Arstechnica Reviews the PS3

[Arwin]

PS3 hardware got a mediocre review because it wasn't being utilized anywhere near its full potential -- a point that, arguably, hasn't changed much today.

Yeah, arguably. And obviously Ars argues differently.

Look, it is very clear that Ars reviewed the PS3 for a 6 for reasons they stated in the original review. They make clear in this re-review that a lot of those original issues they had with the PS3 no longer exist, and a lot of other features have been added as well.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

...PlayStation 3 hardware has not changed enough to warrant another hardware review.

I think you're getting hung-up on the 'hardware' moniker. 'System' would be more appropriate - I'm sure you wouldn't be levelling these complaints if it was a 'System Re-review', right? - but in Ars' article structure, there's no such place. All CE hardware being reviewed by them is a hardware/firmware/software combo, and you can't review the hardware in isolation. Whether you're reviewing a TV, a DVD player, a USB electric guitar, or a PC-controller robot penguin, you're using the software that drives the hardware and that's affecting your experience of the hardware. So they review the whole package, and when there's a physical hardware element to your purchase, file the review under a hardware review. There's nothing more to it than that. A hardware review isn't just a consideration of the electronic bits and bobs. It's just a differentiation from a software review by the presence of a hardware part of the package being reviewed or not.

 

[standing ovation]

I don't quite understand how that works for Ars, standing ovation? You think they have been pushed into 'fixing' their six review??

The PlayStation manufacturer used to encapsulate corporate conduct with a slogan: SONY MEANS BUSINESS. :sly:

 

[standing ovation]

I think you're getting hung-up on the 'hardware' moniker. 'System' would be more appropriate - I'm sure you wouldn't be levelling these complaints if it was a 'System Re-review', right? - but in Ars' article structure, there's no such place. All CE hardware being reviewed by them is a hardware/firmware/software combo, and you can't review the hardware in isolation. Whether you're reviewing a TV, a DVD player, a USB electric guitar, or a PC-controller robot penguin, you're using the software that drives the hardware and that's affecting your experience of the hardware. So they review the whole package, and when there's a physical hardware element to your purchase, file the review under a hardware review. There's nothing more to it than that. A hardware review isn't just a consideration of the electronic bits and bobs. It's just a differentiation from a software review by the presence of a hardware part of the package being reviewed or not.

Maybe it boils down to semantics ... and maybe not. I get what you're saying, but in this case I am not entirely convinced. Maybe we can just agree to disagree?

 

[Nesh]

Always the conspiracy for some people

Why is it so hard to believe they just thought it would be fair to review it again as there has been a quite astonishing improvement since launch.

I'm sure if the 360 wasn't pretty much feature complete when it was launched they would've done the same there too

Yeah I see it that way too. the PS3 got a 6 back then for all the drawbacks it had as a newborn product.

None of the problems it had then are present today. It is a much better system. Having a 6 today just sounds wrong considering the new value and features of the product.

 

[patsu]

If Ars reviewed PS3 both times and found that the earlier review no longer describe PS3 adequately/accurately, they reserve the right to update their review. That is all.

 

[cthellis42]

Consumers... publishers... advertisers...? Bah! You people really don't get it, do you? It all comes down to which manufacturer trains the best ninjas!

 

[rekator]

Ars are right to re-review PS3 and they need also to re-review 360!
Why?
Both have change in the hardware size from their launches (PS3 lose of retrocompatibily but also now use less power, so less heat and so new fan who give less noise, and 360 are also less power use so less noise (?)).
But the more important reason IMHO is that now PS3 and 360 are not also hardware and console games, they are also software for media services so like we have re-review of OS when big release arrived, we need some time re-review of this part of the PS3 and 360.

 

[-tkf-]

The PlayStation manufacturer used to encapsulate corporate conduct with a slogan: SONY MEANS BUSINESS. :sly:

Sony doesnt wear pants either, they are that cool.

 

[specwarGP2]

I used it to drive home my point. Even from a financial perspective, PlayStation 3 hardware has not changed enough to warrant another hardware review, particularly one written for the audience at large.

If all the gripes that ars originally had with PS3 have now been corrected, and there have been added features/functionality on top of that, why shouldnt the original review score be updated to reflect that?

 

[standing ovation]

Why is it so hard to believe they just thought it would be fair to review it again as there has been a quite astonishing improvement since launch.

It's simple: Ars Technia, LLC is a business. And if they want to stay in business, they will listen (and react) to their customer's needs.

I'm sure if the 360 wasn't pretty much feature complete when it was launched they would've done the same there too

Like PlayStation 3, you'll find more utility with an Xbox 360 today than at launch day. But the 360 hardware review has been sitting on Ars' servers (unmolested) for YEARS; ditto for PlayStation 2 and the other previous gen consoles.

Rewrites on a whim is something unique to PlayStation 3, so you can't help but speculate on its motivation. Dude, this was a business decision.

 

[specwarGP2]

It's simple: Ars Technia, LLC is a business. And if they want to stay in business, they will listen (and react) to their customer's needs.

which would explain all the less than favorable articles that ars usually posts about Sony/PS3 in general.

 

[obonicus]

Like PlayStation 3, you'll find more utility with an Xbox 360 today than at launch day. But the 360 hardware review has been sitting on Ars' servers (unmolested) for YEARS; ditto for PlayStation 2 and the other previous gen consoles.

I'm sorry, but what significant changes in functionality did the PS2 go through? At most, what I can think of is the slim PS2 losing the capability to have an HDD. It's true that they should have re-reviewed the 360: but at the same time, if we're starting silly conspiracies, why not argue that Ars should have done it in mid-2007? At what was probably the height of the RROD crisis, after numbers like 33% failure rate started showing up. Recall that the original 360 review mentioned the heat (while giving the premium a 9), but at the time no one really had any idea how big the problem was. Should we start claiming that Ars is in Microsoft's pocket as well? You're seeing bugbears where there are none, frankly.

 

[patsu]

Ars are right to re-review PS3 and they need also to re-review 360!
Why?
Both have change in the hardware size from their launches (PS3 lose of retrocompatibily but also now use less power, so less heat and so new fan who give less noise, and 360 are also less power use so less noise (?)).
But the more important reason IMHO is that now PS3 and 360 are not also hardware and console games, they are also software for media services so like we have re-review of OS when big release arrived, we need some time re-review of this part of the PS3 and 360.

It's up to ArsTechnica to decide whether and when's the right time to re-review a 360. There has been rumors that MS will announce a Blu-ray add-on soon (like Monday, but available end of the year). Or when the SKUs on the market are all second gen chipset... so perhaps sometime end of the year would be worthwhile. You can certainly write them to do it earlier.

EDIT: Hur hur... debunked. http://kotaku.com/5014456/robbie-bach-on-that-blu+ray-xbox-360-rumor

 

[Freak'n Big Panda]

I'm sorry, but what significant changes in functionality did the PS2 go through? At most, what I can think of is the slim PS2 losing the capability to have an HDD. It's true that they should have re-reviewed the 360: but at the same time, if we're starting silly conspiracies, why not argue that Ars should have done it in mid-2007? At what was probably the height of the RROD crisis, after numbers like 33% failure rate started showing up. Recall that the original 360 review mentioned the heat (while giving the premium a 9), but at the time no one really had any idea how big the problem was. Should we start claiming that Ars is in Microsoft's pocket as well? You're seeing bugbears where there are none, frankly.

No we shouldn't start claiming that Ars is in Microsoft's pocket. Public perception of PS3 has largely changed from a non-desirable product into a desirable one within the last couple quarters and Ars probably did the article purely to better align itself with public opinion.

 

[obonicus]

No we shouldn't start claiming that Ars is in Microsoft's pocket. Public perception of PS3 has largely changed from a non-desirable product into a desirable one within the last couple quarters and Ars probably did the article purely to better align itself with public opinion.

I wasn't suggesting it was true; I was just pointing out how ridiculous conspiracy theories are. And really, unless one of us in the peanut gallery has actual information as to Ars' motivations, all we're doing is guessing. So, just as likely, they noticed that a 6 doesn't describe the PS3 anymore, and it isn't about 'public opinion'.

 

[standing ovation]

I wasn't suggesting it was true; I was just pointing out how ridiculous conspiracy theories are. And really, unless one of us in the peanut gallery has actual information as to Ars' motivations, all we're doing is guessing. So, just as likely, they noticed that a 6 doesn't describe the PS3 anymore, and it isn't about 'public opinion'.

This "conspiracy theory" isn't some rabbit I have pulled out of a hat: it is grounded in reality. If your business depends on products endorsed by advertisers, coercion -- err, bias -- is a cost of doing business.

"As I was flipping through the review section of the latest Electronic Gaming Monthly (the July 2008 issue, that is), I noticed a slightly strange Metal Gear Solid 4 review. Not only was this review much, much longer than the average EGM review, but there was also no score on the review. The almost four pages long write-up, mostly gushing praise about the game although it did land a few jabs (the control system is apparently not as good as Splinter Cell’s), had no letter score.

Puzzled, I did a little searching and found out that EGM has refused to give MGS4 a score due to the fact that Konami has imposed several limitations on what reviewers could and could not say in their reviews. Apparently, Konami has restricted reviewers from mentioning the length of cutscenes or the install size of the game." – Second Story Gamer​

The PlayStation 3 re-review (which has since been edited) gave the hardware a 9, meaning that Ars' ordinary opinion had, in the ensuing 20 or so months following release, become extraordinary ... with very little basis for it. As I have said before, the hardware has not changed in a way befitting another review, particularly one written for the audience at large. Furthermore its content, while it is beginning to add value, is still immature. And when they have had ample opportunity to do the same with other consoles but have not, this change of heart seemed too serendipitous.

Now, after editing, the article is more along the lines of a 2008 PlayStation 3 Buyer's Guide than another hardware review -- Ars have found a middle ground that makes cents for advertisers AND readers.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

For this argument to be valid in the current context, do you have any rough pointers as to how much revenue Ars gets from Sony? AFAICS they get nothing much. And if so, why were they happy to rate it 6/10 at launch? Has there been a sudden injection of capital from Sony, coinciding with a rereview? OR has a huge amount of user pressure demanded Ars rereview with a view to setting the score to a standard users want? Are there any other examples, such as at Eurogamer, where people ranting on the forums about scores have seen the reviewers change their mind to pander to public opinion, and so keep the sponsors happy?

I'm not seeing any of this, so you'll have to point me in the right direction!

 

[Nesh]

The PlayStation 3 re-review (which has since been edited) gave the hardware a 9, meaning that Ars' ordinary opinion had, in the ensuing 20 or so months following release, become extraordinary ... with very little basis for it. As I have said before, the hardware has not changed in a way befitting another review, particularly one written for the audience at large. Furthermore its content, while it is beginning to add value, is still immature. And when they have had ample opportunity to do the same with other consoles but have not, this change of heart seemed too serendipitous.

Now, after editing, the article is more along the lines of a 2008 PlayStation 3 Buyer's Guide than another hardware review -- Ars have found a middle ground that makes cents for advertisers AND readers.

But we dont know for sure if there was an involvement from Sony. But even if Sony did approach them, a revision was needed anyways. Its definitely not the same console we got at launch. It is much improved.

How much did the 360 get btw?

 

[patsu]

The PlayStation 3 re-review (which has since been edited) gave the hardware a 9, meaning that Ars' ordinary opinion had, in the ensuing 20 or so months following release, become extraordinary ... with very little basis for it.

I beg to differ. The firmware drives the hardware behavour. If you are talking about just the raw hardware, I would fail the original 360 because of unreliability alone (There would be no mention of Xbox OS, UI or Live). The fact is everyone reviews hardware based on specification and usable features.

Truth to be told, the PS3 has improved significantly because of firmware upgrades. The horizontal scaler was turned on, Blu-ray playback became network enabled, DVD upscaling was improved, RemotePlay became more full featured, XMB gained personalization, PS Store was face-lifted and optimized, OS memory was reduced, rumble is now available as an option, etc. These are all real improvements that benefit the users directly or indirectly.

As I have said before, the hardware has not changed in a way befitting another review, particularly one written for the audience at large.

The PS3 system was improved and continues to improve. No one reviews a Mac without talking about Mac OS X, no one review hardware without talking about how well the software works on it.

Furthermore its content, while it is beginning to add value, is still immature. And when they have had ample opportunity to do the same with other consoles but have not, this change of heart seemed too serendipitous.

Even though some aspects like DLNA and video playback may have issues, they are still leaps and bounds ahead of firmware 1.1. In fact, DLNA was only added in 1.8.

If you feel that Ars should re-review Xbox 360 too, feel free to write them.

Magazines reserve the right to do their own programming. Earlier on, Microsoft tried to "bribe" bloggers to write nice reviews about Vista using free laptops. Ars is one of the few sites that blew the whistle and stated that they will not write a review without acknowledging its sponsors (if any). Ars implied that they were offered the MS gift(s) too, but they turned it down. May be they have changed, but may be not. They certainly did not state any sponsors for this article.

Now, after editing, the article is more along the lines of a 2008 PlayStation 3 Buyer's Guide than another hardware review -- Ars have found a middle ground that makes cents for advertisers AND readers.

Sure, but the score improvement is justified from my point of view.