The Official "Console War" and Video Game Thread

[CJ Clifford]

Oh yeah, I'm just asking for trouble with this one. I'd like to start this off by saying please, PLEASE, keep it civil. Usually my fellow .org members are quite civil people, but, occasionally, you guys become unruly in threads of certain topics. Just remember, it's all about the games.

My general thoughts:

As of late, I've started to become rather anti-Sony where video games are concerned. Their arrogance is really starting to astound me. So far I've read that the PS3 will make the PC obsolete , that consumers will buy the PS3 even if it was $1000 just because it's a new Sony product , and I was told that the games are likely to go for $70-$90 . Throw in the Blu-Ray debacle, which I've read is the main reason the PS3 was pushed back from a Spring release to a November release (completely believable considering Sony's own Blu-Ray player has also been pushed back), and it just seems more and more like Sony is going completely out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot. Not to mention how they seem to be copying both Microsoft and Nintendo almost blatantly.

On the Nintendo front, while I'm looking forward to the Wii because of it's very reasonable price point, that wacky motion sensing Wii-mote still makes me skeptical. And I'm not exactly thrilled with the name Wii. I've been a fan of the Big N since the beginning, so I'm willing to look passed all that. I'm really looking forward to the "Virtual Console" aspect. I'll be downloading retro games like there's no tomorrow.

Moving on to Microsoft, the 360 seems to be doing pretty well at this point. Product shortages don't seem to be much of a problem. Sadly, there seems to be a bit of a game drought. And of course Japan support, both consumer and developer, is quite poor. You can't exactly blame that entirely on Microsoft though. But there are other things I can blame them for. Like the Backwards Compatibility issue. I wasn't too happy when I read that Peter Moore had basically said BC didn't matter any more. That must have garnered quite the backlash. And Moore's comments two weeks later. Oh brother. I like how he put the blame on the media, and a lesser extent on gamers, for misinterpreting his comments.

Time for some fun rumors:

The news is the Wii may see a late September / early October release. Nintendo denies this of course.

Word has it Microsoft plans to add HDMI into the next line of 360s, and maybe even replace the current DVD drive with an HD-DVD drive. What does this mean for people who bought 360s before this production change. If you want to believe the rumor, you'll be able to send your 360 off to Microsoft who will upgrade your 360 with HDMI and an HD-DVD drive . . . for free? Yeah, I'll believe this one when I see it. It would be really cool if this turns out to be true though.

The price tag of PS3 games being $70-$90, I consider this a rumor. This is information given to me by a friend. I haven't actually read this anywhere for myself. But if true, it's another straw on the camel's already fragile back.

My take on the current "Console War" as it stands now:

I put Microsoft in the lead. They got their "next gen" console out first, so they've already established themselves in the market. Add the fact Sony pushed back the release of the PS3, and it only makes things look better for the 360. If Bungie could release Halo 3 this November (however unlikely), it would be a crushing blow against Sony.

The number two spot is tough. Sony may be, in my eyes, acting retarded, but Nintendo hasn't been doing so great since the N64. It's a toss up, but I'll give Nintendo the number two spot . . . for now. Hopefully the innovative Wii will help Nintendo maintain a presence in the console market. I'd hate for Nintendo to go the way of Sega.

I have to give Sony last place. It's just not looking good for the PS3. Personally, I think Sony is going to majorly screw up placing all their eggs in the Blu-Ray basket. If they ditched the Blu-Ray (and some of the attitude), I might think differently.

My take on the previous "Console War":

Sony was the clear winner. Even with the troubles it faced at release, the PS2 seemingly conquered all. Being BC with nearly all the PS1 titles from the get go was a definite bonus. Having the GTA series as a limited time exclusive series didn't hurt either.

While the new kid, Microsoft takes second place above Nintendo without question. While I don't think it beat out Sony's PS2, the Xbox did seem to be a hard to find item during the 2004 Christmas season, which is odd for a system in the last year of its life. Honestly, I think the original Xbox could have gone on for another year or two. I don't think Microsoft should have pulled the plug so quickly. The Xbox came out a year after the PS2 but was replaced a year before. Xbox, we hardly knew ya.

Sadly, Nintendo came in last. While I certainly liked the Gamecube, it's oddly shaped controler, and the Gameboy Player add-on, it just seems that the Gamecube got stuck with the kiddie persona, deserved or not, and could get rid of it. I hope the Wii fairs better because, as a long time Nintendo fan, I'd really like to see the Big N at the top of the game again.

[TheDeviot]

Well Nintendo has been pretty vocal in that if they stop making systems, they'll close up shop completely. Anyway, here's my take based on limited info:

Sony will be successful with the Playstation III, but I don't think it's going to be a squash match either. I think most people will get one eventually, as a second or even third option, as the casual masses will likely have to wait for a price drop. Plus with the cheaper model, you won't have the full on resolutions to take advantage of Blu Ray, so I don't see many outside of the desperate to own one buying it. The games, while good, aren't much different from the current gen, except with better graphics. While the eye candy wow factor is there, I don't think it's enough to get more than hardcore types initially, and even many of them may buy the two competitors, or even apply that $600 toward upgrading, or purchasing a new computer. The arrogant comments from execs don't help, but I don't see it taking a ton away from the PSIII. It's just not going to get enough early adopters IMHO, which narrows it's lead a great, great deal.

Microsofts, 360 has surprised me. I'm still going to hold off awhile longer, but Gears of War, Chromehounds, and others are really impressive upcoming games that a lot of action gamers are going to want. Graphically speaking the 360 holds it's own against what the PS3 titles look like, and the Online Live serviceis as painless as ever. The cross platform integration with PC gamers running Vista Premium also seems intriguing. The Keyboard, Mouse Vs. Gamepad wars will finally be decided (The KB M is going to dominate on the FPS side of things) Plus you can score some used launch titles cheaply these days, so you can start off a little more affordably than before though the $400 might even be too high for some folks.

The Nintendo Wii looks like an awesome value proposition, and honestly I think as long as more captivating different games come out, and are marketed right, Non Gamers will probably really get into it. It looks so far that enough third party franchises may hit the machine to get casual fans to give it an honest look, and that same alternative gameplay is going to attract a lot of the hardcore too. The FPS gameplay may even be a serious contender to the Keyboard Mouse combo, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some PC gamers pick it up for some of the exclusive Shooters. I think some people will be turned off from the visuals at first, but if enough games come through on their promises of fun gameplay, Nintendo has an honest shot at a #1 spot. That said I think the PS/Xbox names really gained ground over the last two generations, so that may prove to be a steep uphill battle.

Computers also look to have a pretty good run alongside the consoles. And you can even count APPLE in the fight thanks to BOOT CAMP. Of course it remains to be seen how well those might run Vista, but Microsoft's next OS looks VERY Gamercentric. And not just for the Hardcore FPS, or MMO gamer.
The OS will have plug, and play installations. You'll be able to pop in your game, start playing right away, and the files will install in the background.
It's going to have all of the info on your games, the ratings, and parents can even password lock the OS from allowing M or AO titles from running/installing! On top of that Microsoft is bringing a Windows based version of Xbox live to the OS, and have hinted that some games may be cross platform compatible! Imagine playing a shooter on the PC against your Xbox 360 toting friend! To top it off DirectX10 looks to blow away anything the consoles are doing. (Check out CRYSIS from Crytek to see what I mean)
That said casual types will probably still get a console for gaming, but it certainly could attract some into making their computer thier prefered game system.

Having said all of that, I think it's too close to call. If I had to nod it to anyone I'd say maybe Nintendo by a very small margin, as I can see most folks even buying that as a second system, followed by Sony since by year 4 or 5 they can get more affordable, and some will be picking that up as system two or even three, Then the Xbox360 RIGHT behind it. I'm thinking only a few thousand machines between the three. You can't measure the Computers since they're bought for so many different reasons, but I think you'll see a spike in PC games once Vista gets itself settled in.

[mathias]

Your observation about Sony's arrogant attitude is significant. If we look back over video Game history, we will find that at teh center of every company burnout. Atari's arrogance at being on top for so long helped lead to an influx of secodn rate games that almost destroyed the industry, and kept Atari from taking Nintendo seriously until too late. Has any ever played the Atari version of Double Dragon? It's ridiculous comparred to Nintendo.
Nintendo made similar mistakes by ignoring the 16 bit revolution beginning in Japan with what would become the TurboGrafix 16 in the US. At teh same time they were ****ing off thier devlopers with a polocy that said "If you code a game for us, you can't port it to other systems". Sega on the other hand, was paying attention, and knew how to market thier product. Not only did they blow the 8 bit nintendo out of the water, they demoloished the TG16 which was wildly popular -even moreso than the genesis- in Japan. Having succesfully trounced Nintendo with the Genesis being perhaps the most flexible cartidge console EVER -backwards compatable with an add-on, 32 bit adaptor and games, cd rom drive and games- Sega went on to create the most incredible 2d gaming system ever running 64 bits. Then Sony walked into the arena and handed out a 64 bit system with an emphisis on 3d games and some very compelling Sony only games. Since then, Sony has been on top.

WHich brings us to today.

First, while I too am REALLY excited about the WII, I think it's too soon to call, but I don't see it as being big compitition, or the Nintendo comeback. I hope I'm wrong, but the real compitition here is Sony and Microsoft.

Sony has one huge advantage over all of the compitition as they are an R and D company. They create everything from scratch. Neither Nintendo nor Microsoft do that. They buy componants from other companies to assemble thier platforms. This is a huge cost diffrance. It's the diffrance from buying groceries and cooking dinner yourself, or going to the resturant and paying someone else to buy the food and prepare it for you.

This is key to why I don't think Nintendo is even in the running right now. Microsoft has displeyed in the past a pattern entering a market by looking at the best product in that market and trying thier best to imitate it. They never get it right on the first try. Not even the second or third. Sometimes it takes 11-12 revisions for them to create a superior product, witness Microsoft DOS, Windows, Office and Internet Explorer. Thier strength is that they can afford to hemmorrage money until they get it right, and that is what they are doing right now. Because of this, I think Microsoft will end up on top eventually. I'm not so sure about this round though. The disastrous launch and the shortage of games clears the path for Sony to sweep in with a trustworthy brand and a quick catchup...if they don't screw it up. That all brings us back to the overconfidance that we were talking about at the beginning. In fact, I might also suggest that it was that same overconfidance that kept the XBox from really taking first place out the gate. Remember that remarkable hard drive that no one ended up carring about? Or the constantly fluxuating speed statistics, or the remarkable lack of games for the system....

I'd bet that Sony still ends up #1 this time with Microsoft a close #2. Just imagine though, if Nintendo did manage to come back....there's never been anything like that in video game history before....

On an not-totally-unrelated note; what about handhelds? Nintendo has been the clear winner since teh GameBoy first came out. I've enjoyed every incarnation, but actually dislike the new DS. Anythoughts on DS vs PSP ?

[olorin56]

As far as the previous generation console war goes (Gamecube, Ps2, Xbox) as it was said Ps2 was the clear winner, followed by XBox and Gamecube.

As the the console war upon us, I've really got to tip my hat to the big N. They've really taken a risk and it seems by the results at E3 that it will pay off in the end. I personally don't like to get hung up on the names, I think it might even be helpful to Nintendo to have such an out-there name. It will get people thinking.

As for Ps3, $1000 price point for a console is a tad ridiculous as is their arrogance, which I see too. Definitely not buying a Ps3 until the price is substantially lower than what I paid for my car. (joke)

As for the 360, I will probably be getting one once Halo 3 comes out. By that time as well, product will be in store and as well, I hope mine won't suffer from the Red Eye of Death that seems to be plaguing many of the systems right now.

[ehenyo]

You guys sure do write a lot. Are you making up for the writing you WON'T be doing when you get the next console?

[mathias]

You guys sure do write a lot. Are you making up for the writing you WON'T be doing when you get the next console?

The funniest part of this statement is that I'm not a gamer. I don't have the patience to get through most games. I haven't owned a platform since the Genesis, but the video game industry and culturejust fascinate me.

[Brett]

I will be following this thread VERY carefully.

If you all stay mature, on-topic and there is no point-less flaming, finger pointing, personal bashing, then this thread will continue.

Remember, I'm allowing this thread because I am nice

-Brett
Who is watching.

={+}=

[Camaro]

If I get one, it'll be the Wii.


That's all.

[AeroStratos88]

Your observation about Sony's arrogant attitude is significant. If we look back over video Game history, we will find that at teh center of every company burnout. Atari's arrogance at being on top for so long helped lead to an influx of secodn rate games that almost destroyed the industry, and kept Atari from taking Nintendo seriously until too late. Has any ever played the Atari version of Double Dragon? It's ridiculous comparred to Nintendo.
Nintendo made similar mistakes by ignoring the 16 bit revolution beginning in Japan with what would become the TurboGrafix 16 in the US. At teh same time they were ****ing off thier devlopers with a polocy that said "If you code a game for us, you can't port it to other systems". Sega on the other hand, was paying attention, and knew how to market thier product. Not only did they blow the 8 bit nintendo out of the water, they demoloished the TG16 which was wildly popular -even moreso than the genesis- in Japan. Having succesfully trounced Nintendo with the Genesis being perhaps the most flexible cartidge console EVER -backwards compatable with an add-on, 32 bit adaptor and games, cd rom drive and games- Sega went on to create the most incredible 2d gaming system ever running 64 bits. Then Sony walked into the arena and handed out a 64 bit system with an emphisis on 3d games and some very compelling Sony only games. Since then, Sony has been on top.

First off let me just say I understand where your coming from. Sega did indeed take alot of "risks" with the Genesis. It was the pennicale of a system trying to be everything and it paid off.

Ok lets deal with facts though. The Genesis was a 16 bit system, it did offer backwards compatibility with the Master system with the adapter, the Master system was an 8 bit system. The Sega CD was also a 16 bit system, most people get confused by this the CD was implemented because of cheaper production costs over cartridges and more storage space. But the Sega CD could only display 64 colors with the average being 30-50. It also introduced the world to load times.

The 32x was indeed a 32 bit system. But Cartridge based. And where Sega essentially shot it self in the foot.

The PSX was released and was a 32 bit System from the get go.

The Saturn was a 32 bit system but alot harder to program for.

So neither Sony nor Sega ever released a 64 bit system.

As far as the 16 bit systems go Nintendo and Sega were pretty much neck and neck until the whole Mortal Kombat thing happened. That's when Sega really gained a leg up on Nintendo. This is another point when Nintendo shot it'self in the foot. To this day it's still seen as a kiddie system. But you'd ask me as a kid and today as an adult you could see that the SNES was a better system. The games where crisper and the Sony chip they used for sound delivered better soundtracks.

Atari didn't almost destroy the industry but it did crash it.

The video game crash of 1983 was the sudden crash of the video game business and the bankruptcy of a number of companies producing home computers and video game consoles in North America in late 1983 and early 1984. It brought an end to what is considered the second generation of console video gaming.

If Atari was a little arrogant they had a right to be, unlike Nintendo at the time, Atari had alot of competition. Ever hear of the Collecovision, Mattel Intellivision, Commodore 64, Fairchild Channel F, Odyssey2, RCA Studio II, 1292 Advanced Programmable Video System, Bally Astrocade, APF Imagination Machine, Epoch Cassette Vision, Milton Bradley Vectrex, Emerson Arcadia 2001, Sega SG-1000, even the Atari 5200. These were all at one time or another sharing shelf space with the 2600. So yeah it started making crappy games at the end of it's run but it was a 5 year old system at that point and the first of it's kind with the longevity.

During this period of time, Nintendo rekindled their desire to release the Famicom in the USA. Since the company had very little experience with the United States market, they had previously attempted to contract with Atari for the system's distribution in 1983. However, a fiasco involving Coleco and Donkey Kong soured the relationship between the two during the negotiations, and Atari refused to back Nintendo's console. The video game crash soon took out not only Atari, but the vast majority of the American market itself. Nintendo was on its own.

[sonofblaine]

Meh... I don't really buy into the Wars.... but I know that PS3 is too expensive, and I had to buy 3 or 4 PS2s in the course of 3 years due to them being shoddilly made. So I don't plan on getting a PS3 anytime soon. My GF is lusting after an X-box 360, so I'll prolly play it. And someday, I'll prolly get myself a Wii, just cuz it looks fun and I love Mario. So when we move in We'll have both to add to our combined HUGE console collection.

[Ironman]

New gameplay, great games, low price point, solid graphics, why would anyone buy anything but the Wii?

[CJ Clifford]

On an not-totally-unrelated note; what about handhelds? Nintendo has been the clear winner since teh GameBoy first came out. I've enjoyed every incarnation, but actually dislike the new DS. Anythoughts on DS vs PSP ?

Actually, I don't own either the PSP or the DS, and I don't keep as close an eye on them as I would consoles. The reason? I don't like handhelds that much. I love the games, as that is what it's all about, it's the handhelds themselves that I don't like. I'd rather play a game on a television than on a tiny handheld screen. That's the reason I love the Gameboy Player add-on for Gamecube. I can play all the great GBA games on my television.

At this point, I don't think anyone can come out with anything that will stop Nintendo's long dominance of the handheld market.

I will be following this thread VERY carefully.

If you all stay mature, on-topic and there is no point-less flaming, finger pointing, personal bashing, then this thread will continue.

Remember, I'm allowing this thread because I am nice

-Brett
Who is watching.

={+}=

You know Brett, maybe you should change your avatar to the flaming eye or Sauron(sp?) from LotR and your forum sig to "The great eye is ever watchful."

I absolutely hope I haven't started something that turns into a "My console is better than yours" battle. All the consoles have their pros and cons. And as you can see from my first post I think each of the companies involved are making mistakes. And regardless of my current anti-Sony sentiments, I'll eventually own a PS3 (unless the rumors about the game prices are true. Forget that).

Meh... I don't really buy into the Wars....

I don't know about any one else, but I use the term "Console War" pretty loosely. I'm just referring to the market competition between the consoles and companies that made them. Competition is a good thing.

New gameplay, great games, low price point, solid graphics, why would anyone buy anything but the Wii?

If every game released that I wanted to play came out on a single console, then that's the console I would get. Sadly, that's just not the way it works. Every console will have exclusive titles. If I want Halo 3, I have to have a 360. If I want the new Zelda, I have to get the Wii. If only we could combine them . . .

Wii60

[MattOnDemand]

Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Need I say more?

I'm getting Wii.

[DamageCity]

Wii + PS3 for me, though I will probably not buy the PS3 for a year or two after launch when they work some of the bugs out and the good games start coming in.

[ChemicalChemical]

I love video-games so I'll be getting all three. When depends on price.

I'm waiting until the 360 comes down $100 or so. By then there should be a good crop of AAA games. And Oblivion. I need to get my hands on Oblivion.

I'd never pay $600 for a game system. I'd also never buy a first-gen Sony system because it will break down. And the only developers that will take advantage of the 50 gig discs are the ones working on PS3 exculsives only that will never go anywhere. So God of War III, new Ratchet and Clank, the next Ico Team game should be pretty wild. And that's only if the developers are willing to take advantage of it because it will cost more money. I guess my point was: I'll get one when it's cheap and there's a lot of good games out that I can buy for $20. So see ya in 2010.

I'll probably get a Wii at launch.

I still need a DS.

I have no interest in the PSP because it's more of a gadget than a game system and I have an iPod and I watch movies at home and I prefer to do my computing on my computer. And the games I would be interested in like the GTA ones or Lumines are being ported to the PS2 so I can just wait a bit.

Oh and regarding the $90 PS3 games. False. There was an interview in PSM about the PS3 and they talked about pricing and Kazuo Hirai said that they market wouldn't support games that cost that much and people already have set prices they'll pay for games. So they'll be $60 generally with Sony games probably coming in at $50.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

I have 360 already and I plan to get Wii right when it comes out as long as I am able to afford it.

As for PS3... well, I'm definately not getting it at launch. $600 is just way to high of a price. It's absurd.

I admit that I may get one down the line at some point depending on when and if some games come out exclusively for it that I REALLY want to have. I know that Kingdom Hearts 3 will likely be my breaking point if it comes out.

But still, I'm just really anti PS3 and Sony right now. They are just making a lot of bad decisions with this new system, IMO. And my opinion of them wasn't that favorable before hand with the PS2's tendency to malfunction. And frankly, I think the whole Playstation system line is just way over rated, even when disregarding any problems with functionality.

[Creep990]

I may have missed it, but I didn't notice anyone mention that Sony might include their patented technology which does not allow users to play rented, borrowed, or used games (according to G4tv and LA Times). I'm sorry, but $700 for the system, $70-90 for games, and not being able to play friends' or rented or used games? Seems like a ridiculous idea to think Sony would have people lining up for that.

Given the current state, I'd say MS is leading due to the early launch, but I expect the Wii to come a close 2nd, if it doesn't surpass the 360. If Sony decides to include the user limits, I'd expect the PS3 to crash and burn.

[CJ Clifford]

I may have missed it, but I didn't notice anyone mention that Sony might include their patented technology which does not allow users to play rented, borrowed, or used games (according to G4tv and LA Times).

I've read this before and it still seems so ridiculous. How would this even work? How exactly would the machines know if your games are rented, borrowed, or used? And even if Sony found a way to do that, there would be a huge backlash. I can't see this being in the realm of possibility.

If Sony decides to include the user limits, I'd expect the PS3 to crash and burn.

Agreed. Something like that would bring the death upon Sony.

[Brett]

You know Brett, maybe you should change your avatar to the flaming eye or Sauron(sp?) from LotR and your forum sig to "The great eye is ever watchful."

I absolutely hope I haven't started something that turns into a "My console is better than yours" battle. All the consoles have their pros and cons. And as you can see from my first post I think each of the companies involved are making mistakes. And regardless of my current anti-Sony sentiments, I'll eventually own a PS3 (unless the rumors about the game prices are true. Forget that).

Hahaha...maybe I will. However, most of the board won't get it. I'm really only like this with the video game threads...

It's all love guys.

Creep900 - I saw that today as well. I think it is news as of yesterday. Just as a note, that would be a terrible move by Sony IMO.

-Brett
Who usually is all about the love.

={+}=

[wolf-manj]

hmm i stopped reading your post after the "sony is copying nintendo and microsoft" comment. I'm so tired of hearing that. To me that invalidates any of your other comments.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Sony would be stupid to try and prevent used or borrowed games from being useable on one's system. Honestly, as Cjclifford said, I don't even see how they could get this to work.

Plus, what happens if your system stops working and you have to get a new one (hopefully while under warranty)? Does that mean that suddenly all of the games that you already own won't work on your newer unit?

What happens if some people end up getting more than 1 PS3 for different rooms in their house? Granted, those who would do so are probably few and far between, but its not impossible. That means a game that works on one console won't work on another?

This would just be the dumbest of dumb moves on Sony's part, if they proceed with something like this. It would actually make all of their other really bad ideas look good by comparison.

I understand that they want to make the profit off of brand new purchased games, and I know that they are also probably trying to prevent piracy. But when trying to control those things results in inhibbiting the system from working in a reasonable manner, then it just becomes absurd.

I hope this is just a rumor and nothing more for Sony's sake. If they go that route, then I'm almost certain that it will put the final nail on the Playstation line's coffin.

[CJ Clifford]

hmm i stopped reading your post after the "sony is copying nintendo and microsoft" comment. I'm so tired of hearing that. To me that invalidates any of your other comments.

Wow, one little comment invalidates everything I said? If you'd kept reading, you'd see that I didn't exactly praise everything the other two companies were doing either. I ragged on Nintendo and Microsoft as well.

Plus, what happens if your system stops working and you have to get a new one (hopefully while under warranty)? Does that mean that suddenly all of the games that you already own won't work on your newer unit?

That's exactly why I think it's bogus info (no offense Creep990). I just can't see how this kind of thing would realistically work.

[AeroStratos88]

I've read this before and it still seems so ridiculous. How would this even work? How exactly would the machines know if your games are rented, borrowed, or used? And even if Sony found a way to do that, there would be a huge backlash. I can't see this being in the realm of possibility.


Agreed. Something like that would bring the death upon Sony.

People wouldn't be up in arms if this wasn't a legitimate concern not some what if issue. The technology is not far fetched do you own an xbox and a copy of anything Team Ninja Tecmo put out then you already have run into this little issue.

The game tatoos itself to your hard drive that's in the system, so the game/system synch up. If you put your save file for Ninja Gaiden online no one but you and your system could use it. Cause every console has an id number and only that console can use that game.

Lets not forget Final Fantasy XI When you buy it and install the hard drive only that system can then use the hard drive that's why you don't see em on sale at EB. Cause they couldn't resell em.

And quiet frankly that's the only people this would affect is the used game market who makes their money off underselling the new copies of games by 5 bucks. Give some kid 10 bucks for his game turn around and sell it to Joe Blow for 45 bucks just cause he wants to save 5 bucks over the new version and geuss what the game developers don't get squat.

It's already been said that if this were to happen which it won't. That you would get about 3 systems use. So if you had a game and your system crapped out and you bought a new one your still good or lend it to a friend your still good. Or you could always just pay the 3 dollars more for the warranty the stores offer to cover the life of the disk. Or you could contact the game manufacturer and get a new copy of the game minus shipping. Or gasp since it is a technology someone will come out with a way to get around it just like gamers have been getting around everything since the NES. Hello Game Genie anyone. Regional coding never stopped us either. If you can put it in a system it can be taken out.

This isn't new technology. Do you own a computer have you used those recovery disks with the O/S on them. The disk recognizes the motherboard that's how they work.

This doesn't have anything to do with anything really it's a non issue since it's not gonna happen. Just like when they said MS would start leasing out their O/S and every few years you had to buy a new license. Remember when everyone was saying that before WinXP came out.

This whole argument is mute they've already said that the PS3 will be region free, will play PS1 and PS2 games and I'm sure they will release a PSP adapter. So why would they limit what can be played on it. They make money off every disk out there before they are sold the game developers don't that's who gets hurt by buying used games not Sony.

[TheDeviot]

Wow, one little comment invalidates everything I said? If you'd kept reading, you'd see that I didn't exactly praise everything the other two companies were doing either. I ragged on Nintendo and Microsoft as well.


That's exactly why I think it's bogus info (no offense Creep990). I just can't see how this kind of thing would realistically work.

The way it would work is every copy would have a different serial number, and every PS3 would as well. The games would be registered through Sony's Xbox Live Clone service sort of how CD keys are registered through STEAM for participating PC games. The difference being instead of being tied to an account, the games serial number is then tied to the consoles serial number, and it would check the internet basically for confirmation. If the serial number is tied to a different Playstation 3, the game will not work. Basically it would render pre owned games useless, and would also mean even single player titles would need an internet connection for authentication. It would also pave the way for a pay per play sale mechanism, because all of your games would be tied to one console. It's even conceivable that under such a rumor, one would not be able to bring a game to a friend's home to play at a party. It would be the most unpermissive, restrictive, DRM ever made, making an EULA (That paragraph that comes up before you can install your program, that tells you how you can or can't use the software? ) look like gold
It could easily come to frutition, but Sony did publicly deny the rumor in question several times, including E3.

[CJ Clifford]

Do you own a computer have you used those recovery disks with the O/S on them. The disk recognizes the motherboard that's how they work.

Yeah, but those disks are made for the computer they come with. Unless all the PS3s are communicating with each other, how does one disk know it's already been in another machine? I'll take your word for it if you say this isn't new technology, I just don't see how it works unless the PS3 is adding info to a disk so it can't be read in other machines.

Edit: TheDeviot, thanks for the further explaination.

they've already said that the PS3 will be region free, will play PS1 and PS2 games and I'm sure they will release a PSP adapter.

Wha?!? PSP adapter? Are you saying the PS3 will be able to in some way play PSP games?