Playstation 3 out in May

[AndrewTS 0]

Plus they removed many of the features that were supposed to be in the PSX.

[Guest Dumb Fuck]

From what I've heard, there's going to be 2 versions of PS3...

 

The regular console will be around $300.

 

Plus, there will be some with movie options, a hard drive, and other junk, that be $500, and likely more.

 

PS3 will be double backwards compatible... playing both PS2 and PS1 games.

 

As far as the release... with the PSP coming next year in the US... I can't see PS3 coming until at least Q1 of 2006.

 

As for me... I definitely won't get the PS3 right away. I just got my PS2 a month ago for $100, and it's rare that I'd pay that much for a system. $300 for a system that WILL be buggy at the beginning, with very few games that I'd want? No thanks.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't need a PS3 with ALL the bells & whistles, just one that can play DVDs and can use the network adapter.

 

Also I wonder if the Network Adapter for the PS2 can be taken off the PS2 and used on the PS3........or if you have to buy a brand new one. Same with the USB headphones.....

[Guest Dumb Fuck]

We'll see...

 

Sony says the PS3 will be more oriented to online gaming.

 

But, Sony makes more money by making you buy the crap again. They could have easily made PS1 memory cards compatible with PS2.

[AndrewTS 0]

Supposely sites are saying "early 2006" for the actual release, presumably that'd be for the Japanese version. With the PSP and two different models, I'm thinking they're going to overdo it a bit. =P

[Guest Dumb Fuck]

A couple articles have said PS3 will be available in Japan by March 2005.

 

With the PS2, it was available nearly a year later in the US than in Japan.

 

PSP comes out in the US in March 2005... and I think Sony is going to push very hard to get in the portable market. So, I don't think we'll be seeing PS3 in the US until 2006.

[AndrewTS 0]

When's PSP in Japan?

 

March 2005 will be too early for Japan since the system will only be first unveiled in 2005, right?

 

So early 2006 I see as the very earliest possible for the States.

[Scroby 0]

I'm gonna go ahead and say that if the PS3 comes out in 2005, but I don't think it won't, it will be released in the Fall. Since Fall is right before the holidays it'll make sense since everyone whose into Sony games will be craving one.

[Guest Dumb Fuck]

When's PSP in Japan?

 

March 2005 will be too early for Japan since the system will only be first unveiled in 2005, right?

 

So early 2006 I see as the very earliest possible for the States.

PSP (PlayStation Portable) is out in Japan later in 2004. As early as March 2005 for the US, and possibly a bit later than that. There's already many games that are said to be released for PSP in Summer '05.

 

PSP will be in direct competition with Nintendo's DS, that is coming out November 11, this year. PSP is going to be expensive, around $250. But, it's going to sell well. From the screenshots I've seen... the graphics make GBA look totally obsolete. Plus, the Sony name helps quite a bit.

 

I'm 99% sure PS3 won't come until 2006.

 

2005 will be a portable war year... and almost all the games on PSP will be ports of PS2 games.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah. They'll release it with two or three crappy games but people will still rush out to get it like it was that toy in JINGLE ALL THE WAY.

 

Why did so many idiots HAVE to have a PS2 at launch anyway?

You know what I find ironic? When people wonder why the Dreamcast failed.

 

It's because PEOPLE WOULDN'T BUY IT BECAUSE THEY HAD TO HAVE THE PS2 WITH NO TITLES AT LAUNCH.

 

That turned me off on the PS2 something fierce. A terrific system WITH great games died because the PS2 would be good...eventually.

-=Mike

[Guest Dumb Fuck]

Mike, that's how it's always with the gaming world, though.

 

Sega Master System was a much better gaming system than the NES... but everyone had to have a NES, and that's what killed the Master System.

 

The same argument can be made about Sega Genesis and SNES.

 

It's a shame the DC died... but for the last year, I have enjoyed buying a quality system for $40, and all the games for pocket change.

[Jer 0]

TTT made PS2 good at launch. TTT interested me more than everything on DC even though DC had been out for a year at the time. Buying TTT and a PS2 at launch and an Hori still saved me money over playing it at an arcade in the long run. Lots of people were also really looking forward to SSX, which was a damn good game at the time. PS2's launch lineup is probably one of the most underrated in gaming history. Everyone shat on it because they all were such DC supporters and all had this elitist "you all don't know what's good for you dammit!" attitude, but in reality it wasn't below average for a launch. It was better than DC's launch, or Saturn's, or PS1's, or N64's or frankly any other launch ever up to that point. The only way you could complain about it was to do what so many stupid journalists did, and compare it to DC's entire library. Guess what, no system is ever worth buying if you do that. Omg PS3's launch is worse than SNES's library, don't buy one! Yawn.

 

PS2 being compatible with PS1 memory cards wouldn't have made any sense, since PS1 memory cards only hold 128 KB, which is about 1/50th of what PS2 cards hold. GTA3 saves require 500 KB by themselves, that would be four entire PS1 cards. Honestly, it didn't feel like Sony really did anything all that greedy in terms of the PS2 launch. You can even use old PS1 controllers to play PS2 games, they didn't have to let you do that. The only thing they really should have done that they didn't was to include four controller ports to start.

[Guest MikeSC]

It was better than DC's launch, or Saturn's, or PS1's, or N64's or frankly any other launch ever up to that point. The only way you could complain about it was to do what so many stupid journalists did, and compare it to DC's entire library.

"It was better than DC's launch"?

 

Umm, DC launched with the unGodly Soul Caliber I, Sonic Adventure I, Power Stone 1, NFL 2K, House of the Dead, etc. DC had the best launch of any system in the history of the industry.

-=Mike

[Jer 0]

NFL2K is comparable to Madden 2001. SA1 was a huge disappointment, with more time spent on an incredibly boring but incredibly overlarge main map than actually spent in the real levels, and gameplay that was both too random and too easy. PS1 and HotD are just fluff, fine games at about the level of the DoA2:HCs, RR5s and Timesplitters of the PS2. DC's launch being the "best ever" is contingent on SC1 actually being ungodly, which it is not. It's easier and less strategically interesting at all levels of play than TTT (except for the button masher level, which apparently is as far as the mags got). Frankly, from a gameplay perspective, it's got very little over T3, and even SC2 isn't close to where TTT is. There's a reason TTT's been big on the tourney scene for over five years and counting, while SC1 faded out completely years ago.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Rumor #4: Sony has developed an eight-layer Blu-ray disc capable of storing 200GB of data for the PlayStation 3.

 

Source: Macworld, the Apple-lover's equivalent of Newsweek.

 

The official story: See below.

 

What we heard: According to the Macworld article, Sony is planning an announcement at the International Symposium on Optical Memory in South Korea, which will be held October 11-15. The article quotes Sony spokesman Taro Takamine as saying that, in addition to showcasing the 200GB disc's development, Sony plans to begin offering a four-layer 100GB BD for commercial sale in 2007. While that sounds all nice and official, SCEA would not confirm or deny the announcement, despite repeated e-mails requesting comment.

 

Bogus or not bogus?: Sounds great, but we won't know until next month for sure.

 

Even though it is only a rumor, and since I didn't want to create a new topic for a rumor, I just thought I'd bump this to display this info on the PS3.

 

A 200 GB disk is being used as the standard for the PS3? Just to put that into perspective, the whole collection of anything named MegaMan or Final Fantasy could be put onto the disk. With 200GBs of space, I would expect the best in visuals and sound. Hell, I expect huge games then that take 100 hours to beat minimum...

 

Of course nothing is confirmed, but for a 200GB disk, the PS3 would have to be super powerful to read it.

 

What is your take on this information?

[Guest CronoT]

I got my GameCube first, in March of 2002; I bought it for myself for my birthday, along with Super Smash Bros.: Melee. I bought my PS2 in March of 2003, also for my birthday for myself; I bought .Hack//Infection and Dragon Ball Z: Budokai at the same time. Finally, I bought my X-Box in August of 2003, because I got a bonus or something or other at work, and I had the money.

 

The reason I bought the GC first, and the PS2 second, was because Nintendo has always had a consistently high level of product quality. I've had my GC for almost 3 years, and I've never had a problem with it. My PS2, on the other hand, is about 18 months old, and I'm already starting to notice slowdowns in loading times, and the loading screen when you turn on the console takes a lot onlger than it used to when a game was already in it.

 

My X-Box is a little over a year old, and I've never had any problems with it.

 

When the newest next generation consoles come out, I'll probably follow the same purchasing order, except I'll probably buy the next X-Box console before I buy the PS3.

[razazteca 0]

A 200 GB disk is being used as the standard for the PS3? Just to put that into perspective, the whole collection of anything named MegaMan or Final Fantasy could be put onto the disk. With 200GBs of space, I would expect the best in visuals and sound. Hell, I expect huge games then that take 100 hours to beat minimum...

 

Of course nothing is confirmed, but for a 200GB disk, the PS3 would have to be super powerful to read it.

Great just what the world needs Pac-Man in HDTV for $50.

[Perfxion 0]

A 200 GB disk is being used as the standard for the PS3? Just to put that into perspective, the whole collection of anything named MegaMan or Final Fantasy could be put onto the disk. With 200GBs of space, I would expect the best in visuals and sound. Hell, I expect huge games then that take 100 hours to beat minimum...

200GB is good and all but 100 hours to beat a game? WHAT THE FUCK?!? Spending that long to beat a game is just tiring. I would get bored of it midway. See Vice City as an example of a game you get sick of playing before you finish beating it.

 

Not every game has to be be like FFX-2.

[MrRant 0]

This is actually bad news as this is Sony trying to push their own proprietary formats... AGAIN.

[Lightning Flik 0]

A 200 GB disk is being used as the standard for the PS3? Just to put that into perspective, the whole collection of anything named MegaMan or Final Fantasy could be put onto the disk. With 200GBs of space, I would expect the best in visuals and sound. Hell, I expect huge games then that take 100 hours to beat minimum...

200GB is good and all but 100 hours to beat a game? WHAT THE FUCK?!? Spending that long to beat a game is just tiring. I would get bored of it midway. See Vice City as an example of a game you get sick of playing before you finish beating it.

 

Not every game has to be be like FFX-2.

I was more speaking of an RPG standpoint... Not any other game.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

This is actually bad news as this is Sony trying to push their own proprietary formats... AGAIN.

Especially since the Blu-Ray Hi Def DVD standard isn't compatible with today's DVDs. So, in essence if Sony uses the Blu-Ray for PS3, it would take away one of the major selling points of the PS2 for most people - the fact that it can be used as a DVD player. Inless you go out and buy all new DVD-BR (I guess thats what they might call em), you wouldn't be able to watch movies on it.

 

Toshiba/NEC's HD-DVD format is backwards compatible with current DVDs though, but Sony is the only one pushing the Blu Ray format and I wouldn't expect them to break down and use the HD-DVD format for their PS3.

[k thx 0]

If PS3 is backwards compatible with PS2, surely that means it would have the facility to play DVDs too.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Last I heard, it was supposed to be backwards compatible and will be able to play normal DVDs (but I've got no site to confirm this). I do know that they spent a shitload of money on the PS3 to make it just how they wanted it, so I'm quite sure that they would be smart enough to do that favor.

[Rendclaw 0]

The Dreamcast also died because Sega dropped the ball as far as support goes, which is why the only system that had any longevity was the Genesis. Every system after that crapped out before its time.

 

Andrew, I think you;re being a touch too harsh here. I will agree that those who buy a system right when it comes out is begging for trouble, but thats the way things have been: there are those who just HAVE to have it first. Its that whole "keeping up with the Joneses" thing, which I personally never bought into. But to call them idiots, that smacks of a bit of elitism, bro.

 

PS2s will break under heavy usage sometime after the first year. My gf bought me one for Sweetest Day in March of 03, and it died on me after about a year, but it was pulling double duty as a game machine and a DVD player. Sony's quality marque has gone down over recent years because of this, IMO.

 

The PS3 is going to be a real test for Sony. Remember when PS2s were in high demand because Sony ran out of chips to make them? I thought it was a piece of marketing BS, but hey, just my opinion. Every piece of hype is going to ensure a feeding frenzy for the system, no matter *when* it comes out.

[Guest wildpegasus]

My Playstation 2 is really breaking down so I know I'll at least be thinking about getting a Playstation 3 early since it has backwards compatability.

[Guest ArchoanJB]

it could be the smaller PStwo they are talking about. There is no way in hell the PS3 will be out by March. They haven't even announced in primary info on it yet. Hell the PSP won't be out here till Jan, Dec. for Japan.

[AndrewTS 0]

Andrew, I think you;re being a touch too harsh here. I will agree that those who buy a system right when it comes out is begging for trouble, but thats the way things have been: there are those who just HAVE to have it first. Its that whole "keeping up with the Joneses" thing, which I personally never bought into. But to call them idiots, that smacks of a bit of elitism, bro.

It isn't even so much the people who bought the system at launch as it was the folks paying anywhere from $500 - $1000 for something that would have more units produced in a few months. From what I gathered, a lot of those folks were regular middle-class folks who *had* to have it. You yourself linked it to the phenomenon of pecuniary emulation. Hey, fools and their money...idiots and their money; whatever term works for you. Even you admit that it's a bit irrational.

 

Me?! Elitist?! NOOOOO!!!

 

PS2s will break under heavy usage sometime after the first year. My gf bought me one for Sweetest Day in March of 03, and it died on me after about a year, but it was pulling double duty as a game machine and a DVD player. Sony's quality marque has gone down over recent years because of this, IMO.

 

I've had my PS2 for 3 years now and it is still going strong. I unplug all my systems when I'm not using it. When I didn't with my PS1, I'd heard that was related to the problems I'd had since it still is taking in electricity. Complete bull? Perhaps, but after a lens cleaning all the problems I had with playing DVDs vanished, and my system is still working perfectly. It still pulls double duty.

 

There's no doubt that the launch systems were POS, though.

[UZI Suicide 0]

Wasn't Madden 2001 or 2002 a PS2 launch game?

[Rendclaw 0]

anyone who pays more than 25 dollars over list price for a gaming system just isn;t thinking, whining middle-class kids or not. That goes back to the TV/VCR/DVD/PS/Xbox/GC being a babysitter, which I am not going to go into. When I think about it, I was calling those people paying two to four times the list price for a PS2 idiots, myself. Christmas of '01 was just too damn bizarre with people putting ads in the paper, selling PS2s for $800-1200. I wanted one pretty badly but I could wait a year or so for the price to come down and better games to be out on the market. Its the blockbuster movie theory; I always wait at least two weeks after the release date of a movie I really want to see, so the crowds will die down. The same goes for gaming systems, even if I have enough money to get it right when it comes out.