Ps3: $499/$599 [Archive] - Armageddon Games Forums

ONeilcool

05-09-2006, 12:47 AM

In the end the 360 and PS3 are going to be too much money and not many people are going to buy them.

Regarding the Wii, all the intellegent gamers that know how to have fun are going to buy it. Then all the ignorant assholes will think its too kiddy and gay.

In result a bunch of guys will have to combine their money to buy the "mature" systems and games. They will be forced all come together at eachothers houses to play it.When 13 guys all hundle up in a room to play one system, then whos gay? hmmmm?

ctrl-alt-delete

05-09-2006, 02:40 AM

Fuck Sony. Fucking bastards copied the Wii controller like we all knew they would. Assholes.

ShadowTiger

05-09-2006, 08:58 AM

A while ago, there was an article on why SONY is losing respect from gamers everywhere. I think this is one of the last nails in the coffin. One of them, at least. The thing is, the nail is made of a very valuable stone, and people are willing to fiddle with the nail to test it out.

Although the PS3 will be extraordinarily expensive, it will also be quite the commodity to have. While I doubt that it'll have as limited a supply as the 360, I'm sure there will still be some people selling it for more than it's worth. My friend preordered an XBox360, got one of the first ones, (He works at a GameStop.) and sold it for roughly two to three times what it was worth, since nobody else could get one. I wonder if such a thing would be possible for the PS3.

goKi

05-09-2006, 09:20 AM

An expensive piece of crap, like every single other product that Sony has ever made (ask any electronics technician, the extra few hundred you pay for that TV is a complete waste of money). I'm glad to see that even Sony fanboys are tiring of the (awful) Dual Shock controller. I'll never buy one, just like i will not buy any other Sony product.

I'll preorder my Wii after E3, once EBgames have a preorder on record (i'd imagine that will be as soon as the pricepoint is finalised, apparantely EGM said $249US would be the final pricetag, i'll give a source if you'd like, but hell, the conference starts in 3 hours). Rumors were that Nintendo would launch it at $199, but really, that would be stupid on their part. Why not add the extra $50 per console, you're still well over $100 cheaper than the 360, and a half the price of the 20gb PS3.

vegeta1215

05-09-2006, 09:53 AM

My friend preordered an XBox360, got one of the first ones, (He works at a GameStop.) and sold it for roughly two to three times what it was worth, since nobody else could get one. I wonder if such a thing would be possible for the PS3.

After all the craziness that went on with the X-Box 360 launch, it's very tempting to try and do that that with the PS3, because you know there will be shortages.

Grasshopper

05-09-2006, 10:35 AM

Regarding the Wii, all the intellegent gamers that know how to have fun are going to buy it. Then all the ignorant assholes will think its too kiddy and gay.

Everyone wants a PS3 already, but they aren't taking in account that its this much money. When I tell them, I usually get a look of disbelief.

AlexMax

05-09-2006, 11:22 AM

Well, the presentation last night just assured a 360 purchase for me, if I ever get something other than the Wii. What arrogant faggots, they take all the neat ideas of other companies, create half-assed implimentations of those ideas, and charge you over 200 dollars more for it. You know you're in trouble when you have to nick ideas from Microsoft.

On top of that, the presentation of games last night was terrible. The presenters were ilterally ASKING for applause because of the mediocrady of most of the games shown there. All right, MGS4 looked neat, and Final Fantasy is Final Fantasy, but there were so many other mediocre titles there, and most defeniatly not worth forking over $600 for.

More like Playstation Wii-Sixty, am i right. :)

Grasshopper

05-09-2006, 11:27 AM

Well, I'm watching the press conference now...and its starting off very "statisticial"...just like last year.

Nintendo is just an hour away.

Samson007

05-09-2006, 04:57 PM

600 bucks. Thats fucking retarded. But you know all the spoiled 12 year olds will still cry their parents into buying them one so Sony can do whatever they want.

MottZilla

05-09-2006, 05:28 PM

Am I the only one that doesn't really care so long as it offers significantly better titles than the Xbox 360? If it can pull off better graphics and better gameplay, I'd be willing to pay for it. My problem with the Xbox 360 is that it doesn't really seem all that next generation. PS3 may seem more like such. I did see some shots of that FF game and was quite pleased. It looked better than what I'd seen of perfect dark zero.

I'm certainly not a Sony fanboy, infact I think they did a horrible job with both PSX and PS2. Both had major design flaws in my opinion. And they have horrible policys. But given the choice, even if the PS3 costs 200$ more than the Xbox 360, I'll buy it if it can do more, and has games I want. Really, it's nothing new, I've spent thousands on computer technology. Sure it costs more than last time, and it sucks.

The Nintendo Wii ofcourse is much more affordable and sounds to have lots of potential. Which leaves the Xbox 360 as having nothing all that special to offer. And ya I agree the PS3 controller having motion sensors being a lame rip off.

Also a thing about the high price, maybe that'll make it easier for those that actually want it to get it. Sadly not even the PS2's 300$ price tag stopped people from eating them all up. However, 600$, that's a nice step up. ;)

Archibaldo

05-09-2006, 05:41 PM

More and more the next gen consoles are starting to look less desireable. So fo the only thing I'm considering getting is the Wii for the back wards compatibility. But im not 100% on that. For now, I'll just stick to my PC.

MottZilla

05-09-2006, 10:43 PM

The Wii has more to offer than the Virtual Console. If that's all you care about, just use your PC for that. The Wii has that unique play control to offer. That is the reason to buy it, that and if you love certain Nintendo series.

Glenn the Great

05-09-2006, 11:04 PM

ONeilcool

05-10-2006, 12:35 AM

I wish these consoles would just die already. They are an outdated method of media delivery now that we have powerful PCs. All games should be made for the PC. The computer should be the one device that does everything and anything.

I just can't see mario on a computer. Or any of nintendos characters for that matter.

Nintendo and sony would never let anything they own go on a PC if they were smart. Mircrosoft already owns 95% of that market. Industry thrieves off competition. Putting everything on PC would kill the industry of gaming.

MacWeirdo42

05-10-2006, 10:38 AM

I will say that it's far less money and hassle to keep a console updated to play the latest games than it is for a computer. I'd rather pay out $200-$300 every few years for a new console than to spend hundreds on more RAM, hard drive space, replacing the motherboard, processor, video card, etc. And you never have to worry about things like hardware requirements with consoles.

AlexMax

05-10-2006, 02:22 PM

Am I the only one that doesn't really care so long as it offers significantly better titles than the Xbox 360? If it can pull off better graphics and better gameplay, I'd be willing to pay for it. My problem with the Xbox 360 is that it doesn't really seem all that next generation. PS3 may seem more like such. I did see some shots of that FF game and was quite pleased. It looked better than what I'd seen of perfect dark zero.

That's the problem. The PS3 library is abysmal so far. There's Final Fantasy, and there's Metal Gear Solid, but if you think that is worth SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS for TWO games and a console that can barely do anything else, you're absolutely fucking nuts.

I wish these consoles would just die already. They are an outdated method of media delivery now that we have powerful PCs. All games should be made for the PC. The computer should be the one device that does everything and anything.

If you're refering to things like what the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 are going after, then fuck yeah, I'd just rather all those games come out on PC.

Darth Marsden

05-10-2006, 02:40 PM

$499? That's like £400. Fuck that. Gimme a Revolution already. Yeah, that's right - I'm still refusing to call it a Wii. Dear God I hope they change the name back at E3.

And can somebody confirm or deny that the Revolution and the PS3 will be coming out within a week of each other? I don't normally trust what The Sun says, but that does sound scarily accurate...

Cloral

05-10-2006, 02:42 PM

Everyone still thinks the PS3 will have better graphics and processing power, but from what I've seen and heard thus far, it will be fairly close to the 360 in terms of power. Not to mention the fact that its architecture is way more complex to work with than the 360's. Remember that much of what has been shown thus far is probably fake.

Glenn the Great

05-10-2006, 03:20 PM

Yeah, see, I've spent a whole lot of money building up my computer, so I'd like the games to be available for it. I don't want to have spent all this money on a good PC, and then have to spend another fortune on a console just so I can play a handful of games for it that I'm interested in. My PC is just as powerful as a 360 or a PS3. My monitor has a much higher resolution than a TV. My PC's sound system is superior to that of my downstairs TV. I am the only one who uses this computer, in contrast to how I have to share the good TV. My computer is already connected to the Internet.

All of those are reasons why it would be best for my games to come out on the PC instead of consoles. A lot of games (particularly ones on the XBox systems) do in fact come out on PC, and the PC version is usually much better. Having a game on the PC is much better because usually you have much more control over the game. You often get a pull-down console, and you can often design your own content. You can get expansions for games if they are on the PC; on a console, you wait for a brand new title. It's much easier to patch a game on a PC if errors make themselves known after release.

Sure, consoles are very low-maintenance compared to a PC, which I think is the reason they are still popular with many people today, but I think the advantages to having a game on the PC are far greater.

MottZilla

05-10-2006, 05:13 PM

That's the problem. The PS3 library is abysmal so far. There's Final Fantasy, and there's Metal Gear Solid, but if you think that is worth SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS for TWO games and a console that can barely do anything else, you're absolutely fucking nuts.

Yup. That's right. Till enough games come out, I wouldn't spend that much. Just like how I don't want to spend 400$ for the 360 when there is 1 game I'd like to play. But I'm just saying that it being expensive doesn't mean it's not worth it. Unless a handful of games will be available at launch that I really am inetrested in, I would never buy one at launch. The Nintendo Wii seems like it will have quite an interesting selection from the start. I'll probably buy that at launch.

The main point though is that even if the PS3 costs a bunch, if it truely is as great as they say and the game support is there, it'd be worth the purchase.

I really don't think the "next generation" is starting off too well. The Xbox 360 has no competition yet. Many people completely ignore current systems (GC, PS2, Xbox). It's like one day they just took those consoles out back, shot them, and threw them in a hole.

About the last new console game I've noticed was the PS2 port of Resident Evil 4. I can't wait to see Resident Evil 5. Now that would make me buy an Xbox 360 or PS3 or whatever the hell it's on.

vegeta1215

05-10-2006, 06:13 PM

In the PC vs console debates, I think that certain games fit better on computers and others fit better on a console. However, trying to keep up with the latest advances in computer hardware is very costly.

Glenn the Great

05-10-2006, 07:37 PM

I just can't see mario on a computer. Or any of nintendos characters for that matter.

Don't you think it'd be pretty cool to get on your computer and connect to a server that is running Mario Kart, and have a race with 7 other people and no split screen?

Nintendo and sony would never let anything they own go on a PC if they were smart. Mircrosoft already owns 95% of that market. Industry thrieves off competition. Putting everything on PC would kill the industry of gaming.

If games only came out on the PC, the landscape of competition would be different, but it wouldn't adversely effected. If you look at just PC games, there is a good competition environment right now. Everyone will have a computer regardless of competition. The issue will just be focused on the games. It would be better for game companies to produce for the PC because currently consoles are sold at a loss. Removing the consoles would remove a great burden, and with a universal platform (the PC), people can focus more on the games themselves.

vegeta1215

05-10-2006, 08:24 PM

Don't you think it'd be pretty cool to get on your computer and connect to a server that is running Mario Kart, and have a race with 7 other people and no split screen?

We can already do that with Mario Kart: DS (although it's only with 3 other people instead of 7). But, I'm sure Mario Kart for Wii will have an online component.

It would be better for game companies to produce for the PC because currently consoles are sold at a loss. Removing the consoles would remove a great burden, and with a universal platform (the PC), people can focus more on the games themselves.

With a console you have the luxury of having only one machine to program for. With PCs, you have to take into account numerous different hardware configurations and operating systems (Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP). Which setup sounds like it will give you more time to focus on the actual game?

btw, I've heard that Nintendo rarely if ever sells at a loss.

Glenn the Great

05-10-2006, 08:59 PM

All consoles sell at a loss. Nintendo's are no exception, though they do sell at less of a loss than Sony and Microsofts'. Last year, Nintendo lost $20 billion Yen on hardware. I just read in the news that it costs Sony $800 to produce one PS3.

If you are a developer who wishes to port a game across many systems, you have to learn the coding nuances of each system. If game companies would program under .NET and DirectX, the process of making games to be run on any Windows system from Win98+ would be rather straightforward. Also, I hear many developers complaining about the relative difficulty to program for a console rather than for the PC.

Cloral

05-10-2006, 11:27 PM

Here's a general idea of the +s and -s of games on the PC:

Positives: Greater extensability (i.e. mods), more memory, faster processors, better resolution, no cross-platform development issues, no $7 per unit licensing fee
Negatives: Hardware/driver compatability issues (much less of an issue these days), lack of codefied standards, smaller target audience, more difficult copy protection, lack of well-defined 'target platform'

It may seem weird that the PC has a smaller target audience, but most people who have PCs don't have gaming-class PCs. I personally tend to play games on consoles, but that's mostly because I don't want to mess with my PC after working on one all day at work. As for ease of development, the XBox/XBox360 are about as easy to develop for as the PC. Building and running a game on these systems works exactly the same as it does on the PC. PS2 and GameCube are a different story though.

KJAZZ

05-11-2006, 07:28 PM

http://snakeps3.ytmnd.com

When there are more games that I want for it, I'll get one. Hell, I didn't get a PS2 until 2-3 years ago.

Cloral

05-11-2006, 10:37 PM

lol

As I predicted, most of what they showed on the big screen for the PS3 was pre-rendered. They did have playable games on the floor, but most of them looked... flat. The only one I saw that looked impressive was Sword of Heaven, which looks to be a God of War clone. I'd have to say that Project Gotham Racing 3 looks better than Gran Turismo for PS3. But even Sword of Heaven looked to be about par with what you can already find on the 360. The PS3 will be a marginal improvement performance-wise at best.

In order to see truely impressive graphics this year at e3, you had to go to the PC gaming section. A number of games there looked really nice. In particular, Crysis looked absolutely amazing. They had a forested area where you ran through foliage that was fully-articulated and shaded. It was unbelievably detailed. Then you could whip out your gun and shoot a tree until it fell over, leaving branches that persisted for as long as I watched the game.

MottZilla

05-12-2006, 12:20 AM

Crysis is by the guys that did FarCry right? I gotta remember to keep an eye out for that.

About PS3, I'm certain the games will improve as time goes on. They haven't really had finalized systems to work with very long or probably much time in general to really get very good performance outta it. But ya, I really don't expect PS3 to be all that much better (if any) than the Xbox 360. It's really starting to look like Xbox 360's lead time hasn't back fired on them at all. Atleast not so far. I saw a couple titles I found impressive looking like Gears of War I believe it was called.

Nicholas Steel

05-12-2006, 01:06 AM

played racing car game on x-box 360 at a EB store and it just seems like crap compairing it to NFSMW on pc...

i also run NFSMW at the lowest res with most options nearly maxed.

Cloral

05-12-2006, 01:27 AM

They haven't really had finalized systems to work with very long or probably much time in general to really get very good performance outta it.
I was thinking the same thing with all the last-minute adjustments they've been doing. I played this Gundam game where the robots looked alright, but the terrain was the most boring brown desert canyon I have ever seen. And not one of the playable games took advantage of the gyro feature of the controller, as that was obviously sprung on everyone at the last minute.

MottZilla

05-12-2006, 01:32 AM

Well it certainly sounds like Sony hasn't really gotten their shit together yet or until recently, so they'd explain the weak games. I imagine it's pretty hard to design a game for a system that doesn't exist quite yet. You don't truely know how well it will perform or how to optimize anything, generally how to get the most out of the system. Meanwhile Xbox 360 seems to be getting better, and Wii seems to be not far behind.

To think it'll be probably another 7 months before we really start to see how things will be taking shape.

{DSG}DarkRaven

05-12-2006, 05:29 AM

You're all panicing. The new price tag for the PS3 may sound steep, but Sony already has a rock-solid plan in place to compensate. In exchange for the huge cost of their new console, the price of their stock will be bargain basement! :p

And for those of you who think that the price is justifiable if the gaming experience delivers, that may be true to an extent, but you're forgetting all the talk Sony has done in recent months and years about the price of games going up. The initial hump of the PS3 purchase is not the end, my fellow gamers, unless you consider paying $70 for a game smooth sailing.

Grasshopper

05-12-2006, 01:20 PM

To add to that, the PS3 may be worth $600, but do I have $600, or even $500? No. Will it still be no in November? Probably so

MottZilla

05-13-2006, 03:24 PM

Maybe the point i'm trying to make is that the price alone isn't why Sony could fail. They have to back that up with less than amazing games and hardware quality. And if anyone can do that, it's Sony! But look what happened last time.. Horrible hardware that was expensive beat out 3 other systems (DC, GC, Xbox). But you could look at why more closely, DC - Sega was already going under from past mistakes, GC - Retarded Company President possibly related to poor choices on GameCube, Xbox - MS was a noob, they were late to the party.

All this has changed now so perhaps Sony's only advantage is their big name and success in the last generation. Ofcourse since they aren't the only one with backwards compatibility this time that doesn't mean as much.

I can't wait to see what things look like on January 1st 2007.

goKi

05-13-2006, 05:33 PM

I think that Nitnendo's strategy with not announcing release dates has to do with the Wii slipping out a few weeks before the PS3. If Nintendo can get the advertising right, and slip it into the Christmas market just at the right time, the PS3 will not sell well at all. Even MS' Peter Moore said the PS3 is going to get killed by the Wii. I agree with him.

I also saw a poll running on GameFAQs.

All three 6.37% 4213
PS3 and Wii 16.67% 11024
PS3 and 360 4.99% 3299
Wii and 360 13.49% 8922
Just a 360 5.08% 3361
Just a PS3 16.51% 10914
Just a Wii 28.64% 18936
None of them 8.24% 5447
TOTAL VOTES 66116

Note how after E3 impressions, more people are interested in a Wii than a PS3, also the number of XBOX360 owners who plan on getting a PS3.

Cloral

05-15-2006, 07:08 PM

SCE president Kutaragi has stated that the PS3 is "too cheap." He continued, "Is it not nonsense to compare the charge for dinner at the company cafeteria with dinner at a fine restaurant? It's a question of what you can do with that game machine. If you can have an amazing experience, we believe price is not a problem."

Apparently he hasn't bothered to use his eyes and take note of how similar the PS3 and 360 look in terms of quality.

Nimono

05-15-2006, 07:26 PM

I don't really care much if the PS3 fails or not (I only have one game for the PS2, but that's only because the game came out only on that system). The only thing I really care about is whether it beats Nintendo's systems enough to make it go out of business. I've had years of joy from my GameCube (I've had it almost... 2 or 3 years, I think), and I'm actually tired of most people here saying that the Gamecube is terrible. I think the opposite of that, actually. And as long as Nintendo beats Sony, who obviously copies Nintendo's awesome ideas, I'm happy. $600 is really steep, even for Sony. I mean, what are they thinking?! That's crazy! With that price, I really hope they go out of business one day. But that's just me. Call me crazy, but I'll always be a Nintendo fanatic.

Glenn the Great

05-15-2006, 08:00 PM

I think that the reason the GameCube has fared poorly has a lot to do with a stupid decision in design. The GameCube needed to be large enough to play a full-sized DVD. The GCN's discs are way too small. All of its games have a feeling of smaller scope as a result of this. The thing that angers me the most is WHY those discs are small. Someone in Nintendo has been pushing gimmicks as a substitute for content.

What is the first thing reviewers had to say about the GCN when it first hit the market?

"Wow! Look how small it is!!!!!!"

Nintendo made the retarded decision of gimping any game made for the system just so that they could elicit the demonstrated shock value on consumers.

Nimono

05-15-2006, 08:17 PM

vegeta1215

05-15-2006, 08:53 PM

The GameCube needed to be large enough to play a full-sized DVD. The GCN's discs are way too small. All of its games have a feeling of smaller scope as a result of this. The thing that angers me the most is WHY those discs are small. Someone in Nintendo has been pushing gimmicks as a substitute for content.

The disc size is not a gimmick - Nintendo used the small proprietary optical discs to prevent piracy, which is rampant on the PS2 and X-Box scene. However, the size of the console was most likely chosen because Japanese tend to favor small quiet machines. They don't want huge ones, hence one of the reasons X-Box has had trouble gaining acceptance in Japan.

Glenn the Great

05-15-2006, 09:58 PM

I'm not complaining about the size of the Gamecube's discs. I could care less about the suze. I don't see why you're making such a big deal out of something small (no pun intended there).

A bigger disk has a larger surface area to write data on. PS2 and XBox discs are capable of storing a tremendous amount more data than a GCN disc. Games on a larger disc have potential to be much larger content-wise.

Vegeta, what you tell me only serves to further my belief that Nintendo was retarded with the GCN. Nintendo blundered bigtime by drastically reducing game content in a (failed) attempt at stopping piracy. It was an extremely unwise move, and maybe if the discs were full-size, GCN would have been more successful, filling the loss caused by piracy.

I also think that the notion that Japanese gamers have a higher priority on system size over game quality is ridiculous. I'd construe that as an insult were I Japanese. The reason the X-Box didn't do so well in Japan was because it was an American console. Not because it was too big. The purported desire of the Japanese for a smaller console does not stand to justify the small disc size.

vegeta1215

05-15-2006, 10:34 PM

I never said size was the ONLY reason the X-Box failed in Japan. Being an American console was ALSO one of the (MANY) reasons.

Oh, and more content doesn't necessarily mean higher game quality.

MottZilla

05-15-2006, 10:35 PM

Vegeta, contrary to what you believe, the GameCube discs are merely 8cm mini dvds. They are not special in any way. Modchips and piracy exist for GameCube despite anything you may have heard. Infact you don't even require a modchip for running DVD-Rs on GameCube.

Nintendo's decision to use 8cm discs was completely RETARDED. There was maybe, just maybe one benifit to the smaller disc which might be somewhat better disc access times. But nothing to warrant losing that much disc memory, esspecially since the discs were single layer rather than dual layer which was part of the original DVD disc standard.

So no, there is no defense what so ever about the 8cm mini DVDs gamecube uses. It's a cutesy gimmik and that is all there is to say. For absolutely no good reason GameCube suffered because of the lack of sufficant disc memory turning away even more 3rd party developers.

Orion

05-15-2006, 10:36 PM

The GameCube had a lot more problems than disc size, i'll clue you...

Mak-X

05-15-2006, 11:13 PM

The GC disc size was done to prevent piracy and decrease load times. And because of the size, I've also got this nice pouch that I can store the discs in and put in my pocket when I'm on the go!

The PS3 isn't worth the $600 for me. I don't think I'd pay that much for a Nintendo console.

Apparently, Gamecube is the first console that Nintendo has had a loss on
http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter02.html
""We expect to incur a small loss on the GameCube hardware initially, and you're right that it hasn't been our habit in the past but we expect it to turn okay early next year.""

I prefer consoles over PCs. Minimal setup, turn the power on and go, play, have fun. No upgrading a new video card ever few years for the latest stuff, no system configuration hassles, installing, patching. That and I tend to like Japanese developed games, and prefer a controller to a keyboard and mouse.

Speaking of LAN and internet gaming, that's something they really underutilized on the GC, the broadband adapter and LAN multiplayer. F-Zero GX is just perfect for it!

MacWeirdo42

05-15-2006, 11:47 PM

Hey, I just want to add a small little observation I had today. I was at Gamestop, and I really tried out X-Box 360 for the first time. The thing I noticed was, the graphics were nice, and really cool things were happening, but honestly, I really didn't have much of a chance to admire them, and it all seemed rather pointless. Like, I can understand if you're using the added power to create a larger game world or something, but if you're just playing some racing game and the power is devoted to detail, either (a) you're not gonna be able to notice, or (b) you do notice and plow into the first obstacle in your path.

Just a thought I had... Doesn't directly relate, but it makes me wonder why we're bothering with a $500 game console which, overpowered as it may be, it just seems that the power is wasted on graphics. Not that I'm saying graphics don't matter, but in terms of making the games more fun, it's not something you always notice.

vegeta1215

05-15-2006, 11:48 PM

Well, whatever the reason was for using the mini DVDs, it hasn't prevented me from enjoying my Gamecube. Also, F-Zero GX is awesome.

Darth Marsden

05-16-2006, 07:01 AM

While there is (was?) piracy on the Gamecube, I doubt it was as widespread as it was on the PS2 and XBox. Also, it really wasn't that costly to put games onto two discs if need be - I can think of four games that did that off the top of my head (Tales of Symphonia, Resident Evil 0, Resident Evil Code Veronica X, Enter The Matrix). Plus the load times were miniscule, so that was another plus.

I'm not saying the Gamecube didn't have flaws - a limited number of multi-console games were only released for the PS2 & XBox, leaving Gamecube owners feeling shafted, for example, or that 'games for kiddies' feel - but it was, and still is, a good console that I feel should have done a little better then it did. Hopefully the Wii will do much better and remind people that games shouldn't be about how flashy the graphics are, but about how much fun they should be.

Warlock

05-16-2006, 10:21 AM

Xbox really didn't have the lineup to be sucessful in Japan. About 80% of the titles were FPS or Sports. Both genres the Japanese dislike. And yeah, the fact that it was an American console hurt it too. And the price (coupled with the lineup) made it not really worth it for most over there (though it's funny that $400 is suddenly seeming rather cheap :D)

Cloral

05-16-2006, 12:12 PM

The GameCube had a lot more problems than disc size, i'll clue you...
Like a retarded architecture and less RAM than even the lowly PS2. Believe me, it was not fun to develop for the GCN.

Glenn the Great

05-16-2006, 12:39 PM

I'd like to have the best of both worlds with cutting edge graphics as well as a high fun factor. I think the only way to realize this is for Nintendo to go the way of Sega and just focus on making games, letting other people like Sony take care of the hardware part of the equation.

Orion

05-16-2006, 01:55 PM

Given the reaction to the Wii at E3, I think Nintendo is doing just fine with their hardware dept. If it were all up to Sony, again, we'd have to pay for at least $600 to play Mario Bros, Zelda, etc.

MottZilla

05-16-2006, 04:55 PM

The GC disc size was done to prevent piracy and decrease load times.

Load times yes, piracy, no. Piracy is just as popular as on either Xbox or PS2 when scaled to the ratio of how popular the actual systems are. Obviously less GC games are pirated because well, there are less games to pirate. FYI, you can pirate GC games with Phantasy Star Online and a BroadBand adapter, Action Replay, or ofcourse a modchip. That's 3 nice options. You burn them on regular DVD recordables, mini or fullsize. For full size you must replace the top cover piece of the GC with one suited for full size discs.

Cloral, what kind of retarded architecture are you refering to? I definitely can agree with the horrifying low amount of RAM. I also seem to recall the memory space being divided so that while there is 24MB of RAM it's not all the same. Seems very tedious and annoying esspecially when there is so little memory to go around.

Glenn the Great

05-16-2006, 06:23 PM

Given the reaction to the Wii at E3, I think Nintendo is doing just fine with their hardware dept.

Nintendo got good reaction at E3 because they showed off some innovation (I'll restrain from calling it gimmicks). It won't be long after the system is actually released that people will begin to realize for themselves the limitations of the Wii's hardware. People are going to be wishing their Wii games looked as good as what is on their friend's XBox 360. New playstyle innovation has had the effect of letting Nintendo's booth stick out like a sore thumb, thus drawing the crowds, but I think it will be interesting to see how long it's going to actually hold up when the thing is released. It may have been great fun for people at E3 to spend 30 minutes or so using their controller like a hula hoop or swinging a tennis racket, but are people really going to want to do that for hours on end in hardcore fashion?

vegeta1215

05-16-2006, 07:07 PM

No offense Glenn, but I find it odd that you have such strong opinions about consoles when you recently made it clear that you dislike them (in favor of PC games). Do you own any of the consoles we've been talking about?

Glenn the Great

05-16-2006, 07:11 PM

Yeah, I have a GCN and a PS2. I played them for while but grew disinterested, and found myself spending more time with PC games. I can still have opinions on consoles since I've been using them the majority of my life. I just don't think they are living up to the PC anymore.

Cloral

05-16-2006, 11:13 PM

Cloral, what kind of retarded architecture are you refering to? I definitely can agree with the horrifying low amount of RAM. I also seem to recall the memory space being divided so that while there is 24MB of RAM it's not all the same. Seems very tedious and annoying esspecially when there is so little memory to go around.
I guess what I was mostly refering to was the low memory and disk space. I mean, they have a more powerful GPU in there than the PS2 has, but then they don't give you enough memory to load the graphics you'd want to display with it! The dev kits also don't have as much expanded development memory as the PS2 and XBox have, which makes debugging stuff harder. And of course the GCN controller has 4 fewer buttons than the other systems - which makes porting harder. Basically, all the little decisions they made across the system add up to make everything harder. And if you want developers to develop for your system, you really should make the development process as easy as possible. The truth of the matter is, after developing for the XBox/360, everything else feels clunky and unwieldy to develop for. Like them or not, MS has created a development suite that works really well.

MottZilla

05-17-2006, 03:32 AM

Nintendo got good reaction at E3 because they showed off some innovation (I'll restrain from calling it gimmicks). It won't be long after the system is actually released that people will begin to realize for themselves the limitations of the Wii's hardware. People are going to be wishing their Wii games looked as good as what is on their friend's XBox 360. New playstyle innovation has had the effect of letting Nintendo's booth stick out like a sore thumb, thus drawing the crowds, but I think it will be interesting to see how long it's going to actually hold up when the thing is released. It may have been great fun for people at E3 to spend 30 minutes or so using their controller like a hula hoop or swinging a tennis racket, but are people really going to want to do that for hours on end in hardcore fashion?

But that's just the thing, the system isn't aimed only for "hardcore gamers". The casual and well, unskilled gamers are trying to be racked in. And for the more hardcore gamer you have games like Metroid Prime and Red Steel. Surely much more in the future.

Cloral, ya it goes to show the old tyrant of a president at Nintendo when the GameCube was developed was a moron. The fewer buttons and disc space most certainly killed alot of ports the GC could have gotten. And I'm sure more RAM atleast for dev units would have helped. Hopefully the Wii will be a turning point for Nintendo. Turning back on track more or less. While they won't have the most ubberiffically impressive system, after people get numbed to the newer graphics level of the Xbox 360 and PS3, the Wii won't really look bad at all. The GameCube already was able to pull off some pretty amazing graphics (Resident Evil 4). Sure that's no uh, Gears of War for X360, but then once you get the Wii upgrade I'm sure it'll be capable of some nicely detailed and well suited graphics.

I am still concerned though about the apparent low amount of memory for the Wii. I always advocate having lots of RAM. The X360 has 512MB, where as the Wii is gonna have like 96MB or some strange number. Why, oh why couldn't they have bumped that up to 128MB or even 256MB. You can never have too much RAM. Well unless you have so much you can't use it and it costs so much no one can afford it. Still, I think it could have used more RAM.

Grasshopper

05-17-2006, 10:50 AM

(I'll restrain from calling it gimmicks)

No offense, but how come it seems like if its not the way you want it to be, its a gimmick. I'm surprised you hadn't said the PS3 controller is a gimmick. Nobody is allowed to do something different for risk of it being a gimmick?

Anyway, if its running on the same devkits as Gamecube, how much different is Wii going to be to develop for then? At least it will be cheap, so I won't be wasting as much money if it ends up being a bad system.

Maybe if Cloral ever gets around to making games for it, he'll let us in on how ogod or bad it is. :)