That's just my opinion concerning setting it at that level. I don't really care all that much as long as there is some kind of standard set for the games. But I doubt that will ever truly happen.

Was this expected and/or amicable?

It sounds like they just wanted the opportunity to increase their profit margin by breaking from MS itself. They also want the opportunity to develop other franchises on other consoles.

I believe that MS still controls the Halo franchise name, but this was supposed to be the final game of the trilogy. Maybe it will be like an 80s horror flick and come back from the dead.......Friday the 13th: Part XII - Jason Kills Even More People.

Not another Final Fantasy-like series! NooooOOOOoo1o!1!!

That's become even more confusing as their are different versions of the same chapter. It would be nice if they mixed up the names a bit more than just using numerics on some of these franchises.

As much bickering as there are at times about the 360 vs the PS3 (and the Wii ;) ) it's the best possible situation for the consumer. There is no way there would be the price drops there have been, or as much of a need to get out quality games asap. So no matter which system comes out on top (and it's way too early to say) everyone from the gamer standpoint wins. None of the systems are going to go belly up, and eventually all the systems will have atleast a dozen games that are in the must own category.

Until the PS3 or the XBOX360 drops to < $299, I will never believe this statement. :)

The Core 360 is below that price point already. Granted, it's "crippleware" since it doesn't have a HDD, but it is a 360 and sub-$300.

By next holiday season, both companies will have a system with HDD at $299 or less. You'll likely be able to get a used console with HDD for even less than that (probably around $250).

Anybody picking up MLB Power Pros this week?

Going to wait to see whether the Wii motion controls are screwed up. If they are, I'll just buy the PS2 version.

Which 360 games don't run on the Core?

Could Bungie going put a nail in Microsoft's ability to compete with the exclusives of PS3?

They all run just fine on the 360. Most people just buy the Premium (also called the Pro version) because it has a HDD drive which allows the multimedia stuff as well as saved games. The memory cards that you have to buy to save games on the Core system are pretty expensive. It's a lot better decision if you're going to buy a 360 to just buy the Pro or Elite systems.

Yeah, that's my fear as well.

More PS3 pricing information being leaked out of France. A price cut is coming there as well. The price in Europe has been confirmed by retailers in France to be 399 Euros. 10 months ago, the retail price at release was at least 700 Euros.

I'm planning on it, although some questionable player ratings and the lack of an editor have dampened my enthusiasm. Success Mode still looks interesting and it does have 10 year franchise mode. There's a big thread on operation sports if you're interested and haven't read it already.

$40 for the Wii version, $30 for PS2 isn't bad either.

So if everything works, what does crippleware mean to you?

Microsoft owns Bungie, so the most likely scenario is that members of Bungie are leaving to form their own company, much like Free Radical split from Rare.

The 20 GB PS3 was "crippleware" too. Hence the reason it's no longer being offered, despite being $100 cheaper than the $600 60 GB PS3 at launch. No one wanted it because the slightly reduced price did not justify the small HDD, lack of wifi, etc. When the value gap is much larger than the price variance between the two versions, I consider it "crippleware".

So, the 360 Premium ($350 system) has the HD-DVD drive?

More info off www.avsforum.com from a Aussie retailer. Interesting thing is that he says that the release date is October 12th. I'm thinking this may be a mistake in reference to the 'Big Bang' announcement that's already announce for that date. I'd guess that the release will be in late October with every other region.........

No, it doesn't.

No. That runs another $160 or so depending on where you buy it. If you want a system to play HD movies in addition to gaming, the new PS3 at $399 is the better option. Your previous posts had suggested you wanted a gaming-only machine.

I'll be going with the 360. I just was a little confused by your previous post of the HDD drive in the Premium system.

HDD = Hard Disk Drive

Just a FYI....make sure you have a wired ethernet connection available near your TV if you're going to play online.

I'm not saying that Sony's online service is bad, just that most independent reviewers looking at both system's online experience comment that Xbox Live is worth plunking down the $50/year.

Given that Core sales make up a small percentage of overall 360 sales, Core units can be upgraded with hard drives and the perception that the Core is being phased-out, it wouldn't shock me at all if, over the next couple of years, you start seeing games put out for the 360 that require a hard drive.

Hell, it sometimes can be found for 40 bucks for 13 months. I mean, that's a bangin deal no matter what, 3 bucks per month is nothin'.

Yeah. I misread that. I'm having one of those days.

What about with a wireless setup?

I won't be picking up a system until around the holidays. NHL 2008 is at the top of my list, along with 2k hoops franchises close behind.

I really didn't notice that the 360 has a competitor to GT series in Forza. I've assume that PG was the direct competitor. A good game, but I was hoping for the depth and simulation-style type game. Have the 360 developers adopted the high dynamic range imaging for the games?

The Pro 360 is ethernet connection only. Wireless kit on the 360 is another $90-100 depending on where you buy it.

But you don't have to use the MS adapter. My $35 D-Link wireless bridge works just fine.

Forza 2 is a damn fun game and a pretty respectable racing sim. The variety of customizing options available to you, as well as the numerous challenges with ever-increasing difficulty of restrictions gives the game a lot of depth IMO.

more PS3 pricing leaking out of Japan. Hirogoto-san, proprietor of a gaming store in the Saitama Prefect near Tokyo, inadvertently put a price of 44,699 yen on the 60GB PS3. When he realized that the price should have been 49,600 yen, he committed ritual seppuku to atone for the shame he brought on Sony and gaming in general.

Finally, someone doing the right thing.

I just don't agree at all. Unless you have infinite money, this is not the idea situation. Most people can't afford to support 2 but definitely not 3 consoles. So, while individual consoles are going down, game prices aren't since it's a oligopoly, and the cost to support all the good games + consoles is actually higher than what I consider the better scenario of 2 consoles.

SI

Full edit mode CONFIRMED, fuck yeah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpnhpB2OvMs

Hopefully I can find this tomorrow but the gaming stores in my area aren't the best for getting games on the shelves quickly and I doubt I'll feel like driving 45 minutes to the next town after work so we'll see.

Wii version definatly supports Gamecube controller and I'm pretty sure the classic controller as well for those of you afraid of waggle.

I'll prolly pick it up at some point after I pick up a system. I was just wondering how well it works.

I have PG on the original Xbox and played a little of the lastest release of the PG on the 360. Beautiful game and fun. However, I've always been looking for a racing game that "career" mode similar to the GT series and a simulation-style game with the graphics to match.

Well, Forza 2 is a career game and it's far more of a sim than the PG series. It's the closest thing you're going to find to GT on the 360.

Epic initially announced that UT3 would be delayed until 2008, but then Marc Rein's comments were later removed from the official website. It appears that it may still come out before the end of 2007 now. One silver lining is that Epic will use the extra time to include all maps in the PS3 version. Earlier comments had suggested that two maps that are on the PC version would be left out of the PS3 version, but that is no longer the case.


Sony is now saying that there will not be a 'Big Bang' announcement on October 12th. Suspicion is that since the cat is already out of the bag, no need to bother announcing something that everyone already knows. A German retailer has also confirmed a 399 euro price point for release in that country.

Forza has damaging modeling as well, correct? That's one thing missing from the GT series that is sorely needed. It's supposed to be in GT5 (not Prologue) when it comes out later next year, but I'll believe it when I see it.

MS appears to be replacing the Core System. New unit will be same price and still have no HDD, but it will have some XBL Arcade games pre-loaded and may have HDMI. Release date is October 25th.

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/14700/...ment-UPDATED-/

Sweet, full on motion control on a baseball game would get boring and tiring after awhile anyways. Home run derby, yeah, it'd be cool there. But to have to pitch a double header, not so much.

I think I'll probably just pick up the cheaper PS2 version. Sounds like there's not much difference between the two versions other than motion control and I'd likely abandon that after a few games anyway.

PS3 price drop may be coming next week. Confirmation that the 40 GB PS3 will go on sale October 10th in Italy for 399 euros. A starter pack with 2 games included will also be available for 499 euros.

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/28423/PS3-...-last-in-Italy

Australia release date of October 11th for $699 AUD appears to be true as well.......

http://kotaku.com/gaming/99%278%25-c...699-306427.php

On the assumption that most people with a Wii will have Gamecube controllers, I think that it might make sense for some games to just port over without bothering to include motion controls.

For instance, I can't see how a basketball game would be enhanced by motion controls. For a game like that, I say make it for the 360/PS3 and then port it over to the Wii with lesser graphics and just use the Gamecube controller.

People who care about cutting edge graphics will have a 360/PS3. People who got a Wii don't care as much. But, with a minimum of work, you might be able to sell them a copy of your game with lesser graphics but the same gameplay. They got a Wii for the kids/other reasons. But they might pick up NBA 2K8 with Gamecube controls if you give them that chance.

The worst of all worlds would seem to be a port that trys to force the motion controls on a game that does not need/would not be helped by them. And to do even that badly.

So are the NBA Live 08 commercials featuring the PS3, PS2, and PSP Sony's response to the Xbox 360 Madden commercials? Gee, I wonder who will end up getting the better of that deal.

But my guess is that most Wii owners own a PS2 and would likely buy the game on that console instead if there was no motion control. I think the Wii games are in a position where they have to add on the motion controls if they have a PS2 version. It's what differentiates their products as a selling point.

I don't think every Wii game needs motion controls at all. Paper Mario barely uses motion controls and not in a way that really enhances gameplay.

And Super Paper Mario was a good game, I'm glad they didn't feel the need to tack on motion controls for the sake of it.

XBox 360 can do 720p graphics but they didn't feel the need to have that in Halo 3, and people still seem to enjoy that game as well.

I'm not sure that's the justification route you want to use. Bungie's taking some pretty heavy fire over that. Now had they told people in advance of the release date that it was upscaled and not 720p, there probably wouldn't have been any issues, but that wasn't what happened.

There was no deception involved in the Paper Mario release.

That was a light-hearted dig at the 640p controversy.

From what I've read on neogaf the 40 GB might not have backwards compatibility. My PS2 still works even if I have to open it up to clean up the disc reading laser thing from time to time but I was curious to see some games upscaled. But I haven't played the PS2 in months so it shouldn't be that big a deal anyway. It will have WiFi, so if Sony doesn't take out the HDMI port I might end up getting a 40 GB anyhow. NBA2k8 looks pretty sweet and maybe I could find a used NCAA 08 on the cheap, plus Ratchet and Clank looks good. Not much else on the horizon until MGS4 and Little Big Planet next year though for me.

It will have backwards compatibility at some level, but it's just not clear how much at this point. I'm sure it will become more clear next week since it appears that it will be out in Europe by then. Someone will look under the hood and figure it out.

Uncharted and Ratchet & Clank are the ones I'm looking forward to. Wife will likely pick up Singstar as well.

Are you trying to claim that the graphics of the PS2 are comparable to those on the Wii?

I'm not saying the Wii is a 360 or PS3, but come on...

No, but a lot of Wii owners don't own Gamecube controllers and haven't purchased the 'Classic' controller. In that case, they're more likely to buy the PS2 version. The controller is solid and the game is cheaper than the Wii version in nearly all cases.

As far as the graphics, they're a minor upgrade over the PS2. We're talking 480i vs. 480p. No one plays the Wii because it has improved graphics over the PS2. They play it because of motion control and the Nintendo franchise titles.

They are for a lot of 3rd party titles. Sadly, the Wii version of a title has been a port of the PS2 version. Kind of lazy.

On the whole, though, no. The Wii has much better graphic capabilities than the PS2. The resolution is better and more color depth, polygons, and effects can be acheived with the better hardware.

They have taken so much heat, they shattered sales records around the world.

480i over 480p? That's the only difference? That's like saying the NES and the N64 had the same graphics because they both rendered to 480i.

Look, the PS2 has lesser graphics than the XBox, which has lesser graphics than the Wii.

As for graphics on ports, I can't argue with that because I have never compared a Wii game directly to its PS2 counterpart.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. As someone mentioned earlier, the only difference in resolution is interlaced vs. non-interlaced. According to this http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/level...-beyond3d.aspx, the Wii is basically a Gamecube running at 1.5X the speed.

As was mentioned in the post you quoted, there are a lot of complaints because they claimed one thing in regards to their product when it was another. Most of those sales were made on reputation alone. They don't justify at all what Bungie did. Luke Smith is getting hammered by the media and gaming community for his response that was even inaccurate at certain points. It's a good way to hurt your reputation in future releases. It's all MS's problem in the future as they and not Bungie will be developing any future Halo releases.

Madden fans have pointed to sales numbers as justification when the lack of innovation and the failure to properly test for bugs was brought up in regards to that series. EA has since sustained double digit losses in Madden sales the past two years over all consoles and is trying to find the best way to explain to investors how they're going to right the ship and avoid a similar drop next year. All those self-congratulatory press releases from EA about more Madden sales then ever before? You haven't seen any of those from the past two releases.

The difference is noone cares about this but a tiny minority. 90% of the people playing HALO 3 have no clue this is even an issue.

Like I said, Madden fans thought the exact same thing.

Speaking of Madden, has anyone noticed the 'Money Plays' video that was released on XBL by EA? Nothing like a developer openly offering up ways to cheat the system to win games. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

We will have to agree to disagree. Madden has gotten worse and worse. Halo 3 is still a great game. Madden was released with major flaws a few years in a row.

Different circumstances. Not to mention, this is the last Halo to be released.

For the record I can't stand Halo 3 or any shooter on a console. I use consoles for sports games only. All my shooters are on the PC.

It's probably closer to 100%.

New weekly sales number in from Japan. PSP continues to sell very well. 360 got a boost of about 4,000 units sold from the Halo release (sold 61,000 games). PS3 needs a boost, likely to come from a price cut though none has been leaked in Japan thus far. Wii continues to sell very low numbers compared to it's 75-80K average during the spring and summer months.

Don't be so sure of that. With Bungie apparently moving on, I'd be shocked if Microsoft didn't find a way to keep this series alive.

I doubt that, but we're dealing in hypotheticals.

Let's assume that MS decides to release Halo 4, 5, and 6. What is going to be the first question asked in the developer interviews?

"Do you all have this game running at 720p now?"

If they're smart, they'll make sure to have it rendered at 720p for all future versions. Why? So they avoid the backlash that they received this time. If so, mission accomplished for those that complained about that. Also, this will hopefully scare some of the developers of other games to make sure they take care of business and render their games in 720p or higher to avoid similar negative press. It's a good thing for the gaming community in general. These kinds of things shouldn't be allowed if gamers are expected to spend $60 on a game with no way of returning it if it has faults.

With the 720p, I'll have to make sure I get right specs when HDTV's get even cheaper in the next year or two.

Do you have the US numbers? I'm curious to see if the PS3 is still below 15% of the next-gen market here.

Yep, damage is in, both visually and in gameplay.

If that's the first question asked in the interview, that's a magazine I will no longer give a shit about.

You either don't get it, or you are trying to push an agenda. You say there's a big backlash, but the vast majority of people buying the game don't even know about this "issue". For them, as it should be for most people, the critical questions are:

- Is the game fun?
- Does it look good?
- Do the graphics enhance the gameplay, or are there issues with the graphics that hurt gameplay?
- Is it better than the previous 2?

You try to compare the fudging of the resolution of the game on the packaging with the difference in frame rate in Madden between the 360 and PS3 SKU's, but there's no comparison - in the case of Halo 3, the slightly lower resolution has next to no impact on gameplay, whereas the framerate issue on the Madden PS3 SKU has a much greater impact on gameplay.

Dola - can one of the mods acknowledge the obvious and change Mizzou B-Ball Fan's handle to "Sony PS3 Viral PR Guy"?

I nearly offered to buy VBulletin for WOOF if SkyDog would just do this one thing :D

Which means it is a better resolution. 480p is a better resolution than 480i



That is just plain wrong.

720p is the new 32-bit

No it isn't. 480i is 30 Hz, 480P is 60 Hz. Both are the exact same resolution, one just updates more often...

Even if the Wii is only 1.5 Gamecubes (in terms of processor speed, it also has more memory...), the Gamecube itself was quite a bit more powerful than the PS2, check Resident Evil 4 screenshots side by side if you don't believe it. So the only reason some Wii games look like their PS2 counterparts in certain cases are laziness.

I'm pretty sure Metroid Prime 3 is the only Wii game released so far which couldn't be done graphically on the Gamecube. Super Mario Galaxy looks absolutely gorgeous if anyone has watched videos of that game, it will set the bar as far as Wii graphics are concerned. Smash Brothers looks pretty damn good as well. Although I must say graphics don't really affect my enjoyment of a game a whole lot, gameplay is king.

After going to five different stores I finally found a copy of MLB Power Pros at a GameStop (no you jackass I do not want to preorder anything :mad: ), I've played two games so far and the game is a lot of fun while playing a realistic type of baseball. I'm still trying to get used to the baserunning controls and might need to up the difficulty level for hitting, but the game is a blast so far. One thing though, unless you are in Homerun derby or one other specific mode, there is no Wiimote swinging on offense nor are motion controls used for pitching and defense, you use the analog stick to aim the cursor for hitting and pitching. This could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective. I'll delve into either Season Mode or Success Mode later tonight or tomorrow after doing a bit of roster editing.

Yep, they are both 480 lines, just 480p redraws the whole screen each pass, while 480i redraws every other line each pass.

which makes it better

(call it refresh rate, whatever, I don't care. The point is 480p is better than 480i)

Youre severely underestimating the pickiness of the consumer base - a base which is currently trashing games like NBA2k8 because they don't have the right socks on the players. It's still going to sell, and that's the only critical question Microsoft gives a shit about but, if this were a PS3 issue people in this thread would be up in arms about how 'Sony dropped the ball again'.

I used to hate when I was at my buddy's house and we'd turn on an HD channel and it's rendering in 720p when it could be in 1080i. I was like "they're screwing us out of, like, 360 lines for fuck's sake!". But then my buddy told me that 720p refreshes twice as fast, so it's really like 1440i, and that changed everything! Once I started looking at the screen closer it was like the image quality just doubled in awesomeness.

It was the same when I got my Atari Jaguar. All my lame friends had Playstation's, but I had twice as much fun. How could they even play those lame 32-bit systems when they could have been seeing twice as many bits?! Some people just don't get it.

That was great. :D

Looks like the street date has already been busted for the 40 GB PS3. Got a website already selling it...........

http://www.sedicifilm.it/scheda_gioc...0gb(ps3)_2249/

No one knows about it? It's been discussed on every gaming site and message board in existence. If you sincerely believe that, you don't have an accurate picture of the console market at all. It is a big deal. It goes to a level of trust for the consumer in the product that they are buying. That's very important whether you'd like to admit it or not.

99% of customers have never read a gaming site/message board.

IGN alone has 28 million unique users on its website. That's just one gaming site. I am involved with another multiplatform gaming website that has around 7 million unique users. Your statement is without basis and totally incorrect. Anyone who believes that gaming message boards and websites aren't a major factor in the industry perception of games and consoles is just blowing smoke.

I'd love to see IGN or your site prove that claim..

Hey, even I'll admit I was wrong. The 28 million unique users was in 2005. The number is likely much higher at this point.

http://corp.ign.com/articles/648/648836p1.html

Not really - I'd make the same point if it were a PS3 game, which is this - ultimately, what does it really matter if the resolution is a little less than 720? What you see is what you see - if you like the graphics, why should knowing that it's rendering at less than 720 bother you? If you think the graphics are only OK, then you at least have something to latch onto in wondering why, but it still ultimately comes down to whether you like what you see, and whatever the actual rendering numbers are is moot. I mean, who is so hung up on numbers that they'd let that information overrule what their eyes are telling them?

And comparing that to pickiness over the right socks on players is apples and oranges.

The only reason to get bothered by this issue is just the issue of trusting the printed specs on the case. Beyond that, all a consumer needs to do is just watch a bit of the game in action and decide whether the slightly lower resolution actually results in what they consider disappointing graphics.

Let's take your IGN example. Yeah, many gamers read IGN, but many of those readers don't spend much time anywhere other than the reviews, previews and editor's choice sections, with maybe a little news section thrown-in.

Can you point out where in any of those spots on the IGN 360 site they mention this issue?

Sure, the hardcore gamers that browse all the gaming websites and read a bunch of forums are probably aware of the issue, but any of them that have half a clue realize this issue is strictly about truth in advertising on the box, and they'll judge the merits of the graphics and gameplay off what they see and not what some spec tells them.

Have you come across anyone that's bought Halo 3 and said "Gee, I thought the graphics were pretty good until I read about this resolution issue - I guess my eyes were wrong! Damn you Microsoft/Bungie! I want my money back!"

So it sounds like it was no big deal then, right? If so, why did Bungie cover up the true resolution of the game until after the game was already out and sold? Why did they not openly state, "Listen, we didn't quite reach 720p like most games on next-gen machines, but the game still is a great game and fun to play." Why did they wait until their hand was forced and then allow their PR man to make a half-assed rebuttal (which was almost more embarrassing to some extent)?

Answer: Because they know the negative buzz that this would have created if Microsoft's franchise game didn't reach the technical specs that should be expected of the biggest franchise on the console. They would have been hammered by the media.

People who spent $600 on a 'graphically superior' gaming console and refuse to admit it may have been the wrong choice?

Once again, these situations do have a big effect on the perceptions of companies and the quality of their products. I do know multiple people who are not happy with the fact that Bungie sold their game short in the graphics department and your comment about getting their money back is ludicrous. This is an industry that encourages this kind of corporate behavior because there is no way to return a product for unfulfilled requirements/bugs. While it certainly won't hurt sales in this version, there are some trust issues that are going to stick with this company in future game releases. If you don't believe that, there's not much more to discuss. I'll politely agree to disagree.

Companies make dumb PR decisions all the time (does the name "Sony" ring a bell?)

Microsoft and Bungie made a dumb decision not to correctly ID the game resolution in the game specs. Would there have been some raised eyebrows in the gaming press? Yep. But ultimately, all but the most anti-MS or worthlessly inept game reviewers would've judged the graphics in the game not by whatever the specs were, but by how it looked and played, and in the end it probably would've been even less news than covering it up and being discovered has turned out to be.

I admire your attempts to make this into a bigger issue than it is, but most gamers are smart enough to know that what matters is how the game plays and looks, not whether there was a small discrepancy on the technical specs listed on the box.

If you honestly believe that fudging the technical specs on the box is more important than how the game actually plays and looks, then yeah - there's nothing more to discuss.

If someone is dissatisfied with the graphics or the gameplay of Halo 3 after playing it, that's one thing, and that's a completely legitimate response. If they became dissatisfied with the game only after finding out the specs on the box are not correct, that's quite another.

I have no problem with the gaming media making a stink about fudging the specs on the box, but it shouldn't affect their review of the game.

Here's another way to frame this Halo 3 issue:

How many people that bought the game with the false 720 pixel resolution printed on the box wouldn't have bought it had the correct 640 pixel resolution been printed on it instead? I feel pretty comfortable in saying that this number would extremely close to 0.

Read gstelmack's response earlier in this thread - the importance of these specs on the box cover is quite limited, especially considering how most people buying the game have next to no understanding of all the variables involved in the actual rendering of the game. It's not exactly the same as all the overblown hype about whether older video game consoles were "16 bit" vs. "32 bit", but it's close.

You can be upset that Microsoft lied about what they put on the box and feel like you lose some trust in Bungie, but let's keep some perspective on the level of fudging here; to put in very roughly similar audio terms, it's not like advertising something as being mixed with 6 channels of surround sound when in actuality it's mono; it's more like advertising it has 6 channels but it really only has 5.

And yes, most consumers have next to no idea about this hullaballoo - unless you read a lot of gaming sites beyond simply the review and preview sections at least weekly, you probably don't even know about this whole deal. Maybe some sites will amend their reviews of Halo 3 to note this issue, but if they do I would suspect most will either say "We liked the graphics before, so this is a non-issue" or "We were a little disappointed with the graphics, and this could be why".

It'd probably be something that says it has 7.1 channel sound, but actually only has 5.1 sound and simulates the other two channels. Who fucking cares?

Reports on n4g.com and 1up.com that there are Halo 3 Special Edition consoles that are getting the RROD only 1 week after release. The unit shown has the 65nm chip and extra heat sink.

Post on n4g.com:

http://n4g.com/xbox360/News-71365.aspx

Picture of RROD on Halo 3 console:

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8135/dsc03163pc6.jpg