| Welcome to Whip Ass Gaming Forums! You're currently viewing the forums as a guest. The only limitation on guests, here at WAG Forums, is that you simply cannot contribute posts/pics/whatever. You can view all forums, all pics, all member profiles, everything. If you're just here to lurk, feel free continuing to do so...there is no reason to sign up for an account. However, if you would like to contribute then go ahead and start the registration process! Join our community! NOTE: I have no idea why the board defaults to centering everything when you're lurking/not logged in. Once logged in, it aligns everything to the left(as it should be). If you're already a member...log in: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The Rage story evolves; PS3 isn't so awesome anymore | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 22 2009, 08:24 PM (1,525 Views) | |
| sheath | Jul 22 2009, 08:24 PM Post #1 |
![]()
I have been, and remain, non-sequitur
|
A couple of years ago we had a post in here, which I couldn't find, that quoted Carmack oozing over the PS3 because of its larger disc storage. Now that the PS3 will *definitely* not be the biggest bread winner for Id, we have a different story. Notice how Rage will be difficult to convert into three DVDs, mainly because Carmack was clearly aiming to fill a Bluray disk. Then notice how Doom 4 will be designed around a 3 DVD structure. It's also worth pointing out that Carmack managed to acknowledge that the 360 version of Rage was easier to develop overall. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/carmack-blu-ray-is-advantageous-for-rage-and-doom-4 Carmack: Blu-ray is advantageous for RAGE and Doom 4 John Carmack has been discussing the advantages and disadvantages of PlayStation 3 versus Xbox 360 development, stating that while games don't require as much compression on Blu-ray, less "sweat equity" has been expended into his studio's Xbox 360 projects. Upcoming id title Doom 4 will "almost certainly" come on three discs, Carmack told GameInformer in an interview, as reported by VG247, although the studio is working on compression methods that will enable RAGE to ship on just two, since the nature of the game doesn't suit more than that. "We would love to set the thing up where it filled one Blu-ray disc versus three DVDs, which is about the right mix, but the game just…we can't cut it into a third like that," said Carmack. "We can cut it into two pieces. We've got two large wastelands on there. We just couldn't make an arbitrary cut." He doesn't foresee the same being a problem for Doom 4, however. "Doom 4 is being set up so that it's almost certainly going to be cut up to three DVDs versus one Blu-ray. At least they've got the ability because of the way it's structured." Storage space aside though, it's been easier for the studio to reach its current development stage on Xbox 360 than it has on PlayStation 3, Carmack revealed, although the Sony console does offer more raw performance. "The 360 was easier to certainly to get to where we are now. More sweat equity had to be put into the PS3," said the id creative director. "There's a little bit more theoretical raw performance on the PS3, so we've got a little bit more headroom." |
|
www.gamepilgrimage.com Buy the games of yore before they are no more
| |
![]() |
|
| Belpowerslave | Jul 22 2009, 10:12 PM Post #2 |
|
Administrator
|
I guess I don't get it...is he saying that id is actually going to put Rage or Doom 4 out on PS3 using multiple DVD discs rather than just a single Blu-Ray disc? Will Sony even allow that? Next: Why ever worry about multiple play discs when *everyone* fucking owns a HDD for the 360 now. With the Arcade unit being phased out, MS needs to man up and allow these two games to be the first "HDD required" titles out there(Hell, Halo 3 *requires* the HDD to play online after all). I mean, just set it up like they'll do it on the PC: You have 3 or 4 discs total, you install the game, only one is required in the drive during play. Not so bad. That's really what I don't get: I thought that all PS3 games required you to install part, or all of the game to its HDD...so why even worry about disc usage on the PS3? Seems like this is a 360-only issue. Bel |
| Whip Ass Gaming | |
![]() |
|
| sheath | Jul 22 2009, 10:23 PM Post #3 |
![]()
I have been, and remain, non-sequitur
|
He's saying that Rage off of the PS3 will require 3 discs and he didn't design Rage to be split three ways easily. As for the install thing, I honestly don't think that installing three DVDs onto a 360 HDD would work very well. So far the HDD feature is for one disc, and I seriously doubt that more people own a 60+GB HDD than 20GB HDDs. With that said, the only issue that Carmack mentioned is that he never planned for Rage to be split into 3 DVDs (with the implication that he didn't think DVDs would still be around in a meaningful way). So, perhaps a single install of all 3 DVDs, or two DVDs as it seems, would be a viable solution. |
|
www.gamepilgrimage.com Buy the games of yore before they are no more
| |
![]() |
|
| sheath | Jul 23 2009, 06:20 AM Post #4 |
![]()
I have been, and remain, non-sequitur
|
Okay, I remember us having a big long discussion about Rage being the make or break point for the "PS3 has more horsepower crowd". I just can't find the discussion. I've found articles referencing Id's statements about Rage and Bluray from 2007 and 2008. The statement has always been the same, the game was being designed to fill a Bluray and max out the Rage engine, and 3 DVDs would be required to eliminate any compression artifacts and blurring on other platforms. There has not been any doubt cast on whether Rage would look better on PS3 versus other platforms cast by Id, except in the hypothetical case that they were forced to super-compress the game onto two DVDs. |
|
www.gamepilgrimage.com Buy the games of yore before they are no more
| |
![]() |
|
| Belpowerslave | Jul 23 2009, 11:17 AM Post #5 |
|
Administrator
|
To me, at least, it just sounds like the 360 is getting the raw end of the deal. The PS3 will get the full game, the PC will get the full game...the 360 gets a cut-up, toned down version. Now, that's not to say that the 360 version will look like ass, or run like an early, 16-bit EA game or some shit, but it just won't be able to match the PS3 version...and not either will compare to the PC version(the way it always is, check the Bionic Commando PC vs 360/PS3 comparison for more proof of that). Bel |
| Whip Ass Gaming | |
![]() |
|
| sheath | Jul 23 2009, 11:59 AM Post #6 |
![]()
I have been, and remain, non-sequitur
|
I'm not seeing what you're seeing in either case. Carmack flat out said that the 360 version was easier to create than the PS3 version. The only comment he made about the PS3 graphics wise is that it had more "theoretical headroom", even though they've wasted more labor on the PS3 game to get it to the same level as the 360 game. The only instance in which the 360 game would have any difference in detail is if they were forced to heavily compress the texture data onto less than 3 DVDs. We've had this conversation before though, I'm really not sure where you're seeing anybody claiming the PS3 version will be better graphically or otherwise. This is it right here, we have a top of the line game engine, designed around High Definition disk storage, and the only difference between platforms will be how many discs you have to think about. Id created a bigger sandbox than ever before, that's what Bluray can bring to your monitor. ;) As for the Bionic Commando comparison, I think the difference in gamma is the biggest between the two. There was one closeup where the face texture had more wrinkles on the PC version, and the rest looked nearly identical. I also noticed more aliasing on the PC version than the 360 version. Better textures on PC games from 2009 is a simple factor of having 1GB+ VRAM in almost all Graphics cards that have come out in the last year. Whereas the 360 has 1GB of unified RAM, and the PS3 only has 512MB VRAM. Now comparing the game running on a PC from 2006-07 would be an apples to apples comparison. All the same, I'd much rather have the shorter load times, no install times, and no crashes of the 360 game if the difference is that negligible. |
|
www.gamepilgrimage.com Buy the games of yore before they are no more
| |
![]() |
|
| Belpowerslave | Jul 23 2009, 01:47 PM Post #7 |
|
Administrator
|
I guess I'm missing it. Didn't he *just say* "We would love to set the thing up where it filled one Blu-ray disc versus three DVDs, which is about the right mix, but the game just…we can't cut it into a third like that," So, unless I'm missing something, they *are* going to heavily compress the texture data on to less than 3 DVDs for the 360 version.
Well, it's all above...if he can fit it all on to one Blu-Ray, uncompressed...and it actually needs *3* DVDs, yet he's going to compress it to fit on just 2...then there's going to be some quality lost. There's no way around that. I mean, look at it from this standpoint: You've got a movie you want to copy, it's on a DVD-9(dual layer) yet you want to fit it on to a DVD-5...something's gotta give. You've either gotta ditch some of the movie, or lower the overall quality to make it fit on the smaller disc. Again, I don't see why he couldn't just put Rage on 3 DVDs and make it a "HDD Required" title. Even with my lame-ass, 14.1GB HDD, I could make room to install 10GB(or whatever) of data...and for this game, I'm sure a lot of other 360 owners could too.
Well, don't get me wrong, the reason the PC versions always look and run better are due to the available upgrades one can purchase. The 360 and PS3 are powerful, but they still don't stack up to a Quad-core machine with a 1.5GB Radeon 4870HD, you know? The PC elitists like to hold this over console owners' heads, and it's true to an extent...but like you mention, not everyone enjoys the PC gaming experience(mouse/keyboard control, crashes, configurations, etc)...but for those who don't mind it, and have the rig to max the game out, it'll always be better on the PC. Bel |
| Whip Ass Gaming | |
![]() |
|
| sheath | Jul 23 2009, 02:08 PM Post #8 |
![]()
I have been, and remain, non-sequitur
|
That's a good point. I wrote that comment off as a "work in progress", developer speak for Carmack scewed up in the design phase by overemphasizing Bluray. If he does design all new compression methods out of this, as he also stated, it will be very interesting to see if we can tell the difference with high compression comparison videos like Gametrailers uses.
Compression pretty much always lowers the definition of audio and video. This is only the case if the game comes out on only two 2 DVDs, which, I honestly can't understand why a third disc can't be utilized unless he's refusing to use the HDD at all. So I see your initial point. We should keep in mind that Carmack was bitching last year about MS having to foot the bill for the third disc, that some additional royalty fee came into play after two discs. This could be corporate speak for "We're going to give you a PR nightmare if you don't cover some of this, no really." If that's the case it's all a question of whether MS wants to lose some of their royalties on the game, versus letting Id take the gamble on whether gamers blame them for over-compressing the game on the most popular "core" platform. I'm intrigued now.
Those are an awful lot of caveats for an industry that has indisputably declined according to Carmack himself |
|
www.gamepilgrimage.com Buy the games of yore before they are no more
| |
![]() |
|
| Belpowerslave | Jul 23 2009, 10:27 PM Post #9 |
|
Administrator
|
We may not be able to...it's possible that Carmack can pull it off(if anyone could, it'd be him), but it's just hard to swallow when you figure a possible *9.4GB* of data is the target of said compression.
I just don't see why a third disc would be so bad for the 360 version, unless the game is *very* Hexen/PowerSlave-like in that you travel back and forth through areas constantly.
If this is the case, MS needs to shut the fuck up and fork over the dough immediately. Rage is not a game they want to have a noticeable end of the stick on. They got very lucky that there was very little difference in GTAIV...were I MS, I would not take that chance again...I'd put something down.
Well, but again, it'd be for those who don't mind the PC gaming experience. Honestly, I'm one of them...I have very few issues with PC games. These nightmares you hear about people not being able to play a brand new game due to installation issues, graphical bugs, anti-piracy measures, etc: I'm not one of them. I've never bought a new(or new-ish) PC game that just wouldn't run. Perhaps I'm lucky, I don't know. Now, I'm a console gamer at heart, so no matter what, the PC will *never* replace the consoles in my eyes...but for stuff like FPS games and titles that push the 360/PS3 to their limits, the PC will always be king just due to changing hardware configurations. Of course, that is a good thing...and it's a bad thing. It's good because if you can't afford to, or simply don't want to upgrade your computer, the 360/PS3 offer very solid alternatives for said game. Forum member Grimshade actually bought a 360 just to play Oblivion because he didn't want to deal with buying a whole new computer so he could run it. It can be bad, however, just due to the money and constant work that needs to be done in order to keep up with today's demanding software. As for the decline of PC gaming, you hit that on the head: It's getting close to dying a very Atari-like death in that it'll crash the entire PC industry. Epic has already stated that Gears of War 2 will *not* coming to PC...ever....due to the unbelievable amount of software piracy. Earlier this year we saw the PC community loose their minds when it was announced that Crysis, or one of those titles, would end it's PC-only exclusivity and be coming to the consoles due to lower rate of piracy. More and more, we're going to be seeing this...sadly. Honestly, I feel like I'm the only person in America who actually pays for PC game software. I know that's not true, but when I read these articles about how angry the developers are about massive chunks of their profits are just disappearing via bittorrent I feel like my entire catalog of legally purchased PC games is completely in vain...like I've just wasted all that money by purchasing the software rather than just stealing it. I can understand their frustration, and I'd be pissed too were I in their shoes...but they need to remember that there are those of us out there who willingly fork over hard-earned dough for their titles... Bel |
| Whip Ass Gaming | |
![]() |
|
| sheath | Jul 24 2009, 09:07 AM Post #10 |
![]()
I have been, and remain, non-sequitur
|
Quakecon 2007 and 2008 had quotes from Carmack stating that he wanted MS to cover the extra royalty fees for the third disc. I don't see any reason to believe that there would be any other reason for not using three discs. Money Money Money.
The experience seems to be entirely different for people who fork over high dollar for a top of the line PC at some point. Since I worked at a local PC build shop I've always insisted on partsing my old PCs and upgrading to new PCs that I build myself. I've also insisted on spending less than $80 per component, including the Video Card, which translates into roughly $300 per computer upgrade. That is, about the cost of a new game console, and about 1/10th of the top of the line PCs. -edit Since 2000 I've owned four PCs, two of which I've since sold off, for an approximate total of $1200. During the same time I've bought a PS2 and Xbox new for $300 and $200 respectively, a Gamecube for $50, and an Xbox 360 for $300, so that's $850 to keep up with all of the console games from the same time period. My experience of PC games has been shoddy at best. Sega PC games just don't work without crashing on any system, so I've needed consoles to keep up with them. Soul Reaver 1 was better on Dreamcast by a wide margin. Soul Reaver 2 didn't work on the PCs I owned until 2006, so I bought the PS2 in 2001 principly for it and DVD playback. I similarly couldn't play Doom 3 on PC at all when it came out, so I eventually bought the Xbox version. Battlefield 2 barely ran on my 2006 system as a minimum spec, crashed frequently and basically aided my decision to upgrade to the Athlon X2 system that I currently own. I'm into tinkering and I like saving money and I only buy well reviewed brand name stuff. I've had problems with PC games almost every time the next big thing comes along. Crysis won't play on my office PC, but will on my single core Mamebox. Aside from Crysis and Battlefield 2 I've found a console alternative each time, though my taste in games excludes most of the standby PC genres. I do think that my experience is generally relevant to why PC gaming is in decline. Each time a top notch PC game was released, I was forced to choose between upgrading my "minimum to mid spec" PC for $200 or more, or wait for the console version. I usually just ended up playing console games and forgetting about that AAA PC title altogether. -/edit This is a history of my PC upgrades since 2000, mostly for my own benefit. Even though the Athlon 64 3200+ that is currently in my Mamebox came out in 2003, I was just upgrading to a Duron 1300 Mhz, from a Celeron 300 Mhz system that I created in 2000. Even in that single upgrade I ran into trouble, as I tried to implement a video capture solution at the same time. So I tried a GeForce 2 MX 400, which crashed my system due to driver issues, and settled on the absolutely marvelous All in Wonder Radeon 7500. From here, I upgraded to a Sempron 2600+ system in 2006, and switched video cards to the All in Wonder Radeon 2006. You should remember that one, as you helped me frequently because the AiW 2006 forced me to use VDub and free compression codecs for the first time, and never could keep the audio/video sync. I sold that one in 2007 and bought my current Office PC, which initially had an Athlon X2 3500+ but ended up with an Athlon X2 4200+ at the beginning of 2008. The GeForce 8500GT PCIe that I bought with the system is still in it. This brings us full circle to the Mamebox, which I started designing summer of last year. I started out with the Duron system mentioned above and the AiW 7500, and upgraded to an Athlon XP 2400+ which I then sold after I finally bought the Athlon 64 3200+ off of Lone Crusader, which he actually bought in 2006. Then in October 2008, the graphic whore in me won and I decided to sacrifice video capture capability for better performance, I bought the Radeon HD 3850, which had itself only come out that year. Edited by sheath, Jul 24 2009, 01:16 PM.
|
|
www.gamepilgrimage.com Buy the games of yore before they are no more
| |
![]() |
|
| Belpowerslave | Jul 31 2009, 10:10 AM Post #11 |
|
Administrator
|
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/20423/John-Carmack-Rage-Runs-Faster-on-Xbox-360/ Hmmmm...so now what are they saying? The 360 version will run faster...but has less? Honestly, I think the best way to handle this is to wait until the game is released. So many changing stories from id... If the PS3 can't handle running the game at the speed the 360 can...that's very bad for Sony. Makes you wonder if it's the extra texture load and whatnot, enabled by the capacity of the Blu-Ray disc, that's dragging it down so much. Bel |
| Whip Ass Gaming | |
![]() |
|
| sheath | Jul 31 2009, 10:19 AM Post #12 |
![]()
I have been, and remain, non-sequitur
|
He states pretty plainly that the PS3 GPU is flat inferior to the 360 GPU, which we already knew. Then he states that the almighty Cell processor is equal to the 360's CPU but the former is much harder to squeeze the juice out of than the later. So, out of just those two components we have: 360 || PS3 ------------ 1 || 0 ~GPU 1 || 0 ~CPU ---------------- 2 || 0 Add to that the unified RAM in the 360, which also allows greater flexibility for developers choosing between more textures versus more system memory, and the score is actually 3:0 for 360. This is exactly the same argument from the PS1/Saturn days and we know how that turned out as far as developer speak goes. Easier performance might as well just be better performance overall. Bluray contributes absolutely nothing to this discussion. |
|
www.gamepilgrimage.com Buy the games of yore before they are no more
| |
![]() |
|
| Belpowerslave | Jul 31 2009, 10:42 AM Post #13 |
|
Administrator
|
I disagree. Blu-Ray may actually be the issue here. We've already heard him talk about how they may have to compress the textures a bit more on the 360 version, where as they won't have to thanks to the 25GB storage of the BRD. Now, think about it like this: Play Doom 3 on "Low Quality" settings...you'll get, what, 200+fps? Put it on "Medium Quality", now you're down to 100(or so)fps. The further you jack up the quality, the lower the fps gets. I'm tentatively thinking that the PS3 version will look better, but looking that good comes at a cost: It simply can run at 60fps at that quality level. This works with Carmack's earlier thoughts about how the PS3 will look better than the 360 version...*but*, like he said today, it won't run as fast. Like I've said in other threads, Blu-Ray is hurting as much as it's helping. ;) Honestly, I'll take the 60fps over better graphics anyday. Bel |
| Whip Ass Gaming | |
![]() |
|
| sheath | Jul 31 2009, 11:56 AM Post #14 |
![]()
I have been, and remain, non-sequitur
|
Doom 3's slide rule setting for graphics isn't an apples to apples comparison here. If Id has to put Rage on two discs for the 360/PC versions, then there will be compression artifacts resulting in a slight "blur" to the textures. We're not talking about scaling back polygon counts, physics, lighting or anything otherwise. Rage's engine is premiering a new super texture work around that can display some ludicrous size textures (1024x1024 or 512x512 if I recall), and at that resolution compressing the textures at all could result in blurring the image. Keep in mind too that the Tech 5 (or whatever) engine is supposed to be a universal game engine like the UT engine. That means that it has to port to all platforms with minimal tweaking, it's Rage that wasn't designed to be split three ways. Now, thinking about that for a minute, the issue is that the textures were compressed to fit on the DVD, not that they will stay compressed all the way to the screen. The former is just going to introduce artifacts, the later is actually using scaled down textures. If Carmack chooses to scale down the textures to make them fit on the DVDs he has lost his touch and can officially be called an idiot. So, we aren't talking about a scaled down game, we're talking about the effect of compression on super size texture maps. That's not even addressing the fact that we know Carmack is just trying to get MS to pay the extra licensing fee for three DVDs, there are no technical reasons for him to not use three DVDs if he really needs to. |
|
www.gamepilgrimage.com Buy the games of yore before they are no more
| |
![]() |
|
| Belpowerslave | Sep 14 2009, 01:25 AM Post #15 |
|
Administrator
|
Well, for the PC I don't see multiple discs being an issue as they're all just going towards the total game install...and pressing them shouldn't cost too much as, well, PC games are cheap...and just tend to get cheaper the longer they are out. The 360 is where the issue is going to be. I've heard that multiple disc games can be really expensive for third party developers for some reason or another, and that the console manufacturer is usually called on to help with the cost. I don't know why this is though, when it's not an issue with the PC. Maybe the added anti-piracy measures or licensing fees? Anyway, we'll see how it goes. I trust that Carmack knows what he's doing...it just sort of makes me nervous when he starts complaining about anything. ;) Bel |
| Whip Ass Gaming | |
![]() |
|
| sheath | Sep 17 2009, 07:12 AM Post #16 |
![]()
I have been, and remain, non-sequitur
|
I wonder why Modern Warfare 2 gets a special edition 250GB HDD. Really though, with the ability to install the entire game on the HDD now, surely Id of all developers can figure a way to use that, plus the already present 6GB of cache, to get this game that was stupidly designed around Bluray discs to work. |
|
www.gamepilgrimage.com Buy the games of yore before they are no more
| |
![]() |
|
| Belpowerslave | Sep 17 2009, 10:35 AM Post #17 |
|
Administrator
|
Correction: Built around Blu-Ray for the *consoles*. ;) PC version will do fine on 2 or 3 DVDs, they'll all install on the same HDD. ;) Bel |
| Whip Ass Gaming | |
![]() |
|
| sheath | Sep 17 2009, 10:59 AM Post #18 |
![]()
I have been, and remain, non-sequitur
|
The principal issue that Carmack has stated about Rage and DVDs is that he did not design the game to be split in three ways. All of the early promotion for the game had to do with it being designed around Bluray. This was his mistake. The PC version will be able to install on the HDD sure, and PS3 games already use a DVD's worth of HDD space when they install. It's really just the way the 360 plays straight from the disk that is the problem. Carmack goofed in that he assumed the 360 wouldn't be such a big deal sales wise by now. |
|
www.gamepilgrimage.com Buy the games of yore before they are no more
| |
![]() |
|
| Belpowerslave | Sep 17 2009, 01:07 PM Post #19 |
|
Administrator
|
I don't know...I still think that is was MS that goofed by releasing a 360 that didn't come with a HDD, thus making it so that developers *had* to make games that run straight off the disc instead of using HDD caching...with the original Xbox pioneered. Carmack will find a way around this bullshit though, he's not going to allow one of his products to just suck...he vowed that after Nintendo sat there and censored Wolfenstein into a joke on the SNES. If he doesn't want to split Rage across three DVDs, then he wont'...he'll find a way to make it work on just two. He's taking advantage of the fact that the PS3 allows for more disc storage, and that it *always* allows for HDD caching...I don't see anything wrong with that. It basically mirrors the way he'll do it on PC, just with 3 or 4 DVDs instead of one Blu-Ray. The 360 is, honestly, what's fucking up the process. If he could just get MS to allow him to require the HDD for the game, I think all would be well. Thing is, MS knows that most of us are fucked with that shitty 14.1GB HDD and we can't afford to have a game taking up 8 to 10 gigs worth of that space. Again, this is MS's fault...20 gigs was fucking joke, they should have known that. Add to it that they sit there and *still* sell a unit that doesn't come with the HDD and you round out the issue. With all of these price cuts, MS needs to start packing the "Arcade" unit with the 14.1GB drive...I mean, after all, it's *almost* like not having a HDD at all. ;) Bel |
| Whip Ass Gaming | |
![]() |
|
| sheath | Sep 17 2009, 01:57 PM Post #20 |
![]()
I have been, and remain, non-sequitur
|
We've discussed this before. The 360 Premium launched at $400, and that version sold like crap until it dropped to $300 (you and I didn't even buy one for that price). What did the HD-DVD add-on launch for, $200? That's the cost of a PS3 in 2005 money. Without any of Sony's clout behind the Xbox brand, yet, it would have been the single worst business decision in the history of gaming to put an HD-DVD drive in the 360. The consumers would have viewed it as Microsoft launching their own PC and it all would have been over from the start. Microsoft was actually brilliant in the sense that they knew that consumers would pay exorbitant prices for peripherals, like hdd upgrades, and this is why their gaming department is now profitable for the first time ever. I don't like it, but it's the damned consumers that dictate this crap with their easy earned money. The technology in the CPUs, VPUs and RAM for the 360 and PS3 really is cutting edge stuff, both companies lost hundreds of dollars per console at launch prices. I still haven't bought a triple core processor for any PC I have built because the price is still way too high for the chip alone. These things have multi-core processing, special high speed RAM, and custom designed VPUs that have actually kept up with the latest PC offerings even through 2008. Sony's gaming department isn't looking so hot after making the "right" choice, and in this case I'd say the consumer actually is right. 50GB discs are not the future of game consoles. Terabyte solid state drives, DLC, 3D Television and full body motion control are the future and that stuff is at least five years off. The PS3 was and is a stop gap that has cost its manufacturer more money than it will ever recoup. |
|
www.gamepilgrimage.com Buy the games of yore before they are no more
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Anything'a'Gamin'...and more · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









6:25 PM Jul 10