Twimfy
OMG 3 years here!
Great, something new for my batman utility belt.
First Ps3 Pictures
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
runescape=crap
Still Fresh
- Joined
- May 11, 2005
- Messages
- 61
after the money they spent and their wil lto suceed. MS wil lnot let this happen. They have the power and the technology.
bill gates and bald xbox dude in surgical suit with soldering iron: 'we canrebuild him. stronger (think more along 20-30ghz and xeon). faster (more ram) and better than ever before (better gpu).
also they seriously want to win this. They will not let all their work since xbox go down the drain as it will if they leave the specs at that.
bill gates and bald xbox dude in surgical suit with soldering iron: 'we canrebuild him. stronger (think more along 20-30ghz and xeon). faster (more ram) and better than ever before (better gpu).
also they seriously want to win this. They will not let all their work since xbox go down the drain as it will if they leave the specs at that.
Goity
VIP Sleaze
Bluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffbluffrunescape=crap posted on May 17 2005 at 08:49 PM said:
and
bluff
Weren't you the one assuring everyone that home consoles couldn't get faster than 9.6 ghz?
Last edited by a moderator:
c0ncept
H.R. Gigers wet dream
Huxley posted on May 17 2005 at 04:57 PM said:
I know they affect gameplay, its just there seems to be a huge preoccupation with numbers these days. It would be nice to have this put into perspective, like exactly what do 3gigaflops or whatever actually translate to in-game?
I mean, its cool that the numbers have gotten so much bigger, but I wanna see em in action.
lubidog posted on May 17 2005 at 05:23 PM said:
I'm more bothered by how the controller looks, as that will affect how the next gen games play
Last edited by a moderator:
M
Magus 86
Guest
bah... Damnit, what's with all this wireless crap now? Not only does that controller look retarded and like it will be uncomfortable, but what's the point of wireless anyway? it offers you no extra freedom except maybe a few extra feet from the TV. Any farther, and it'll be hard to see the TV... plus, you're still stuck to the TV anyway... and if you weren't, you can't play it if you can't see it, so what's the point? How about longer cords...? Wireless is just a gimmick. In some ases, like wireless capabilities for the PSP(to play with another PSP), then it's actually useful to an extent. That way you don't have to buy an extra wire... but not when the console's controllers are wireless.
c0ncept
H.R. Gigers wet dream
Magus 86 posted on May 17 2005 at 08:57 PM said:
When I was living at home my parents were constantly walking in front of the tv, hhavbing a wire there got in the way. Now that I've moved out, my girlfriend does exactly the same thing, so I welcome wireless
Last edited by a moderator:
Nova
Is that a Caanoo in your pocket or are you just ha
Magus 86 posted on May 17 2005 at 08:57 PM said:
im thinking what if someone in the next room has a ps3 and you end up controlling their games?
Last edited by a moderator:
M
Magus 86
Guest
You know, I never even thought of it that way, nova... but that's a good point. That would REALLY suck.
Okay, concept, I guess that makes sense. I never had that problem... well I have, it just doesn't occur often enough to warrant using wireless controllers. it's just not necessary. I think they should let you use the old controllers though, they shouldn't force wireless upon you. How much would it suck to be in the middle of a game and have your battery/ies die on you, and then you have to wait a while before you can play again at all because you HAVE to use wireless, which requires batteries? that would piss me off. And because it doesn't look like there are any controller ports at all, I can't use my MadCatz RetroCon with it...
Okay, concept, I guess that makes sense. I never had that problem... well I have, it just doesn't occur often enough to warrant using wireless controllers. it's just not necessary. I think they should let you use the old controllers though, they shouldn't force wireless upon you. How much would it suck to be in the middle of a game and have your battery/ies die on you, and then you have to wait a while before you can play again at all because you HAVE to use wireless, which requires batteries? that would piss me off. And because it doesn't look like there are any controller ports at all, I can't use my MadCatz RetroCon with it...
Deep Thought
Member
Honestly, all the consoles look amazing. Well, spec-wise. The 360 looks like one of those weird knee pillows, the PS3 looks like a lexmark printer, and the revolution looks like something I would use to prop up a chair with a short leg. All in all though, it's apparent that all three companies have worked hard to make their system powerful AND versatile. Nintendo has really recaptured my attention for the first time in a long time with what I've seen of the revolution though. Their statement that they want to encourage small-time indie developers has really got my hopes up, and i'm sure it will hold up graphically as well.
The Wifi thing is so that 7 people can play without a multitap. There are effectively 7 joystick ports-that's great!!!!
And with bluetooth, you won't end up controlling any base station other than your own!
Why all the fuss over the controller? There will be ways to use whatever joystick you wanna use! I can use my PS2 pad with my lappy, so it'll be fine.
Seriously, all three consoles should keep us all happy!
And with bluetooth, you won't end up controlling any base station other than your own!
Why all the fuss over the controller? There will be ways to use whatever joystick you wanna use! I can use my PS2 pad with my lappy, so it'll be fine.
Seriously, all three consoles should keep us all happy!
M
Magus 86
Guest
Why such a fuss over the controller? Because, The PS2 controller is my favorite controller design ever. It's the most comfortable, and they're changing it to something that looks very uncomfortable and ugly. My main concern though is that you have to use wireless. I don't want wireless. it's completely pointless, and it shouldn't be forced on us. It should be the primary controller for the system if sony wants it that way, but we should have the option to use any other playstation controller we want to too.
Mark
Boris Johnson: Cuddly Conservative
Magus 86 posted on May 17 2005 at 11:29 PM said:
I really don't see how ANYONE could prefer wires to no wires. Where's the logic? Sure, you're going to have to charge the pad every now and again (meaning there will be a wire between you and the console most likely) but it has to be worth it.
Last edited by a moderator:
M
Magus 86
Guest
I prefer wires because without wires is just a gimmick. It doesn't really provide anything that the wired controllers can't. You might be able to go farther away from your TV with a wireless controller, but what's the point? That would make it harder to see what's going on on the screen anyway. And anyway, you're still stuck to a console and a TV. Wireless has usually been used in the past to give you more freedom. cordless phones let you wander around the house, even in your back yard. You can go as far as 20 or 30 yards from the base station. That gives most people freedom to wander around almost anywhere on their property and still be able to talk on the phone. Laptops are wireless. They're not connected to the wall or anything else. They allow you to use a computer when you're not at home, or they let you go wherever you want with your computer. Walkmen and portable CD players allow you to listen to music and radio without being stuck to a wall inside your house somewhere. Portable DVD players let you watch movies without being stuck to your TV, and you can watch them anywhere. Wireless controllers offer no such freedom. Even if you have an LCD screen attached to your PS3 or whatever system you have, you're still stuck to the system. Since you have to be within 5 or 10 yards of your system anyway(becuase the screen is tethered to the system, and if you're too far away you can't see what's going on... and also because wireless controllers don't usually have the ability to transmit from too far away... and what would be the point if they could?), what's the point of having wireless? it just makes more of a hassle because you have to recharge or replace batteries, and during the time while you're charging them, you can't play anymore... that's bullcrap. I'm not saying we shouldn't have wireless at all. if people love them so much, that's fine... let them have them... but what I'm saying is I should be allowed to use a wired controller if I want to. The only advantage I see to havin the wireless controllers is that you can now have 7(why the hell 7? why not 4, 6, or 8?) people playing on the same console at once without having to buy a multitap... but they could have just as easily put in 7 controller ports(i know, it takes up more space that way, but still)... but unless you're playing on a movie theatre screen, 7 people on one screen is usually bad because then each individual area that each player looks at will be really small and hard to see.
Mark
Boris Johnson: Cuddly Conservative
I believe they charge by simply plugging a wire into the PS3's USB port, so you can play at the same time. I know that's what the XBox 360 does anyway.
So techinally, you can still have your wires.
So techinally, you can still have your wires.
M
Magus 86
Guest
oh... well... then what's the point of even making them wireless at all?
runescape=crap posted on May 17 2005 at 06:33 PM said:
They have no choice. Both systems are done hardware wise, and the specs frozen. The Xbox 360 is in production and being boxed right now as they will be released in only 6 months. It takes a very long time to build millions of complex units like that. Sony just made MS look stupid. They tried, and the 360 was a very worthy attempt, but Sony is better and smarter and they win. The PS3 is more than DOUBLE as powerful. It is like Sony is a whole generation ahead. Plus they will have HD DVD and Xbox is stuck in the past with old time regular DVDs. It was a dumb move for them going first. Had they waited 1 year and came out 6 months after PS3 they would have been comparible in specs and have Blu-ray too. I predict that the 360 will bomb. MS will lose so much on it that they may bow out after this. That will leave Sony and Nintendo. Nintendo will try to fight Sony with gimmicks but will never catch up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark
Boris Johnson: Cuddly Conservative
Magus 86 posted on May 18 2005 at 12:12 AM said:
So that people who want them wireless (99% of people) can....
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveC posted on May 17 2005 at 11:29 PM said:
it's weird, isn't it? xbox isn't on top in terms of hardware this time...but that alone sin't going to bring it down. even if the ps3 is twice as powerful on paper, i guarantee you we won't see HUGE differences between the games for each console. both the 360 and ps3 are very advanced, but with the ps3 sporting a more beastly cpu, it will have the edge..but that edge isn't enough to kill off the 360, although the ps3 will undoubtedly come on top.
the blu-ray format is something to worry about, though. it's not as bad as back when the ps2 was the first to introduce dvd format for consoles, and unless hype and demand gets high for hd format media before the ps3's launch, it won't give the ps3 that much of an advantage. and aren't there still talks between sony and toshiba to combine their two formats??? in any case, this is'll be a good advantage for the ps3.
games wise though, i really doubt it'll be a big difference let alone "a whole generation away"....but that killzone trailer....sony better not be just messing with our emotions!!!
bottom line: it's too early for all this speculation. the ps3 tech demos, as awesome as they were, are just tech demos. and the hype should really be taken with a grain of salt, especially given sony's history with the ps2 and all of sony's hype surrounding it.
same with MS..
they're both awesome systems, and i hope for good competition and good games. competition is what you want, trust me
Last edited by a moderator:
I was very happy to hear the guy behind the Unreal 3 Engine state just how quick and easy it was for them to put together their PS3 tech demo.... he basically said it was just like programming for a high power PC... in that all the tools and knowledge they already had in programming for PC applied directly to programming for the PS3. So even with so much more power and complexity it sounds like it's going to be very easy and quick process for companies to get games up and running on the new system... I expect the same from Xbox 360.
The big question still, is price. I was watching some show on G4 today and they were speculating on price of the PS3... just thinking of the extreme hardware included in the thing, and to my amusement the 'panel' seemed to agree with their guess on what I had guessed earlier in this post... that PS3 will probably retail for $400-500. You'd think the high price would make them un-competitive in the market but really... this is sony, they know whatever price they put on it it will sell like hotcakes. Case in point the PSP... $100 more than the DS, $150+ more than the GBA, and still selling like crazy, despite most of us grumbling about the price.
I'm kinda in agreement with Dave C on this one... I think MS have really dropped the ball here and have put themselves in a very bad position simply in the name of being able to say "we were first!". Yes it's all about the games and yes there may not be some huge discernible difference in actual game graphics between the two but there ARE people who get sold on systems on specs alone (large percentage of Xbox 1 customers) and will go for whatever system is the most powerful. I only hope MS pull thru and get the third party support they really NEED to be competitive... in the end THIS ONE FACTOR seems to be the thing that determines the winner in the console wars... who get's the best and most 3rd party games? MS THINK they lost this round only because the PS2 came out so much sooner but really it was the lack of the huge selection of games of the PS2 and all the hardcore japanese developer support that kept them in 2nd.
EDIT: KickinWing - Ooops did I forget to mention I'll be going to E3 tommorow... shucks :rolleyes:
EVERY post... sheesh.
The big question still, is price. I was watching some show on G4 today and they were speculating on price of the PS3... just thinking of the extreme hardware included in the thing, and to my amusement the 'panel' seemed to agree with their guess on what I had guessed earlier in this post... that PS3 will probably retail for $400-500. You'd think the high price would make them un-competitive in the market but really... this is sony, they know whatever price they put on it it will sell like hotcakes. Case in point the PSP... $100 more than the DS, $150+ more than the GBA, and still selling like crazy, despite most of us grumbling about the price.
I'm kinda in agreement with Dave C on this one... I think MS have really dropped the ball here and have put themselves in a very bad position simply in the name of being able to say "we were first!". Yes it's all about the games and yes there may not be some huge discernible difference in actual game graphics between the two but there ARE people who get sold on systems on specs alone (large percentage of Xbox 1 customers) and will go for whatever system is the most powerful. I only hope MS pull thru and get the third party support they really NEED to be competitive... in the end THIS ONE FACTOR seems to be the thing that determines the winner in the console wars... who get's the best and most 3rd party games? MS THINK they lost this round only because the PS2 came out so much sooner but really it was the lack of the huge selection of games of the PS2 and all the hardcore japanese developer support that kept them in 2nd.
EDIT: KickinWing - Ooops did I forget to mention I'll be going to E3 tommorow... shucks
:rolleyes: EVERY post... sheesh.
