PS3 to be playable at next year's E3
 

Here's the link!

Huzzah! This just made the next-gen console race that much more interesting. Will MS be able to beat them to the punch this time? Will the GC successor be ready and playable as they have said? Which one will have the best graphics? (I'm curious if the graphics will be that much different to begin with) Will PS3 have Blu-ray built in? PSP connectivity? Next year's E3 is going to rock!

Will the "Cancer Curing" features be active yet?

I am pretty sure that is an addon. The rumor is that it is being bundled with the Boobs feature whatever that is ;)


I think that is great news and I would love to see all three have working units at next years E3 to really show people what the graphics will look like next gen.

I don't know what you mean? Haven't you felt Emotion when playing your PS2? That's the Emotion Engine at work! :D

This would imply Fall 2006 for a US release.

Ooooo... I thought the stirring sensations were the dual shock's at work. :D

Hopefully EBGames will have this up for pre-order in the next couple of weeks!! :thumbsup:

That's what they've been hinting at all along. They said in a recent interview that they probably wouldn't stick to the usual 5 year life cycle, which would put the PS3 out Fall 2005, due to continuing strong sales of the PS2.


I'm interested to see what it can do. I imagine all the next gen hardware will be a little underwhelming, as the graphics jump won't be as drastic of an improvement as it was the past 2 gens going from SNES/Genesis to PSX/N64 and from that to the DC/PS2/Xbox/GC.

I see myself waiting until a price drop to one, let myself get caught up on this gens games as I've been trying not to buy many games until they hit $20, and two to see what system has the best game library for my tastes, as with my dwindling interest in gaming I'll likely only buy one console next gen.

So... how does one get into E3?

Blonde hair and "enhancements"

Re: PS3 to be playable at next year's E3
 

buying into the hype early i see ;)

Re: PS3 to be playable at next year's E3
 

I kind of doubt. Most of what I've read (though admittedly I could well have missed something) has been MS and Nintendo execs saying they launch around the same time as the PS3, not before, and not after.

Well M$ better have something going for them. Without the hard drive or better looking graphics the next xbox is doomed. Lets get real if Fable, KOTOR, BC could be done on PSX2 you can bet your ass they would be on it.

How do you always get to a thread first! :)

That is one thing that I have wondered about. This gen MS has really benefited from being the best and most feature laden console. For the first couple of years they didn't really have too many exclusives (not counting Halo of course). Now if they aren't the best on the block I wonder if their name brand can distinguish themselves from the other two.

Re: Re: PS3 to be playable at next year's E3
 

Not really hype as much as speculation. Let's face it, console launches are the most interesting periods for console fans. There's shiny new hardware, fanboy cliques to be formed, and rogue 3-rd world nations to use the consoles to make ICBM's! :)

In terms of differentiation and the XBOX, I think MS sort of botched the XBOX's hardware advantages. I mean the hard-drive didn't add too much (faster loading times don't count as "content") and the graphical differences, while glaring in some instances, weren't all that across all games (The box has PGR2 and PS2 has GT4, Madden looks almost the same on both). Their real system seller was Live and they marketed it very well. I think the other players are playing catchup to MS as far as online is concerned.

As far as Ninty's stance, they better have an ace up their sleeve and quit smoking crack with the "Nobody wants to play online" and "We want games that appeal to everyone" BS. I'm all for Mario and what not, but Nintendo make it sound like it's wrong to make games targeted towards older gamers and that developers doing so are breaking a holy sacrament of game development. Make some games that appeal to everyone and some that are targeted towards the youth market and some that are targeted towards the "mature" market. They did that better with the GC than with the N64 but they need to do more IMO.

OK enough ranting. Off to bed.

...like I said hype.

You forgot Halo, but then again who plays that game right? ;)



It must be cool to be you, because If I only saw one side of the spectrum I think I'd do crazy from being so blind. Nintendo has always done things their way, and IMO online gaming isnt where it should be right now. Granted a lot of people are playing online but honestly most of it is sports, and fps and a few racing titles. I think (again my opinion) until high speed connection becomes as cheap as dial up (read: free, or lower than $50) not everyone is going to be playing online. As far as Nintendo's stance on making games for "older" gamers that just sounds ignorant, keep in mind we are talking about video games ya know? a play thing...a form of interactive entertainment? I dont get where people all of a sudden decided their games HAVE to be like R or XXX rated material. A game is a game and if you play it does that make you any different?

Seems to me like video gaming is becoming more like weight lifting goal than one's personal entertainment.

Example

Guy#1: Hey man what ya playing?
Guy #2: OH I'm playinmg I-Ninja
Guy#1: *scoff* Wimp

Until a day comes that I can tell a customer I own System A without them laughing like Im on some sort of drug, then my friend those people are not gamers they are simply posers who need to take off their "Know your roots" T-shirt.

targeting a mature audience doesnt mean R or XXX rated!

it just means not that cutsey cutsey stuff all the time that Nintendo seem to love so much

That "cut(e)sey cut(e)sey stuff" has some of the best game play out there and usually has more depth then most "mature" games out there. If you can't see past that then that is your loss.

tanman, zero, the point is not to say that there isn't a place for these "enjoyable to everyone games", but for Nintendo to get on it's high horse and say that developing "mature", market-targeted games is the wrong way to do things, is in itself wrong (man that was a confusing sentence :) ). I realize we're talking about games which need to be fun and enjoyable but to me that means variety. I can play SSX which isn't mature, but is still loads of fun, but then I can switch to GTA:VC and still enjoy myself. I mean is there something wrong with mature games that I'm missing?? Mature does not mean bimbo's, swearing, and gore, but it does mean no talking bunnies or fuzzy animals.

Oh and if Nintendo doesn't get on the online bandwagon soon then it's going miss the boat like it did with disc based media. Does it really hurt Nintendo to offer a simple peer-to-peer networking service (not a hub based one like Live) so that people can play Mario cart over the network. Seriously, that would not require any network costs for Nintendo being peer-to-peer and amount to an improved product for the consumer. I don't get it. Sorry if you disagree.

I believe Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, and Metal Gear Solid show that Nintendo does not have the the point of view you paint them to have. All great games, all aimed at older demographics.
I don't think you are catching it, there is no effective wide sperad business plan for online games. If there was Nintendo would be there. ugh. So YES it does hurt nintendo to spend money to program in online support for mario kart if its only going to be used by a small group. The cost of online gaming is more then just server costs. It costs to program, what's more it takes potential programmers away from focusing on the core game mechanics in some cases.

In your regards to to Nintendo sticking with carts: Nintendo had millions, if not over a billion invested in cart manufactoring at the time. They made a business decision to stick with carts, it wasn't like they didn't know the benifits of CD's, it was a business choice. And guess what? During the lifespan of the N64 Nintendo had 3 consecutive record years of profit, obviously their choice wasn't all bad.

Despite what people may percieve, Nintendo is not running around in circles shouting "I can't hear you world!" For a company that has brought so much innovation in software and hardware you might consider that they do have an idea of what the hell is going on.

This is a PS3 thread, why all the jabs at Nintendo? A lot of comments here are bordering on console bashing. It's clear who here owns a Gamecube, and who doesn't.

Games will be the deciding factor next gen, period.

If MS doesn't have a more appealing lineup of exclusive games, they will find themselves just as far, or further, behind Sony as they are this gen as Sony will still have the same third party support going into next gen.

Nintendo is in the same boat, though they can at least count on pretty much doing at least as well as gamers who lover their games, as well as parents and kids, will continue to buy their consoles just to play their first party games. However, this gen has shown that's cleary not enough to remotely challenge Sony.

Both Nintendo and MS have to do whatever it takes to get more good third party exclusives, as well as churning out more top notch first party games, next gen if they want to do anything other than again battle for a distant second place.

Re: Re: Re: PS3 to be playable at next year's E3
 

How is the hardware botched? Xbox always has cost just as much as a PS2. I don't get it some folks seem to want less stuff for their money. Also you can't blame xbox cause Dev's want to be lazy bastards. I use the hard drive allot for my sound tracks and downloads for on line games. The hardware is great. Lets not forget true DD in games too. How Sony can even have the nerve to sell the PS2 at the same price as Xbox is beyond me.

Oops want off topic my bad.

Now to be on topic again. I will not trust a damn thing Sony will say about the system to a see it running on a store TV. I mean I do remember the demos they showed for PS2. Anyone remember the old man head from FF they showed off? Anyone with a brain should have knew that was BS you can't do that much detail with 32 megs ram I don't care how powerful the hardware is you need allot of memory to save that much detail. So I knew that was BS the min a saw that and then heard how much ram it was going to have. I also remember the as you get closer to a wall it will be more detailed cause we will stream it off a disc.

I also remember them saying you no longer need CG computers that PS2's could be linked to make CG movies.

Sony is the king of over hype but hey it's works so more power to them.

Don't own a GC but I like how N never seems to over hype stuff.

Re: Re: Re: Re: PS3 to be playable at next year's E3
 

They sell it at the same price, because Hardware isn't everything. Sony sells more PS2s than any other console because of games. The reason they are so far ahead, is because of games. When someone walks into a store, they aren't comparing what features the PS2 has compared to the Xbox, they are looking at what games they want to play, and who has those games.

The fact is, the hard drive was not used as much as MS thought it would be. If it was, they would include it in the next console (all indications say they won't). And true DD only matters to people who have a true surround sound system. The rest are just fine with Dolby Pro Logic II. Sure, these features make the Xbox a must have to some, but not enough to get them anywhere close to the top spot.

Its going to be interesting to see what MS does now. They are going to have to show their hand fairly soon if they want to beat Sony out of the gate. I'm not sure about them launching first though. MS spent many a dollar to say how much superior the hardware is (even though that isn't completely true) to PS2. Now that they will launch first, there is no way for that to happen again. Like it was mentioned earlier, the next generation will depend on games, and Sony is kicking ass in that area right now.

Re: Re: Re: Re: PS3 to be playable at next year's E3
 

I don't think anyone has ever said that. The fact that the PS2 was $300 was a joke. The GC games look better IMO and it was $100 less, and the X-box games looked better and it had a bunch of extra hardware (though I don't use much of it, no online gaming, HD only for saves) and cost the same.

What I, and others say, is that we'd rather see cheaper gaming only machines like the GC next gen, not that we want $300 or more hardware that just plays games. I don't use the HD, ethernet, etc, so I'd personally assume pay $200 or less and get a machine that just plays games and has a digital audio output built in.

If they want to put in HDs, Tivo, DVD burner, DVD movie playback etc. they should release a deluxe settop box version for gamers who want all that stuff, not force it on those of us who either have no interest or already own superior standalone components that do the same hting.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PS3 to be playable at next year's E3
 

OHHHHHH ok well ok that is not to bad. But you will be paying $25 for memroy cards. Also a KOTOR save can't be done on a card. So you do need that hard drive for some games. So you may end spending just as much as before. I also don't want a damn set-top box.

This is also where I must gave N huge porps they are a gaming company and make no buts about it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PS3 to be playable at next year's E3
 

Actually, the rumor is next gen that the systems will have built in flash memory to save games.

If not, mem cards are no big deal. $20-25, so if the systems $199 that's just $219-224 total, much better than $300 or more to have an HD etc. that I don't really need as I trade 99% games after beating them so I can just delete the save files and get by with one mem card.

Also, KOTOR was just a programmer's decision as I understand, and the save file could fit on the X-box mem card, they just didn't provide mem card support.

I don't see any console bashing in this thread per se. People have argued for and against all the systems and it's been a pretty good discussion so far.

To better explain my "botched XBOX hardware" comment, I meant to say that MS did a poor job of communicating the HW advantage to the average consumer. I felt the MP3 ripping wasn't really advertised too much and the other benfits of the drive were not really that clear to joe shmoe. Better loading times? sure. Downloadable content? only if you pay extra for LIVE service. This is why the PS2 was able to sell for the same price as the XBOX with less hardware and games in the box. The hardware difference appeared negligible. I'm sure they'll do a better job next time around leveraging the advantages. Live was the one feature they really advertised and implemented well as a competitive advantage.

As far as Nintendo goes, no doubt they know how to make money but most of their million seller games are developed in-house and not by 3rd party software houses. The reason a lot of 3rd party developers left the system during the N64 era was that the royalties for cart based games are much higher than for disc based games. As a result developers get less per game. They make oodles of money off of their GBA business but they are soon to challenged their too. Even if PSP falls flat on it's face (which it probably wont) there will be other competitors pretty soon and if they don't start evolving their business they may be in trouble. Coming late to the online game may be one of those mis-steps.

As far as the online or "mature" stance goes, the argument is getting kind of tired at this point. Would GC owners have been thrilled with a simple online interface for Mario Kart? I would bet yes. Would this have taken a lot of work to implement as a peer to peer service? I would say no. Why have an online peripheral that you refuse to support at all!? PSO is the only game that uses it. I mean the reason people are using warp-pipe is becuase they want to play GC games online. I don't get it? Why not patch a hole in your market even if it is half-hearted like Sony's online strategy. At least they are doing something.

As for "mature" games, I like to play bejeweled as much as anyone else on my cell phone. It's a perfect example of a game everyone can play regardless of age group, but it';s not the only thing I want to play. The majority of Nintendo games are targeted at this "everyone" demographic, which just happens to be skewed towards younger gamers. I "know my roots" as well, but now that I'm 27, I want to play something besides Mario. Nintendo has not made the GC an appealing console to develop "mature themed" 3rd party games on.

Franchise you are right they should have pushed the hardware much better. Also the fact the HD can be used as a huge memory card will be enough for allot of folks. I remember in wal-mart I told a lady that you needed no memory cards and she saw how much one cost. That saving did matter to her a great deal and I think her grad-son did end up with a xbox. That saving does matter to folks they need to show how xbox is a better value then PS2. So even if the HD is just used for game saves that is fine with me.


Also the kiddie game debate is dumb I love kiddie games. Sometimes it's fun to play a relaxing game where I don't have to kill everything and all the colors are colorful and everything.

Also Sony is number one thanks to bread name. I mean why do people think you still see the old PSX stamp on PSX2 game ad's?

Also N not doing on line I don't get it. N seems to tell their fans what they want it seems.

Also you're not going to see a cheaper system they are going to ask for as much as people are willing to pay. Just cause you take things out does not mean you will get a cheaper price.

Then why did the GC launch at $199 when the PS2 and X-box were $299?

Cause N was hurting from the the N64 and people lost allot of Faith in them. Also most family's don't want to spend $300 on a game system. Also remember $200 was not even low enough for GC they had to go down even more. If they can sell it for $99 now they could have done it at launch. They knew they could not go toe to toe with Sony and M$.

What are you talking about? The reason why the GCN was $200 was because it cost a HELL of a lot cheaper then PS2 and that much cheaper then XBox. And Nintendo wasn't the the first to lower their price. It has absolutely nothing to do with "going toe to toe" as you say.

Sorry, gotta go with TOPDAWG on this one. If Nintendo launched at the same price point as PS2 and XBOX the GC would have sold much worse than at $199. IF they were able to sell at $299 why didn't they? As a business decision it makes sense to launch a new console that is priced inline with what new consoles traditionally cost. They would have made way more $$ per console. But, since the GC was late to the game they had to compete on cost to get a good install base which they did by selling at a lower cost.

What is with you people? They didn't sell it at the same price because it didn't offer the same features. (DVD, HD) Nintendo said this from the very begining, less hardware = lower price.

Consoles have not traditionally been $300.

The GC launched at the same time as xbox, how come xbox didn't have to sell at a lower price?

I'm confused as to what "extra" stuff the PS2 had that allowed it to enjoy a $100 price premium? Surely crappy DVD playback didn't add $100 onto the system price!

I'm not going to respond to your comment, until you respond fully to mine. Sorry.

Q. What is with you people?
A. We answer questions with more questions?

Q. How come xbox didn't have to sell at a lower price?
A. Because MS felt they could compete with the PS2 at their price point rather than undercutting them on price. They still took a loss on the console but they sold at a higher price than GC and GC still barely beat out MS this generation. If XBOX had sold at the same price as GC then the argument would have been even more favorable towards MS. The XBOX still has more "hardware" than the other consoles but they choose to sell it at a similar to the PS2 since they can compete at that price point. What is the significant hardware difference in the PS2 and GC?


Sorry that this has goten so far off topic. I'll stop bantering now.

jesus christ, this thread sucks. people stop your bashing and know that TurboGrafx 16 has a 8 bit processor trying to pose as a 16 bit machine. Those sons of bitches.

This demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the manufacturing lifecycle.

You have to take into account the fact that at the time of the PS2's launch that dvd player prices were still fairly high compared to current prices. I'm sure that the "dvd playback" feature of the PS2 appealed to a number of buyers.