The Playstation 3's second-worst problem

I agree with you word for word.NuclearKidX

Same.

That 120 FPS thing was flat out stupid. Heck, two 8800 Ultras (the most advanced GPUs on the planet) in SLI couldn't runSupCom at 120 FPS. And the PS3's GPU can't matchone 8800 Ultra.

So he didnt even know what he was talkin about..

Well thanks for clarifying that,

Still doesnt mean Home might be as good, maybe better than XBL.

SiLkYsHoT33

It very well might be, though i doubt it.

[QUOTE="-Spock-"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

[QUOTE="Unforgiven2870"]uhhh what was supposed to be promised and what was it supposed to be?no_submission

A super-computer massively more powerful than the "xbox 1.5" which would deliver TRUE next-gen gaming with every game running at 120fps at 1080p with 4d controls.

Had it been hyped as an all new, improved, next-gen Playstation i think it would have been received far better than it actually was; because you would have been getting exactly what you were promised.

I don't mean to sound rude, but if you honestly believed that stuff you deserve to be disappointed.

Seriously, this crap was spawned from the babblebus himself, Mr. *Resigned* Ken Kuteragi.

Exactly! Ken=/= Sony

He was the Goddamned PRESIDENT of Sony. If you see the President of a major coropration making statements, you are going to believe said statements. He was not just some lowly PR rep like you people are making him out to be.

Don't tell me you actually fell for that 120 fps stuff. You must've been a major Sony fanboy back in the day to have done that. Honestly, why would a dev do 120 fps of anyhting when they could make a better looking game at 60 fps? Hell, i've been running Source at 120 fps for a while now, but it doesn't look as good as UT3.

And who would've even wanted dual HDMI or anything like that? Mst that was taken was taken out because it wasn't looked upon as good in anyway by the media, and they needed to cut costs as it was. Dual hdmi? yippee.

Also, the ps3 can do everything you were praising the 360 for at its launch. Stream videos, download demos, etc. etc.

makingmusic476

It's not that anyone believes anything. It's the inherent lie and blatant hypemongering without any backup.

If someone were to tell me that they would sell me their Aston Martin for $100 and then tell me (quite a bit later) that he meant a pinto with the aston martin logo and paintjob... well, that I never really did believe him does not mean I should forgive him for not fulfilling his promises.

It's simple: The PS3 was promised to be a lot. It's not. It's a big failure, irrespective of whether people believed it or not.

Don't tell me you actually fell for that 120 fps stuff. You must've been a major Sony fanboy back in the day to have done that. Honestly, why would a dev do 120 fps of anyhting when they could make a better looking game at 60 fps? Hell, i've been running Source at 120 fps for a while now, but it doesn't look as good as UT3.

And who would've even wanted dual HDMI or anything like that? Mst that was taken was taken out because it wasn't looked upon as good in anyway by the media, and they needed to cut costs as it was. Dual hdmi? yippee.

Also, the ps3 can do everything you were praising the 360 for at its launch. Stream videos, download demos, etc. etc.

makingmusic476

Exactly. It can equal the "xbox 1.5" - but even its streaming of video and music over a wireless network is not to the 360's standard. The point is, it was meant to annihilate it. Make it look like a last-gen machine. It ended up being pretty much the same.

As for your "who would want dual-HDMI anyway..." and "what kind of developer would want 120fps..." - its irrelevant. The point is, they promised it, and didn't deliver it.

Before i say anything, this is just an opinion. If you disagree, i'm open to other interpretation. Dont post just to yell at me.

On to the actual topic....

When i first got my 360 (launch day), i was disappointed. If it weren't for Call of Duty 2 being an awesome game, i'm confident i would have sold it on ebay for the extra cash they were going for back then. Why was i disappointed? Because it wasn't wowing me. I bought Perfect Dark Zero based off my loved for the original, and i just wasn't impressed. It wasn't pulling off anything amazingly better than that xbox i'd owned for so long. Nothing which told me my money was well spent. I held on to it, though, mostly because of the wealth of stuff to do online with the videos and demos, and the funky user interface which let me play all the music and video i had on my PC.

And that brings me to the PS3. I held on to the xbox because it came out of the gate as a next-gen xbox, and that's what it was. A new, vastly improved, ready-to-evolve xbox. I was content with it until GRAW and Oblivion arrived and it really started to pick up steam.

What, then, is the Playstation 3?

Its a worthy competitor to the xbox 360. A next-gen games system. A new, ready-to-evolve, next-gen playstation. Why then am i so disappointed with it, to a far greater degree than with my Xbox?

Because of what it was SUPPOSED to be, which many PS3 fanboys around here have forgotten so quickly. This machine was supposed to make the xbox 360 look like a PS2. It was meant to run every game at 1080p, at 120 frames per second. It was a games console with power so great it was classed as a "supercomputer". It was supposed to have a controller so innovative, they were calling it a transition into "4d gaming". A console so awesome, next-gen hadn't started yet. Not until the PS3 launches.

And what was it when it finally came out? Nice graphics pretty much equal to the 360 (though Gears of War is king to this day). A controller so last-minute an entire major developer/publishing corporation outright refuses to use it. Online which though free, is nowhere near the xbox-live-killer which was supposedly in the works all this time. Games run equal to - or on many occasions worse - than their xbox 360 counterparts. No 120fps in every game. No super-computer processing. Has next-gen started? Yes. And it did so nearly two years ago with the xbox 360.

And that, in my humble opinion, is the problem with the Playstation 3. Its an amazing system. The best playstation yet. If you forget about the games and the like and just compare the hardware you get for the price, its just as good as the xbox 360. Yet can we appreciate it for that? No. Because it isn't a shadow of what was promised. It isn't what it was supposed to be; and that's why i think so few people have bought one, and why so many bash it relentlessly on these forums.

Ninja-Vox

[QUOTE="-Spock-"]

I don't mean to sound rude, but if you honestly believed that stuff you deserve to be disappointed.

Seriously, this crap was spawned from the babblebus himself, Mr. *Resigned* Ken Kuteragi.

Ninja-Vox

There was about a six month period in system wars were cows were rampant, and an "xbox 1.5" era set in whereby nothing on the 360 was "true" next gen, and everybody was comparing CGI images of Killzone and Motorstorm to PDZ and PGR3 to show how pathetic the 360 was and how epic the PS3 was going to be.

Pretty much everyone believed it. Those who said it was false were seen as haters. Heck, i remember the day the Killzone footage was released and threads claiming it was bogus were locked for trolling. People thought it was the real deal; you cant just say they were stupid to do so, because Sony themselves were the ones making all of these promises. You cant expect people, let alone fanboys, to have somebody bluntly say "our machine will run all games at 1080p, 120fps" and then shrug that off as a lie that will never happen.

This is an utter lie. They never said this.

This was all a misconception that never got straightened out. Sony claimed that the PS3 was powerful enough to run games at 120fps. However, they never promised this. Do you want to know why? Because it is just a bullet point in a presentation to show the power of the PS3. It cannot be used in the real world as there is NO tv that has a 120fps refresh rate. Which makes it pointless to have games run at 120fps.

And please don't retort this by yelling about games running at 30 fps--because this is clearly up to developers and how much time and money they are willing to spend to create a high caliber game--look at Ninja Gaiden.

Then the 1080p stuff. I don't ever recall them stating that every game would run at 1080p. Heck, most of their games scheduled for the launch were reported to be locked at 720p--and these reports were 6-12 months prior to the actual launch. However, games can run at 1080p--and it seems at time goes by.... more and more new releases are in 1080p. I would venture a guess that nearly all games released from 2008 on will all be 1080p.

As far as your 4d comments in the original post, are you serious? Do you even know what 4d is? Most people don't. This was clearly either a mistake on Kutaragis part (as he knows very little english and makes many mistakes when speaking the language) or it was a stupid pointless comment to hype the machine--you know about hype and how that works? Companies constantly say things that mean nothing but sounds cool to get consumers to purchase their product... see titanium squared batteries--titanium has nothing to do with electrical storage (and there is no titanium even in the making of the battery) yet it sounds cool and impressive. Marketing, plain and simple.

I hope I have cleared up some of your misconceptions. And don't ever think that any system is ever going to deliver on the hype within its first year of launch. Most systems don't start coming into its own for at least two to three years post launch. If you are not impressed with the PS3 or 360 2-3 years after launch, then you will have a valid reason to be dissappointed. Until then, happy gaming and I hope that all systems deliver what you expect.

[QUOTE="makingmusic476"]

Don't tell me you actually fell for that 120 fps stuff. You must've been a major Sony fanboy back in the day to have done that. Honestly, why would a dev do 120 fps of anyhting when they could make a better looking game at 60 fps? Hell, i've been running Source at 120 fps for a while now, but it doesn't look as good as UT3.

And who would've even wanted dual HDMI or anything like that? Mst that was taken was taken out because it wasn't looked upon as good in anyway by the media, and they needed to cut costs as it was. Dual hdmi? yippee.

Also, the ps3 can do everything you were praising the 360 for at its launch. Stream videos, download demos, etc. etc.

Ninja-Vox

Exactly. It can equal the "xbox 1.5" - but even its streaming of video and music over a wireless network is not to the 360's standard. The point is, it was meant to annihilate it. Make it look like a last-gen machine. It ended up being pretty much the same.

As for your "who would want dual-HDMI anyway..." and "what kind of developer would want 120fps..." - its irrelevant. The point is, they promised it, and didn't deliver it.

How is it not to the 360's standard? As far as I know, the 360 can only stream media from a PC with eitherM edia Center or WMP 11. The PS3 can stream media from any DNLA enabled device, which includes PCs, Macs, DVRs, etc.

And as for 120fps, it CAN do it. Any console out now can do it. It's just that the DEVELOPERS choose not to. They choose to sacrifice such insanely high framerates for a better looking game.

[QUOTE="makingmusic476"]

Don't tell me you actually fell for that 120 fps stuff. You must've been a major Sony fanboy back in the day to have done that. Honestly, why would a dev do 120 fps of anyhting when they could make a better looking game at 60 fps? Hell, i've been running Source at 120 fps for a while now, but it doesn't look as good as UT3.

And who would've even wanted dual HDMI or anything like that? Mst that was taken was taken out because it wasn't looked upon as good in anyway by the media, and they needed to cut costs as it was. Dual hdmi? yippee.

Also, the ps3 can do everything you were praising the 360 for at its launch. Stream videos, download demos, etc. etc.

Ninja-Vox

Exactly. It can equal the "xbox 1.5" - but even its streaming of video and music over a wireless network is not to the 360's standard. The point is, it was meant to annihilate it. Make it look like a last-gen machine. It ended up being pretty much the same.

As for your "who would want dual-HDMI anyway..." and "what kind of developer would want 120fps..." - its irrelevant. The point is, they promised it, and didn't deliver it.

No they did not! This was never promised. The original alpha design of the PS3 had dual HDMI--this was a Prototype. A prototype means that ALL specs are subject to change. Sony decided that it was to costly to have dual HDMI and that most games would not support this function as not many people have one HDTV let alone two in the same room to take advantage of this function. This was a SMART cost savings move. The PS3 cost enough as it is, would you really want to pay more for it.

And again the 120fps was never promised and explained in my previous post.

No they did not! This was never promised. The original alpha design of the PS3 had dual HDMI--this was a Prototype. A prototype means that ALL specs are subject to change. Sony decided that it was to costly to have dual HDMI and that most games would not support this function as not many people have one HDTV let alone two in the same room to take advantage of this function. This was a SMART cost savings move. The PS3 cost enough as it is, would you really want to pay more for it.

And again the 120fps was never promised and explained in my previous post.

HuhJustaBox

Then why was everyone bragging about it?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="makingmusic476"]

Don't tell me you actually fell for that 120 fps stuff. You must've been a major Sony fanboy back in the day to have done that. Honestly, why would a dev do 120 fps of anyhting when they could make a better looking game at 60 fps? Hell, i've been running Source at 120 fps for a while now, but it doesn't look as good as UT3.

And who would've even wanted dual HDMI or anything like that? Mst that was taken was taken out because it wasn't looked upon as good in anyway by the media, and they needed to cut costs as it was. Dual hdmi? yippee.

Also, the ps3 can do everything you were praising the 360 for at its launch. Stream videos, download demos, etc. etc.

HuhJustaBox

Exactly. It can equal the "xbox 1.5" - but even its streaming of video and music over a wireless network is not to the 360's standard. The point is, it was meant to annihilate it. Make it look like a last-gen machine. It ended up being pretty much the same.

As for your "who would want dual-HDMI anyway..." and "what kind of developer would want 120fps..." - its irrelevant. The point is, they promised it, and didn't deliver it.

No they did not! This was never promised. The original alpha design of the PS3 had dual HDMI--this was a Prototype. A prototype means that ALL specs are subject to change. Sony decided that it was to costly to have dual HDMI and that most games would not support this function as not many people have one HDTV let alone two in the same room to take advantage of this function. This was a SMART cost savings move. The PS3 cost enough as it is, would you really want to pay more for it.

And again the 120fps was never promised and explained in my previous post.

ownage approved :lol:

Can you quote a Sony rep on the 1080p/120fps thing, cuz I don't think they said EVERY game.
Also note that not unlike many, many other companies, Sony is using hype to generate interest. This is pretty common these days. Look at the movies. They're the worst example of not delivering. As long as they generate enough hype to get millions into the theatre seats, they've done what they needed. The movie itself doesn't have to be as astounding as the trailer, because the people paid to get in and the money is made. This of course isn't exactly the same type of situation, but they got a ton of interest with the PS3 and it is a great console, which as we can now see is starting to live up to that hype. Not in the 120fps area, but more and more 1080p games are on the way and the graphics/gameplay are looking fantastic on first party and third party exclusives. Heavenly Sword, LAIR, MGS4, Drake's Fortune, probably KZ2, FFXIII, etc. The addition of WiFi, Bluray, HDD, and BCfor example are just some of the targets that Sony met right off the bat. They made a big sacrifice in doing so as well (mostly with Bluray.)

With all that said, I can definitely agree it's a bit of a let down when they say there's going to be 120fps and full 1080p on every game, but as I mentioned before I don't recall them saying EVERY game would support it. The whole 120fps thing wasn't even talked about very much and wasn'tintended to be a bigselling point at all.

_AsasN_

I KNOW its a great console. I dont understand all of the replies of this nature, telling me of all the games which are coming, and about how awesome HOME will be. I know. I own one. It's a brilliant machine. My point is, that had Sony not generated so much hype through lies and exaggeration, perhaps the Playstation 3 would be recognised for what it is, rather than hated on for what it isn't, and was never going to be; a crazy supercomputer.

If you believe in what PR says, even in the impossible... then you shouldnt be posting here.

ANd please be real... the 2 major problems of the PS3 is Price and Games. Thats it. And it being fixed... next time separate reality with fanboy crap.

nice post, agree on all points therekruesader

Either way, I was here when the Cow belief was that the PS3 would put the 360 to absolute shame...and now Cows seem content to have games that are "on par" with 360 games. cheers to lowered expectations, I guess.

How is it not to the 360's standard? As far as I know, the 360 can only stream media from a PC with eitherM edia Center or WMP 11. The PS3 can stream media from any DNLA enabled device, which includes PCs, Macs, DVRs, etc.

And as for 120fps, it CAN do it. Any console out now can do it. It's just that the DEVELOPERS choose not to. They choose to sacrifice such insanely high framerates for a better looking game.

makingmusic476

Windows Media Player, Zune or Windows Media edition. Two of those are free downloads. Also, i can press a button and change the in-game music to whatever song i like, whenever i like. The PS3's menu is also really bad at displaying your music; the top-down column thing just doesn't work.

And now we have somewhat of a break amongst cows; i've got you telling me the PS3 CAN do 120fps, and others saying i'm an idiot for believing it ever would.

If you believe in what PR says, even in the impossible... then you shouldnt be posting here.Tamarind_Face

ha! Tell that to the Post-E3 Cows. Most of the reason for the hype wasn't "PR". It was the on-stage "in-game" demos and trailers from E3 2005. It was the claims Cell could and would do for gaming. It was nVidia telling us how amazing the RSX was. And so much more.

Yea to bad the PS3 is stuck at 30 FPS for all football games this year.


qoute from joystick

http://www.joystiq.com/2005/10/28/playstation-3-will-do-120-fps/

Speaking at the Tokyo International Digital Conference yesterday, Ken Kutaragi boasted that the PS3 should be capable of running games at 120 fps. Of course, even newer TV displays aren't capable of refreshing 120 times per second, but when the technology gets there, Kutaragi hopes that the PS3 will be ready and willing to comply. If the PS3 ever manages to take advantage of this purported capability, then it will certainly put those 30 fps "next-gen" games to shame


another qoute from Gamespot

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6136786.html

"Appearing at the Tokyo International Digital Conference on Thursday to talk about the technological capabilities of the PlayStation 3 and the Cell processor, Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi said he expects the PS3 to be capable of running games at a stunning 120fps, according to a report in The Nikkei BP."

[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"]

No they did not! This was never promised. The original alpha design of the PS3 had dual HDMI--this was a Prototype. A prototype means that ALL specs are subject to change. Sony decided that it was to costly to have dual HDMI and that most games would not support this function as not many people have one HDTV let alone two in the same room to take advantage of this function. This was a SMART cost savings move. The PS3 cost enough as it is, would you really want to pay more for it.

And again the 120fps was never promised and explained in my previous post.

D0013ER

Then why was everyone bragging about it?

I don't have a clue. Why don't you ask them? I mean no disrespect and am not aiming this at you--butin general--you can't say that Sony lied because some idiot fanboy lacks comprehension skills and braggs about something that Sony really never said or promised. Again this is for everyone, as I see this happen all of the time, with all console makers getting attacked. The lack of comprehension needs to be resolved, and I hope I helped a little in this thread.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="-Spock-"]

I don't mean to sound rude, but if you honestly believed that stuff you deserve to be disappointed.

Seriously, this crap was spawned from the babblebus himself, Mr. *Resigned* Ken Kuteragi.

HuhJustaBox

There was about a six month period in system wars were cows were rampant, and an "xbox 1.5" era set in whereby nothing on the 360 was "true" next gen, and everybody was comparing CGI images of Killzone and Motorstorm to PDZ and PGR3 to show how pathetic the 360 was and how epic the PS3 was going to be.

Pretty much everyone believed it. Those who said it was false were seen as haters. Heck, i remember the day the Killzone footage was released and threads claiming it was bogus were locked for trolling. People thought it was the real deal; you cant just say they were stupid to do so, because Sony themselves were the ones making all of these promises. You cant expect people, let alone fanboys, to have somebody bluntly say "our machine will run all games at 1080p, 120fps" and then shrug that off as a lie that will never happen.

This is an utter lie. They never said this.

This was all a misconception that never got straightened out. Sony claimed that the PS3 was powerful enough to run games at 120fps. However, they never promised this. Do you want to know why? Because it is just a bullet point in a presentation to show the power of the PS3. It cannot be used in the real world as there is NO tv that has a 120fps refresh rate. Which makes it pointless to have games run at 120fps.

And please don't retort this by yelling about games running at 30 fps--because this is clearly up to developers and how much time and money they are willing to spend to create a high caliber game--look at Ninja Gaiden.

Then the 1080p stuff. I don't ever recall them stating that every game would run at 1080p. Heck, most of their games scheduled for the launch were reported to be locked at 720p--and these reports were 6-12 months prior to the actual launch. However, games can run at 1080p--and it seems at time goes by.... more and more new releases are in 1080p. I would venture a guess that nearly all games released from 2008 on will all be 1080p.

As far as your 4d comments in the original post, are you serious? Do you even know what 4d is? Most people don't. This was clearly either a mistake on Kutaragis part (as he knows very little english and makes many mistakes when speaking the language) or it was a stupid pointless comment to hype the machine--you know about hype and how that works? Companies constantly say things that mean nothing but sounds cool to get consumers to purchase their product... see titanium squared batteries--titanium has nothing to do with electrical storage (and there is no titanium even in the making of the battery) yet it sounds cool and impressive. Marketing, plain and simple.

I hope I have cleared up some of your misconceptions. And don't ever think that any system is ever going to deliver on the hype within its first year of launch. Most systems don't start coming into its own for at least two to three years post launch. If you are not impressed with the PS3 or 360 2-3 years after launch, then you will have a valid reason to be dissappointed. Until then, happy gaming and I hope that all systems deliver what you expect.

I can't belive how people actually fell for the 4D-comment. I mean, everybody says it's supposed to be something about time and how can the ps3 ever be able to do something that's about time?

people should have known Ken must have been high or did't know what he was talking about.

and btw: Ownage Approved :lol:

sadly many people wont remember this and will still claim they "promised" 120 fps and dual 1080p...

Very good post TC... :D

Its sad to see all the damage control from the Sony fanboys on this topic. The horrible attempts to twist Sony follies serves no purpose because the world has clearly responded to the smoke and mirrors campaign of the PS3 which is why its not selling. Its not the price alone thats killing the PS3, its the blatant lies ontop of lies that consumers could not stomach any longer. You are right TC, the PS3 was suppose annihilate the competition by wiping the Wii and 360 off the map but somehow fell in between the two systems performance wise and dead last in sales. The all mighty Cell, RSX, and Blu-ray combination was suppose to make even the most robust gaming pc look obsolete but in practice looks subpar to the "inferior" competition.

Hopefully Sony will learn from their fill of humble pie this gen!!!

Game On...

[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"]

This was never promised. The original alpha design of the PS3 had dual HDMI--this was a Prototype. A prototype means that ALL specs are subject to change. Sony decided that it was to costly to have dual HDMI and that most games would not support this function as not many people have one HDTV let alone two in the same room to take advantage of this function. This was a SMART cost savings move. The PS3 cost enough as it is, would you really want to pay more for it.

And again the 120fps was never promised and explained in my previous post.

Cyberfairy

ownage approved :lol:

*edited out obnoxious font*

Would you like me to get a video of Ken Kutaragi at E3 saying the Playstation 3 WILL have a gigabit ethernet port, WILL have dual-HDMI? At no point does he say "unless we decide to scrap all this as its just a prototype..."

No. He got up, on stage, at the PS3 unveiling conferance and told us what the machine WILL have. "It was just a prototype" is an awful excuse at best...

Yea to bad the PS3 is stuck at 30 FPS for all football games this year.


qoute from joystick

http://www.joystiq.com/2005/10/28/playstation-3-will-do-120-fps/

Speaking at the Tokyo International Digital Conference yesterday, Ken Kutaragi boasted that the PS3 should be capable of running games at 120 fps. Of course, even newer TV displays aren't capable of refreshing 120 times per second, but when the technology gets there, Kutaragi hopes that the PS3 will be ready and willing to comply. If the PS3 ever manages to take advantage of this purported capability, then it will certainly put those 30 fps "next-gen" games to shame


another qoute from Gamespot

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6136786.html

"Appearing at the Tokyo International Digital Conference on Thursday to talk about the technological capabilities of the PlayStation 3 and the Cell processor, Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi said he expects the PS3 to be capable of running games at a stunning 120fps, according to a report in The Nikkei BP."

swanlee

expecting something isn't the same as a promise ...

so this is what fanboy are bashing sony about? what ken "believes" and "expects"? Lemmings...pathetic....

I don't have a clue. Why don't you ask them? I mean no disrespect and am not aiming this at you--butin general--you can't say that Sony lied because some idiot fanboy lacks comprehension skills and braggs about something that Sony really never said or promised. Again this is for everyone, as I see this happen all of the time, with all console makers getting attacked. The lack of comprehension needs to be resolved, and I hope I helped a little in this thread.

HuhJustaBox

Oh I feel you, don't worry. My main point is all the post-launch skepticism about PS3 propaganda was much harder to come by in the years before its launch, and like Ninja-Vox said, those skeptics were often tagged as trolls.

this is the kind of imagery burned into minds that Sony will never live up to.

Very good post TC... :D

Its sad to see all the damage control from the Sony fanboys on this topic. The horrible attempts to twist Sony follies serves no purpose because the world has clearly responded to the smoke and mirrors campaign of the PS3 which is why its not selling. Its not the price alone thats killing the PS3, its the blatant lies ontop of lies that consumers could not stomach any longer. You are right TC, the PS3 was suppose annihilate the competition by wiping the Wii and 360 off the map but somehow fell in between the two systems performance wise and dead last in sales. The all mighty Cell, RSX, and Blu-ray combination was suppose to make even the most robust gaming pc look obsolete but in practice looks subpar to the "inferior" competition.

Hopefully Sony will learn from their fill of humble pie this gen!!!

Game On...

FatalDomain

did you even read hujustabox's posts? not? thought so...

When you believe hype more than gameplay videos and fact sheets then you will find yourself very disappointed in almost every aspect of gaming.

Yea to bad the PS3 is stuck at 30 FPS for all football games this year.


qoute from joystick

http://www.joystiq.com/2005/10/28/playstation-3-will-do-120-fps/

Speaking at the Tokyo International Digital Conference yesterday, Ken Kutaragi boasted that the PS3 should be capable of running games at 120 fps. Of course, even newer TV displays aren't capable of refreshing 120 times per second, but when the technology gets there, Kutaragi hopes that the PS3 will be ready and willing to comply. If the PS3 ever manages to take advantage of this purported capability, then it will certainly put those 30 fps "next-gen" games to shame


another qoute from Gamespot

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6136786.html

"Appearing at the Tokyo International Digital Conference on Thursday to talk about the technological capabilities of the PlayStation 3 and the Cell processor, Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi said he expects the PS3 to be capable of running games at a stunning 120fps, according to a report in The Nikkei BP."

swanlee

Thank you for finding the quotes to prove my point. Sony NEVER promised games to run at 120fps. All they said was that it is capable.

As far as the 30fps football games--Devs just don't have the PS3 down yet. Look at 360--this will be the first 360 football game to run at 60fps. The last two were locked at 30fps. It all comes down to devs. Look at NGS--locked at 60fps and 1080p. The devs hold all of the power on whether or not they are going to make a quality and technically advanced game.

[QUOTE="Cyberfairy"][QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"]

This was never promised. The original alpha design of the PS3 had dual HDMI--this was a Prototype. A prototype means that ALL specs are subject to change. Sony decided that it was to costly to have dual HDMI and that most games would not support this function as not many people have one HDTV let alone two in the same room to take advantage of this function. This was a SMART cost savings move. The PS3 cost enough as it is, would you really want to pay more for it.

And again the 120fps was never promised and explained in my previous post.

Ninja-Vox

ownage approved :lol:

*edited out obnoxious font*

Would you like me to get a video of Ken Kutaragi at E3 saying the Playstation 3 WILL have a gigabit ethernet port, WILL have dual-HDMI? At no point does he say "unless we decide to scrap all this as its just a prototype..."

No. He got up, on stage, at the PS3 unveiling conferance and told us what the machine WILL have. "It was just a prototype" is an awful excuse at best...

Do it, so it'll make these 'bu bu he never said taht!!1' people clam up.

According to this post at Kotaku, the CPU that will be used in the Sony Playstation 3 is up to three times faster than that used in Microsofts' XBox360.

Gamers will be waiting until the end of the generation to see the 200 gigaflopping electrons to make their presence known in the PS3.

this is the kind of imagery burned into minds that Sony will never live up to.

Dreams-Visions

Nope, Sony nevershowedthat projection. That is obviously a photoshopped image made by a Lemming.

/Cow impersonation

[QUOTE="swanlee"]

Yea to bad the PS3 is stuck at 30 FPS for all football games this year.


qoute from joystick

http://www.joystiq.com/2005/10/28/playstation-3-will-do-120-fps/

Speaking at the Tokyo International Digital Conference yesterday, Ken Kutaragi boasted that the PS3 should be capable of running games at 120 fps. Of course, even newer TV displays aren't capable of refreshing 120 times per second, but when the technology gets there, Kutaragi hopes that the PS3 will be ready and willing to comply. If the PS3 ever manages to take advantage of this purported capability, then it will certainly put those 30 fps "next-gen" games to shame


another qoute from Gamespot

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6136786.html

"Appearing at the Tokyo International Digital Conference on Thursday to talk about the technological capabilities of the PlayStation 3 and the Cell processor, Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi said he expects the PS3 to be capable of running games at a stunning 120fps, according to a report in The Nikkei BP."

HuhJustaBox

Thank you for finding the quotes to prove my point. Sony NEVER promised games to run at 120fps. All they said was that it is capable.

As far as the 30fps football games--Devs just don't have the PS3 down yet. Look at 360--this will be the first 360 football game to run at 60fps. The last two were locked at 30fps. It all comes down to devs. Look at NGS--locked at 60fps and 1080p. The devs hold all of the power on whether or not they are going to make a quality and technically advanced game.

dude, this kind of damage control...it's just clear to me that you haven't been here the last 2 years. this was the kind of info Cows used day in and day out to suppose dominance over competing consoles. even over PCs. You wouldn't have been fighting against PS3 fanboys then, so it's humerous to try to paint them all as crazy now.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

this is the kind of imagery burned into minds that Sony will never live up to.

Verge_6

Nope, Sony nevershowedthat projection. That is obviously a photoshopped image made by a Lemming.

/Cow impersonation

sony may never live up that that, yes, but you remember black for the ps2 right? that game had better graphics then most xbox-games had.

Sony never promised those things.no_submission

EXACTLY, IT WAS THE FANBOYS ON FORUMS THAT HYPED THE CONSOLE, NOT SONY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wzmf0ChL24

Though fanboyish, the video has a lovely section of Ken telling us what the Playstation 3 WILL have, at the PS3 unveiling conferance. For all the fanboys who say "thats just what he expected..." or "what he was thinking...". No. They didn't put together a powerpoint and let Ken get onstage to say what was on his mind.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

this is the kind of imagery burned into minds that Sony will never live up to.

Verge_6

Nope, Sony nevershowedthat projection. That is obviously a photoshopped image made by a Lemming.

/Cow impersonation

indeed. that's the rationale from the young Cows. if their elders came in here though, they'd feel embarassed. the PS3 has been heralded as the system to 'Dreamcast' the others. The visual prowess to be unmatched. Yea....not so much.

[QUOTE="swanlee"]

Yea to bad the PS3 is stuck at 30 FPS for all football games this year.


qoute from joystick

http://www.joystiq.com/2005/10/28/playstation-3-will-do-120-fps/

Speaking at the Tokyo International Digital Conference yesterday, Ken Kutaragi boasted that the PS3 should be capable of running games at 120 fps. Of course, even newer TV displays aren't capable of refreshing 120 times per second, but when the technology gets there, Kutaragi hopes that the PS3 will be ready and willing to comply. If the PS3 ever manages to take advantage of this purported capability, then it will certainly put those 30 fps "next-gen" games to shame


another qoute from Gamespot

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6136786.html

"Appearing at the Tokyo International Digital Conference on Thursday to talk about the technological capabilities of the PlayStation 3 and the Cell processor, Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi said he expects the PS3 to be capable of running games at a stunning 120fps, according to a report in The Nikkei BP."

Cyberfairy

expecting something isn't the same as a promise ...

so this is what fanboy are bashing sony about? what ken "believes" and "expects"? Lemmings...pathetic....

Your lame attempt at damage control is pathetic... I seen fanboys go nuts over their console of choice going down the tubes, but the Sony fanboys are rediculous. Sega fanboys fought a good battle about the Saturn and DC going down. The N64 and GC fanboys were in complete denial about Ninty's being out of touch with gamers, but damn the Sony fanboys take the cake by completely ignoring what their own executives have promised!! If you cant take the word from the head of the company that produces the product, then who are you suppose to believe in whether or not the product will provide what was promised?!?!?

Game On....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wzmf0ChL24

Though fanboyish, the video has a lovely section of Ken telling us what the Playstation 3 WILL have, at the PS3 unveiling conferance. For all the fanboys who say "thats just what he expected..." or "what he was thinking...". No. They didn't put together a powerpoint and let Ken get onstage to say what was on his mind.

Ninja-Vox

[QUOTE="no_submission"]Sony never promised those things.gameruk2010

EXACTLY, IT WAS THE FANBOYS ON FORUMS THAT HYPED THE CONSOLE, NOT SONY!

hmmm...yea, me thinks Ninja-Vox just owned you. Cows and their short-term memories.

[QUOTE="no_submission"]Sony never promised those things.gameruk2010

EXACTLY, IT WAS THE FANBOYS ON FORUMS THAT HYPED THE CONSOLE, NOT SONY!

Sony used the term 1.5 which made it main stream.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

this is the kind of imagery burned into minds that Sony will never live up to.

Cyberfairy

Nope, Sony nevershowedthat projection. That is obviously a photoshopped image made by a Lemming.

/Cow impersonation

sony may never live up that that, yes, but you remember black for the ps2 right? that game had better graphics then most xbox-games had.

And it looked just as good if not better on the Xbox. You're point? It wasn't a PS2 exlcusive or anything.