Timbo acting like a retard douche, again, and losing an argument, again Options

[hodge]

The PS3 is set for a global launch this November, priced at USD 499 / EURO 499 for the 20GB version and USD 599 / EURO 599 for the 60GB model.

the real joy is how they shit all over europe with this.

[Spectatrix]

I know... it should be EURO 380 for the 20 GB, 463 for 60.

[Timbo]

The $600 PS3 is, literally, worth its weight in Uranium. The radioactive substance so popular amongst terrorists is expected to hit $54 a pound this year, meaning that if you choose to buy 11 pounds of Uranium (and why wouldn't you?), you'll actually end up with a saving of $5.

WIN

Timbo

[Jim]

just for the record, the 360's were sold at a huge loss because microsoft doesn't manufacture them.

sony manufactures every part of the ps3 in-house. saves them shitloads.

it's the blu-ray technology that's bumping up the price, and really, i couldn't give a shit about blu-ray one way or another.

Sony's done nothing but prove they don't give a fuck what the consumer wants. they need to realize that PROPRIETARY FORMATS DONT WORK already. this is what, the third proprietary format in 15-ish years? (Betamax, ATRAC, bluray)

shit don't work, nobody likes you, stop being assholes and be the cool dudes that you used to be.

Um, people don't hate Sony... I have no clue what you're talking about.

Blu-Ray seems to be a bit better than the HD-DVD format that Microsoft is pushing for. Blu-Ray has more support from the major Stuidios than the HD-DVD. Blu-Ray can take a beating and still work perfectly. And this is the number one thing, anyone who buys a PS3 will have Blu-Ray. They're sneaking in this neat technology into their game systems. They'll talk about how good the PS3 is with it and say that the Blu-Ray players will perfor just as well.

It's a good marketing plan.

[Timbo]

Blu-Ray = marginally better video quality than HD-DVD with FOUR TIMES the DRM

DE-LICIOUS!

Timbo

[hodge]

doesnt matter since u can fit a 1080p movie on HD-dvd easily... the extra space is truely wasted for the cost. the actual entertainment industry(movies,etc) is split 50/50, half being what sony owns and half everyone else.

[Jim]

doesnt matter since u can fit a 1080p movie on HD-dvd easily... the extra space is truely wasted for the cost. the actual entertainment industry(movies,etc) is split 50/50, half being what sony owns and half everyone else.

I'm actually showing that not to be true. The only major studio that is NOT backing Sony right now is Universal. And, it's not because they think Blu-Ray will be bad, it's for other reasons (or so they say).

And, it's wasted space? Hello, if Blu-Ray can hold 4x the data regular DVD's can hold, that means games can be 4-times longer, which means good things (in my opinion). Also, movies like the Lord of the Rings and what not that come in three disc packages can now be put into one disc.

[hodge]

the word ive heard is from a couple producers in the industry, like television producers. to be honest neither will be truely utilized/make a big impact on the market for another 3-4 years when more homes incorporate hd-tv's, and by that point there will be dual players. while i understand a bigger disc might be nice for capacity reasons(game industry) for *most* movies its wasted and you are paying extra for it. look at the cost difference in making a blu-ray disc and a hd-dvd disc, its not small.

[zetec]

I'm actually showing that not to be true. The only major studio that is NOT backing Sony right now is Universal. And, it's not because they think Blu-Ray will be bad, it's for other reasons (or so they say).

And, it's wasted space? Hello, if Blu-Ray can hold 4x the data regular DVD's can hold, that means games can be 4-times longer, which means good things (in my opinion). Also, movies like the Lord of the Rings and what not that come in three disc packages can now be put into one disc.

games can be as long as the developer fucking wants.

Need I point out that FF8 was 4 discs? Stamping out a second disc is negligible in cost compared to actually DESIGNING those extra discs (or in this case, gigabytes) worth of content. Paying all your developers all that extra cash for working all that extra time is what keeps them from making "NEVERENDING STORY: THE GAME" or whatever.


and blu-ray's drm'ness is fucking psychotic. Sony ALREADY tryed to rootkit us, who knows what they HAVEN'T told us about what they're sticking on bluray.

[Jim]

games can be as long as the developer fucking wants.

Need I point out that FF8 was 4 discs? Stamping out a second disc is negligible in cost compared to actually DESIGNING those extra discs (or in this case, gigabytes) worth of content. Paying all your developers all that extra cash for working all that extra time is what keeps them from making "NEVERENDING STORY: THE GAME" or whatever.


and blu-ray's drm'ness is fucking psychotic. Sony ALREADY tryed to rootkit us, who knows what they HAVEN'T told us about what they're sticking on bluray.

Look at FFX, it was longer than FFVIII and was one disc long. It had more content wise as well. Hmmm...

[Timbo]

I'm actually showing that not to be true.  The only major studio that is NOT backing Sony right now is Universal.  And, it's not because they think Blu-Ray will be bad, it's for other reasons (or so they say).

And, it's wasted space?  Hello, if Blu-Ray can hold 4x the data regular DVD's can hold, that means games can be 4-times longer, which means good things (in my opinion).  Also, movies like the Lord of the Rings and what not that come in three disc packages can now be put into one disc.

You leave out one very important equation in this mess:

More Content == More Cost == Higher Prices



Timbo

[Spectatrix]

You leave out one very important equation in this mess:

More Content == More Cost == Higher Prices

           

Timbo

Well for games, yes, so the storage space may not be as beneficial to the game industry. But... think about movies and TV series. Many movies come with 1 or 2 extras disks, but now everything could be condensed to 1 disk. Each season of a TV series could be put on one or two disks. Current costs of producing blu-ray disks is 2-3 times that of a DVD, so right now the cost for a movie/season would be about the same, but eventually production costs will go down so it'll be cheaper for the studios to produce.

I personally don't think that HD-DVD is a large enough jump in technological sophistication to catch on. The DRM issues are going to be a big barrier to overcome for Blu-Ray success, however... that much I definitely agree with you on.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: May 13 2006, 09:47 PM

[Jim]

You leave out one very important equation in this mess:

More Content == More Cost == Higher Prices



Timbo

Really? MGS3 cost the same as FFX when they both came out yet FFX had more content. By your theory, shouldn't have FFX cost much more?

[Timbo]

Really?  MGS3 cost the same as FFX when they both came out yet FFX had more content.  By your theory, shouldn't have FFX cost much more?

Good. Now, tell me which of these games were 1) designed for the PS3 or 2) are developed for and printed onto the *proprietary* Blu-Ray discs...

...and you get a cookie.

If you don't get the point that was made here, I will explain it to you in more depth, if very large letters, if you wish.

Timbo

[Spectatrix]

If you don't get the point that was made here, I will explain it to you in more depth, if very large letters, if you wish.

You don't HAVE a point, because you're trying to avoid addressing the point you made earlier, which is what Jim was arguing against. Jim's post was not specifically about PS3 or Blu-Ray, but about your assertion that games with more content will be more expensive, even prohibitively so.