Jump to content

PS3 £120 more expensive in the UK...

alex

By alex,
in Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Soma

Soma

Posted
Posted

Pah....its a console to early for its time.

Lets see what happens when Sony are forced to drop its price.

Mind you, by then, then 360 should have a massive user base.

Too early? It was a year late + the european delay! Also, the 360 has a massive user base hasnt it, around 9-10 million? Not that i want to be picky, i guess you have more faith in them than i do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Petrousgyre

Petrousgyre

Posted
Posted

would be quality if ebay turned out to be the place to go and buy one cheap :D

As is already the case in the US, Kotaku reported on PS3s going for less than retail a few weeks back.

Pah....its a console to early for its time.

Yeah, I don't get that either - the questionable merit of blu-ray capacity aside, it seems a console behind its time in many regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap

TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap

Posted
Posted

it seems a console behind its time in many regards.

I don't think that's fair and it echoes the opinions heard when the PS2 just came out. I recall people saying the PS2 games were looking worse than the Dreamcast. But due to the PS2 being complex and different, it took developers quite some time to really push the machine. I expect the same thing with the PS3. So let's see what we're playing in a year's time before deciding on the PS3 being behind the times and all that. I think that when developers get to grips with the machine and it gets momentum, we'll be amazed to see the progress games (or at least the graphics) are going to make. We saw the same thing on the 360 (from 'last gen games with more poly's' to proper next-genness), and I think the leap with the PS3 will be larger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soma

Soma

Posted
Posted

Don't you think the Dreamcast would have reached new heights of performance if it was as successful as the PS2?

Remember when Quake came out on the Saturn, all the Saturn mags were thrilled when Duke 3d, Quake and Hexen were all far superior on the Saturn. Then years down the line Quake 2 came out on the same Playstation and was (relatively) graphically stunning.

I don't think anyone can say the PS2 is far superior to the Dreamcast, it has just had a lot more money poured into learning it's intricacies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Petrousgyre

Petrousgyre

Posted
Posted

I don't think that's fair and it echoes the opinions heard when the PS2 just came out.

Sure, but PS2 wasn't exactly ahead of its time. When Xbox and to a lesser extent GC hit a year later their games looked noticeably better.

Also, to my understanding, the PS3s RSX isn't as much of an unknown as the PS2s vector units were. It's broadly similar to the 360s GPU, if anything architecturally inferior, if we're to believe some reports. It seems unlikely that devs are going to suddenly pull out a massive performance increase disproportionate to the 360.

Regardless of graphics, the rest of the PS3 seems below par for a machine that launched 12 months after 360 - online, controllers, HD scaling, etc etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soma

Soma

Posted
Posted

The PS2 was far more powerful. It's simple fact.

I would have to disagree, on balance the PS2 is the more powerful machine, but certainly not by any huge amount. If Sega had ended up the dominating force then developers would have really got to grips with the DC over a long healthy period of time. Soul Calibur being the shining example of a DC game that looks better than almost any PS2 equivalent title you could throw at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
213

213

Posted
Posted

Saturn was £400!! No wonder Sega don't make hardware anymore... :)

It was £400 quid because you got built in memory, Virtua Fighter, scart lead. Add a game, scart lead, memory card to the psx of the time and hey up £380 or so. I don't know anyone who only spent £300 on their psx at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alex

alex

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It was £400 quid because you got built in memory, Virtua Fighter, scart lead. Add a game, scart lead, memory card to the psx of the time and hey up £380 or so. I don't know anyone who only spent £300 on their psx at the time.

Ah ok. They still didn't win though... I look back to the days when it was Sega vs. Nintendo, not the bizarre love/hate triangle that is Sony vs MS vs Nintendo, with Sega as a software dev...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alex W.

Alex W.

Posted
Posted

It was £400 quid because you got built in memory, Virtua Fighter, scart lead. Add a game, scart lead, memory card to the psx of the time and hey up £380 or so. I don't know anyone who only spent £300 on their psx at the time.

Didn't they bundle Virtua Fighter in a knee-jerk reponse to the PS's significantly smaller RRP, though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alex W.

Alex W.

Posted
Posted

Didn't the Dreamcast do anti-aliasing or some other sweet trick?

I remember seeing Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 running on it and thinking it looked really nice, 60 fps with AA. Could be wrong though.

They Dreamcast did a lot of fancing* things in hardware. I seem to recall that the GPU did some sort of parallel tile rendering. Of course the (British?) developers of the chip were bought by 3dfx, who went bankrupt and thus were never heard of again.

*Meant to write fancy here but I think** this new word.

**Meant to write "like" here

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soma

Soma

Posted
Posted

Wrong

Have you got any evidence to back this up though? I'm not a developer, but i think i'm fair saying that the Dreamcast would have seen some tremendous leaps in performance if it had been a dominant format for 5+ years like the PS2. Bare in mind i'm only saying the PS2 wasn't way beyond the DC, only slightly better.

I'd be interested if you had a case to prove it rather than just effectively saying "It is because i say so!", but i'm not trying to provoke an argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
M.M.S

M.M.S

Posted
Posted

Have you got any evidence to back this up though? I'm not a developer, but i think i'm fair saying that the Dreamcast would have seen some tremendous leaps in performance if it had been a dominant format for 5+ years like the PS2. Bare in mind i'm only saying the PS2 wasn't way beyond the DC, only slightly better.

I'd be interested if you had a case to prove it rather than just effectively saying "It is because i say so!", but i'm not trying to provoke an argument.

No shit. But you don't have to be to notice the bleeding obvious.

Evidence? It's called a tech spec.

Maybe you should look at one before spouting utter crap that makes you look mentalist. Or did you just hear they were both "128bit!!111" and assume they were some how in the same league?

...Or you could just stick Shenmue on and see how it chugs along despite every employee at Sega having worked on it.

The DC was a great machine blah blah blah, but as powerful as a PS2? :unsure:

Aaaaanyway...can we get back to slagging off Sony's latest effort. I get bored to tears these days whenever someone insists on dragging the DC into threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alex W.

Alex W.

Posted
Posted

I think from a specs standpoint the only thing the Dreamcast beat the PS2 on was VRAM, which isn't saying much considering how crappy the PS2's allocation of VRAM was. However we all know how useless specs are as a guide for graphical quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sweet_angel

sweet_angel

Posted
Posted

Have you got any evidence to back this up though? I'm not a developer, but i think i'm fair saying that the Dreamcast would have seen some tremendous leaps in performance if it had been a dominant format for 5+ years like the PS2. Bare in mind i'm only saying the PS2 wasn't way beyond the DC, only slightly better.

I'd be interested if you had a case to prove it rather than just effectively saying "It is because i say so!", but i'm not trying to provoke an argument.

Dreamcast hardware is far superior to that found in the Playstation 2. The Dreamcast had 8 megabytes of video memory compared to the Playstation 4 mb and it suppored texture compresson which the Playstation did not. You only have to see the differences between the version of dead or alive 2!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
M.M.S

M.M.S

Posted
Posted

Shenmue chugs? :unsure:

I can't say I've noticed it chugging.

When running in crowded streets.

I like the way everyone reaches for the DC->PS2 ports when making a comparison, or anything from the shameful PS2 launch line, because we all know they represent what was the PS2 was capable of :D

There's simply hundreds of games out there that went on to far exceed the performance of anything on the DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept