PS3 IS THE FUTURE
Xbox is the PRESENT
Nintendo is the PAST
Nintendo machines suck
Playstation is superior
and yes im expecting lots of sage and anti sony flames, or troll atempts dont fail me now
SONY has run out of ideas, they just put everything they have into a black chest and say "It's sooo neeeewww, newgen!!!" I've read some hardware reviews of the PS3, and it comes out that the system doesn't even use correctly its apps and its huge capacity. BluRay? We are not ready for that yet, unless the prices drop and the BluRay readers/burners are sold at an OK price. The PlayStation Shop? I don't know where that's going, but it is awfully unfair for PSP users (such as me) to have to use or own a PS3 system to download PSOne games. Hopefully homebrew kicks in one day with those.
Nintendo opens a new type of gaming market. The games and the controller itself are really weird, but if you like it that's wonderful. I find that type of gaming really user-intensive: acceptable health conditions, notion of position, etc. Still, I think that something like that is amazing. What will come next after the Wii -__-? It's a little strange how Nintendo went from its common controller form to that little thing.
Final veredict: SONY: gb2 /b/!!! Seriously, such a rip off like the PS3 will cost you a lot one day. Nintendo: what else do you have in mind for us newgen gamers? Bring it on. But we'd like a somewhat larger variety of games.
However, I don't prefer any of those systems as I am OK with my PSP (F*cking updates!!!!) >.< I just hope for a PSP2.
Ok, if Nintendo is the past then..
Explain why the ps3 acts like an old fart? Breaks down all the time, slow loading, lag--all sounds fairly geriatric to me.
Whereas my Wii plays nice and smooth. These people should wait until they get smooth working technology before implementing it.
So really it boils down to--do you like your future innovative or shitty? If they don't improve the ps3, you fans of it are looking at a shitty future.
Anyone know where I can get a wii in the NY/NJ area? All the malls near me are sold out, they only have walls of unsold ps3s.
CELL 218GFLOPS
RSX 1.8TFLOPS
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/0518/kaigai180.htm
PS3 Development fund
10 billion dollars
http://www.iza.ne.jp/news/newsarticle/natnews/interview/29859/
Core 2 Extreme 18GFLOPS
GeForce8800GTX 500GFLOPS
PS3 is the future. ffxiii devil may cry etc (just imagine it had no blue ray and you'd have allot less to flam about ^^ )
wii is new but once you twisted the controller often enuth it gets boring controler > games (i know, zelda -.-)
x360... has a lot of games but thay sumhow all suck. racig, shooter, bla no story based games (and sins i have to fucking work with the x360 i truly hat it, it has no future potential)
>>49
I don't know what you do in your country but civilized people on this board typically speak English.
If ps3 is really "teh futur" then why isn't anyone buying it? Why are there piles and piles of ps3s everywhere you go, yet people are still having to search high and low for a Wii?
ps3=making audiovisual apparatus
1666 dollars
http://homepage3.nifty.com/kanaimaru/PS3/0f.htm
Yeah Ps3 is extremely expensive, has a great game selection and a few bugs. The Wii has alot of bad games, but the originality, and operability is exceptional. If you ask me ARCADE FTW.
> Yeah Ps3 has a great game selection
whut?
> The Wii has alot of bad games
as does every other console. it's more the amount of good games which matters.
> If you ask me ARCADE FTW.
word. unfortunately they're dead and buried on this side of the pond, due to overprotective parents and rising profit expectations. time to move on.
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=cpustats
OS Type Current TFLOPS* Active CPUs Total CPUs
Windows 152 159620 1625732
Mac OS X/PowerPC 7 8742 95382
Mac OS X/Intel 9 2776 7292
Linux 43 25145 215929
GPU 42 716 2204
PLAYSTATIONR3 543 22147 23540
Total 796 219146 1970079
Totalで0.8PFLOPS
I hear the Australian and European PS3 midnight launches were a major flop. Hardly any lineups beforehand and low sales. I guess everyone got nervous about the violence in the American launch and waited until the daytime, or stayed home with their Wiis.
People were queuing in London 2 days prior to release, I know that much.
>>56
too bad TFLOPS is a meaningless measurement
Good thing he didn't compare with actual GAMEING CONSOLES. Fanboys know better than to give out relevant information.
PS3 is a FLOP lol
Honestly, I'm impartial...I'm waiting for my 360 to be fixed so I can buy some new games for it. I am enjoying my Wii. I'm waiting for the price to drop on the PS3, and also waiting for some games I'm interested in to come out on it.
Well they are relevant numbers if you are gonna use your console to do number crunching all day long. Yes, the PS3 is in fact the console with the fastest CPU on the market. This is a moot point.
I own a PS3 because I use it as a media center box as well as a game console. But I can understand why someone would want to fire up an NES or SMS or SNES or Wonderswan for that matter and play the games with which they are already familiar.
Anyway those numbers posted in >>56 are Folding@Home numbers. They show that there are PS3s out there crunching the numbers to help the scientific community really well. They are not comparative benchmarks. The reason there are no consoles up there is that PS3 is currently the only console that runs the Folding@Home program.
>>64
TFLOPS isn't a measurement of how fast a CPU crunches numbers. It measures how fast the CPU executes instructions. How much the CPU actually gets done with each instruction is not taken into account, and is equally important when gauging its end productivity.
Moreover, the PS3 is only faster at doing a very specific set of mathematical problems, and a good deal slower for the rest. The Folding@Home client has been tailored to supply them with the specialty set. It's no PC killer.
Actually, looking at the top 10 list, 70% of the games on the list are X360, not ps3 or Wii. And 1 of the remaining games is a ps2 game.
Being that gamers follow the games, I think we have a good indication of who will win the console wars. X360 has the games, and X360 will thus get the gamers.
As a 360 owner myself, I have to say that the time gap between the 360 release and the release of the other systems is quite significant. I think it needs a little more time before we can clearly declare the 360 as the top winner. Volume of games doesn't necessarily mean a win, because often when a system has a lot of games, a good portion of them are cheap bad games or franchise milkers. Games do matter, but it's the third party game makers that matters most. The PS2 snagged Square, snagged Capcom (for the most part) and other very good third parties. That was what made it's success, not it's cheap dev kits which anyone who wanted to make a name could get. Quality games are what attracts gamers. However, an overly expensive dev kit can repel even the best and richest game studios.
However unless Nintendo manages to convince third parties to make good games for the Wii, the 360 most likely does have the upper hand. It was the first out, and it has an inexpensive dev kit. However it does seem the novelty of the Wii does attract some gamers, so it's really a toss up to see which climbs out on top, 360 or Wii.
Me and my computer science degree see no use in arguing about how wrong you are about this. kthxbai.
>>70
so... you're saying you know more about the folding@home software then the people who wrote it?
or is it just the first part that's BS?
The head start has certainly helped matters. No denials there. But since X360 has probably double the install base of the ps3 as well as a nice library for new purchasers to play with, I think if I was a developer, I'd at least port to the X360, simply because more people already have a 360. Without some good exclusives, ps3 pretty well dies -- if I can get Oblivion for X360 and ps3, I'd probably go for X360, not ps3 for a few reasons.
First, a decent size library of other games. With ps3, it's been 6 months and there's still no "must have" games. Heck, ps3 games take up only about half a rack at a VG store, as compared to 3/4 of a wall for X360. What that means to J. Random Gamer is that with a ps3 and Oblivion, that's pretty much gonna be it for a few more months, while X360 and Oblivion gives him the possibility of dozens of other games to try. Even if half of them are complete garbage, that's still double the entire ps3 library.
Second, a used Core X360 is $300. A ps3 is $600. That means double the price for a game system that will sit around for 8 months before the "good games" start dropping. Unless you're a Blu-Ray fan, there's no reason to buy a ps3. And unless there are a lot of GREAT games within the next 3-6 months, I think they'll start bleeding exclusives. No one will put a flagship franchise on an ailing system. Square might even switch -- FF sells more in the USA and Europe, two places that aren't buying ps3s in large numbers.
Im saying the first part is BS. I agree with your second paragraph .
>>69
"Please learn to words." EPIC IRONIC WIN
PURE COMPUTER POWER IS EVERYTHING FUCK SO CALLED "FUN"
Power helps, but remember these are game systems. No games, no one buys them.
I'm sorry, >>74 has a genetic condition where he isn't able to recognize sarcasm. Please excuse him.
The key to being the superior console:
Just look at the history of every console.
-SMS has better graphics, but a small amount of games unlike NES.
-Both the Genesis and SNES had boat-loads of games, and thus could compete.
-Neo Geo had superior graphics, great games, and was priced entirely too high ($650 in 1991).
-N64 attempted the strategy of having only good games and couldn't compete with playstation's endless amount of titles. N64 had far superior graphics. Even if it could have had FMV, it wouldn't have survived.
-GC shouldn't have survived, but carved itself a niche and somehow survived against PS2 & XBOX, who both had numerous titles.
http://www.ps3center.net/story-394.html
PS3 in memoriam.
Also, lol.
>>78
5. Marketing
>>78
-N64 didn't fail
-GC survived cuz even though it had fewer titles, it had SSBM, Metroid, and other high profile games continuley coming out.
-Xbox survived due to Halo. It never would of gotten off the ground if Halo never came out.
>>83
N64 is still a worthwhile console because of Nintendo's own games (and Mystical Ninja: Starring Goemon) but in terms sales, lifespan and number of decent games, compared to the PS1 it failed.
Playstation dominated the console market when the N64 and Dreamcast came out. It had more games and if you fix it up a bit it was capable of playing soundtracks and copies of dvds.
One of the reasons why even bought an N64 was because of mario and the zelda games.
>-N64 attempted the strategy of having only good games and couldn't compete with playstation's endless amount of titles.
Not to mention the fact that they were using an overly expensive media platform and were telling people what they wanted rather than listening to them. PS3 much?
>N64 had far superior graphics.
No.
>Even if it could have had FMV, it wouldn't have survived.
It did occasionally have FMV (such as in Resident Evil 2); it was just very hard to do consistently given the constraints of the cartridge medium.
ITT we compare a console against a corporation.
Go!
Anyone see the last Media Create numbers? The top 21 games are all Wii or DS. o_O Even in the mayhem of Golden Week, the PS3 didn't get a spike in sales.
yeah i bet they are. lol.
ummm..yikes. Fuck Nintenbabies and FUCK Nintendo. Sony is uber based.
WE WUZ KANGZ
what the guy above said, also fuck Bethesda.