SCEE President: Sony Needs To "Suffer"

Merciless.Fire

New member
Feb 6, 2009
181
0
0
WendelI said:
Hey why did the Sega Dream Cast went to console hell?
Well because it had awesome graphics but the game console and the games were very expensive. Poor people like Meeeee couldn't buy them even if we wanted to. also allot of games that were coming out for it were not using all the horses on the hood so its potential was in stranglehold. also there were only a FEW good games other were crappy to say the least. Allot can argue that this is what is happening to the wii (I know such a good concept shamed by things like wii music.) But the PS3 is getting the cost issue. I freaking love Heavenly sword, sword calibur, Ninja Gaiden and even the movie with game bits Metal Gear Solid 4. The problem is that I go play it at my rich friend's house! i don't own a PS3 and it is because it costs an EYE! Also their advertisement, IT is Horrendous, i have never seen a PS3 game ad. PlayStation is like "You like us? then you would probably be visiting our web page daily to see what is new." You have to be REALLY HARD CORE, But i mean REALLY Hard Core to be on top of your PS3. If you are selling the console equivalent of a Lamborghini then you should go above and beyond, Like clubs, and REALLY personalized construction. Not go for amazing graphics and expect the masses to pay 600 bucks for it.

And for the handhelds, this i is all i have to say,
Whats funner putting your hand on the screen or having it slip off your analogue stick?
Not to pick on you, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you are pretty young and rely on parents to buy games for you? Could be completely off.

I know it took me awhile to save for it, and I was finally relieved when I had enough money for the cheapo version (40gb). It's not as expensive if you put a higher benefit on it. The opportunity cost of buying this is quite large compared to other systems, but if you feel as though it will benefit you more than the other consoles, its economically sound to purchase the PS3. And you don't have to be rich to get one, just have to save.
 

Merciless.Fire

New member
Feb 6, 2009
181
0
0
Spectre39 said:
I bet Sony isn't doing all that well in the current recession. A super-priced console with few games isn't all that friendly to people with little cash. Buy a wii, or an Xbox if you want to shoot some stuff.
You get what you pay for. The recession is hitting hard, yes, but it's not affecting the game industry as hard as other sectors, besides, the recession looks bad, but poor choices by the automakers have made it seem like we are crashing down. It's a lack of confidence, to be straight to the point. Buy whatever system you like best.
 

Dys

New member
Sep 10, 2008
2,343
0
0
y8c616 said:
-Blu ray is a massive improvement on DVD, but the improvement is insignificant if you don't have a HDTV.
I don't intent to try and argue you're other points about why the ps3 isn't that great, this isn't a fanboy fueled "my penis is bigger" competition, and as I've said before I prefer the xbox most of what I say is biased and irrelevant anyway. I will, however, point out that even with an HDTV, BLU-RAY is hardly worth it without a good sound system. In fact, even without a HDTV if you have an $8000 sound system, get BLU-RAY, it is insanely better. People, for one reason or another don't seem to realise this, but sound quality is very significant.
 

Aries_Split

New member
May 12, 2008
2,097
0
0
Indigo_Dingo said:
KeyMaster45 said:
I've looked at the ps3's stuff, and I rather like the way it looks. The dashboard UI alone has a very calming feel to it, unfortunatley it doesn't have the huge game selection I want. Even for the games I do want that are on it I can easily just buy them for 360.

Sadly though I will be buying in the far future when god of war 3 comes out....rat bastards making it a ps3 exclusive. One can only hope they will have a change of heart and give 360 a slice of the pie so I don't waste money on a system for one game....

EDIT Yes, I'm a diehard GoW fanboy
So Sony Computer Entertainment Santa Monica (the people who make the series) should give a game whose rights Sony owns completely to the 360, despite the fact that it would mean doubling their workload or signifigantly scaling back their ambition?
You realize that the 360 and PS3 are even in terms of power, and both are laughable when compared to a gaming PC.

If Santa Monica wanted to really make the best game possible, they would make it on a PC. There is no argument to this,
 

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
cleverlymadeup said:
DeadlyYellow said:
I also stand by my statement. I get that e-newsletter every week telling me what 19 new movies are available along with a demo and DLC. However, since on a primarily gaming website where people primarily talk about games, one would assume I don't care about the movies. The PSN's offered selection of games for the current and back systems is still pretty skimpy in the U.S. as compared to Japan (thanks internet.)
actually both ps3 and the wii are behind in Japan not only in the store BUT in the games that are offered on the system and always have been for each and every generation of console. any gamer would know this if they've bothered to follow more than one generation of game system. i remember games for the nes that you couldn't get in north america cause they were japan only games.

as for the movies well 360 offers them so should the ps3, it's just a keeping up with the jones, as for downloadable stuff, there's actually some amazing games on there, such as echochrome and pain


KeyMaster45 said:
Sadly though I will be buying in the far future when god of war 3 comes out....rat bastards making it a ps3 exclusive. One can only hope they will have a change of heart and give 360 a slice of the pie so I don't waste money on a system for one game....
yeah funny how a Sony owned studio would make a ps3 only game, much like those bastards at Bungie making 360 only games
Don't forget Hinterland, Defense Grid, and World of Goo for amazing downloadable games :).

As for the big battle over what to choose.

I like all the companies I just can't really afford a PS3 :p. It's just a nip too far out of my price range.

Plus when they stopped backwards compatibility I got REALLY upset. Like...wow...so angry.
 

Hiroshi Mishima

New member
Sep 25, 2008
407
0
0
Some of the things I'm about to say might annoy people, but it's how I see things, and for not it's how I feel. While I may respect Indigo, it is very apparently he's a fan of PS3 just like all the others who claim it is ultimately superior and that, as Merciless says "you get what you pay for."

However, there's another side to that. Yes, you can get what you pay for. A console that has very little in terms of games I want, a movie format none of my televisions a built to support, and feature which is merely Second Life with a different name and look. As many others have said, you can find a lot of those elsewhere. In fact, if you own a PC, you can find most of them all in one spot. If you own a 360 as well, then you can find everything but the Blu-Ray (which my TVs don't support anyway).

That's an awful lot of money spent on a console which will ultimately do nothing but gather dust in its box. My PS2 plays all the Playstation games I've ever been remotely interested in. My DS plays all the handheld games from the current and previous generation. I have absolutely no use whatsoever for the PS3 or the PSP. I'm still actually trying to find a real justification for the PSP's continued existence. From what I've gathered most of the games I like that are on it did poorly in sales (mostly because they were placed on the wrong handheld in my opinion) and most of the rest found their way to the PS2 eventually, which is probably where they should have gone to begin with.

We see a lot of posts going on about the Wii, the 360, and the PS3. But I don't see as many people going on about the PS2, which is a pity, because the PS2 still has a lot of life left in it. You can still have great games on it (with less "realistic" graphics, which doesn't bother me one bit), and they're cheaper to boot.

People can go on and on about the cheaper games being "for kids" (as I've seen elsewhere) or that they "suck and look ugly" but you know what? That shouldn't matter one tiny bit. Because unless all you care about is graphics (in which case check out the games Real Life and Outside), the "downgrade" on the visuals shouldn't bother you one bit. And let's be honest, the game developers and designers and publishers sure aren't pushing the PS2 to the best of its ability. If they were, we'd have more games that look almost like 360 games by now. I see people talking about "paying attention to the earlier generations", but if they really did that, they'd see how close the next generation those consoles could get when pushed to the limit.

The NES and Master System had games towards the end that were very close to what you could find in the first generation of SNES and Genesis games. Those two consoles, by the end of their run (which was into the PSX era if I remember correctly, at least for the SNES) were capable of not only spoken dialogue in their games (admittedly Japan-only most of the time), but also the graphics quality was damn close to what the PSX was capable of at least as far as 2-D games went. And the PSX, by the end of its run, was putting out games that could easilly have been PS2 games (such as the last Tomb Raider and Final Fantasy titles on the PSX).

The people making the games today just aren't trying hard enough. They're trying to coast along on the flashier graphics of the current consoles, instead of trying to push the previous ones to that level (or as far as capable). So far, the only thing I'm seeing them "push" on the PS2 are the cinematic cut scenes. Which are just pre-rendered graphics anyway.

Oh well, no one cares about my opinions anyways.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
Wyatt said:
if sony was smart they wold drop the blu-ray, chop the price down to a reasonable level and catch up.
I don't understand this suggestion that people put out. I really don't.

So you are implying that Sony cut out one of the various selling points of the PS3, and at the same time void any possibility of playing the current games it has and voiding any reason to develop for the system?

Blu-ray is a selling point for the PS3, whether it's doing well or not. Who would bother developing for the PS3 if it was even more like the 360 and wouldn't be able to "ExPlOrE tHe PoSsIbiLiTiEs of BLU-ray!"?

Wake up and smell the ashes think for a bit, that would be like making a DS with a disk slot but with no Cartridge slot to play your old DS games or slot for GBA games. It would completely void any real selling point of the DS is you can't play any of the games it was meant to play.

Hiroshi Mishima said:
Oh well, no one cares about my opinions anyways.
Nah, don't worry, people care about your opinion. Nice 40th(?) post btw.

But if you can't see a reason for the PSP to continue to exist, then you must really hate choice. Many of my friends absolutely adore their PSP, and the only reason why I really got a DS was because my friend had one and I took no consideration if it had the games I wanted. Apparantly not >_>; The fact that the PSP is still supported, even marginally compared to the DS, it's a huge sign that competition can survive against Nintendo's latest and greatest handheld devices.

And I'm sure the DSi wouldn't have come along with the multimedia functions as soon as it has without the PSP surviving and selling in the market against them.

But as for the rest of your post, I wubzs my PS2 ^o^ and I agree with most of the things you said. I still need to find that MGS pack with the first 3 MGSs, anyone know if that's still sold?
 

Wyatt

New member
Feb 14, 2008
384
0
0
Jumplion said:
I don't understand this suggestion that people put out. I really don't.

So you are implying that Sony cut out one of the various selling points of the PS3, and at the same time void any possibility of playing the current games it has and voiding any reason to develop for the system?

Blu-ray is a selling point for the PS3, whether it's doing well or not. Who would bother developing for the PS3 if it was even more like the 360 and wouldn't be able to "ExPlOrE tHe PoSsIbiLiTiEs of BLU-ray!"?

Wake up and smell the ashes think for a bit, that would be like making a DS with a disk slot but with no Cartridge slot to play your old DS games or slot for GBA games. It would completely void any real selling point of the DS is you can't play any of the games it was meant to play.
im not implying it im flat out SAYING it. the point YOU miss is that blu-ray ISNT a selling point for the one group of people that matters most, the CUSTOMER. if i want a blu-ray player id buy a dedicated player i dont want it bundeled in with my consol anymore than i EVER used the CD player that was part of PS1 and i9 for damn sure dont want to pay an extra $200-$300 for my GAMES consol because of it.

if im anal and stupid enough to want to switch to a whole new movie format for a very minor increase in quality that means im also stupid and anal enough to want to build a whole 'system' including suround sound, a hi-def TV and 47 other technut gadgets that the local best buy dude can talk me into. but as i said id certianly wouldnt be looking at a friggen GAMES consol for my blue-ray needs.

most CONSUMERS 'selling point' for a consol is the PRICE first and what GAMES they offer second, at best things like blu-ray are a distiant 3rd, more like icing on the cake, but if that icing costs more than the cake thats just stupid.

what they are trying to do is like trying to sell a cell phone that normaly costs $100 for $500 because it can take slightly better pictures than the compitition. people dont buy cell phones to take pictures with, thats what cammeras are for, they buy cell phones to call people the ability to take pictures is a nice bonus but certianly not a reason to pay double or tripple what it costs for anything else on the market.

anyhow thats just my opinion, im certian that there are a few people out there that dont agree, otherwise there wouldnt be any PS3s sold at all. but the simple fact is im right and all you have to do is too look at the sales figures for consols to see it. sony went from the best selling consol of all time to 3rd of a pack of 3 in a single generation and its all because of the overpriced blu-ray player they insisted in stuffing down their customers throughts. the customers clearly choked on it and to continue to insist that they are 'doing the right thing' is like saying the titantic was a minor accident.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
Wyatt said:
Condesning
Wow. I don't want to lower myself to petty name-calling (me, not you), but you just missed so many other points.

Blu-ray is a god damn selling point for the PS3, it's one of the reasons why it's still going on! If there was no Blu-ray, the PS3 would basically be an Xbox360 with a different name. To say that blu-ray is not a selling point for anyone, especially the customers, is downright ignorant and clearly shows that you personally don't care for it. You may not care for it, but that doesn't mean many other people don't.

The PS3 is an all-in-one device. Why waste money (and shelf space) on two things (A games console and a blu-ray player) when you can have 1 thing with twice the content? The PS3 is a fairly good Blu-ray player on it's own, and that's not counting the fact that it's upgradable, updatable, and downsmacks (couldn't think of another up- ) any standalone blu-ray player that costs twice as much with less features.

All consumers have different tastes. The fact that the PS3 has as many options as PRICE GAMES and blu-ray shows that it's open to more people than you might think. People buy PS3's because it has blu-ray, and they get games as as sidedish. Other people might not care much for price and concentrate games. Again, I must point out that you think that all consumers want the same thing and are the same. That. is. not. true.

What they are doing is selling a cellphone for $200 and it normally costs $400 with no extension of contract. It's been debated over and over again, the Ps3 selling at a loss should be enough to disprove that statement. You get so many features right out of the box for a cheaper price than buying the things standalone that the cost is justifiable. People know that cellphones can be used to talk, what matters is the reception, how easy it is to text, how easy it is to send messages, how cool it looks, and if you're comfortable with it hanging around your backpack. Just try to fit in the PS3 somewhere in that analogy.

Now, I may not have had to answer this last paragraph, until you said this;

but the simple fact is im right and all you have to do is too look at the sales figures for consols to see it.
Regardless whether sales figures truly mean everything that you have stated, the fact that you are so cocky as to completely contradict yourself from the first 5 words of that paragraph is very shortsighted of you and will mean that I will never be able to get my point across to you because you think you're right regardless if you know it's your opinion.

Because of that, do not bother replying, because it would be useless to continue this argument.

Sorry if I sound brash, but don't take any of this personally.
 

Wyatt

New member
Feb 14, 2008
384
0
0
Jumplion said:
Sorry if I sound brash, but don't take any of this personally.
i dont, we are after all arguing opinions. though id say that its obvious that sony being 3rd place in a pack of 3 means they arent doing SOMETHING right, if its because of my opinion that they charge too much for their consol and that extra charge is do too a 'feature' that clearly no one wants is open to debate. all i can say is that is THEE reason i wouldnt buy a PS3, but obviously there are many other people that didnt buy the turd for other reasons. but given that the cheapest system (with arguably the worst games) is also the best selling by far and the most costly (with arguably the BEST games) is in a distant 3rd i feel comfortable in being 'arrogent' enough to draw what is after all an obvious conclusion. its the price that drove down sales, and that price is due to the blu-ray player being added. it seems rather obvious that no one wanted it and made that clear in the most plane way possable , by not buying the system.

and this idea that they will 'catch up' over a 10 YEAR cycle is just stupidity on a massive scale, if a tech gadget doesnt sell well when its still new and the 'gee-wizz' factor is still in play than this idea that 10 years LATER it will look like a good purcase is just ....... wow, i dont have the words. any moron that will buy a 10 year old games consol from anything but e-bay for $10 drop me a line i have an old 8 track player you will love as well as a betamax, hell ill even toss in a VCR and a sega saturn no charge.
 

Merciless.Fire

New member
Feb 6, 2009
181
0
0
Wyatt said:
Jumplion said:
Sorry if I sound brash, but don't take any of this personally.
i dont, we are after all arguing opinions. though id say that its obvious that sony being 3rd place in a pack of 3 means they arent doing SOMETHING right, if its because of my opinion that they charge too much for their consol and that extra charge is do too a 'feature' that clearly no one wants is open to debate. all i can say is that is THEE reason i wouldnt buy a PS3, but obviously there are many other people that didnt buy the turd for other reasons. but given that the cheapest system (with arguably the worst games) is also the best selling by far and the most costly (with arguably the BEST games) is in a distant 3rd i feel comfortable in being 'arrogent' enough to draw what is after all an obvious conclusion. its the price that drove down sales, and that price is due to the blu-ray player being added. it seems rather obvious that no one wanted it and made that clear in the most plane way possable , by not buying the system.

and this idea that they will 'catch up' over a 10 YEAR cycle is just stupidity on a massive scale, if a tech gadget doesnt sell well when its still new and the 'gee-wizz' factor is still in play than this idea that 10 years LATER it will look like a good purcase is just ....... wow, i dont have the words. any moron that will buy a 10 year old games consol from anything but e-bay for $10 drop me a line i have an old 8 track player you will love as well as a betamax, hell ill even toss in a VCR and a sega saturn no charge.
First off, that's what they were saying about the DVD when it first came out. Blu-Ray is just a new technology that just needs to fall in price in order to find its equilibrium price range. The PS3 was built way ahead of the 360 in quality anyways, it was meant to be a long lasting system. Time is what it needs.

Second off, Blu-Ray has pushed the PS3 sales quite a bit. If there wasn't Blu-Ray, it would have a DVD drive, common to its older brother PS2. It couldn't hold massive sized games (LBP for example) on 1 disc, unlike the 360, which is going to need..4? for FF13. It'll all come around at some point.
 

Merciless.Fire

New member
Feb 6, 2009
181
0
0
Hiroshi Mishima said:
Some of the things I'm about to say might annoy people, but it's how I see things, and for not it's how I feel. While I may respect Indigo, it is very apparently he's a fan of PS3 just like all the others who claim it is ultimately superior and that, as Merciless says "you get what you pay for."

However, there's another side to that. Yes, you can get what you pay for. A console that has very little in terms of games I want, a movie format none of my televisions a built to support, and feature which is merely Second Life with a different name and look. As many others have said, you can find a lot of those elsewhere. In fact, if you own a PC, you can find most of them all in one spot. If you own a 360 as well, then you can find everything but the Blu-Ray (which my TVs don't support anyway).
I agree with you on the Blu-Ray deal and how it doesn't work with TVs. They have jumped the gun on the HD revolution. It hasn't hit mainstream yet, and that's part of the reason why the PS3 is suffering, relying on something that the majority of people don't have the income for. Prices for HDTVs and screens are falling rapidly as we approach the equilibrium price for those goods, but we still aren't there yet. As I've said in multiple posts, time is what will separate the PS3 from the others. The 360 has been playing off the abilities that the PS2 has been able to do all along, effectively creating a maximized PS2.

Game wise, that's a lot of people's choicest price point. That's a personal preference that Sony doesn't have much control over.
 

y8c616

New member
May 14, 2008
305
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
y8c616 said:
-The PS3 is way better online than the wii ( in that you can actually play a multiplayer game on PSN for over 30 seconds without it crashing, unlike the wii network) and there's little difference between PSN and XBL. Sure XBL is a more refined experience, but for the millions of dollars they get for it, it should be WAY better, and it just isn't.
Never once had a problem with the Wii network. Never crashed, dropped, or unable to connect. Never couldn't find people to play against, and the wait times have been relatively low.

-Blu ray is a massive improvement on DVD, but the improvement is insignificant if you don't have a HDTV.

Blu Ray is only an improvement over DVD if you have a TV large enough to merit HD. On my 36" for example, it would be no better than DVD. Blu Ray isn't some spectacular new technology, it's just a higher resolution size. No large TV, no HD benefit. The ONLY thing Blu Ray offers a non-HD user is the increased storage space.

And worth note, a good quality upscaling DVD player reduces the quality difference between DVD and HD/BluRay back to the damn-near insignificant levels.
Well freinds of mine with wii's have experienced poor connection, laggy online games, and a generally more basic online package than with PSN or live. I still think nintendo is behind the opisition as far as online gaming etc is concerned; though the wii makes too much money for nintendo to give a shit probably. As for your point about blu ray not looking any different than dvd unless you have a massive HDTV, i disagree because i noticed a massive improvement on my 32" Sony HDTV. Though i agree blu ray is pointless unless you have a HDTV. As for upscaling players, they will be as useless as VHS players are now if blu ray becomes the dominant format (as dvd did back in the day). Its selling similar amounts now than dvd when it was on the market for this long, so it is possible.
 

Wyatt

New member
Feb 14, 2008
384
0
0
Merciless.Fire said:
First off, that's what they were saying about the DVD when it first came out. Blu-Ray is just a new technology that just needs to fall in price in order to find its equilibrium price range. The PS3 was built way ahead of the 360 in quality anyways, it was meant to be a long lasting system. Time is what it needs.

Second off, Blu-Ray has pushed the PS3 sales quite a bit. If there wasn't Blu-Ray, it would have a DVD drive, common to its older brother PS2. It couldn't hold massive sized games (LBP for example) on 1 disc, unlike the 360, which is going to need..4? for FF13. It'll all come around at some point.
i think we need to define what you mean by 'quality'. there is no doubt that from a hardware physically working point of view than when compared to the X-Box and not having a red ring of death problem than yes its made with 'quality'. but just because your consol doesnt BREAK isnt much of a selling point now is it? i mean if it DOES break that can be a no-go for sales, but if it works likes it ssupposed too that isnt a selling point its common sence. i do find it funny though that most PS3 people find the fact that the PS3 doesnt simple die of a hardware malfunction something to brag about. its kinda like bragging that your car has tires, or your cat came with ear's.

if you mean quality by tech standords that i can simply say its allready out of date by PC standords and 8 years from now it will have indeed gone the way of betamax and the 8 track. in a business when your brand new PC is out of date often before it clears the inventory shelves at your local PC store and your i-phone is old hat 6 months max after launch you cant seriously argue with any realistic chance of convincing anyone that a games consol will still be viable 10 years after launch.

as to the number of disk things with DVD vrs Blu-ray, isnt that what the hard drive is for? im not being snarky either im seriously asking, because if they work like a PC and just install the game on your hard drive it doesnt mater how many disks it takes but if you have to swap disks all the time than yeah i can agree its an advantage. though its still not worth $200 extra from my point of view.

finaly ive seen blu-ray movies on HD TVs and its not at ALL the improvment over DVD that DVD was over VHS. the simple ability too select a specific point on the DVD and just go to it was a MEGA improvment over tapes and having too rewind or fast forward to get to a specific shot in the movie. that doesnt include other things like the ability to add different languages or extra content, commentary during the movies, added sceens DURING the movie and so on. what does Blu-Ray offer over DVD? a slightly better picture on expencive top end TVs? hardly worth the cash at this point. and as a last lil bit of by the way information, if you dont see the 'upgrade' to the new formats as anything but a money grab by movie makers as well as hardware makers to force people too not only buy new hardware but to re-buy all their current movie collection your a fool. when i switched from VHS to DVD i wasnt happy about losing my 'investment' in my huge movie collection and having to start over, but the tech of DVD was really WORTH that loss. the tech differences between DVD and blu-ray style plaers isnt even close, what little bit i gain in picture quality if i invest not only ina new player but in a new TV too take advantage of it is more than offset by making me entire collection of DVDs worthless as my collection of VHS tapes became.

if you expect me to toss out thousands of dollers of movies to upgrade to something new than that something new better 'teleport hookers into the room' especialy with the price tag differences from just upgrading the hardware alone to say nothing about the cost of buying movies/games all over again for that hardware.
 

Merciless.Fire

New member
Feb 6, 2009
181
0
0
Wyatt said:
Merciless.Fire said:
First off, that's what they were saying about the DVD when it first came out. Blu-Ray is just a new technology that just needs to fall in price in order to find its equilibrium price range. The PS3 was built way ahead of the 360 in quality anyways, it was meant to be a long lasting system. Time is what it needs.

Second off, Blu-Ray has pushed the PS3 sales quite a bit. If there wasn't Blu-Ray, it would have a DVD drive, common to its older brother PS2. It couldn't hold massive sized games (LBP for example) on 1 disc, unlike the 360, which is going to need..4? for FF13. It'll all come around at some point.
i think we need to define what you mean by 'quality'. there is no doubt that from a hardware physically working point of view than when compared to the X-Box and not having a red ring of death problem than yes its made with 'quality'. but just because your consol doesnt BREAK isnt much of a selling point now is it? i mean if it DOES break that can be a no-go for sales, but if it works likes it ssupposed too that isnt a selling point its common sence. i do find it funny though that most PS3 people find the fact that the PS3 doesnt simple die of a hardware malfunction something to brag about. its kinda like bragging that your car has tires, or your cat came with ear's.

if you mean quality by tech standords that i can simply say its allready out of date by PC standords and 8 years from now it will have indeed gone the way of betamax and the 8 track. in a business when your brand new PC is out of date often before it clears the inventory shelves at your local PC store and your i-phone is old hat 6 months max after launch you cant seriously argue with any realistic chance of convincing anyone that a games consol will still be viable 10 years after launch.

as to the number of disk things with DVD vrs Blu-ray, isnt that what the hard drive is for? im not being snarky either im seriously asking, because if they work like a PC and just install the game on your hard drive it doesnt mater how many disks it takes but if you have to swap disks all the time than yeah i can agree its an advantage. though its still not worth $200 extra from my point of view.

finaly ive seen blu-ray movies on HD TVs and its not at ALL the improvment over DVD that DVD was over VHS. the simple ability too select a specific point on the DVD and just go to it was a MEGA improvment over tapes and having too rewind or fast forward to get to a specific shot in the movie. that doesnt include other things like the ability to add different languages or extra content, commentary during the movies, added sceens DURING the movie and so on. what does Blu-Ray offer over DVD? a slightly better picture on expencive top end TVs? hardly worth the cash at this point. and as a last lil bit of by the way information, if you dont see the 'upgrade' to the new formats as anything but a money grab by movie makers as well as hardware makers to force people too not only buy new hardware but to re-buy all their current movie collection your a fool. when i switched from VHS to DVD i wasnt happy about losing my 'investment' in my huge movie collection and having to start over, but the tech of DVD was really WORTH that loss. the tech differences between DVD and blu-ray style plaers isnt even close, what little bit i gain in picture quality if i invest not only ina new player but in a new TV too take advantage of it is more than offset by making me entire collection of DVDs worthless as my collection of VHS tapes became.

if you expect me to toss out thousands of dollers of movies to upgrade to something new than that something new better 'teleport hookers into the room' especialy with the price tag differences from just upgrading the hardware alone to say nothing about the cost of buying movies/games all over again for that hardware.
But that's my point, you WON'T be shelling out thousands of dollars for these in a few years. Prices fall, Blu-Ray needs to seep into the market and find its equilibrium price, and the market will oblige and move on.
 

nathan-dts

New member
Jun 18, 2008
1,538
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
y8c616 said:
-The PS3 is way better online than the wii ( in that you can actually play a multiplayer game on PSN for over 30 seconds without it crashing, unlike the wii network) and there's little difference between PSN and XBL. Sure XBL is a more refined experience, but for the millions of dollars they get for it, it should be WAY better, and it just isn't.
Never once had a problem with the Wii network. Never crashed, dropped, or unable to connect. Never couldn't find people to play against, and the wait times have been relatively low.

-Blu ray is a massive improvement on DVD, but the improvement is insignificant if you don't have a HDTV.
Blu Ray isn't some spectacular new technology, it's just a higher resolution size.
Wrong. Blu-Ray is just a disc with a higher memory capacity. Developers just use this memory to improve graphics and sound. It doesn't just allow for higher resolution with a blank disc.