By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - The Colonel has jumped ship....

Bitmap Frogs on 29 November 2008
kowenicki said:
@ bitmap... Yes. But in a way I view it as a watershed... It is surely the thread which illustartes more than most that this gen isnt going to turn out how most people thought.

 

Aye, indeed. Lots of crushed expectations can be felt these days since the ps3 momentum was shot down by the pricecuts. It's been a longstanding theory of mine that some people with a ps3 under their TV are experimenting what one could describe as bunker mindset. The whole betrayalton meltdowns in this thread are... interesting.

Anyways dottore stubbs, enjoy your 360 - feel free to add me to your friends list, maybe we can hook up to coop some of these oldies no one cares anymore =) You've got quite the backlog.





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

Around the Network
windbane on 30 November 2008
Grampy said:
I think the question of disloyalty does not apply to those who have chosen not to have, or to keep, a PS3 but should be applied to Sony. Sony in their arrogance took the loyal legions of PS2 fans for granted and instead of building a capable, fun and reasonably priced console, chose instead to build a console that cost such an absurd amount to build that they couldn’t even consider selling it except at a huge loss and still they were twice the price they should have been.

In fact they were apparently not as interested in building the next generation Playstation as in promoting a media format for which there was, and for that matter still is, little enthusiasm. They were trying to sell us a gaming console at a ridiculous price by claiming it was the cheapest (through heavy subsidy) blu-ray player. This at the time when there was only a handful of movies to play on it. Now two years later blu-ray movies are still one small rack at Blockbuster that you could easily overlook and predictably, blu-ray players are now under $200 just when having one could be considered worthwhile.

My new notebook computer came with a blu-ray drive and HDMI out and it wasn’t even considered a major selling point. I had the computer almost three weeks before I even realized I had it. And frankly I still don’t particularly care.
They covered up a total lack of real innovation by building an immensely powerful processor that drove the cost of game development far higher than any real improvement in performance over its cheaper mainline design competition.

The purpose of a game console is to give good performance in a simple to maintain and reasonably priced package. Building one that cost as much as a PC in a vain effort to be on the absolute bleeding edge is an exercise in futility because the modular PC design will always catch up and pass the consoles before they are even well into their long cycle.

So who exactly was the PS3 built for? Apparently for those loyal customers that just assumed that Sony would remain true to its gaming heritage and ascend to the throne that was its birthright. But many of these fans balked at the ridiculous price and opted for either the less expensive Xbox which produced an equivalent quality image. Or for the (then) even less expensive Wii which have used innovation instead of horsepower to produce a console that in terms of fun and playability was more in the spirit of the PS2 than the overblown PS3.

I’m like many who came into the current round assuming I would be buying the next Playstation until I realized what an over-engineered, overpriced, not that much fun to play, monstrosity Sony had produced.

So my question is, are those of us who have opted out of the Playstation family disloyal or was Sony disloyal to us by giving us what they wanted to build rather than what we wanted to buy.

 

So let me get this straight.  You purchased a notebook computer but were too clueless to even know what was in it?  You have an extra $500 to burn on a notebook blu-ray drive and have the audacity to say the PS3 was twice the price it should have been?  Wow.

Factoring in inflation, the PS3 needed to be about $400.  Was Sony a little arrogant?  Sure, but they had dominated the market better than Nintendo did the previous 10 years.  I'm sure they are learning from their mistakes.

As for the format war...PS1 used CDs, PS2 used DVDs, and so it was logical that the PS3 would have a better format.  Was it a mistake?  Perhaps, but I really enjoy it.  I hope you enjoy yours because it cost as much as my PS3 did.



Torillian on 30 November 2008
kowenicki said:
@ bitmap... Yes. But in a way I view it as a watershed... It is surely the thread which illustartes more than most that this gen isnt going to turn out how most people thought.

 

 

Oh I know, this day will go down infamy as the day when Colonel switched over.  Oh god I don't even know why I'm keeping my PS3 around, I should just do like the cool kids and switch over.  I'm a fool for doing any differently.

 

Honestly guys, how is this a big deal?  I distinctly remember Colonel talking about doing this all the time, and being pretty down about his purchase.  So he did what was expected of someone with his demeanor towards his purchased console, whoopdy freakin doo.  People need to stop jumping on his back form the PS3 fanboy side, and stop hailing this as the sign of when the tides changed on the 360 fanboy side. 

 

Jeezus christ, a single person changed their preferences in a very forseeable manner, quit overreacting and either shut the hell up or give him some game reccomendations. 

OT: Machina says to get Bioshock since it's ironic and an awesome game, and I myself will dissuade you from Eternal Sonata.



...

Commando on 30 November 2008
windbane said:
Grampy said:
I think the question of disloyalty does not apply to those who have chosen not to have, or to keep, a PS3 but should be applied to Sony. Sony in their arrogance took the loyal legions of PS2 fans for granted and instead of building a capable, fun and reasonably priced console, chose instead to build a console that cost such an absurd amount to build that they couldn’t even consider selling it except at a huge loss and still they were twice the price they should have been.

In fact they were apparently not as interested in building the next generation Playstation as in promoting a media format for which there was, and for that matter still is, little enthusiasm. They were trying to sell us a gaming console at a ridiculous price by claiming it was the cheapest (through heavy subsidy) blu-ray player. This at the time when there was only a handful of movies to play on it. Now two years later blu-ray movies are still one small rack at Blockbuster that you could easily overlook and predictably, blu-ray players are now under $200 just when having one could be considered worthwhile.

My new notebook computer came with a blu-ray drive and HDMI out and it wasn’t even considered a major selling point. I had the computer almost three weeks before I even realized I had it. And frankly I still don’t particularly care.
They covered up a total lack of real innovation by building an immensely powerful processor that drove the cost of game development far higher than any real improvement in performance over its cheaper mainline design competition.

The purpose of a game console is to give good performance in a simple to maintain and reasonably priced package. Building one that cost as much as a PC in a vain effort to be on the absolute bleeding edge is an exercise in futility because the modular PC design will always catch up and pass the consoles before they are even well into their long cycle.

So who exactly was the PS3 built for? Apparently for those loyal customers that just assumed that Sony would remain true to its gaming heritage and ascend to the throne that was its birthright. But many of these fans balked at the ridiculous price and opted for either the less expensive Xbox which produced an equivalent quality image. Or for the (then) even less expensive Wii which have used innovation instead of horsepower to produce a console that in terms of fun and playability was more in the spirit of the PS2 than the overblown PS3.

I’m like many who came into the current round assuming I would be buying the next Playstation until I realized what an over-engineered, overpriced, not that much fun to play, monstrosity Sony had produced.

So my question is, are those of us who have opted out of the Playstation family disloyal or was Sony disloyal to us by giving us what they wanted to build rather than what we wanted to buy.

 

So let me get this straight.  You purchased a notebook computer but were too clueless to even know what was in it?  You have an extra $500 to burn on a notebook blu-ray drive and have the audacity to say the PS3 was twice the price it should have been?  Wow.

Factoring in inflation, the PS3 needed to be about $400.  Was Sony a little arrogant?  Sure, but they had dominated the market better than Nintendo did the previous 10 years.  I'm sure they are learning from their mistakes.

As for the format war...PS1 used CDs, PS2 used DVDs, and so it was logical that the PS3 would have a better format.  Was it a mistake?  Perhaps, but I really enjoy it.  I hope you enjoy yours because it cost as much as my PS3 did.

 

Also it should be noted that Blu-Ray is a SONY product/Format.  The PS was dual purpose in that it gave them an edge over Toshiba's HD-DVD players.  Given the results of that format war I think Sony made the right choice.



"Let justice be done though the heavens fall." - Jim Garrison

"Ask not your horse, if ye should ride into battle" - myself

Grampy on 30 November 2008
windbane said:
Grampy said:
I think the question of disloyalty does not apply to those who have chosen not to have, or to keep, a PS3 but should be applied to Sony. Sony in their arrogance took the loyal legions of PS2 fans for granted and instead of building a capable, fun and reasonably priced console, chose instead to build a console that cost such an absurd amount to build that they couldn’t even consider selling it except at a huge loss and still they were twice the price they should have been.

In fact they were apparently not as interested in building the next generation Playstation as in promoting a media format for which there was, and for that matter still is, little enthusiasm. They were trying to sell us a gaming console at a ridiculous price by claiming it was the cheapest (through heavy subsidy) blu-ray player. This at the time when there was only a handful of movies to play on it. Now two years later blu-ray movies are still one small rack at Blockbuster that you could easily overlook and predictably, blu-ray players are now under $200 just when having one could be considered worthwhile.

My new notebook computer came with a blu-ray drive and HDMI out and it wasn’t even considered a major selling point. I had the computer almost three weeks before I even realized I had it. And frankly I still don’t particularly care.
They covered up a total lack of real innovation by building an immensely powerful processor that drove the cost of game development far higher than any real improvement in performance over its cheaper mainline design competition.

The purpose of a game console is to give good performance in a simple to maintain and reasonably priced package. Building one that cost as much as a PC in a vain effort to be on the absolute bleeding edge is an exercise in futility because the modular PC design will always catch up and pass the consoles before they are even well into their long cycle.

So who exactly was the PS3 built for? Apparently for those loyal customers that just assumed that Sony would remain true to its gaming heritage and ascend to the throne that was its birthright. But many of these fans balked at the ridiculous price and opted for either the less expensive Xbox which produced an equivalent quality image. Or for the (then) even less expensive Wii which have used innovation instead of horsepower to produce a console that in terms of fun and playability was more in the spirit of the PS2 than the overblown PS3.

I’m like many who came into the current round assuming I would be buying the next Playstation until I realized what an over-engineered, overpriced, not that much fun to play, monstrosity Sony had produced.

So my question is, are those of us who have opted out of the Playstation family disloyal or was Sony disloyal to us by giving us what they wanted to build rather than what we wanted to buy.

 

So let me get this straight.  You purchased a notebook computer but were too clueless to even know what was in it?  You have an extra $500 to burn on a notebook blu-ray drive and have the audacity to say the PS3 was twice the price it should have been?  Wow.

Factoring in inflation, the PS3 needed to be about $400.  Was Sony a little arrogant?  Sure, but they had dominated the market better than Nintendo did the previous 10 years.  I'm sure they are learning from their mistakes.

As for the format war...PS1 used CDs, PS2 used DVDs, and so it was logical that the PS3 would have a better format.  Was it a mistake?  Perhaps, but I really enjoy it.  I hope you enjoy yours because it cost as much as my PS3 did.

Actually I’m an IT professional with fairly extensive experience purchasing high end graphic workstations for scientific research and, as far as I know, don’t suddenly go stupid when purchasing personal equipment. I am not generally regarded as clueless even in the area of blu-ray. I have two blu-ray burners at work and I already have a blu-ray player at home, which  I got for $199 not $500.

I have not particular need or desire to see blu-ray movies on my notebook so frankly I would have been just as happy with at DL DVD-RW. I purchased the notebook for actual work. Here are the specs:

Dell XPS 1530

Processor            Intel® Core™2 Duo Mobile

Processor Speed 2.1GHz

Display Type       High Resolution, glossy widescreen 15.4 inch LED LCD (1440x900) & 2.0MP Camera

Screen Size         15.4"

System Bus         800MHz

Cache Memory 3MB on die Level 2

System Memory (RAM)                4GB

Type of Memory (RAM)                PC2-5300 DDR2

Hard Drive Type                Serial ATA (5400 rpm)

Hard Drive Size  320GB
Optical Drive      2x BD-ROM; 2.4x DVD-R DL; 8x4x8 DVD+RW; 8x4x8 DVD-RW; 24x8x24 CD-RW

Digital Media Reader or Slots      Yes, digital media card reader

Graphics              NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT

Video Memory                 256MB (dedicated)

Networking        Built-in 10/100 Ethernet LAN (RJ-45 connector)

Wireless Networking Wireless-B+G+N

Bluetooth-Enabled          Yes

Security Technology       Fingerprint reader

Additional Audio/Video Connectors        HDMI

Audio    High-definition 2.0

Speakers             Built-in

PCMCIA Slots     None

USB 2.0 Ports     3

IEEE 1394 FireWire Ports               1

Parallel Ports      None

Operating System            Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit

Included Software           Microsoft Works 9; Roxio Creator 10 Dell Edition; Trend Micro AntiVirus

Windows Performance Number 5.0

 

I paid (on sale ) $1000.00 for it and frankly think it is a good value at that price w/wo blu-ray. If as you imply, $500 of that was for the blu-ray drive, then this has to be the best $500 notebook anywhere. The build quality on the XPS series is better than most and they hold up well.

 

But in any case, before you call people names you might become more informed. At Dell, not known as the bargain price capital of the world, a blu-ray upgrade cost just $250 not whatever figure you have to make up to justify the amount you paid for a gaming console.

 



Around the Network
Grampy on 30 November 2008
Commando said:
windbane said:
Grampy said:
I

 

So let me get this straight.  You purchased a notebook computer but were too clueless to even know what was in it?  You have an extra $500 to burn on a notebook blu-ray drive and have the audacity to say the PS3 was twice the price it should have been?  Wow.

Factoring in inflation, the PS3 needed to be about $400.  Was Sony a little arrogant?  Sure, but they had dominated the market better than Nintendo did the previous 10 years.  I'm sure they are learning from their mistakes.

As for the format war...PS1 used CDs, PS2 used DVDs, and so it was logical that the PS3 would have a better format.  Was it a mistake?  Perhaps, but I really enjoy it.  I hope you enjoy yours because it cost as much as my PS3 did.

 

Also it should be noted that Blu-Ray is a SONY product/Format.  The PS was dual purpose in that it gave them an edge over Toshiba's HD-DVD players.  Given the results of that format war I think Sony made the right choice.

Do I think it was the right choice for SONY Inc. Maybe, that remains to be seen. Personally I doubt it.

But as to whether it was the right choice for the loyal gamer following they had so painstakingly built with the PS2 - NO F-King Way. However if you feel proud to have helped support Sony's commercial ambitions with your own money. I salute you for loyalty above and beyond the call of duty and/or sanity.

 



windbane on 30 November 2008
Grampy said:
Commando said:
windbane said:
Grampy said:
I

 

So let me get this straight. You purchased a notebook computer but were too clueless to even know what was in it? You have an extra $500 to burn on a notebook blu-ray drive and have the audacity to say the PS3 was twice the price it should have been? Wow.

Factoring in inflation, the PS3 needed to be about $400. Was Sony a little arrogant? Sure, but they had dominated the market better than Nintendo did the previous 10 years. I'm sure they are learning from their mistakes.

As for the format war...PS1 used CDs, PS2 used DVDs, and so it was logical that the PS3 would have a better format. Was it a mistake? Perhaps, but I really enjoy it. I hope you enjoy yours because it cost as much as my PS3 did.

 

Also it should be noted that Blu-Ray is a SONY product/Format. The PS was dual purpose in that it gave them an edge over Toshiba's HD-DVD players. Given the results of that format war I think Sony made the right choice.

Do I think it was the right choice for SONY Inc. Maybe, that remains to be seen. Personally I doubt it.

But as to whether it was the right choice for the loyal gamer following they had so painstakingly built with the PS2 - NO F-King Way. However if you feel proud to have helped support Sony's commercial ambitions with your own money. I salute you for loyalty above and beyond the call of duty and/or sanity.

 

 

So you stand by the fact that you purchased something without knowing fully what was in it.  I still find that odd, sorry.

Two years after the PS3 launched, you are telling me blu-ray is still worth $200-250?  Well, then, that sure makes the PS3 a fantastic deal if you want both a blu-ray player and a videogame system, not to mention a great media player and blu-ray games.



mysticD on 30 November 2008

I just got a new Vaio and for few hundredss more you can get a model with blu-ray drive. (Mind you I only pay 500 for it so the with blu-ray it would be well under $1000) You can find a drive by itself at fairly reasonable price at Fry or Newegg these days.



perpride on 30 November 2008

Colonel - After reading your comments about your PS3 as well as outlook on games coming next year, I think you made a wise decision.



Grampy on 30 November 2008
windbane said:
Grampy said:
Commando said:
windbane said:
Grampy said:
I

 

So let me get this straight. You purchased a notebook computer but were too clueless to even know what was in it? You have an extra $500 to burn on a notebook blu-ray drive and have the audacity to say the PS3 was twice the price it should have been? Wow.

Factoring in inflation, the PS3 needed to be about $400. Was Sony a little arrogant? Sure, but they had dominated the market better than Nintendo did the previous 10 years. I'm sure they are learning from their mistakes.

As for the format war...PS1 used CDs, PS2 used DVDs, and so it was logical that the PS3 would have a better format. Was it a mistake? Perhaps, but I really enjoy it. I hope you enjoy yours because it cost as much as my PS3 did.

 

Also it should be noted that Blu-Ray is a SONY product/Format. The PS was dual purpose in that it gave them an edge over Toshiba's HD-DVD players. Given the results of that format war I think Sony made the right choice.

Do I think it was the right choice for SONY Inc. Maybe, that remains to be seen. Personally I doubt it.

But as to whether it was the right choice for the loyal gamer following they had so painstakingly built with the PS2 - NO F-King Way. However if you feel proud to have helped support Sony's commercial ambitions with your own money. I salute you for loyalty above and beyond the call of duty and/or sanity.

 

 

So you stand by the fact that you purchased something without knowing fully what was in it.  I still find that odd, sorry.

Two years after the PS3 launched, you are telling me blu-ray is still worth $200-250?  Well, then, that sure makes the PS3 a fantastic deal if you want both a blu-ray player and a videogame system, not to mention a great media player and blu-ray games.

 

 Well at least I've gone from clueless to merely odd. Sorry I just don't worry about what a computer has that I don't care about or need as long as it does have the things I do. My Bad! Guess what, it turns out it also has a modem I didn't pay any attention to since I haven't used dial up for years.

To me blu-ray is just another media and a not very important one because far too few people have it to use it to distribute data. I use my blu-ray burners just to offline archive old data to clear space on my servers.  Frankly, I would have preferred that Sony had lost the war because it's not the cheapest or best format for data.

If you want a blu-ray player and a video game, is it a bargain? Maybe, although according to Scientific American http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=black-friday-warning-video-games-wa-2008-11-28

it is a very inefficient one since at a power hungry 150 watts, it uses 5X MORE ENERGY TO PLAY A MOVIE THAN A STAND ALONE BLU- RAY PLAYER. Given where energy prices are going, or to anyone with an environmental concern, it will be a less and less attractive platform for movie watching. It also uses 5x more energy than a Wii  to play a game, just in case energy conservation is something you think about.

For people without HD TVs, who already have or don't want a blu-ray player, and especially for the many gamers who are not allowed to monopolize the main family TV and have to play on a non-HD TV. It's just the boat anchor that made the console so overpriced.