
Posted on07/10/07 05:45 AM



I just don't like it at all. I look at old boxart/cover sites and remember walking into TG&Y and looking into that big Atari case and seeing plane games, and farmer killing gopher games, and even human cannonball games and having a feeling of just being able to chose from so MUCH. Of course I was just 5-6 when this was going on.

I even wish we had the days of going into a Babbage's with $10 and coming out with something really great and new that may or may not work on my old Tandy 2500XL.

I stumbled upon Space Quest, Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, Life and Death, The Punisher (the influence for so much right about the first GTA hands down) and Stunts all in this way. I even remember saving up the $40 for the first Civilization based on the sweet boxart alone.

I think I got used to dispoable gaming from these patterns, so now I am actually enjoying the bounty of odd PS2 games to scratch this itch for now. I just worry about where I go when the PS2 dries up.

Maybe by then we will have this downloadable market stuff at a price and content level I can get into. Of couse the alien hominid guys new game may be the reason I finally break down and get a 360 for myself.




Subjectthat's my point new Reply to this message
Posted byTerry Bogard
Posted on07/10/07 03:27 PM



Spending half your monthly income for a gaming console is crazy; doing so knowing that the difference with the previous generation is just more pumped graphics is totally insane.

The Wii is another pair of sleeves because it has innovation. The N guys were smart enough to use innovation as a marketing strategy. Some people I talked to are sure they did so because they lacked the capability to produce competing hardware, which is something I doubt. But in case it is true, I hope all game hardware designers are taken by the aliens before the next generation of consoles.




SubjectRe: that's my point new Reply to this message
Posted byVmprHntrD
Posted on07/10/07 05:27 PM



> Spending half your monthly income for a gaming console is crazy; doing so
> knowing that the difference with the previous generation is just more pumped
> graphics is totally insane.
>
> The Wii is another pair of sleeves because it has innovation. The N guys were
> smart enough to use innovation as a marketing strategy. Some people I talked to
> are sure they did so because they lacked the capability to produce competing
> hardware, which is something I doubt. But in case it is true, I hope all game
> hardware designers are taken by the aliens before the next generation of
> consoles.
>
>
Yah that's the problem. The hardware dev'rs for system have this tardish mentality that more higher the specs and delivering a prettier version of the same thing is right to do. They also have the mentality that your system should basically be a swiss army knife in that it does it all for you. Whatever happened to just going to the store, picking something (a game), and then just playing it and being happy your shit turned on and your $ wasn't wasted on stupidity?

Nintendo and MS were responsible this gen giving either innovation(nintendo) or expansion choices (MS) so you don't end up paying higher for crap you won't use (larger drive, hd-dvd drive, etc.) I think honestly hardware dev has lost it's view on where to go when making a quality game. Long ago it was about giving someone something new to do, something more expansive, something that will enhance the game. Now it's about realism in the eyecandy, fluffing up the same tired shit since a decade back or more, and pandering to the hardware minorities (hddvd/br, 5/6.1 stereo owners, hdtvs, etc) to try and say and show you're better.

I miss it being about the games and doing something new or special, sadly it seems either from lack of being able to afford to compete, or being genuinely interested in saving that art form, only Nintendo made the move with the motion controller.




SubjectThe reality is new Reply to this message
Posted byVanillaDome
Posted on07/10/07 06:01 PM



This shit has been going on since video games began. Go back and play some random A2600 games. 85% of them are unplayable. The rest are just terribly boring, or after a maximum of 4 minutes, become terribly boring. I played Adventure for like 2 minutes before I realized that I could be taking a nap instead. I'd also argue that at least 80% of the games on that system were ripoffs or derivatives of something else. I'd rather vomit than play some of those A2600 games; at least after you vomit, you feel a mild euphoria.

Rehash and un-originality have plagued every single video game platform since day one. It's just that when we were younger, we had lower standards, and it was wonderful. It's too bad things can't be that way anymore. I really do envy the children. I wish I could just bust out some action figures and have a good old time.




SubjectRe: The reality is new Reply to this message
Posted byJudgeInjury
Posted on07/10/07 06:59 PM



> This shit has been going on since video games began. Go back and play some
> random A2600 games. 85% of them are unplayable. The rest are just terribly
> boring, or after a maximum of 4 minutes, become terribly boring. I played
> Adventure for like 2 minutes before I realized that I could be taking a nap
> instead.

Adventure is one of my favorite games. I am seriously working on a design documents for the sequel to it as we speak :) It was just such a new idea and you could do so "many" different things, but the biggest thing it had going for it was being the first game on a console where you could pickup items (it came out in 1979!) It sold over a million copies, so it had it's day in the sun. And I understand it's sparseness turning some people off as well.

I'd also argue that at least 80% of the games on that system were
> ripoffs or derivatives of something else. I'd rather vomit than play some of
> those A2600 games; at least after you vomit, you feel a mild euphoria.
>
> Rehash and un-originality have plagued every single video game platform since
> day one. It's just that when we were younger, we had lower standards, and it
> was wonderful. It's too bad things can't be that way anymore. I really do envy
> the children. I wish I could just bust out some action figures and have a good
> old time.
>

The Atari before the game crash years of say 83-85 really had a lot of variety I think. Activision Anthology is a perfect example of this, if you ever get a chance to pick it up cheap it's a fun nostalgia trip. It was after the success of the space invaders and the pong games that the imitators really stepped in.

You are completely right that the library got really derivative, that's what killed for everyone: Shoddy knock off's and lack of creativity. But before the knock off's, I would venture to say that most of the 2600 games were original ideas. Some of them didn't work very well, ET and Raiders of the Lost Ark being some of the prime targets people mention, but they are original if horrible.

After thinking about it, I agree with you that gaming has always had the copycats, but I think they always came later on in the dev cycles than they do now. Cost and risk of bombing on a new game is likely the primary reason though.




SubjectRe: The reality is new Reply to this message
Posted byTi-BOne
Posted on07/11/07 09:52 AM



What ? Do you really think A2600 games are boring ?
Maybe i just have a different mindset than most people regarding games, but man, i do enjoy some A2600 games up from today. Maybe itīs because of the whole hi-score gaming thing, i always had hi-scores competitions with my brother, and then my friends, but hell..

Enduro is always fun to play.
River Raid is great, always.
Decathon rules
Missile Command too
Turmoil
Megamania
Spiderman
Freeway
Tennis
that one where you have to throw vases on spiders eating your building (canīt remember the name)
hide & seek (although i always rather play the real thing, when i was a kid)
thereīs this another spaceship game, were you fly a blue blob thing, that is really good
dragon fire was great (lots of skills required)
adventure (loads of pacience, which is cool)
battletanks
one with 2 submarines, killing fishes
the one were you are a frog and need to eat flies.

and lots of others.

i donīt know.. i kinda wish i still had my a2600, but my brother has it, and makes good use, and itīs always fun when i come over to his place, so no problems.


> > This shit has been going on since video games began. Go back and play some
> > random A2600 games. 85% of them are unplayable. The rest are just terribly
> > boring, or after a maximum of 4 minutes, become terribly boring. I played
> > Adventure for like 2 minutes before I realized that I could be taking a nap
> > instead.
>
> Adventure is one of my favorite games. I am seriously working on a design
> documents for the sequel to it as we speak :) It was just such a new idea and
> you could do so "many" different things, but the biggest thing it had going for
> it was being the first game on a console where you could pickup items (it came
> out in 1979!) It sold over a million copies, so it had it's day in the sun. And
> I understand it's sparseness turning some people off as well.
>
> I'd also argue that at least 80% of the games on that system were
> > ripoffs or derivatives of something else. I'd rather vomit than play some of
> > those A2600 games; at least after you vomit, you feel a mild euphoria.
> >
> > Rehash and un-originality have plagued every single video game platform since
> > day one. It's just that when we were younger, we had lower standards, and it
> > was wonderful. It's too bad things can't be that way anymore. I really do
> envy
> > the children. I wish I could just bust out some action figures and have a
> good
> > old time.
> >
>
> The Atari before the game crash years of say 83-85 really had a lot of variety I
> think. Activision Anthology is a perfect example of this, if you ever get a
> chance to pick it up cheap it's a fun nostalgia trip. It was after the success
> of the space invaders and the pong games that the imitators really stepped in.
>
> You are completely right that the library got really derivative, that's what
> killed for everyone: Shoddy knock off's and lack of creativity. But before the
> knock off's, I would venture to say that most of the 2600 games were original
> ideas. Some of them didn't work very well, ET and Raiders of the Lost Ark being
> some of the prime targets people mention, but they are original if horrible.
>
> After thinking about it, I agree with you that gaming has always had the
> copycats, but I think they always came later on in the dev cycles than they do
> now. Cost and risk of bombing on a new game is likely the primary reason though.
>





Previous ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode