The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Just skipping round the internet - found X-Box 360 on that place we can't mention here because they usually have better prices. It says its released in November of this year. Is that true? Was X-Box 1 that much of a failure? Didn't Dreamcast do a similar thing in between generations where few people ready for a new console?
Why so soon? The PS2 has plenty of life left in it and will happily last until PS3. Despite being released later, X-Box seems unable to last - is this not a bad sign for the 360? 4.5 years doesn't seem enough time to get ready for the next jump. It might be fine to release a new version of windows every ten minutes, but I'm not convinced when it comes to consoles.
This isn't supposed to provoke a console war about which is better, since I guess we won't really know for sure that PS3 is better for a little while yet :D
All I'm saying is that I don't agree with the timing. I'll happily sit here and enjoy the many games on PS2 I really want to finish but haven't had time for yet and gently prepare for the proper next generation.
P.S. PS3 iz GONA B WEL BETR!!11111!!!!!
Why so soon? The PS2 has plenty of life left in it and will happily last until PS3. Despite being released later, X-Box seems unable to last - is this not a bad sign for the 360? 4.5 years doesn't seem enough time to get ready for the next jump. It might be fine to release a new version of windows every ten minutes, but I'm not convinced when it comes to consoles.
This isn't supposed to provoke a console war about which is better, since I guess we won't really know for sure that PS3 is better for a little while yet :D
All I'm saying is that I don't agree with the timing. I'll happily sit here and enjoy the many games on PS2 I really want to finish but haven't had time for yet and gently prepare for the proper next generation.
P.S. PS3 iz GONA B WEL BETR!!11111!!!!!
Page:
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Consequently, if I were to engage in online gaming, I would much
> rather use Sony's 'free' approach, than paying an annual subscription
> for a service which would hardly be used.
I don't think anyone who plays and enjoys online games would ever agree with that, to be honest. One cogent service where you can track your friends and what games they're playing, have constant stats and updates and one fee for playing all online games (instead of having to shell out seperate subscriptions to each publisher at their whim) is so much simpler and more enjoyable than Sony's "let the publisher deal with it" approach, which leaves you with subscriptions to a myriad of different services companies.
> Consequently, if I were to engage in online gaming, I would much
> rather use Sony's 'free' approach, than paying an annual subscription
> for a service which would hardly be used.
I don't think anyone who plays and enjoys online games would ever agree with that, to be honest. One cogent service where you can track your friends and what games they're playing, have constant stats and updates and one fee for playing all online games (instead of having to shell out seperate subscriptions to each publisher at their whim) is so much simpler and more enjoyable than Sony's "let the publisher deal with it" approach, which leaves you with subscriptions to a myriad of different services companies.
Except, unlike Sega, Microsoft have a bottomless pit from which to throw money at the 360 until it works.
They can advertise the hell out of it, release expansions, publish lots of games, re-invent the controller and still have a ridiculous amount of money to do it all again next-time around even if they make a huge loss on everything -ultimately this is going to win them the larger market share whether it's this time or the next or even the next after that.
Sega didn't have that amount of cash to blow on everything (and a lot of the Dreamcast line-up was shallow and only fit for arcade machines).
They can advertise the hell out of it, release expansions, publish lots of games, re-invent the controller and still have a ridiculous amount of money to do it all again next-time around even if they make a huge loss on everything -ultimately this is going to win them the larger market share whether it's this time or the next or even the next after that.
Sega didn't have that amount of cash to blow on everything (and a lot of the Dreamcast line-up was shallow and only fit for arcade machines).
Nintendo need to stop relying on their classics like Mario, Zelda etc and try something new.
That obviously wont happen though and thats the main reason why im definately not getting a Revolution.
That obviously wont happen though and thats the main reason why im definately not getting a Revolution.
Bonus wrote:
> The PS3 and 360 will be similar with the PS3 having a slight edge, so
> I don't understand how one can be construed as more exciting
> than the other in terms of specs.
I'm not talking about the specs, though. :-) Or the games, for that matter. The specs are similar, and the majority of games will be available for both systems.
I just mean the 360 in general doesn't do anything for me.
My outlook isn't helped, I'm sure, by the fact that Microsoft paid people to sit in a special section at their 360 launch gathering and cheer wildly whenever something remotely interesting was mentioned about the machine.
Not only is that very tacky, it also indicates that they weren't confident enough in their machine to expect that the genuine punters would be suitably impressed.
> The PS3 and 360 will be similar with the PS3 having a slight edge, so
> I don't understand how one can be construed as more exciting
> than the other in terms of specs.
I'm not talking about the specs, though. :-) Or the games, for that matter. The specs are similar, and the majority of games will be available for both systems.
I just mean the 360 in general doesn't do anything for me.
My outlook isn't helped, I'm sure, by the fact that Microsoft paid people to sit in a special section at their 360 launch gathering and cheer wildly whenever something remotely interesting was mentioned about the machine.
Not only is that very tacky, it also indicates that they weren't confident enough in their machine to expect that the genuine punters would be suitably impressed.
Spot on, Nintendo have made a conscious decision to stay out of the game, maybe their hoping the promise of being able to download the back catalogue is enough to temp people who are loyal to Nintendo, but they've done nothing to gain intrest in any other way.
We know there will be a new Mario, a new Zelda, a new Mario Kart and, well, probably not much else :).
We know there will be a new Mario, a new Zelda, a new Mario Kart and, well, probably not much else :).
Mozzy wrote:
> It's funny how the Revolution hasn't even been mentioned. :D
>
> Poor poor Nintendo.
There really isn't anything to say about it. Nobody really knows anything concrete so there's nothing to discuss.
> It's funny how the Revolution hasn't even been mentioned. :D
>
> Poor poor Nintendo.
There really isn't anything to say about it. Nobody really knows anything concrete so there's nothing to discuss.
It's funny how the Revolution hasn't even been mentioned. :D
Poor poor Nintendo.
Poor poor Nintendo.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> I've no doubt everyone who buys one will enjoy the 360, but I'm going
> to wait for the machine that does excite me.
The PS3 and 360 will be similar with the PS3 having a slight edge, so I don't understand how one can be construed as more exciting than the other in terms of specs. Have a look at Anandtech for a comparison of the tech beneath the processors.
Without any solid game announcements for the PS3 either, the only thing which looks like setting one apart from the other is Blu-ray and a wider Japanese support for the PS3, and not much else.
Here's the Anandtech article link if you're that way inclined on processor specs : [URL]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453[/URL]
> I've no doubt everyone who buys one will enjoy the 360, but I'm going
> to wait for the machine that does excite me.
The PS3 and 360 will be similar with the PS3 having a slight edge, so I don't understand how one can be construed as more exciting than the other in terms of specs. Have a look at Anandtech for a comparison of the tech beneath the processors.
Without any solid game announcements for the PS3 either, the only thing which looks like setting one apart from the other is Blu-ray and a wider Japanese support for the PS3, and not much else.
Here's the Anandtech article link if you're that way inclined on processor specs : [URL]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453[/URL]
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> As far as games go, the two machines are not very closely matched,
> with PS3 definitely having a massive edge, if specs are taken
> at face value.
Yep, nothing edited there. No sir. :
> It's mechanical and faceless, and even with a headset, it just
> doesn't compare to having friends round, where you can ridicule them
> in person after you've fragged them for the 20th time without reply.
This has always been my main reason for avoiding online gaming too. I'm quite happy sat down with TimeSplitters or something similar having a laugh with a few friends. I don't mind a bit of online chatting since there are some interesting conversations to be had, but the gaming side doesn't sound so good.
> I do still have my Xbox, I've just never been able to warm to it
> - it just lacks... something... but I don't know what.
I've always thought it lacked a certain X-factor, a difficult to define quality that can make or break a console.
> As far as games go, the two machines are not very closely matched,
> with PS3 definitely having a massive edge, if specs are taken
> at face value.
Yep, nothing edited there. No sir. :
> It's mechanical and faceless, and even with a headset, it just
> doesn't compare to having friends round, where you can ridicule them
> in person after you've fragged them for the 20th time without reply.
This has always been my main reason for avoiding online gaming too. I'm quite happy sat down with TimeSplitters or something similar having a laugh with a few friends. I don't mind a bit of online chatting since there are some interesting conversations to be had, but the gaming side doesn't sound so good.
> I do still have my Xbox, I've just never been able to warm to it
> - it just lacks... something... but I don't know what.
I've always thought it lacked a certain X-factor, a difficult to define quality that can make or break a console.
Simple fact is, MS are desperate to get the machine out ahead of Sony's PS3. For some reason, they think that will give them the upper hand - but as we know from recent history, it won't - necessarily.
As far as games go, the two machines are closely matched, with PS3 probably having the edge, if specs are taken at face value.
True, the PS3 "does more besides games", and may cost more. But as we also know from history, price is largely irrelevant. If something is marketed in the correct way, people will buy it regardless of cost. This is an area in which Sony are masters.
When MS dropped the price of the Xbox just 4 weeks after launch, they probably did Sony a huge favour, simply because there's something in human nature which tells us that something which costs more must be better. Xbox sales increased, but so did PS2 sales.
Online gaming would also appear to be something of an irrelevance. Personally, I have no interest in it. I've tried it on both my own PC and a friends Xbox Live account, and found it quite pointless. It's mechanical and faceless, and even with a headset, it just doesn't compare to having friends round, where you can ridicule them in person after you've fragged them for the 20th time without reply.
Consequently, if I were to engage in online gaming, I would much rather use Sony's 'free' approach, than paying an annual subscription for a service which would hardly be used. And it would seem many people feel similarly. I was reading something online recently which stated that something like 5% of all the people who have bought an Xbox have actually bothered to get a Live account.
All of that aside, as I've said elsewhere, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in purchasing a 360. Yes, I'm a Sony fan - never made any secret of that - but I'm not stupidly loyal to the point of excluding other formats. I do still have my Xbox, I've just never been able to warm to it - it just lacks... something... but I don't know what.
Even then, I may still have been interested in the 360 - the games look lovely, but for some reason it still doesn't appeal. Maybe it's just the accumulation of the issues I've had with my Xbox, niggling away at the back of my mind. I don't know. I just know that, however hard I try, I can't get enthusiastic about it at all.
I've no doubt everyone who buys one will enjoy the 360, but I'm going to wait for the machine that does excite me.
As far as games go, the two machines are closely matched, with PS3 probably having the edge, if specs are taken at face value.
True, the PS3 "does more besides games", and may cost more. But as we also know from history, price is largely irrelevant. If something is marketed in the correct way, people will buy it regardless of cost. This is an area in which Sony are masters.
When MS dropped the price of the Xbox just 4 weeks after launch, they probably did Sony a huge favour, simply because there's something in human nature which tells us that something which costs more must be better. Xbox sales increased, but so did PS2 sales.
Online gaming would also appear to be something of an irrelevance. Personally, I have no interest in it. I've tried it on both my own PC and a friends Xbox Live account, and found it quite pointless. It's mechanical and faceless, and even with a headset, it just doesn't compare to having friends round, where you can ridicule them in person after you've fragged them for the 20th time without reply.
Consequently, if I were to engage in online gaming, I would much rather use Sony's 'free' approach, than paying an annual subscription for a service which would hardly be used. And it would seem many people feel similarly. I was reading something online recently which stated that something like 5% of all the people who have bought an Xbox have actually bothered to get a Live account.
All of that aside, as I've said elsewhere, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in purchasing a 360. Yes, I'm a Sony fan - never made any secret of that - but I'm not stupidly loyal to the point of excluding other formats. I do still have my Xbox, I've just never been able to warm to it - it just lacks... something... but I don't know what.
Even then, I may still have been interested in the 360 - the games look lovely, but for some reason it still doesn't appeal. Maybe it's just the accumulation of the issues I've had with my Xbox, niggling away at the back of my mind. I don't know. I just know that, however hard I try, I can't get enthusiastic about it at all.
I've no doubt everyone who buys one will enjoy the 360, but I'm going to wait for the machine that does excite me.
Page: