So the only 'next gen' system I have is the Wii. The main reason I got that when I did is I wanted cheap fun. Now I want a X360 as well as a PS3, but the PS3 has gone through so many model changes its driving me nuts. 60gb got the axe, 80gb got the axe, but wait, its coming back in JUNE!

Ugh... I'm just going to grab a MGS4 Bundle when they come out. 80gb PS3, Dualshock 3, MGS4, all for $499... I guess thats an OK deal.

Anyone else still waiting?

I think I'm still going to stick with PC until the next next gen consoles come out. Personally, I don't want to buy a gaming console that doesn't game. And the blu-ray device I can get in my own computer for just as cheap.

PS3 has Gran Turismo 5... which has Top Gear content....

HUM

I stopped having any interest on the PS3 when I realized I don't like new FF games, Tekken games are actually just DBZ in disguise and all the games that interest me are on either the 360 or PC.

Groovy gargamels.

I'm very happy with the 360. I figure if I really feel the need for a PS3 I'll just wait for the next XBox.

I reckoned I was going to get a 360 in the summer but since I saw shots from the new wipeout... Well, I'm not so sure anymore.

i really want to play Uncharted. played the demo, and it plays like the last indiana jones game, with better enemy AI(although they all have super hearing and are perfect marksmen, they are smart enough to run for cover when threatened.) and better graphics.

the new indy game looks promising too, although i dont know what platforms it will come out on. *crosses fingers for PC*

Whether or not I get a PS3 pretty much comes down to what system Tales of Vesperia is going to be on.

EDIT: I just looked it up and it turns out that it's going to be an Xbox 360 exclusive. Problem solved!

I thought the next tales game was called something else. Been awhile since I payed any attention though.

I'd really like to play MGS4, GT5 and Valkyria Chronicles... but not enough to get a PS3 for them... I wish I could just get any game on any platform.

But I'm really happy with my 360, a wide variety of really AAA-titles; Lost Odyssey, Call of Duty 4, Mass Effect, Halo 3.. it was a good purchase.

50% of my reason to get a PS3 is blu-ray. I want blu-ray for my new TV, and am not going to waste money on a standalone player. (I never bought a DVD player either, PS2 ftw).

X360 really isn't great to me... I want one for select games, but I think this round will play out like the last one did, playstation off to a slow start (not to mention late launch) and ending up the victor of the round before the next gen comes out.

Waiting until it has an exclusive I can't live without.

Might be a while.

Yeah...I'm waiting.
Considering selling it.
Uncharted was good...but not a system seller.

MGS4 has been pushed back to june now.
FF13 is not coming out this year, regardless of the "sometime in 2008" estimate.

Posts like this are why we think you were dropped on your head.

I'm thankful every day I bought a 360 over a PS3

We got one of the last 80 gigs available around here.
I would've preferred a 360, but our family wanted Blu-Ray and something to replace the shoddy computer they were using, so we hit 3 birds with one stone.

Posts like that are why no one cares what you think.

Obviously you do if you keep responding.

I have all but the Playstation models atm.

I am waiting on the PS3, but far from the same reason. I'm waiting for it to come down to a price level whereby I won't have to take up the Pied Piper job and sell all the children as work-slaves for foriegn sweat shops. If you reckon 500 dollars is a reasonable price for a piece of hardware for entertainment then I swear you have too much money.

Even over here in England the console still stands at 400 quid and has done since it came out. Usually they all come down in price after all of the bizarre fanboys {{and fangirls in the case of Nintendo}} have slaughtered one another to get to the store counter with their new box. However, Sony seem intent on dragging as much out of gamers as they posibly can.

Of course, if the console was littered with games of ultimate worth, then fine, but there's only one or two that have attracted my attention. I want a PS3 for them very much... but not enough to sell my soul for. I'm sure it's a great machine but when you can get a 360 with stack loads of good games for less, guess where my money went.

The PS1 was the most whore-like console I have ever witnessed, a sell-out machine that would happily have allowed Pong to be released on it, unchanged and unvamped. The PS2 was fine, slow and tempremental, but fine. So what happened? When is Sony decide they had some sort of street cred?

The 360, on the other hand, was foretold as the laughing stock of the console market. After the cringe-worthy X-Box, I certainly wasn't overly enthusiastic about the emergence of a sequel. But as it turns out, the machine is the best one of the lot. Not so much because of the console quality itself, mind {{mine buggers up every chance it gets. The mere fact that they made the 'red ring' system suggests that the evil Microsoft Corp were up to their old tricks again and were well aware that the bloody things were going to naff up. Frequently enough to give us this Ring of Death, a new console version of the infamous Blue Screen of Death. I mean, this doesn't strike anyone as suspicious. Maybe they should think about making something that WORKS.}} but rather the games released are brilliant. Sure there's crappy ones, but plenty of fantastic ones too.

The Wii is clearly the most innovative of the lot. And whilst in certain respects the 'gimmick thing' holds true, I don't think anyone expressed the 'gimmick' complaint when they moved from joysticks to joypads, or shoved rumbles into them or made analogue sticks. The moment something requires more effort than thumb twirling, the moment people complain. Maybe this is a good thing because the Wii has other more pressing flaws. I'm a Nintendo fanboy, but even that won't stop me from pointing out the need for better graphics. Sure it works fine for all of the idiotic {{and I profess, occationally entertaining, in the case of Wario Ware}} mini-game... games, it's not so hot for... the rest of the gaming variations. While the likes of Mario Galaxy does look very nice and very pretty, even that could have done with a lick more in the way of graphics.

What's good about the Wii, I guess, is the fact the thing has stopped housewives shagging the plummer and playing games instead. It also means that the High School girls finally have something to talk about with the boys, albeit amidst giggles and disdain from the boys at their crap skills. But, I guess there's the downside to this in that those of us that like a more in-depth game get a smaller slice of the Wii pie.

The DS is fine, even with all of the girls and middle-aged women owning one {{seriously, I don't know about over there, but here I see most DS's in the hands of married women on the train}}, because it's still got great games for those of us that aren't into training our brains or throwing coloured bubbles about the screen. On a note, the DS was crap and the DS Lite is much better, which always irritates me no-end that a company with so much love, respect and money couldn't just release the better one first rather than pinching money from consumers.

The PSP is a definate want, although I just haven't found the appropriate excuse to squander money on one from beneath my gf's gaze. It's got some nice-looking RPGs on it, but the stupid mini-film thing was absolutely absurd unless you have sniper vision.

On that note, I think the comment Rob made sounds quite right. Blu-Ray, as far as I'm concerned, would merely be something... else stuck into my machine and will never be used.

The blu-ray technology is utterly pointless. Christ, the HD was stupid and blu-ray just does the same thing as that but better {{apparently}}. But let's face it, unless a technology really does something helpful then we don't need it. DVDs look fine enough. Their predecessors, videos {{I watched one not so long ago and wondered how we coped}} were crap in comparison to DVDs. A DVD holds more, allows us to select things and looks a lot better. A blu-ray... looks better. That's it, right? As far as films go, at least. This is just Sony trying to monopolise something else. Seriously, blu-ray is pointless. The next real change will be downloading films from online stores through your TV... which can already be done, right? Maybe even virtual 3Dness. Whatever it is will be different, better and more helpful to make us fatter and lazier than ever. If it's not war that promotes technology advancements, it's convenience.

Sorry this is such a long post and... slightly unrelated but I just felt compelled to rant. In the future this'll be beamed into your head and you'll have to listen to me rant! Ah, the convenience... and horror :p

I agree with most of what you said above except for the "cringe worthy xbox". To me the PS2 was cringe worthy although I would have liked the opportunity to play some of the games available for it. The hardware always seemed substandard to me and more so when the competition released their consoles.

I think the PS3 is the best in hardware but I could care less to dish out the amount of money they want for it and more so when they cram hardware features I don't desire into the package (and then begin to strip the few I would have liked to save money). Especially when the games I want to play the most are on the 360 and the out of the box media center extender functionality the 360 offers.

this bit would strongly suggest that you 1. have a small SDTV 2. have never actually seen a properly calibrated high def setup with a bluray player 3. don't realize the advanced interactivity capabilities of bluray



the bluray disc association is not run by sony sony is just bluray's second loudest cheerleader (the loudest being the rabid fanboys on the internet)




bandwidth is just not there to get the same quality experience and the best you can hope for is something that is about equal to HDTV broadcast quality

by the time bandwidth is up to sending bluray quality high def content with any reasonable speed (and even then a considerable chunk of the planet would be left out) it's possible that some ultra high def (you think 1080p (1920x1080) is something? imagine 7680 x 4320) format will be available


and right now the PS3 is the best overall bluray player... unlike all standalone players it handles bluray playback through software so software updates can add support for new bluray profiles (profile 2.0 support coming this month) only real flaw it has with bluray playback is it will not decode DTS-HD yet (but a future update could fix that) for now it only decodes the standard 1.5Mbps DTS "core" track (some discs are confirmed as having a 768kbps "core") and it will also not bitstream DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD (hardware limitation) but can decode these internally and output as multitrack PCM over HDMI

Waiting til I have money, yes.

Actually kinda on God of War 3 and MGS4. Kinda...

I don't think it is that he doesn't know things of that nature but more that they aren't the great leap over DVD that DVD was over its predecessor. My DVDs upscaled on my 50" screen look excellent by my standards. "High-def" content, of course, is sharper but not enough for me to commit to another player and yet more expensive movies. Maybe when resolution becomes more what you allude to in your post, and the hardware is reasonably priced, "high def" will be worth it.

I also disagree that the PS3 is the better player because it is software decoded. That seems to me to be a limitting factor. Hardware decoding tends to have higher quality output. Of course the differences in quality probably won't be noticeable on typical home theater setups.

i should also mention that i have seen no complaints about PS3 picture quality with bluray

software decoding can be just as good sometimes even better than dedicated hardware (plus who says the PS3 doesn't have hardware assisted decoding?)

I love the Xbox system (I own the 360), but I've always hated the game lineup. Most of the fun games I want to play are on the PS systems, and the Xbox always gets the retarded shoot-em-ups that require no thought that get pumped out every quarter.

Indeed, im pretty sure that the Cell processor isn't just gonna sit while it decodes.

I have no opinion of whether the PS3 software decodes or not. I didn't bring it up. Your statement, however, leads me to believe that you don't understand the difference between hardware and software decoding.

Hmm. I think you may be on to something!

Let's make this interesting: we'll use an older movie that's been released on BluRay. How about the original Die Hard? SPOILER WARNING

Here is the frame grab from the recently-released BD-ROM version:




Here is the frame grab from my OMEGA DELUXE EDITION DVD version:




HO HO HO INDEED.

I... I don't know, I can't really tell. :downs: I'd post the full-size version of the BluRay frame grab but it's 1920x1080 and 2.2 MB so I won't. Instead let's focus on poor dead Tony.

Here is the BluRay version:




Hmm. I think this might be a pretty lousy BluRay transfer guys. Let's look at the DV D:




Hmmmmmmmmm. Nope, I think your personal opinion might be retarded, Wookie. Im sorry :saddowns:

Agreed. Can anyone name 1 good X-Box 360 game that isn't a mindless shooter or racing game?

Overlord.

Rockband.

Forz--- oh. >_>

I'll give you rockband, but I didn't really think Overlord was anything special.

Bioshock and Oblivion are both not-mindless FPS', but I would much rather play them both on the PC.

In the eyes of producers, FPS's = profit and security. Why change a winning formula?

Shadow of the Colossus?

Which was a risky move seeing that Ico didn't sell well.

Okami closed the studio the game was made under. Psychonauts was a financial bomb. Halo 3 is still selling like hot cakes.

Dead Rising? Viva Pinata? Ace Combat 6?

FPSes are also really easy to design.

Echoman, technically Godhand closed the studio the game was made under because Godhand was in development for like 6 years. It was originally meant to be a PS1 game.

I never said non-FPS's can't turn a profit. But if you are the producer and next-gen, big title games this day and age cost huge investments of time and money, why take a risk with a totally innovative/different idea that could go flat when a standard, solid concept is available that is almost proven to atleast bring in some cash? Doesn't even have to be FPS's, it can go with something like Madden and Mario. Never did I state 90% of profitable games these days is shoot, shoot, shoot...but the good majority are. Especially now when AAA titles like Halo3, CoD4 and BioShock made such a splash, I wonder if certain producers have ever barked at developers, "Guys, how can we make our game more like Halo?"



Ah. Well, was Godhand atleast a good game?

Edit: Just to interject, I heard Viva Pinata didn't sell terribly well. But just mentioning. I'm curious how well LittleBigPlanet will do.

Final Fantasy.