What exactly happened to the Playstation 3? - Page 5

Yeah this was the first thing that went through my head. PLease see http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/02/10 for a good chuckle.

It looks like they will get a bit of a boost from "Home":



"home" video:

http://kotaku.com/gaming/clips/gdc07...ome-242341.php

"littlebigplanet" video:

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/07/so...ttlebigplanet/

Well, according to Sony, there is a shortage of PS3's...so wtf are you talking about?

But, in reality, not la-la land, it's a good question -- why did the PS3 turn mega-flops, instead of mega-dough? Maybe it's the big, slap in the face price tag "$600". Don't pull that, "Oh, it's $500..." Just like Windows Basic, the cheaper version was crippled -- and not only was it crippled, it was even harder to find...because the only shipped a limited amount.

So yea. Thats why.

So w hats the price of them now? Nintendo has them beat by a long shot. The general pooblic is all bout the Wii - so Sony blew it, big time. Next time they will be thinking harder instead of having their heads up their azzes.

So what's the power behind the Wii? Sony has them beat by a long shot.

But seriously, if you saw a quart of milk for $1 and a gallon for $2, would you think, "Wow, that's one cheap quart?" No. You'd look at the unit price—the gallon is half the price per unit of milk.

Same with consoles. The XBOX 360 is about 10 times faster than the Wii. The PS3 is faster still. The Wii is incredibly overpriced for it's paltry visuals.

The Wii is selling just like the PS2 is selling, but in two years times, the Wii games shelf will be a graveyard.

But that quart of milk doesn't require you to shell out an additional ~$800 for a decent quality HDTV to get the full flavor of the gallon of milk...there's much more of an investment required for the 360 or the PS3 than just the base price of the systems.

Go into a game store and see which system has the greatest variety of games on the shelf of the last generation, PS2, GC or Xbox.

Which system also had the worst specs of the three?

I think you'll find it's the same system.

So wait—the fact that the Wii's resolution is the same as the N64 is now a feature?

Great. I can't wait to get my Pong game that doesn't need color to get it's full, 1-bit flavor.


You're ignoring the Dreamcast. Why is that?

Also interesting: while the PS2 was only lacking flexibly programmable shaders versus the GameCube, and that on top of of a 30% speed disadvantage from the XBOX, the Dreamcast had about a tenth of the power of the XBOX.

The same showing by the Wii versus the XBOX 360.

Graphics don't count for everything, but the Wii barely beats out the original XBOX. That's disgraceful, and shows Nintendo's utter contempt for their customers.

It's dead, Jim. It also came out 1-3 years before the other consoles had their specs set.

I went to a few stores this weekend, and they all had PS3 in stock, but were taking waiting lists for the Wii. Too bad not everyone is a hardware whore, eh?

Bingo!


The Dreamcast also managed to move quite a bit during its two year tenure—10 million or so.

For the record, I'm not a hardware whore. I still break out even my NES from time to time. It's just that I'm above spending $250 on a last-generation quality system. I'll play Zelda: Twilight Princess on the GameCube—it's not like there's going to be any other worthwhile Wii games.

Amen, brother! The Wii is nothing but a fad; I don't see it have any longevity.

Unless it becomes a weight loss, physical conditioning fad.

My local Wal Mart has put PS2s back on the shelves in the space that used to be occupied by PS3s. PS3s are now relegated to one end-case.

That's a good point but it seems that although people often say the lack of power in the Wii is what is the problem, I think it's the lack of decent games. I want to play grown up games like Gears of War and sadly, all the developers have flocked to the XBox360 and PS3. Some good titles are there on the Wii like Double Agent and Prince of Persia but still not enough.

I think it's because developers are lazy frankly. There are a huge number of ways to make graphics look good with a lower CPU hit. To me, Burnout on the XBox360 looks exactly the same as it did on the PS2. It's true that the faster machines will have a longer lifetime but why don't they just reduce the time between releasing a new console? The PS2 came out 7 years ago. If they brought out a less impressive hardware jump every 3 years, not only would we have lower priced hardware but they wouldn't lose so much on the consoles and so be forced to push it for years to come. As long as they made the games backwards compatible, it would be fine and if they can do that with PCs, they can surely do it with consoles.

I don't agree at all with what has happened with the Wii because they are just selling another Gamecube really and pretending it is next gen. That is really bad form but Sony have just gone a bit mad with their experimental CPUs. Microsoft have done the sensible thing of offering a really fast machine but at an affordable price and they don't hold back on the good games. I just won't buy a 360 though. I don't like the console design because they do what they do with everything - just throw options in a heap. It also overheats and is pretty noisy. Also, when you spec it up to what you get with a PS3, the PS3 starts to look much better value. I think I'll have the PS2 for another couple of years.

No, you'd pay the same amount and be three years behind in graphics.

Nintendo pretty much has to replace the Wii in about three yearsright now it's maxed out and once developers get into full swing with the PS3 and the XBOX, the Wii will fall even further behind graphically.

So in the same 7 years that you had the XBOX and the PS3, you'd have to have 2 Wiis foryou guessed it$500. No savings at all, but you have crappier hardware for 3 years.

I think you're missing the point the nintendo could care less that it's graphically behind.

Their strategy is to ditch the "gamer" market and turn a bunch of people who aren't gamers (a much much larger market) into gamers with fun, social games. Will it work? I have no clue, but it's clearly their strategy. If it does work, the could sell an unbelievable number of consoles. The graphics capabilities for the audience they're targeting just isn't all that relevant.

You're not following our conversation

Marvin said that there should be console releases more often with smaller jumps in abilities between each generation.

I pointed out that that's no easier on our wallets but costs us in terms of graphics.

Additionally, I'd also disagree with you. All the hardcore gamers I know love games like Katamari Damacy, are really excited about Spore, etc. All non-casual gamers come in and ask me why Grand Theft Auto's graphics "suck so much", or stutter in disbelief that Final Fantasy X is PS2 game, not a PSX game, since the graphics are so "terrible." Mainstream society—non-gamers—are more concerned about graphics than any gamer I know.

I just don't get why some of you refuse to accept the reasons people are giving as to why they like the Wii better. People are trying to tell you that it is too expensive for them to consider purchasing just to play games on. That is a valid reason to choose a Wii over a PS3, and the market bears witness to that fact. Also people really like the new control scheme. My 60 year old mother will play Wii tennis, and loves it. She has never played any game console prior to that, and had no desire to. The Wii control scheme is innovative and fun, and again the market is bearing witness to this. Most people I know don't yet own HDTVs, and it seems a waste to buy the very expensive console, which has a strong emphasis on graphics, only to use a SD display. Why should I spend out for first rate graphics ability and then gimp it with my 24" SD TV?

This idea that the games shelf for Wii is going to be empty in a few years time is just ridiculous. I really bet all those companies are going to stop producing games for a console that has an install base over 3 times the PS3. If sales don't pick up for the PS3 I would wager the opposite would happen. A game developer is not going to lay out the cash to create a gorgeous AAA title if the number of consoles isn't large enough to recoup their costs.


Right because Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid, and a Mario Kart game are all not worthwhile. Not to mention other 3rd games like FF Crystal Chronicles and Pikmin. Does Sony pay you to say this stuff?

Then how are you also arguing at the same time that the Wii will have to be replaced very soon because the graphics will be so awful and behind?

You're kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

And perhaps it's not that "mainstream society non-gamers" are concerned about graphics, but that they believe hardcore gamers are, so that's what they ask about?

Because non-hardcore-gamers buy the majority of video games and consoles? Hard-core gamers aren't really anyone's target market anymore.

Additionally, most games come out for multiple consoles. If you have two consoles, you buy the game for the console with the best graphics. After all, the gameplay is the same. Last generation, I bought XBOX games even though I had all three consoles. This generation it looks like it will be PS3 games.

Since the majority of console makers profits comes from the sale of games, having the worst graphics means that the only games that will be bought for your system are either exclusives or games bought by people with one system.

Also, keep in mind that the Wii isn't just a little bit behind. It has about a tenth of the power of the XBOX 360 and the PS3. A lot of current Wii owners will also be getting an XBOX or a PS3 once the prices come down, and guess which ones they'll buy games for.


Then why would they use such colorful language, rather than ask, "does it bother you that the graphics aren't so good?"

Have you seriously never had this happen to you?

The market also bears witness to the PS2 selling three times what the Wii is selling. What's your point?


I've never said the Wii wasn't fun, nor said anything negative about the control scheme. I just said it was way too expensive for me, in terms of bang for buck.


Are the Wii's graphics photoreleastic? No.

Things like more polygons; sharper, more varied textures; and HDR lighting improve graphics on all TVs, HD or no. People with SD TVs will still greatly benefit from the XBOX 360 and the PS3. The fact that they go that high is just icing on the cake.



In the US, the Wii only has about 1.8x the install base as the PS3. You're including European saleswhere the PS3 hasn't yet been released (but is sold out of pre-orders). Even then, though, you're wrongit has about a 2.8x lead in install base.

Then there's a few other things to consider. One is that a developer isn't going to lay out the cash to create a gorgeous AAA title for a console that can't handle it. That's wasted money. Note that the Unreal Engine isn't coming out for the Wii. Games that use this engine can't be ported. Other AAA games like Grand Theft Auto won't be ported, either.

Also, note that Nintendo traditionally has terrible developer relations. Developers flocking in droves to the original Playstation, despite far crappier hardware, wasn't a coincidence. They hated Nintendo with a passion.

Sony and particularly Microsoft also understand the power of netting a few key exclusives, like Halo, Blue Dragon, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, etc. Nintendo doesn't have the third party outreach. For the past decade, almost all good Nintendo games have been made in-house.


Note again how all of these, other than FF Crystal Chronicles, are made in-house. Also, Mario Kart and Pikmin haven't been announced.

No, No I haven't.

Also, I think we're using different definitions for "hardcore gamer" My definition is much more liberal than yours I think. For my purposes, I'm defining "hardcore gamer" as anyone who in this previous generation of consoles bought 4 or 5 games a year or more.

I think Nintendo is really looking outside that market, to people who haven't ever played console video games, or just sparsely (a couple games a year).

Will this be a successful strategy? Again, I have no idea.

I was also taking into consideration the cost of games but now that I see some of the prices of the Wii games, maybe it doesn't hold up any more. I remember going to my second hand games store and they had loads of Gamecube game for about £5-10. PS2 and XBox games used to stay between £10-£20.

I've looked at some of the Wii console prices too and they are much higher than I thought. Considering the XBox360 is only £280, a Wii at £200 is a very bad deal. The PS3s are just coming out here too and damn, they are around £500 with one game. I read somewhere they'd be around £325. I suspect they'll come down a fair bit over the next couple of months as the popularity increases though.

Yeah, the price of the PS3 is ridiculous in the UK—all of the games stores have marked it up way over the already expensive MSRP.

But, they're still sold out of them, so I guess it's a smart move.

But that'll definitely come down to more in line with what we pay in the US after the initial rush is over.

The Wii Virtual Console is really expensive. I was looking into getting the Wii mainly so I could throw out all my old systems, but the prices are about four times what I would pay in a used store for the games. Also, they don't have all the titles I'd want (some, like GoldenEye, due to licensing issues), and I don't think they'd even all fit on the 512 MB that comes with the system.

That you just proved the point of all the people that are saying price is a larger concern for the majority of buyers than the number of polygons a console can push.


That's fair. It just seems the majority of the console buying public doesn't agree.


That may be true, but the perception of most people that I've talked to is that hooking it up to a SDTV is a waste.


OMG a .2 difference. Wow I was way off.

Only you are the one that is wrong.

http://nexgenwars.com/

By my math the ratio is 3.1 Wiis to every PS3. Somehow I doubt Europe will double worldwide PS3 shipments (even if it did, the PS3 would still trail the Wii). The gap will also only continue to widen as the Wii is still outselling the PS3.

No, people buy cheap systems. Two years from now when the XBOX and the PS3 both cost $250, what's the Wii going to do to maintain it's edge at $150?


No, the majority of console buyers this year didn't agree. What do you think will happen when the PS3 has (a) games, and (b) a better price?


That's still nonsense. Was a PS2 useless without a better screen? What about a Nintendo 64? The high resolution is a bonus.

Besides, in a few years, the majority of Americans will have HDTVs. That will still be somewhat early on in this generation.


No, you said greater than 3x. It's less than 3x. That's a significant difference.


Nexgenwars is known to be dubious, and is also heavily biased towards Microsoft. VGCharts.org is generally regarded as much more accurate.


No, but it will bring Europe close to the same ratio that the US is at after a few months.

Also, there's no really strong titles for the PS3, other than Resistance: Fall of Man. The Wii already sold what'll likely be it's top exclusive for the next few yearsZelda. The PS3 still has exclusives like FFXIII and MGS4 coming, AAA non-exclusives like GTA, and other exciting games like Little Big Planet coming.

Considering the number of cons the PS3 hasthe huge price tag, and the lack of any strong Japanese exclusive title, I'm honestly surprised it has sold as well as it did. This doesn't mean that it won't be dominating next Christmas.

PS3 is an over engineered product and the time and money costs associated with the hardware/engineering really put them in a defensive position compared to the 360 and the Wii.

Think about it, Unless games show a significant difference in visuals and gameplay compared to the 360 which already has a 10 million unit user base and has a much lower starting price VS the PS3, things are going to look bleak for Sony.


Most games are going to be 360 ports on the PS3 and consumers will just pick a 360 or the Wii over the PS3. I see them at third place this time around, they had a great cash cow going with the gaming division only to screw it by trying to push Blueray to the market via the PS3.

Bleak as in it's already outselling the 360? Right.


The Blu-ray doesn't add significantly to the cost of the PS3blue-violet lasers are more complicated than red lasers, but this is like $20 more worth of complications. The other extra costs go to the larger hard drive, better processor, and HDMI connectivity. In other words, all the costs directly benefit the consumer.

The thing most people are basing the PS3's future on and the reason they are confident in it's success is that they don't have good games yet...

But...I still havn't seen one game that interests me that is coming out anytime soon that isn't on the 360, or has a better counterpart on the 360... So....what games are you talking about?

I was one that also thought the price of the PS3 was crazy when first released.This past month though was at Target & saw a 60GB in stock & decided what the heck,bought it & have been using it 80% as a Blue Ray Disc player.I do wish more cool games were available but think its just a matter of time,say 1 year.BTW the XBox 360 & Wii never entered my mind in thinking about purchasing.

I'm waiting on MGS4, Final Fantasy XIII, and now, Little Big Planet.

The game I'm really excited for is Grand Theft Auto IV, which isn't exclusive. Historically, Rockstar has taken the time to really take advantage of each console's strengths—the XBOX version is way better graphically than the PS2 version. Given the PS3's better processing power, the opposite will be true this time around

MGS series is ok...personally I prefer SC though.

Don't get me started on FFXIII....the first 8 were good but this is going way to far.

Personally I can't see myself ever using Little Big Planet...though I will admit I can easily see other people loving it.

Yah GTA4 will be pretty cool. Though I don't think the graphics or fps on either will be much different. A little different here and there, better in some, worse in some, but overall I'd say it will be a stalemate.

Right now I'm looking forward to Halo 3, TES:IV Expansion, GRAW2 (yah Ik...it's out already...havn't gotten around to buying it yet), Mass Effect, GTA4, Forza 2, and Fable 2.

Well, finally in my city a friggin' demo unit showed up, it was a PS3 hooked up to at least 720p high-def, and demoing some racing game. You know, maybe the game was not that great, but, you know, I was not impressed.

I just *don't* get console gaming. A Core2Duo overclocked 2+ghz to 3ghz, running 1280x1024 off a 7950GT or X1950XT level card, with DVI/ HDCP/ component out/ blah blah blah on a computer screen or big-ass plasma, that'll do.

UT2007 engine based games with 4xAA 16xAF HDR etc etc etc -- I'll stick to a PC for now, consoles are cool, but PCs have the GPU power ready to slot in as we go on, and in about a year when the GPUs are at 65nm and more sensible, even better. Pity about the titles available for the PC, but, good enough for now.

Again, I *don't* get this PS3 craze. Well, just me feeling at the moment....

I feel the same assuming you mean Splinter Cell. I liked the first MGS game and then MGS2 had two levels. MGS3 Snake Eater just sucks IMO. It takes too long to get anything done. Even though SC is about stealth, I can still get through the levels at a good pace and there is enough variety in the levels to keep the game interesting.


Cost, reliability and efficiency. It is not efficient to have to install 2GB+ of data for every game. Windows is not reliable - some games run fine one day and then BAM, DirectX error. My PS2 has crashed about 3 times ever and that's over a period of a good few years. Consoles have far fewer compatibility issues than any PC because the games can be optimized and tested thoroughly for the target machine. Finally there's no way you could get a Core 2 Duo PC with a X1950XT for under £400.

I still prefer the PC myself though because I can use a keyboard and mouse with it - I really hate console FPS games. Also, I can cheat easily. If I get stuck, I can download a savegame or level skip cheat very quickly. The one and only reason I would consider a PS3 is there was a report saying you'd be able to use a keyboard and mouse.

Yah I'm talking about Splinter Cell.

I really don't understand PC gaming. Ok yah I can dish out 30,000 on some mostly unknown site for the top of the line gaming pc....and in 3 months spend another 5000 to keep it top of the line...and again...and again...

Personally I love the controller. That might just be my generation though because most people I know can't stand mice and keyboard. Too many buttons to remember...if you are playing 10 games no way you will remember alll those things (and yes i do play ~10 console games at once). Also talking online with the 360 is extremely easy and nice.

Heh. Yeah, different strokes (wow, pun unintended) for different folks. From the days of Doom (OMFG shooting stuff with only the KEYBOARD!) through to *serious* training in CounterStrike and UT2004, StarCraft, WarCraft, Command&Conquer:Generals, LOTR:BattleForMiddleEarth2, StarWars:KnightsOldRepulbic2, I cannot, cannot, do shooting or RTS'ing or RPG'ing (rarely RPG though) without my trusty keyboard and mouse. I live and die, literally virtually, by W,A,S,D, CTRL (crouch), SPACE (jump) and the 360deg of a good mouse.

PC gaming costs basically have to do with the level of detail and visual richness you desire at a certain stage. My 1.5+ year old AMD64 2ghz 1gbRAM 7200rpm SATA rig is fine for most games. It's mainly the GPU upgrades that will set you back $200US to $500US depending on how rich the visual experience you want. Just as people pine for an upgradeable mid-tower Mac, so to do I enjoy the flexibility that my PC rig offers. Core2Duo, not even a major issue now. 6600GT, X1600, liveable for good titles like FPS genre's flagships HL2 and FEAR, etc. A $500 GPU will bring the rig up to par with current PS3 title visuals (dare I say??) ... 2 years from now, a $200 GPU will make the PS3 look like a PSP.

You can talk online with the 360 controller??? Sorry, it boggles my mind, just my "training" as well. Jumping to cover, crouching, spin180deg, blowing away someone in UT2004 and then typing "ha ha ha u suck" ... wow. I would be stuck at how to even move forward with a console controller. Also my favourite move in UT2004-ONSTorlanMap, the "Manta chuck" (fly a Manta right into the power node, jump off the Manta and "chuck" it into the power node, slicing up a few unfortunate peoples there... muah ha ha....) ... Again, mouse and keyboard.

Back to the days of late 90's racing games and stuff, even WingCommander (without joystick), now with NFS:Most Wanted, It's all up-down-left-right arrows, space for braking, CTRL/SHIFT for gearing up down, it's like second nature.

I take it you missed Little Big Planet then.

Here's some reviews of the demo shown at Sony's recent event:
BBC
1up
Kotaku
IGN
Wired
Slashdot

Here's two videos of it:
"1"
"2"

PS, the PS3 is coming down in price by $100 this summer. That means the complete version will cost $499, will have HDMI, 60GB Disk, WiFi, support for up to 7 wireless controllers, Playstation Home and a Blu-Ray move player, not bad.

Yah yah Little Big Planet, not interested. Besides I don't trust sony at all anymore. They make things out bigger than they really are. I won't believe they will drop the price by 100 until I go to the store and see that dropped price.

Home has potential but, again, I want to see it in person and use the final version before I make any judgements.

About blu-ray...no one can say whose going to win for sure. What if blu-ray loses? Then what is the point of my PS3 playing blu-ray movies? And with the PS3 failing right now I can see blu-ray losing.

Don't have an HDTV...HDMI doesn't interest me and, at least for me, the gains in quality are minimal (at least from what I've seen at stores. I havn't had a chance to do a A-B quality check on it yet at a high quality A/V store yet...only places which are subject to mess up when they set the TV's up).

I have ethernet cables going to my HT set-up right now...don't need WiFi built in. 60 gbs is more than i need. I think i've used 3 gigs in a year so far on my 360.

Now I have a question for you...why would you EVER want seven controllers?

On another note Little Big Planet and Home aren't really get-in-the-action games. I'd much rather spend my time talking and such while playing...CoD3 than in Home. Home just reminds me of the Sims Online with a little bit more thrown in.

Blu-ray is now outselling HD-DVD by more than 4:1. For every 23 HD-DVDs sold, 100 Blu-ray discs are sold. As in, Blu-ray has an 82% market share. And it's growing. I think we all know who won. For sure.


Do you have friends? When I have friends over, and we play video games, one or two people are ALWAYS relegated to just watching. Besides, as the number of players increases in most games, so does the amount of fun. I don't know at what points that stops, but I'm sure it's not four.

Now, I've said a nasty thing or two about the Wii, but if the Wii had options for seven controllers, I'd already have them all bought and be counting down the days until Mario Kart Wii. I hope the PS3 comes out with some fun multiplayer games. Online multiplayer really doesn't do it for me.


Home seems more like Second Life to me, but how is "Little Big Planet" not a get in the action game? It looks hella fun, not to mention cute.

Interesting article about the Wii and how it's attracting people who otherwise wouldn't play video games...Link.



That said, I'll still wait for the first price drop to get a Wii. I've never paid more than $200 for any console I've owned, even the PS2. I personally can't justify paying ~$500 or more for fixed hardware. That is also one of the reasons I don't have a HDTV yet, so buying a 360 or PS3 would be a waste of money for me in any case without an HDTV. And that way, you know if the console is going to hang on, or pull a Jaguar/3DO(yeah, I had one!)/Dreamcast. You'd also have a better selection of games to pick from, rather than waiting months for the good new releases to come out.

Really? I didn't know that about blu-ray. Havn't really been following anymore. Ok so the PS3 has blu-ray. Still I don't have an HDTV (as mentioned before) so it's lost on me personally.

Yah I do play with my friends all the times. And, to a point, it is more fun with more players. However when the screens get so small you can barely play...well then it's pretty useless. Maybe...maybe, if it supported 8 it would be ok on extremely large tvs or projectors, but having an odd number would just mess up the size of one of the screens. 4 players for me is more than enough. If I'm planning on playing with more I have a friend bring over an xbox and I'll get another tv hooked up for system link.

I can actually see about 6 people on the Wii still being fun...Nintendo has a way of making something work well when it wouldn't seem like it. For example on double dash with 8 people...4 karts, 2 people per kart. Might work out then. Same size screen as usual.

Little Big Planet is one of those games that I would enjoy for ~10 minutes a week. It would be very fun for a short amount of time but it's not like...Halo (if you are a "true" fps fan than Halo won't hold up...but for me it's hella fun with 12 people on system link) where you can play for hours upon hours. If I had money to throw out and had a PS3, I would get Little Big Planet. But I don't have either so i'll use my money on buying a game like Oblivion which has lasted me a good 200 hours or so.

Shadow