[Aquamarine]

Please visit this page:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_ent...pic_id=24355287

I don't think this is gonna happen, but if it's true... don't you see how desperate Sony is? Once again, they are showing how talented they are at stealing ideas. Another thing that annoys me is that their goal isn't to have more sails than the Rev... it's to plainly destroy the Revolution and Nintendo. Also, if they do this, they are going to destroy the PS3, which is just another desperate measure.

What do you guys think?

[Eugine]

"Bogus or not bogus?: Totally unsubstantiated? You bet. Completely fascinating? That would be an understatement... "

[Laharl]

**** happens. i don't think there are many people who don't have a ps2 already. to be honest i don't care i'll a rev if it's good, if it isn't i won't.

[pHantOm]

Some people need to get out more....Its a damn console calm down.

[Someone Else]

I wouldn't be surprised if this was true. I mean, it's SONY. They've always been idea-stealing *******s. But at the same time it's completely far-fetched. Sony obviously have money to throw around but I don't think something like that would sell well anyway. ^_^

KEEP UR PANTS ON

[Sea of Time]

I agree, this is totally bogus. Why would Sony totally rip off Nintendo like this. They came out in E3 (all the companies did) and revealed something completely unique. If they want to keep their "uniqueity", Sony won't do this.

[Ivan is my name]

Wow, wthat a load of tightwads! Let's just get this straight. Crazy ******s are stealing the rev controller. Not only that, that they are gonna sell ps3 for about $100. And some kind of eyetoy thing. Who is gona let them get away with that?!? Nintendo have most likely copyrighted the controller idea anyway. Sony make good PC stuff, but they shold stick to that.

[Sea of Time]

The PS3's parts by themselves cost 500 dollars. There is no way they can sell the PS3 for a hundred. That is complete bullcrap.

[Aquamarine]

Experts predict that the PS3 is actually gonna cost... are you ready for this? $800!!!!!!!!! That's a lot of money...

Nintendo CANNOT copyright the Rev controller. That's just how it goes. Names can be copyrighted and... thats actually about it. If products could be copyrighted, there wouldn't be so many Coke copies. Also, Nintendo would have copyrighted every idea they came up with, so the PS consoles wouldn't be able to have an analog stick, rumble feature, shoulder buttons...

I too think that this is bogus, but there is still a possibility...

[Ivan is my name]

XD. If products were copyrighted, then there would be like no ps1, xbox or anything really. XD.

$800? What are they stupid? Who is gonna buy that at a price like that. It would have to have virtuality, real robots and some more crap to be that much.

[Blink]

...

You guys are messing a lot of things up here. xD

Article says they'll have the Playstation TWO at $100 with the eyetoy revo controller thing, if it's true. You can't copyright items, but you can patent technology. It wouldn't destroy the PS3, it would just lop into the market Nintendo is creating. It's not unlike Sony in the slightest to do this just to take some of Nintendo's profit, considering the whole reason behind the Playstation 1 was revenge, there's no way Sony would just let Nintendo waltz out of the market and keep profiting like that, of course they're going to try and hunt them down. Sony's acting like a giant savage business company who's main goal is profit, not necessarily far sighted profit, just profit, and getting back at Nintendo too.

Sony's mad, in more than one defenition, and they're going to try and make Nintendo miserable, that's why they invaded the console market, took Nintendo's ideas, pulled in all the third parties, invaded the portable market, turned the industry against what Nintendo's goal was, and now are doing this!

[My Best Wishes]

Three things:
The artical is false
Sony is better
and who cares

[Ivan is my name]

If it was fake, Watch, then why aren't people saying that. Normally if there's some fake news going round, people usually know it. And all in all, I'll think you'll admit that it is true, it's just your cover up seeing as you prefer Sony to Ninty.

Back on to Blink's point: What are they going to get out of selling PS2's for $800?!?! No sony fan will care, wanting to buy a ps3. Sure the PSP was alright, but now they really are desperate for idea's, stealing Ninty's.

[My Best Wishes]

Quote

"The information below is pure rumor and speculation."

DUH!!

I'll agree $800 is too much but I sincerley doubt it will be that much, if it is though, imagine how much more it will kick ass then the revolution and 360. I haven't been to a site yet or talked to someone who knew what they were talking about that didn't say the ps3 will own.

[Laharl]

somehow i don't think Nintendo's lawyers will like Sony 'borrowing' their idea

[Blue]

Sony has always been jacking Nintendos ideas. The PS1 didn't even had joysticks until the N64 came onto the scene. The same goes with rumble packs, Nintendo had it first, before Sony.

[Someone Else]

watch, on Mar 1 2006, 11:07 PM, said:

Sony is better

Well, that's a mattter of preference. Everyone has different tastes, and every company has different "strong points".

I'm mostly neutral, but I prefer Nintendo a bit more since Sony is largely just a money-making company, but that doesn't quite stop them from making some good products.

[Sea of Time]

I agree, nothing away from Sony. The original Playstation and some of the game series that were played on it were truly revolutionary. But I think Nintendo is one step ahead of them.

[Blink]

Ivan is my name, on Mar 2 2006, 01:18 AM, said:

Back on to Blink's point: What are they going to get out of selling PS2's for $800?!?! No sony fan will care, wanting to buy a ps3. Sure the PSP was alright, but now they really are desperate for idea's, stealing Ninty's.

*facepalm*

You know, the point of my post was to clear things up. I guess I FAILED.

I said the PS TWO would sell for $100, not $800. The PS3 could sell for $800, but the idea behind this concept is that the PS2 would DROP to $100 from it's current $150 or so, making it more accessible than Nintendo's revolution, and since the technology behind the Revo wouldn't be that much better than the Gamecube's, the graphics could be a little close to the Revo's, maybe even more so than the Revo's would be to the Xbox 360 or something. It would also go with the idea that Nintendo is using of familiarity in programing for the console, since they want the Revo to be so easy to program for. Sooo, I dunno, it could work, if Sony made a graphics add-on that amped the PS2 up to the Revo's level that came with the eye toy controller thing. It would just need so many accessories to work; PS2 + Eyetoy + Controller + Memory Expansion/Upgrade + Wirelessness on PS2(meaning recievers) = complications!

[Someone Else]

Blink, on Mar 2 2006, 04:16 PM, said:

*facepalm*

You know, the point of my post was to clear things up. I guess I FAILED.

I said the PS TWO would sell for $100, not $800. The PS3 could sell for $800, but the idea behind this concept is that the PS2 would DROP to $100 from it's current $150 or so, making it more accessible than Nintendo's revolution, and since the technology behind the Revo wouldn't be that much better than the Gamecube's, the graphics could be a little close to the Revo's, maybe even more so than the Revo's would be to the Xbox 360 or something. It would also go with the idea that Nintendo is using of familiarity in programing for the console, since they want the Revo to be so easy to program for. Sooo, I dunno, it could work, if Sony made a graphics add-on that amped the PS2 up to the Revo's level that came with the eye toy controller thing. It would just need so many accessories to work; PS2 + Eyetoy + Controller + Memory Expansion/Upgrade + Wirelessness on PS2(meaning recievers) = complications!

XDDDD I ROFL'D at their ignorance, but waited for you to say something first. XP

ANYHOO. I dunno if Nintendo could sue for something like this is the bussiness world. Crap like this happens a lot... but if the judge happened to be a Nintendo Fanboy... *ponders*

I dunno. The standard Gamepad has the D-Pad, the shoulder buttons, and the analog stick. To clear this up, Logitech makes gamepads. They make gamepads for Sony, Microsoft, AND NINTENDO. So Nintendo can't really sue for anyone stealing this idea. BUT, Nintendo MIGHT be able to sue if Sony is really planning to copy Nintendo's "magic wand" controller. But this is still a big "IF" since this is likely false'd anyway.

[Laharl]

you can all moan you want about sony plagiarism but it has allowed them to dominate the market, maybe Nintendo should sit back and copy what Sony do next (probably copy off microsoft xD)

[Someone Else]

XP Microsoft and Sony are so similiar anyway... I wonder. Could Sony find something to copy of off from Microsoft?

[Sea of Time]

I don't know if there is enough differences between Sony and Microsoft for Sony to steal anything. They could make their systems bigger I guess. <_<

[Blink]

Microsoft does have some good ideas. The Home/Guide button and remotely starting the system were good in my opinion, along with setting controls for all your XBox FPS/Racers/etc by changing system settings. I also like their vaporware idea of a charging dock for mutliple battery packs for wireless controllers.

What I really wish, was that the Wireless controllers kept that personal controls information inside the controller, not the console, so you could bring a controller with you to a friends house and jump right in with your own personal settings. If only, if only...

[Someone Else]

A MEMORY STICK FOR YOUR CONTROLLER! :DDDDDD

[Eugine]

How is Microsoft and Sony similar? Microsoft is in software, Sony is entertainment hardware...

The Xbox 360 and PS3 aren't similiar also, they are just both verrrrrrrrry powerful consoles which can do many things, they accomplish it differently. PS3 has blu-ray and the cell microprocessor: that alone makes it different.

[Someone Else]

No, you are wrong. Be quiet. They are both multi-media consoles that play music, DVDs, blah blah, and GAMES. So they are quite similiar. Nobody cares about the technical details such as hardware.

[Eugine]

That's like saying all the all-in-one printers are the same... Sony and MS maybe call their system "entertainment hardwares"... Have the same features, look stylish... They are soppose to do these things, if they don't they aren't what they were cut out to be.
HOW THEY ACHIEVE IT IS WHAT COUNTS...

Many Boeing and Airbus planes are quite similar, they both serve the same function to fly and take people places in comfort. When those planes are shipped to consumer plane companies, painted etc. people can hardly tell the difference between them. They carry out the same function, but are built differently. Do you see Airbus and Boeing in courts everytime because they are "similar"?

So when you say if you wonder if Sony can steal MS features, yes they can easily steal it. Even I can steal it...
Right now, I stole all of the Xbox 360, revolution and PS3 features & ideas to make one super gaming machine. I can simply take all three consoles and connect them together to make this super gaming machine. That'll be similar.

If I sit down & bring to life each feature out of my own good merit then I'd consider it different. Maybe on a consumer look they will be similar but inside it is so different you have to give the companies credit for bringing these features to life.

[Someone Else]

I still fail to see your arguement. The point is, they do the same things. Sony is similiar to Microsoft. Oh noez. Don't you love both companies, anyway?

[Eugine]

Of course I do. Sony and MS being rivals was the best thing that happened to gaming. Prices of things we would have paid 600 to buy is now 400... Good for the consumers <_<.

[Someone Else]

Personally, I don't care about the Xbox that much. The only thing good about Xbox for me is Halo, which I can play on the PC with MOUSE LOOKING! Hooray! XP

That, and Dead or Alive. That game rocks, but I can live my "gaming life" without it.

[My Best Wishes]

Sea_of_Time, on Mar 3 2006, 08:09 AM, said:

But I think Nintendo is one step ahead of them.

:wacko:
One step ahead? How so? Becuase the Revolution has more futuristic things then the ps3? Like the Ds's touch screen over the PSP? In my honest opinon, Nintendo's had its run, let the big boys play now.

Wind Dude, on Mar 4 2006, 11:33 AM, said:

No, you are wrong. Be quiet.

LMAO


Look this thred is pointless, there is no actual proof to back this article up, hell theres more proof to deny the story is true then to support it's truth.

[Someone Else]

watch, on Mar 4 2006, 03:04 AM, said:

In my honest opinon, Nintendo's had its run, let the big boys play now.

Explain yo'self, boy.

[Blink]

Wind Dude, on Mar 4 2006, 10:25 AM, said:

Explain yo'self, boy.

I think that if I tried to explain it, the whole topic with the exception of Watch would be in hysterics, and Watch would be raving mad.

So, I'm not going to. xD

[Someone Else]

Try him. XD...

[Golden Legacy]

Wind Dude, you know better than to Spam. Avoid it, please.

On another note, Sony has in the past adapted Nintendo's ideas (Analog Stick, Rumble, etc.), but it's not as though it has built it's entire success on this. There's a reason why the PlayStation brand has gone way up to first place, pushing over a 200 million units in two console generations. I generally am a Nintendo fan, but even I am definitely willing to agree that Sony has done its fair share in advancing the industry, even if some of its other methods are controversial.

It would be a powerful business motive by Sony to publish a Revolution-style controller for the PS2, but somehow, Sony seems to be far more concerned with PS3/PSP.

[My Best Wishes]

WD- I understand Nintendo's marketing ploy for the Revolution, but even with the fact that they're not pushing for better graphics and their aiming for a cheap and fun console, despite this I believe that between the ps3 and 360 it will flop. Nintendo has always been seen for it's portable gaming, never has it done well pitching it's consoles againest sony, and now that Microsoft has entered the game it's a whole different game now. Although i must say that leaving Sony and MC to duke it out with graphics does open a whole new market for Nintendo.

Blink, I am quite interested in what you would like to say.

[Eugine]

GL, you got it right. Sony future as a company, not just the playstation division depends on the PSP/PS3. If those flop Sony will flop eventually, but like I mentioned in a topic, Sony has the advantage now, if Sony does this right; connecting everything it owns together, it definetly will win.

Right now the Sony Ericsson is the best selling phone out now (it doesn't dominate the market but its market shares are increasing the fastest). You know why? Sony connected it's division together. The Ericsson phones now has walkman capabilities and soon Sony who's very good at Digital Cameras has patent it's cybershot technology to Sony Ericsson. Leading to increased sales because other phone companies don't have the experience Sony has in photographing.

I say this because, if Sony does the PSP/PS3 right and intertwines it with other divisions properly and effienciently; something which Sony isn't good at, (that is what made Sony lose its market share in other division, they didn't connect) the PS3 is going to be successful.

But it seems Sony is starting to think right, that's a key reason why the PS3 is delayed so much, Sony wants to get it right. It seems since Howard Stringer took over Sony, they are planning right.

This post has been edited by Eugine: 05 March 2006 - 11:39 AM

[Someone Else]

watch, on Mar 4 2006, 09:18 PM, said:

WD- I understand Nintendo's marketing ploy for the Revolution, but even with the fact that they're not pushing for better graphics and their aiming for a cheap and fun console, despite this I believe that between the ps3 and 360 it will flop. Nintendo has always been seen for it's portable gaming, never has it done well pitching it's consoles againest sony, and now that Microsoft has entered the game it's a whole different game now. Although i must say that leaving Sony and MC to duke it out with graphics does open a whole new market for Nintendo.

Blink, I am quite interested in what you would like to say.

You mostly talked about graphics. Real gamers don't care about graphics, and that's all there is to it. And most people aren't going to be able afford PS3's $800 mark, and will wait until a price drop WHICH, I assume, won't be for some time after it's release. And I believe that because the PS3's technology will be fairly good for the era. If you catch my drift, technology gets cheaper as it gets older and better stuff becomes available for developers. There will be a few people who will go out and grab the $800 PS3 but that'll probably only be for the little spoiled brats.

But somebody (Eugine) can try and prove me wrong about the price drop.

[Eugine]

This "Real gamers don't care about graphics" statement is getting very cliched really. Real gamers care about graphics, I really don't know why people say that. Maybe graphics isn't the deciding factor, but gamers do pay attention to graphics. Imagine Halo with bad graphics, that game would have probably failed miserably. Imagine me, playing Metal Gear Solid 4 later with N64 graphics... I'd be so turned-off.
Graphics give people the urge to play games, maybe after a while if the game has bad gameplay the person might bet bored and leave the game, but with bad graphics people don't even want to pick up the game. The hardware Sony and Microsoft is pumping into their consoles isn't only about graphics to let you know, it's also about the functioning of the characters during gameplay, also eventually cutscenes and gameplay will be like one. If you ever played Half-Life 2 I think it'll be something like that soon.

About the $800 PS3 (which is most likely false), even if Sony decides to sell their PS3 at $800 WD, I doubt children like us will be buying the PS3. Remember the PS3 has blu-ray, DVD sets sales have dramatically decreased, HD is the new era. Companies right now need a new format. Introducing blu-ray is the ideal now.
When the blu-ray players are released (including PS3), it wouldn't be us, but our parents who shall be buying the PS3 eventually. People like to stay current and nowadays HD is becoming the thing to adults.

With us kids wanting a PS3 + parents wanting HD player + all new movies releasing in blu-ray + PS3 being ideal product = PS3 is bought.
This is the perfect time to release the PS3, I see it releasing at a $500 price, which is good because what it comes with.

This post has been edited by Eugine: 05 March 2006 - 11:52 AM

[Blink]

Actually, the PS3 Blue Ray feature will only be successful if Sony makes Blue Ray players cheap and on their own, not necessarily always attatched to the PS3. If I can buy a Blue Ray Player without a PS3, for under $100, then the Blue Ray market has a good chance at succeeding. On the other hand, I also believe that every last Blue Ray Player absolutely must have the ability to use DVDs as well, since that's the entire market right now. Once every DVD player also has the ability to play Blue Ray, then Sony will take over the market.

But, I don't think they will, seeing as how people don't like fragile things, and Blue Ray disks are looking to be a lot more fragile.

Graphics to Gameplay? Psh, no one knows the fine line of graphics to gameplay anymore. Nintendo fans shout out that gameplay dominates graphics, but the truth is, graphics are merely an absolute necessary that's not that important, until it's gone. If you can make an appealing artistic style to your game, you have the graphics you need. If people don't wince at them, your graphics are fine, you just need good gameplay. If you really want to impress and draw in people, you need better graphics than the rest of the competition for that time in gaming. Halo 1's graphics flat out stunk, Eugine, as did just about every Xbox game at first, because no one was familiar with Microsoft's system. Same goes for the Playstation 1, when it was first released, it really didn't have any good graphics to it, no one knew what it could do, or how to use it. Compare Halo 1's graphics to Rouge Squadron: Rouge Leader, and even though the Xbox is more powerful, Rouge Leader looks better, because of experience with Nintendo's style of hardware in the past(Xbox was a very rushed to market console).

http://xboxmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/halo/halo_e3_2.jpg

http://cubemedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/rogueleader/rogueleadgc11.JPG

http://xboxmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/halo/halo_e3_6.jpg

http://cubemedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/rogue2/21.jpg

Then, compare Metroid Prime 2 Echoes to Halo 2...

http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/article/571/571605/halo-2-20041207070554046.jpg

http://cubemedia.ign.com/cube/image/article/558/558788/metroid-prime-2-echoes-20041021102510470.jpg

Xbox has skyrocketed up from the low place it once stood. Back when Halo was released, it's graphics were awful compared to it's rivals, but now developers have taken full advantage...just as Microsoft jumps to the 360, that is.

So no, graphics aren't going to make a game, gameplay will in the end, but graphics can certainly hinder or help it to get there.

And Watch...my explaination is that you think that Sony and Microsoft are the leaders of the industry, you think that the newbie consoles known as the playstation and the xbox are the "big boys" because you weren't following consoles when Nintendo ruled the industry, when it was Sega vs Ninty, when one was trying to "out cool" the other, when Nintendo was in the lead, and Sega was the only competition for a hundred miles. Back when games were about gameplay, and when Nintendo's gameplay outsold Sega's graphics. This was a time where the Gameboy outsold the gamegear, much like what's happening now, with the DS outselling the PSP. If Nintendo takes back the industry, then we can hope to see a revival of the great times when it wasn't about EA pumping out a new sequel every year, or about Sony winning from them having the most expensive and powerful console. We may even go back to having 2d gameplay. But, you think that the "big boys" are going to play now. If you want to know the truth, I think that the real big boys should come back into play, Sega and Nintendo, the two companies that once held the industry as it was nurtured back to life, only to be torn from their arms by monopolizing companies once they had it back and going again. I do want the big boys to come back into play, I want to see another generation ruled by Sega and Nintendo.

Big boys indeed Watch. xD

[Eugine]

Honestly, Nintendo does mean good to the gaming industry, but let us face the facts. People don't want a console to play games only, people want a console that can do everything. Nintendo doesn't offer that.

While the PS3 and X360 will be open to: Movie fans, music fans, game fans, HD adopters, just anything entertaiment wise... Nintendo is just gaming...
That's what making Nintendo do so badly really. Their audience is much much smaller than Sony/MS.

[Blink]

Eugine, you can't speak for the entire industry. I'm sure you could take a poll, and the majority of nongamers wouldn't buy a game console for its multimedia features, or that gamers would chose a console based on how many media drives it had, they'd chose on who's style they liked the most.

Great, now it looks like I'm trying to speak for the entire industry and then some. xD

This post has been edited by Blink: 05 March 2006 - 04:13 PM

[Someone Else]

Eugine, on Mar 5 2006, 11:34 AM, said:

Honestly, Nintendo does mean good to the gaming industry, but let us face the facts. People don't want a console to play games only, people want a console that can do everything. Nintendo doesn't offer that.

While the PS3 and X360 will be open to: Movie fans, music fans, game fans, HD adopters, just anything entertaiment wise... Nintendo is just gaming...
That's what making Nintendo do so badly really. Their audience is much much smaller than Sony/MS.

I don't even know what to say. Personally I wish we could just go back to when companies sold MP3 players that only played MP3s, when DVD Players only played DVDs, when Game Consoles only played games, when Cell Phones only called people... and when staplers only stapled stuff...

See, I'm one of those people that buy gaming consoles for GAMES. I can't be the only one that feels this way, right? For every person that buys gaming consoles for the games, there must be at least 1000 other people that feel the same way.

It's also worth noting that part of the multi-media consoles go to, well, the other media it plays. This means that a fraction of what you're paying is going to something you may not even use. Talk about throwing away money, huh? Not everyone is going to want to buy a PS3 for all of it's multi-media features, at least not the Sony fanboy people. Music people would much rather get an iPod, for example. Movie people would be better off just buying a normal DVD player for about $50 US. Just about any other form of entertainment will probably be done better on a cheaper system that, chances are, does it in better quality.

[Sea of Time]

So, it's confirmed now, the PS3 is going to be delayed. I don't know if this will make it better, but it probably won't make the Sony fans very happy.

[Someone Else]

Something random I noticed which you guys might find funny.


You know, I've noticed something kinda funny.

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/636/636848/playstation-3-faq-20050726051521267.jpg
http://www.nintendo.com.au/ds/images/i_5485.jpg
The DS looks alot like the PS3...

http://ve3dmedia.ign.com/ve3d/image/article/615/615669/newer-better-nintendo-revolution-pics-20050517085520971.jpg
http://personales.ya.com/pawstick/psp-dev_launcher.jpg
And the PSP looks like the Rev!!!

[Blink]

I did one of those before. It had the two you have, but it also had this...

http://pictures.xbox-scene.com/4/xbox360/Xbox_360_official.jpg

http://home.btconnect.com/hgi/nintendo-ds/gameboy-micro.jpg

That was before the DSLite, which also now compares to the 360 with all the light and all the white and shiney.

This post has been edited by Blink: 07 March 2006 - 11:00 PM

[Sea of Time]

There are similarities but it's mostly because what is "fashionable" in electronics these days. All these systems look futuristic and if they look similar, that's probably what it is.

[Someone Else]

So far I prefer the Rev's appearance over them all. The PS3 looks futuristic, but it also looks too bulky and metallic. And the 360 is just... meh.

[Laharl]

Wind Dude, on Mar 8 2006, 03:47 AM, said:

Something random I noticed which you guys might find funny.
You know, I've noticed something kinda funny.

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/636/636848/playstation-3-faq-20050726051521267.jpg
http://www.nintendo.com.au/ds/images/i_5485.jpg
The DS looks alot like the PS3...

http://ve3dmedia.ign.com/ve3d/image/article/615/615669/newer-better-nintendo-revolution-pics-20050517085520971.jpg
http://personales.ya.com/pawstick/psp-dev_launcher.jpg
And the PSP looks like the Rev!!!

Blink, on Mar 8 2006, 04:57 AM, said:

I did one of those before. It had the two you have, but it also had this...

http://pictures.xbox-scene.com/4/xbox360/Xbox_360_official.jpg

http://home.btconnect.com/hgi/nintendo-ds/gameboy-micro.jpg

That was before the DSLite, which also now compares to the 360 with all the light and all the white and shiney.

Now that's fanboyism!!! your loyalty to Nintendo is quite sickening

[Someone Else]

What? Did I say they were copying each other?

[Sea of Time]

You implied it but I don't think you followed through. That's kind of an unfair accusation, laharl.

[Someone Else]

'Guess this wasn't the place to post that, since this topic is about Sony copying Nintendo.

[Blink]

I was just saying that the Micro and the 360 happened to be unveiled at the same time, released at the same time, and looked the same.

...

How the heck is that fanboyism?

[Toasty64]

It doesn't seem like fanboyism to me. Personally, I think that Nintendo has the upper hand by knowing more of what customers want, and having more experience in making systems. I mean, come on, Nintendo has been around WAY longer in the gameing industry than Sony or Microsoft. Well, at least in gameing consols. I'm not sure, but I think Nintendo was the first to make a gameing consol any way, mabey even before Microsoft really got into computer games. I alos would buy a system mostly for the content, and performance of the games, not so much the graphics. But I wouldn't buy a system if the graphics were as bad as the N64's, nowadays at least. The N64 in my opinion actually had fairly good graphics for that time, but now, that would just be pathetic.

This post has been edited by Toasty64: 09 March 2006 - 06:07 PM

[Blink]

Actually, Toasty, the NES was the first system that came out of the smoke of the video game crash back in the eighties, it was a brand new console with all new style, more powerful than ever before, a new control style, and it was ready to revolutionize the industry, just like the Revolution hopes to.

So, Nintendo wasn't the first, there was plenty of Atari and Colecovision, but Nintendo was the first that would actually come out of the crash and dare to test the industry waters again.

[Someone Else]

I think the NES was the first of it's kind, though. Nintendo was originally a company that only developed video games for arcades, while Atari made a home console, but I think it only play Pong...

Way back then, you had to go to the local arcade to play any Mario or Donkey Kong. Imagine that. XD Then Nintendo came out with the NES, which could play a wide variety of games, rather than being a system that only played one game.

That's what I understand of the history.

[Blink]

You, my friend, understand wrong. The Atari could use cartridges, just like the NES, for multiple games. The Gameboy is what you're thinking of, it was the first portable that used cartridges.

[Someone Else]

Oi...

But Mario and Donkey Kong were originally played in arcades. Am I right?! :D

[Sea of Time]

Indeed. My cottage has a game arcade in the restaurant's basement and it has the original Mario Bros. arcade game!

[Neon]

lol, everyone shut up about this fanboy bull****. It's like being anti-emo but even more pathetic.

As for the sony nintendo thing. Of course Sony will try to copy with the eye-toy or some oither bogus accessory. I thought that was obvious. But the thing is they won't do it as well as nintendo. THe design of the rev controller cannot be stolen, and even if they could steal it they would want to add their own ideas to it anyway - change the shape or button placement or whatever.
I think that because Nintendo are focussing on the idea completely it will be far more professional and natural to use. Sony's copy will just be a crap technologically inferior add-on and much more of a gimmik.

And my experiance with the last 2 generations of consoles tells me Nintendo are lightyears ahead of Sony when it comes to making controllers that are comfortable and feel natural to use.

[Eothain]

Neon, on Mar 16 2006, 10:55 AM, said:

And my experiance with the last 2 generations of consoles tells me Nintendo are lightyears ahead of Sony when it comes to making controllers that are comfortable and feel natural to use.

<_< i always found the ps1/ps2's controllers to be very comfortable...and they also felt very "natural" to use...but maybe that's just me. I'm no Sony fanboy, but I prefer sony's controllers.

[Sea of Time]

They were definitely much better than the XBox controllers and maybe even better then the GC's because it was difficult to access the C stick on the GC.

[Eothain]

xbox controllers made me puke. Man, those were the worst controllers ever. I haven't tried the x360's yet, but a friend is getting one on Monday, so I'll see what those are like soon.

[Blink]

Xbox original controllers I'll agree with, but the S controllers? Naw, those things rocked. Aside from the black/white and start/back buttons, they were pretty well laid out, far better than the Playstation controllers with their thumb stretching to reach the primary joystick. <_<

At least, that's my experience with them, since it's so unnatural to rest your thumbs that way. It also bugs me that Sony continues to deny analouge, along with moving the primary joystick, after Nintendo, Microsoft, and even Sega all did it. Why can't they copy the things that make their controllers so uncomfy??

[Sea of Time]

I agree the S controllers were much better. But I don't see why they didn't just start with those in the first place. They weren't just appealing to older gamers with the XBox at the launch, older gamers were the only ones who could play it with the huge controllers.

As for Sony, I disagree with you Blink, I think the smallness of the controllers makes sure that you can reach both analog sticks easily and they are definitely 'comfy'.

[Someone Else]

I <3 the Xbox 360 controllers. They're light, spiffy-looking, and they fit in my hands like they were made for me. <_<

[Eugine]

The PS2 controller was the best out of the lot. I loved it, so did the rest of the world (excluding Blink it seems)

PS2 controller > GC controller > Xbox controller.

[Neon]

I've always hated the PS controllers. They don't feel comfortable to me. The GC controller was the most natural, but it was also the most limited (FPSs anyone?)

The biggest issues for me with the PS controller is the placement of the analogue sticks. ThE GC controller had a similar problem with the c-stick and d pad, but at least they were secondary control input, whereas the analogue stick is used almost all the time.
The other problem is that i rarely play PS games, so i'm not used to the button placement :P

[Someone Else]

There isn't really a point in arguing about controllers, since everyone is suited differently to different controllers, and none of them are actually better than each other.

[Sea of Time]

You can bet that the PS3 will be the gift to buy this holiday season. It really raises the question of how Nintendo is going to sneak in it's Revolution. Will we be waiting for Holiday 2007 for this console?

[Someone Else]

Eugine, on Mar 17 2006, 02:19 AM, said:

I loved it, so did the rest of the world (excluding Blink it seems)

You really need to stop speaking on behalf of "everybody" just because you think Sony is the company that should rule the world. :P

Actually, I liked the N64 controller alot. It was a bit wierd at first, but it was fairly comfortable and worked pretty well for lefties and righties.

[Eugine]

Naw, but really the mass of gamers prefer the PS2 controller, gameFAQs (or some popular game site) even did a poll a while back and the PS2 controller won :P.

[Eothain]

Eugine, on Mar 17 2006, 05:06 PM, said:

Naw, but really the mass of gamers prefer the PS2 controller, gameFAQs (or some popular game site) even did a poll a while back and the PS2 controller won :P.

haha, yeah, i remember that poll!!! and yeah, most gamers i know prefer the ps2 controllers....although i know an awful lot of pc-only gamers...hmm

[My Best Wishes]

The only controller that comes close to the PS is the 64, but that doesn't include when you had to strech out for the D-Pad. I agree with Eugine but I'd say

Sony>Xbox S>Gamecube>Orginal Xbox

[Someone Else]

But seriously Eugine, you need to stop speaking as if all gamers feelt he same way you do.

I think that the PS' controller is the standard controller. I can't say I know for certain since I own no Playstation consoles **glares at parents** but I have 2 PC gamepads that look like PS controllers.

[Toasty64]

I got used to the N64 controllers as soon as I picked one up. All controllers are equal to me. All I need to know is what each button does, and I'm set. :P Although, after I picked up a GC controller, it was so different that I held the N64 controller wrong when I went ot play it again. But the GC controller was easy to get used to.

GC>Xbox>PS :lol:

[My Best Wishes]

I'll admit the 64 is the best controller ever aside from two flaws:
1-The d-pad is in such an akward place
2-the C buttons are a pain in the ass

[Someone Else]

Eh, when do you ever really use the D-pad anyway? But that point is true.

And I've got no comment on the C-butons. XD I never used the 64 controller that much, so I can't really talk.

[Aquamarine]

Every single controller I've ever tried was great for me. The XBox, PS, all the Nintendo controllers... were great. But I still think the GC controller rules. It's just perfectly shaped, it melts with my hands and becomes one with me. And I don't have a problem with pressing the D-Pad or using the C-Stick.

[My Best Wishes]

Aqua I was talking about the Nintendo 64 not the Gamecube...I'm sorry the Gamecube controller never worked for me.

WD-On the rare occasion the D-pad was nessacary it was a pain. Although I must say I loved the button on the back under the rumble pack (Think it was called Z or something)

[Someone Else]

http://www.nintendo....lassic?type=n64

Scroll down to where the N64 controller is. I find it funny that even Nintendo admits that the N64 controller was strange-looking. XD

[Sea of Time]

If we're back to talking about controllers, I think the N64 is the single worst controller that Nintendo has ever made. Yes, even the NES was better. The controller was awkward (and there were games that needed the D pad). I'm glad they ditched the design for the GC, which was a much, much better controller.