StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2006-05-25 09:07am**

Ok.. this is a rant from my best freind. He also happens to be a huge PS fanboy. I had told him that most people (not ALL) aren't going to be able to AFFORD a PS3 because Sony's target demographic is 28 and under. Most kids can't afford it, and most people who are average gaming age (28, iirc) are going to want to invest in something more important. A car, a house perhaps... That's just the feeling I get from most people online.

Another thing he brings up is that the NES was 299, which by today's standards/inflation would have been 500 to purchase. He doesn't take into consideration that there WAS no other system that brought video games to "life" like the NES.

Here is his rant, if you have any advice for me, it would be appreciated.

Ok so youre still sticking with this, no one is gonna buy the PS3 because they are paying of student loans but also now becuaw they might want to buy a car, ??? lol

Ok lets go back in time again. Since you like to discredit my point that people paid $299 for a NES in 1985(equivalant to over $500 today) because it was a "radical departure" from the the Atari 2600 let us please go back a little further and let me say that in 1977, the year I was born YAY, the Atari 2600 retailed for $199( equivalant to well OVER $600 in todays money)

So either no one had student loans or wanted to buy a car during both those time periods lol, OR cost was not a factor and is IN FACT justified if the product in question is worth it. Hmmmm interesting.

YOU SAID; "Also, you need to remember that most of Sony isn't pulling a profit. I think that only Sony CEI and Pictures are making a profit right now. Sony needs to assure shareholders that the CEI business is doing fine, and will continue to do so."

MY RESPONSE; Huh? seriously huh? It's annoying that SO many people believe Sony is somehow losing money. It's a sham they are not losing money. Where? Not the PS2 not it's movies, not the PSP. Music? but thats due more to the fact of more music being traded online . Most music companies had a decline in music sales. Maybe it's profits MAY be down but it is in no way LOSING money. Please I would like to know which Sony holdings are losing money??? Lets refer to this article I will link SONY NOT LOSING MONEY LINK
Ok so that link sould have answered most questions you may have.

Ok so people are going to be disappointed when the actual gameplay doesn't look like whats in a magazine? Hmmm that happens with every console and has nothing to do with HD. How many times have you bought a game and expected or at least hoped it would look like it did in one of those Nintendo Powers or whatever you read? I've done it plenty. It's a familiar sales tactic also employed by movie companies in that they will use the best scenes in the trailers to lure people to watch it. Sometimes the movies are as good as they expect sometimes not. Some games will look great, some will not. No difference.

Regardless these games on the PS3 are going to look amazing. Far surpassing the XBox 360 and wiping its ass with Nintendo.

Alrighty then. Yes part of the cost of the PS3 is associated with the fact it's using a new technology but when does that not raise the cost of anything upon it's release. Your cell phone I can now get $200 cheaper after such a short period of time. It's not unexpected this is going to raise the cost of the PS3.

The fact is blu ray will most likey be the new technology simply because of its already current support;

Panasonic, Phillips and Samsung and computer giants Apple and Dell. Sony owns entertainment companies Columbia/Tri-Star and MGM. In addition, 20th Century Fox and Disney have partnered with the Blu-Ray group.

Ahem that was to name the major backers. Of course there are smaller companies also supporting this.

Posted: **2006-05-25 09:39am**

A slight nitpick: he's wrong about the cost of the NES on debut: the fully-loaded Deluxe Set sold for $249 USD ($442 2005 USD), while the more standard Action Set sold for $199 USD ($353 2005 USD). Even then, like with the debut of the Atari 2600, you have to consider the relative costs of eletronic equipment in general of those eras, compared to today.

Posted: **2006-05-25 10:33am**

By his idiot logic, a 128MB USB flash drive would be a bargain at $400, because the original 5.25" floppy drives were initially more than $1000 in today's dollars. He's completely forgetting that electronics prices generally drop, and that in a competitive marketplace people will compare in the context of present-day prices, not electronics prices from 20 years ago.

Posted: **2006-05-25 10:46am**

He also seems to forget that the X360 offers exactly the same value as a PS3 (and let's be honest, the average consumer will not be sufficiently impressed by the PS3's graphics to pay up an additional $300. Ironically, Sony themselves proved this with the PS1, which outsold the technically superior but overpriced N64 by a significant margin). Outside of the die-hard gamers and the Sony fanboys, who know the specifications of the console and can be impressed by buzzwords like Cell, the majority of people buying consoles will see two machines that both play pretty games and all things being equal they'll go for the cheaper one.

Posted: **2006-05-25 01:05pm**

So really, the only benefit people would be getting out of the PS3 is the Blue Ray drive. Which, if going by the price of BR Players ($1000 and up), will probably be a really shoddy bare bones drive, a la PS2.

Posted: **2006-05-25 01:11pm**

I find the Cell-wanking to be particularly amusing. Do people like this really think that the average consumer gives a shit about revolutionary new processor architectures or any of that other techie talk? A normal person looks at the fucking screen for the demo unit in the store and either decides "hey that looks great, gotta have it" or "hmm, it doesn't look that much better than what I have now". Either way, then they'll look down at the price tag, and say either "well, I don't care what it costs, I still gotta have it" or "fuck that".

Posted: **2006-05-25 02:15pm**

'far surpassing the 360'? Yeah, perhaps in four years. Right now, a lot of their stuff looks WORSE, since MS has a year head start to get acquainted with the system and release the second gen games.

Your friend is a dolt, simply put. This is not akin to buying an NES like so, which is basically the only system of the time of note. It's like offering someone a Sega Genesis at 600 dollars, or an SNES at 300 dollars.

It's not a matter of not being able to physically pay for something, it's about not wanting to spend that much money because one has other expenses.

Blu-Ray is also not guarenteed to win just because they have some corporate support, if nobody's going to buy the movies or a 1000 dollar player, over a 50 dollar DVD drive.

Posted: **2006-05-25 05:08pm**

Nephtys wrote:Blu-Ray is also not guarenteed to win just because they have some corporate support, if nobody's going to buy the movies or a 1000 dollar player, over a 50 dollar DVD drive.

I'm guessing that Blu-Ray will eventually win, partially because the HD-DVD crowd has done their damndest to make their technology forgettable since it was released, but that still doesn't justify the purchase of the PS3 until a Blu-Ray player actually becomes a reasonable purchase in and of itself. I wouldn't pay $50 for an HD-DVD player right now because NONE of its titles are interesting to me, and I wouldn't keep a bulky piece of equipment in my house just to play one film at a slightly higher quality.

Posted: **2006-05-25 05:42pm**

Master of Ossus wrote:
Nephtys wrote:Blu-Ray is also not guarenteed to win just because they have some corporate support, if nobody's going to buy the movies or a 1000 dollar player, over a 50 dollar DVD drive.
I'm guessing that Blu-Ray will eventually win, partially because the HD-DVD crowd has done their damndest to make their technology forgettable since it was released, but that still doesn't justify the purchase of the PS3 until a Blu-Ray player actually becomes a reasonable purchase in and of itself. I wouldn't pay $50 for an HD-DVD player right now because NONE of its titles are interesting to me, and I wouldn't keep a bulky piece of equipment in my house just to play one film at a slightly higher quality.

I don't think either will win, for the same reason VCD never replaced VHS and waited for DVD to arrive. They're not enough, and too soon.

Do we really need 65 gig DVDs when our current 9 gig DVDs do the job fine? It's not just size difference, the real bonus of switching from VHS to DVD was to get rid of all those downsides VHS had, such as poor quality, poor aging, ease of damage, etc.

For all intents and purposes, a Blu-Ray or HD DVD is just a DVD writ large.

Posted: **2006-05-25 08:15pm**

Nephtys wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:
Nephtys wrote:Blu-Ray is also not guarenteed to win just because they have some corporate support, if nobody's going to buy the movies or a 1000 dollar player, over a 50 dollar DVD drive.
I'm guessing that Blu-Ray will eventually win, partially because the HD-DVD crowd has done their damndest to make their technology forgettable since it was released, but that still doesn't justify the purchase of the PS3 until a Blu-Ray player actually becomes a reasonable purchase in and of itself. I wouldn't pay $50 for an HD-DVD player right now because NONE of its titles are interesting to me, and I wouldn't keep a bulky piece of equipment in my house just to play one film at a slightly higher quality.
I don't think either will win, for the same reason VCD never replaced VHS and waited for DVD to arrive. They're not enough, and too soon.

Do we really need 65 gig DVDs when our current 9 gig DVDs do the job fine? It's not just size difference, the real bonus of switching from VHS to DVD was to get rid of all those downsides VHS had, such as poor quality, poor aging, ease of damage, etc.

For all intents and purposes, a Blu-Ray or HD DVD is just a DVD writ large.

IIRC, that's what happened with DVD Audio and SACD. They were both equal formats hitting at the same time, but neither really took off.

It will take a new leap in technology before we can effectively switch. It may be awhile before that happens. I mean, most of us just finished switching over to DVD's.

Posted: **2006-05-25 08:37pm**

I don't get the "lolzor, teh Atari waz a bajillian dollerz in 1982 m0nay!" argument. Who gives a fuck? Besides the fact the price of electronics adjusted for inflation is much lower than it was in the early 80s, how does that change the fact the PS3 costs 50% more than an XBox 360 and three times more than a Wii, and you need a thousand dollar TV set to take advantage of the features which make the PS3 cost so much to being with?

Posted: **2006-05-25 08:56pm**

I just stumbled upon the following webpage which includes the following graphics:

Posted: **2006-05-25 09:12pm**

As I mentioned in another thread, once you get past the early days of gaming, the only systems whose bars are as tall as the PS3's were all catastrophic failures as home consoles (the Neo Geo did well as an arcade machine). 3DO exited the hardware side of the industry after their console, the Saturn sunk SEGA (the Dreamcast was just the nail in the coffin), and the Phillips' CDi is possibly the most unsuccessful console ever made.

Posted: **2006-05-25 09:12pm**

But look at the consoles that DID cost more.

Neo Geo was primarily an arcade machine and niche system (I've certainly never even seen one), and 3DO was a dismal failure that forced the company out of the console market.

Oh, and the Saturn, which also didn't do well. Heck, I've never even seen one of those, either, though many I know have.

EDIT: Darn, beaten.

Posted: **2006-05-25 10:11pm**

Wait till you start seeing porn on either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. That will be the sign that you should seriously consider switching up, because pornographers have shown an uncanny knack for being ahead of the technological curve. And right now, they quite tellingly don't seem to give a shit about either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.

Posted: **2006-05-25 10:12pm**

I heard that the porn industry is actually sitting the format war out, waiting until there's a result before they start releasing material in HD.

Posted: **2006-05-26 01:49am**

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I heard that the porn industry is actually sitting the format war out, waiting until there's a result before they start releasing material in HD.

Exactly. That tells you what the smart course of action is, and it tells you that neither format is making a strong case for adoption.

Posted: **2006-05-26 01:57am**

Well, actually that's what the major distributors announced some time last year, long before launch of HD DVD.

Posted: **2006-05-26 02:08am**

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Well, actually that's what the major distributors announced some time last year, long before launch of HD DVD.

I know, and it's still true now, even after one of the formats is already on the shelf.

Posted: **2006-05-26 02:28am**

Darth Wong wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Well, actually that's what the major distributors announced some time last year, long before launch of HD DVD.
I know, and it's still true now, even after one of the formats is already on the shelf.

Not that the average person would even know.

It was like an anti-launch.

Posted: **2006-05-26 02:33am**

You might be surprised. Rebecca knew before I said anything about it, and she's not exactly tech-savvy. It made the major news magazines. Of course, Rebecca likes to read, so perhaps she learns different things than the FOXNews fan base.

Posted: **2006-05-26 02:57am**

Darth Wong wrote:You might be surprised. Rebecca knew before I said anything about it, and she's not exactly tech-savvy. It made the major news magazines. Of course, Rebecca likes to read, so perhaps she learns different things than the FOXNews fan base.

Oh, it was all over the news, all right. No doubt about that. But coverage doesn't automatically equate to sales. Unfortunately, off the top of my head, I can't think of any examples of media-hyped products that sold horribly, other than Daikatana, and that's not properly analogous.

Posted: **2006-05-26 03:02am**

Odd. I was watching a program a while ago (pretty sure it was The Gadget Show) and they were discussing the upcoming format war. One of the interviews was with a porn distributor who said they were going to be supporting BOTH formats.

Herewe go, its the write up on the feature they did during the show.

Pornography.

A massive chunk of the massive dvd market at present is porn and that means that the porn makers will have a big say in which new high definition format wins out. So which one are they backing?

Well, we spoke to various porn production companies and they all seemed to agree that the larger capacity of the BluRay discs offered the most attractive package. They love the idea of jamming in up to ten movies on one BluRay disc, but like Playboy most are launching films in both formats, to hedge their bets.

May have changed since the show aired of course.

Posted: **2006-05-26 07:37am**

hey love the idea of jamming in up to ten movies on one BluRay disc

erf?
i guess they are talking about 10 movies in SD, not in HD.?
Doesn't that kill the interest of the BR the way it's marketed? like 1080p is teh über!!!

Posted: **2006-05-26 09:11am**

Lost Soal wrote:Odd. I was watching a program a while ago (pretty sure it was The Gadget Show) and they were discussing the upcoming format war. One of the interviews was with a porn distributor who said they were going to be supporting BOTH formats.

I haven't seen any pornos available in HD-DVD or Blu-Ray yet, nor any sales announcements to that effect. If they're planning to do it, they're taking their time.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Rant from a PS fanboy

Rant from a PS fanboy