| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (150)

Posted: May 24th 2007 6:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sony DOES need to drop the price by about $200. I'm just warming up to the idea of paying $500 for a PS3; I don't think the mass market will ever get used to it, though. Remember the reaction of the hardcore audience to the $600 price tag announcement? That's how the casual gamer will always feel about it.

Posted: May 24th 2007 7:02PM HelghanSuperSniper said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ fernando

uh...okay, well, many of the functions of Live are stripped from the PC. Live puts it all in one cohesive unit but the PC provided everything Live does and more and has done so for years.

What does the PS3 allow that the 360 doesn't? USB storage device support which matters a whole lot when your HDD is full and you want to download those great new trailers and demos.

SD support, Micro SD support, MemStick Support, External Drive Support.

BluRay which may not seem like a selling point but MS would have never bothered with HD-DVD so soon if Sony didn't include BluRay

HDMI support included included

Wifi included

Graphics are debatable but I will say this though, this Heavenly Sword wallpaper on my work Desktop looks damn sexy and surpasses everything on 360 except for Gears of War in terms of graphic fidelty.

Posted: May 24th 2007 7:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
PS3 is the best system hands down and well worth the price. If you have an HDTV and want to get the most out of it PS3 is the way to go. I also have a Wii Keep dreaming if you think your going to get your significant other into gaming with the Wii. Mine wanted it so bad and played it for all of about a week. Hasn't been on in two months now.

Posted: May 24th 2007 7:09PM Fernando Rocker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Striderhayasa

So... I need a lot of memory cards reader, a 60Gb HD, WiFi, Bluray, HDMI over component?? you need all that stuff to play games? I didnt know that...

Posted: May 24th 2007 7:13PM Fernando Rocker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
How to kill a brand:

Step 1, You make your console cost the most,
You Beat your chest and proudly Boast,
Despite no good exclusive games
You make a bunch of ridiculous claims,

Then ignore our need to play online
Don't make it fun like Xbox Live
Use Blue Ray, Which I don't need
Now you're getting your ass kicked by the Wii

Sony, you went wrong, with your PS3
I'll just keep playing my 360
Hope this song has helped, you understand
Now you know, How You Killed Your Brand.

Phil Harrison yeah you know best
Except you didn't Beta Test
Sure I can surf the net
But I can't find my Gaming Friends

You Say Halo 3 Don't worry you
Instead you offer Killzone 2
But Killzone 1 sucked before
So what made you think we wanted more?

Repeat Chorus...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R98qC0fd_1w

Posted: May 24th 2007 7:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My Game Boy doesn't work without HDMI, Blu-Ray, Wi-FI, and a 60 gig hard drive, so yeah, that guy knows what he's talking about. Tetris just isn't fun without HD. And that's what games are about, right? Fun?

Posted: May 24th 2007 7:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oooo, Fanboy trolling for fun!

People will buy something based on their perceived value of it.

The PS3 was rare and with a high brand value at the beginning, so 600 bucks really seemed worth it. Now that it's not scarce, it has to sell itself with Blue Ray Movies, some very pretty sports games, Resistance, and excellent potential in their line up. Once the value of that potential has changed into more valuable games, the PS3's value will raise, and more sales will happen. Same with a price drop, it'll fall more into people's perceived value of the system.

But since percieved value is important, think of how Wii Versus Ps3 were marketed. Video gaming is for fun, at least for the past 18 years for me it has been, some may disagree. The Wii was marketed as a social gaming system for young and old, all races, and look how much fun it is! Let's buy it!. The Ps3 was marketed by exploding creepy babies and ravens and european advertisements that give no value perception, simply name recognition. Umm, yes, enough Ravens to make Baltimore feel inadequate and Chuckys brother definately impart a feeling of... wait, wtf?

These ads are for the uninformed consumer, the parent, the semi gamer, the person who doesn't spend their time researching video games. The person who does research knows what they find fun, and knows what they value more, and will pick a system accordingly. We're the assumed market. We are also small.

Posted: May 24th 2007 7:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Just face it already people, the Wii isn't for gamers.

Theres nothing wrong with that, I think the Wii has its place. But it COULD be hurting the industry. The Wii is selling because it CATERS TO NON-GAMERS. It is selling because of simple games like Wii Sports that are engaging to play for NON-GAMERS.

Fact: Horsepower allows you to do, simply, more. It also makes it EASIER to do more. However, I'm not trying to make a statement about what the Wii can't do. The PS2 is a living testament against the argument that the Wii can't provide an immersive experience, deep gameplay, etc. Beyond knowing the possibility is there, We can't say yet what kind of limitations the Wii's design makes on a game experience, because no one has cared to venture out of the kiddy pool (of money).

Ultimately the blame falls to developers for not taking advantage of the medium, but really, why should they? I can't say enough about how important the Wii's target audience is, because, surprise, it's not gamers. Why would most developers spend more work to develop a game for what is really just a fraction of the console's owners? Especially when they can spend less work to develop a gimmick game that will sell just as many copies if not more?

A successful Wii doesn't outright hurt the industry. It doesn't hurt the industry when those that wouldn't have bought a console buy a Wii, in fact, as Deejay Knight mentioned, it can only help! However, it could hurt the industry when someone who would have bought, say, a 360, buys a Wii instead. By buying a Wii as it stands, you're just sending a message that you want more gimmick exploitation. You want simple gameplay, simple graphics, simply simple games.

"Wackyban was exactly the kind of person I had in mind when I was complaining about spoiled gamer brats with a pissy sense of entitlement and no grasp of the concept of "innovation." Move over Junior, and let the adults play for a while."
-ManekiNeko

Fuck you Grandpa, gamers aren't "wrong" because we don't get off on minigames, minigames, minigames, wait, what what can the Wii do? How many fucking animations can you draw for me waving my arm forward? Look, I'm swinging a tennis racket, now it's a bat, now it's a boxing glove, now it's a ... The illusion grows old. The wii doesn't get attention on your nightly news because of Twilight Princess, it gets attention because seniors are enjoying Wii Bowling Night at the old folks home.

The Wii is being sold by the media on the premise of a gimmick. It is being bought BECAUSE of the gimmick. The Wii can be more than a gimmick! BUT THE PEOPLE BUYING IT DON'T CARE. They think the gimmick is cool! They think it's fun! As long as the Wii's "gimmick-ness" is its primary selling point, so too will it be for its games.

This argument for how the Wii is the best console because it sells the most is bullshit. (Well if it's popular it must be good! Hey, you know, the OC was a pretty good show!)

If you want to support true innovation, buy a DS.

Posted: May 24th 2007 8:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"If you want to support true innovation, buy a DS."

how is the Wii any less innovative than the DS? remember how long it was before the DS library was really packed with great games that used the stylus well... i'm sure the Wii will be the same way.

Posted: May 24th 2007 8:05PM hotpuck6 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i would buy a PS3 for $400 in a heart beat.
don't get me wrong, i love my 360, but the PS3 will eventually have some pretty good exclusives.

Posted: May 24th 2007 8:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Wackyban was exactly the kind of person I had in mind when I was complaining about spoiled gamer brats with a pissy sense of entitlement and no grasp of the concept of "innovation." Move over Junior, and let the adults play for a while."
-ManekiNeko

Hey look, let me try to explain my point of view on the whole thing. Lets look at it this way. Ive been driving a car for 8 years. For these 8 years ive been driving with a steering wheel. Now, 8 years later theres something called a waggle wheel. And people are eating that shit up! These new cars are selling better than the cars with steering wheels. I don't seem to understand it, but everybody claims these waggle wheels are so innovative.

Sure ive tried them, but don't like them. Does this mean i have no right to want a car with a steering wheel? Does this make me a "spoiled" driver brat "with a pissy sense of entitlement and no grasp of the concept of "innovation.""

In my case im worried that all cars are going to be using this waggle wheel technology. And im fully entitled to be pissed. Now grow up, you ass.



Posted: May 24th 2007 8:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
sony ps3= neogeo

Posted: May 24th 2007 8:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've been playing video games my whole life. I got bored of the same old shooters. I still play X-Com, StarCraft, and Doom, and graphical updates don't turn me on. I'd rather have new ideas than old ideas that are shinier. Now my favorite games are the weirder ones like Katamari, Elebits, WarioWare, and Ouendan. I prefer wackier games with some sort of weird edge over realistic games.

I prefer Mario Strikers and NBA Jam to all the licensed sports games. I prefer Mario Kart and Rock 'n' Roll Racing and to Gran Turismo. I prefer Smash Bros. to any fighting game.

Are you telling me I'm not a gamer because I like the Wii and it caters perfectly to my tastes right now?


It's people like you that are holding back the industry because you actually WANT sequelitis.

Posted: May 24th 2007 8:15PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My rant was directed at 106, Blinkus.

Posted: May 24th 2007 8:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
WTF?! Power doesnt matter??!! i have a wii and bought Elebits for my son. have you tried playing two players on this thing. the frame rate drops dramatically. it's like playing in slow motion! and thats with crappy kiddie graphics. imagine call of duty graphics. oh yeah, call of duty(Wii) doesnt have multi player. now you know why. not enough POWER. after playing the Wii i can honestly say that i'm bored with the controls. who wants to come home after work and start waving their arms around to unperfect controls. there is only so many ways to use the controls before you get bored with these boring Wii party games.

Posted: May 24th 2007 8:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The Wii fanboys here are nuts. How do you justify the technological capability of the Wii by using the PS2's great library of games? They were great when they came out. But the PS2 actually advanced hardware over the PS1. It didnt come out with nearly the same system specs as its predecessor. It was an improvement... now its old and has been upgraded. Same with Xbox. As a gamer I want technological progress. Luckily we're getting it with 360 and PS3. Nintendo fanboys can play their minigames and stale 15 year old franchises (mario, metroid, zelda).

Posted: May 24th 2007 8:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"It's people like you that are holding back the industry because you actually WANT sequelitis."

Oh, i guess Nintendo doesn't have sequels then? SSBB, nah. MP3, nah. SMG, nah. Zelda, no way! The only thing different about these games is a waggle movement replaces one button/joystiq on a standard controller. Hinze, these games are also victims of the "sequelitis" So you have no argument in that area.

Posted: May 24th 2007 8:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As a gamer you want technological progress? That's funny. As a gamer I want fun games. I think you meant to say "as a fan of technological progress."

And Nintendo's still making new franchises like Pikmin, Brain Training, and Nintendogs (which outsold Halo 2 by over 5 million). And Nintendo's 2nd parties are cranking out new franchises like Elite Beat Agents and Chibi Robo and many more that I'm not going to look up.

Hey when Microsoft stops milking Halo games, then you can go back to hating Nintendo for milking Mario, ok? But until then, you have no argument.

Posted: May 24th 2007 8:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Elebits is not a sequel, and neither was Katamari. Those are 2 of my favorite games.

I didn't say the Wii is sequel-proof. I'm saying that many of my favorite games are not sequels and that the Wii lends itself better to original IPs, and it is getting many of them. PS360's biggest games are MGS4, FF13, Halo3, and GTA4. Yeah Nintendo's big 3 are sequels, but all I want is some damn Mario Strikers, No More Heroes, and weird new games.


But this is all meaningless because I'll never touch my Wii or visit Joystiq again after StarCraft 2 comes out. So there, I'm part of the problem too now.

Posted: May 24th 2007 8:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Nintendogs (which outsold Halo 2 by over 5 million)"

You've got to have a little more respected for halo. After all, Microsoft was still new in the industry and Xboxes didn't sell like crack cocaine like the gameboys have. And your comparing numbers sold. Id rather see the percentage of xbox owners that bought halo 2 compared to the percentage of gb owners that bought nintendogs.

Posted: May 24th 2007 8:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"You've got to have a little more respected for halo."-wackyban

ugh, i failed

Posted: May 24th 2007 8:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Nintendogs - 13.58 million
DS - 42.70
Halo 2 - 7.89 million
XBox - 24.76 million

DS penetration of Nintendogs - 31.80%
XBox penetration of Halo 2 - 31.87%


Angles: Halo 2 was a sequel while Nintendogs was a new IP. Halo 1 only sold 6.43 million for a penetration of 25.97%. And we don't know how many people bought Halo 2 to play on the 360 without owning an original XBox.

Either way I'd call it a pretty crazy tie.
I got all the numbers from http://www.vgchartz.com/

Posted: May 24th 2007 9:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thanks Rubang

Posted: May 24th 2007 9:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"That's funny. As a gamer I want fun games." - Rubang

That's funny, so do I. And I'll be buying GTA4.

"PS360's biggest games are MGS4, FF13, Halo3, and GTA4. Yeah Nintendo's big 3 are sequels, but all I want is some damn Mario Strikers, No More Heroes, and weird new games." - Rubang

So wait. The PS3 and 360 fail because they have sequels, but Nintendo doesn't even though it does too, because it has some other games you're looking forward to? WELL GEE, I GUESS THATS CONVENIENT.

I guess Mass Effect, Bioshock, and The Darkness don't count in Microsoft's favor, because, you know, you wouldn't like them.

Posted: May 24th 2007 9:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hey guys.

Posted: May 24th 2007 9:27PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
haha i love these arguments.

Posted: May 24th 2007 9:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wasn't saying that GTA4 won't be fun. In fact I bet it's fun AND shiny, so you'll have shiny fun with it. Every other GTA game has looked like absolute crap but still sold well on fun alone. I'll bet money you buy games that are fun to play and not just pretty to look at. In fact I'll bet you've been doing that your whole life. Or did you skip the last 6 generations of gaming because they didn't look good enough yet?

And yes everybody makes sequels. If a game is successful, it gets sequels. But are sequels alone enough for you? I'll dabble in a few sequels here and there but I'd prefer new stories and new gameplay any day.

If you are going to use the "oh no Mario again" argument against Nintendo, then you DON'T GET HALO 3. Ok? When Halo 3 comes out, don't buy it, don't rent it, don't play it, and then you can keep talking your shit about Mario.

I dislike Halo because I prefer a mouse/keyboard combo for games like CounterStrike. See? I gave a reason for disliking a game that wasn't based on graphics or based on it being a sequel. It was based on GAMEPLAY, the only element of PLAYing GAMES that matters and has ever mattered and will ever matter.

Posted: May 24th 2007 10:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've never seen such a crazy thread full of children in my life.

Get a fucking life. Enjoy your overpriced and dying system if that's what makes you happy.

Posted: May 24th 2007 10:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Here's how I grade the systems...

Xbox 360-
Graphics- A-
Overall System Power - B-
Games- B+
Online- A
Potential- C+

Overall (not an average)- B

Nintendo Wii-
Graphics- C-
Overall System Power- D+
Games- B
Online- D+
Potential- B

Overall (not an average)- B-

PlayStation 3-
Graphics - A
Overall System Power - A
Games- C+
Online- C+
Potential- A

Overall (not an average)- B+

-------------
I'll admit I own a PS3 so maybe I am bias, but I love all three of the consoles I try very very hard not to be a fanboy...I dont consider myself to be one.

Posted: May 24th 2007 11:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Love it or hate it, it's a hot-selling system and looks to take over the lead pretty soon.

Posted at 4:42PM on May 24th 2007 by Grog"

There's only one problem...THEY AREN'T PRODUCING THE SYSTEMS!!!!!!!!!!!! All this bullshit talk about broader markets and low prices is completely irrelevent when you can't fucking walk into a store and buy one. That is a FACT. It will remain a FACT for a very long time.

Posted: May 25th 2007 12:34AM Starcade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The BofA analyst is only restating the obvious. A price reduction of at least $200 is necessary before the PS3 can even be considered somewhat mainstream as far as cost. Even with that kind of reduction, it's going to have a tough time, but it'll certainly do better than it is now. Meanwhile, Sony goes into financial ruin in the short term, if they decide to reduce the pricing that much this early. Catch 22. Without a substantial reduction, consoles sales continue to move slowly with only die-hard fans purchasing the PS3.

As far as the Nintendo Wii, he does have a point. If you look at the number of Wiis sold in the US, then look at the software charts, two things appear. Game sales, outside of Nintendo's own titles, are a mixed bag. Why aren't more Wii owners buying games? And why are they so few third party Wii titles selling over 500,000 copies?

Posted: May 25th 2007 12:41AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Savner says that the success of the Wii is hurting the industry. That publishers have invested research and development in next-gen graphics and tech, so if the Wii is successful that money spent is useless."

That is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard an analyst say, and that's very impressive. Any game company that spent an appreciable amount of money making a game with "next gen graphics", as they put it, would have to have known that the results of all that money and work would only benefit the tiny fraction of the market that happens to have HDTVs. No comptitant businessman would put all their eggs into a product that is "worth it" to such a limited demographic. Pouring money into a game for the 360 that has nice HD graphics and then only having 5% of the people who bought it run it at higher than 480i is a waste of money, sure, but it's not going to bankrupt the company. They're still paying full price regardless of what TV they have.

Posted: May 25th 2007 12:47AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Nintendo gets all this credit for innovation, yet they are the worst in the industry as far as churning out the sequels in the same handful of franchises. I don't understand this. Something is amiss...

Posted: May 25th 2007 1:02AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Most of their innovations are in console design, not in software. Not that they don't innovate with their software occasionally (i.e. Mario 64, Zelda:OoT, SSB & SSB:M, MK:DD, Pikmin, Metroid Prime 1, etc. etc. etc.), but the reason they're KNOWN for innovation is purely hardware. The D-pad. The battery save. Shoulder buttons. The analog stick. Rumble. The Gameboy Player. The DS. The Wiimote. That sort of thing.

Posted: May 25th 2007 1:24AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hmm... very interesting thoughts here... I do believe that the wii is hurting the industry and as far as im concerned the wii is a good for nothing POS system as it is.

I absolutely hate the so called "revolutionary gameplay". All nintendo did was slap a slightly improved Gamecube GPU, slap on some sensor bar and an infared tv remote and there you go... the wii. wow... unfortunately I bought into the hype a bought the system and now regret it. Its terrible... the gameplay for zelda is whack and the system makes your arms tired lol I dont play game to work out I play to relax and have fun WTF?!

Im glad nintendo just has a patent on their idea for now so that money grubbing companies dont lose their innovation and try to copy the wii like gameplay just to make money.

But who knows... Maybe nintendo a few years from now will sell their patent to the highest bidder just to make some extra money and companies that dont give a shiat about innvation except for moneys sake will go out and buy out nintendos patent to make another crappy wii knockoff with next gen graphics in the future...

Posted: May 25th 2007 1:26AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report


Half-empty: "Nintendo is the worst in the industry as far as churning out sequels."


Half-full: "Nintendo has the most successful franchises out of any developer in the world."

Posted: May 25th 2007 3:26AM SpiralGear said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@2

you have no idea what your talking about, programming is NEVER the bottle neck, shaders polys and lighting is, which is why the GRAPHICs are lacking, because thats what graphics are


that makes no sense and i have no idea how you came up with that conclusion, considering the xbox GC and ps2 can handle good AI and gameplay, of course the wii can considering its more powerful than them

Posted: May 25th 2007 6:01AM Dummy00001 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Vidikron

"Think about it, can you really argue that a game like Twilight Princess wouldn't be better if it had Oblivion-level graphics?"

I can argue that easily.

Let's see. On Wii/Zelda:TP, devels spend 25% of their time making graphics and 75% time making game play. On Xbox/Oblivion, devels spent 75% making your "immerse" graphics and 25% making game play.

You see the difference now?

Nintendo stated many times that they wanted to (1) console be profitable, (2) use little of power, (3) distract devels from graphics and (4) put them thinking about new controller.

To me personally, good game play and good graphics are mutually exclusive things. I still recall the confusion I caused saying that doom3 graphics was mediocre (fact: it was best in time) all because I have NOT seen the graphics behind tense game play. I had no time to watch the all-so-cool monster - I was shooting at them instead. Completely foregoing graphics/etc. That's what I call immersing.

I haven't played Oblivion, but Zelda:TP has very intensive game play - you forget about the non-crispy graphics pretty soon. Because what immerse me isn't graphics - but the game play.

Posted: May 25th 2007 7:21AM Dummy00001 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Gamble20

"Actually I think Sony and Microsoft are responsible for Wii's sales.
They refuse to accept that its beating PS3 and 360 in sales.
They both need to drop in price [...]"

Had M$ or $ony even announced controller optimized for FPS - I wouldn't even thought about buying Wii.

Having bought one - too early since MP3:C isn't here yet - I frankly can't say it was bad move. Both WiiPlay and WiiSports are good to pass some time.

But heck, had MSFT said "We're planning to release pointing controller made for FPS", I would have played now - no Zelda - Gears. Even w/o FPS controller - but just for sake of promise to make one.

But what M$ and $ony said? "Bueh, it's gimmick," while customers had unanimously had voted with their wallets otherwise.

Even if MP3:C would be bad, only thanks to WiiMote it would be easily washing floor with all the prev-gen controller games.

What I'm trying to get to. Sony' PS3 gives little to somebody like I am - fan of FPS. PS3 costs its money. It's good deal. But I will not buy one (even for $200 less) because it (and its games) doesn't support point-and-shoot controller (like WiiMote). Period. End of story.

P.S. Same goes to Xbox360. Gears of War - good game. Best what I have seen on consoles. But targeting - what is about 50% of game - with classical controller sucks badly.

Posted: May 25th 2007 10:41AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@28.

This bad cooling system you are talking about. Isn't that the one that was in the same enclosure with an X-Box 360 and the 360 was dead within a few minutes, whereas the PS3 was chuggin away still. The same badly cooled case that is guaranteed to be okay to leave on Folding@home 24/7 from everyone involved with that? Seriously get your facts straight. It may generate heat, but so do computers. That doesn't mean it's insufficiently cooled. I don't see too many complaints about things equivalent to the RROD. Heck even on the Wii people experienced heat-related errors when using the internet.

I also haven't seen anything that proves the drive is slower. I played a couple games that are the same for both 360 and PS3. The load times are identical if not in favor of the PS3.

So to you, if they priced it exactly the same as the current regular 360, but still had all the more expensive features (40 more gb of hdd, blu-ray drive, cell processor, media ports, 4 usb ports, hdmi built-in) you would get one? Why not get one now. It's obviously got an immense amount of value. All microsoft can do is release a Microsoft console, for people who buy Microsoft consoles. 11/12 of the people I know with 360s have an original X-Box and got it mainly for waiting for Halo. I really don't consider that success.

Posted: May 25th 2007 10:46AM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The Wii isn't underpowered as sheppy may want us all to belive.

Let us use some raw math numbers here. The Wii is designed to run at a 480p resolution, or 720x480, which is 345,600 pixels. The Xbox 360 and PS3 run at 720p primarily, which is 921,600 pixels. If we talk about 1080p, we're looking at 2,073,600 pixels.

720p has three times as many pixels to render as 480p does. This means generating the same image quality on both sets requires a significant boost of power. This means that much of the power of the 360 and PS3 is lost just because we want widescreen. More power has to be dedicated to just rendering the scene, leaving less for other important aspects like AI, sound, physics, etc. Given the Xbox 360, at best estimates, is really only about three times the power of the Wii and the PS3 is about 3.5 times, we've nearly closed the power gap simply because the two "more powerful" systems are required to render three times as much. The problem is just compounded when we talk about 1080p (looking at you, Sony camp). 1080p has 6 times the resolution as 480p, which requires an even larger boost in power just to even-match image quality. Even more power is wasted at this resolution that could be used for other things.

With all this additional, required, overhead the 360 and PS3 need to shoulder, they aren't really all that much more powerful than the Wii. They have amazingly close abilities with the remaining power after graphics rendering has been satisfied.

Since it is perfectly common knowledge that we have not even come close to offering 480i/p broadcast (the PS3 can't render an episode of Scrubs or SG-1 to make it look identical to the real deal) level visuals in any video game console, it is clear that HD is not a necessary technology in gaming. We lost out on more by having the 360 and PS3 go HD than we did by having the Wii stay SD. Imagine just how much more incredible our games could be if the 360 and PS3 weren't wasting all that power just to render a bigger scene. The Wii would be a truly inferior system if the 360 and PS3 stayed 480p. Now, they're mostly on-par.

Posted: May 25th 2007 10:46AM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The Wii isn't underpowered as sheppy may want us all to belive.

Let us use some raw math numbers here. The Wii is designed to run at a 480p resolution, or 720x480, which is 345,600 pixels. The Xbox 360 and PS3 run at 720p primarily, which is 921,600 pixels. If we talk about 1080p, we're looking at 2,073,600 pixels.

720p has three times as many pixels to render as 480p does. This means generating the same image quality on both sets requires a significant boost of power. This means that much of the power of the 360 and PS3 is lost just because we want widescreen. More power has to be dedicated to just rendering the scene, leaving less for other important aspects like AI, sound, physics, etc. Given the Xbox 360, at best estimates, is really only about three times the power of the Wii and the PS3 is about 3.5 times, we've nearly closed the power gap simply because the two "more powerful" systems are required to render three times as much. The problem is just compounded when we talk about 1080p (looking at you, Sony camp). 1080p has 6 times the resolution as 480p, which requires an even larger boost in power just to even-match image quality. Even more power is wasted at this resolution that could be used for other things.

With all this additional, required, overhead the 360 and PS3 need to shoulder, they aren't really all that much more powerful than the Wii. They have amazingly close abilities with the remaining power after graphics rendering has been satisfied.

Since it is perfectly common knowledge that we have not even come close to offering 480i/p broadcast (the PS3 can't render an episode of Scrubs or SG-1 to make it look identical to the real deal) level visuals in any video game console, it is clear that HD is not a necessary technology in gaming. We lost out on more by having the 360 and PS3 go HD than we did by having the Wii stay SD. Imagine just how much more incredible our games could be if the 360 and PS3 weren't wasting all that power just to render a bigger scene. The Wii would be a truly inferior system if the 360 and PS3 stayed 480p. Now, they're mostly on-par.

Posted: May 25th 2007 11:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Is there anybody out there with the professional knowledege to verify whether LaughingTarget's #141 statement is true or false. I'm not asking for anyone's opinions (for I have my own opinions) but am asking if there is anyone with the true expertise to answer this question.

Posted: May 25th 2007 1:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
his math is correct, but his inference that 3x to 5x more pixels and wider, bigger scenes don't add anything to gameplay is pretty far off.



.

Posted: May 25th 2007 2:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I dont think that the Wii is next gen. I think that its just a place holder until nintendo releses a console that will really compete against sony and microsoft.

Posted: May 25th 2007 5:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I got the Wii because it was cheap and different. If I want something with amazing graphics I turn on my computer.

Posted: May 25th 2007 6:15PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't really give a crap on how many are sold. The question is, can you honestly say you will still be playing the Wii this time next year? Want to buy mine?... I don't have kids so there is no reason for me to keep it..

Posted: May 25th 2007 7:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

All this stuff about companies not having invested in the right tech is bs the Wii uses the EXACT same dev tools as the gamecube. Companies don't need to buy new tools or learn how to use new tools they simply use the tools they already have and know.

The Wii is selling because a) it's cheap and b) it's not picthed at the gun toting, sports playing, car driving market that are males in thier 20's. The Wii has much broader appeal that the 360 or the PS3 which are both pitched at the tech loving hard core male gamers. Both MS and Sony have missed a trick and Nintendo has out manouvered both of them both in terms of understanding the market place and price.

I for one will never buy a PS3 purely and simply becuase of the price and I've put off buying a 360 until they come down which is odd since I've just spent £400 on a gfx card for my PC just to play Crysis when it's launched. I'll buy a 360 for the media centre connectivity and that's all. I might even just get a plain old xbox as it will do the same thing and for £40..........

Since my fiance has 2 daughters I have to say that the Wii has far more appeal to them than anything so that's where I'll be spending my money. At least with the Wii we can all play together and have a 'family' experience and some fun.

Posted: May 26th 2007 10:29AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Listen you dumb mother fuckers. The PS3 rocks bash it all you want. Your parents are just to cheap to go out and fucking get one, since you can not afford it your goddamn selves. All the arguments you are presenting are the same that people threw at the PS2 and look how well that did. Fuck off.

Posted: May 26th 2007 12:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
144. "his math is correct, but his inference that 3x to 5x more pixels and wider, bigger scenes don't add anything to gameplay is pretty far off"


-Bigger, wider scenes don't inherently add anything to gameplay. Period. You don't like waggle games; If Zelda TP were all of a sudden in 1080p widescreen with photorealistic graphics, would it be more fun to you? Absolutely, because then it would be a status symbol more than a game.

"Listen you dumb mother fuckers. The PS3 rocks bash it all you want. Your parents are just to cheap to go out and fucking get one, since you can not afford it your goddamn selves. All the arguments you are presenting are the same that people threw at the PS2 and look how well that did. Fuck off. "

- The PS3 is a great piece of hardware. It's cutting edge, there's no arguing about that. There's also no arguing about the fact that you don't really know what a dollar is worth if you cajoled your parents into buying you a $600 console. Some of us can totally spend $600 on a console, in addition to our own rent and food and stuff, but choose not to, because all that's available for it right now is Resistance and shovelware. No one threw these arguments at the PS2. It wasn't six hundred dollars, it had a great list of launch titles, and, read this carefully, IT WAS EASILY THE LEAST POWERFUL OF THE LAST GENERATION OF CONSOLES. Saying that again, IT WAS EASILY THE LEAST POWERFUL OF THE LAST GENERATION OF CONSOLES. Comparing the PS3 to the PS2 was exactly what Sony did wrong.

But I guess I'm some sort of deluded moron, because I have fun playing the Wii. Not just Wii sports either, but the EA titles, as well. Tiger Woods on the Wii is the best Tiger experience available, unless you're just looking for the prettiest. SSX Blur is ridiculously fun, even though it's all cell-shading and pastel colors. And Madden for the Wii, despite it's horrid graphics, is the best madden experience available. Yeah, a little simplified, but actually throwing passes and thrusting stiff-arms with the remote is so much fun, it's beyond words. I think what we're seeing with the Wii and it's graphics, is that devs aren't having the time or money to spend polishing the graphics and using the Wii's unique hardware to the best of it's capabilities because they're spending MUCH more time and money learning how to program for a completely new controller. They don't have toolchains to set up the controller in one simple step like they did before. They're having to spend more resources on the unique controller that would normally be spent on graphics. In the coming year you're going to see graphics get better (especially in games from EA canada, since they've got the best third-party remote toolchains, at least based on their games performance on the system) because they're getting their brains wrapped around how to do the controls, or at least recognizing that they need to budget more time and money to controls, so they can then properly budget time and money for graphics.

All of this is well and good, but the point remains is that the PS3 and Xbox are designed to deliver hardcore content, and that's what they're going to make money doing, because you guys will buy each and every mediocre, rehashed FPS out there, usually to the chagrin of actually innovative titles like the Darkness, because "I don't want demons and superpowers, I just want to blow things up in 1080p on my SD tv set."

Fuck you morons that refuse to see that this war won't actually start until about six months from now, you know, when the big wii titles are going to come out, and the big PS3 titles are only going to be six more months away. The Wii isn't going to ruin the industry, even if all they ever release for it is minigame compilations. (Rest assured, big titles for the wii are coming, and they're going to be fun if you can get over the teenaged penis-envy that drives you to buy the biggest and the best even when it's not worth the money.) Sony doesn't have enough installed consoles to be profitable to third party devs. Why else would developers be releasing launch day ports to 360? If they took the time to make the game for PS3, and have it listed (once upon a time) as an exclusive, then change their mind, why would they do that if not for profits?

The power of a system has absolutely no impact on how fun the games are, because a good developer will figure out how to do what they want to do in spite of the shortcomings of the system. We had great 8 bit experiences, we had great 16 bit experinces, we had great last gen experinces. To claim that now, a system that is undebatably more powerful than the last generation is not capable of providing a gamer-focused good time is nothing short of retarded.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW