AnimeSuki Forums

Dnous · 2006-06-13, 06:00

Well if its worth buying a ps3 differs for each person. For me it isnt worth buying the thing at the launch. Just look at their release dates and see what games you actually want to play and compare those with the games for the Wii and the 360. The game with the most interesting games that you want to play should decide what system you should buy. Not just the name.

zeeke · 2006-06-13, 07:49

bah.. there are good games for every system... in a sense... and they usualymake games for the most powerfull system (ps3 in this case) and wii will have some good games.. dont know much about wii actually...

Dnous · 2006-06-13, 08:56

They dont always make the most games for the most powerfull consoles. Look at the line-up from the ps2 and compare it to the xbox.
And now compare it with the 360 and ps3. 360 released earlier and ps3 later. 360 should have more games then and ps3 less but thats completly useless since we are talking about different consoles.

zeeke · 2006-06-13, 09:08

well, the ps2 came out earlyer than xbox.

Radd · 2006-06-13, 14:00

The PS2 was successful for a number of factors, actual power was not one of them. First, the Ps2 had name recognition. Sony was already well established as a console maker with the PSX.

Second, the PS2 had a hype machine like nothing before or since.

Third was cost. The PSX was a full hundred dollars less than the $400 Sega Saturn. The Saturn was incredibly expensive for a game console, and people were not willing to spend that much, especially when there was a less expensive alternative. The PS2 was also competitively priced, not straying beyond what gamers were willing to spend.

Finally, market saturation. Because of the name and the hype, plus a year head start, Sony had a large share of the market already wrapped up. Developers go where the money is, above and beyond any other factor. Since the majority of people owned PS2s, developers made more PS2 games than anything else, giving the PS2 a huge library of games, and the compeition without.

Actually, developer support should count twice, since there's another reason Sony has enjoyed developer support...when they first arrived on the scene, Nintendo was treating their developers like dirt, and Sony wooed them away with sweet deals and incentives.

Graphics power has never been the biggest factor in developer support.

Dnous · 2006-06-13, 14:26

Couldnt have said it better :X (which i didnt XD).

zeeke · 2006-06-13, 14:45

that might be true. but yet still, i think they were kinda amzed by the possibileties ps2 had to offer and as i said, it came out eralyer than xbox so more games were made, and more people had it. but anyway this is geting offtopic its the ps3 we should talk about ^^v

Dnous · 2006-06-13, 15:08

Oh well. What i tried to say was with my first post is. Its the games that makes a console worth your money. Base your choice on that.

wnkryo · 2006-06-13, 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radd

Actually, developer support should count twice, since there's another reason Sony has enjoyed developer support...when they first arrived on the scene, Nintendo was treating their developers like dirt, and Sony wooed them away with sweet deals and incentives.

Agreed, developer support obviously makes or breaks a system, and the ps2/gamecube consoles are prime examples of this. It's unfortunate that Nintendo still hasn't done much to sway third party developers as of yet, and for some reason still think that their first party games will help them dominate the market. Which is why I think ps3 is the right choice for me, because it already has so much 3rd party support, and I'm seeing alot of original games that really spark my interest (See my thread about Assasins Creed). But I hate the fact that sony made the console so damn expensive, and then made it worse by offering 2 versions of the system where the more expensive version is really the only way to go.

Even for a working man like me, I just can't fork over $600+ for a friggin game system. *waits for price drop*

Radd · 2006-06-13, 22:13

Nintendo is certainly trying, they're bending over backwards for developers whenever they can. Same with Microsoft. It's just that with this ending generation of consoles, there was already such a gap, Sony had such a head start in sales, that developers stuck with them. Developers go with the money is, and if there's a console with 2 million units in gamers hands, and a console with 10 million, they can obviously make more money with the latter console.

That's one reason you can't count on Sony having unrivaled developer support for the PS3 by default. Sony no longer has the edge in sales, in fact right now they're behind, since the 360 is already out and making money. The reluctance of Japanese developers to back an American console is the big thing helping Sony right now.

Also, if the majority of potential PS3 owners share the "wait for a price drop" attitude, then by the time that price drop comes...both Nintendo and Microsoft will liekly have market saturation to rival, or even exceed, Sony's. Developers will not ignore that. They go where the money is.

jpwong · 2006-06-14, 03:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radd

Also, if the majority of potential PS3 owners share the "wait for a price drop" attitude, then by the time that price drop comes...both Nintendo and Microsoft will liekly have market saturation to rival, or even exceed, Sony's. Developers will not ignore that. They go where the money is.

I agree that this mindset could be the cause of some major complications for sony. With that incredible launch price, I'm sure that a lot of people are a bit leery about dropping that kind of cash. Their second problem as I see it, is that their neutuered version of the console really isn't worth the $100 savings, and it still costs a considerable amount of money. There are other issues I could potentially see, though it remains to be seen extactly how sony plans to market their machine, and exactly what it will be able to do out of the box, so I can't really make any comments or opinions on that yet.

In terms of cost vs preformance, I have a feeling that cost may just win out. Certainly it remains to be seen in actuality, but I know a lot of parents that would freak out at the thought of spending over $300 on a "gaming console", and even the middle aged targets that have disposable income to burn seem to balk at the exorbant price the PS3 launch is coveted at, no matter how well it outpreforms the Wii.

Potatochobit · 2006-06-14, 04:24

im thinking is the high launch price just a bluff?

if they sold it for 400$ after stating all this time it is worth 600$, i could see a lot of people picking it up.

but yea, over 300$ is kind of silly. you can get nice computer for 800$.

Benoit · 2006-06-14, 05:21

Quote:

and they usualymake games for the most powerfull system (ps3 in this case)

The Nintendo 64 was more powerful than the PSX. The Sega Saturn had a little edge, too.
Both the GameCube and the XBox were more powerful than the PS2.

Quote:

Actually, developer support should count twice, since there's another reason Sony has enjoyed developer support...when they first arrived on the scene, Nintendo was treating their developers like dirt, and Sony wooed them away with sweet deals and incentives.

What about Sega? You never hear that angle.

Quote:

but yet still, i think they were kinda amzed by the possibileties ps2 had to offer and as i said, it came out eralyer than xbox so more games were made

Its possibilities were very lacking when it first came out in the eye of the developers. That is, it was a bitch to program for, and Sony didn't give them any help at all. They kept at it because of the market share.

Quote:

It's unfortunate that Nintendo still hasn't done much to sway third party developers as of yet

Huh? Recently Nintendo has been known to make a great effort to help developers. Also, look at the list of third party support for the Wii, and you will see that it's quite decent.

Radd · 2006-06-14, 06:34

Quote:

The Nintendo 64 was more powerful than the PSX. The Sega Saturn had a little edge, too.
Both the GameCube and the XBox were more powerful than the PS2.

It's a bit complicated for that generation. The N64 cuuld not push as many polygons as the PSX, but it could render them much better. The N64 never had the "twitching polygon" problem of the PSX, and the N64 also had anti-aliasing, and could push much more impressive effects. However, it's while its cart based format allowed for larger areas to be rendered all at once (hence HUGE levels not broken up into smaller sections due to system limitations) and nil load times, that format also had limited space, meaning less room for texture maps and FMV (which was popular at the time).

The Sega Saturn was a power house of a console, it was an affordable NeoGeo and then some. However, it had a complicated architecture that made developing a pain, and it could not do 3D quite as well as the PSX, as seen in more limited effects such as transparencies and whatnot. Still, as far as 2D games (which were now a finely crafted art, while 3D games were in their awkward, ungainly infancy), the Saturn beat the PSX hands down. Capcom, SNK, and many other developers who still focused on 2D games gave the Saturn their all...but sales were still dissapointing, because people wanted 3D games.

As for how Sega treated their developers? I'm not entirely certain. So many other things were working against Sega, they weren't hurting for support right away, they lost support as time went on, as the PSX pulled so far ahead, become the most owned console of the generation. Even then, developers still made 2D games for the system that destroyed anything of their kind on the PSX...but it's like I said, nobody cared. The age of 3D was here. A shame, really.

Quote:

im thinking is the high launch price just a bluff?

if they sold it for 400$ after stating all this time it is worth 600$, i could see a lot of people picking it up.

but yea, over 300$ is kind of silly. you can get nice computer for 800$.

I'm reminded of an out of town friend who was visiting while E3 was going on. All week he kept saying, "They're not going to call it the Wii. Just you wait and see, they'll come out at E3 and say 'we were kidding' and announce the real name!" He honestly believed that.

I suggest you do as my friend was forced to do, come to grips with it. The PS3 will be $600.

wnkryo · 2006-06-14, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benoit

Huh? Recently Nintendo has been known to make a great effort to help developers. Also, look at the list of third party support for the Wii, and you will see that it's quite decent.

Huh? Gamecube had the same level of support in it's early stages, and look how that turned out. I would keep my cards in my hand before I deal them to Nintendo's "great efforts to help devlopers [come on their side]".

nubby · 2006-11-11, 22:38

So I had the chance to play the ps3 today at Target. After reading about how ps3 was X more powerful than the xbox 360, and playing it myself today, the system didn't really live up to the hype. Don't get me wrong, the graphic is on par with the 360 but in no way was it 2x-10x better than the 360. Motorstorm looked good and was fun to play but NBA 07 sucked... The two systems are pretty much equal in term of power. Anyways, what do you guys think of the ps3?

RisArk · 2006-11-11, 23:26

Almost every time, launch games are really bad in terms of utilizing a system's power. Compare the first playstation 2 games to now, and there's a really big difference in memory and graphics.

Two years from now, we'll see how gorgeous PS3 will really be.

....Although I'm still not spending half a grand for one.

Lebron · 2006-11-12, 00:28

That 2x-10x junk was just PR talk. 360 and PS3, are pretty much the same in graphic power. There are somethings the 360 does better than the PS3, and Vice Versa. I think that argument needs to die down, now. I remember when people were bashing 360s graphics last year, saying it looks like xbox and blah blah. Then you had games like FNR3, GRAW, and of course, Gears of War hit, and pretty much put all that stupid bashing to shame. So I'm sure PS3 will put that argument to shame aswell come next year, most likely, when MGS4 hits.

Outside of Resistance, there isn't really any standout launch games. But next year thats a different story,

Heavenly sword for one, looks amazing. If I was getting a PS3 next year, I would be pickin it up for sure.

Ninja Gaiden: Sigma looks good, not leaps and bounds over Ninja Gaiden: Black, but still looks good.

Lair looked good aswell, well it has the potiential to look really good. It had huge framerate problems and tearing issues. Also the enemy a.i. looked like they all needed special helmets, aka retarded, but good thing it got delayed so they can now work out all those kinks.

When SE finishes developing the White Engine, and pops out FFXIII in '08, you'll see some amazing graphics aswell.

Don't know why your surprised NBA 07 was terrible, '06 and '07 both sucked balls on the PS2. That franchise ain't comparing to the 2K series or even Live, they should just pack it up and let it fade to black.

Just give the PS3 a good year or 2 like RisArk said, and you'll get your OMG looking games. The PS3 is a little more troublesome to develop for , than the 360 or Wii, so it just takes some time for devs to get use to and to really bring out the systems true potiential.

Potatochobit · 2006-11-12, 05:48

thats not entirely true, alot of systems had good launch titles.

gamecube had SSB?
dreamcast had sonic adventure
nintendo N64 had mario 64
xbox had halo
playstation had FF7? or it was shortly after release.
sega saturn had virtua fighter and panzer dragoon
SNES had marioworld

if you have to use a sports title for your best launch game... well that does say something.

Itachikun · 2006-11-12, 06:24

Is it really worth buying it? I didnt find any good games worth playing...

I mean I would buy it only they had a really good game worht playing at launch... either that or I wait for the price to go down in the next month or two.
________
FERRARI F1-86 HISTORY

2006-06-13, 08:56	Link #23
Dnous wut Join Date: Nov 2004	They dont always make the most games for the most powerfull consoles. Look at the line-up from the ps2 and compare it to the xbox. And now compare it with the 360 and ps3. 360 released earlier and ps3 later. 360 should have more games then and ps3 less but thats completly useless since we are talking about different consoles. Last edited by Dnous; 2006-06-13 at 09:45.

2006-06-13, 14:00	Link #25
Radd Just Married, Oct. 28th! Join Date: May 2003 Age: 45	The PS2 was successful for a number of factors, actual power was not one of them. First, the Ps2 had name recognition. Sony was already well established as a console maker with the PSX. Second, the PS2 had a hype machine like nothing before or since. Third was cost. The PSX was a full hundred dollars less than the $400 Sega Saturn. The Saturn was incredibly expensive for a game console, and people were not willing to spend that much, especially when there was a less expensive alternative. The PS2 was also competitively priced, not straying beyond what gamers were willing to spend. Finally, market saturation. Because of the name and the hype, plus a year head start, Sony had a large share of the market already wrapped up. Developers go where the money is, above and beyond any other factor. Since the majority of people owned PS2s, developers made more PS2 games than anything else, giving the PS2 a huge library of games, and the compeition without. Actually, developer support should count twice, since there's another reason Sony has enjoyed developer support...when they first arrived on the scene, Nintendo was treating their developers like dirt, and Sony wooed them away with sweet deals and incentives. Graphics power has never been the biggest factor in developer support. __________________

2006-06-13, 22:13	Link #30
Radd Just Married, Oct. 28th! Join Date: May 2003 Age: 45	Nintendo is certainly trying, they're bending over backwards for developers whenever they can. Same with Microsoft. It's just that with this ending generation of consoles, there was already such a gap, Sony had such a head start in sales, that developers stuck with them. Developers go with the money is, and if there's a console with 2 million units in gamers hands, and a console with 10 million, they can obviously make more money with the latter console. That's one reason you can't count on Sony having unrivaled developer support for the PS3 by default. Sony no longer has the edge in sales, in fact right now they're behind, since the 360 is already out and making money. The reluctance of Japanese developers to back an American console is the big thing helping Sony right now. Also, if the majority of potential PS3 owners share the "wait for a price drop" attitude, then by the time that price drop comes...both Nintendo and Microsoft will liekly have market saturation to rival, or even exceed, Sony's. Developers will not ignore that. They go where the money is. __________________

2006-11-11, 22:38	Link #36
nubby Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Boston, MA	So I had the chance to play the ps3 So I had the chance to play the ps3 today at Target. After reading about how ps3 was X more powerful than the xbox 360, and playing it myself today, the system didn't really live up to the hype. Don't get me wrong, the graphic is on par with the 360 but in no way was it 2x-10x better than the 360. Motorstorm looked good and was fun to play but NBA 07 sucked... The two systems are pretty much equal in term of power. Anyways, what do you guys think of the ps3? Last edited by NoSanninWa; 2006-11-14 at 01:59. Reason: Each console only gets one thread. If you want more go to GameFAQs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2006-11-12, 06:24	Link #40
Itachikun Animesuki's Janitor Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Somewhere in Shigeru Miyamoto's head Age: 37	Is it really worth buying it? I didnt find any good games worth playing... I mean I would buy it only they had a really good game worht playing at launch... either that or I wait for the price to go down in the next month or two. ________ FERRARI F1-86 HISTORY Last edited by Itachikun; 2011-02-15 at 08:44.

2006-06-13, 06:00	Link #21
Dnous wut Join Date: Nov 2004	Well if its worth buying a ps3 differs for each person. For me it isnt worth buying the thing at the launch. Just look at their release dates and see what games you actually want to play and compare those with the games for the Wii and the 360. The game with the most interesting games that you want to play should decide what system you should buy. Not just the name.

2006-06-13, 07:49	Link #22
zeeke I will eat your cookies!! Join Date: May 2006 Location: in my house	bah.. there are good games for every system... in a sense... and they usualymake games for the most powerfull system (ps3 in this case) and wii will have some good games.. dont know much about wii actually...

2006-06-13, 09:08	Link #24
zeeke I will eat your cookies!! Join Date: May 2006 Location: in my house	well, the ps2 came out earlyer than xbox.

2006-06-13, 14:26	Link #26
Dnous wut Join Date: Nov 2004	Couldnt have said it better :X (which i didnt XD).

2006-06-13, 14:45	Link #27
zeeke I will eat your cookies!! Join Date: May 2006 Location: in my house	that might be true. but yet still, i think they were kinda amzed by the possibileties ps2 had to offer and as i said, it came out eralyer than xbox so more games were made, and more people had it. but anyway this is geting offtopic its the ps3 we should talk about ^^v

2006-06-13, 15:08	Link #28
Dnous wut Join Date: Nov 2004	Oh well. What i tried to say was with my first post is. Its the games that makes a console worth your money. Base your choice on that.

2006-06-14, 04:24	Link #32
Potatochobit Certified Organic Join Date: Dec 2005	im thinking is the high launch price just a bluff? if they sold it for 400$ after stating all this time it is worth 600$, i could see a lot of people picking it up. but yea, over 300$ is kind of silly. you can get nice computer for 800$.

2006-11-11, 23:26	Link #37
RisArk Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006	Almost every time, launch games are really bad in terms of utilizing a system's power. Compare the first playstation 2 games to now, and there's a really big difference in memory and graphics. Two years from now, we'll see how gorgeous PS3 will really be. ....Although I'm still not spending half a grand for one.

2006-11-12, 00:28	Link #38
Lebron I hear voices Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Age: 37	That 2x-10x junk was just PR talk. 360 and PS3, are pretty much the same in graphic power. There are somethings the 360 does better than the PS3, and Vice Versa. I think that argument needs to die down, now. I remember when people were bashing 360s graphics last year, saying it looks like xbox and blah blah. Then you had games like FNR3, GRAW, and of course, Gears of War hit, and pretty much put all that stupid bashing to shame. So I'm sure PS3 will put that argument to shame aswell come next year, most likely, when MGS4 hits. Outside of Resistance, there isn't really any standout launch games. But next year thats a different story, Heavenly sword for one, looks amazing. If I was getting a PS3 next year, I would be pickin it up for sure. Ninja Gaiden: Sigma looks good, not leaps and bounds over Ninja Gaiden: Black, but still looks good. Lair looked good aswell, well it has the potiential to look really good. It had huge framerate problems and tearing issues. Also the enemy a.i. looked like they all needed special helmets, aka retarded, but good thing it got delayed so they can now work out all those kinks. When SE finishes developing the White Engine, and pops out FFXIII in '08, you'll see some amazing graphics aswell. Don't know why your surprised NBA 07 was terrible, '06 and '07 both sucked balls on the PS2. That franchise ain't comparing to the 2K series or even Live, they should just pack it up and let it fade to black. Just give the PS3 a good year or 2 like RisArk said, and you'll get your OMG looking games. The PS3 is a little more troublesome to develop for , than the 360 or Wii, so it just takes some time for devs to get use to and to really bring out the systems true potiential.

2006-11-12, 05:48	Link #39
Potatochobit Certified Organic Join Date: Dec 2005	thats not entirely true, alot of systems had good launch titles. gamecube had SSB? dreamcast had sonic adventure nintendo N64 had mario 64 xbox had halo playstation had FF7? or it was shortly after release. sega saturn had virtua fighter and panzer dragoon SNES had marioworld if you have to use a sports title for your best launch game... well that does say something.