Xbox 360 Official Price

I am pretty satisfied, to tell you the truth.

The Rev controller will still have a joystick, face buttons and triggers, as per usual. However, it will most likely also sport the gyration tech, as well as maybe one or two other surprises.

PDZero should be fun, but it's nothing I'm frothing over at the moment. I've seen a few screens and one video from E3 and it didn't look awe-inspiring. However, I'd bet money that what we saw was pre-beta, and that the game still has a ways to go before it's a finished product. If I decide to pick up a 360, which is becoming a likely possibility, I'll most certainly grab it.

You aren't to popular on this forum are ya buddy...

Warcraft 3 had a matchmaking system =/

Hell maybe "Skip-It" even did... I seem to recall something like that from my old "Skip-It" competition days.

Most multiplayer games nowadays have some sort of matchmaking system.... I was playing Fight Night for ps2 with matching making before I was playin Halo 2

Well I'm happy for you then Raziel

I wouldn't really know. I gave Warcraft III a spin when it first came out at a LAN party. I gotta tell ya, I didn't find it too intriguing. I think personally it lacked the strategy to be considered a decent RTS. The role-playing aspect just brought it down even further. I know it was supposed to be a hybrid, but not every hybrid is good... IE: "Pig & Elephant DNA just won't splice."

The user made maps and Scenarios were fun, though.

Honestly, I don't understand why Sony felt the need to redesign the controller.

Sony didn't patent the Dual Shock technology. Another company did and Sony used it without permission. As a result they were sued, meanign that most games in North America with Dual Shock function might have the Dual Shock bit taken out. I followed the story for a couple of days but not since so I haven't a clue what's happening.

I also seem to remember Sony saying that the pictures of the contoller are subject to change as they've not completely finished designing it. Chances are I dreamed this after the PS3 conference, but what they hey? It sounds like it's possible, so I'm gonna believe it.

Maybe if you try the controller you'll like it. Never judge a book by its cover Raziel, it may look like if you threw it out of the window it would come back and hit you, and a bit weird, but when you actually try it you might like it. This design could be more ergonomical than the Dual Shock controllers.

Yea I like the controller alot, and sheesh that damn PS3 is ugly and the controller looks uncomfortable and uncool. Silver is soo 90's.

I must be the only one who still likes the PS3 here.

Don't forget that the PS3 is coming out not only in Silver but Black and White. Of course, that doesn't make it any more pleasing to those who don't like the shape, I'm just saying you don't have to have it in Silver. I quite like it in Silver,, it'll complete the collection:

- Grey Playstation
- White PS1
- Black PS2 (that no longer works )
- Silver PS3

Now all I need is luminous orange and sky-pink.

yeah PGR2 had matchmaking... first game i played with it i recall... way before the H2 days

You're missing one key element though, Titus. At the time when Atari was in the midst of their heydey, the term videogame "console" didn't really even exist. The terms "computer game system" and "TV game system" were the standard nomenclature for home videogames at the time. The 2600 and 5800 were, in essence, percieved as home computer systems designed primarily for the purpose of gaming. They were lumped right together with conventional computers simply because people didn't know how else to define them. As a result, people saw that they could afford to buy real computers for much cheaper, and gave up on a type of machine heretofore seen as a shallow toy.

Then how can you say Nintendo saved the console industry? You just said it right there, that technically, consoles didn't even exist. Without doing any research and just taking you on your word, which is usually correct anyway, Nintendo started the console gaming system, and cheaper, real home computers revolutionized gaming and saved Atari's royal screw up.

Then Nintendo came along, bringing with it the definition of a "videogame console". They introduced a device that, unlike Atari's hardware, strove to present a pure videogame experience without trying to also be a diet-PC at the same time. Nintendo created the rift between consoles and computers, allowing people to distinguish between the two, saving the industry from Atari's bumbling hands. Witout the introduction of the NES, the console videogames industry would be in a very different place today.

Alright, I guess we are simply arguing semantics then, because based on your previous paragraph, we are now saying the exact same thing, but you are taking a different route, or should I say opinion. I say home computers were upgrades to Atari, and NES was basically a brand-spanking new technology that started console gaming, while you say NES saved Atari's bumbling idiocy.

Either way, NES was great, agreed, but it really isn't any different than the progress of cars throughout history. Ford first built cars, but they didn't sell very a lot because they were intended for the rich. Then, mass production was introduced and manufacturing cars in bulk allowed companies to sell cars for cheaper, hence saving the automobile industry the same way the introduction of cheap home computers opened the door for Nintendo to revolutionize/begin the console gaming industry. Both opened the doors and paved the way to innovative thinking, which enabled other companies (i.e. car companies and NES) to become successful and change the way we looked at cars/games.

I couldn't disagree more. Home computers had much to do with the downfall of the console industry, simply because Atari wasn't willing to build a machine dedicated solely to idea of games. Nintendo took that chance and it saved console videogames as we know them.

How could Nintendo save an industry that you said didn't even technically exist? They took one of the ideas from Atari, and because computers made the gaming industry more competitive and upped the scales of quality, NES made a console that changed gaming.

And again, I can't see how it's fair to admonish Nintendo for doing something that works, and at the same time, Microsoft and Sony will be guilty of should they be given another decade with which to do so. As I've already pointed out, Ratchet & Clank will, by the end of this year, have seen four entries in five years, as will Jak and Daxter. GTA has been releasing sequels and updates consistently since 2001. Final Fantasy has seen a new installment on Sony consoles every single year since 1999. Resident Evil has been pumping out new titles non-stop since 1996. Why do these franchises continue to exist? Because they continue to sell. On top of that, you can't praise Microsoft too much for releasing a lot of new IPs. It's their first generation. They can't release anything but new stuff.

First, that is a good point. Miscrosoft is new and had to come up with original titles and characters to get that base, true. Second, I'm not knocking on NES for pumping out sequel after sequel, because like I said before, I agree with your policy that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I guess I'm just waiting for the next gaming title that is original to come out from Nintendo that will attract the same future attention some of it's major hits of the past have... I haven't seen that in a while, so I'm a skeptic.

Also, we all grew up with the Mario and Zelda gaming titles, so we got addicted to the kiddy worlds and gameplay style. As I get older, and the technology gets better, I have more and more desire to play in a realistic gaming atmosphere. I'd like to see Nintendo get away from basing most of their games on the same style of play I loved in the early 90's...

Not seeing the merits of Nintendo's library beyond Zelda and Metroid has nothing to do with them, but entirely to do with your own tastes. If those two franchises are the only thing that keeps your interest, that's not the fault of the developer.

Well there is clearly something wrong with Nintendo, being it is the worst of the 3 major console sellers, by far. PS2 and XBox kill Gamecube in sales, and with the introduction of XBox 360 this year, it's all but a console killer for Gamecube..

Opinions are opinions, but it just strikes me as a little ridiculous to criticize somebody for doing something that works. Give Sony another decade and just see if they're not still riding the GTA-train. Give Microsoft another ten years and watch as Halo 12 continues to sell into the stratosphere. If they could sustain public interest in those franchises for another decade, you can bet your ass that they'll keep making the games. Nintendo has kept their biggest sellers alive for 20 years. That's not something to be condemned for, that's something to be congratulated on.

Again, I'm not criticizing them, I agreed with you. I actually am looking forward to seeing the progress of Microsoft over the next 10 years. If I was a betting man, I'd say they will surpass all console sales and original gaming hits by far. Already, XBox sales are catching up to PS2, which was by far a favorite just a few years ago. Microsoft simply has too much money to just burn for it not to be the best, and that makes me happy, because they will only keep raising the bar for everyone else to match.



Oh, and has anyone seen The 40 Year Old Virgin? I only mention it because in it, Steve Carrel had a chair for gaming that broke up the controls into two pieces, one for each hand. Is that the same technology you are talking about that could be standard in gaming controls in the future?

Then how can you say Nintendo saved the console industry? You just said it right there, that technically, consoles didn't even exist. Without doing any research and just taking you on your word, which is usually correct anyway, Nintendo started the console gaming system, and cheaper, real home computers revolutionized gaming and saved Atari's royal screw up.

I said that the public separation between consoles and computers didn't exist. Nintendo saved electronic, TV-display game-playing devices. They created the rift between PCs and consoles, thereby allowing consoles to continue existing.

Either way, NES was great, agreed, but it really isn't any different than the progress of cars throughout history. Ford first built cars, but they didn't sell very a lot because they were intended for the rich. Then, mass production was introduced and manufacturing cars in bulk allowed companies to sell cars for cheaper, hence saving the automobile industry the same way the introduction of cheap home computers opened the door for Nintendo to revolutionize/begin the console gaming industry. Both opened the doors and paved the way to innovative thinking, which enabled other companies (i.e. car companies and NES) to become successful and change the way we looked at cars/games.

Sure, the parallel works. However, that doesn't mean it was destined to turn out this way. Both were the result of a gamble taken by a specific group of individuals and it paid off. You can't write off the significance of these events simply because it feels natural. There's no evidence to support the notion that anyone would have taken the gamble breathing life back into the console industry had Nintendo chosen not to.

How could Nintendo save an industry that you said didn't even technically exist? They took one of the ideas from Atari, and because computers made the gaming industry more competitive and upped the scales of quality, NES made a console that changed gaming.

I never said the console industry never existed. I said that the separation between consoles and computers didn't exist in the mind of the public until Nintendo made it so. People percieved consoles as being nothing more than toys. A fad destined to fail. Nintendo changed that perception. Nintendo did not invent consoles. They simply gave them public definition.

First, that is a good point. Miscrosoft is new and had to come up with original titles and characters to get that base, true. Second, I'm not knocking on NES for pumping out sequel after sequel, because like I said before, I agree with your policy that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I guess I'm just waiting for the next gaming title that is original to come out from Nintendo that will attract the same future attention some of it's major hits of the past have... I haven't seen that in a while, so I'm a skeptic.

I can fully understand that sentiment. I've been waiting for the next big thing from Nintendo as well, and although this generation has been spectacular in my opinion, the closest that they have delivered on the "next big thing" front was Metroid Prime, and that's still a resurrection of an older franchise.

Also, we all grew up with the Mario and Zelda gaming titles, so we got addicted to the kiddy worlds and gameplay style. As I get older, and the technology gets better, I have more and more desire to play in a realistic gaming atmosphere. I'd like to see Nintendo get away from basing most of their games on the same style of play I loved in the early 90's...

Yet, there are people, like me, who still prefer that style of gaming. Different strokes.

Well there is clearly something wrong with Nintendo, being it is the worst of the 3 major console sellers, by far. PS2 and XBox kill Gamecube in sales, and with the introduction of XBox 360 this year, it's all but a console killer for Gamecube..

Well, first off, the problem with Nintendo is image. Advertising, promotion and solid 3rd-party relationships are all weak areas for them, and it's what killed them this gen. Not to mention their stubbornness in regard to online expansion. The games themselves are not the problem, because Sony still kills on sales with cartoonish games like Ratchet and Jak. Advertising and image are the issue.

Second, the XBox, in worldwide numbers only stands a mere 1,900,000 units above Nintendo, the last time I checked NPD numbers. That's less than the population of Idaho. XBox is crushing Nintendo in terms of momentum, but the actual hardware numbers aren't anything to scream about.

On top of that, if you factor in handheld numbers, Nintendo is doing better than both of their competitors in terms of hardware sales.

Oh, and has anyone seen The 40 Year Old Virgin? I only mention it because in it, Steve Carrel had a chair for gaming that broke up the controls into two pieces, one for each hand. Is that the same technology you are talking about that could be standard in gaming controls in the future?

First, I am literally dying as we speak because I haven't seen this fucking movie yet. Steve Carell is tumor-inducingly funny, and I've been aching to see this for months.

Second, I can't really comment because I haven't seen the film. However, I've seen people do some crazy modding shit like that before.

All of this Xbox and Nintendo bickering makes me want to just wait and get a ps3.

Nobody's bickering. It's a debate.

And it's not just Xbox and Nintendo...there was a lot about the PS3 when I made the threads.

As if I'm going to read a thesis on fourth (?) generation video game systems. Sum it up; who won?

Third gen I think.

We finally decided that the PS2 is great for single player, and the Xbox great for online multiplayer. Or did we decide that in the other thread...

Anyway, then I think Raziel came in, he and S2 AM debated...and I lost track of everything.

Out of who won...I don't think anyone did. We're all back at square one, some of us in the PS3 camp, more in the Xbox 360 camp, and Raziel debating with whoever tries to rip into the Nintendo camp.

Lol, it's more of writing books and not debating. Instead of writing gigantic responses, we should have debated each issue separately. As far as being as square one, I'd have to agree, we've gotten nowhere.

I said that the public separation between consoles and computers didn't exist. Nintendo saved electronic, TV-display game-playing devices. They created the rift between PCs and consoles, thereby allowing consoles to continue existing.

Gotcha. No doubt Nintendo did a great justice to the future of gaming, but lets agree that there were many factors that contributed, not just the brilliance of Nintendo.

Sure, the parallel works. However, that doesn't mean it was destined to turn out this way. Both were the result of a gamble taken by a specific group of individuals and it paid off. You can't write off the significance of these events simply because it feels natural. There's no evidence to support the notion that anyone would have taken the gamble breathing life back into the console industry had Nintendo chosen not to.

Of course it isn't destined. It was just something that came to mind when I was writing my response. The parallel seemed to great to ignore, in my opinion.

Yet, there are people, like me, who still prefer that style of gaming. Different strokes.

True enough, hence, half our debate gets settled.

First, I am literally dying as we speak because I haven't seen this fucking movie yet. Steve Carell is tumor-inducingly funny, and I've been aching to see this for months. Second, I can't really comment because I haven't seen the film. However, I've seen people do some crazy modding shit like that before.

Holy shit. You have to see this movie. To be quite honest, and this is an understatement at best, this is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It hits on all kinds of stereotypes, outlandish acting, comments, and actions. Steve Carell is friggin' hillarious, and so are his co-stars in the movie. They did a good casting job, and until you see this movie, you are missing out on great laughs. Please see this ASAP then write a review in the Reviews forum. I just wouldn't do the movie justice in a review, since half my review would be filled with, "Holy shit, this movie is hillarious!" types of lines..

Gotcha. No doubt Nintendo did a great justice to the future of gaming, but lets agree that there were many factors that contributed, not just the brilliance of Nintendo.

Agreed. There were numerous factors. To dispute such would be lunacy.

Of course it isn't destined. It was just something that came to mind when I was writing my response. The parallel seemed to great to ignore, in my opinion.

And, as I said, the parallel works well. The interesting thing is thinking about what state the automotive/videogame industries would be in had the key players been other people, with other ideals.

Holy shit. You have to see this movie. To be quite honest, and this is an understatement at best, this is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It hits on all kinds of stereotypes, outlandish acting, comments, and actions. Steve Carell is friggin' hillarious, and so are his co-stars in the movie. They did a good casting job, and until you see this movie, you are missing out on great laughs. Please see this ASAP then write a review in the Reviews forum. I just wouldn't do the movie justice in a review, since half my review would be filled with, "Holy shit, this movie is hillarious!" types of lines..

I'll most certainly do so. I've just recently procured a new car, meaning I don't have to persuade one of my friends to go see a movie starring a comedian they've never heard of. I've been waiting for Steve Carrell to earn a starring role since he left The Daily Show. He was the best thing that came out of that program, and he's been in desperate need of greater attention from the public in general. I'm stoked, to say the very least.

I saw the 40 Year Old Virgin the other day with my girlfriend and two friends. It's funny, because all the virgins in the audience never laugh at the sex jokes, while the couples do. Half of the theatre is just sitting in semi-awkward silence with boners while the other half laughs vigorously.

I thought the premise of the movie was ridiculous enough, but actually the humor is very rarely taken from that.. it's more from the outlandishly stereotypical behaviors and scenarios between the characters in the movie. All in all it was far more hilarious than I was expecting, and I was pleasantly surprised.

Best comedy in years. Comparable to Old School and Meet the Parents. I loved it, but haven't seen The Wedding Crashers yet. I heard 40 Year Old Virgin was funnier though.

I keep hearing that Wedding Crashers and Virgin are the best comedies of the year so far. I'm gonna have to check them both out soon.

Not to kick around a dead skunk here, but there's something I have to resurface. I didn't know much about the Atari. I never had one, and so I wouldn't really argue whether or not Computer games and Atari games had been separate before Nintendo. I, unlike yourself, don't manifest facts in my head and argue things which I know nothing about. So I did some research.

http://www.atariage.com/2600/?SystemID=2600

That place has practically the whole history of video games up until the release of the NES. It explains the many other vendors that competed with the Atari 2600. I know Raziel will be reading with excitment and an erection as he gets to the part that talks about how, in 1986, after an oversupply of systems, and as sales slowed for Atari, the NES was brought over from Japan. Credit to Nintendo, good marketing move, but they definitely didn't save an industry. If NES hadn't come from Japan, then one of Atari's competitors would have stepped into their place. That, and one key element you conveniently forgot, was the Sega Master System. That's one I do know about, and have actually played. It was technically better than the NES, and if the NES had never existed, probably would have been the leading developer for the next decade.

Atari was more successful than PC computers. I doubt the NES(released in 1986) brought a separation between consoles and the PC . Especially seeing as in 1981, IBM introduced the IBM PC. That was just the first computer with a microprocessor, they came in many varieties before that. The Apple comes to mind. Do you still think that Nintendo saved something Raziel? Japan is on list 1, you can move there if you like. If you read the history you'll realize there was much difference between the IBM Portable PC(unit with keyboard, operating system, programmable interface, media and printer ports, and attached screen), and the Atari 2600(cartridge fed, game machine).

If these aren't pure gaming consoles, let me know.
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/40/
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/6422/
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/6423/
I can only guess the whole time you've been saying 5800, you mean 7800.

I finally had time to read all the crap and write a response. Raziel if you read those two largest articles in my sources, you'll realize that you couldn't have been further from the truth with your "guessing." If you actually read them, instead of your ADD taking control, resulting in the creation of facts. I know you won't admit that you're wrong, so I'm curious to see how you'll lie your way out of this one.

Sources:
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...s/story071.htm
http://www.atariage.com/2600/?SystemID=2600

http://www.machine-room.org/computers/40/
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/6422/
http://www.machine-room.org/computers/6423/

You're missing one key element though, Titus. At the time when Atari was in the midst of their heydey, the term videogame "console" didn't really even exist. The terms "computer game system" and "TV game system" were the standard nomenclature for home videogames at the time. The 2600 and 5800 were, in essence, percieved as home computer systems designed primarily for the purpose of gaming. They were lumped right together with conventional computers simply because people didn't know how else to define them. As a result, people saw that they could afford to buy real computers for much cheaper, and gave up on a type of machine heretofore seen as a shallow toy. Then Nintendo came along, bringing with it the definition of a "videogame console". They introduced a device that, unlike Atari's hardware, strove to present a pure videogame experience without trying to also be a diet-PC at the same time. Nintendo created the rift between consoles and computers, allowing people to distinguish between the two, saving the industry from Atari's bumbling hands. Witout the introduction of the NES, the console videogames industry would be in a very different place today.

Not a chance. Atari firmly rooted the public concept of videogames being trite, pointless and juvenile with the 2600 and 5800 systems. If it hadn't been for Nintendo, they would have continued to be seen in that light and would have died in the mid-80's. Nintendo turned a throwaway timewaster into a bonafide industry. Nobody else cared enough to try and revive videogames after Atari so spectacularly fucked them up. If it hadn't been for the Big N, videogames would be a dead laughable fad, like Pogs.

It's not the same thing, Titus. The videogames industry was in a state of steep decline as a result of Atari's buffonery. Developers were making nothing back on their games, hardware sales were slumping and the general public concensus was that console videogames would be dead in a few short years if the industry continued to progress in that manner.

I couldn't disagree more. Home computers had much to do with the downfall of the console industry, simply because Atari wasn't willing to build a machine dedicated solely to idea of games. Nintendo took that chance and it saved console videogames as we know them.