What does the release date have anything to do with the goals as seen in the target renders/cgi of motorstorm, killzone, r&C...?
Are Sony devs aiming higher?
- Thread starter blakjedi
- Start date
- Status
What does the release date have anything to do with the goals as seen in the target renders/cgi of motorstorm, killzone, r&C...?
mckmas8808
Legend
IMO it has everything to do with it. MS has been showing videos of games coming out relatively soon because since the 360 is out, theres really no point in them pushing games a year away when theyve got games to sell in stores now. SO i think what we've seen for the 360 are games being released in the 2006-ealry 2007 timeframe and what theyll look like.
For awhile now, Sony has had the benefit of not having to push games that are released soon or now because they dont have games to sell at the moment, they can use the strategy of just using the most flattering videos of their biggest franchises. Now that we're getting close to launch i think we'll see more of the short term stuff and less CGI because they need to stop simply distracting people and actually sell the games coming out now.
So the reason why i think it may seem like Sony devs are 'aiming higher' is because without a console on the market they had to use a different strategy. Theyre showing target redners of games coming out a year from now while MS is showing targets renders or demos of games coming out in the next 6 months. imo thats a big difference. I think now that the ps3 is being released soon, they'll fall into pushing their upcoming titles again without as much CGI.
I think you miss the point. I could make a render of anything I want. But I never have to say that the game WILL look like that. PS3 devs are doing that and people are expecting that quality.
To date I cannot remember anything on 360 other than GRAW where there was a stupendously good looking render and the dev says it WILL look like that. IMHO they nailed it... I am glad they did it because folks did not believe 360 could pull those graphics off... Ubisoft was a "believer"... where are the other devs that are "believers"...?
x360 has games coming out in 2007 and 2008 also... why aren't x360 devs doing stupendous target renders and staking their name on what they could make the hardware do?? Are the Sony devs aiming higher?
IMO. it's only marketing and has very little to do with "aim".
The PS3 is not out yet and devs need to appear to raise the bar to keep interest/expectations high to keep the machine and games worth waiting for WRT public perception.
So what about being on the market obviates the need to "keep interest and expectations high?" People will stop buying a console or trade it in if they perceive it cant keep up... the logic of that logic is odd to me... the future is still the future and the idea is keep people thinking that no matter what we have on the market now... wait till you see what we have in store for you next year or in 08...
right? Gears of War and Halo 3 cant be the ONLY games to tow the line... what happens after Halo ships?So what about being on the market obviates the need to "keep interest and expectations high?" People will stop buying a console or trade it in if they perceive it cant keep up... the logic of that logic is odd to me... the future is still the future and the idea is keep people thinking that no matter what we have on the market now... wait till you see what we have in store for you next year or in 08...
corporate policy to show "more or less what the user will see" compared to titillating?
Last edited by a moderator:
mckmas8808
Legend
So what about being on the market obviates the need to "keep interest and expectations high?" People will stop buying a console or trade it in if they perceive it cant keep up... the logic of that logic is odd to me... the future is still the future and the idea is keep people thinking that no matter what we have on the market now... wait till you see what we have in store for you next year or in 08...
Hey guys this is actually a good question. I understand his point now. You would think MS would show more 1st party stuff at least in video form. What MS produced or developed games have they been showing off besides Halo 3, GOW, and Forza 2 that they are pushing as "super great" in the graphics department?
The devs better be aiming higher. At the end of day, you're trying to convince me and the masses to pay $200 extra. I know many of you will take my statement and overly complicate it but from a gamers perspective, you're talking about $200 more.
Would I expect the 360 for a higher price range to deliver more than the Wii? Ofcourse, I do. The same should hold true for PS3. My mentality is this. If you're going to force tech onto me and make me pay for it, you better deliver, if you want my money. You might have different criteria for your money but that's mine.
Would I expect the 360 for a higher price range to deliver more than the Wii? Ofcourse, I do. The same should hold true for PS3. My mentality is this. If you're going to force tech onto me and make me pay for it, you better deliver, if you want my money. You might have different criteria for your money but that's mine.
There's else than just prettier graphics for that $200 of yours (PS3 $499 "core" vs. xbox360 $299 "core", though the more even comparison would be PS3 $499 "core" vs. xbox360 $399 "Premium", as the featureset matches better there)
Just as there's more to Wii compared to xbox360 and PS3 than graphics.
The value is not just better graphics.
You be the judge.
Would you buy a more expensive xbox360 over Wii just so you'd get prettier high res graphics, but not get the innovative control method.
Just as there's more to Wii compared to xbox360 and PS3 than graphics.
The value is not just better graphics.
You be the judge.
Would you buy a more expensive xbox360 over Wii just so you'd get prettier high res graphics, but not get the innovative control method.
Mass Effect and Blue Dragon. Not to mention Viva Pinata,which looks so cute. And probably some other unannounced titles. But I share your opinion that MS are relying too much on 3rd parties and they should show off the system themselves.
As hasn't been pointed out over and over, the closest equivalent SKUs are not $200 more. XBox360 has 20gb HD, no-HDMI out for $399. Closest equivalent is $499 PS3 SKU (20gb HD, no-HDMI). Many gamers don't have 10-baseT wiring in their house and use WiFi, so add another $70-99 for Wifi adapter. Next, online gaming costs $$$ but is free for PS3. Suddenly the cost differences don't look so great.
And spare me the "But there is Core", as we all know that Core is way less popular than non-Core, the majority of people buy non-Core.
This is a piss-poor defense of MS's shitty launch lineup for the XB360 (especially shitty Japanese titles) They were trying to convince people to buy a $399 system sitting next to $79-$149 GCs, XBOXs, and PS/2s. They didn't need awesome launch titles, why? Because the early adopters are going to buy out all supply anyway.
PS3 will sell out supply regardless, just like $600-1000 XBOX360 *mandatory* bundles at most retailers sold out on launch day.. Thus, it is interesting that at E3, Sony's devs seem to be more ambituous.
Was'nt it just assets from the PS2 game with HDR and more polygons renderd @ 720p?
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Well I'm not too convinced yet that we are even getting that better graphics...
To me it seems that the only thing worth mentioning we'll get with PS3 over X360 is Blu-Ray playback capability and that's it.
You'll be getting an extra £200 worth of better animation and physic's. Heavenly Sword and Motorstorm anyone?
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Don't forget about real time weapon change
I already own an XB360.
To me, it breaks down like this:
XBOX 360 + HD-DVD add-on + 1 year XBLIVE = $660
PS3 = $600, has WiFi, BlueTooth, BRD, HDMI. +40gb more HD + free online
PS3 = $500 has Wifi, BlueTooth, BRD + free online
XB360 I own now = $460 (base system + 12-months live)
Closest PS3 I could own = $500
Most expensive PS3 I could own = $600
I value the BRD player as more than $100-200 price difference. The closest standalone HD optical disc player I can get is $500 HD-DVD. The cheapest BRD player today is $1000. The cheapest add-on HD-DVD from MS will be $200.
Maybe gamers wont care about BRD. I think most of the sales of the first 10 million will be to people who will. Especially those first 4 million will be hardcore people.
Edit: now that I think about it, does the $500 version have Wifi? Probably not. Anyway, it's still $460 vs $500 for closest systems.
To me, it breaks down like this:
XBOX 360 + HD-DVD add-on + 1 year XBLIVE = $660
PS3 = $600, has WiFi, BlueTooth, BRD, HDMI. +40gb more HD + free online
PS3 = $500 has Wifi, BlueTooth, BRD + free online
XB360 I own now = $460 (base system + 12-months live)
Closest PS3 I could own = $500
Most expensive PS3 I could own = $600
I value the BRD player as more than $100-200 price difference. The closest standalone HD optical disc player I can get is $500 HD-DVD. The cheapest BRD player today is $1000. The cheapest add-on HD-DVD from MS will be $200.
Maybe gamers wont care about BRD. I think most of the sales of the first 10 million will be to people who will. Especially those first 4 million will be hardcore people.
Edit: now that I think about it, does the $500 version have Wifi? Probably not. Anyway, it's still $460 vs $500 for closest systems.
inefficient
Veteran
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20060828/anex.htm
First have a look screenshots from the link above.
I don't think I will get much opposition when I say it's obviously a bad game that is completely explotive, cliche, and trying to make easy money by aiming low. It's the kind of game that makes being a gamer embarassing at times.
Unfortunatly, it still looks a lot better than many last gen games. And I really get the feeling that something is amiss - a dev team with ideas this cliche and so sorely lacking in creativity should not be able to so easily create a game that even barely manages to appear next gen.
But somehow MS, via XNA, created a "package" that allows 3rd, 4th rate developers to squeeze out nuggets like this.
Naturally, I still feel I need to give MS a lot of respect for lowering the bar. Maybe something really amazing will come out of some unknown studio with a small budget.
But on the other hand... games like the aforementioned are just so embarassing, that it makes me wonder if it would be for the better good if the price of entry was higher.
First have a look screenshots from the link above.
I don't think I will get much opposition when I say it's obviously a bad game that is completely explotive, cliche, and trying to make easy money by aiming low. It's the kind of game that makes being a gamer embarassing at times.
Unfortunatly, it still looks a lot better than many last gen games. And I really get the feeling that something is amiss - a dev team with ideas this cliche and so sorely lacking in creativity should not be able to so easily create a game that even barely manages to appear next gen.
But somehow MS, via XNA, created a "package" that allows 3rd, 4th rate developers to squeeze out nuggets like this.
Naturally, I still feel I need to give MS a lot of respect for lowering the bar. Maybe something really amazing will come out of some unknown studio with a small budget.
But on the other hand... games like the aforementioned are just so embarassing, that it makes me wonder if it would be for the better good if the price of entry was higher.
Wow the first person i've ever heard try and make the argument that games should be harder/more expesnive to make...
Because they need to focus on pushing the games being released now, not games a year from now. That said, Fable 2 and Forza 2 were some CG trailiers that were 'aiming higher'.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
