E3: New PS3 Model and a Price Drop!

[Mr.Mo]

Ah, yes, Assassin's Creed was the other one that happend with. That is one thing I dont like about Microsoft. Just throwing money everywhere to get what they want... *sigh*

Come on guys, stop whining because Microsoft likes to give people what they want and make money in the process. They can throw millions if they wish, you know why? Because it *fucking* benefits us. You should be mad that Sony is not doing the same. I'm so glad "Assassin's Creed" is not an exclusive on PS3. :yes:

 

[Dopples]

Here's what exclusives you can make for the PS3 to justify $500 bucks in my mind.


Ghosts & Goblins Remake
Jak 4/Daxter 2
Burnout
Valkyrie Profile 3
Dark Cloud 3
Xenosaga EP 4 (This won't happen, but a boy can dream)

 

[arcthemonkey]

Xenosaga EP 4 (This won't happen, but a boy can dream)

Episode III did well, and Namco said if it did well enough they may continue the series, so I wouldn't be so sure.

Mr.Mo, you don't seem to understand. Microsoft brute-forcing exclusive onto the 360 really only benefits Microsoft. If Microsoft wasn't scooping up every other game that would normall be PS3 exclusive, we wouldn't end up with the 7-10 split we are going to be left with by the end of next year, where half the good games that would have otherwise been on the playstation will be on the 360, and the other half will be on the Playstation where they belong. This means that if you don't want to be stuck with just half, you have to buy both systems, and that sucks.

Now, I don't like this implication that some people are making that you have to be a movie buff or a videophile to benefit from Blu-ray, and that Blu-ray in the PS3 is just nonsensical fluff to the rest of the world.

When I got my PS3, I compared Talladega Nights on Blu-ray and DVD using my plain old boring standard def CRT, and I could tell the difference. It was mostly in sharpness and color, but the difference was there. Normal DVDs started looking slightly bland to me, while Blu-rays were rich and vibrant.

Then I got an HDTV. Not even a 1080p TV, just 720p. The difference between a Blu-ray and even an upscale DVD is, literall, night and day for me. It's like the difference between a really bad jpeg and the psd it came from. Oh wait, did I mention that the PS3 upscales and deinterlaces DVDs, and does a brilliant job of it? Now, I watch maybe one movie a week on DVD, so I'm definately not a movie nerd. The most DVD watching I've done recently was the entire season 2 of Lost, which looked practically high definition being upscaled.

My point is, the PS3 does a kick ass job with movies, and you don't have to be a videophile to benefit from it. Whether you choose to use it or not is your choice, but don't imply that for people who "just want games" you are somehow throwing away money. I had a DVD player already. This one is better.

Oh, and the FFXIII on 360 rumor was because Square liscenced the UT3 engine, and people jumped to the conclusion that they were starting over on the game and making it multiplatform. It turns out that the UT3 engine is for other, cheaper games, like Last Remnant, and FFXIII's exclusivity has never been in danger. The White Engine requires at least 4 parallel processors to run, so it will never run on the 360.

Also, I don't know if you've noticed this, but when FFXIII hits, it's likely to be the best looking game on the planet for a very long time. Much of the footage we've already seen has been real time (although, the gameplay seems to have been mocked up).

I wanted to mention that I'm completely reliant on wireless internet, and because of that (and a play and charge kit), my 360 Pro cost me about $550 ($600 with a year of XBL), and it STILL doesn't play high definition movie, which I would love if it did.

I've always been of the distinct opinion that the PS3 is, really, no more expensive than the 360 when it boils right down to it. Sure, some people don't need the wireless adapter, and don't care about replacing the controller's AAs every 3 hours, and don't play online, but that's not me.

 

[Calibre]

Has anyone else just seen that UFC game video from E3? If that's in game it looks stunning, not to mention the most realistic in terms of actually looking like your making physical impact on your opponent.

 

[Mr.Mo]

Mr.Mo, you don't seem to understand. Microsoft brute-forcing exclusive onto the 360 really only benefits Microsoft. If Microsoft wasn't scooping up every other game that would normall be PS3 exclusive, we wouldn't end up with the 7-10 split we are going to be left with by the end of next year, where half the good games that would have otherwise been on the playstation will be on the 360, and the other half will be on the Playstation where they belong. This means that if you don't want to be stuck with just half, you have to buy both systems, and that sucks.

No, I don't see it that way. Half? Thats just personal opinion All the games I want are already(or will be) on 360 and I'm glad Micro is buying off game developers because then we wouldn't have Assassin's Creed on 360(right?).

Assassin's Creed
Tom Clancy's EndWar
Halo 3
Mass Effect?
Command & Conquer 3 Tiberium Wars
Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
Enchanted Arms
Sonic The Hedgehog
Two Worlds?
Fable 2
Gears of War 2

I probably can't even afford them all in the 5 year period of XBOX 360... I bet the next XBOX will have blue-ray... or something home made "micro ray", wouldn't be surprised ':|

 

[Zankoku no Yami]

Mr.Mo, you don't seem to understand. Microsoft brute-forcing exclusive onto the 360 really only benefits Microsoft. If Microsoft wasn't scooping up every other game that would normall be PS3 exclusive, we wouldn't end up with the 7-10 split we are going to be left with by the end of next year, where half the good games that would have otherwise been on the playstation will be on the 360, and the other half will be on the Playstation where they belong. This means that if you don't want to be stuck with just half, you have to buy both systems, and that sucks.

Now, I don't like this implication that some people are making that you have to be a movie buff or a videophile to benefit from Blu-ray, and that Blu-ray in the PS3 is just nonsensical fluff to the rest of the world.

When I got my PS3, I compared Talladega Nights on Blu-ray and DVD using my plain old boring standard def CRT, and I could tell the difference. It was mostly in sharpness and color, but the difference was there. Normal DVDs started looking slightly bland to me, while Blu-rays were rich and vibrant.

Then I got an HDTV. Not even a 1080p TV, just 720p. The difference between a Blu-ray and even an upscale DVD is, literall, night and day for me. It's like the difference between a really bad jpeg and the psd it came from. Oh wait, did I mention that the PS3 upscales and deinterlaces DVDs, and does a brilliant job of it? Now, I watch maybe one movie a week on DVD, so I'm definately not a movie nerd. The most DVD watching I've done recently was the entire season 2 of Lost, which looked practically high definition being upscaled.

...

Also, I don't know if you've noticed this, but when FFXIII hits, it's likely to be the best looking game on the planet for a very long time. Much of the footage we've already seen has been real time (although, the gameplay seems to have been mocked up).

I wanted to mention that I'm completely reliant on wireless internet, and because of that (and a play and charge kit), my 360 Pro cost me about $550 ($600 with a year of XBL), and it STILL doesn't play high definition movie, which I would love if it did.

I've always been of the distinct opinion that the PS3 is, really, no more expensive than the 360 when it boils right down to it. Sure, some people don't need the wireless adapter, and don't care about replacing the controller's AAs every 3 hours, and don't play online, but that's not me.

I couldnt agree with you more on all of what you said! I also believe that by the time you're done, the 360 cost as much, if not more, to produce the same thing the PS3 can do! The only difference is, they try to TRICK people into thinking its cheap. And they have fooled a majority of the people by doing this too. To get anything close to the PS3 you have to go out and buy things like the HDDVD player for $200! That alone brings it up to the $600 price tag, and thats just with the 20 gig drive!

And yes, the PS3 does make movies look better. Games too! Okay, the smoothing takes away the sharpness, but it also removes the pixels! Not only that, but have you seen the huge difference in loading times?! I have played Tales of the Abyss on my PS2 for the longest time, and i remember saving took pratically 2 minutes! I put it in a PS3 and BAM! In about five seconds it saved! Same can be said for loading times inbetween towns and fields and what not.

FFXIII is going to make everyone droll (if not, Versus 13 should with its action packed game style!). I can't wait to see that on my 42' LCD in 1080p... God, probably going to be hard to go back after that!

 

[holloway]

Wait, what?

1) "Trick" no, it IS cheaper. It's a fact. There is no necessity to buy the HD player and the fact they haven't presumed you want a HD Player is a bonus as I'd rather not pay for something I don't need.

2)Removes the pixels? Wtf?

3) The PS3 is indeed far more powerful, but ask any developer: PS3 development is hard, and few can actually use the available systems. Look at Katamari- staple of Sony, lost to the Wii and 360 because the PS3 was just too difficult.

 

[Zankoku no Yami]

Wait, what?

1) "Trick" no, it IS cheaper. It's a fact. There is no necessity to buy the HD player and the fact they haven't presumed you want a HD Player is a bonus as I'd rather not pay for something I don't need.

2)Removes the pixels? Wtf?

3) The PS3 is indeed far more powerful, but ask any developer: PS3 development is hard, and few can actually use the available systems. Look at Katamari- staple of Sony, lost to the Wii and 360 because the PS3 was just too difficult.

No, it isn't cheaper. xbox 360 with 20 gig hard drive: $400. If you want to actually play HD movies like the PS3, thats another $200. Then say you actually want a bigger hard drive. Well, that alone will bring it to around $475, without the HDDVD player; which only works for movies at that! The PS3 comes with a blue-ray that puts games AND movies into HD, wireless controler that charges up without you having to buy something extra to charge it up. FREE online access (unlike the 360 which will cost you another $50 dollars a year), a 60 gig hard drive, all for $500!

The 360 doesnt give you TRUE HD. There is a huge difference between DVD and HDDVD or blueray. Just because the 360 sells things seperately where as the PS3 already gives you it all, doesnt mean the 360 is cheaper. it only APPEARS cheaper. Thats the trick. (I'm probably even forgetting some things at that. But even without all that, $400 for a 20 gig 360 vs a $500 60 gig PS3 with blueray is a far, far, far better deal).

It doesnt actually 'remove' the pixels, but it doesnt make them noticable by smoothing everything out. Seriously. I see pixels like nuts when playing PS2 games. But on the PS3, everything is all smooth! (The PS games still are quire pixally, but thats hard to fix)

 

[Dopples]

It doesnt actually 'remove' the pixels, but it doesnt make them noticable by smoothing everything out. Seriously. I see pixels like nuts when playing PS2 games. But on the PS3, everything is all smooth! (The PS games still are quire pixally, but thats hard to fix)

I have proof that this is false. I was playing Namco X Capcom on a friend's PS3, and it infact looked WORSE then it did on my PS2. The opening movie was choppy, the battle sprites looked worse then usual, and the character portraits were incredibly blocky.

 

[Zankoku no Yami]

I have proof that this is false. I was playing Namco X Capcom on a friend's PS3, and it infact looked WORSE then it did on my PS2. The opening movie was choppy, the battle sprites looked worse then usual, and the character portraits were incredibly blocky.

I have proof this is true. I actually HAVE a PS3.

Did he um... bother to turn on the smoothing and wide screen options BEFORE playing the game? Because, 1) its part of the NEWEST update and 2) you actually have to turn it on for it to work. Therefore, I have PROOF it is true. The only thing it does is take away the sharpness (meaning its more smooth than sharp). I have tested it on several PS2 games as well.

I also have to say, Valkryie Profile 2 looked BEAUTIFUL when i played it on the PS3.

 

[arcthemonkey]

He's talking about the slight FS Antialiasing provided by the Smooth filter in the PS2 emulator.

EDIT: The only game I have ever observed looking worse upscaled and smoothed was God of War. I turned off the in-game smoothing, and it looked fantastic. Sometimes that can do it.

Now, it's true that if all you want is a 360 with a hard drive and a wireless controller, and you don't care about having to change the batteries every day you use it very much, and plugging it in via ethernet isn't an issue, and you don't want XBL, then yes, the 360 is cheaper.

But let's say we don't care about Blu-ray or HDDVD. Let's say, all I care about is ditching the reliance on a near constant supply of AA batteries, and drop the $50 on a play and charge kit. Reasonable, right? I mean, this isn't a niche desire, is it? I don't think it is. Of course, the biggest feature of the 360 is XBL, but it's practically crippled without online play (at least, that's what some people would have you believe - I, personally, don't care too much about online play outside of MMOs and the occasional Live Arcade game, but it's nice to have around), so we must go with the flow and drop another $50 on a Gold XBL subscription. Again, this is something that just about everybody does, something like 80%, so I think it's perfectly 100% reasonable to factor it in to the overall price, as it applies to most gamers.

Just using these two, very common factors, We have the 60GB PS3 at $500, and the 20GB 360 for... $500. Again, I'm assuming that the rechargable battery kit and ability to play online are fairly standard accessories, made further reasonable to put here because the SIXAXIS is rechargable out of the box (you can even charge it with your PC), and online play is free as well (This is not a comparison of features between XBL and PSN short of online play alone, btw).

So here we are, using two parts that I, personally feel, are pretty much essential to a majority of gamers, and the PS3 and the 360 are equal in price.

However, as I mentioned in a previous post, many of us don't have the luxury of having a router within 5 feet of our 360, and aren't thrilled at the idea of running a 30-foot cable across our tile kitchen floor for the rest of eternity, just to download the newest demo or gamer picture. For us, being able to connect our console wirelessly is, really, required if we want to take it online. Now, seeing as how online is the "big thing" right now, that seems pretty important.

Bam. Another $100.

PS3 = $500, 360 = $600

Now we are, in my case, at the absolute bare minimum to making the console even reasonably usable. Yes, I really do need the play and charge kit, I'm really keen on playing Assault Heroes over XBL, and I couldn't go online anyway without the wireless adapter. I don't think this constitutes silly fluff or unecessary features. I consider these to be paramount to my enjoyment of the console, and so do, I'm sure, many other people. Keep in mind that the PS3 used to be $600 too, yes. I paid the same for my PS3 that I did for my 360, BEFORE the price-cut. I adore both the little weasels.

But it goes further! I happen to have an HDTV. It's not a 42" Bravia or anything, just a modest 32" Olevia 720p LCD. While it may not be arrayed in splendor, or be made out of gold, it does produce a nice, high definition picture. Normal television looks like compressed garbage (because it is) and DVDs look a bit iffy as well. I am an appreciator of high resolutions. Blu-ray makes me exceptionally happy. I'm thrilled about Blu-ray. Do I need it? No. But I want it. I want a high-def video player, and chances are that you will want one as well in short order.

I am NOT paying $200 to add high definition video to my ALREADY $600 xbox360. Sorry. $600 was pushing it as far as my budget goes, even for the PS3 that had Blu-ray built in. $800 is a strikingly larger number than that (Honestly, I work part time and make $400 a month... I'm not certain how I afforded both consoles and all the games I have regardless).

Again, you're right - it's not necessary. But some people feel it is. It's great that you can be content with no hard drive, a 60 gallon barrel of AA batteries, sitting huddled in the dining room. I admire that.

Me? I can't do it.

PS3 is cheaper... For me.

 

[Mr.Mo]

Can't you just charge the batteries by buying re-chargeable batteries?

 

[arcthemonkey]

I suppose you could, but it's still a pain in the ass when your controller dies every 3 hours.

 

[Mr.Mo]

what >.> what kind of batteries do you run on? Mines last at least 73 hours. I've finished Gears of War twice on the same batteries.

 

[Zankoku no Yami]

Probably the same kind my friend has. I swear, everytime i go over there, he has just changed batteries and they die within the seven hours i am there ane he has to change them.

The problem with rechargable batteries is the life in them gets shorter each time you recharge them. So what lasted a day can end up lasting an hour.

 

[Mr.Mo]

damn it, I got this too off-topic but I use Energizer and no lie, I finished GoW twice without changing. Then I was playing Insane and my controller stopped working XD.

And you maybe right about rechargeable batteries, but it saves money and its damn worth the comfort.

 

[arcthemonkey]

Energizer, Duracell... normal batteries 0_o

 

[Calibre]

No Price Cut for us PAL Territories... I don't know whether to be pleased because I haven't been fleeced (as I bought one on day one) or sad because it may well fall further behind the 360 over here.

The comparative prices are ridiculous though. ?250 for North Americas 60GB and ?425 for the same thing in the UK. I would snap a PS3 up for ?250 any day.

Though they are changing it to the PS3 starter pack = two controllers + Motorstorm + R:FoM.

 

[holloway]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=26704

Oh Sony Sony Sony. Just as everyone is starting to think you're getting it together, you do this. So it's not a price drop, it's a clearance for less than a month, and only in the US.

Infact it's ruled out a proper price drop until at least 2008. Seems like it was just a way to quench Konami's doubts:

1. 60GB HDDs are becoming less common (cheap), so Sony decides to up the PS3 to 80GB.
2. Konami say that the PS3 is too expensive, want a price drop before they will sign.
3. Sony decides that since they are refreshing stock anyway, they may as well drop the price on the old 60GB PS3s to satisfy Konami.
4. Konami sign.
5. Sony announce that the 60GB model is being discontinued (as was their intention all along).
6. Sony Profit!

 

[arcthemonkey]

It's great that the Europe guy said that, in the sense that it sucks if it's true, but I'm not entirely convinced.

Actually, no, I'm convinced of something else.

The 80GB will be $500 by the holidays (if this turns out to be true).

My prediction has been made.

I really don't think Sony is THAT Stupid. And, actually, I'm pretty sure stores are still recieving the 60GB ones. I mean, you'd think SOMEONE from Circuit City would have said, "Yeah, our computer says we aren't getting anymore."