What is Digg?169 Comments
- dixonr315, on 10/12/2007, -11/+87"we correctly said that the next-generation starts with PS 2, not Dreamcast"
What BS, the DC was an awesome console that was outhyped, but it had some truly great games that made it over to the PS2 later on. Not to mention the DC was the first with online gaming and SegaNet, a big step for consoles at the time, certain games were even playable over 56k. Kaz and Sony should hold their tongues till they release a product at this point. - Odweaver, on 10/12/2007, -13/+56I agree the dreamcast was easily much more enjoyable than the PS2, with games like:
PSO
All of the sonic games and minigames
the tony hawk games
Soul Caliber
Power Stone
and a bunch of others, plus it pulled off webbrowsing extremely well. - LemonHerb, on 10/12/2007, -20/+57Call it generation 50 if you want, it still costs too much and under-delivers.
- jmdajr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+43I supported Dreamcast till the bitter end :(
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35@theone3, This is not generation 3.5, this is the seventh generation of consoles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_%28seventh_generation%29 - dolson, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34They need the extra space to hold the rootkits. ;)
Seriously, the GameCube discs hold some amazing games, and they are just over 1GB or so, IIRC.
40 GB is ridiculous for games. But the BluRay format is mostly for movies I think... Sony doesn't really care about gamers, in my opinion. It's all about them getting their movie format out there. There are already ads on TV for BluRay movies and the players, if you can find one, are way expensive. I will stick with my 9GB DVDs for many many years to come. I still have some VHS movies, and I'm not going to re-buy all my DVD collection again on Sony's PSP or PS3 GAMING SYSTEMS.
PS3 is for movies. Xbox 360 is for gaming. Wii is for fun. - uptown, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31...he probably lost 30 pounds due to stress related to the complete disaster the PS3 has become.
- Dgen_X, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23hmm...the new info I got out of this interview is that Haz lost 30 pounds on Atkins...
I was kinda hoping for some decent comments on Sony's statements as of late, I am now just wondering what it's going to be like come PS4 - dolson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+32It isn't expensive when you consider that they aren't aiming it at the home market, and if you get an extra job to pay for your PS3 like Sony suggests you do, then you will find it is very affordable.
- Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -16/+38@lemonherb - "Call it generation 50 if you want, it still costs too much and under-delivers."
Man, you people are relentless.
If you think it costs too much, great. That's a valid opinion, and it's yours to make.
Saying that it "under-delivers" it crap though. It's not even released yet. There isn't a person alive who's played finished games on the final hardware. Until that point, you're just talking out of your ass. All this "The Wii is way better than the PS3" and "The PS3 sucks" junk is just fanboy masturbation.
Wait for the launch, play with the thing, then make an informed decision. Until then, stop with the moronic console flame wars. - BIGGY350z, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26There's one small fact we're overlooking. We're talking about video game consoles first and everything else second. I want something that plays GOOD games, has a nice controller, and let's me play against others. Throwing in extra features and bumping the price up is not worth it to me. Don't get me wrong, the PS and the PS2 were great. But for me it's about playing the games now. Xbox 360 let's me do that for a cheaper price with great games no matter how set I was on the PS3. Sorry Sony, at the moment you lost one to the Xbox even though I went kicking and screaming. Oh and whatever he says in his interview should have zero bearing on sales. If it's a good system, it will sell, and maybe even lead again, who knows. I buy consoles, not based on the bright or idiotic people behind the scenes...but the end result of all those people.
- dolson, on 10/12/2007, -14/+32digg me down, jacoplane beat me to it, and I didn't refresh the page in time to see.
- DeathSun, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21TECHNICALLY, there was online console gaming before the Dreamcast. SNES and Genesis had "X Band" which let you play some games online over dial-up. No one used it though.
But for built in support. Yeah, that was Dreamcast. (The NES could support a modem attachment...but none was ever really made for it).
I understand the general, point, though. Dreamcast did beat PS2 to the "next-gen" punch. - Philodox, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Well Kaz is justified in his comments, both the PS1 and the PS2 have been very successful. If you define "starting the next generation" as getting the most gamers into it, then I would agree with him 100%. Time will tell if it's the same for the PS3, but the success of the 360 in North America and Europe would indicate that Microsoft's managed to start it already.
- MaskedPixelante, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Yes, $600 is too expensive for a console. PS3 isn't JUST a console though, it's a console and a blu-ray player. Considering the price of blu-ray players, $600 isn't bad for that.
The problem is, nobody cares about blu-ray. The majority don't anyway. Most don't have HD TVs, most could care less about the format war, and most don't want to spend an extra $200 for a technology they won't have any use for in the next few years. Yes, it can be used for games, however, I think we need to wait until we see games using more than the max capacity of a dual layer DVD on a drive that's slower than the DVD drive in the 360 (if I'm not mistaken) before that carries any weight. I'm willing to bet it's years before we see games using that much space for anything but high-def CGI.
It comes down to the fact that Sony wants to use the PS3 to help them win the format war with blu-ray and they expect the consumers to pay for it, regardless of if they want blu-ray or not. That's where the Sony bashing is coming from and it's a perfectly legitimate complaint. - WinterSolstice, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17I was more surprised by the idea of a game being 40-50 GB. I think the load screens are bad enough now as it is! Even WoW (with online and all) is a measly 6 GB on my hard disk. What do they plan to include that would make that a reasonable size? When the industry went from floppies to CDs we got 3D, music, and improved art. When the industry moves to HD DVD and Blu-ray what do we get? Oblivion seems to do quite well on my 360 and fits on one disk (or is it disc?).
I guess Sony has some truly amazing games for us :)
-WS - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -17/+29yeah a FIRST GEN blue ray dvd player. No thanks. I'll wait till the tech is refined a little more. This should have been OPTIONAL like the HD-Player is with 360.
- FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20I had a tv capable of taking advantage of dvd when it came out. I don't have an HD tv and don't plan on getting one this year. What use would I have for a blu-ray player? The majority of homes won't have an HD tv either when the PS3 is released.
- dhaelis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16"When the industry went from floppies to CDs we got 3D, music, and improved art. When the industry moves to HD DVD and Blu-ray what do we get?"
Well, the PS3 is 4-D, so that's probably why they need extra storage space. - toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -13/+24@jesus
"They are not evil, nor are they trying to hurt your apparently delicate feelings."
three words.... sony rootkit fiasco
stop being a fanboy - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"Q: What was the reaction to your press conference about the PlayStation 3?
A: It was a positive reaction. People were generally excited we came out with a lot
of news like the launch dates in each region, prices and the quantities we would ship."
What press confrence was he at? Sure as hell wasn't E3. The only people that wern't in shock were the sony people. I think some of the MS and Nintendo people might have been dancing around in glee once the price was announced.
"Q: Are you concerned that you're going to have higher costs than the other console makers?
A: This console is going to do much more. We have made sure this is a console for the long haul. If you look at the lack of Blu-ray on Microsoft, what do you do if the game requires 40 to 50 gigabytes? Put it on three disks? "
40-50 gigs? Most games don't even use the full amount on a DVD right now. They think that we'll be using 40-50 gigs five or six years down the road? And didn't Toshiba just announce that they have a triple layer 45 gig HD-DVD disk comming out? I mean damn, I'm not a fan boy for one group or the other but it seems to me that he's twisting the facts around a we bit.
I really want a PS3, but untill that price drops....drops a LOT I just can't see spending that much money on one. - SL33PY, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15The answer is Textures. Massive ammounts of textures.
- Ninjaneer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@agimat
Oh, get over it. I really, really want a PS3, but I'm not going to spend $600 or even $500 on it. Why should cost be a measure of how big a fan you are? I'm sure lots of us have what you would call "real jobs" but also have priorities and a $600 game console doesn't fit in that priority set. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Thats because blu-ray is a storage format for delivering hi-def movies, not games.
Realistically if a game were 50 GB, it should/would take you months to finish it, given the amount of data there. Check the size of Oblivion, how long it took you to beat, and all the content on the disc, times the amount of a blu-ray storage. If that game was 50 GB you'd NEVER reach the end.
The point is, they are marketing blu-ray to you as if the games ARE that large when in fact, they most likely won't exceed 15-20 GB in the PS3 lifetime. - didymus, on 10/12/2007, -16/+25@lemonherb
How do you know it under delivers? - smergs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Dreamcast failed but it doesn't mean that it didn't start the beginning of the last generation of game consoles. I don't understand what this idiot is talking about. Also he expects the PS3 to last more than 4 or 5 years? Well of course it will (if it doesn't flop) last that long but by then everyone is going to be ready for new consoles that have even more power and features that we don't know about yet.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11dharm, I just happened to be watching CNBC yesterday, where economic analysts, who you apparently have a high regard for, spent a good 15 minutes bashing Sony over the failures of the PS3; failures in terms of manufacturing delays, perceived technological short-comings, ridiculously un-attractive price, and constant worrying that, according to one analyst, the brand has lost and will continue to lose brand confidence and market share from consumers. In fact, they went on to suggest that the only smart decision Sony could make is get completely out of product manufacturing (which they've been sucking at for years, in terms of profitability) and focus on their entertainment divisions like Sony Pictures and their music labels.
There, does that satisfy your thirst for opinions from "analysts"? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Nintendo was the only one to make a lot of money off of sales. So, they win.
Just because Nsync sells 20 million CDs doesn't automatically qualify them as 'the best ever'. - dobesov, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13So we need 40 gigs of textures?! huh... well... i guess every object in the game could have a unique texture... but how will we fit them all in the 256 megs we have to store them in the card?? I guess we will move them off the Disc and cache them onthe hard drive... and then whenever something new pops into view we will get MMORPG-like lag from accessing the harddrive to swap textures from out hard drive into ram... No, really the textures required for a good looking HD game will not be that big... and they all have to fit into video memory anyway.
So with our 40 gigs of textures it will be great... They will be so detailed that (Insert Final fantasy Character Here) will have like pores that you can zoom into... Of course their face alone uncompressed just filled up the entire video cards memory so we really cant texture map trees or the sky or dirt. - PunkFenixJT, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15
I hate to tell ya, but the Anti-Sony Fanboyism on digg isnt the opinion of the world. 2 Million at launch, and I will guarentee that they will sell out. Why? Because the amount of the technology inside the PS3 isnt even worth that price, its worth much more. Like mc900ftjesus, DVD players alone used to be $500. This is basically going to be one of North America's first Blu Ray players, along with having the graphical capabilities of 2 Geforce 6800s or 1 Geforce 7800, which last I checked would be around $200-300 bucks. So..lets see...
$500 for a new next gen dvd player
+ $200 (going Low) for a Geforce 7800
= $700 right there.
That doesnt even include the price of the Cell.
So yes, I will be buying a PS3, and I'm sure 1,999,999 other people will too at launch. Sony may be making arrogant comments and pissing some people off, but for the technology they're giving, they're giving it away at some pretty low prices. - Donerkebab, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Look guys, it's a fact that back in 1998, few of us would have imagined a 6GB game, so these arguments about how do you fill up the disc are worthless. The capacity will be used, there's no question about it. You can't compare capacity 5 years from now with tech. standards from today.
Second- to dobesov - I believe the PS1 was a console where devs figured out how to stream textures off the disc. It worked, and it dramatically extended the capabilities of the console. A big part of the reason why N64 looked like crap in comparison. Maybe the ram limitation isn't what you think. - ickabodaikin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Shouldn't that headline read:
Sony: "You'll Get No Breaks" On the PS3 Price - Etheo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Either all Sony people are delusional, or in denial. How was their E3 conference exciting to the audience? I'll give Sony props for aiming to produce a top quality console, but it's just not the right time yet I believe. Maybe they should have waited for the generation after. And I don't see how the price can drop without them losing a lot of money, which isn't gonna happen.
The sad thing is, there are still going to be a bunch of blindsighted people who buy into Sony's ideology and purchase the PS3. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but the Blu-Ray and storage should really have been optional. Seriously, who needs 40Gb games? And what's so bad about releasing a game on 3 DVDs instead of a blu-ray? What kind of developer is going to take the time to create a 40Gb game? 3d Realms? Duke Nukem Forever? Team Fortress 2? Hell even those games took forever already, and I doubt they're more than one DVD size. - buddyglass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Actually the Xbox division lost money. They never were able to make up the millions they invested. Which Microsoft glady paid to get a foothold in hopes to make more on their 2nd and 3rd consoles.
- morphie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I wonder what your reaction will be, when sony has difficulties keeping up with the retailer orders. ;-)
- Kurto2021, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Not saying the PS3 is overpriced for what you get I simply feel the inclusion of the BluRay forces people who want to play a game to get a BluRay. I will not be an early adopter of either HD DVD or Blu Ray because I don't feel like paying $500 to $1000 for a BetaMax. I will wait to see how the war progresses and choose my side based on that. If the PS3 was $399 with a small HD and $599 with the bigger HD and BluRay I would prefer that. I don't think it will fail but I think pricing will cause them to lose market share early.....in time as prices come down they will begin to gain some of that share back.
- cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10PunkFenixJT - Is 100% right. If they have 2 mm PS3 for sale they will sell 2 mm PS3's.
Will they have 2mm PS3's on the promised date? I bet not, because sadly the company is a mess right now. That 2 m is a lot of consoles. Cell is new, merged with BR could add up to some launch problems. I read the emulator is gone replaced by a PS2 chip etc. The more I read PS3 is a big giant ? mark. 360 is no big deal (I play high end sys pc games) but it is a nice step up for console players migrating from xbox or PS2. PS3 if flawed (and I said if) late and or over-priced may find gift buyers will seek out the other guys console. Heck, for the price some may buy both Nintendo and 360 this Holiday and only hardcore Sony fans will come to the party. - Ninjaneer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@dharm
And I won't. No where did I state that it's wasn't a luxury item, etc, either...but you can't expect this thing to be the top selling machine at such an unreasonable (read: accessible) price point. You can buy one or three for all I care, but a lower install base leads to lower developer support, which leads to fewer noteworthy titles. It's easy to be an e-Pimp and bash others for their inability to spend $600 on a system, but you're disregarding the fact that I (along with many others) can drop $600 or $6000 if we wanted, but we choose not to.
As far as the PS3 being a good value for the package you get, that's great, if you're interested in the package. I, for one, have no use for the Blu-Ray, Singstar, Memory Stick reading, Wi-Fi enabled doorstop. - GodsHand, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9POSITIVE reaction? lol
- phbradley, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13No. If you RTFA, Sony is envisaging a very long lifecycle for the PS3. That means if they want to cut prices (for xmas, etc etc) every year, you gotta start high. By the time the other consoles' tech is matching the PS3's (because let's face it, as innovative as the Wii maybe, it has a lifespan of two to three years - Nintendo is going to take just as much money off you as Sony is, just in two instalments), the PS3 will be matching their price.
Interesting gameplan. I'm not sure they expected all this bad press/lack of comprehension, which could poison the PS3 from the start, completely scuppering their 10-year plan. That really would be a disaster for them. It's possible they expected some negative reaction, but their other divisions' ***** (rootkits etc) shat on the brand name and that carried through onto the PS3 - deusx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12@phbradley: "because let's face it, as innovative as the Wii maybe, it has a lifespan of two to three years"
And then, in 2-3 years, there will be another Nintendo console for about $200 that likely beats the PS3 in technical specs and completely trumps it with a next gen Virtual Console populated with indie games games podcast by ex-Flash tinkerers from Newgrounds. In another 2-3 after that, there will be another console that makes me wonder if a PS3 can be turned into a nifty craft-project tissue dispenser alongside my old CRT monitor garbage can and shiny Blue-Ray disc mobile.
Of course, I still expect hoverboards and flying cars any day now, so I'm to be taken with a grain of salt. Oh yeah, and Google maps 37Signals with Flickr iPod. - WalterDirt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10With how delusional they are lately they probably will pat themselves on the back and annouce they won the next console war.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8They still release games for the Dreamcast.
And I could give a ***** if Sony loses money on the PS3. They have billions more dollars than I ever will. Should have thought of the overall cost for both consumer and manufacturer when you put in blu-ray, HDMI, etc etc etc. Is there a game out there that is over 10GB in size? Even if so, two DVD discs are fine. Its not like we have to install them, they aren't PCs.
Gaming isn't about more power. If it was, retro gaming wouldn't exist. - SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8You're right. The average HD game on the 360 right now uses 3.5 gigs of storage. The DVD9 format is more than capable of providing that. I'm certain that 40-50 gigs of storage won't be necessary until the next next gen. That's Sony's problem they were equipping themselves for a console war a full generation ahead of themselves in their eagerness to promote Blu-Ray and CELL. It's going to hurt the PS3.
The PS2 was the weakest of the three consoles and it was top in sales. The DS is the weakest of the two handhelds and it's top in sales. The prize rarely or never goes to the top dog in raw power and Sony seems to have forgotten that. - gypsumfantastic, on 10/12/2007, -19/+24Dig that hole, Sony. Dig.
I shall enjoy watching your arrogant, swollen, lying testes getting stuck in it come November. - Kurto2021, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Most expensive launch was the Neo Geo and the 3DO we know how successful those were.
Next most expensive Sega Saturn at $399.
Atari VCS launched in 1977 for $249.99 ($811.21 in 2005)
Nintendo Entertainment System launched in 1985 for $199.99 ($354.91 in 2005)
SEGA Genesis launched in 1989 for $249.99 ($389.67 in 2005)
NeoGeo launched in 1990 for $699.99 ($1041.12 in 2005)
Super Nintendo launched in 1991 for $199.99 ($282.21 in 2005)
Jaguar launched in 1993 for $249.99 ($328.69 in 2005)
3DO Interactive Multiplayer launched in 1993 for $699.95 ($920.30 in 2005)
SEGA Saturn launched in 1995 for $399.99 ($497.66 in 2005)
Nintendo 64 launched in 1996 for $199.99 ($242.75 in 2005)
SEGA Dreamcast launches in 1999 for $199.99 ($228.09 in 2005)
PlayStation launched in 1995 for $299.99 ($372.01 in 2005)
PlayStation 2 launched in 2000 for $299.99 ($333.15 in 2005)
Xbox Launched in 2001 for $299.99 ($325.34 in 2005)
GameCube launched in 2001 for $199.99 ($216.89 in 2005) - mntpng, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8As far as I know, we live in a free market society. That means Sony can price their product at whatever price they want and consumers have the choice of buying or not buying them. It's that simple. Why are so many so called Sony fanboys believe that they have some sort of entitlement to Sony's product at a reasonable price? It's as if they can somehow convince Sony executives that they are making a big mistake with the price point of PS3 and Sony will change the price. I just find this bizarre. If you think PS3 is too expensive then it simply means you are not the target market audience for the product. It also means you should consider buying their competitor's product like XBOX 360 or Wii. What I'm trying to say is please quit whinning and just vote with your wallet.
- proxima, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's not really his point though. Even if the ps3 is around and sony's main console in 10 years, Nintendo and MS will have already been well on their way with newer, more powerful, and more adapted to the times consoles.
- phbradley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I agree. I'm not a fan of the underpowering of the Wii, but trying to futureproof something for an entire decade seems slightly foolhardy. The point he makes about costs of game development cycles etc is a good one though.
- Hoov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Sony's target group the male gamer in the 18-34 range? Considering many kids go off to college coming out of high school, that's anywhere between the 18-24 range, give or take a year. Who among that group is going to drop $600 for a PS3, and then additional money for games? Who could even afford it? Books every semester are already $200-$400, not to mention all the other misc. expenses involved with school.
I understand it's a free market society ... Sony could price it at $1k for all I care, as I'm choosing not to buy one right off the bat. But just because you can price it at whatever you want, doesn't mean you should. Brand names can only carry a product so far. -
Show 51 - 100 of 169 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is