Slashdot Mirror
In Wake of Price Drops, Further PS3 Doubts
Sony fans undoubtedly cheered the news of a $100 drop in price for the 60GB PS3, but even with the price drop there are several issues surrounding the console. 1up reports that the 80GB PS3 is following the lead of the EU-released PS3s by removing the Emotion engine and relying on software emulation for backwards compatibility. In an effort to decrease costs Sony continues to reduce features and develop their product. Meanwhile, Konami executive Kazumi Kitaue doesn't see much impact from the cut ... and in fact told Reuters that they're seriously considering a multi-platform release for Metal Gear Solid 4. "Kitaue said Konami may need to expand the target hardware for its blockbuster fighting game Metal Gear Solid, which has so far been developed for Sony's PlayStation machines, to other consoles in the future to recoup development costs ... The release of the latest version of Metal Gear Solid series is expected to help lure hard-core gamers to the PS3 and alleviate concerns over scarcity of strong PS3 titles. Underscoring sluggish PS3 sales and robust demand for the Wii, Nintendo shot past Sony in market value last month and bumped the Tokyo-based electronics conglomerate off the list of Japan's 10 most valuable companies."
I doubt I'd be all that pleased. To me, it would seem that I payed $100 too much since they're dropping the price so soon after launch.
Software emulation on the PS3 works just as well as the hardware emulation!! Software emulation as been in the Euro consoles since release over there. No features are being taken away at all. This is a gaming console we're talking about, not a PC. There is no disadvantage of emulating in software rather than hardware. There are no background apps that will be starved for CPU time because the emulation is in software rather than hardware!
What's with all the anti-Sony FUD lately?
It's kind of like a Catch-22, with Sony stuck in the middle.
Price flamewars aside, the main issue with the PS3 is its library isn't really spectacular. Without a decent library (either general or exclusive titles) it is not going to sell well, even if it was the exact price of an XBox 360.
So, Konami is thinking about not making MGS exclusive to the PS3 because the sales have been poor.
But the sales won't increase without publishers hitching their star to the PS3 as exclusive titles (even if it's just exclusive for a year or so).
Then again, I don't see why 3rd party publishers go exclusive anymore. If you can increase sales by 50% by simply recoding an existing product then go for it. Note: I'm a software developer and I know very well that's not as easy as it sounds. But it's obviously possible asince it's being done now (even across the Wii and the 360, which are as different as you can get).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What have they screwed up besides the unreasonably high price? I wouldn't want them to scrub the PS3 and start over, the replacement would just be MORE expensive.
Username taken, please choose another one.
What's with all the anti-Sony FUD lately?
There's been anti-PS3 FUD from day one. I don't know why. Microsoft has contributed with their multi-million dollar "grass-roots" PR campaign, but I don't think they are the sole reason. Sony *has* screwed up in a few ways (like shipping sixaxis controllers with no rumble), but considering how even a *price drop* causes the FUD to fly, it's hardly all due to their mis-steps.
I don't know why everyone is Sony-hating, but they've been doing it for a long time.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The stock markets are all about where you are going. If a company can't sell a story or concept to investors it typically trades at a fairly low multiple of earnings (these are classified as value companies). When they can they trade at a much higher multiple of earnings. As examples Apple is trading at 38x it's earnings. Dell trades at about 20 times it's earnings this year. Investors believe that Apple is more likely to grow its earnings faster than Dell will so they pay a higher price now.
The other factor that impacts market value is the total size of your profitablity. It's likely that Sony's other businesses earn less money (per dollar of sales) than consoles (in good times), so Sony's other businesses don't add as much as you might expect to its market value.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
At any rate, for myself, selling me a crappier system for $100 less is worse than selling me the real deal for the original price.
Software emulation on the PS3 works just as well as the hardware emulation!!
Not according to Sony's own compatability list for the EU PS3. While many games work fine, there are also a significant number in the lowest-score "noticeable issues" category. Also note the caveats, like how you should skip optional FMV sequences and how you shouldn't use network modes due to graphical corruption.
The fact is without even the specifics it should be obvious that software emulation will not work just as well as hardware emulation. Which isn't emulation at all, it's hardware compatability, it's physically utilizing the original PS2 hardware that the game was originally designed to run on. With the hardware "emulation", you basically have an actual PS2 to run your PS2 games on. The Emotion Engine is not simple, and creating a perfectly compatible software version that exactly matches not only every bit of functionality but also the relative timing of operations which many games depend on is very difficult and not something that is going to be made perfect. They will necessarily have to go on a case-by-case basis finding games that depend on a particular quirk of the Emotion Engine and fix them and issue patches.
I'm not saying the software emulation is crap, and if the games you want to play are well supported according to the compatability list then you should be good to go. I am saying that the switch from hardware compatability to software emulation has hurt backward compatability. That's not FUD, it's a fucking fact. Which should be obvious, because before the EU PS3 release they didn't even have a compatability list because there was no point.
The enemies of Democracy are
Yea guys. The Cell processor is pure chocolate magic. Don't forget that. Just like the Emotion Engine before it. Remember the raw emotion that little baby pumped out! It was crazy town. Wait, what?
I'm not saying a 1080p movie isn't impressive looking. I'm saying that at some point I forget to notice how 'crisp' it looks and start paying attention to the events unfolding in the movie.
When you first get an HD player, you get HD movies just to see how they look. Hell, I would've watched The Adventures of Hanna Montana in HD if it was the only thing available at the time. But as time passes, you stop being hyper-aware of how it looks and start going back to just watching a movie.
I guess my ultimate point is that the difference between HD and standard def doesn't change my enjoyment of a movie. A good HD movie would've been just as good in standard def.
That is all you need to know. Think of how many billions they have made on that simple fact. It isn't like it costs $8 to print 10-20 cards. You are seeing pure profit in the card game. Not to mention the millions in TV franchise rights, movie revenues, and finally video game sales (which also happen to require requisite video game consoles which also sell at a profit unlike competitors). It has been a cash printing machine for the last 10+ years. It makes more money at less risk then any music business can.
You also forget that Nintendo owns a LOT of different IP which they license to many other entities. Their entire business model is based such that even if console tanks, they have enough cash to continue onwards. They keep their development costs low as well as their production costs and make sure they always are making a profit on each and everything they sell so they do not have to rely on future revenue from game sales to make a profit. They have had several systems which have flat out tanked in the past, but have always been able to continue through the market ups and downs (unlike some competitors, Atari, Activision, NeoGeo, SEGA... who couldn't last a single bad console release).
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Screw-up is harsh term for the PS3 thus far. I wouldn't ding them that harshly. Once the price issue is removed, it isn't a catastrophe, it's just...not the best. It's got online and it's free, but it's just not as good. Interface has a few nice features like internet browsing, but overall, it's not as tight of an experience as Xbox360 with relation to gaming, and this is a gaming console. On the other hand, the Wii is far worse, so I wouldn't say the PS3 is doing terribly here, just not as well as the Xbox360.
Games and lost exclusives, it is indeed Sony's job to make sure the games are in place, this is their biggest problem IMO. They didn't have enough of the right games, and have lost exclusivity on some of their better ones. But this is very much a matter of opinion, and I don't see them doing terribly here, just not as good as the Xbox360 or Wii in targeting the seperate markets. The Xbox360 is a direct competitor to the PS3 in terms of the games being fielded, and it's winning, while the PS3 can't compete at all with the Wii for obvious reasons.
So while there are no catastrophic mistakes aside from the price added by packing in Blu-ray, coming in 2nd-place in all categories leaves this console without a clear picture of what it's good for and who should buy it.
If I were to pick the worst part of the PS3's performance, I would have to stretch to include the marketing. It has been pure CRAP. Truly terrible. You would almost think that they have intentionally been sabotaging themselves. Have you seen the "This is Living" campaign? Soccer fanatic lying naked except for a jockstrap masturbating to a soccer game on TV? A busty-blonde pooping in a toilet telling stories about her mother? The mercenary's clip had a superb performance by the actor, really good stuff, and unfortunately, the message was that you should go and buy a bar of chocolate. However, this was a European campaign.
The U.S version was not that much better, though it had improved later on to actually show some clips of a game (Resistance). However, it had kicked off with a plastic baby crying blood to the sounds of Armageddon in a white room. Apparently they're trying to tell you that the PS3 kills babies and will bring about the Eschaton.
But as I have said, the PS3 isn't that bad of a package aside from the pricing. The games will happen someday, and when they do the PS3 will pick up some momentum. I don't think it has any chance of catching the Xbox360 or Wii. However, the PS3 has successfully established the next media format. HD-DVD is dead in the water since there are so many more blu-ray players in the wild. And releases will go to the format with the most people who can play them. And people will buy the format with the most releases on them...etc. etc. So Sony has that at least. Whether that translates into PS3 sales later on due to Blu-ray's lead on HD-DVD is questionable though.
Do a bit of digging for the technical specs on the PS3 and 360. You'll find that the 360's graphics hardware is in fact superior to the PS3's, and its memory architecture is more flexible.
Developers will come to know the power of the PS3, true, but they'll also come to know its limitations. And in these days of tightening deadlines and limited budgets, it is unlikely that many developers will even complete the learning process.
The console death spiral: gamers aren't buying, so developers hold back. Devs hold back, so gamers hold back even more. And so on...
The PS3 has begun its descent already. It will take a lot of time, money, effort and random luck for Sony to dig it out. It's not impossible, but it's also unlikely. Good luck...
This is why Nintendo is winning this war, folks. Sony and Microsoft have narrowed their focus to the testosterone-junkie market, leaving all the little kids, old folks, and females to be served by the DS and Wii.
My wife is the big gamer in our house. She owns almost console ever made. Yet until Ratchet & Clank comes out, there won't be anything on the PS3 to grab her attention.
------RM
Ok, Sony Started out with 2 versions selling at $499 and $599. Now they have 2 versions selling at $499 and $599. The feature spec is now different, but how is that a price cut? For the sake of comparison let's take Sony out of the picture and compare Cameras.
Last year you could buy a 5.1 Megapixel camera solo for $199, or a 5.1 Megapixel camera with a bag, & extra batteries for $249.
This year you can get a a 5.1 Megapixel camera with a bag, & extra batteries for $199, or you can get a a 5.1 Megapixel camera with a bag, extra batteries and a memory card for $249 and they no longer sell the 5.1 Megapixel camera by itself.
You are getting more for your money, but at the core you're buying a camera at the same price as was offered last year.
This sounds like the commentary of somebody who hasn't spent much time with a PS3.
I used to think exactly what you just said, but my console experience this generation was limited to the 360, and the Wii. I had only played with store demo PS3s. I recently picked up a PS3, though, because I needed a new DVD player, and I wanted the upscaling and the BluRay support, and I must say that i'm generally impressed with the interface; even the online parts. "Tight" is exactly how I would describe it, and everything about the system. It's the first console I've ever owned that doesn't feel like a toy. I was also surprised to find that the downloadable content for the system far surpassed what was available for the Wii, which basically only has "classics" (read: old games; only some are truly classic). I haven't even turned my Wii on since I bought the PS3. I was also surprised by how open the system is. Standard memory card formats, many codecs playable from standard media servers, the ability to upgrade the hard drive, the controller being a HID compliant USB games controller.... Very un-Sony-like, but also very good.
I do agree that the marketing for the system is terrible though. And the game selection is still mediocre. The price was a little steep for me, which would mean that it was really steep for a college kid, or a parent, but with the price cut it'll hurt a little less.
The GP did say Sony, and I know I've read many comments, many previous to launch, where people were planning on not buying because of the PC root kit fiasco. They've also been severely trashed for not having rumble in the controller. I hear their isn't much to their library, and nothing you couldn't get on the 360 so why spend the extra cash.
I suppose all of the other PS3 issues relate in some way to the price of the console. When Sony first announced the price of the console, the executives acted very aloof like they were giving customers the privilege of being able to buy a PS3 at $600 (Apple has managed to do the same thing with a phone that also requires a $40 service plan and get adored for it), made statements about how the next generation didn't start until they launched, and generally acted like they didn't care what the customers thought and people should be lining up to give them money just because they're Sony. That's not a very customer friendly attitude to have, and has made everybody that felt condescended by Sony look at their product and decide that there isn't enough of a difference between the PS3 and the 360 to warrant the higher price, so they'll get the 360 since most games will be ported anyway.
Sony also has not paid attention to the history of consoles, and how no $500 console has ever done well. Further, all of the tens of millions of people that bought the last system are now about 2-6 years older than when they bought a PS2. For the twenty and thirty somethings in that group, many are now married, have kids, and the $700 or $800 (because you want games with that console right?) commitment is not as feasible that the $400 or $500 of the PS2, and many have also decided "been there, done that" for most of the games, and decided not to ante up for the newer model when they older one does just fine, or they've moved to the 360 for a better online experience, or to the Wii to try something new.
The last round, the Xbox was the hard core system, the PS2 was mainstream system with the GameCube. It's like Sony decided they wanted to switch roles with Microsoft, and go after the higher end market. HELLOO!!! You guys kicked the crap out of the Xbox last time because they were the high end system, and you were more affordable, and you decided to go after their part of the market, and left the core open for Microsoft and Nintendo to swoop in and take it away from you.
Also, with the PS and PS2, Sony used misinformation and hype to bury their competition because everybody waited to see what Sony had to offer which made the Atari Jaguar, 3DO, Sega Saturn and Dreamcast suffer, and Sony managed to do well enough to beat those offerings plus the N64, GameCube, and Xbox. This time, they're competing with a 360 that is comparable to the PS3 on value basis and a Wii that wants to take away the casual gamers that Sony had last generation.
The biggest thing of all has been the word of mouth. Sure, Sony kicked Nintendo's tail on launch week. But it didn't take long until word of mouth got around and demand for the Wii was through the roof. My wife reads lots of parenting magazines, and every one of them has had articles recommending a Wii for family friendly fun so that the family can spend time together while playing instead of junior hanging out in a corner of the basement alone, and they have the option of providing junior with active games so he'll be in a little better shape than he would be with any PlayStation game other than DDR or Guitar Hero. They also option of playing games that they played 10-25 years ago, and wouldn't mind playing again, with their kids.
300,000+ a month every month since release. About 8 million consoles sold, and quickly catching up with the xbox 360 in terms of total units moved.
The PS3 still has a chance to be successful. In the end it may not be the dominant system, but it can still do quite well. However, it has one giant obstacle to overcome, even larger than it's price tag. And that's a lack of games.
The PS3 is suffering from the same problem as the PSP, most games available for the system are crap. There are quite a few that are decent, for the PSP anyway, but virtually none that truly stand out. The cost of the console and questionable media format are mostly secondary factors driving people away from the system.
It's crucial, of course, that Sony and third party developers are devoted to the console in the long run. I'm impressed by the broad appeal of the Wii. I've met people who I'd never expect to be interested in game consoles telling me they own one. However, I'm also discovered a recurring pattern amongst these people. Many of them own one game: Wii Sports. If they own a second game it's almost always Wii Play, and that's because the game comes with a second controller. Unless there's a somewhat informed gamer in the household I don't see these people buying anything else. And when they do own additional games everyone uniformly considers Wii Sports the most fun. That's the thing with casual and non-gamers. They aren't the most loyal of consumers, at least not in this segment. They're not going to be buying 10 games or more a year.
So this is where the PS3 still has a viable future. Provided, of course companies start releasing some great games for the console. If the PS3 had phenomenal games people wouldn't be complaining about cost and Bluray. People have no problem paying for an iPhone which other than having a unique interface and the Apple brand image doesn't really do anything the competitors can't do. And on top of that it costs as much as a PS3!
As someone that bought a PS3 and a 360, I think the PS3 is a much better system.
1) I have a 1080p screen and at that resolution the PS3's graphics are much better.
2) If you play online games the PS3 is much cheaper over several years.
3) Cross platform games are better on the PS3.
4) PS3 games have much more to work with aka a HDD, more processing power etc.
5) Blue-Ray
6) Up scaling DVD's
7) It plays enough PS2 games that I don't need a PS2 but I still need the Xbox for a lot of old games.
8) It upgrades the graphics on old PS2 games. (So it's better than just backwards compatible.)
9) The PS3 has a longer lifespan. (Xbox 1 came out a year after PS2 but the 360 came out a year before the PS3. People are still buying more PS2's than 360's.)
Granted as working adult I find the difference in price meaningless.
As far as I am concerned, Sony's greatest screw up was the root kit they included on some of their CDs. I had to remove it from my parents' PC, and I decided that I will avoid buying anything with their brand. I own a PS2, and my stereo is a Sony, but I have not spend a dime on their products in a long, long time. Once Virtua Fighter stopped being an exclusive, I knew I was going to be able to stick to my "boycott".
No good deed goes unpunished...
The PS3 is a damned cool machine. That's what I've been telling people since I got it. It's been a fun machine to own, it works great, there's nary a glitch to be found anywhere. Sony has continuously improved the capabilities of the system with each update, and Home should add a whole new dimension to online play when it's released.
Nobody will be disappointed with the PS3 if they actually purchased one. The only people you really hear complaining about it are the owners of the Xbox 360; I guess they don't want the competition.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
It's all old stuff. You can read most of it in Game Over if you're inclined.
Basically, Nintendo was extremely strong-armed with third party developers during the NES days. You could only publish so many games a year(hence Contra being released as an ULTRA title), and you couldn't publish for other platforms like the Master system. They tried, unsuccessfully to crack down on unlicensed titles via their lockout chip, which was cloned by tengen(among others) and lost the resulting court case. That's also the source for the Nintendo seal of quality(all it really meant then was that a developer had paid the licensing fees, followed the rules, and the cart had a 10NES lockout chip).
They kept this up(being controlling in regards to third parties) to a certain extent until Yamauchi handed the reins over to Igawa.
Additionally, they strong-armed retailers, and to some extent manipulated the software market by having a hard lock on cartridge production.
Also, their Nintendo Authorized Repair Center thing(the US NES had a tendency to break because of the way it loaded, putting stress on the contacts) was a little bit of a scam.
Oh, and censored the original Mortal Kombat for the SNES, before the ESRB came into existance. I think that about covers it all.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
Just adding some counterpoints for interests sake (disclaimer: I have both a 360 and PS3):
1) This is only true IF you have a large TV or you sit closer than optimal viewing distance. The difference between 720p and 1080p is very hard to spot on anything less than 40" (unless you sit too close - at least 1.5-2x the size of the television is the distance away you ought to be). The difference between quality of different TV brands is much more a concern - a high quality tv at 720p can definately look better than a POS at 1080p (I'm looking at YOU, Hitachi!).
2) Very true, but as a working adult you must admit that $60 a year is a pittance, and for many people it's worth it for the seamless online service that xbox live provides. I much prefer the 360's online functionality to that of my PS3, free or not.
3) Actually most comparisons I've seen put them on equal footing graphics wise. Only oblivion comes to mind as having a hands down superior version on the PS3, but it did come out 10 months later or so on the PS3 than on the 360, so I would expect (demand?) as much.
4) True. Lets just hope developers learn to take advantage. Superior hardware doesnt always mean success.
5) Very true. The PS3 is a very cheap Blu-Ray player, and bluray movies look awesome. I doubt the HD movie market will be anything other than a niche market for the next few years, but for those of us early adopters the PS3 is a good choice for a bluray player, at least until standalones come down in price. Compared to modern standalone DVD players the PS2 sucks horribly, and I suspect the same will be true of the PS3's bluray capability by the time Bluray catches on. In the mean time however, it works.
6) Bah. PS3 upscaled dvds look better than non-upscaled dvds, but my $60 panasonic dvd player (also with hdmi output) does a much better job and has many more options. Maybe sony can update the upscaling software some more and it will be on par with standalone players, but I won't hold my breath.
7) All of my xbox games work on my 360, and all of my PS2 games (except Guitar Hero 1/2, because of the controller) work on my PS3. Guess I'm just lucky. There never was a huge number of must-play xbox exclusives - are there any that the 360 won't handle?
8) I like this a lot actually. It's like playing Playstation 1 games with epsxe on a computer. Of course the older games I choose to play again I would be playing anyway with or without sharper textures, but it's a nice bonus. Keep in mind the 360 also updates the graphics of emulated xbox games.
9) This is pure guessing. The PS2 certainly had a long lifespan, but the success of the PS2 (so far) has not translated into similar success for the PS3. One would hope with it's superior hardware that it would last longer, but as you pointed out the xbox (which had better hardware than the ps2) launched a year after the ps2 (as the ps3 lauched a year after the 360) and it didnt have a superior lifespan.
1) I have a 1080p screen and at that resolution the PS3's graphics are much better.
Define "much better". That term is pretty ambiguous as given, especially considering that both consoles support 1080p.
2) If you play online games the PS3 is much cheaper over several years.
This is somewhat true, but I wouldn't consider Sony's service to be comparable. Xbox Live is, for now, just a better experience and worth the money.
3) Cross platform games are better on the PS3.
Again, you're way too ambiguous. How are they better? Do they have better graphics? Do the controls feel better? From what I've seen of comparisons, the Xbox 360 has actually come out ahead in terms of image quality with games like Armored Core 4. And, D-pad aside, I don't see how anyone can call the SIXAXIS a better controller than the 360's. The analog sticks have about as much tension as a narcoleptic on muscle relaxants, the analog triggers feel like mush and have no travel, and the controller itself has no heft.
4) PS3 games have much more to work with aka a HDD, more processing power etc.
The HDD statement is true, but the comment about processing power is disingenuous. They're both running at comparable clock speeds using a similar architecture. The major difference is that the PS3 has its power distributed over more cores, which can be as much of a liability as an advantage-- thread management becomes more difficult; and because some of the cores aren't general purpose, you can't necessarily take advantage of all the CPU cycles available to you. Then there's the RAM architectures: the PS3 and the 360 have the same amount of RAM, but on the PS3 CPU and GPU memory segregated; whereas on the 360 they use a shared pool. This has a couple of potential advantages: the developer has the ability to allocate RAM in a manner that best suits their game, and the CPU can directly affect texture memory for things like procedural generation.
6) Up scaling DVD's
The 360 does this when connected via VGA or HDMI.
9) The PS3 has a longer lifespan.
That's a mighty nice crystal ball you have there, sir. Do you read palms too?
The embedded PS2 chip in the original PS3s was one of the most glaring signs that Sony had rushed the PS3 to market before it was ready. The several firmware upgrades in the 7-8 months since its release (up to 1.82 or so now) are more signs that Sony's tech is catching up to its marketing rollout.
The PS3 HW was always planned to offer PS2 support in SW emulation, not the chip. But they didn't finish the SW until the EU rollout, when they could finally drop the chip that was faster to design in than was emulation.
So what has happened is that Sony is now dropping its PS3 price right as it's dropping the more expensive HW kluge. That alone doesn't raise any realistic doubts. If anything, it shows how skillful is Sony in mitigating its project management and marketing risks with alternate designs. Because users won't even notice the difference. All they'll notice is dropping prices and increased functions.
But what I want to see is Sony actually change 2 basic PS3 limits that hold back Linux on it. First, Sony must offer a model with RAM expandable beyond the 256-500MB hardwired into current models. Without more RAM, the fast Cell rips through all the data in 2ms, then can rely on all its IO to get only enough data to keep the Cell about 2-5% busy.
The other change Sony should make is to open the Hypervisor to allow SW running on the Cell to call at least the 2D graphics functions on the RSX videochip. Otherwise, all video must be computed on the Cell. PCs all put all that graphics/video computation/rendering on the VGA coprocessor.
If not, people will have to port Linux X drivers to the Cell SPEs. That could happen anyway, for even more interesting video processing than that built into the RSX. Once PS3 has video codecs ported to SPEs or RSX, MythTV will become a killer app, with a USB TV decoder feeding it, and a DLNA server for archive.
--
make install -not war
>As someone that bought a PS3 and a 360, I think the PS3 is a much better system.
I call "Shennanigans" Hydra-guy
>1) I have a 1080p screen and at that resolution the PS3's graphics are much better.
Funny, the 360 does 1080P too and they even give you an HD cable to do it. Plus every cross platform game with the debatable exception of Oblivion has better graphics on the 360. Plus every non-Sony-owned dev has admitted the GPU (that little thingy that does the graphic in a game console) on the 360 is significantly more powerful than the rush job Nvidia did for Sony. Are you sure you can even see the graphics on the PS3? You realize that the cable that came with your PS3 is a composite cable, right?
>2) If you play online games the PS3 is much cheaper over several years.
And you get what you pay for. Sorry, I'll take actually having online support in games like Virtua Fighter 5 and Tony Hawk and things like universal chat support and ingame notification over Sony's "free" offering. Seriously, what does Sony offer in its online service (not the game devs, Sony) that they could charge for? Plus, plan on replacing those now-obsolete rumbleless Sixaxis controllers at $50 a pop? Sony will make sure you do. Sony gotta eat.
>3) Cross platform games are better on the PS3.
Completely false. See any game review with the possible exception of Oblivion. Even then the devs (not some raving fanboy) admitted that the small improvements were due to eight extra months of dev time. Even then they had to kill anti-aliasing, HDR lighting, and downloadable content because of the inferior PS3 system.
>4) PS3 games have much more to work with aka a HDD, more processing power etc.
Except the devs can't really use it effectively due to a combo of Sony's bad OS design, the fragmentation problem (which devs can't fix- only Sony) and the fact that the HDD performance varies due to user upgrades to the point at which HDD throughput may be lower than the already-too-slow Blu-ray throughput.
>5) Blue-Ray
You mean Blew-ray? Their biggest seller AAA title has sold a grand total of ~70,000 copies. There have been a little more than a million total discs sold. Since, if you believe Sony's numbers, about five million PS3s have been sold, then the typical PS3 owner has bought ZERO discs. At best, only one in five (completely ignoring the standalone players sold for a year because consumers obviously did) PS3 owners buys movies. The format is, so far, a non-event. HD-DVD has about one tenth the number of players on the market but has also sold over a million discs. The biggest selling HD disc on either format is "Planet Earth" and the HD-DVD version outsold the Blu-ray version. If HD-DVD is dead, then Blu-ray dying of apathy.
>6) Up scaling DVD's
The 360 does this too. It also did it before the PS3 could. So does any $60 DVD player at Walmart and they don't stutter during movie playback if you leave the wifi on like the PS3. Most of them also play DiVX movies, unlike the PS3.
>7) It plays enough PS2 games that I don't need a PS2 but I still need the Xbox for a lot of old games.
Better hope you don't have to replace your PS3 with the new "improved" model or else you get stuck with software emulation just like the 360.
>8) It upgrades the graphics on old PS2 games. (So it's better than just backwards compatible.)
Complete BS. At least with the 360s BC (about sixty percent of my titles work), the games are natively rendered at HD (Ninja Gaiden Black actually looks sharper and has less aliasing than Sigma in BC mode) unlike the PS3 where they just upscale the whole framebuffer making them blurrier and in many cases unplayable (see Burnout). Pretty lame.
>9) The PS3 has a longer lifespan. (Xbox 1 came out a year after PS2 but the 360 came out a year before the PS3. People are still buying more PS2's than 360's.)
And people are buying twice the number of 360s as PS3s worldwide every month and six times the number of Wiis. PS2s got a boost because the BC
That's the thing, this $200 sweet spot apparently doesn't psychologically adjust itself to inflation. So you can't get away with arguing "Yeah, $500 seems like a lot, but if you adjust for inflation, it's like you're getting a console that costed $200 many years ago. We're sure our logic will overcome your psychology without difficulty!" Except that electronics goods are constantly getting cheaper, so we expect them to cost the same or less in the future, using whatever the current dollar is.
I don't know about cross-platform games, but what that generally means right now is "Ports from the Xbox 360." Many developers will rework the game engine a little bit to make it run on the PS3 and release it. Games that actually had some work put into them, such as Oblivion, show that the PS3 is a better system then you make it out to be.
More work to make the games work better on the system? Boo frickin' hoo. Game production ALWAYS gets more difficult as the years go on. Stop using that as an argument. It's not an impossible task to write PS3 titles properly; it's being done. I have no sympathy for developers that can't develop.
About the memory thing, it should be noted that the CPU RAM is clocked at CPU speed. 3.2Ghz, no tricks.
Only the Elite supports 1080p.
Every single PS1/PS2 title I've tried from my friends' very large game collection have worked flawlessly. Out of the 10 titles I have for my Xbox, five gave me shit on the 360. Awesome.
And don't give me shit about the PS3 controller. It's nearly perfect. Don't you think that Sony would have changed things around with it a little bit in the last decade if people didn't like it? And what, it's not HEAVY enough? Go dream up some new FUD and get back to us. (You don't even mention that the SIXAXIS in the SIXAXIS controller means it's motion sensitive, and it works well.)
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
If Sony doesn't want to fall into distant third in this round of the console wars, they need to get off their backside and take action to get this pig selling.
The formula is simple:
Nintendo has made a bold statement with a $250 console. Sony should "see and raise" Nintendo's position.
- Sell the 80-GB console for $199.95 (The Wii killer)
- Announce a 300-GB console with bundled DVR software and lifetime subscription to channel guide for $499 (The Tivo killer)
- Announce free signing for any GPL Linux Distributions (The PC killer)
Badda-bing, Nintendo is back to sucking hind teat.
If you really don't understand the difference between the 360 upscaling 720p content to 1080p, and the PS3 natively supporting 1080p output then try the following:
Take two pictures with a digital camera: One at 1MP, and another at 2MP. Copy the photo files to your PC and then note the resolutions. Now, use a photo editor to stretch the image of the first photo to the same resolution of the second. Notice a difference between the two? The first photo lacks the detail of the second because it never had the additional detail in the first place.
So sure, 720p games scaled to 1080p will look good, but the art assets (textures, etc.) were not created for the higher resolution.
As for the media drives, I prefer the quitness and constant throughput of the PS3's drive, thanks. Last night, for shits, I loaded up Gears of War (gamertag: Ilidd, if you want proof) again after having not played my 360 in several months. The DVD drive is just as obnoxiously loud as I remember it.
I don't buy 360 versions of games anymore and I'm seriously playing with the idea of selling my 360 because the system is unreliable and noisy. Yes, I know the 3RRoD is warranted for 3 years now. I don't care. A console shouldn't break that quickly in the first place.
No matter what happens to the PS3 at this point (win, lose, becomes another Dreamcast story) I've already recieved lots of enjoyment from it. Yes, it was expensive but it was worth every penny. I can honestly see that system physically lasting for 10+ years because of the build quality. I can't say the same for my 360 and I won't replace it when it breaks.
I guess my whole point is that if gamers were to sit down with a PS3 and play all the games it has, I think they would really enjoy it. Every person I've had play mine loves the system and the games, except for one guy, who as much as I like the dude, is a Xbox fanboy in the worst way. Some people are that way and it's honestly their loss. I hate Microsoft's shoddy products, but I still gave both their systems a chance. I didn't like the direction Nintendo went with the Wii, but I bought one. I sold it because it was boring to me, but I still see why some people go crazy over it.
Peace.
It's been kind of fun reading this little personal flamefest between you two. Probably because you're both so pathetic that it makes me feel really good about myself.
The thing about the Wii online catalog is that I own most of those games already for my Genesis, TurboGrafix16, SNES, etc, and I even already own re-releases for many of them in GameCube form that works just fine in my Wii. The PS3 has original and semi-original downloadable content that is actually pretty good. fl0w, GripShift, Stardust, GoPuzzle!, Super Rub-a-dub.... I can't remember the whole list off the top of my head.
I'm sure that Nintendo will have some Wii original offerings in their store eventually, but right now they've got none.
You mean like:
FINAL FANTASY XII
METAL GEAR SOLID 3: SUBSISTENCE
GRANDTHEFT AUTO VICE CITY
GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS
GRAN TURISMO 4
GOD OF WAR
Just to name a few titles that are flagged with "Noticable Issues".