Except the PS3 and the Xbox 360 both have SD-outs. The resulting picture quality is rather meh, but they're both compatible, so that point is sort of moot.
thaddius' Console Roast 2014 Edition - Round 11
- Thread starter thaddius
- Start date
- Views 8,021
- Replies 104
- Likes 1
Except the PS3 and the Xbox 360 both have SD-outs. The resulting picture quality is rather meh, but they're both compatible, so that point is sort of moot.
It's true you can connect them to an SD TV, but like you say the quality is meh where the Wii was designed as an SD console and looked still meh but at least you could read the text in game.... (It's a problem on my PS3 if I try to connect it to SD... so shitty, but GTA5 with no reading required works fine! Now off to punch random people in the back of the head on the sidewalk for no reason.... lol)
But I don't think the picture quality had anything to do with it, I think it was more about consumers not knowing they could connect up these machines to SD TV's. I think Sony really pushed the PS3 as an HD console and so people just assumed you needed an HD TV to use one.
My 20GB unit (320 now) even came with Talladega Nights on BD... I am looking at the box right now and nothing on my PS3 box says I can hook it up to a normal TV, but I do see the giant list of supported formats (really cool!) and I see HDMI, that's for those new fangled TV's right? (My god is my PS3 box beat up... I think the person I bought it from used the box as a punching bag after he took the PS3 out.)
I mean I know I could connect my PS3 to an SDTV and I already knew it would use all my old cables (I used at one point a coax cable adapter I bought with my launch PS1.) but I pay a lot more attention to this stuff than your average "gamer".
So your argument is that people who didn't have HD TV's yet but knew that they will soon bought a system that wasn't future-proof? Naw, I doubt it - it was more so a matter of pricing.
That's more like it - marketing can make or break a system.
Well, yes - lots of customers are not technologically savvy, see point above.
Mine came with a PS proprietary-to-RCA cable, so hey - it was pretty obvious to me it supports SD resolutions.
Well, yes - lots of customers are not technologically savvy, see point above.
Mine came with a PS proprietary-to-RCA cable, so hey - it was pretty obvious to me it supports SD resolutions.
But you knew about the RCA connector before you bought it right? I mean I did for sure or else I wouldn't have picked mine at the price I did.
If not nothing on the box would cause me to fork out 499-599 dollars, I mean the commercials where pretty odd or creepy at the time (crying possessed baby doll anyone?) those did nothing to inform consumers about how the PS3 would work on an old TV and with an HDTV when they upgraded. If anything the my box would convince me that I needed to own or buy an HDMI TV to use it. (Not all HD TV's had those at the time.... I had a friend with a 720P TV lol tube.... with no HDMI so yeah it sucked.)
I think just a picture along the bottom of the box with what is included would have help out initial sales a lot.
Some one needs to invent a time machine and send back a marketing person who has done less drugs than the ones they hired at the time...
Speaking from the uneducated consumer standpoint, I knew next to nothing about HD TVs, HDMI, or anything like that when the PS3 came out. Hell, I don't even recall people worrying about whether or not it would run on SD or HD. That wasn't a worry in 2006 when HD TVs weren't all that mainstream yet. I'm sure the average consumer assumed that it would work on whatever they had, which is the case with most any piece of technology. The turn off was entirely the price. Completely, 100%. Sony knew it, the consumer knew it, and Sony fixed it as quickly as they could.
Pretty much. $499 doesn't grow on trees, and that's how much the most basic PS3 package cost back in the day - that's a lot of money right there, even if the economy was better than it is today. The $599 PS3 was completely out of reach.
$499 is an atrocious price it's a good thing we're past that with today's consoles.
...
;O;
At least the Xbone has the Kinect excuse for the inflated price... ;O;
True true and I believe both the PS4 and the Xbox One will have price drops fairly soon.
Hard drives have finally started to fall back down in price (only took years... Those tsunami's really messed things up for mass storage.)
I think GDDR5 RAM will fall in price, but GDDR3 will probably go up.... (MS may have miscalculated on that one.) older types of RAM that fall out of favor tend to go up in price. The way the Xbox One is selling will not help that situation. GDDR5 is starting to pop up even in low end graphics cards. (128 bit short bus cards.)
AMD is getting ready to launch some new chips so that should push the cost down on the CPU's? (I put a question mark since I have no clue what contracts they worked out... They could have worked out the price on a 5 year scale for all I know.) At the very least I am sure AMD is prepping a node shrink and that could help with costs for AMD, as a side effect the chips should run a bit cooler and maybe Sony and MS can reduce the size of the cooling (cheaper.)
Anyway I expect the PS4 to really start hitting it's sales stride once it hits the $299.99 mark like the PS3 did, I am thinking that's either some sort of PSN+ contract away or 2 price drops. So maybe 2 years for the hard price.
If I was Sony, I would do a price drop fairly soon to keep the hype wave going. They can't afford to give MS or Nintendo any opportunity to turn things around. (I mean afford quite literally....)
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2011
- Messages
- 11,005
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- The Twilight Zone
- Website
- www.hacksden.com
- XP
- 4,339
- Country
There's no reason for Sony to have a price drop. I'm sure they are already losing a lot of money with each console they sell, and the console is a huge success.
Why?
Come on now, wii?
That lil controller? That looks like a dildo.
Aight, I aint trying to play my games on no dil-do.
I voted for the Wii, since it lacked a large library of games compared to the competition. It's a fantastic machine, but still, I'd say the PS3 is the console for me this generation. My PS3 game library (and the 360 library as well) is larger than the library for the Wii. The console had it's days, but the good games were few and far between. A modded Wii on the other hand.. well that's another story, but then again, that's not the poll here.
Also, my reaction to the thread, replies and how the votes are dividing.. Keep it coming!
Also, my reaction to the thread, replies and how the votes are dividing.. Keep it coming!
I voted Xbox 360 cuz I'm a Sony fanboy thanks to emgire and Foxi4Sony. As well, I despise FPSes beyond belief and the 360 is chock full of them. Wii is pretty terrible too, but I had some good times with it regardless. Plus, thanks to the active Wii scene during last-gen I was able to play a shitton of games for free. So 360 falls short in mah eyes.
the worst thing about the 360 was even if you ignored it and stuck to the other consoles, you were still affected.
games were made on and for the 360 and were distinctly poor quality. poor use of controls, bad graphics, generic brainless gameplay.
360 ports were awful, they lowered the bar.
games were made on and for the 360 and were distinctly poor quality. poor use of controls, bad graphics, generic brainless gameplay.
360 ports were awful, they lowered the bar.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2011
- Messages
- 11,005
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- The Twilight Zone
- Website
- www.hacksden.com
- XP
- 4,339
- Country
That's how we're different then.
But for real, give a good reason for your choice. There's nothing wrong with voting Wii, but I'd like to know your reasoning. Qtis gave a good one.
ieatpixels I loved 360 games personally (I mean, how can you not like Halo?), and thought the controller was great too.
That's how we're different then.
But for real, give a good reason for your choice. There's nothing wrong with voting Wii, but I'd like to know your reasoning. Qtis gave a good one.
ieatpixels I loved 360 games personally (I mean, how can you not like Halo?), and thought the controller was great too.
I too like to hear why people voted the way they did, I mean all three are solid systems that gen so any vote is down to almost petty reasoning. (Although I could understand a person voting for the 360 if they where on the 5th system and just had a horrible time with the machine.)
Edit: I also can understand voting for the Wii as it did need more games (really when is there enough?) or voting for the PS3 if you expected more from it.
Honestly it comes down to what type of games you want to play. For a While the Xbox360 was out selling both Wii and PS3. Why there were not enough Wii's to go around soo you could't buy one. PS3 $600 need I say more. Out of all the consoles I'd say the PS3 had the most variety when it came to games. Wii had some of the best exclusives. Xbox 360 had Halo and a bunch of other FPS game. Me I have never been a FPS gamer. I own both PS3 and Wii.
Petty reasoning or not, the whole point of this poll is to choose the system that was least satisfying within the last generation. That doesn't mean the system was bad, not by any means, they're all pretty solid in their own ways and they all have their flaws.
The Wii was underwhelming from a technological stand-point and aside from Nintendo exclusives and a couple notable games it severely lacked in the triple-A department and the multiplats were obviously the worst on it since it was the weakest out of the three.
The PS3 had the most juice but it was so complex that you needed a degree in rocket science to program for the thing, hence the library is relatively small, but nevertheless filled with good content that's worth picking up, that, and it offered great multimedia capabilities and had the latest optical drive - shame that the controller was very meh and their implementation of motion controls never really kicked off like the Wii's did.
The Xbox 360 was like the middle ground between the two - the CPU was based on CELL technology in the sense that the cores were modified PPE's, but the whole architecture was steamlined and memory was unified which lead to more releases, especially early on in the life cycle. Xbox Live was also the best implementation of online, however on the flip side it is a paid service to this day which can be a turn-off... and then there's the Kinect - a futuristic dream that sounds fantastic in theory... but doesn't exactly deliver in practice.
All three consoles had hiccups in terms of reliability - the Wii had the blue slot of death, the PS3 had the yellow light of death, the 360 had the red ring of death, so in that department they all initially had issues, especially the 360 and the PS3, but in the end they were resolved with subsequent revisions.
All in all, it comes down to everyone's personal experience with the systems, which is a good thing - it means the generation was fruitful and every manufacturer offered something interesting to their customers.
Similar threads
-
BigOnYa
-
K3Nv2
-
Psionic Roshambo
-
Xdqwerty
what are you looking at?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
BigOnYa:
My wifey gets mad and tells me its a bad habit to bite your nails, even though I told her I washed my feet first.
-
-
-
-
@
BigOnYa:
Nuh it was a joke, but I used to bite my nails when I was young, but when I started doing construction work and seen what crap was under my nails, I stopped.
-
-
@
BigOnYa:
Sometimes yea when they get real long, you want to, but I always end up with a bloody finger or hangnails.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
