[I Will Kill You All!!!]

1. Pshhah, Xbox 360! more like Xbox 1.5!- Lots of people think that the Xbox 360 is just a slightly improved version of the xbox since it is coming out alot earlier. This is not true at all. The xbox 360's hardware is just slightly less as impressive as the PS3's. Microsoft hasnt helped much with clarifying this by showing early screenshots and videos of unfinished games. Giving a feeling that the graphics arent next gen at all. The processor is slightly behind, the GPUs are identical and everything else is basically the same also. So expect to see some great looking games on the Xbox 360!

2. OMG! The PS3 is gonna cost like $600+!- No the PS3 would not launch at a price anywhere near $600, not even $500. Sony was the first comany to take a loss on the Playstation. They took a $50 loss for every PS2 sold as well. The PS3 costs $494 to manufacture and Sony would mostlikely take a $50 loss again to sell it for $450. They may even try and push it down to $425. Many people think the PS3 is going to be so expensive because Ken Kutaragi said it was. When he said that, it was most likely Sony trying to push Microsoft to release a price. Also, the same thing was done with the PSP being rumored to cost $500-$400. But it sold for a bundle at $250. So Sony may want to make us feel like we are getting a great deal by making us think we will spend alot but when the PS3 comes out, it costs much less than we expected. Or when Kutaragi says that it will be expensive, he just may mean that it will break the $300 console price. But in the end, Sony is not stupid. They know people will not buy a $600-$700 system. Look at systems like jaguar and 3DO. People learn from their mistakes that people do not want to spend alot on the consoles no matter how advanced it may be.

3. OMG! The Revolution is a stupid lightgun remote!- Many people are writing off the Revolution controller because of A.) it looks like a remote control. B.) Because they think it is just a lightgun. I will start with A. The shape of the controller is very ergonomic and is made for the motion sensing capabilities it has. It has a simple one hand interface that will be easy for even the noobies gamer to enjoy. Just because it is shaped differently doesnt mean it sucks. Also for the people that still do not like the remote style controller dont worry. There is a conventional controller that will be released for usage. now for B. The Revolution controller is by no means a light gun. A light gun works by pointing at a certain point on a screen using a laser. The laser works by determining of the light is the right kind of light to count as a target, or if the fire is in the correct (x,y) coordination. This is limited to only shooting games and is still rather primative for that. The Revolution controller acts as an extention to what you are playing as or with in a game. It uses motion sensing to act as a 3-D mouse. It can determine position, movement, depth, angle, speed, and 3-D movement. This has endless possiblities for innovative games. Instead of being a pointer like a lightgun, it is more of an extention. If you are playing a sword fighting game, the controller is like the sword. If you are playing a boxing game, the controllers are like your fist. If you are playing a FPS, the controller is like your gun. Plus it still has plenty of controls for using the motion sensing and button pressing in combonation together. I could go on and on and on about innovative game ideas, but i dont want to rand = )

[JamesGriggs]

You're right on all three. I'm also sick of hearing all those complaints. The XBOX1.5 and Revolution-controller complaints are usually made by uninformed (or, more likey, fanboys) people, so I usually don't respond to them anymore. 360 is going to rock my world this November, and the Rev. is going to shake up video games as we know them.

The PS3 thing has been annoying me for awhile because people who say it usually back it up with the per-component cost analysis (of which I've heard anything from $600-$1200 per PS3), which is probably BS, but I've never taken the time to prove them right or wrong.

Unless Sony is stupid they will release the PS3 for no more than $400. $350 is probably the smartest thing they could do. Microsoft won't be ready to slash the price of the XBOX yet, so they could stick to this price point for probably 2 years, and perhaps, by that time, they might be breaking even/making a small profit. Of course, they could release the PS3 for $450, hoping that their popularity will carry them through to enough fans, but I think that would be a mistake.

So be it : my prediction is that if the PS3 is released in America for more than $400 then Microsoft will win the next round of the console wars. I have other reasons than just price to believe this (i.e. Microsofts increasing support from 3'rd party companies, including Square-Enix), but I think that the price point could be a major determining factor as to which console will be more popular. Sorry Revolution, but even if you become the best system out of the three, I don't really see you winning the console war, but instead, you have the opportunity to keep Nintendo in the fight.

[DruMMers02]

waits for DSS...

[Vejadu]

Many very good points. I totally agree with everything you said.

As for the PS3, they're in a tight spot. The PS3 will likely cost the most, unless they're willing to eat almost $100 on each console they sell.

The problem is that the vast majority of PS1/PS2 owners are casual gamers. Sure there are a lot of hardcore gamers that are PS fans and there are all sorts of niche titles on the PS, but that took time to build and develop. How many casual gamers are going to be willing to drop $500-$600 (system, games and accessories) on the new PS3 when many of them are perfectly content with their existing PS2?

When the PS1 launched, it was $300 and it was adopted by those who grew out of Nintendo and even Sega. Many of those people became dual PS2/XBox owners. With the 360 just over the horizon, I think many hardcore and some casual gamers will jump onto the 360 wholeheartedly.

Sony may be in trouble if they bring out their slightly more powerful system six months to a year behind the 360. When the PS3 launches, MS may be able to afford a $100 price drop on the 360. If you can get a XBox360 bundle for $299 when the PS3 launches at $399-$499 and the PS3 launches with several games that are also available on the 360, what incentive is there for average joe to choose the vastly more expensive PS3?

With largely similar game libraries and graphical abilities, the incentive to pick up a PS3 for $400-$500 when many people already have perfectly good 360s at home is reduced.

It all depends on how the 360 sells out of the gate. If they sell a lot of systems, Sony may be in for a real fight this gen; if they don't sell a lot of systems, it means that a lot of people are holding out for the PS3.

The same strategy Sony used to bury the Dreamcast.

Then again, this is all moot to me. I'm getting a Revolution and spending the next few years catching up on all the PS2/GC games I haven't gotten around to yet. I'll get a 360 or PS3 when they're more affordable.

[DeadScreenSky]

Originally Posted by DruMMers02

waits for DSS...

Are all of your posts going to be about me?

My only real complaint is this: can I please get some kind of reference backing up the idea that Sony has lost $50 on nearly every PS2 sold? My understanding is they have actually made a profit on nearly every PS2 sold. It actually wouldn't surprise me if they make almost $50 profit on most of their PS2s they've sold. I think this statistic is wrong, but I'd love some evidence to the contrary.

EDIT: I guess I could nitpick a little, too. That's what I am here for, right?

The X360's CPU is actually stronger than the PS3 Cell in some areas, and vice versa. More importantly the areas it is stronger in are traditionally the areas that videogames use. I know it was only mentioned that it was "slightly behind", but even that might be a stretch. Really they just have their own areas of superiority, and it's really hard to say which will be better in the end.

The X360's GPU is also pretty different than the one in the PS3, but most analysts seem to agree it is superior. It's hard to compare because it's an honest to god next-gen GPU, while the PS3 just makes use of an optimized commodity PC GPU. I think things like GPU integrated RAM give it an obvious edge, but it's hard to know how much. On paper the PS3 has serious memory bandwidth limitations - but the PS1 (as just one example) ended up actually beating its paper specs when it came to performance.

Which is really the problem with all performance comparisons, of course. Paper specs are really good at hiding bottlenecks and similar problems, and they also don't really depict the benefits of a simpler or more usable design. I think the real key is just what the devs prefer, and right now it seems pretty clear the X360 is number one (even in Japan - I'll post more on that tonight).

But like I said, nitpicks. It's expected of me.

[DruMMers02]

Originally Posted by DeadScreenSky

Are all of your posts going to be about me?

come on now, i was encouraging you

[I Will Kill You All!!!]

Originally Posted by DeadScreenSky

Are all of your posts going to be about me?

My only real complaint is this: can I please get some kind of reference backing up the idea that Sony has lost $50 on nearly every PS2 sold? My understanding is they have actually made a profit on nearly every PS2 sold. It actually wouldn't surprise me if they make almost $50 profit on most of their PS2s they've sold. I think this statistic is wrong, but I'd love some evidence to the contrary.

EDIT: I guess I could nitpick a little, too. That's what I am here for, right?

The X360's CPU is actually stronger than the PS3 Cell in some areas, and vice versa. More importantly the areas it is stronger in are traditionally the areas that videogames use. I know it was only mentioned that it was "slightly behind", but even that might be a stretch. Really they just have their own areas of superiority, and it's really hard to say which will be better in the end.

The X360's GPU is also pretty different than the one in the PS3, but most analysts seem to agree it is superior. It's hard to compare because it's an honest to god next-gen GPU, while the PS3 just makes use of an optimized commodity PC GPU. I think things like GPU integrated RAM give it an obvious edge, but it's hard to know how much. On paper the PS3 has serious memory bandwidth limitations - but the PS1 (as just one example) ended up actually beating its paper specs when it came to performance.

Which is really the problem with all performance comparisons, of course. Paper specs are really good at hiding bottlenecks and similar problems, and they also don't really depict the benefits of a simpler or more usable design. I think the real key is just what the devs prefer, and right now it seems pretty clear the X360 is number one (even in Japan - I'll post more on that tonight).

But like I said, nitpicks. It's expected of me.

Ok it has been said back and forth that the 360 is better and the PS3 is better. All this crap comes from biased sources so i dont care what they have to say. I tend to look at articles from howstuffworks.com and other hardware review sites.

But about the PS2 losing $50. Do you REALLY want me to go and find that article?! I mean i will, but i dont want to if i dont really need to. Im going to have to do some serious googling to find it

[MrEastSide]

The PS3 and 360 will be so close to the same it's like arguing over nothing.

It'd be like comparing a computer with a 2.8Ghz P4 with 768MB of RAM to a 3.1Ghz with 1GB of RAM. There just isn't that much of a difference between the two systems. They are both going to be powerful as hell and have awesome games. It's going to come down to who has the best exclusives and which system cross platform games turn out better for. As far as hardware goes though they are both ultra powerful and trying to compare which is better is just nitpicking!

[Reaver]

I'm really curious to see how much money Sony is going to be willing to eat to compete this generation. Developing the Cell chip has been extraordinarily expensive, and the Blue-Ray drive is also going to set them back more than a shiny penny. MS has managed to make a machine damn near as powerful for less money, and so I think this time around Sony is going to have to eat a LOT of money if they want to keep the price competative, and by that I mean $400 or less. Their pockets are going to be hurting.

[kuddles]

Originally Posted by DeadScreenSky

My only real complaint is this: can I please get some kind of reference backing up the idea that Sony has lost $50 on nearly every PS2 sold? My understanding is they have actually made a profit on nearly every PS2 sold. It actually wouldn't surprise me if they make almost $50 profit on most of their PS2s they've sold. I think this statistic is wrong, but I'd love some evidence to the contrary.

http://www.forbes.com/home/digitalen...videogame.html

"What is driving this is that the console manufacturers are pricing the systems to drive acquisition by a broad market," says NPD Funworld analyst Anita Frazier. "They are sold at a loss to the manufacturer and are not intended to be profit-drivers in and of themselves."

Unlike companies who make DVD players, game box manufacturers don't make money selling hardware. The real revenue (and profit) comes from the sale of games--either ones they've written or distributed themselves, or by independent publishers who pay the console maker a fee for every game they sell. "What drives profits is getting the devices into as many consumer's homes as possible, which in turn will drive software sales," says Frazier.

The nature of gaming hardware might also be a factor in keeping prices high. One reason CD, DVD players and personal computers get cheaper is because they're made from standard building blocks. Most PCs use the same type of off-the-shelf chip, storage, graphics and software. There is little unique engineering to differentiate, say, a Dell (nasdaq: DELL - news - people ) computer from a Hewlett-Packard (nyse: HPQ - news - people ). The same is true for lots of audio and video equipment. But game consoles are different. Each generation uses cutting-edge or custom components. Economies of scale therefore rarely reach a magnitude that drives prices down.

And even when console manufacturers do get economies of scale and realize some cost savings, it doesn't trickle down. "That has the effect of lowering their loss on each sale, rather than allowing them to pass on that savings to the consumer in the form of a lower price," says Frazier.

[DeadScreenSky]

Originally Posted by DruMMers02

come on now, i was encouraging you

Ah, of course. You are so very supportive.

Originally Posted by I Will Kill You All!!!

Ok it has been said back and forth that the 360 is better and the PS3 is better. All this crap comes from biased sources so i dont care what they have to say. I tend to look at articles from howstuffworks.com and other hardware review sites.

I look for what the third party developers state. When John Carmack or Tomonobu Itagaki state publically that the X360 is clearly better hardware, I tend to listen and give it a lot more credit than I do fanboys, fans, or PR people. But MrEastSide is certainly correct to call it nitpicking, which is admittedly what I was doing. Assuming the PS3 isn't too memory bandwidth limited or complicated we should see some great looking games on it. (We'll actually see great looking games regardless, but the danger is we will get another PS2 situation, where the vast majority of games have terrible graphics because using it properly is outside the scope of most devs.)

But about the PS2 losing $50. Do you REALLY want me to go and find that article?! I mean i will, but i dont want to if i dont really need to. Im going to have to do some serious googling to find it

You certainly don't need to, I just want to state that I don't buy it. Everything I've read about the PS2's production costs contradicts this assertion. I was just curious if you had some kind of really strong source, though honestly it would have to be stronger than Sony's own public financial reports (which have shown a profit on the hardware for quite some time).

EDIT: Some links specifically about how the PS2 is sold for a profit:
Slim PS2 costs less than $99 to make.
"Sony ... has been able to reduce manufacturing costs on its PS2 hardware to the point where it is sold at a profit"

I really thought this was common knowledge, honestly. One of MS' biggest problems with the Xbox1 is that it hasn't been able to do anything but sell it for a loss (though this is now much smaller than a lot of people recognize).

[Legalos245]

Originally Posted by Reaver

I'm really curious to see how much money Sony is going to be willing to eat to compete this generation. Developing the Cell chip has been extraordinarily expensive, and the Blue-Ray drive is also going to set them back more than a shiny penny. MS has managed to make a machine damn near as powerful for less money, and so I think this time around Sony is going to have to eat a LOT of money if they want to keep the price competative, and by that I mean $400 or less. Their pockets are going to be hurting.

True, but you can also build two different computers with the same exact paper specs and one could cost half as much.

[I Will Kill You All!!!]

Originally Posted by DeadScreenSky

Ah, of course. You are so very supportive.

I look for what the third party developers state. When John Carmack or Tomonobu Itagaki state publically that the X360 is clearly better hardware, I tend to listen and give it a lot more credit than I do fanboys, fans, or PR people. But MrEastSide is certainly correct to call it nitpicking, which is admittedly what I was doing. Assuming the PS3 isn't too memory bandwidth limited or complicated we should see some great looking games on it. (We'll actually see great looking games regardless, but the danger is we will get another PS2 situation, where the vast majority of games have terrible graphics because using it properly is outside the scope of most devs.)

You certainly don't need to, I just want to state that I don't buy it. Everything I've read about the PS2's production costs contradicts this assertion. I was just curious if you had some kind of really strong source, though honestly it would have to be stronger than Sony's own public financial reports (which have shown a profit on the hardware for quite some time).

EDIT: Some links specifically about how the PS2 is sold for a profit:
Slim PS2 costs less than $99 to make.
"Sony ... has been able to reduce manufacturing costs on its PS2 hardware to the point where it is sold at a profit"

I really thought this was common knowledge, honestly. One of MS' biggest problems with the Xbox1 is that it hasn't been able to do anything but sell it for a loss (though this is now much smaller than a lot of people recognize).

Now the PS2's manufacturing is cheap. I am talking about when it first came out. Like 6 years ago, that was when Sony was losing money. I will try and find the link.

[Reaver]

Originally Posted by Legalos245

True, but you can also build two different computers with the same exact paper specs and one could cost half as much.

Yeah, and your point is...?

[DeadScreenSky]

Originally Posted by I Will Kill You All!!!

Now the PS2's manufacturing is cheap. I am talking about when it first came out. Like 6 years ago, that was when Sony was losing money. I will try and find the link.

Nah, that's fine. I know initially they lost a little money on the PS2 manufacturing, but that got fixed pretty quickly. It just seemed to me like you were suggesting this was still happening (or had very recently), which is why I was confused.

[Faint]

I think the number one thing that people are wrong about Next Gen systems isn't even listed here. That would be:

"OMG you have to have a HDTV or your graphics will look terrible you suck"

People seem to think the HDTV will make the graphics better. It will not do this people. It only gives you a much cleaner and clearer picture. More detail can be noticed on an HDTV. That's about it. If you've been playing games on a/v componants than you won't even notice it.

[Reaver]

Faint, let me know how that works out for you when you're playing a PC game at 640x480 and I'm playing it at 1280x1020. The difference is a bit more than noticable.

After playing games in high def, I hate going back. I love to actually be able to READ text on the screen without having to squint.

[I Will Kill You All!!!]

Originally Posted by FaintDeftone

I think the number one thing that people are wrong about Next Gen systems isn't even listed here. That would be:

"OMG you have to have a HDTV or your graphics will look terrible you suck"

People seem to think the HDTV will make the graphics better. It will not do this people. It only gives you a much cleaner and clearer picture. More detail can be noticed on an HDTV. That's about it. If you've been playing games on a/v componants than you won't even notice it.

The game will look "better", but not graphically. its not like extra polys and lighting effects are added on HDTVs, but it still looks better than standard TV. Resolution is graphics worst enemy. If the game is on a crappy resolution like 400x300, then it wont matter how good the graphics are since everything is so blurry.

[Nekretaal]

Originally Posted by Reaver

the Blue-Ray drive is also going to set them back more than a shiny penny.

If the Blu-Ray drive ends up as the unquestioned winner in the high definition next gen DVD market, then just the license fees from the technology will be hugh and enormously profitable. Sony is well aware of the profits that it has made from licensing "CD-Rom." The only way that Blu-Ray actually wins the hhigh generation DVD market is if Sony can sell a lot of players so as to dominate the market early. It is indeed possible that Sony might subsidize the Ps3 in order to get maintream acceptance for Blu-Ray.

[trip1eX]

Originally Posted by Reaver

Faint, let me know how that works out for you when you're playing a PC game at 640x480 and I'm playing it at 1280x1020. The difference is a bit more than noticable.

After playing games in high def, I hate going back. I love to actually be able to READ text on the screen without having to squint.

Well you know consoles and pcs (or maybe I should say monitors and TVs) are different. ON consoles 640x480 seems to look alot better than on pcs for some reason.

I think there's a couple things in play here.

First you're generally a larger distance away from your TV when playing a vid.

Second console games are designed with 640x480 in mind.

Third TVs have a softer image. I think there is some natural AA in play on a regular TV.

640x480 on pcs just sucks. On consoles not so much.

[Eagles409]

The PS3 is going to cost $494 to make, that doesn't include shipping the unit to its destination. It doesn't include marketing and it doesn't include a profit for the store selling the unit. Everything I've read, has the experts predicting a $500 price point, and that is with Sony still losing some money. Last time around, Sony and MS lost money initially on both systems, as it became easier to make them and the parts went down in price, the systems went down. Now MS and Sony both make a profit on their systems. Nintendo doesn't have the huge war chest that Sony and MS both have, that is why they have to cut some corners (no HD, no DVD, no hard drive, etc) and they always sell their systems for a profit.

[I Will Kill You All!!!]

Originally Posted by Eagles409

The PS3 is going to cost $494 to make, that doesn't include shipping the unit to its destination. It doesn't include marketing and it doesn't include a profit for the store selling the unit. Everything I've read, has the experts predicting a $500 price point, and that is with Sony still losing some money. Last time around, Sony and MS lost money initially on both systems, as it became easier to make them and the parts went down in price, the systems went down. Now MS and Sony both make a profit on their systems. Nintendo doesn't have the huge war chest that Sony and MS both have, that is why they have to cut some corners (no HD, no DVD, no hard drive, etc) and they always sell their systems for a profit.

Well the PS2 costed $350 to manufacture and sold for $300. The marketing and shipping are not a factor with this. They are very cheap compared to manufacturing.

[DeadScreenSky]

Originally Posted by Reaver

Faint, let me know how that works out for you when you're playing a PC game at 640x480 and I'm playing it at 1280x1020. The difference is a bit more than noticable.

After playing games in high def, I hate going back. I love to actually be able to READ text on the screen without having to squint.

Yeah, I have to agree. There is a huge visual difference between 480i and 720p - HUGE. Maybe there isn't any additional art added for 720p or 1080i, but you simply are missing out on a huge amount of detail when you play at 480i. It's such a handicapped image that you may as well consider 720p to be using better art assets.

[Reaver]

Originally Posted by trip1eX

I think there's a couple things in play here.

First you're generally a larger distance away from your TV when playing a vid.

Yeah, but my TV is 36", so it all evens out.

Second console games are designed with 640x480 in mind.

Not 360 games.

Third TVs have a softer image. I think there is some natural AA in play on a regular TV.

You obviously haven't seen my TV. The HD image is sharp!

[TheBomb69]

The PS3 should have better components than the 360 since it is releasing almost a year later.

[Virus]

I am just a little worried about the limitations of a DVD from the 360 compared to Blu-Ray from Sony. I have heard that half of the DVD of Elder Scrolls is used on voice-over alone. Also I cant wait and watch HD movies and be able to play games in 1080p. I am happy right now with my PC playing "next gen" games.

[TheBomb69]

Originally Posted by virusts

I am just a little worried about the limitations of a DVD from the 360 compared to Blu-Ray from Sony. I have heard that half of the DVD of Elder Scrolls is used on voice-over alone. Also I cant wait and watch HD movies and be able to play games in 1080p. I am happy right now with my PC playing "next gen" games.

Congrats on 3000

[mogFF6]

All I can say is how can people give a sh/t about wether there games are played at 1080i or 720p or whatever. Games are games and that LITTLE difference does not make a game worse. Would you really flame a system that only supports, say, 480p(i?). Does it look that much different? Would you buy a new $5000 LCD T.V just so your games are a bit wider? Its all stupid I say.


But I have a 50 inch HD so I can't REALLY complain.

[DeadScreenSky]

Originally Posted by mogFF6

All I can say is how can people give a sh/t about wether there games are played at 1080i or 720p or whatever. Games are games and that LITTLE difference does not make a game worse. Would you really flame a system that only supports, say, 480p(i?). Does it look that much different? Would you buy a new $5000 LCD T.V just so your games are a bit wider? Its all stupid I say.

On the contrary, that "little" difference can allow whole new genres and gaming styles to become workable on the consoles that support HD, along with leading to more depth/variety/gameplay in existing genres. Simple example: you can have considerably more complex onscreen interfaces when you have more resolution to work with. Obviously that isn't ideal for every game type, but you can see how that would be useful in strategy and simulation games. This can even consist of just a tiny minimap that is actually usable and unobtrusive - something that would be useful in a huge variety of genres.

[Faint]

psssh, I still think the whole HD stuff is bullshit. Every tech junkie that I know have told me that it's not too big of a deal. The only people I see telling me that it's a extra huge difference are the richie bastards who own them. I was told that without HD, it's mostly just like playing a PC game on 640x480.