PS3 drops in price

[Forestkuan2]

I just want tp clarify with everyone that Socom: Confrontation and SOCOM 4 are two seperate games. And Zabka if you don't like the 64 player games on SOCOM 4, then don't even bother playing WArHawk, as my friend told me that they just changed it to 80 players in a game.

[CHRIST]

because hideki matsui invented a way so that people can actually get IN TO the game.

Hideki Matsui is a baseball player for the Yankees.

[Zabka]

I just want tp clarify with everyone that Socom: Confrontation and SOCOM 4 are two seperate games. And Zabka if you don't like the 64 player games on SOCOM 4, then don't even bother playing WArHawk, as my friend told me that they just changed it to 80 players in a game.

That's why I think Confrontation sounds kick ass and Socom 4 (if similar to 3) will not be so appealing to me.

Warhawk does have a lot of players online--but from what I have read and heard from people on the beta, it is segmented very well so that while it is still a large battlefield, the whole thing functions more like smaller maps linked together. For example, one of the problems in SWBF1 with the fighters on land maps was that they were too dominant to ground forces on maps like Dune Sea. That would be a problem with Warhawk too, but I have heard that it is not easy to make strafing runs to the ground and in fact you become an easy target for anti-aircraft, basically making the flying more about whatever flying objectives there are and dogfighting. To me that makes sense. Unlike Battlefield2: Modern Combat where the Choppers would tear people up until somebody took them down. Weapons/vehicle/map balance is EVERYTHING in a multiplayer game to me. It sounds like Warhawk has it. Socom3/CA did not which is why I only played in small map rooms.

It isn't the number of people. It is the design of the game. The larger the number of people, the more well designed the maps need to be to account for balance issues. Socom did a poor job of it in my eyes----especially as survival game. If it were a sharpshooter/respawn game then lack of balance is still a bit more tolerable--or if they had more evening out of the vehicles like in BF2MC or made it more challenging for snipers to just camp out and pick off anybody who has to move from one place to the other. But so many of the large maps involved almost no medium quarters combat, only long range and vehicles that I found it annoying. In addition, larger numbers mean longer rounds. Longer rounds mean longer wait times in a survival (suppression) match. Poor design for gameplay--hence I don't know a socom2 player who actually prefers socom3/CA. That's why Confrontation should be kick ass. And we'll see how Socom4 is---hopefully they have learned. But if it is Zipper, I am not certain.

[Zabka]

Looks like Unreal Tournament is launching on PS3 and PC first. Looks like they didn't want to get lost in the Halo3 launch. Having never played the other games, no big deal, but I have heard the game is awesome and that's good for Sony.

[CHRIST]

I thought there were two separate Unreal games being released, I remember earlier in the year that it was UT 2007 for PS3, and UT3 for 360.

[Steven]

I think I may install Linux later and see what I can do with it. Looks like it runs sort of slow for most people, and most of its functions can be done on a PC anyway, but it might still be worth taking a look at.

[BOSS]

I honestly think that sony has dug there whole to deep, and if they need to revive there selves. They sure do need a bigger game then haze burnout resolution or what ever and Socom 4.

They need something drastic. Take this for example. Halo 1,2,3 and halo wars have its series and is a huge HUGE HUUUUGEE! Wammy to the 360 presentation. not to mention gears of war crackdown call of duty. All of these great games made a big time on the xbox. Especially halo. Halo has been the number one seller for xbox just for people buying the damn thing just so people can play that damn game!

Now ask yourself this. If sony cant come out with a bigger game then socom. What does that tell you.

Sony is at the point they are struggling for an opening in the gaming industry.

They are looking for that right game to set off a hit in the ps3 market.

And I can GAURNTEEE! YOU!!! that socom confrontation is not that game.


Sony will not make it very far unless they make something big!


Sony just may end up with there heads up there @$$'*.

But hey! It's just reaver talking right? Im on skittles right now so dont listen to me.

I know your trying to make a point Reaver but some of those comments are asking for another PS3 vs 360 war so lay off the skittles lol. You say the PS3 has to come out with something big and with you having a PS2 at a point should know some possibilites instead of actually trying to make MS look good (and people call us Sony fanboys). Halo was big on the xbox cause if I remember correctly back then xbox was the one with less titles than the PS2 so with limited choices of course fans are going to like the game.

With that being said Halo has become very overrated, a good game yes, a fun game yes, but way too many see it as the god of games. Hence why now every shooter game has to be considered the one as the "Halo killer" which seems to be what you are trying to state as the big game, right Reaver? After seeing the ending to Halo 2 I can only imagine how Halo 3 is going to end but thats just me. There are plenty of "big games" the PS3 will have: Warhawk, Unreal Tournament, Haze, Killzone 2, Socom 4, Ratchet and Clank, etc. not to mention that even today the community for Resistance grows to the point where its hard to find an open server.

Back on topic, I do believe the PS3 price drop will be beneficial as it has many features which apparantly 360 users are unaware of:

1. Internet Browser
2. Downloadables (games, demos, trailers, movies, system updates, etc.)
3. Playstation Store
4. Chat rooms (mic chat rooms)
5. Buddy Lists
6. Text Messaging
AND MUCH MORE

Not only should this attract more people in getting a PS3 but I hope that this makes most 360 users realize that the PS3 has more to offer than they thought. I could really care less about Sony or Microsoft, in the end they are just companies that want one thing...money. I just want a good gaming experience that is my money's worth and I can honestly say that the PS3 is.

So if you haven't actually played the PS3 for yourself or 360 you can't really say anything to the point where one lacks something the other does.

[Deslock]

So if you haven't actually played the PS3 for yourself or 360 you can't really say anything to the point where one lacks something the other does.

I have to concur with Boss. Until you've actually sat down and played on one and truly experienced what it's like, it's easy to say: "Eh, it's not that much better than a 360". I had one of my buddies come over for dinner a few nights ago, and I showed him everything you can do with it.

He was blown away. And actually purchased one tonight. :D

We now have two whole game cases devoted for PS3 games, and we cannot keep PS3's in stock. I know that everyone's saying that the 360 is selling more units, but I guess I live in a warp zone here, because we actually sell more PS3's than 360's. And I've noticed since we've posted the price drop, there has been ALOT more interest in the system. So who knows maybe it will help Sony now. I sincerely hope it does. Not because I'm a Sony fanboy, but truth be told, it is an awesome machine in sooooo many ways.:)

I had another friend of mine over just to hang out, and let him try his hand at Resistance, and Blazing Angels, and all he did was remark at the immense level of graphic detail, and the complete lack of lag, and the VERY quick loading times.

But truth be told, it all boils down to what each indivdual is looking for in regards to their own personal gaming experience. There really isn't a "wrong" machine. The Wii has some downright awesome fun games, but next to nothing in regards to online content or multiplayer.

The 360 has a brilliant, if not buggy machine, that has wonderful online support. You have to pay for it, but gamers have decided that they're happy with what they're paying for. Noblese Oblige. Halo has a HUGE loyal fanbase, and the 360 has a very, very good selection of games to choose from.

The PS3 is pricey, but it can damn near do anything you throw at it.

Some consumers want cheap. Some want support and selection. Others want the very next Gen system that can do anything. And none of these groups are "wrong".

Sony, by choosing to have the machine that can almost do anything, also makes it the most expensive. A very dangerous place to be. Very risky for them, in regards to profit.

[Reaver]

im sorry boss. I was in the looney bin that night, I had to many skittles and to include an AMP.

I was under the influence.

I played ps3 one time. But that was in best buy, and untill the game system shut off and said system error read.

I am no fanboy im just a nitendo hater.

[{KOR}Longhorn]

The HOME program coming out later this year should also get people to buy a PS3. The E3 presentation even mentioned private, invite-only rooms for clans to meet and then launch into a game together. That is a great idea and I look forward to doing that with SWBF3.

And to be fair, playing online and using a WiFi adaptor (which I use frequently on my PS3), the 360 costs more than a $599 PS3. I've been very happy with my PS3, but I'm also not a big shooter game fan. So games like Halo and GoW are unimportant to me, so I have little reason to buy a 360. It seems to be great for shooter games, but everything else is available on the PS3.

I'm looking forward to all the new exclusives that people don't talk about since they are brand new franchises. Games likes UNCHARTED, LAIR, HEAVENLY SWORD, and WARHAWK look great and should be big sellers for the PS3 as the year goes on.

-KOR Longhorn

[Zabka]

I would be surprised if HOME swings anybody towards the PS3 over another system. It sounds like an upgrade over the existing interface though---although the graphical representation being Sims-like doesn't appeal to me at all---actually takes away from the functionality to me.

The clan chat room thing is a very good function to have. I presume that the various mic issues I have heard about in both PS3 and in Ps2 games will not be there. The 360 doesn't have chat rooms available for group chat since you can simply create a private game for your clan. That's what my RB6 squad does ahead of matches. We set up a practice room where we talk things out.

PS3 does have some appealing coming out. I am not an RPG or fantasy game type of guy, but some of them could be fun. But Longhorn, a couple of the games you are mentioning are shooters: SWBF, Warkhawk are both shooters. If you mean First Person shooter, then Gears of War is not in that category.

As for the wireless adapter, I had to use one for my PS2 gaming. So I use the same one for my 360 and PS2 now. If somebody wasn't gaming wirelessly before, they likely don't need to with the new console. If they were, the wireless gaming adapter should work. But your math is still wrong. 360 Pro is $399, a year of Live can be had for about $40, and a gaming adapter costs about $80.

[{KOR}Longhorn]

Well SWBF2 is a shooter, but it is Star Wars first. That is why I play, and I love the Jedi Battles more than the regular Conquest matches. GoW is a shooter, but just another 360 shooter to me.

HOME will be a lot of fun, and some people may not play games just to hang out in HOME. It is still better than any other online community program available for the other consoles. Imagine your home or RATiX's home pimped out in DSA Star Wars gear? A DSA hangout? Very cool, basically bringing to "life" the DSA message board.

And comparing the $399 Xbox is not comparing apples-to-apples, since it does not have a HDD. THe Elite (at $480) is the closest thing to compare to the PS3 since it has a bigger HDD (120 GB) and a HDMI connection, albeit an inferior HDMI connection. The HDMI allows PS2 games to be upscaled to HD on a HDTV. Then, adding a $100 WiFi adaptor and $40 Xbox live, would bring you to a total of $620, twenty dollars more than the 80GB PS3 which includes a game, MotorStorm. All this without even mentioing the BluRAy player.

Of course, someone could buy the lowest tier version of the 360, but they are lacking the HDD and a chance to play in true HD. Choices, sure, but an inferior version nonetheless. A PS3 is more expensive, no doubt about it, but at least it is complete and has the top-of-the-line features people will want in the near future with HDTVs selling 3-to-1 over SDTVs.

And take it from me, playing SWBF2 online via the PS3 is 10000000x better than the old PS2 Network Adaptor.

[CHRIST]

lol I'm hoping that bluray does as bad as UMD movies, I really don't have the desire to get a new thing to play movies and have to pay more for the movies themselves, a better picture does not justify that much money when DVDs are just fine.

[Zabka]

The $399 console (the Pro) does have an HDD, albeit at 20 gigs, which I have not used half of yet (and 6 gigs are for the operating system, etc, so I have only used 4 gigs. There is a $299 version (Core) without. The Elite comes with a 120gig drive and also comes with an HDMI cable. I have an HDTV, and to be honest, I saw no noticable difference with HDMI versus good component cables, so I returned the cable which cost like $60. I don't game in HDTV, just watch sports and cable in HD. A decent HDMI cable is not cheap, so that offsets the cost of a gaming adapter (get a linksys instead of the xbox one and you can find them for much less). So basically, I get everything I want for much less. I have zero interest in spending time online in a Home-like scenario---I have no interest in myspace or having my own webpage, so having a virtual gaming home holds even less appeal. As I see it, by the time I need a new HDD, I expect the 120 gig drives to be cheaper. By the way, nobody should go for the 299 version of the 360 as a HDD is absolutely key to anybody who wants to play online.

But cost isn't what keeps me from getting a PS3. The 360 just has better titles and a better online mode. As I expect most of the top titles to be multi-platform, I don't have a need for a PS3 at the moment. But if a critical mass of exclusives come out for the PS3, then I will be there. In the meantime, the 360 is just better for clans, playing with friends, and having multiple game options.