Microsoft sides with Nintendo in fight vs Sony

Jonbo298 · 05-11-2006, 10:01 PM

I had an unbiased reply typed up earlier today, but yannow, with this beyond annoying "Server is too busy" message, I'm getting tired of this. The boards aren't even that heavily used, comeon.

Good for MS, maybe good for Ninty. Sony will do its own thing.

In 2-3 years, a 2x Blu-Ray player will be bleh I imagine. 2x dvd players are bleh. 2x cd-rom players are crippling.

Its too early...

Dylflon · 05-11-2006, 10:08 PM

Dear fanboys,

PS2 had a pretty high release price as well. That didn't stop it from having a greater quantity of great games and moving millions of units. Didn't PS2 win the last generation?

Anyways, I'm not trying to be a Sony fanboy or anything but Sony always manages to get great games exclusive and I'm sure the price will eventually come down so it's not so easy to count them out.

Dyne · 05-11-2006, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylflon

PS2 had a pretty high release price as well. That didn't stop it from having a greater quantity of great games and moving millions of units. Didn't PS2 win the last generation?

There's some confounding conclusions to this line of thinking, though.

For one, the PS2 launch was HALF that price. Wikipedia shows,

Quote:

US$299.99 (October 26, 2000, Launch Price) (CAD$344.99)

But I remember it being $400-$450 here in Canada, due to the horrible dollar at the time, and even more because most of the systems at first were being bundled with GT3. Maybe that's why you're under the impression it was expensive. At that point in time, if the PS2 was $600, it would very well be $800 up here, at least.

PS2 was also released earlier (albeit later than Dreamcast) than the other two, which gave developers time to make great games. PS3 is launching later. Meanwhile, kickass Xbox 360 games are coming out, and the Wii is showing an extremely good launch with Metroid, Zelda, AND possibly Mario.

As well, Bluray is not an established format yet. PS2 had DVD, which, from "Twister"'s pressing in 1996, made it a four-year format at that point. DVD was one of the big reasons PS2 sold so well, but Bluray is totally questionable right now, what with its uncertain future against HD-DVD.

The PS2 is almost extraneous in this situation, disregarding brand loyalty and games. If MGS4 moves to 360 like Microsoft is heavily pointing to right now, and the price does not drop, this could very well be bad news.

Perfect Stu · 05-11-2006, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyne

The PS2 is almost extraneous in this situation, disregarding brand loyalty and games. If MGS4 moves to 360 like Microsoft is heavily pointing to right now, and the price does not drop, this could very well be bad news.

good news for GameTavern, though

Null · 05-11-2006, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonbo298

I had an unbiased reply typed up earlier today, but yannow, with this beyond annoying "Server is too busy" message, I'm getting tired of this. The boards aren't even that heavily used, comeon.

Good for MS, maybe good for Ninty. Sony will do its own thing.

In 2-3 years, a 2x Blu-Ray player will be bleh I imagine. 2x dvd players are bleh. 2x cd-rom players are crippling.

Its too early...

jonbo... thoes arent measured in the same way... the #X is just the speed at which the disc is spinning. DVD's take in a lot more data in 1 spin then a CD can... so it doesnt need to spin as fast as a CD. thats like saying a 16X DVD is way way slower then a 56X CD. its just totally different.

granted a 2x does sound slow, but bluray reads much much faster. so the disc doesnt need to spin as fast and the system doesnt need to work to keep it spinning at that speed. it helps everything. i think a 2x bluray is pretty much equal to a 16xDVD. i had read something on it being faster.

now no doubt they'll prolly make a 4x Bluray drive eventually... but i dont see it going that much higher. wouldnt do it any good to spin that fast.

Jonbo298 · 05-12-2006, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Null

jonbo... thoes arent measured in the same way... the #X is just the speed at which the disc is spinning. DVD's take in a lot more data in 1 spin then a CD can... so it doesnt need to spin as fast as a CD. thats like saying a 16X DVD is way way slower then a 56X CD. its just totally different.

granted a 2x does sound slow, but bluray reads much much faster. so the disc doesnt need to spin as fast and the system doesnt need to work to keep it spinning at that speed. it helps everything. i think a 2x bluray is pretty much equal to a 16xDVD. i had read something on it being faster.

now no doubt they'll prolly make a 4x Bluray drive eventually... but i dont see it going that much higher. wouldnt do it any good to spin that fast.

Yes and I do know that the read rates are higher with Bluray because its a larger format.

I'm not that idioitic to not realize that a 2x cd-rom drive doesnt read at the same speed as a 2x dvd drive.

Canyarion · 05-12-2006, 05:35 AM

I think Sony had expected Bluray fully up and running at this time, but development took longer. So they had a problem: they already promised Bluray so they didn't want to take it out.....
They had to solve it by giving people a Bluray player for an idiotic price.

manasecret · 05-12-2006, 06:24 AM

I don't understand why anyone wants either one of the new movie formats. The switch from analog to digital was what was so nice about DVDs. Spending $600-$1000 and $30 for each movie for somewhat better visuals (if you have the right TV)? Who cares?

To me, even if all of the companies had decided on one standard and their wasn't a looming format war, I still don't think anyone would care. I think this new format is useless and a huge waste of money. My opinion of course.

BlueFire · 05-12-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manasecret

I don't understand why anyone wants either one of the new movie formats. The switch from analog to digital was what was so nice about DVDs. Spending $600-$1000 and $30 for each movie for somewhat better visuals (if you have the right TV)? Who cares?

To me, even if all of the companies had decided on one standard and their wasn't a looming format war, I still don't think anyone would care. I think this new format is useless and a huge waste of money. My opinion of course.

I agree.

Null · 05-12-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manasecret

I don't understand why anyone wants either one of the new movie formats. The switch from analog to digital was what was so nice about DVDs. Spending $600-$1000 and $30 for each movie for somewhat better visuals (if you have the right TV)? Who cares?

To me, even if all of the companies had decided on one standard and their wasn't a looming format war, I still don't think anyone would care. I think this new format is useless and a huge waste of money. My opinion of course.

i agree to a certain point. But these arent 'somewhat better visuals' the difference with a true 1080p picture is huge. i mean it looks NICE.

but i dont care at all if they're $30 each. as i said in another post, if both hddvd, and bluray are going to cost that, then screw em both. i wont even pay a full normal price for current dvd's. ($20) i'll either buy em right away at $15 or wait till they're $10

Dyne · 05-12-2006, 03:07 PM

Wait, has anyone considered the cost of Bluray PS3 games?

If DVDs are going to be $30 instead of $20, how much are games going to be?

Would they be $60/$70 or what.

manasecret · 05-12-2006, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Null

i agree to a certain point. But these arent 'somewhat better visuals' the difference with a true 1080p picture is huge. i mean it looks NICE.

It's really that big of a difference, huh? Well, I guess if I had an HDTV (especially a big one) I'd definitely be excited about the new format. Even if they were $30 I'd just start it slow, get a couple high-action movies to show it off. Now I see why people want this.