The article is not available as I'm writing this comment, but what numbers are they counting? OEM licenses? If they are counting OEMS, then I think they are merely catching those that needed to upgrade hardware (like myself) and were merely waiting until the new OS was on nearly everything.
Also the fact that the availability of XP in the consumer market has dropped to nearly zero at most retail venues is a huge contributor...again if they are counting OEM, which I bet they are.
And that skews the whole idea that people are 'choosing' Vista greatly.
Isn't Microsoft's strategy for web applications to essentially use a framework that delivers nearly the same type of application they would develop to the desktop instead to an IE only webpage? At that point why that is any different than releasing a desktop application?
Certainly there is no cross-platform anything in their model, unless across WinXP to WinVista = cross-platform. Their would be a big speed hit, though you would have total control over the update of the webapp.
Anyway...that is more just thinking out loud, than it is making an argument. Cheers.
If I'm literally shoulder-to-shoulder with the people sitting next to me on the plane...and they are allowed cell phones...I'm pretty sure the real reason is that fights are going to break out on planes over rude cell-phone users....
Well, actually, my argument was just that. That people like myself ARE indeed interested in the extras. I spent money on an HDTV, so I'm happy to see movie titles on BluRay. The are quite a bit better than the same thing on standard DVD. And considering the price of HD-DVD and BluRay standalone players...I'm happy that my PS3 plays the BluRay titles and the games as well.
I think that many would take issue with that comment about the 'well liked company' or the 'high quality consumer products'. I think that Sony has Microsoft beat on that ticket...though I'm not sure either are well liked. I'm not knocking the quality of the Xbox360 though. I think that Xbox and Xbox360 are some of their best successes in terms of a quality product, though the Xbox didn't actually turn a profit until a quarter before the 360 was released, and the 360 hasn't turned a profit yet at all (PS3 hasn't turned a profit yet for Sony either though).
Here is another difference though too in Sony's strategy. Xbox is a dead product for Microsoft. But Sony's PS2 is still very much alive and well. And the PS3 is gaining momentum...slowly...but steadily. If you watched...the transition from PS1 to PS2 was the same way. Developers are just starting to leverage the cell processor in the PS3 anyway.
I'm only going to compare the higher-end models, since that is what the article in question focuses on. As the article points out...the PS3 is $200 more. But the question is why? And what do you get for your $200? The answer is, quite a few things. I'm also going to assume that people who are griping about the PS3's price aren't going to upgrade the feature-set of their 360 to match it.
40GB more hard disk, BluRay Disc, built-in WiFi, built-in card-reader, standard USB peripheral interface, free Internet multiplayer gaming, and interesting extras...like the new Folding@Home...or the upcoming PS3 Home.
To purchase Microsoft's WiFi adapter and their HD-DVD drive...that sets you back $300 more...so now your Xbox360 didn't just cost $400. To reach up to what you get with your $600 PS3 purchase...you have to pay at least $700 on the Xbox360. And you haven't added your Xbox Live Gold ongoing subscription costs if you are into multiplayer online or other online content.
There are poor games and brilliant games on both side of the 360 vs. PS3 'war'. Neither console had a lot of games out initially either. So, both of those are not really talking points. But the generalization that the Xbox360 is just flat out cheaper...well...that depends on what you want out of your system. If you don't want HD movies, free online play, built-in WiFi, or any of the other extras or untapped future potential of the PS3...then sure, the Xbox360 has some brilliant games out. But I know there are a lot of players like myself that want the extras that PS3 already provides, and we can pass up "Gears of War".
I do have a PC...a Windows one. But I grow tired of continuous updates, $200-400 video cards just to play the new game, and the need for more and more processor power and RAM. Honestly...as a gaming box or a computer...it just isn't worth the cost and trouble.
Xbox 360 Pro + HD-DVD + WiFi adapter = $697...more than the cost of the PS3. And additionally I get network play for free, and 40GB more hard disk...for $98 less.
Xbox360 has better lighting effects...but the PS3 has better texturing abilities and seems to have better development in natural motion. And seeing the differences in some of the upcoming games...I think that PS3 will strut ahead. That is my conjecture...but I believe all in all the PS3 is a better value.
Depends on what features you want in a game console, and what kind of 'entertainment' system you think you are getting. For me the kickers are BluRay, WiFi, and game availability...including PS2 titles. As an Xbox and Gamecube gamer...the PS3 has a lot to offer me and doesn't end up costing a lot more.
For example a BluRay disc player is around $700 most places retail right now. If you really want HD content in a movie and are betting on BlueRay, the PS3 may be a better choice. If you want WiFi...the Microsoft 360 WiFi adapter is $99...which bumps the Xbox 360 Pro total cost before games to $498. So, just a $101 shy of the PS3 (60GB model).
Games are indeed hit and miss on the PS3, but "Resistance" is a nice game overall..."Elder Scrolls IV" is out 3/20...and games like "Assassin's Creed" is coming out as a cross-release later this year. But, I have the entire list of PS2 and PS1 games available to me...and all the network play for the PS2 games works too. And honestly I'm interested in the "SOCOM" multiplay gaming and stuff like "Final Fantasy".
But there is another hidden cost to consider too...Xbox 360 Gold subscription has an ongoing cost. PS3's online service doesn't.
Overall I think that the PS3 was a good choice for me. I did consider the 360 for a long time...and "Gears of War" is really tempting. But I need a console in this for the long haul, and honestly I think that Microsoft will release a Xbox 450 or some other degree at a whim to lure people into their services.:-)
But 'journalists' need to spend more time researching what they are talking about. The term "next-gen console" is also used very liberally in this discussion too. But what actually consistitutes next-gen? Merely the next console of a certain console line? Obviously this is not how the author is using the term.
So, it seems the term "next-gen" really is some sort of very arbitrary opinion of game quality. What does that mean?
My point is that it doesn't serve the public well to throw statistics and guesses at poor research, lack of definitions, and opinions of 'what is good'.
Nintendo is finally breaking the mold in a practical way. Is the use of gyros in controllers new? Is the use of a remote control new? Is the use of wireless controllers, or networked games new? All of these are clearly "NO" answers. So, what is different?
Nintendo is making a very simple and approachable system, that is still elegant and versatile. Plus the departure from the two-handed, all-in-one controller that perpetuates games that are more about button-mashing then much else is a nice touch. The Wii's Wii-mote (remote) gives the player quite a bit more interactivity with the games, but still is simple enough to pick up with little prior knowledge of how to use it.
Clever and fun games is a big aspect of it too. A lot of PS2 and Xbox/Xbox360 games require a huge time investment, and can't easily be put down whenever the player would like without hurting progress. Obviously I'm speaking in general...and don't wish to get in an argument of which specific games I'm picking on. To be fair, there are a few games on Nintendo's platforms that have poor save-points.
CHEAPER. This is a huge one. Having a nice gaming system that provides fun and distraction, and is simple and elegant, but is also cheaper than everyone else is a big deal to me and most people. The Xbox360 decent system at $500 and the PS3 at $600 is pricey...especially with games for $60-70. At this point I would start to question why I just wouldn't by a Windows computer. So, $200-250 is pretty affordable, especially keeping titles at $50.
I love Nintendo's commitment to simple, elegant, and inexpensive systems...with clever and fun distractions and games. I'm happy they haven't gotten sucked into the contest that Sony and Microsoft are in with their systems.
If you check out Netcraft's site and their web-server survey, which puts Apache use at ~68% and Microsoft IIS use at ~20.5%, you see a much different picture. I think this contributes positively to the argument many are stating here that quite a number of people no longer purchase a Unix server solution, but rather build something themselves or purchase a server without an OS...and then they put Linux or Solaris or any of the other free OS's on it. Also I don't know that IDC considers a MacOS X solution as 'Unix'.
Computers should be appliances. Of all the full featured operating systems, MacOS X comes the closest (but doesn't really hit the mark either).
Windows and Linux are nowhere close. In many cases Windows is worse on that mark.
What is the mark? I want to approach a computer to accomplish a task, I want a VERY low learning curve, and I don't want to have to tweak or futz with it to make the computer accomplish the task (i.e. update drivers, constant virus updates, device managers, etc.)
So...no one is hitting that mark, per se. But MacOS X comes closer than most.
Apple has done a very good job at fixing their specific errors and security issues for MacOS X, but additionally since they are building off an open-source software base they inherit any security problems from all the unerlying applications that run on their system. But even so they have been good at contributing to fixes for those projects, and good at packaging fixes for MacOS X once those projects post a fix for their problems.
So...should the average MacOS X user be concerned about security problems? Sure, and they should make an effort to acknowledge fixes that happen in Software Update. Should they worry about worms and malware? Of course, though there are only a handful of those and they mostly require superuser access to run. Should they be concerned with viruses? What...for the proofs-of-concept not actually in the wild? Not really.
In comparison to the numbers of unpatched Windows security errors, thousands of worms and malware for Windows, and thousands of viruses for Windows...and all the paranoia that generates (rightfully!) in Windows users? Any non-Windows user, not just the MacOS X ones, have some right to be 'smug'.
Honestly if I were to buy my game systems all over again...I probably would have just gotten a PS2 and been done with it (I don't own a PS2). But, I do so enjoy the Zelda and Mario titles. For certain, I wouldn't have gotten an Xbox though.
All that aside, with the thread being about the PSP....I do love my Nintendo DS, and am very happy that I did not get a PSP. I watch my friends with PSPs struggle with load times and battery life.
But Nintendo has always been a niche player, and that has been a good thing for them. They have exclusive rights to the Zelda, Mario, and Metroid titles, which have always been pretty compelling.
Nintendo also knows what kind of company they are. While Sony rules the world with the PS2...Microsoft wants to badmouth them both for their carving of the pie. I don't think that Nintendo has any such plans. And that seems like a good move for them...to stick with their legacy, and just make compelling games.
Frankly...Microsoft has focused on fighting and shooting games primarily. And many of their titles, at the end of the day when I want to have fun, are more frustrating or stressful than they are just plain fun. That is why I appreciate Nintendo. They make relaxed, often 'cute', and fun games. Nintendo is childish...but they are childish on purpose.
* New games for PSP are $50-55. New games for DS are $30-35.
* Games take a LONG time to load on the PSP. They are available nearly immediately on the DS.
* The PSP screen has too much motion blur and ghosting for many of the games. DS doesn't really have the same style of games...but games with lots of motion seem just fine on the DS.
* PSP only has PSP titles available. DS will play either DS or GBA games.
* WiFi integration with PSP is not as slick as it is with DS, and PSP doesn't have a centralized method of doing more than ad-hoc Wifi gaming easily. Sony has left that in the hands of the game developers, rather than having their own plan.
* PSP battery life isn't too great. The DS can play for many hours.
* The DS use of the stylus adds a natural input choice to many games that is superior to just buttons. PSP doesn't have that option.
It seems that the only way for Microsoft to gain supremecy in the console gaming market is to give a bajilloin Xbox 360's away. They can inflate their numbers of sales the first quarter for all these giveaways by marking them down as $0 sales. They'll point to that number and inflate their stock price, while trying to keep hidden that they are still losing money to date each and every quarter in their entertainment division.
Perhaps eventually people will realize that updated versions of the same games isn't all that exciting (see Nintendo for experience in that), or that there are only a couple handfuls of games available, or that realistic shooters isn't the only type of game that is fun.
Not trying to sound like a downer for the Xbox 360. I'm sure that for what games come out they will look fabulous. I'm just thinking that people should wait and actually see the competition (Sony's and Nintendo's offerings) before passing judgment that Xbox 360 is best. (and...ahem...Halo doesn't make Xbox best)
Slashdot Mirror
The article is not available as I'm writing this comment, but what numbers are they counting? OEM licenses? If they are counting OEMS, then I think they are merely catching those that needed to upgrade hardware (like myself) and were merely waiting until the new OS was on nearly everything.
Also the fact that the availability of XP in the consumer market has dropped to nearly zero at most retail venues is a huge contributor...again if they are counting OEM, which I bet they are.
And that skews the whole idea that people are 'choosing' Vista greatly.
Ahem...competitors are selling their consoles at a loss too.
Isn't Microsoft's strategy for web applications to essentially use a framework that delivers nearly the same type of application they would develop to the desktop instead to an IE only webpage? At that point why that is any different than releasing a desktop application?
Certainly there is no cross-platform anything in their model, unless across WinXP to WinVista = cross-platform. Their would be a big speed hit, though you would have total control over the update of the webapp.
Anyway...that is more just thinking out loud, than it is making an argument. Cheers.
Exactly. It is ridiculous that the expectation of 640px content is that great on an HD set.
IBM PS/2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_System/2
If I'm literally shoulder-to-shoulder with the people sitting next to me on the plane...and they are allowed cell phones...I'm pretty sure the real reason is that fights are going to break out on planes over rude cell-phone users....
Yeah...I understood that from your post, and yeah I did neglect that it had USB ports. My bad.
But your comment was that I had never 'seen' a 360 based on that I overlooked its USB ports. That was what my comment was in reply to.
I'm sure there are other details you may have missed about a PS3, but I'm not going to claim you've never seen one.
Heh...that was nice!
Remember when the PS2 was an IBM computer, and not a Sony entertainment system?
Oh...I'm not against the 360. I nearly bought one instead of the PS3. But for me and the way I game...the PS3 has better choices and features overall.
I just think that the argument about being first or cheaper are generally myopic and don't really look at the whole 'investment'.
Please. Nice reply. Pointless, but nice.
Well, actually, my argument was just that. That people like myself ARE indeed interested in the extras. I spent money on an HDTV, so I'm happy to see movie titles on BluRay. The are quite a bit better than the same thing on standard DVD. And considering the price of HD-DVD and BluRay standalone players...I'm happy that my PS3 plays the BluRay titles and the games as well.
I think that many would take issue with that comment about the 'well liked company' or the 'high quality consumer products'. I think that Sony has Microsoft beat on that ticket...though I'm not sure either are well liked. I'm not knocking the quality of the Xbox360 though. I think that Xbox and Xbox360 are some of their best successes in terms of a quality product, though the Xbox didn't actually turn a profit until a quarter before the 360 was released, and the 360 hasn't turned a profit yet at all (PS3 hasn't turned a profit yet for Sony either though).
Here is another difference though too in Sony's strategy. Xbox is a dead product for Microsoft. But Sony's PS2 is still very much alive and well. And the PS3 is gaining momentum...slowly...but steadily. If you watched...the transition from PS1 to PS2 was the same way. Developers are just starting to leverage the cell processor in the PS3 anyway.
I'm only going to compare the higher-end models, since that is what the article in question focuses on. As the article points out...the PS3 is $200 more. But the question is why? And what do you get for your $200? The answer is, quite a few things. I'm also going to assume that people who are griping about the PS3's price aren't going to upgrade the feature-set of their 360 to match it.
40GB more hard disk, BluRay Disc, built-in WiFi, built-in card-reader, standard USB peripheral interface, free Internet multiplayer gaming, and interesting extras...like the new Folding@Home...or the upcoming PS3 Home.
To purchase Microsoft's WiFi adapter and their HD-DVD drive...that sets you back $300 more...so now your Xbox360 didn't just cost $400. To reach up to what you get with your $600 PS3 purchase...you have to pay at least $700 on the Xbox360. And you haven't added your Xbox Live Gold ongoing subscription costs if you are into multiplayer online or other online content.
There are poor games and brilliant games on both side of the 360 vs. PS3 'war'. Neither console had a lot of games out initially either. So, both of those are not really talking points. But the generalization that the Xbox360 is just flat out cheaper...well...that depends on what you want out of your system. If you don't want HD movies, free online play, built-in WiFi, or any of the other extras or untapped future potential of the PS3...then sure, the Xbox360 has some brilliant games out. But I know there are a lot of players like myself that want the extras that PS3 already provides, and we can pass up "Gears of War".
I do have a PC...a Windows one. But I grow tired of continuous updates, $200-400 video cards just to play the new game, and the need for more and more processor power and RAM. Honestly...as a gaming box or a computer...it just isn't worth the cost and trouble.
Xbox 360 Pro + HD-DVD + WiFi adapter = $697...more than the cost of the PS3. And additionally I get network play for free, and 40GB more hard disk...for $98 less.
Xbox360 has better lighting effects...but the PS3 has better texturing abilities and seems to have better development in natural motion. And seeing the differences in some of the upcoming games...I think that PS3 will strut ahead. That is my conjecture...but I believe all in all the PS3 is a better value.
Depends on what features you want in a game console, and what kind of 'entertainment' system you think you are getting. For me the kickers are BluRay, WiFi, and game availability...including PS2 titles. As an Xbox and Gamecube gamer...the PS3 has a lot to offer me and doesn't end up costing a lot more.
:-)
For example a BluRay disc player is around $700 most places retail right now. If you really want HD content in a movie and are betting on BlueRay, the PS3 may be a better choice. If you want WiFi...the Microsoft 360 WiFi adapter is $99...which bumps the Xbox 360 Pro total cost before games to $498. So, just a $101 shy of the PS3 (60GB model).
Games are indeed hit and miss on the PS3, but "Resistance" is a nice game overall..."Elder Scrolls IV" is out 3/20...and games like "Assassin's Creed" is coming out as a cross-release later this year. But, I have the entire list of PS2 and PS1 games available to me...and all the network play for the PS2 games works too. And honestly I'm interested in the "SOCOM" multiplay gaming and stuff like "Final Fantasy".
But there is another hidden cost to consider too...Xbox 360 Gold subscription has an ongoing cost. PS3's online service doesn't.
Overall I think that the PS3 was a good choice for me. I did consider the 360 for a long time...and "Gears of War" is really tempting. But I need a console in this for the long haul, and honestly I think that Microsoft will release a Xbox 450 or some other degree at a whim to lure people into their services.
So...is this the 3rd or 4th time that Microsoft specifically has said they were releasing an iPod killer?
Granted.
But 'journalists' need to spend more time researching what they are talking about. The term "next-gen console" is also used very liberally in this discussion too. But what actually consistitutes next-gen? Merely the next console of a certain console line? Obviously this is not how the author is using the term.
So, it seems the term "next-gen" really is some sort of very arbitrary opinion of game quality. What does that mean?
My point is that it doesn't serve the public well to throw statistics and guesses at poor research, lack of definitions, and opinions of 'what is good'.
Nintendo is finally breaking the mold in a practical way. Is the use of gyros in controllers new? Is the use of a remote control new? Is the use of wireless controllers, or networked games new? All of these are clearly "NO" answers. So, what is different?
Nintendo is making a very simple and approachable system, that is still elegant and versatile. Plus the departure from the two-handed, all-in-one controller that perpetuates games that are more about button-mashing then much else is a nice touch. The Wii's Wii-mote (remote) gives the player quite a bit more interactivity with the games, but still is simple enough to pick up with little prior knowledge of how to use it.
Clever and fun games is a big aspect of it too. A lot of PS2 and Xbox/Xbox360 games require a huge time investment, and can't easily be put down whenever the player would like without hurting progress. Obviously I'm speaking in general...and don't wish to get in an argument of which specific games I'm picking on. To be fair, there are a few games on Nintendo's platforms that have poor save-points.
CHEAPER. This is a huge one. Having a nice gaming system that provides fun and distraction, and is simple and elegant, but is also cheaper than everyone else is a big deal to me and most people. The Xbox360 decent system at $500 and the PS3 at $600 is pricey...especially with games for $60-70. At this point I would start to question why I just wouldn't by a Windows computer. So, $200-250 is pretty affordable, especially keeping titles at $50.
I love Nintendo's commitment to simple, elegant, and inexpensive systems...with clever and fun distractions and games. I'm happy they haven't gotten sucked into the contest that Sony and Microsoft are in with their systems.
If you check out Netcraft's site and their web-server survey, which puts Apache use at ~68% and Microsoft IIS use at ~20.5%, you see a much different picture. I think this contributes positively to the argument many are stating here that quite a number of people no longer purchase a Unix server solution, but rather build something themselves or purchase a server without an OS...and then they put Linux or Solaris or any of the other free OS's on it. Also I don't know that IDC considers a MacOS X solution as 'Unix'.
Netcraft's Web Server Survey:e y.html
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_surv
Computers should be appliances. Of all the full featured operating systems, MacOS X comes the closest (but doesn't really hit the mark either).
Windows and Linux are nowhere close. In many cases Windows is worse on that mark.
What is the mark? I want to approach a computer to accomplish a task, I want a VERY low learning curve, and I don't want to have to tweak or futz with it to make the computer accomplish the task (i.e. update drivers, constant virus updates, device managers, etc.)
So...no one is hitting that mark, per se. But MacOS X comes closer than most.
Apple has done a very good job at fixing their specific errors and security issues for MacOS X, but additionally since they are building off an open-source software base they inherit any security problems from all the unerlying applications that run on their system. But even so they have been good at contributing to fixes for those projects, and good at packaging fixes for MacOS X once those projects post a fix for their problems.
So...should the average MacOS X user be concerned about security problems? Sure, and they should make an effort to acknowledge fixes that happen in Software Update. Should they worry about worms and malware? Of course, though there are only a handful of those and they mostly require superuser access to run. Should they be concerned with viruses? What...for the proofs-of-concept not actually in the wild? Not really.
In comparison to the numbers of unpatched Windows security errors, thousands of worms and malware for Windows, and thousands of viruses for Windows...and all the paranoia that generates (rightfully!) in Windows users? Any non-Windows user, not just the MacOS X ones, have some right to be 'smug'.
Yeah...those are good points.
Honestly if I were to buy my game systems all over again...I probably would have just gotten a PS2 and been done with it (I don't own a PS2). But, I do so enjoy the Zelda and Mario titles. For certain, I wouldn't have gotten an Xbox though.
All that aside, with the thread being about the PSP....I do love my Nintendo DS, and am very happy that I did not get a PSP. I watch my friends with PSPs struggle with load times and battery life.
But Nintendo has always been a niche player, and that has been a good thing for them. They have exclusive rights to the Zelda, Mario, and Metroid titles, which have always been pretty compelling.
Nintendo also knows what kind of company they are. While Sony rules the world with the PS2...Microsoft wants to badmouth them both for their carving of the pie. I don't think that Nintendo has any such plans. And that seems like a good move for them...to stick with their legacy, and just make compelling games.
Frankly...Microsoft has focused on fighting and shooting games primarily. And many of their titles, at the end of the day when I want to have fun, are more frustrating or stressful than they are just plain fun. That is why I appreciate Nintendo. They make relaxed, often 'cute', and fun games. Nintendo is childish...but they are childish on purpose.
Other than PSP being $120 more than the DS...
* New games for PSP are $50-55. New games for DS are $30-35.
* Games take a LONG time to load on the PSP. They are available nearly immediately on the DS.
* The PSP screen has too much motion blur and ghosting for many of the games. DS doesn't really have the same style of games...but games with lots of motion seem just fine on the DS.
* PSP only has PSP titles available. DS will play either DS or GBA games.
* WiFi integration with PSP is not as slick as it is with DS, and PSP doesn't have a centralized method of doing more than ad-hoc Wifi gaming easily. Sony has left that in the hands of the game developers, rather than having their own plan.
* PSP battery life isn't too great. The DS can play for many hours.
* The DS use of the stylus adds a natural input choice to many games that is superior to just buttons. PSP doesn't have that option.
It seems that the only way for Microsoft to gain supremecy in the console gaming market is to give a bajilloin Xbox 360's away. They can inflate their numbers of sales the first quarter for all these giveaways by marking them down as $0 sales. They'll point to that number and inflate their stock price, while trying to keep hidden that they are still losing money to date each and every quarter in their entertainment division.
Perhaps eventually people will realize that updated versions of the same games isn't all that exciting (see Nintendo for experience in that), or that there are only a couple handfuls of games available, or that realistic shooters isn't the only type of game that is fun.
Not trying to sound like a downer for the Xbox 360. I'm sure that for what games come out they will look fabulous. I'm just thinking that people should wait and actually see the competition (Sony's and Nintendo's offerings) before passing judgment that Xbox 360 is best. (and...ahem...Halo doesn't make Xbox best)