Yesterday we reported that there’d be some Sonic details from the SEGA camp come this morning. Well, it’s been confirmed that we are going to be seeing a next gen title showcasing the spiky blue one next year, not only on Xbox 360 but PS3 to boot. Nintendo are left out in the cold with no mention of the mysterious Revolution.
Leading the project is none other than the great Yuji Naka, who proudly said,
"We are proud to re-create our famous friend, Sonic, for a new generation of gamers on PLAYSTATION3 and Xbox 360. With Sonic The Hedgehog, we have gone back to our starting point, more than 15-years ago, to reinvent the attitude and speed that made our hero a legend. The 'rebirth of Sonic' will offer an unparalleled sense of speed that is only possible using the processing power afforded by the new systems."
Exciting doesn't even begin to describe the news. Nor the screenshots that have been released, which had certain parts of the SPOnG collective body pulsing with SEGA-derived anticipation. The great Japanese development house is not yet revealing details about the game’s features or release date, but presumably both games will be released after the launch of the PS3, expected in Spring next year.
Leading the project is none other than the great Yuji Naka, who proudly said,
"We are proud to re-create our famous friend, Sonic, for a new generation of gamers on PLAYSTATION3 and Xbox 360. With Sonic The Hedgehog, we have gone back to our starting point, more than 15-years ago, to reinvent the attitude and speed that made our hero a legend. The 'rebirth of Sonic' will offer an unparalleled sense of speed that is only possible using the processing power afforded by the new systems."
Exciting doesn't even begin to describe the news. Nor the screenshots that have been released, which had certain parts of the SPOnG collective body pulsing with SEGA-derived anticipation. The great Japanese development house is not yet revealing details about the game’s features or release date, but presumably both games will be released after the launch of the PS3, expected in Spring next year.
Read More Like This
Comments
Showing the 20 most recent comments. Read all 25.
fluffstardx 9 Sep 2005 13:03
6/25
kid_77 wrote:
but, yeah, he could wait for a PS3 instead.
From what Sony said, that could be one helluva wait.
Bite the bullet! Join the Live crowd!
king skins 9 Sep 2005 13:21
7/25
The shoots are in the article on the right hand side.
Sorry kid_77, miss read ya post. Selective reading or all that double negative was hurting my head. It's Friday I wanna go home now
Sorry kid_77, miss read ya post. Selective reading or all that double negative was hurting my head. It's Friday I wanna go home now
more comments below our sponsor's message
majin dboy 9 Sep 2005 15:58
8/25
what does everybody think about the chances of this coming out for the revolution?
Shinji 9 Sep 2005 19:27
9/25
I think we'll see this on the Revolution as well. Naka and Iwata are best friends or something. Naka has publicly stated that he wants specific Sega franchises to stay on specific consoles and Sonic has always done well on the Nintendo platforms.
If this Sonic doesn't make it to the Revolution, I'm going to guess that Naka'll get something else Sonic-related and exclusive to make up for it.
If this Sonic doesn't make it to the Revolution, I'm going to guess that Naka'll get something else Sonic-related and exclusive to make up for it.
LUPOS 9 Sep 2005 21:52
10/25
king skins wrote:
Those shots look really good :) I can see why SPOnG was so excited about it at E3, can't wait to see some videos of it running.
it is incredible in motion... the whol ecollection of sega footage was probably the most excitign part of the whole show... besides that whole being at E3 thing... which was pretty exciting in general.
also discovering on the last day that i was able to wave about my press pass and skip lines! if only I had known sooner... could have been much more productive. cest la vie! (sp?)
_____
Pilot13 9 Sep 2005 23:58
11/25
Then don't not get one
:)))
:)))
Basically, I'm going to Uni in a few weeks, I'm not taking a TV because I'm not paying for a licence fee so I won't be able to play any consoles. I could buy a 360/ps3, but I won't have anything to display it. Unless you know of anyway to joy rigg a Powerbook G4 to work as a TV output.
LUPOS 10 Sep 2005 12:08
12/25
Pilot13 wrote:
Unless you know of anyway to joy rigg a Powerbook G4 to work as a TV output.
im not real big up on the whole MAC thing in recent years but i do believe pc lap tops have video capture devices available via the expansion slots... if they make a similar item for a mac lap top then you could in theory use that for your gamming
infact i know they make usb and firewire video input devices... like... this
wont be the best quality vid option but it certainly better than not playign at all... now quick... go preorder :)
____
Pilot13 11 Sep 2005 17:00
13/25
I'll go have a bit of a look for mac ones, but I didn't know they existed, cheers Lupos.
king skins 13 Sep 2005 13:48
14/25
Couldn't you get a cheap monitor?
Or just don't buy a TV licence and then if the nasty TV licence man comes around you blame all the other people in the house/flat saying 'I though you where sorting it out'. As you only need one TV licence per flat/house and you normally share the bill between everyone in the flat/house. Then you just go out an buy one or they will fine ya.
Or get a TV and not a aerial, and tell the licence man you only play games and you never watch TV, look no aerial. You only need a licence if you watch terrestrial TV, not if you own a TV.
Or just don't buy a TV licence and then if the nasty TV licence man comes around you blame all the other people in the house/flat saying 'I though you where sorting it out'. As you only need one TV licence per flat/house and you normally share the bill between everyone in the flat/house. Then you just go out an buy one or they will fine ya.
Or get a TV and not a aerial, and tell the licence man you only play games and you never watch TV, look no aerial. You only need a licence if you watch terrestrial TV, not if you own a TV.
tyrion 14 Sep 2005 08:09
15/25
king skins wrote:
Or get a TV and not a aerial, and tell the licence man you only play games and you never watch TV, look no aerial. You only need a licence if you watch terrestrial TV, not if you own a TV.
Unfortunately not.
According to the TV Licensing Website advice for Students
If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one.
Also regarding only one license for the house;
If you are going to be sharing a house, a separate tenancy agreement would normally mean your room is classified a separately occupied place. In this case, if you have a TV in your room, you will need your own TV Licence.
However, if there is only one TV in a communal area, then only one TV Licence is required. Similarly, if your house can be treated as one place shared by all, then only one TV Licence is required - a joint tenancy agreement would normally indicate that there is only one separately occupied place.
However, if there is only one TV in a communal area, then only one TV Licence is required. Similarly, if your house can be treated as one place shared by all, then only one TV Licence is required - a joint tenancy agreement would normally indicate that there is only one separately occupied place.
So basically, if you have a TV or a device capable of receiving broadcast television transmissions (includes a satellite receiver or PC with a capture card) you need a license.
Pilot13 14 Sep 2005 10:16
16/25
It's just a hassle I can't be bothered with. I don't watch much TV anyway, so I don't feel it's justified that I need to pay so the BBC can carry on making Changing Rooms etc.
kid_77 14 Sep 2005 10:23
17/25
I honestly don't know if I've got a TV licence... if we have, the missus must sort it out.
Come to think of it, I didn't have one at Uni either. Again, the girls sorted it out for the communal lounge TV.
Lovely, organised girls.
Come to think of it, I didn't have one at Uni either. Again, the girls sorted it out for the communal lounge TV.
Lovely, organised girls.
king skins 14 Sep 2005 10:57
18/25
tyrion wrote:
king skins wrote:
Or get a TV and not a aerial, and tell the licence man you only play games and you never watch TV, look no aerial. You only need a licence if you watch terrestrial TV, not if you own a TV.
Unfortunately not.
According to the TV Licensing Website advice for Students
If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one.
The important part of that sentence is:
IF YOU USE a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes
If he's not using it for that reason (to watch or record TV) then he doesn't need a licence.
You can legally own a TV without a licence as long as you don't watch any TV on it.
tyrion 14 Sep 2005 11:03
19/25
king skins wrote:
The important part of that sentence is:
IF YOU USE a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes
If he's not using it for that reason (to watch or record TV) then he doesn't need a licence.
You can legally own a TV without a licence as long as you don't watch any TV on it.
IF YOU USE a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes
If he's not using it for that reason (to watch or record TV) then he doesn't need a licence.
You can legally own a TV without a licence as long as you don't watch any TV on it.
Try proving that you don't use it for watching TV.
Go on, just try.
I've heard of people who have de-tuned their TVs, removed the tuner and had smashed tubes who still had to pay the license fee.
tyrion 14 Sep 2005 11:05
20/25
Pilot13 wrote:
It's just a hassle I can't be bothered with. I don't watch much TV anyway, so I don't feel it's justified that I need to pay so the BBC can carry on making Changing Rooms etc.
Personally, I'd pay the BBC just so they can continue to exist without needing advertising.
The fact that there is a TV company that is insulated from the pressures that corporations can make through advertising withdrawal threats is worth paying for in my opinion.
king skins 14 Sep 2005 11:14
21/25
tyrion wrote:
king skins wrote:
The important part of that sentence is:
IF YOU USE a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes
If he's not using it for that reason (to watch or record TV) then he doesn't need a licence.
You can legally own a TV without a licence as long as you don't watch any TV on it.
IF YOU USE a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes
If he's not using it for that reason (to watch or record TV) then he doesn't need a licence.
You can legally own a TV without a licence as long as you don't watch any TV on it.
Try proving that you don't use it for watching TV.
Go on, just try.
I've heard of people who have de-tuned their TVs, removed the tuner and had smashed tubes who still had to pay the license fee.
Would you have to? I thought it was innocent until proven guilty?
Why would you have to prove your innocence? Isn't in their responsibility to prove you have broken the law?
For people who end up paying... Well depends on whether you want to stand against the system or not. I think I would, I can be an awkward prick sometimes :)
This thread as got a little off topic!
tyrion 14 Sep 2005 12:13
22/25
king skins wrote:
You can legally own a TV without a licence as long as you don't watch any TV on it.
Actually I've just found this;
Communications Act 2003 - PART 4 LICENSING OF TV RECEPTION
A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
I think the important part there is installed or used which seems to imply just plugging it in requires a license. Of course you could argue the definition of television receiver may not cover de-tuned TVs.
king skins wrote:
This thread as got a little off topic!
But in an interesting direction! That's what usually happens round here.
king skins 14 Sep 2005 13:27
23/25
I'm impressed with you research into this! :)
I would consider the television receiver to be a component of the TV. Some Plasmas and LSD's come without them...
So by owning a TV that already has one you get around the installing part... maybe?
Then as long as you don't use it, you get around the using part... maybe?
Anyone know any lawyers? I thought I was right earlier now I'm not so sure.
I would consider the television receiver to be a component of the TV. Some Plasmas and LSD's come without them...
So by owning a TV that already has one you get around the installing part... maybe?
Then as long as you don't use it, you get around the using part... maybe?
Anyone know any lawyers? I thought I was right earlier now I'm not so sure.
tyrion 14 Sep 2005 16:41
24/25
king skins wrote:
I would consider the television receiver to be a component of the TV. Some Plasmas and LSD's come without them...
Well, according to the link above to the act.
In this Part "television receiver" means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part.
From that, I'd a thunk that anything with a tuner would become a "television receiver" and installation would be putting it into your house and plugging it in.
And plasma and LCDs without a tuner are monitors, meant for displaying non-broadcast images from, for example, a computer.
So unfortunately, I think if you have a TV you need a license, no matter if you can prove you don't watch TV. In a student house with separate lets for each room, you would have to have a license per bedroom with a TV and one for a communal room as well!!
What is needed for just playing games (on topic - woo hoo!) is a computer monitor with s-Video or composite in, but no tuner. We have Dell Ultrasharp 2001FP 20" monitors here that do both s-Video and composite as well as D-Sub and DVI. They also have a four port USB hub built in.
Currently £412.66 from Dell
I'd recommend them in a flash. Fantastic quality screens, very pose-able and wide viewing angle.
Pilot13 14 Sep 2005 20:44
25/25
Personally, I'd pay the BBC just so they can continue to exist without needing advertising.
The fact that there is a TV company that is insulated from the pressures that corporations can make through advertising withdrawal threats is worth paying for in my opinion
I do agree. It is great there's still a channel out there that has no adverts and isn't actually linked to the government. However, I'm going to be a student, I don't know how long it'll take to get a job, my income and outgoings, and it's money I just can't afford, for something I rarely watch.
Nice monitor by the way.