f13.net

Mine still has Chinese air trapped in the case.  keke @ me

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13304

Too bad there's a Core, and not just this and the Pro version. Just the fact that people have them (whether they phase out or not) will always spoil the fun on what can be taken advantage of on the other two models.

Well, crap.

The larger HD I can handle but not having HDMI on my 360 is annoying.  No way I am dropping another 500 bones just to get HDMI though.

I don't need HDMI as far as I can tell, so if it wasn't obvious, I wasn't being serious about the sadface.  Besides, I have a PS3.

I'll be trading mine in on the warranty. $80 for this particular upgrade? Yes plz.

Since I am too lazy to research, what is the solution for savegames?  Do they generally transfer to a card?  Experience with the old Xbox causes me to think "not all".

Another thing, if they're mainly targeting this towards hi-def movie viewers, then I have to wonder what would stop anyone from getting a PS3 instead of this. For $20 more, you can get a Blu-Ray player -- and, more than likely, it's own share of downloadable shit later.

Besides that, if they're trying to compete directly with Apple, then it's already over.

..

Hmm, what else?

Still the same hardware that's prone to red ringing, same old loud drive, no wireless (hey, maybe there will be a 4th sku for these things?!  :roll:). HDMI and 120g storage is nice, but it doesn't seem like much of an elite upgrade really.

I'll be buying one when Forza 2 comes out.

As much as I have my hate on, I probably will too.


Err... Unless the 4th Sku comes out in June, that is.  :-P

I am going to do the same.

Damn, this and the promise of Mass Effect. Quite tempting...

You know, the hype for Mass Effect tells me nothing except it's going to be a letdown.

Just like Oblivion.























In space.

I certainly hope so. My wallet would thank me. But lets just wait and see. I liked Kotor, I liked Jade Empire, and I also liked the parts of Kotor 2 that were finished. Thats why I think I might like Mass Effect, it seems to be a game in the same vein.

What's the projected life-cycle of the 360 supposed to be? Wondering if I should consider one this Christmas or wait till Christmas 2008, now, when all this shit is included over here and has had a few price drops...

Y'know, I've changed my mind. Forza can wait. I don't feel like rewarding Microsoft for this shit. I'll just wait for 65nm, new drive, and built in wireless.

Alternatively, I'd buy a used Premium if I can find one under $300 (hey, it can happen sometimes! :-P).


@Azazel

Heh. Price Drops. Don't expect one anytime soon. Microsoft just made console history by actually raising the price.  :-D And then still expects you to hand over more cash for accessorizing.

I suppose if Sony catches up by Christmas though (they're about 3.5 million units behind), then MS would do something (like $20 or $30 off the premium?). But I doubt that's going to happen.

As for lifecycle, I think I heard once that they plan on releasing the successor by 2009 or 2010.

From what I recall from a gaming podcast newsbit is that Peter Moore said they're shooting for late 2009/early 2010 on the next XBox.

So add 6 months to a year for Australia for the next cycle.. definately 2010 at the earliest then for me.

@ Stray

Hey, I'm not worried if I go 360-less for a couple of years if it comes to that. It really appears to be just a souped-up PS2 in many ways as far as the software is concerned, and since I don't yet own a HD-TV I can't make use of the main masturbatory aspect of the thing anyway. Which is much how I feel about the PS3, though the 360 looks like it'll come first, as it's slowly dropping here, and is now in the range of an impulse-purchase if I have a particularly good week of work and no bills landing at the same time. :| Not sure if that's a good thing, though.

Personally I think Microsoft's approach here is colossally stupid.  It would seem that they really want to get into the video on demand business, which is what this thing is tailored for.  To that end, wouldn't it make sense to knock down the price even below what a current premium costs in the hopes that you'll make it up in microtransactions?

For that matter, Sony is at their weakest possible moment right now; they're only going to get stronger as time goes on and their library turns less shitty and matches the 360's for all intents and purposes.  This is when you drop the price on every model you put out and pick up those people who can't get a Wii and won't buy a PS3 right now because of either a lack of games or because they can't afford it.

MS has been staring at a golden window of opportunity for 3 months now, and they've done jack shit with it.

I think it's stupid of them as well to put out a deluxe version, sure it's less expensive than a PS3 but at the price this new deluxe version is at it's easier to see that you get more value out of the PS3, imo. I think the reason for why there's no HDDVD player in this version is because that would put it at the same price as the PS3 or higher. Just as been stated, there's really a window of opportunity here both for MS & Nintendo because the PS3 is looking weak at the moment. If Nintendo would announce some worthwile software to fuel their momentum and MS steals some more exclusives the chance of the PS3 to catch on becomes smaller.

Include a wireless adapter and the HD-DVD drive and then you can talk about an Elite model.

Having said that, if there's a way to return my 360 on warranty to Futureshop and get the Elite for $50 more CDN, I'll do it.

Sold!

I blame Sony for this one. Fuck Sony for releasing a $600 console, making a $500 "ELITE!" console palatable.

If Sony had released the PS3 for $400, Microsoft would have already done a price cut with a more polished version of the hardware.

Here we go with the money thing again. You pretty much want something for nothing. Either that, or you're blind to what it offers and would rather they needlessly gimp features so it can be in your price range.

There's no way Sony could have priced that machine at $400. Hell, I doubt that they'll sell it for $400 for at least another 5 years.

No, I just want consoles that don't cost what I could find a PC for. Consoles are not PC's. Consoles can be set top boxes, but they aren't very good at that yet.

Sony not being able to price the machine for $400 is not my problem, it's theirs. Take out the Blu-Ray and it's how much cheaper? I get pissed off at companies like Sony trying to bleeding edge gaming. It's the same reason I won't buy a $300 video card, I don't see the value in it.

It'd easily be cheaper without Blu-Ray.

And what you're asking for is to gimp it. Fuck that. It's a badass feature.

My NES didn't play VHS tapes and I was happy with that.  If I want a movie player, I'll buy a movie player.  By not splitting up features, they have alienated anyone who wants a game console that isn't a movie player.  All of those people are now buying 360s and Wiis instead.  It would also be badass if my console made coffee for marathon gaming sessions.  But I don't want that feature either.

Thank you Roac.

Stripping Blu-Ray would be understandable if it was only for movies, but it has gaming benefits as well. The same goes for default hdd's on both models. Both insure any developer that they can make games that are longer, have larger levels, and include uncompressed audio and fmv.

Stray's absolutely right here, if the PS3 didn't use Blu-Ray for games, I could see it as being superfulous. If the PS2 didn't use DVDs for games, I could see it as a waste of extra money on Sony's parts.

Oh wait, Nintendo uses DVD and it can't play movies.

And they're charging more than they should.

Some of you people are fucking bonkers.

Edit: Just wanted to add that the moment someone says a console is "too expensive" is the moment they set that invisible line in their head where their income can't take a hit. Nearly every console, if you're a serious gamer, is an eventual purchase. It's just a matter of when it crosses over that line.

Exactly. However, a $500/$600 price point sets that bar pretty fucking high, so high that, TO ME, that system has to have at least a 10-year shelf life to be worth spending the money, because it isn't upgradeable like a PC. And no matter what Sony says about the PS3 and the Cell, nor about Blu-Ray, the PS3 will not have a 10-year shelf life. By the time it gets into the acceptable $200-$250 range, I expect Sony to be trying to sell me the PS5. Microsoft has already said they are targeting a 2009 release for the Next X-Box version.

Yes, I expect a console to cost no more than $250. That's what the systems are worth to me.

My current infatuation with Jade Empire tells me that you may be wrong. I wish I wasn't so hyped about Mass Effect actually, I had zero intent to actually get a 360 until now...

It's always funny watching the line this conversation occurs across.  I keep waiting for Schild or Stray to find themselves on the other side then say, "oh crap."

I might wind-up buying this Elite version.  Been eyeing all the new consoles since I found myself with a bit of extra cash and a jones for one of them.  Can't find a Wii, which would make far more family-sense, the PS3 is a waste - particularly with so many good PS2 games still out there for me to play on my ps2 - so I've been eyeing the 360.  This is a nice little package, and the 360 seems to be picking up a better library than the first x-box, so yay.   Plus it's black, which makes it look so much better than the white version.

What other side would that be? Schild and I have pretty much been in full agreement about this subject. It's a no brainer -- there's nothing to suddenly find ourselves in disagreement about. Having mass storage media like Blu-Ray is good for games. Only in bizarro world is it bad. Last generation, developers were already struggling to fit game content on a DVD. Compress this, tone down that texture, get rid of that clip, remove that level, down res this, etc., etc.. This time around, they can stream high quality data at their hearts' content, and do a lot of it. It makes their lives easier, and makes things look, behave, last longer, and sound better for us.


Yeah, that's Microsoft. Don't get them and Sony confused.

Besides that, if the PS2 can last seven years, the PS3 can last ten (technically speaking..Who knows marketing-wise).

Oh wait, my PS2 uses DVD and it does play movies. 

...

And I never use it for that.  If my Wii made coffee, I'd still use my actual coffee maker too. 



For practical purposes, it's not being used.  A bulk of what you see on the PS3 are 360 ports (or vice versa) that are very close to one another.  Hell, *PC* games are barely to the point of wanting anything more than DVD-size storage and you can compress the hell out of them and not worry about swapping disks out due to HD install.  I doubt much of any of the exclusives are using so much content that they couldn't fit just as nicely on one or two DVDs.  Some day they probably will, and when that day comes, I'll consider this as a feature for gaming.

Until then, this is a bloatware tack on.  Sony's intent by selling Blu-Ray players at a higher price point than the damn PS3 is to get movie goers into gaming, and gamers into their movie standard so they can profit.  Good for Sony.  Not so good for me.  It's not even just the cost of the PS3; it's the cost of a HDTV, a PS3, cabling, and cable TV.  It's not there yet.  If it is for you that's fine, but don't say it's a "no brainer".  Quite a few people are just not interested at this point.

"That day" came years ago. Saying Blu-ray isn't worth it is a crock of shit. When Blue Dragon comes out as 3 DVDs, it's going to be an annoyance that Sony found a solution for but will still be on DVD due to the platform. You'd be surprised at the number of games that are multidisc on the PS2. Now, if your argument had been that you don't like RPGs and as such, all the games you play are single disc titles, then I could see your point. But sorry, I can't do that.

Heh, I'd say that's an 8.5 on the unintentional comedy scale.

And that only affects gamers who are into Japanese man-boy pedophilia.  The rest of us can happily chug along on regular old DVD.

I play games to play games, not to watch shitty anime cinematics that I wouldn't watch on regular television because I'm not a deviated prevert.

What the fuck are you talking about? It's Uematsu, Sakaguchi, and Toriyama. Don't be a moron.

See, now you just sound like Charlie Brown's mother.  I know your lips are moving, but it's all bells and whistles to me.

If you thought I was trying to persuade you in particular to get it, then don't. Far from it. I'm just making a case for BD in general.

[EDIT]

Also, I meant that it was a no brainer for how it benefits games. Not you. More storage is good, mmkay.

What an image.  :)

Sure, and Sony could've gone for 2x the storage.  Or 10x.  And the price would have in turn gone up 4x.  Or 50x.  Wouldn't that even be better?  Or just start shipping games on their own external USB drives, and size them however you like.  Not cheap, but because more is always a no brainer, Sony was a tard for not doing that. 

Man, cut it out. Stick to your argument. You said it was only for movies. And now I cleared that up for you.

And you should know that there are examples of games already exceeding the DVD9 stage. Resistance is 14GB. R&C Future is turning out to be beyond that (same engine as Resistance, but now with texture streaming ala UE3). The upcoming MGS is already having problems squeezing into 25GB as well.

[EDIT]

To spell that out for you, texture streaming allows higher quality rendering even under RAM constraints. It's why, say, Gears of War looks so good for a 512MB system -- in a sense, it makes a machine pump out things it usually couldn't.

Problem is, using these high quality images requires even more disc space. You'll be hitting a gig per game level (and that's not even including other data, like audio, video, or whatever). Coupled with other data (compressed or not), you'll get 10 hours of gameplay or so -- Which is not good.

So on DVD, the experience is short, but really fucking sweet.

On BD however, it can be both long and sweet.

Of course due to time constraints and development budgets, it will likely be short anyway.

So if it was up to you we should simply stop the technological evolution and stay with the good old stuff, since it's cheaper? If they would make a disc with 50x the storage based on the DVD tech the size would be 50x, not really all that convenient. The USB example is ridiculous, which I bet you yourself understand as well. Perhaps you've forgotten, but DVD wasn't exactly cheap when it arrived either.

"But the companies have been able to squish shit into a DVD disc for years! Surely we don't need a new format!" is just stupid. The reason for why the games fits into a DVD is because they have to for economical reasons. Sure you can have more than 1 disc, but it cuts into profit and is not really doable for some games. Think of playing for example oblivion and everytime you go to a city you have to swap disc and wait for loading. So instead they compromised in other areas. As Stray said, next gen textures is a storage killer. The diffrence between a resolution of a 256x256 and a 512x512 texture is that the later takes 4x the memory

Was it smart of Sony to go for blu-ray? Perhaps not, in the short run it's definitely bad which can be seen on all the bitching about "I don't need a movie player" etc. However, in the long run, it's DEFINETLY a smart move on Sonys part. This will only show as the race goes on. As it is now though there's a chance that the PS3 ends up like the jaguar, even if I don't think it will.

Early adoption always has a cost associated, and a smaller market share.

Trying to roll those over onto your base sometimes pays off, and sometimes gets people to go "Fuck you, it's not worth it."   The PS3 crowd seems to be going the latter direction.

As to 'the line'  it's the line of people who obsess over a toy vs practical commitments.  Usually defined by younger, single males with few obligations vs those of who aren't.  Phrases like "if you're serious about gaming" are good indicators of where you're at. 

I'm a Toys R Us kid, I admit. No kids, wives, or picket fences to bog me down.  :-P

Hmm? A lot of games are over 10-12 hours. Saying short games are the average now, as if exceeding beyond that is too much work, is a copout. Making a 20 hour or more game wouldn't take any longer than it already does.

In fact, it might even take less time. A game's resources, in their raw form, are already at high res and not slimmed down. If a target system has a storage medium that's capable of handling these things from the getgo, then developers can focus elsewhere. It means less time preparing data for compression or going over level maps and meticulously slimming this or that texture down (whilst trying to keep appearances). Taking that factor out speeds up workflow, if anything.

Maybe you didn't read what I said.


To which someone points out one game that is now on 3 DVDs.  Some day they're going to be really hurting for more disk space.  Today however, the PS3 is only 15% or so of the current gen console market.  Much less, if you consider the PS2 which is doing very well.  You have seen a number of dev shops that have complained about the continued increase in graphical requirements, and how they feel that creates negative pressure on overall innovation.  You have two of the three console vendors feeling that DVD is just fine.

So hear me again.  What I said that today and for the near term, Blu-Ray has no practical value for gaming.  Some day more space is going to be desired, but it's not here yet.  Meanwhile, Sony is asking for gamers to pay for something that doesn't do much for games.  No thank you.  However, I fully encourage other people to do so, because that will drive down costs and create demand which Sony will at some later date provide supply for.  I, however, will wait until there is a usable product before I buy it.  I'd rather not buy something I can't use.

Of course it was silly.  It was, however, on par with the comment I was referring to which is the idea that "more is always a no brainer".  If the PS3 cost $6000 instead of $600 you could make the same argument Stray is.  The same argument can also be made for the USB external bit.  It's a silly proposal, because it was a silly argument. 

As to DVDs, yes they were.  I also waited until a majority of new movies were in DVD format before purchasing a DVD player as well.  No point in buying a DVD player when many of the things I'd like to rent/buy are still VHS.  Look, I love technology.  I just have no desire to spend money on technology that doesn't do much for me but may at some vague future date.  There are more than enough other things which already do.

No, it makes developers LAZY. They don't have to tone down the textures or compress it to run better, so why bother? They don't have to make hard decisions about what's really needed in the games, they just throw pixels at it until your eyes bleed.

EA's FIFA 07 is the PERFECT example of a developer getting too focused on the wrong thing. They focused on the gosh wow graphical bazoom of hi-def textures and polygons and pixels on the 360 version. As such, they could only fit about 7 leagues, 20 something stadiums and team uniforms on the disc. The regular X-Box version has about 3 times that amount of content, which is more important than all the pixel sweat in the world. Thus, the cheaper, last-gen version is the BETTER version because it didn't have all that graphical bullshit to worry about. And it still looked fantastic.

So the 360 version ran out of space for content, but the Blu-Ray version wouldn't have. But in both hi-def versions, the focus wouldn't be on the game but on the graphics. It wouldn't be on optimizing, it would have been on overdosing on pixels. So as a gamer, I can either pay more for graphics, more + $100 for all the graphics plus the content, or I can pay more/5 for a the full game with pretty damn good (but not the highest def) graphics.

I am not a programmer, but I don't think things are compressed in order to improve performance.

Resistance is 16 GB (not including the funky padding stuff) so already there are PS3 titles that don't fit on a single DL DVD disc.

I heard exactly what you said, addressed it, and now you're just changing your argument.


As for your new argument, I just pointed out that there's a game that takes advantage of Blu-Ray, and pointed out two others that are coming that do as well. One is third party, one is first (and I'm pretty sure there are more first party ones than that. That's just one that I know of).


But the real point is that it's simply there. That it's an option, and eliminates a problem developers have had to consider in the past.

Secondly, making it an "optional" feature or something to include later simply doesn't work. You can't build very many games around optional features. What you and Haemish are arguing for would make Blu-Ray completely superfluous -- something that has zero advantage to games at all -- either now, or in the longrun.

It depends on which is slower -- the read speed of the drive or the decompression speed of the CPU(s). E.g. to just make up some numbers let's say the drive can read at 5 MB/second (ignoring CAV vs CLV blah blah blah) and the CPU can decompress material that is compressed 4X at 2.5 MB/second. Reading 100 MB of uncompressed data off the disc would take 20 seconds but it would take 15 seconds total if compressed (5 seconds to read 25 MB of data, 10 seconds to decompress it). Of course there are other considerations to take into account such as extra CPU cycles being taken up while it's decompressing stuff but that's what multi-core CPUs are for.

Edit: typos

It isn't a new argument.  My first argument was that I doubted that there were many that would need it; most (nearly all) are just fine on one or two DVDs.  That you can only come up with a handful that are using Blu-Ray validates my claim.


The 360 seems to be making good utilization of the "optional" harddrive. 


No, what Haemish and I are arguing for is that Blu-Ray is not mature enough to be mainstream.  Because... well, it isn't mainstream.  Even Sony is saying that they're looking for the PS3 to not be mainstream for several years (this being their response to "why are your sales so poor?").  And that's ok; in 2-3 years I'll revisit the PS3 and see if it's suitable.  Otherwise, what I'd have liked to have seen Sony do is to put a DVD in the PS3, offer a USB Blu-Ray, and the option for devs to publish games in Blu-Ray format.  In a few years, do a "slim" PS3 or some similar revision, where all new PS3s come with the Blu-Ray built in.  They didn't want to do that, and feel they have justifiable reasons to do so.  Again, ok.  But I don't want a part of that right now.  Most of the gaming community (the 85% of 7th gen gamers who DON'T have a PS3) agrees with me.

It already is. Disc-switching is not a game-breaking feature for me, merely an acceptable annoyance. Seriously, hit eject, get second disc, push close, continue playing. I'm not seeing the problem.

If you're now willing to admit that there's a use for more space, then it's not superfluous.

Besides that, many games aren't so linear as to have you just switch a disc and truck along. There could be a lot of backstepping and things like that.

Uhh yeah. The machine just came out.

[EDIT] Also, you're claim was that there was NO practical use for Blu-Ray games. I listed three games for you. So don't go changing your argument again.


Anyways, what you guys should be doing is simply saying that it isn't the machine for you and leave it at that. Big deal. But don't try to speak for games in general, or blow off these features like they mean little. You're wrong.

There's uses for more space; but to say that more space on the disc is so mission critical that it requires the added expense of Blu-Ray is incorrect. If the system has a hard drive, there's no reason that a combination of disc switching and storing some of the game on the Hard drive can't work.

Never said it was mission critical. I only addressed how it had it's uses for games and wasn't just for movies. I was responding to the particular critcisms here, not making some case of my own accord.

It's one approach to a problem (that has to be addressed one way or another), and one that has it's own perks (which would be convenience, the aforementioned movie playback, and a total capacity of 50GB).

I don't recall what's the case with the Wii, but iirc devs can't be certain of a HD on the 360 and therefor can't have it as a requirement for their games.

The Wii uses 512MB flash, which is just for channels, saved games, and vc titles. It can also use SD for the same purposes.


And yeah, that's a shame about the 360 (pertaining to HDD's). That's why I said earlier that they should have just done a Premium model (or a Premium model and this Eliite version).

No. I said


Not the same.  Your statement says there is no use.  Mine says there is, but its use is limited to the point of being trivial.  You mention three games.  That's trivial.  Having something like 5% of the games utilizing of one of (if not the) most expensive component of the PS3 makes it very impractical for right now. 

Dude. Forza 2.

How is it trivial? The one game that's using up that capacity is one of the three best games out right now (Resistance). And for the first couple of months, it was the only game that was more or less piggybacking the system. It's a good thing that it was developed with Blu-Ray in mind, solitary as it was. It's a good thing that it had 30 levels instead of 7.

The other two I listed, (R&C Future and MGS4) are system sellers in a big way. Maybe you're completely ignorant about games other than MMO's and Miyamoto, but they are not trivial in any way. This isn't Call of Duty 6 we're talking about here.

And again, name me one console launch that didn't have shovelware and ports from other systems. Games that didn't really take advantage of things. It's happened every time, I guarantee. You're being totally unfair to expect otherwise here.


Ugh. I know, I know. Looks hot. I'll probably give in.  :wink:

It's the only game to bust 1m on the PS3, and only just.  Gears of War is just shy of 4m.  Wii's Zelda is over 3m.  That's more than PS3 consoles sold.  Also, at 21.5GB it could have fit on 3 DVDs, with one or two being installed to the HD if you'd like to save swapping disks.  You wouldn't have to cut anything.


Now you're just resorting to insults because you can't hold an argument.  At the moment, my PS2 disks outnumber GC+Wii disks combined by a fair bit.  For that matter, I have gotten more PS2 games than Wii games since November. 

It can't be made a requirement, but it can still be utilized.  The 360 version of Oblivion for example is able to use the HDD to cut down on load times.  There's no real reason it couldn't be used to prevent disc swapping aside from developers deciding it's not worth implementing it if not everyone can use it.

Disc swaps would have worked fine for Resistance. The game is totally Linear, correct?

Who gives a fuck if they would have worked fine. You don't need to do them anymore.

It's like saying, hey, next year we're going back to wires on all controllers and you have to get up to turn the system on and off. A legion of gamers would kick the messengers ass on delivery of that. Right now, yes, disc swapping isn't as big a deal. But eventually, it will become more and more noticeable.

The people who don't want to pay $600 for a system.  I thought that was pretty clear actually  :wink:

I can't say I mind the inclusion of Blu-ray too much myself.  The PS3 won't be a must-buy for me until God of War 3 comes out which I can only assume will be at some point in 2009 and by then hopefully the price will have dropped a little.  Even so, my interest in Blu-ray has more to do with movies than any worries about disc swapping.

How is that an insult? I said that maybe you're ignorant of anything but Nintendo and MMO's -- It's was an observation, not an insult.

If you're going to start calling things like R&C and MGS trivial (especially for a console that's barely been out, and needs games like that), then I can't help but think you're out of the loop.

But now that you mention it, you deserve to be insulted. You've done nothing but troll me here; changed your argument three times (four times really, if you count the pointless nonsense about Zelda); don't have the balls to concede any points after you give up and move on to the next; and insist on deeming technological advantages as faults (instead of just saying you personally don't need them and leave it at that).

1) "Blu-Ray is just for movies"

Response: No, it's a bigger storage medium for games too.

2) But, it doesn't have an immediate, "practical" use right now.

Response: I can list three titles off the top of my head that are here now or within the year

3) But... Those games are trivial

Response: Shares some of the value of what Resistance has brought as a launch title, then mentions R&C and MGS -- Games which shouldn't need any introduction

4) But, but... Zelda!


You deserve to be insulted for not stopping after point 1 and just saying "Ah, I see. You're right. Well, I can see the value in that, but I don't need it right now."


But no, you had to be fucking Roac.

Is it on a Blu-Ray disc, or multiple DVDs?




That's not a new issue. A common way to get around that is to have the most common areas/data essentially "doubled up" on both discs. So to put in a linear sense, the 40-60% points in the game are repeated on each disc. Disc 1 - 0%-60%. Disc 2 - 40%-100%

A blu-ray disc.

Disc swapping won't really be an option as time goes on though. Resistance was 15gb without utilizing hi res textures correct? It would easily be pushing 30gb otherwise. I wouldn't exactly be thrilled with having a game with 6 DVDs which you would have to swap around. I can see larger RPGs pushing 50gb fairly easily if they wanted to, which would be almost 11 DVDs.

Dual Layer DVDs can fit 8.5 GB so you don't need quite that many DVDs.

Oh, more like 3 & 6 then  :-P

Yesterday's PA toon & article brought an interesting wrinkle to this in my mind.  Console makers & game devs - getting their asses kicked by EB & other secondhand game & console retailers, so digital distro seems to be what they should encourage. 

However, here we have an argument over 20th century storage & distribution  ideas rather than, "Fuck physical media anyway, they need a bigger HD for DLing and a way to store games on mem cards."

THAT would truly be next-gen.  All this current direction does is feed even more cash into the EB games monster as more folks buy the even-more-expensive PS3 games 2nd hand.

People have been downloading games for years. There's nothing next-gen about it. It's just logical.

Problem is, a lot of companies - particularly the niche ones - depend on collectors. Collectors want a case, a manual, an artbook, an OST, etc. Really, companies need to simply say to EB, if you want to sell our games AT ALL, you can't sell used games. Sure, it would wipe out EB and Gamestop. But that's what needs to be done. Simply don't allow the second hand market to exist. I'm sorry, but Microsoft and EA could make that happen.

Fiber Optic speeds would need to be more common to make lots of robust game delivery viable. Multi terabyte hard disks as well.

I don't see that happening for another 10 years at least.

Not really.

Yes really. If Sony somehow tried to take out BD and include DVD instead, they'd fuck the platform for life. No developer is going to make both multi-DVD versions of games AND Blu-Ray ones. And even if they did, it'd be a retail nightmare. It'd be worse than switching controllers, in fact.

I'll have to second that, but while I'm not a true collector, I do like to have a shelf overflowing with original software titles. If you just got the data, well, the difference between a copy you "find on the internet" and your legit copy is so much smaller, that it may as well not exist. And unless they're going to demand you connect online to play your offline copy (ie HL2) then I'm not seeing it.

I like to have something physical sometimes.

Also, I would be all for companies telling shops to shove their used game shit. You would not believe how much shit I have to listen to related (directly or tangentally) to the used games trade.

Well, I guess Nix and Schild would know, but still. It's a load of shit. Even when I ring up a new game, the system asks me if I would rather sell a used copy (if we have one). Their business model is extremely shortsighted; sure, they might make more money Now, but if the bulk of their sales is from used stuff, than that's a lot of people not buying New stuff, which means the actual devs are missing out on Tons of revenue, which means the only people left are MS, EA, and whoever chooses to suck on their teat.  :dead_horse:

Do you have any idea how much I wanted to punch a manager in the mouth when he thought it was dumb that I prefer to buy my games new?

The thing that stops me from buying used games is actually the fact that the savings are so minute that it just doesn't cut it for me. Especially when it's easy enough to find another retailer selling new_release_title_045 for AU$10+ less than EB, so when you get them to price match you're paying less than they're asking for the secondhand copy anyway.

Then again, I only shop there when a piece of software is a "maybe" as in "maybe a piece of shit I'll want to return". I get my older stuff and definates from indie stores.

As far as used goes, it depends on the title. For old stuff, you can probably only find it used. And even for stuff that's newer, the difference is usually $5 or so. By itself it's not a whole lot, but if you then factor in the discount card you can get, and if you buy a decent amount of games throughout the year (but pretty much only games you would get anyway, not just buying the game because you have the discount), you can come out ahead I suppose. If you're smart it Can make financial sense...

For the consumer. Sucks balls for the devs.

I have an Edge card solely to be nice to the store I preorder at. From the entire last generation, I bought close to 400, nay maybe 500 games. Maybe 15 of them were used.

And before some wiseass goes and does any math on that many $50 games... That includes stuff like Castle Shikigami for $9.99 new on GC, MANY gba and DS games that are only $29.99 and a SLEW of $14-$19 games. None of them were greatest hits, but you'd be surprised at the number of good titles out there to be had for sub $24.99.

Yeah, new original releases can hang around on those back shelves for a Long Time...

I pick up stuff used on ebay from time to time.  Recently got a copy of Marvel Ultimate Alliance for the 360 for $29 including shipping (a game that, based on my experiences with the X-men Legends games, I wanted to play but knew wasn't going to be worth $60).  Got a handful of other 360 games for around $15 each a couple months back.  All stuff I wasn't particularly interested in (Chromehounds, Phantasy Star Universe, Battle for Middle-Earth II), but figured it would make for some decent, cheap gaming.  I also get the occasional used game from Gamestop when I see something cheap that I didn't bother with when it was new (Front Mission IV for instance).

It's rare that a game is actually worth $50-60 to me.  God of War II, Gears of War, and Dead Rising were recent exceptions for me.  Otherwise I tend to wait for them to go to the Greatest Hits, or I'll pick up a cheap used copy at some point.  Sucks for the developers, but everything from clothing, to books, to movies, to furniture, has a secondhand market, and people working in those industries have managed to survive.  If they want me to stop buying used games they need to either start making their games a lot better or they need to start charging less for new games.

To clarify, I was talking about used as in "used from EB". Where the used stuff tends to be only fractionally cheaper than the same title new. If it's something older that you can only find used, sure. I've bought hard-to-get older titles from there used as well. But buying, say Full Spectrum Warrior used for $79.99 while the new release price is $89.99 and you can get them to price-match K-Mart's $75 special or some other store's also-cheaper price makes no sense to me.

Buying newer stuff secondhand from other sources is a different matter, as secondhand stuff on eBay/the rest of the world not counting EB tends to be quite a bit cheaper.

I also tend to pick up quite a bit of stuff once it's started to have the inevitable price drops, I'm a far cry from a "buy all new releases on release at full price" kind of guy.

Even at an average of $20 per game that's 10k.  Get help.  :-D

Not to actually defend schildy or anything, but that's really not that much over the course of several years, especially since he's stated before that his only real hobby is videogames. I've spent probably AU$10k or so on a combo of Star Wars toys, miniatures, reproductrion armour, videogames and various related shit in the last year, and I dread to consider what I've spent on Warhammer stuff over my lifetime. Even that pales to people who's hobbies include car building or boat building. Or holidays and trips. So you know, horses for courses.

Of course, schild is a young single male, and I'm half of a DINK couple, if you have kids and such, such extrvagant displays of self-indulgence are probably out.

The entire last generation of games was about 7 years too.

10k is still a lot (just on games alone), but not as crazy when you put it in that context.


Gaming-wise, I probably bought about 200 games, 3 consoles (including 3 different PS2's), and a gaming PC (with upgrades over time). Count in my other hobby (guitars and/or music instruments), and just assuming the median price range of those games was $20 (probably not), I went over 10k as well.


It makes me more sick that I probably spent about $4k on cigarettes in the same amount of time.

I don't really keep score, but I bought a PS3, 360, Wii, and some number of games since mid-November.  Games like GoW2, Gears, Resistance, VF5, Twilight Princess, Dead Rising, SMT: Devil Summoner, maybe something else.  Also dropped $950 on my PC already.  I can't let such math enter my brain, so feel free to add that up in private.  I'm not going to suggest that this is some sort of way for a human to exist, in fact I would suggest that I am a terrible example of how to live.

I've dropped about $2k since November (gaming purchases), and got a free computer as well. Yay me.

I've spent $2500 on my PC alone over the last 5 years, but that might be a bit over.

For being a gamer, I probably spend a bit on the low side compared to a lot of people here. Had a PS2, traded it in, but got one again recently. Spent maybe $300-400 on PS2 games total. I've had my Xbox for awhile, and I've probably spent even less on games for that platform. I've been thoroughly satisfied with both platforms though.

PC games? I wouldn't know where to start. $1000 over 5 years on PC games would be a decent starting point, I guess. And then maybe $200 on DS games, plus the price of the DS.


I have too many other hobbies. Though maybe one day this week I'll scrounge through my stuff and get All my games together, and maybe see what I've actually spent. Should be pretty easy to calculate, as I buy the vast majority of my stuff new.

Sony also has a reason beyond gaming to have an interest in Blu-Ray.  Everytime a PS3 is sold, a home aquires a Blu-Ray player, which gives them some leverage in the format war.  I believe Sony included coupons in each PS3 for free or discounted (not sure which) Blu-Ray movies which people have been redeeming which they can claim as 'movies sold' which also gives them leverage in the format war.

I personally own a XBox 360 with the HD DvD add on, and looking back, despite how cool Gears of War is, I wish I had picked up the PS3 instead (will pick one up in the fall). Now that I upgraded my computer, the 360 pretty much gets upscaling and HD DvD duty only.  Microsoft loves to nickel and dime their customer (charging for Live, and even extra avatar portraits for christ sake).   Microsoft desires to make their console a media hub with purchased downloadable movies and tv shows, yet they provide a tiny hardrive and expect you to re download stuff or buy another teeny hardrive at an overinflated cost.  The Elite, with it's  bigger hardrive is somewhat of a response to this, but it's larger drive is pretty small when you are dealing with HD stuff and if you want another drive, you HAVE to go out and buy a  proprietary drive at an overinflated cost.

IMO the PS3 is pretty much futureproof.  If you want more space, go to your local store and buy any compatible drive.  Also saying the Blu-Ray won't help the gaming asect of the console is not really thinking it through.  Just as an example the XBox version of Doom 3 is missing stuff from the PC version.  Parts of levels are not there because of the limitations of the XBox.  Being an eternal optimist, I would say that advances in technology (faster processors,  move ram, move physical storage)  can only augment the creative process.  Sure you can be impressed with what develpoers have wrung out of the Cube, the PS , the Genesis and so on, but it seems a little silly to expect developers to continue working within the limitations of outdated hardware, or conversly  not taking adantange of the state of the art (in this case Blu-Ray).  Games stored  on Blu-Ray  will have an  impact this generation.

To:   You silly people.

Re: "Get Help" - To Schild

It was a joke.  He said, "don't you bastards.. blah blah blah."  So I did anyway, just to push buttons.
Ha ha, you ruined the funny.

- Mer

What funny?

































zing.

See, just like that.  Someone sets you up, you take the shot. It's much more amusing that way.

 :rimshot:

Happy now?


anyway...


Tell me more about this.

Where the fuck is my XBMC replacement, PS3MC or 360MC or whatever? I really need to replace my aging xbox, but XBMC is a critical piece of my home entertainment center.

PS3 can replace my dvd player (it DOES do upscaling, right?), but I need a network share type device... and unless the 360 hacks have come farther than I thought, things just aren't there yet.

You can use off the shelf 2.5" SATA's with the PS3 (cheaper too. For example, a 120GB 2.5 Seagate will cost $90. As opposed to Microsoft's pricing of $180).

As in "unscrew (bye warranty!), unplug, swap, plug, rescrew, looky here a much larger HDD and everything works just fine"?

If you don't like doing that, you can connect external drives via USB as well.

Yeah, pretty much. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B1mQ21XXLE)

You'll want to stick with 5400 rpm though (apparently 7200 has caused problems).

Also, you'll want to back up any saved games and shit, of course. ;)

After that, the OS detects the new hard drive, asks if you want to format it, you click Yes, and voila.

...does that even invalidate the warranty? It almost looks like if it suffered from 1st-gen Sony Hardware quality you could just swap the original HDD back in and no-one would be the wiser.
 :-o

(http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/72438/2_qjpreviewth.jpg)

(pic from PS3 manual)

Not sure about the warranty, but if the manual gives directions, and there aren't any warning labels on the hatch, then the rules might not be as punitive as it may seem at first. Just a guess though.

Hmm, where is the OS installed then, if not on the HDD? Do they just have it on a chip?

Yup.

If it doesn't void the warranty, this is certainly a nice move if you're doing something that is eating away at your disk space.

Basically if you screw up the install you may void your warranty. Otherwise you are good to go (bottom left paragraph):

http://www.joystiq.com/media/2006/11/ps3manual_pg1.jpg

If saves and shit are stored on the HDD, how can you back them up for when you do a disk swap? Is it somehow possible to export your saves, even PS3 game saves, to some other device?

I would assume you can transfer shit to a memory card but I have not tried yet.  Still have space on the disk so I'm not worried about that just now.  Here I use "memory card" as a catchall since the PS3 supports Memory Stick, CF and SD.  Also this may not cover certain things which developers don't want you to copy, such as Culdcept save files which I was unable to transfer to the PS3.  One day I will get around to putting a SD card in my PS3 and seeing if I can move things to it.

I've moved stuff back and forth through memory cards (saved games work too).


Haven't tried any usb drives (iPods work though).

Ah, forgot about the USB for some reason.  What did you move, PS3 saves, PS/PS2 memory cards?

Game saves, photos, and music.

They just announced (http://www.xbox.com/en-US/community/news/2007/0408-im.htm) the new features of the xbox live features to be launched this spring... included are a bunch of stuff I don't care about, but it did have these two gems:

# H.264 video support: Up to 15 Mbps, Baseline, Main, and High (up to level 4.1) Profiles with 2 channel AAC LC and Main Profiles.
# Added MPEG-4 Part 2 video support: Up to 8 Mbps, Simple Profile with 2 channel AAC LC and Main Profiles.

That's sort-of xbox media center-like streaming ability. Seeing as how I just bought a PS3, that's kind of annoying -- I've still got my hopes up for Linux PS3 to become my new xbmc... but with the new elite being HDMI, it seems like I may have picked the wrong console ;)

also.. (http://www.xbox.com/NR/rdonlyres/0BEEA19F-D716-4497-AD89-607A23640169/0/ilmTextinputdevice.jpg)

First of all, can't you connect an ordinary USB keyboard to the 360? If so, then why don't just do that instead of that misfit of a controller. If not, then why?

That thing is fucking hideous. It looks like a Playskool toy got raped by Blackberry and gave birth to that monstrosity.

That looks like my old sidekick 2 keyboard, and I could really thumb some shit out after a few months using it. I'd say close to 40-50 WPM.

Perfect for the 20-something bongloaders that'll be playing age of conan on X360.

Erm, that image is a fake, guys....right?

Neg. And it's awesome.

It looks like a damn abomination to me. Good luck "typing" and playing at the same time.

Though I suppose it's better than nothing.

Yea, it looks a tad bulky and seems to sit a tad high relative to the rest of the controller, but anything that keeps me from ever having to use the on-screen keyboard ever again is worth it's weight in gold.  If some future games let you map additional functions and/or macros to the keys, I wouldn't mind either.  ;)

My thin fingers will be an advantage.  Yay.

Going to be used for 3 things.

1. Talking in an MMOG.
2. Typing names for games.
3. Instant messaging over MSN (coming May 7th to the 360).

So uh, what's the problem? I think it's an elegant solution to a common problem.

Edit: Oooooh, macro assignment would be hot - or even better - profile assignment for actually keymaps.

The only common problem is trying to PC-ify consoles. Kludging game versions together to be as similar as possible for each platform does a disservice to all users. Let me type and use actual menus and such on a PC, and let me play action-y games on a console.

Again, hasn't this problem already been solved a couple of decades ago, you know, the keyboard?

Using the BT Apple Keyboard/Mouse myself (on PS3 I mean). Convenient and hassle free enough for me. Not much use for it yet though, I suppose.

 :roffle:

(http://www.xbox.com/NR/rdonlyres/0BEEA19F-D716-4497-AD89-607A23640169/0/ilmTextinputdevice.jpg)

Yeah. Totally awesome.

 :roflcopter:

I really don't understand this.  See, I have a handy thing called a "microphone", and this device lets me leave recordings of my own voice to people I'd like to leave messages to.  So tell me how is this frankenberry device a step up from just sending someone a voicemail?  Shit, that's the main reason I like Live, because I can actually talk to the people I'm playing with and be sure that they can in turn talk back to me.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/246/456567778_04d42463c1_m.jpg)

At the risk of duplicating Big Gulp's sound reasoning...


The problem is that it is a step away from voice.  This is actually interesting because it is a PCification of console games and it is sure to irritate the Bizzaro-Skys around here; think of it as the reverse of "the interface in Oblivion looks like the JumpStart Baby UI" rage.  A miniature keyboard seems less elegant than voice, to me.  And, put bluntly, why not use voice for MOG communication?  If you're going to have your 360 on the net and are spending that change anyway, why would you not have a mic?  But, hey, if you're using thumbsticks to play a FPS then I guess you are not a terribly picky gamer, so whatever.

Nearly everything multiplayer on the 360 has voice. I can't say I'd honestly talk to most of the people I'd encounter in an MMOG though.

Agreed.

If they plan on implementing voice chat for Age of Conan, they need to bind the 'Mute Player' button to like, the A button. Or one of the triggers.

Regardless - the thumb board would actually be pretty sweet for a console MMO, if it didn't have a 'targeting' system that was heavily mouse based. Swing your swords around, hit stuff.

As I have yet to enter in to the current gen of consoles, but it appears I will have to get my Bioware RPG fix, I thought I'd throw out a question.

With the Xbox live stuff - I assume you plug your network cable right in to it. Is there any support or options for wireless?, as that's the way I am seriously leaning for my new place.

There's a wireless adapter that'll set you back $90 or so.

"my mic's broken."

Works wonders in current MMOs.  Dunno if I'd be able to pull that stunt on a 360 MMO.

*My mic actually is broken.  Well, the one that I choose to use is.

Well, I'm not going to try to argue whether your average EQ2 player is smarter than your average XBL player.  The thing is that I have been in more than enough MOG groups in which at least one participant did not type word one, and in ones where I just had to turn a blind eye to the chat.  A mic would just let me call them cockgobbling shitstains without having to take my fingers away from playing the game.  Avoiding assholes, to me, is a separate deal from the communication medium.

My other point is that a console game should have console controls, not a gimp-assed PC control.  If you are designing a MOG for a console, cowboy up and implement voice, for Ludd's sake.  Retaining text chat is stagnation in raw form, or at least lazy design, or maybe a way to sell another set of controllers to morons.

As for dodging chat in a voice system, Strazos can give classes.  It's not rocket surgery, just don't talk.

ooo, Low Blow. And I haven't spoken to you over vent/TS in months.  :|

You have never spoken to me over TS or Vent.  But, yeah, below the belt.  I apologize.

What are you talking about, Straz never shuts up :D

 :evil: :evil: :evil:

I could get on and play guitar instead of talking. You could pretend I was Buckethead.