Interesting article of what Sony hopes to achieve with the PS3.
How it will be far more than a gaming machince, they also call the Xbox 360 more of an Xbox 1.5.
I read about the 1.5 thing and that shows that they are clueless of thier compedators. From what I see, the Xbox 360 and the PS3 do almost all the same things. A cell processor, and all purpose processors have nothing to do with the types of entertainment that produce. I don’t see where they’re going with this. A change in the type of entertainment would be something along the lines of the gimmicks that nintendo has been producing lately. That is a change in the type of entertainment. And could someone explain to me what they mean by producing, “virtual objects and phenomenons inside the computer.” This is no biased against sony, I would like to have a PS3 if they change that controller.
Exactly, it’s just Sony playing into consumers who realy don’t know whats going all and will probably think “Wow that sounds advanced, i’m gonna get that!”
I stopped reading at that point. Sega’s consoles had long before that provided movie playing hardware, i.e. the videodisc card for Mega CD. In addition, all the revolutionary online stuff that gets thrown around nowadays…Sega did that with the Dreamcast! They did everything right, but 4 years faster than people wanted!
[quote=“Abadd”]Wow… all this negative talk of sequels.
Okay, so let me understand: sequels = bad?
I’ll be sure to tell that to the NiGHTS, Panzer, Shining Force, and Burning Ranger teams the next time I see them. “Don’t ever make a sequel because sequel = bad!!!”
[/quote]
Great point. It also makes me laugh when you see the NCL fans complain about the lack of new games on the 360 and PS3, only to go ape on the new Zelda and the promise of a new Prime game.
What I do hate though is Sony Bullsh8t FMV tactics and the way the press and the sheep just sallow it 
.
It can’t be a good point simply because it was based on a faulty missconception.
The basis of it was right though.
There?s people on here moaning about the sequels on the PS3/360 ect. Only to then say SEGA will never be SEGA again unless they give the go-ahead to SAGA II, Shenmue III, SOA II, NiGHTS II, All of which are sequels.
I’m must be the only one to see little point in SEGA making a NiGHTS II. The 1st game was perfect , SEGA can not make it any better. There’s some games best left alone, and for me NiGHTS is one of them
I don’t see why people hate sequels. There are always way less sequels than new ideas and franchises that start with every system. Seriously, what system ever had at least a 1:1 ratio of original games to sequels? These people just have nothing to complain about so they go and attack that, then they go and buy the new Zelda, Final Fantasy, Medal of Honor, or what ever. I also don’t understand where the idea of, “If it’s a sequel, it sucks.” came from. Most of the time, the sequel is better than the original when it comes to games. No one can sit at thier computer and write back to me that they would rather play the original Mario, Final Fantasy, Zelda, Test Drive, Twisted Metal, anything that has sequels, instead of one of the more recent additions to the series’ because the sequels offer new gameplay features and fix the problems with the last ones, they do things to make them better… usually, this isn’t the case with everything i.e. Twisted Metal 3.
I also still want to know what they mean by “producing virtual objects and phenomenons inside the computer” because don’t we already have that now with the current and last gen consoles? Well, the phenomenona (not phenomenons as he said) I’m not sure about because I have no idea what the hell he’s talking about. I think he’s just trying to use big words so it sounds better than the Xbox 360 to sheep.
It’s not the thought of sequels that gets us annoyed, it’s the thought of CRAP sequels. Sonic 2 on the MD took about 1.5 years to come out after Sonic 1, if not longer, but E.A. (for example) can now chuck out a crap, half-assed sequel in 6 months, if they want.
This, along with yearly updates to games that do virtually nothing to the basic structure other than minor graphical improvements and more “realistic” names/teams, makes the so-called “Hardcore” gamer dislike sequels.
Well, it matters less on how soon after the initial release comes out after the first game, but rather, how long the title has been in development itself.
For example, you could have Good Game A. Good Game A 2 is inevitably coming out, but due to all sorts of design issues and arguments over the direction of the game, the schedule is eaten up by inactivity. The dev team now only has 8 months to create the game, so features get cut, and the game gets released as a piece of crap.
Good Game B, on the other hand, the publisher knows will be a hit. So, they decide to take a bigger risk, and do concurrent development for Good Game B and Good Game B2. B2 comes out only 6 months after B, but has actually been in development for 2 years.
See what I mean? (Not saying that that’s what EA does… just sayin’)
Well, if the sequel is truley that bad, then the sales for that game will be low. After that poor attempt, they’ll have to add new fun gameplay and features to the game if they want to continue the franchise. EA can do what you said because they’re also a publisher, they can put out as much crap as they want until they go bankrupt. I’ve never played an EA developed game, just ones published by EA so I don’t know how true your statement is. If they are getting sales on what you think is crap then either your opinion of them is just out of the mainstream or the people buying thier games are sheep. It would be hard to prove either.
All I’m saying TA is that Abadd assumed I dind’t like sequels or that I was beeing hypocritical in anyway.I do/I wasn’t.I just think Sony shouldn’t focus so much on old licenses when releasing a new console.
Don’t worry Gehn; we can expect another five whole years of sequels to pop-culture games. 
Wow, so basically Sony was showing off hardware that hasn’t even been made yet.
And the Xbox 360 playable games were shown on unfinished hardware. Prototypes for the Xbox 360 (before even the Alpha dev kits were available) were built on PC at the approximate specs devs expected the 360 to be at.
That proves nothing, unfortunately. What would be needed to prove whether or not those demos were done at the same level that PS3 would be capable of is to find out specific what the setups of each dev studio were, how accurately they were using their resource budgets (i.e. did they completely dedicate their GPU and CPU to processing graphics, shading, etc? or did they do a realistic simulation of a realtime game environment, including physics, AI, etc?)
I’m going to let the actual games do the talking, as I’ve said on numerous occasions.
I’m just glad that there isn’t a huge difference between the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. The new Xbox seems better suited for general purpose processing which is exactly developers asked for, though. Having 3x the integer performance over the PS3 should have a direct impact on the games. We shall see. It reminds me of the Genesis/SNES era with each console having their own strengths and weaknesses (in the case of the Genesis, it had a CPU almost 3 times as fast as the SNES’s, but couldn’t display as many colours at once and housed a horribly dated soundchip).
All the naysayers seem to think the Xbox 360 is going the way of the Dreamcast, and that all of its best third party developed games will arrive on the PS3 eventually. That kind of biased speculation is more annoying than anything else. Because having twice the floating point processing power automatically means that the PS3 is twice as powerful…
Yeah right. I thought Sony fans didn’t care about graphics? Having good graphics obviously didn’t matter to them this generation, so why should it matter during the next? Oh that’s right I forget: the PS2 is actually in the same league as the Xbox.
A lot of gamers were so disappointed with the PS2 that they simply turned their attention elsewhere. Maybe Sony’s over-hyped and under-performing consoles which have a nasty habit of breaking down will finally come back to haunt Sony. One can only hope.
Sony had the market all to themselves for quite some time, giving them ample time to release all those big-budget games that justified everyone waiting for the console. Sony won’t enjoy the same head start this time. Sony’s tactics just annoy the hell out of me. If that Killzone 2 demo was playable, then I might have been impressed with the PS3.
Well i believe with their lackluster sequels and tarnished reputation, Sony, won’t be the top dog anymore, and i for one will dance on their grave when the bloody machine flops like a burnt pancake.
Sony has a tarnished reputation? Not as far as the general public is concerned.
Unfortunately Parn is correct. People practically worship the Sony brand. After all, it was Sony that brought gamers Final Fantasy [insert number here], Metal Gear Solid etc.