Slashdot Mirror
Sony Console the Worst Launch Ever
No, not that one. 1up set out to see if the PlayStation 3 had the worst launch of any modern gaming console, and found that another Sony console held that title. The original PlayStation's launch was pretty dreadful, with Warhawk's average of 89.4 being fairly low for most launch title leaders. The worst launch lineup of the 'next-gen' systems is actually the Wii, which has averaged only a 71.3 over its 20 launch titles. The PS3 is next up, with 73.4, and the 360 has the overall best of the three consoles, having scored an average of 77.3 over its 18 titles last year. From the article: "Averages are just that, though, and don't tell you much about the best games that accompanied the launches. And the best of the batch wasn't a surprise, but it wasn't a Nintendo game either. Soul Caliber for the Dreamcast, with an average of 96.4 just barely squeaks out the win over the Legend of Zelda: The Twilight Princess for Wii. At the other end of the spectrum, both Wii and PS3 share the worst stinkers with Happy Feet for Wii coming in at a 45 and Gundam: Crossfire at the very bottom with its 34.8."
That would be because the THQ conversions from the previous gen are dragging them down. Not to mention the Vivendi (Ice Age) and Ubisoft (Open Season) titles that are similar conversions. Most launches put their best foot forward, but Nintendo allowed a few tag-alongs to immediately fill out their software library. The result is that there's a lot of great stuff for the Wii, but there's also plenty of so-so conversion stuff that appeals to a very specific market.
Of course, life would be better if movie and TV conversions were done better to begin with. Anyone remember when Capcom did the Duck Tales and Chip and Dale games for the NES? Now THOSE were great games first, but with quality TV tie-ins that tried to be true to the source material. Alas, once Capcom started chucking out unsuitable tie-ins of The Little Mermaid and other Disney properties, it was all over.
Back on topic, these numbers don't really mean anything. If a store sells 2 HDTVs a year, but 3,000 DVDs, the averages will still say that the HDTVs are making them more money. For that sort of situation, you need a weighted average to find the profits compared to the number of units sold. It's the same thing here. A smaller launch lineup is going to have a better average than a larger, more varied lineup. Something which 1Up themselves admit when discussing the N64.
So I wouldn't take these metrics as anything more than a cutsie invention. They certainly have little to do with the success or failure of a console launch.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Dude, we got it. You hate the PS3 and Sony. It's OK, we do too but we are REALLY getting tired of your stories about it..
Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
...but not this one. Is Zonk some 14 year old with Mario sheets on his bed?
You give me great dishonor!
What about average games sold per console sold? That to me would make more sense in determining the worst/best console launch.
You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.
Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies
One obvious fact from this list is that it bears zero correlation to anything useful. Also, I thought the main complaint with the PS3 is that almost all the games are available elsewhere (resistance being the exception) ... not that they are bad.
And Soul Caliber beating Zelda TP, is probably mainly due to gamespot not wanting "another" Zelda ... and it's upto 96.4 anyway (higher than the above article).
If anyone wants the sure fire way to know which of the current "next-gen" consoles is going to win ... wait 12 months, maybe 18-24 to be sure.
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
TFA reviews console launches, not consoles. The title should be "Sony Console Launch the Worst Ever".
Just out of amusement i would like to know what the average scores were for games over the entire life of the last gen (PS2/GC/Xbox). While i know that its hardly a fair comparision what with the PS2 having many more titles than it competitors combined i think it would still be interesting from a quality over quantity stand. for an anecdotel example nearly all the gamecube games i have i think are really good, i have twice as many (at least) PS2 games but i would say that only a 1/4 of them are in the excellent range.
Well, Bart, your uncle Arthur used to have a saying: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
How many titles does the PS3 have for launch?
Just wondering if the greater number of titles for the Wii is dragging down the average?
Of course the real question is how many PS3 where bought by people that are going to play them?
From what I have seen on like Sony is selling only 1.2 games per PS3 sold while Nintendo is around 3 games per Wii.
If they are not counting Wii sports I would say that more people are buying the Wii to play than the PS3.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I for one would like to see a console launch rated by the number of people that were mugged for a given console on launch day
Several of the students at our school were willing to wait as long as 18 hours for the Nintendo. None that I know of were thinking about buying the Sony. Money is an issue. The Nintendo controller got a lot of comment. Nobody particularly wants a Blu-Ray player.
Googling for 'sony nintendo console launch' got quite a few more Nintendo hits than Sony hits.
It sounds like a win for Nintendo. So, there's another reason it wasn't a good launch for Sony.
By the start of the 21st century, Honda continued to be synonymous with affordable top-notch quality.
However, Sony's star began to fade as Sony slapped a price premium on all its products. The quality is still quite good, but is it worth the price premium? Increasingly, people say, "No way, you arrogant SOB!"
The sun has set on the Sony empire. The customer has stopped worshipping at the altar of the Sony ripoff artist.
A new champion has arisen. It is Matsushita, which includes the Panasonic brand. This past week, I perused some old issues of "Consumer Reports". Interestingly, according to various customer surveys, Panasonic's quality is almost identical to Sony's quality. Yet, Panasonic's prices are typically 20% lower than Sony's prices.
Here's the rub. The Panasonic product is typically (but not always) "Made in Japan", but the Sony product is typically (but not always) "Made in a Nation of Desperate Slave Labor". Why is the Sony product so expensive when its labor costs are so low?
I think Sony will do much better then others if you changed average of all games to average of the top 100 or top 50 games per console. That is more representative of what most gamers will experience. As few people buy more then 25 games let alone 50 or 100. Who cares if the psx, ps2, or ps3 has 400 mediocre games as long as they have 100 decent ones.
Hmmm... Pie...
They didn't even provide the important parameters. Like the standard deviation. Who cares what the average is when 80% of the titles are crap that no one wants. Why not rate the top 5 (or 25%) of the launch titles and average those? You know, the games that people might actually want. Either way, you want to know what the spread is; if they're all within 1 sigma, then it doesn't matter what the "ranking" is.
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.
Sounds implausible.
Regardless the average rating of the games (which is arbitrary in the first place, since it's one sources opinion), at least the Wii games are being played outside Best Buy kiosks and video game editor offices.
Similes are like metaphors
agreed, but wrong target.
c/panasonic/samsung and you've got it.
JON
So we're measuring the launch lineup of a console based on an average of average scores for the titles? That make a whole lot of sense. Especially since the scores for the games don't exactly mean a whole lot; they're very subjective, prone to bias, and mostly meaningless (games get rated low because of what they're not, instead of what they are).
It'd be far more meaningful to correlate the number of consoles available, the number of consoles sold, and the number of games sold per console. Hell, we could even factor in the number of consoles that are up for auction on eBay.
Let's also not forget that you really can't measure much of anything until a few MONTHS after the launch, not a week or two.
Everything I say is a lie. Except that... and that... and that, and that, and that, and that... and that.
They'll come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows.
I appreciate your input, Wilfred Brimley, but what the heck does this have to do with the article?
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
I'd venture to call Zelda: Twilight Princess the best launch title ever released. When you think about launches, they don't always have the greatest games. Any Zelda at release would have a good chance of getting this honor... but TP is far-and-away the best Zelda made (sorry Ocarina, TP makes you look like a joke), kicking down FF12 and Okami for game of the year, IMHO. So, if you're into this type of game (Adventure / Action / RPG), you're probably going to have a lot better luck with the Wii launch then any other. And yet the PS3 somehow pulls out ahead... with what? Ultimate Alliance? Tony Hawk? Seriosly, wtf does the PS3 have to offer?
No shit Happy Feet is going to blow, it's a game based on a movie, and we all know how AMAZING those are. I'm with the guy who suggests taking a standard deviation: pit Twilight Princess, Excite Truck, Rayman Raving Rabbits, Monkey Ball, and Red Steel, against the PS3s best, and see what you come up with.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Putting aside bias for a minute I've played all next gen launches. The Xbox 360s launch was moderate. It did have some high points (COD2) but overall there was few break out games. Though it does have a lot of what the system would become known for.
ON the other hand the Ps3 has the worse. Nothing feels innovative, there's only three or four games that isn't on the 360 in some form already. And the ones that used motion control were poor (ridge racer and tony hawk both felt laggy in their responsiveness). That being said their "break out hit" Resistance, felt like a FPS, and only a FPS. Seeing as insomniacs record that was a low.
The Wii on the other hand had a truely unique controller so even ported hits couldn't be played the same way, yet the control has such tight controls that games which would be problematic with lag feel tight. What drags down the launch however is Ubisoft's titles, Red steel which was supposed to be the second best game at launch turns out to be a pretty big dud. The two racing games they released are budget titles at best. And the systems graphics are constantly dinged by Gamespot mostly.
Overall though the Wii has a great variety, improved by their unique controls. However the proper way to find out how good a launch is, isn't through scores, at least not averaging all the scores of the system. It's better to look at the uniqueness of the launch (AKA port city from the 360 and PS3), the variety available, and the quality of the top games. If there's 5 good games that come out, why should we care there's 10 crap games. We don't blame the Ps2 for having 50 good games and 200 crap games do we? Why does the N64 get high marks? EASY! they have 3 games at launch! That doesn't make it a great launch either.
Of course on the other hand 1up is about as worthwhile as a gaming source as crap is a painting source. They arn't biased, but they have awful reviews and complain about minor things while ignoring the best part of games. They post biased top 10s and such, or they'll back up their facts with flawed or weak math (aka let's take the average of all games launched). If you read the worst games at launch you'll probably notice you don't know many of them. So why are we averaging them in?
If you take whirling apart, you get hrlng wii. And we all know how that pertains to current events . :)
No one cares how bad the worst game is for each system - even if purchased, it's not going to get much playtime if it falls below a certain threshold. How many bad games there are only matters if you're making uninformed decisions about what to play. What is interesting is whether there are enough good games to keep my schedule full, and the quality of those games. A much better metric would be the average of the best N games, where N is the number I'm likely to purchase. Now, this clearly differs from player to player, so it's more difficult to come up with a single number to represent it, but it would be a more informative comparison. I propose a triplet of averages for different values of N. The question is, what should those be? Might as well ask the question here... How many games do you buy in a year for a given console, and what type of gamer do you consider yourself?
I agree that average games sold per console sold would be a better metric. However, that's partially clouded by what the early buyers are getting the console for. It seems that a larger percentage of PS3 buyers are reselling them. So that metric is quite likely tainted against PS3.
But those PS3's were still bought and (eventually) used by someone. Whoever would have bought a PS3 for $1800 on eBay would most likely have preordered some games or bought some games on launch day or soon after, so even the PS3's sold on eBay should already have games accounted to them. I guess that's assuming it takes less than 10 days to sell a PS3 on eBay and ship it. In any case, if those games haven't already been accounted for, they will be soon.
both have online reviews where they say that people did side by side game comparisons - one TV with a Wii, a similar size HDTV with a PS3 - and found that even though people thought the graphics were nice on the HDTV, they all clustered around the Wii and had more fun with it.
With all the games.
I haven't found any Wii game turkeys yet, personally, and I bought three - and I've talked to a lot of other dads and they all bought or are buying Wii consoles for their kids - ages from 3 (yeah) to 19.
In the end, only the market matters. And right now the market says Sony got a zero on lauch buzz.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I'm not the AC who posted the parent. "a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic, insulting, or otherwise inappropriate messages." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
The reason that I post this at all is that I agree with the parent. I've used Sony's professional equipment and it was first rate. Over the years I have bought their consumer grade stuff and ALWAYS been disappointed. If I were thinking of buying their game console, I would get someone to kick me in the the pants to remind me not to do so.
I suspect that lots of people are in the same boat with me and the parent. Sony's deteriorating reputation can only hurt the sales of their console.
Oh, and don't forget the Sega Saturn, which launched 6 months earlier than developers expected it to.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Let's face it folks. Call them what you want, someone who says "this console is better than another" this generation is a Grade A Nimrod (thank you calvin & hobbes)
Come on. This is like a movie critic trying to compare Dumb and Dumber with A Fistfull of Dollars...they are entirely different movies, just like each of the three new consoles have entirely different purposes.
The Wii is for those that want something new, something fresh. It is the perfect example that graphics don't always make the game...and frankly, while comparitavely the graphics are so-so, they are still quite nice. They have a deliberate 'Nintendo signature' feel to them, which personally I am very happy was not abandoned. If there is one thing to be said about any of Nintendo's previous consoles, it is that they were entirely unique on their own, and you KNOW when you are looking at something on a Nintendo System. Modern day technology meets retro gaming demand: fun above all else.
The PS3 is for those that want to be on the cutting edge. With it's ability to display 1080p, a next-gen optical disc format, and its configurability (read: simple Linux support), it just begs people to tinker with it. Sony's price is not just because the components are expensive, it is used as a method to bring in the drooling techies: if it is shiny, black, and expensive, it HAS to be cool. I for one am very excited to see certain next-gen entries in some series on the PS3...or have you all not thought about God of War 3?
The Xbox 360 is for those that want a sleek, integrated system. Because of Microsoft's hold on the general public in the form of operating systems, it makes it EXTREMELY easy for them to design the 360 in such a way that allows it to integrate seamlessly with your system. Streaming media, accessing files over the network without even needing to check out the instruction manual, slick shape, comfortable controller...the 360 screams 'chic geek'. While it lacks first-party supported Linux now, I can assure you with Microsoft's recent aquisition in the Linux market, it is only a matter of time before Linux on the 360 becomes a reality. And given the way the 360 can already integrate itself into your home network, imagine the fun that could be had...the infinite application availability for Windows with the customization capabilities and rock-solid operation of Linux. It will truly be a thing of beauty.
So this generation, I think all consoles win. They each are attempting to break into a different part of the market, and they all have succeeded tremendously.
All I ask of my fellow gamers is that they stop comparing Dumb and Dumber with A Fistfull of Dollars.
Living With a Nerd
But how else does one, who can only afford one console, confirm their purchase decision as the right one?
Like it or not, the world needs a winner, and we all want to be on that team.
That said, if I had mod points you'd get +insightful or +interesting.
-Buddy of DoQ
Yup, Sony is going to suck people in with it's PS3 the same way it sucked people in with it's PS2. 100,000,000 people got suckered into buying the worst/stupidest/most evil/not nintendo console! It's going to happen again. It amazes me that this is now a religious issue for some. Get over yourself people. My choice of console (or even to NOT get a console) has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.
Every console maker is trying to make money, end of story. This is a great thing in that it leads to innovation and advancement. You have to love capitalism. The only thing better than capitalism to spur on new development is warfare. I prefer capitalism.
Cheers,
_GP_
I appreciate the phantom mod points;-)
To answer your question, if you can only afford one...buy the one that fits your needs or wants.
Do you want something that is simply a gaming system, something to just have fun with? Buy a Wii.
Do you want something that can play next-gen optical discs and has the capability of simple Linux operation without much trouble? Buy a PS3.
Do you want something that is a fantastic alternative to a Streaming PC Workhorse, while providing a rich online experience? Buy a 360.
Don't rely on someone elses assertion. My needs and wants are potentially VASTLY different from another person, just as yours are potentially vastly different from mine.
Living With a Nerd
I'm sorry to say this, but the huge majortiy of game people buying a game console don't care if you can hack it and put Linux on it. No, this isn't a troll, this is a fact. People want to play games an d have fun with their consoles.
another reason to use the preview button. yes, i screwed up the words "majority" and "and."
Hack it to put linux on it? That's exactly my point...the PS3 has first-party Linux support, no hacking neccessary. That, combined with the Blu-Ray player, the 1080p, the larger hard drive...are you honestly telling me that you think these things would NOT entice a techie to buy a PS3?
Beyond that, if all people wanted to do was play games on their consoles, console makers would not be putting in the kind of functionality that they are...TV shows available online, streaming capabilities, DVR capabilities...they would make something used strictly for gaming. Like an N64 or PS1 or Dreamcast...notice how the market changes.
See, consoles USED to be for nothing but games...then, Microsoft said "Hey, lets see what happens when we enable them to mess around with it and use it as a DVR and to stream shit" So, with the Xbox, they tried a little experiment...and guess what? A VERY VERY large number of people modified the Black and Green box to put linux on it (or a homebrew OS). MANY people. Granted, not nearly half of the owners did, but a large chunk did indeed do this.
So, Microsoft (and Sony) got smart...hey, why should these hackers get all the credit? Let's make it so that they can do all these things out of the box...that should help reduce piracy as well as fraudulent warranty requests due to people messing up their systems because they didn't know what to do...and while we are at it, let's create a market place where they can go to BUY stuff for their console.
Nintendo realized that not everyone would want or need this stuff, and so they said to themselves hey, let's do what we do best. Let's make a gaming system. Sure, just to keep up we will put in some stuff...but what? I GOT IT! Let's allow people to buy games from a long time ago! You know, things that will be really nostalgic for people...older games, back when fun was king!
See how much economic sense that makes? If all you want is to play games, buy a Wii. I mean after all, if you don't need all that extra functionality that you are paying for but will never use, what is the point of buying any other system this generation?
Unless of course you are sucked into the psuedo-political stance of being an *ahem* "fanboi"
Living With a Nerd
I doubt that, the PS3 and Xbox 360 look like they are going after basically the same market to me ... and most everyone else I've read. Also, much like previous generations, the market just isn't going to support all three well (network effect). So the average person needs to know which is better ... because the other two are worth much less, in the long run.
Saying that, Nintendo again have a minor second chance ... due to their making money and being a great first party publisher (but it'll be pretty bad for them long term if they fail to be a major player again this generation, IMO).
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
you are very slightly mistaken...Microsoft and Sony are MARKETING to the same market...
An example.
There is this fantastic Apple Pie. It is delicious and sweet in every way an apple pie should be. Both Microsoft and Sony want it. Nintendo looks at it and says "Thanks guys, but we are going to try this Pumpkin Chiffon pie. Enjoy that apple though!"
So now you have Sony and Microsoft sitting there, one with a fork and one with a spoon, eating from the same apple pie, staring at nintendo trying out that chiffon. They start wondering to themselves "wow...I wonder what kind of tasty pie we could make for ourselves"
I know the things I outlined in an earlier post don't reflect the way Microsoft and Sony are MARKETING, but the mere fact they have included what they have in their respective consoles is showing that they are indeed beginning to notice there is more than just one type of pie. Sure, from the gaming perspective they are going after the same market.
From a functionality perspective though? One is eyeing Lemon Merangue, while the other is admiring a Banana Cream.
Living With a Nerd
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
read my above pie analogy...I do infact explain that very point (mainly because I worded it badly)
Living With a Nerd
I think this post deserves the elusive "+-0, Lay Off the Crack" mod
I hate this kind of thinking. It ignores reality. It attempts to be politically correct and magnanimous over electronic devices. As if a PS3 can have a hurt ego.
Look, if there is anything we've learned from recent gaming history, it's that there are losers. The Dreamcast should have had a bigger chunk of market share. In my opinion, it didn't deserve an early death. And the GameCube should have had more games. However good Nintendo's first-party games may be, they didn't have a Guitar Hero or EyeToy equivalent. People wanting that stuff had to look elsewhere.
The bottom line is, some consoles falter, and when they do, sometimes developers kick 'em while they're down. And when that happens, customers get the shaft. So it is not only legitimate for customers to try to figure out the least shafty deal, but it's realistic, too. Right now, Sony is down. What's more, some customers (or ex-customers) want to kick Sony while they're down. It would be stupid to pretend that such thinking has no effect. Similarly, the Wii does have weaker graphics. It may be foolish to ignore that, especially if you consider what the console landscape may look like 2 or 3 years from now -- lots of very good looking and fun games on the PS3 and XBox 360. The Wii isn't going to corner the market on fun. So the question may be, do you want fun & good looks, or just fun? Are you willing to pay through the teeth?
The second we start to engage our critical faculties, we can see that there are already some clear indications of who is headed for loserville. And when you're about to put down $500 or so, you may want to be sure you're not investing in the losing team. If you do make that mistake, you may end up having to invest another $500 in a year or two. I'm not suggesting that the PS3 will die like the DreamCast, as Sony is too big and egotistical to let that happen. But we can already see a dearth of games for that system, and many of the games that do exist are already available (with better multiplayer) on the XBox 360. A year from now, will PS3 fanboys be asking Santa for an XBox 360, just to get a better selection of fun games? Why not avoid that mess, and pick intelligently from the start?
As for me, I've picked the Wii, because I believe three things. First, graphics have reached "good enough" level for enough people that sales won't be hurt. Second, the Wii controller isn't a gimmick, and will ensure good gaming for quite some time. Third, Nintendo has patched up relationships with third parties, and will see more games than the PS3 will. I could be wrong on all counts. But I want to put my money down on a system that will last me 4+ years, and so I did my best to determine who the losers would be, and steered clear.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Or who even care/remember such things :D
Game ratings are generally bullshit anyway, i've got no idea how many games rated "80%" that i've played for 5 minutes and thought "this is crap"...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
The story summary was a bit weird, since it seems to imply having a terrible launch is actually a sign of success - I think few people would argue the Playstation had a bad run. So it would seem to mean good things for the PS3, or that Sony is much better at managing the long-term life of a console than other companies.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Summary:
Microsoft: Cool
Sony: Powerful
Nintendo: Fun
Do not read this sig.
And your decision fits EXACTLY into what I described.
You wanted the best GAMING experience. Hence, you bought the system most geared towards gaming.
If you wanted the best streaming box experience, you wouldn't have bought only a Wii no matter how fun it may be.
If you wanted the best future-proofing, you wouldn't have bought only a Wii no matter how revolutionary it's controller may be.
Thank you for proving my point.
Living With a Nerd
Xbox 360 is a cheap Dreamcast.
I think the Neo Geo with 945 gibberish points is much worse than the Turbo Grafix 16 that had only 214 gibberish points.
Man, I hate worthless numbers that are not defined in a summary.
It should be noted that Zelda for the Wii might not sell right off as highly as Soul Calibur for the Dreamcast because Zelda will also be available for the GameCube, and so many people (Wii skeptics, budgeters, Zelda-control-purists, etc) will be holding out for the GameCube version of Zelda instead.
/* No Comment */
Well, so it seems that your post has some flaws: First, it isn't Sony the worst console, and Playstation (1) was the worst console before Wii. The less misleading post should be like: Wii had the worst launch, and Playstation (One) is second. This is my humble opinion, just thoght was an important remark for all those people who only read the thread topics in RSS.
Dont talk to me about life!
... as group most obsessed with statistics.
83.2% of gamers said they were at least 75% certain that they were likely to buy a console based on a statistical analysis of available game titles and their relative worth. Of those who said they would likelly buy a console based on a statistical analysis, 38.3% indicated that they were also running their own independent analyses in order to verify the accuracy of the initial analysis.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
No, I wanted just what I said. I wanted the system that would give me 4+ years of fun. I wanted the system that wouldn't go under or be abandoned a year or two in. In my opinion, that's not the PS3. They are NOT all 3 winners. They will not all 3 be successes in my opinion. Good job deliberately misreading in the hopes that you could defend your silly "all consoles are fine" sentiment.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Mmmmm... arbitrary metrics...
I don't know about where you live, but Honda has never been synonymous with quality here.
Additionally, Matsushita have this incredibly annoying trend recently of releasing Laptop DVD drives which do extra CSS and Region Checking in hardware, and even libdvdcss-based software like VLC can't play DVDs region-free with them. The firmware is difficult to get hold of and very difficult to hack, but the drives are being used everywhere in laptops because they're so cheap.
Actually, I guess your 'just like Sony' comment is right on the mark.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Besides, "future-proofing"? Please.
No one believes that tripe except the marketroids and the zombies that listen to them. The PS3 is no more "future-proof" than the nVidia GeForce 8800.
Future-proof == overpriced.
D.
Yep, I bought my 360 for the streaming media features.
That makes no sense.
The 360 is a gaming device first and foremost. If you disagree with this, you have never used one for more than a few minutes--or have never played games on it.
Aside from the larger storage device, I fail to see how the PS3 is "future proof." This is console gaming, not PC gaming. There wont be Wii, 360, or PS3 games released in the future that cannot be played on their respective console. Do you really believe that the PS3 is that much more powerful than the other consoles that it's life will be longer than the others? I don't.
It probably depends on your definition of quality. Reliable cars at affordable prices? Only Toyota can compete there. If your definition of quality is a luxury-type automobile, then Honda is not the place to start.
Honda does pretty well in the US. They're consistently #1 in resale value, and always within the top 5-10 marques worldwide in both initial quality and long-term quality. I'm not sure where you're from, but ask someone from the US who makes a quality car and I'd bet the majority will give you one of two answers: Toyota or Honda.
In terms of reliability, Honda is number two after Toyota according to statistics taken from car owners.
Do you know a better, objective measure of quality than your car not breaking down?
When all of the consoles are a year or two old, and the developers are starting to wring all the performance out of them that they can, you'll see what the grandparent poster was talking about.
Look at what happened with the last generation of consoles. In the beginning, cross-platform titles were pretty much the same on all of them. As time went by, they got more and more impressive but the Gamecube started having problems handling some of the games, framerate issues, lower res textures, some titles having to be on multiple discs. Shortly after, the PS2 started seeing the same issues. The XBox, being the most powerful of the three, had become the primary development platform for anything that appeared on all 3 systems, and it showed.
Like it or not, there's a LOT of multi-platform games and you'd be foolish to ignore that fact when it comes to choosing a system and looking at the future impact of your choice.
In a parallel market, the PC Gaming market, there have been some pretty terrible launches. There are no games at all in PC-DOS 1.0, and the several games on the PC-DOS 1.1 diskette (games in the form of .BAS files) are pretty weak offerings. Of course, IBM distributed 'Adventure in Serenia', 'Strategy Games', and 'Microsoft Adventure' (it's just the regular classic text adventure game, but proudly rebranded 'Microsoft Adventure' on the IBM slipcover and the diskette) very early, if not at launch of the IBM PC, but those are somewhat underwhelming, too.
This is topped (bottomed) by the Atari 600, of course, where Atari put out the main system (keyboard with integrated CPU, plug into your TV set) but produced NO peripherals and NO software for it before orphaning the system. I had one of those (real cheap at surplus stores at the time,) and you could stare at the BASIC prompt, type in your game program to play, etc, but not store it, so you'd type it in each time you wanted to play it)
I hope somebody reads this. When I first glanced at this Slash heading I was hoping to see some reality regarding the release of this console. As per the geek factor (gaming waste life's--yes I used to be one) you get the usual percentages on most coveted or most played game(s). And as per the usual IT bulls$*t; The coffee talk about numbers of some mega lo corporation! It's so annoying these days... It's like technology and industry have truly binded and the result is a bunch of geeks talking about how much money Sony made this quarter or what market blunders they've committed. WHO CARES! Here's the REAL reason why this console was the worst in history. People like you and me were beaten, stabbed and SHOT at because people are so enamored by trying to either firstly acquire -a- gaming console for play or resell it for big profits. It is absolute insane that nobody has given it anymore attention other than "lol, dude got busted up waiting inline for a ps3>what a n00b" Wake up man, WAKE UP.
You have to be the most goddamn irritating sonofabitch editor EVER. Stop with the fucking biased stories already, or go work for fucking FOX NEWS .
I'm not saying this is why, but it is something to consider. Keep in mind that 1UP's affiliate Computer Gaming World, a 25 year old magazine, changed its name to Games for Windows with a big windows logo on the front cover. Its hard to consider 1up.com objective under such circumstances. I don't know, does that make sense?
I think there should be a logical explanation for that. XBox 360 launched last year as the only next Gen console, and while they performed much below PS3 in the E3 2005, still they were the only, and they managed to get a good line up of games for the launch. For PS3 and Wii, despite the competition and launching the two at the same time, they only got slightly below the XBox 360, so its not actually very bad for PS3 at least. With the high prices of the consoles right now, you can't expect too many will buy PS3 and Nintendo Wii.
First to start, I have owned nearly every console from the commodore 64 days up until last generation...Ironically, despite your assumptions, the only current-gen console I have is in fact a 360.
The PS3 is future proof in the sense that it includes a POTENTIAL (note the emphasis) future optical disc format (which you mentioned) as well as a first party process to get Linux on it...meaning if the PS3 ends up becoming a dud, you now have one hell of a Linux box that also plays Blu-Ray AND the games that you enjoyed. And if you have no interest in making it a Linux box? OK no big deal...you still have the experience and memories of all the time you spent playing what games you DID enjoy on it...any true gamer will tell you that gaming is rewarding in and of itself. I'm not saying that bad games don't exist, but I am saying that are overly critical in the sense of what is and is not a good game. Whether that gaming time was worth the money is entirely subjective, and only you can decide that. Then again, you can't decide that if you don't own it, can you?
As far as why you bought a 360, I never once said that the PS3 and the 360 were not gaming machines as well. What I was getting at is each respective console has it's additional uses beyond simple gaming. Frankly, if you ONLY look at the gaming capabilities of a machine, then you are ignoring half of the console and are short changing yourself. You want to ensure that you have a console that won't be a dud in a couple years...and this is where the additional features come into play.
See, when something like the Dreamcast died, it had no other use. However, I can ASSURE you that there will be thousands of people that continue to use their Xbox as a Linux machine/emulator platform...the console itself will still have practical use even when games are no longer developed for it. Just as if the PS3 dies, and Blu-Ray lives, now they have a Blu-Ray player in addition to something that plays what few games they deemed fun. The same thing goes for the 360, if the software ends up sucking, guess what? Now you have a preconfigured box that can be used to stream things at a fraction of the cost of a decent PC. Not to mention, again, it does still have the ability to play the games that you enjoyed. Simply trying to choose "the best" console will ALWAYS result in you losing because it will cause you to miss out on the many things that are on only one system...and I'm not talking about big blockbuster games, either. If the past few years have proven ANYTHING, it is that the small developers are making a comeback, and many of the best games in the past...say 5 years came out of small development houses (or at least development houses that were small back then)
If you cannot afford more than one console, fine. But if you purposely keep yourself confined to a single console, you miss out on alot of the stuff that is only on those respective systems. Granted, time will tell how many exclusives each system obtains, but still...you get my point. When I think of all the games that I have played only available on a specific platform, it makes me realize how happy I am to always try to think of each console as good.
Why is it OK to like only one console but NOT ok to equally like all of them?
Living With a Nerd
I would say that the image of Honda being more of a luxury car than Toyota comes from their history in motorsport. Honda tends to be a racing company that happens to make cars for the road, whereas Toyota primarily make road cars, and occasionally go racing. Hence Honda will be seen as more sporty, which in some people's eyes makes it more of a luxury car.
I have a solution but you're not going to like it. (Something I say far too forten to my boss)
Then tell people to not care about which one will or will not be a dud.
Because if they truly didn't care, they would base their purchase decision on the fun they can have this year or next year, not the fun they can have in three years or four years or six years or ten years from now.
Living With a Nerd
This is so wrong I don't know where to begin. Battle Arena Toshinden and Ridge Racer are 2 of the best console games I've ever played. They both spawned a long list of sequels that have yet to equal the original in terms of gameplay.
>However good Nintendo's first-party games may be, they didn't have a Guitar Hero or EyeToy equivalent.
:P
Donkey Konga?
...if they're true?
Better even than Super Mario World?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Eh? Not so much. I've had samsung phones, mp3 players and other electronics all of which were poorly designed and failed in one way or another. I avoid the samsung brand altogether as they are very much not in line as far as quality per price point (a phone shouldn't just have the monochrome LCD die within a year of use and an MP3 player shouldn't just shut off randomly after 3 months of use and have the cheapest battery door ever due to bad design). I advise people all the time to steer clear of samsung products, and I've noticed that panasonic products usually beat samsung in reviews. So I believe the parent isn't offtarget.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
exactly! picked it up with 2 sets of bongos for a total of 35 in my local gamestop. clearance as they haven't had a gamecube display in about two years. back for good alone is worth it.
That's a Taiko Drum Master equivalent, not an EyeToy/Guitar Hero equivalent.
it's a rhythm action game with a peripheral which you use to play music. an FPS is still an FPS even if it has a different selection of weapons.
You make no sense.
You lose.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &