More Delay Talk 2/27

[Shifty Geezer]

because June 15 is usually really warm

Going by the weather is a funny way to judge the seasons. At any day of the eyar in the UK there's the possibility of it being 12-15 degrees and overcast. Midsummer or midwinter or any time between.

but as june 21 is actually midsummer, it's really stupid to say that a day before is still spring.

The name midsummer's day can be considerd a misnomer. June 21st isn't the middle day of the summer season. The actual seasonal weather changes tends to be marked at the beginning by the equinoxes, rather than the middle. Hence the midsummer, longest day in the northern Hemisphere marks a seasonal change rather than being the centre of one. Calendar dates, those Sony will be judged by, are taken from the calender and whatever dates have historically be set, not from scientific terms (those these can influence the calender dates).

Spring will be 20/21 March start to June 20/21 end. That's the period Sony have to launch to hit a Spring timeframe. If someone really wants to argue over a day, 20th versus 21st, they need to get out more!

And anyone wanting to continue an argument over definitions and timings of seasons should go somewhere like http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/ rather than bicker over it in a console forum!

 

[DuckThor Evil]

This has nothing to do with F--anboyism. There is no F--anboyism on my part. Why would you say such a thing? Plain and simple people here in America (I never lived or even been to Finland) assoicate Spring with that ever changing March 19th, March 20th, or March 21st dates. In Miami, Florida or Los Angles, California (America cities) tempertures are in the 70's all the time in Feburary. Does that mean that Feburary 20th is spring time there too?

It's obvious that this is getting no where so...

I said it, because you accused me of being anti-Sony and usually it's the ******s who says things like that, and you are a F-anboy not by far the worst kind, but one anyway. I know why lot's of people associate spring like that, I just think it's wrong way to look at it.

Places like Miami don't really even have clear 4 seasons, or the difference between them is so small that it doesn't matter, I know the situation varies greatly on where you live, but imagine how silly it feels for me when people say that june 19 is spring, when the following applies: At christmas time it's very dark in here the sun hardly comes up, but after christmas the days start to get longer and longer and the peak climax is june 21st when it's light all day long and we have a big midsummer party, and after that the days start to get shorter again. it would be highly illogical to say it's first day of summer when they day is the longest...

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Going by the weather is a funny way to judge the seasons.

well not really, because weather is what the seasons are all about. Basically it's pointless to name a season if there isn't any difference between the one before and one after it, seasons really only exist there were they exist

BTW I'm not here argueing about whether Sony manages to launch on time, I'm only gettting pissed about the definitions of seasons. It doesn't get much more offtopic than that, but that's the case anyways.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It would be highly illogical to say it's first day of summer when they day is the longest...

Summer seasonal weather and the position of the equinoxes aren't the same. There's no problem here, people! Midsummer's day just has a quirky name. If it had been called Summerstart or Springsend they'd be no discussion. And besides, what the blazes has that got to do with Sony launching in Spring? Why would anyone not think they're talking about the calendar period Spring? Why on earth would anyone want to argue that's not June 20/21 based on planetary motion, regardless of the fact everywhere June 20/21 is accepted as the end of Spring and it's mind-numbingly obvious if you're going to apply a date to the end of Spring as a maximal to Sony's launch target, it's going to be the day marked on all the calendars that says '1st day of summer'.

Not only is the talk here stupidly off topic, it's got no relevance with launch periods which are based on calender dates regardless of what names days have in various parts of the world!

 

[Tap In]

Guys... we settled this argument a page and several days ago.

you are BOTH right depending on what method you use to measure (and where)

Astronomically, it begins with the spring equinox (around March 21 in the Northern Hemisphere, and September 23 in the Southern Hemisphere), and ends with the summer solstice June 21 (around in the Northern Hemisphere and December 21 in the Southern Hemisphere).

In meteorology, it is by convention instead counted as the whole months of March, April, and May in the Northern Hemisphere and September, October, and November in the Southern Hemisphere. However, in the Irish Calendar it is counted as the whole months of February, March and April.

so technically they have until december 21st.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_%28season%29

 

[valioso]

people are arguing as to what constitutes spring? this has to be a new low

 

[mckmas8808]

people are arguing as to what constitutes spring? this has to be a new low

It is a new low but somebody will always argue certain points.

 

[nelg]

people are arguing as to what constitutes spring? this has to be a new low

Your right. At least now that it is out of the way we can argue about what the next new low is going to be.

 

[Pozer]

People aren't still taking the spring launch thing seriously... wow.

 

[fireshot]

My take is Sony told the world PS3 is a beast and 360 is Xbox 1.5.

In reality they know the hardware are close thus they must turn to the software. all ps3 games must developed to look next gen.

That explains why they missed last month playable date.

 

[rabidrabbit]

My take is Sony told the world PS3 is a beast and 360 is Xbox 1.5.

In reality they know the hardware are close thus they must turn to the software. all ps3 games must developed to look next gen.

That explains why they missed last month playable date.

That pretty much explains why they missed the E3 2005 playable date, and TGS 05 playable date after that.
They know unfinished alpha software does not do good for the image.
Why show games that are buggy and run at less than optimal framerate? So that the funbois at internet forums can laugh at them?
Sony are very good at PR and corporate / product image creation, and to be honest that's what counts a lot for their success, as does the final quality of the products they've delivered of course.

There just is no reason to show unfinished, lower than expected quality playable games yet. They do not gain anything by that. Even if the PS3 in reality were significantly more powerful than xbox360, they would've gained little by having showed their games because the PS3 isn't close enough to launch yet.

MS may have been more "honest" showing the buggy playables prior launch, but it sure did not do them good (though in retrospective it seems it didn't hurt them that much).
...or maybe MS were just in a hurry and a bit of panic

Thinking Sony would be "chickening out" after bullying with the power of PS3, is a bit naïve. They have a strategy, and they're sticking on it (hardware delays considering )

 

[Dr. Nick]

I'm not trying to start any trouble.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117939258?categoryid=18&cs=1&s=h&p=0
The thing is what region is he talking about. I suspect he is only talking about the US as anybody with realistic expectations would have thought as being the time period for the US launch also.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

what do you think of this comment i've find here (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/02/ps3-is-a-no-show-at-sonys-playstation-event/) :



i don't agree on the price Sony in the end will never release the PS3 at 500$.

I agree with this statement. However, I must also add that the PS3 also can't be released in 200 if this is the case.

However, the PS3 CANNOT launch in 2006 for under $600. Sony's definately between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

This whole "console war" thing is turning out to be an experiment. It's going to answer the question: What comes first, userbase or AAA blockbuster titles? More specifically, is it the userbase that attracts developers with AAA content (which in turn attracts more users) or is it the developers with AAA that attracts the userbase.

I'd bet on the former and so did MS. They launched early because they know that developers simply cannot ignore a 5 million + userbase and put all their next gen eggs in one basket. With RUMORS of GTA launching multi-platform, it seems as if this is working.

People put too much emphasis on brand loyalty when no such thing really exists on a large scale. Brand loyalty didn't save Atari, Nintendo and Sega, because their examples show that brand loyalty doesn't exist on a large enough scale to be worth a damn to any console manufacturer. So all the people saying, "Well it doesn't matter what Sony does because EVERYONE with a PS2 is waiting for the PS3" are really leaning on a false expectation. Gamers are a fickle bunch who will jump to the ship with the best games.

The best games come to the console with the bigger userbase. Microsoft is betting on this. Later this year, they hope, the Xbox 360 userbase will be too large for developers to ignore.

 

[mckmas8808]

I agree with this statement. However, I must also add that the PS3 also can't be released in 200 if this is the case.

However, the PS3 CANNOT launch in 2006 for under $600. Sony's definately between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

So explain to me why the PS3 will launch in the U.S. for $600 or more, because I just can't understand how the PS3 will cost SO much more than the X360, yet they are still on the same level in almost every category, while lauching close to a year later.

 

[PeterT]

However, the PS3 CANNOT launch in 2006 for under $600.

Wow, that's quite the prediction.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

A Sony rep was recently quoted as saying "Spring doesnt start until we're on the market" so don't put away those snowboards just yet!

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

 

[speng]

However, the PS3 CANNOT launch in 2006 for under $600. Sony's definately between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Hmm... I see absolutely no reason why the PS3 will be over $450. I also see the price more likely at $400 or even $350. If it comes with a hard-drive standard it'll most likely be $400.

These next-gen systems are not like previous generations, they plan on selling more content through these hardware than just games. Arcade games at different price points will target different players who are more willing to shell out $5 - $10 on say Galaga. Sony can sell their other CONNECT products too. I think Sony will be more than willing to take an even higher up front loss on the PS3 hardware to get a significantly large user base, where they can sell online services or even partner with other online companies. Example, partner with Vonage for VOIP and provide the Video conferencing.

Anyway, I think old analysis and predictions need to be rethinked as the digital and online generation of entertainment centers are not just tied to the hardware or games that they will play.

Speng.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

So explain to me why the PS3 will launch in the U.S. for $600 or more, because I just can't understand how the PS3 will cost SO much more than the X360, yet they are still on the same level in almost every category, while lauching close to a year later.

Slot-loading BD-ROM, larger die size for the Cell, all those ports, etc.

Oh yeah, one more thing. The PS3 needs more vents, so that's going to cost Sony a bundle. Seriously though, I'm taking stock in the ML reports no matter how you guys dog them. That's all I have to go on right now.

 

[Kryton]

Slot-loading BD-ROM, larger die size for the Cell, all those ports, etc.

Oh yeah, one more thing. The PS3 needs more vents, so that's going to cost Sony a bundle. Seriously though, I'm taking stock in the ML reports no matter how you guys dog them. That's all I have to go on right now.

BD-ROM isn't caddy based, TDK developed a coating and it is now discs. Slot loaded drives for standard discs have existed for the past decade and were marginally more expensive, nothing new here.

Cell complex? It's just as large as the old GS in the PS2 and has, presumably, better yields (with the SPE disable function). Secondly go look at Xenos' EDRAM strapped onto the package - that was a complicated package to fab.

Ports. Are you honestly mad? They're using standard technologies - USB/FireWire/Bluetooth all cost pennies to someone like Sony.

Vents, why do they need vents? Look at the Cell chips running in blade configurations which Mercury/IBM are demoing to everyone. If you want to claim RSX pumps out heat go look at laptops with almost equivalent processors in them.

Meryll-Lynch, I'll say Transmeta (look up the old posts). ML know as much as we do and have had some truly barmy analyst produce a very bad guesstimate. If he knew anything he would see RSX is based on G71 and those chips aren't a fortune especially to OEMs let alone partners who have comissioned/licensed a design. Similarly for Cell and all the other parts - the $400 BD-ROM drive just goes further to prove my point.

 

[Powderkeg]

How is this for starting a rumor of a delay?

Sony will roll out the PS3 by year end, in time for the holidays. If PS3 "delivers what everyone thinks it will, the game is up," Stringer boasts.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117939258?categoryid=1019&cs=1&s=h&p=0

So, now you've got the CEO of Sony saying "Holiday 2006."