“PS3 in Danger of Dying” Crowd Debunked

[quote name='evanft']And yet, Gears of War 2 honestly looks better.[/QUOTE]

Why isn't this a meme yet?

"Who's hotter, Jessica Alba or Jessica Alba?"
"Gears of War 2 honestly looks better."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I should have known. zewone hasn't said it sardonically yet.

We'll, I'm going to make it my own meme.[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely infatuated with me.
 
[quote name='xycury']
I do agree with one point though... PS3 is now not considered a great buy for Bluray player, seen many for only 150.

What's left for Sony to make the Ps3 special?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I got a Sony S350 for $150 from SonyStyle.com on Black Friday and that killed the only potential interest I had in ever picking up a PS3.

Needing an adapter to use my harmony remote on the PS3 was a deterrent as well. It's a minor thing, but still $20 or so that could by a Blu Ray rather than an adapter--and even with the adapter you can't turn it on with the remote and have to use the controller. I'm picky with my electronics, so that minor stuff helped keep me from impulse buying a PS3 mainlya s a Blu Ray player since I don't need a 2nd gaming console.
 
http://www.isuppli.com/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=19842

Even after cutting all costs, the PS3 still bills for 448.. almost $50 more than the selling price.

How can they keep going?

I'd alomst want to say they should have mirrored the partibility of the xbox... get no HD and have Bluray as an add-on but aren't the PS3 games bluray discs? That kinda defeats that price.

What would a HD-less, Bluray-less PS3 cost to users? maybe 300?


another thread that doesn't say much... http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10129785-1.html
 
IMHO Killzone 2 looks better than Gears 2. Yes, Ive played them both and they both look great, but the detail in KZ2 is unrivaled
 
[quote name='dallow']That iSuppli info was debunked.[/quote]

oh yeah? by who, any links?

But hasn't someone acutally done what's the price of a Ps3, i know the iphone/touch had one done, not by the same guys but I've seen articles like this made.

so is it overshooting the cost and parts are cheaper so Sony is making money on the console? or is it the other way around :whistle2:#
 
[quote name='xycury']oh yeah? by who, any links?

But hasn't someone acutally done what's the price of a Ps3, i know the iphone/touch had one done, not by the same guys but I've seen articles like this made.

so is it overshooting the cost and parts are cheaper so Sony is making money on the console? or is it the other way around :whistle2:#[/quote]Probably because they made up the prices of the components themselves.
Site I read about it blocked at work, I'll try to post later.
 
the 80 gig bundle is break even ATM, and the 160 gig bundle makes sony a profit. By april or so, they should be making money on the 80 gig easily. Sony still hasn't announced the PS3 Syphon Filter game, they've been working on it for a while. I expect more surprises soon.
 
[quote name='lilboo']Is it possible for PS2 BC just with a firmware update, or, no? :eek:([/quote]
It's possible. We'll see though, outlook not so good. :(

Are you really silenced?
 
Interesting. Don't see anything in his recent posts to warrant it. Could be something further back that just took a while to get silenced I guess.
 
I can't imagine what could have gotten lilboo silenced. That guy is everyone's friend!
 
Just so you guys stop guessing.

He posted (on a different site/not CAG), that Shrike4242 locked his wife in a basement because she committed Walmart return fraud on a sweater that she got $11.25 credit for.
 
He was silenced by trolling and personal attack posts against me in the OTT.

It had nothing to do with any posts on another site, in this thread or any other thread on CAG.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Sega still exists; they just decided not to make any more consoles.[/quote]
Woah woah, hold on now.

SEGA didn't just decide to call it quits out of the blue. SEGA had to stop making consoles. It was leading them close to bankruptcy as not only were their past mistakes catching up to them, but it also ended up causing a huge loss in sales for the Dreamcast.

Dreamcast was meant to destroy the N64 and PlayStation to make up for the failure of the Saturn outside of Japan. Because of the failure of the Saturn, people aren't sure they want to invest in the Dreamcast after they've been burned by the company who told them CDs were the next thing (SEGA CD) and then released another add-on that went right back to cartridges (32X) and then abandoned that as soon as their next big console came out, which supported CDs (Saturn). Then comes the PS2 and SEGA's losing even more sales.

It got to a point where they were so back up on unsold consoles, they had to stop at some point because their warehouses were practically filled. SEGA ended up losing to the PS2 and all of their past mistakes catching up to them. They originally planned to file for bankruptcy but in turn then decided to become a third party company.

Prior to their merge with Sammy, they were actually making more money as a third party developer than they were as a hardware company.

While many people say the same could happen to Sony the same way things happened with SEGA, it could never actually happen for one reason alone: Sony doesn't soley make video game hardware. They have enough money from other things to keep them afloat. SEGA didn't.
 
True, but it could get worse and Sony decide it's not worth it to have the video game department bleeding money. Definitely won't happen this generation. It would take the PS4 doing much worse than the PS3 has for it to even possibly get to that point. And I don't see that happening.
 
If the gaming department keeps bleeding money, it should be shut down. All of the franchises will go to other consoles just like Sega's did.
 
[quote name='depascal22']If the gaming department keeps bleeding money, it should be shut down. All of the franchises will go to other consoles just like Sega's did.[/QUOTE]

Microsoft is over 6 BILLION in the negative. Why arent they a third party?
 
Both MS and Sony need to find a way to start making money on their game divisions in the next generation or two or it will be hard to justify keeping them around.

As I've said in the other PS3 threads, they'd really be smart to partner up on a console. Then they can split costs etc. And great for as we don't have to buy two nearly identical from a gaming standpoint consoles to play all the good games. Really no need for the PS3/360 given that third party exclusives are nearly a thing of the past. The game industry would be better with one machine from them and one Nintendo machine IMO.
 
Yeah, but it will never happen. Both are too big, proud and stubborn of companies. It will take one of them losing too much money for too long and forcing the larger corporation to give the game division the axe.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Both MS and Sony need to find a way to start making money on their game divisions in the next generation or two or it will be hard to justify keeping them around.

As I've said in the other PS3 threads, they'd really be smart to partner up on a console. Then they can split costs etc. And great for as we don't have to buy two nearly identical from a gaming standpoint consoles to play all the good games. Really no need for the PS3/360 given that third party exclusives are nearly a thing of the past. The game industry would be better with one machine from them and one Nintendo machine IMO.[/QUOTE]

Third party exclusives are not a thing of the past. There are still many third party exclusives for PS3 and 360. They just arent as many as last gen due to a more even playing ground.
 
They are becoming more and more of a thing of the past. And will continue to do so. The HD gaming market will remain more split, and games cost more to make thus most really need to be on both to make a profit. No one is going to get a lead like the PS2 had every again likely. Maybe the Wii (but not quite as large) but it's doing it's own thing and some devs want to make HD/online games etc.

Thus you see games like Final Fantasy XIII, GTAIV etc. coming to both consoles at the same time.

So you basically have two nearly identical consoles with just first party games to set them apart. Along with a few 3rd party holdouts like MGS4. Just very, very little reason to own both (especially with a $700 current cost to do so) unless you're a serious hardcore gamer that has to have the option to play every game that interests you.
 
It does suck. I really do hope for a common platform.

At least with the PS2, and XBOX, there were some pretty noticible differences.
With games now, you have to nitpick.
 
As long as there are multiple platforms, amazingly insignificant differences will be made out to be e-nor-mous. Hell, even exclusive titles. People have debates about 30fps vs 60fps (noticeable, but trivial), games running at 640p insted of 720p (who counts this shit?), and comparison photographs that encourage the feeble and subjective minded to artificially verify their biases.

Ain't like the days of Mortal Kombat, where the Genesis version looked like a hot bag of dick but had fatalities in it (let alone the sound support which the Genesis version *severely* lacked in). Probably won't be again. We'll be aguing over which game has sharp knees for many years to come.
 
Yeah, and that's why we just don't need multiple consoles--unless you have ones that do different things like the Wii.

Even last gen was much more different. Power gap between the PS2 and Xbox/GC was much more notieceable than the PS3/360 gap. Online play was really only on the Xbox.

Makes the fanboy nonsense even more grating this time since there are really no differences worth arguing about other than the handful of AAA exclusives. So it's 100% nerds stretching for ways to defending a company that doesn't give a shit about anything other than taking as much of their money as they possibly can.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']As long as there are multiple platforms, amazingly insignificant differences will be made out to be e-nor-mous. Hell, even exclusive titles. People have debates about 30fps vs 60fps (noticeable, but trivial), games running at 640p insted of 720p (who counts this shit?), and comparison photographs that encourage the feeble and subjective minded to artificially verify their biases.

Ain't like the days of Mortal Kombat, where the Genesis version looked like a hot bag of dick but had fatalities in it (let alone the sound support which the Genesis version *severely* lacked in). Probably won't be again. We'll be aguing over which game has sharp knees for many years to come.[/QUOTE]

http://www.the-horror.com/index.php?id=features&s=bh5demo
 
[quote name='dallow']You must have missed your fave site Kotaku talking about how it this disc demo has to be an old build on PS3 since the new demo levels show them being identical.

I take that with a grain of a salt though, since it's Kotaku.[/QUOTE]

Kotaku?

I read the article, I know about the "builds". You seem to be the one who was really hurt that the PS3 couldn't produce the same shadows/heat waves/sand/smoke as the 360.

I thought it didn't matter? You have to "nitpick".
 
[quote name='smiggity']Whoever devotes that much time to scrutinizing a VIDEO GAME is a fucking idiot loser.[/quote]
I trust that guy. He doesn't have a bias towards either system.

He does have really good equipment for capturing direct feed screens and video and does so for one of the best game video sites out there.

It's a fair comparison and at least as the demos are concerned, the 360 version wins hands down.
It's a bigger difference than most games.

That said, I've read the PS3 demo is an older build.

[quote name='zewone']I thought it didn't matter? You have to "nitpick".[/QUOTE]I should have said most games.
Obviously there are some with glaring flaws and this demo is one of them.
I'm getting both versions anyway, best way to test.
 
:lol:

And here's a prime example of the non-sense, nit picky arguments we get with having two nearly identical machines on the market with their own sets of fanboys and haters. :D
 
No dmaul, this game has very obvious flaws.
It's not just some slightly worse textures or a lower res that no one would notice.
 
Meh. Looking through that page zewone linked it looks pretty fucking minor to me.

But I'm not picky on that shit. For instance, I'll upgrade maybe 7-10 of my 300+ DVDs to blu ray. So I guess others may care more about lower quality shaders and the other shit mentioned there.

Both versions looked good to me. The 360 version has better shadows etc., but not enough to care about IMO.
 
I don't know dmaul.
Detail is much better, shadows obviously, and all the effects are missing or way toned down, like smoke, haze, etc.[quote name='zewone']You seem to be the one who was really hurt that the PS3 couldn't produce the same shadows/heat waves/sand/smoke as the 360.[/quote]Haha, what?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Meh. Looking through that page zewone linked it looks pretty fucking minor to me.

But I'm not picky on that shit. For instance, I'll upgrade maybe 7-10 of my 300+ DVDs to blu ray. So I guess others may care more about lower quality shaders and the other shit mentioned there.

Both versions looked good to me. The 360 version has better shadows etc., but not enough to care about IMO.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. But there are people, where shit like this matters to them (dallow, NeoGAF).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top