Sony Confirms US $399

[Killer360]

Sony has confirmed that they will be releasing a new 40GB PS3 Sku in the United States at the price point of $399, and also announced a price drop for the 80GB PS3 dropping the price from $599 to $499.


http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071018-sony-confirms-400-40gb-ps3-for-the-us-price-drop-for-80gb.html

[Warrior]

By the way, the 40GB PS3 will not have Backwards Compatability. At all.

But hey, if you want a $400 Dust collector sitting on your shelf, be my guest.

[dark_drake]

By the way, the 40GB PS3 will not have Backwards Compatability. At all.

But hey, if you want a $400 Dust collector sitting on your shelf, be my guest.

Do I smell a 360 zealot? I don't think it really matters that it has backwards compatibility or not because the odds are that if a person has a PS3, they've probably got a PS2 lying around. I also fail to see why the PS3 would be just a dust collector. There are a few decent games on it.

As for me, I'm still content with playing last generation's games. Seeing as I can pick up tons of them for 5-10 dollars a pop, I think I'll be playing my Gamecube and Xbox for years to come.

[Warrior]

By the way, the 40GB PS3 will not have Backwards Compatability. At all.

But hey, if you want a $400 Dust collector sitting on your shelf, be my guest.

Do I smell a 360 zealot? I don't think it really matters that it has backwards compatibility or not because the odds are that if a person has a PS3, they've probably got a PS2 lying around. I also fail to see why the PS3 would be just a dust collector. There are a few decent games on it.

As for me, I'm still content with playing last generation's games. Seeing as I can pick up tons of them for 5-10 dollars a pop, I think I'll be playing my Gamecube and Xbox for years to come.

You see a PS3 hater. I don't own a 360, so it's hard to label me a 360 Zealot.

The problem is that the customer is getting screwed. Early adopters got full PS2 backwards compatability, since the PS3 literally had a PS2 inside of it.
Later adopters got a software emulation solution (Started with Europe, spread to the States in later revisions of the 80GB and the 40GB).

Now the 40GB is going to remove the backwards compatability completely? Their suggestion is "buy both consoles"? Are you fucking kidding me? If I'm laying down $400 for a PS3 it better damn sure play the library where it has the most games.

This is probably comparable with later revisions of the iPhone shipping without the "Phone" part, and Apple recommending you get another phone to supplement your iPhone. It's stupid, and it's robbing the consumer of his money.

Now, since you wanted to bring up the concept of games I'll dance with you on this.

The PS3 has little or no games worth playing. Period.

Any games that may be worth playing are either XBox 360 Ports, or not even PS3 exclusives. Take for example Madden 07 which runs at a horrible 30 Frames per Second on the PS3 as opposed to 60 Frames per Second on a Xbox 360. Is this because the 360 is superior? No. It's because no one cares enough about the PS3, it's complex programming architecture, and it's poor development SDKs to allocate budgets to making a native game.

The only games that are not ports are coming from either SCEA or it's subsidiaries (Square Enix and the like).

The PS3 Online feature is useless, it's not connecting to a central server so there is no interconnection between games. Once you're playing Online for a certain game you're isolated from other potential players who are playing different games.

Now let's compare it to XBox Live, who's thiriving ecosystem (GamerTags) allow you to invite people from across games, chat with people over Messenger, and maintain an online friends list. Where is this functionality in the PS3? The supposed "Benz" of the Gaming Consoles?

This isn't a console for the upper crust of the gaming world, this is a console for absolute morons who have nothing better to do with their money than waste it on a company which embraces embedding Root Kits in their DRM Solutions. The company who's had practically every propriatary media format they've pushed fail, the company who's literally destroyed any potential interest in the PSP through their obsessive control with their firmware.

Let's look passed the shiny finish on the PS3, look passed the shitty Blu-Ray which will go the way of BetaMax, and look at the facts.

The PS3 is garbage, Sony is a garbage company who pushes out sub-par and almost knock-off quality products, and a company who has shown their arrogance (PS3 is a computer!!!11).

[dark_drake]

You see a PS3 hater. I don't own a 360, so it's hard to label me a 360 Zealot.

I'm pretty much indifferent to all the consoles in this current generation because I don't see any one being hugely better than the others. I do own a 360, but it doesn't see much playtime due to serious lack of games that interest me, but that's going to change next month. Mass Effect >*

The problem is that the customer is getting screwed. Early adopters got full PS2 backwards compatability, since the PS3 literally had a PS2 inside of it.
Later adopters got a software emulation solution (Started with Europe, spread to the States in later revisions of the 80GB and the 40GB).

Now the 40GB is going to remove the backwards compatability completely? Their suggestion is "buy both consoles"? Are you fucking kidding me? If I'm laying down $400 for a PS3 it better damn sure play the library where it has the most games.

I'm going to start off by saying that the PS3 is not a PS2. Yes, it was completely backwards compatible at first, but things have changed (not sure why). Also, the people buying the 40gb PS3 are paying $200 less than the early adopters. That hardly qualifies as being screwed. Furthermore, the xbox 360 requires the hard drive to be backwards compatible. People laying down $300 for the core didn't get backwards compatibility, but I don't think they were screwed. They bought an Xbox 360, not an original xbox.

This is probably comparable with later revisions of the iPhone shipping without the "Phone" part, and Apple recommending you get another phone to supplement your iPhone. It's stupid, and it's robbing the consumer of his money.

This example is dreadful. The PS3 was made to be a PS3; it's still a PS3 without backwards compatibility. The iPhone was made to be a cell phone; without this function, it can no longer perform the purpose it was built for.

I think a better analogy would be the phase out of floppy disks. People still had games on them, but suddenly, they had to buy a separate product to use them (i.e. a usb floppy drive). This analogy doesn't work too well due to cost disparity.

Now, since you wanted to bring up the concept of games I'll dance with you on this.

The PS3 has little or no games worth playing. Period.

Any games that may be worth playing are either XBox 360 Ports, or not even PS3 exclusives. Take for example Madden 07 which runs at a horrible 30 Frames per Second on the PS3 as opposed to 60 Frames per Second on a Xbox 360. Is this because the 360 is superior? No. It's because no one cares enough about the PS3, it's complex programming architecture, and it's poor development SDKs to allocate budgets to making a native game.

The only games that are not ports are coming from either SCEA or it's subsidiaries (Square Enix and the like).

I'm thinking I brought games up when I said there were a few decent games on it, which there are. You're right that there aren't too many exclusives, but exclusives are becoming increasingly uncommon in today's gaming market; development costs have sky-rocketed, and the best way to offset them is to sell to the largest audience possible. Also, most of the 360's exclusives are coming from Microsoft and it's subsidiaries, meaning that part of your argument sucks.

The ports are really hit or miss, as they were last generation. If the company is good, the ports will be about equal in performance. With Madden, I'm going to just chalk that up to EA sucking.

There may not be many, but there are a few games worth playing on the PS3. The ones I can think of are Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Oblivion, and maybe Resistance. I only played Ninja Gaiden Black and Oblivion; both were amazing, so there's no reason to think they'd be bad on the PS3. I haven't played Resistance, but friends have told me it was good.

The PS3 Online feature is useless, it's not connecting to a central server so there is no interconnection between games. Once you're playing Online for a certain game you're isolated from other potential players who are playing different games.

Now let's compare it to XBox Live, who's thiriving ecosystem (GamerTags) allow you to invite people from across games, chat with people over Messenger, and maintain an online friends list. Where is this functionality in the PS3? The supposed "Benz" of the Gaming Consoles?

I don't play online, so I'm not about to say much about this; I tried it on Xbox Live for a bit, and my experience was poor, at best.  You do neglect one important thing, and that is cost. Microsoft charges people for online play; it's free with Sony. What is most surprising to me is the fact that Sony hosts servers for gamers to play on; as far as I know, xbox live is peer-to-peer.

This isn't a console for the upper crust of the gaming world, this is a console for absolute morons who have nothing better to do with their money than waste it on a company which embraces embedding Root Kits in their DRM Solutions. The company who's had practically every propriatary media format they've pushed fail, the company who's literally destroyed any potential interest in the PSP through their obsessive control with their firmware.

Let's look passed the shiny finish on the PS3, look passed the shitty Blu-Ray which will go the way of BetaMax, and look at the facts.

The PS3 is garbage, Sony is a garbage company who pushes out sub-par and almost knock-off quality products, and a company who has shown their arrogance (PS3 is a computer!!!11).

Ugh... every gaming company has screwed up. Microsoft was arrogant enough to believe that their superior hardware in the original Xbox would automatically beat the PS2. Nintendo went with cartridges in the N64 era. Sega's chosen format for the Dreamcast allowed people to easily pirate games. Each time, though, it took a few years to see where a console would end up. As it's only been about a year with the PS3, I'm not about to count it out. If the systems don't start moving with Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid 4, Unreal Tournament 3, and any other high profile games are out, then Sony will have lost.

Let's look past our bias against certain companies and realize they're not totally evil. In fact, Sony is a great electronics manufacturer if you ask me.

[Warrior]

I'm going to start off by saying that the PS3 is not a PS2. Yes, it was completely backwards compatible at first, but things have changed (not sure why). Also, the people buying the 40gb PS3 are paying $200 less than the early adopters. That hardly qualifies as being screwed. Furthermore, the xbox 360 requires the hard drive to be backwards compatible. People laying down $300 for the core didn't get backwards compatibility, but I don't think they were screwed. They bought an Xbox 360, not an original xbox.

The PS3 was pitched as the "all in one" gaming platform, it was lauded for it's backwards compatability. Whatever sales it managed to scruff up in a years time was because of this. The PS2 has a huge array of great games, HUGE. They desperately needed Backwards compat to keep people interested until games worth playing came out.

Guess what? No games worth playing came out, and now they lost Backwards Compatability. Who the hell would buy a PS3 now? What are you going to do, play Resistance 24/7?

This example is dreadful. The PS3 was made to be a PS3; it's still a PS3 without backwards compatibility. The iPhone was made to be a cell phone; without this function, it can no longer perform the purpose it was built for.

I think a better analogy would be the phase out of floppy disks. People still had games on them, but suddenly, they had to buy a separate product to use them (i.e. a usb floppy drive). This analogy doesn't work too well due to cost disparity.

You're underminding the initial aim of the PS3. It WAS advertised with FULL backwards compatability, it was one of it's selling points. Maybe they should pull the Blu-Ray drive next and tell people to lay down a few hundred for that crap of a format too?

It's a stupid move, one that screws over people who were possibly looking into a PS3. Read the comments from the articles where it was announced, this is not going to encourage PS3 sales. It's going to encourage 360 sales.

I'm thinking I brought games up when I said there were a few decent games on it, which there are. You're right that there aren't too many exclusives, but exclusives are becoming increasingly uncommon in today's gaming market; development costs have sky-rocketed, and the best way to offset them is to sell to the largest audience possible. Also, most of the 360's exclusives are coming from Microsoft and it's subsidiaries, meaning that part of your argument sucks.

I fail to see how a library of 300+ Games, of which maybe 15 are availible on the PS3 is a "subsidiary of Microsoft" or Microsoft themselves.
Only two important ones are Halo 3 and Gears of War, and maybe PGR.

I mean, if you can list more then by all means. It's easy to list them with the PS3, since the brick of a console has so little games. The problem with Sony is that they over promise and under-achieve.

The ports are really hit or miss, as they were last generation. If the company is good, the ports will be about equal in performance. With Madden, I'm going to just chalk that up to EA sucking.

All ports are hit-or-miss, this is why you discourage ports from your console. Don't look at the issue of "EA sucking", why did they choose to develop PRIMARILY on the 360? Why is id technology, creators of Doom, choosing to work primarily on the 360? Why is Grand Theft Auto IV getting a timed XBox 360 exclusive? Devil May Cry? Assasins Creed?

There may not be many, but there are a few games worth playing on the PS3. The ones I can think of are Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Oblivion, and maybe Resistance. I only played Ninja Gaiden Black and Oblivion; both were amazing, so there's no reason to think they'd be bad on the PS3. I haven't played Resistance, but friends have told me it was good.

So you can think of two games (One of which is on the 360), and a game you have not played yet? How much did you pay for your brick?

I don't play online, so I'm not about to say much about this; I tried it on Xbox Live for a bit, and my experience was poor, at best.  You do neglect one important thing, and that is cost. Microsoft charges people for online play; it's free with Sony. What is most surprising to me is the fact that Sony hosts servers for gamers to play on; as far as I know, xbox live is peer-to-peer.

XBox Live offers two Tiers of service. Silver and Gold. Free and Subscription based. Even the subscription is like $60 a year. The fun you have playing with your friends highly offsets the cost.

Ugh... every gaming company has screwed up. Microsoft was arrogant enough to believe that their superior hardware in the original Xbox would automatically beat the PS2.

Microsoft was humble entering the First Gen. They did not have a brand established. What they WERE sure of, was that the XBox had the most superior graphics at the time. I attribute the short comings of the first XBox to a lack of XBox Live, and a lack of a decent launch title.

Now let's look at today. Sony has a .. lack of any even remotely interesting online service/content, and it had a shiteous collection of launch titles.

But wait, they can still claim graphical superiorty right? No. The most they'd gain is marginal improvements over the 360's graphical quality if anyone even cared enough to devote money to developing for it.

Nintendo went with cartridges in the N64 era. Sega's chosen format for the Dreamcast allowed people to easily pirate games. Each time, though, it took a few years to see where a console would end up. As it's only been about a year with the PS3, I'm not about to count it out. If the systems don't start moving with Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid 4, Unreal Tournament 3, and any other high profile games are out, then Sony will have lost.

When's MGS4 coming out again? It's been pushed back like four times. Seriously. Final Fantasy? Seems a lot of people are upset with the direction of the game these days, but perhaps if that subsidiary of Sony can push out a decent games people can dust off their PS3s.

UT3? As much as I think Epic has their head too far up their as, I believe this will move units only due to it's high profile. Their support for the Unreal Engine 3 is abyssmal, there have been complaints by licensees of the Engine due to critical bugs and performance issues remaining unfixed. I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them, but from the way UE3's looking it may very well turn things around slightly.

I still think it's a sad state, when you rely on cutting costs and cutting features to sell consoles. The games sell the console, it's supposed to pay off in the users mind. I'm sure PS3 owners once they think about it are pretty puzzled as to why they laid down the money on this console.

Backwards Compatability with HD Upscaling was the last thing the PS3 has left. Removing it was the nail in the coffin.

Let's look past our bias against certain companies and realize they're not totally evil. In fact, Sony is a great electronics manufacturer if you ask me.

[dark_drake]

The PS3 was pitched as the "all in one" gaming platform, it was lauded for it's backwards compatability. Whatever sales it managed to scruff up in a years time was because of this. The PS2 has a huge array of great games, HUGE. They desperately needed Backwards compat to keep people interested until games worth playing came out.

Guess what? No games worth playing came out, and now they lost Backwards Compatability. Who the hell would buy a PS3 now? What are you going to do, play Resistance 24/7?

Guess what? Things have changed since the release of the system.

You're underminding the initial aim of the PS3. It WAS advertised with FULL backwards compatability, it was one of it's selling points. Maybe they should pull the Blu-Ray drive next and tell people to lay down a few hundred for that crap of a format too?

It's a stupid move, one that screws over people who were possibly looking into a PS3. Read the comments from the articles where it was announced, this is not going to encourage PS3 sales. It's going to encourage 360 sales.

How does having a cheaper console possibly encourage the sale of another one? People are not buying the PS3 just for PS2 backwards compatibility.

I fail to see how a library of 300+ Games, of which maybe 15 are availible on the PS3 is a "subsidiary of Microsoft" or Microsoft themselves.
Only two important ones are Halo 3 and Gears of War, and maybe PGR.

I mean, if you can list more then by all means. It's easy to list them with the PS3, since the brick of a console has so little games. The problem with Sony is that they over promise and under-achieve.

Ugh... look again. For the love of God, look again at all the multi-platform games.

All ports are hit-or-miss, this is why you discourage ports from your console. Don't look at the issue of "EA sucking", why did they choose to develop PRIMARILY on the 360? Why is id technology, creators of Doom, choosing to work primarily on the 360? Why is Grand Theft Auto IV getting a timed XBox 360 exclusive? Devil May Cry? Assasins Creed?

I have no idea what you're talking about with Grand Theft Auto IV, Devil May Cry, or Assassin's Creed, so you need to look up on that; as far as I know ,the release dates are either the same, or very, very close. And what games does id Technology have in development? The only one I came up with was Rage, and it's announced for all platforms.

So you can think of two games (One of which is on the 360), and a game you have not played yet? How much did you pay for your brick?

I don't have a PS3. I just don't see the point of someone hating it.

XBox Live offers two Tiers of service. Silver and Gold. Free and Subscription based. Even the subscription is like $60 a year. The fun you have playing with your friends highly offsets the cost.

I know what they are; it's still peer-to-peer, and you have to pay to do that. You need gold to play online with friends, with maybe the exception of arcade games.

Microsoft was humble entering the First Gen. They did not have a brand established. What they WERE sure of, was that the XBox had the most superior graphics at the time. I attribute the short comings of the first XBox to a lack of XBox Live, and a lack of a decent launch title.

Now let's look at today. Sony has a .. lack of any even remotely interesting online service/content, and it had a shiteous collection of launch titles.

But wait, they can still claim graphical superiorty right? No. The most they'd gain is marginal improvements over the 360's graphical quality if anyone even cared enough to devote money to developing for it.

All consoles had lackluster launch titles.

And I think you're next point is a major reason this price cut is needed. People weren't seeing this massive jump in graphical performance they would expect out of a $600 machine, so if it's within price range, they're just going to expect similar performance.

When's MGS4 coming out again? It's been pushed back like four times. Seriously. Final Fantasy? Seems a lot of people are upset with the direction of the game these days, but perhaps if that subsidiary of Sony can push out a decent games people can dust off their PS3s.

UT3? As much as I think Epic has their head too far up their as, I believe this will move units only due to it's high profile. Their support for the Unreal Engine 3 is abyssmal, there have been complaints by licensees of the Engine due to critical bugs and performance issues remaining unfixed. I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them, but from the way UE3's looking it may very well turn things around slightly.

I still think it's a sad state, when you rely on cutting costs and cutting features to sell consoles. The games sell the console, it's supposed to pay off in the users mind. I'm sure PS3 owners once they think about it are pretty puzzled as to why they laid down the money on this console.

Backwards Compatability with HD Upscaling was the last thing the PS3 has left. Removing it was the nail in the coffin.

I'm going to go ahead and ask you to check on Square Enix being a subsidiary of Sony. They're not. I think Sony owns like 10% of their stock. Also, I'm going with a rough quotation of Nintendo for MGS4: Gamers will forgive a late game, but they'll never forget a bad game.

I'm very aware of the problems with Epic, but the fact remains they have one hell of a design team when it comes down to it.

I fail to see why cutting costs is a bad way to sell consoles. Sony is getting a few more games this holiday season; their goal was to put it in the range of the 360, and maybe the Wii.

[Hitmen]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

[rabbit]

I love Sony.  They have a lot of great stuff.  The PS2 and PSP were great, though Sony's ardent anti-homebrew crusade is pissing me off.  I love most of the games on Sony's consoles, even if I uh.....don't exactly buy them all......  They have great quality products and some great features.


That said, I bought a 360 before a PS3, and I doubt I ever will buy a PS3.

[Sidoh]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

lol, so true.  Sorry Warrior.  Even if some of your points are legitimate, you're so biased that it doesn't matter!

[Warrior]

Guess what? Things have changed since the release of the system.

Exactly what has changed? Besides feature cuts?

How does having a cheaper console possibly encourage the sale of another one? People are not buying the PS3 just for PS2 backwards compatibility.

What else are they buying it for? The sub 50 selection of games? Maybe they like the light hits the black finish.

Ugh... look again. For the love of God, look again at all the multi-platform games.

It's hard to know what you're getting at if you don't explicitly cite what you mean. Let's see it.

I have no idea what you're talking about with Grand Theft Auto IV, Devil May Cry, or Assassin's Creed, so you need to look up on that; as far as I know ,the release dates are either the same, or very, very close. And what games does id Technology have in development? The only one I came up with was Rage, and it's announced for all platforms.

GTA IV will haved timed XBox 360 exclusive content, Devil May Cry lost it's intial PS3 exclusivity, and so did Assasins Creed. Why waste more money on a console, when I can get a 360 (with better performance due to developer interest, the XNA Framework, Xbox Live, et all)? What is the driving force behind PS3 sales? What makes me want to go out and buy one?

id Software does not solely develop in-house games, it also co-develops or guides other projects using it's id Tech 4 Engine (Quake, Doom, etc.) and it's next id Tech 5 Engine. It's primarily coded on guess what? The Xbox 360.

John Carmack himself has stated t he 360 is superior to the PS3 in terms of development. John Carmack, a 3D Programming pioneer. Author of famous algorithms which revolutionized gaming. That guy.

I don't have a PS3. I just don't see the point of someone hating it.

I've clearly stated my reasons for disliking it, and sony. I'm not exempting Microsoft from blame.
I do blame them for again, the lack of Backwards Compatability, the Red Ring of Death issues, and how poorly it's being addressed.

The difference is, the 360 has a library of games to fall back on. If the PS3 loses backwards compatability, what the hell are people going to do?
Like I said, there is only so many times you can beat Resistance.

All consoles had lackluster launch titles.

And I think you're next point is a major reason this price cut is needed. People weren't seeing this massive jump in graphical performance they would expect out of a $600 machine, so if it's within price range, they're just going to expect similar performance.

All this and it's still as expensive as a high-end 360 SKU. There is a difference between the launch titles, and how fast new games appear. What worthwhile has come out of the PS3 camp since launch?

Lair? Flop.
Heavenly Sword? Perhaps.
Metal Gear Solid? MIA.

I'm going to go ahead and ask you to check on Square Enix being a subsidiary of Sony. They're not. I think Sony owns like 10% of their stock. Also, I'm going with a rough quotation of Nintendo for MGS4: Gamers will forgive a late game, but they'll never forget a bad game.

So you don't think Sony's most fledging success, the reason that there is a sliver of relevance in the playstation brand is not backed by Sony? Hell, SCEA is even credited for the in-house development guides.

It's similiar to Microsoft aiding the Games it finds neat and then advertising. The difference is, games not made or funded by Microsoft still appear and are still successful.

I'm very aware of the problems with Epic, but the fact remains they have one hell of a design team when it comes down to it.

I fail to see why cutting costs is a bad way to sell consoles. Sony is getting a few more games this holiday season; their goal was to put it in the range of the 360, and maybe the Wii.

They're not just cutting costs. They're cutting costs and they're cutting features.
I fail to see how $399 is in the "price range" of a Wii. That's about $160 more than the Wii.

What does the Wii have? The most insane backwards compatability ever brought to a gaming console.
What does the Xbox 360 have? Software emulation backwards compatability, while shaky at times it's better than nothing.
What does the PS3 have? Jack shit.

It's the facts, you can try to twist them as much as you want but at the end of the day they remain the same.
There is no justified reason to get a PS3.

[Warrior]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

Pretty sure this stems from your (failed) argument against me? Too lazy to look up exactly what you failed at, but it was probably significant =).

Might I suggest going the way of dark_drake and arguing against me? I mean, I can just as easily warn people to be cautious of all of your posts, but it would be as unfounded as your claim.

[Warrior]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

lol, so true.  Sorry Warrior.  Even if some of your points are legitimate, you're so biased that it doesn't matter!

It's often hard to leave bias out of an argument, this is why you never take anything anyone says in an argument straight up. Take it with grains of salt.

Then again, I'm not pro Microsoft here. I'm anti-sony.

It'd be just as easy to argue a point for the Wii, but I think it's obvious of the Wii's advantages/disadvantages. I thought I'd put a different spin on it.

[Hitmen]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

Pretty sure this stems from your (failed) argument against me? Too lazy to look up exactly what you failed at, but it was probably significant =).

I don't remember arguing with you, but mkay. It is quite possible.

[Warrior]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

Pretty sure this stems from your (failed) argument against me? Too lazy to look up exactly what you failed at, but it was probably significant =).

I don't remember arguing with you, but mkay. It is quite possible.

Then what are you trying to prove with your comment?

How about reading the arguments for content before making assumptions. Helps a bit.

[iago]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

Pretty sure this stems from your (failed) argument against me? Too lazy to look up exactly what you failed at, but it was probably significant =).

I don't remember arguing with you, but mkay. It is quite possible.

Then what are you trying to prove with your comment?

How about reading the arguments for content before making assumptions. Helps a bit.

Heh, I read your first post, and everything you said sounded weak and biased, so I decided it wasn't worth arguing or even saying anything. I guess they feel the same way.

[Warrior]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

Pretty sure this stems from your (failed) argument against me? Too lazy to look up exactly what you failed at, but it was probably significant =).

I don't remember arguing with you, but mkay. It is quite possible.

Then what are you trying to prove with your comment?

How about reading the arguments for content before making assumptions. Helps a bit.

Heh, I read your first post, and everything you said sounded weak and biased, so I decided it wasn't worth arguing or even saying anything. I guess they feel the same way.

So state what exactly was "weak" as everything I stated was fact. Of course, you're welcome to try to disprove it.
Anything else is hot air unfortunately.

[dark_drake]

Exactly what has changed? Besides feature cuts?

Oh, about a year and a few hundred dollars off. 

I did read an article earlier on why Sony dropped the PS2 BC, and in short, it's because they want people to buy PS3 games. I disagree with what they're doing; I thought it was to save on development costs, but it's not.

What else are they buying it for? The sub 50 selection of games? Maybe they like the light hits the black finish.

They are buying it both for the games and as a Blu-Ray Player. Nothing you have said has changed the fact that there are games worth playing on the PS3.

It's hard to know what you're getting at if you don't explicitly cite what you mean. Let's see it.

There are a hell of a lot more cross platform games than 15.

GTA IV will haved timed XBox 360 exclusive content, Devil May Cry lost it's intial PS3 exclusivity, and so did Assasins Creed. Why waste more money on a console, when I can get a 360 (with better performance due to developer interest, the XNA Framework, Xbox Live, et all)? What is the driving force behind PS3 sales? What makes me want to go out and buy one?

id Software does not solely develop in-house games, it also co-develops or guides other projects using it's id Tech 4 Engine (Quake, Doom, etc.) and it's next id Tech 5 Engine. It's primarily coded on guess what? The Xbox 360.

John Carmack himself has stated t he 360 is superior to the PS3 in terms of development. John Carmack, a 3D Programming pioneer. Author of famous algorithms which revolutionized gaming. That guy.

I'm not about to judge the performance for Assassin's and DMC4 will be on the PS3 and 360; I don't have a crystal ball to look into. I am curious about it, though, because these two games will be the very few that started being developed for the PS3 first, and then went to the 360. I'm almost positive that the main reason for the ports is, again, development costs.

Again, some games are better on the 360, and some are better on the PS3. It all depends on the developer. Neither system has clear superiority in performance at this point.

Finally, I'm not too concerned about id Software's games and engine. That's one company and one game engine. Seriously, Square Enix's white engine looks kickass, and guess what, it's built for the PS3.

The difference is, the 360 has a library of games to fall back on. If the PS3 loses backwards compatability, what the hell are people going to do?
Like I said, there is only so many times you can beat Resistance.

There are other games to play on the PS3. It's library may not be as extensive as the 360's at this point, but it's growing. People who get/own PS3's are going to find other PS3 games to play in the time being.

All this and it's still as expensive as a high-end 360 SKU. There is a difference between the launch titles, and how fast new games appear. What worthwhile has come out of the PS3 camp since launch?

Lair? Flop.
Heavenly Sword? Perhaps.
Metal Gear Solid? MIA.

What worthwhile games were out after a year the 360 came out? New games are almost always slow coming out to systems less than a year old. The only system to have more than a few worthwhile games less than a year after launch has been the Wii and maybe the PS2.

So you don't think Sony's most fledging success, the reason that there is a sliver of relevance in the playstation brand is not backed by Sony? Hell, SCEA is even credited for the in-house development guides.

It's similiar to Microsoft aiding the Games it finds neat and then advertising. The difference is, games not made or funded by Microsoft still appear and are still successful.

All right, I am completely confused at the first statement here. Are we still talking about Square Enix? If we are, you need to look up the word subsidiary.  Square Enix isn't owned or controlled by Sony, not even by a long shot.

How many games (made by companies not controlled by Microsoft at the time) has Microsoft done that for? The only one that really comes to mind is Gears of War.

They're not just cutting costs. They're cutting costs and they're cutting features.
I fail to see how $399 is in the "price range" of a Wii. That's about $160 more than the Wii.

They're cutting features they don't feel are necessary. And with the price drop, the PS3 a hell of a lot closer to the Wii than it was before. $160 is really not that much money at Christmas time for most people.

What does the Wii have? The most insane backwards compatability ever brought to a gaming console.
What does the Xbox 360 have? Software emulation backwards compatability, while shaky at times it's better than nothing.
What does the PS3 have? Jack shit.

Backwards compatibility isn't everything. When was the last time backwards compatibility won a console war? It never has and never will.

It's the facts, you can try to twist them as much as you want but at the end of the day they remain the same.
There is no justified reason to get a PS3.

There is no justified reason to you. But guess what? (I know this might be a shock to you, but I feel you need to be told) You're not the entire consumer market; to some, it's worth it. There are decent games on and coming to the PS3 you're not going to see anywhere else. Furthermore, if someone is into high definition and whatnot, they will have a Blu-Ray player with HDMI output.

[Warrior]

I did read an article earlier on why Sony dropped the PS2 BC, and in short, it's because they want people to buy PS3 games. I disagree with what they're doing; I thought it was to save on development costs, but it's not.

Development costs saved are very very negligible, I remember reading something along the lines of $30 but I can't seem to find the source.

They are buying it both for the games and as a Blu-Ray Player. Nothing you have said has changed the fact that there are games worth playing on the PS3.

What games? The only two I've enjoyed are Motorstorm (Hey it's on the 360), and Resistance.
Almost nothing makes me, or anyone else I know want to buy a PS3. I mean, when it was announced it sounded promising. Then I realized that while I'd have a potentially good console, it lacks content.

There is no denying it lacks content. Let's go out on a limb and say all the PS3 games released thus far are good, that's still a very abysmal number and a vast majority of the Games can be found on the 360. Where is the advantage? What is justifying the higher price?

There are a hell of a lot more cross platform games than 15.

Like? If you can find me at least 16 you win.

I'm not about to judge the performance for Assassin's and DMC4 will be on the PS3 and 360; I don't have a crystal ball to look into. I am curious about it, though, because these two games will be the very few that started being developed for the PS3 first, and then went to the 360. I'm almost positive that the main reason for the ports is, again, development costs.

That's true. You're missing the significant bit though. Which console is getting titles ported to. In this case it's the PS3, it's being given the cold shoulder by developers in terms of native development.

If the PS3 was any thing like it promised, people would be porting games to the 360. Not vice versa.

Again, some games are better on the 360, and some are better on the PS3. It all depends on the developer. Neither system has clear superiority in performance at this point.

This I'll assume is hypothetical because thus far no cross-platform game released has proven to even outperform the 360 on the PS3.
I'll go along with it though, but again the significant bit is ARE developers actually taking the time to develop natively on the PS3? The answer is no.

Finally, I'm not too concerned about id Software's games and engine. That's one company and one game engine. Seriously, Square Enix's white engine looks kickass, and guess what, it's built for the PS3.

id's engine is a good thing for the PS3. Carmack is a perfectionist so he will hammer that thing until it runs at 60 FPS on the PS3. It's not a distance many will go, and that's the point I'm making. The PS3 is not attractive enough to muster enough interest.

Additionally, most Game Programmers take Carmack's word as law. He is the absolute authority on the subject. Best believe he is one of, if not the most influential Game programmer in the industry.

What worthwhile games were out after a year the 360 came out? New games are almost always slow coming out to systems less than a year old. The only system to have more than a few worthwhile games less than a year after launch has been the Wii and maybe the PS2.

Halo 3
Gears of War
Call of Duty 3
Rainbow Six: Vegas
Splinter Cell: Double Agent
GRAW 1
GRAW 2
Def. Orange Box

Probably more, can't think of any off the top of my head as I don't own a 360. Those are a few I've played.

All right, I am completely confused at the first statement here. Are we still talking about Square Enix? If we are, you need to look up the word subsidiary.  Square Enix isn't owned or controlled by Sony, not even by a long shot.

Perhaps by no official means, but there is no denying that it may as well be the way they take it from Sony. It's not even debatable the sheer amount of work Sony pours into keeping that franchise profitable.

How many games (made by companies not controlled by Microsoft at the time) has Microsoft done that for? The only one that really comes to mind is Gears of War.

Gears of War is owned by Microsoft. It was actually developed in-house. Then again unless I'm reading incorrectly this is the wrong point to make, a better one would be "How many games not controlled by Microsoft have been successful"

The answer is many.

They're cutting features they don't feel are necessary. And with the price drop, the PS3 a hell of a lot closer to the Wii than it was before. $160 is really not that much money at Christmas time for most people.

$160 is definitely quite a bit of many, else you wouldn't be jumping up and down ranting on about how the PS3 did this to "Save costs". What's another $100? $200?

Backwards compatibility isn't everything. When was the last time backwards compatibility won a console war? It never has and never will.

When's the last time it came into play? Never, unless you count the PS2 supporting PS1 games.

There is no justified reason to you. But guess what? (I know this might be a shock to you, but I feel you need to be told) You're not the entire consumer market; to some, it's worth it. There are decent games on and coming to the PS3 you're not going to see anywhere else. Furthermore, if someone is into high definition and whatnot, they will have a Blu-Ray player with HDMI output.

It seems to me, that the Market agrees with what I think. Considering the PS3 is in last place. Then again, I suppose it's fun to hide/twist facts.

[dark_drake]

What games? The only two I've enjoyed are Motorstorm (Hey it's on the 360), and Resistance.
Almost nothing makes me, or anyone else I know want to buy a PS3. I mean, when it was announced it sounded promising. Then I realized that while I'd have a potentially good console, it lacks content.

There is no denying it lacks content. Let's go out on a limb and say all the PS3 games released thus far are good, that's still a very abysmal number and a vast majority of the Games can be found on the 360. Where is the advantage? What is justifying the higher price?

Ugh.... there are still games to play on it; pretending that there aren't doesn't make them go away. If a person did not have a 360 or Wii, the PS3 is still a viable choice.

Like? If you can find me at least 16 you win.

DirT, Madden 07, Madden 08, Sega Rally Revo, Armored Core 4, F.E.A.R., Oblivion, Splinter Cell: Double Agent, Darkness, GRAW 2, Transformers, Skate, Tony Hawk's Proving Ground, Enchanted Arms, Fight Night Round 3, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance.

I win. There are a lot of multiplatform games, but neither of us have denied that.

That's true. You're missing the significant bit though. Which console is getting titles ported to. In this case it's the PS3, it's being given the cold shoulder by developers in terms of native development.

If the PS3 was any thing like it promised, people would be porting games to the 360. Not vice versa.

As long as they're getting the 3rd party support, and the games are running at comparable performance, I really don't think it matters too much who is developing natively. Without third party support, the gamecube and xbox wouldn't have survived the previous generation. An example worth bringing up: The Sega Dreamcast. Serious lack of 3rd party support destroyed the Sega I knew and loved faster than I could have ever imagined.

This I'll assume is hypothetical because thus far no cross-platform game released has proven to even outperform the 360 on the PS3.
I'll go along with it though, but again the significant bit is ARE developers actually taking the time to develop natively on the PS3? The answer is no.

IIRC, Oblivion and Armored Core 4 both were considered to be graphically superior on the PS3.

id's engine is a good thing for the PS3. Carmack is a perfectionist so he will hammer that thing until it runs at 60 FPS on the PS3. It's not a distance many will go, and that's the point I'm making. The PS3 is not attractive enough to muster enough interest.

Additionally, most Game Programmers take Carmack's word as law. He is the absolute authority on the subject. Best believe he is one of, if not the most influential Game programmer in the industry.

javascript:void(0);
Roll Eyes
If it's going to be running well on both, it seems like a non-factor. 

Halo 3
Gears of War
Call of Duty 3
Rainbow Six: Vegas
Splinter Cell: Double Agent
GRAW 1
GRAW 2
Def. Orange Box

Probably more, can't think of any off the top of my head as I don't own a 360. Those are a few I've played.

I said 1 year after release, so that eliminates half of those games. The point of that limitation was so you could see that the 360 got off to pretty poor start as well.  The point I'm trying to make: there weren't that many great games for the 360 after 1 year.

Perhaps by no official means, but there is no denying that it may as well be the way they take it from Sony. It's not even debatable the sheer amount of work Sony pours into keeping that franchise profitable.

I'm through arguing about Square Enix with you. You seem to be seriously misinformed.

Gears of War is owned by Microsoft. It was actually developed in-house. Then again unless I'm reading incorrectly this is the wrong point to make, a better one would be "How many games not controlled by Microsoft have been successful"

The answer is many.

A person could also argue that many games not developed by Sony or it's subsidiaries have been successful, but I'm not going to because it would be wasted keystrokes at this point.

Gears of War was developed in-house by Epic; Microsoft had nothing to do with the development.

$160 is definitely quite a bit of money, else you wouldn't be jumping up and down ranting on about how the PS3 did this to "Save costs". What's another $100? $200?

I'd like to know where I started ranting about how the PS3 did this to save costs? Did you actually read my comment? I mentioned I read an article saying how Sony removed BC, but it wasn't about saving costs. Sony cut the cost significantly in order remain competitive in the market. The Wii is going to be sold out this Christmas, but parents are still going to be looking to get their children a console; that leaves the PS3  and 360. The prices are comparable.

When's the last time it came into play? Never, unless you count the PS2 supporting PS1 games.

That didn't even come close to winning the console war last generation for Sony. The fact is that Sony had all the third party support they could get, awesome developing firms under them, and the hardware to back it all up.

It seems to me, that the Market agrees with what I think. Considering the PS3 is in last place. Then again, I suppose it's fun to hide/twist facts.

It's been one year; this generation is far from over.

[iago]

So state what exactly was "weak" as everything I stated was fact. Of course, you're welcome to try to disprove it.
Anything else is hot air unfortunately.

Nah, it'd be a waste of time. Good try, though!

[Sidoh]

So state what exactly was "weak" as everything I stated was fact. Of course, you're welcome to try to disprove it.
Anything else is hot air unfortunately.

Nah, it'd be a waste of time. Good try, though!

No it wouldn't!

And if that doesn't do it, I have two words for you.

Common... common!

[Warrior]

Ugh.... there are still games to play on it; pretending that there aren't doesn't make them go away. If a person did not have a 360 or Wii, the PS3 is still a viable choice.

No, the person would choose between a Wii, 360 , or a PS3. What you say would be true if the PS3 did not just get outsold 5 to 1 this month. I think they barely scratched 100k units.

As long as they're getting the 3rd party support, and the games are running at comparable performance, I really don't think it matters too much who is developing natively. Without third party support, the gamecube and xbox wouldn't have survived the previous generation. An example worth bringing up: The Sega Dreamcast. Serious lack of 3rd party support destroyed the Sega I knew and loved faster than I could have ever imagined.

There is a comparable difference between Ports and natively developed titles. I thought this had been established and agreed upon? A difference of 30 FPS is far from negligable.

IIRC, Oblivion and Armored Core 4 both were considered to be graphically superior on the PS3.

Never heard of Armored Core 4, but I don't think Oblivion did anything special. Perhaps it cleaned up it's shiteous LOD system. It's a very real possibility, but in terms of any concrete graphical superiority I doubt it.

I think the only way something will reap the benefits of the Core in any sort of serious manner is to be custom designed for the PS3s architecture. The architecture of the Cell processor is radically different than programming for three processors on the 360.

If it's going to be running well on both, it seems like a non-factor. 

Sure, if you only consider id's offering. To the others who look to Carmack for advise, his downtalking of the PS3 is not helping adoption. It's a very real fact, as his very own statements have been regurgitated by other Game companies.

I said 1 year after release, so that eliminates half of those games. The point of that limitation was so you could see that the 360 got off to pretty poor start as well.  The point I'm trying to make: there weren't that many great games for the 360 after 1 year.

I misread what you said, I thought you meant 1year+.

In that case I'm not really sure about a specific launch window for titles, as I don't own a 360.

A person could also argue that many games not developed by Sony or it's subsidiaries have been successful, but I'm not going to because it would be wasted keystrokes at this point.

But there are not any. What's the last award winning non-sony PS3 game? Resistance?

Gears of War was developed in-house by Epic; Microsoft had nothing to do with the development.

Hm, not really sure. I'm certain Microsoft took a big part in it's development. They sure as hell spent advertising money, and I remember multiple interviews CliffyB did where he showed his team working with Microsoft and even meeting deadlines set by Bill Gates.

I'd like to know where I started ranting about how the PS3 did this to save costs? Did you actually read my comment? I mentioned I read an article saying how Sony removed BC, but it wasn't about saving costs. Sony cut the cost significantly in order remain competitive in the market. The Wii is going to be sold out this Christmas, but parents are still going to be looking to get their children a console; that leaves the PS3  and 360. The prices are comparable.

You used it in your defense every time I questioned the removal of Backwards Compatability. The competetive edge is a small one if you're losing features in the mean time. Keep the features, they obviously don't have a huge financial impact on console development.

Besides, they need to quit focusing on cutting Console costsand focus on selling titles. TITLES sell the Console, and therefore Sony recoups money lost. Microsoft loses money per 360, Wii is the only console to remain profitable at manufacturing.

This strategy will only discourage people from buying the PS3, will stagnate what little marketshare they have, and will ultimately screw them over.

It seems not even the recent bargain-basement offerings of the PS3 could make it move units. It says something about the content on the system.

Why is the PS3 not selling?

That didn't even come close to winning the console war last generation for Sony. The fact is that Sony had all the third party support they could get, awesome developing firms under them, and the hardware to back it all up.

Never stated it did. Not by a long shot.

In this generation, and for the PS3 in it's current situation: The removal of backwards compatability is the straw that broke the camels back.

It's been one year; this generation is far from over.

That's far from the truth: If you don't catch acceptance early on, there is no way you're going to uproot the juggernauts already in place.
The PS3 is very close, if not already damning it's position in the market.

[Warrior]

So state what exactly was "weak" as everything I stated was fact. Of course, you're welcome to try to disprove it.
Anything else is hot air unfortunately.

Nah, it'd be a waste of time. Good try, though!

Then your point was? I mean, not that it doesn't flatter me you waste your time contributing nothing to a discussion.

[iago]

So state what exactly was "weak" as everything I stated was fact. Of course, you're welcome to try to disprove it.
Anything else is hot air unfortunately.

Nah, it'd be a waste of time. Good try, though!

Then your point was? I mean, not that it doesn't flatter me you waste your time contributing nothing to a discussion.

I was just backing up what a couple others said. Sidoh and somebody else, I forget now.

<edit> Hitmen! Of course!

[Warrior]

So state what exactly was "weak" as everything I stated was fact. Of course, you're welcome to try to disprove it.
Anything else is hot air unfortunately.

Nah, it'd be a waste of time. Good try, though!

Then your point was? I mean, not that it doesn't flatter me you waste your time contributing nothing to a discussion.

I was just backing up what a couple others said. Sidoh and somebody else, I forget now.

<edit> Hitmen! Of course!

Take it somewhere else, when I start hijacking your threads then perhaps you'll have a justified reason.
Until then, either read the content, put up, or shut up.

[iago]

So state what exactly was "weak" as everything I stated was fact. Of course, you're welcome to try to disprove it.
Anything else is hot air unfortunately.

Nah, it'd be a waste of time. Good try, though!

Then your point was? I mean, not that it doesn't flatter me you waste your time contributing nothing to a discussion.

I was just backing up what a couple others said. Sidoh and somebody else, I forget now.

<edit> Hitmen! Of course!

Take it somewhere else, when I start hijacking your threads then perhaps you'll have a justified reason.
Until then, either read the content, put up, or shut up.

Haha, you don't have to get so defensive!

[dark_drake]

No, the person would choose between a Wii, 360 , or a PS3. What you say would be true if the PS3 did not just get outsold 5 to 1 this month. I think they barely scratched 100k units.

Two words: Halo 3

There is a comparable difference between Ports and natively developed titles. I thought this had been established and agreed upon? A difference of 30 FPS is far from negligable.

I haven't played a single port with that difference, but I don't play sports games. Furthermore, EA's sports games are the only games I've heard with this massive difference in performance. Almost all other games have had roughly equal performance.

I think the only way something will reap the benefits of the Core in any sort of serious manner is to be custom designed for the PS3s architecture. The architecture of the Cell processor is radically different than programming for three processors on the 360.

No kidding?

Sure, if you only consider id's offering. To the others who look to Carmack for advise, his downtalking of the PS3 is not helping adoption. It's a very real fact, as his very own statements have been regurgitated by other Game companies.

That's great. He's not God.

But there are not any. What's the last award winning non-sony PS3 game? Resistance?

By successful, I thought you meant sold a reasonable amount, but if you want to go off of award-winning games, but yes, Resistance would probably be the only one. On the other hand, Gears of War and Orange Box (which will be on PS3 soon), are about the only two that come to mind with Microsoft.

Hm, not really sure. I'm certain Microsoft took a big part in it's development. They sure as hell spent advertising money, and I remember multiple interviews CliffyB did where he showed his team working with Microsoft and even meeting deadlines set by Bill Gates.

Trust me, Epic did the development of Gears of War.

You used it in your defense every time I questioned the removal of Backwards Compatability. The competetive edge is a small one if you're losing features in the mean time. Keep the features, they obviously don't have a huge financial impact on console development.

Quotations or it didn't happen. Seriously.

Besides, they need to quit focusing on cutting Console costsand focus on selling titles. TITLES sell the Console, and therefore Sony recoups money lost. Microsoft loses money per 360, Wii is the only console to remain profitable at manufacturing.

This is the point of the cost cutting, according to Sony. By lowering the price and removing BC, they are, first, making their console more appealing to the people who don't have $600 to spend on a console, and second, making it so people have to buy PS3 games.

This strategy will only discourage people from buying the PS3, will stagnate what little marketshare they have, and will ultimately screw them over.

It seems not even the recent bargain-basement offerings of the PS3 could make it move units. It says something about the content on the system.

Again, I'm not able to see your logic here. How do lower prices discourage people from buying things? I'm sick of hearing you say this; lower prices encourage people to buy things. Seriously, I've asked it time and time again, and you just keep saying lack of software and features. If someone is just getting into this generation, there are games for them to play. Furthermore, the cheaper PS3 isn't even out yet.

Never stated it did. Not by a long shot.

In this generation, and for the PS3 in it's current situation: The removal of backwards compatability is the straw that broke the camels back.

You keep making BC to be the most important thing the PS3 could do. It's not. Just like the Wii's and 360's BC aren't their biggest features.

That's far from the truth: If you don't catch acceptance early on, there is no way you're going to uproot the juggernauts already in place.
The PS3 is very close, if not already damning it's position in the market.

The only system proven to be a juggernaut thus far has been the Wii.

[Warrior]

No, the person would choose between a Wii, 360 , or a PS3. What you say would be true if the PS3 did not just get outsold 5 to 1 this month. I think they barely scratched 100k units.

Two words: Halo 3

And before the release of Halo 3? The PS3 wasn't magically outselling the 360 or the Wii. Not by a long shot.

I haven't played a single port with that difference, but I don't play sports games. Furthermore, EA's sports games are the only games I've heard with this massive difference in performance. Almost all other games have had roughly equal performance.

You have not played many ports then, the ports I've played both PS3 -> 360 and 360 -> PS3 have all or almost all been horrible. There is a clear difference in Frames/sec.

No kidding?

So then you agree that ports are crap, and that most of the PS3 games thus far are ports. Therefore, most PS3 games are crap?
Why would anyone buy this console?

That's great. He's not God.

Ok? You're attemping to downplay his significance? Why don't you do some research into what he's done then come back.

By successful, I thought you meant sold a reasonable amount, but if you want to go off of award-winning games, but yes, Resistance would probably be the only one. On the other hand, Gears of War and Orange Box (which will be on PS3 soon), are about the only two that come to mind with Microsoft.

Then I suggest you think a bit harder, there are plenty more. Additionally, Orange Box will be a PORT to the PS3. Gabe Newell (Valve CEO) hates the PS3. He's very vocal about his dislike for the machine.

Trust me, Epic did the development of Gears of War.

"Gears of War is a tactical third-person shooter video game developed by Epic Games (the creators of the Unreal series) using Unreal Engine 3.0 technology and published by Microsoft Game Studios." (Wikipedia)

You're right, this also solves why Microsoft dumped money into advertising and Production. Additionally, GoW for the PC will be a Games for Windows certified Game. Seems like Microsoft's involvement in this (Like all early-adopters of GFW) is obvious.

This is the point of the cost cutting, according to Sony. By lowering the price and removing BC, they are, first, making their console more appealing to the people who don't have $600 to spend on a console, and second, making it so people have to buy PS3 games.

That goes against cost cutting. You don't cost cut at the expense of features. That's making the console less attractive, therefore moving less games and recouping less of a loss. If you think the PS3 is still (even with BC removed) making a profit off console--or even breaking even you're dellusional.

Again, I'm not able to see your logic here. How do lower prices discourage people from buying things? I'm sick of hearing you say this; lower prices encourage people to buy things. Seriously, I've asked it time and time again, and you just keep saying lack of software and features. If someone is just getting into this generation, there are games for them to play. Furthermore, the cheaper PS3 isn't even out yet.

No, if someone isn't in this generation yet they have these options:

Wii
360
PS3

Wii with small library, TONS of backwards compatible games, browsing, rudimentary online, casual appeal, etc.
360 with a bigger game library, more native games, better online support, etc.
PS3 with smaller library, more ports, very-very nice firmware updates, decent multimedia capabilities

Those are the options people have. Unless they live on a remote island where only PS3s are offered.

You keep making BC to be the most important thing the PS3 could do. It's not. Just like the Wii's and 360's BC aren't their biggest features.

What part of "Straw that broke the camels back" didn't you understand?

I'm sure the:

Lack of games
Quality of games
Horrible Blu-Ray read speeds, aka load times
Lack of substantial online

are what ruined the PS3. The PS3 was too little, too late.

The Wii's backward compatability IS a godsend. It SUPPLEMENTS their library of games, since it's pretty small right now.
Because of this, there is no shortage of games, no shortage of fun as is the case with the PS3.

The Wii is the perfect console.

The only system proven to be a juggernaut thus far has been the Wii.

The Wii *just* outsold the 360 in total sales. Best believe they are very close together in total sales, and as of this month the 360 outsold the Wii by 20k units (~1/5 of the total PS3 sales)

The 360 is very well a juggernaut in the game. How many sold PS3s total? Something like 3 million? 4 Million?

[dark_drake]

And before the release of Halo 3? The PS3 wasn't magically outselling the 360 or the Wii. Not by a long shot.

I never said it did. But the reason for the 360 selling 5:1 is due to Halo 3. Before that, it was maybe 2:1 in the American market, if that. But I'm not disputing the facts, the PS3 isn't selling as much, but that doesn't mean it's not worth having.

You have not played many ports then, the ports I've played both PS3 -> 360 and 360 -> PS3 have all or almost all been horrible. There is a clear difference in Frames/sec.

Which ones? The only ones  with noticeable differences to me have been sports games, and I only play those with friends, and that's rare.

So then you agree that ports are crap, and that most of the PS3 games thus far are ports. Therefore, most PS3 games are crap?
Why would anyone buy this console?

I didn't say any of that. Ports are just fine.

Ok? You're attemping to downplay his significance? Why don't you do some research into what he's done then come back.

No, I'm trying to say that his decision isn't the only one that matters in such a massive industry.

Then I suggest you think a bit harder, there are plenty more. Additionally, Orange Box will be a PORT to the PS3. Gabe Newell (Valve CEO) hates the PS3. He's very vocal about his dislike for the machine.

Name the games.

That goes against cost cutting. You don't cost cut at the expense of features. That's making the console less attractive, therefore moving less games and recouping less of a loss. If you think the PS3 is still (even with BC removed) making a profit off console--or even breaking even you're dellusional.

They were never breaking even. I never said that. The only delusional person around here is you with all the words you're putting in my mouth.

It's a move that Sony felt would encourage PS3 console and game sales.

No, if someone isn't in this generation yet they have these options:

Wii
360
PS3

Wii with small library, TONS of backwards compatible games, browsing, rudimentary online, casual appeal, etc.
360 with a bigger game library, more native games, better online support, etc.
PS3 with smaller library, more ports, very-very nice firmware updates, decent multimedia capabilities

Those are the options people have. Unless they live on a remote island where only PS3s are offered.

I didn't say they didn't have options. Again, you're misrepresenting my argument. I said that the PS3 was a viable option, and nothing you have said has proven that to be otherwise.

What part of "Straw that broke the camels back" didn't you understand?

I'm sure the:

Lack of games
Quality of games
Horrible Blu-Ray read speeds, aka load times
Lack of substantial online

are what ruined the PS3. The PS3 was too little, too late.

The Wii's backward compatability IS a godsend. It SUPPLEMENTS their library of games, since it's pretty small right now.
Because of this, there is no shortage of games, no shortage of fun as is the case with the PS3.

The Wii is the perfect console.

Again, there are fewer games, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. There are plenty of games that have been reviewed quite well. Blu-ray speeds are just fine. Again, it depends on the game for the load times. Finally, the lack of substantial online: Just because it's not xbox Live doesn't mean it's not substantial. Xbox Live is the best in the industry at the moment, Sony is second, and the Wii is a distant 3rd.

The Wii *just* outsold the 360 in total sales. Best believe they are very close together in total sales, and as of this month the 360 outsold the Wii by 20k units (~1/5 of the total PS3 sales)

The 360 is very well a juggernaut in the game. How many sold PS3s total? Something like 3 million? 4 Million?

The Wii has been out for 1/2 the time. The only reason it hasn't sold more is due to production issues. And I believe your statistics are for the US, not the world.

The PS3 has sold a little over 5 million I'm thinking.

In summary, you think the Wii is king, the 360 is in the middle, and the PS3 is utter garbage. I disagree , and I am saying that it's too early to say.

[Warrior]

And before the release of Halo 3? The PS3 wasn't magically outselling the 360 or the Wii. Not by a long shot.

I never said it did. But the reason for the 360 selling 5:1 is due to Halo 3. Before that, it was maybe 2:1 in the American market, if that. But I'm not disputing the facts, the PS3 isn't selling as much, but that doesn't mean it's not worth having.

August it was 3:1, still isn't much better.

Which ones? The only ones  with noticeable differences to me have been sports games, and I only play those with friends, and that's rare.

CoD 3 for example, ran considerably slower and was much less pretty than it was on the Xbox 360.

No, I'm trying to say that his decision isn't the only one that matters in such a massive industry.

How about Crytek (FarCry, Crysis), Valve (Half-Life)? Do you think that their collective agreements matter?
All of those companies have stated developing for the PS3 is difficult and usually not worth the money.

Name the games.

BioShock
Guitar Hero II
Oblivion / Shivering Isles / Knights of the Nine

They were never breaking even. I never said that. The only delusional person around here is you with all the words you're putting in my mouth.

Then how can you justify them cutting costs? The components they cut costs would have no impact on the manufacturing cost of the product, and therefore would have no reason to lower the price of the SKU.

It's logic.

It's a move that Sony felt would encourage PS3 console and game sales.

The "moves" Sony makes are seldom what's good for the consumer. MiniDisk/UMD/BetaMax come to mind.
Oh, let's not forget the entire Rootkit fiasco..was that a "good move" too?

I didn't say they didn't have options. Again, you're misrepresenting my argument. I said that the PS3 was a viable option, and nothing you have said has proven that to be otherwise.

No, it would not be a viable option. Considering the 360 offers everything the PS3 offers in terms of games, and way more.
Look at the facts man.

Again, there are fewer games, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. There are plenty of games that have been reviewed quite well. Blu-ray speeds are just fine.

Like what? Resistance? and..Resistance?

Want me to link you to the article proving Blu-Ray is having trouble with read-speeds for games?

Just because it's not xbox Live doesn't mean it's not substantial. Xbox Live is the best in the industry at the moment, Sony is second, and the Wii is a distant 3rd.

Of course Sony is going to be second, Wii's online is nearly non-existant. It's like saying "We're number two!...out of two!"

The Wii has been out for 1/2 the time. The only reason it hasn't sold more is due to production issues. And I believe your statistics are for the US, not the world.

The PS3 has sold a little over 5 million I'm thinking.

In summary, you think the Wii is king, the 360 is in the middle, and the PS3 is utter garbage. I disagree , and I am saying that it's too early to say.

How is it too early to say? The generation is almost over. I'd give it another year before Microsoft announces it's latest offering. Do you really think that Sony can recoup it's losses over the course of a year? They're going to end up reporting a loss the size of the loss Microsoft had with the original XBox.

Sony is going to be in last place.

[dark_drake]

I've told you that the price drop is justified so it can compete in the market; you keep thinking, incorrectly, that lower price will equate to people wanting it even less, which is illogical. Let me say it one more time, Sony is lowering the price to be more competitive in the market. Repeat this any time you don't understand why Sony is lowering the price on the PS3.

I'm through trying to correct any facts and statistics; even though it's a small inconvenience to find sources, I've done it too many times already.

You named 3 other games which have been developed on the 360 by third-parties which have done well (on top of Gears of War and Orange Box). That hardly doesn't come close to qualifying as many more. I can do it for the PS3, too: Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection, Virtua Fighter 5, Oblivion, and Heavenly Sword.

As for the generation being almost over, you're mistaken. They usually last 5 years; it's been 2 for the 360, and 1 for the other two consoles. IIRC, (and this could very well be a bit iffy), it wasn't clear cut who was going to win between the N64 and the PS1 for a few years. It's still a race between consoles. To think otherwise would be silly.

You hate Sony; that's fine. Nothing I say or Sony does is going to change your opinion, and it is for this reason, I'm through in this thread. You're too hard-headed when it comes to topics involving Microsoft. I think Sony is just fine; they've never disappointed me before. Sidoh's MiniDisk player rocked when he had it , and I wasn't around for BetaMax (neither were you, but go ahead and tell me the horrible experiences you've had with it anyway).

[Warrior]

I've told you that the price drop is justified so it can compete in the market; you keep thinking, incorrectly, that lower price will equate to people wanting it even less, which is illogical. Let me say it one more time, Sony is lowering the price to be more competitive in the market. Repeat this any time you don't understand why Sony is lowering the price on the PS3.

And I'm telling you that's understood. They're doing it at the cost of a feature, a feature that has a negligible impact on the price tag. That is what angers me. You can try to downplay it as a non issue, but it is an issue to a lot of people. It makes or breaks a console at times.

You named 3 other games which have been developed on the 360 by third-parties which have done well (on top of Gears of War and Orange Box). That hardly doesn't come close to qualifying as many more. I can do it for the PS3, too: Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection, Virtua Fighter 5, Oblivion, and Heavenly Sword.

I don't own a 360, so I had to dig them up. I'm sure I could find more if I took the time, didn't think I'd need to list the entire collection though.

As for the generation being almost over, you're mistaken. They usually last 5 years; it's been 2 for the 360, and 1 for the other two consoles. IIRC, (and this could very well be a bit iffy), it wasn't clear cut who was going to win between the N64 and the PS1 for a few years. It's still a race between consoles. To think otherwise would be silly.

The 360 defined the dawn of the current-gen, and the first console of the next-generation will mark the advent of the next-gen. How much time the PS3 or the Wii have been in the game is irrelevant. They were both late to the market. It's actually pretty pathetic that the PS3 has such marginal improvements over the 360 when it had a years headstart.

You hate Sony; that's fine. Nothing I say or Sony does is going to change your opinion, and it is for this reason, I'm through in this thread. You're too hard-headed when it comes to topics involving Microsoft. I think Sony is just fine; they've never disappointed me before. Sidoh's MiniDisk player rocked when he had it , and I wasn't around for BetaMax (neither were you, but go ahead and tell me the horrible experiences you've had with it anyway).

I don't come here expecting to change anyone's opinion, I have been enlightened on a few subject but my opinion as a whole remains the same. It isn't a Microsoft thing, I'm not much of a console guy actually. It's a anti-sony thing.

Microsoft isn't doing too hot in the Console area either, let's count the Red Ring of Death, the losses in their fiscal year results, etc.
They have the resources to just dog their way through failure until they become successful, it's not something everyone including Sony can do.

I've never used BetaMax, and never made comments about it's quality. In fact, from what I understand the format (Like BluRay today) was slightly superior to VHS. I merely stated that it was a failed format.

The only format which bares Sonys name in part which succeeded was the Compact Disk.



[/quote]

[Warrior]

"Sony begs developers not to abandon the PS3"
http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=142068

Ouch.

[dark_drake]

"Sony begs developers not to abandon the PS3"
http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=142068

Ouch.

This is just some guy who is saying something.

"But drake, it's not just some guy! It's Dean Takahashi!"

Yeah, and the Xbox 360 team was working on a handheld system to be released this year or early next year.

[Warrior]

"Sony begs developers not to abandon the PS3"
http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=142068

Ouch.

This is just some guy who is saying something.

"But drake, it's not just some guy! It's Dean Takahashi!"

Yeah, and the Xbox 360 team was working on a handheld system to be released this year or early next year.

I'm sure you wouldn't doubt his credibility if he said the same for another console =).
Seriously, read his article history. Does not look bias to me, however conspiracy theories are welcome.

It's also amusing you poke fun and seemingly downplay John Carmacks significance:
Let's see what he's done in the graphics industry:

"John D. Carmack II (born August 20, 1970) is a widely recognized figure in the video game industry."

"He has pioneered or popularised the use of many techniques in computer graphics, including "adaptive tile refresh" for Commander Keen, raycasting for Hovertank 3-D, Catacomb 3-D, and Wolfenstein 3-D, binary space partitioning which Doom became the first game to use, surface caching which he invented for Quake, Carmack's Reverse (formally known as z-fail stencil shadow mapping) which he devised for Doom 3, and MegaTexture, used in Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. While he was not the first to discover Carmack's Reverse, he developed it independently."

It's worth noting the bolded technolgies are present in some incarnation in commercial games today.

"Carmack's engines have also been licensed for use in other influential first-person shooters such as Half-Life and Medal of Honor."

"Carmack is a well-known advocate of open source software, and has repeatedly voiced his opposition to software patents, which he equates to "mugging someone".[3] He has also contributed to open source projects, such as starting the initial port of the X Window System to Mac OS X Server and working to improve the OpenGL drivers for Linux through the Utah GLX project."

So a 360 loving, GPL loving, Open Source contributing, Game algorithm pioneering programmer still lacks credibility in your eyes?
Like I said, if it makes you feel better at night, then go ahead and doubt his credibility. It's obvious what the truth is.

[dark_drake]

No, I'd doubt his credibility if he said it about any console. He's been wrong before. What's to say he's right or wrong about this, besides his "insider information"?

Furthermore, I didn't even bring Carmack up in my post. Nice try, though.

[Warrior]

No, I'd doubt his credibility if he said it about any console. He's been wrong before. What's to say he's right or wrong about this, besides his "insider information"?

Furthermore, I didn't even bring Carmack up in my post. Nice try, though.

You're telling me that the "But drake, it's not just some guy! It's Dean Takahashi!" was not a jab at my defending of Carmack?
Please.

If you won't believe on report, how about more affirming the same general conclusion?:

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/02/2054201 - PS3 Developer fired for voicing his mind of the system
        - Gives his exact name, his job, and provides an example of his work (E3 PS3 presentation)
        - Compares his work with the work of XBox 360 Devs, favors the 360
        - Sony promptly fires him from SCEA. It seems not even their internal developers like the PS3.
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-348-1.htm - Developers take on the PS3
        - Mentions the fact that the 360's three cores are easier to program for as opposed to the PS3 SPEs
        - Mentions the fact that the 360 has superior GPU processing power, the Cores is what theoretically push the PS3 over the top but none of them are taken advantage of in any way meaningful.
        - Mentions a method (employed by Halo 3) for using multiple framebuffers to anti-alias and light High Definition Content, saves processing power while retaining beauty. The PS3 has to process this itself, and with the lack of SPEs being taken advantage the cost adds up.
     

Now let's go back to pre-PS3. Developers were not given final development kits until very late in the Game, early on they had to cough up $25,000 per kit to get a system which emulated (quite poorly from the articles I've read) what the PS3 may be like.
Do you really think this encourages developers? Do you think this yields success?

Now, after reading all of this can you seriously still doubt the legitimacy of the article? Developers are shying away from the Playstation 3, it's something that's been reiterated by:

John Carmack
Crytek (Makers of FarCry, Crysis)
EA (Various Studios within the EA brand actually)

The only reason Epic seems to be staying with the PS3 is because Sony licensed their Engine and exclusivity rights for the PS3. Let's add this to the numerous complaints about frame rate and development technical support on the UE3 and it quickly starts to look sour. FYI: The reports of the UE3 fallacies are being made by people WORKING on PS3 games. The exact name of the game fails me now, but I'll look it up.

The facts like I've said many times, are undeniable.