PS3 Q&A Thread

[Sairon]

Actually, I thought I'd be satisfied when GS thought they'd be getting component cables the week of release. That still burns me more than anything. The PS3 may not be perfect, but at least I can play it the best possible way intended. I don't even have that option with the Wii at this point. They could've packed one of every type of cable into the Wii and still made a profit. The Wii may be fun and innovative, but it's also a ripoff. A Wiipoff. Whatever.

I wouldn't say it's a ripoff.  Realistically I think it was pretty much the only way Nintendo could go if they wanted to stay in the console business.  I don't think they can really afford to take the kind of hit that MS and Sony take on the hardware (hell, Sony can't really even afford it).  Beyond that I think that we may even be a bit spoiled these days for expecting companies to take a loss on consoles, and while it might be good for us as consumers in the short term, it could really limit the number of companies that could compete in the console industry in the future (not that it wasn't a tough market to break into already).  How many companies out there could develop a console and sell it at a $300 loss.

So you're saying that it's bad for the consumers that there's nobody who can compete with Sony and M$ in selling of their hardware at a loss? Mkey 

[Kitsune]

The PS3 can't do 1080i?  Wow, that is balls.  A great big sack of suck.  Going to 1080p seems to shoot the price of the television up to around four grand.  I might've been able to swing a 720p/1080i around forty inches, but there's just no way in hell I can afford 1080p, and if you don't have 1080p the PS3 downgrades to first-gen HD resolution, because spending $600 for a console that displays 720p is the wave of the future.

Man, people who say that consoles have a price advantage over PC gaming are tools.  At least PC gamers don't have to worry about their equipment having to jump through a series of hoops to upsample and downsample and rescale to work with a television that may or may not even be fully compatible with the resolution.  All the shit I keep seeing about blu-ray downgrading to 480i if you don't use digital cables, televisions that say they can display a certain resolution but actually only accept a lower resolution and upscale it so it looks like ass, it just makes me want to find the people behind the home theater electronics industry and beat them with a DIVx player until they get their heads out of their asses and make a set of standards they can actually abide by.

[schild]

The PS3 can do 1080i. It just can't upscale to 1080i. So games that are 720p will only show in 720p or lower. A 1080i game will show in 1080i, 720p, 480p, and 480i.

[Kitsune]

The PS3 can do 1080i. It just can't upscale to 1080i. So games that are 720p will only show in 720p or lower. A 1080i game will show in 1080i, 720p, 480p, and 480i.

Oh, that's better.  But are there any 1080i games?  I heard that Resistance, the closest thing they have to a launch title, isn't 1080i compatible.

[Velorath]

So you're saying that it's bad for the consumers that there's nobody who can compete with Sony and M$ in selling of their hardware at a loss? Mkey 

I'm sure it will be a magical era for people who like to masturbate over tech specs.  When people start calling a $250 system (that tries to do something different from the other systems on the market) overpriced because the company making it actually has the nerve to try and make a profit off it, then yes, I see the beginnings of a problem.

[Big Gulp]

It isn't that I do or do not have the spare change to buy it (I don't for the record), it's that for the same size TV, I'm paying double.

A Wii costs $250, but a GameCube costs around $100.  You paid over double for an overclocked GameCube with a new control scheme.    In world shattering news, technology progression costs money.

I've heard at least 4 different resolutions tossed about that aren't all working with different things like the 360 or the PS3.

What?  480i and 480p aren't HD standards, so we can ignore those.  Older HD's (in other words, the kind no stores sell anymore) only displayed 780p, but now pretty much all HD's display at 780p and 1080i.  The newest ones also display at 1080p, which is really fairly superfluous.  It's not the kind of monumental upgrade that going from SD to HD entails.  As far as Sony fucking up which resolutions they scale to, I'd say that's Sony's fault and not the HD standard.

[Strazos]

Just for reference, the price for a Wii isn't that bad if you do not already own a GC.

[Trippy]

What?  480i and 480p aren't HD standards, so we can ignore those.  Older HD's (in other words, the kind no stores sell anymore) only displayed 780p, but now pretty much all HD's display at 780p and 1080i.  The newest ones also display at 1080p, which is really fairly superfluous.

It's the other way around. Many older HDTVs support 1080i but not 720p.

[Kageru]

Just for reference, the price for a Wii isn't that bad if you do not already own a GC.

Price is sort of irrelevant in any case unless people really think there's going to be a sudden resurgence in games launching for the gamecube. Of course by the same logic a PS2 probably continues to represent better value than the PS3. Installed base is just such a massive advantage.

[Kitsune]

Just for reference, the price for a Wii isn't that bad if you do not already own a GC.

I traded in my GC for sixty bucks' worth of credit a couple weeks before the Wii's release.  That was a promotional thing though, not sure if it's still got that much value.

[Sairon]

So you're saying that it's bad for the consumers that there's nobody who can compete with Sony and M$ in selling of their hardware at a loss? Mkey 

I'm sure it will be a magical era for people who like to masturbate over tech specs.  When people start calling a $250 system (that tries to do something different from the other systems on the market) overpriced because the company making it actually has the nerve to try and make a profit off it, then yes, I see the beginnings of a problem.

If Nintendo would've been alone on the market we would still be playing with cartridges and having problems distinguishing spheres from boxes. I fall under the category that masturbate over tech specs every now and then, good visuals, better sound etc do make gaming more enjoyable. It's a smart move on Nintendos part, everybody likes cheering for the underdog, especially when it's an old childhoods friend. However, that doesn't change the fact that in comparsion, it's overpriced. And as we know, the main profit isn't from consoles in themselves but from licensing fees further down the road, and because of that I don't think it's unreasonable to expect losses on the console sales.

[Kageru]

Hm, losses on console sales are going to be leached back somewhere... licensing fees on each game produced for the platform I assume? Personally I'd rather not have another dis-incentive for experimentation in games.

[Strazos]

Just for reference, the price for a Wii isn't that bad if you do not already own a GC.

Price is sort of irrelevant in any case unless people really think there's going to be a sudden resurgence in games launching for the gamecube. Of course by the same logic a PS2 probably continues to represent better value than the PS3. Installed base is just such a massive advantage.

I'm not concerned about future releases for the GC. Rather, what I mean is that since I don't own a GC, paying $250 to get was is sort of 2 platforms isn't that bad. I can play all the new Wii releases, and hunt through used stuff and pick up select GC games. I'm not even counting what the Virtual Console service could eventually be (note: it sucks ass right now).

[Roac]

If Nintendo would've been alone on the market we would still be playing with cartridges and having problems distinguishing spheres from boxes. I fall under the category that masturbate over tech specs every now and then, good visuals, better sound etc do make gaming more enjoyable. It's a smart move on Nintendos part, everybody likes cheering for the underdog, especially when it's an old childhoods friend. However, that doesn't change the fact that in comparsion, it's overpriced. And as we know, the main profit isn't from consoles in themselves but from licensing fees further down the road, and because of that I don't think it's unreasonable to expect losses on the console sales.

For me, I don't care about tech specs.  I wouldn't care if Nintendo sill used cartridges for the same reason.  Nor would I care if it cost Nintendo $10 to manufacture the thing.  What I care about is (a) is it fun, (b) is it affordable, (c) is the fun/cost worth it.  Yes on all three.  I've seen (and played) the 360, and seen the PS3.  I did not get the sense that they were 2x as much fun even with HDTV, let alone without it (seeing as I don't have an HDTV).  I know others rate the values for all these things differently, and for someone else none of it is overpriced.  That's  not a "fact", but a perspective. 

[Sairon]

For me, I don't care about tech specs.  I wouldn't care if Nintendo sill used cartridges for the same reason.  Nor would I care if it cost Nintendo $10 to manufacture the thing.  What I care about is (a) is it fun, (b) is it affordable, (c) is the fun/cost worth it.  Yes on all three.  I've seen (and played) the 360, and seen the PS3.  I did not get the sense that they were 2x as much fun even with HDTV, let alone without it (seeing as I don't have an HDTV).  I know others rate the values for all these things differently, and for someone else none of it is overpriced.  That's  not a "fact", but a perspective. 

Then I don't see the point in geting a next gen console at all, unless you've already played all the good games on the previous consoles, since that would grant you a much better value.

[Roac]

Then I don't see the point in geting a next gen console at all, unless you've already played all the good games on the previous consoles, since that would grant you a much better value.

For some people, there may not be a point.  For myself, I'd basically written off getting any console until at *least* next Christmas because there's still plenty of good (Gampesot 8.0+ games, or whatever ranking system you'd like to pick from) I haven't played yet on either the GC or PS2.  The main reason I did wind up geting a Wii is because my wife got it for me as an early Christmas present.  She wanted to do something big-ish, and knew I'd enjoy it.  Beyond that, she was interested in it too for her sake, and she hasn't cared much for either the GC or PS2.  That it's something we play together is fun++.  Beyond even that, it's entirely painless for me to hand out my GC as a hand-me-down to my sister who is on hard times and can't afford much at all in the way of entertainment. 

Overall though, even if I think the 7th gen consoles are better than the 6th, I don't think any of them are so much better that you couldn't enjoy 6th gen stuff.  Hell, I still fire up a copy of Master of Magic about once a year.

[HaemishM]

Let's get it straight. Both Sony and Microsoft are FUCKING RETARDED for selling consoles at a loss. Especially Sony. Smart business people who want to make a profit do not take almost $200 losses on a product that they absolutely need to have people buy, especially one they cannot produce in sufficient quantity to satisfy the demand. They especially do not need to sell at a loss when the console hardware they were currently selling is still profitable, and when the new hardware they are pimping really doesn't provide that different an experience from what they were previously making money on.

Other than extra pixels, there is nothing the 360 or the PS3 can do that the previous consoles could not do other than play movies for formats that aren't even standard. The games are the same. The controller is the same. Yes, yes, the PS3 has motion-sensing, which is being used for fuckall, so doesn't really count especially since they had to lose the rumble feature to do it. It's the same games with more shiney. I consider both that and HDTV a premium because the experience is not significantly different than SD. It's the same games, same movies and same TV shows only with a crisper picture. Having an HDTV will not change my life or my TV viewing dramatically, and so charging me more for it is charging me a premium. It's value does not equal or exceed the cost paid.

However, the Wii and the Tivo? Now THOSE are devices worth paying premiums for. Getting a Tivo completely changed my TV viewing life, to the point where I'd rather lose DVD playback than get rid of it. The Wii's motion-sensing gameplay is dramatically different than GameCube games. I'm more engrossed in Red Steel than I've been in a shooter, especially one on a console, than I've been since Half Life 1, all because of the controller and all despite the flaws I see in the game.

Nintendo is the smart one here. They make a profit off of their consoles. I don't have a problem with that, because despite being a Gamecube++ inside, the game play is different enough to warrant a new console. Selling a console for a loss is a symptom of the problem I have with modern capitalism. The business isn't about making a profit on good products, it's about keeping stock prices going higher until the CEO can retire on his golden parachute. To me, Sony and Microsoft are both practicing BAD BUSINESS, because when the stock price dips, regular working folks get shitcanned.

[Roac]

Eh.  I don't think it's stupid of either Sony or Microsoft to take losses upfront.  It's a risk sure, but stock prices are only going to float if there is a somewhat legitimate expectation of return.  It's not that different from, say, Google throwing up a free search engine, free Google Maps, and a shitton of other free things that they have to start sucking cost for on day 1 both for development, production (servers/network infastructure), marketing, and ongoing operational costs.  All of that, and it may be a year or more before there is even the hope of profit, even more before the profit takes them into the black.  Both Sony and Microsoft are taking a look at the long term.  Selling the consoles at a losss isn't just about recouping costs on game licenses, although that certainly figures into a central role.  It's also about the role of these consoles, and the 8th gen consoles, moving forward.  If Blu-Ray does become dominant, then Sony sits poised to dominate licensing not only on PS3 games, but on Blue Ray licensing/sales as well.  Neither company looks at their product as just a gaming console.  I wonder if either or both might even consider that role secondary to their long term (10y) strategy.

Nintendo decided to skip out on that.  Although they are thinking long term, their focus is almost entirely on the game console itself.  Microsoft and Sony only see "fun games" as an entrypoint into games plus a bunch of other things.  Nintendo sees the Wii as an entry point for... fun games.  The weather and news feeds on the Wii, when they come, are a joke.  They're an afterthought, but they are intended to be an afterthought. 

[Sky]

it's that for the same size TV, I'm paying double.

Dude. More than double the resolution, sticking with the 1080i example given. Hdtv isn't cheap, but it's not silly expensive, either, if your hobbies include movies and gaming. Actually it makes a heck of a lot of sense.

Let's get it straight. Both Sony and Microsoft are FUCKING RETARDED for selling consoles at a loss. Especially Sony. Smart business people who want to make a profit do not take almost $200 losses on a product that they absolutely need to have people buy, especially one they cannot produce in sufficient quantity to satisfy the demand. They especially do not need to sell at a loss when the console hardware they were currently selling is still profitable, and when the new hardware they are pimping really doesn't provide that different an experience from what they were previously making money on.

The PS2 disagrees with you. Also, Microsoft was quite successful at their venture of buying mindshare in the console realm. Thirdly, I'm pretty certain you understand that they are making profits from the games, it's not just about giving consoles away. It's also business as usual, for example: HP selling cheap printers and expensive inks.

Then you start in on how trivial a 'crisper' picture is. Really? Do you game at 640x480 on your Voodoo 2? Or have you dumped money into new pc systems just to get a trivially better picture?

[Hokers]

  I wouldn't care if Nintendo sill used cartridges for the same reason. 

I do.  20 years of smoking has taken away my ability to properly blow on the damm things.  I need disks.

[Morfiend]

Then you start in on how trivial a 'crisper' picture is. Really? Do you game at 640x480 on your Voodoo 2? Or have you dumped money into new pc systems just to get a trivially better picture?

Im gona have to agree with Sky. Like TiVo, I cannot ever imagine going back to SD TV after having a great HD TV. It really does change the whole experience.

But errr Sky, Hemmy IS still gaming on a voodoo2.

[HaemishM]

My home PC is using a Radeon 9600 because I refuse to (and can't afford to) pay $500 for a new fucking video card to get the latest shiney. Do you really think I give a fuck if I'm playing at 640x480? If the game is fun, the graphics are a bonus, not the be all end all. I can still see soccer just fine on my 27" SDTV, though I could use some new glasses.

The graphics do not fundamentally change the game from the GC/PS2/X-Box to the 360/PS3/Wii. Zelda looks gorgeous on the Wii. Some parts of Red Steel are spectacular looking even in SD with RGB cables. I'm not crying for lack of HD.

I'm sure when I get it, it'll seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread. But it still won't make as much difference as the movement from gamepads to Wiimote, or from keyboard only to keyboard and mouse. Since the standardization of K&M and PS1 gamepads, gaming has been static as fuck in regards to gameplay mechanics, with everyone concentrating on more pixels, more lighting, more shaders, higher res textures. It's nice to worry about the important bits, THE GAME.

[Strazos]

Haemish...you know I love ya man, but come on...

[schild]

RGB cables? You have your Wii hooked up to a monitor? You mean composite.

And it doesn't look good, I'm sorry, it looks like dick. And graphics ARE important to games. Play Splinter Cell on the Wii and then on the 360, tell me graphics don't matter. Bullshit. Hell, go play it on the Xbox.

[Kitsune]

RGB cables? You have your Wii hooked up to a monitor? You mean composite.

And it doesn't look good, I'm sorry, it looks like dick. And graphics ARE important to games. Play Splinter Cell on the Wii and then on the 360, tell me graphics don't matter. Bullshit. Hell, go play it on the Xbox.

Graphics matter.  Graphical power doesn't necessarily equate to good graphics, however.  Games with good art direction on low-power systems (Wind Waker) can look far better than games with shitty art direction on top-notch systems (any generic WW2 shooter or sport game on Xbox).  I saw some football game at a circuit city hooked up to a 360 through HD, on what I assume was a player roster screen because the camera was zoomed in on the players' faces.  The resolution was magnificent, absolutely crystal-clear.  But it looked like shit.  Someone on the art team had apparently decided that they had to make use of that resolution by covering the faces of the players with little details, pores and such.  As a result, all of the faces were messy wrecks that looked inhuman.

Now, using the best possible cables from your console to get a non-blurry picture on the television, that's just good sense.  Just because one can get a good-looking game without a high-power console doesn't mean that one should try to feed the signal through a coat hanger to a black and white twelve-inch television from 1980.  Not blowing five grand on top-notch HD equipment I can understand completely, but a few extra bucks here and there for a decent CRT TV that can take component inputs (~$200-250) and component cables for your Wii or PS2 (~$20-30), and maybe a decent receiver/5.1 speaker combo (~$200-300) will get a lot of reward for not a lot of cash.  You can get good clean video and surround sound from all of the current consoles, which really improve the playing experience (and DVD-watching experience) and it doesn't cost a ton to get it.

[schild]

There was an update to the PS3 firmware tonight. Version 1.11. Additions?

+Added Account Management.


Woop woop.

[HaemishM]

Haemish...you know I love ya man, but come on...

Last I looked, they were twice that price. That was also the last time I gave a shit about upgrading my PC because the Movies was the last thing I gave a shit about playing on my PC. I've tried Oblivion, haven't been impressed, and there aren't any good MMOG's coming out until next year.

And that's not even the latest great flavor of video card. So I'd still be a generation behind.

Yes, Red Steel and Zelda both look gorgeous, even on my COMPOSITE (or whatever the hell that connection is called... there's only about 50 billion different cables now apparently). Maybe they don't look as pretty as on a 360. I'm not doubting that HD and HD gaming looks good, I'm saying it isn't as important as the gameplay and isn't worth as much to me. I'm perfectly happy playing "teh old" graphics, because they still look good to me.

When I hear someone tell me I have to play games on the new shiney, all I hear is the sucking sound of some bitch trying to take money out of my wallet.

EDIT: I begin to feel like a fucking Luddite when I discuss HD issues with HD zealots who have more money to spend on useless shit than I do on food. My TV is using S-Video for the Tivo connection, and those Yellow/Red/White cables for the game systems and DVD player. Apparently that's called composite. Component is the cable everyone's bitching that Nintendo didn't include in the box. My TV doesn't have component.

[Roac]

I'll second Haemish on this.  I like HD - games/movies look nice on a new LCD/plasma even if they don't use HD, and stunning if they do.  But it's not terribly important, as stuff still looks good on SD and is no less fun.  IMO, Fun Games > Pretty Games and I'm not to keen on doubling (yes, HD TVs are about 2x an equivalent SD) pricetags to get more pretty when what I have is still nice.

And it doesn't look good, I'm sorry, it looks like dick. And graphics ARE important to games. Play Splinter Cell on the Wii and then on the 360, tell me graphics don't matter. Bullshit. Hell, go play it on the Xbox.

Don't be so elitest.  Of course better graphics are ... well, better.  But Wii on SD doesn't look like dick.  I've played 360 on HD.  It's nice.  Wii on SD is still fine.  I get that your gaming is almost your part time job, and if you want to chase the graphical love that's great.  Honestly, glad you've found something to enjoy.  Do more front pages about the games on your HD+360 and let us all know about it.  I'll likely have both at some point when it's cheaper, and enjoy all of it then at less than half of what you paid for it and put the other half towards other things I care about.

[Sky]

Of course what we are saying is that pretty games are more important than quality games.

But quality games + higher resolution + big widescreen (+ 5.1 surround) = better. I try to avoid crappy games, even if they look great. I only buy a half dozen games a year on average, I spend way more on the hardware, partly because I enjoy a quality experience, partly because I enjoy building computers (of course, both my pc and hdtv are over three years old, so it's not like I'm blowing a lot of money on my hobby every year).

I've already said that if the price is keeping you away, that's not a big deal. I understand. I was in a band for years, we used to shower under the neighbor's garden hose and warm our house with construction debris in the fireplace (I still had a Sega Genesis!). But simply leave it at 'it's expensive' and don't bother with the tripe about higher resolutions (or screen size) not making gaming better.

[Roac]

But simply leave it at 'it's expensive' and don't bother with the tripe about higher resolutions (or screen size) not making gaming better.

Of course better graphics are ... well, better.  But Wii on SD doesn't look like dick.  I've played 360 on HD.  It's nice.  Wii on SD is still fine.

Maybe they don't look as pretty as on a 360. I'm not doubting that HD and HD gaming looks good, I'm saying it isn't as important as the gameplay and isn't worth as much to me. I'm perfectly happy playing "teh old" graphics, because they still look good to me.

 

Everytime someone tries to leave it with "it's expensive", someone else(s) say it isn't.  Then someone else(s) pops up and says that anything less than the top end stuff looks like shit.  Or dick.  Whatever. 

[HaemishM]

Of course what we are saying is that pretty games are more important than quality games.

But quality games + higher resolution + big widescreen (+ 5.1 surround) = better. I try to avoid crappy games, even if they look great. I only buy a half dozen games a year on average, I spend way more on the hardware, partly because I enjoy a quality experience, partly because I enjoy building computers (of course, both my pc and hdtv are over three years old, so it's not like I'm blowing a lot of money on my hobby every year).

I'm also saying that not only is it expensive, the games AREN'T quality. Or more precisely, they aren't a noticeable step up in quality outside of the graphics. Gears of War is the first 360 game in the entire year that has made me want that system, and only because it looked to be utilizing cover and the gamepad control scheme in a way that was different from previous iterations. Call of Duty 2 on the 360? Other than sharper graphics, it didn't play fundamentally different to me than any other shooter on the original X-Box. If all I'm getting out of the next-gen is shinier graphics on the same games, why am I being asked to pay $400-$600 (plus the added $10 each game) for the privilege?

Saint's Row and Gears of War are the only 2 360-exclusive games I'd consider the system for. The PS3 has even less than that, because Assassin's Creed is going to be on the 360 as well. I'm not seeing the quality in the games, but I AM seeing the repetition of tired/tried gameplay. The same goes for HDTV. I can still see soccer and football and baseball and Heroes on my SDTV (for the next few years), I just see them better with HD. I can live with that until the price becomes reasonable.

[murdoc]

I think it's what you're used to as well. I find it hard to play games that aren't in 5.1 now because I'm so used to positional sounds in games. Before I got the HDTV, SD 360 was fine for me... now that I'm gaming in widescreen 720p, I find it hard to jump back to the old TV upstairs and play the Gamecube on that.

Personally, I'm glad I got my HDTV before Gears of War came out and I'll have it to play Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed and Bioshock.

[Sky]

Haem, I don't have a 360, nor Wii, nor PS3. I'm talking pc games :) This 720p stuff people are raving about with the new consoles is what I've been gaming with for years now. My 3-yr old pc pushes out 720p just fine on most titles. Only Oblivion, EQ2 and CoV have given it a tough time (though again, I don't play every new shiny game to come out).

Don't confuse the situation by bringing the quality of console titles into it (I know this is technically a PS3 thread, but I'm only addressing the hdtv issue).

[HaemishM]

I likely would not be playing PC games on my future theoretical big HDTV because the interface of mouse/keyboard really doesn't work well for me on anything but a desk.

[Strazos]

(Waits for Sky to bring up PC gaming from a couch. Again.)