Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

MMR: Nintendo is the Democratic Party and Sony is the GOP in the Next-Generation

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 13, 2006 10:50:55 AM

There are some eerie parallels between the recent mid-term U.S. Congressional elections and the current next-generation console race in the video game industry. Will Nintendo stage an improbable comeback with Wii? Or will gamers give PlayStation 3 their vote of confidence and keep Sony in power?
November 13, 2006 1:57:10 PM

Not your best article in some time, Rob.

So what does that make the Xbox360 in your analogy? An independent? I don't think so.....

The real battle in the US and European markets will be PS3 vs Xbox360. The Wii will be an add on for hardcore gamers that want to play some Wii exclusive titles and the Wii will target the game party crowd and a new audience that did not think too much about gaming yet (which is I think its strong point).
November 13, 2006 3:13:37 PM

I think you are underestimating the Wii.

The virtual console alone I suspect will be a great success.

Yes there is a real competition between the 360 and the PS3 for the same narrow demographic, but the wii is targeted toward a MUCH wider demographic and is cheaper than either of its opponents.

I think Nintendo stands a real chance of edging back into the mainstream market. Meanwhile PS3 and 360 will duke it out for the Console FPS and late teens/early 20's market.
November 13, 2006 6:27:54 PM

For cost reasons alone, I would not even consider a PS3. $500 - $600 (or more) for a game machine is ludicrous. The only thing that will save the PS3 is if people buy it for the blu-ray technology. That is, of course, unless stand-alone players don't drop dramatically in price soon. Then again, you always have the brand loyalists who won't buy anything other than Sony products. I for one have always found Sony's products to be sub-par.

Wii will have its work cut out for it though. Right now you can get the Xbox360 Core system for $199 after rebates.
November 13, 2006 6:34:59 PM

As a republican I am offended to be compared to Sony. I will accept you apology if given. :D 
November 13, 2006 8:02:57 PM

Quote:
Yes there is a real competition between the 360 and the PS3 for the same narrow demographic, but the wii is targeted toward a MUCH wider demographic and is cheaper than either of its opponents.


Obviously (as I already pointed out in my post) the Wii is targeting a different audience. I would be rather surprised if this new audience is actually a lot bigger than the "traditional" audience of the xbox360 and PS3, and I think you are overestimating the impact, but we'll just have to wait and see.
November 13, 2006 9:07:35 PM

Quote:
As a republican I am offended to be compared to Sony. I will accept you apology if given. :D 


Are there Sony fans that are offended by comparing Sony to GOP? :lol: 

And I think the article is amazing! The parallels are so good, including timings :) 
November 14, 2006 1:04:25 AM

Very interesting coincidencial parallels in that article...

Quote:
Of course, there has been a little too much hype around Wii. Indeed, I felt Nintendo may have peaked too early as the Wii came back down to earth in recent months; people began to complain that the console was actually too expensive at $249.99 and that early demo versions of Wii games didn't look all that great.


I overheard some "casual" gamers (read: there is no such thing, but these people considered themselves to be gamers, when in fact they are not even close - they're people who happen to play a game or two on the off chance that they're bored) today in the lounge waiting to register for next semester's classes complaining about the Revolution (or Wii, if you must call it... I still call marketing ploy on this move) price tag.

But why doesn't this matter anyway?

Because Xbox 360 still costs $150 more. Because Sony has shot themselves in the foot, jumped off a cliff with a bungie rope tied around their neck (read: hanged themselves in a big way), & been cut to pieces by Nintendo.

Because at the end of the day, Nintendo is still the best option for these people. Especially considering these "gamers" all have Nintendo DS Lites.

Personally I think my estimate will remain at about 30-40% market share for everyone. I think Sony is more likely to get the short end of the stick than anybody this time around. Afterall, the only thing holding them above water is the fact that they have the awfully big life vest of their brand name.

It won't be a brand name for long if they don't deliver very quickly after they launch the PS3 though. I hate to be truly forboding for anyone, but for Sony... Things don't look so hot. They just better be damn glad they do have that brand name backing to hold them afloat for a few years & do their best to get on the customer's side again.
November 14, 2006 2:58:18 AM

This console war has been cracking me up for some time.

This reminds me of an ass backwards 16bit war, with the errors of the 32bit war all rolled into one. Let me explain:

Back in the 16 bit war we had 3 players. Nintendo (SNES powerful and decent price) SEGA (upstart in NA weaker but fun games), and NEO-GEO (a 16bit and 8bit proc jamed into a console expnesive as all hell and kicked the crap out of everything). Now the neo-geo bombed (even for it's niche market) despite having the most advanced games, the best exclusives, because it was simply not affordable for everybody. Nobody wanted to shell out 500+ for a console. I'll also note that the neo-geo was only console at this price point that did reasonably (3do, jaguar, cdi all failed horribly), and it only did as good as it did because SNK pumped out godly games and the neo was way ahead of the second most powerful (SNES). PS3 lacks great 1st party games, and is not that far ahead of the 360 (in fact on graphics proc and memory alone it's weaker).

The PS3 seems to be the neo-geo of this era. It's an over inflated albatross that may offer a "superior" console, but it's price and exclusivity are it's own worst enemies. I'll note I own a neo geo (and several MVS arcade cabs) and I love it to death, but this seems like that all over again.

The next comparison is the 32 bit era. Sega came off the genesis, which managed to steal Nintendos thunder and won the 16 bit era. The console was also far more powerful then the PS1. However it was hard to program for, came to the market late, and cost to much... exactly all the problems with the PS3 now. It's as if sony didn't learn anything about how they got the market in the first place.

I'll also note I loved the saturn. Radiant Silver Gun and Nights are some of the best games ever released, and are in the top 10 of the 32 bit era. However Sega screwed up with their console launch and design.

Sony is set to repeat those exact two same mistakes. Their only ace in the hole in the hole is the third party games. And oddly enough Nintendo had those same titles till they screwed up (metal gear, FF, ect). So those third party devs are fickle, they will go where it helps them, they have no loyalty. Yet Nintendo/Sega/SNK could always depend on first party titles to save their hide and weather tough times, sony doesn't have that.

I don't object to the price point of the PS3. I've spent more money on other stupid junk. I own a 1080p tv. What I do object to is that it's not worth even half that price. Blu-ray is a waste, the extra DRM over HD-DVD is an insult to the consumer it will not help for games (sony is lieing on that like they lie about everything) and I'm pretty much paying 300 bucks extra to support the next beta max.... I'm sorry but that's insulting.

Aside from HD-DVD kicking the crap out of blu-ray there is the other issue.... Anybody with the cash to buy a 1080p TV and a good sound system already blew close to 6 grand on their system. I wouldn't EVER use a crappy console player for that. I'd shell out the full 500 (HD-DVD) or 1000 (Blu-ray and yes it will drop) for a real player, not a POS drive in a console.
November 14, 2006 3:32:35 AM

It is interesting that the 360 was left out of the equation. As far as I'm concerned it's more or less a PS3 with different games, lower price, lower graphics. I can see it and the PS3 competing directly for the graphics and online crown while the Wii tries to get back the fun factor into gaming. Sure, watching blood spray realistically while thousands of soldiers engage in flaming battles of doom is nice to look at, but it's gotta be fun. I suspect that a single virtual blow to an enemy in Call of Duty 3 by smacking at them with your controller will be delightfully satisfying, even if the graphics aren't what you'd expect in this day and age.

I'm a college student, so I can't afford thousands of dollars worth of A/V equipment (including a 1080p TV) and a PS3. In fact even if I could, I wouldn't have them in my dorm, because 1080p TVs are huge--I have a hard enough time carrying a 20" LCD up a few flights of stairs. The PS3 is totally out of my price range even if I was excited about it and could get my hands on one at retail price (anyone seen eBay lately? Got $1600 to spare for a PS3?). The 360, at $400, is actually tolerable. Throw in the ability to get HD-DVD on there in the future if so desired, the quasi-HD it offers, and the HD movie rentals and such, and you've got a pretty attractive deal. If they drop the prices annually as they promised, it'll only get better.

The Wii is a totally different beast though. I can honestly see it doing quite well. As I said, being able to interact with your games is just plain fun. Gimmicky? Maybe, but what about controllers that vibrate when you get hit? They've been doing that for 10 years now and Sony only stopped because they said it wasn't compatible with their motion sensing technology. So some gimmicks don't lose their sparkle after a month. Swing a sword, block an arrow, aim a gun, drive a car, get in a fist fight... the possibilities of interactivity for the Wii should allow for plenty of fun and immersive gaming moments if the controller feels right.

I don't believe that Nintendo's leaving anyone out of the equation, really. "Hard core" gamers isn't synonymous with "graphics whores", and if it were, the console market's hard core gamers would have left as soon as a new generation of PC graphics cards came out. Hard core gamers are the sorts of folks who dedicate their time and money to having the games, systems, and experience to claim they're better than you. Do you really think they'll pass up the Wii just because its graphics aren't as shiny as a PS3s? Moderate gamers should care still less about graphics. They also care less about gaming and don't dedicate $500-600 to a system with one controller, no games. $250-300 would be a better price point, Nintendo and Microsoft see this. As far as roping in new gamers, I have to say that $250 is simply too much. $179 or so would have been much better if getting new gamers was the true goal of the Wii. The price will get there in time, though, and much faster than the 360 or PS3 (at their prices do we think they'll even drop to that price before the Xbox 3 and PS4 are out?). Until that point, and after it, they have the intuitive and fun control style to go off of. How many of you can imagine someone over the age of 50, or someone who's never played a game before, picking up a PS3 or 360 controller? They're like every previous controller out there--they've got lots of buttons (4 or so as well as thumb stick for each thumb, and a couple analog triggers for each hand--yikes!). I've played consoles many times and own a few, yet the PS2/3 controllers scare me and feel foreign and dirty in my hands, the 360 controller feels nicer but I still can't get used to using both of my thumbs. Compare that to a Wii controller. Instructions for Wii controller: Do what you want. Want to hit someone? Hit them. Want to dodge? Move like you're dodging. Want to go fishing or drive a car? Hold the controller and do those motions. Simple, smart, and with very few buttons.

Anyway I could ramble on for a lot longer but I'll cut it now. I think the Wii will do well--not as well as if they put it out at a reasonable price ($250 for a smaller Gamecube with moderately improved graphics and a $60 controller? Not for casual gamers...), but still, better than Sony or Microsoft publicly show.
November 14, 2006 7:58:34 AM

O M G 8O

Can someone start posting summaries of the last couple of posts? I'm not going to read all that.
November 14, 2006 12:53:21 PM

Basically there saying a bunch of stuff that is a lot of speculation on weather things like Blu-Ray will take off, saying they have lots of money so they would rather not buy it for movies. It will not have any exclusive titles, basically a lot of things that I would have to disagree on.

Everyone is forgetting Sony is not a poor company and while they are giving companies like Square-Enix and Kojima a lot of money they will stay loyal, after all everyone’s loyalty has a price. Blu-Ray is a very good format in it’s own right being able to hold 25GB per layer instead of 15GB like HD-DVD and will benefit when movies like Schindler's List and Brave Heart can go on only one disc rather than two.

**HD-DVD = 2 Hours and 40 minuets of High Definition Movie**
**Blu-Ray = 4 Hours of High Definition Movie**

Blu-Ray is fairly future proof though with the ability of having up to about 8 layers in a single disc, that’s about 200GB’s. HD-DVD only has a forecast layer count of 3 layers, totalling 45GB’s. However base read speed (1X) is roughly 4.5MB/s on both formats.
November 14, 2006 1:27:51 PM

Wow, I'm so turned off at the political bent that I didn't read your article.
November 14, 2006 2:20:46 PM

Quote:
Wow, I'm so turned off at the political bent that I didn't read your article.


Thanks for keeping an open mind, Homerr.
November 14, 2006 2:24:41 PM

Quote:
Basically there saying a bunch of stuff that is a lot of speculation on weather things like Blu-Ray will take off, saying they have lots of money so they would rather not buy it for movies. It will not have any exclusive titles, basically a lot of things that I would have to disagree on.


I object! I didn't talk about Blu-ray at all.

However if you do want to talk about Blu-ray I think that the most telling argument against it comes from the Blu-ray movie makers themselves. Up until very recently, every Blu-ray movie to be made was done on a 25 GB disk. Try as they might, they couldn't come up with more than 25 GB of content. A simple 30 GB HD-DVD more than provides that amount.

Honestly though... who cares about the maximum capacities? 200 GB per disc will be useless for anything other than data storage, mark my words. Until we come up with a video standard which is higher than 1080p it doesn't matter whether your disc stores 5 hours or 5,000 because you're not gonna fill it.

Granted it will be annoying if you have to switch your disc in the middle of a movie, but at 2 hours and 40 minutes of video per disc, that won't be very common--most likely we'll see the movie on one disc and special features on the other, as we do now.

As far as gaming goes I think that Blu-ray is quite useless.
November 14, 2006 3:28:41 PM

thats stretching the issue.... Not too good article but I like it anyway as I enjoy reading articles bashing Sony. Hopefully PS3 wont sell at all
November 14, 2006 3:36:18 PM

Even before clicking on the article I knew that it was written by Rob Wright.

Rob, seriously, what is with your incessant need to inject your political opinions into your articles?
We really don’t give a rats butt about your political opinions, yet we are constantly bombarded by them.

We know you’re anti-Bush. In the past you’ve somehow turned a discussion on gaming electricity use into an unflattering stereotype of Americans and an anti-Bush tirade. You also implied that the Bush administration had something to do with the recent crap movies coming out of Hollywood.

Seriously… what does any of this have to do with games? I am aware that some articles require it, most notably game rating systems, but you have to inject political slant everywhere.

You’ve written some really stupid articles in the past, but this one really takes the cake.
Please stop. It’s embarrassing.

PS. I agree with Homerr. Call him close minded all you want. We want GAMING news. Not your political blog. Start writing about games, or just tell us you don’t want twitchguru taken seriously anymore and that we should stop reading it.
November 14, 2006 3:40:40 PM

Quote:
thats stretching the issue.... Not too good article but I like it anyway as I enjoy reading articles bashing Sony. Hopefully PS3 wont sell at all


Leckig, why do you think this column is bashing Sony? In case you hadn't noticed, the first few parallels are about Sony's absolute and utter dominance in the console market; Sony innovated with its PlayStation business and were rewarded for it. If I didn't point out that Sony had stumbled recently with Blu-ray issues, delays and other gaffs, then people would accuse me of being a Sony fanboy. I also pointed out that Nintendo made serious errors of its own -- hello, cartidges -- and paid dearly for them. I'm merely pointing out that there seems to be a reversal of fortunes taking place now that one could compare to the Democrats retaking Congress.
November 14, 2006 4:50:08 PM

Rob:
#1 Rule of Writing: Stick to what you know.

You know about tech - which is why I read your stuff. However your knowledge of politics is shallow, and you come off as an amateur to those of us who don't know tech as well as you do - but do understand that politics is more complicated than your lame analogy.
November 14, 2006 5:11:02 PM

Quote:
Wow, I'm so turned off at the political bent that I didn't read your article.


I read the article multiple times and I saw nothing in there that was offensive to either party.

I am a HUGE conservative and am usually on guard for bias and I saw nothing in here against the GOP or the Dems. (not that I wouldn't have minded see the Dems get knocked around :D  )

But in all seriousness, I really enjoyed the analogy and I thought Rob went out of his way to be fair.


Those who think there is bias, point to it so we can discuss it because I didn't see any.


On a side note, last year I went with a buddy who wanted to get the new xBox for his kid. We stayed out overnight in 35 degree weather. I bought one to sell on ebay. Even he concluded later on his kid wasn't worth that ;) 
November 14, 2006 5:20:54 PM

I enjoyed the article, I found the political parallels humorous and interesting. And while I did pick up enough to gather what the Author's personal views are, who cares? It happens all the time. We need to try to take things, especially games, a little less seriously.

There have been a few games I've played that have had jokes or references to both Bush and Clinton, and it did not keep me from playing either.
November 14, 2006 7:44:22 PM

Quote:
I enjoyed the article, I found the political parallels humorous and interesting. And while I did pick up enough to gather what the Author's personal views are, who cares? It happens all the time. We need to try to take things, especially games, a little less seriously.

There have been a few games I've played that have had jokes or references to both Bush and Clinton, and it did not keep me from playing either.


Well said. I don't care how right or left you are. If you can't laugh at Bush and Clinton jokes, you're hopeless :D 
November 14, 2006 7:49:03 PM

HEH HEH,

I think everyone can admit that Clinton was a whoremonger and Bush isn't the brightest bulb in the room :lol: 
November 14, 2006 8:48:18 PM

Quote:
HEH HEH,

I think everyone can admit that Clinton was a whoremonger and Bush isn't the brightest bulb in the room :lol: 


LOL And thats being nice. To both!! :D 
November 15, 2006 2:06:52 AM

Quote:
I also pointed out that Nintendo made serious errors of its own -- hello, cartidges -- and paid dearly for them.


You misspelled no load times. I might change that opinion if the PS1 had any games worth my time or if FMVs mattered at all.
November 15, 2006 3:08:39 AM

Quote:
I also pointed out that Nintendo made serious errors of its own -- hello, cartidges -- and paid dearly for them.


You misspelled no load times. I might change that opinion if the PS1 had any games worth my time or if FMVs mattered at all.

Someone is going to have to explain to me some day how a point is lost in an article because a word is misspelled.
November 15, 2006 3:32:38 AM

He was being facetious by saying that cartridges = no load times.
November 15, 2006 3:35:28 AM

You seem to forget that at the time, CD-ROMS could hold a lot more data than cartridges, which allowed games like Final Fantasy VII (4 CDs, not possible on Cartridges, and one of the key reasons why Square went from Nintendo exclusive to Sony), which was one of the greatest games ever made and hurt Nintendo a lot.
November 15, 2006 8:24:56 AM

We talking about cartridges now?

Cartridges are what made the N64 fail, all the good games with just god-awful textures made me want to cry. Golden Eye, Zelda great games but the completely crap texturing made the games look abysmal. Even the PSX had FPS titles with better texture resolutions, just take a look at Medal of Honour & Quake 2 compared to Golden Eye.

Thing is everything on that consol had to be made completely in 3D where as games like Final Fantasy 7 needed to use pre rendered backdrops for most of the scenes (all but the battles) and they would simply have taken up too much space on a cartridge. And the lack of these pre rendered scenes and FMV’s would have restricted in such a big way the story telling of the game that it would not have been the big success it was.

There is no argument for cartridges they failed and for a good reason.
November 15, 2006 8:43:21 AM

Gyro, if you feel that PSX had no good games, you really missed out on a few. FF VII and FF IX were great, Silent Hill, Syphon Filter, many many others.

Not that the Mario and Zelda games among a few others didn't make N64 worth a used pickup.
November 15, 2006 1:11:02 PM

Quote:
Gyro, if you feel that PSX had no good games, you really missed out on a few. FF VII and FF IX were great, Silent Hill, Syphon Filter, many many others.

Not that the Mario and Zelda games among a few others didn't make N64 worth a used pickup.


I can pull out my Atari 2600, plug it in and it still works. My nintendo refuses to play anything
November 15, 2006 1:14:11 PM

My NES still works, so whats your point?
November 15, 2006 2:39:51 PM

Quote:
Blu-Ray is fairly future proof though with the ability of having up to about 8 layers in a single disc, that’s about 200GB’s. HD-DVD only has a forecast layer count of 3 layers, totalling 45GB’s. However base read speed (1X) is roughly 4.5MB/s on both formats.


Exactly. If the PS3 and Xbox were pure gaming machines like the Nintendo, their prices would be out of line, but that is not their target market. The PS3 and Xbox are trying to position themselves as multi-function devices for the living room - able to play High Definition video, multi-channel sound, and having a lot of other potential uses from their gigbit ethernet connectors and their computer hard drives (multi-media servers etc).

If you consider that the majority of consumers (US, Europe, Japan) are going to have some type of flat panel HD tv in their home in the next few years, the PS3 and Xbox may slam dunk Nintendo based on video quality alone. Why do I want to plunk down several grand on a display in order to look at NSTC quality graphics?

If the PS3 would also play HD-DVD, it would be a no brainer purchase at $500, or even for the "loaded" $600 version. As it is, the Blueray/HD-DVD issue keeps this consumer on the side lines.
November 15, 2006 2:45:05 PM

Quote:
My NES still works, so whats your point?


NES is notorious for games flashing and not coming up. If yours works, more power to you
November 15, 2006 4:00:52 PM

Quote:
Blu-Ray is fairly future proof though with the ability of having up to about 8 layers in a single disc, that’s about 200GB’s. HD-DVD only has a forecast layer count of 3 layers, totalling 45GB’s. However base read speed (1X) is roughly 4.5MB/s on both formats.


Exactly. If the PS3 and Xbox were pure gaming machines like the Nintendo, their prices would be out of line, but that is not their target market. The PS3 and Xbox are trying to position themselves as multi-function devices for the living room - able to play High Definition video, multi-channel sound, and having a lot of other potential uses from their gigbit ethernet connectors and their computer hard drives (multi-media servers etc).

If you consider that the majority of consumers (US, Europe, Japan) are going to have some type of flat panel HD tv in their home in the next few years, the PS3 and Xbox may slam dunk Nintendo based on video quality alone. Why do I want to plunk down several grand on a display in order to look at NSTC quality graphics?

If the PS3 would also play HD-DVD, it would be a no brainer purchase at $500, or even for the "loaded" $600 version. As it is, the Blueray/HD-DVD issue keeps this consumer on the side lines.

The price between Wii and loaded PS3 is what? 350$? If you bet that majority consumers will have some type of HD TV, in a few years, then I am willing to bet that the price for HD-DVD player will be less then that 350$ sooner.
November 15, 2006 6:56:34 PM

Quote:
My NES still works, so whats your point?


NES is notorious for games flashing and not coming up. If yours works, more power to you

There are also many, many "Notorious" methods for getting around this, such as blowing in it, adjusting the cartridge in the slot, turning the system upside down, etc...

Plus the fact that you can get an emulator and any game you want of the internet for free or really cheap pretty much makes you argument moot.
November 15, 2006 7:54:31 PM

Rob, you are obviously 1. bored to tears to write such and article. And 2. a lost Sony fanboi.

Both of which can be cured. I wish you luck in your recovery.
November 15, 2006 9:38:46 PM

Quote:
The price between Wii and loaded PS3 is what? 350$? If you bet that majority consumers will have some type of HD TV, in a few years, then I am willing to bet that the price for HD-DVD player will be less then that 350$ sooner.


Your looking at this from the perspective of a single, teen/20something guy who wants a game console and movie player – that is not the market that the PS3 and Xbox are targeted at.

First, you are comparing a bargain game console that has a maximum resolution of 480P, to premium machines that will run stunning 1080P HD resolution graphics. It is like comparing the first Ataris to a good movie theatre, and do not forget the audio quality. Wii games will look like horse buttocks on a large screen HDTV.

Second, the Xbox and PS3 are more than just game consoles with HD-DVD/Blueray players - they are PCs. The Wii lacks the ability do a lot of things that the Xbox and PS3 can do like: store your entire music collection, stream multi-channel audio through out your home, store and display HD videos and pictures of the family trip to Disney World, serve as a NAS, function as a DVR to record shows (Xbox), and in the PS3 is a WiFi access point.

Third, you would have to buy a lot more electronics with that $350.00 to get the same functionality as an Xbox and PS3 (NAS, wireless acces points, DVR etc), and the Wii still have noticably inferior graphics.

Fourth, the PS3 looks like an AV appliance that should be in your living room – the Nintendo looks like something that belongs in your kid’s room. All those extra electronics add clutter which is the opposite design goal of those sweet, big screen, flat panel displays. You may not get it, but SWMBO does. :o 
November 15, 2006 9:43:01 PM

Heh, I suppose my slightly sarcastic comment seemed more aggressive than anything. Sorry about that. I suppose I tend to come to these forums when I've had less sleep than more.

Oh well, I'll address your concerns:

-Japanese RPGs are crap. End of story. It shouldn't even have started. It's largely because of them that RPG these days merely means stats, & not role playing. I'm not saying there's not a few gems scattered about in the genre, but that would be like trying to dig out treasure from the Anime genre of TV when you don't like the basis. You'd be better off finding good movies if standard style film is what you prefer.

-Metal Gear Solid is a joke. Or at least I found it to be more pathetic than funny. The story came off as half assed. The gameplay came off as half assed. It got stranded in no mans land. Now ironically the sequels got better, but I'm still baffled as to how anyone can take this game seriously even if it's supposed to be classic Batman style.

-As for fighting games (they died in 2D), platformers (that means jumping on platforms or fighting enemies Kirby style - NOT collecting things: yes I'm looking right at Rare as well, N64 was no more innocent), the other assorted games... Well, that's not worth owning a console for either

-Silent Hill is one I definitely plan on going to check out. Resident Evil was pretty good, but not enough to redeem an entire console.

Now for the other response:

My NES still works. I even let somebody borrow Baseball Stars the past few weeks. My N64 works in mint condition. The controllers have less than 4mm dead zone at their worst. I'm counting both left & right. It's only 2mm either way.

Finally, I'd like to say that my initial comment was just because (& I don't even remember who now) somebody slanted the PS1 as being worth a lot more than it was. Yes, it was sarcastic. I'm aware that the trade off for faster performance & higher polygon processing power ended up being amount of content & higher texture resolutions (or were they higher? I can't remember) & both are worthless outside of artistics anyway.

But quite frankly, outside of mere popularity, Sony didn't become important to gaming until the PS2 turned out the greatest games (within the realm of consoles at least) of the past "generation". It's also hard to argue the N64 down or the PS1 above it when Ocarina of Time is the most highly acclaimed game of all time, not just the decade, all time.

I'm not saying it necessarily is, nor that I care, but rather I thought a slant in favor of the PS1 was funny, & thought my own initial post was both funny & sarcastic after 36+ hours without sleep. I apologize for any disturbances I may have caused with this post as well as with the previous one, & I promise I'll try to get a good night sleep tonight so I'll perhaps be a bit more sane next time I post.
November 16, 2006 12:01:20 AM

To each his own I guess. I for one tend to disagree on a few points about the games.

I enjoyed quite a few RPGs that were Japaneses in Origin on PSX, and were more story driven than "stat building" - Xenogears had a great immersive story, so did FF VII (admittedly, to do everything, there was some repetitive fighting, 8 and 9 were a bit more about stats with weaker stories though), Final Fantasy Tactics was a fun and somewhat original RPG, and the Saga Frontier games were more about play than stats (You never had one character long enough to worry about stat building.

That being said, the RPG genre as a whole is definitely better on the PC (or with good ole pen and paper a la D & D).

I enjoyed Metal Gear Solid, but I can understand where you are coming from there.

I don't see how you can say fighting games died in 2d, since there have been more fighting games in 3D than 2d (where you had basically MK and Street Fighter. I don't even play fighting games much, but the Tekken series has been one of the best fighting franchises ever, and its been all 3D, sorta.

I haven't got my hands on Silent Hill yet, though the sequels have all been well worth it.

And What about sports games? The vast majority of sports games are:
Better on Console than PCWere better on PSX than Nintendo consoles.
Like I said though, we all have our own preferences and opinions, which is what allows Sony to have an 8000+ game library instead of like 10 games that everyone plays.
November 16, 2006 2:22:40 AM

Quote:
The price between Wii and loaded PS3 is what? 350$? If you bet that majority consumers will have some type of HD TV, in a few years, then I am willing to bet that the price for HD-DVD player will be less then that 350$ sooner.


Your looking at this from the perspective of a single, teen/20something guy who wants a game console and movie player – that is not the market that the PS3 and Xbox are targeted at.

First, you are comparing a bargain game console that has a maximum resolution of 480P, to premium machines that will run stunning 1080P HD resolution graphics. It is like comparing the first Ataris to a good movie theatre, and do not forget the audio quality. Wii games will look like horse buttocks on a large screen HDTV.

Second, the Xbox and PS3 are more than just game consoles with HD-DVD/Blueray players - they are PCs. The Wii lacks the ability do a lot of things that the Xbox and PS3 can do like: store your entire music collection, stream multi-channel audio through out your home, store and display HD videos and pictures of the family trip to Disney World, serve as a NAS, function as a DVR to record shows (Xbox), and in the PS3 is a WiFi access point.

Third, you would have to buy a lot more electronics with that $350.00 to get the same functionality as an Xbox and PS3 (NAS, wireless acces points, DVR etc), and the Wii still have noticably inferior graphics.

Fourth, the PS3 looks like an AV appliance that should be in your living room – the Nintendo looks like something that belongs in your kid’s room. All those extra electronics add clutter which is the opposite design goal of those sweet, big screen, flat panel displays. You may not get it, but SWMBO does. :o 
You are wrong on many assumptions about me. First I am married 35+ guy. Second, I personally do not look for all those extras, in a game console. Strangely enough that even includes graphics. Partially it is due to the fact that I have COMPUTER, that give me all that, and which in half year will give me graphics PS3 will not be able to touch (waiting for DX10 cards, DX10 games and Vista itself).
I think that lots of gamers are in the same situation, they do have computer anyway. Now I do have 51 inch HDTV setup, and I know that, say, GameCube games do not look best there, but with console I understood one thing - it is much less about pure technology (which I get enough from my PC game) and it is more for "fun" factor. And yes, I do believe Wii will win this war.
And no matter how I look, for at least me it is much more attractive to have stand-along HDTV player (and being able to chose which one) and Wii than PS3.
November 16, 2006 2:13:29 PM

Quote:
You are wrong on many assumptions about me. First I am married 35+ guy. Second, I personally do not look for all those extras, in a game console.


MxM, I was not making personal assumptions about you - my comments were on your perspective. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting a stand alone game console, anymore than someone wanting an all in one appliance like the PS3. It is just a matter of choice, not right or wrong.

My central point is that the Xbox and PS3 are marketed for families and single yuppies that want to enjoy "high end" entertainment on their HD video and multi-channel sound systems in package that fits their décor. This audience includes a lot of very intelligent and highly successful people who never spent the time to figure out how to program their VCRs, but want the benefits of a computer in their living room without having to deal with the downsides of having a computer in their living room. At first glance, the PS3 fits this audience; the Wii does not.

These consumers want a device that works as expected, when expected, looks good, comes in industry standard colors like silver, black and chrome, and does not leave a tangled mess of cables all over the place. These folks probably already own two or more computers, but they do not want to mess with one in the living room. White plastic boxes that look like plastic boxes are not going to motivate these people to buy. 480P graphics are not going to motivate them to buy. And a blue screen of death while trying to show Aunt Ethel the Xmas band concert video is a killer. This why PCs have not replaced DVD players in the majority of American living rooms. PS3 and Xbox are trying to change this.
November 16, 2006 3:59:09 PM

Quote:
My central point is that the Xbox and PS3 are marketed for families and single yuppies that want to enjoy "high end" entertainment on their HD video and multi-channel sound systems in package that fits their décor. This audience includes a lot of very intelligent and highly successful people who never spent the time to figure out how to program their VCRs, but want the benefits of a computer in their living room without having to deal with the downsides of having a computer in their living room. At first glance, the PS3 fits this audience; the Wii does not.

These consumers want a device that works as expected, when expected, looks good, comes in industry standard colors like silver, black and chrome, and does not leave a tangled mess of cables all over the place. These folks probably already own two or more computers, but they do not want to mess with one in the living room. White plastic boxes that look like plastic boxes are not going to motivate these people to buy. 480P graphics are not going to motivate them to buy. And a blue screen of death while trying to show Aunt Ethel the Xmas band concert video is a killer. This why PCs have not replaced DVD players in the majority of American living rooms. PS3 and Xbox are trying to change this.


I'm gonna have to disagree on most of your points, actually. First I don't see how a PC leaves lots of cables all over the place. Monitor power, PC power, video connection, audio connection. Keyboard, mouse, remote, and internet can all be done wirelessly. Just like what a console has. Saying that a PC has 480p graphics is just offensive, up until a year ago it was consoles which were lagging behind in resolution whereas PCs had higher standards such as 1280x1024 and much much higher. To this day you can get PCs which will output 2560x1600 video, whereas no console can approach that and I'm not aware of any TVs which can handle that. BSOD is just a joke now, the only time I've seen it in the past year or two is when I disconnected a hard drive when it said not to, in fact getting a BSOD is more of the exception than the rule. PCs haven't replaced DVD players because DVD players have very simplistic controls, minimal form factors, and they're cheap--most people probably haven't even thought that their PC could hook up to a TV.

No, up until now the PC has been isolated largely from the TV because of several points. One of them is size and sound--unless well concealed, you can tell a PC is there and most people are too stupid to buy computers that look and run well--hence why we've got Dell making so many sales. Also, until a few years ago, digital media stuff was relatively uncommon. It's just now that lots of people are buying equipment to record digital video and pictures, which they would like to be able to share on their TVs. Before this point, with only VHS tapes and DVDs, what incentive do people have to hook their computers up to their TVs? Especially when they don't have HD TVs. The increasing abundance of HD screens and digital media are the most important considerations here, hence why Sony and others are stepping up to try and steal the consumers.

I personally don't see the PS3 or 360 as PC replacements, and if consumers were half smart they wouldn't either. Consider all the overlapping areas they have--HD video playback, image viewing, web browsing, videogaming, music playback, video recording, and so on. If consumers were smart they would realize they already *have* these things and shouldn't be dropping $600 to buy them back again. If more people realized that they could hook their computers up to their TVs and not have to spend thousands extra on redundant equipment (monitors? Speakers? Cables? Media hubs? Power strips? Networking equipment?) I'd wager the PC would have a lot more dominance in the home theater setups of the world. With more HD content out there, Vista's universal Media Center, PCs shipping with almost-standard card readers, etc, I'm hoping that more people will come to their senses and realize their PC can already do everything and more that some extra console will do.
November 16, 2006 6:46:14 PM

Twile, while you point about PCs being more powerful than consoles holds true, I think you are missing some things:

First off, he was referring to Wii when he made the comment about 480p. So don't take that offensively.

A kot of you points actually make good arguments for a Xbox 360 or PS3 being a replacement:

Quote:
PCs haven't replaced DVD players because DVD players have very simplistic controls, minimal form factors, and they're cheap--most people probably haven't even thought that their PC could hook up to a TV.

The same pretty much holds true for a console vs a PC, plus the consoles are arguably more attractive.

Quote:
One of them is size and sound--

You later go on to mention that people should realize they already have devices that can do most of what they want, but I would bet that their existing PCs are from Dell or some such, like you said, and therefor are a) probably ugly, and b)noisy. It makes no sense to have a noisy device in the living room.

Quote:
Consider all the overlapping areas they have--HD video playback, image viewing, web browsing, videogaming, music playback, video recording, and so on. If consumers were smart they would realize they already *have* these things and shouldn't be dropping $600 to buy them back again.

As I said above, they already have these things, but usually in an office or Bedroom, not so much in a living room where you can watch/play from a couch. Even if they wanted to sacrifice their "main" PC for entertainment, in order to achieve that, they would have to take measures to quiet the PC, reduce its size, and make it more attractive, such as buying a SFF case, better cooling, wireless interface and network if they don't already have that.

You are looking at a few hundred right there, and you don't get the added bonus of unique gaming titles, (and better sports/fighting/platform games), and HD playback for Blu-ray/HD-DVD for just a few hundred more.

All this assumes that a person WANTS to use their existing PC as an HTPC. I don't think most will. I think they will see the price of PS3/Xbox 360 vs an additional PC and like their options.

For the record, I don't think either Consoles or PCs will be replacing the other this round, so everyone can relax about that.
November 16, 2006 6:49:26 PM

Quote:
Saying that a PC has 480p graphics is just offensive, up until a year ago it was consoles which were lagging behind in resolution whereas PCs had higher standards such as 1280x1024 and much much higher.


Calm down, I was talking about the Nintendo Wii having the 480P resolution! And you are right, the Nintendo resolution still lags PCs and HD content.

Quote:
I'm hoping that more people will come to their senses and realize their PC can already do everything and more that some extra console will do.


The Xbox and PS3 are PCs and pretty sophisticated PCs at that - the game console is just one function they provide. I believe that Microsoft and Sony are on the right track in attempting to address a viable market. If you want to be able to use a PC independent of your HDTV and vice versa, you need a media center PC or Xbox or PS3 in the living room or family room. Once you get to the point of needing a second PC, why shouldn’t you consider an Xbox or PS3 as a specialized multi- media PC? A PS3 could be very competitive price wise with buying a media PC, game controllers, remote control, software, etc.
November 16, 2006 6:59:18 PM

Quote:
For the record, I don't think either Consoles or PCs will be replacing the other this round, so everyone can relax about that.


The silly HD-DVD versus BlueRay issue certainly supports your argument.

I am suprised that no one mentioned that the PS3 does not have a Firewire port either. That makes it a less digicam and digital SLR friendly.
November 16, 2006 7:52:52 PM

Plus with PS3 at least, 30% of the price isn't going to pay for Vista Bloatware. :twisted:
November 16, 2006 10:31:24 PM

Here's the point I'm trying to make. A PC is a console and home theater replacement. A console is not a PC replacement.

PCs can be configured to do crazy gaming and audio/video playback, web browsing, office applications, web browsing, and specialized applications which don't exist for current consoles.

Consoles can do the first half of those things.

If you want both, go for the PC--the superset.

The problem is that we're in a society where people see PCs as not being objects of the home theater simply. It's totally possible to get a computer with HD outputs suitable for TVs, tuner cards, multi-channel sound, DVD players, remote controls, and the like. And yes, you can have that PC be quite and unobtrusive as well. But people largely aren't aware of these things.

Oh yeah, when you were talking about the Wii having 480p, it was in the middle of talking about PCs and PC only.

And why don't you shut the fuck up when you're paraphrasing what I say? I didn't say "the Nintendo resolution still lags PCs and HD content" or anything to that effect. I said that, whereas gamers have regularly been enjoying 720p and greater resolutions for half a decade, console users and normal TV-watchers have been putting up with 480p at best.

I find it quite humorous that the "next gen" features offered by consoles are old news. Online gameplay? 1280x720 and greater resolutions? Built-in hard drives? Ability to record TV and play back various media formats? Downloadable online demos? WEB BROWSERS? Don't make me laugh. This stuff was par at the turn of the millennium.

Yeah, that's right. Pick my arguments apart one noun phrase at a time. Insist that it's a good idea to cut out the extra parts by incorporating your video and Blu-ray playing components into your PS3. Lecture me on how it's a brilliant consolidation of media and games and productivity software into one device. And then clarify how further consolidating it into a desktop is a bad move.

Oh yeah, and about 30% of your computer budget going to pay for Vista? Lame, just lame. Ignoring the fact that it would be a very cheap and crappy computer with that portion going to the OS... the point is that you take an existing or new PC and get it to be your media center.

I played the PS3 today and I was so let down from my low expecations. A supercomputer in your home, Sony says. Most advanced console ever, Sony says. Graphics power dripping from its ears, Sony says. Yeah, then explain how it can't handle anti-aliasing. LAME.
November 16, 2006 10:55:28 PM

Quote:
If you want to be able to use a PC independent of your HDTV and vice versa, you need a media center PC or Xbox or PS3 in the living room or family room. Once you get to the point of needing a second PC, why shouldn’t you consider an Xbox or PS3 as a specialized multi- media PC? A PS3 could be very competitive price wise with buying a media PC, game controllers, remote control, software, etc.


But you see, lots of people already have more than one PC. I have 2 PC in my home - one in my office and one in the living room, connected to HDTV. And no, I did not buy PC specifically for that, it just with PC you have to buy a new one once per some time. (I will buy another PC quite soon, because my newest PC is already 4 years old, and I can't upgrade it anymore unless I change the mobo.) But to the point - People have anyway more than one PC and one of the old PC can serve quite well as the media computer. You may need to buy HD drive for HD content that and that's it!
November 16, 2006 11:00:09 PM

First off, why don't you try paying attention to who you are talking to when you respond instead of getting all pissy with me for things I didn't say. Thanks.

Now that thats out of the way:

From what I hear, a PS3 running Linux actually CAN do all those things the PC can do, you just need to compile for your machine (which is pretty normal for Linux anyway).

Second, nobody here is arguing that PCs can't do what the consoles can do, or that Consoles can do the same job better than PCs, so stop letter your feelings get hurt over some perceived insult to the mighty PC.

As for next Generation, you are correct, that stuff was par for PCs years ago, but NOT FOR CONSOLES. These are features termed Next-Gen for consoles, obviously not for PCs.

Obviously, my vista comment was an exaggeration pointing out that you are getting charged for an OS that is sub-par at best. (DX-10 is the only decent new feature you can't get in XP, but thats for another thread).

Unless you make your living building and repairing PCs (I have, and still do a bit on the side), and feel your livelyhood is threatened by the emergence of cross over devices (People argued in the past that PCs had no business in the living room by the way), you really need to step back and stop getting so worked up.

You'd think we were actually talking politics here.
!