"First PS3's being made for Europe"

[Shakermaker]

According to Sony Computer Entertainment Europe's boss David Reeves in an interview with MCVUK.com the first PS3's to be produced will be PAL units.

I hope we will be day and date with US and I hope that we’ll get the same quantities as US as well. I don't think we’ll be disadvantaged. In fact I believe the first PS3s being manufactured are being made for Europe – which is a first.

Starting november 17, Reeves will try to put PS3's in as many countries as possible, even tho that will mean that some countries won't get an awful lot of machines.

Reeves also addressed the whole pricing issue.

When Blu-Ray players come out in Europe they are probably going to be between €900 and €1,000. So €599 for a Blu-Ray player – which is what a PS3 is – and a games machines with lots of good titles coming out as well is actually a steal. And the €499 unit, because that will also play Blu-Ray, is even better value.

Which might be true, but I still think it's a lot of money. By the time I really will be needing a blue ray player, prices have probably gone down some 20 to 30 %. Then I will be getting a PS3.

 

[Gray Fox]

He also said that 5 million people will buy a ps3 no matter what. :upstare: :monkee:

 

[Mutley]

Seriously, what is so speacil about the PS3? It is $600 for what? The brand?

 

[Shakermaker]

Seriously, what is so speacil about the PS3? It is $600 for what? The brand?

Read his 2nd quote: it has a blue ray player. And regular blue ray players will be much more expensive than a PS3.

 

[Griz]

Surprising news, although I'd be very interested to hear exactly how many units they're planning on shipping to Europe (more specifically the UK) on launch day.

Not that i think it particularly matters. No matter how few units they ship i certainly can't see the same level of shortages as with the XBox360 given the recently announced massively over-inflated (imo) price tag of £425!!!!! ($799!!!!) for the UK.

 

[weskerQ8]

Read his 2nd quote: it has a blue ray player. And regular blue ray players will be much more expensive than a PS3.

i don't want a blue ray player, so why i have to pay $600
thats not fair

 

[Shakermaker]

i don't want a blue ray player, so why i have to pay $600
thats not fair

Write the dude an e-mail: [email protected].

 

[0mar]

uhh PS3 is pretty much guarenteed to have all the same kick-ass franchises the PS2. That, alone, is reason enough to buy a PS3 eventually. Maybe not at launch, but eventually.

 

[WhiteZero]

Seriously, what is so speacil about the PS3? It is $600 for what? The brand?

Gotta love ignorance...

i don't want a blue ray player, so why i have to pay $600
thats not fair

You kinda need the blu-ray player to play the PS3 games. And saying you "dont want a blu-ray player" is like saying "I dont want a DVD player" back in the late 90's

 

[Kangy]

Not really, WhiteZero:

a) We all just got used to having DVDs
b) The amount of people who can make use of a blu-ray player is a tiny minority
c) It's competing with HD-DVD, which could still win eventually and leave PS3s completely obsolete
d) Digital distribution could leave BOTH formats obsolete within 5 years.

 

[VictimOfScience]

uhh PS3 is pretty much guarenteed to have all the same kick-ass franchises the PS2. That, alone, is reason enough to buy a PS3 eventually. Maybe not at launch, but eventually.

Yes indeed. The first titles for any system are never great, nor are they usually their strongest franchises. Those will be released when they are actually up to par with the history of greatness that they have each laid down in previous generations.

If you are a fan of the PS2 and its great game selection, then chances are extremely good that you will love the PS3's selection of games...just not right away necessarily. :cheese:

 

[WhiteZero]

Not really, WhiteZero:

a) We all just got used to having DVDs
b) The amount of people who can make use of a blu-ray player is a tiny minority
c) It's competing with HD-DVD, which could still win eventually and leave PS3s completely obsolete
d) Digital distribution could leave BOTH formats obsolete within 5 years.

Just got used to DVD? ha!
It isnt like DVD was on the same level as VHS, it was the obvious superior. People didnt "get used" to having DVDs, we made the conscious choice to leave the inferieor media behind. People didnt want to rewind anymore or have tons of quality loss for a copy, etc, etc.
And you should really explain what your talking about for your B point...
Your C point is a HUGE what-if
And digital ditro will take alot longer than 5 years to "leave in the dust" all the other major physical media, since there are many many homes that are difficult to get a high speed connection of any kind to. Not everyone is going to want to subscribe to an "on demand" type service, some people just want to go out and rent a disk. Same for video games.

 

[VirusType2]

Just got used to DVD? ha!
It isnt like DVD was on the same level as VHS, it was the obvious superior. People didnt "get used" to having DVDs, we made the conscious choice to leave the inferieor media behind. People didnt want to rewind anymore or have tons of quality loss for a copy, etc, etc.

That's just it; Blu-Ray is not the obvious superior unless you have an HDTV, and even then, the quality difference is not as large, and the difference in features doesn't exist.

VHS looked like shit and DVD was crystal clear. High def is only higher resolution. Most of the people that left VHS for DVD left because of the advantages like the crystal clear display, the fact that they never wear out, they allow you to skip to a particular part of the CD quite easily, and like you mentioned, the loss of quality when copying.

Since you need an HDTV to see the difference that HD optical discs offer over DVD, and the amount of people that own an HDTV is the minority, that is what he is talking about. There is the also the large fact that Blu-Ray has more storage space on the disc however, this space isn't necessary for DVD's. It wouldn't need the space if it wasn't playing in high resolution, however the space could be useful for games, somewhere in the future.


I feel like this is the exact same conversation we had a few weeks ago, and it feels like deja-vu! :O

 

[Kangy]

What I meant is: some tiny minority has a HDTV, and actually cares enough about rebuying their films in HD format to actually make use of the blu-ray feature. Of course, new films will eventually start coming out in blu-ray, but the selection will be small at first.

 

[VirusType2]

What I meant is: some tiny minority has a HDTV, and actually cares enough about rebuying their films in HD format to actually make use of the blu-ray feature. Of course, new films will eventually start coming out in blu-ray, but the selection will be small at first.

To add insult to injury, Blu-Ray discs will be $34.99 each, at least initiallly, until it catches on, while DVD movies can be found for as low as $4.99 in some stores! So the movies can cost up to 7 times more!

As if that wasn't enough to depress everyone, if you don't have an HDMI digital input on your HDTV (most of them don't) then these movies could possibly be downscaled to DVD resolution anyway (by choice of the publisher)! DOH! The lower priced version of the PS3 doesn't have an HDMI output!

 

[Dekstar]

Gotta love ignorance...

You kinda need the blu-ray player to play the PS3 games. And saying you "dont want a blu-ray player" is like saying "I dont want a DVD player" back in the late 90's

I don't want a Blu-ray player. There is absoloubtly no point. You've got HD-DVD, and so many other formats, you're not going to notice a drop in quality from a HD-DVD movie to a Blu-ray movie, all there is to be excited about really is the size difference, but since I can't write anything onto Blu-ray without a sizeable fork-over of money (Think of the amount the Blu-ray PLAYER costs in a Ps3 - it's the primary reason it costs so much IMO), HD-DVD burners are the way to go because of the cost of probably a slightly more accurate DVD burner.

 

[destrukt]

no whitezero, when dvds were introduced into consoles (see: ps2/xbox) they had were useful as many games were multi-disk, now they were on a single dvd.

with blu-ray/hd-dvd it seems most gamers don't freaking care, i certainly don't and i <3 quality and i have a lcd hdtv (with hdmi) but all i want is the console and i'm glad microsoft took the smart approach to hd-dvd and left it up to the consumers and didn't bloat the console with price.

sony ftl, i was going to buy one on launch like i did the x360 but no way i'm paying around $1000au.

 

[WhiteZero]

"sony ftl" (my, how catchy) because they want to use a high-compacity disk?
:upstare:

Boo-hoo, costs go down.

I love how some gamers now-a-days just want to bash the company and not care so much about the actuall games.

 

[MultiVaC]

I don't care about Blu-ray either. I'm probably not going to have an HDTV in my house for years and if Blu-ray fails everyone who bought a PS3 will have spent a lot more money than they needed to, since that component of the PS3 drives the price up. It seems to me that Sony is using the PS3 as a vessel for Blu-ray to get a player in a bunch of homes so they can win the 'format war', and because of this the consumers are paying for something they may or may not want in the future. It's a sad day when Microsoft is actually the less greedy company.

 

[Javert]

"sony ftl" (my, how catchy) because they want to use a high-compacity disk?
:upstare:

Boo-hoo, costs go down.

I love how some gamers now-a-days just want to bash the company and not care so much about the actuall games.

Like Killzone 2?

(I'm not helping you am I...)

 

[Dekstar]

"sony ftl" (my, how catchy) because they want to use a high-compacity disk?
:upstare:

Boo-hoo, costs go down.

I love how some gamers now-a-days just want to bash the company and not care so much about the actuall games.

Adding to Javert's ownage - How many actual games (i.e. not pre-rendered) have we actually seen from Sony at E3? Sony aren't to be trusted for many reasons, WhiteZero.

 

[Solaris]

The PS2 sucked, that's a fact.

 

[WhiteZero]

Adding to Javert's ownage - How many actual games (i.e. not pre-rendered) have we actually seen from Sony at E3?.

Most of the games displayed at E3 were running on PS3 hardware, not pre-rendered.
And if you even bothered to pay attention, several games were demoed in-game, including Warhawk, Resistance: Fall of Man, and Heavenly Sword.
Nay-sayers of the PS2 cried about all these same things years ago. I could care less about all the anti-Sony boys out there that want to haze it.
Every gen it's the same situation. Every gen, all the blind fools who want to be bias against a company or console will try to bash it, all the way up to it's release; and then quietly slump back under their rock untill another controversal news bit surfaces that they can jump on.

The PS2 sucked, that's a fact.

Sales figures would disagree with you.

 

[VirusType2]

Most of the games displayed at E3 were running on PS3 hardware, not pre-rendered.

Nah man. Not true. Don't say things like that unless you know it, because that is how false rumors begin, and everyone becomes a mouthpiece, confusing everyone.

The developer units have only made it into the hands of a select few.

People create the games on a PC that has the estimated power of what the PS3 can do.

Until some developers get their hands on the developer units, nearly all of the 3rd party PS3 games (games not made by Sony) will have had to be created with a rough guess of what the PS3 can do on a PC, and therefore will not use the power of the PS3 well.


Most of them are not running on PS3 hardware, (and thats why, for the PS3 section, IGN couldn't give most of the PS3 games awards. They stated that most of them were not running on PS3 hardware), but that doesn't mean that they are pre-rendered either.

Pre-rendered would be like a cinematic movie done on a supercomputer, burned onto a disc to be played on another computer. You cannot play or interact with a pre-rendered scene. It's like a movie. It plays exactly the same every time and there can be no interaction. A perfect example of pre-rendered is when you load up a game and the intro movie for the game is far superior to what the console can actually do.

Real-time is when the game is being processed by the computer that is running it. You can spin the camera, you can play it, etc. Some cinematic movies are rendered in real-time however(half-life 2, doom 3), and the camera is controlled by the game itself, so don't get this confused. You will notice that when Alyx talks to Gordon Freeman, the graphics are exactly the same, because the cut-scenes are rendered in real-time.


You guys are going to have to be patient with the PS3. It doesn't even come out for 5 months, and I think many expect it to have a rough launch.

 

[jimbo118]

The PS2 sucked, that's a fact.

seriously dude, no just no.

 

[Maxi]

seriously dude, no just no.

Well, it did suck in the same way that cars sucked. Sort of.

 

[destrukt]

bash the company ? they're making a freaking huge mistake and it's annoying alot of people.

.. and i never bash companies, i may dislike things they do (like this blu-ray rubbish) but i don't bash.

lol, don't get me started on the games, if there was actually real time gameplay the graphics/gameplay were on par with the x360 and there isn't really any good games.. warhawk ? more japanese fighting games ? meh..

 

[Gray Fox]

I certainly do not like what sony is planning with the ps3 but Whitezero is most definatly right about people thoughtlessly bashing Sony.

A lot of threads on this board simply turn in to orgies of sony hate. Poeple constantly apply different standards just so sony gets bashed.

The only ones who truly seem to apply the same standards to all companies are victimofscience and virustype.

In the end you people are just hurting yourselfs the most by beeing so narrowminded and not giving a chance to some companies, your simply missing a lot of grat games, and are sending the wrong message to your own favord company.

 

[Reaktor4]

When Blu-Ray players come out in Europe they are probably going to be between €900 and €1,000. So €599 for a Blu-Ray player – which is what a PS3 is – and a games machines with lots of good titles coming out as well is actually a steal. And the €499 unit, because that will also play Blu-Ray, is even better value.

Im selling a 1.5 litre bottle of piss for £1 million, which is a steal because im also selling a 1 litre bottle of piss for £39 million billion. great value.

 

[Cole]

How olds the piss? Cuz thats not a bad deal at all as long as it's aged.

 

[<RJMC>]

I am starting to dislike sony,all this is a clear proof that sony just wants to win the "format war" as some ones hav stated,and to create theyr "empire" cuz seriously when sony talks about the ps3 it just talk about "multihomeentertaimentsistem" and not about game console,they want the people not just to buy the ps3,but also the hdtv,the blu ray thing,and all the other products that maybe are not selling well

however mgs4 and few others that I hope to be anounced are my reason to buy the ps3,off course when the price drops

 

[WhiteZero]

I am starting to dislike sony,all this is a clear proof that sony just wants to win the "format war" as some ones hav stated,and to create theyr "empire" cuz seriously when sony talks about the ps3 it just talk about "multihomeentertaimentsistem" and not about game console,they want the people not just to buy the ps3,but also the hdtv,the blu ray thing,and all the other products that maybe are not selling well

Welcome to the world of "Business".

 

[Gray Fox]

Welcome to the world of "Business".

That it's business does not excuse it or suddenly makes us feel good about what they are doing. Especially not if there are alternatives to sony like MS and Nintendo.

 

[VirusType2]

Um. I welcome the new technology. Just like all new technology it's way too expensive at first. The early adopters decide whether the format stays, and everyone wants High definition television right? The majority just aren't ready to pay that much yet, or don't hardly notice the difference, or don't need a TV.

Plain and simple, it will be the people with extra money that love high quality movies that adopt this stuff.


I just don't think about it. In a few years, things will start to get affordable, and in 5 or 6 years, HD-DVD and Blu ray might cost as much as current DVD players and stuff.

It's better. I want it, but I'm the type I'd have to get the best one, so it's future proof, and now we are looking at $10,000 for a 60 inch 1080p television.. for what though? to watch the Simpsons, South park and Comedy Central?

Going to wait this out until they are giving these things away.

I for-see HD-DVD going down to as low as $129 for a recorder in 6 years, if you get a brand made in china.

Blu-Ray, on the other hand, will probably cost $600 for a recorder forever. OK, until the next format comes out anyway, they will never lower it. Just about a year ago, I saw a Sony CD burner at the store for $550. 2 trays. CD to play and a CD try to record. $550!! Now the price may have come down recently because of blu-ray, they want to get rid of all that old tech, but Sony = SUCKS. They charge more than they should. I've said it before, you can get other brands of electronics for cheaper, and they are MUCH better!


I see HD-DVD is going to completely destroy Blu-Ray, but Blu-Ray will still be around, like all of sony's other formats. They like to own the format. Mini-Disc, the PSP disc, DAT tapes. They want to control everything. HD-DVD players can be sold for $89 in 5 years probably! You bet I said it. In fact, the HD-DVD add on for the 360 is rumored to be introduced at about $159, and more than likely they will lower the price of the 360 in the next few months.


$600 for Blu Ray recorder in 6 years, $600 for Shitty little Sony HDTV, $600 for PS3

6666 = More than evil, they are evil greedy ****ing bastards from hell.

:lol:

But hey. If they have the games you like, and you have a nice HDTV, then I completely understand if some of you are considering a PS3, if that's any constellation. I really do!

Just don't forget that the 360 is HD as well. 720p with 4x anti-aliasing on all games. You can't see the pixels or jaggies! Go to the store and look at the 360 demo unit. Don't forget, if you don't have an HDTV, you can still play in high res on the 360 with a PC monitor.

 

[Sui]

Seriously, what is so speacil about the PS3? It is $600 for what? The brand?

Yes. The brand. That's basically what you're paying for: everone knows Sony have the best third party support of all the consoles. Buy a Nintendo console, and you're stuck with Nintendo's own games basically. Brand = popular = games = good.

 

[Venmoch]

Yes. The brand. That's basically what you're paying for: everone knows Sony have the best third party support of all the consoles.

Sure. In the current gen.

The next gen? I dunno. Microsoft's got XNA coming soon (apparently) which should make coding funky stuff real easy. (Much like DirectX currently does.)

And Wii dev kits are going to be very cheap ($2000 is cheap for a dev kit )

It looks like it could all change. And so far I haven't seen anything from Sony to say the opposite from a development standpoint.

 

[Combine Hybrid]

Yes. The brand. That's basically what you're paying for: everone knows Sony have the best third party support of all the consoles. Buy a Nintendo console, and you're stuck with Nintendo's own games basically. Brand = popular = games = good.

Fact that most of PS2's famous brand games such as GTA and Final Fantasy series are going to be available on Xbox360, I don't see any "new brand of games" to buy on PS3, except MGS4 and Assasin's Creed.

 

[WhiteZero]

Fact that most of PS2's famous brand games such as GTA and Final Fantasy series are going to be available on Xbox360

*BUZZ*
Only Final fantasy XI (the MMO) is on 360.
The real FF games are still PS exclusive.

I don't see any "new brand of games" to buy on PS3, except MGS4 and Assasin's Creed.

Heavy Rain?
Heavenly Sword?
Resistance: Fall of Man?
Killzone?
Eight Days?

And MGS isnt new.

 

[destrukt]

Yes. The brand. That's basically what you're paying for: everone knows Sony have the best third party support of all the consoles. Buy a Nintendo console, and you're stuck with Nintendo's own games basically. Brand = popular = games = good.

from what i've seen so far of ps3 games @ e3 and so on, it seems like just generic games, nothing special..

in saying that, while the x360 doesn't necessarily have the most creative games, it has alot of solid games, is already out, cheaper, has xboxlive, price is bloated with unwanted tech and so on.

 

[Sui]

The PS3 hasn't even come out yet, and in my opinion the games are a lot better than any of the 360 titles. So far not one Xbox game has tempted me into even contemplating buying one of their consoles. Halo 3 looks nice but, at the end of the day, it's just "30 seconds of gameplay" repeated over and over until you die of boredom...