That is my guess as well. It is like a typical Sony add on that may have a game or two that uses it, but in this case the add on is part of the system.

Its no Add-on WHATSOEVER. Its built into EVERY single controller for the ps3. Its a standard feature. If you need an example of how it can work properly, imagine fight night round 3, you get knocked out, you have to go crazy with the motion sensing to build up momentum to get back up, and im willing to bet that happens as it is already without the motion sensing LOL

No, I understand that it isn't an add on. I am saying that it feels like an add on, in that it will probably be used by very few games and have poor support. I can see how it could work well, but I don't think it will. It feels forced and slapped together to me.

I think it was just something done to have an announcement to make. It would be nice to be proven wrong on this one.

You misunderstood what he meant by "Add-on". He meant that it is more of a throw-in to try to counter Nintendo, rather than anything that is actually going to be useful.

I understand what he meant, but it isnt like an addon, its a full pledged feature thats built into the system and every controller. Its a feature any developer can use. Obviously its been known for a while if they have a working game with the controller and good enough to demo it to the world. So its not some quick afterthought right before E3.

Wow, blitz, you really are totally, 100% biased aren't you?

I am undoubtably biased, i want a big next gen powerhouse with 1080p gaming and all the goodies associated with it. I am not intrested in what im seeing from other companys (i.e. nintendo) and bought a xbox 360 to hold me over till the PS3 dust settles.

You guys make it seem like its WRONG to get excited about what was announced, that to me is more fanboyism then what i am saying. Everyone is trying to de-bunk the excitement a sony fan could have, when i could care less. Im very excited and cant wait. I will also be watching the nintendo coverage tommorow, along with the MS one. I own all 3 past gen systems and the 360, so obviously i cant be that biased. But i also feel like most people who are bashing the ps3 is because they dont own a HD set and cant afford to purchase the system at the same time. I can understand being frustrated, but dont put down a better technology because its not available financially to be in your hands.

I dont call a Ferrari Enzo overpriced and Junk compared to a civic because its out of my price range, i acknowledge what its capable of and what its built to do, even tho i cant have it. A lot of people will scoff and just fight back, but i realise theres a lot of denial out there, and im not talking about the river....

p.s. - Even with all that said, i just wish the $500 PS3 had HDMI as well. It would have been a no brainer at that point to go with that unit. It being only on the $600 unit now begins a debate inside on which to get. Maybe sony will revise its plans and add it to the "base" system by launch? Theres going to be a lot of talk about it and obviously, they are listening to their customers...

Other than the motion controller which stunk of desperation I thought the Sony conference was fine. The game footage definitely looked very tempting and the PS3 came in at a price most of us expected. I like that all versions have a HDD (a big mistake by MS not to do this) and I like that all controllers are wireless. I still grumble that my least favorite controller is keeping the same exact style, but I've dealt with it so far on the PSone and PS2. Definitely a lot to like about the PS3 and it seems like a console that will be cutting edge for a long time.

Obviously if I wouldn't spend $399 on an Xbox360 the $599 PS3 is an impossible sell, but I will own one somewhere down the road when prices drop and Square has a few titles available.

I still have two minor questions. How backwards compatibility is being handled. I don't buy 100% backwards compatibility when the current 75001 PStwo isn't even 100% compatible with the PS2 game library.
How they are cooling this thing. Its a very tight case and I see heat as a major issue.

I posted this in the E3 forum, but I'll ask it here too:

Why the motion sensors? Theyhave really confused me. I thought that Sony's main competition was MS, not Nintendo. Why would they throw a feature into the controller that is an obvious Nintendo rip off, intented to do nothing more than steal some thunder from Nintendo? Are they that concerned over the Wii's controller capabilitities that they would launch a half hearted competitor?

Also, I didn't get a chance to see the PC, but did they demonstrate their online capabilities yesterday, or is that going to happen at the main show?

Did you watch the same demo as everyone else? They used 1 game to demo it, the guy was barely in control of the plane. It was clearly a last minute effort.

If it were truely meant to be there all along why did only one game demo its capability?

I have no doubts that developers will be able to improve and utilize the feature well in future games, but lets get something straight right now. This feature does not offer anywhere near the functionality of the Wii controller. It was thrown in because Sony got their asses sued off and could not include rumble anymore. Therefore they came up with something to confuse the market and try to dilute Nintendo's message making Sony "appear" to have the all in one solution. Yeah, they will get a new feature, but just like "rumble" and analog control before it, Sony is tacing it on at the last second.

It appears to have worked marvously as people here and all over the net are associating the gyro sensor technology with equating it to the Wii controller. They are not the same. Heck, the gyro sensor capability is the same thing found in just he nun-chuck attachment to the Wii. (Also found in the Ford Explorer btw)

Wait to see FPS's and how they "utilize" the remote of the PS3 and the Wii, there will be no comparison. Putting together a 2-bit demo of Warhawk and barely being able to maintain control is a lot different then what you will see today.

I sort of answered this above. In short, Sony had to lose the rumble feature so they came up with something else to include. Nintendo is Sony's main competition from Sony's perspective. (And vice versa). It's a Japanese honor and tradition thing from their history, MS is "along for the ride" in their eyes. Don't forget the PSP/DS battle either. Since this is where all the growth has been the last 2 years the companies are also very focused on this.

Its actually not a motion sensor, I believe it is a gyroscope. Nintendo went with the motion sensors which require trangulation (hense the two stands required on either side of your TV). The PS3 controller will detect 6 degrees of tilt in all 3 axis, but moving it from one location to another would do nothing.

Its kind of funny, because this is what most believed Nintendo was doing with their controller before they came out with the prototype. Sony has gone with the easier solution and hopefully some cool games with it (Warhawk looks amazing). I'm excited and can't wait to put some money down on the $600 unit.

Nintendo will also have the gyroscope in the nunchuck if EA is to be believed.

I thought that the Wii controller used gyroscope technology in addition to the motion sensors. I could be wrong. I wish that sony had changed the controller a bit more, since the dual shock is my least favorite controller of the current generation.

I think its going to come down to online capabilities for me. Do we have Sony's plan yet?

I haven't seen the demo, only the one with the movement. I won't be claiming that I'm a Nintendo expert, so I'll take your word for it. I just wonder if Sony was planning this the whole time (using the prototype controller to throw off the competition) or if it was a 1-year crush to develop the technology (as copying Nintendo would imply).

Yes, because some people down want to bow down to Sony and accept the $600 price tag, automatically means they're broke. -ohbfrank-

Sure the biggest fans will line up, but like a big summer blockbusters, I think Sony will shoot their wad the first weekend but drop like a stone in the following weeks. If people just shrug and pay the outrageous price what's stopping them from charging $1000 for the PS4?

So for $600 you get a system that looks marginally better than the $400 competition and plays BR movies? So marginal that some developers are claiming you won't be able to tell the difference between the two. This is the perfect time for consumers to stand up and be heard by not opening their wallets.

I have no problem with Sony or the PS line, but a $600 system is BAD for conusmers in every way.

IGN has a good write-up on what the differences will (or should?) be. Basically, the PS3 controller will be limited to something like Kirby Tilt and Tumble or Ware Ware Twisted on the Gameboy: basic twists and tilts. It's definitely a much, much simpler technology and definitely added as a response to Nintendo.

Well, you'll also have to factor in that neither system is going to look $400 or $600 better over the current systems when played on a standard TV, which (while I don't have any numbers) is probably a fat-ass majority still.

Judging from the gameplay shown yesterday, they don't even look marginally better.

It will probably be 75% by November. That is the reason for the $500 PS3. I definitely didn't see anything that looked better than Xbox360, however, some of the content like FFXIII you know will be great.

This wouldn't be that same developer who is developing the same game for both the 360 and PS3 using the same engine, would it? Who said that their screenshots would look no different?

I still havent' seen a game that looked as impressive as MGS4.

I think Gears of War looks better than MGS 4 personally, but they both look great.

You can't compare this with when the PS2 launched. DVD was a huge change over VHS, and the players were about $300. There's very very few people outside of micro-market enthusiast forums who are going to be buying $999 BR players. Those are not the people buying PS3s to save $400, especially since the video quality on the PS3 BR player is going to be worse compared to a retail standalone.

Next-gen DVD is not like the old DVD. The mass adoption won't happen again. Not like with the PS2.

I can see high-def (720p) video through component now, both through my cable box and my Xbox 360. Why couldn't the PS3 do this?


Thank you, Kutaragi says, leaving the stage. Harrison's still up there. "Finally, I have to make a slight confession" he says. They've modified a game to take advantage, having known about the controller for "a couple of weeks", he says - it's WarHawk.

That to me sounds like a last-minute add-on, not something in the design of the console the whole time. It won't be anywhere near what the Wii does.

Wow. Too much for me, and I'm not broke. I'll stick with the old technology and spend my cash on something more important.

I don't see how consumers are going to fork out this much cash.

Here's the other thing, the Core 360 is going to be better than the $499 PS3 because the Core 360 can be upgraded. You can buy the cables. You can buy the hard drive. You can buy wireless controller. It's not the same with the PS3. You can't buy the cheap one and work up to the expensive one.