E3 Sony PS3 news

[framheim]

The thing is' date=' Nintendo introduced a Rumple Pak whereas Sony used two built in weights to create a rumble. I don't see the point in fighting over who has rights to the rumble as it's a natural progression in the technology of controllers.[/quote']

sony used a design already patented by another company, not necessarily the nintendo one. they got busted for it recently and had to pay out millions in damages so it's not fighting over it, it's a fact.

[WoodyRATM]

i have to say i love my ps2 (when i play it) but i did only buy an xbox for halo.

but id like a "super" console. . . like everything. ps controller, xbox engine. et etc

that tilt feature seems pretty intresting for those who turn the controller when turning

[framheim]

i have to say i love my ps2 (when i play it) but i did only buy an xbox for halo.

but id like a "super" console. . . like everything. ps controller' date=' xbox engine. et etc

that tilt feature seems pretty intresting for those who turn the controller when turning [/quote']

not only do i turn the controller i lean in so much that i've almost knocked the missus of seats when playing burnout :O

[WoodyRATM]

not only do i turn the controller i lean in so much that i've almost knocked the missus of seats when playing burnout :O

HAHA! that made me LOL just now.

that tilt thing could be a bitch aswell tho. .

playin a game > get frustrated > slam controller down > realise you just killed your ingame char :|

[framheim]

hmm, this is an interesting though complex read:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32171

[David]

I like the Playstation pads. Their not stupid user unfriendly lumps like N64' date=' and well their still slightly better than XBox in my opinion. Easy to hold/manouvre around.[/quote']

I loved the n64 pads, admittedly half of them was useless for normal gaming (ie the d pad and l shoulder button) but the analouge stick was fantastic (and a revelation at the time from the d pads of the older consoles) and they are comfortable and nice to use.

Gamecube pads are rather nice too, a more ergonomic evolution of the n64 pad really...

playstation pads are still uncomfortable and awkward to use (imho at least) three consoles on and they still haven't made them any better (apart from adding useless sticks or the like)

David

[Cloud]

That's very, very interesting. It's too hard to tell if it'll have a serious impact on the games - but my feeling is that the PS3 will be deliberately positioned as an expensive console, with expensive games, for the person who wants a realistic experience. If Cell is as badly broken as the article makes it out to be, then that's going to be a huge problem for Sony.

At the moment, the PS3 is looking more and more like a huge disaster.

By the way, is there any truth in that the PS3 is going to cost £425?

[framheim]

By the way' date=' is there any truth in that the PS3 is going to cost 425?[/quote']

well the price point for the uk hasn't been confirmed yet but it's certainly going to be around that mark. most of the cost is in the bluray drive.

[The Kernel Loaf]

By the way' date=' is there any truth in that the PS3 is going to cost £425?[/quote']

I think it was comfirmed at E3 that the cheaper version (with a 20GB hard drive) would be £340 approx. on launch, and the more expensive version (with a 60GB hard drive) would be £420 approx. Note that this is just going to be for the console. In order for Sony to make up for their loss in producing a console that costs about $800 per unit to manufacture, they are going to need to bump up the prices of their software, probably to about £50. Plus you will probably be wanting another controller aswell, which will set you back about another £30 for an official one (3rd party ones may or may not incorporate the tilt sensitivity feature let alone be able to make them!), and knowing Sony you probably won't be able to save games to the hard disk, meaning you need to fork out another 20 quid for an official memory card.

So basically, if you want a PS3 on launch with a 60GB hard drive, one game, extra controller and memory card, it will probably set you back about £520. I thought the XBox 360's launch price was extortionate, but this is just taking the piss. I think I will be getting the Wii instead for a mere £150 (which has been confirmed by Yoshihiro Miro, the managing director of Nintendo himself), and I bet that it will be a shit load more fun then both of the other two.

[jackson]

please please please please stop having a go at sony over the playstation 3. for fuck sake its not even out yet and not one person on this forum has played one. i cant believe there is 3 pages of debate over something which in truth, noone knows fuck all about. if anyone is a fan of the playstation they will be aware about similar shit stirring before the playstation 2 came out "its gonna cos 500" and so on. just bide your time and see what happens. if its super pricey just dont buy one, dont give in to the big evil corperations man!

[The Kernel Loaf]

please please please please stop having a go at sony over the playstation 3. for fuck sake its not even out yet and not one person on this forum has played one. i cant believe there is 3 pages of debate over something which in truth' date=' noone knows fuck all about. if anyone is a fan of the playstation they will be aware about similar shit stirring before the playstation 2 came out "its gonna cos £500" and so on. just bide your time and see what happens. if its super pricey just dont buy one, dont give in to the big evil corperations man![/quote']

We do know about it. Did you even read the articles linked to?

At E3, PS3 games were available to play. I bet you didn't know that they were all being run on pcs though, right? Sony haven't even made a working console yet let alone any software that is completed yet! I think its ridiculous for a next gen console that is going to have on average about half the power of the 360 and twice the price of it to not even have its hardware completed when it is intended to be released for christmas. I think Sony have aimed far too high this time.

And for the record, I don't care about giving into big corporations. I own a PS2 and I think that it's a great console for games. All the console developers are big corporations, but it's only Nintendo that is a dedicated video game company.

[framheim]

I think it was comfirmed at E3 that the cheaper version (with a 20GB hard drive) would be 340 approx. on launch' date=' and the more expensive version (with a 60GB hard drive) would be 420 approx. Note that this is just going to be for the console. In order for Sony to make up for their loss in producing a console that costs about $800 per unit to manufacture, they are going to need to bump up the prices of their software, probably to about 50. Plus you will probably be wanting another controller aswell, which will set you back about another 30 for an official one (3rd party ones may or may not incorporate the tilt sensitivity feature let alone be able to make them!), and knowing Sony you probably won't be able to save games to the hard disk, meaning you need to fork out another 20 quid for an official memory card.

So basically, if you want a PS3 on launch with a 60GB hard drive, one game, extra controller and memory card, it will probably set you back about [b']520. I thought the XBox 360's launch price was extortionate, but this is just taking the piss. I think I will be getting the Wii instead for a mere 150 (which has been confirmed by Yoshihiro Miro, the managing director of Nintendo himself), and I bet that it will be a shit load more fun then both of the other two.

the 360 launch price was on par with other console launchs(outside of nintendo anyway) and is looking like a bargain now.

the only confirmed ps3 prices were in euro's and dollars meaning that any quotes for pounds is only a guess based on exchange rates but might not take into account things like tax. also i don't think 50 is bumping up the price considering the extra costs for developing games for next gen consoles(see EA's recent massive drop in profits) yet there are rumours that ps3 games if on bluray may cost upto 80. though that's just rumours, and fairly unrealistic.

[framheim]

please please please please stop having a go at sony over the playstation 3. for fuck sake its not even out yet and not one person on this forum has played one. i cant believe there is 3 pages of debate over something which in truth' date=' noone knows fuck all about. if anyone is a fan of the playstation they will be aware about similar shit stirring before the playstation 2 came out "its gonna cos 500" and so on. just bide your time and see what happens. if its super pricey just dont buy one, dont give in to the big evil corperations man![/quote']

we're just basing out comments on the information sony themselves have put out there. you're lucky i've not mentioned sony's idea of historically accurate medieval japan and the giant crabs or their real time weapon change features.

time will tell, but sony are setting themselves up for a fall by claiming people will buy anything they build even if there's no games out and that the next gen starts when they say it does. the arrogant swines.

i do hope it's an amazing console as it forces everyone to raise their game and i love games!

[Cloud]

please please please please stop having a go at sony over the playstation 3.

Why shouldn't we? They're getting slammed to hell over the PS3 by virtually all quarters' date=' why should here be any different?

for fuck sake its not even out yet and not one person on this forum has played one. i cant believe there is 3 pages of debate over something which in truth, noone knows fuck all about.

Don't you see that part of the problem is that no-one knows fuck all about the thing, despite the launch being in less than 6 months time? From what I can tell, there's only one blu ray product on the market - with seemingly additional products due to be launched sometime this month. This effectively means that blu ray will be relatively untested in the real world by the time the PS3 is launched - so if there's a major problem with the thing, bang, Sony are in a lot of trouble.

if anyone is a fan of the playstation they will be aware about similar shit stirring before the playstation 2 came out "its gonna cos 500" and so on.

Even if it's priced at 400 for the higher end console, it's still going to be massively expensive. Considering there's no killer games announced (which all launches should have) , things look very, very bleak for Sony.

One thing I haven't noticed - is the PS3 going to be compatible with PS1 and PS2 games?

[framheim]

One thing I haven't noticed - is the PS3 going to be compatible with PS1 and PS2 games?

yep, word is that they're going to include the ps2's emotion engine to make it fully backwards compatible. which will be cool.

360 backwards compatibility has turned out to be something of a joke though it was always going to be tough doing it via emulation.

[Cloud]

yep' date=' word is that they're going to include the ps2's emotion engine to make it fully backwards compatible. which will be cool.[/quote']

Top marks to Sony if they do include it, the PS2 undoubtably was helped by the existence of such a huge back catalogue before they even started. No doubt the same will apply with the Wii as well.

360 backwards compatibility has turned out to be something of a joke though it was always going to be tough doing it via emulation.

I didn't even know they had attempted it, but seeing as backwards compatibility is somewhat of a standard these days, doing it via emulation is a bad idea unless it's utterly spot on. I'm surprised that they didn't go for a hardware based solution, but I guess getting it out well ahead of the PS3 mattered more than being able to access the back catalogue.

Just looked at the details of the Xbox360 emulation...what on earth? It sounds like a ridiculously flawed way of doing things, especially when you consider that the PS2 (and no doubt the Wii will too) set the standard at nothing short of perfection for reverse compatibility.

[framheim]

Top marks to Sony if they do include it' date=' the PS2 undoubtably was helped by the existence of such a huge back catalogue before they even started. No doubt the same will apply with the Wii as well.

I didn't even know they had attempted it, but seeing as backwards compatibility is somewhat of a standard these days, doing it via emulation is a bad idea unless it's utterly spot on. I'm surprised that they didn't go for a hardware based solution, but I guess getting it out well ahead of the PS3 mattered more than being able to access the back catalogue.

Just looked at the details of the Xbox360 emulation...what on earth? It sounds like a ridiculously flawed way of doing things, especially when you consider that the PS2 (and no doubt the Wii will too) set the standard at nothing short of perfection for reverse compatibility.[/quote']

they didn't have much of a choice as the graphics chips in the xbox and the 360 were made by different companies and the cost to license the technology may have led to too high a price hike. they've got the main games working, i'm just annoyed cause i can't play pirates

[-matthEw-]

was there any truth to the rumour that ps3 games would be so well protected that they assigned themselves to a machine...ie you cant bring the game round your mates house or buy second hand games?

if so, that would be the final nail in sonys coffin for me

[The Kernel Loaf]

was there any truth to the rumour that ps3 games would be so well protected that they assigned themselves to a machine...ie you cant bring the game round your mates house or buy second hand games?

if so' date=' that would be the final nail in sonys coffin for me[/quote']

No, I don't think they implemented that in the end. It wasn't confirmed at E3, and if they did do it, they would be utterly fucked.