PS3 Date and Price

baltmatrix

North America
November 17

/w 20GB HD. $499.00
/w 60GB HD. $599.99

Standard: Wii'esq 6 degree of freedom controller

baltmatrix

I present proof

http://www.gamespot.com/e3/e3story.html?sid=6149470

and

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3150516

and

(from Kotaku)
joel: North AMerican $499 november 17th for 20gb
joel: and $600 for 60 gb


Now....will you buy it?

NinjaNed

Nope

deaf-mute

We probably will, but only because my brother is a PS fanboy. I personally don't give a damn about consoles, and play games on the computer. I concede that many games are better on a console for controller reasons, I still prefer the computer.

Rym

The real news is their controller... I can't help but laught. They ripped Nintendo off so obviously and blatantly... I don't know what to say...

glimpster

I've always been an xbox and pc kinda guy. In fact, I've hated the PS and PS2. I did however like the PSP, duh... As far as the PS2 goes, I hated the jagginess. That's all I have to say about that.

With all this said, I'm waiting for the PS3. No harm in that. I know it's going to be about $100 more in both configurations, but I don't care. If Killzone 2 is as good looking as the trailer, and MGS4 is as well, then I'm going with the PS3. No question. Screw Halo 3. It's too overrated. I'll take the chance with Sony, for the first time.

Apreche

The E3 explosion has begun. I suggest reading Kotaku, Engagdet, Penny Arcade and Digg. If you keep an eye on those 4 sites then no important E3 news will escape you. GeekNights will have full E3 commentary tomorrow. You'll have to do the information-gathering yourself.

baltmatrix

Here's a nice little article about the differences between the Rev...er Wii controller and the PS3 controller.

http://revolution.ign.com/articles/705/705870p1.html
"Is this technology the same?
No. In fact, the best way to imagine it is to relate the Sony PS3 controller to the left-hand Wii controller; dubbed nunchuck. In short, you would not be able to play a game like Metroid Prime in the same way using the PS3 controller.

What is the difference for developers?
Simply put, it's tilt vs. motion sensing. Monkey Ball for Wii and PS3 would essentially be the same, since it's only using the tilt ability of the controller. On the other hand, a 3D tennis game or sword fighting game with swing control elements is impossible for the PS3 hardware, as it requires full motion sensing technology.

Why doesn't it need a sensor bar?
Since the technology is based solely off the tilt ability, it is self-contained. Keep in mind that the sensor bar is used for the point and click ability of the Wii functions. It doesn't need the bar, since it doesn't use that technology. The same applies to the Wii nunchuck. It can function without a sensor bar.

What type of gameplay styles will work on the PS3 controller?
Here are a few examples: Kirby's Tilt 'n Tumble (which featured tilt control on the Game Boy Color), Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam, racing games (using the tilt to rotate), flight sims, Monkey Ball, fishing (flick the tilt controller).

What type of things won't work on the PS3 controller?
The following actions can't be done on the PS3 controller with the same precision: Throwing/Catching a ball at a specific spot shown on screen, swinging a sword in 3D space and performing stabbing motions, aiming a weapon light-gun-style, swinging a racket, punching, general 3D item interaction, 3D drum simulator, swatting an "on-screen" fly, performing two separate tilt/motion functions at the same time.

In short, Nintendo fans still have a ton to look forward to. Will Wii have what it takes to give the world a true gaming revolution? We'll see you tomorrow morning at Nintendo's E3 conference."

Johannes Uglyfred II

Ugh, the PS3 is way too expensive to ever be worth it.

glimpster

If you can put linux on it and play awesome games, I'm all for it. At least Sony didn't totally bock out any way of putting an OS on the PS3.

I've heard the cell processor will be bad for AI, but I don't know if that's true. If the graphics are anywhere near what they showed on the Killzone 2 trailer, there's no question of whether or not I'm purchasing it. It's well worth it when you realize it would cost 4 or 5 times more for a PC with that much CPU speed and graphical power.

I've also heard a rumor that you'll be able to run Windows or OS X on it as well, but they're just rumors. Theoretically, it's a possibility.

Apreche

Processor bad for AI? Who keeps saying these things? Surely not computer scientists. A CPU executes machine code. That's all it does. Quality of artificial intelligence has nothing to do with how a processor executes instructions. It has everything to do with how well the code is written by programmers. The CPU can only be bad for AI if it is so underpowered that it is incapable of processing the instructions quickly enough. I don't think that a chip capable of playing fancy games is so slow that it can't process AI algorithms. The quality of AI depends upon the algorithms involved and how they are coded. It does not heavily depend upon the chip which executes those instructions.

Also, the graphics will be nowhere near what you have seen in any "trailer". All the PS3 trailers are pre-renders. You might as well be watching a Pixar movie. They are just videos to sell the game. The graphics in them do not represent the graphics of the game in any way. Everyone who has seen the PS3 play games says that they look about the same as what the Xbox 360 games look like.

Lastly, how do you know Sony didn't put DRM on the machine and prevent us from putting an alternative OS on the PS3? Are there hackers at E3 playing with PS3 demo units trying to install Linux on them? Where does this information come from?

glimpster

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14043

Here's one article talking about it. It's interesting even to hear that they'll be shipping it with the console. So far, from what Sony and others have said, the system will be able to run Linux. Now the question still exists, whether it will be there when you open the box and turn on the machine.

As far as pre-rendered movies go, I realize what can happen. Developers make animations or trailers that aren't really what the game looks like. They're processed in server farms, and then you have a movie. I've experienced this using 3ds max and Maya, which are programs used for modelling, animating, and rendering. What's happening in alot of the movies at E3 isn't real time, game engine content. It's an animation. Too many people get this idea in their heads that games will look just like the trailers they see on screen, but most of the time, this is not true.

However, the processors out today for consoles, such as the cell processor are much more powerful than what we're used to. Right now, PS3 games might look like 360 games, but the capabilities of the PS3 system have barely been tapped into. Remember the huge ass difference between Halo 1 and Halo 2? That's what I'm speaking of. Programmers have to get used to development of the games and learn all the aspects of the machine they're working with. For instance, everybody thought the Halo 2 trailer for E3 one year was pre-rendered. They were wrong. In fact, it's was completely rendered within the game engine in real time.

As for DRM:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14043
http://www.justplaystation3.com/ps3-hardware/sony-wont-use-drm-in-ps3-discs.html

There were some speculations about DRM on PS3, but they were shot down fairly quickly. If those rumors were true, I think Sony would be officially screwed at launch.

Apreche

Well, we know that the PS3 uses Blu-Ray. And Blu-Ray has DRM. The Linuxing remains to be seen. I really don't think Sony would make it so easy since they sell the console at a loss. Shipping a console that is very easy to run other OSes on will result in people buying the console and never buying games. Although, someone who buys it to use as a PC might end up getting the one or two games that are hard to resist.

Farragar

My console mind goes like this :

Xbox - Microsoft (Booo!) Only good exclusive game - Halo2

PS-Sony (Meh, whatever)Good exclusive games :Ratchet and clank, Jak and Daxter, among others

Nintendo-Nintendo (Duh) Don't like the controllers - don't particually like many of the games ( allthough some are certainly V.Good)

...Looks like its Sony for me :)

Rym

Halo is terrible ;^) It's doing now what PC FPSs did almost a decade ago. I'm more excited about the xbox Shadowrun game personally.

Sony may have good games, but are they worth $600 + extra controllrs + cost of games? As for the exclusives, Final Fantasy doesn't excite me like it used to, and they didn't actually -show- us anything from MGS4.

Pilitus

I still like the RPG's, and I have to agree with Rym on this. I never played final fantasy 9 or 10, I only played half-way through x-2. Then they wait almost 5 years to release the next Final Fantasy. I think Square screwed things up, letting the people who were addicted go clean for several years.

glimpster

I was just playing Halo2 yesterday, then I played CS: Source. I then realized Rym was right. The Halo games suck! Every PC game I play is better than this. Besides, Halo isn't that graphically enhanced anyway. It's got very low quality, low res textures if you think about it, besides those of the Master Chief.

thaneofcawdor

GTA 3, Gran Turismo 3 and MGS 2 sold me on the PS2 six years ago. The combination of GTA 4 and the Shadowrun game (and Fallout 3 in all likelihood) coming to the 360 are making me think seriously about buying the system some time down the road. A couple of other great games may just tip the balance.

Apreche

Besides, Halo isn't that graphically enhanced anyway. It's got very low quality, low res textures if you think about it, besides those of the Master Chief.

I thought the graphics debate was settled long ago, but apparently people didn't hear the news that we won.

What is with people and the graphics fanboyism? Graphics don't mean shit unless they are so bad they hinder the playing of the game itself. For example, look at games where everything is so dark you can't see what you're doing. Or look at Turok for the N64 which has so much fog you can't see far enough to play the game. Those are situations where graphics make a difference in the game.

Half-Life 1 still kicks the living shit out of most modern fpses with fancier graphics. Half-Life 2 is awesome because of the gravity gun, not the graphics. If I take the latest fps and turn the graphics settings down it doesn't immediately become a shittier game. CS:Source isn't better than regular CS because it looks better. It's better because it doesn't have that damn shield. Natural Selection and Tribes 2 are some of the best fpses ever. Their graphics are ass by comparison with the latest games, yet they are more fun than most of those games will ever be. If graphics really matter as much as people say they do, then why isn't Tribes: Vengeance as good as Tribes 2?

Are people out there really noticing slightly higher resolution textures while you play? Would a fun game suddenly become more fun with "better" graphics? When you turn on anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering does the game get better, or are you just having fun twiddling the graphics options themselves? Would a shitty game become fun with fancy graphics? Do you actually notice the fancy graphics beyond the first few times you see and play a game?

I remember when I started playing Metroid:Prime. At first I was like oooh, that stuff looks cool. The same thing happened with Wind Waker and Mario Sunshine, but after maybe ten minutes of playing any of these games the shiny graphics effect wore off. I stopped ooohing and aahhing every time I saw water splash around. The game was the only thing that mattered anymore.

In contrast, look at some games without fancy graphics like Katamari Damacy. Nobody ooohs and ahhs at the graphics when they see that game. But you still play it for hours and hours. Fancy graphics are the most expensive part of video gaming. Yet, all they buy you is a few minutes of ooh and ahh. Is it really worth hundreds and hundreds of dollars for that?

GTA 3, Gran Turismo 3 and MGS 2 sold me on the PS2 six years ago. The combination of GTA 4 and the Shadowrun game (and Fallout 3 in all likelihood)

I like how every game and console you listed is a sequel.

Farragar

Ok, let me clarify. I allways will be a pc gamer, Halo is bad. Halo 2 is terrible single player, but i could handle playing it multiplayer for a while. I said Halo2 was the best xbox game because i truly believe it is, and as i find Halo2 poor that shows quite alot about the quality of the games on the xbox... And don't get me started on their QC


And i totally agre with you about the graphics issue, one of my favourite games is castle of the winds, and that games graphics are virtually non existant, plus UT99 kicks the ass of ever other UT game ever.

thaneofcawdor

I like how every game and console you listed is a sequel.

What isn't a sequel these days? If not a direct sequel, most other games are derived from an earlier IP, like Mario. I personally don't care so much whether a game is a sequel or not, only that it entertains me.

As for hardware 'sequels', it's just a name. The PS2 and the PS3 are likely very different in their hardware, in the same way the Gamecube is different to the Wii, and the Xbox is different to the Xbox 360. Only, Nintendo managed to come up with an imaginative name.

glimpster

As for as OS's on the PS3 platform go, I'm guessing there is a way to run PS3 games, even with Linux on the machine as well. That probably wouldn't be too hard to do, especially if you could have the option of either booting from the disk or the HD.

Ilmarinen

The HD is nothing special, seeing as the PS2(non-slim, and you CAN use your own, not jsut that expensive thing that sony was selling) can have a hardrive(and there are tons of instructions on how to use it all over the internet)...