Official PS3 thread (Part Deux)

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:58 pm

True, the only impressions we'll get are the Ebay ones.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:03 pm

Went in a Target on my lunch break and looked at the PS3 cabinet--looked like VERY few games had been purchased. The only open spots were for games that I don't think have been released (Blazing Angels) and Resisitance's two rows were jammed almost completely full.

Clearly someone wants to play the system, otherwise they wouldn't be going for so much on eBay, but it is crazy to see this amount of flipping.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:06 pm

seanmac31 wrote:
Kazuya wrote:
seanmac31 wrote: Well, judging from early reviews, they can at least be trusted to deliver a comparably performing system one year earlier and for less money. Beyond that...
They can also be trusted to release a bug-filled system that for all intents and purposes had a recall for units made in 2005, have a launch with not enough units, shitty, less than promised backwards compatibility, and promised resolutions not working on a large number of TVs. Sound familiar?

And that's just in gaming.... do you want the abridged or unabridged version of all the other "good fortunes" that judges have decided they imparted to the consumers as a software company?
Color me profoundly uninterested. The bottom line is that I've already spent months playing the same games that I'd now have to line up in the cold for days and then drop six bills to play. Wake me up when Sony delivers a gaming experience that I haven't already had. (And that's without even bringing GOW into the discussion.)

What does that have to do with anything? Wake me up when you're back on the topic...

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:08 pm

Kazuya wrote:
seanmac31 wrote:
Kazuya wrote: They can also be trusted to release a bug-filled system that for all intents and purposes had a recall for units made in 2005, have a launch with not enough units, shitty, less than promised backwards compatibility, and promised resolutions not working on a large number of TVs. Sound familiar?

And that's just in gaming.... do you want the abridged or unabridged version of all the other "good fortunes" that judges have decided they imparted to the consumers as a software company?
Color me profoundly uninterested. The bottom line is that I've already spent months playing the same games that I'd now have to line up in the cold for days and then drop six bills to play. Wake me up when Sony delivers a gaming experience that I haven't already had. (And that's without even bringing GOW into the discussion.)
What does that have to do with anything? Wake me up when you're back on the topic...

You must be joking. Microsoft's non-console related history is relevant but Sony's inability to provide a compelling reason to buy their console at launch is not?

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:11 pm

ScoopBrady wrote:How could the 360 have less than promised bc when they never really promised anything in that department? The only thing Microsoft said was they were working on bc and would try and get all the top selling games to work. I'll give you less than hoped for but less than promised is total bs...

Microsoft absolutely promised b/c, and only revised it as the launch neared to be "with the top games". If you can find a source that contradicts that, please post it. Either way, the point is that it was a disappointment, just like the PS3's. I like how you nitpick the one point, though....[/quote]

ScoopBrady wrote:It's only a console Kaz.

Is it? I had no idea. Maybe you should tell that to the fanboys who dance to the news of Sony's finances and follow them more closely than actual Sony stockholders. Me, I'm just having a good time with it all.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:13 pm

seanmac31 wrote:
You must be joking. Microsoft's non-console related history is relevant but Sony's inability to provide a compelling reason to buy their console at launch is not?

You didn't address a single thing I said, and said you were "uninterested". What kind of response are you looking for? I don't mind having a discussion, but you at least have to try.

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:30 pm

Kazuya wrote:
seanmac31 wrote:
You must be joking. Microsoft's non-console related history is relevant but Sony's inability to provide a compelling reason to buy their console at launch is not?
You didn't address a single thing I said, and said you were "uninterested". What kind of response are you looking for? I don't mind having a discussion, but you at least have to try.

I wasn't particularly looking for a response from you. Let me re-state my point thusly:

Regardless of the technical difficulties and the original shortages, Microsoft has delivered a console that has been on the market for a year and that plays nearly all of the games that are now going to be available on PS3. From early reports, those games actually play and look better on the 360 than they do on a PS3. Microsoft has also delivered at least one system-selling exclusive game. To someone who is interested in actually, I don't know, playing video games, that seems like relevant information. To this point, Sony has done zero to demonstrate that they have a product that is superior to what is already out there, and they are asking for more money and having difficulty delivering units.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:45 pm

seanmac31 wrote: I wasn't particularly looking for a response from you. Let me re-state my point thusly:

Regardless of the technical difficulties and the original shortages, Microsoft has delivered a console that has been on the market for a year and that plays nearly all of the games that are now going to be available on PS3. From early reports, those games actually play and look better on the 360 than they do on a PS3.

All of this was accomplished simply because Microsoft bailed out of the last generation after only 4 years because they were getting pummeled by Sony. Anyone can be first. They've also squandered most of their lead by shipping a disappointing 6 million units worldwide, getting whipped by the ancient PS2, and not even approaching PS2 launch numbers.

seanmac31 wrote:
Microsoft has also delivered at least one system-selling exclusive game..

I think they've delivered more than one, but none of them were available at launch so that also is irrelevant.

seanmac31 wrote:
To someone who is interested in actually, I don't know, playing video games, that seems like relevant information. To this point, Sony has done zero to demonstrate that they have a product that is superior to what is already out there, and they are asking for more money and having difficulty delivering units.

*In your opinion* they've done zero. Check back in a year and look at the sales figures, and see how many consumers agree with you that they've done "zero".

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:22 pm

So a lot of SNE shorters here?

It's amazing how people get invested in consoles. If you're happy with your X360s, why try to talk down a competing product in a thread which is about that product?

If you want to post about how awful Sony is, then make that thread.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:25 pm

Kazuya wrote:
ScoopBrady wrote:How could the 360 have less than promised bc when they never really promised anything in that department? The only thing Microsoft said was they were working on bc and would try and get all the top selling games to work. I'll give you less than hoped for but less than promised is total bs...
Microsoft absolutely promised b/c, and only revised it as the launch neared to be "with the top games". If you can find a source that contradicts that, please post it. Either way, the point is that it was a disappointment, just like the PS3's. I like how you nitpick the one point, though....

Um. No they pretty much went with the "top games" thing from the beginning.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3143142

"A lot of us have been wondering about the Xbox 360's backwards compatibility issue. Microsoft has announced that the Xbox 360 will be partially backwards compatible. What does that mean? Today we spoke with an industry source who shed some light on the subject."

"But resources are limited, so only triple A titles will get this kind of attention"

I clearly agreed that bc might have disappointed but they didn't overpromise.

As for your other points here you go:

Kazuya wrote:They can also be trusted to release a bug-filled system that for all intents and purposes had a recall for units made in 2005, have a launch with not enough units, shitty, less than promised backwards compatibility, and promised resolutions not working on a large number of TVs. Sound familiar?

1. Let's give the PS3's a month and see what problems there are. The few actual impressions I have seen say the thing runs very hot and there have been multiple crashes and games not loading properly. We'll see.

2. I already commented on bc.

3. I've never heard of any resolution problems. Link?

grtwhtsk · Post by **grtwhtsk** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:26 pm

wco81 wrote:So a lot of SNE shorters here?

It's amazing how people get invested in consoles. If you're happy with your X360s, why try to talk down a competing product in a thread which is about that product?

If you want to post about how awful Sony is, then make that thread.

Well said.

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:37 pm

Kazuya wrote: I think they've delivered more than one, but none of them were available at launch so that also is irrelevant.

No, it's profoundly relevant. The choice consumers currently have isn't between a launch PS3 or a launch Xbox 360. It's between the current 360 library and the current PS3 library.

Kazuya wrote:*In your opinion* they've done zero. Check back in a year and look at the sales figures, and see how many consumers agree with you that they've done "zero".

That Sony will sell a lot of PS3s goes without saying. They've built up a massive customer base and for many "Playstation" is synonymous with videogaming. That doesn't mean that they have developed a superior product. For someone who is a relatively informed gamer and isn't predisposed to showing brand loyalty to one console or another, Sony hasn't put together anything that would make them think that a) it was a good idea to skip the 360 and wait for the PS3 or b) that they need to run out and trade in their 360 because the PS3 is now available (and available needs to be put in extra-super-duper quotation marks).

MizzouRah · Post by **MizzouRah** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:41 pm

Damn.. a friend snagged two ps3's - his wife has a connection and well, he's about to make some serious cash. Can't blame him.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:51 pm

seanmac31, ScoopBrady:

I see your replies and I'm not ignoring them... I'll try to find the time to respond through PM. I really don't see the point in perpetuating these two big PS3 threads anymore... this is an Xbox board, I'm not getting a PS3 right now and no one else is either. I'm glad the launch has come and gone so we can stop talking about it. We still have the PS3 hands on impressions thread to use but these other two threads should die now. Of course, someone will bump them up from page three at the next bug found in the PS3 or when Sony's stock drops a point... but it won't be me. I'm going to try Defender and some of the new 360 demos.