getting worried

[quote name='dmaul1114']Sony just needs to put all efforst on catching MS and battling for second place.[/quote]Because up till now they've enjoyed wading in the third place kiddy pool right?

Of course they're trying!
And not just for second place, they're trying to sell as much as possible.
 
The only thing Sony's "trying" to do is to sell their blu-ray stuff. If not they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. They don't care about video games. They haven't had a profitable year off a video game system since PS1 if I recall and it doesn't matter to them. PS2 their real agenda was promoting DVD players, now on PS3 it's blu-ray. Microsoft's losing money too and who knows what they're agenda is maybe just to f with Sony?
 
[quote name='dallow']Because up till now they've enjoyed wading in the third place kiddy pool right?

Of course they're trying!
And not just for second place, they're trying to sell as much as possible.[/QUOTE]

For sure they should aim for that. They're just too far behind the Wii, and the Wii is still selling like hotcakes.

They have no chance of catching it this gen, and I don't think MS does either. Nintendo made the smart move of making a cheaper machine and going hard after casual gamer and non-gamers to expand their market.

But Sony and MS can still make a killing on the serious gamer crowd, as Nintendo isn't as strong there with their crappy online and relatively few serious, hardcore games out thus far.

Both will of course try to sell as many consoles as possible, but they're both best served to focus on trying to out do each other and not worry too much about Nintendo as the Wii's user market is a bit different--i.e. has a lot less overlap than the PS3 and 360 which are hitting up the same people/group for the most part.

If Sony wanted to continue to the rule the world, they should have kept doing what got them on top. Putting out reasonably priced gaming machines, and not tried to force Blu Ray on people through a $500-600 console.

If they'd launched at $299-399 like MS, they'd be on top right now in all likelihood, or at least keeping better pace with the Wii.

That's my take on it, and a reasonably unbiased oneas I'm far from a fanboy. I really don't like any of the three companies at the moment for various reasons.
 
Yeah, it has Blu-Ray, and it's the number one thing that makes it so much more costly.

It was their gamble, just like Nintendo's gamble with their controller.

Nintendo's bet has already paid off in spades.
Sony is still waiting on theirs, but if they get what they want, and BD becomes the new standard format for video, and computer discs around the world.

Well, I'd rather have a piece of that action.
 
[quote name='dallow']Yeah, it has Blu-Ray, and it's the number one thing that makes it so much more costly.

It was their gamble, just like Nintendo's gamble with their controller.

Nintendo's bet has already paid off in spades.
Sony is still waiting on theirs, but if they get what they want, and BD becomes the new standard format for video, and computer discs around the world.

Well, I'd rather have a piece of that action.[/QUOTE]

They'd rather have a piece of that action. As a consumer, I could give a shit less, as regardless of whether BD catches on or fades out it's just a feature I don't really want that prices the console out of my budget.

I mean I have an HD tv, and love watching stuff in HD. But regular DVDs (which I buy all for $5-10 for the most part) look fantastic with my upconverting sony player that I bought for a $100. So I just don't feel much incentive to shell out for an HD DVD or BD player right now, and buy discs for $25-30 to get what to me is a pretty marginal picture upgrade. Marginal in the sense that, yeah it looks better, but not enough to justify the expense right now IMO. When players are $150 or so, and HD DVDS or BD movies can easily be found for $5-10 I'll take the plunge.
 
DVDs, upconverted look like crap to me.
Really, there is no comparison. I think people hype upscaling on DVDs and games too much.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=885362

Look at that link, it shows a scene from Hot Fuzz where he's riding down the horse in the town.
Upscaled DVD on the left, HD DVD on the right.

No contest.

As a consumer, I'm glad they added BD because I didn't have to buy a seperate BD player.
And I bet there will be quite a few people later on down the line that will enjoy that as well even if they didn't really want it right now.

We have different opinions.
 
Oh there's definitely a difference.

But I'm not a videophile, and the difference just isn't worth the current prices of HD DVD/BD players or discs to me. I just like to play games and watch movies. Within in reason, I've never cared much about A/V quality. I'm more picky than joe six pack, but far from the audio/videophiles on sites like AVSForum.com etc.

Like you say, different strokes for different folks. I just want a next gen, HD gaming machine that's affordable--$300 or less--and don't like that the PS3 is automatically off the table because they added in a BD feature I don't care about right now.
 
I getcha, I getcha.

Well then, I would stop talking about Sony needing to do this and that and just be still until prices are low enough to your liking as they obviously have a larger scale plan of their own.

By then, there will be plenty of games for you to choose from, as well as a number of them in the clearance section.

Price is your main concern.
Just wait.
 
[quote name='dallow']I getcha, I getcha.

Well then, I would stop talking about Sony needing to do this and that and just be still until prices are low enough to your liking as they obviously have a larger scale plan of their own.

By then, there will be plenty of games for you to choose from, as well as a number of them in the clearance section.

Price is your main concern.
Just wait.[/QUOTE]


Well, we're talking also about what they need to do to get out of third place and compete with MS and Nintendo. Not just what they need to do for me.

I've pretty much given up on them. The 360 will be $300 well before the PS3, and already has enough games I want for me to jump at that price.

About the only chance Sony has of getting me on board is bringing back the 20 GB PS3 at $300 within the next 6 months, and I don't see that happening. Otherwise, MS will likely get my purchase well before the PS3 is in my price range and has enough exclusives I actually want to play. I won't buy both as there's too much overlap in the game library, and I don't have enough time to keep up with the AAA games on three systems this generation.

I'm just in this thread for the nice, civil discussion of the gaming business/console wars as I've always been interested in the market side of things.
 
Even I would tell you to buy a 360 before a PS3 as it simply has more to play at the moment.

I would never just own one console though.
 
[quote name='dallow']Even I would tell you to buy a 360 before a PS3 as it simply has more to play at the moment.

I would never just own one console though.[/QUOTE]

Me either, because I have to have the Nintendo first party games.

So it's the Wii and either the 360 or PS3 for me this gen.

Had planned on PS3 as the PS2 was my most played console last gen, and the X-box the least played console I ever bought (mainly bought for KOTOR, should have just upgraded the PC instead). But the tables have turned so far this gen with the 360 having a lot more out and announced that interests me.

Though honestly, I'm tempted to wait until early next year and see if third party support picks up on the Wii. If the Wii could put out 8-10 games a year that interested me, it and the DS would more than keep me occupied as I really don't game that much any more. 5-10 tops, and many weeks less than that since I'm super busy with work and grad school on top of gaming slipping a bit in terms of my favorite hobbies. Plus I generally play most of the big 360 games at my buddies anyway (and he comes over to play stuff like Metroid).

But I'm not very optimistic that the Wii will ever offer more than just the 2-4 good Nintendo games a year, and maybe 1 or 2 good third party games that we got on the N64 or GC since so much third party attention is focused on shovelware and crap for the casual gamers/non-gamers.
 
[quote name='VidgamesgivemeA_D_D']Metal Gear Solid 4 is a pain in my ass. I want that game more than any other and it's on a system I don't want at all other than that game.[/QUOTE]

I'd just wait it out the. I'd be shocked if it doesn't get ported over to the 360 eventually. May be 6 months to a year after it hits the PS3, but it will come just like MGS2 did. Even more likely actually since the PS2 was well ahead of the x-box in sales then, and now the tables are turned.

Just not worth buying a $550 console to play just one game--assuming that's all you want (and sounds like it is from your post).
 
[quote name='VidgamesgivemeA_D_D']Metal Gear Solid 4 is a pain in my ass. I want that game more than any other and it's on a system I don't want at all other than that game.[/QUOTE]



good things come to those who wait.. it'll proabably be on 360, then you can enjoy it.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']good things come to those who wait.. it'll proabably be on 360, then you can enjoy it.[/QUOTE]

I have my doubts...MGS3 didnt make it over to the xbox. Who knows in this day and age though...
 
[quote name='blackjaw']I have my doubts...MGS3 didnt make it over to the xbox. Who knows in this day and age though...[/QUOTE]


I hope it stays on PS3... PS3 needs its exclusives.. MGS4 is going to do well, a good game can sell systems to push more units... if MGS4 can't get people to bite on PS3 within a year, then you might as well release it on another system. I'd love to get Lost planet, and a future gears of war on ps3.
 
I am about as platform-neutral as a gamer can be, but let me bring up some facts:

1) PS2 came out at twice the price of the nearest competitor (Dreamcast) and had very few quality games in its first 18 months. It started slow, but they ended up selling over 100M of them.

2) XBox had a 4-year lifespan, and then game development pretty much came to a screeching halt. PS1 had 10 years. PS2 looks like it will have close to 10 years. PS3 was always stated to have a 10-year cycle, and as such, the entry cost at the beginning of the cycle will be high, and the games available will not be extremely plentiful during this time.

3) The XBox 360 is much easier to develop for at this point in time. The complex architecture of the PS3 is going to take some time to learn for developers, but conversely, it will have a much bigger increase in quality as the secrets are learned. Just look at the early PS2 games versus the latest ones.

4) I don't believe Sony ever cared to make PS3 "mass market" immediately. They are still selling tons of PS2 machines.

I have to agree that 360 is a much better gaming machine _right now_. I also think that you get what you pay for with the PS3, given the extra features that, while most people don't care about them now, will definitely care once they have an HD setup. But how many top notch games will be produced for the 360 three years from now, especially by non-American companies. I am guessing Microsoft will be shifting over to their new thing by then, whereas excellent PS3 games will still be coming out for a few years later.

FTR I play my 360 and Wii much more than my PS3 right now, but I play my DS, PS2, and even my Saturn more than either, even to this day.

Flame away,
n8
 
I'd love it if Sony pulled it out this gen. I'm no fan of Microsoft and I've had a soft spot in my heart for Sony since I was a kid but they're just stumbling and bumbling.

Someone upthread said "who cares if the PS3 doesn't win?" Developers care. No software, no sales. The lineup for the PS3 a year in is sparse, to say the least. One of its supposed AAA titles, Lair, is instead going to kill Factor 5 with its suckiness.

Get rumble, get some good games, lower the price and fix online and there's a chance for the PS3. 1 is done, 2 is on the way.

But who the fuck knows what's going on in Sony's head with pricing and the online stuff...
 
[quote name='n8n8baby']I am about as platform-neutral as a gamer can be, but let me bring up some facts:

1) PS2 came out at twice the price of the nearest competitor (Dreamcast) and had very few quality games in its first 18 months. It started slow, but they ended up selling over 100M of them.

2) XBox had a 4-year lifespan, and then game development pretty much came to a screeching halt. PS1 had 10 years. PS2 looks like it will have close to 10 years. PS3 was always stated to have a 10-year cycle, and as such, the entry cost at the beginning of the cycle will be high, and the games available will not be extremely plentiful during this time.

3) The XBox 360 is much easier to develop for at this point in time. The complex architecture of the PS3 is going to take some time to learn for developers, but conversely, it will have a much bigger increase in quality as the secrets are learned. Just look at the early PS2 games versus the latest ones.

4) I don't believe Sony ever cared to make PS3 "mass market" immediately. They are still selling tons of PS2 machines.

I have to agree that 360 is a much better gaming machine _right now_. I also think that you get what you pay for with the PS3, given the extra features that, while most people don't care about them now, will definitely care once they have an HD setup. But how many years top notch games will be produced for the 360, especially by non-American companies. I am guessing Microsoft will be shifting over to their new thing by then, whereas excellent PS3 games will still be coming out for a few years later.

FTR I play my 360 and Wii much more than my PS3 right now, but I play my DS, PS2, and even my Saturn more than either, even to this day.

Flame away,
n8[/QUOTE]


i agree with everything, especially #4 because Sony knew that at 600 dollars it wasn't going to have immediate market penetration.

I was wondering why would a company release an expensive system.. and I think its because you can offer your customers a better product. By starting off with an expensive system, using new technology, you start off expensive, however, technoglogy gets cheap fast, and then you can offer new technology cheaper. example, PS2, could have been much cheaper if they would have used a CD drive, however, starting off cheap would have given it a fast start [looking at Wii] but right now if the PS2 had a CD drive it would have been obsolete and would not have lasted this long. 4 or 5 years from now, DVD is not going to be the medium of choice for people. Especially with the age of HD, which requires lots of space.
 
[quote name='n8n8baby']I am about as platform-neutral as a gamer can be, but let me bring up some facts:

1) PS2 came out at twice the price of the nearest competitor (Dreamcast) and had very few quality games in its first 18 months. It started slow, but they ended up selling over 100M of them.

2) XBox had a 4-year lifespan, and then game development pretty much came to a screeching halt. PS1 had 10 years. PS2 looks like it will have close to 10 years. PS3 was always stated to have a 10-year cycle, and as such, the entry cost at the beginning of the cycle will be high, and the games available will not be extremely plentiful during this time.

3) The XBox 360 is much easier to develop for at this point in time. The complex architecture of the PS3 is going to take some time to learn for developers, but conversely, it will have a much bigger increase in quality as the secrets are learned. Just look at the early PS2 games versus the latest ones.

4) I don't believe Sony ever cared to make PS3 "mass market" immediately. They are still selling tons of PS2 machines.

I have to agree that 360 is a much better gaming machine _right now_. I also think that you get what you pay for with the PS3, given the extra features that, while most people don't care about them now, will definitely care once they have an HD setup. But how many top notch games will be produced for the 360 three years from now, especially by non-American companies. I am guessing Microsoft will be shifting over to their new thing by then, whereas excellent PS3 games will still be coming out for a few years later.

FTR I play my 360 and Wii much more than my PS3 right now, but I play my DS, PS2, and even my Saturn more than either, even to this day.

Flame away,
n8[/QUOTE]

Good points, though I look at them a bit differently.

1. It was more than the DC, but the DC never had a big market share, and as soon as the the GC and X-box where out, the PS2 hit $199.99 pretty quickly since it then had real competion. Sega was dead in the water after the 32x, Sega CD and Saturn debacles. Sony didn't need to worry about them. Brand name alone was enough to sell more PS1s that DC despite the price diffence and the DC having a much better game lineup during the PS2s first year.

2. Fair point there. MS was new to the game, Sony had dominated 2 gens and built up huge user bases. Who knows if the PS3 will have that kind of longevity if it only ends up selling 20 million consoles (around what the X-box sold) rather than 100 million though?

3. Definitely fair there. But again, if sales don't pick up developers might not push to over come the barriers. They had incentive to deal with the PS2 being hard to develop for as it had a huge lead in sales. If the PS3 keeps lagging it may not be worth their effort.

4. They may have done it consciously, but it could be their downfall. How you start is crucial in the console race. Even with no games the first year, the PS2 was still hot item and hard to find for a lot longer than the PS3 was, and likely sold a lot more the first year. They may not be able to dig themselves out of this hole--at least not to challenge for first place if even second.

As for the extra features, I have an HD set up and still don't care. Like I said, Blu Ray isn't worth the buy in price for the PS3 or the current disc prices vs. $5-10 DVDs for someone that's not a videophile at all.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']4 or 5 years from now, DVD is not going to be the medium of choice for people. Especially with the age of HD, which requires lots of space.[/QUOTE]

Hard to say. CD is still the medium of choice, despite better technology there. Though one could argue that MP3's are taking over.

The same thing may well happen with movies, and digital downloads becoming dominant.

I don't see DVDs going anywhere anytime soon. HD DVD and Blu Ray are selling like crap. Total disc sales to date for every title on both formats can match the sales of the top DVD movies for just this year (i.e. the number 1 selling DVD this year has sold more than every title on Blu Ray and HD DVD combined from one write up I read a while back--probably could even go lower than the number 1 seller and find the same I'd imagine).

HD DVD and Blu Ray at best will stick around as as laserdisc type niche product for the videophiles, while DVDs rule sales and rentals--just like VHS did back in the day despite being vastly inferior to Laserdisc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Hard to say. CD is still the medium of choice, despite better technology there. Though one could argue that MP3's are taking over.

The same thing may well happen with movies, and digital downloads becoming dominant.

I don't see DVDs going anywhere anytime soon. HD DVD and Blu Ray are selling like crap. Total disc sales to date for every title on both formats can match the sales of the top DVD movies for just this year (i.e. the number 1 selling DVD this year has sold more than every title on Blu Ray and HD DVD combined from one write up I read a while back--probably could even go lower than the number 1 seller and find the same I'd imagine).

HD DVD and Blu Ray at best will stick around as as laserdisc type niche product for the videophiles, while DVDs rule sales and rentals--just like VHS did back in the day despite being vastly inferior.[/quote]LOL

Haha, these are NOT anything like laserdiscs.
Funny you compare these HD formats to laserdisc and not catching on.
Then you mention VHS and how OF COURSE it was beating DVD when it HAD JUST COME OUT, and yet DVDs are the standard for now.
 
[quote name='dallow']LOL

Haha, these are NOT anything like laserdiscs.
Funny you compare these HD formats to laserdisc and not catching on.
Then you mention VHS and how OF COURSE it was beating DVD when it HAD JUST COME OUT, and yet DVDs are the standard for now.[/QUOTE]


No, I was saying Laserdisc never competed remotely with VHS despite being the superior technology. Not VHS to DVD. I just worded it poorly, edited the post to make it clear.

Just like CDs haven't went anywhere despite stuff like SA-CDs and DVDa.

And DVDs aren't going anywhere either. Joe Six Pack truck driver doesn't give a shit about HD DVD or Blu Ray, he's going to keep buying DVDs out of the $3 bin in Wal-mart.

Laugh all you want, Blu Ray and HD DVDs are selling like absolute horseshit. DVDs took off much faster than this. They caught on because they offered a lot over VHS and were priced right and well marketed.

You had a new fancy disc format on the shelves that didn't have to be rewound, offered instant scene access, extra features, and looked and sounded better ON TVS PEOPLE ALREADY HAD. And they were priced to sell from day way when most VHS titles were still priced to rent (i.e. like $90 a pop) for several months before being reduced to retail prices.

Now you have HD DVD and Blu Ray which only offer better picture and sound quality and peole have to have a NEW TV to even get that.

It's great for those of us with HDTVs, and who care more than the average joe about HD picture quality. But most people don't give a shit. fuck, most of the people I know that have HDTVs, especially those older than me, don't even subscribe to any HD programming.

It will be a niche market for the videophiles, nothing more. One or both formats will stick around, and there will be plenty of movies out for us to enjoy as time goes on. But neither will become the dominant format. DVD will continue to sell more just like CDs have. If something knocks it out it will be digital distribution, or some new format not invented yet that offers more than just better A/V quality.
 
[quote name='dallow']I promise you that in 5 years, BD or HD DVD will take up more than half the shelfs space of DVD in stores.[/QUOTE]

It may grow. But DVD will still be the dominant format. Guaranteed.

HD is catching on too slow in the US. Look how many times the broadcast switch over has been pushed back. And even that won't have a huge impact as you can uust get a converter, not to mention that so few people just use antenna these days anyway--and cable and satellite isn't being forced to switch.

They launched these formats probably 5 years too soon, and having 2 formats complicates things even more by confusing consumers. It's hard to imagine them suddenly taking off when HD gets more foothold. Something new will come along by then and push them aside and possibly challenge DVD.

Likely that will be digital distribution given the example being set in the music industry, and the immense popularity of on demand cable programming.

I don't like it, as I like owning a disc, and as such I'd like to see Blu Ray or HD DVD really catch on. As I'll eventually buy one, and start buying new releases in that format (won't upgrade my DVD collection, other than maybe a select few, as I don't are enough about HD to spend the cash on that). But I just don't see it happening.
 
[quote name='dallow']Cable and satellite don't need to switch because they are already digital...[/QUOTE]

Not all. A lot of cable stations are still analog on the basic channels. Mine was until recently, and Comcast in some other counties around me are still analog on the basic channels. I'd be willing to be that the majority of basic cable is still analog, as not many companies have been willing to shove it on customers to have to rent a cable box to get the digital channels on their old tvs.

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure the broadcast switch over requires it to be all digital AND broadcast in HDTV resolutions. Not just digital in 480i like the digital cable and satellite channels are.
 
Rent a cable box?
Are you living 5 years ago?
Everything's been slowly converting for digital for the past 10 years, slowly but surely.
It's pretty much done in all mid to large cities.

Anytime you get cable now, you get a box.
They are all digital, and have analog to digital converters built in.
 
Texas instruments have as many commercials for their DLP [mirrors] technology as there's beer commericials during NFL football games. HD is coming and PS3 is prepared...
 
360
Enchanted Arms
Overlord
Blue Dragon
Eternal Sonata
Lost Odyssey
Infinite Undiscovery
Fable 2
The Last Remnant
Far East of Eden: Ziria
Phantasy Star Universe

Wii
Twilight Princess
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
Dragon Quest: Swords
Tales of Symphonia: Knights of Ratatosk
Sword of Legendia
Oboro Muramasa Youtouden

PS3
The Last Remnant (Also 360)
.........? Nice lineup!

[quote name='dallow']I like RPGS too!
There are like 4 on 360 in USA right?
And like 0 on Wii right?

I'm not saying PS3 has more (it doesn't) or is better.
Just making fun of you saying that they do.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Aegith']360
Enchanted Arms
Overlord
Blue Dragon
Eternal Sonata
Lost Odyssey
Infinite Undiscovery
Fable 2
The Last Remnant
Far East of Eden: Ziria
Phantasy Star Universe

Wii
Twilight Princess
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
Dragon Quest: Swords
Tales of Symphonia: Knights of Ratatosk
Sword of Legendia
Oboro Muramasa Youtouden

PS3
The Last Remnant (Also 360)
.........? Nice lineup!
[/QUOTE]

You included Overlord as an rpg, but not Mass Effect? The fuck?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not all. A lot of cable stations are still analog on the basic channels. Mine was until recently, and Comcast in some other counties around me are still analog on the basic channels. I'd be willing to be that the majority of basic cable is still analog, as not many companies have been willing to shove it on customers to have to rent a cable box to get the digital channels on their old tvs.[/quote]
It doesn't matter. The switch in 2009 only affects over-the-air broadcasts. Cable providers can stay analog forever if they want, nobody cares, they're using their own bandwidth. The whole point of the switch is that digital transmissions take up less of the available broadcast spectrum than analog transmissions, and the government wants to free up space for new technologies. Cable companies are trying to push customers to digital, however, for the same reason as the government mandate - digital saves bandwidth, and allows them to offer more content in the same space. My cable company allows current analog subscribers to continue receiving analog, but new accounts have to be digital.

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure the broadcast switch over requires it to be all digital AND broadcast in HDTV resolutions. Not just digital in 480i like the digital cable and satellite channels are.
Click to expand...
Dallow is right, there is no HD mandate. From here:

Although all broadcasts will be digital after the deadline, not all broadcasts are required to be HDTV, as part of the ATSC standard is 480p/i, which includes current satellite/digital cable transmissions. So even though there is a hard date for digital television, it will likely be much longer before all broadcasts will be in HDTV as there will be no hard date and will likely depend on consumer demand.


 
[quote name='Aegith']360
Enchanted Arms
Overlord
Blue Dragon
Eternal Sonata
Lost Odyssey
Infinite Undiscovery
Fable 2
The Last Remnant
Far East of Eden: Ziria
Phantasy Star Universe

Wii
Twilight Princess
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
Dragon Quest: Swords
Tales of Symphonia: Knights of Ratatosk
Sword of Legendia
Oboro Muramasa Youtouden

PS3
The Last Remnant (Also 360)
.........? Nice lineup!
[/QUOTE]

Oh my, ain't you selective in what gets out? Forget Disgaea 3, the many iterations of Final Fantasy XIII (perhaps you're too effete and cool for FF, but it's a helluva lot more "RPG" than Zelda), or White Knight Chronicles? If you are "tr00 RPGer," you'd certainly not omit those titles, unless, of course, you're merely biased and aiming to troll in the PS3 forums. Which, given the RPGs available on the next-gen systems at this very moment, is a pretty good possibility, as you'd surely have plenty of time on your hands.

If you're so cool that you can list "Osuburendan katabare monogatari densetsu gaiden 3: enpitsu no jackass" as a fucking title, you're WELL AWARE of RPG titles in development for the PS3.

This is more evidence of one of my main gripes about those who claim the PS3 has "no games." Those people who make those claims simply aren't looking (or worse, being willfully dishonest about the existence of said games). Evidently, people want Sony to knock on their door and have a sit down chat about what games are available for the PS3 (like Jehovah's witnesses, but moderately more hip). If only websites and magazines covered the PS3. Maybe, just maybe, then things would change.

:lol:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh my, ain't you selective in what gets out? Forget Disgaea 3, the many iterations of Final Fantasy XIII (perhaps you're too effete and cool for FF, but it's a helluva lot more "RPG" than Zelda), or White Knight Chronicles?[/quote]
Didn't Persona 4 for the PS3 also get a mention at TGS? I thought I remembered reading that, anyway.

Edit: Oh yeah, and Steambot Chronicles 2 was announced, I forgot about that one.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Hard to say. CD is still the medium of choice, despite better technology there. Though one could argue that MP3's are taking over.

The same thing may well happen with movies, and digital downloads becoming dominant.

I don't see DVDs going anywhere anytime soon. HD DVD and Blu Ray are selling like crap. Total disc sales to date for every title on both formats can match the sales of the top DVD movies for just this year (i.e. the number 1 selling DVD this year has sold more than every title on Blu Ray and HD DVD combined from one write up I read a while back--probably could even go lower than the number 1 seller and find the same I'd imagine).

HD DVD and Blu Ray at best will stick around as as laserdisc type niche product for the videophiles, while DVDs rule sales and rentals--just like VHS did back in the day despite being vastly inferior to Laserdisc.[/QUOTE]

when I said DVD being a medium of choice, I meant for gaming purposes. I definitely agree that DVD is going to be around for a long time. Once HD DVD and Blu ray decide on which ONE format to push, I think that sales of a next gen disc will pick up. Of course, which ever one or two actually makes it... there's going have to be a reduction in price. IMO blu ray needs to reduce disc and player prices drastically - it might just help PS3 sales as well. with this next gen tech, its all about who can get down cheap to where the real consumers can choose if they want it or not.
 
[quote name='elmyra']Didn't Persona 4 for the PS3 also get a mention at TGS? I thought I remembered reading that, anyway.

Edit: Oh yeah, and Steambot Chronicles 2 was announced, I forgot about that one.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. I'm going off the top of my head. Anyone making an argument that the 360 is going to have more Japanese RPGs than the PS3 is a troll, a fool, or both. Keep in mind that the 360 sold *0* consoles in Japan two weeks back (maybe they moved up to 12 or 13 this past week?).

As I said earlier today (in this thread, perhaps), Mistwalker won't continue to slave for the 360 much longer.

Th' ol' troll also failed to mention that Enchanted Arms is already out on PS3, Eternal Sonata (an extended version of, even) is forthcoming for the PS3, and The Last Remnant and Infinite Undiscovery (another Square MMO? Maybe this can take all the excitement of FFXI and...oh, who am I kidding?)...all PS3 bound as well. It may also be too early to tell, but Battlefield of the Valkyrie looks like it may be an RPG (I could easily be wrong on that, though).

I'm tellin' ya, the handhelds right now are taking the consoles to SCHOOL in terms of RPG content.
 
[quote name='Aegith']360
Enchanted Arms
Overlord
Blue Dragon
Eternal Sonata
Lost Odyssey
Infinite Undiscovery
Fable 2
The Last Remnant
Far East of Eden: Ziria
Phantasy Star Universe

Wii
Twilight Princess
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
Dragon Quest: Swords
Tales of Symphonia: Knights of Ratatosk
Sword of Legendia
Oboro Muramasa Youtouden

PS3
The Last Remnant (Also 360)
.........? Nice lineup!
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's not skewed.
 
...and don't forget the PS3 exclusive continuation of the Star Ocean series.

:lol:

But what does that matter? You can play the RPG classic Overlord!
 
Haha!!

Twilight Princess?
Dragon Quest Swords?

You best read up on those titles.

You may as well count Oblivion & Foklore on PS3 as well, it's untraditional enough to make it on your list.

Two FFXIII titles at that!
 
[quote name='dallow']You may as well count Oblivion & Foklore on PS3 as well, it's untraditional enough to make it on your list.[/QUOTE]

So's Gran Turismo, gleaning the criteria he uses.
 
Understand my list was, in fact, a list of games that I wanted to play for the various systems, as this thread was about personal opinions towards the three systems.

[quote name='Calamityuponthee']You included Overlord as an rpg, but not Mass Effect? The fuck?[/quote]
 
On a different note, is anyone else totally hot for Folklore? That has quickly become my most anticipated game for the holidays behind Smash Brothers and maybe Mass Effect.
 
I can wait for it, personally. I have a good backlog already, and with Guitar Hero III coming, and Eye of Judgment and other PS3 titles, I think I can hold off on it until it's $30 or so. I adore the Tim Burton-esque look of the game, but the actual gameplay seemed kinda tepid IMO.
 
I'm kind of eh on Eye of Judgment (especially considering how poor the resolution on the recent Playstation Eye vs Eyetoy images have been) and Guitar Hero has done nothing for me ever. I can see how Folklore's bash the baddie system can and probably will get boring, but this is totally outweighed by the fact that I love the idea that I'm playing as grown up Harry Potter who has taken on a job as a Ghostbuster.
.
.
.
Am I the only one insane enough to make up my own stories for games as I'm playing them while ignoring the real story?

Oh and Tetris has "levels" so it's an RPG too, right?
 
I dislike Final Fantasy. I dislike Nippon Ichi (Soul Nomad looks promising). My only interest on the PS3 is Star Ocean. Zelda can be considered a sub-RPG genre. Who cares, it's still my favorite game series of all time, that's why I listed it.
 
[quote name='n8n8baby']

2) XBox had a 4-year lifespan, and then game development pretty much came to a screeching halt. PS1 had 10 years. PS2 looks like it will have close to 10 years. PS3 was always stated to have a 10-year cycle, and as such, the entry cost at the beginning of the cycle will be high, and the games available will not be extremely plentiful during this time.
[/QUOTE]

that's a flawed argument though. The PS1 had a year headstart on the N64 and was on a cool new format, CD! The PS2 also had a year head start on Nintendo and MS. It didn't matter that there weren't games, they were riding the coattails of a 100 million selling system, had a year without competition and sold the PS2 on their name. They put out a competitively priced machine that also played DVDs, which is all they had to do with the PS3. Put out a reasonably priced GAMING machine. If they did that, we wouldn't be having these discussions because the Wii and PS3 would be duking it out at the top.

Those two generations Sony had the edge from day one. Not so with the PS3. they put out a machine that cost twice what the PS2 did at launch($200 more than the competition). Not only that, but they were the one's that were a year late to the party. They don't have the luxury of resting on their laurels waiting for games this time around. This will be two Christmases in a row that they don't have a AAA title. Meanwhile the competition had COD2 in '05, Gears in '06 and Halo/Bioshock in '07.

Comparing Sony's stance this gen isn't an apples to apples comparison with the PS1 or PS2 situations.

It's easy to repeat the mantra that "games are coming" for 18 months straight, but that doesn't do anything for a 17lb paperweight.
 
[quote name='fanboy']I dislike Final Fantasy. I dislike Nippon Ichi (Soul Nomad looks promising). My only interest on the PS3 is Star Ocean. Zelda can be considered a sub-RPG genre. Who cares, it's still my favorite game series of all time, that's why I listed it.[/quote]
Well if you're only going to list games you personally like, and not be balanced and fair.... then you're a fanboy, congrats!

Get out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top