Topic: It's official. PS3 is made of fail.

[Ian Sane]

"Games were never hard to install on a computer - and thanks to Plug-and-Play and autodetection of settings and homogenizations and standards and other improvements in PC gaming in the past, I dunno, DECADE, it's really hard for me to believe it when people tell me it's so much easier to play games on a console."

My problem has always been the cost.  Keeping a PC up-to-date with the best hardware is just too expensive for me.  And I just personally don't enjoy the genres popular on PCs as much as I like the genres more associated with consoles.  But installing any program these days is usually easy as hell.

[JonLeung]

In my other topic I talk about how in the past year I played several console games but on my PC instead...some Silent Hill games, Tomb Raider: Legend, Hitman: Blood Money, Pac-Man World 3, Prince Of Persia: Warrior Within, etc., hence the paradox.  I say I play PC games, but I don't like to say I'm a PC gamer, because then people automatically assume I like MMORPGs, RTSes, or live on FPSes.

I still say it's not that expensive...you can get an ATi Radeon X800 (which was hot a couple years ago) for really cheap now wherever you can find it and you can still play the above games on it.  It's really misleading how everyone thinks that every new PC game requires the absolute latest video card or processor to play.

Now, someone promised the PS3 could replace my computer.  Probably Ken Kutaragi or someone else delusional over there.  So far, that statement's still pretty ridiculous.

[segagamer12]

jon I agre with you cpmpelteyl and intil recently hated xbox just the same, but it all boils down to games for me, I got a regular xbox because it had plenty of games I wanted that I couldnt get on Gc and so i got an Xbox, now I mostly want a 360 for the games I listed but also to play online against my friends.

Its because Nintendo will NEVER get all the games I want to play so I have to have something more than just a Wii and Ps3 is really out of the question. It was playign Halo 2 LAN with all my friends that sold me though, wii, and GC do not yet have anything like it to offer and likely wont till latter in the year or even next year. But liek my regular xbox I will be getting it and all the games used so I know I am not giving bill gates money.

[IceCold]

Also, Sonic for Wii should be coming out pretty soon, and the impressions were actually generally positive..

[KDR_11k]

My problem has always been the cost. Keeping a PC up-to-date with the best hardware is just too expensive for me.

With the rising cost of next-gen consoles PC upgrades may be expensive but still on par with the consoles...

But 360 has EDF3...

[Spak-Spang]

You know I think Microsoft's Xbox 360 would be in a much better place if they hadn't priced themselves out of the traditional arena of console prices.  But, they did and several people waited because it was too expensive to get a 360.

I was shocked when after a year of watching the Xbox 360 suffer, Sony makes the same mistake...only much worse, pricing themselves completely out of most buyers range.  

Nintendo's Wii is doing so well partially, because they stayed within the normal price range of gaming, and offered something new and different.  And Nintendo will continue to sell well through 2007 because of hype and buzz from all the media sources.

However, that doesn't mean Microsoft or Sony will fail...just struggle for the next year, specially Sony who is going to have a very hard first year and will be battling a huge uphill battle once pricing levels off.


To me what this shows is that the Next Generation systems came too early.  If the systems could not have been manufactured at reasonable pricing for the traditional console prices then the time isn't right.  Would it have hurt Microsoft to wait a year or two?  How about Sony or Nintendo waiting one more year?

The answer I think is NO.  And I think we are seeing the effects of jumping into a console generation too early.  

[JonLeung]

I kind of like Nintendo's console releases being 5 years apart (except for the NES which lasted six years in North America).  1991, 1996, 2001, 2006.  You can almost bet that the next Nintendo console will be released on Nov. 20, 2011.

Whether or not they mean to keep that consistent, I don't think Nintendo would've wanted to wait another year, even if Sony did.  It's not like the GameCube has been all that hot.  Sure, we'd be playing Twilight Princess on the 'Cube and probably that cancelled Kirby game and DK Bongo Blast and Super Paper Mario as well but after the Wii's successful launch in the non-hypothetical reality, I'm having trouble imagining it any other way.  With all the buzz, some days it seems like the PS3 doesn't exist, but if the PS3 didn't come out this year (or 2006, I guess) I'm not sure how much stronger it could come out the year later.  Many people aren't even aware of a product until it comes out and if they had to wait another year for a PS3 they'd be more likely be sold on a Wii.  Sony probably wanted to get a product out now, evn if most people won't get one for another year if ever.

Of course that's all hypothetical rambling.

[couchmonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
You know I think Microsoft's Xbox 360 would be in a much better place if they hadn't priced themselves out of the traditional arena of console prices.  But, they did and several people waited because it was too expensive to get a 360.

I was shocked when after a year of watching the Xbox 360 suffer, Sony makes the same mistake...only much worse, pricing themselves completely out of most buyers range.  

Nintendo's Wii is doing so well partially, because they stayed within the normal price range of gaming, and offered something new and different.  And Nintendo will continue to sell well through 2007 because of hype and buzz from all the media sources.

However, that doesn't mean Microsoft or Sony will fail...just struggle for the next year, specially Sony who is going to have a very hard first year and will be battling a huge uphill battle once pricing levels off.


To me what this shows is that the Next Generation systems came too early.  If the systems could not have been manufactured at reasonable pricing for the traditional console prices then the time isn't right.  Would it have hurt Microsoft to wait a year or two?  How about Sony or Nintendo waiting one more year?

The answer I think is NO.  And I think we are seeing the effects of jumping into a console generation too early.

I think the reason console prices went up is mainly due to adding more technology.  I've read that the hard-drive was a big obstacle for the original Xbox because the cost to manufacture it didn't decrease much compared to the other expensive components.  That's why MS did two versions of the 360 - it's charging consumers for the hard drive this time around instead of subsidizing it, but it still offers a "budget" version in an attempt to look competitvely-priced.

Waiting an extra year or two might have been smart, but that would require everyone to cooperate.  Nobody wants to let anybody else have 2-3 years on the market totally uncontested.  Also, until Wii, the idea was that new home consoles sell because they are powerful - based on that reasoning, it wouldn't make sense to release something as "weak" as Xbox 360 in the year 2007.

Of course, while I'm debating the details, I agree with the basic notion that the prices are too high.  Wii exposes a flaw in the way the industry has been going - better graphics are nice, but the return on investment is shrinking.  Wii is capable of acceptable graphics - hardcore gamers may argue they're ugly, or point out that AI will never match up to the more powerful systems, but personally I have yet to see or play anything on the other systems that matches Wii in terms of new gaming experiences.  For a much lower price, I'm getting a much more revolutionary game system.  

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"but the return on investment is flaccid"

correct'd

[segagamer12]

Well I want one but still aint getitng it till aprice drop but I fully expect that as soon as Halo 3 is out cuz that would really kill sony.

[ThePerm]

i really wish metroid prime 3 had online multiplayer, not sure if it will because i hear flip flop reports of such.

[Kairon]

I wonder just how long exactly it'd take MS and Sony to get their consoles down to a $200 price point?

Oh, and I personally believe that MP3 will NOT be online.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Requiem]

From GoNintendo,

Quote
Nintendo is keeping other details, such as any information about the long-sought online multiplayer, under wraps.

But yeah...

Your probably right...

[Darc Requiem]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I wonder just how long exactly it'd take MS and Sony to get their consoles down to a $200 price point?

Oh, and I personally believe that MP3 will NOT be online.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

The 360 premium model will hit $200 by holiday 2008. MS will be able to sell the premium 360 for a profit at $300 this year. They could have sold the premium 360 for a profit at $350 this past holiday season, but with the PS3's ridiculos price they didn't have to. Sony cost a lot of people money last year because both the Wii and 360 would have been cheaper if the PS3 was reasonably priced.

As for the PS3, I couldn't tell you. The way the PS3 is constructed its going to be much harder for Sony to bring down its costs. They are losing well over $200 on the $600 model right now. I mean, for comparison purposes, if the MS would have launched the 360 at $600. They would have been selling it for at a profit. That tells you how bad of a pickle Sony has put themselves in. I mean they may be able to get it down toe $200 by 2009 but it would still be selling at a small loss most likely.  

[JonLeung]

I didn't really get into Metroid Prime: Hunters for some reason (probably a glitch since I'm absolutely sure I can't seem to reach Trace) or even its multiplayer, so I don't know how "successful" its online multiplayer mode is.  If it is good at all, I don't see why they wouldn't be spending the "extra" time putting a similar or better mode in MP3.  After all, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption was going to be a launch title at one point, and I believe that even if they delayed it so it wouldn't conflict with Zelda and other games, that Retro Studios wouldn't just sit on it.

Halo as a single player game is kind of lacking.  (I haven't played 2, but I hear that's not quite fulfilling either.)  Its strength comes from multiplayer (duh).  I have trouble imagining Metroid trumping Halo, but maybe that's just because Metroid has always been a single-player experience and Halo is the most-hyped multiplayer Xbox series.  But the Wii is pretty hot, Hunters might not have been too bad, Retro Studios could potentially devote ALL of their time now to make a robust and interesting online multiplayer mode, so why the heck not?  It's the closest thing to a Halo-killer, however much of an uphill battle it is.  I'd say it's even a safer bet than making a new franchise from scratch.

I think it's stupid that people think a solid single-player game and a solid multiplayer game can't co-exist together.  Sure, resources are usually devoted to one or another, but I think however big Super Smash Bros. Brawl is, Nintendo ought to have other killer apps of other genres in their online arena, and considering how FPS-happy America is, why not put that effort into MP3:C?  

[Flames_of_chaos]

Well it would be easy enough just to keep the multiplayer Quake styled with a bunch of options from Prime Hunters and  everyone will pretty much like it. Add the grapple beam to the mix for some interesting mechanic. My only concern is that they use the 2d Metroid beam stacking system so I don't know how Retro will work around that if there is a multiplayer mode. Also Nintendo should consider releasing a USB or Bluetooth headset.

[Smash_Brother]

I don't think Metroid should be transmogrified into an attempt at a Halo killer.

Metroid is known for its single-player gameplay. Even if it was vastly superior to Halo 3 in every way, people would not take it seriously for those reasons.

I think that, shortly after MP3's release, Retro should get to work on a FPS using the same engine and control scheme but is a completely new franchise.

One of the reasons I liked the rumors about a game called "Xenias" was that it was a completely new franchise and would be judged as such.

Halo didn't become known for its singleplayer. It was the multiplayer which put it on the map. I firmly believe that Nintendo should allow Retro to develop a 1st person shooter of their own which can compete in that genre, not try to make one of their core franchises into something it isn't.

[segagamer12]

but whats the harm? honestly the single palyer missions wont be lacking any and the mulitplayer stuff could be fun. Its NOT about competing with Halo as thats irrelevent, people who WANT Halo will get Halo, its about getting a similar experience on the Wii so that the most people can get moreout of the game. Making MP3 Mulitplayer is comparable to making Mario Platformers SINGLE player. Some people like it and dont care that theres no Luigi, others HATE it and desperatley long for the days the Mario Bros can go on a 3d avneture together (non paper mario rpg style either)

They can not please everybody, but it seams that the BEST solution is make the single player adventure top notch and the multi player modes secondary feature but still fun. That is what would make it a perfect game. Doom is more for Single player but the mulit player stuff can be fun too.

And wnhy cant they make more than one FPS? why does it have to be metroid or a new series but not both? Maybe they could try again with Geist. I never played it but always wanted to.

[KDR_11k]

The multiplayer mode will have to use the same weapons and at least some of the gadgets you get in singleplayer so it would be influenced by being a secondary part of a singleplayer game instead of a standalone game that can shape everything to the needs of its multiplayer mode. With Metroid you're limited to certain weapon types if you don't want to make the fans angry (primary weapons have to be beams, for example). You also HAVE to include the morph ball mode even if you have no actual ideas for how it could be useful in MP. Most trap weapons (mines, remote detonated bombs, ...) that are popular in MP FPSes would appear completely out of place. A Metroid game has too many obligations to fill.

I think they should let Metroid be Metroid and make the multiplayer shooter its own game. Look at hunters, the SP mode is pretty crappy and the weapons just feel out of place for Metroid while in Echoes the MP mode is pretty bad.

[Requiem]

I am down with a Metriod Coop.

That would actually be exciting to see.

[Smash_Brother]

I thought co-op would indeed be cool, but it would be difficult to implement properly.

[Requiem]

Maybe....

But then again, it would be fun to take up the challenge. Especially if you take into consideration that each player could have their own set of unique abilities.

[BranDonk Kong]

Saw 2 PS3s at Target yesterday, no takers. Told a buddy at work and he's like "yeah they have them everywhere".

[Ceric]

Metroid Coop with each one of the characters going seperate paths that effect the other character and them needing to come together for things like bosses.

[utarefsoN]

im not down for anything that would take away from the single player experience. But if they can incorporate multplayer into the game without taking away from the actual game then im all good with it.