Slashdot Mirror
360 vs. PS3 vs. Wii - The Designer's Perspective
Gamasutra is running a piece today written by Ernest Adams, a frequent contributor to the site and an amusingly opinionated game designer. He writes to weigh in on the console war debate from the perspective of a game designer. He runs down the usual list of pros and cons for each machine, and then digs into the most creative aspects of each machine. Finally, lays out what he sees as the end result of this hardware generation: "So who, at the end of the day, will be the also-ran in this generation of consoles? On the global scale, I'd say it could well be neither the PS3 or the Wii, but the Xbox 360. The PS3 will win over the hardcore gamers who have to have the fastest, most amazing machine available. The Wii will skim off the younger players and those who don't have as much money to spend. Both have the advantage of being made in Japan, so they'll crowd the Xbox right out of that market. In the US and Europe, it's harder to say, but I see the Xbox's early start as more of a liability than a benefit."
So, I've been kicking around the idea of getting a 360 for months, now. I was close, but put off by the sticker shock, and decided to hold off for a bit longer. Maybe until a price drop.
A couple days ago, though, I went over to a friend's place; she manages a small EBgames store, and has a 360 and just about every notable game for it. It was just a small get-together, so a bunch of us spent some time browsing through her collection of 360 games. I'm glad I didn't buy one.
Gears of War. Rainbow 6: Vegas. Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter. FEAR. YAWW2FPS (Call of Duty something, I think). Dead Rising. Saint's Row. Splinter Cell: Double Agent. Dead or Alive 4.
Incidentally, most of these games are the most popular on the 360. Notice something? It's almost entirely FPS. R6:V, CoD and GRAW are your archetypical boring, generic, sequel shovelware. Gears of War and FEAR are both good games in their own right, but considering the company they're in, they don't exactly stand out. Then you have yet another Splinter Cell game, which falls in the same boat: a good game, but reeking of been-there-done-that. Next is Dead Rising, a good game with a few very, very deep flaws, but basically fun, and Dead or Alive 4: an uninspired button-masher fighter that doesn't look like its had its sprites updated in years. Nevermind that the game ought to come with a jar of vaseline, as it's mainly beat-off material for teenagers.
It's not that the 360's game lineup is all that bad, it's just that the console's been out for a year now, and the best game on it is a FPS, on a console that's drowning in FPSes. Yet where are the RPGs? Oblivion and its broken leveling system and litany of cut-and-paste caves/dungeons? Bottom-of-the-JRPG barrel drek like Enchanted Arms (if you're not acquainted with how agonizingly bad this game is, take a look at some of the gameplay videos on Gametrailers)?
If the 360 really has a weakness, its the utter lack of diversity in its games. It's a hell of generic sequelism. That's fine in a launch console, but not a year after release.
I think the XBox 360 will lead for the next year or so and then as games that fully take advantage of the PS3 come out and the PS3 gets cheap enough for more casual gamers to buy the PS3 will take the lead as the console of choice. In the end it's power and BlueRay will make it the champion.
Meanwhile I see the Wii as the runner up behind the PS3 largely due to it's low price point and classic Nintendo style. I see the XBox 360 becoming another Dreamcast. Like the Dreamcast, I'd consider buying a 360 but not until it's price drops down to almost nothing.
I can see both Sony and Microsoft finding ways to clone the Wiimote and add it's functionality to their games. Nintendo's best bet could be to prove the technology and then to license it to Sony and Microsoft. They could get a slice of the profits from all three consoles.
As to the power of the PS3 I think the real interesting stuff will not be the graphics, although those are nice, but improved AI and physics and other stuff that you can't see in a screenshot. Interactivity is as much in what you can do with the processing power available as it is in the interface.
The only real benefit of the XBox 360 is that it was out first and was a little cheaper than the PS3. If theyw ant to come out as the best selling console of this generation I think they need to really work on putting out some awesome titles and bringing their price down quickly. Adding some optional controller similar to the Wiimote, with enough good games that can support it, could help too. They should attack the Wii in the area of performance and the PS3 in the area of price.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
First, you are wrong about HD-DVD. It is readily available for the 360.
As far as media playback, web browsing etc., go, I doubt those will be that appealing. If they were, people would be leaping all over the small systems from companies like AOpen, and the Mac Mini, to hook to their TVs. It's not like the PS3 is providing something new here.
General purpose computing in the living room is just not that appealing. Who wants to read their email on a screen where the rest of the family can see everything? Would any teenager want to IM with Mom and Dad watching? And what about conflicts with TV viewing: "you can't watch the 'American Idol' finale tonight, dear...I want to research my report for work tomorrow". That ain't gonna fly.
Because of these problems, the PS3 cannot REPLACE a regular computer. Which means its appeal is mostly limited to being a supplimental computer. It's pretty damned expensive for that. (Well, I've seen some Linux dreamers say people will get multiple PS3s--one for the living room, and one for the home office, and one for the kids to use for their computing. Nice fantasy).
And if you get into home office type use, it gets worse, because the PS3 is not very fast compared to a mid-line Dell. It's Cell processor basically consists of one general-purpose core (about equivalent to a G5) plus 7 things that are essentially DSPs. Those do not have direct access to system memory. To do anything with them, you have to use their DMA controller to transfer the data to them, and then run your program on them. When it finishes, you DMA the data back to system memory. This is not something that current or reasonably upcoming compilers can automate. You need to specifically develop your software for this architecture to use the SPEs. Things like spreadsheets and word processors won't benefit from them at all. They will only be using the G5-like processor (and there is only 256 MB of RAM, which will also hurt). Any recent Intel or AMD system with 512 MB will smoke the PS3 here.
My experience is every parallel design fails to achieve its promised potential. Software programmers have a hard time making use of multiple core and multiple processor systems. Almost all programmers have learned software development on single-core/single-processor machines. The result is almost all programs run well on single-core/single-processor computers. Dual-core development isn't too difficult, because many programs have certain natural parallelisms that make it easy to keep two cores busy. If you look at most parallel processing curves, times get really tough when you have more the 4 cores. Not many programs are easy to parallelize at the 4+ core level. The Cell on the PS3 has 7 cores.
A general lack of availability of multi-processor/multi-core developers, and the high-difficulty level of multi-thread software development, will mean that the PS3 development runs late and over-budget. This is a big problem for someone thinking of developing software for the PS3.
I see the exact opposite happening. I think X360 is going to keep gaining ground, and hold it. Sony can't even get enough Ps3's into the hands of people who want them; add that to the low number of units out there now, and the fact that publishers have spent millions on million developing blockbuster games seemingly exclusive to the Ps3. The simple fact is, if Sony can't deliever enough systems to the poeple who want them by the time these "exclusive" titles launch; they're not going to be so exclusive anymore. I easily see an X360 Port of Metal Gear Solid 4 in the future. Assassin's creed has gone multiplatform; and so has GTA4. GTA sells systems. If there aren't enough PS3's to fill the gap; a majority of people will more likely just grab the X360 Version and console. Sony is screwing themselves more and more; I figure they've got about 6 months to satisfy the demand for their system. If they can't, Sony's taking that magical 3rd place in the console wars. As for the Wii; well, it's obvious that sales are EXPLODING. The combination of a cheaper system, and a new control system has worked wonders for Nintendo. I've seen many a people who didn't typically enjoy video games (my ex for example) pick up and play the Wii for hours. And if Nintedo's crazy plan of drawing in more and more non-gamers continues working as well as it has been; we might be looking at Nintendo taking back that #1 spot in console sales.
That is HIGHLY unlikely, if soully for the reason that no alternate controllers, even first party controllers, ever catch on on a massive scale, aside from slight alterations like the Wavebird (wireless) and XBox S controller (smaller). Even DDR pads are a fairly niche market, when you look at the grand scheme of things: it's justified for basically only one game series. The controller you're talking about would practically require exclusively written games for it... we're not talking Wavebirds and S Controllers, here.
Secondly, why the hell would Nintendo want to give up the ONE THING that makes its console unique and attractive to the public (besides the feeling that you're buying into a company that is actually striving for innovation for the long term)? They'd be pratactically writing their own death sentance, at least in the hardware market. We're looking at a possible leader or strong second place in this coming generation, and you're suggesting they simply throw it away? No, Nintendo's got something to prove: that balls-to-the-walls processing power doesn't automatically make for a good game or a successful console. They could not have done a better job of proving that, so far. It's better for business, it's better for gamers, and it's better for developers, in the long run.
Also, Nintendo spent years developing and honing the Wiimote to get it to the surprisingly usable piece of machinery it is today. The logistical hoops that Sony or Microsoft would have to go through, simply to include precision tracking (plug-in for LED sensor), would be staggering... and let's not even get into the legal reprocusions.
No, Sony and Microsoft will, and should, stick to their guns in maintaining systems that target their prime demographics. I think it's really refreshing to finally see some real separation between consoles, this time around, with huge differences in design philosophy and gameplay expectations. It starts to kinda make all the various consoles in past generations seem redundant.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
About my early doubts about the Wii and non-gamers, I've seen some very impressive things, that make me think Nintendo may just be crazy like a fox. Watching a forty year old stop at a Gamestop in the wall to play Wii sports, and responding with something equivalent to "This is fucking awesome!" and "When are these gonna be on sale?" impressed me very highly. Anecodotal reports of non-gaming girlfriends seizing controllers are also very encouraging.
>Honestly I think it's impossible to have a very strong opinion on the PS3 until it's been released for a year.
surely a problem in itself? back in the old days I don't ever recall the "wah! give me a year before you have an opinion! why do you have to be so mean! judging something is politically incorrect!" argument being too popular.
>Considering you're a self professed hardcore gamer, you should know that the PS3 DOES have stuff going for it other than just Blu-ray.
such as?
>Most likely is that there will be a larger multi-console camp this time around.
;)
That's very likely, indeed. Many of the first fans are older now, and some have amazingly
moved out of ma's basement and/or got jobs. I'll most likely end up with a bunch of consoles
of both the current and previous generation within the next six months. Currently only got
a DS and a PS2, though.
I'm no fan of any particular platform, but I'll get the one(s) with multiple games that interest
me. Just one platform-exclusive won't win me over, but five games of interest, unique or
not, will. Just as long as five different games are available for the 'cooler' console
The 360 will have a hard time getting into my home, though, as it seems multiplayer requires
some sort of subscription. I can't just slap in a game and do co-op/host a small server with
some friends. I'm already paying for enough subscriptions (games, services, source code)
as it is, so paying to use a console adequately isn't very interesting.
Wii is a cool, but underpowered machine.
:)).
which is ok, because devs focus on gameplay, not shiny...
Making this console really fun.
PS3 is slower than x360 (GPU specs.) and is way overpriced, and lacks rumble.
PS3 has bad games (for now). With graphics that are worse than x360 (when comparing same games).
PS3 is cool because of linux, but doesn't really have a game dev SDK for homebrew devs...
Sony's controllers are exactly the same as PS2 controllers - BUT - feel cheap and lightweight, and lack rumble. The tacked-on and flimsy USB port looks bad too.
x360 is pretty cool, has a homebrew game SDK (called XNA), and is easy to develop for (relative to the PS3 - which is very difficult to develop for). They actually got the controllers right this time, and out of the 3 I believe are the best dual stick controller (Sony used to have the coolest controllers back when it was PS2 vs XBOX, though I know some people even liked those huge XBOX controllers, weirdos...
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
Let me remind you that no console add-on, ever, has been a commercial success. That is why Nintendo did not release the Wiimote as the add-on it was initially planned as. The use of the Wiimote as the center of the console is the genius of Nintendo's strategy
The Wii has unimpressive graphics. Its only selling point is its controller. The quality of a Wii game lies in its fun-factor, which is directly tied to its use of the controller. Sure, the classic/Gamecube controllers are compatible, but there would really be no point in making a game like that for the Wii; you could make graphically superior version for the PS3 or the 360. Nintendo's actions with the Wii are effectively forcing developers to use the Wiimote in new and inventive ways, something that a simple add-on to the 360 or PS3 could never do.
these claims of the Wii only appealing to the young and the poor are really bizarre in my opinion
I agree 100%. My friends (all professional thirtysomethings) were never interested in my PS2, but now I have a Wii they're coming round every weekend to play. I won't be at all surprised if several of them - people who've never had any sort of gaming console before - buy their own Wiis before long. Nintendo fans may only make up a minority of "gamers", but Nintendo's appeal goes far beyond that.
FORTUNE FAVORS IRONY
The next Metal Gear Solid (MGS4) has pretty much already been confirmed for the Xbox 360. Same with GTA, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before DMC makes it's way over there. So yeah, your argument sucks.
I also find it funny how you say you can't have a strong opinion on the PS3 for at least a year, whereas everybody else seems to already have a very strong (positive) opinion on the Wii.
I think the ebay prices pretty much show how this is working out for Sony: PS3s going unsold even at retail, Wiis selling like hotcakes at double retail. Wii accessories selling at triple retail. Throw that in with the fact that Nintendo has put almost three times the amount of Wiis out there compared to the PS3, and you have to throw away the "intentionally limited supply" argument. The only argument that you're left with is that nobody wants a PS3.
10 If nobody wants a system, nobody's going to make software for it.
20 If nobody makes software for it, nobody's going to buy it.
30 GOTO 10.
Sony alone can't make enough decent titles to keep the system afloat.
First of all, I do like the Wii. But there at a LOT of things that 1080 graphics allow that 480 simply does not. One simple example is real-time strategy games. Pixel real estate is at a premium, and you would have a graphics nightmare trying to do that on 480 resolution. Now, one could say most Wii gamers could care less about RTS. But IF you did want to play one, you could not do so on a Wii. The upcoming Halo Wars RTS for xbox 360 looks like it will pull it off.