Xbox 360

[ZoomSlowik]

No, it's coming out at the same time.

 

Really, didn't see that.

 

Either way, I'm far too broke to buy either right now.

[tonyho7476]

Really, didn't see that.

 

Either way, I'm far too broke to buy either right now.

 

Too broke? Are you living on the streets in River Forest?

[DonkeyKongerko]

I wouldn't be surprised if a year from now, there were more Wii60 owners than PS3 owners. Now that Assassin's Creed will not be exclusive to PS3, my last reason for wanting to own one is gone.

[SoxFanForever]

Is Sony trying to pull a Sega Saturn and sink their gaming development?

[ZoomSlowik]

Too broke? Are you living on the streets in River Forest?

 

That doesn't mean that I have money.

[max power]

Wtf is a Wii?

[DBAHO]

Has anyone played Guitar Hero before? I bought that the other day with the guitar, and I've found it real enjoyable so far.

[SnB]

Has anyone played Guitar Hero before? I bought that the other day with the guitar, and I've found it real enjoyable so far.

i love playing that thing

[THEWOOD]

To the poster that said he traded in his old system and games, I have a question.

 

Was it a PS2 system? How many games and what types were they? How much did you get towards a 360?

 

I have been thinking of doing this for awhile, I just have to pull the trigger.

 

I have two PS2s (one has a read error, but can be fixed), 26 games which are basically all EA Sports series.

[ZoomSlowik]

To the poster that said he traded in his old system and games, I have a question.

 

Was it a PS2 system? How many games and what types were they? How much did you get towards a 360?

 

I have been thinking of doing this for awhile, I just have to pull the trigger.

 

I have two PS2s (one has a read error, but can be fixed), 26 games which are basically all EA Sports series.

 

This was a while ago, but I'm pretty sure I got $70 for my semi-functioning PS2 (some disc read errors). The games will vary greatly depending on popularity and how old they are, but any older sports games are likely to net little cash. The previous year's games could potentially net $10 to $20, but anything else will definitely be under $10, and could be as little as $2.

Edited July 3, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[THEWOOD]

This was a while ago, but I'm pretty sure I got $70 for my semi-functioning PS2 (some disc read errors). The games will vary greatly depending on popularity and how old they are, but any older sports games are likely to net little cash. The previous year's games could potentially net $10 to $20, but anything else will definitely be under $10, and could be as little as $2.

 

 

Yeah thats what I was afraid of hearing. I think I may be better off just selling it all as a package deal on ebay.

[farmteam]

Older sports games will net next to nothing, only a dollar, if not less.

[BobDylan]

But the PS3 is a BluRay player which costs $1,000.00 alone. Want proof? Check the sales ad from bestbuy this past week and it's there. Samsung I think is the model.

 

Does anyone in this thread follow the gaming world? The PS3 is being released at 2 prices: $499 and $599, and if you think one hundred extra dollars is bad, just take a look back at the success Sony and Playstation have previously had. They're matching, plus upping Microsoft and in the meantime, they still have soul rights to some of the best video game companies on the market (where Microsoft lacks).

 

 

PS3 games will cost more than $60, could get up to $100.

 

http://news.spong.com/article/10311

 

Final nail in the coffin for Sony.

Are you kidding me? In 1997 Final Fantasy 7 cost $75 dollars when it first hit the shelves. This is nothing new by any means.

 

The Xbox-360 is a hunk of s***, anyone that buys that thing will be horribly disappointed. It ALREADY has hardware failure problems, and given they didn't do anything to better the laser that reads the discs, it'll die out in 2-3 years just like all the first generation X-Box's did (PS2's do as well).

 

Wii could be a force, but I think they have more of a gimmick than anything. Regardless, the PS3 is reported to have some of the same features the Wii is banking their whole future on (motion sensor's). The one thing I LOVE about the Wii, however, is that you can download all the classic Nintendo and SNES games from online (free, I've heard).

 

All and all, the PS3, from the looks of it, will easily be the best buy in the newest generation of video games just as the PS2 was. Not to mention they are already prepared to actually have systems in stores.

[3E8]

You had me at the Xbox 360 is a hunk of s***.

[BobDylan]

You had me at the Xbox 360 is a hunk of s***.

 

PS3's Power:

 

"The PlayStation 3 will have a 3.2GHz Cell processor that consists of a single PowerPC-based core with seven synergistic processing units. The Cell is the result of a joint effort between IBM, Sony, and Toshiba. The primary PowerPC core has a 512KB L2 cache, and each SPE has 256KB of its own memory to work with. The CPU has an eighth SPE for "redundancy." IBM has stated that the first prototypes have weighed in with 234 million transistors each. To put things into perspective, desktop PC processor manufacturer Intel only broke into the 200-million transistor range with its dual-core Pentium Processor Extreme Edition chip, which was released in early 2005."

- Gamespot.com

 

In other words, the PS3 basically can match the power of a gaming PC. If Sony releases hardware upgrades down the line, it may be 10 years before they can release an affordable machine that can beat it.

I'd like to see Microsoft jump ship with the X-box 360, put Windows into the PS3 and sell it as the cheapest gaming computer on the market. Though, that's not very likely. I doubt the PS3 has the RAM to account for being a computer, let alone the other hardware it takes to make a computer work.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Does anyone in this thread follow the gaming world?

 

Well, judging from the posts in this thread, it seems many of us do.

 

The PS3 is being released at 2 prices: $499 and $599, and if you think one hundred extra dollars is bad, just take a look back at the success Sony and Playstation have previously had.

 

The price scheme is a gimmick, just like where they ripped off the idea from, the 360. Those who follow gaming know that either stripped-down, lower-priced version aren't worth it. It's meant more for parents and uninformed buyers who won't know what they're getting and will go with the cheaper buy.

 

Anyways, 600 bucks is way too much for a gaming system for me and lots of others, and my guess is that many casual gamers will be turned off by the price.

 

Are you kidding me? In 1997 Final Fantasy 7 cost $75 dollars when it first hit the shelves. This is nothing new by any means.

 

Sure, that's true for back then, but recently companies had been striving to keep all new releases at the same $50 dollar price point, and 60 bucks for the next generation seems like the next logical step. 80 bucks for a game would be wayy too much, in my opinion.

 

All and all, the PS3, from the looks of it, will easily be the best buy in the newest generation of video games just as the PS2 was. Not to mention they are already prepared to actually have systems in stores.

 

There's really no way of knowing that. Hope you're not a ps fanboy.

 

I would have thought the same if not for seeing Nintendo once again dominate the handheld market when many were predicting that the psp, which has way more power and technology, would finally be the one to topple Game Boy.

 

None of the 3 really wow me or seem like the clear-cut favorite so it'll be interesting to see who wins out. It's easy to say that ps3 will continue their current dominance, but so far it hasn't been all that impressive (funny you should mention the changes to the controller when it's clearly a blatant rip-off of Nintendo), and the price is just way too high for my tastes and the tastes of many others.

[BobDylan]

Well, judging from the posts in this thread, it seems many of us do.

 

The price scheme is a gimmick, just like where they ripped off the idea from, the 360. Those who follow gaming know that either stripped-down, lower-priced version aren't worth it. It's meant more for parents and uninformed buyers who won't know what they're getting and will go with the cheaper buy.

 

Anyways, 600 bucks is way too much for a gaming system for me and lots of others, and my guess is that many casual gamers will be turned off by the price.

 

Sure, that's true for back then, but recently companies had been striving to keep all new releases at the same $50 dollar price point, and 60 bucks for the next generation seems like the next logical step. 80 bucks for a game would be wayy too much, in my opinion.

 

There's really no way of knowing that. Hope you're not a ps fanboy.

 

I would have thought the same if not for seeing Nintendo once again dominate the handheld market when many were predicting that the psp, which has way more power and technology, would finally be the one to topple Game Boy.

 

None of the 3 really wow me or seem like the clear-cut favorite so it'll be interesting to see who wins out. It's easy to say that ps3 will continue their current dominance, but so far it hasn't been all that impressive (funny you should mention the changes to the controller when it's clearly a blatant rip-off of Nintendo), and the price is just way too high for my tastes and the tastes of many others.

 

Well, from what I've heard and read, the PS3 has the power of a PC. You are correct about the cheaper version and the expensive version. I've read that the $600 version will have an HDMI port and the $500 one won't. (Excuse me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the lack of an HDMI port kind of defeat the purpose of the PS3? If so, stupid move by Sony.) HOWEVER, with blu-ray DVD players going for $1,000, you're essentially shelling out $500 for the system (what the 360 costs) and $100 for a piece of machineary that costs a grand. Is there a better buy than that?

 

I am not a huge gamer so 80 bucks for the four or five games that I regularly play doesn't seem like a big deal. And you know what they say, you pay what you get for.

 

As far as the handhelds, I never really got into that. I think the problem with the PSP was the lack of battery life, but I don't really know.

 

I am excited about the Wii though. It has all the Gamecube ports for all the Gamecube owners and downloadable games from past versions (NES, SNES, N64, Sega and Turbo Grafx). But they're banking their success on a GIANT if.

[SmokeandMirrors]

Does anyone in this thread follow the gaming world? The PS3 is being released at 2 prices: $499 and $599, and if you think one hundred extra dollars is bad, just take a look back at the success Sony and Playstation have previously had. They're matching, plus upping Microsoft and in the meantime, they still have soul rights to some of the best video game companies on the market (where Microsoft lacks).

Are you kidding me? In 1997 Final Fantasy 7 cost $75 dollars when it first hit the shelves. This is nothing new by any means.

 

The Xbox-360 is a hunk of s***, anyone that buys that thing will be horribly disappointed. It ALREADY has hardware failure problems, and given they didn't do anything to better the laser that reads the discs, it'll die out in 2-3 years just like all the first generation X-Box's did (PS2's do as well).

 

Wii could be a force, but I think they have more of a gimmick than anything. Regardless, the PS3 is reported to have some of the same features the Wii is banking their whole future on (motion sensor's). The one thing I LOVE about the Wii, however, is that you can download all the classic Nintendo and SNES games from online (free, I've heard).

 

All and all, the PS3, from the looks of it, will easily be the best buy in the newest generation of video games just as the PS2 was. Not to mention they are already prepared to actually have systems in stores.

 

 

While I've never been one to argue over video games or systems for that matter (and honestly, I don't intend to get a big system war started), I do disagree with some of what you said. I do understand that Sony has had amazing success with the Playstation and the PS2, but you can't honestly justify the $500-$600 price of the system. Sure, when figuring everything up, it looks to be a better buy than the 360 (and yes, I do intend to buy a PS3), but the majority of the people won't even use/need half the stuff in the PS3. One of Sony's employees claims that you're paying for potential, well, what if someone doesn't want to pay over half a grand for potential? What if they just want to play games and could care less whether it's on a Blu-Ray disc or if it has Wi-Fi or HDMI? Heck, I'm sure some of Sony's supporters have no clue what some of that even is.

 

Also, I hardly think the 360 is a hunk of s***. I've had the thing since Nov. and I haven't yet been disappointed. Even when mine crapped out on me, at least Microsoft was willing to take it back free of charge. Did Sony offer to do that for my launch PS2? Nope. I happen to like the games that the 360 has. Just like I like the FF series or MGS or Gran Turismo, among others that the Playstation provides. My intention is to own all three systems this year. I missed out on some of the great games the Gamecube offered last gen. Also, I wouldn't get my hopes up too high on Sony having enough PS3s to go around, especially with the worldwide release. I mean, you've got to consider that many want the $600 version. So, with Sony releasing only 2 mil worldwide, most likely 800,000 of those will be the $500 version. Leaving just 1.2 mil of the $600 for everyone (sure, I can't back these numbers up as they are just guesses, but it will most likely be close to that).

[BobDylan]

While I've never been one to argue over video games or systems for that matter (and honestly, I don't intend to get a big system war started), I do disagree with some of what you said. I do understand that Sony has had amazing success with the Playstation and the PS2, but you can't honestly justify the $500-$600 price of the system. Sure, when figuring everything up, it looks to be a better buy than the 360 (and yes, I do intend to buy a PS3), but the majority of the people won't even use/need half the stuff in the PS3. One of Sony's employees claims that you're paying for potential, well, what if someone doesn't want to pay over half a grand for potential? What if they just want to play games and could care less whether it's on a Blu-Ray disc or if it has Wi-Fi or HDMI? Heck, I'm sure some of Sony's supporters have no clue what some of that even is.

 

Also, I hardly think the 360 is a hunk of s***. I've had the thing since Nov. and I haven't yet been disappointed. Even when mine crapped out on me, at least Microsoft was willing to take it back free of charge. Did Sony offer to do that for my launch PS2? Nope. I happen to like the games that the 360 has. Just like I like the FF series or MGS or Gran Turismo, among others that the Playstation provides. My intention is to own all three systems this year. I missed out on some of the great games the Gamecube offered last gen. Also, I wouldn't get my hopes up too high on Sony having enough PS3s to go around, especially with the worldwide release. I mean, you've got to consider that many want the $600 version. So, with Sony releasing only 2 mil worldwide, most likely 800,000 of those will be the $500 version. Leaving just 1.2 mil of the $600 for everyone (sure, I can't back these numbers up as they are just guesses, but it will most likely be close to that).

 

I've heard 1,000,000 will be shipped to the United States?

 

Anyway, I'm not terribly interested in the business war. Fortunately I can afford to shell out $600 to buy something for a simple pleasure. I just purely think the PS3 will be the best system released when it's all said and done. Sell the most? Who knows.

 

(As far as Microsoft taking your 360 back and replacing it...they're used to it. )

[My Dixie Normus]

I have been perfectly happy with my X-Box-1. I don't have high def so I don't see a need to run out and get the 360 until I do. I have had it for about 4 years and never had a problem with it. I am not a big gamer but there are a few titles I like. PGR II (Project Gotham Racing) is one. With the Sox and Bears eating what time my kids leave for 'me time'. It isn't all that important to have the latest and greatest.

[T R U]

Im sorry but the 360 is not THAT much better than the current gen IMO to warrant me spending $400 dollars for it.. I have seen the NCAA vids, they arent leaps and bounds better graphics.. so I dont see any reason for me to worry about getting a 360 till the current gen is almost phased out.. Ill own one in prolly a year, but for now I see no reason for me to shell out the cash for something I dont see as a drastic difference

[tonyho7476]

Im sorry but the 360 is not THAT much better than the current gen IMO to warrant me spending $400 dollars for it.. I have seen the NCAA vids, they arent leaps and bounds better graphics.. so I dont see any reason for me to worry about getting a 360 till the current gen is almost phased out.. Ill own one in prolly a year, but for now I see no reason for me to shell out the cash for something I dont see as a drastic difference

 

The games out now, except a few, aren't using the 360's power yet. One game that looks awesome is Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter...which is a great game.

[DonkeyKongerko]

If you mostly play sports games, you probably don't need to rush out to get a next gen system. The new ones usually only slightly improve the graphics at the expense of alot of features that were present in the previous end-of-generation titles.

[Heads22]

Nothing tops MarioKart and Mario Tennis for N64. [/end thread]

[DonkeyKongerko]

Nothing tops MarioKart and Mario Tennis for N64. [/end thread]

 

I'll give you kart but virtua is the tennis king.