Thats because part of the revolution IS the controller.

Although I am still not understanding the hint.. "touching is good, but feeling is better."

I wonder if the Nintendo R will have some sort of sexual devices installed into it?

Loduwijk wrote:

I am not saying that you specifically are, rather that it has that effect, which it does. Many people are exactly what you describe there.

What is Sony? Do you really know? It's a company, and it has only one goal: to make money, honor be damned. Honorable companies don't last. It's a cut-throat business, and those with the sharpest marketing strategies are going to win.

Don't be a hater because you don't like thier marketing strategies, becuase you're putting a blind eye to everyone else who does the same thing. You think Nintendo doesn't use dishonorable practices to get their product in our hands? You know Microsoft does. Sony is just playing ball with some heavy hitters, and doing a good job too. If that's wrong, then I don't want them to be right.

I do not see how such a blatant lack of honor would not be insulting. Rather, it insults Sony to a very high degree.

No, it doesn't. There is no honor in business. Saying Sony gets new people hooked on their product with their marketing strategies to the point where the people love the product before they buy it is not insulting them, it's praising them. Saying the gamers have no brains to make their own minds up about what they want to buy, is, however, insulting to us gamers.

I don't care if your comment wasn't directed right at me, personally, I still found it offensive and insulting, to say I don't have the capacity to know what I like until someone tells me what I like.

As for the gamers, it is only insulting to those who fall into that category, though they often deny it is the case and therefor don't feel insulted in the same manner.

The category of gamers who like Sony? O.o Hey, that's me!

As for having the best value for the buck, I would have to disagree. I have just as much fun with a Gamecube as you have with a PS2, but the Gamecube costs less. I get the same end result at a lower cost.

Cost is irrelivant to outdated systems. I could get one for nothing, if I wanted to. I'm refering to the pool of games available to the console itself. (PS2.games > GameCube.games >= Xbox.games)

As for making old titles obsolete, I fail to see how that is the case. They aren't obsolete, they just aren't sold anymore. Similarly, I doubt all the old Sony games are still sold new.

They don't have to be new. For the most part, people already own these classic games. Even if I could buy a new copy of Super Mario Bros. 3, I can't play it on my GameCube, or even on the new Revolution. That's not the case with the PS. Every game you've ever owned for any Playstation console can be played directly on the PS3. Where do you stick your Duck Hunt cartridge in the Revolution? Yeah, thought so.

I still get just as much fun out of the N64 as I did before the Gamecube was released. And, as others have said, the Gamecube will have the ability to play older Nintendo games as well; however, I don't like the fact that they will charge a fee, even if it is a small one, as they have already made their money off those games and they should come already packaged with the system on a hard disk.

So, in order to play, say, Deja vu, I have to download it? Will they even have such a rare title? I doubt they will. Oh, and I have to pay for it all over again, even though I own the cartridge? I'm sorry, but that's not good enough for me. If they built an Uber Nintendo that can play any cartridge or disc from all the consoles, then sure, they're on the right track. This, hoever, is just a way to suck more money out the gamers. If we wanted these old games on the HD for the Revolution, why wouldn't we just get the game from some ROM site?

As for delivering on the hype, I will merely bring up the fact that Sony has outright promised some things and not gone through with their word.

Every company has, it's part of the business. You want to do this, but when it comes time to, you find out you can't. It's not easy keeping up with the big boys, you know. People make claims, and sometimes those claims fall through. How long did we wait for the N64? How many times did they promise it to be out by a certain date, only to push its release back, yet again? You have to accept that sometimes, people say things that turn out not to be true. I am sure they don't lie, as having your words thrown in your face hurts the company's image, which is bad for business. Companies aren't out to hurt themselves. They make reasonable claims, and sometimes, those turn out to be not so reasonable. There is nothing wrong with it.

There is one thing that hyped up a lot of people that I merely laughed at though... when Sony patented that mind-interface technology that it had not even developed yet. If that is legal, why don't I go out and patent a nuclear fission rocket? I haven't developed it yet, but I will!

Sony is a big company with many many interests and investments. They don't only make games, you know. From what I read, this was just something their engineers were working on, to advance the field. It had nothing at all to do with Sony's game development. The only link was a comment someone made in the article about how games could theoretically be made to beam images, smells and feelings into your brain. It wasn't hype, it was an article about a new technology Sony is working on which has nothing at all to do with games. And they aren't even the only ones, or even the first ones, working on interacting with the brain, they just came up with a better approach.

And yes, it is often common to patent something before it is built. Sometimes a prototype is included, but it's not always necessary. They patented the technique, so no one else could develop it while they did. They're just protecting their investments, which a good company should.

The only clue I see Nintendo getting is that they have to pull back on their research and development of superior devices for the gaming industry in order to have more resources for the popularity contest.

What are these "superior devices" you keep talking about? O.o Nintendo has been playing catch-up to Sony for years. They still are. When reviews and articles are written about the new consoles, who are the consoles compared to? Not Nintendo. Why? Because Sony is the dominant entity in console gaming right now, and has held that rank for many many years.

They're the reason Sega got out of the race, and Atari. There was just too much work that needed to be done to overpower Sony and the Playstation. Nintendo would have gone the same way, if it were not for the millions of loyal fans that grew up with Mario, Zelda and the NES.

Yes, I can find many more games from either Microsoft or Nintendo that I like than I can from Sony.

But Sony has so many games, and they all play directly on the PS3. XBox isn't even a consideration right now, and Nintendo looks like their trying to cash in on the nostolgia that's kept them alive, which may prove disasterous, perhaps even lethal to the company.

The number of teraflops the console can crunch does not, in itself, make the console more fun, of course. However, having better components in the console does allow it to do more. Many games have been scaled down because the machine they were made for could not handle what was wanted, and that does degrade the quality of the game itself. Console power does have an effect on gameplay.

I have to disagree. Bigger and better components don't mean diddly if the games focus on maximizing the number of animated models in the cutscenes and neglect to add the fun gameplay. Gameplay, you do know what gameplay is, right? It's the act of playing the game, the ... whatever ... that players do to accomplish the game's goals. It's usually no more complex than "Press A near Monster, Monster Dies, Repeat".

Graphics, hardware, teraflops. That's all nothing more than icing on an already neglected cake. Who wants huge worlds full of breathtaking scenery if the gameplay makes the experience horrendous? From what I've seen, generally, bigger and better hardware translates into crappier games if the developers are more focused on pushing the envelope than pushing the players.

You have a thing against Sony, and it goes beyond their marketing strategies. I know this because all three powerhouses are using the same strategies. Your grudge is personal. Don't make it out as a fact of the universe that Sony is the devil. It didn't bode well for Michael Jackson either.

~X (wow, this is a long one!)

Xooxer wrote:

The only link was a comment someone made in the article about how games could theoretically be made to beam images, smells and feelings into your brain. It wasn't hype, it was an article about a new technology Sony is working on which has nothing at all to do with games. And they aren't even the only ones, or even the first ones, working on interacting with the brain, they just came up with a better approach.

You'd be surprised how advanced some of this technology is. It has been out of the press because of the extensive FDA testing required to approve a neural interface device, but the research is both well-funded and prolific. We've made progress in both sending signals TO the brain and receiving them FROM the brain. If someone could cut through the red tape, we'd be very close to the virtual realities portrayed thus far only in science fiction.

Also I'd hardly say Nintendo is only just begining to catch on about backwards compatibility, take a look at the Gameboy. It just hasn't been practical to do the same with consoles, at least not up until now.
The Gamecube, SNES, and I'd assume Revolution all have Gameboy compatibility. I'd be able to find hundreds of Gameboy games I love, but I wouldn't consider it a great selling point.

i have also heard that Nintendo R is gonna have somekind of software in which u can play snes games regular nintendo N64 not sure if it just rumor tho

Shades wrote:

Xbox sucks, plain and simple.

I finally broke down 2 years ago and bought one, and got it modded out. I only have like 3 Xbox games on the HD, the rest is emulation.

I dont use my Xbox for a Xbox, I should have taken that $300.00 and bought a new Dell. I could have done more with it.

Xbox delivers for me, alot of crappy junk, it seems to them, their idea of good gaming is violence, sex and blood. I cant find more then 2 or 3 titles for my little sister to play on it, and I wouldnt let her waste my HD space by copying them.

Sony on the other hand has made easily over 1,000 titles in the past few years that I love and adore. But Sony is a bunch of turds at the same time, making their hardware expensive, and poorly made. Look at how every Sony game proudct, when first put out has had its fair share of problems. PS1, PS2 and the PSP all have had OS and Hardware errors that had to be later fixed or repaired.

Mean while, I have never had any problems with my Gamecube, N64, or even my Snes or Nes. Matter of fact, I left my window open one time, and it rained and filled my Gamecube tray up with water, I had to shake it out and let it dry, and guess what, still works perfect. I would never trust a sony product to do the same.

In the end, I am waiting for the Nintendo R and Gameboy E. Later on, if the PS3 allows support for UMD on their syste, Ill get a PS3. But MS will never get my money again for a home system like Xbox. <font size = -2>it sucks balls.</font>

or u could have bout a gamecube dosent contain as much of the adult orinted stuff as Xbox and PS2

Also, does anyone else think that Playstation sounds kind of childish that sounds like this building we have that little kids go to I think they should change the name.

Doesn't bother me, but I guess I've had a long time to get used to it. The name "PlayStation" is a play on "workstation," i.e., a powerful single-user computer. I think I had my first PlayStation for a year or more before I realized that...