Sony's Lies

Post by **Triton** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:59 pm

stand is included fyi

Post by **bicostp** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:58 pm

Oooooh... shiny!

Here's my general opinion:

PS3
The Good: Most technologically advanced out of the three next gen systems. Includes next-gen video disc player. You get what you pay for.
The Bad: $$$$$$$. Very limited avalibility on launch.
The Ugly: That darn font.

Xbox 360
The Good: Released about a year ago, so it has a strong foothold. M$ has a nearly unlimited amount of moolah to throw at it to ensure success.
The Bad: Microsoft. Next-gen video disc player is an extra add-on that costs $200. Wireless controllers and other features come a la carte.
The Ugly: I hate the case.

Nintendo Wii
The Good: Strong fanboy following. Has several well-established and recognized franchises. Many are thrilled about the controller. Nintendo finally wised up and accepted normal standards for data storage.
The Bad: Strong fanboy following. It's a Gamecube with a Power Glove add-on. Little innovation over the GCN. No high-definition video or next-gen video disc support (so it's not future-proof).
The Ugly: Strong fanboy following. You might need an adapter to fit the Gamecube's weird discs into the standard slot-loading DVD drive. Nintendo wants you to buy all your old games again (and again and again...).

Sony's right on the line between marketing and weaseling (if there is such a word).

Ari · Post by **Ari** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:47 pm

I don't see why Sony's even comparing the PS3 at ALL with the Wii...

And to be fair, to have comprable gaming abilities (to the PS3) with the 360, you do need the Xbox Live subscription. I don't think that anybody will deny that online is a big part of gaming. But that is a pretty messed up fact sheet.

I'm still getting a PS3, though (eventually). It runs Yellow Dog Linux! And hopefully Gentoo, soon... so hopefully there'll be a lot of user-made software for the PS3.

But there are a whole lot of companies that tell half-truths or flat-out lie in their advertisements... but Sony/PS3 bashing is the hot new thing on the internet, so they get all sorts of hell for it...

Extreme_Jesus · Post by **Extreme_Jesus** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:03 pm

I have to agree that this sheet does twist a few truths (call it spin if you will) but i do see their point

Everyone female of the dog species about the price of the PS3 but you are accutally paying more more, people act like they're paying more for something thats the same as the xbox. Its that price for a reason and a lot of the features that are optional on the 360 are included with the basic PS3

Personally if i bought i 360 i wouldnt be happy with the core system but then again all those things on the list are included in the Premium package (correct me if im wrong) except the HD-DVD and online service

Technically it is correct but who would buy the core and upgrade it?

Post by **Sparkfist** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:16 pm

MESAJARJARBINKS wrote:personally i think the 360 is...

(in terms of design)

360- dont know what to compare it to so i will say...RED!

Should be a Macintosh

ps3- george's grill

Or Darth Vader

wii-its just a rectangle with a blue light...

I think of it more like the Super Mario Boo, you know the ghosts.

Post by **Triton** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:34 pm

The Bad: Strong fanboy following. It's a Gamecube with a Power Glove add-on. Little innovation over the GCN. No high-definition video or next-gen video disc support (so it's not future-proof).

wrong on several accounts, yes its based on the gamecubes hardware but has something like 2-3x the ram and processing power, it was never intended to go head to head with ps3 and xb360 as far as raw power goes, while it might not be 1080P or whatever you have to keep in mind that hdtv saturation (in general not only TRUE HD 1080P displays) is less than 10% nationwide its really NOT that big a deal, it can do 480P. and saying it has little innovation over the gamecube is rather silly, it has a radically different method of controll than any console before it (yes i know tilt sensors and crap have been done before) it has a constantly connected internet connection, you can use the DS as a controller virtual console etc. and honestly i think in 5-10 years the whole optical disc medium will be almost obsolete what with the holographic storage and solid state memory becoming cheap and available

gamer2 · Post by **gamer2** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:46 pm

Who needs HD capabilities on thier consoles any way? How many of us have an HDTV that they can play games on?

XPCportables · Post by **XPCportables** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:17 pm

Triton wrote:and honestly i think in 5-10 years the whole optical disc medium will be almost obsolete what with the holographic storage and solid state memory becoming cheap and available

well I can't say that I agree with that but I do belive that optical media is coming close to obsolete.

Post by **Triton** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:40 pm

well i suppose cheap is a matter of perspective, right now a 32gb flash "harddrive" cost like 1500 dollars(average around 65$ per 4gb nand flash chip plus markup), within 5 years i suspect it will be down to a few hundred and within ten years it will be close to a dollar a gig or less

Post by **bicostp** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:49 pm

Triton wrote:
The Bad: Strong fanboy following. It's a Gamecube with a Power Glove add-on. Little innovation over the GCN. No high-definition video or next-gen video disc support (so it's not future-proof).
wrong on several accounts, yes its based on the gamecubes hardware but has something like 2-3x the ram and processing power, it was never intended to go head to head with ps3 and xb360 as far as raw power goes, while it might not be 1080P or whatever you have to keep in mind that hdtv saturation (in general not only TRUE HD 1080P displays) is less than 10% nationwide its really NOT that big a deal, it can do 480P. and saying it has little innovation over the gamecube is rather silly, it has a radically different method of controll than any console before it (yes i know tilt sensors and crap have been done before) it has a constantly connected internet connection, you can use the DS as a controller virtual console etc. and honestly i think in 5-10 years the whole optical disc medium will be almost obsolete what with the holographic storage and solid state memory becoming cheap and available

Well, think of 4 or 5 years down the road. HDTVs and their accompanying services and media are already skyrocketing in sales. Eventually the old standard TV resolution will be outmoded in favor of higher resolutions (so we can watch T2 with the actual film grain!). This argument remids me of the stories about when color TV was introduced. "Why do you need color on a TV when everything's in black and white?", "Why do you need HDTV when everything is still the old format?".

As for innovation, well most of the screenshots I've seen look exactly like Gamecube games. The controller? I think it's a gimmick. What do you do after the novelty of waving the controller around? (Don't give me that "OMG U DON HAFTA WAAIV IT AROUND NOOB!" stuff, I know it can work with wrist movements.) Plus, I see it as somewhat of a gamble on Nintendo's part. Unless they did some serious library building, I'd imagine re-writing control code for it (and its various attachments) would be costly and time consuming on the developer's part. People like familiarity, which more traditional controllers offer. I think many people out there see the Wii controller as more of a fun toy than a technological marvel that will radically change gaming as we know it. (Well, anything that gets kids up off their butts is a good thing I guess...

)

And software innovation? Most of the first party titles will probably be rehashes of decades-old franchises. Third-party games will be released on all the other consoles anyways...

I don't think optical discs will go by the wayside anytime soon. They're extremely cheap to produce and distribute (I think it costs pennies to stamp a disc, and they weigh practically nothing), which appeals to the bean counters. So unless a solid-state flash platform really nose-dives in price, good ol' "round things" will be around for the foreseeable future. (Until the distant future where everything will be streamed into your cranial implants from a giant brain in a vat somewhere in the middle of Texas.)

meh, whatever. GP2x > * (I WANT ONE!)

teraflop122 · Post by **teraflop122** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:44 pm

When all is said and done, an optical disc is a round piece of plastic with a layer of metal. It has no moving parts- it has no electronically functional parts. As such, it is very cheap to make.

The previous suggestion that a 32GB flash drive costs around 1500 today, but will cost significantly less in the future, is probably misleading. ten years from now, 32GB will be insufficient, and you'll need say 320GB. At that point a 320GB flash drive would cost (for example) 1500 dollars, but an optical disc of similar capacity would still just be a circlular chunk of plastic and chemicals costing pennies. I'm afraid that optical discs will remain significantly less expensive per unit of storage capacity than flash media through the forseable future.

jones · Post by **jones** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:38 am

NES_fanatic wrote: No me likey- Looks like an elongated hourglass. Can't be too near to other stuff (even a TV).

Why can't it sit near other stuff?

I admit complete and utter confusion by this statement...

Mine sits right next to my TV with a fairly large speaker on the other side of it.

Post by **Sparkfist** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:57 am

gamer2 wrote:Who needs HD capabilities on thier consoles any way? How many of us have an HDTV that they can play games on?

Unless you plan on not watching any TV in the year 2008, then sure. But come January 1, 2008 the FCC is having TV standard move to HDTV and so with most people wanting to keep watching TV will go out and buy a new HD ready set.

Now the point is this date has not been in questions, it's been know that it will be moving over to HD sooner of later and up to a two years ago the date was January 1, 2008. So the arguement that Nintendo crippled the Wii by lacking HD resolution is a legitamit one. I dont' care if Nintendo says they're not trying to compete with Microsoft or Sony, and with this act of only handling SD resolutions have just let them give more market share to their compeitors.

I'm not pleased about the SD resolutions for one key reason. That is about half of the people who buy an HDTV set is going to LCD. LCDs can't really do lower then their natvie resolution very well, try putting 640x480 on a screen that is ment to display 1280x800, it will be blocky and ugly. Not sure if Plasma will be able to avoid this but the fact that you'll end up with an ugly display thanks to Nintendo's short sightedness is not fair to gamers.

Post by **bicostp** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:30 am

Sparkfist wrote:Unless you plan on not watching any TV in the year 2008, then sure. But come January 1, 2008 the FCC is having TV standard move to HDTV and so with most people wanting to keep watching TV will go out and buy a new HD ready set.

No, I doubt they're going to kill off the standard definition format. In February 2008, analog television broadcast will stop. This just means you won't be able to watch NBC or FOX off an antenna anymore. Cable will not be affected, and I believe they will still broadcast digital HDTV. The FCC just wants the VHF and UHF bands opened up for other uses, since there are relatively few people in the US who still primarily use antennas for TV. (This is a huge amount of bandwidth; the entire FM band is a small sliver between broadcast channels 6 and 7.)

Completely switching over to HDTV at this point would be silly, since (as Triton stated) only 10% of households have full HD equipment. I would assume they would at least wait until >70% of households had the equipment.

http://hometheater.about.com/b/a/242606.htm

totokan · Post by **totokan** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:01 pm

Really, the Wii probably couldn't output 1080p and have a large game at the same time, as it's processing power is probably around an xbox or a little greater.
And now, for something that just struck my mind, I seriously don't understand, someone help me out here. What's the difference between 1920 Ã— 1080 (1080p, I believe) and my 2048 x 1536 (Native resolution of my largest current LCD monitor)? Why can't I just display HD on this, like I do 1080i on the 4:3 TV in my living room?
EDIT: Apparantly, I can. Wikipedia 1080p, bottom-ish. Therefore, Almost anyone with an upwards of 20" LCD monitor with a high resolution (read: any real pc gamer) has HD right on their desks.