M-more casual games...
NO!! NOT ON MY PSP!
GOD!!!
...
Do you think they'll have another Super Mario game for the DS?
mmmm super mario 64...

Mecha Destroyer JD wrote:

Meh, people keep saying the Gamecube was a failure as if they just stopped making games for it. It was a financial failure, but not a failure to the fans. They had games coming out for it up until the Wii came out, a true failure wouldn't last that long. I would say the Gamecube still has games coming out for it, but I don't know how true that is...0_0

The Gamecube was never a finical failure. Nintendo knows how to build systems and they know how to do it cheaply as well. Even when the Nintendo Gamecube first came out, it was making money, not loosing it, like so many other companies tend to do. It wasn't until the Gamecube price dropped to about $50 did Nintendo ever even begin to loose money on that system.

As for the Blu-Ray. whatever. I don't even use HD-DVDs and I am sure as hell not going to pay extra for Blu-Ray disks, and I am not the only person thinking like that. The fact is, even if you have a Blu-Ray player, unless you have a GOOD TV to back up the clarity advertised for the Blu-Ray format, you won't see much of a differance. Right now Blu-Ray DVDs only apply twards people who don't mind paying an extra $10 for Blue-Ray, who can afford a Blu-Ray DVD player and can afford a decent TV to go with it.

I don't want any more god damn DVD media formats. I already invested in the first DVD format. screw the rest of them. When I buy a new format to replace the old one I expect something much much better, not something that looks a little bit better and costs $10.00. I want like freaking color holograms or something. But Blu-Ray? No thanks.

Block Buster is only going to loose money but not supporting HD DVDs for the people who even give a rats ass about the Media. Its like when my Family Video refused to carry Dreamcast games, I just went to another video company, one that did rent Dreamcast games. The same will happen here.

But I rant too much. To be honest I don't even care for E3. All it ever was, was a three ring circus and the media was slightly entertaining. Now that it is closed coverage, I don't even give a damn. Besides that E3 is in by no means a way to try and measure a game company by their worth.

~Kujila

Cheetoz wrote:

PS3 sales seem to be spiking, I believe sales have peaked at a 2800% increase (on amazon.com) since the price drop. I know this won't keep up, but it shows people are taking a second look.

According to Sony, who have already been exaggerating or occasionally telling outright lies, their sales have doubled. Doubling almost five times over would be something they'd mention at E3.

Also, in reality there is no price drop. They're selling the 60GB units on clearance, essentially, and once inventories run out the 80GB model will be all there is. The 80GB sells for the old price, so basically the price is shooting right back up. What do you get for that $100 spike? 20GB more hard drive space and the removal of backward compatibility. I.e., people will then be paying more for an inferior product.

Lummox JR

Thing is, PS3 is a good machine but when people actually notice it, it will be too late and that is when microsoft and nintendo would have their new console out.

The new model will be backwards-compatible, just quite limited. It uses onboard software to emulate older games instead of the Emotion Emulator, a piece of hardware previously used to emulate the software.

In fact, European models have never had the Emotion Emulator--they've been suing the onboard software emulation the entire time. Sony just decided to go with that version to save a little money. They need to because they are losing a lot. They've also switched because they are concerned about the reliability with the Emotion Emulator.

Anyway, the PS3 will become increasingly backwards compatible with software updates that you can get from their website. http://www.us.playstation.com/

The hardware emulation was quite a bit more expensive. Also, how do you know your discs weren't busted up? Perhaps that's why they didn't work? The software emulation is a lot cheaper. They can update it gradually and because they have and know all of the software, it should be a piece of cake.

CaptFalcon33035 wrote:

The new model will be backwards-compatible, just quite limited. It uses onboard software to emulate older games instead of the Emotion Emulator, a piece of hardware previously used to emulate the software.

In fact, European models have never had the Emotion Emulator--they've been suing the onboard software emulation the entire time. Sony just decided to go with that version to save a little money. They need to because they are losing a lot. They've also switched because they are concerned about the reliability with the Emotion Emulator.

Hardware emulation would be superior in speed to software emulation, which they well know. So people are going to start asking, "Why am I paying an extra $100 just to lose speed in older games?"

Yes, they'll look at that $100 as an extra; they won't look at the $499 version as being $100 cheaper than what's fair and right. They'll look at it as still $200 over what the mass market will pay. Sony has in effect made a new price point, already higher than the true price of demand, and then priced their next console above them both while diminishing its value. They not only now have to compete with the fact that their machine is overpriced, but the new perception that a PS3 should cost no more than $499.

Lummox JR

Revenant Jesus wrote:

I don't see why everyone hates on the Gamecube, some of the best games I've played was on it. I know I have had more fun playing most of my Gamecube games then most of my PS2 games. And I didn't even touch the Xbox.

Many games that came out for the cube could be played better on XBOX, or in the case of soul caliber, the cube didn't have soul caliber 3.

The cube was great for mario games, but that's exactly where the fun ended. Nintendo had very few first party exclusives that were good outside of their own franchises. The system was better than the PS2 in my opinion, load times were ussually better, graphics sharper, and in a console test I once saw the cube was the most durable of the three platforms, it still played games fine after being droped 10 feet or so. But Nintendo was banking too much on durability and an appeal to children.

I really liked the cube, but it just lacked a lot of great titles. Fire Emblem was probably the best thing to happen to the cube, and maybe Batallion wars, but by the time most of us saw those games it was too little too late.

Rockinawsome wrote:

Microsoft generally speaking has higher quality games than Sony's PS1 or PS2 line up. This is because the playstation was the model T of game consoles.

Gads your history is lacking. The Atari 2600 was the Model T of game consoles. The PS1 would likely be considered more of a Cadillac or a Thunderbird.

Also, comparing the PS1 and Xbox are kind of pointless, since the XBox came quite a bit later. PS2 and Xbox make a fairer comparison, since they're the same generation, although the Xbox still came later.

The PS3 has taken the company in a completely new direction -- quality games instead of volume, but its current console price is a flagrant reminder of what made the PS1 and PS2 so successful: it's cost.

While the quality is (or will be) there, volume is pretty important to justify the price of the console itself, and the difference in quality isn't that huge a leap. The completely new direction the PS3 has taken Sony in is right down the toilet. That's not to say it's a bad machine, but the decisions on pricing were so horrifically bad as to cause the company serious long-term harm, and they're still making bad decisions (and bad press releases) due to their inability to grasp the seriousness of their earlier missteps. Sony is hemorrhaging money. They lose over $200 per console on the PS3 for every unit they actually sell; they've sold far fewer than they've shipped.

The only company taking truly new directions is Nintendo, since they chose to target a largely untapped market--and so far it's paying off bigtime.

About the only good news Sony has is that Microsoft is as oblivious to as they are. Microsoft has had several huge opportunities to crush Sony by making certain strategic moves, and they've just blown it at every turn. The one thing Microsoft did right before E3 was announce they would be extending all warranties on 360s for the "red ring of death" (which some analysts speculate caused up to a 30% failure rate) to 3 years. This put attention back on the games instead of on reliability. Problem is, Microsoft failed to take the obvious followup and really show much from those games at E3, choosing instead to rely on all their titles later in the year to apparently sell themselves without the benefit of E3 hype. Had they hammered home the message that by the end of the year, the 360's armada of games will far outclass the PS3's, they could have hurt Sony badly.

Lummox JR