The demo for Jericho is out today on XBL. It will be on PSN next Thursday.

If you like gore-fests, this is your game. They submitted the console version to the ratings board in Germany. The amount of gore resulted in an adult rating. As a result, they just pulled the game release from Germany rather than tone down the gore. It will still be released on the PC in Germany.

I think Mizzou B-ball Fan forgets one other MASSIVE selling point for a console, especially after the intial year: people tend to buy the one their friends have. And I think that this will only be more true with this generation (and future gens) as online gaming has become so huge.

At this point, your friends are 3 times as likely to own a 360 as they are a PS3. Which will weigh heavily when you buy a system if you want to play games online, or be able to bring extra controllers to a party, or borrow games, etc.

Actually, the current ratio of sales is 2:1 Roughly 12M 360's and 5.5M PS3's. Also, online gaming is not quite as 'huge' as you might think. There are still a lot of people that are exclusively single player gamers. Multiplayer gaming is certainly a point to consider, as I mentioned in the response to Galaxy, but the biggest factor by far is games available, especially exclusives for that system. For example, Galaxy isn't going to buy a 360 just because his friends have one. He's going to buy it because it has games like Halo 3 and Gears of War that he can play with those friends.

The rate in america has got to be a lot higher than the world rate.

dawgfan has already commented, but I'll add my 2 cents worth. The PS3 has DIFFERENT hardware. It is not necessarily better. The SPUs are VERY useful for certain types of algorithms. For other types of code, the 2 extra general purpose processors (with 4 more cores) in the 360 are far more useful.

In the end, which one is "better" depends greatly on the type of game you are making. And given that ALL games have different types of code running in them, I doubt either one will ever show a clear advantage over the other in games consumers buy. Contrived demos can be written to show advantages to one over the other, but that's all they'll be: contrived demos.

But once again, these companies do not make money just in America. Also, America is MS's home turf. They should be winning here, despite the fact that they lost the last generation badly. The exclusion of some regions is selective reasoning at best. I'm sure that MS is delighted that they have a 2:1 ratio at this point.

You really believe that MS being based in America has anything to do with their winning the console war in the US? What's your basis for that belief?

Does anyone have numbers for how many XBOX360s and PS3s have sold in the US? I'd be curious to see that number instead of the worldwide ones.

A little searching and I found the numbers:

Wii: over 4 million
360: 6.3 million
PS3: 1.75 million

So yep, the 360 has a 3.6 to 1 advantage in the US.

Wow, when you run the numbers the PS3 has less than 15% of the US next-gen market. That's even worse that I expected.

Dude, you wrote the following TODAY:

It barely beat out a children's book for the biggest day one in US entertainment history, and only did so because of all the saps willing to shell out $130 for the Legendary edition. :rolleyes:

(yes, it is rather impressive)

Of course the game is about $30 more expensive than the book. :)

Yeah, but Harry Potter wouldn't have sold near as many copies at $60, $70, or $130 I suppose. Although it would be quite interesting to see how hardcore the Harry Potter fanbase is and how the book might have sold at those prices.

Uh.

A book and a video game are two completely different things. :) I can't even believe you're trying to compare their sales numbers.

check your sarcasm detector

If you keep shifting your arguments every time they're shown to be stupid eventually you might hit a winner I guess...

It ran out of batteries early today.

Does either systems have a wireless connection to play online?

Pretty sure that Wi-Fi is built-in to the PS3. You can buy a Wi-Fi adapter for the 360, but it costs ~$90, so that's an advantage for the PS3.

Wi-fi is indeed built-into the PS3. However, some people have said they have problems staying connected (I haven't had that problem). I was listening to the Gamers With Jobs podcast this morning and one of the hosts on it thought it might have something to do with interference (though interference with WHAT wasn't clear). He mentioned he had a stable connection when he hooked his PS3 to the TV in his bedroom (I think that's where it was, or an office with a TV or something) but not in his living room.

/tk

wifi is built into the wii too

Yeah, the connection drops are user specific. There's no problems with the technology itself.

I've always said that using the U.S. numbers alone is not any way to judge the console war. Business decisions by both Sony and MS are not made just on what America demands. They have to adjust and adapt to make money in all regions. The fact that the 360 has failed so badly in Japan is the thing most analysts point to as a reason that the PS3 could end up the eventual winner. Giving away a whole segment of the market to your competitor is a tough way to win console wars over the long haul.

Big news in the EU countries. Sony has reached an agreement to sell PES 2008 as a bundle with the PS3. Should be a great system seller in Europe as this game is huge in that region.

It should be interesting to look at the NPD numbers for September to see if Maximum Football 2 spikes PC sales.

That was a wacky but fun game :)

SI

PC sales have a max gain limit to keep their numbers from getting out of hand.

Forgot a 360, I need to upgrade my PC for the greatest game ever.

Unless that segment constitutes less than 19% of the worldwide market and you are outselling your main competitor by greater than a 2:1 margin in the single biggest market in the world (U.S. and A).

Well MS never had the Japanese market to "give away". If anything was given away, it's been Sony giving away the US Market where they previously were the 800 lb gorilla and now are one of those little masturbating monkeys you see in the zoo.

These rumored deals are so good that I'm taking a quick break from my break of posting in this thread:

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/27/ru...-this-holiday/

The details:

The Pro 360 will include Forza 2 and Marvel Ultimate Alliance (both fun games) starting October 9th. Same deal with the Elite starting October 23rd.

The core will start shipping with a 256 MB memory card, a wireless controller, a HDMI port, and 5 free Xbox Live games on a disc starting at the end of October.

DING, DING, DING.

We have a winner.

MS never had Japan. They probably never will no matter what they do. That's simple reality. MS knew it going in. Again, their hope with the 360 was to tear some market share away from Sony and become relevant in the USA/Euro markets. Mission Accomplished.

Sony was the dominant one all across the world. MS never expected that they might actually BEAT the PS3. Now that is a real possiblity. Spinning this any other way is asinine. But expected I guess.

One thing Sony and MS never counted on was Nintendo, the console that will win this generation.

QFT.

You should retire as a doctor and go into sales. Your pushing me into opening my wallet very soon.

The core system, at the same price, sounds very promising. Is a 256 MB memory card big enough to hold a lot of information? I'm seriously thinking of plucking down an order. My only concern is if they consoles will be the new ones that solve the problems the 360 have.

It's not just Sony and MS that were caught by surprise by the Wii's success - I'd venture to say nearly all parties in the gaming industry were not expecting this level of success for the Wii.

256 MB will be enough for some saved games. You won't be downloading many demos on it. Maybe a few arcade games will fit.

If it's got an HDMI port, it's a fairly safe bet it's one of the new ones.

Are the 360s with the HDMI input built to fix the RROD issue?

Except for, y'know, when firmware 1.92 introduced random disconnects that were, in fact, completely hardware-specific.

Folks who are having issues with 1.93, that's probably related more to location of the PS3 versus that of the wireless router than anything else...but depending on how old the claims in question are, it could very well be a drop issue that was absolutely the result of the then-latest firmware for PlayStation 3.

Not yet, anyways. I don't notice that mine gets particularly hot though. Hard to say if they've fixed the issue(doubtful).

I still wouldn't buy a core, although all that included stuff is pretty tempting. If you don't plan on using Live, and don't ever download demos, then I suppose it should be good enough.

So apparently the reason NBA 08 PS3 doesn't have "The Life" is because they're wrapping it up this year. Some trilogy crap, and this year is the final chapter of it on PS2.

Be interesting to see how they replace it next year.

Do you guys expect any shortages of any of the systems this holiday season?

If you ask Sony I'm sure they'll predict empty shelves for the PS3 this holiday season. ;)

Honestly, no.

Shortages of specific SKUs for 360 or PS3? Possibly. Depends on circumstances.

Like, if the 80 gig PS3 either doesn't drop or only drops to $549, and the 40 gig comes in at $399, I could easily see stores have trouble keeping the 40 in stock.

Also, depends on whether retailers run specials on one SKU or another.

But just, overall, a particular system not available? Not at this point. It's too important a Christmas for the three for any of them to start with shenanigans, and a second Christmas of virtual unavailability on the Wii might start to deflate the warm fuzzies from the consumer base.

Honestly, Sony needs to hurry up with the 40 GB machine or a 80 GB price drop. Their sales are going to suffer until they do that. The 60 GB machines are becoming pretty scarce online and in the stores, but there are plenty of 80 GB machines. No one's going to buy those 80 GB machines with the price drop coming along with a new SKU. Part of their sales problem right now is the price drop and new system. The quicker they can announce it, the better it is for them. Even if they don't have the system ready, they can at least build some level of hype for the $399 price point this holiday season.

Lots of speculation that the 40 GB PS3 will be released on October 30th. Rumor is that the Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction game was moved back from October 23rd to October 30th for that reason. Also, Spiderman 3 is scheduled to be released on October 30th. That's significant because the $399 40 GB PS3 is supposed to be bundled with the BR version of Spiderman 3.

The 5 BR movie rebate site (http://www.bluraysavings.com) has recently been updated to add a new SKU to the list of PS3's as well. Another sign that the new system is coming relatively quickly.

Also, a 'Big Bang' (their words, not mine :) ) announcement by Sony is expected on October 12th. Speculation is that it will be to announce the new 40 GB machine.

If they release the same type of game they did this year, why bother?

www.gamenikki.com for my review of the dreadful NBA 08.

$400 for a PS3 with backward compatibility, WiFi, and Ratchet and Clank as a pack-in game would probably be enough to get me to buy one.

Big Bang? I always liked "megaton." It was mentioned in French GamePro so it might have to do with European pricing.

If this year is anything like last year, most retailers will offer bundles on both consoles with PES 2008 (and probably FIFA as well).

That would be a phenomenal holiday bundle.

Hell, let's get really crazy - Spiderman 3 as a pack-in BD, Ratchet as a pack-in game, $400 40 GB PS3 with BC (software, most likely) and built-in WiFi.

I think that would actually cause a sonic boom.

I believe that the Wii has lost the pricing advantage with this. I finally found a Wii at BJ's yesterday, so bought their bundle. $400 for:

Wii
2 controllers w/ nunchuks
pistol shooting controller
2 games: Sonic + Chicken shooter

EBGames.com has a similar bundle for $420 (it includes Wii Play and 2 different games).

If an Xbox 360 Pro is $350 w/ 2 games and another controller can be had for $45, all of a sudden you can get a 360 Pro for the same price as a Wii.

Wow, I had no idea people still had to get those kinds of bundles, that's unfortunate. Sonic is meant to be mediocre and I hadn't heard of the second game but if it has a 26% on gamerankings it must be terrible.

Oh, I figured the games would suck, and I would end up throwing about $50 or $60 away, but we really wanted one for the kids and it's the first one I've seen available around here. Maybe we'll spot another one in the next few days with a better set of games and return this one...

gstel - best buy has been getting ridiculous quantities in the last two weeks, and doesn't require bundles. Keep your eyes peeled.

That sonic game is awful, I had to buy that in a bundle with my wii a few months ago as well. Keep looking, I'm sure you'll find a stand alone console eventually.

The PES 2008/PS3 bundle is an exclusive deal between Konami and Sony specifically designed to make sure Microsoft cannot offer a similar bundle.

There's been a lot of comments that Halo 3's graphics aren't all that spectacular. It now appears that we have a reason......they're not. Halo 3 is running at 640p.

http://www.gamerawr.com/2007/09/28/h...-runs-at-640p/

Bungie's rebuttal with confirmation that it is running at 640p

http://www.bungie.net/News/content.a...news&cid=12821


I agree with both of the above statements. 640p doesn't look any different blown up to 720p. Also, I think the second quote is also true, but that's didn't stop the fodder from flying when the 30 FPS problem came up on Madden. I'm sure that EA could have downscaled Madden to 640p and got the FPS rate up to 60, but they didn't do that.

Nintendo confirms that Wii supply will be scarce during holiday season. It will be interesting to see if the 360 or PS3 may benefit from consumer frustration if the supply issues continue into the holiday season.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=29122

Yeah, but then I'd have to purchase from Best Buy, and my reasons for avoiding that are well-documented here. I'll keep the $400 bundle with 2 lousy games before buying it from Best Buy.

I may just order from EBGames online which has a bundle with the 2 Mario games. I don't mind the bundle route as I want the second controller and we'll buy several games anyway. Would just prefer a slightly better bundle than I've got right now.

Several websites are confirming that the new 360's have been released with the 65nm chip. Also, this site details how to check if you have one of the newer 360's:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com....php?id=172900

demand will be scarce? Just in how much of a hurry to post that were you, Mizzou? :)

LOL.......I'll correct it. Got my opposites crossed. :)

That's Reggie's way of saying "buy them as soon as you see them folks, don't wait until Christmas."

Sony will be releasing a $39.99 version of Warhawk this month. Could allow for good Warhawk sales numbers when $399 PS3 comes out later this month.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/level...his-month.aspx

Bill Harris posted some comments concerning the sub-HD issue with Halo 3.......

http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2...on-denial.html

( sarcasm on )

Wait, CoD 3 was below full resolution? I got ripped off? Give me my money back! I don't care how fun the game was, or how well it looked, I can't believe they ripped me off!

( sarcasm off )

Is the game fun? Does it look good? If you answered yes to both, STFU.

While graphics are cool, it's all about gameplay. That's why I love Maximum Football so much.

If you, as a game developer, think that it's acceptable to put '720p' on a game box and release it when it's not a 720p game in any way, that's fine. Just let me know which games you're creating and I'll avoid them. The fact that Bungie and other developers like you would like to write this kind of practice off speaks volumes.

I've never said that Halo 3 wasn't a good game, but it's embarrassing to MS and the 360 that their franchise game can't even reach the simple programming level of 720p and 30 FPS. This game got several perfect scores. It should at least be rendered at a HD level to receive a perfect score, especially when it's THE game on the 360.

This post has me beyond baffled:

1) MS and Bungie should just admit they screwed the pooch and shouldn't have put 720p on the box if it didn't support 720p. It was a ridiculous thing to do and they should be ashamed they did it. They won't be and that's the way it goes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me stop right there. I believe what I just wrote. It was a stupid thing to do and it was moronic. But. . .

2) Making the jump that the game shoudln't have received perfect scores is asinine. There is so much screwed up with that statement that it'd take me a week to write about it. As a game reviewer, your job is to review the game based off of what it appears to you. Not the hype it gets. Not last years version of the game. Not what resolution the game is in. Not weather or not a game is a flagship game for the console.

The job is to review the game based off what you think of it. NHL '07 was much prettier than NHL2K7. I preferred 2K7 and had I did a review, the scores would have reflected that.

This gaffe by MS shouldn't impact a review score. It should impact them in a PR standpoint. It should be a black eye. But it has nothing to do with the quality of the game they released. If a reviewer were to go back now and change their score to 8.5 because they couldn't tell the differnce between 640p and 720p the first time, I'd cease to read any reviews that individual ever wrote again.

I'm simply stunned you would imply otherwise.

Looks like rumors of a $399 40GB PS3 are getting more intense.

You're stunned that he's taking shots at a MS product?

I'm stunned that you're stunned.

Shenanigans.

Opposites weren't involved.

You know as well as I do exactly why that happened. :)

So why should consumers accept products that aren't what they claim to be? I took a shot at Madden for the PS3 for the same reason. I'm amazed at how many people would rather take a shot at me to avoid addressing the actual topic of discussion. Bungie did the exact same thing, but a lot of sites are calling them out on it since some of their rebuttal is actually inaccurate.

I'm not sure it's even a rumor at this point. The SKU has already been confirmed and most expect the new unit between October 30th and November 16th. It's all but a done deal.

If they would have mentioned it before release, there's no question in my mind that it would have received lower scores. I agree with you that the scores should not be changed retroactively and never said they should. However, where was the similar outrage when a website reviewed Warhawk before release, but then said they would retroactively change the score based on it's price on release. My guess is that you didn't agree with that either, but I thought I'd give you the opportunity to agree that was just as 'asinine'.

You and I both know that most review sites and their methods of scoring are flawed.

Wow, blogging must REALLY be slow this week. :rolleyes:

Obviously you haven't come across the Bungie and Microsoft breakup rumor.

Are you in love with Bill Harris? I like some of the stuff he writes, but seriously why don't you get on your knees and give yourself to him.

LOL

Nope. I don't get all reved up about stuff like this.

I think MS/Bungie deserves some criticism for fudging their claims on their box about their resolution, yes.

But ultimately, who gives a flying fuck? Does the game look good? More importantly, is it fun to play?

I'm 100% with Troy on this one - why should fudging the resolution numbers matter one iota in a review score? The graphics rating is what it is, and whether or not Bungie is lying about the resolution shouldn't mean shit to the reviewer - the game looks like what it looks like, and it shouldn't matter a bit what the actual numbers are.

That is the key thing I'm criticizing you for. If you'd limited your criticism to saying it's sketchy of MS/Bungie to fudge the resolution numbers on the box, I'd agree wholeheartedly. But to extrapolate that into saying that Halo 3's review scores should take a retroactive hit as a result is the height of ridiculousness, and given your history of criticizing MS and trying to pump up Sony it comes across as partisan spitefulness that is completely lacking in credibility.

Don't be too hard on MBBF, he's quite bored with his ps3 and needs something to occupy his time. ;)

So it sounds like we agree on all issues. I've never said anything concerning the gameplay. I've restricted my comments to exactly what you noted, that Bungie failed to disclose that the game was not rendered at 720p. I also never said that the score should be changed retroactively. I noted that there was no outrage when a reviewer implied that a Warhawk score should be change retroactively based on price point, but I agreed with Troy that the score should not be changed retroactively.

I don't see why the actual resolution numbers should affect the review score one iota, retroactively or not. The reviewer that cares more about a number on a paper than what he sees on the screen as far as graphics are concerned is a reviewer who's opinion I don't care about.

The issue here is solely about honesty in marketing.

Speaking of Harris, he makes a good point.

Rock Band is due to come out.. on Black Friday. (ie the Day after Thanksgiving)

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

The only thing that I can compare it to, is if they released a major game system on Black Friday. (costs about the same). They are betting that this will be the big GET THIS gift of the Christmas Season. It won't be Tickle Me Elmo crazy, but if they judged right.. it might be close.

I'll buy that. I'm not sure I totally agree that the reviewer shouldn't be aware of the lacking graphics (which were reported as early as August). But I agree overall that gameplay should be the main focus of the review.

What does it matter what the numbers are? How does knowing that the resolution is 640 and not 720 change what your eyes see?

It's sort of like the audiophile who has gone to countless rock shows and has blown out his ears numerous times trying to convince himself that he hears a difference between vinyl and a CD. He doesn't, but because he knows there's more audio information coming from the vinyl he convinces himself it matters, regardless of whether he can hear it or not.

The graphics are what they are. If they look good to you, who cares what the actual resolution is?

It makes the PS3 a lot more competitive. For an extra $50 that the Premium 360 system, it's an attractive deal.

Is the PS3 online play free?

Best Buy is going to have interactive demos set up for the game.

They didn't need to have it on the D.A.T. for it to be crazy. That'll just add to the chaos.

Yes, and by most accounts you get what you pay for with that service.

Exactly. The game is what you see on the screen. If the graphics are substandard and have an impact on the game, you review it that way. If you are happy enough with the feature set for the game to be a 10, it doesn't matter if a feature got pulled at the end even if it's on the box.

There is a huge difference between bashing MS and Bungie for making a horrific marketing decision and than trying to pretend it really isn't a problem. That's stupid. It's moronic. It's sickening on some levels.

But as sickening as it is, it doesn't change the game itself. If the game looked good enough to get a 9 or a 10 a week ago, it still looks good enough to get a 9 or a 10. If you are going to tell me your review score would be impacted by something like that or that you would steer clear of any game that didn't hit the 720p mark, I have two points for you as a reviewer and consumer:

1) I don't want to read a single review you have, ever.
2) You are really screwing yourself. If you like FPS games, you like Multiplayer and you like the storyline, Halo3 delivers on all counts. If 80p of resolution is going to keep you away from the game, you are cheating yourself as a gamer. To each his/her own. Idiots exist. I realize this.

Couple of new news notes today........

Best Buy leak has confirmed that the new 40 GB PS3 will go on sale October 28th, retailing for $399.99. It will be bundled with the new Spiderman 3 BR movie.........

http://gaming.engadget.com/2007/10/0...d-by-best-buy/


Nintendo is offering free Wii Remote Jackets (limit 4 per person) to those who bought them before they became standard with all Wii Remotes.......

http://slickdeals.net/?pno=10360&lno=1&afsrc=1

I'm not going to make it out to be the be all, end all of online gaming. But I've never had any connection problems with the Sony servers and the online gaming experiences that I've had on Resistance and Warhawk have been clean and lag-free.

Some complain about the match-making process. I'd definitely classify match-making as the weaker part of the PS3 online, though it obviously varies from game to game. The Home software currently in development is reportedly going to help out on that front, but obviously no guarantees until we see it in action. I've personally never had any problems finding my friends to play a match or to join random ranked games.

I agree with you here. The graphics on Halo 3 even in early builds were classified by some as 'Halo 2.5'. Some of the reviews after it went gold noted that issue and marked down the game accordingly. That's exactly how it should work. The technical notes only further give credence to what those reviewers noticed.

Sheesh. FWIW, take a look at the list linked in the thread you found earlier and note that my games are all 720P. Heck, in the online portions of GRAW we didn't even take the scaler shortcut and provided a separate 480P 4x3 HUD setup, no letterboxing or anything.

But I'm just pointing out that I think this is blown WAY out of proportion. Troy's points are the key here. How does the game look to you? Is someone going to take away all of the accolades for CoD 3 all of a sudden because the resolution was only 600P?

How the graphics look is the key. I'm far more concerned about the narrow field of view (which makes the game feel claustrophobic to me) and the short sight distances (unexpected) than I am about a bit of resolution that no one notices unless they run specific analyses. If the game was looking blocky or pixellated or blurry, then you'd have a point.

Sure, maybe they need a "600P" and a "640P" and whatever else on the back of the box, even though it will just confuse the consumer who barely knows what "720P" means. But the reality is it does not affect the final gameplay or look of the game one iota, unlike the Madden 30 FPS thing which clearly did (or more specifically, the 60 FPS clearly played better to a lot of people).

Let me put it another way: The instant you turn on anti-aliasing, you aren't running at whatever resolution you think you are running at. All of a sudden you want things like "1280x720P 4x+9tap GFFX" written on the box for a console game? Do we need to separate out the render target resolution, frame buffer resolution, and final output buffer resolution for you? What if I render my shadows into a low-detail depth buffer, do I need to document that for you, too?

Maybe the best bet is just to have "SD" and "HD" checkboxes, although then everyone will get into a tizzy about what "SD" and "HD" mean.

Basically, I think it's a lot more complex than you think it is, and this is opening up a huge can of worms where developers would be asked to document every piece of their graphics tech to avoid "lying" to consumers, instead of everyone focusing on how well the game looks and plays, which is all that REALLY matters. I can render complete junk to a 1080P buffer, but that doesn't make my game high-def...

I agree with that. We don't need to start to the path of complex data listed on the box. Most would state that 720p rendered should be the baseline of HD. Anything that has to be upconverted to 720p shouldn't be considered HD.

If I'm understanding correctly from the link shown in the blog, some PS3 games have done basically the same thing so I don't think it's fair to come down hard on M$ for this and ignore Sony. But I agree with everyone else, what matters is how it looks to the gamer and from all the reviews and comments I've heard about Halo 3 it is a pretty amazing game. Not my taste, but if I liked those types of games I'd probably pick it up based on what I've heard and seen.

This is where I think you'll get an argument. You don't think that upconverted 640P looks worlds better than 480P SD? What about CoD 3's 600P?

I'd actually make the cutoff at 600P, which is halfway between 480P and 720P. But we're splitting hairs.

The Bungie/Microsoft break-up appears to have been finalized. All Bungie employees have been removed from the Microsoft address book as of this morning. The NDA for Halo 3 expired last night. The official announcement will not be made until after the quarterly results are issued on October 6th.

I have to agree with MBBF on that. While 640P looks tons better than 480P, it doesn't make it HD. The cutoff for HD is already pretty well defined and I don't think it should be manipulated myself.