Kikizo goes hands-on with the PS3

[Draft]

What the hell is a Kikizo? Damned if I know, but they've apparently scored a sneaky peek (http://games.kikizo.com/news/200602/065_p1.asp) at the mysterious PS3.

Let's jump right to the juicy bit!

The hands-on evidence is beginning to mount up. We're talking about a machine barely superior to Xbox 360 - not by any significant margin. It's certainly obvious this machine is not "twice" as powerful as 360, let alone a generational leap ahead.
Legit? Depends on how much you trust things named Kikizo.

Revenge of the Emotion Engine.

[Grimmjow]

i just read this whole article....it seems like games may not look like killzone but look like that saga game (to me that looks great) but who knows. they also go to say that mgs4 is quite possible to pull off with a lil bit more touch up...im happy with that but b4 i countmy chickens ill wait till launch date or e3 2006

[Reanimated]

And in the blink of an eye Kuturagi's dream world constructed of fake FMV reels comes crashing down.

[Megalith]

{S common_sense

[Wonka]

Seems like common sense to me.

Anyone who has seen the announced specs from last years E3 should already know that the PS3 is roughly the equivalent of a 360 (in terms of hardware).

I don't see what the big deal is, last time the Xbox was roughly twice what a PS2 was and it didn't affect much (in terms of whether a game would be technically possible on either system). This time the two most powerful consoles will be barely distinguishable from each other, and even the 3rd place hardware will still probably be able to make most all the same kinds of games.

The hardware driven era is pretty much OVER. Even the revolutions controller would be likely copied (in some manner) by their competitors if it really takes off.

I still expect that the real differences in games this time will be about core functionalities that these guys will make for their consoles over the next 5 years, and *most* of THAT will be tied to the software they will each cook up...

[TrackZero]

I still expect that the real differences in games this time will be about core functionalities that these guys will make for their consoles over the next 5 years, and *most* of THAT will be tied to the software they will each cook up...

I'd agree that hardware has become far less of an issue with the new generation of consoles. What will really determine who "leads" this time around will come down to the way developers are treated and which console has the killer game experiences, really. Which is all that should ever matter anyways. I'd hope to see Sony/Nintendo both step up with their online gameplay this time around. We'll also have to see how the revolutions controls play out.

[JazGalaxy]

I think a lot of people drooling over the PS3 are going to realize the same thing Xbox 360 owners either already knew, or came to realize. It's no different than the console you already have. when it comes to gameplay. People obsess over graphics, and are wowed by shots of a guys fully realized eyebrows, but they fail to realize that that has nothing to do with gameplay. In an FPS, what difference does it make if your guy has fully functioal eyebrows or not?

The true next generation will come when developers realize there is money to be made by offering NEW CONTENT, not new graphics. I think they may be realizing this with the Nintendo DS, thank goodness. Ironically, that next generation could have come about generations ago.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Waiting on the site to load page 3, its really slow. Everything so far doesnt seem suprising, just what we already knew.

~
Some developers are finding other ways to get the most out of things, though. For example, a middleware application called SpeedTree effortlessly creates lifelike 3D trees with fully detailed branches and leaves, although it's nothing bleeding-edge anymore: "We're not using SpeedTree at the moment, but it's something that can already be seen in Project Gotham 3, so why don't you go play that instead of asking me stupid questions?" our flustered source barks. "Programmable shaders need huge power... the increase in power means that skilled artists become more important; games will look incredible thanks to the skilled artists."

:)

[Chalex]

The article seemed kinda wishy-washy to me, not sure if the PS3 is or is not "better".

I'd like to read something similar from a wesite/publication/blog I have heard of (and it would be nice without this unnamed developer nonsense)

[Grifter]

from what I understood the article said that the PS3 is just as impressive as the 360. Talking to the devs the PS3 may be able to handle a bit more onscreen events than the 360. At this point we are just waiting to hear about Sony's online plan, price and release date. They also said that in order for Sony to fit in all the features they claim to have the shell needs to be much bigger, so there is a good chance that the final PS3 and it's controller will look different than the E3 shell.

[Mason]

The guy predicts Q4 2006 is the earliest we'll see PS3 in the States. That's interesting.

To me, every time someone is shown an exclusive of a console, they end up with a massively positive take on it. Simple human nature. Critical faculties only really get called into play when there's wider exposure.

I really don't like this. My problem is that the vast majority of the industry bet on Sony, and we're all screwed if they lose. Their bet wasn't based on technical reasons, just perceptions; Sony sold a shitload of consoles last generation and they'll do it again, so we want our game on their box. If that perception is off the mark by too much ($500+ for a PS3 would sharply limit sales), then it will be a severe hit on the industry in general.

I just wish Sony would indicate which promises they need to break sooner instead of later. Right now they're trying to ride the ambiguity and get more studios committed before the inevitable backlash on release date, pricing, and features. And I'm worried that they'll be too irresponsible in managing expectations and some third parties will get burned.

I found the mention of developers currently restricting themselves to targetting a 10x DVD-ROM very interesting. The omission of BluRay is certainly not impossible at this point. If no game really desperately needs it (other than FMV Quest), and they can't afford to both put it in the console and sell stand-alone players, going down to a DVD or DVD-like format for games would be a PR hit, but could be the only thing that lets them bring the console to market.

[jacktion]

Next gen is going to take a few years to kick in. We'll see mind-bending games for x-mas 2008. Can't wait. In the meantime there are still too many games to play from this generation. I'll stick to my X-box and my DS. Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil and Burnout 3 are still waiting for me.

[Borys]

Ouch.

No BR yet? No final hardware design yet? Graphics still comparable to the Xbox 270?

Spring launch my ass.

[rjcc]

Whether or not this article is positive for Sony depends on how (imo) realistic you've been about what the PS3 will do.

I think it's overall positive for Sony, it's gotta be more powerful the 360 (they still think it is and now have actual hardware to say so), and that no good looking games would be running in 1080p, and that if we see games really take advantage of blu-ray it won't be for quite a while and load times could be a problem with first gen drives, isn't really a surprise.

Probably my biggest question marks on Sony from it would be:

No final controller design yet: WTF?? You can buy a million different PC controllers, I really don't think that system works well for game makers.

2.5" hard drive - same form factor as the 360, I'm not surprised, but we'll see how much they want to move on the prices.

final hardware design still a ??, but I'm not that surprised, but it would be nice to know that at least they know what it will look like.

We probably won't see jack till E3 at this rate tho.

[Wonka]

Whether or not this article is positive for Sony depends on how (imo) realistic you've been about what the PS3 will do.

I think it's overall positive for Sony, it's gotta be more powerful the 360 (they still think it is and now have actual hardware to say so), and that no good looking games would be running in 1080p, and that if we see games really take advantage of blu-ray it won't be for quite a while and load times could be a problem with first gen drives, isn't really a surprise.

Actually, I think that the article was pretty clear that just like the specs suggested, the PS3 will only be marginally more powerful than the 360.

Both systems have A LOT of untapped potential that can be unlocked with multi-threading. But since multiple threads are also a huge pain in the ass, it's likely that we won't see any games that can take full advantage of that for some time. In the meantime, I could easily imagine a Revolution game that looks much the same as 1st gen PS3 and 360 games, if it has a single core processor that was reasonably fast and a decent graphics core. From what I can tell, the hardware all looks remarkably capable across the board this time around...

[rjcc]

By "it's gotta be", I mean Sony needs for it to be more powerful than the 360, not that it is by default, sorry I wasn't more clear, and at this point, they still think it's more powerful (at least in theory), Sony's marketing is going to try and push that as much as possible. Can you imagine if they started saying it was less powerful? mannn.

[KNOTE]

Ouch.

No BR yet? No final hardware design yet? Graphics still comparable to the Xbox 270?

Spring launch my ass.

Borys... world... collapsing... soon he'll be a Mac gamer.

i kid, i kid...

[Vandenh]

I think currently the problems Sony has with PS3 is that the hardware is just not ready yet and I wonder if they have a way to make it all happen soon. Maybe this time they really overdid the hype a bit. I have seen my share of fucked up (software) projects and this really is starting to look like one.

I think E3 will be the place for Sony to at least show us the games. To be honest I don't care about the hardware too much.... it is the games that interest me.

[Red Cloak]

More FMV please!

[Balthasar]

That's interesting, somehow all the fanboys missed this quote:

It's certainly obvious this machine is not "twice" as powerful as 360, let alone a generational leap ahead. But the gap could become bigger: "Realistically, as libraries and experience with both machines grow, I think the PS3 will start showing things the 360 will choke at," offers the source.

[bobbler]

Certainly contains enough quotes to satiate both sides of the "war" depending on the selective quoting/reading you do.

Can't say the article has anything surprising in it, or anything new, for that matter.

[bean19]

I think a lot of people drooling over the PS3 are going to realize the same thing Xbox 360 owners either already knew, or came to realize. It's no different than the console you already have. when it comes to gameplay.

That's not really true because the system is better at a lot of things that make good gameplay.

1. Really fast load screens
2. Fast connections to online games
3. Voice chat with friends (don't even have to be in the same game. I can invite my best friend to voice chat when we are both playing different games. I did this frequently when borrowing his Kameo and would turn on the mic to ask him for tips whenever I got stuck).
4. Bigger areas. . . Amped 3's mountains are huge and I can go from the top of the mountain to the bottom without being interrupted by load times. PDZ loads up at the front of a mission and then you play through the whole mission before you get another load screen.

Of course, PS3 will probably have fast load times (on DVD games - I wonder if the developers are being told the PS3 will have DVDx10 load times as they seem to be using that figure for streaming - according to this article anyway. I sure hope so. . . I don't think developers will be able to do much streaming if they Blu-Ray data transfer rates as a bottleneck) and be able to load big areas. . . but I was hoping to hear more about their online model. I sure hope they have integrated voice on the PS3 and a service that makes online game matching quick.

X360 also offers a lot of other cool Xbox Live stuff. . . and I guess you could say that downloadable content and having Live Arcade games effect gameplay, but it seems pretty secondary.

Still, I think I've made my point that the gameplay is enhanced on next gen systems beyond just graphics.

Too bad this article didn't say more about the PS3's online features and possible secondary features. We already knew that the PS3 has the ability to possibly do a bit better in graphics than the X360 and that the games and their developers will be more important than the hardware this time around. . . at least, I think most of us new that. It's all the other stuff that is being rumored but not officially unveiled yet that is interesting.

Can't wait to get my hands on MGS though. That game looks sick! :) I just wish there were more games like it that made me want a PS3. I won't spend over $400 on another console, so I may be in for a long wait if it ships at a high cost. . . I'm betting there will be a ton of games by the time I can afford the system.

[bapenguin]

I said it way way back. This generation the XBox 360 and PS3 will be nearly discernable in the graphics department. 3 or 4 years down the road the PS3 will slightly pull ahead.

[Kamalot]

they also go to say that mgs4 is quite possible to pull off with a lil bit more touch up
Well, the creator of MGS 4 already stated that the Xbox 360 can run MGS4.

http://kamalot.blogspot.com/2005/11/ps3-hard-drive-online-xbox-360.html



This one is funny too...
t's certainly obvious this machine is not "twice" as powerful as 360, let alone a generational leap ahead. Does that mean that the PS3 is really a PS2.5?

[Wonka]

By "it's gotta be", I mean Sony needs for it to be more powerful than the 360, not that it is by default, sorry I wasn't more clear, and at this point, they still think it's more powerful (at least in theory), Sony's marketing is going to try and push that as much as possible. Can you imagine if they started saying it was less powerful? mannn.

Ah. You totally threw me for a loop with that meaning there.

You see it's pretty hard for me to imagine why Sony *needs* this machine to be more powerful. Last time Sony very clearly had an inferior machine. The PS2 was about half the machine that the Xbox was. That was then and this is now. Hardware for games is now firmly on the road to diminishing returns. And the way things are going, there will likely never be the kind of extreme hardware hardware power disparity we saw last time ever again. And yet in spite of that, it didn't make any difference whatsoever to Sony. Everyone bought their console anyways. It had the support of far too many big names to ignore...

This generation will be won or lost in the boardrooms of large publishing houses. Just like the last one. The only thing that can sway these guys is 1) perception of a console as likely to be a "winner", 2) actual console install base, 3) abnormally high attach rates and 4) some huge and demonstrable cost reduction in the cost of making and trying games...

That means that the things that will determine the "winners" are probably going to be dull sounding things like development tools, crack internal development teams (1st party), online marketplaces (everyone will likely have one) and personal business contacts of the people at each company. Things like snappy new controllers, new disc formats and new online features will only be a factor if everyone immediately runs out to buy console X because games that use those things make suddenly completely irresistable to consumers.

Around here, we spend all our time on these "whizbag" features just because we *think* they are the most important (IOW they sound enticing to hardcore gamers). But to the average consumer, the new and unfamiliar stuff are probably the least important factors...

This article makes me more hopeful that this time, there will be more competition in the marketplace. I would bet that most of you are also hoping that none of these players gets a massive early lead (unlike last time when Sony could declare victory after merely a year or so into the process). That way, publishers will be forced to make many great games for all 3 platforms. The way things look to me, it looks hopeful that this might happen. MS and Nintendo seem poised to gain a small but significant piece of ground on Sony, who appears to be a teensy bit behind scehdule. But I don't expect that Sony will *topple*. Just that Sony will return to a more reasonable market position as *a* major player rather than *the* major player...

[Schnoogs]

I said it way way back. This generation the XBox 360 and PS3 will be nearly discernable in the graphics department. 3 or 4 years down the road the PS3 will slightly pull ahead.

Meanwhile PCs will feature holodeck technology ;)

[Reanimated]

Meanwhile PCs will feature holodeck technology ;)




Borys? Is that you?

[rjcc]

You see it's pretty hard for me to imagine why Sony *needs* this machine to be more powerful. Last time Sony very clearly had an inferior machine.

Last time Sony launched first and wasn't putting the entire future of their company in the balance.

The rest of your posturing was entirely unnecessary.

[The Letter 3]

Meanwhile PCs will feature holodeck technology ;)
Oh yeah, that's right. We all forgot that discussing console gaming doesn't matter because PCs are far superior. :D

[MasterKwan]

RJCC, is english your primary language? Wonka's comments were right on the mark. It's not clear to me why you accuse him of "Posturing". Maybe you misspoke again like the PS3 power comment?

We're not really the target audience for these consoles. They're targeted at the masses who care ONLY about the availability of games. Forum people and geeks in general seem to think that the world revolves around their opinion when in most case we represent a tiny (though vocal) minority. The games are all that matters. The hardware, other than how it drives price, is unimportant in any meaningful way. If it plays the games I want, I don't care what's under the hood.

So, developer support is all that matters to the next generation.

[rjcc]

Yes, 80% of the PS2 market is there because they care about the depth of the game library, they want to play Katamari and SotC and Ico.

no they are there because they bought a system to play GTA, madden, or another mainstream title. It's about marketing, and Sony needs to be able to market the PS3 as being able to do things Microsoft won't. This will drive consumer adoption of the PS3 and the Blu-ray format, and developers will want to sell to the biggest market.

Developer support does not exist in a vacuum where they are unaffected by such things as sales projections. Sony needs to be able to claim the PS3 is capable of things the 360 will never do, or they won't be able to sell it at what will likely be a higher price than the 360. Thats why the posturing is unnecessary, because that question was not asked and is not relevant.

[Wonka]

Last time Sony launched first and wasn't putting the entire future of their company in the balance.

The rest of your posturing was entirely unnecessary.

I agree that launching 1st helped Sony. I also agree that they are placing a lot of hope in their next console doing very well (I bet they are not alone in this though). I am NOT sure if the whole company is really "on the line" or not. It's hard to imagine they would take risks quite as big as THAT. That sounds a little bit like hyperbole to me, but maybe you know something that the rest of us don't?

But mostly I wanted to say that I was not trying to uh "posture". Actually, I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that actually. Anyhow, I was decidedly NOT trying to offend you in any way. I was just saying what I think (though I will admit that I have a tendency to ramble). But I *think* my opinion is pretty mainstream. It would be fairly interesting/surprising if it wasn't.

[rjcc]

I wouldn't begrude a man his rambles, cuz i know I do it on occasion, that was really just a bit of B.I.A.A.Y.A.T.

The company really is riding on the success of the PS3 to a great extent, because they've invested greatly in not only thier games department, but Blu-ray, which PS3 is going to be the standard bearer for.

Without PS3, there would probably be little excitement over high definition DVD's of either format, just because of the price of the players. There is a perception that PS2 nearly singlehandedly caused the success of DVD's and there is an expectation that PS3 will do the same for blu-ray, at least thats what all of Sony's partners are betting on.

Will sony go under if the PS3 doesn't do as well as expected? I don't know and wouldn't even say thats the most likely outcome, but in nearly every other electronics area, Sony has been losing business and are now having major layoffs. They really can't afford to lose marketshare here.

[Wonka]

Yes, 80% of the PS2 market is there because they care about the depth of the game library, they want to play Katamari and SotC and Ico.

no they are there because they bought a system to play GTA, madden, or another mainstream title. It's about marketing, and Sony needs to be able to market the PS3 as being able to do things Microsoft won't. This will drive consumer adoption of the PS3 and the Blu-ray format, and developers will want to sell to the biggest market.

Developer support does not exist in a vacuum where they are unaffected by such things as sales projections. Sony needs to be able to claim the PS3 is capable of things the 360 will never do, or they won't be able to sell it at what will likely be a higher price than the 360. Thats why the posturing is unnecessary, because that question was not asked and is not relevant.


I was operating under the notion that Sony doesn't actually need their machine to actually BE more powerful in order to make whatever claims they want. They made a lot of pretty outrageous claims last time, in spite of having an inferior machine. Last time, their claims seemed to only help to make them #1. Regardless of how you may feel about this, it seems to be a winning strategy for them.

And how dare I talk about something that you didn't think was the important part! Shame on me. I must stop posturing immediately! Wait. Hmmmm... There is something funny about that. I can't quite put my finger on it....

[Wonka]

I wouldn't begrude a man his rambles, cuz i know I do it on occasion, that was really just a bit of B.I.A.A.Y.A.T.

The company really is riding on the success of the PS3 to a great extent, because they've invested greatly in not only thier games department, but Blu-ray, which PS3 is going to be the standard bearer for.

Without PS3, there would probably be little excitement over high definition DVD's of either format, just because of the price of the players. There is a perception that PS2 nearly singlehandedly caused the success of DVD's and there is an expectation that PS3 will do the same for blu-ray, at least thats what all of Sony's partners are betting on.

Will sony go under if the PS3 doesn't do as well as expected? I don't know and wouldn't even say thats the most likely outcome, but in nearly every other electronics area, Sony has been losing business and are now having major layoffs. They really can't afford to lose marketshare here.


Just one question. What the hell does B.I.A.A.Y.A.T. mean?
You crazy kids with your outrageous acronyms...

[rjcc]

B**** I Ain't Ask You All That. A lovely colloquialism.

The thing is, the PS2 barely got a challenge last gen. The Xbox was a good effort, but basically a fumble by Microsoft, I love Xbox live and my xbox, but I bought a PS2 long before it because of GTA3, and had the perception like many others that Halo was the only good game on the platform. Nintendo had profitability but not market share from the gamecube, and basically abandoned trying to fight Sony directly.

This generation, microsoft is serious and smarter, and nintendo is an x-factor, empty boasts won't go so far this time.

[Mason]

Guys, quit the console partisan bickering. If Sony releases strong, it doesn't matter if they or MS are slightly in the lead. We'll all survive, and get to play the same games, and direct comparisons of the consoles won't matter, outside of forum dick-waving.

The only important thing here is the lingering possibility that Sony could really fuck things up. No one believes they'll make a spring launch, yet they refuse to correct their earlier launch projections. No one believes they can deliver the hardware they've promised (dual 1080p-out for a console with few 1080p games?) at a reasonable price without heavily subsidizing every PS3 purchase. And if they launch with games looking like Fifth Phantom Saga, which looks like a multi-generational port even though it isn't one, even the worst shills in game journalism will be slinging feces at the PS3's launch.

The Sony vs MS battle doesn't matter. What matters is that all the game studios who have lined up behind the PS3 don't get massively screwed once Sony has to pick and choose among its various promises.

[Nessus]

Honestly I'm sorta glad Nintendo has counted themselves out of all this dick waving.

I'll wait and see which console (out of PS3 and 360) to get. The Rev is a lock though.

[Zeal]

Owned.....

[Balthasar]

Honestly I'm sorta glad Nintendo has counted themselves out of all this dick waving.

I'll wait and see which console (out of PS3 and 360) to get. The Rev is a lock though.
For the first time since the end of the SNES era, I too will be getting a Nintendo system, no doubt about it. Unless they do something really stupid with their download service, like put a time-lock on the games.

[Okamura_Takashi]

Does that mean that the PS3 is really a PS2.5?

Not quite. I know you're joking but the PS3 is definitely a leap ahead of the PS2. PS2 games are now starting to look nice, but are humbled by the PS2's poor resolution. So, I'm looking forward to 2010 when we'll start to see good PS3 games. :)

[Phanto]

Owners of 360, if you think that those games looks so great wait and look 1 year after the release and compare those game with the games of the launch to see changes.
Every new console always use around only 10% of its full potential at a launch. SO wait until developer start taking advantage of the hardware and maybe we can see the real next gen games kick on, if you know what i mean :) .

[saran_js]

I don't get it. The author of the article says that Killzone like graphics/gameplay is impossible but MGS4 graphics/gameplay is.
They both look about the same, except for the art direction. What's the deal ?

[Vandenh]

>They both look about the same, except for the art direction. What's the deal ?

Buy new glasses...

[bean19]

I don't get it. The author of the article says that Killzone like graphics/gameplay is impossible but MGS4 graphics/gameplay is.
They both look about the same, except for the art direction. What's the deal ?

Actually, they don't really look the same at all. The pre-rendered Killzone 2 trailer has an insane amount of detail as well as a huge number of things happening on screen at once.

By comparison, the MGS pre-renders are just extremely good grpahics, but nothing that you couldn't imagine working on the X360 or a high-end computer (if it were designed by an incredible developer like Kojima).

[Reanimated]

I don't get it. The author of the article says that Killzone like graphics/gameplay is impossible but MGS4 graphics/gameplay is.
They both look about the same, except for the art direction. What's the deal ?




Are you serious? That Killzone video takes a shit on the MGS 4 demo. Just look at some of the stills of MGS4 and check out the shitty textures everywhere.

Artistically Kojima is good with smoke and mirrors, but even so, MGS didn't look anywhere near Killzone.

[antoniogaud]

What exclusives will the PS3 have to fight against the X360?

[KNOTE]

What exclusives will the PS3 have to fight against the X360?

Final Fantasy 9 million, Dragon Quest 30 thousand, MGS40, Devil May Cry 10, Tekken 37; basically all the big titles that have done very well on their platform and always do very well. Plus their formidable first party lineup. They are not hurting in that dept at all. The thing that is going to hurt them is time. It's a race now to see who can get their best material out first. If all Sony can muster for launch is Lair (by the chronically gameplay-lacking Factor5) and Warhawk (Flying games never do well) then their launch could be seriously soft. They've overcome that exact problem before, however. If that occurs, then it's up to Microsoft and Nintendo to trump them. I feel like I'm rambling...

[Borys]

Borys? Is that you?

Nope, me is me.

[Citizen Philip]

I wish XBOX and PS were like ATI and Nvidia:

Buy either ATi and Nvidia and you can still play the same games, with only minor changes in performance and in-game experiences. At best, a certain game will be optomized to take specific advantage of one chipset over another.

Who wins? The game buyer, because the product works in either situation.

[Zanzibar]

Does the lack of 1080p support mean that the HD-era has already begun? Remember, it was the Sony guy that talked about the HD era that only starts when the PS3 (and it's ability to take advantage of 1080p support on Sony HDTVs) launches the 'Sony value chain' .

[Balthasar]

I wish XBOX and PS were like ATI and Nvidia:

Buy either ATi and Nvidia and you can still play the same games, with only minor changes in performance and in-game experiences. At best, a certain game will be optomized to take specific advantage of one chipset over another.

Who wins? The game buyer, because the product works in either situation.
You're kidding, right? Video cards seem to be upgraded/tweaked every 6 months, at the worst. And with that come a host of constant compatibility issues. With the XBox and PS2, when you buy a game for the system, short of a defective disc, that game will actually work and look the way it was supposed to. I get that ATI and NVIDIA cards all play the same games, but I don't see how that situation is in any way preferable.

[Balthasar]

Does the lack of 1080p support mean that the HD-era has already begun? Remember, it was the Sony guy that talked about the HD era that only starts when the PS3 (and it's ability to take advantage of 1080p support on Sony HDTVs) launches the 'Sony value chain' .
Why are you applying scare quotes to "Sony value chain?" Again, I must remind you (and anyone else that still thinks this) that Sony did not invent the term "value chain."

[Zanzibar]

Oh, I know, but it's just always a hoot to bring it up, it was so laughable. Sony software/BR-DVDs playing on Sony systems on Sony HDTVs. With BR-DVDs starting out more expensive than DVDs, a PS3 that may run $500 OR a $1000 Sony Blu-Ray player, and a Sony HDTV at 2 or 3 grand apiece, this must be some definition of the term 'value' that I wasn't previously aware of.

More like 'ass-rape chain.'

[Balthasar]

Oh, I know, but it's just always a hoot to bring it up, it was so laughable. Sony software/BR-DVDs playing on Sony systems on Sony HDTVs. With BR-DVDs starting out more expensive than DVDs, a PS3 that may run $500 OR a $1000 Sony Blu-Ray player, and a Sony HDTV at 2 or 3 grand apiece, this must be some definition of the term 'value' that I wasn't previously aware of.

More like 'ass-rape chain.'
The value is in the way the products link up to each other. Marketing terms are not known for their descriptive abilities.