Eurogamer take on PlayStation 3 at E3

Ruskie4Rent

Read an article about how Sony did at E3 on eurogamer.
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=64797
Quite harsh if you ask me, but honest.

steviec

It may be harsh but it was mostly fair.

They had a very poor showing. But the article does note that Microsoft were worse last year and look at them now.

They should have mentiones Assassin's Creed though, its one of the top 2 or 3 games of the show and it's (officially for the moment at least) PS3 exclusive. Not mentioning is like covering MS without mentioning Gears of War or covering Nintendo without mentioning Zelda.

Then again Sony themselves overlooked it in their press conference, cutting the trailer down to a few seconds and not giving it any other mention. They could have made so much better use of the time swallowed by that pointless GT4 demo.

projectmayhem

sony dropped a big ball at e3. though, there has been worse e3 press conferences. sony will suffer for a few weeks/months but it's sony - they've the best PR and marketing out of all the games companies right now. as soon as they have something definitive to show (i'd assume around september) they'll change peoples minds.

it's important to remember games like warhawk were only 30% complete. still a long few months ahead

Retr0gamer

http://www.consolevania.com/

Harsh. Harsh but Fair. Sony press conference bored me to tears. Thanks god for the highlights on eurogamer. They showed nothing substantial at all, mostly tech demos and cutscenes.

monument

It was fair, Nintendo and Microsoft put Sony to shame at E3.

Blowfish

Sonys conference to me, had the feeling that it was aimed to impress marketing people rather than gamers. There was far too many facts and figures. Who actually cares how many ps2 games were sold, the only thing people were wondering about was how good the ps3 is going to be. It took them almost half an hour before they showed their first demo, and that was GTHD, which was handled terribly.
Saying that though, I seriously doubt that one press conference is going to kill them off. I still expect the ps3 to sell more thant the 360.

LookingFor

The conference was appalling, but their actual showing itself seemed to get more positive press. Particularly, pretty much all of Sony's own playable PS3 games seemed to be well recieved. The conference did cast a shadow over that though, and the other more exciting announcements happening elsewhere (FFXIII, Mercs 2, Assassin's Creed etc.)

Ruskie4Rent

It's the games that bothered me. I wanted to see something new and i expected to be shocked but I wasn't impressed at all.

Ciaran500

:D:D

hairball

lol!! thats brilliant

Retr0gamer

It's an absolute joke the way Sony are trying to justify the high price. They are saying it costs less than a blu-ray player and therefore is a bargain. Well guess what sony, hardly anybody wants or needs a blu-ray player. When they buy the PS3 they want a console first, everything else is a bonus and as a console its far more expensive than the 360 or Wii. blu-ray was a huge mistake. It has driven up the costs of the console and is totally unnecessary. Only a few games will need multiple discs and it's never spoiled any game (in fact getting to a new disc feels great in a game).

LookingFor

Retr0gamer wrote:

It's an absolute joke the way Sony are trying to justify the high price. They are saying it costs less than a blu-ray player and therefore is a bargain. Well guess what sony, hardly anybody wants or needs a blu-ray player. When they buy the PS3 they want a console first, everything else is a bonus and as a console its far more expensive than the 360 or Wii. blu-ray was a huge mistake. It has driven up the costs of the console and is totally unnecessary. Only a few games will need multiple discs and it's never spoiled any game (in fact getting to a new disc feels great in a game).

I think that remains to be seen. There should be some immediate, less critical, benefits of Blu-ray for games in the short term (e.g. better and more consistent audio quality), but as the machines mature it may become more and more a critical feature.

Assuming the €500 pack is available here, it'd be €100 more than 360. You don't have to pay €50/year for online either, which is a saving. Add in the extras, and even ignoring the Blu-ray movie playback if you want, it's still worth it IMO. The numbers are big, but they're big enough with the current competition also when you factor everything in, for which you are arguably getting a lot less overall.

The other thing to remember is that again, they don't expect everyone to buy in at this level! Prices are temporary, spec decisions are not.

hairball

LookingFor wrote:

You don't have to pay €50/year for online either, which is a saving. .

serously man, don't count your chickens on that one..you may not be paying money to sony directly, but...

GrumPy

hairball wrote:

serously man, don't count your chickens on that one..you may not be paying money to sony directly, but...

Yes, do people really think they will have FREE online multiplayer? who is gonna host all those servers, and allow all that data to be sent for free? EA probably, lol.

skywalker

LookingFor wrote:

Assuming the €500 pack is available here, it'd be €100 more than 360.

thats presuming the 360 wont drop in price between now and ps3's launch which doesnt seem very realistic. Will prob be €150 difference or more.

Ciaran500

The Sony UK boss said they will not be selling any of the cheaper models in the UK, doubt we'll get them here so.

projectmayhem

Irish GrumPy wrote:

Yes, do people really think they will have FREE online multiplayer? who is gonna host all those servers, and allow all that data to be sent for free? EA probably, lol.

sony said already that gaming will be free online. servers can be hosted by anyone with the game. it's a unified system from sony, but all of the games themselves are done the same as the internet. so, yeah, EA will probably have official battlefield or burnout servers, but there'll be other servers up there too...

you'll pay extra for downloads and crap like that (hopefully nothing as crazy as €2 for horse armour)

steviec

I'm not sure why everyone's assuming there'll be a charge to play online when there never was for most of these games on PS2 and on PC. Time will tell of course.

Captain Trips

projectmayhem wrote:

you'll pay extra for downloads and crap like that (hopefully nothing as crazy as €2 for horse armour)

If I have to pay extra for horse armour for Battlefield I will be pissed...


But as an aside, I am thinking screw 360 and PS3, maybe Nintendo have got it all right. The system looks awesome and I have never owned a Nintendo. I have no need for Blu Ray, have little interest in online gaming. Wii looks like ti will have some fun stuff indeed and the controller stuff seems cool (after reading Edge this month).

I was all set for PS3, but the price means that also the games will likely be €80 or so. Unless those games come with a happy finish, they are not worth it as far as I can see from years of gaming.

Wii seems to be innovative and also not trying to screw customers with monthly charges, high initial cost and so on. I have a PS2 x4 years and have aroudn 10 games, so I am by no means hardcore. Wii will be at impulse purchase price, PS3 will be at that's a lot of ****ing laser money out of my account price and 360 has nothing special (yet!).

hairball

steviec wrote:

I'm not sure why everyone's assuming there'll be a charge to play online when there never was for most of these games on PS2 and on PC. Time will tell of course.

I don't think people are assuming, merely speculating and maybe it is the case that ps3 users will host games for each other..in that case score sony.
but as you said time will tell

Blowfish

hairball wrote:

I don't think people are assuming, merely speculating and maybe it is the case that ps3 users will host games for each other..in that case score sony.
but as you said time will tell

They have said that it can be run as a server, so there is the potential, but they haven't said whether you can run it as a server while playing at the same time.

steviec

Blowfish wrote:

They have said that it can be run as a server, so there is the potential, but they haven't said whether you can run it as a server while playing at the same time.

That's nothing to do with hardware. It's totally software related so it can easily run as a server.

The issues with a user being a server is the speed of their broadband connection because it has to receive and issue commands to every single other player, rather than having a central server that everyone just needs enough bandwidth to talk to it.

Ivan

In fairness, I would consider my knowledge of consoles pretty limited, however if I remember correctly Sony's great PR as stated by a previous poster is basically limited to crappy ads about some zone or such and undercutting the price of the PS2 so as to sell it at a loss.

In my mind, thats what they are going to have to do with the PS3 as its just a ludicrous price to spend on something that is as far from a P.C. as a carrot is, in terms of use.

While, the Blu-ray might be appealing to some, the fact that its only really there as a way to force it down our throats and so recoup some investment on their design/patent, leaves a horrible taste in my mouth

I am very much looking forward to the Wii (damn I just hate saying that word ) This coming from the owner of a PS2, Gamecube and high spec P.C. With a view to buy an xbox as soon as funds become available That "shooty" game that was previewed recently and linked to on the games forum did it for me. That and Super Smash Bro's, which I already own on the GC

With that said, I do intend on buying a PS3, just not for its launch price, though in saying that... I wouldnt pay the launch price for the PS2 either, so maybe I'm just cheap

In closing, good luck to them all (except microsoft ) and may the best product win our fickle love!

hairball

yeh well this type of arrogance isn't making me want to support them in any way at all..least of all monetarily

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3150935

Ivan

Question: What format is Final Fantasy XIII coming out on?

The answer will have a big impact on what 3rd gen console I buy first, as the E3 video made me metaphorically wet

Awh, who am I kidding, it'll be a Wii, no matter... Its nice to pretend though, for just a minute

GrumPy

hairball wrote:

yeh well this type of arrogance isn't making me want to support them in any way at all..least of all monetarily

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3150935

But it's not like we didnt know this, heck, if they launched with only 5 games, four of which were 3rd party, and a console off over €800 IT WOULD STILL SELL LIKE HOT CAKES. As mentioned in the link, the sony ps label is so huge they can do whatever the feck they want.

hairball

yeh i know..but who apart from rabid fanboys wants that rubbed iin their face?
like most people seem to be saying it's an xbox or wii or both for me and when the price drops on the PS3 and it actually enough titles released then i 'll judge whether or not its worth getting one.

monument

hairball wrote:

yeh i know..but who apart from rabid fanboys wants that rubbed iin their face?

It looks like fanboys, and/or people who have an Xbox/360 or GameCube are saying they will get a “Wii360” (sic).

How many people in Ireland do you think know about the Wee? Well? Ok, how many care? How many know and care about the new PlayStation console? And never mind about the PS3 sky high price, the 360 isn’t yeah at a mass market price.

Quite simply put, I expect more “early adaptors” in Ireland for the PS3 then Xbox 360 or Wii.

While I’d recommend any medium level or lower PS2 user to look at the 360 (when both are out), I’d always be careful to alert them they may miss some franchises they are used to (although that matters slightly less now that GTA has been set free).

To be frank, a letter to the editor in the LA Times reminded me of the whole thing about the idea that no standard format is actually harming gaming. Putting many off, stopping games as a media becoming truly mass-market, harming the development of the actual games, and harming the industry outside the console makers. Whatever about the truth in such, I think the question ‘was the leap to this ‘next generation’ premature?’ far more important.

hairball wrote:

and when the price drops on the PS3 and it actually enough titles released then i 'll judge whether or not its worth getting one.

Wow! So, it's like what happens with most people with most consoles. How does one go so quickly from hyperbole to logic so fast? (my point here is the 360 is still costs too much for most people)

LookingFor

hairball wrote:

serously man, don't count your chickens on that one..you may not be paying money to sony directly, but...

I think it's a fairly safe assumption given the PS2 experience. Most publishers won't charge for most games. There'll be some exceptions, like MMORPGs etc. but such exceptions can apply under the Live model also (see: FFXI). If you want to play online at all with 360 you need to pony up the subscription fee. Not so with PS3, I'd say many or most will get by without paying anything.

Also, since people were talking about people hosting games off machines etc. and why this would make the service 'free', you do know that this is how it works with Xbox Live too? That's the standard way to do things, PS3 will work this way also. You're €50 a year does not buy you games hosted on MS servers!

hairball wrote:

yeh well this type of arrogance isn't making me want to support them in any way at all..least of all monetarily

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3150935

Eh, I don't think you need worry that this is what they plan to do (i.e. launch with no games!). He was talking theoretically, only, and although it might not be a very humble one, it's probably true. They're not going to test such assumptions in the real world, obviously.