What's everybody's gripe about the PS3?

[quote name='panasonic']staying here is the fun part,[/QUOTE]

You need some other hobbies if you find this fun.

[quote name='panasonic']who doesn't like to flame another guy on something so stupid as console wars[/QUOTE]

Something as stupid as the console wars? Weren't you the same guy who flipped out and started cussing at another user because he/she was asking WHY you hated a console. Seems to me like you are taking these console wars pretty seriously.

But anyway, you seem like a waste of time, so I'm done with this meaningless bickering.
 
One thing I'd like to point out. A lot of cool stuff about the 360 interface has been added on in updates.

Another thing, rumble isn't that important. Remember the Wavebird? Nobody complained then.
 
[quote name='dpatel']I don't get what you are trying to say. People were complaining about the $600 version. Someone brought up the $500 version, which, you agree, is a perfectly viable alternative on paper. Sure more people will opt for the $600 version, but that doesn't make the $500 version any less of a gaming machine. I really don't understand the argument you are trying to make. Just because the current trend has been leaning towards buying a $600 PS3, doesn't mean that people who think it is too high can't get a $500 PS3.[/QUOTE]

I agree totally except that gamers don't think that way. They see the PS3 as a $600 machine and the $500 PS3 as a gimped piece of hardware. It doesn't make any sense what so ever, but that's the reality, the stupid reality, of the situation. Saying "well there's a perfectly viable $500 version" still doesn't address the fact that you're paying over half a grand before taxes for what is primarily a video game system. At $500, what's an extra $100 to get the higher end version?

Also, I go away from this thread for a day and it (finally) turns into the flame war we all knew it would be. Fantastic.
 
[quote name='atane']Funny thing about the Wii, my coworker bought one, with all the additional Wii-motes, nunchucks and everything he bought, it was well over $500. That's more expensive than a 20GB PS3.[/quote]This has to be one of the worst arguments I've seen around here; if only I knew who had the signature that says damn near the same thing, only meant to be blatantly humorous.
 
[quote name='captainfrizo']The Good:

The Ugly:

- $500-$600 for a console is way too much in my opinion. Hell, $400 for the 360 is too much (I only have mine do to having a ton of credit at Gamerush). Sony could be losing a ton of potential sales to the cheaper competition.
- Blue-Ray could lose the new format wars. While it won't impact the games, Sony will have another failed format, much like UMD.
- MGS4 may be heading to the 360, and Square has said they will still support Sony with games but don't want them (Sony) to dominate the market. If Sony loses its biggest exclusive and if the amount of Square games on the platform dwindles somewhat those will be mighty blows to the "all that matters are the games" argument. Great exclusives are a premium in this industry, and given the high PS3 price tag and the gamble with Blu-Ray, Sony cannot afford to lose sales due to losing exclusive games.[/quote]
These are connected in a very intricate way. IF the price is too high, and their are not many units for a very long time, Sony will have a hard time keeping these exclusive games when another system can offer similar specs, or a new type of game play. The game market, while a market for games, still has a business aspect. If Sony doesn’t sell enough units for whatever reason, Developers may feel that releasing a game on ps3 wont reach as many people and thus the sales of the game will not do as well as it might on another system.

So if games that used to be exclusives for Sony become exclusives for another console the large market of undecided will go to the system with the better games. see a pattern? if Sony doesn’t sell early enough they will loose games, and loose games loose sales and then loose games and loose sales. Its a vicious loop, and their is no short term solution as ps3s are still very hard to make, while a cheaper 360 is right around the corner. If Sony launched later i think most of their problems would be solved, but they basically have gone into battle without enough troops and no reinforcements to speak of.

If you’re someone who will wait out the console wars, that in the short term may hurt Sony and confirm to the very people who are not sure about getting a console now or when it’s readily available that it wont have the games. like in battle, if Sony doesn’t get reinforcements unless it does well, and it cant do well unless it gets reinforcements, its a bad place to be stuck in.

I know Sony is making the ps3 for the long term, but right now they are avoiding tax’s. How long do you think they can wait for the ps3 to actually make a profit? Keep in mind they loose around 200-300$ a system (production prices), and if what they say is true, they have spent billions on cell and blue ray. If blue ray fails as a medium i think it could tank the whole system as I think Sony’s profit to keep the console afloat is taking into account blue ray movies, and if blue ray movies dont sell well, we might see ps3's without blue ray. I dont know if its true or not but right now, are the games blue ray or dvd? i heard the first wave a games were dvd but i could be wrong.

They may be able to make a profit on cell itself by making computers with cell, but I haven’t read anything that says they will, but its possible. That would help them recover from cells price tag.

Over all i think sony has a good chance to cut its game division if it doesent do well, this is even more the case if metal gear is not exclusive or enix goes to the wii.

edited: fixed some errors
 
[quote name='ItsTrueItsTrue92']One thing I'd like to point out. A lot of cool stuff about the 360 interface has been added on in updates. [/quote]

Another thing to point out.. Sony has had a whole year to come up with a better online service. /sarcasm
 
nintendokid take a chill pill. I'm not saying that there won't be any amazing new games for 360. I'm saying that they are just more limited on game design with 9gigs compared to 25 or 50 gigs. Developers such as THQ, Take Two, and EA have all said they plan on using the extra space. When I said games sell systems, I mean it doesn't matter what they look like it's about what people like. The xbox was a better machine than the PS2, but people still bought the PS2 because of the games. Exclusives will determine the next-gen war winner, not power.
 
[quote name='Genocidal']This has to be one of the worst arguments I've seen around here; if only I knew who had the signature that says damn near the same thing, only meant to be blatantly humorous.[/QUOTE]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But ask everyone who has a Wii how much everything cost together, do they even realize it? I don't see the bargains at all. Even at the standard price of $250, it's still too much for what it is and what it offers. The Wii is a social machine in my eyes, it's something you whip out with a bunch of people over. That's how it's been marketed. Have fun with it with your friends etc. By the time you've bought 2 extra wiimotes, nun-chucks and component cables(retail price of $30 if you can find it) what the hell did you save? Speaking about component cables for the Wii, the official ones are $30, but there are none at the Nintendo store or anywhere for now, go on e-bay, they are averaging $130. Yeah, the PS3 doesn't have them either, but you can get a HDMI cable for almost nothing from monoprice, bluejeancable or anywhere else online.

The Wii is not as cheap as people think it is.
 
[quote name='atane']Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But ask everyone who has a Wii how much everything cost together, do they even realize it? I don't see the bargains at all. Even at the standard price of $250, it's still too much for what it is and what it offers. The Wii is a social machine in my eyes, it's something you whip out with a bunch of people over. That's how it's been marketed. Have fun with it with your friends etc. By the time you've bought 2 extra wiimotes, nun-chucks and component cables(retail price of $30 if you can find it) what the hell did you save? Speaking about component cables for the Wii, the official ones are $30, but there are none at the Nintendo store or anywhere for now, go on e-bay, they are averaging $130. Yeah, the PS3 doesn't have them either, but you can get a HDMI cable for almost nothing from monoprice, bluejeancable or anywhere else online.

The Wii is not as cheap as people think it is.[/QUOTE]

Wii cost $250. 360 $400. PS3 $500. Yes, the Wii is as cheap as I think it is.
 
[quote name='atane']Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But ask everyone who has a Wii how much everything cost together, do they even realize it? I don't see the bargains at all. Even at the standard price of $250, it's still too much for what it is and what it offers. The Wii is a social machine in my eyes, it's something you whip out with a bunch of people over. That's how it's been marketed. Have fun with it with your friends etc. By the time you've bought 2 extra wiimotes, nun-chucks and component cables(retail price of $30 if you can find it) what the hell did you save? Speaking about component cables for the Wii, the official ones are $30, but there are none at the Nintendo store or anywhere for now, go on e-bay, they are averaging $130. Yeah, the PS3 doesn't have them either, but you can get a HDMI cable for almost nothing from monoprice, bluejeancable or anywhere else online.

The Wii is not as cheap as people think it is.[/quote]

This is ridiculous. You are justifying the $500 price tag by comparing it to the Wii plus extra controllers and games that make it equal to $500. Are you not going to buy any games for the PS3? You're just planning on letting it sit there? How bout comparing apples to apples and comparing the Wii with a bunch of games and controllers to the PS3 with a bunch of games and controllers. Get a clue.

How about this. I got a WII and and an extremely fun game for $264 after tax. If i wanted this same sort of of thing with the PS3 i would have had to pay at minimum $580 after tax for the PS3 and Resistance (or some other game).

There is no comparison between the two price wise. You can argue how the PS3 is so much better because of graphics all you want. Dont be stupid and argue about prices because it's a losing scenario for the PS3 no matter how you stack it.
 
Meh it's ok, but its ALL about the graphics for the PS3... it really doesnt have anything else that the Xbox 360 doesnt.... and I honestly dont see a single game that looks better than Gears of War right now.
 
[quote name='imascrub']what is it that people who dislike the ps3 despise about it?[/QUOTE]

I have a PS2 with 50+ games and was going to upgrade to the PS3. However, Sony's incorporation of Blu-Ray made me decide not to. I and many others believe HD DVD is the superior next-gen movie format, and I sure as heck am not going to pay $200 extra so Sony can force their proprietary format on me. So, I am not buying a PS3 anytime soon, maybe never. Sony can stick their Blu-Ray format where the sun don't shine! Meanwhile I'll enjoy my 360 and standalone HD DVD player.
 
I don't understand how people can have confidence in the PS3 when about 7 of the 8 demo units I've seen in wisconsin and now michigan have been frozen up, not working.

On the plus side, I finally found a working one yesterday, and played a bit of motorstorm. It's sorta pretty, and it's cool to watch cars flip and send peices flying everywhere. Too bad that the game is rediculously slow and choppy, and the environment textures are much worse than what I've seen in PGR3.

Sony continues to shovel out crap on top of crap, and people continue to ask for more, just because it's sony. It'll never end, no point in fighting it. Just laugh and enjoy your 360/Wii, knowing what you're not missing out on.. lol.
 
[quote name='munch']Wii cost $250. 360 $400. PS3 $500. Yes, the Wii is as cheap as I think it is.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='atane']I actually think the Wii is the most overpriced system of the 3 next-gen system, comparitively of course, not literally.[/QUOTE]

That was my point.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']This is ridiculous. You are justifying the $500 price tag by comparing it to the Wii plus extra controllers and games that make it equal to $500. Are you not going to buy any games for the PS3? You're just planning on letting it sit there? How bout comparing apples to apples and comparing the Wii with a bunch of games and controllers to the PS3 with a bunch of games and controllers. Get a clue.

How about this. I got a WII and and an extremely fun game for $264 after tax. If i wanted this same sort of of thing with the PS3 i would have had to pay at minimum $580 after tax for the PS3 and Resistance (or some other game).

There is no comparison between the two price wise. You can argue how the PS3 is so much better because of graphics all you want. Dont be stupid and argue about prices because it's a losing scenario for the PS3 no matter how you stack it.[/QUOTE]

No, there is still a difference. The average Wii gamer will buy a classic controller, a wii-mote and a nun-chuck. Most will buy at least 2 of each. The average PS3 owner will buy an extra controller. There is no way around it that the major accessories for the Wii cost more in total on average. It is supposed to be the "cheaper" system overall, so it should be cheaper across the board, not just the barebones system. For the tech behind the Wii, charging $250 for it is too much. You can't just look literally in terms of price, even though most people do.
 
[quote name='atane']No, there is still a difference. The average Wii gamer will buy a classic controller, a wii-mote and a nun-chuck. Most will buy at least 2 of each. The average PS3 owner will buy an extra controller. There is no way around it that the major accessories for the Wii cost more in total on average. It is supposed to be the "cheaper" system overall, so it should be cheaper across the board, not just the barebones system. For the tech behind the Wii, charging $250 for it is too much. You can't just look literally in terms of price, even though most people do.[/QUOTE]

Is it hard standing on a slope when it's slippery?
 
[quote name='atane']No, there is still a difference. The average Wii gamer will buy a classic controller, a wii-mote and a nun-chuck. Most will buy at least 2 of each. The average PS3 owner will buy an extra controller. There is no way around it that the major accessories for the Wii cost more in total on average. It is supposed to be the "cheaper" system overall, so it should be cheaper across the board, not just the barebones system. For the tech behind the Wii, charging $250 for it is too much. You can't just look literally in terms of price, even though most people do.[/quote]PS3 games also cost $10 more than Wii games. And since your logic seems to go this way on things the gamer will need to get the most out of the potential of a purchased system, let's add in to the PS3's total:

a brand new TV that outputs "True 1080p".

So what's that...another grand and a half?

Next thing, you'll compare it to 360 and tell me you'll have to add the cost of a wireless headset, the steering wheel and a faceplate to the overall price 'cause that's what the average consumer would do.
 
I can't see how people can bring hate on PS3 without sitting down with it for a few minutes. Yes the launch titles are weak, but games like Motorstorm and Heavenly Sword are coming soon. The demo for motorstorm is very cool. To say you don't like it because of sony, come on who likes Microsoft. The 360 is a great system, but Microsoft is trying to rule the world. Judge the system not the maker. And for those of you who say sony is arrogant check this site out microsoft isn't your friend either.
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=12836&rp=49
 
I have a feeling the Wii is going to go the way of the Cube: great at first but then after a while..where are the games? I got burned with the Cube, I don't want to go through forcing myself to play a system again.
 
[quote name='Blackout542']I have a feeling the Wii is going to go the way of the Cube: great at first but then after a while..where are the games? I got burned with the Cube, I don't want to go through forcing myself to play a system again.[/quote]

I have a feeling the Wii is going the same way as the DS. It is ok at first, then a year later it turns into a massive success. I don't know but with the 3rd Parties flocking more towards the 360, the PS3 could be the new Gamecube....
 
I don't know if anyone noticed, but the ONLY heavy hitter game the PS3 has (Metal Gear Solid 4) will be on the Xbox 360 as well.

Aside from that, Resistance is called "Sony's answer to Halo". What do we have?

Actual Halo.
 
[quote name='JJSP']I don't know if anyone noticed, but the ONLY heavy hitter game the PS3 has (Metal Gear Solid 4) will be on the Xbox 360 as well.

Aside from that, Resistance is called "Sony's answer to Halo". What do we have?

Actual Halo.[/QUOTE]
MGS4 has not been confirmed for the 360. Just a rumor for now.
 
:lol:

I like all the clique's CAG has, the Nintendo clique, the Microsoft clique, the Sony clique, and the "I'm a douche in general" clique :p
 
[quote name='millrat1030']I can't see how people can bring hate on PS3 without sitting down with it for a few minutes. Yes the launch titles are weak, but games like Motorstorm and Heavenly Sword are coming soon. The demo for motorstorm is very cool. To say you don't like it because of sony, come on who likes Microsoft. The 360 is a great system, but Microsoft is trying to rule the world. Judge the system not the maker. And for those of you who say sony is arrogant check this site out microsoft isn't your friend either.
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=12836&rp=49[/quote]
i tried to play the ps3, but it was locked up. This was at a target. It had a extra high powerd fan behind it. It still locked up. yeah.... i wish i could play it too...

I dont like microsoft anymore then i like sony bud. Microsoft is a shitty shitty companie and sony has an ego the size of nintendos brain.

I would have gotten a ps3 for 400 usd but not 500 or 600. ek. Dont shuv that blue ray shit on me i tell you. Just give me the games. I liked the ps2 alot and wanted a ps3. Not any more. I hope the fail so the games go to the wii.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']Please refer to my sig, which is a brillant post by SpazX, in regards to the arguement about accessories driving up the price of the Wii.[/quote]Thanks, that's exactly the quote I was referring to. :lol:

Out of curiosity, how long is the standard warranty on the PS3? If it's 90 days you damn well better include the cost of a 1 year warranty, but I'm hoping Sony went with the longer warranty (and it would be one of the few things I'd applaud them on so far this gen) after all of the complaints about hardware failures on the launch batch they had last generation.
 
Why haven't any sony apologists responded to the very serious concerns about demo units locking up and Sony's terrible past record of faulty hardware? (before the 360 finger pointing starts, yes, microsoft fucked up pretty bad too. Might as well include a warranty in the price of their systems, at least they replaced launch units for free, a few months after the problems showed up)
 
[quote name='jer7583']Why haven't any sony apologists responded to the very serious concerns about demo units locking up and Sony's terrible past record of faulty hardware? (before the 360 finger pointing starts, yes, microsoft fucked up pretty bad too. Might as well include a warranty in the price of their systems, at least they replaced launch units for free, a few months after the problems showed up)[/QUOTE]

Isn't Sony offering a 1 year warranty with every PS3 as well?

What's so surprising about demo units locking up? Sadly, this seems like it is to be expected with a new console launch. It sucks, but it has become the trend now. Early adopters become the guinea pigs testing for bugs and such.
 
[quote name='whoknows']:lol:

I like all the clique's CAG has, the Nintendo clique, the Microsoft clique, the Sony clique, and the "I'm a douche in general" clique :p[/QUOTE]

There really should be some distinction between entertaining douchebags and douchey douchebags. Anywho, the PS3 sucks because it only plays Blu Ray DVDs. I demand my game system play both next gen DVD formats and have a USB powered Beta Max player accessory. Kidtendo, Microsuck, and Baloney are all missing out on what the consumer really wants.
 
Until the HD / Blu-Ray war is over it seems crazy to pay $200 more for Blu-Ray. Does Sony really expect to sell millions of systems for $600? I expect them to sell maybe 2 million systems before they are forced to drop the price.
 
[quote name='JJSP']I don't know if anyone noticed, but the ONLY heavy hitter game the PS3 has (Metal Gear Solid 4) will be on the Xbox 360 as well.
[/quote]
Don't forget about Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts. They are much heaver hitters then Metal Gear Solid, and right now as far as we know they are PS3 exclusives.
 
[quote name='harrygetsoff']A men. The PS3 will be on top soon enough. I don't know why people judge it by the available games this early in the quarter. No system had "stunning" games the first few months of launch.[/QUOTE]

While the PS3 may end up on top, how would you judge it other than by the games? I buy a game system to play games not movies. So with that theory I will wait 1 year to see what games the PS3 will release to compete with the 360 before I consider purchasing either system.
 
You judge it by games it WILL have, not just games it has now. Xbox 360 had no games i'd have wanted at launch but now its starting to get games that I like. Also its only $100 more for blu-ray. 20 GB ps3 = xbox 360 specs sans the blu ray drive.
 
[quote name='Kaijufan']Don't forget about Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts. They are much heaver hitters then Metal Gear Solid, and right now as far as we know they are PS3 exclusives.[/quote]
enix and square are having doubts about the ps3. They are holding off anounceing games. and its no longer a given that it will be on the ps3. sorry. I think ign had an article saying that they wanted to be more fair to other consoles with thier game releases and someplace kingdom hearts came up as one that may not be on the ps3. I will post it if i find it again.

remember square started on the nintendo.
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']enix and square are having doubts about the ps3. They are holding off anounceing games. and its no longer a given that it will be on the ps3. sorry.[/quote]
Which would be why I said "as far as we know". Sure one of the VPs said something about not wanting to support either the PS3 or the 360 too much, but that's very vague and the 360 support could only be FF XI and those obscure games they announced a month or two ago.
 
yeah. right now enix is up in the air i think They are waiting for the dust to settle. The question is, will the ps3 be the winner. Given time i think they will be, but another qustion is, when will enix make that judgement. If it was today, i think the ps3 just failed. So they have to get on thier feet fast or they may loose thier bigest system seller games
 
Are you guys sure about enix having doubts? I know they announced FFXIII for the PS3 at E3 this year
(http://ps3.ign.com/articles/705/705652p1.html), which is their main franchise. I am pretty sure, if they were having doubts, they would'nt make such an announcement.

It really seems like their allegiance is still to the Playstation. This is mainly because of its power and popularity in Japan. The Wii is popular in Japan too, but the machine is not powerful enough for their current vision of FFXIII. The 360 is also powerful, but its sales in Japan might make Squenix lean towards the PS3.
 
The confusion stems from an article where one of the higher-ups in Squeenix said they want to support Sony but not to a degree where Sony would dominate the market and they also wanted to support the other systems but not to a point where they would dominate Sony.

Basically they want to support all the systems to keep things even because competition breeds innovation. They HAVE confirmed FFXIII and FFXIII Versus on PS3 so count on that.

I also wouldn't count on any dragonquest games outside of japan so that means they will probably stay on PS3/Wii and not 360. Final Fantasy games are still fair game but i'd expect them to make exclusives for each system if anything as a way of keeping things intresting. That being said I wouldn't mind seeing that rumoured FF7 remake on Xbox 360 although personally i'd prefer a FF6 re-make.

Basically Squeenix wants to play the field and take advantage of all the systems which is why they have been releasing games on DS, GBA, PS2, and even on 360 with FFXI.
 
[quote name='dpatel']Are you guys sure about enix having doubts? I know they announced FFXIII for the PS3 at E3 this year
(http://ps3.ign.com/articles/705/705652p1.html), which is their main franchise. I am pretty sure, if they were having doubts, they would'nt make such an announcement.

It really seems like their allegiance is still to the Playstation. This is mainly because of its power and popularity in Japan. The Wii is popular in Japan too, but the machine is not powerful enough for their current vision of FFXIII. The 360 is also powerful, but its sales in Japan might make Squenix lean towards the PS3.[/QUOTE]

Well it seems their loyalties seem to be shifting a bit. The least powerful system, the Nintendo DS, is getting the direct sequel to Final Fantasy XII, not the PSP/PS3. Squenix seems to be testing the waters a lot more (at least with the side games). They never did this in the SNES/Genesis days. They didn't do this in the PS1/Saturn/64 days.

And is graphical power that important? Squenix is famous for pushing any machine to the limit. They'll be able to milk any system for what it's worth (look at FFXII which was on the "weakest" system of last gen).
 
I bought a PS2 at launch and was quite disappointed. I went out and bought a Dreamcast two months later and let my PS2 collect dust for another 6 except to play DVD's. Madden and SSX aside, I had much more fun with NFL2k, Soul Reaver, and Unreal online than with my PS2 for some time.

For those of you so quick to judge the PS3 now, try remembering the quality of the launch games like Summoner, Eternal Ring, Fantavision, and Ridge Racer for the PS2 launch. Could you have judged the PS2's success then? I doubt it.

I doubted the success of the 360 one year ago and swore I would never get one. Now, however, with the quality of the games improving, the services offered and ease of use of Live, and the fact that it's region free are all drawing me closer to a purchase. Get back to me in another 8-10 months and I might feel the same way about a PS3. Why is everyone so negative? Can't we all just get along ?
 
I've owned two Playstation 3 consoles, both which I scalped. Why didn't I keep one? It's very simple.

#1. The system is far more expensive than a 360, and I have no need for a Blu-ray player.

#2. There's only one title worth picking up at launch(Resistance), so why not just wait?

#3. Online play. Xbox live is $50 a year, but xbox live is also 50x better than Sony's online interface. On my 360, I can see what my friends are playing, join their games in progress, invite them to join my games, do voicechat with them no matter what game either of us is in, etc.

#4. The GPU in the 360 is far superior. The PS3's GPU is similar to a 7800 on the PC, whereas the Xenos in the Xbox 360 is a unified shader chip, very similar to the R600 coming out on the PC. The chip is far more efficent, powerful, and has 10MB EDRAM for free anti-aliasing.

#5. The CPU architecture of the 360 is far superior for game creation, as is the SDK. Ask John Carmack, the lead programmer of ID software; the guy who's programmed on everything for old x86 machines, the SNES, Atari Jaguar, and modern PC. The 360's three symetrical cores, each capable of handling two threads. The PS3 has one PPE which is really the only true CPU core, and a bunch of SPEs which are limited in what they can do. We'll see next year if game developers are still struggling with utilizing the Cell efficiently.

$6. No hardware scaling. BIG MISTAKE for such a high-end and expensive gaming console. All CRT HDTV's are 1080i native, some upscale 720p nicely, some do a terrible job, some won't even accept a 720p signal. Why should I ditch my ISF calibrated tube that looks far superior to any LCD/DLP on the market so I'm not stuck playing in a downgraded 480p mode? I'll take my 1080i on my 360 via it's internal scaler.

$7. The controller. The 360 controller is PERFECT(assuming you get one where the D-PAD doesn't hit the plastic so the buttons are hitting the contact). No controller I've used has ever been more comfortable and intuitive. I've always found the Playstation controller to have the analog sticks too close together and cramped.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Why is everyone so negative?[/QUOTE]

It's the cool thing to do right now. That's pretty much it. Apparently, in a pool of Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, only one of those companies is allowed to be perceived as arrogant and foolish. :lol:
 
[quote name='bmulligan']For those of you so quick to judge the PS3 now, try remembering the quality of the launch games like Summoner, Eternal Ring, Fantavision, and Ridge Racer for the PS2 launch. Could you have judged the PS2's success then? I doubt it.[/QUOTE]

How dare you lump Fantavision in with those other games! Fantavision is actually pretty awesome if you give it a shot. It's pretty much the spiritual precursor to every wacky concept game in the US these days.
 
[quote name='Doom5']
#1. The system is far more expensive than a 360, and I have no need for a Blu-ray player.[/quote]

It's $100 more, which isn't that big a deal (and it's cheaper depending on how you use online).

#2. There's only one title worth picking up at launch(Resistance), so why not just wait?
Click to expand...

For me that's Untold Legends and Ridge Racer 7...but that's true for every console at launch. Not anything specific to the Playstation 3.

#4. The GPU in the 360 is far superior.
Click to expand...

BUZZ. Wrong. Xenos does have unified shaders, but overall has worse performance than a Geforce G70-class GPU which the Playstation 3 uses. Both the PS3 and 360 are completely destroyed by the new Direct X 10 GPUs like the G80 and R600. Xenos is in the same class of GPUs as RSX, but it would have been more like a $400 part when RSX would have been a $600 part (realistically though it'll be more about artistic style, etc. as they're very close). RSX most likely has 16 ROPS to Xenos' 8, which gives it double the fill rate.

#5. The CPU architecture of the 360 is far superior for game creation
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Cell has considerably more raw power. Microsoft's tools are supposed to be better though (though theoretically Sony can always improve development tools, while the hardware's set in stone). Getting the best performance out of Cell will be harder than out of Xenon, but then Cell's max performance is a lot higher, so...

$6. No hardware scaling. BIG MISTAKE for such a high-end and expensive gaming console. All CRT HDTV's are 1080i native, some upscale 720p nicely, some do a terrible job, some won't even accept a 720p signal. Why should I ditch my ISF calibrated tube that looks far superior to any LCD/DLP on the market so I'm not stuck playing in a downgraded 480p mode? I'll take my 1080i on my 360 via it's internal scaler.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, there's no such thing as an HDTV that can't handle 720p, 1080i, 480i, and 480p. By definition all HDTV's handle those four formats. That said, since apparently some people bought monitors that won't handle them, they should have had the PS3 output to multiple resolutions. (Though to be fair, all 360 games don't handle all resolutions correctly either.)

$7. The controller. The 360 controller is PERFECT(assuming you get one where the D-PAD doesn't hit the plastic so the buttons are hitting the contact). No controller I've used has ever been more comfortable and intuitive. I've always found the Playstation controller to have the analog sticks too close together and cramped.
Click to expand...

The 360 pad has the worst d-pad I've ever used. Ergo it's far from "perfect", and is worse than not only the PS3 pad, but also the PS2, Gamecube, and X-Box pads.
 
[quote name='Puppy']
Just to be clear, there's no such thing as an HDTV that can't handle 720p, 1080i, 480i, and 480p. By definition all HDTV's handle those four formats. That said, since apparently some people bought monitors that won't handle them, they should have had the PS3 output to multiple resolutions. (Though to be fair, all 360 games don't handle all resolutions correctly either.)
[/QUOTE]

Umm, there are certainly a lot of HDTV's out there that handle 720p or 1080i. There's no rule that states if you do one and not the other then you're not an HDTV. 720p and 1080i are both Hi-Def formats, so if you support one of them, the TV is an HDTV.
 
[quote name='Puppy']Just to be clear, there's no such thing as an HDTV that can't handle 720p, 1080i, 480i, and 480p. By definition all HDTV's handle those four formats.[/quote] The 26" Toshiba TV in my master bedroom only does 480i/480p/1080i.

If a TV only handles 480i, it's a SDTV, or Standard Def. TV.

If a TV handles 480i/480p, it's considered to be a Enhanced Def. TV, or EDTV.

If a TV handles 1080i only, 720p/1080i, or 720p/1080i/1080p, it's a HDTV.

You can have a TV that does 480i/480p/1080i and have it be an HDTV. 1080i and 720p are both HDTV resolutions.

Eh, why am I bothering to explain anything to you, you're obviously an anti-MS fanboy. :roll:
 
[quote name='Michaellvortega']links with proof for everything you countered Puppy.[/QUOTE]

:roll: Oh, you mean like all the links provided by the original poster? :roll: I actually know hardware, I'm not just making stuff up.

[quote name='shipwreck']Umm, there are certainly a lot of HDTV's out there that handle 720p or 1080i. There's no rule that states if you do one and not the other then you're not an HDTV. 720p and 1080i are both Hi-Def formats, so if you support one of them, the TV is an HDTV.[/QUOTE]

No, it's not. If it doesn't have an ATSC tuner and support all four formats, it's a monitor, not a TV. An HDTV by definition supports 720p, 1080i, 480p, and 480i.

[quote name='shrike4242']

If a TV handles 1080i only, 720p/1080i, or 720p/1080i/1080p, it's a HDTV.

You can have a TV that does 480i/480p/1080i and have it be an HDTV. 1080i and 720p are both HDTV resolutions.
[/QUOTE]

No, it's a monitor. HDTVs HAVE to support the entire spec or they're by definition not an HDTV. It's like claiming a TV is a TV that doesn't have speakers, or only shows channel 25-that's not a TV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top