You don't own a PS3. Why?
- Thread starter eloic
- Start date
Back in the day when the BD spec was a disaster and companies could release half assed products left and right while still being in spec, the PS3's firmware updates (mainly 2.0/BD Live and internal DTS HD MA decoding) was something the other players couldn't do. Mainly because they didn't have do. Even to this day you might still see entry level players that cling to the older specs + some of the newer features but get anything decent and it'll have all the features of the PS3 and then more (analog outs, bitstream output, IR, better DVD upsclaing, etc..)
As for 3D. The BR spec has been a big enough mess already. They should do 3D as a whole different platform instead of further promoting the spec mess issues that plague BD as is.
(Mandatory) Managed Copy
Java stuff runs better on PS3 too.
Once in a while, Sony throws in some enhancement in video decoding. e.g., Better DVD upscaling, noise reduction, DivX 5, etc.
In general, the SA player need to make $$$. The PS3 is floated by gaming licenses. So they can afford to match the price of the mid- high-end players over time. It's a different model. Keep the same SKU and improve the software; rather than moving on to new SKU as per CE model. Eventually the h/w will become dated, but I don't think we are there yet.
djskribbles
Legend
Agreed, which is why I thought suggesting alternatives was going OT.
When I got a console last summer I could have purchased any console I wanted, but the PS3 wasn’t even on the radar. But this wasn’t a out of hand dismissal of the product but merely because they (a) failed to address my core needs and (b) the platform started off as an unmitigated disaster that, if released by anyone but Sony post-PS2, would have marked on in the annuals of console blunders. Before the Xbox 360, Wii, or PS3 were announced I openly cited my “wish list” from a next generation console on these very forums. I have long been a PC/Nintendo gamer who dabbled in other platforms (had a Dreamcast and PS1). The GCN, as much as I enjoy Nintendo published software, had turned me off of Nintendo as their re-orientation to the market didn’t jive with my own preferences and their general corporate direction was cutting me off from a lot of software. This, in conjunction with the PC’s slow death for mainstream gaming, had me determined to pick a console that was going to give me the most bang-for-buck for my personal game tastes. So I crafted a set of criteria that catered to my specific gaming needs. The list went like this:
1. HD gaming on a PC Display. I don’t have a TV, let alone an HDTV. I don’t have the money for a stand-alone TV, I don’t have the space for a TV, and would never use it outside of gaming and a rare movie. I see no need to spend $400+ on a low end HDTV when I have an excellent PC Display that is more than adequate in display HD images.
2. KB/MS Support or Similar. I cannot really support a PC gaming and Console gaming hobby. My thumbs have some occupational issues and my ability to use thumb-sticks has diminished over the years. I also prefer the KB/MS for my favorite genre (FPS). I wanted a console where I could use a KB/MS or a similarly enjoyable input device.
3. Technologically Advanced and Developer Friendly. I wanted something that provided quality games out of the gate as well as room to grow as the generation progressed. The bottom-line is I wanted a console that had excellent games (with nice graphics!) and allowed developers to get the most out of their products in short development windows with the current skill-base in the industry—so I get more of the games I like, with more features, more often.
4. Online Play. I am a social gamer. “Poor attitude” accusations aside (humpf!), I already did my years of owning every console (PC, SNES, Genesis, N64, SS, PS1, GB, GameGear, Dreamcast, etc) and playing every game on the market. I owned over 30 N64 games and rented many times that on top of an active PC gaming hobby. But things change. First, I don’t have all the room for such. Second, and very importantly, I get bored in SP games. I have a career, school, and a family and don’t have time to play half baked SP games. I am too busy to lock myself into SP games and I enjoy human contact. I like the social elements of group gaming (both in person—so I need at least 4 controllers—as well as online) and I like competitive team gaming. The PC with Xfire, Steam, Vent, GameSpy, web based forums and gaming communities, and a host of online games in various genres had me hooked. Voice chat, messaging, a friend’s list, etc in conjunction with online gaming were absolutely necessary. These things not only needed to be offered, but supported—AAA games needed to have AAA online components. Which leads to the last criteria…
5. A Strong Library of Games in the Genres I Enjoy. It is all about the games. I tend to focus on a handful of games and play them hard. I tend to like a mix of “popular mainstream” games and “niche” games. Madden (sports, mainstream hardcore), Battlefield 1942 / Desert Combat (team/class based objective vehicular shooter), Battlezone PC (very niche FPS/RTS), Mario Kart and Mario Party (family friendly social games; I prefer the SNES MK as it was more racing/competitive while remaining approachable). Others games I was playing before I got a console were HL2, COD4, Toca 3, rFactor, BF2. So MP shooters and progressive niche shooters, American Football, racing games, and approachable family games that appealed to multiple skill levels were in my core interests.
It is pretty easy to see why the Wii didn’t make the cut. The Wii failed at HD gaming (#1), technology (#3), and online play (#4). The controller is cool but the poor implementation made it a step back for established genres making (#2) a lateral move at best and this, in conjunction with Nintendo’s market approach, was a killer in regards to games (#5). Before the Wii released I had a number of positive prediction posts in regards to it doing ok (nothing like it has done of course) but was clear: After doing the NES-GB-SNES-N64-GCN thing as my main console to compliment my PC I had no interest in the Wii. It was a new direction—just the opposite of the one I was travelling.
So lets look at the PS3. HD gaming on PC displays is dubious over a VGA connection (#1). While the PS3 has Six-Axis, it pretty much is joke of an implementation for the sort of competitive gaming I prefer and definitely pales in consideration to a KB/MS (#2). The PS3 is technologically advanced on some levels (#3), but as a platform for products it has often lagged behind the cheaper 360 to this point. It may be coming into its own now but how many inferior versions of Madden shipped? For having an extra year of development far too many early PS3 titles were feature poor, delayed, and shoddy—especially multiplatform titles. Notably many early PS3 exclusives were absolute bombs (#5) and, importantly for me, they lacked MP. On the MP front the PS3 online gaming approach is disconnected and inconsistent. It shouldn’t have been difficult to copy Xfire and GameSpy out of the gate: Buddy lists, voice chat, lobbies, and server browsers out of the gate in all games (#4). Sony has lagged in both online features as well as exclusive “compelling” online games (compelling in relation to my gaming tastes). More on the games later…
Essentially Sony failed to hit my gaming needs—and their console is a lot more expensive. The extras with the PS3 also failed to supplement these serious deficiencies. BluRay is a non-starter. I don’t care to own one. I think $20 for a DVD is a rip-off so there is no way I am spending $30+. (To date I have watched 3 movies in HD on my 360… $15 is much more in my cost/needs ballpark). Paying $500-$600 for a PS3, or $400 now, for this feature makes no sense. The smaller back library of quality games is also an issue. Half of my games were bought on sale for $20 (PGR4, FM2, BFBC, etc). It didn’t help that cross platform titles were frequently (a) had fewer features, (b) performed worse, and/or (c) had less content available. Taken Madden (a franchise I play). While the first couple versions showed significant feature and performance disparity between the 360 and PS3 versions. I wasn’t going to pay more for a console for a smaller online community and inferior games. It also didn’t help Sony exclusives like Lair, Heavenly Sword, and so forth frequently lacked any online component, were short, and many weren’t that good either. So much of the PS3 screams “me too!” and seems rushed and disorganized. Sales have been poor and it continues to lose exclusives. Recent exclusives either haven’t interested me (LBP, MGS4), are flawed (KZ2 for example), or are forever delayed (GT5). Before these the PS3 had a glut of exclusives that utterly bombed, not to mention Lair and Heavenly Sword fail to be a blip on my taste radar (short, no MP, and average at best).
Things have gotten a LOT better for the PS3 in the last year since I purchased a 360. A number of games are quite appealing (Uncharted 2, ModNation Racers, maybe MAG) and the platform has matured across the board. It has a lot of parity, even excels in many areas now. I LOVE the fact you can add your own HDD, think the browser is cool, using standard BlueTooth headsets awesome, and think dual MoCon with the EyeToy should be uber-sweat. But sales flounder, the PS3 is way overpriced for my use (all those dumb lists where you have to “add” expensive MS peripherals to equal features are a non-starter because I didn’t need those features anyhow), has a smaller back library, has lost a lot of exclusive ground, continues to delay important titles, and has had a fair share of big titles end up uninspiring. This is true of any platform, but Sony demands a premium for theirs for features I don’t want and don’t use all the while failing me in my core needs and software interests.
Considering where the PS1 and PS2 were I consider the PS3 an absolute disaster—regardless of the B3D faithful who feel obligated to defend nearly every mistake Sony makes. As a business model (which does eventually affect consumers… look at the exclusive and multiplatform situation) the PS3 is a huge fall from grace. Whether we view the PlayStation from where it was to where it is, the corporate losses, or the lack of market commitment the PlayStation is no longer what it was. All 3 major home console platforms (+ PC) have made strategic errors and have issues with their platform and as a company I find Sony the most re-active instead of pro-active this generation and I think a lot of well intended criticism gets dismissed. This thread is a perfect example of such. The PS3 is a great console for a lot of consumers; but as the sales show the PS3 is clearly the least favorite console among Americans who have paid for a next gen console. Meaning it either has the least compelling content, the most repulsive negatives, or both.
So I picked an Xbox 360.
I get HD gaming on my PC display (#1). This feature is supported by MS and every game works, although I do complain about the few oddballs that don’t do letterboxed 720p (but most do) and it works well. The 360 doesn’t natively support KB/MS, but with the XIM2 I get near-PC KB/MS input which is fine enough for me (#2). MS really cannot claim this as a victory they won; but the strong legacy PC crowd on the 360 and the success of the console did propel KB/MS support among enthusiasts. 360 multiplatform games have generally been on par with the PS3 or better (#3) and in the past had fewer delays. It doesn’t hurt that the cheaper old games that I passed over at $60 often have more features or perform better on the 360 for the 18-24 month old games I browse through (although this is less relevant with newer games). Xbox Live is an amazing online service for gaming and worth the less-than $3-a-month to use. Chat, Video Chat, Messaging, in-game and cross-game parties, lobbies, buddy lists, etc. Live also has a ton of Arcade and Community games that fit my family friendly niche well (Age of Booty, Kudo, Worms, HavokTank, etc). While the library of server based online games is smaller than the PS3 or PC (although they do exist), the Xbox has excellent online games. The fact Halo 3 still is running full steam ahead with hundreds of thousands of players and a ton of my friends still play it says something of the longevity and value of the franchise. The fact we can get 8 guys together to hang out together all night has been very, very cool.
And it really is about the games. My most wanted PS3 game is GT5, and it still has no release date. So if I had a PS3 I would still be waiting. I have gotten a TON of play out of FM2 and will have FM3 in my hands long before GT5 is released. This isn’t the stupid check list like someone previous posted; I don’t care if GT5 ends up being better than FM2 and FM3 when I may have a combined playtime of 3 years before the former is even released. People can talk about KZ2 being a Halo 3 killer all they want (it clearly wasn’t) when Halo 3 was released in 2007 and has a huge active community playing and making content (not to mention the Skill Based MP system is excellent after you play ~15 matches in a playlist, along with a long list of features few games even begin to partially match). There is always tit-for tat (Gears versus Uncharted, MotorStorm versus PGR, Mass Effect versus whatever) but I am more focused on the games appealing to me and I already can see that the next year has more good games than I can afford to purchase. Sure, quite a few are multiplatform, which is a reason not to get a PS3 in my case because going with the 360 was more affordable. On the other hand a number are exclusives in areas Sony hasn’t catered to my needs.
I definitely can see where certain PS3 titles would appeal to certain gamers a lot more than the Wii/360 ones. Likewise certain PS3 features (BDR) are very attractive. This isn’t unmitigated platform bias. What is annoying is the SDF. Both these threads pretty much were branded with the standard name calling, stealth trolls, and telling people why they are wrong about their decisions… ho hum, hence why some of us doesn’t bother posting much here. When you get developers sending nasty PMs and snide remarks you know who stokes the fire. What is so hard to understand about a “Top 10 Blunders” list like the below and do a little mea culpa and let polygons-be-polygons?
(1) $600 says what?! It is a game console, period. Until $600 becomes typical disposable income or within the “compulsive buy” range, or establishes a tangent with a proven market (like PCs) willing to spend that much, it was never going to be worth this amount to the mass majority of gamers. This was an unthinkable miscalculation. You could argue they were forced to release early and were set to ride the PS2 longer, hence the poor product cost reduction design, but this only shows they underestimated the competition and misgauged the market. However this is spun, a $600 console should have *never* left the drawing board. The sad fact is a $400 console in 2005 with 360-ish hardware would have crushed Microsoft for many reasons and solidified Sony’s hold on the market and probably pushing MS out of the arena creating a simple 2-tier market with Sony and Nintendo. I could wax long on how stupid $600 was and how equally poorly planned retail cost reduction has been, but sometimes less is more. $600 and $500 were stupid. $400 in 2009 is equally stupid.
(2) Technical Crown? We all read the hype, had it shoved down our throats, and yet when it hit the streets the end products just didn’t back up the hype. The PS3, especially now, has some really great looking games—industry leading even thanks to their amazing developers (as expected). But a survey of what your average developer gets out of the platform and it is clearly not 100% better as the price of FLOPs would indicate as a metric of, “OMG, do you see it on screen?!” Actually, you average game based on that assessment clearly shows that the PS3 isn’t wearing the technical crown this gen. There are tit-for-tats, but you look at MS’s “big” titles like Halo and Forza and look at some of their features (video sharing, liveries, advanced customization to game-play modes and decals, etc) it is clear, to me at least, that the consoles are both good and what you get out really depends on what you want and how much skill, time, and budget you put in. Not a very compelling selling point when you a year late, more expensive, and claim technical prowess that doesn’t seem to translate to the game experience.
(3) Poor cross platform titles. As mentioned above, cross-platform games have been a sore spot for the PS3. Slam them as you may, they make up a large volume of software sales. Big titles, like Madden, looked worse, played worse, and had fewer features in the first two PS3 iterations than the 360 product. Almost worthy of its own # on this list is the flow of bad news concerning title delays and cancelations due to the problems associated with the PS3.
(4) Bombed Exclusives. Whereas both the competitors were able to release products that resonated with consumers with high sales and a positive impact on console sales, the PS3 weathered the likes of Lair and Heavenly Sword while RFOM, Motorstorm, and Uncharted were solid titles, did not appear to build into monster successes in their first iterations or move sizable hardware units/platform momentum.
(5) Missing Exclusives. Good thing Sony didn’t have to rely on new exclusives to get the PS3 rolling as they have killer apps like GT and God of War… which mysteriously are MIA.
(6) Lost Exclusives. When you think things couldn’t get worse for software (poor cross-platform titles, bombed exclusives, un-compelling exclusives, and major franchises MIA) we get Sony trumpeting they don’t need to secure PS2 exclusives anymore. There were a lot of “PS2 exclusive” or “PS2 first” franchises that bailed to multiplatform status. Tekken, Final Fantasy, GTA, MGS, Ace Combat, and a slew of others.
(7) Loss of software identity. This is a subtle, but very significant issue. The PS1 and PS2 were the foundation for Madden. You always got your sim-racers on the PlayStation. Tekken and Ace Combat were synonymous with the PS brand, and so forth. The loss of exclusives and delay of Sony IPs really hurt the platform. Due to Sony mistakes Microsoft, almost by default, became the defacto platform for “hardcore” gamers looking for the best access to Sports and Racing titles. Who would have believed in Spring 2005 that the Xbox 360, not the PS3, would be the platform with the most RPGs?
(8) Me Too! The PS3 for too long appeared “reactive” to the competition instead of bearing the bastion of market leadership. SixAxis, right or wrong, was looked upon as a weak Wii-mote copycat (which in its form factor has been a poor design choice). Sony’s online efforts ring the same, a day late and a dollar short. The press releases, firings and hirings, showed there was fracture in the Sony camp leadership and their approach to the market really reflected this. For a Linux Supercomputer with Backwards compatibility, the most advanced Optical platform on the planet, online connectivity with standard HDD and motion controls, blah blah blah the end product really falls short of the sum of the parts. It looks like Sony wanted the PS3 to be everything to everyone, “Me Too!” and forgot to really excel in core areas and focus on the core markets.
(9) A Year Late and Still Half-Baked. What a disaster. The PS3 delayed a year (ouch) and still faltered in middleware maturity, had a weak release lineup that lacked polish and feature depth, online integration and uniformity have lagged, and had a ton of annoying niggles like the broken scaler that resulted in some games not working in HD on older CRT HDTVs. For the “ultimate” HD device the PS3 was release quite raw. It didn’t help they were showing batter-rangs, PSP side-view mirrors, and had a message that appeared to all too often drown out the games. The platform and platform message has been fractured.
(10) PR Disaster. The stream of bad news out of the Sony camp really has diminished other significant stories that in other generations would have sunk platforms (e.g. the $1.15B RRoD). It didn’t seem a day could go by without some bad news coming out of Sony (price, delays, developers complaining, features being removed like BC, etc). What made this a PR disaster was the PR crew had an attitude the fed into the negativity. To the outright intention to deceive at E32005, to Giant Crabs and Critical Damage, to stupid arrogant comments about the platform price and “desirability” Sony PR was off in la-la land. It appeared that out of every segment of the Sony camp things were going to hell in a hand-basket. Financials looked like a suicidal hemophiliac. The Father of the PlayStation was diminished, insulted, and then cut. The big wigs couldn’t get Toshiba on board for a HD compromise to prevent an HD Optical meltdown and delay. Heck, Sony makes a great app in LBP you hear as much about people kvetching about content being removed as much about how great the title is or how the title gets delayed in some areas because of an “insulting” soundtrack.
And yet all this to say: the PS3 isn’t perfect and there are a LOT of reasons NOT to buy the blasted thing. I am glad MILLIONS bought it and love it. But that doesn’t mean my choice was wrong (see my wish list above), motivated by anti-Sony hatred (it wasn’t), or that the majority of consumers who decided not to get the PS3 have something wrong with us. And as much as I would love to play MAG and Uncharted 2 the platform has a lot of reasons turning me off while at the same time the competition drawing me in. Don’t toss in my face how I am not a real gamer or other silly SDF garbage. Get a life, realize that the platform has weather some huge issues, and in the real world money matters and the PS3 finds itself with a slew of potential negatives for consumers and costs about 2x the competition.
That said I am pulling for Sony. Lets not forget for all the negatives millions love the machine and millions are buying it every year. (I could only wish some of my favorite non-mainstream games could say, “We didn’t best Halo or CoD sales, but we sold great!”) I think MS has taken a number of poor platform decisions that I hope Sony addresses and pushes. I like how Sony has removable HDDs and BlueTooth. I like how they have Linux and are open to stuff like this. Sure it is motivated by other concerns, but I think it benefits the market. I hope Sony has learned their lesson and really makes a play for gamers like myself. The competition is healthy and if I feel the PS4 is the best for me I will jump to it like I jumped off the Nintendo bandwagon. Sony is already showing this resilient growth and willingness to change. I also think Sony’s commitment to 1st parties is imperative, something I think MS has somehow lost sight of. Sure franchises sell, but in an age of shared tools and collaboration unless MS really changes the game I think Sony will be in the best position to sponsor the must “cutting edge” titles that push genres. So I would like to think that Sony will be in a position to at least challenge MS in many of my core-spheres of gaming interest. So I think Sony missed the boat (both the market and mine) but I am pulling for a rebound because I think the market needs them. Then again I think it is successful companies who can afford to take risks that propel growth and I am not sure how risk averse Sony will be. If they go into the PS4 like the GCN/Xbox/PS2 generation “ho-hum” also ran I think it will be a disaster. Does Sony have billions to bet? MS and Nintendo do, and so does Apple, Intel, Samsung, etc.
I am glad the PS3 has made millions of consumers happy, but as anyone could see in 2005 when I set forth what I wanted in a console Sony missed the boat and clearly has not been a strong contender for my gaming dollars. The PlayStation name and non-gaming related features have been a saving grace while the games matured, but neither of those were of much interest last year to me. Hopefully, someday, the diehard defenders will be able to put this into the market perspective.
1. HD gaming on a PC Display. I don’t have a TV, let alone an HDTV. I don’t have the money for a stand-alone TV, I don’t have the space for a TV, and would never use it outside of gaming and a rare movie. I see no need to spend $400+ on a low end HDTV when I have an excellent PC Display that is more than adequate in display HD images.
2. KB/MS Support or Similar. I cannot really support a PC gaming and Console gaming hobby. My thumbs have some occupational issues and my ability to use thumb-sticks has diminished over the years. I also prefer the KB/MS for my favorite genre (FPS). I wanted a console where I could use a KB/MS or a similarly enjoyable input device.
3. Technologically Advanced and Developer Friendly. I wanted something that provided quality games out of the gate as well as room to grow as the generation progressed. The bottom-line is I wanted a console that had excellent games (with nice graphics!) and allowed developers to get the most out of their products in short development windows with the current skill-base in the industry—so I get more of the games I like, with more features, more often.
4. Online Play. I am a social gamer. “Poor attitude” accusations aside (humpf!), I already did my years of owning every console (PC, SNES, Genesis, N64, SS, PS1, GB, GameGear, Dreamcast, etc) and playing every game on the market. I owned over 30 N64 games and rented many times that on top of an active PC gaming hobby. But things change. First, I don’t have all the room for such. Second, and very importantly, I get bored in SP games. I have a career, school, and a family and don’t have time to play half baked SP games. I am too busy to lock myself into SP games and I enjoy human contact. I like the social elements of group gaming (both in person—so I need at least 4 controllers—as well as online) and I like competitive team gaming. The PC with Xfire, Steam, Vent, GameSpy, web based forums and gaming communities, and a host of online games in various genres had me hooked. Voice chat, messaging, a friend’s list, etc in conjunction with online gaming were absolutely necessary. These things not only needed to be offered, but supported—AAA games needed to have AAA online components. Which leads to the last criteria…
5. A Strong Library of Games in the Genres I Enjoy. It is all about the games. I tend to focus on a handful of games and play them hard. I tend to like a mix of “popular mainstream” games and “niche” games. Madden (sports, mainstream hardcore), Battlefield 1942 / Desert Combat (team/class based objective vehicular shooter), Battlezone PC (very niche FPS/RTS), Mario Kart and Mario Party (family friendly social games; I prefer the SNES MK as it was more racing/competitive while remaining approachable). Others games I was playing before I got a console were HL2, COD4, Toca 3, rFactor, BF2. So MP shooters and progressive niche shooters, American Football, racing games, and approachable family games that appealed to multiple skill levels were in my core interests.
It is pretty easy to see why the Wii didn’t make the cut. The Wii failed at HD gaming (#1), technology (#3), and online play (#4). The controller is cool but the poor implementation made it a step back for established genres making (#2) a lateral move at best and this, in conjunction with Nintendo’s market approach, was a killer in regards to games (#5). Before the Wii released I had a number of positive prediction posts in regards to it doing ok (nothing like it has done of course) but was clear: After doing the NES-GB-SNES-N64-GCN thing as my main console to compliment my PC I had no interest in the Wii. It was a new direction—just the opposite of the one I was travelling.
So lets look at the PS3. HD gaming on PC displays is dubious over a VGA connection (#1). While the PS3 has Six-Axis, it pretty much is joke of an implementation for the sort of competitive gaming I prefer and definitely pales in consideration to a KB/MS (#2). The PS3 is technologically advanced on some levels (#3), but as a platform for products it has often lagged behind the cheaper 360 to this point. It may be coming into its own now but how many inferior versions of Madden shipped? For having an extra year of development far too many early PS3 titles were feature poor, delayed, and shoddy—especially multiplatform titles. Notably many early PS3 exclusives were absolute bombs (#5) and, importantly for me, they lacked MP. On the MP front the PS3 online gaming approach is disconnected and inconsistent. It shouldn’t have been difficult to copy Xfire and GameSpy out of the gate: Buddy lists, voice chat, lobbies, and server browsers out of the gate in all games (#4). Sony has lagged in both online features as well as exclusive “compelling” online games (compelling in relation to my gaming tastes). More on the games later…
Essentially Sony failed to hit my gaming needs—and their console is a lot more expensive. The extras with the PS3 also failed to supplement these serious deficiencies. BluRay is a non-starter. I don’t care to own one. I think $20 for a DVD is a rip-off so there is no way I am spending $30+. (To date I have watched 3 movies in HD on my 360… $15 is much more in my cost/needs ballpark). Paying $500-$600 for a PS3, or $400 now, for this feature makes no sense. The smaller back library of quality games is also an issue. Half of my games were bought on sale for $20 (PGR4, FM2, BFBC, etc). It didn’t help that cross platform titles were frequently (a) had fewer features, (b) performed worse, and/or (c) had less content available. Taken Madden (a franchise I play). While the first couple versions showed significant feature and performance disparity between the 360 and PS3 versions. I wasn’t going to pay more for a console for a smaller online community and inferior games. It also didn’t help Sony exclusives like Lair, Heavenly Sword, and so forth frequently lacked any online component, were short, and many weren’t that good either. So much of the PS3 screams “me too!” and seems rushed and disorganized. Sales have been poor and it continues to lose exclusives. Recent exclusives either haven’t interested me (LBP, MGS4), are flawed (KZ2 for example), or are forever delayed (GT5). Before these the PS3 had a glut of exclusives that utterly bombed, not to mention Lair and Heavenly Sword fail to be a blip on my taste radar (short, no MP, and average at best).
Things have gotten a LOT better for the PS3 in the last year since I purchased a 360. A number of games are quite appealing (Uncharted 2, ModNation Racers, maybe MAG) and the platform has matured across the board. It has a lot of parity, even excels in many areas now. I LOVE the fact you can add your own HDD, think the browser is cool, using standard BlueTooth headsets awesome, and think dual MoCon with the EyeToy should be uber-sweat. But sales flounder, the PS3 is way overpriced for my use (all those dumb lists where you have to “add” expensive MS peripherals to equal features are a non-starter because I didn’t need those features anyhow), has a smaller back library, has lost a lot of exclusive ground, continues to delay important titles, and has had a fair share of big titles end up uninspiring. This is true of any platform, but Sony demands a premium for theirs for features I don’t want and don’t use all the while failing me in my core needs and software interests.
Considering where the PS1 and PS2 were I consider the PS3 an absolute disaster—regardless of the B3D faithful who feel obligated to defend nearly every mistake Sony makes. As a business model (which does eventually affect consumers… look at the exclusive and multiplatform situation) the PS3 is a huge fall from grace. Whether we view the PlayStation from where it was to where it is, the corporate losses, or the lack of market commitment the PlayStation is no longer what it was. All 3 major home console platforms (+ PC) have made strategic errors and have issues with their platform and as a company I find Sony the most re-active instead of pro-active this generation and I think a lot of well intended criticism gets dismissed. This thread is a perfect example of such. The PS3 is a great console for a lot of consumers; but as the sales show the PS3 is clearly the least favorite console among Americans who have paid for a next gen console. Meaning it either has the least compelling content, the most repulsive negatives, or both.
So I picked an Xbox 360.
I get HD gaming on my PC display (#1). This feature is supported by MS and every game works, although I do complain about the few oddballs that don’t do letterboxed 720p (but most do) and it works well. The 360 doesn’t natively support KB/MS, but with the XIM2 I get near-PC KB/MS input which is fine enough for me (#2). MS really cannot claim this as a victory they won; but the strong legacy PC crowd on the 360 and the success of the console did propel KB/MS support among enthusiasts. 360 multiplatform games have generally been on par with the PS3 or better (#3) and in the past had fewer delays. It doesn’t hurt that the cheaper old games that I passed over at $60 often have more features or perform better on the 360 for the 18-24 month old games I browse through (although this is less relevant with newer games). Xbox Live is an amazing online service for gaming and worth the less-than $3-a-month to use. Chat, Video Chat, Messaging, in-game and cross-game parties, lobbies, buddy lists, etc. Live also has a ton of Arcade and Community games that fit my family friendly niche well (Age of Booty, Kudo, Worms, HavokTank, etc). While the library of server based online games is smaller than the PS3 or PC (although they do exist), the Xbox has excellent online games. The fact Halo 3 still is running full steam ahead with hundreds of thousands of players and a ton of my friends still play it says something of the longevity and value of the franchise. The fact we can get 8 guys together to hang out together all night has been very, very cool.
And it really is about the games. My most wanted PS3 game is GT5, and it still has no release date. So if I had a PS3 I would still be waiting. I have gotten a TON of play out of FM2 and will have FM3 in my hands long before GT5 is released. This isn’t the stupid check list like someone previous posted; I don’t care if GT5 ends up being better than FM2 and FM3 when I may have a combined playtime of 3 years before the former is even released. People can talk about KZ2 being a Halo 3 killer all they want (it clearly wasn’t) when Halo 3 was released in 2007 and has a huge active community playing and making content (not to mention the Skill Based MP system is excellent after you play ~15 matches in a playlist, along with a long list of features few games even begin to partially match). There is always tit-for tat (Gears versus Uncharted, MotorStorm versus PGR, Mass Effect versus whatever) but I am more focused on the games appealing to me and I already can see that the next year has more good games than I can afford to purchase. Sure, quite a few are multiplatform, which is a reason not to get a PS3 in my case because going with the 360 was more affordable. On the other hand a number are exclusives in areas Sony hasn’t catered to my needs.
I definitely can see where certain PS3 titles would appeal to certain gamers a lot more than the Wii/360 ones. Likewise certain PS3 features (BDR) are very attractive. This isn’t unmitigated platform bias. What is annoying is the SDF. Both these threads pretty much were branded with the standard name calling, stealth trolls, and telling people why they are wrong about their decisions… ho hum, hence why some of us doesn’t bother posting much here. When you get developers sending nasty PMs and snide remarks you know who stokes the fire. What is so hard to understand about a “Top 10 Blunders” list like the below and do a little mea culpa and let polygons-be-polygons?
(1) $600 says what?! It is a game console, period. Until $600 becomes typical disposable income or within the “compulsive buy” range, or establishes a tangent with a proven market (like PCs) willing to spend that much, it was never going to be worth this amount to the mass majority of gamers. This was an unthinkable miscalculation. You could argue they were forced to release early and were set to ride the PS2 longer, hence the poor product cost reduction design, but this only shows they underestimated the competition and misgauged the market. However this is spun, a $600 console should have *never* left the drawing board. The sad fact is a $400 console in 2005 with 360-ish hardware would have crushed Microsoft for many reasons and solidified Sony’s hold on the market and probably pushing MS out of the arena creating a simple 2-tier market with Sony and Nintendo. I could wax long on how stupid $600 was and how equally poorly planned retail cost reduction has been, but sometimes less is more. $600 and $500 were stupid. $400 in 2009 is equally stupid.
(2) Technical Crown? We all read the hype, had it shoved down our throats, and yet when it hit the streets the end products just didn’t back up the hype. The PS3, especially now, has some really great looking games—industry leading even thanks to their amazing developers (as expected). But a survey of what your average developer gets out of the platform and it is clearly not 100% better as the price of FLOPs would indicate as a metric of, “OMG, do you see it on screen?!” Actually, you average game based on that assessment clearly shows that the PS3 isn’t wearing the technical crown this gen. There are tit-for-tats, but you look at MS’s “big” titles like Halo and Forza and look at some of their features (video sharing, liveries, advanced customization to game-play modes and decals, etc) it is clear, to me at least, that the consoles are both good and what you get out really depends on what you want and how much skill, time, and budget you put in. Not a very compelling selling point when you a year late, more expensive, and claim technical prowess that doesn’t seem to translate to the game experience.
(3) Poor cross platform titles. As mentioned above, cross-platform games have been a sore spot for the PS3. Slam them as you may, they make up a large volume of software sales. Big titles, like Madden, looked worse, played worse, and had fewer features in the first two PS3 iterations than the 360 product. Almost worthy of its own # on this list is the flow of bad news concerning title delays and cancelations due to the problems associated with the PS3.
(4) Bombed Exclusives. Whereas both the competitors were able to release products that resonated with consumers with high sales and a positive impact on console sales, the PS3 weathered the likes of Lair and Heavenly Sword while RFOM, Motorstorm, and Uncharted were solid titles, did not appear to build into monster successes in their first iterations or move sizable hardware units/platform momentum.
(5) Missing Exclusives. Good thing Sony didn’t have to rely on new exclusives to get the PS3 rolling as they have killer apps like GT and God of War… which mysteriously are MIA.
(6) Lost Exclusives. When you think things couldn’t get worse for software (poor cross-platform titles, bombed exclusives, un-compelling exclusives, and major franchises MIA) we get Sony trumpeting they don’t need to secure PS2 exclusives anymore. There were a lot of “PS2 exclusive” or “PS2 first” franchises that bailed to multiplatform status. Tekken, Final Fantasy, GTA, MGS, Ace Combat, and a slew of others.
(7) Loss of software identity. This is a subtle, but very significant issue. The PS1 and PS2 were the foundation for Madden. You always got your sim-racers on the PlayStation. Tekken and Ace Combat were synonymous with the PS brand, and so forth. The loss of exclusives and delay of Sony IPs really hurt the platform. Due to Sony mistakes Microsoft, almost by default, became the defacto platform for “hardcore” gamers looking for the best access to Sports and Racing titles. Who would have believed in Spring 2005 that the Xbox 360, not the PS3, would be the platform with the most RPGs?
(8) Me Too! The PS3 for too long appeared “reactive” to the competition instead of bearing the bastion of market leadership. SixAxis, right or wrong, was looked upon as a weak Wii-mote copycat (which in its form factor has been a poor design choice). Sony’s online efforts ring the same, a day late and a dollar short. The press releases, firings and hirings, showed there was fracture in the Sony camp leadership and their approach to the market really reflected this. For a Linux Supercomputer with Backwards compatibility, the most advanced Optical platform on the planet, online connectivity with standard HDD and motion controls, blah blah blah the end product really falls short of the sum of the parts. It looks like Sony wanted the PS3 to be everything to everyone, “Me Too!” and forgot to really excel in core areas and focus on the core markets.
(9) A Year Late and Still Half-Baked. What a disaster. The PS3 delayed a year (ouch) and still faltered in middleware maturity, had a weak release lineup that lacked polish and feature depth, online integration and uniformity have lagged, and had a ton of annoying niggles like the broken scaler that resulted in some games not working in HD on older CRT HDTVs. For the “ultimate” HD device the PS3 was release quite raw. It didn’t help they were showing batter-rangs, PSP side-view mirrors, and had a message that appeared to all too often drown out the games. The platform and platform message has been fractured.
(10) PR Disaster. The stream of bad news out of the Sony camp really has diminished other significant stories that in other generations would have sunk platforms (e.g. the $1.15B RRoD). It didn’t seem a day could go by without some bad news coming out of Sony (price, delays, developers complaining, features being removed like BC, etc). What made this a PR disaster was the PR crew had an attitude the fed into the negativity. To the outright intention to deceive at E32005, to Giant Crabs and Critical Damage, to stupid arrogant comments about the platform price and “desirability” Sony PR was off in la-la land. It appeared that out of every segment of the Sony camp things were going to hell in a hand-basket. Financials looked like a suicidal hemophiliac. The Father of the PlayStation was diminished, insulted, and then cut. The big wigs couldn’t get Toshiba on board for a HD compromise to prevent an HD Optical meltdown and delay. Heck, Sony makes a great app in LBP you hear as much about people kvetching about content being removed as much about how great the title is or how the title gets delayed in some areas because of an “insulting” soundtrack.
And yet all this to say: the PS3 isn’t perfect and there are a LOT of reasons NOT to buy the blasted thing. I am glad MILLIONS bought it and love it. But that doesn’t mean my choice was wrong (see my wish list above), motivated by anti-Sony hatred (it wasn’t), or that the majority of consumers who decided not to get the PS3 have something wrong with us. And as much as I would love to play MAG and Uncharted 2 the platform has a lot of reasons turning me off while at the same time the competition drawing me in. Don’t toss in my face how I am not a real gamer or other silly SDF garbage. Get a life, realize that the platform has weather some huge issues, and in the real world money matters and the PS3 finds itself with a slew of potential negatives for consumers and costs about 2x the competition.
That said I am pulling for Sony. Lets not forget for all the negatives millions love the machine and millions are buying it every year. (I could only wish some of my favorite non-mainstream games could say, “We didn’t best Halo or CoD sales, but we sold great!”) I think MS has taken a number of poor platform decisions that I hope Sony addresses and pushes. I like how Sony has removable HDDs and BlueTooth. I like how they have Linux and are open to stuff like this. Sure it is motivated by other concerns, but I think it benefits the market. I hope Sony has learned their lesson and really makes a play for gamers like myself. The competition is healthy and if I feel the PS4 is the best for me I will jump to it like I jumped off the Nintendo bandwagon. Sony is already showing this resilient growth and willingness to change. I also think Sony’s commitment to 1st parties is imperative, something I think MS has somehow lost sight of. Sure franchises sell, but in an age of shared tools and collaboration unless MS really changes the game I think Sony will be in the best position to sponsor the must “cutting edge” titles that push genres. So I would like to think that Sony will be in a position to at least challenge MS in many of my core-spheres of gaming interest. So I think Sony missed the boat (both the market and mine) but I am pulling for a rebound because I think the market needs them. Then again I think it is successful companies who can afford to take risks that propel growth and I am not sure how risk averse Sony will be. If they go into the PS4 like the GCN/Xbox/PS2 generation “ho-hum” also ran I think it will be a disaster. Does Sony have billions to bet? MS and Nintendo do, and so does Apple, Intel, Samsung, etc.
I am glad the PS3 has made millions of consumers happy, but as anyone could see in 2005 when I set forth what I wanted in a console Sony missed the boat and clearly has not been a strong contender for my gaming dollars. The PlayStation name and non-gaming related features have been a saving grace while the games matured, but neither of those were of much interest last year to me. Hopefully, someday, the diehard defenders will be able to put this into the market perspective.
Sheeesh, do we need to heckle about funky Gmail font issues?
You probably presume too much. I have been watching the consoles since before their official announcements and waited until a number of factors aligned for purchase. I had a set of critia established *before* the official consoles were announced and I actually stuck by them. I let the launches play out, prices drop, and more reliable units get released just like I said I would. The clincher was some nudging by a friend and the release of the Xim2 which offers KB/MS support in almost any Xbox game. So Spring 2005, pre-E3: Wish list. 2005-2008: faithful following of the comings and goings of the industry. Summer 2008: purchase.
I know I don't post much these days but I lurked or years before registering and had well over 3,000 posts before most of you registered. And by posts I mean books. Most probably even have some sense of fluid flow of thought... maybe
Anyhow, my decision was pretty methodological based on my personal gameplay preferences and the general flow of the market. Those with different consumer criterias will of course disagree, so ymmv.
Now I will patiently wait for the, "Why you don't own a Wii" to unleash my new novel, "How Shiggy killed my inner child."
No heckling, I find it visually annoying (which is my problem, I admit) and these things do have a preview function.
Then your conclusion doesn't make much sense. You say 'but as anyone could see in 2005'. What could anyone see in 2005? 2005 was Sony's victory as a foregone conclusion, it was the KZ2 and Motorstorm CG reveal, it was PS3 with 2 HDMI ports running GT5 on 2 HD sets at 60FPS, it was Sony as the once-and-future king. The PS3 only came out a year later, in late 2006. E3 2006 was the disaster, $599 and Giant Enemy Crabs.
And to be absolutely clear that I'm not arguing your opinion; you have your criteria, you stuck to them and you seem to be happy. That's great. I just think that you'd have a stronger point if you didn't try and refer to 'the market perspective' and stuck to your personal opinion. This is, afterall, a thread on why you don't own a PS3. Arguing about the market is, frankly, OT, and bound to draw in the 'diehard defenders' you like to refer to.
Frankly, you need to reread what I wrote!
And as I clearly outlined at the beginning of my post I had specific points--set forth *before* Sony announced the PS3--what "I wanted in a console." From the get go Sony failed on a number of fronts (HD support over VGA, KB/MS like controls, no tangible movement in the online network) in 2005 and in general it was MS fostering strong PC support (which is where much of my gaming interest lay).
As for the broader market, I don't need to speak for them as Sony is in 3rd place, has lost its defacto exclusive support, and losing money like crazy. But if I do say something I think my observations carry as much weight as anyone elses. e.g. I didn't consider Sony's "victory" a foregone conclusion. Any good Nintendo fan could tell you that sort of arrogance is a recipe for disaster. Some of us who were here back in 2005 nailed the KZ2 and Motorstorm CGI and thought it would (and did) bite them in the arse. And many of us definately were NOT looking at the PS3 through the rose colored kool-aid drinking lenses some seem to so rosely remember--crap like 2 HDMI ports running GT5 on 2 HD sets at 60fps was for the niave who hadn't taken a moment to consider the GPU in the box. You call it, "it was Sony as the once-and-future king" and I call it, "the king had no clothes--and I told you so!" All to say they had a schizo marketing approach, promised the sky, and still didn't nail the core features I was looking for.
They could have BluRay, dual HDMI, Cell and CGI trailers all they want but they did nothing to address my core gaming desires. Looking at some of the junk they hyped (anyone remember the PS3 being a network switch?) at the expense of air time for features they did have worth trumpeting or great features dumped for such silly stuff really has been an issue, at least for me. And the market bears this out compared to past Sony consoles.
As for threads and wanting to avoid them being locked, as a PS3 owner you could give some reasons why you possibly hesitated in a purchase. Jumping on others with snide comments and misreading their posts doesn't really get at the issue of why people haven't picked up the PS3 when the Sony brand has been so strong in previous consoles. What is keeping all of these people away?
I know wrong topic, but my mostly used feature in ps3 is blu-ray and had ps3 not had blu-ray I would have stayed in ps2 era. As an early cheapish and yet upgradeable blu-ray player ps3 has probably been one of the best bang for buck devices I have bought(how about those 1500-2000$ standalones that are now worth absolutely nothing and ps3 still keeps going...)
Almost all the fricking current gen games are just boosted up versions of ps2 or xbox1 games. No way I will play the same shit again and again just because of prettier graphics(nhl anyone, ratchet&clank, fifa, yet another fps or rpg). I would have been mostly happy just playing ps2 games for loong time after ps3 launch. It's no surprise that I have played and bought very few games this gen and my favourites are odd balls like super rub a duck, little big planet, flow etc. Couple of exceptions have been mgs4(due to story) and gt5 prologue due to the improved physics. I have tried most demos from psn store though and... most games just don't deliver enough new stuff.
Almost all the fricking current gen games are just boosted up versions of ps2 or xbox1 games. No way I will play the same shit again and again just because of prettier graphics(nhl anyone, ratchet&clank, fifa, yet another fps or rpg). I would have been mostly happy just playing ps2 games for loong time after ps3 launch. It's no surprise that I have played and bought very few games this gen and my favourites are odd balls like super rub a duck, little big planet, flow etc. Couple of exceptions have been mgs4(due to story) and gt5 prologue due to the improved physics. I have tried most demos from psn store though and... most games just don't deliver enough new stuff.
I'm not going to say much, since I am a PS3 owner and the title kind of excludes me therefore, but I will say, that I am somewhat disturbed by especially american mentality about anything being higher than $299 (or $399 if you may) is too much for a game console. We paid the todays equivilant of $900 when the PS3 launched and now that it's at an equivilant of $499 (without game) or bundled for slightly more, it's an absolute bargain in my eyes. I just don't get it, really.
Must be a thing everywhere in the rest of the world where they sell these goods at above the standard $299/$399 price point.
Must be a thing everywhere in the rest of the world where they sell these goods at above the standard $299/$399 price point.
Perhaps, though I can see how the X360 could be labled as the bargain of the century, although, add-ons and service included, I really don't see much difference. Guess we've been paying these sorts of prices for years already here in Europe - it was just a matter of time until things catch up in the states. Now if prices went up from standard $299 to $900 (what we're paying over here at launch), then I could understand, but up to $499... it's really hard for me to understand, considering we've been paying nearly double, since... ever.
Even if you say $900 is a lot (hypothetically), over the 7 years it'll last me, it's really not all that bad. Compared to how costly gaming on the PC is... well...
Even if you say $900 is a lot (hypothetically), over the 7 years it'll last me, it's really not all that bad. Compared to how costly gaming on the PC is... well...
Even if other countries pay more, I wouldn't be happy buying a console that doesn't fit into my budget, especially when there are other consoles more in line with what I'm able to spend. The big question is, does the PS3 justify the greater expense, and that is entirely subjective. To some people posting above, it doesn't.
I don't see anything disturbing about Americans not willing to accept retail prices well above what we deem as normal. Historically in the US, consoles have launched at the $199-$299 range, so I would find it very odd had the market not reacted negatively towards a $500-$600 dollar PS3.
What if the PS4 hits the shelves of your local retailers in 2011 or 2012 priced at $1600-$1800?
Iam with you on this one I paid $399(06') + 3yrs of Live and that does include my system E74ing on me and having to purchase a new arcade. Where I paid about $450 for the ps3(07') w/2 controllers and two games with no replacement/repair cost....knock on wood.
US is a 110 million household dominated by one language where noone pays a VAT. Unless, something changes that scenario I think we will continue to enjoy cheaper prices on consoles.
Similar threads
- Poll
