ksih

Don't be a twit. This is one of those cases where the term "slippery slope" is very applicable. It is not about the money at all, no one is whining over 50-60c. It is about your rights as a consumer and a citizen. Do you really think the government should be able to penalize you or reward you based on your purchasing habits? To try and control your interests, and penalize those who don't fit their view of what you should be?

It is one of the few cases where saying "its the principle of the thing" is still a powerful argument for action.

I don't know if it is just price though. I agree with the poster. For a new generation, I hope for a new experience. As much as some people like to harp on the wii as gamecube 1.5, as far as I am concerned, playstation and 360 are more guilty of just being a minor upgrade than the wii.

The wii is a new system and a new experience. PS3 and 360 are...well they are computer upgrades. They aren't really new products. They are not near the leap over ps2 and xbox I would expect of a new generation.

The wii is something new, 360 and PS3 are just upgrades. (Note: this does NOT mean I don't want one. I upgrade my gaming rig regularly. Upgrades aren't bad. But in my opinion, something new is even better. Heck the only reason I upgrade in the first place is so my system can handle something new).

I don't know AG, most people (including me) who were willing to pay 600$ for what sony was promising have been turned off. We wait a year and find out it was mostly lies? On top of that they are losing their exclusives. Things are not looking happy for sony. I'm guessing most a huge chunk of those 10 million have become disallusioned. Sony will have to earn them back now, they can't just ride of PS2's success.

While the PS2 did have a rocky start, it didn't have the stiff competition the PS3 does. The Xbox had some impressive games, but was mostly meh, and, well we all know how gamecube turned out (though double dash and smash bro have probably gotten more time in on them than other games combined in my apartment). The PS2 also had a year's head start to set itself up before it had any competition. Please don't try to pretend this is the same situation. That argument just doesn't hold water.

But as far as I'm concerned they have taken the PS3 in the wrong direction. I'm hoping this generation will scare Sony back into shape, and PS4 (or whatever it will be) will give us back some of our playstation goodness. Remember Sony, you aren't going to replace our computers. Heck you probably won't replace our DVD players. Make us a great consol Sony! No more marketing bull crap.

Please sony, come back. No more marketing bull crap.

Stupid blue ray. Stupid STUPID blue ray. You killed sony.

No, I'm with you 15. Its ok guys, don't get so defensive. After the seemingly magical battery life I have been used to out of the wavebird and my gameboys, yea is a bit of an annoyance to have to worry about it again.

It is understandable of course, the wiimote is doing alot of stuff, but this is one of the few legitimated wii anoyances that joystiq has had.

Don't get so defensive. This isn't religion, it is a toy. An awsome toy, but still a toy. Chill out.

Gah. Want one...so bad...yet so little point.

::sigh::

I just...I really want to play with my classic controllers...but...40$? (I say 40 because, well obviously I need at least one of each)(screw the other guy, he can use the wavebird)(althought, there is something I like about the picture of two people playing contra with two classic controllers).

AH!! COSTING TOO MUCH MONEY!! System, controllers, games, VC games, more controllers, more games!

I'm so happy to be excited about games again!! :)

Ech, for us it was "gun" games. You know, games with slowly moving beige dots going across the screen, and then some vaguely head like thing dissapears. Cause, you know, that was pretty violent. Could of scarred me for life.

Of course now my little Bro's get to play Halo. So not fair. :)

S'alright. I agree, I think I am a slightly better person for my mothers loving efforts. Go Mom!

How are "gun games" more violent than Mario though? I was friggin CRUSHING SKULL'S and doing drugs! That is less violent than slowly moving beige dots?

Earthworm Jim? First game that just shot bullets that you didn't have to watch go across the screen? SO COOL! Now that was violent. :) (why do bullets you don't see seem so much more violent than bullets you do see?).

I retract my java and object oriented analogy. It was illconcieved. While there are a few parallels, overall it really doesn't suit the situation. My apologies for posting in passion.

See dryxm, that is the really annoying thing about internet debates. I say "it adds a whole new dimension" and that it takes groundwork etc. and you go off on "it is not compulsory" and "don't make it sound like it is impossibly hard to learn". Address what I say, not what you wish I had said.

It is not compulsory, but if you want better graphics than you had better take advantage of it (and if you are charging me 200$ more you had darn well BETTER deliver better graphics, and exclusives instead of ports).

Remember me talking about framework and background having to be set up? And how we will see if it is ahead of its time and support? Could that be the background abstract stuff you are talking about? That thing I already mentioned and discussd?

I never said it was hard to implement multiprogramming, I said it added a new dimension to design. And it does. Heck implementing it is easy. Fork() or pthread, or whatever your particular language calls for. But you don't just throw in an extra thread and expect it to help.

"If someone can wrap their heads around assembly language or a shader language, or DirectX or altivec, they can manage cell programming." Its not that simple. That is like saying if someone can warp their heads around assembly or c they can handle java (with no tutorials and no OO groundwork). Its just not that easy. When the theory is in place it is easy, and when game theory catches up with the cell it will be easier, bud just like developing new 3d games tends to be more expensive than the old 2d games were, programming for the cell will be more expensive (until it is good and grounded in about 10 years) than for traditional single core processors.

Like I said, we'll see how fast theory catches up with the reality of the cell.

Another problem for developers you guys are missing is the cell processor. It is an amazing piece of hardware. But have you ever tried to program for multiple cores? I'm guessing no.

The power of multiple cores comes in multi programming, that is, the processor being able to do more things at once. Most programs are single threaded, the processor handles the mutliprogramming. Some applications, like browsers and databases already take advantage of multiprogramming. Games, as a rule, do not.

It will NOT cost the same amount to develop for the 360 as the ps3, blue ray aside, because, in order to really take advantage of all that power, the games have to be multithreaded. And it is about time. With duel cores becoming the norm, games need to start taking advantage of multiprocessing.

But the cell has a bit more than 2 cores. A lot more actually.

This adds a whole new dimension to game development, and we don't have a foundation fo it yet. The theory, the design patters, haven't been developed yet. On the one hand, this could really push forward game theory, on the other hand, if it is to ahead of its time, and we don't have the framwork (libraries and theories etc), it is going to cost developers a LOT more.

So no, it is not just a matter of time till the development costs come down. It is not the same as developing for the 360. It is a whole new (and fairly exciting to computer scientists) beast. But don't try to ignore the problems it introduces and pretend it is "just the same" as the PS2. The PS2 was a relativly simple machine. The PS3 is an engineering marvel, but we will have to wait an see if it is ahead of its time. It also adds new development costs to ports, at least if the company doesn't plan ahead and lay a groundwork for multithreading (though the 360's processor can take advantage of multithreading too, but with the more limited processor it would take more cputime, while still cutting down on real time, just not as much. And its overthreading threashold will be significantly lower).

Anywho...yea.

> your comments always just seem to be more rhetoric than thought out opinions. Have you ever tried to maximize performance and take advantage of multiple processors? I'm guessing not. Just a hunch.

For most people additional processors seem to speed things up because the operating system handles the multithreading. But to do it in a single program (like a game) adds a whole new level to development. The whole cell processor with tons of cores thing is cool, and allows for unprecedented levels of multiprocessing in a home system, but also takes a whole new level of programming skill and theory. In a way this is a good thing, because with multiple cores becoming the norm it is time for games to start taking advantage of it. On the flip side, no, development costs on the PS3 will never be the same as on the other systems, because they have a whole new dimension of hardware to deal with.

The question is if they are ahead of their time or not. Is the industry ready for that level of multiprogramming and the costs associated with it? Is game development theory advanced enough in that department to take advantage of it? Is the market big enough to handle the additional cost of development? Only time will tell.

It is definitely a bleeding edge system, but the reason it is called the bleeding edge (a bit ahead of cutting edge) is because, well, it is a really risky place to be. The technology tends to "cut" you.

We'll see where this goes I guess.