It's what I'm basically saying, Bluray was the reason for the high price tag, and knowing how so far this generation the DVD format can still keep up, it was kinda too early. It worked with the PS2 because when it was released, the dvd format was already stable and a big thing. but, yeh...would have been real interesting tho.I think its the higher price-tag thats keeping the PS3 from selling more than its competition... I believe that should the PS3's price be round USD200 with the current games library, upcoming titles, being a blu-ray player & also offering a good free online service, it would have probably sold 3 x as much during this period of time..
The only reason why less people are buying PS3 is just because its expensive... sometimes fanboys/haters forget that....
With the exception of tastes in gaming i see no other reason why someone wouldnt prefare getting the PS3 if its price was close to its competition..
- Great exclusives & Great Multiplats already available + others coming up / - Free online service / - Reliable hardware / - HDD in all models / - Blu-ray Player / - Internet browser / - Good online store etc etc (thats one amazing package for a console)
Malta_1980
Eyezonmii's forum posts
Early 05? With God of War coming out and so many other games? 04 - 05 was ps2's prime imo. You dont release a new console in the old one's prime, thats terrible business sense.TheGrat1lol, if the PS3 were coming out Early 05, god of war 1 and 2 could have been on the PS3 ;)
The PS3 debuted in early 05 (come on, it should have knowing how long the PS2 has been out for) with the same DVD format at a cheaper price and have slowly overtime released an external Bluray player. (for those who want one)...buy now, the support by devs would have been overwhelming as with any console when launching before the competition.
all i'm saying is, the PS3 had MORE of a reason to come out first..but Sony seemed more focus on the MEDIA side of things. Seeing how the DVD format pushed the PS2 in sales, them thinking as would the bluray for PS3, but it did more damage than good in the beginning. (due to the fact that bluray format was still young so prices were HIGHER)
thoughts?
[QUOTE="Travis_Odell"][QUOTE="FirstDiscovery"]I was impressed by how big Gears 2 environments are, seriously i got lost on many occasions, then add the increased detail, the number of enemies and friendly AI and youve got a game that is FAR ahead of Gears 1FirstDiscoverylol how gears 2 is very linear, that being said gears 2 blew me away with the art style.Its linear, but like i said, you have to consider everything else, and also the jump it is over Gears 1 those JUMPS were achieved by some sacrifices...i noticed Gears 1 having more good textures overall than 2. But gears 2 has better model's, bigger areas, better lighting, etc etc....by my observation.
maybe so, but maxing out a console CAN happen...after that its usually up to neat tricks and better coding to make things LOOK better, even tho it doesn't push the system, etc.There is no such thing as using *insert percentage* of the consoles power.
Or 'maxing out a console'.
This is just **** people throw around to highlight the potential of how they can utilise the consoles resources better.
skrat_01
[QUOTE="W1ckedGo0se"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Same can be said to the TC... If one of your reasons that the 360 is the best is because there is so many games maybe you should look into the PS2...PS3 is the best console you've ever owned? No offense, but did you just start gaming this gen?
BioShockOwnz
SNES > All.
N64 > All.
Log in to comment