Reply With Quote
Because 2-3 years down the road isn't this November.Originally Posted by SonofdonCD
Okay, cool. Then I don't see what's the problem here?
Enh, I can deal. I'd rather pay $500 for the mother of all future-proof consoles than $400 for something that hasn't shown much that blows the doors off current gen. (PGR 3 was playable supposedly not looking nearly as good as in photos at the German GC - less light sourcing, no filters, lower frame rate - though I believe they can get the fps up to snuff. But still, they've got like 2 months to get it into testing.)Well, they're trying to push as far ahead technology-wise without absolutely obliterating our wallets and bankrupting their investors. There comes a point in developing anything tech-wise where you gotta say "we have to stop trying to add more and more and try to release this thing", and hopefully for an affordable price, or at least at a price where you can see the value in what you're paying for.
Supposedly HD-DVD is already running into trouble with studios...Paramount is taking a wait and ee approach with the thing, and the Blu Ray guys run the DVD standards council. I think the real reason MS didn't go with HD-DVD is that the players won't be available from Toshiba until Christmas at the earliest, quite probably later. They haven't even been able to start manufacturing them yet. I guess MS couldn't bank on them getting the first drives to push the format.It'd be stupid for MS to wait for this whole Blue-Ray/HD-DVD war or unification thing happen. By that time, Sony will be out with their BR-ready PS3, giving up their one chance at getting more 360s out before Sony hits.
Developers (well okay, Itagaki, but I'm sure he's not alone) have already said they're coming close filling up DVDs on 360. Hi-def CG + HD graphics + lots of voice + 3 megs of XB 360 security features = that 9 meg DVD gets filled up real fast. Blu Ray has 45 megs. That'll accomodate any next gen Final Fantasy, MGS or GTA quite nicely. And don't sell the "only good for movies" part short - Hollywood pushed PS2 with DVD, and it's carried PSP. The advantages of Blu Ray are obvious - if they can convince consumers to eat the extra $10 it takes to manufacture them in the beginning, there's no reason it won't become standard. Heck, there's no reason PS3 won't make it the de facto standard - it'll probably have more marketing behind it than HD-DVD will.And I just don't see how any developer can afford to fill up a BD-DVD for their games. There should never be a problem on 360's part because hey, we can just use another DVD. The only real advantage of Blue-Ray is for movies, and that's only if it takes off.
Nah, there's no on-paper. PS3's unquestionably more powerful, even if you just look at fact that there's faster RAM access and the GPU's a notch up, never mind cpu cores. The only thing that can stop it is if it's like PS2, and half the developers can't figure out parallel processors. Once we get a couple of years in and devs have multi-string code down, the difference will be noticeable. Not PS3 to Xbox 1.5 noticeable like Kutaragi said, but certainly Xbox to PS2 noticeable. Game logic will be a big difference.They've developed what's by all accounts a really powerful, well rounded system that potentially is somewhat less powerful than the PS3, at least on paper.
They are, but how much support will they really get? Like, Konami's giving them Rumble Roses, while PS3 gets MGS4. Unless Ridge Racer really never comes to PS3, most all of their Japanese support is multiplatform or from second stringers.They are courting more japanese devs than they ever had, and that's a lot better than last round.
Sure, it's most just a question of either-or when it comes to the systems for most people, not individual value. If you figure 360 + controller+ 4 games+Live will cost $760+tax, then figure PS3 is a bit pricier, then figure you only buy 10 other games for the whole rest of the year for anything, you're already up over $2000 for the year. I just can't justify that expense on videogames, and no sane person without a shitload of disposable income can either.They are releasing a $400 bundle that is worth more than that when each component is sold on its own (ie: that's a good deal). You'd haev to pay almost $200 dollars more if you buy the core system to equal what is bundled in the premium system. No matter what you think of the core system, that premium system is definitely worth it in the long run.
So given that 360's been kind of underwhelming from the MTV presentation to E3 to the Japanese conference to the pricing/SKU announcement, it just makes too much sense to stick with what I've got for now and go for the more powerful system with more games. If you can swing both in the next year, go for it.
Some people care about the $100, but I think alot were just disappointed that 360's already less powerful, and it's being hamstrung right out of the gate by developers having to "assume the HDD won't be there to use."While it's not optimal for the casual gamer, it's by no means unreasonable. (the peripherals OTOH are another story) If people need to decide whether it's a matter of them getting the system at launch or after, then whatever. You decide for yourself. But it seems to me that everyone is complaining that the system isn't $300 with the HDD, not that there's two bundles. If there were two bundles with the core being $200-$250 without the HDD and $300-$350 with, I think people wouldn't really care.
Owned.
Bookmarks