The Shrine

Woah...I was expecting at least $100 dollars less.

And that controller unvieling was pretty damn funny.

So anyone actually going to shell out that much cash at launch for a PS3? For me, it's just too much to justify.

No chance for me. $200 ($300 Cdn) is the most I'll pay for a system, period. Guess I'll just have to wait 3 years to get one.

Depends on launch titles. But for me, yes, I will *probably* end up paying for it.

No point for me to bother getting one at launch - in fact, it makes far more sense not to. 2nd-cycle 360 games will very likely look better than PS3 launch games, and Wii launch games will very likely incorporate the motion sensing mechanic better than PS3 launch games.

Since I already have next-gen graphics/internet play with the 360, and will be able to pick up motion-sensing games with the Wii for much less money (half?), I can wait as long as I want for the PS3 to be worth it (either by a price drop or by being good enough to be worth the money).

It makes sense to wait on PS3, by the time the games start coming out that we're going to want to play, the system will have likely undergone a price drop, or a few. Plus newer, updated, more durable models will be available; I think anyone who has bought an early Sony system knows what I am talking about here.

I had 3 PSXs plus a PS1, and a PS2 and PS2 slim model. My first PS2 is toast, gameplay can sometimes last up to 20 minutes before it enters into "eternal load" mode. My original PSX broke down very quickly, it had to be placed upside down for a while before it eventually fried, second PSX I sold, third PSX I bought soon after (second hand) and it lasted a while before it started having issues with certain games, it took several attempts before it would play, and it would even scratch the disks. PS1 (the small white one) works like a dream. The slim PS2 is also a joy to have over the bulky and ugly original PS2 model.

Now I know I am not the only one who has had issues. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't I suppose. I heard from Zeus I think that Sega Genesis was supposed to have problems; I have yet to experience any problems whatsoever and I have a Genesis from like back in the 80's =P

Both my NES's suck though, it takes them like 20 minutes just to get them started up. Of course, back in the day that I played NES I was a 5 year old kid, and the NES was hooked up to a TV from out of the 70's in an unfinished basement (I wasn't allowed playing NES upstairs, but I fucking loved my basement).

So more details have surfaced about the difference between the two PS3 SKUs: turns out that not only will the $499 model have 40 GB less HD space, it also lacks built-in WiFi, the memory card slot - and here's the real kicker IMO - HDMI out.

Since Sony is trumping this thing as a combination console/Blu-ray player, why would they bother offering an SKU without HDMI - and thus, by extension, HDCP? I mean, a lot of people have reacted to the announcement of the HD-DVD drive for the 360 with something along the lines of "but the 360 doesn't support HDCP, so HD-DVDs will get nerfed if companies decide to turn on the copy protection bit." Doesn't the same argument apply here - and will anyone even release Blu-ray movies without HDCP in the first place? Also, how would someone who buys the cheaper PS3 - which also won't be able to do 1080p - at first go about upgrading their model if they eventually come into some extra cash? With the 360, it's pretty easy to do - buy a hard drive, wireless controller, component cables, and headset for your Core and bingo, you've got the equivalent to a Premium. Last I checked, it's kinda hard to add I/O ports to consoles.

I suppose the comparison can be made between the core PS3 and the premium 360 - they're both next-gen, support the same resolution, and have a 20 GB hard drive; neither has WiFi support out of the box, neither is a true HD movie player. However, the PS3's still more expensive, and that's *before* any possible MS price drops.

If I had to guess, the lower SKU is Sony's way of softening the blow of the fully tricked-out PS3, with all the extra bells & whistles they've been hyping (HD movie player, 1080p, biggger HD), being a full $200 more than the competition - which really smacks of weakness/fear to me. Wouldn't it have made more sense to just come out with the single, fully featured SKU at $600, and market it in a "it's going to be so good it'll be WORTH that extra money!" kind of way?

My original PSX - the one that used standard RCA cables - was a refurbished model and it still eventually had the laser track wear out, forcing me to get another. Other than that, I've never had a problem with any other system other than my original NES, which, as we all know, had a problem with the PIN connector. Those were the only two systems I've ever had to replace; and they were both played a shitload before I had to replace them.

I will probably have to replace my Super Nintendo soon. It has seen so much usage that the plastic is actually warped.

I've been real lucky. My orginal NES is toast, but my top loader NES works great, my SNES works great still, my PS1 i sold with a mod chip and worked fine, my PS2 is a first gen and works great (but doesnt play blue back CD games for some reason... only have come across 2 so far, some cheap cheap tennis game and Tetris Worlds).

So is this the "reminisce about console hardware failures" thread now?

I've had one Atari 2600 die on me due to being in a flooded basement - the other one I have still works.

My first NES died on me completely after 10+ years. I bought a refurbished one with a new 72 pin connector, and bought a spare 72 pin connector to back that one up in case it ever died.

My first SNES worked flawlessly until I sold it - the used one I replaced it with has generally worked well thus far, but I've had to tweak it a couple times to get games to run.

As far as I know my original PSX still works - it's an old enough rev to still have discrete composite out jacks - mainly because I coddled the thing like a baby after hearing all the horror stories about it. Always had it up on an egg crate or put floppy disks under the corners, that kind of thing. I haven't really used it since I got my PS2 since at this point I'd only need it to play my imports.

The used Saturn that I picked up for myself still works - played Guardian Heroes a week or two ago - but the cartridge port is extremely flaky (especially with my memory cartridge, boo), and I've had to replace the battery at least once.

I went through two Dreamcasts and at least three trips to the mall on launch day, as it took that many tries to find one that would run all the games I bought. Then it started to load really freaking slowly about two years in, so I replaced it for $99 and gave the old one to a friend.

Have had no problems with my PS2 since I got it. Only problem I've had with my Cube is that occasionally the controller won't work when I have it connected to both of the extension cables. Have had no issues with my Xbox or 360, except that the first Intercooler I bought for the 360 was DOA.

And finally, the first DS I bought had a dead pixel on the bottom screen, so I exchanged it.

The only system I've had stop working on me was my Playstation 2.

My original NES still works and I played the crap out of that thing. My SNES still works. My N64 still works even after someone spilled Kool-Aid on it 8 years ago. My PS2 stopped reading discs, but I was able to fix it.

The Seeker wrote:I will probably have to replace my Super Nintendo soon. It has seen so much usage that the plastic is actually warped.

When the SNES came out in Cali, I got mine while I was down there visiting my cousins 3 days after release. Back then, it actually came out in different states at different times. So when I came back to Canada, I had to wait 2 months to buy games for it; all I could play was Mario World. It ruled, but that was torture.

Mind you, the first two games I bought were F-Zero and Actraiser, so I was having a blast for months on end afterwards.

And that same SNES is the same one I still use. That system's a rock

Heh, I am considering buying one of the newer slim models released 7 or 8 years ago if I can get my hands on one. I still play my SNES regularly too, in fact, I was playing Chrono Trigger and King Arthurs World this morning. I own over 60 games for the thing, and I am still buying games for it. However, it does look like I will be needing a new one soon, it is now an effort to turn the power on due to wear and tear. I also play Genesis regularly too, I just played through the Shining Force games a few months back.

The Seeker wrote:Heh, I am considering buying one of the newer slim models released 7 or 8 years ago if I can get my hands on one. I still play my SNES regularly too, in fact, I was playing Chrono Trigger and King Arthurs World this morning. I own over 60 games for the thing, and I am still buying games for it. However, it does look like I will be needing a new one soon, it is now an effort to turn the power on due to wear and tear. I also play Genesis regularly too, I just played through the Shining Force games a few months back.

Yeah, I picked up one of those a while ago. If you can find it, get it, they're not THAT common. Not as rare as the top-loading NES, but still harder to get

So for my next gen purchase, do I go with the company that has currently lost over 4 Billion $, the Dumbfuck one that is getting nothing right atm, or that old standby that is showing surprising new life?

I'll take the fucktardedly name Wii.

How the hell did Sony screw up this badly. Price point, sku's, controller... where does one start? It's a mess. I'll buy the redesigned one maybe in 4 years when it costs about $129 Cdn.

360. Still unconvinced after messing with it. I just don't care for it. I've got a media centre pc, and my gaming pc. Nothing about the current system is selling me.

Nintendo. Why did I doubt you so only a year ago? You've won me back with the DS, and have managed to get me excited about the Wii. You win. You will earn my jaded cynical bastard $ as soon as you release it.

I saw the full MGS 4 trailer today, and I would give one testicle at *least* to play that game. Maybe both. So it looks like Sony will get my money anyway.

I actually went up to one of the Sony reps today and was like, "Good job on hanging on to Kojima, guys..."

I guess they want Nintendo to take the lead. What in the hell is Sony and MS thinking?

It's hard to see them taking the "lead", at least in the traditional gaming sector. Remember, Wii games mostly *look* like Gamecube games. The photorealistic stuff will be on 360 and, especially, PS3.

I'm not going to be surprised if MS takes the lead in this generation. They're doing a lot right (the 360 is a really, really nicely-designed system, and Live is an amazing service) and they deserve the success.

I don't imagine Nintendo taking the lead either, as I think they've sort of stepped out of the race (and into a new one).

I think the Xbox 360 will probably take the lead too, with Wii following. The 360 has a softer price point and a year head start, whereas the Wii has a very pleasant price point and some really cool stuff going for it.

Sony's price point is just way too high. I still hear that the games themselves are supposed to be $100 a piece. Furthermore, my experiences with the PSX and PS2 have been iffy, my original PSX died out after several months of having to be played upside down and my PS2 still works but it loads a little slow and scratches my discs occasionaly.

Xbox 360 looks cool, and I'll definatly pick one up eventually, when I have the money and it's dropped in price a bit. Although, if I had a high end PC, I probably wouldn't care about it so much.

The Wii has me sold, however. I absolutely will pick up that system when it releases.

As for broken down systems, I already mentioned my PSX. Other than that, my Dreamcast is starting to breakdown. I have a first gen model and occasionally it won't spin the discs, in which case I have to give it a few more tries.

Also my GameCube died. It won't turn on, period. I think the power reciever got fried since it was hooked up to the wall w/out a surge protector.

My SNES might not work either, I used to store it in my closet until I realized the heater (right next to my closet) was starting to melt the casing. I haven't tested it yet though.

My NES, however, works like a charm. Sometimes I have to use the usual tricks to make it work, but it still runs fine.

Yeah, I think Microshaft might take this generation as well, unless Sony is willing to eat A LOT on the PS3. They have a good head start and they have the "coolness" factor that the name "Nintendo" will never have.

Zeus wrote:Yeah, I think Microshaft might take this generation as well, unless Sony is willing to eat A LOT on the PS3. They have a good head start and they have the "coolness" factor that the name "Nintendo" will never have.

Ironically, it's easy to observe that the "coolness" factor matters mainly for geeks and 12 year olds (and not even all geeks and 12 year olds, just most of the people who this seems to buy things just based on if its cool are not are children and geeks). What matters for most people are the gameplay experiences; Example: why "uncool" Nintendo blasted ahead of the "cool" Sega in sales during 94-96. Before 1994, Sega had the better line-up of games, but then when titles such as DKC, Mario Kart, and others started coming out in about 1993, it really turned the tide in sales. SNK's "cool" Neo Geo systems never even got off the ground. Price is also a major factor, but the PS3 will be the first system since Saturn to really put that theory to the test.

I never felt as a kid that Sega was cooler than Nintendo. The only time i ever wanted a Sega was when Mortal Kombat came out for both, but the Sega one had blood.

I do remember the arguments back when I was in middle school over which system was "cooler." The majority thought that the Sega Genesis was.

I was in the minority and preferred the Super Nintendo, though I also owned and enjoyed a Genesis. I always felt that the SNES had a better lineup of games. They at least had a lineup that I liked better. I liked my Genesis, but I didn't get quite the same joy from it as my SNES.

Looking back, I see why I went on to become an obsessed gamer who posts on a gaming message board and follows gaming news and others didn't. I just took it more seriously.

Zeus wrote:Yeah, I think Microshaft might take this generation as well, unless Sony is willing to eat A LOT on the PS3. They have a good head start and they have the "coolness" factor that the name "Nintendo" will never have.

I don't know about MS, to be honest. The 360 isn't selling worth shit in Japan, as much as people want to marginalize that region it's still a really important market, plus Japanese developers will be hesitant to make games for a console that's only getting token sales in Japan, despite having decent sales in Europe/NA. So that leaves Sony and Nintendo. I think it could be really close, depending on how hard Nintendo wants to fight for the top spot. The PS3 will be a lot more expensive than the Wii, to be sure, but then again Sony plans on having the console out for the next 6-7 years, plenty of time for price drops and market saturation.

Say it with me: Six-Hundred Dollar System.

It really needs to roll off your tounge before you realise how freakin expensive a video game system is.

Agreed. Six-hundred dollars is just not something that I can comprehend when it comes to buying a game system. That's nice that Sony wants to keep this system around for a 6-7 year time span, but I won't be a customer until the price is somewhat reasonable.

What's really interesting is you guys are saying that $600 is too much for a game console right now. I read something the other day that said a $250 Atari 2600 was the equivalent of 700 of today's dollars or something - what must people have been thinking when the $700 3D0 launched in the early 90's?

Manshoon wrote:I don't know about MS, to be honest. The 360 isn't selling worth shit in Japan, as much as people want to marginalize that region it's still a really important market, plus Japanese developers will be hesitant to make games for a console that's only getting token sales in Japan, despite having decent sales in Europe/NA.

This is true. Japan will remain Sony's, I think, and as long as they've got Japan they're not going to implode. More's the pity.

what must people have been thinking when the $700 3D0 launched in the early 90's?

"I'm not going to buy that." And they didn't .

Agent 57 wrote:What's really interesting is you guys are saying that $600 is too much for a game console right now. I read something the other day that said a $250 Atari 2600 was the equivalent of 700 of today's dollars or something - what must people have been thinking when the $700 3D0 launched in the early 90's?

That's why home videogame sales were never big until the NES era (NES was something like $150 USD at launch and soon dropped to $99; about 10 years or so after the 2600 which launched in the mid-70's). I remember Commodore Vic 20 cost like $300.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:

Manshoon wrote:I don't know about MS, to be honest. The 360 isn't selling worth shit in Japan, as much as people want to marginalize that region it's still a really important market, plus Japanese developers will be hesitant to make games for a console that's only getting token sales in Japan, despite having decent sales in Europe/NA.

This is true. Japan will remain Sony's, I think, and as long as they've got Japan they're not going to implode. More's the pity.

Sony lost Japan about 8 months ago.

The Seeker wrote: Sony lost Japan about 8 months ago.

Thanks, man, I needed a good laugh :-)

This will further divide the gaming community... the cool kids will buy the expensive machine while the babies will buy the Wii, nothing has changed.

I do like that Sony thinks the PS3 will be around for a long time, I may get it, who knows, you know the games are going to kick ass.

Zeus wrote:

The Seeker wrote: Sony lost Japan about 8 months ago.

Thanks, man, I needed a good laugh :-)

I find it strange that you, of all people, missed that the DS has been the top system in Japan for nearly all of the past 8 months. On the hardware front it has been selling more than all other systems combined. On the software front with GBA combined have had anywhere between 40% and 65% during the last 8 months.

Entirely different markets, dude.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:Entirely different markets, dude.

According to who?

The Seeker wrote:According to who?

You're completely insane.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:

The Seeker wrote:According to who?

You're completely insane.

First: Grow up.

Second: Answer the question: which sales tracking source from Japan states that they are "Entirely different markets, dude."?

Otherwise I have absolutely nothing to go on.

To give you a starting point: Famitsu and Mediacreate include DS sales along with all other major systems when factoring market share.

I know people who have and only want handhelds... thus, they are not in the market for a home console...

I just don't understand how you could not consider them different markets, or least entirely separate sections of the same market.

They're different markets because the products offer different functionality, serve different purposes, have different requirements, and are bought with different uses in mind.

Answer the question: which sales tracking source from Japan states that they are "Entirely different markets, dude."

I don't follow Japanese sales trackers, but if they don't consider the handheld and console markets different then they're too coarse-grained.

Flip wrote:I know people who have and only want handhelds... thus, they are not in the market for a home console...

Poor logic: I know people who only want PS2, who only want an Xbox, who only want a gamecube, thus they wouldn't be in the same market as other systems.

The point is the only two major sources that I have access to (and possibly the only two major ones from Japan) Famitsu and Mediacreate DO in FACT include handheld as part of the videogame market when factoring out marketshare. Not only that, but Nintendo and Sony also include handheld system sales together with their other systems within their financial reports.

DS is a part of the videogame market, I don't know how you can say it isn't. The handheld market is a part of the videogame market.

Maybe, but i seriously doubt someone thinking of buying a PS3 will instead decide on a DS... they may decide on a Wii, how is this difficult to understand?

Flip wrote:Maybe, but i seriously doubt someone thinking of buying a PS3 will instead decide on a DS... they may decide on a Wii, how is this difficult to understand?

Actually, someone may buy a DS instead of a PS3 or Wii because they prefer the cheaper price and the portability of the system. Someone would buy a Wii over PS3 because they would want a Wii over DS and PS3 because they want a cheaper system which allows for gameplay style available only on Wii. Someone might buy a PS3, instead of a DS or a Wii, because they want a system that displays very high definition graphics along with a Blu-Ray playability feature. Each system has its unique properties, but they are all still videogame systems according to any major industry source that I have seen. They are not totally different markets; which is why DS is always included as part of Nintendo's marketshare in Japan. Gamespot, IGN games, Famitsu, and pretty much every other major videogame source includes DS among their videogame systems. Even though they target different gaming preferences, they are all still part of the videogame market.

Who said they werent part of the videogame market? Noone.

What was stated was that the DS did not ruin the Japanese market for the PS3, which is true since the DS is a handheld and not a home console.

Do me a favor next time you are in Best Buy, go find a guy looking at TV's and try to convince him he should get a portable TV instead, you'll get the stupidest look you ever saw. This is the same thing. Yes, they are both consoles (TV's), but they attract different people for different purposes. The Wii is meant to compete with the PS3, not the DS.

I'm sure there are people who consider the DS as competition for a console system when they are deciding what to spend their money on.

I don't think there's any way to matter-of-factly state whether the DS is or is not going to be in competition with the PS3. My first reaction is the same as Andrew and Flip, but I can also see it from Seek's point of view.

In other words, can't we all just get along?

NO! MUST FIGHT!

The Seeker wrote:Sony lost Japan about 8 months ago.

<a href="http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3150896">Famitsu Post E3 Poll Reveals Interests Lie In Sony, FFXIII</a>

The Seeker wrote:

Zeus wrote:

The Seeker wrote: Sony lost Japan about 8 months ago.

Thanks, man, I needed a good laugh :-)

I find it strange that you, of all people, missed that the DS has been the top system in Japan for nearly all of the past 8 months. On the hardware front it has been selling more than all other systems combined. On the software front with GBA combined have had anywhere between 40% and 65% during the last 8 months.

Yes, but if you look at the total installed userbase and total games sold, Sony wastes all with the PS2. The reason the PS2 sales have slowed is because anyone who's anyone already has it (don't forget, used sales are not recorded here) and the system's 5 1/2 years old now. Sure, the DS has ruled since it came out, but the sheer volume of stuff sold for the PS2 over its lifecycle and the ridiculous interest generated in Japan for the PS3 and Squeenix (see Kupek's post above) completely destroys your hypothesis above.

Wait 'til the PS3 comes out and then Wii'll see