[quote]pookie wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
PS3 Games WILL NOT be more than $60.
I hope you’re right, but recent news might indicate otherwise:
Does that really count as “news”? I thought it was mostly speculation and hear-say. Go figure.
[quote]Kratos wrote:
I was mainly referring to the past. As the years went by, things changed. Halo IS what saved the X-Box from Console Heaven.[/quote]
Well the 1st Xbox was new on the market and trying to make a place in an already pretty crowded domain. It needed, at that time, a “killer app” game that no one else had.
As for console heaven, Microsoft has pockets deep enough that it could keep a completely dud console alive for a long time.
I don’t really feel “loyal” to any company, for any product. I’ll get the product I feel offers me the most when it becomes apparent that some game is special enough (ie, it’s not the same old stuff with better graphics) to make me really want it.
I also tend to wait for the second or third revision of the consoles before buying them. That usually takes between 12 and 18 months. At that point, the bugs have been ironed out; the price has come down and there’s a good library of game to choose from. You’re even getting “Platinum Hits” versions that are the best-selling games offered at a discount.
Really? I had read somewhere that the PS3 could run all PS2 and PS1 games…
Those boomerangs are long gone.
Nothing. The new ones nearly identical, without the rumble function and with the “spacial movement” detection added.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I personally think XBox screwed some people over royally by releasing a product when they did with SO many bugs in it that many nearly blew up. That doesn’t make me consider them a great company with a great product.[/quote]
To be fair, the initial PS2s had tons of problems too. From 2000 to 2002, being unable to read discs due to a misaligned laser or a voltage problem was common enough.
As far as I can remember, only Nintendo has managed to never ship defective first generation products.
Shipping bleeding edge electronics while keeping the prices as low as possible is a difficult proposition to get just right from the onset. Best bet: wait a year before buying one.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
pookie wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
PS3 Games WILL NOT be more than $60.
I hope you’re right, but recent news might indicate otherwise:
Does that really count as “news”? I thought it was mostly speculation and hear-say. Go figure.[/quote]
Well, genius, before the actual product lauches and the games are actually on the shelves, speculation is as good as it gets. Got a better source? Post it. You don’t? Shut the fuck up.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pookie wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
PS3 Games WILL NOT be more than $60.
I hope you’re right, but recent news might indicate otherwise:
Does that really count as “news”? I thought it was mostly speculation and hear-say. Go figure.
Well, genius, before the actual product lauches and the games are actually on the shelves, speculation is as good as it gets. Got a better source? Post it. You don’t? Shut the fuck up.
[/quote]
I don’t have another source at all. I also know when I am not getting real info but someone’s opinion that could possibly be completely false. I’ll wait for some real “news” on that subject. Meanwhile, you should probably try calming down. I hear Midol works wonders for bloating, cramping, and feeling icky.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t have another source at all. I also know when I am not getting real info but someone’s opinion that could possibly be completely false.[/quote]
You mean like when some dumb douchebag posts a picture of a boomerang controller and says “I don’t see anything wrong with it” even though said controller has not been shown by Sony for over a year and was not at the CES last March?
Would that qualify as “completely false opinion”?
By the way, here’s the real news about Sony’s game pricing: http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20060922/rt013.htm
Why don’t you do that and let those of us who wish to discuss the various news, rumours and speculations do so?
If you’re bored, take your bike and go cut off people in a Wal-Mart parking lot.
Why? What’s your problem? You’re the one who’s flying off the handle the moment someone asks a question you deem “too personal” or whatever other reason-of-the-day you can come up with.
You’re the one who’s unable to disagree with anyone without being rude and uncouth. If you have insecurity or hyper-sensibility issues, you should deal with them instead of inflicting them on us.
When I see how you treat others on this board, especially some of the newcomers, I see no reason to give show you any more respect than I would to some shit I’ve just scraped off my shoe. Even that might be more than you deserve.
See, I’ve got conflicting info on the backwards compatibility. Some things say it will be done like the 360, others say it will be like the PS2. If it’s truly backwards compatible I would most definitely get the Playstation.
I am also definitely going to wait a while before, though. The only systems that seemed to launch with no problems were the cartridges, and I think the PS1. And of course, Nintendo. I remember the fiasco with the PS2’s. I think they were out 2 years before I got one. No way am I paying some clown 1200 dollars for a possibly bug-infested piece of machinery, just so I can say I was the first one to get it. That makes no sense to me, but hey.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I don’t have another source at all. I also know when I am not getting real info but someone’s opinion that could possibly be completely false.
You mean like when some dumb douchebag posts a picture of a boomerang controller and says “I don’t see anything wrong with it” even though said controller has not been shown by Sony for over a year and was not at the CES last March?
Would that qualify as “completely false opinion”?[/quote]
Perhaps it would. Unlike you, however, the poster who made the correction that at least two of us thought was a component of the new system did so very simply. Apparently, this caused you emotional distress.
Right. Like I said, perhaps you should try calming down. No one is flying off any handles…but you. I’ll also add, it isn’t a good look for you.
They stole my idea. I was playing PS2 with me Julie and I said they should make a slightly improved version. 14 months later, here we are. Do you think she told them?
[quote]Kratos wrote:
See, I’ve got conflicting info on the backwards compatibility. Some things say it will be done like the 360, others say it will be like the PS2. If it’s truly backwards compatible I would most definitely get the Playstation.
[/quote]
I think it’s going to be done like the PS2 for the PS3. I believe there inserting some old hardware (a laser I think) to achieve its backwards compatibility. Unlike Microsoft whom I believe is using software emulation and who also have no choice, they switched their graphics processor from nVidia to ATI. But I think issues are bound to arise with this area of gaming with either console. Well except for the Wii perhaps.
I think I’ll hold off on new gaming systems for awhile. Just got a new PC after 8 years, and I still play the hell out of my Xbox. But if a KotOR 3 comes out I’m all on it 
rofl… that’s your defense? dissing my internet grammar/spelling. ok whatever “doc”.
[quote]pookie wrote:
So you’d be at 550$ total. You can get an XBox 360 Premium for less than 400$.
[/quote]
The difference is, you also have a good computer if you build a gaming rig, not just an entertainment console.
You’re talking about stand alone players. I’m talking about an internal drive, of which there aren’t really any since HDDVD isn’t any sort of standard yet. Once the technology standard is agreed upon, internal drives won’t cost more than 50 for a decent one, 30 if you’re a smart consumer.
[quote]That’s because it’s not.
[/quote]
It is when you factor in the fact that you also have a good computer.
I’ve only ever had a problem with Securom, but once the game producer realized how shitty that service was they released a version that doesn’t even require a CD/DVD to play. Most will, actually. Which games have given you guff? I’ll point you to fixes.
Point taken, if you don’t know what the hell you’re doing with the little clicky thing on the dazzling looking-box, it can be tough.
Then none of your computers have close to decent video cards. Even going back 3 generations (Radeon 9000 series or GeForce 5000 series) most cards do.
I’m not saying I don’t understand why people use gaming consoles, I just don’t understand why they took off the way they did and why they still comprise a majority of the gaming market.
Excuse me while I go pwn some n00bs.
-Dan
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
The difference is, you also have a good computer if you build a gaming rig, not just an entertainment console.[/quote]
Well I already have quite a few good computers that I don’t need to upgrade just to play games on.
I also get to use the computer while my kids are playing on the consoles.
It might reach those prices eventually, but until enough unit have been sold, the prices will remain a lot higher than 30-50 bucks.
When internal HDDVD and/or BlueRay readers become available, feel free to PM me a “I told you so!” if they sell for below 100$.
You were saying that playing on consoles was more expensive than on a PC, it isn’t.
Don’t worry, I’m quite able to patch and crack my games. But that’s my point: I don’t have hours of time available to waste on trying to get a game to run without having to reconfigure the whole rig everytime I buy something new.
With a console, I buy the game, I put it in and it works. End of story.
I do that for a living, that’s why I don’t want to have to do more of the same at home, when all I want is to relax and play Fable for an hour or so.
Right. I haven’t had to buy a video card in 4 years.
Did you buy a new video card at every generation? If so, how much did that cost you?
Ok.
Most people who want to play games, for some reason, want to play games. They don’t want to fight SecuRom, update their drivers, open ports on the firewall, stop Norton because it’s eating half the CPU and upgrade their RAM to 1GB because Far Cry crawls when settings are maxed.
Consoles are simpler and cheaper, that’s all.
[quote]Kratos wrote:
Halo is ALL the X-Box had, and the main reason it didn’t tank. [/quote]
ok,I havent been able to get on much so forgive me for being late.
WTF!
the xbox has the KotoR series,which sold a a few million copies,as did star wars battleground 1&2…halo did not “carry” the xbox.What about unreal?or Doom3?
how dare you say halo carried the xbox
[quote]jmwintenn wrote:
Kratos wrote:
Halo is ALL the X-Box had, and the main reason it didn’t tank.
ok,I havent been able to get on much so forgive me for being late.
WTF!
the xbox has the KotoR series,which sold a a few million copies,as did star wars battleground 1&2…halo did not “carry” the xbox.What about unreal?or Doom3?
how dare you say halo carried the xbox[/quote]
It DID! Those other games came out much later. Doom 3 just last year! So did Ninja Gaiden, which I would buy a Box to get, along with Halo 1 & 2. NONE of the other franchises at the time came anywhere close to Halo. For a while, there wasn’t that much to play on the X-Box. The 360 has a more solid line-up, with Call of Duty 2, Perfect Dark, Quake 4, Project Gothem 3(the original was good, too, but not better than what the PS2 had to offer), and one I really like, Dead Rising. Anyone who watches zombie movies needs this game.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I also get to use the computer while my kids are playing on the consoles.
[/quote]
That’s a good point, with the direction the thread was going I was thinking about single user or groups playing. Having kids would make having a seperate console a good idea. I’d still go Wii (WHEE!!!) in this case, though… the price for the 360 or PS3 just seems too high for something to keep the kids occupied.
I’m sure I won’t remember, but I’ll be doing a little dance when I get one for less than 50% of list price.
Have you really been that jaded? Honestly, I played way to many games in high school and college, and I rarely had any tech issue aside from a wireless router being glitchy.
Well, usually anyway. I’ve seen some console games that were released with less than acceptable framrates.
No, I haven’t; I had a low end Ti 4200 for $30 that lasted me until it got hit by lightning. I bought an x800 for 120 August of last year and won’t have to upgrade to get good performance until DX10 is mainstream and a game I want utilizes it, which probably won’t happen for another year and a half. I know some of the UberHARDCOWRE! gamers spend $500 every 4 months or so, but that’s not necessary for pretty darn good performance to me. Anything that can handle HL2 at max settings on my LCD is good enough for me.
The forced education might be good for them anyway, though that’s another thread.
-Dan
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
That’s a good point, with the direction the thread was going I was thinking about single user or groups playing.[/quote]
For groups, it’s a lot easier for 4 adults to play NHL 07 in the living room using 4 wireless controllers (or even wired) than to try and huddle everyone around a keyboard.
Well it’s not out yet, so… They do fine with the N64 and the Xbox though.
Star Wars Lego II is an amazing game for young and not so young kids.
If it’s just for the kids and the parents don’t game at all, they’d be better of getting an N64 or even SNES off Ebay with a shitload of games for $100. Young kids don’t really care that they’re playing a 10 year old games as long as they’re having fun.
I played tons of games on my PCs over the years. I simply got fed up with the stupid copy protection and upgrades and driver issues.
The feeling got worse as free time dimished with the job and the wife and kids. When I was a teenager, I enjoyed dicking around in the computer to tweak everything “just right.”
Now, after spending the day debugging web services and tuning SQL statements, I just want to get my mind off the computer stuff and kick shapely pixelated asses at DOA3.
Another point: Why are there almost no good fighting games on the PC? Where are the Tekkens, Soul Caliburs, DOAs, Mortal Kombat, etc?
You’re grasping at straws here; that’s the very rare exception. If you want framerate issues, you’d have no better example than 95% of PCs when Doom 3 came out.
That’s a $120 you wouldn’t have to spend on a PS2, Xbox or Gamecube. You could buy around 10 games on Ebay for that amount.
It might be better for computers to reach the simplicity of consoles for all involved. You don’t need to be a mechanic to drive a car, why do you have to learn all that esoteric stuff to operate a computer?
This thread is cracking me up. Leave it to a debate on next-gen consoles to get people cranking up to the umpteenth level.
As has been pointed out, it’s completely pointless to debate “which one is better” amongst the systems - it all comes down to how good the games will be for the systems. Period.
In addition, if you have been playing Sony or Nintendo or Microsoft products and liked them, you’ll likely stick with them. I’m a XBox guy and I loved my XBox and love my XBox 360 even more. There would have to be an absolute quantum leap in the quality of games and gameplay on a PS3 to get me to shift over.
That’s not to say PS3 isn’t going to be any good, but if I truly like what I have and PS3 does not have something overwhelming, why would I switch? Each system will boast aspects to it that will appeal to different people. And when I hear everyone debate which system is the most powerful, it makes my head spin since you can find 50 people to say PS3 with perfectly valid reasons and 50 people to say XBox 360 with perfectly valid reasons.
So me and my XBox 360 (and my soon to be delivered 50" Sony 1080p HDTV) will be perfectly happy playing Oblivion this weekend and if that doesn’t get ya going, so be it.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
This thread is cracking me up. Leave it to a debate on next-gen consoles to get people cranking up to the umpteenth level.
As has been pointed out, it’s completely pointless to debate “which one is better” amongst the systems - it all comes down to how good the games will be for the systems. Period.
In addition, if you have been playing Sony or Nintendo or Microsoft products and liked them, you’ll likely stick with them. I’m a XBox guy and I loved my XBox and love my XBox 360 even more. There would have to be an absolute quantum leap in the quality of games and gameplay on a PS3 to get me to shift over.
That’s not to say PS3 isn’t going to be any good, but if I truly like what I have and PS3 does not have something overwhelming, why would I switch? Each system will boast aspects to it that will appeal to different people. And when I hear everyone debate which system is the most powerful, it makes my head spin since you can find 50 people to say PS3 with perfectly valid reasons and 50 people to say XBox 360 with perfectly valid reasons.
So me and my XBox 360 (and my soon to be delivered 50" Sony 1080p HDTV) will be perfectly happy playing Oblivion this weekend and if that doesn’t get ya going, so be it.[/quote]
But wait…why introduce logic and peace into this? Isn’t someone going to ask how you could possibly play video games this weekend and…do whatever it is you do for a living? Can’t we argue some more? No insults? But…but why???
Wii!