Spiderdogg said:
1. The PS2 was more than the Dreamcast and Cube, too.
2. They've copied
Xbox Live 2. But it seems they've done a few things better as well.
And please not make it as if Sony is the only one to copy from the competition.
3. Er...Eight Days, Heavenly Sword, Resistance, Motor Storm, Genji, so far Assassins Creed,... I could go on and on if you'd like me to.
4. Based on what developers have said about the Cell, it doesn't hold well at all to that statement as well as the PS3's numbers for production this coming November launch.
Devs prefer Blu Ray not only for game content, but multiple languages,too. They think it helps cut cost. Now, there are other as well, but these are just some of the very few right off the top of my head.
Sony had a patent for the original PlayStation controller back in 99. Unless Nintendo revealed the Wii-mote back in 99, I doubt what Sony is doing with the next controller had anything to do with Nintendo's Wii-mote. Plus the technology in them are totally different.
1) The ps2 was more expensive than an already dead system and a system that had no chance of competing and was coming out a year later? So you're saying that ps2 was more expensive than those two during a time where it had no competition? And that's your argument, ps2 was more expensive when gamers had no other option...and so ps3 being more expensive when gamers have two, superior options is not a problem? Seriously? That's all you came up with?
2) No, they really didn't. I don't know if you've ever been on xbox live, or seen it, read about it, or have any knowledge about it whatsoever, but it's painfully obvious that they are porting Xbox Live v1.0 over to the ps3, not the 360 version. And what exactly are they doing better than XBLive? Screwing the customer over? Sucking the fun out of gaming? Making it's customers wish they had went with the other guy?
3) Assassin's Creed?
Heavenly Sword? So the PS3 has crappy looking future ports and junkware that not many people on the face of the earth who
aren't desperate to come up with something ps3 has will care about. Good to know.
4) What exactly have developers said again? Any specific quotes, ideas, hinting, anything? Oh, you just made stuff up in lieu of facts, because the CELL is a
failure and nigh-impossible to defend? That's fine, I guess. It's a very well known, publicized fact that the CELL has terrible yields. It's also well known that Steve Jobs, when offered the CELL for his Macs, looked down his nose at the chip and dismissed it. Just as well known as the fact that the CELL offers
no performance upgrades over the 360 chip in gaming, as it's architecture is more custom tailored to be put into a server blade or to be put to work decoding HD footage than in any general computing, ie games. But you know, feel free to defend it if you'd like. It's always cute to see people try and talk about computer stuff when they know they really can't. I look forward to reading "the CELL has more jigahertz guys!"
5) Did you just imply that a hugely more expensive format who's chief advantages can not be used in game development thanks to the port port port business model we see in games today, is loved because it helps lower costs? Hahahahaha, wow
Here's a little secret Sony didn't put Blu-ray into PS3 to help them put out a better console. They put it in the machine so that there would be more Blu-Ray players on the market than HD-DVD players, helping their format to win. It's actually one of the worst things they could have done from a
gaming perspective, though I have a feeling that you'll just ignore all that and continue to believe it was a stroke of genius.
6) I'm sure they did patent it "back in 99". And then they brought it out when Nintendo did. Because they were copying them, poorly. See how that works? No, of course you don't.
