1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Tretton admits PlayStation 3 mistakes

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Da Dego, 4 Dec 2007.

  1. Lucidity

    Lucidity New Member

    Joined:
    28 Apr 2005
    Posts:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    WOW! You put it so well. The only thing that I would add is how Cell is just like Blu-Ray in the fact that Sony is trying to push another product on the consumer and it has ended up backfiring. People have talked so much about how COD4 plays on the PS3 and why can't every dev make a PS3 game that well, but they fail to acknowledge the fact that IF had to put not only their best devs on the task of making the PS3 version, but more devs than on the 360. There is no reason that a company should have to spend extra money to develop on a platform that has less users. The PS3 is not only hurting Sony, but it is also hurting devs by either making them spend more money and have a lower margin, or they make a crappier product for the PS3 version and in return they get **** for making a bad port. In the end Sony is putting a lose lose on the market and the consumer, they make me regret owning a PS3.
     
  2. cjoyce1980

    cjoyce1980 New Member

    Joined:
    17 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    404
    Likes Received:
    0
    this is the saturn and the PS1 all over again guy, but this time its the PS3 that is the whipping boy........ it will be interesting to see if sony pushes out a PS4 that is more developer friendly.

    also another interesting point, I have a friend that works at rockstar north in leeds and GTA4 on the 360 is complete and ready to be shipped, with its extra XBL content about halfway through and the PS3 version still does not run anything like the 360 after months with a sony development expert helping.

    this is just a prime example of extra development costs, but rockstar are getting paid a pretty penny by sony to delay the release of the 360 version.
     
  3. Aankhen

    Aankhen New Member

    Joined:
    15 Oct 2005
    Posts:
    406
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hilarious statement. :)
     
  4. sandys

    sandys Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Mar 2006
    Posts:
    3,082
    Likes Received:
    93
    Live has had 5 years to mature, the PSN service has been out a year, Live didn't start out like it did now.

    There was no push for online abilities for PS2, it was never designed with online community and multiplayer features from the outset whereas the much later released Xbox was, I think there is a bit of brown nosing as you put it there, chastising a machine for abilities it was never advertised to have is harsh. The PS3 is a different kettle of fish and what it offers in its initial launch is pretty comprehensive.

    So essentially from what you are telling me you are paying £40 a year so you don't have to quit a game to send a message, obviously I can see how that could be a life and death scenario and something you really wouldn't want to wait or quit out of a game for :rolleyes:
     
  5. Da_Rude_Baboon

    Da_Rude_Baboon What the?

    Joined:
    28 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    135
    I'm actually buying a PS3 primarily to use as a BluRay player; games are a secondary consideration. HD DVD and BluRay are storage formats and as BluRay has the larger capacity i guess that makes it 'technically' better.
     
  6. Woodstock

    Woodstock So Say We All

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2006
    Posts:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    2
    i whole heartily agree and dont see me buying another sony product till they sort there **** out

    there was more about the benefits of live in that post then not having to quit a game (which imo sounds like a pita)

    both are really designed for high-def playback not raw storage (ie genrel backups)
     
  7. Da_Rude_Baboon

    Da_Rude_Baboon What the?

    Joined:
    28 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    135
    No, the players do all the HD play back. All disks do is store data. BluRay is also being marketed for data backups.
     
  8. kenco_uk

    kenco_uk I unsuccessfully then tried again

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    9,696
    Likes Received:
    308
    Just to counterbalance the argument, for me the x360 is the more unpolished of the two. It's reliability is rather poor, with many units completely failing. The PS3 on the other hand, just works. The recent rumour of 40% of Belgium bought 40GB PS3's has been debunked (and they were probably returned by people trying to run PS2 games and ending up with disc read errors). The PS3 feels weighty and solid and for me, looks the part. The x360 felt cheap and although looked okay, wasn't exactly inspiring. It's why the x360 sat on my monitor upstairs whilst my PS3 sits under the telly downstairs now.

    Having owned the X360, the Live environment is more intuitive compared to PSN, but as has been mentioned, it has had more time to mature into what it is. You can have more in the download queue in the background on a PS3 too, I've noticed.

    There are a load of for and against's for each console; it's more a personal thing tbh.
     
  9. Anakha

    Anakha Member

    Joined:
    6 Sep 2002
    Posts:
    587
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ooh, a Far-Cry knock-off. And a "Media player"... like XBMC then. Or any other recent DVD player with MPEG4 compatibility...

    Yes, I'm real impressed.[/sarcasm]
     
  10. D3s3rt_F0x

    D3s3rt_F0x New Member

    Joined:
    28 Oct 2004
    Posts:
    719
    Likes Received:
    6
    I pay £20 a year max for my xbox live shop around or god forbid check ebay for people selling 12 month subscriptions, just looked 1st one I found was UK xbox live code from a guy with 100+ feedback and had sold them in the past with positive feedback.....infact mines due about now.

    PS3 made mistakes I think its biggest personally was the Blu-Ray drive both in terms of cost and basically I dont want a Blu-Ray drive forced on me because for features which Sony are now playing catch up with HD-DVD is superior plus imo in general theres better films in HD-DVD cause I aint a fan of what Sony film studios in general bring out.

    But in the end its a console and consoles live and die by there games and atm I havent seen any exclusive titles which would make me want to buy one but in the future that may change but what I've seen of whats coming there isnt alot that would attract me to be fair only possibly GT5 and MGS4 but I aint paying stupid money on a console for 2 games.

    Not saying 360 isnt perfect its far from it but is a useful machine to turn on and have a blast on games with.
     
  11. sandys

    sandys Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Mar 2006
    Posts:
    3,082
    Likes Received:
    93
    Yes people have told me you can get cheaper but I signed up with my original xbox on the £39.99 deal and you cannot cancel this, it auto renews, you cannot use a voucher, phone support don't help you, its a real pain, inorder to use the cheaper tickets I have to sign up a new name loosing sandys, it doesn't allow a new name to your existing email and blah de blah, it really is a pain in the arse. I've asked to be stepped down to silver from gold, its never happened, I put invalid card details in to stop MS charging me and got threatening emails, so I am probably on the whole a bit peeved with Live, £160 to play PGR2/3 online since I've owned my xbox, worth the hassle, nope.
     
  12. Veles

    Veles DUR HUR

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    34
    You can change your subscription type, you can't remove a credit card buy you can stop it charging your credit card for the subscription.

    BR isn't really any bigger than HD DVD, triple layer HDs are just as big as a dual layer BD but still only cost the same and, more importantly, work on all HD players. It is primarily designed as a media format for HD movies and the like, it will get used as a backup disk but that is not what it was designed for, just like DVD. Sony over designed BD, it's far bigger than they needed it to be. Anyway, using a BD (or HD DVD) is an incredibly bad way to backup data. Firstly, it's an incredibly expensive way to do it, I ccan buy hard drives for less than 1 RW BD, that's completely ignoring the cost of the burner. Secondly, it would take ages to back anything up. The main advantage HD has over BD is price. Sony likes their money a lot so the format, just like UMD and Compact Flash, is very expensive compared to the competition and that price will stay very expensive compared to the competition.

    Live had 5 years to mature? So what. Companies study the competition in great detail, hell, the defence company where my gf works had her analysing the workings of a DS even though it's barely related. If something is in direct competition, you take a very good look at all of it's features. It seems Sony just took a look at a feature list of XBL and didn't bother to actually check how it all works, that's why PSN has stupid mistakes like not being able to access messages in game. Remember, details about XBL were available before it was released almost a year before the PS3 hit the shelves. Sony had plenty of time to make sure their service was up to scratch yet still a year after release they haven't addressed some basic feature issues.

    In terms of polish, it depends what you're looking at. The hardware failure rates of the 360 is inexcusable and it definitely should have been sorted by now. But in terms of actual features it's very polished, whereas the PS3 is a mishmash of half finished ideas. The, hardware also isn't that polished. They spent ages trying to make the cell able to process graphics as well as the number crunching, but in the end they found they couldn't so jammed in a underpowered GPU last minute, creating a console that is very difficult for developers to work with. My PC has a more powerful GPU and it's two years old.
     
  13. Veles

    Veles DUR HUR

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    34
    Woops wrong button
     
  14. devdevil85

    devdevil85 New Member

    Joined:
    29 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    924
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's always going to be personal preference: Which console offers the most, yet also being able to justify it's price.

    Lucidity, after being able to sell his PS2 + 1 controller + 2 games online for around $100 and then being able to sell 3 (out of 5) of his BR movies for a little over $30 profit (if you think about it) he essentially got his 60GB PS3 ($499 after taxes, 7 months ago) for approximately $369 since it offers everything the PS2 did along with the BR movies coming free w/ the console purchase. If that's overpriced, then you must not remember that the 360 Premium, when it debuted, cost $499 as well, yet when my friend tried selling his regular Xbox w/ 2 controllers and around 15 games when he first grabbed his 360, he was along going to get around $100 on ebay and even less on craigslist (classifieds), so he decided to keep it since half of the games he had weren't supported in 360's BC (he only played Halo 2 anyway....).

    Anyone who bought a BR player before the format matured should've expected this.

    and what about HD movies? What about 1080p gaming? What about futureproofing consumers for the technological unknowns ahead? Those are things that a lot of people, such as myself, would care about when deciding which console was going to offer me the most in the long run. Again, just take the original Xbox for example....4 years after development it was cut-off.

    Again, answer the above questions. Secondly, how can you prove your statement correct? Have you seen the quality / map size of games such as Motorstorm or Uncharted? IMO, I don't believe that game developers could make the game look/play the same on a 360 with the little amount of storage space a DVD9 can allow. Yes, I know there's compression, but not every company can afford that.

    Here's a quote I have found off of slashdot's review of the game:

    "Load times in the game are frustratingly frequent in certain areas, covered occasionally by ridiculously long elevator rides. This, along with the limited combat map sets on explorable planets, speaks to the limitations of using a single DVD without loading onto the Hard Drive. It's admirable that they wanted to make sure all 360 owners could play, but I find it frustrating that those of us with disk space couldn't make use of it to improve the play experience."

    So, maybe, more disk space could've improved the quality of the game, but here's where I get lost: if you can use the HDD for the game, how much space does it usually take up, and is the quality of the game equivilant to the usage of a disc?

    But I guess here's the thing: you would probably have to compress most of the game onto the disc and then decompress that data onto the HDD in order to actually utilize more space than what the disc can actually handle natively.

    Can anyone explain this further? because I think I'm lost on this method...
     
    Last edited: 5 Dec 2007
  15. themax

    themax New Member

    Joined:
    2 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    1,060
    Likes Received:
    3


    Veles we have been through this before. What the Playstation 2 (Not 3, ok, PS2) had for online was not a community. It was decentralized and at developer discression. That was the key difference last generation. You can't sit there and honestly say that PS3 games will be pulled from online on the PLAYSTATION NETWORK, because it happened on the Playstation 2 (which again had no centralized online portal/matchmaking).

    Cell was developed by IBM. The Cell has been pushed to more than just consoles. It is also IBM's baby and is proving to be a pretty darn good technological piece of hardware. Why so much want to believe Sony owns the Cell, and is forcing it onto everyone is beyond me. You obviously had no problem with Sony's complicated Emotion Engine. Sony also does not own the Blu-Ray format but co-developed with the Blu-Ray ASSOCIATION. Composed of more than just Sony, Sony, and more Sony. If you need proof Cell isn't just Sony then here. Straight from the horse's mouth. Also note, wasn't IBM involved in the 360's processor and Nintendo's?

    http://www.research.ibm.com/cell/

    http://www.research.ibm.com/cell/awards.html

    Sony, IBM, TOSHIBA.

    Also you use messaging as a strong point? Ok maybe in a single player game it's cool to send a message once in a while, but how many times are you going to seriously stop in the middle of a TF2 Match, Halo 3, or CoD4 match to send your a buddy a message? I hope that is zero, otherwise you probably end up with more deaths because your using that awesome messaging feature in the middle of an online game. How come Sony can offer Video Chat, Voice chat in-game, Voice-chat outside of the game, Friends Lists, Messaging outside of games, Free Demos (You don't need a Gold account for priority nor wait for 3-5 days if you are Silver), Free Online play, and I have yet to be hit with ads? All for free. I pay for Xbox Live Gold, and I still get a giant Mt. Dew or Doritos advert. If Dorito's and Coke are paying the bill at MS why am I paying as well? So ok, Sony doesn't offer it in-game, I can't remember the last time I accept an invite to Halo 3 while in the middle Call of Duty 4 because why the hell do I wanna switch games just because I got an invite?

    Also you seriously think MS ironed out the issues? Is that why they are taking a huge hit in revenue to fix an unknown issue causing the RRod? Is that why they beat around the bush for a whole year pretending it never existed? It's probably why myself included, all of my friends are on either their 2nd or 3rd 360, because MS clearly built it from the ground up and ironed out all the issues.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page