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?
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
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...
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.
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?
You're okay as long as they don't give you giant crabs for massive damage.
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?
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
Yeah, I think the 3DO and the NeoGeo are also missing.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
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 &