E3 2005

[Boomer]

There are always alot of variables in these kind of arguements. Alot of people think God of War is Xbox graphic potential. But yes, almost all the time, the PS2 falls short in terms of things like online graphics and speed (FPS) and stuff like that.

But also, I'm beginning to think that people like Bill Gates and others want gaming systems to become computers. I guess that is why I drew the argument. The PS3 will probably end up costing the price of an E-machine, and do some things people with a computer usually would do. The 360 is definitely the more media-savy system coming out, and I'm wondering how much Gates is willing to turn it into this whole "media experience".

Preference will deal alot with fanboy stuff, yeah. But some people will buy the 360 because it can do all these things, while some people will buy the Revolution because its all gaming, and some people will want the PS3 for its sheer power.

But I mean, it doesn't always work that way. I know. The PSP was the better "media experience" for handhelds, and yet the DS has sold twice as many worldwide, largely because people trust Nintendo (as they should).

It is going to be an interesting console cycle to say the least. I have no idea what I will do. I have never owned a current console until the past year, when I bought a PS2. There are so many things that will factor into if I even consider getting a console at all. We'll see.

[UmbrellaCorporation]

I too am uncertain of which console gets my vote. I'll buy them all eventually, but I have to see what suits my tastes as far as the gaming library goes.


At the moment though, my vote goes to Playstation 3. Resident Evil 5, Resident Evil Outbreak File #3, and Devil May Cry 4 for starters.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Boomer There are always alot of variables in these kind of arguements. Alot of people think God of War is Xbox graphic potential. But yes, almost all the time, the PS2 falls short in terms of things like online graphics and speed (FPS) and stuff like that. But also, I'm beginning to think that people like Bill Gates and others want gaming systems to become computers. I guess that is why I drew the argument. The PS3 will probably end up costing the price of an E-machine, and do some things people with a computer usually would do. The 360 is definitely the more media-savy system coming out, and I'm wondering how much Gates is willing to turn it into this whole "media experience". Preference will deal alot with fanboy stuff, yeah. But some people will buy the 360 because it can do all these things, while some people will buy the Revolution because its all gaming, and some people will want the PS3 for its sheer power. But I mean, it doesn't always work that way. I know. The PSP was the better "media experience" for handhelds, and yet the DS has sold twice as many worldwide, largely because people trust Nintendo (as they should). It is going to be an interesting console cycle to say the least. I have no idea what I will do. I have never owned a current console until the past year, when I bought a PS2. There are so many things that will factor into if I even consider getting a console at all. We'll see.

Yes, they've been turning towards computers for a while. Especially Microsoft.

I don't think the only reason the PSP is being outsold is trust of Nintendo. IT's lack of trust of Sony (All three systems they've released have been flawed), it's the aim of gamers (It seems the actual gaming oriented system is better selling, which has led many to believe that the critic favored PS2 doesn't hold the same "wow" factor to the portable market), etc.

The best technical specs obviously don't always equal the favorite, but the beautiful thing is that they also don't always equal the better system. The Xb360 has some powerful specs, for example, but that doesn't mean it'll be the superior system. And Sony will likely net the msot games, which will give it the superior library, no matter how schooled it may get.

[Jaded-Dragon]

I'm going to disagree with most here. Truth be told I've been a Sony fanboy since '96. However, recently my faith in Sony had begun to dwindle. I was actually leaning more towards the 360 prior to E3. But now looking at everything that PS3 has to offer, it's hard not to enter into fanboy mode. For those saying specs don't matter, I disagree. Specs matter, just the same as quality and quantity of games matter.

First off, for the Nintendo conference, it's a load of crap. You can't compare the price of a $80 handheld to the price of a $150 console. Especially if you don't look at the wide view of things. Reggie failed to mention that while the GBA may have sold more units than the PS2 in America, world wide sales of the PS2 are over 74 million units. Think about this, the average house hold with two male children, are parents going to buy two $150 systems for each child? No. But I'm willing to bet that both have a GBA simply because of the price. How about comparing consoles instead?

For the DS, ok, he has a point. But you have to look at things like the time of the release and availability also. DS has a huge jump on the PSP being out before last christmas. After hearing of this remark in the conference, I went to work today (Asst. manager at EB games) at looked up how many DS systems vs PSP systems we have sold. Even with the fact that we have been sold out of PSP's for two weeks, we have still sold more PSP units in the past 4 weeks than DS. I also had an employee help count how many people came into the store, or called, asking if we had PSP's in stock. Our final tally was 32 in the 8 hour period I was there vs. The one person I had ask about a DS.

What does this mean? Well, nothing. Unless you work in the industry. The overall consumer interest is rising quickly for the PSP. And quite frankly, I'm a little upset that my store is losing out on so much money because we don't have PSP's in stock.

Either way, mark my words, the PSP will catch up to the DS very quickly after this christmas.

As for the revolution... I felt kind of :meh: about the whole thing. I'm sorry, but Mario and Zelda just don't sell a console to me now-a-days. We're not in the 16-bit era anymore. Nintendo needs some real 3rd party support, not titles that are ported over for all three consoles. Which, I'm sorry to say, they don't have. They screwed themselves over on N64 as far as 3rd party is concerned. The "Nintendo Official Seal of Quality" turned off a lot of developers that went for Sony's more freebase development standards. It's entirely possible that had it not been for Sony, we would not of seen games like Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider, and Squaresoft's many ambitious projects like Bushido Blade. Sorry again, but the fact I can play N64, SNES, and NES games on the console doesn't sell it to me either. That's like admitting that you can't come up with anything new and exciting, so you have to dig into your archives in order to give the appearence that you have a big library.

No, specs aren't everything, but if your games look and play like ass compared to what everyone else is doing, then specs really do begin to matter. That's not to say that Revolutions titles will look and play like ass, but specs are going to have more to do with the games than what most people here are giving them credit for.

To the Xbox 360. Microsoft is sticking with the DVD-9 format. I thought it was a bad idea when I first heard it, and after Sony's press conference, I think it's an even bigger mistake. Again, here we are with third party support. Microsoft has very little of it as far as exsclusives go. What sold the Xbox console to the masses? Halo and Tecmo games. Period. Ok, so Microsft wants to launch Halo right at the time of the PS3 launch. Bad move. Sony announces GTA4, Tekken 6, MGS4, DMC4, and has plans for them all to be launch titles, and you think HAlo 3 will make a difference? The HAlo fan base is huge, no doubt, but it's not THAT big.

The team lead of Team Ninja was once quoted as saying, "We will always go with the more powerful system." Which is why he backed the Xbox 360. Sony couldn't possibly make a bigger and better console right? Wrong. I'll bet he is eating his words as we speak, and I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if DOA4 ends up being a PS3 title as well as an Xbox 360 title. And from then on we'll see Tecmo's games on the PS3.

So much hype about the new Perfect Dark... and it doesn't even show? Ooooook.

Just look at Sony's unveiling of PS3 titles and you will see that there is quality to go along with those specs. The decision to go Blu-Ray speaks volumes about what they plan to do with the system. For those that don't know, Blu-Ray discs hold 50gbs of data. Just imagine playing GTA on the next gen console, and the City spans the entire distance of the imagination of Rockstar. Or finally being able to play Smackdown and seeing a fully polygon crowd instead of the few repeating models in the front row, followed by cardboard cut-outs. Playing as wrestlers that look every bit as real and detailed as the opening movie of JBI. Well, you'll be getting that with the PS3, and more. That's what those specs mean.

Of course, it's not just power and graphics, the main thing is gameplay. Well, that's really up to the developers and how much time and money they are willing to put in to make a hit title on the PS3.

Which leads me to my next point(s)... 1) Any developer that makes full use of the PS3's power and capabilities is going to have to spend a lot of money to do so. It's going to be significantly cheaper to make a quality game for Xbox as opposed to the PS3. So what does this mean for us? Well, if the PS3 has a strong launch, then more developers will be lured into making games for the PS3. But even if it doesn't, PS3 games will no doubt cost more to purchase than an Xbox game. I predict that the price of Next gen PS3 games will be in the $70 range. Otherwise, it just wouldn't be profitable for a company to invest the amount of money needed in order to make a quality PS3 game.

Ah ha, but Sony has thought of this as well. The console still plays DVD and CD-rom discs. It's not like developers HAVE to make a huge game using the Blu-ray format. And that's where they actually have one over on both Nintendo and Microsoft. Not only can the PS3 play the DVD disc games that Xbox and Revolution can, but it will also be capable of much bigger, in-depth, quality, and "prettier" games, they will just cost a little more to buy.

Being as "into" the game industry that I am as a hobby, and also as my career for the moment, in my honest opinion, Sony has the best gameplan for their next gen system. They have all the bases covered. Their system is not only more powerful, but it's more capable. And by that I mean it's ability to also read DVD discs, which Xbox 360 and Revolution will both be using. However, they can't read a Blu-Ray format, which means those big ass titles announced at the Sony press conference have 0 chance of ever being on the Xbox or the Revolution. They would have to be downgraded to the point where it would be like a totally different game.

From here I see one of three things happening. Either everything goes as it is heading now, and PS3 wins this race. Or, Microsoft rush jobs a Blu-Ray format and completely screws themselves over (much like the Sega Saturn with 3-D). Or Lastly, they delay the Xbox in order to properly include the Blu-Ray format and modify the console to get near the power of Sony's console.

Xbox 360 is supposedly running at 1/3 it's maximum power. I recall Microsoft saying much the same thing with the first Xbox. They were running it at 60 million polygons per second and said that it was only a fraction of the power it would have at launch. They ended up stating that it would run at 300mps at launch, which then slipped to 250mps, the console finally launched at 125mps. So, take the fact that it's running at 1/3rd it's power with a grain of salt.

Same can be said for Sony. What I do find amazing though is that they have only been working witht he cell processor for a little over two months, and they can already do THAT? I don't know if what we are witnessing now is what we will see at launch, but I doubt it. I'd say give it another 6-8 motnhs and we will see things closer to what we will see at launch time. MS however, has been woking with the technology they will use for over a year. And I think we all can agree that nothing they showed looks that amazing.

In anycase, I know most of you are going to disagree with what I've said, and that's fine. I'm only giving my honest input as a game enthusiast of 22 years, a review writer for 4 years, and a retail seller of 3 years.

[Requiem]

Well put. I don't think there was a single thing in that post that I didn't agree with.

[Kane Knight]

It's less that the power doesn't matter than it is the comparisons of power are more or less moot.

If power didn't matter we'd all be on the NES and Sega Master System.

[Kane Knight]

Also, I go back to capacity versus use.

It's going to be hard to get people to do Sony-Only games that can use up to like 200+GB (There's the potential to do 8 layers or so), or even remotely that, when it's so far beyond the industry standard. Games that use the Blu-Ray to the potential needed to prevent porting to other systems is unlikely to be widespread, because it's infant technology on top of being new to the gaming biz.

Not that my technical knowledge can compare with the knowledge of 3 years of retail...

EDIT--I can't remember the exact number of layers, but I think it's 8 possible on a Blu-Ray disc. Each layer is 25 GB. While games that would fill up even one layer would be great, I don't much see it happening.

[Requiem]

I just start imagining a new GTA game using all 8 layers of that, and I cream my pants.

[DS]

Nevermind.

[road doggy dogg]

Haven't really paid much attention to E3. Heard there were some new LoZ videos or something? Gonna czech that ish out on IGN

[Vietnamese Crippler]

Check out the 30+ minute video

[TheNamelessOne]

So much hype about the new Perfect Dark... and it doesn't even show? Ooooook.

Did you see the footage of Perfect Dark at the Xbox 360 MTV show?

It looks as if Rare have been a complete waste of money. Ultimately all Rare have to show for their work on Perfect Dark and Kameo are 2 half assed looking games with blatent FPS problems in the vidoes they have shown.

[DS]

Perfect Dark is at E3. It might be closed to the public but it is there. They have a red/green system where everyone and all the vehicles on your team are green and everything else is red, even if there's multiple teams. They also have safe bases where you spawn and there is loads of weapons to choose from (4 in total to keep).

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Requiem I just start imagining a new GTA game using all 8 layers of that, and I cream my pants.

Man, a city that huge would be SICK.

[DS]

Yeah it would be ridiculous if they expanded the cities even more. They can't release this without a full multiplayer now. It will be sick.

On a couple of side notes, the new Metal Gear Solid is going to have an online mode.

Also, I'm having a feeling there is going to be some more ratings introduced with all this realistic graphics with blood. Someone is going to throw a fit because it will look "too real". I hope people just use their heads here.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by DS Yeah it would be ridiculous if they expanded the cities even more. They can't release this without a full multiplayer now. It will be sick. On a couple of side notes, the new Metal Gear Solid is going to have an online mode. Also, I'm having a feeling there is going to be some more ratings introduced with all this realistic graphics with blood. Someone is going to throw a fit because it will look "too real". I hope people just use their heads here.

I don't think we need mroe ratings. I think we need more detail as to what each entails. There are many kinds of "fantasy violence," Frex. There's many kinds of "realistic violence," too. I'm sorry, but there's a difference between blowing up a terrorist in SOCOM and killing a hooker and 5 cops in GTA. That's what we REALLY need out there. LEss generic M, T, E, etc. warnings, and more a description of why.

[Kane Knight]

Shit. I just had a thought. What kind of read speed does the Ps3 drive have?

[DS]

I hope there isn't any more ratings introduced, but there will probably be someone who thinks there should be with all these new graphics. Here's to hoping not.

Are you talking hard drive or dvd drive? I would say a basic 7,200 RPM harddrive and I'd probably say 16X for Blu-Ray. Although it may be higher since it's such a large format.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Originally Posted by DS I hope there isn't any more ratings introduced, but there will probably be someone who thinks there should be with all these new graphics. Here's to hoping not. Are you talking hard drive or dvd drive? I would say a basic 7,200 RPM harddrive and I'd probably say 16X for Blu-Ray. Although it may be higher since it's such a large format.

It will probably be 1x, just like when DVD came out they reset the "x's" :P

EDIT: just did some research and the maximum 'theoretical' possible for current blu-ray data transfer is 36mbps... I'd presume that will drop down to about 20 in real world use but it should have better loading times than the PS2, that for goddamn sure

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by DS I hope there isn't any more ratings introduced, but there will probably be someone who thinks there should be with all these new graphics. Here's to hoping not. Are you talking hard drive or dvd drive? I would say a basic 7,200 RPM harddrive and I'd probably say 16X for Blu-Ray. Although it may be higher since it's such a large format.

I'm talking specifically Blu-Ray capacity for the player. The reason I ask is because a potential 200 GB of game storage is GREAT, but I'm thinking of the potential load times...

[DS]

I'd say close to seemless load times. Depends on what the developers of the games do with it. They only have 512mb ram on the PS3 so if they run it off the memory it could be worse then if they streamed it from the Blu-Ray.

[Kane Knight]

The other question is what 1X is for a Blu Ray.

Both CDs and DVDs were designed with X statted against their total run time at redbook standards. 1X meant that one CD could be completely read in about 74 minutes (Assuming full), and that each minute was one minute of read time. Similar with DVDs. While they actually run faster, they get a slower "X" speed because there is more data being run to equal 1X. Same size, more info.

Now Blu Ray, I don't think movies or music are the primary concept here. So what's 1X going to do, and how will they make it faster without breaking the theoretical cap on disc speed?

[Shaggy]

I hope that for the next GTA game they make it longer...I beat San Andreas quicker than I beat the other two. I jus want a game that will last for a whole long time. Im not big into RPG's unless its Final Fantasy but when I have no Final Fantasy im stuck with nothing.

[Kane Knight]

Another thing that would be great: Imagine all the extras they could cram into a wrestling game.

[Boomer]

Gamespot is reporting that TDK has just made Blu-ray technology better by releasing discs that hold twice as much data (100 GB on 4 layers) and record twice as fast as previous technology.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Boomer Gamespot is reporting that TDK has just made Blu-ray technology better by releasing discs that hold twice as much data (100 GB on 4 layers) and record twice as fast as previous technology.

Let's see. 100 GB on 4 layers, 200 GB on 8 layers. Hrm. Considering they announced this kinda shit when BR was being developed...

Faster is better, but twice as fast doesn't necessarily indicate anything...It also depends on twice as fast as which technology. If it's twice as fast as a DVD ROM, it's not as impressive as 2 times the speed of a previous Blue Ray disc.

[Kane Knight]

Not mocking you or anything, it's just that we've been drooling over a 200 GB figure, so 100 GB is less impressive.

[Boomer]

I'm just reporting what I saw. I know nothing about Blu-ray really. I mean they just put the article up. Thought it might be newsworthy.

[Boomer]

Which makes me wonder why its newsworthy at all if everybody already knows.

*shrug*

[Kane Knight]

They sourced a Macworld article, Macworld doesn't tend to check their facts or articles very thoroughly. They said the Revolution's discs would be 12 INCHES.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Boomer Which makes me wonder why its newsworthy at all if everybody already knows. *shrug*

I don't think everyone else knows. However, since it's already being discussed, I'd say there's a pretty good chance you're not telling us anything new.

[Gonzo]

This is all great, and that guy made a wonderful post up above. The big thing is the developers actually putting forth the time, money and effort into these types of games and such. I can only hope.

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight I don't think everyone else knows. However, since it's already being discussed, I'd say there's a pretty good chance you're not telling us anything new.

Well I thought all the talk above was just 'if' it held 8 layers and 200 GB. My fault.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Gonzo This is all great, and that guy made a wonderful post up above. The big thing is the developers actually putting forth the time, money and effort into these types of games and such. I can only hope.

Exactly, but we can dream.

[Jaded-Dragon]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight Shit. I just had a thought. What kind of read speed does the Ps3 drive have?

That's a great question. And the 4x BR disc is enough to make me drool.

We were talking today at work about the PS3 and Xbox. We have actually been taking reservations for the Xbox 360 for a little over 2 weeks. The price we have is $500, and a deposit of $50 is required. So the early reports stating that the PS3 will be available for $465-$500 is some what surprising. Especially considering the cost of a standard BR player.

Which is yet another reason to buy a PS3. With the ever steady increase of HDTV's being sold, it's only a matter of time before BR format catches on for movies. So, if you buy a PS3, you already have a player for when they do catch on. And even in the off chance that they don't, you still have the ability to play mega huge games.

[AareDub]

I'm feeling pretty let down with this E3 so far. They did the console announcements, most of which don't give us anything solid to go on. All that really did is cause a bunch of arguing over something that can't really be proven at this point.

As far as games go, there's not really a whole lot. I guess last year spoiled me or something. There were so many big games last year, but this year only has one huge standout game that comes to mine (Zelda). Sure, there have been some other good games announced, but nothing mind blowing or anything.

*shrug* what do you guys think?

[DS]

I was thinking the same thing. The conferences were good, sometimes great, and after that it's been kind of boring. No real huge games like last year with Halo 2, Half Life 2, Doom 3, etc. I am pretty excited to see some Battlefield 2 stuff but other then that there aren't that many games I'm interested in.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Jaded-Dragon That's a great question. And the 4x BR disc is enough to make me drool. We were talking today at work about the PS3 and Xbox. We have actually been taking reservations for the Xbox 360 for a little over 2 weeks. The price we have is $500, and a deposit of $50 is required. So the early reports stating that the PS3 will be available for $465-$500 is some what surprising. Especially considering the cost of a standard BR player. Which is yet another reason to buy a PS3. With the ever steady increase of HDTV's being sold, it's only a matter of time before BR format catches on for movies. So, if you buy a PS3, you already have a player for when they do catch on. And even in the off chance that they don't, you still have the ability to play mega huge games.

Keep in mind that they take a loss on consoles anyway, and that Microsoft has the best hardware otherwise...

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by AareDub I'm feeling pretty let down with this E3 so far. They did the console announcements, most of which don't give us anything solid to go on. All that really did is cause a bunch of arguing over something that can't really be proven at this point. As far as games go, there's not really a whole lot. I guess last year spoiled me or something. There were so many big games last year, but this year only has one huge standout game that comes to mine (Zelda). Sure, there have been some other good games announced, but nothing mind blowing or anything. *shrug* what do you guys think?

They don't need to do as much anymore. Duh.

[Jaded-Dragon]

Originally Posted by DS I was thinking the same thing. The conferences were good, sometimes great, and after that it's been kind of boring. No real huge games like last year with Halo 2, Half Life 2, Doom 3, etc. I am pretty excited to see some Battlefield 2 stuff but other then that there aren't that many games I'm interested in.

Next year will be huge. Last year it was big name games that used the most of each system's power, this year it was the announcment of Next gen systems. Next year we will see a lot of big name titles for the next gen.


Sony actually didn't lose money on each console sold for the PS2. They didn't make a whole hell of a lot, but they didn't lose any. Unlike MS and Nintendo, who pay other companies to develop technology for them, then they pay whatever company to use it, and then pay for the production of the console. Sony on the other hand, makes everything themselves for the most part, and they produce the consoles themselves. And as we all know, their systems aren't the highest quality products, and the reason for that is so they do make a bigger profit on every console sold.

Back when PS2 was released, and there was a shortage, a financial report said that had Sony been able to produce and ship an extra 1 million units by Christmas, they would of cleared $150 million. That would mean that they were getting $150 per console sold, which I personally feel is a little overboard. Meaning, I don't think that report was entirely accurate. I don't think that whatever company wrote that report calculated in whatever licensing fees and such that Sony had to pay. Of course, this is all based on one report from one website, so who knows for sure... only Sony.

MS however, has lost a ton of money on the Xbox. Their entertainment department, which includes Xbox, just had it's first profitable quarter ever in the 4th quarter of 2004. But, MS can make that money up in plenty of other areas, so I'm sure it's no biggie. Their stock certainly hasn't taken a hit.