Nov 18 2006, 5:59 am
In response to Crispy
|
|
CaptFalcon33035
 |
I think Microsoft hopes that people will buy the Vista operating system for Halo 2.
|
Sasuke saga wrote:
from what i been told PS3 has a whole bunch of unfixable bugs like games not saving after a certain amounbt of use I really think you should rethink this. Do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds? If this even were true, I doubt the biggest PlayStation fanboys would even bother buying the system. That is obsurd. | |
CaptFalcon33035 wrote:
I think Microsoft hopes that people will buy the Vista operating system for Halo 2. Yeah, that's what it sounds like. I expect they'll get some fanboys jumping on the bandwagon, but I know I wouldn't be getting it. Halo on PC sucked in my opinion; I'm not going to change operating systems just to play the sequel. | |
Critical wrote:
fencing A fencing simulation on the Wii would be awesome. Especially if it had an instructor mode (like a tutorial, but more extensive). Heck, it might even push me over the line into buying a Wii. I did a bit of fencing a while back; the main reason I stopped is because it was a hassle travelling over to the other side of town to visit one of about three fencing instructors in the area. If I could just walk into my lounge room and do it there whenever I wanted that would be great. | |
I'm getting a PS3 as soon as I can, the price issue doesn't really bother me, head over to IGN and you will find that Sony are actually losing $250 per console, so we are actually getting a bargain! (kinda)
| |
Lue wrote:
All consoles lose money when releasing new units. There's a difference between planning to sell the console at a loss and simply 'loosing money'. Most consoles will set their price lower than the production costs in the beginning in order to help get the consoles into peoples houses. This is alright because they've planned for it, and provided things don't go radically wrong they'll make the money back. Sony on the other hand has to put even more money into the PS3 than they had planned because of mistakes that were made. They've been forced to put in more money without even a plan to get it back. The worst part is that it's still expensive because they choose to push the hardware to the point where you get a little more power for a lot more money. I wouldn't see the mark down of the PS3 as a bargain, it's more that they're just trying to avoid passing on the bills from their mistakes to you. | |
Crispy wrote:
Critical wrote: Imagine it 2 player :D, any real life activity that uses your hands i think could be emulated with the Wii controller | |
I think Halo 2's multiplayer was excellent, though it got really boring after about a week. Had some good times, though. I prefer Call of Duty 2: Big Red One's multiplayer to it anyday. *misses Xbox Live*
| |
Brings back memories of arguments of Graphics vs Gameplay ahh :D
Graphics: Xbox 360 PS3 Gameplay: Wii Now perhpas you could say I am wrong, but Wii have set out to make an evolution in gameplay, with the motion sensor controller etc. Xbox 360 and PS3 set out to make Superior graphics. In my opinion Wii are giving you the player a chance to interact with the game like never before, for example instead of holding down a button constantly to pull back a bow which can become a nuisance and tiring, you the play can actually do this with the controls. But of course for there to be good there must be bad.... The graphics on a Wii aren't exactly 'Next Gen material' they are more of Gamecube and PS2's level of graphics which is quite the dissapointment. Also you may say that the controller having the ability to sense motions is no biggy well that's you, try telling that to some fan boy. But of course it is possible to beat that with a good solid fun game for example Final Fantasy 12/13 or Halo 3 should deliver superior gameplay, but perhaps this is my opinion from the older versions and their success.. except for Dirge of Cerebrus...that was just wrong... :P It's up to you to forge your own opinion, but for me they follow in this rank order: Rank 1: Xbox 360 Rank 2: Wii Rank 3: PS3 Perhaps sony will prove some of us wrong, but untill that day dawns on us I will stick to my opinion! -Stephen | |
That's true, but I do have to wonder about what lag will do to lots of these games when played over the Internet. Smash Bros: Brawl, for example, could be interesting.
Being Australian, we have to worry about lag with Internet games. We only get crappy internets in Australia - high taxes prevent the importing of better ones. I'm still getting a Wii, though. Only 17 more sleeps, at time of posting! | |
Hey, hey, hey. Those two consoles aren't just graphics. They are power. A lot of their games will provide for excellent gameplay.
As for my original hypothesis, I do think that before the Xbox 3, the PS4, and the Nintendo Sphere (names are not real, by the way) that the Playstation will have more sales than all of those consoles. Sony has beaten them before. Twice. | |
It's not like we're going from PS3->Atari here.. Graphics between the 3 consoles aren't going to make you're eyes bleed in the slightest.
From the looks of it Red steel and SSBB would be worth the $350 bucks for me. I bought the GCN for the sole purpose of SSBM, and it has almost 600 hours of game time on it. Going off my "Movie ticket price = 2 hours" price comparison, thats some $2,500 worth of movie tickets time wise. PS3, the only reasons I would have gotten it were for Final Fantasy and possibly the next GTA game... But I'm not going to spend $700 for less of the same with pretty graphics. Xbox 360, If it wasn't for the Wii, I would most likely have picked this up. Wii, the innovative gameplay... You watch the previews and you WANT to get your hands on it to play it. | |
For sony not to take a huge hit on it they have to worry about game sales.. BIG TIME. $800+ costs to make a single console, they're coming out behind by about $400 assuming the stores get a smaller cut of the profit on the consoles. And assuming they work off the normal 50% or so cut on games going back to the developers, you have $25-30 going back before the developing/producing companies have a cut.
If you get very generous and assume Sony Gets that full $25 back on the games they would have to sell 16 games per console to break even. Compared to Microsoft for example who are making money on consoles.. Sony has a major uphill battle to not come out of it with a huge hole in the wallet. PArt of this also comes into play with how sony is using the PS3 to push a new media type, which unless the PS3 becomes mainstream will more or less flop. There is also the whole point that generally only PS3 Exclusive games will really go nuts with using Blu-ray, as they will otherwise have to retool thing to fit for Wii/360 format. | |
Jp wrote:
Being Australian, we have to worry about lag with Internet games. We only get crappy internets in Australia - high taxes prevent the importing of better ones. Maybe they're sending network packets over with the Wii shipments. | |
Elation wrote:
Enjoy your smashed living room. Haha. I'd move stuff out of the way first, obviously. =) | |
CaptFalcon33035 wrote:
As for my original hypothesis, I do think that before the Xbox 3, the PS4, and the Nintendo Sphere (names are not real, by the way) that the Playstation will have more sales than all of those consoles. Sony has beaten them before. Twice. I doubt it. Even with the PSP, the sony guy said it would revive gamers form the "handheld ghetto", and it failed. So much big talk for a crappy seller. Thy did bet the other consolestwice, but thsoe systems didn't cost $200-$300 more than the competitiors did they? 0_0 | |