Playstation 3 News, PS3 Reviews, Videos and Opinion - PushSquare.com

Syshock,

I don't think PS3 exclusives are better because of Blu-Ray. But I do think Blu-Ray can assist with the storage of better products, & I think it's already started, but there's still a ways to go before we see the full benefit. What can be done on Blu-Ray can always be done on DL-DVD, but to do it to the same standard would require multiple discs. It's pretty much the same argument as CD's vs DVD's, & apart from MP3s for the car stereo, I don't purchase CD-R's anymore, they are a waste of time. You don't really see new games on CD now either. That transition took a while, but it happened, quietly, in the background & without any fuss. I do think DL-DVD has more life left in it at this stage for games than CD did a few years back, but more storage is a good thing, & companies are always looking for ways forward with this. Look at Pioneer with that 400GB 16 layer Blu-Ray disc. Remember when we had 3.5" single sided floppy discs for games holding a grand total of 720kb (I remember tapes, Commodore Vic 20, yep I'm that old, a long way from 12). Where would we be with no progress on that front, & people not taking risks to break barriers.

As far as the PS3 price issue - if not wanting all the extras that a PS3 has is that much of a deterrent to you buying it, then don't buy it. If you're looking to buy a new house, you don't moan that the one you looked at could've been cheaper if it didn't have a double garage, & central heating - you buy something else instead, ie the 360, or the Wii It's only in America that the PS3 is really suffering. In Europe & Japan it's not doing bad at all. In pure sales number vs time since release, it's doing at least as well as the 360 globally so why is everybody constantly having a dig. Maybe it was just the expectation that Sony would do a PS2 & wipe the floor with everything out there, & because that didn't happen within the first 12 months of release it's seen as a failure.

As for people moaning about the install time. Learn some patience please. People are in such a rush these days (I sound old, don't care!). It's an instant gratification culture & if we don't get what we want now now now, then we start slamming fists on desks & criticising. The one off installation time doesn't bother me in the slightest (even MGS4 didn't bother me). Just gives me more time to look forward to it, & I'm British so like Martelli says, I'll go make a cuppa tea. Nothing wrong with a bit of expectation, & the fact that a 360 owner can play a multiplatform game 10 minutes before me is not important. Also, as Killzone 2 has demonstrated, it's not even a requirement to have to install on PS3. It's down to the developers how they deal with that issue.

Oh yeah, where is this price difference for games being cheaper for the 360? I live in the UK & can't find it. PS3 & 360 games are exactly the same price, I know, I've looked.

Sony have released a premium product, & of course the price reflects this. It'd be great for it to be cheaper, & it will be at some point, but we'll just have to be patient (ooh, that word again).

Okay, fine i see your point. Your saying you would have liked to have both of the options of having a cheaper version and a more expensive version. Yes, maybe your right but thats not the way Sony roll. And even if they did, it would of had to been in the beginning of the PS3 release as all the discs are in blue ray format. Your argument is not realistic and is full of ifs and buts.

I remember when i went over to my mates house and he had a PS2 and it had DVD, i was like woh! You couldn't even get DVD's in the video shop where i lived then! Don't you think it's the same kind of thing now... I think soon we will start to see macs with Blue-ray drives and HDMI outs, it will become the norm. The PS3 will become cheaper but not over night. I for one can't wait for a smaller PS3 with more USB's around the back and a extra HDMI out for a projector, and maybe also in a mat so it doesn't attract the dust so much. It just takes time and in a year things will be much different from now as the "technical chipsets" you refer to will get cheaper.

Also i think MGS4 used something like 50gigs or something, that rocks man! Also MGS4 was in full-HD (1080p), i know cause a watch it ( and played sometimes!) on my big full HD screen! It's a shame other consoles will not be able to keep up. Also with the install time i find alright as long as if it takes the load time out of the game, in that case i really appreciate it, take a chill pill or make a tea or something...

well to most people it would sound crazy but it isnt impossible. Maybe the blue ray drive isnt whats making the console expensive. Maybe its the technical chipsets their using inside which are just too expensive to manufacture. Who knows. Going back to PS1...The first ever model had twenty chips and by the time the last ever revision was released, it only had one chip. Microsoft does it all the time to the extent that the newer cables found in the box use cheaper plastic compared to the older ones. There must be a way.

its funny how this discussion has gone completely off topic but one thing most of us agree on is that the console is losing through money and money alone. Nintendo, only now, are releasing a HD version of the Wii. Its not that they couldnt do it but they never wanted to. Thats inspite of the obvious fact the console looked like a bag of crap on a big screen. Like i said, sony needs to take things at a time.

But do you seriously think it possible for bluray to be taken out of the ps3 at this stage?

Well well i wouldnt think making one point would cause so much commotion. Personally I know around fifteen PS3 owners and only four of them actually use the console for blue ray movies. The rest say they bought the console specifically to play games only and if they wanted to watch a movies they have their computers and DVD players for that. Not everyones into all this HD stuff.

...and no. You are the 12 year old fanboy that thinks PS3 exclusives are better just because theyr on blue ray. Fair enough, if you said theyr better because of the shere power of the PS3, then that would've been a more credible argument... I myself own a PS3, I have a HD monitor, use it to watch Blue Rays, and go on the net. But the differance with me is that i dont think all of this was actually needed in a console. I have a PC for watching movies and surfing the net. I agree, this is not the case with most people but why do those who arnt interested in the "extra" stuff have to pay nearly 300 quid for things they dont even need in a console? Three people said to me they got pee'd-off when they had to wait 15 minutes (installing...) just to play GT5 Prologue! This is compeltely inconveniant and all because of the blue ray. Imagine what sony would've done if blue ray lost to HD-DVD a few months back. All Microsoft did was stop producing the HD-DVD player which was given an addon to begin with. Not a big loss i'd say.

by the way I own a 360 aswell but the only thing I like about it is that I can play games straight away without waiting and not to forget they cost a bit cheaper. Ok sometimes you have to wait for an update to install but it takes literally 20 seconds. I do agree the 360 feels cheap, looks cheap, pads' a load of crap and the way the memory card sticks out makes me remember the old PS1 days. But like I said, your getting what you paid for. The PS3 is by far the best console in terms of what we're getting out of it but at times i cant help but think why they opted for blue ray when they could've released it a couple of years later. At least Sony wouldve kicked ass at launch and by now dominated the market just like what they did with the PS2. Dont get me wrong, im not saying its at the bottom right now just because of blue ray, but it could've done much better. Price is an important factor - something which sony have only realised now- and sometimes a company needs to take things a few steps at a time instead of slapping in the very latest high end parts at a £300+ price tag. That is exactly what the legendary game developer Shigeru Miyamoto had to say when commenting on the PS3 back at E3 2006.

Why develop something backwards, why not wait for the technology to become cheaper so then the console will be cheaper. PS3 is about it's 10 year cycle and it's blue-ray give the PS3 development for space even if it's not being utilized yet. It will become cheaper but not in the ways your suggesting. Maybe with your ideas they should introduce the red ring of death into the PS3 as well! You are right about one thing and that is you get what you pay for.

Syshock

You waffle on about multiplatform games, & the extra space on Blu-Ray not being used but if you look up you'll find I already made that case. I agree. My argument in favour of Blu-Ray is for exclusives, & being able to watch HD films. The fact that it's more durable than DVD is just a bonus.
You seriously expect me to believe that it cost effective for development houses to republish every PS3 game already made onto DVD. That may be straight forward for some of the multiplatform games that use less than 9GB, but what about everything else. That could involve some serious reprogramming time, effort, & money. No company is going to want to remake something they already made for a platform that already exists. Sony might sell more units if it's really cheap, as the mainstream public obviously aren't aware of the product differences between the PS3 & the 360 as base price is winning it (in America anyway, not everywhere else), but it would cause so much aggro having to make 2 formats of game for 1 console that software companies would drop the PS3 like a spiky turd.
You're talking just as much speculation as I am, so suggesting I'm the one that has to prove my case while you just sit on high serving your opinion as judgement kinda shows where you're coming from.
You my are just here to start a flamewar. Your 1st post didn't even stay on the subject matter, it went straight into a PS3 dig.
I seriously suspect that you are a 360 owner just suggesting the best way for Sony to commitude business suicide for the PS3 as this what you'd like to see because your 12.

You're the one who is suggesting that there is no problem compressing 50gb to 9gb, so you should be the one to find sources and check this out first.

Losing the blu-ray would be insane. Republishing all games released for the ps3 on dvd would cost a fortune, and there is no way sony would be able to convince all (if any) developers to do this. I don't think anyone is suggesting it is impossible to spread a bluray disc over several dls, its just less confusing on one disc, and people are stupid, so the less confusing it is the better.
The 'bluray discs are less easily scratched' argument is completely valid, since the games (or films) are less likely to be damaged and so can last longer. If a game is split over 3 DLs then the likelihood of ones of these failing is far higher than one bluray

Losing the hdd was a mistake for the 360 as it meant they couldn't utilise it for extra memory, it meant that some games would require a hdd so not all games are open for all 360 users. What would be best is when the new cell comes out that requires less power (therefore less cooling and less space) the hdd is changed to be a 3.5" rather than a 2.5" laptop hdd. They are cheaper and larger (storage-wise).
The ability to install means games load faster (eg less popups in gta4).

Perhaps to start with sony could have brought out one sku for extra quality, extras features which came with bluray and one which didn't. Then people who were just interested in playing the games and nothing more could go for that then always upgrade to bluray later. But it is too late to do this. Its not possible.

there are ways sony could cut costs, but i honestly don't think it costs that much in comparison to the others expecially with all the extra that comes with it. Yes, some people don't use wifi, but i do. That is something they could lose and offer as an accessory, which could save £15. But core things, like bluray, the hdd, the cell chips can't be removed as then it wouldn't be a ps3 and ps3 games wouldn't work on it. Motion control could be cool, i dunno if i would use it. I have a wii, but never use the thing, mostly cause the games are not to my liking (except for mario kart), same goes for 360 (all the games i want to play on that i can get on ps3). The sort of people who buy the wii might get the ps3 motion control, but i doubt they would buy it over the wii, unless they already have a ps3.

you are talking like its impossible to compress 50GB of game data onto multiple dual layered disks (if not one). You're the one objecting to what i said so prove it. At least provide me with a link to a developer on having said that. Just looking at numbers and jumping to conclusions isnt always right. There are games on the 360 aswell which span across three dual layered disks. All of that data has been intentionally compressed so imagine how big the game would be in its uncompressed state? So that shows large games can be made for DL's. I wouldnt be surprised if all three DL disks cost the same price as one BR to publish because currently DL's cost dirt cheap so they wouldnt be that far off in price to publish (3 disks in one box- not 3 individual boxes and disks to publish). People make it sound like its impossible or too expensive to do but its been done before countless times on titles youv never even heard of. Also correct me if im wrong but when a game is ported over to the PS3, i dont think they even utilise the extra space. Iv never seen a ported game look "better" on the PS3 (when released simultaneously on both platforms). They look the same. So maybe the extra space is going to waste. Actually, gametrailers and gamespot show PS3 vs 360 comparisons all the time and indirectly try to say the 360 wins but maybe thats all irrelevant and sounds too fanboy-ish. As far as what you said about the sound quality in MGS4. Well you need to be more realistic and down to earth. Most people wont use speakers beyond their HDTV so unless gonna buy 7.1 surround sound speakers, you aint gonna notice a thing. Of course the game sounds incredible anyway but konami just left the sound files uncompressed- that doesnt sound like a wow factor to me its just a logical thing to do on blue ray. Also, im not saying blue ray isnt good. Actually its on level of its own. So you can stop with all the benefits like "blue ray disks dont get scratched easily unlike dvds." what the hell has that got do with anything?? Cmon, you sound like your trying to think of every last benefit there is to blue ray. I never said blueray wasnt good. Its just too expensive. This is getting too long so ill stop typing;)

I agree with kaden101. I brought the PS3 as a home entertainment system and not just necessarily for gaming. I have a 40"HD screen and i wanted a system that would play films and games that would look amazing on it. The amount of money i spent on my TV doesn't mean i'm going to buy a cheap xbox to make up for the costs, oh no, it reflects that i want quality in my home therefore i buy the PS3. Also it's real value for money, the only add-on i've brought for it is a PS3 remote, everything i need is there already. Everything is well made and thought out too, even down to the controllers, wireless, motion sensitive, pressure sensitive, rechargeable from the PS3 itself etc...
I would hate if sony made a dumbed-down version as Syshock suggests. I think it would make sony look desperate and make the ps3 cheap, which it's not. it's technically not possible to change the Blu-disc drive, that's a real stupid idea! Sony would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Anyway for now i'm happy with that i can play on-line and there are no kids giving me insults about my mum. There really are some great exclusive games coming and this is where the the PS3 will win and it seems the only console at the moment that are doing this! Because if you really care about gaming and you like to keep up to date on new great games then you really are going to miss out now.

Also bring on the new motion control, something for my girlfriend!

SYSHOCK,

Again, please explain to me how you compress 50GB into 9GB?
So what you're basically saying is that the developers programming for the PS3 just go "oh well sod it, we've got all this extra space, lets just not bother compressing anything at all on Blu-Ray". Has it not crossed your mind the possibility of just fitting more on the disc - you can compress on Blu-Ray as well you know.
I wasn't saying that Gears 2 would have been better on Blu-Ray, but extra storage space does mean more flexibility. You could either have higher quality textures, or higher quality uncompressed audio (MGS4), or a larger game, or a combination of all 3. The possibilities are there.

Blu-Ray may be a waste of time for multiplatform games as no developer is going to spend the extra time making the most of the extra storage when they need to release the 360 & PS3 versions at the same time, & it's easier to just port. This is understandable as they need to make money, but for exclusives it's a different matter.

Yes, the other option is to use multiple Dual Layer DVD's, but developers are trying to avoid that on the 360 due to extra fees from Microsoft for extra discs.

Also Blu-Ray discs are made to a higher quality. They just don't scratch like DVD's. I buy pre-owned games for my PS3 & I haven't found a scratch yet. Whenever I bought a PS2 game, it was taking a gamble if it would even work when I got it home. Yeah, I could take it back, & get it swapped, but it's not even a worry now.
Also, the price of Blu-Ray players & Blu-Ray discs are coming down all of the time, so the price thing will sort itself out given time, & Sony will reduce the price of the PS3 when it's right to do so, not when you & all of the Sony haters say.

Oh, & ditch the HDD, now you're just talking like an idiot. PS3 games require an install because every PS3 has a HDD. How much time & money do you think it would take for every game developer to remake every PS3 game on a DL-DVD to not require an install & run off disc, & what about the updates/patches, where would they go. Even most 360 advicates would advise you to get the model with the HDD as the Arcade unit isn't worth it.

Why don't you suggest they take the PSU out as well so they can make the main unit smaller, oh yeah, because it's a stupid idea.

The appeal of the PS3 is that it's all in a nice neat box where all you have is 2 wires coming out (power & tv). You don't have to worry about buying extras later. It's nice & quiet, it's future proof on the storage space, it's reliable, & it goes with the piano black Hi-Def TV's out there.
It's designed to fit in with your living room furniture.

I understand why Microsoft designed the 360 like it is. It makes it cheaper to build, & cheaper to sell. As a games console, it's technically very similar on a power level to the PS3, with an appealling on shelf price, but I couldn't have it in my living room due to how untidy & noisy it is (I use the wi-fi, so I'd need it for the 360). I could however, see the 360 in a kids bedroom where it's aesthetics are less of an issue, & the only person who has to listen to it is the kid using it (could explain the age demographic for the 360 & the PS3). At least the Wii has some reason for it's external PSU, it's a tiny console to start with.

I applaud Sony for fitting everything into the one box, & yet keeping it reliable & quiet. The later 80GB models don't get hot either (mine barely gets warm). This is why the age of ownership of the PS3 is older than the 360, because this stuff matters to people in their 20's & 30's who have a house & want to keep it simple & quiet & tidy, & that's one of many reasons why they choose a PS3.
Sony got such a ribbing for removing the backwards compatibility from newer PS3s to reduce the cost, & yet you'd have them remove everything else that makes it a PS3. I personally am not that bothered about the b/c, & I had to drag the old PS2 out as I wanted to play Final Fantasy X-2, but as much as I love the old Final Fantasy games, PS2 games look quiet nasty on a HD-TV.
Sony - keep Blu-Ray, keep the HDD, keep Wi-Fi, keep that power supply inside the console. Just keep doing what you're doing.

I like the idea of it just being one SKU where the only difference is choice of HDD size (that you can upgrade within warranty very cheaply), & pretty much everything else you may need is there.

Oh, & it plays Blu-Ray movies as well - bonus if you've got a HD-TV.

and to Lupo....
No, not everybody is realising the PS3 is the best console out there for games. You just sound like a crazy fanboy. You dont neccessarily need a blueray drive to enjoy games in HD- unless your watching movies of course. Most games on the PS3 dont even run in full 1080p except for Wipeout HD and some others. The majority of games are just upscaled by the PS3 to 1900x1080 as is also the case with the 360. All im saying is that sony should take out the blue-ray drive, ditch the HDD and wireless card, and sell it at a much lower price for the average gamer. At the same time they should sell an elite package that comes with everything the current 80GB PS3 has and improve it with motion sensing technology for those who can afford it. As they say, your getting what you paid for.

Killzone 2 and MGS4 are great exclusives but thats not because they're on blue-ray. Developers intentionally compress their games to fit on dual layered disks as is the case with the Xbox 360. Your argument is like saying "Gears of War 2 is a great game but it couldve been better on blue-ray". A game being on Blue-ray or dual layer has got nothing to do with its excellence. Its just that games like MGS4 and Killzone took years to develop and alot of effort and money was used in making them so they turned out good. Also, when a developer is only concentrating on one particular platform, the chances are greater in producing a great game. Maybe a blue-ray drive should be included as an addon when purchasing the "core"package that i've been talking about. Also, did you know its not impossible to port MGS4 to the 360 (which uses dual layered disks). Konami's president has been desperately trying to get the game ported to the 360 but Hideo Kojima refused and went as far as to say that even if they tried to he wouldnt take part in it. If your wondering why...well its a political thing. Japanese dont like Americans as is the case with Hideo but then again he is the type of guy, judging from his interviews, that wouldnt want to betray sony by porting the game to other platforms. The bottom line is that having blue-ray doesnt effect the quality of games but rather makes them slightly more expensive to buy and is not really needed by the majority.

That is the worst idea i have ever heard. why the hell would they get rid of blu ray when people are finally realizing the ps3 is better than the 360... why the hell would they change it. Then people would not like the new playstation just like the people stopped liking the the wii. i had a wii, still do but after a while i got bored so i got the ps3 and i have been playing it without getting bored for almost 3 years. and why the hell would they get rid of blu ray when people got hd t.v. just for that purpose, and don't respond saying that is not true because i know quite a few people that did so. so the guy that said get rid of blu ray you are an idiot because you are saying you want it to be more like wii. if you want it to be like wii go get one because playstaion is the real deal the best console. so i don't want no shitty DVD-DL

It would cost so much money re-publishing all of the Blu-Ray games onto DL-DVD, & you can only compress information so much.
Please tell me how you're going to fit Killzone 2 or Metal Gear Solid 4 onto a normal DVD.
Blu-Ray was a brilliant idea & it's already starting to show it's potential with PS3 exclusives, & more to come.
Yes they could do with lowering the price of the PS3 (even though it is worth the money now) to get more sales, but removing Blu-Ray is not the way to do it. In fact, it'd be a stupid idea, & it'd just give the internet media another way to have a bash at Sony. The PS3 is doing just fine, regardless of all the naysayers spelling out its doom

I didnt deem it neccessary to explain this because i thought it was obvious... Whats so hard about compressing game data onto a standard dual layered disk? The reason why PS3 games require additional hard drive space is because they are more than three times larger than average games (7.5GB). The PS3 copies game data onto the hard drive to reduce loading times and in a way "installs" it so that it runs without errors from the blue-ray disk. A game like MGS4 will work on a DL disk- all they need to do is compress the data like what everyone else does. Im not saying they should completely scrap the Blueray drive. All im saying is that they should release a "standard" package PS3 that doesnt include BR. Its a bit like what Nintendo are doing with the DSi. As far as i know, normal NDS games wont work in it so you will have to buy DSi games. They will still produce the normal NDS so people wont be losing out on playing the older games. Also, by scrapping Blueray, there will be no need of a hard drive. 1Gb of flash memory would be more than enough to save games. Like i said, this is just for the standard package.

If they remove the blu-ray drive then most games won't work. Likewise if they only have 1GB flash memory the likes of Metal Gear Solid 4 won't work.

I agree that Sony are "losing" through price and price alone, but I believe that Sony haven't done a good enough job explaining to people why the PS3 is worth the extra money.

First of all, sony should should start by lowering the price of the PS3. They should replace the Blueray ROM drive with a standard DVD-DL drive, and use 1GB of internal flash memory instead of a HDD. Not everybody needs a built-in wireless card aswell. This should knock off £100 easily. Sony tried to make the console future proof and they messed up in doing that big time. Nows the time to learn from your mistakes so do us all a favour and lower the price by stripping the console from its useless parts! Theres no point in releasing a new controller if the current hardware is too expensive for most people. Who cares if they're only aiming at the 'hardcore' gamer type. Average gamers find the console too expensive and thats a fact. They should have an elite "premium" package and a standard "core" package just like what Microsoft did. This is the only reason why sony are losing this generation. Its not because of its games, its just that its too expensive to own.