I'm noticing some resemblances between the N64 and PS3...

Anyone besides me noticing this?:|

Both consoles are the most powerful of their generation,

They're both Nintendo and Sony's third home console,

Both companies are WAY to overconfident that their console will win, because both of their predecessors dominance of their generations.

Both were expensive (The N64 had expensive games) (The PS3 itself is expensive and the games are expensive)

The N64's competitor (the Playstation) and the PS3's competitor (The Wii) are expected to fail, but even at launch both have strong sales,

Lots of other things

Does anyone agree?

of course, you omit the one glaring difference. the n64 was limited in its stubborn decision to cling to old technology (cartridge) while the ps3 is ushering in the probably winner of the nextgen disc format (bluray)

of course, you omit the one glaring difference. the n64 was limited in its stubborn decision to cling to old technology (cartridge) while the ps3 is ushering in the probably winner of the nextgen disc format (bluray)

asmallchild

Yes, but developing blu-ray games is more expensive than dvd9 games.  Hence why the arguement is valid.  Also, keep in mind that the N64 went down with a fight.  35m isn't bad for a system that didn't live as long as it's competitor. 

[QUOTE="asmallchild"]

of course, you omit the one glaring difference. the n64 was limited in its stubborn decision to cling to old technology (cartridge) while the ps3 is ushering in the probably winner of the nextgen disc format (bluray)

OceanLeet

Yes, but developing blu-ray games is more expensive than dvd9 games. Hence why the arguement is valid. Also, keep in mind that the N64 went down with a fight. 35m isn't bad for a system that didn't live as long as it's competitor.

it's more expensive if you intend on utilizing the entire disc (in which case, the quality is no longer comparable with DVD9 games)

i think if we're talking the same size games, production costs will probably be similar 

[QUOTE="OceanLeet"][QUOTE="asmallchild"]

of course, you omit the one glaring difference. the n64 was limited in its stubborn decision to cling to old technology (cartridge) while the ps3 is ushering in the probably winner of the nextgen disc format (bluray)

asmallchild

Yes, but developing blu-ray games is more expensive than dvd9 games. Hence why the arguement is valid. Also, keep in mind that the N64 went down with a fight. 35m isn't bad for a system that didn't live as long as it's competitor.

it's more expensive if you intend on utilizing the entire disc (in which case, the quality is no longer comparable with DVD9 games)

i think if we're talking the same size games, production costs will probably be similar

yes similar however greater on ps3 and developers have an easier time to develop for other consoles than the ps3......same with n64 costs more, harder to develop, not saying they're the same but htey have the same mistakes 

[QUOTE="asmallchild"][QUOTE="OceanLeet"][QUOTE="asmallchild"]

of course, you omit the one glaring difference. the n64 was limited in its stubborn decision to cling to old technology (cartridge) while the ps3 is ushering in the probably winner of the nextgen disc format (bluray)

Microsoft1234

Yes, but developing blu-ray games is more expensive than dvd9 games. Hence why the arguement is valid. Also, keep in mind that the N64 went down with a fight. 35m isn't bad for a system that didn't live as long as it's competitor.

it's more expensive if you intend on utilizing the entire disc (in which case, the quality is no longer comparable with DVD9 games)

i think if we're talking the same size games, production costs will probably be similar

yes similar however greater on ps3 and developers have an easier time to develop for other consoles than the ps3......same with n64 costs more, harder to develop, not saying they're the same but htey have the same mistakes

harder to develop is prolly true. but i still say running games off a "futuristic" format like bluray gives the ps3 a shot at avoiding the same pitfalls that the n64 fell victim to 

well kinda, but atleast the n64 had great games, the ps3 well... doesnt :?sexy_luigi

i'm a lemming but my best friend has a PS3 and i like some of the games

Motor Storm and Resistance are both great and imsure there are others that i havent played that are good as well

PS3 sounds like PS2 to me.

1) Hard to develop for

2) DVD not needed

3) cheapest format player

4) competitor has better online

5) competitor easier to develop for and more games

6) bad games at launch except for 1

7) bad launch with shortages

Anyone besides me noticing this?:|

Both consoles are the most powerful of their generation,

They're both Nintendo and Sony's third home console,

Both companies are WAY to overconfident that their console will win, because both of their predecessors dominance of their generations.

Both were expensive (The N64 had expensive games) (The PS3 itself is expensive and the games are expensive)

The N64's competitor (the Playstation) and the PS3's competitor (The Wii) are expected to fail, but even at launch both have strong sales,

Lots of other things

Does anyone agree?

dhfial1

The N64 and PS1's power difference wasn't as drastic to the PS3 and the Wii. The PS3 is like 15x more powerful.

The N64 had no third party support, stuck with last gen format and couldn't shake its kiddy image.

There's your big difference and the real reason why they lost. 

PS3 sounds like PS2 to me.

1) Hard to develop for

2) DVD not needed

3) cheapest format player

4) competitor has better online

5) competitor easier to develop for and more games

6) bad games at launch except for 1

7) bad launch with shortages

 

G-Legend

exactly. PS3 and PS2 sounds just like PS1. The only difference is that the PS3 is the most powerful console this generation.

[QUOTE="sexy_luigi"]well kinda, but atleast the n64 had great games, the ps3 well... doesnt :?Spartan-051

i'm a lemming but my best friend has a PS3 and i like some of the games

Motor Storm and Resistance are both great and imsure there are others that i havent played that are good as well

I had a N64 back in the day and I remember what all went on.  Mario 64, a launch game, blasted everything else to bits.  The game was amazing, revolutionary, and fun as hell.  To this day, people look back and remember it as one of the best games ever.  The PS3 has no such game so far. 

[QUOTE="dhfial1"]

Anyone besides me noticing this?:|

Both consoles are the most powerful of their generation,

They're both Nintendo and Sony's third home console,

Both companies are WAY to overconfident that their console will win, because both of their predecessors dominance of their generations.

Both were expensive (The N64 had expensive games) (The PS3 itself is expensive and the games are expensive)

The N64's competitor (the Playstation) and the PS3's competitor (The Wii) are expected to fail, but even at launch both have strong sales,

Lots of other things

Does anyone agree?

Silvereign

The N64 and PS1's power difference wasn't as drastic to the PS3 and the Wii. The PS3 is like 15x more powerful.

The N64 had no third party support, stuck with last gen format and couldn't shake its kiddy image.

There's your big difference and the real reason why they lost. 

I guess so

of course, you omit the one glaring difference. the n64 was limited in its stubborn decision to cling to old technology (cartridge) while the ps3 is ushering in the probably winner of the nextgen disc format (bluray)

asmallchild

Sometimes its bad to be too advanced 

[QUOTE="Microsoft1234"][QUOTE="asmallchild"][QUOTE="OceanLeet"][QUOTE="asmallchild"]

of course, you omit the one glaring difference. the n64 was limited in its stubborn decision to cling to old technology (cartridge) while the ps3 is ushering in the probably winner of the nextgen disc format (bluray)

asmallchild

Yes, but developing blu-ray games is more expensive than dvd9 games. Hence why the arguement is valid. Also, keep in mind that the N64 went down with a fight. 35m isn't bad for a system that didn't live as long as it's competitor.

it's more expensive if you intend on utilizing the entire disc (in which case, the quality is no longer comparable with DVD9 games)

i think if we're talking the same size games, production costs will probably be similar

yes similar however greater on ps3 and developers have an easier time to develop for other consoles than the ps3......same with n64 costs more, harder to develop, not saying they're the same but htey have the same mistakes

harder to develop is prolly true. but i still say running games off a "futuristic" format like bluray gives the ps3 a shot at avoiding the same pitfalls that the n64 fell victim to 

You're right it has new pitfalls to fall victim to 

[QUOTE="G-Legend"]

PS3 sounds like PS2 to me.

1) Hard to develop for

2) DVD not needed

3) cheapest format player

4) competitor has better online

5) competitor easier to develop for and more games

6) bad games at launch except for 1

7) bad launch with shortages

 

Silvereign

exactly. PS3 and PS2 sounds just like PS1. The only difference is that the PS3 is the most powerful console this generation.

and price point, but we should see a $100 price drop this year.

Sometimes its bad to be too advanced

You're right it has new pitfalls to fall victim to axt113

true. too advanced isn't great either. but it's not like we're teleporting images into people's brains now. i think it'll be fine

as for the new pitfalls, also true. but then that would defeat the TC's point 

[QUOTE="Spartan-051"]

[QUOTE="sexy_luigi"]well kinda, but atleast the n64 had great games, the ps3 well... doesnt :?OceanLeet

i'm a lemming but my best friend has a PS3 and i like some of the games

Motor Storm and Resistance are both great and imsure there are others that i havent played that are good as well

I had a N64 back in the day and I remember what all went on.  Mario 64, a launch game, blasted everything else to bits.  The game was amazing, revolutionary, and fun as hell.  To this day, people look back and remember it as one of the best games ever.  The PS3 has no such game so far. 

[QUOTE="OceanLeet"][QUOTE="Spartan-051"]

[QUOTE="sexy_luigi"]well kinda, but atleast the n64 had great games, the ps3 well... doesnt :?-Daddy-

i'm a lemming but my best friend has a PS3 and i like some of the games

Motor Storm and Resistance are both great and imsure there are others that i havent played that are good as well

I had a N64 back in the day and I remember what all went on. Mario 64, a launch game, blasted everything else to bits. The game was amazing, revolutionary, and fun as hell. To this day, people look back and remember it as one of the best games ever. The PS3 has no such game so far.

that was a pretty cool game

i think we'll have to wait until ff13/mgs4 for a similar breathtaking experience 

well, sticking to the topic, I see the similarity of both clinging to their respective formats and it seemed both was due to piracy issues although they claimed otherwise(no load times and such for cartridge, blue ray true high def).

 though the launches went drastically different, the ps3 launch was more in line with the ps2

[QUOTE="Silvereign"][QUOTE="G-Legend"]

PS3 sounds like PS2 to me.

1) Hard to develop for

2) DVD not needed

3) cheapest format player

4) competitor has better online

5) competitor easier to develop for and more games

6) bad games at launch except for 1

7) bad launch with shortages

 

G-Legend

exactly. PS3 and PS2 sounds just like PS1. The only difference is that the PS3 is the most powerful console this generation.

and price point, but we should see a $100 price drop this year.

As much as I would like to see that happen, I seriously doubt it. Sony is already taking quite a hit with every PS3 sold.

i think the format is also similar since both tried to push their format on developersalcarazo9

except one format was old and was a detriment to gaming whereas the other one is new and has untapped potential 

[QUOTE="alcarazo9"]i think the format is also similar since both tried to push their format on developersasmallchild

except one format was old and was a detriment to gaming whereas the other one is new and has untapped potential 

Yes, but exploiting said potential would probably require quite a bit of time and money. More than most developers are probably willing to shell out.

[QUOTE="alcarazo9"]i think the format is also similar since both tried to push their format on developersasmallchild

except one format was old and was a detriment to gaming whereas the other one is new and has untapped potential

yeah, but fear of piracy also seemed to have been a hidden motivation behind their format choices. though yes, blue ray owns the cartridge.  

PS3 sounds like PS2 to me.

1) Hard to develop for

2) DVD not needed

3) cheapest format player

4) competitor has better online

5) competitor easier to develop for and more games

6) bad games at launch except for 1

7) bad launch with shortages

 

G-Legend

DVD was needed and a massive upgrade over VHS. This wasn't so much a CD > DVD format change.

The cheapest format player is for DVDs, which are still fine for movies and games.

Xbox Live didn't come out until 2 years after the PS2 came out.

The PS2 had a lot more games then the XBOX and GC.

All the consoles this gen had shortages at launch. 

[QUOTE="asmallchild"]

[QUOTE="alcarazo9"]i think the format is also similar since both tried to push their format on developersTyrantDragon55

except one format was old and was a detriment to gaming whereas the other one is new and has untapped potential

Yes, but exploiting said potential would probably require quite a bit time of money. More than most developers are probably willing to shell out.

true. but i think there are some big name companies out there (kojima productions comes to mind) that would be willing to take on this additional cost and "tackle the challenge" of filling a bluray disc

of course, the true test is whether they can fill it with material that enhances gameplay and not hours on end of CGI cutscenes 

of course, you omit the one glaring difference. the n64 was limited in its stubborn decision to cling to old technology (cartridge) while the ps3 is ushering in the probably winner of the nextgen disc format (bluray)

asmallchild

 Nintendo being stubborn about it is a misconception.  They did none the less use carts, which makes your point vaild.

[QUOTE="asmallchild"]

of course, you omit the one glaring difference. the n64 was limited in its stubborn decision to cling to old technology (cartridge) while the ps3 is ushering in the probably winner of the nextgen disc format (bluray)

Devil-Itachi

Nintendo being stubborn about it is a misconception. They did none the less use carts, which makes your point vaild.

whoops my bad. i was under the impression they chose to cling to the cartridge format. is that incorrect? 

N64 had good games tho...MrGrimFandango

so resistance, motorstorm, virtua fighter are bad?  Why don't you play a PS3 before you diss it

[QUOTE="MrGrimFandango"]N64 had good games tho...B1ACK_MAGE

so resistance, motorstorm, virtua fighter are bad? Why don't you play a PS3 before you diss it

u can add oblivion to the list! 

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"][QUOTE="asmallchild"]

[QUOTE="alcarazo9"]i think the format is also similar since both tried to push their format on developersasmallchild

except one format was old and was a detriment to gaming whereas the other one is new and has untapped potential

Yes, but exploiting said potential would probably require quite a bit time of money. More than most developers are probably willing to shell out.

true. but i think there are some big name companies out there (kojima productions comes to mind) that would be willing to take on this additional cost and "tackle the challenge" of filling a bluray disc

of course, the true test is whether they can fill it with material that enhances gameplay and not hours on end of CGI cutscenes 

True, but I'm pretty sure games like that will be few and far between. Especially when you consider the amount of time it would probably take to make a game that fills up a whole Blu-ray disc. Oblivion is only 4.5 gigs and look how long that game took to get released.

[QUOTE="G-Legend"][QUOTE="Silvereign"][QUOTE="G-Legend"]

PS3 sounds like PS2 to me.

1) Hard to develop for

2) DVD not needed

3) cheapest format player

4) competitor has better online

5) competitor easier to develop for and more games

6) bad games at launch except for 1

7) bad launch with shortages

 

TyrantDragon55

exactly. PS3 and PS2 sounds just like PS1. The only difference is that the PS3 is the most powerful console this generation.

and price point, but we should see a $100 price drop this year.

As much as I would like to see that happen, I seriously doubt it. Sony is already taking quite a hit with every PS3 sold.

What they need to due is output insanely powerful graphical games, lock down alot more exclusives,  win over blue ray support (already done that), Make thier online serivice equal or greater to XBL and stop having lazy ports from 360 they need to improve the multiplat to equal or slightly greater then 360 counterparts.