Sony PS3 to be delayed to 07, and Cost $900 to make?

[dervack]

WVUFAN, what are you talking about this free sony online component. As far as I know, Sony has not said exactly what that will entail, but the rumor is that it will be the same as the Xbox silver package, which is free also. If you're referring to the fact that it has a wireless internet connection, then that's something else, which I have no interest in, but can see why someone else might.

[SackAttack]

With respect to Troy's post, it has been confirmed that the $600 PS3 will not ship with HDMI cables. I don't know precisely what it WILL ship with - the Xbox 360 premium, remember, has the component cables for high definition - but while the premium PS3 will support HDMI, you'll have to buy that cable separately.

The rest of that post may have been hyperbole; I certainly haven't seen anything about the other items listed (and after reading the post, in light of the day's news, I did check).

Now, as to WVUFAN:

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

HD-DVD drive, according to what I read (and I don't remember where I read it, so I could be wrong) will be $200 bucks.

That meshes with what I've been told.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

So -- and we're talking about a comparison between the packages, roughly equal bang for the buck:

PS3 -- Blu-Ray Drive, 60G HD, wireless Net out of box for free -- $600
360 -- DVD-HD Drive, 30G HD, Internet "capable" with fee -- $600

The wireless internet connectivity for PS3 is a definite value-add. On the other hand, the 360 online fee only applies if you're actually playing games, and unless Sony chooses to rely on an advertising backbone, the PS3 service will be universally free when pigs fly out my ass whistling Dixie.

I think it's far more likely, as has been speculated elsewhere, that the list of features announced in May when they said 'free' is basically just equivalent to Xbox Live Silver, and that actual pricing for the 'Gold' version of their service is TBA.

So there's a little bit of give-and-take there. It's not quite as clear-cut as it appears.

And, to be fair, if we're going to compare the Blu-ray and HD-DVD drives in a cost comparison of the systems and functionality, don't forget the whole ICT bit with Blu-ray and HDMI. At some point, what you're looking at is a requirement that you own an HDMI TV set in order to avoid degradation of video quality with BD movies. That's not a factor with HD-DVD or DVD9.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Yes, it may be optional, but in order to truly compare features, you have to include the DVDHD drive. Personally, I care for the Blu-Ray not because of the movies, but because of the space it has for games. A game being produced on a Blu-Ray disk will have FAR more space for content than any 360 game. This will make the difference -- not now, but 7 months from release when the first Blu-Ray games come out, and there won't be a comparable port for the 360 due to space limitations.

You know what I'm thinking about right now?

Back in the day, on Super Nintendo, SquareSoft had some pretty good RPGs. When they jumped ship to start exclusively producing games for PlayStation, they discovered this wonderful, 600 MB capacity that PS1 games had, and suddenly, we had RPGs with amazing ten-minute cutscenes in battle.

I think saying that we'll see a difference in 7 months is drastically overestimating the likely early impact of Blu-ray. Three years from now, on the other hand, I could certainly see that being true.

On a tangent, some of those very same SquareSoft games ended up getting 3-disc and 4-disc release treatments. Blu-ray certainly has a capacity edge, but nothing is stopping developers from spanning games on multiple discs if they really want to serve the Xbox 360 market.

I don't deny that the added capacity is a point in Sony's favor here, but I don't see it being a decisive advantage any time in the near future, and it won't be a decisive advantage if they can't bring their market clout to bear, either.

That's why today's news has to be a concern. They've royally pissed off at least a portion of the European market. I know the PAL territories are often overlooked, but remember that at one time in the late '80s/early '90s, Nintendo saw Europe as having the potential to generate more revenue than either the American or Japanese markets.

In addition, they're shortselling Japan in a big way, which is something of a high risk/high reward scenario. It allows them to better serve the American and Canadian markets (Mexico apparently gets the shaft until next year), although the difference between 250k and 400k is really negligible in the long run. They're writing off Japan until '07, essentially, so as not to lose North America. As a result, One of three things happens there:

1) Nintendo expands the market in a way that makes Sony's ultimate decision there irrelevant to Sony's ultimate success. They will get whatever they would have gotten, and Nintendo doesn't impact them one way or the other.

2) Nintendo performs as above, but ALSO scavenges a significant portion of would-be PS3 early-adopters because, well, they're available and Sony ain't. The loss in momentum hurts them enough that they eventually finish a distant global second to Nintendo, just because, well, 360 hasn't done that well in Japan.

3) PS3 goes over like a ton of bricks, and Xbox 360's sales pick up as PS3 defectors "pull a Kodos," as it were. (Sorry, Kodos!) Sony ends up finishing third, and Microsoft and Nintendo battle it out for the generational sales crown.

I've listed the possibilities in order of what I think most likely to least likely. It will be interesting to watch.

I just think people are jumping the gun here. There are far too many M$ fans on this board, and they don't figure in the popularity of the Sony systems.

I agree that the conventional wisdom of FOFC doesn't necessarily translate into what the market as a whole will think, but you've got a product that, whether or not the price represents a *value*, is still 50% more expensive than the competition. You can rationalize the price, and even build a reasonable case, but you have to convince the consumer to accept your argument instead of going with the visceral "Oh, HELL no" reaction to the price.

In Europe, you not only have to convince the public that your product is a value despite having the highest prices on the planet, but that somehow telling them "No PS3 for YOU. Come back next year!" actually isn't a reason to buy from the competition instead.

You have to convince the skeptics that a reduction from 2 million to 500k on launch day isn't the gaming equivalent of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and more importantly, that you WILL be able to deliver another 1.5m by year's end and something approaching your stated 6m goal by the end of FY '07.

That's a really, really tall order from a marketing standpoint. You're going up against one competitor with ridiculous buzz (although they really aren't targeting the same market you are), and another competitor who has product oozing from their pores, a ridiculously strong lineup of fall games, and a year's head start in the market.

Sony can do it, but if they wind up the #1 in this generation, this will be the mother of all "back from the dead" stories.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Did you feel the same way when the PS2 had DVD technology? This is much the same creature. Would you rather have paid 300 for the PS2 and an extra 200 for the DVD drive, or get the whole thing in one package and not have to upgrade?

It's not the same at all. Back then, the DVD player had been out for several years and was the accepted standard. So having a DVD player was a definite advantage. WIth Blu-Ray, there has been no customer acceptance so far, and the general feeling is that DVD is fine for now. People do not feel that they NEED Blu-Ray. So the $200 extra is more of an inconvenience rather than a bonus.

If Blu-Ray becomes the standard in a few years it may change the argument altogether, but for now, Sony is charging us a LOT more money out of the box to push a solution on us that could very well be the next UMD. And we all know how well that format is doing, right?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Not really. When the PS2 came out, there were lots of games that were being released on multiple CDs for the PC and PS. There was a large demand for a media that could hold a lot of content on one disk. That's not the case here. I have not seen a single game for any system, including the PC, that needed more than what one DVD provides. And I'd wager that the vast majority of games out there don't even come close to reaching the space limitations of a DVD. There's just no demand for a larger media right now, nor will there be for quite some time. I'm sure the developers/publishers of Blu-Ray games for the PS3 will fill it with "something", but I doubt it will be anything meaningful or that will enhance the gaming experience.

Besides all of that, DVD was an accepted technology when the PS2 came out. I belive there is literally ONE other Blu-Ray player in existence right now. There is a battle between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD to be the technolgoy of the future. The cost of having Blu-Ray in the machine will never be higher than it is righ tnow. DVD was at a steady-state for cost when the PS2 came out.

These are entirely different beasts.

[Bee]

Not to mention that the PS3 eats small children if they get too close.

[Kodos]

Playstation and EA, two products that I had a strong affinity for in the past, have both pissed me off in the last year or two. Right now I am happy with my 360, and I have not bought Madden, which I have bought every year for the last decade and a half.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Playstation and EA, two products that I had a strong affinity for in the past, have both pissed me off in the last year or two. Right now I am happy with my 360, and I have not bought Madden, which I have bought every year for the last decade and a half.

This is so far the first year of Madden that I have not bought.

Ever.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Not really. When the PS2 came out, there were lots of games that were being released on multiple CDs for the PC and PS. There was a large demand for a media that could hold a lot of content on one disk. That's not the case here. I have not seen a single game for any system, including the PC, that needed more than what one DVD provides. And I'd wager that the vast majority of games out there don't even come close to reaching the space limitations of a DVD. There's just no demand for a larger media right now, nor will there be for quite some time. I'm sure the developers/publishers of Blu-Ray games for the PS3 will fill it with "something", but I doubt it will be anything meaningful or that will enhance the gaming experience.

The above is a statement that is devoid of any actual basis of truth. Several developers have already reported that they are happy with the extra space on the disk that Blu-Ray allows. It does allow room for extra textures that the 360 discs simply can't hold. It also appears to be having an effect on the end product as some of the development PS3 games already have better texturing in the game than their 360 counterparts. IGN and Gamespot have been posting some comparison shots on some of the games and there is a difference.

The only games that aren't showing some improvement on the PS3 are the EA games. The reason for that is that EA develops their games for the lowest common denominator and then just ports to the other systems to save costs. While it saves EA some money, it's one of the reasons (along with their lack of adding value to each successive release) that I don't buy EA games.

I'm not going to go to bat for Sony as far as the release stuff goes, but to just say things that simply aren't accurate is a bit silly IMO.

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

when pigs fly out my ass whistling Dixie.

Screw you get your own talent!

Originally Posted by Kodos

Playstation and EA, two products that I had a strong affinity for in the past, have both pissed me off in the last year or two. Right now I am happy with my 360, and I have not bought Madden, which I have bought every year for the last decade and a half.

The thing is as I posted in the madden thread that even with all the low level complaints about the game people still bought it in droves. Seriously, I think EA could put out a game with a madden title screen then a blue screen of death and it would sell.

This brings me to the PS3. I used to think sony was going to be in trouble here. The delay, the price, the potential lack of units shipped. These things SHOULD cause problems for them. But until proven otherwise I think they are going to be fine. They just have too big of a name and too many loyal followers for people to pass on this. They may lose your money and TroyF's money but in the grand scheme I just don't see them losing their hard core followers.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The above is a statement that is devoid of any actual basis of truth.

So when the PS2 came out, games didn't typically come out on several CDs? Are there games that come out on several DVDs right now?

Several developers have already reported that they are happy with the extra space on the disk that Blu-Ray allows.

I didn't say they wouldn't be HAPPY with a lot more space to throw on a bunch of stuff, I said there's no DEMAND for it. If there were, games would typically be coming out on 2-4 DVDs right now.

IGN and Gamespot have been posting some comparison shots on some of the games and there is a difference.

I've seen comparison shots of F.E.A.R. and Call For Duty 3, and the only difference I saw was that the XBox 360 shots for F.E.A.R. looked better. Besides, every game looks amazing in screenshots, making it look amazing while someone is actually playing is a much harder thing. If I had a nickel for every game that looked breathetaking in screenshots, but then just looked like every other game when I played it, I'd have enough to buy a PS3 at launch!

I'm not going to go to bat for Sony as far as the release stuff goes, but to just say things that simply aren't accurate is a bit silly IMO.

And as soon as you can show a fact I stated isn't accurate, I'll take it back.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sabotai

And as soon as you can show a fact I stated isn't accurate, I'll take it back.

I'm pretty sure I could post a book of absolute truths and you'd still deny their existance.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm pretty sure I could post a book of absolute truths and you'd still deny their existance.

Hahahaha. Ok, I know what kind of forum member you are now. Nice gimmick.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Hahahaha. Ok, I know what kind of forum member you are now. Nice gimmick.

I wish I had a clue what you're talking about, but I don't.

[dervack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I wish I had a clue what you're talking about, but I don't.

I'm sure if he spelled it out for you, you still wouldn't have a clue on what he's talking about.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The above is a statement that is devoid of any actual basis of truth. Several developers have already reported that they are happy with the extra space on the disk that Blu-Ray allows. It does allow room for extra textures that the 360 discs simply can't hold.

They may be happier with extra space, but it doesn't have anything to do with "extra textures" - when you look at anything in a game on-screen, the only space consideration that matters is RAM. Doesn't matter how big the disk is that the info originally came from - you're looking at what is currently loaded into RAM. Access speeds from RAM are much faster than streaming off a DVD or a hard drive - you can stream info, but essentially it's for loading stuff way off in the distance.

With a Blu-Ray disk, you could store more total textures for a game than a standard DVD, but you wouldn't see any more on your screen at any one time.

It also appears to be having an effect on the end product as some of the development PS3 games already have better texturing in the game than their 360 counterparts. IGN and Gamespot have been posting some comparison shots on some of the games and there is a difference.

If there are improvements in the texturing on PS3 games over 360 games, it's not because of Blu-Ray - it's because of hardware (GPU, RAM, etc.).

The only games that aren't showing some improvement on the PS3 are the EA games. The reason for that is that EA develops their games for the lowest common denominator and then just ports to the other systems to save costs. While it saves EA some money, it's one of the reasons (along with their lack of adding value to each successive release) that I don't buy EA games.

Not entirely true. For one thing, most publishers publish on multiple SKU's, and they develop for the lowest common denominator; many will spend a bit of time polishing the SKU's for the superior hardware to take advantage of the potential graphical upgrades (generally superior texturing and lighting). EA does this as well - their sports games on the Xbox usually had some improvements over their PS2 cousins. Not much, but some.

I'm not going to go to bat for Sony as far as the release stuff goes, but to just say things that simply aren't accurate is a bit silly IMO.

So far, you haven't been batting 1.000 on accuracy either.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

Screw you get your own talent!



The thing is as I posted in the madden thread that even with all the low level complaints about the game people still bought it in droves. Seriously, I think EA could put out a game with a madden title screen then a blue screen of death and it would sell.

This brings me to the PS3. I used to think sony was going to be in trouble here. The delay, the price, the potential lack of units shipped. These things SHOULD cause problems for them. But until proven otherwise I think they are going to be fine. They just have too big of a name and too many loyal followers for people to pass on this. They may lose your money and TroyF's money but in the grand scheme I just don't see them losing their hard core followers.

Ill be buying PS3...for all the shit people talk about sony, all my friends who had x-box wish they had gotten PS2, and the ones who have 360 think it was a waste of money. Everyone, even the 360 owners, come over to my place to play PS2 regularly. Sony just has a better library, which to me matters far more then who has more pixels or if some kids in ohio didnt get the PS2 at launch and had to wait a few weeks...

Just like sony had to earn my money away from ninetendo(i never bought the first playstation, i played the hell out of N64), X-box has to earn my money away from sony. And from what i have seen/heared, they have done jack shit to earn it. All they decided to do was come out a year early with their new system so they could steal profits from sony with a list of games that isnt exactly blowing most people away..

No offense to you who like 360, and i dont want some argument. These are just my views.

[Kodos]

I've been a Playstation first guy the last 2 generations, but I am loving my Xbox 360. I am positive I will get PS3, but not until prices come down a lot.

[Noop]

XBox360 doesn't have enough RPG's(think FF7) I really dislike first person shooters and Halo is just trash imo. Hitman is the only non-sports game I play... the rest of the games are trash. I have money saved to buy a PS3 and some games because Sony makes great games. While MS makes FPS where you go online to listen to some crazy mofo's yelling and shit. Sorry but as it stands XBOX360 is fucking wack...

Also that dirty disc error....

[Kodos]

You just don't like the 360 because it's white.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Kodos

You just don't like the 360 because it's white.

omfg. I don't know if I've ever laughed at something on FOFC as much as I did this post.

[MikeVic]

The focus on FPS games is one of the reasons I don't have a 360. I really hate FPSs on consoles, and it seems like the 360's main attraction are these types of games...

[MizzouRah]

Since my 360, I haven't touched my ps2.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Ill be buying PS3...for all the shit people talk about sony, all my friends who had x-box wish they had gotten PS2, and the ones who have 360 think it was a waste of money. Everyone, even the 360 owners, come over to my place to play PS2 regularly. Sony just has a better library, which to me matters far more then who has more pixels or if some kids in ohio didnt get the PS2 at launch and had to wait a few weeks...

Just like sony had to earn my money away from ninetendo(i never bought the first playstation, i played the hell out of N64), X-box has to earn my money away from sony. And from what i have seen/heared, they have done jack shit to earn it. All they decided to do was come out a year early with their new system so they could steal profits from sony with a list of games that isnt exactly blowing most people away..

No offense to you who like 360, and i dont want some argument. These are just my views.

That's amazing. Not to say the PS2 is bad. It's probably the best video game system ever made. The library is large and there are some killer games.

But the Xbox and the 360 being bad systems? Insanity. Both systems were solid. Both are enjoyable to play. Both have some exclusives that Sony doesn't have.

And as we move forward, the "exclusives" for each system look to be either at a dead heat or the advantage of MS with the exception of MLB: The Show.

Forza is a better game than Turismo for instance. Sony lost the exclusive GTA release.

There have been some hardware issues for some people with the Xbox360 (I haven't had any myself), but I think the majority of 360 owners are happier than hell. I haven't touched my PS2 in two months. (Saints Row, NCAA) and with NBA2K7 and Gears of War slated for release the next couple of months, I doubt I'll be playing my PS2 anytime soon.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I've been a Playstation first guy the last 2 generations, but I am loving my Xbox 360. I am positive I will get PS3, but not until prices come down a lot.

I was also a PS guy for the first 2 generations. I'm also fairly certain I will eventually get a PS3. It just might not be for a long while due to these various issues.

Edited to add: And the wait will be easy because the 360 is finally coming out with quite a few great games.

[Eaglesfan27]

Dola -

I haven't touched my PS2 in almost a year since I got the 360. However, I'll almost certainly get FF 12 in November and play that on the PS2.

[Kodos]

I'm playing NCAA 2007 on the 360 now, but am playing Madden 2006 on PS2. And I've considered reverting to NCAA 2004, which might be the best football game I have ever played.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'm playing NCAA 2007 on the 360 now, but am playing Madden 2006 on PS2. And I've considered reverting to NCAA 2004, which might be the best football game I have ever played.

Either tonight or tomorrow, I'm going to try Jistic's Heisman or AA sliders to see if it can combat my problems with 07. Basically, I find that AA is too easy. Heisman is too hard, unless I use plenty of "cheap tricks" which saps the joy out of the game for me. His Heisman sliders seem slanted strongly to the human and have had very good feedback.

[Kodos]

I'm playing on AA, but having a hard time getting it to play like I would like.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'm playing on AA, but having a hard time getting it to play like I would like.

Maybe you should wash your hands.

[SackAttack]

My PS2 is still getting tons of play thanks to Guitar Hero and Disgaea 2, but my 360 has clearly passed it by in that respect.

I haven't played my original Xbox at all since shortly after launch. I popped MVP NCAA in there a couple weeks after 360's launch, my eyes started bleeding at the difference, and I haven't gone back.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Noop

While MS makes FPS where you go online to listen to some crazy mofo's yelling and shit. Sorry but as it stands XBOX360 is fucking wack...

Also that dirty disc error....

See, here's where we differ. While I'm not a fan at all of M$ or the XBox 360, even I'll admit it's an excellent system. I've tried it and for the price, it is an excellent buy if you're in that mindset. I'm not a FPS guy and that seems to be what the 360 wants to cater to -- that's not a bad thing, just not my thing. So while I'm not a fan, you don't have to be a fan to admit the 360 is a good system.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

My PS2 is still getting tons of play thanks to Guitar Hero and Disgaea 2

Is Disgaea 2 any good? I have the first one, and I enjoyed it. What's improved about the sequel?

[TroyF]

I'm not sure if I fully get this first person stuff. I think Gears of War is third person. Saints Row is a third person game. Oblivion can be played first or third person. The sports titles are sports titles. . . I dunno if I fully understand the "360 only caters to first person shooters" crowd.

I've played my way through Call of Duty 2. I played a little of Perfect Dark Zero and wasn't thrilled.

I'd say that less than 5% of my total time on the system has been spent playing FPS games.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm not sure if I fully get this first person stuff. I think Gears of War is third person. Saints Row is a third person game. Oblivion can be played first or third person. The sports titles are sports titles. . . I dunno if I fully understand the "360 only caters to first person shooters" crowd.

I've played my way through Call of Duty 2. I played a little of Perfect Dark Zero and wasn't thrilled.

I'd say that less than 5% of my total time on the system has been spent playing FPS games.

Exactly. I'm not a FPS guy and I am getting plenty of time with my 360.

Fight Night Round 3, Burnout Revenge, Oblivion, NCAA, Dead Rising, Saints Row, PGR, and Ghost Recon have gotten a lot of play from me and none of them are FPS. I also played through Prey, which is an FPS, but it has some neat ideas that aren't in other FPS games. I played Far Cry and it fits into the same ol' FPS mold.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm not sure if I fully get this first person stuff. I think Gears of War is third person. Saints Row is a third person game. Oblivion can be played first or third person. The sports titles are sports titles. . . I dunno if I fully understand the "360 only caters to first person shooters" crowd.

I've played my way through Call of Duty 2. I played a little of Perfect Dark Zero and wasn't thrilled.

I'd say that less than 5% of my total time on the system has been spent playing FPS games.

Ditto. I don't get that either.

I've played plenty of games that aren't FPS:

NBA2k6
College Hoops 2k6
Burnout: Revenge
Hitman: Blood Money
Enchanted Arms
Madden 07
NCAA 07
Dead Rising (although it is a hybrid 3rd person, 1st person at times when aiming)

The majority of games out for the system aren't FPS. There just happens to be several good FPS for the system.

[MacroGuru]

Just an FYI, I am about 15 days away from meeting with the Nintendo and Sony reps, and both are supposed to be bringing both the Wii and PS3.

I will write my impressions of the systems as soon as I can.

[MikeVic]

When I said FPS, I just meant that it seems like the hyped games are all FPS. From the list you mentioned, I don't really care for Saint's Row, can play Madden and Oblivion on PC... only Dead Rising really interests me on the 360 so far.

I like different games usually. Which is why the Wii will probably be better for me. The PS3 will be too expensive, so if I feel like playing sports console games or some other third-person action games, it'll most likely be on the 360 then.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

When I said FPS, I just meant that it seems like the hyped games are all FPS. From the list you mentioned, I don't really care for Saint's Row, can play Madden and Oblivion on PC... only Dead Rising really interests me on the 360 so far.

And again, I still don't see what you are saying. The most hyped game for the 360 is Gears of War, a third person shooter. Saints Row is getting a ton of hype and it's a third person game. (I understand you don't like it, but it's getting a ton of hype and good reviews) Dead Rising is getting a ton of hype and it isn't an FPS.

Looking at Game Rankings, out of the top 25 rated games for the 360, 2 are pure FPS games (Call of Duty, Perfect Dark Zero) 2 are hybrid FPS/third person (Ghost Recon, Oblivion)

That's 4 out of the top 25 that are FPS games. (Prey was rated 28) Of the "hyped" games coming out, only a handful are FPS. There are some insanely creative games coming out for the system as well. (check out the previews for Viva Pinata)

I'm not bashing the people who say they don't like the Xbox 360. I'm just confused to continue reading about how all the system has is a series of FPS titles and that if you don't like FPS, you'll hate the 360. Again, I've played very little FPS on the 360 and outside of having an interest to try FEAR, there is no other FPS game on my radar at the moment.

I think if you enjoy FPS, the PC is still by far and away your best option.

[MikeVic]

I don't think I'm conveying my opinion of the 360 and PS3 very well. I don't enjoy playing third-person shooters much either. Or a game like Ghost Recon. Something has to look fun to me, and not available anywhere else for me to like a console.

I like wacky games that are fun to play. Dead Rising is the only game that looks like I'd have a fun time playing right now, but that's more than I saw on the XBox. And it's early in the 360's life.

I also read somewhere that Fifa and Winning Eleven might be exclusive to the 360? If so, that's a big push for me. I hated the XBox a lot, but don't hate the 360 yet. Warming up to it actually, so Microsoft is doing something right.

I also don't have about high definiton, graphics, etc. at all. I still play my NES, SNES, and Nintendo DS Lite more than any other video game system.

So again, I'm not sure how to convey by opinion on the 360, but there just doesn't seem to be any games I'd have fun with right now (except for Dead Rising). The XBox had nothing like that, so again this is a good step.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by TroyF

And again, I still don't see what you are saying. The most hyped game for the 360 is Gears of War, a third person shooter. Saints Row is getting a ton of hype and it's a third person game. (I understand you don't like it, but it's getting a ton of hype and good reviews) Dead Rising is getting a ton of hype and it isn't an FPS.

Looking at Game Rankings, out of the top 25 rated games for the 360, 2 are pure FPS games (Call of Duty, Perfect Dark Zero) 2 are hybrid FPS/third person (Ghost Recon, Oblivion)

That's 4 out of the top 25 that are FPS games. (Prey was rated 28) Of the "hyped" games coming out, only a handful are FPS. There are some insanely creative games coming out for the system as well. (check out the previews for Viva Pinata)

I'm not bashing the people who say they don't like the Xbox 360. I'm just confused to continue reading about how all the system has is a series of FPS titles and that if you don't like FPS, you'll hate the 360. Again, I've played very little FPS on the 360 and outside of having an interest to try FEAR, there is no other FPS game on my radar at the moment.

I think if you enjoy FPS, the PC is still by far and away your best option.

The big gimmick for me is no true RPG's (I consider Oblivion more of a FPS than a RPG in the classic sense). The Playstation, whichever generation, seemed to have more RPGs than other systems (Bioware did a few good ones for the XBox, but that's still far fewer than the selection for the PS/PS2). I'm also a HUGH tactical game fan, and there's NONE that I know of for XBox or 360.

[Eaglesfan27]

Enchanted Arms is a true RPG. Console Style RPG, but definitely a RPG. Also, there are several more RPG's coming out in the next year.

[Oilers9911]

The thing that gets me about this thread is why so many people have to trash one system because they like the other? I'm an XBox and 360 guy but in no way would I say the PS2 is crap or the PS3 is going to be crap. Obviously the PS2 is a great system also it's just not the one I chose to buy. I cannot believe how some people get so worked up over a video game system that they have to completely trash the competition. I'm a PC guy but I don't think Macs suck. I'm a Broncos fan so that doesn't mean I think the Raiders suck....oh wait yes it does mean that...sorry.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

The thing that gets me about this thread is why so many people have to trash one system because they like the other? I'm an XBox and 360 guy but in no way would I say the PS2 is crap or the PS3 is going to be crap. Obviously the PS2 is a great system also it's just not the one I chose to buy. I cannot believe how some people get so worked up over a video game system that they have to completely trash the competition. I'm a PC guy but I don't think Macs suck. I'm a Broncos fan so that doesn't mean I think the Raiders suck....oh wait yes it does mean that...sorry.

I think that's what I've been trying to get at through this entire thread. I'm NOT bashing the PS3 because I'm some Xbox360 fanboy who loves MS and hates Sony.

Even up until E3, I was a buy the PS3 on opening day guy. There was zero doubt I would get the system right away. At E3, things really started to go awry for Sony.

For starters, they yapped repeatedly about great hardware, and from the released trailers and previews, I didn't see anything that looked better than what was already out on the 360. Then they announced the price point and the fact that if you bought the cheaper system, it wouldn't be upgradeable.

They butchered this release badly and continue to do so. (I'm going to have to buy HDMI cables because Sony didn't include them in their SIX HUNDRED DOLLAR SYSTEM?!?!) Are you kidding me? Sorry, that's insanity.

Meanwhile I'm listening to Sony executives tell me that the PS3 is going to replace my computer. Ummmm. . . right. This isn't about bashing the PS3, it's just about reality. They went from a day one purchase to a possible purchase six months down the line. And with every new announcement, I wonder more and more how the PS3 is going to succeed.

They deserve to be bashed here IMO.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Forza is a better game than Turismo for instance. Sony lost the exclusive GTA release.

As I've posted before I'm leaning hard to getting a 360 sometime in November. If they do the price drop it will be a no brainer.

I have been a PS guy through the first two generations and have really enjoyed Gran Turismo and felt it would be one game I'd really miss if I switched to MS.

Your comment on Forza gives me some hope. Care to comment on why you think it's better than GT?

[Noop]

NBA2k6 - It was solid.
College Hoops 2k6 - I liked it alot but played it to death.
Burnout: Revenge - Not a racing fan.
Hitman: Blood Money - My second favorite game on the system.
Enchanted Arms - Sorry but I perfer FF7 styled RPG's
Madden 07 - I sim only.
NCAA 07 - My favorite game mostly because it is college.
Dead Rising - No interested.
Oblivion - This is a good game but I just couldn't get into the game. I am not big on creating my own player.
Saints Row - I am not sure I want to buy it because I fear I might not have to invest in completing the game.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Enchanted Arms is a true RPG. Console Style RPG, but definitely a RPG. Also, there are several more RPG's coming out in the next year.

I'll have to check that out, I've not heard of Enchanted Arms (been out of the gaming loop, I guess).

If the XBox can gather a good number of decent RPGs and tactical games, I might have to bow to Satan and buy a 360.

[hukarez]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Enchanted Arms is a true RPG. Console Style RPG, but definitely a RPG. Also, there are several more RPG's coming out in the next year.

...MAKOOOOTTTTOOOO!

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I think that's what I've been trying to get at through this entire thread. I'm NOT bashing the PS3 because I'm some Xbox360 fanboy who loves MS and hates Sony.

Even up until E3, I was a buy the PS3 on opening day guy. There was zero doubt I would get the system right away. At E3, things really started to go awry for Sony.

For starters, they yapped repeatedly about great hardware, and from the released trailers and previews, I didn't see anything that looked better than what was already out on the 360. Then they announced the price point and the fact that if you bought the cheaper system, it wouldn't be upgradeable.

They butchered this release badly and continue to do so. (I'm going to have to buy HDMI cables because Sony didn't include them in their SIX HUNDRED DOLLAR SYSTEM?!?!) Are you kidding me? Sorry, that's insanity.

Meanwhile I'm listening to Sony executives tell me that the PS3 is going to replace my computer. Ummmm. . . right. This isn't about bashing the PS3, it's just about reality. They went from a day one purchase to a possible purchase six months down the line. And with every new announcement, I wonder more and more how the PS3 is going to succeed.

They deserve to be bashed here IMO.

WHS.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by hukarez

...MAKOOOOTTTTOOOO!

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Sweed

As I've posted before I'm leaning hard to getting a 360 sometime in November. If they do the price drop it will be a no brainer.

I have been a PS guy through the first two generations and have really enjoyed Gran Turismo and felt it would be one game I'd really miss if I switched to MS.

Your comment on Forza gives me some hope. Care to comment on why you think it's better than GT?

Others can comment, I think Eaglesfan27 had the game as well. For me it was simply a better experience all around. The AI was immencely better. If you started hitting AI cars, they hit back. They don't drive in a straight line around the course. I loved the training options. I'm not a great sim racer, but I enjoy it. Forza has a training AI that'll show you the line, and give you braking points and the like. I didn't use this all of the time, but when I struggled on a course, it was great to know I could turn it on.

Rather than a "I get to drive this cool car around" type of a game, it was more of a "I'm RACING this cool car around"

I had a far more enjoyable time with Forza than I have GT.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Others can comment, I think Eaglesfan27 had the game as well. For me it was simply a better experience all around. The AI was immencely better. If you started hitting AI cars, they hit back. They don't drive in a straight line around the course. I loved the training options. I'm not a great sim racer, but I enjoy it. Forza has a training AI that'll show you the line, and give you braking points and the like. I didn't use this all of the time, but when I struggled on a course, it was great to know I could turn it on.

Rather than a "I get to drive this cool car around" type of a game, it was more of a "I'm RACING this cool car around"

I had a far more enjoyable time with Forza than I have GT.

Thanks for the reply. Knowing a good racer is available will make the decision even easier.