Shut up, Sony

L

Lobster Cowboy

New member
http://www.gamespot.com/6136786?part=rss&tag=gs_news&subj=6136786

Will you just shut the fuck up, and give the media some actual games to play? Xbox 360 is coming out in less than a month with real games, and real hardware, and Sony counters with hollow numbers?

I'm looking at this from an objective point of view, and this feels like Sony is way the fuck behind schedule. No wonder Nintendo has expressed no urgency when it comes to the release date of Revolution.

Thoughts?
 
It won't happen, but I'm totally hoping Nintendo mops the floor with these guys AND Microsoft.

"OMGX0rZ 45083 Jiggaflop tri-particulated water refractions on Master Chiefz visor!"
"YES, I am incredibly likely to scrutinize this important detail while hopping like a loon in the midst of a firefight!"

In any case, they're really reaching here. Human eyes can't reliably perceive more than about 60fps... nonsense like this is the bottom of the statistical barrel. The "slideshow" comment smacks of particular tardation.
 
As far as I can see, Microsoft has simply reprised Sega's old role of being the first to the market in a given generation of hardware, and therefore being the first console in that geration to sink after the release of a few well-received games.

Nintendo will continue their role as last to the market, with a weird device that doesn't play to the same tune as everyone else, and has six or fewer games that are absolutely phenominally good but largely unappreciated because they came to the market too late. Causing them to sit back and rake in profits from their handheld devices in order to fund their next console experiment.
 
> In any case, they're really reaching here. Human eyes can't
> reliably perceive more than about 60fps...

Except when things are moving very fast: In that case, the more fps you have, the more something whizzing by you will look naturally motion-blurred, as opposed to appearing as several overlapping afterimages, as if lit by a strobe light. With the current state of graphics, however, there are more noticeable graphical things that should get priority over this.

Of course, the PS3 being able to run at 120 fps will be utterly useless without TV screens that could handle it, and by the time those arrive, the PS3 will likely be obsolete anyway. Even putting that aside, few people would be impressed by a blank screen running at 120 fps. Like Lobster said, where are the games?

<p id="signature">

<center><img src=http://pages.nyu.edu/~jc73/misc/FieryAshNazg.gif></center></p>
 
You know, the whole point of having a game console is to play games, not to watch your 8 HDTV channels at once.

What happened to the good old days where all gaming was is just dishing out some cool games on a simple gaming machine...Internet Multiplayer I can understand, but some features like DVD players inside the consoles are just ridiculous...

And as much as I hate Microsoft, I'm still buying the Xbox 360. Have you seen the screenshots for Ghost Recon 3, or any of the games for it? Fuckin dope, man <img src=smilies/magbiggrin.gif>
 
And more than likely, with the disappointments handed out by Microsoft and Sony, end up eventually being somewhat competitive in the console market.
 
> You know, the whole point of having a game console is to
> play games, not to watch your 8 HDTV channels at once.
>
> What happened to the good old days where all gaming was is
> just dishing out some cool games on a simple gaming
> machine...Internet Multiplayer I can understand, but some
> features like DVD players inside the consoles are just
> ridiculous...
>

If a game system reads optical disks anyway, it seems to me you might as well give it the ability to play DVDs, but it shouldn't be treated like it's a major feature (especially these days, when you can pick up a new DVD player for $20 at a discount retailer).

<p id="signature">

<center><img src=http://pages.nyu.edu/~jc73/misc/FieryAshNazg.gif></center></p>
 
> And as much as I hate Microsoft, I'm still buying the Xbox
> 360. Have you seen the screenshots for Ghost Recon 3, or
> any of the games for it? Fuckin dope, man
>
Go out to your local mall and find an x360...if you can find it turned on or with controllers that work, that is <img src=smilies/upeyes.gif> It's a big f'ing tease to have the machine in front of you and you are unable to play it. I wonder if they screwed up the wireless on purpose....
 
To heck with 120fps

120fps strikes me as a white elephant. As Isildur pointed out, games have more things to worry about than higher frame rates. In real world terms, you could have twice as many polygons per scene at 60fps as you could at 120fps - since standard NTSC TVs only support around 60fps (with somewhat of a tolerance in either direction), why not bump up the poly count severely instead of wasting bandwidth on the frame rate? Sheesh, Sony. <img src=smilies/headshake.gif>
 
> Thoughts?

My first thought was "What the Hell is wrong with them?"

Seriously....I mean gee, we'll run games at 120 fps...too bad there isn't a TV that can currently display it. :p Then I thought about it...I bet you anything they thought this up so THEY can make that TV (they'll call it the super special Sony Awesomeo-Wega Plus or something) and make more money off the really hardcore fans.

They'll make these UMD discs, er, I mean televisions, in order to get as much money as they can....I bet you anything that this isn't going to be a feature supported by much else than the PSP, I mean, PS3.
 
> And more than likely, with the disappointments handed out by
> Microsoft and Sony, end up eventually being somewhat
> competitive in the console market.

At least I can say the Nintendo DS is pure gold, so at least even if this turns out not to be true, they should still be sitting pretty.
 
> They'll make these UMD discs, er, I mean televisions, in
> order to get as much money as they can....I bet you anything
> that this isn't going to be a feature supported by much else
> than the PSP, I mean, PS3.

Unless you own a PSP and have actually experienced UMDs, you've got no grounds to bitch about it. The movies are of superb quality, and for movie-watching on the go, I'd sooner take a PSP and a handful of UMDs over a portable DVD player. You may not have the same library of titles as you would on DVDs, but a surprising number of new releases (and some old releases, case in point: Ghostbusters) are being UMD-ized, and that's enough for me.

EDIT: Also, who the hell is pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to buy UMD movies instead of DVDs? Is there some fantastic scam that Sony is pulling that I am unaware of where they are bilking customers into purchasing a PSP and UMD movies who would not ordinarily purchase them? Did it occur to you that nothing else is going to support UMD movies because they were created specifically for the PSP? Are the UMD movies somehow harming the market by their very existence? The UMD movie feature adds $0 to the cost of a PSP's hardware, so it's certainly not costing you any more by being there if you don't watch movies on your PSP, for one thing. For another, there's little to no investment needed to convert a movie to a UMD and the costs to press optical media are minimal, so it's essentially instant profit for a company - are you honestly telling me that there's something wrong with a company wanting to make money off of something that harms nothing and nobody? You're not required to buy UMD movies if you have a PSP, the movies don't add anything to the cost of the PSP unit itself, it makes money for the company by filling a niche market, and it makes people happy who want to watch new-release (and some old-release) movies on the go without shelling out for a DVD player. Unless you can come up with solid grounds for disliking UMD movies and their association with the PSP, sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
 
> Unless you own a PSP and have actually experienced UMDs,
> you've got no grounds to bitch about it. The movies are of
> superb quality, and for movie-watching on the go, I'd sooner
> take a PSP and a handful of UMDs over a portable DVD player.

I was mostly making a comparison between the two since they are both things that are probably never going to be supported outside of one or two Sony devices, even though Sony makes it sound like the next industry standard or some such thing. (I thought I recalled them making a big fuss over UMD being supported by this bit of electronics and that bit of electronics, but I haven't seen this yet...)

And no, I don't have a problem with a company making money, obviously that is their whole point in existing is to make money, it isn't as though I'm holding a gun to your head and telling you that you can't buy a UMD movie. :p

*edit*
Also, for clarification, I'm also saying that this 120 FPS thing was probably thought up not so much for improving their games but for selling no doubt very expensive televisions. As if the super-hi-def televisions that Sony was talking about supporting (and two at a time even IIRC) weren't expensive enough, this will have to add quite a bit to the cost.
errrr.gif
 
> I was mostly making a comparison between the two since they
> are both things that are probably never going to be
> supported outside of one or two Sony devices, even though
> Sony makes it sound like the next industry standard or some
> such thing.

Sony never made such a claim. If they want to make the PS3 run at 120fps, that's their prerogative - gamers with standard TVs won't know the difference, but hey, for gamers that have lots of money and always need the bleeding edge hardware, they're welcome to market 120fps TVs or whatever the heck.

> (I thought I recalled them making a big fuss
> over UMD being supported by this bit of electronics and that
> bit of electronics, but I haven't seen this yet...)

That was a whiiiiile ago - and we're talking basically two different standards. There was the UMD format marketed by Sony as basically a replacement for CDs that were smaller and in a mini hard case. Those failed miserably, but still find use in radio because they're convenient for recording something quickly and you don't want to waste a DAT. What the PSP uses is an entirely different UMD, apparently, or at least a UMD in a different plastic case, which makes it a different standard. That's never been purported to be anything but PSP-exclusive.
 
> Sony never made such a claim. If they want to make the PS3
> run at 120fps, that's their prerogative - gamers with
> standard TVs won't know the difference, but hey, for gamers
> that have lots of money and always need the bleeding edge
> hardware, they're welcome to market 120fps TVs or whatever
> the heck.

I thought they had...maybe it's just the way they talk about this stuff...say what you want for or against this, but they are pretty god damned arrogant. :) I'm not saying Nintendo or any other company doesn't have this at all, but Jesus Christ Sony. lol

> That was a whiiiiile ago - and we're talking basically two
> different standards. There was the UMD format marketed by
> Sony as basically a replacement for CDs that were smaller
> and in a mini hard case. Those failed miserably, but still
> find use in radio because they're convenient for recording
> something quickly and you don't want to waste a DAT.

Are you talking about Mini-Discs? I thought that was an entirely different format, unless I just missed some Sony-created format in between. I'm pretty sure I at least remember seeing them say they were going to make DVD players that support UMD movies as well as DVDs...
 
Hm, I think OMG CONSOLE WARS can suck a nut.

The sales figures will be proof, once all three next gen consoles have been around for a while. I don't see what the big fucking deal is... I can afford all three. Who cares which hardware outperforms the other? I'm going to buy games that interest me, regardless of the platform.

The bullshit in the linked article is the kind of pissing contest that only third-party developers should be privy to, so they can decide what platform(s) to shit their games out on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom