StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

Praxis wrote:I like the Revolution and Nintendo's games the best of the consoles, is that a crime?

No offense, Praxis, but sometimes in these G&C threads you can come across as kind of a whore.

This is SD.net. We all do sometimes

I HAVE been working on trying to be less fanboyish...Durandel's comment a while back that I was making Apple fans look bad kinda kick started my brain I hope I've made an improvement as of late.


Thanks, Hobot.

Yeah, you actually have been doing better compared to in the past. And for the record I apologise.

Eh, no problem, I know how I've been in the past and impressions stick.

I'm just glad I'm doing better enough that other people are noticing, thanks

That's so whacked I thought that Ken Kutaragi had said it.

With projections of next-gen game development costs in the neighborhood of $4 million, IIRC, this comes of as shoddy half-thought-out bullshit. I mean, if you're trying to spread FUD about a company or product you don't like, at least throw out a believable figure. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if it were indeed significantly more expensive to develop for the PS3 than for the X360 or the Rev, and prohibitively expensive to port to or from Sony's new console.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

InnocentBystander wrote:I'd rather see microsoft win frankly, they're the most likely to integrate consoles into the PC world.

Yeah, like that's ever going to happen outside of some masturbatory geek fantasy...

Microsoft has been aiming to push Windows into the home entertainment centre for the past 10 years. Sales of Windows Media Center Edition have just gone up and up.

They'll get there.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

InnocentBystander wrote:I'd rather see microsoft win frankly, they're the most likely to integrate consoles into the PC world.

Yeah, like that's ever going to happen outside of some masturbatory geek fantasy...

Well microsoft is sure trying hard to make it happen so...

And as an aside, it's more of a consumer fantasy. Like how I can plug every device in my house into the same power outlet, or how every TV in my house can read the same tv signal.

W-w-wait a sec.... they ARE allowing the PS3 to work with the Memory Stick PRO and the latter isn't just for the PSP (and my Sony camera ), right, Praxis? I bought it back when I wanted a PSP, but it's subdued since I heard about the viruses. However, the camera is nice.

My verdict would come down to the games. When the systems are priced affordably for poor lil' me, which console has the games I want? PS2 "won" for me by having the games early on (at the time) that I actually wanted, but I guess I'll just have to wait and see here.

The culture politics in the comments aside, this is an interesting Microsoft vs. Sony blog post involving Paramount and Warner Brothers possibly announcing their support for Sony's Blu-ray format and leaving Universal Studios out in the cold with Microsoft and Intel.

Edward Yee wrote:leaving Universal Studios out in the cold with Microsoft and Intel.

Sucks being on the side of the world's largest software company, we all know that they never use optical media...

Edward Yee wrote:W-w-wait a sec.... they ARE allowing the PS3 to work with the Memory Stick PRO and the latter isn't just for the PSP (and my Sony camera ), right, Praxis?

I/O

USB Front x 4, Rear x 2 (USB2.0)
Memory Stick standard/Duo, PRO x 1
SD standard/mini x 1
CompactFlash (Type I, II) x 1


Yep. Works with the memory sticks, SD, and CF cards.

Today I had a masterclass on the CELL processor from Sony Computer Entertainment Europe. When discussing the development package she did say that back before the PS2 launch people (devs) basically just said to give them great hardware and they'd sort out the rest. She said this was a disastrous mistake and it was close to 18 months before any performance analysis software/hardware was available. Learning from this mistake they're trying to give a more comprehensive development package.

Of course take this all with a pinch of salt since it's from an employee of Sony.

On a different subject it looks like the CELL will be interesting to program on and since Vector Units are dead no more having to program in assembly! I hate assembly.

Frankly I foresee Both the X-box 360 and the PS3 being massive flops. While the online capability is a nice touch, who the hell wants to shell out that frikin much for a console that can barely surf the net, rather than spending the cash on a PC that can play the games equally well and has far better net usage. I know 23 people with X-boxes but only 2 willing to shell out for X-box live fees as it is. One of my earlier roomates tried X-box live Halo, and promtly canceled in favor of using the comp for the same thing.

And thier releasing these cash guzzelers into a repression dampened market.

Setesh wrote:Frankly I foresee Both the X-box 360 and the PS3 being massive flops. While the online capability is a nice touch, who the hell wants to shell out that frikin much for a console that can barely surf the net, rather than spending the cash on a PC that can play the games equally well and has far better net usage. I know 23 people with X-boxes but only 2 willing to shell out for X-box live fees as it is. One of my earlier roomates tried X-box live Halo, and promtly canceled in favor of using the comp for the same thing.

And thier releasing these cash guzzelers into a repression dampened market.

After adjusting for inflation, the Atari 2600's 1977 $200 price tag is equivalent to just shy of $650 in today's dollars. The NES' $200 price in 1985 would be just over $350. People are willing to pay big bucks for gaming.

$350 won't buy a PC that will play the games equally well. It might upgrade an existing one to a decent spec, but no way in hell are you going to get a high-end CPU/motherboard/video card/RAM plus a Windows 2K or XP license for that much money.

Now if PS3 has free online like Revolution and its on par with X360 (unlike the PS2 online) that would remove that barrier. The problem is that most consumers are too stupid to look that far in advance and only look at the up front cost. So it'll be XBox 360 with high costs over time and high peripheral costs vs PS3 with high upfront cost. Consumers will probably only see the up front costs, sadly.

Unless I drastically mistaken, the 360 will have free online play. To get the extras, you'll have to pay, but the core stuff is suppose to be free.

Arrow Mk84 wrote:Unless I drastically mistaken, the 360 will have free online play. To get the extras, you'll have to pay, but the core stuff is suppose to be free.

You're drastically mistaken. There is XBox Live Silver, which is free, and XBox Live Gold, that you have to pay for. This leads to the assumption of free online play.

Read the specs carefully. XBox Live Silver offers:

* Create an online Gamer Profile
* Access the Xbox Live Marketplace
* Engage in voice and text messaging
* Talk to a single friend at a time using voice chat
* Receive video messages from Gold level members
* Access massively multiplayer online games (additional fees may apply)

And XBox Live Gold offers:

* Paid level of service
* All the features of Silver level, and additionally:
o Play multiplayer games online
o Video chat
o Multiplayer online tournaments
o Participate in Xbox Live online programming, such as Game with Fame, Play and Win, and Prime Time activities

Taken from XBox.com
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox360/onlinespecs.htm


So basicly; XBox Live Silver gives you downloadable patches and content, the ability to buy stuff on the Marketplace, and voice and text chat.

You have to pay for XBox Live Gold to actually play games online (and get video chat).

XBox Live Silver is free. XBox Live Gold is $8 a month or $50 a year..

It's a nice trick though; they make you THINK you're getting a good deal because you're getting something free

Uraniun235 wrote:

Setesh wrote:Frankly I foresee Both the X-box 360 and the PS3 being massive flops. While the online capability is a nice touch, who the hell wants to shell out that frikin much for a console that can barely surf the net, rather than spending the cash on a PC that can play the games equally well and has far better net usage. I know 23 people with X-boxes but only 2 willing to shell out for X-box live fees as it is. One of my earlier roomates tried X-box live Halo, and promtly canceled in favor of using the comp for the same thing.

And thier releasing these cash guzzelers into a repression dampened market.

After adjusting for inflation, the Atari 2600's 1977 $200 price tag is equivalent to just shy of $650 in today's dollars. The NES' $200 price in 1985 would be just over $350. People are willing to pay big bucks for gaming.

$350 won't buy a PC that will play the games equally well. It might upgrade an existing one to a decent spec, but no way in hell are you going to get a high-end CPU/motherboard/video card/RAM plus a Windows 2K or XP license for that much money.

Where the hell were you buying these things, I payed $40 for the atari (granted that was in 79) and $65 for the nes the month they came out, the deluxe box that came with the zapper included and the SMB/duck hunt game was $200 but was frankly not as good as the original release (my original edition NES still works, most of the later ones don't).

You also miss the point in their day they were something new and differant. People were willing to shell out $$$ to get video gameplay. The 360 and PS3 are going into the computer's ground with inferior capability. For those who can't afford a computer and don't have access to one it will seem a good thing, but to those with comps it will seem like a cheap ass net-sufer was mated to a console to inflate the price. So why bother?