The problem with that is i own 3 out of 4 of those games and while they are most certainly beautiful, after 20 minutes they become horrifically boring with monotonous gameplay with Infinity Blade being far and away the worst offender.
The games on Vita are far superior and much better quality and gameplay wise looking Gravity Daze and Uncharted being just two examples.
I agree that Infinity Blade is pretty boring. It's more of a graphics demo than an actual game, IMO. I bought it when it first came out and I think that I played it once for a few minutes, never to open it again. I don't even have it installed on any of my iOS devices at the moment. That is more the fault of the game designer than anything else, as great graphics does not make a great game. Many Atari 2600 games that are decades old with blocky graphics have better game play.
Out of those two pictures of Vita games that you posted, I don't think that the first picture looks too impressive.
And I notice that certain people claim that touch is not good for games. That may be true for certain types of games, where a game controller would be better, especially if the original used a game controller or a joystick, but the reverse can also be said. There are certain types of games which are better on touch than on anything else.
I agree. My son has a iPod touch and a Nintendo DS. I bought him a plethora of $. 99 games which he'll play for a little while and won't play them again. Many are copies of Temple Run or Angry Birds. He always goes back to his DS.
One good thing with the consoles is that you can walk into a store and see the best, latest titles at a glance and know that every one was most likely made by a AAA developer. There are a few titles like this on the App Store like Lego Harry Potter, which is a fraction of the price of the DS version:
but finding lots of good games is a tedious process.
The problem with buying a mobile device for gaming is that it's not ideal to play games on the go in the first place. I remember having a PSP and it felt silly playing with such a small display while sitting in the house and when I went out, I didn't take it with me because it was too bulky.
The iPhone works great for the occasional times gaming helps pass time when out and about and when indoors, there's PCs and bigger consoles. I wouldn't have a problem using the iPad more for gaming but there aren't a lot of great games. If I had a Vita, I would probably ditch it in favour of an iPhone for mobile gaming.
However, I would not be drawn to the iPhone or iPad for gaming until they get more gaming titles. For now, they fill that occasional need for mobile gaming.
I'd like to see them make a big push for gaming with the next iOS devices. They can show off Blizzard games running on the iPad - they'd be shrunk down a bit from the PC size but 2-4GB would be fine. If they had tactile feedback, that would be great for gaming but that can wait until 2014.
I agree that Infinity Blade is pretty boring. It's more of a graphics demo than an actual game, IMO. I bought it when it first came out and I think that I played it once for a few minutes, never to open it again. I don't even have it installed on any of my iOS devices at the moment. That is more the fault of the game designer than anything else, as great graphics does not make a great game. Many Atari 2600 games that are decades old with blocky graphics have better game play.
Out of those two pictures of Vita games that you posted, I don't think that the first picture looks too impressive.
And I notice that certain people claim that touch is not good for games. That may be true for certain types of games, where a game controller would be better, especially if the original used a game controller or a joystick, but the reverse can also be said. There are certain types of games which are better on touch than on anything else.
Unfortunately all the best iOS games all have this major flaw in my opinion. The best iOS games are ironically games that were developed on OTHER platforms and they arent the ones pushing the graphics boundary more than they do gameplay and story, like The World Ends with You (excellent DS game) and all the Final Fantasy, as well as Grand Theft Auto. I think this is the biggest gripe to iOS gaming in general...there is simply no depth to the overwhelming vast majority of games.
I would say i find the first image of Gravity Daze to be more attracting, seeing different visual styles really makes a game stand out and that style which is called Cel-Shading really makes the game pop and look better than other games with more realistic graphics. Unfortunately you dont get these kind of experiences on iOS where its always about how good a game looks to 6 year old console hardware. Artwork beats polygon counts any day of the week.
The downside to touchscreen gaming is that the screen is the controller, for some games this works well and others you'll want to snap your device in half. I've found that the DS/Wii U approach of having a touchscreen AND physical buttons is the way to go for the optimum gaming experience. Vita also has touch controls as well as the new PS4 controller.
sure, the Vita does games better than iOS products. but the problem is, most everything else about it is inferior to iOS and Android. and some important items, like its cameras, really suck. so it fails totally as a cross-over device.
and even in the game market, it's #2 behind the 3DS, while Sony's console PS3 is #3 behind the Wii and XBox, putting the entire Sony PlayStation ecosystem in last place in a shrinking overall market. obviously not a good place to be.
and on the flip side, Sony's Xperia Play phone is a mediocre Android product that isn't as good as the Vita for games.
Sony is running out of time. its new PS4 has to be a super device, or it's going to get crushed by the XBox 720. its next generation of smartphones has to be great or it's going to get crushed by Samsung. and the Vita needs a big makeover or it's just going to be forgotten, period.
The iPhone works great for the occasional times gaming helps pass time when out and about and when indoors, there's PCs and bigger consoles. I wouldn't have a problem using the iPad more for gaming but there aren't a lot of great games. If I had a Vita, I would probably ditch it in favour of an iPhone for mobile gaming.
That's exactly why I never thought the PSP and now the Vita as not being good ideas.
We finally took the plunge and got a Vita for the kids. They much prefer it to the iPhone and iPad. The Vita games are incredibly more intricate and textured. I guess games are games and they all pass the time. But the Vita games significantly outclass the iOS games. Whether or not the price premium is justified, I don't know. But you definitely do get what you pay for. It's too bad iOS games are dumbing down the portable game market.
Reminds me a little of fast-food vs. quality food restaurants.
Yes you pay more for lunch in, say, good Italian restaurant. But you also get more variety, better quality, better experience.
In burger joint, you get "choice" of burgers which are, in reality, pretty much all made of the same heavily processed ingredients, with minor differences in salad, sauce. Not unlike so many iOS/Android games being small varieties of Angry Birds, or Flight Control, or...
But the fill up belly (time?) and are cheap (free in some cases). Developers are aware of their worth, thus the price.
I'll do a burger once in a while, and play free phone/tablet game once in a while. But there is no way they will replace for me games like Uncharted, L.A. Noir, Red Dead Redemption, Battlefield 3.
I really hope there is enough people like me to keep quality gaming alive. Quality cuisine, too.
sure, the Vita does games better than iOS products. but the problem is, most everything else about it is inferior to iOS and Android. and some important items, like its cameras, really suck. so it fails totally as a cross-over device.
and even in the game market, it's #2 behind the 3DS, while Sony's console PS3 is #3 behind the Wii and XBox, putting the entire Sony PlayStation ecosystem in last place in a shrinking overall market. obviously not a good place to be.
and on the flip side, Sony's Xperia Play phone is a mediocre Android product that isn't as good as the Vita for games.
Sony is running out of time. its new PS4 has to be a super device, or it's going to get crushed by the XBox 720. its next generation of smartphones has to be great or it's going to get crushed by Samsung. and the Vita needs a big makeover or it's just going to be forgotten, period.
According to IGN, PS3 surpassed Xbox 360 total worldwide shipment in early January.
While not runaway success like PS2 was, it is not too bad, considering that PS3 was released a year after X360, and significantly more expensive (albeit with advantage of having BD). It is also expected, though not necessarily true, that PS3 will be available longer than X360. This is mostly based on previous PS consoles staying in sales long after new generation was released, something MS hasn't done with original Xbox. If true, however, final score will be in PS3 more signifficant advantage. I see a perfect reason for that - number of great exclusives for PS3 is really impressive, and unless PS4 ends up fully compatible (unlikely), the only way to play them will be owning PS3. And so many of them are worth it. In addition, it is still decent BD player.
Coincidently, Sony has recently released 3rd, even slimmer PS3. I think it is good sign PS3 will be available for a few more years, likely like Sony promised (10 years for each generation). I don't think they would bother redesigning it if this was last hooray for PS3.
Which is better graphically? I'm not sure, but they're close enough make you question which one your seeing and the price delta between the games. $4 vs $40.
Looks can be deceiving.
IB does look great, but there is nothing much behind good looks.
If you have a chance, try playing a bit through Uncharted on Vita. Or even better, Uncharted 2 and 3 on PS3. That is by all standards outdated 7+ years old hardware. Not that they still look amazingly good, but they also have great variety of different gameplays (platform, shooter, puzzle etc.) and production values - story, dialogues, voice acting, music and audio... are really top notch. Without much changes, they would make good (or better) Indiana Jones flick.
While not runaway success like PS2 was, it is not too bad, considering that PS3 was released a year after X360, and significantly more expensive (albeit with advantage of having BD). It is also expected, though not necessarily true, that PS3 will be available longer than X360. This is mostly based on previous PS consoles staying in sales long after new generation was released, something MS hasn't done with original Xbox. If true, however, final score will be in PS3 more signifficant advantage. I see a perfect reason for that - number of great exclusives for PS3 is really impressive, and unless PS4 ends up fully compatible (unlikely), the only way to play them will be owning PS3. And so many of them are worth it. In addition, it is still decent BD player.
Coincidently, Sony has recently released 3rd, even slimmer PS3. I think it is good sign PS3 will be available for a few more years, likely like Sony promised (10 years for each generation). I don't think they would bother redesigning it if this was last hooray for PS3.
the XBox 360 is out of gas, yes, and everyone is waiting for the new model later this year. but it has a much larger installed base than the PS3. unless MS blows it, the XBox 720 should be a hit. so a strong PS4 from Sony is a must to have a chance to stay in the game with that. Sony would be crazy to break compatibility with PS3 games, but yes that is what they did with the Vita. that way of thinking is one of the many reasons that Sony is in deep trouble as a company overall.
The psp vita has hit its target and the little kiddies were never part of that. Now if Sony wants to see the vita get a spike in sells they better get monster hunters for it.
While not runaway success like PS2 was, it is not too bad, considering that PS3 was released a year after X360, and significantly more expensive (albeit with advantage of having BD). It is also expected, though not necessarily true, that PS3 will be available longer than X360. This is mostly based on previous PS consoles staying in sales long after new generation was released, something MS hasn't done with original Xbox. If true, however, final score will be in PS3 more signifficant advantage. I see a perfect reason for that - number of great exclusives for PS3 is really impressive, and unless PS4 ends up fully compatible (unlikely), the only way to play them will be owning PS3. And so many of them are worth it. In addition, it is still decent BD player.
Coincidently, Sony has recently released 3rd, even slimmer PS3. I think it is good sign PS3 will be available for a few more years, likely like Sony promised (10 years for each generation). I don't think they would bother redesigning it if this was last hooray for PS3.
Two points here, just for clarification:
1) The PS3 was a very slow mover overall until the first revision, which removed backward compatibility, built in card readers, and the ability to install Linux, all for the sake of lower the cost to a level the average gamer was willing to pay. For about two years after that, the PS3 easily outsold the 360, in no small part due to the fact that back then, the PS3 was also the cheapest BluRay player on the market, so it was a two-fer. This began to change when the 360 saw it's first price drop, and it became clear that games which were released for both systems looked and ran better on the 360 for some reason. That reason turned out to be the PS3 was an absolute B*tch to code for, thanks to the quirks and idiosyncrasies of the Cell chip which was the core of the system. Because of this, Sony lost more and more exclusivity rights for big name titles, like Grand Theft Auto, as well as face in the industry. Since then, sales of the 360 have beaten the PS3 every year. They almost took back the crown with the Slim, but even that momentum didn't last because it only coincided with one must-have exclusive title, Uncharted 2.
So while it's true that overall, the PS3 has outsold the 360, keep in mind that is mostly thanks to earlier sales trends which have steadily decreased ever since, and that some 40% of all PS3 owners don't even play games on the thing anymore, if ever. I myself own a PS3 Slim, and last used it to watch Finding Nemo with my son last night. I haven't picked up the controller, however, since I beat Uncharted 3 over a year ago. My 360 has been going nonstop thanks to Black Ops 2, Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer, Halo 4, and most recently Dead Space 3. This leads into another trend that popped up last year: although the PS3 may have sold more overall units since launch, for the past two years, average number of games purchased per year by 360 owners has been 3 times more than PS3 owners.
2) That latest PS3 revision you were crowing about has been denounced universally as a serious downgrade from the previous version. It's a plasticy, hollow piece of junk that has been received by a noticeable decrease in PS3 unit sales that coincides with it's release. The only reason the drop wasn't more pronounced is due to the run on Slim models during the holidays. It's a trend previously seen when Sony released the first revision I mentioned above, which itself was a large downgrade compared to it's predecessor. The real rub, however, was that revision came with a price drop, whereas this latest revision actually came with a price jump.
Or maybe iOS games are convincing people that the play is more important than high end graphics.
In my mind, it's a no brainer. The iPad/iPhone/IPod Touch can do many things and gaming is only one element. For a dedicated handheld, if you're not playing games, it's likely to be collecting dust.
Well... PS3 and Xbox (and, realistically, Vita as of now, or in nearby future) are not high end graphics any more. If they ever were. Better graphics were available on PC already at the time consoles were released, as they were locked in at least 1 year old graphics (relative to their release) during their development time.
Gameplay is the quality of good console games. Sure, good developers like Naughty Dog will squeeze every last drop of visual power to make games look as good as possible, and occasionally better than people would think possible... but it is the gameplay, the whole immerse quality built around gameplay that keep such games sell and such developers alive and developing sequels.
Infinity Blade games on iOS don't actually look shabby at all, but there is not much behind the make-up. Now... considering hardware in consoles, I would expect that this, or next, or at least next year iPad/iPhone would have enough resources to pull out games of same complexity... but I don't think that such games would be $0.99 or even $9.99. Which is where part of the problem might be - potential customers expect iOS/Android games to be cheap, how many would fork significant amount even if the game is that good?
In addition... every console owner is potential buyer for new good game. While lots of people with iOS/Android play casual games, how many of them would go for console/PC grade game? 50%? 5%? 0.5? Dedication to gaming among iOS/Android owners is unknown quality.
But I digress. My point here is, I don't think that iOS/Android games are stealing gamers from dedicated consoles. They are two different categories, even if they are both called "games". People who don't require more than light iOS/Android games like AB would unlikely go for dedicated consoles even if there are no iOS/Android games. Likewise, people who do like high production value games are really unlikely to replace them with iOS/Android games, regardless of the attractive price.
VITA will not change the world, but I expect it to sell in line of PSP and others. PSP was not considered great success either but it did sell about 70 mils of consoles, which is still much better than X360 or PS3. Once initial high price goes down and more AAA games start appearing, I'm expecting Vita will reach those levels - regarding of development of iOS/Android games.
the XBox 360 is out of gas, yes, and everyone is waiting for the new model later this year. but it has a much larger installed base than the PS3. unless MS blows it, the XBox 720 should be a hit. so a strong PS4 from Sony is a must to have a chance to stay in the game with that. Sony would be crazy to break compatibility with PS3 games, but yes that is what they did with the Vita. that way of thinking is one of the many reasons that Sony is in deep trouble as a company overall.
In US, yes... but worldwide, PS3 apparently overtook it. Plus, it seems that PS3 has lower failure rate than X360 in general... so that could add to global numbers of both consoles being in use.
1) The PS3 was a very slow mover overall until the first revision, which removed backward compatibility, built in card readers, and the ability to install Linux, all for the sake of lower the cost to a level the average gamer was willing to pay. For about two years after that, the PS3 easily outsold the 360, in no small part due to the fact that back then, the PS3 was also the cheapest BluRay player on the market, so it was a two-fer. This began to change when the 360 saw it's first price drop, and it became clear that games which were released for both systems looked and ran better on the 360 for some reason. That reason turned out to be the PS3 was an absolute B*tch to code for, thanks to the quirks and idiosyncrasies of the Cell chip which was the core of the system. Because of this, Sony lost more and more exclusivity rights for big name titles, like Grand Theft Auto, as well as face in the industry. Since then, sales of the 360 have beaten the PS3 every year. They almost took back the crown with the Slim, but even that momentum didn't last because it only coincided with one must-have exclusive title, Uncharted 2.
It is true that more multiplats do look better, more or less, on X360, but that seems to be in line of platform game was developed on before porting it to other platform(s). Since X360 was released first and had advantage in numbers, more multi-platforms were developed on X360 and ported to PS3. Cell is complex architecture to develop for, but Sony's development kit is actually pretty good - number of PS3 exclusives will vouch for that; however, porting from completely different architecture of X360 basically negated that and ended up with inferior ports.
Same worked in other direction, albeit not so many games were initially developed on PS3. L.A. Noir comes to my mind. BF:BC2 was (arguably) considered looking a tiny bit better on PS3, as well as BF3. Oblivion. Mass Effect 2. Portal 2.
GTA was not PS3 or PS2 exclusive - there were GTA games even for original Xbox. They did lost exclusivity on Tekken, MGS, some others. But then, Bungie is developing next game (Destiny) for both Xbox and PS3, and Mass Effect appeared on PS3 for 2nd and 3rd game... so as you can see, there are exclusive developers and franchises that Xbox lost as well.
Xbox sales have beaten PS3 sales in US every year (to my knowledge), but not worldwide. How else would total number of shipped PS3 consoles overtake X360?!?
So while it's true that overall, the PS3 has outsold the 360, keep in mind that is mostly thanks to earlier sales trends which have steadily decreased ever since, and that some 40% of all PS3 owners don't even play games on the thing anymore, if ever. I myself own a PS3 Slim, and last used it to watch Finding Nemo with my son last night. I haven't picked up the controller, however, since I beat Uncharted 3 over a year ago. My 360 has been going nonstop thanks to Black Ops 2, Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer, Halo 4, and most recently Dead Space 3. This leads into another trend that popped up last year: although the PS3 may have sold more overall units since launch, for the past two years, average number of games purchased per year by 360 owners has been 3 times more than PS3 owners.
I think this is not true. In early 2012 Xbox was still leading total sales. PS3 was slowly eating up initial 6 million units sales Xbox achieved in 1st year, but never took over until late 2012. As of mid-December 2012, total PS3 sales are around 77 millions, while X360 was a bit below 76.
I don't know where is that 40% of PS3 users coming from. Or that X360 games are outselling PS3 games 3:1. Anecdotally, MS official said that he is not worried by (potential) early PS4 launch as most X360 owners are using other services more than games (so he does not expect them to cross-over to Sony for new hardware)... but down to earth and solid numbers, I managed to find that, as of March 2012, total number of X360 games sales was 618.24 million, while PS3 game sales at the same time was 595 million; this works in line with number of consoles totally sold up to that date.
You will notice trend that multiplatform games usually sold a bit better on X360 (but nowhere close to 3:1 or even 2:1), but keep in mind that PS3 has more exclusive franchises that sold well, regardless of losing some exclusivity.
Anecdotally, my PS3 is still used for games. A lot! Since Uncharted 3, I played games I haven't played before - AC Revelations, AC3, L.A. Noir, BF3, some driving and fighting games. Out of 60+ selected games for PS3 I have collected, I probably haven't played 20 - 30, so I'm expecting that my PS3 will give me a lot of good time. We also play party Move games with friends on occasion. I will not buy many new PS3 games - outside of incoming exclusives like Last of Us and new God of War likes - for I'm planning to get next-gen and I also do PC games, so piling up current gen probably would not be smart.
2) That latest PS3 revision you were crowing about has been denounced universally as a serious downgrade from the previous version. It's a plasticy, hollow piece of junk that has been received by a noticeable decrease in PS3 unit sales that coincides with it's release. The only reason the drop wasn't more pronounced is due to the run on Slim models during the holidays. It's a trend previously seen when Sony released the first revision I mentioned above, which itself was a large downgrade compared to it's predecessor. The real rub, however, was that revision came with a price drop, whereas this latest revision actually came with a price jump.
Well, duh. PS3 ultra-slim will be new PS2. Sony can sell consoles with loss as long as games are fully priced to cover, but once you stop getting new exclusives and whole console game library goes to essentials/platinum/budget category and generates much less income, you don't want to loose on hardware any more. I still hail them for keeping PS3 alive - new kids, who were too young to play all the Uncharteds when released, will have a chance to enjoy them still, same as they did with PS2. Unlike MS who killed original Xbox when 360 was released.
It is hollow because Sony has shrunk logic, reducing size, heat and cooling requirements. Plasticky? It is console, for God's sake. I don't think it looks any cheaper than shiny slim X360, which is still better machine than original "solid" looking X360.
I agree. My son has a iPod touch and a Nintendo DS. I bought him a plethora of $. 99 games which he'll play for a little while and won't play them again. Many are copies of Temple Run or Angry Birds. He always goes back to his DS.
Apparently your son and his fellow users havent done enough to help Sony.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail
The problem with that is i own 3 out of 4 of those games and while they are most certainly beautiful, after 20 minutes they become horrifically boring with monotonous gameplay with Infinity Blade being far and away the worst offender.
The games on Vita are far superior and much better quality and gameplay wise looking Gravity Daze and Uncharted being just two examples.
I agree that Infinity Blade is pretty boring. It's more of a graphics demo than an actual game, IMO. I bought it when it first came out and I think that I played it once for a few minutes, never to open it again. I don't even have it installed on any of my iOS devices at the moment. That is more the fault of the game designer than anything else, as great graphics does not make a great game. Many Atari 2600 games that are decades old with blocky graphics have better game play.
Out of those two pictures of Vita games that you posted, I don't think that the first picture looks too impressive.
And I notice that certain people claim that touch is not good for games. That may be true for certain types of games, where a game controller would be better, especially if the original used a game controller or a joystick, but the reverse can also be said. There are certain types of games which are better on touch than on anything else.
One good thing with the consoles is that you can walk into a store and see the best, latest titles at a glance and know that every one was most likely made by a AAA developer. There are a few titles like this on the App Store like Lego Harry Potter, which is a fraction of the price of the DS version:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lego-harry-potter-years-5-7/id501220013?mt=8
http://www.amazon.com/Lego-Harry-Potter-Years-Nintendo-DS/dp/B0051TL9SM
but finding lots of good games is a tedious process.
The problem with buying a mobile device for gaming is that it's not ideal to play games on the go in the first place. I remember having a PSP and it felt silly playing with such a small display while sitting in the house and when I went out, I didn't take it with me because it was too bulky.
The iPhone works great for the occasional times gaming helps pass time when out and about and when indoors, there's PCs and bigger consoles. I wouldn't have a problem using the iPad more for gaming but there aren't a lot of great games. If I had a Vita, I would probably ditch it in favour of an iPhone for mobile gaming.
However, I would not be drawn to the iPhone or iPad for gaming until they get more gaming titles. For now, they fill that occasional need for mobile gaming.
I'd like to see them make a big push for gaming with the next iOS devices. They can show off Blizzard games running on the iPad - they'd be shrunk down a bit from the PC size but 2-4GB would be fine. If they had tactile feedback, that would be great for gaming but that can wait until 2014.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I agree that Infinity Blade is pretty boring. It's more of a graphics demo than an actual game, IMO. I bought it when it first came out and I think that I played it once for a few minutes, never to open it again. I don't even have it installed on any of my iOS devices at the moment. That is more the fault of the game designer than anything else, as great graphics does not make a great game. Many Atari 2600 games that are decades old with blocky graphics have better game play.
Out of those two pictures of Vita games that you posted, I don't think that the first picture looks too impressive.
And I notice that certain people claim that touch is not good for games. That may be true for certain types of games, where a game controller would be better, especially if the original used a game controller or a joystick, but the reverse can also be said. There are certain types of games which are better on touch than on anything else.
Unfortunately all the best iOS games all have this major flaw in my opinion. The best iOS games are ironically games that were developed on OTHER platforms and they arent the ones pushing the graphics boundary more than they do gameplay and story, like The World Ends with You (excellent DS game) and all the Final Fantasy, as well as Grand Theft Auto. I think this is the biggest gripe to iOS gaming in general...there is simply no depth to the overwhelming vast majority of games.
I would say i find the first image of Gravity Daze to be more attracting, seeing different visual styles really makes a game stand out and that style which is called Cel-Shading really makes the game pop and look better than other games with more realistic graphics. Unfortunately you dont get these kind of experiences on iOS where its always about how good a game looks to 6 year old console hardware. Artwork beats polygon counts any day of the week.
The downside to touchscreen gaming is that the screen is the controller, for some games this works well and others you'll want to snap your device in half. I've found that the DS/Wii U approach of having a touchscreen AND physical buttons is the way to go for the optimum gaming experience. Vita also has touch controls as well as the new PS4 controller.
and even in the game market, it's #2 behind the 3DS, while Sony's console PS3 is #3 behind the Wii and XBox, putting the entire Sony PlayStation ecosystem in last place in a shrinking overall market. obviously not a good place to be.
and on the flip side, Sony's Xperia Play phone is a mediocre Android product that isn't as good as the Vita for games.
Sony is running out of time. its new PS4 has to be a super device, or it's going to get crushed by the XBox 720. its next generation of smartphones has to be great or it's going to get crushed by Samsung. and the Vita needs a big makeover or it's just going to be forgotten, period.
That's exactly why I never thought the PSP and now the Vita as not being good ideas.
Reminds me a little of fast-food vs. quality food restaurants.
Yes you pay more for lunch in, say, good Italian restaurant. But you also get more variety, better quality, better experience.
In burger joint, you get "choice" of burgers which are, in reality, pretty much all made of the same heavily processed ingredients, with minor differences in salad, sauce. Not unlike so many iOS/Android games being small varieties of Angry Birds, or Flight Control, or...
But the fill up belly (time?) and are cheap (free in some cases). Developers are aware of their worth, thus the price.
I'll do a burger once in a while, and play free phone/tablet game once in a while. But there is no way they will replace for me games like Uncharted, L.A. Noir, Red Dead Redemption, Battlefield 3.
I really hope there is enough people like me to keep quality gaming alive. Quality cuisine, too.
According to IGN, PS3 surpassed Xbox 360 total worldwide shipment in early January.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/10/report-ps3-surpasses-xbox-360s-worldwide-shipped-total
While not runaway success like PS2 was, it is not too bad, considering that PS3 was released a year after X360, and significantly more expensive (albeit with advantage of having BD). It is also expected, though not necessarily true, that PS3 will be available longer than X360. This is mostly based on previous PS consoles staying in sales long after new generation was released, something MS hasn't done with original Xbox. If true, however, final score will be in PS3 more signifficant advantage. I see a perfect reason for that - number of great exclusives for PS3 is really impressive, and unless PS4 ends up fully compatible (unlikely), the only way to play them will be owning PS3. And so many of them are worth it. In addition, it is still decent BD player.
Coincidently, Sony has recently released 3rd, even slimmer PS3. I think it is good sign PS3 will be available for a few more years, likely like Sony promised (10 years for each generation). I don't think they would bother redesigning it if this was last hooray for PS3.
Looks can be deceiving.
IB does look great, but there is nothing much behind good looks.
If you have a chance, try playing a bit through Uncharted on Vita. Or even better, Uncharted 2 and 3 on PS3. That is by all standards outdated 7+ years old hardware. Not that they still look amazingly good, but they also have great variety of different gameplays (platform, shooter, puzzle etc.) and production values - story, dialogues, voice acting, music and audio... are really top notch. Without much changes, they would make good (or better) Indiana Jones flick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
According to IGN, PS3 surpassed Xbox 360 total worldwide shipment in early January.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/10/report-ps3-surpasses-xbox-360s-worldwide-shipped-total
While not runaway success like PS2 was, it is not too bad, considering that PS3 was released a year after X360, and significantly more expensive (albeit with advantage of having BD). It is also expected, though not necessarily true, that PS3 will be available longer than X360. This is mostly based on previous PS consoles staying in sales long after new generation was released, something MS hasn't done with original Xbox. If true, however, final score will be in PS3 more signifficant advantage. I see a perfect reason for that - number of great exclusives for PS3 is really impressive, and unless PS4 ends up fully compatible (unlikely), the only way to play them will be owning PS3. And so many of them are worth it. In addition, it is still decent BD player.
Coincidently, Sony has recently released 3rd, even slimmer PS3. I think it is good sign PS3 will be available for a few more years, likely like Sony promised (10 years for each generation). I don't think they would bother redesigning it if this was last hooray for PS3.
the XBox 360 is out of gas, yes, and everyone is waiting for the new model later this year. but it has a much larger installed base than the PS3. unless MS blows it, the XBox 720 should be a hit. so a strong PS4 from Sony is a must to have a chance to stay in the game with that. Sony would be crazy to break compatibility with PS3 games, but yes that is what they did with the Vita. that way of thinking is one of the many reasons that Sony is in deep trouble as a company overall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
According to IGN, PS3 surpassed Xbox 360 total worldwide shipment in early January.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/10/report-ps3-surpasses-xbox-360s-worldwide-shipped-total
While not runaway success like PS2 was, it is not too bad, considering that PS3 was released a year after X360, and significantly more expensive (albeit with advantage of having BD). It is also expected, though not necessarily true, that PS3 will be available longer than X360. This is mostly based on previous PS consoles staying in sales long after new generation was released, something MS hasn't done with original Xbox. If true, however, final score will be in PS3 more signifficant advantage. I see a perfect reason for that - number of great exclusives for PS3 is really impressive, and unless PS4 ends up fully compatible (unlikely), the only way to play them will be owning PS3. And so many of them are worth it. In addition, it is still decent BD player.
Coincidently, Sony has recently released 3rd, even slimmer PS3. I think it is good sign PS3 will be available for a few more years, likely like Sony promised (10 years for each generation). I don't think they would bother redesigning it if this was last hooray for PS3.
Two points here, just for clarification:
1) The PS3 was a very slow mover overall until the first revision, which removed backward compatibility, built in card readers, and the ability to install Linux, all for the sake of lower the cost to a level the average gamer was willing to pay. For about two years after that, the PS3 easily outsold the 360, in no small part due to the fact that back then, the PS3 was also the cheapest BluRay player on the market, so it was a two-fer. This began to change when the 360 saw it's first price drop, and it became clear that games which were released for both systems looked and ran better on the 360 for some reason. That reason turned out to be the PS3 was an absolute B*tch to code for, thanks to the quirks and idiosyncrasies of the Cell chip which was the core of the system. Because of this, Sony lost more and more exclusivity rights for big name titles, like Grand Theft Auto, as well as face in the industry. Since then, sales of the 360 have beaten the PS3 every year. They almost took back the crown with the Slim, but even that momentum didn't last because it only coincided with one must-have exclusive title, Uncharted 2.
So while it's true that overall, the PS3 has outsold the 360, keep in mind that is mostly thanks to earlier sales trends which have steadily decreased ever since, and that some 40% of all PS3 owners don't even play games on the thing anymore, if ever. I myself own a PS3 Slim, and last used it to watch Finding Nemo with my son last night. I haven't picked up the controller, however, since I beat Uncharted 3 over a year ago. My 360 has been going nonstop thanks to Black Ops 2, Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer, Halo 4, and most recently Dead Space 3. This leads into another trend that popped up last year: although the PS3 may have sold more overall units since launch, for the past two years, average number of games purchased per year by 360 owners has been 3 times more than PS3 owners.
2) That latest PS3 revision you were crowing about has been denounced universally as a serious downgrade from the previous version. It's a plasticy, hollow piece of junk that has been received by a noticeable decrease in PS3 unit sales that coincides with it's release. The only reason the drop wasn't more pronounced is due to the run on Slim models during the holidays. It's a trend previously seen when Sony released the first revision I mentioned above, which itself was a large downgrade compared to it's predecessor. The real rub, however, was that revision came with a price drop, whereas this latest revision actually came with a price jump.
Well... PS3 and Xbox (and, realistically, Vita as of now, or in nearby future) are not high end graphics any more. If they ever were. Better graphics were available on PC already at the time consoles were released, as they were locked in at least 1 year old graphics (relative to their release) during their development time.
Gameplay is the quality of good console games. Sure, good developers like Naughty Dog will squeeze every last drop of visual power to make games look as good as possible, and occasionally better than people would think possible... but it is the gameplay, the whole immerse quality built around gameplay that keep such games sell and such developers alive and developing sequels.
Infinity Blade games on iOS don't actually look shabby at all, but there is not much behind the make-up. Now... considering hardware in consoles, I would expect that this, or next, or at least next year iPad/iPhone would have enough resources to pull out games of same complexity... but I don't think that such games would be $0.99 or even $9.99. Which is where part of the problem might be - potential customers expect iOS/Android games to be cheap, how many would fork significant amount even if the game is that good?
In addition... every console owner is potential buyer for new good game. While lots of people with iOS/Android play casual games, how many of them would go for console/PC grade game? 50%? 5%? 0.5? Dedication to gaming among iOS/Android owners is unknown quality.
But I digress. My point here is, I don't think that iOS/Android games are stealing gamers from dedicated consoles. They are two different categories, even if they are both called "games". People who don't require more than light iOS/Android games like AB would unlikely go for dedicated consoles even if there are no iOS/Android games. Likewise, people who do like high production value games are really unlikely to replace them with iOS/Android games, regardless of the attractive price.
VITA will not change the world, but I expect it to sell in line of PSP and others. PSP was not considered great success either but it did sell about 70 mils of consoles, which is still much better than X360 or PS3. Once initial high price goes down and more AAA games start appearing, I'm expecting Vita will reach those levels - regarding of development of iOS/Android games.
In US, yes... but worldwide, PS3 apparently overtook it. Plus, it seems that PS3 has lower failure rate than X360 in general... so that could add to global numbers of both consoles being in use.
Really? I saw them being purchased in droves this past Xmas.
It is true that more multiplats do look better, more or less, on X360, but that seems to be in line of platform game was developed on before porting it to other platform(s). Since X360 was released first and had advantage in numbers, more multi-platforms were developed on X360 and ported to PS3. Cell is complex architecture to develop for, but Sony's development kit is actually pretty good - number of PS3 exclusives will vouch for that; however, porting from completely different architecture of X360 basically negated that and ended up with inferior ports.
Same worked in other direction, albeit not so many games were initially developed on PS3. L.A. Noir comes to my mind. BF:BC2 was (arguably) considered looking a tiny bit better on PS3, as well as BF3. Oblivion. Mass Effect 2. Portal 2.
GTA was not PS3 or PS2 exclusive - there were GTA games even for original Xbox. They did lost exclusivity on Tekken, MGS, some others. But then, Bungie is developing next game (Destiny) for both Xbox and PS3, and Mass Effect appeared on PS3 for 2nd and 3rd game... so as you can see, there are exclusive developers and franchises that Xbox lost as well.
Xbox sales have beaten PS3 sales in US every year (to my knowledge), but not worldwide. How else would total number of shipped PS3 consoles overtake X360?!?
I think this is not true. In early 2012 Xbox was still leading total sales. PS3 was slowly eating up initial 6 million units sales Xbox achieved in 1st year, but never took over until late 2012. As of mid-December 2012, total PS3 sales are around 77 millions, while X360 was a bit below 76.
I don't know where is that 40% of PS3 users coming from. Or that X360 games are outselling PS3 games 3:1. Anecdotally, MS official said that he is not worried by (potential) early PS4 launch as most X360 owners are using other services more than games (so he does not expect them to cross-over to Sony for new hardware)... but down to earth and solid numbers, I managed to find that, as of March 2012, total number of X360 games sales was 618.24 million, while PS3 game sales at the same time was 595 million; this works in line with number of consoles totally sold up to that date.
If you look at following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#Xbox_360
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#PlayStation_3
You will notice trend that multiplatform games usually sold a bit better on X360 (but nowhere close to 3:1 or even 2:1), but keep in mind that PS3 has more exclusive franchises that sold well, regardless of losing some exclusivity.
Anecdotally, my PS3 is still used for games. A lot! Since Uncharted 3, I played games I haven't played before - AC Revelations, AC3, L.A. Noir, BF3, some driving and fighting games. Out of 60+ selected games for PS3 I have collected, I probably haven't played 20 - 30, so I'm expecting that my PS3 will give me a lot of good time. We also play party Move games with friends on occasion. I will not buy many new PS3 games - outside of incoming exclusives like Last of Us and new God of War likes - for I'm planning to get next-gen and I also do PC games, so piling up current gen probably would not be smart.
Well, duh. PS3 ultra-slim will be new PS2. Sony can sell consoles with loss as long as games are fully priced to cover, but once you stop getting new exclusives and whole console game library goes to essentials/platinum/budget category and generates much less income, you don't want to loose on hardware any more. I still hail them for keeping PS3 alive - new kids, who were too young to play all the Uncharteds when released, will have a chance to enjoy them still, same as they did with PS2. Unlike MS who killed original Xbox when 360 was released.
It is hollow because Sony has shrunk logic, reducing size, heat and cooling requirements. Plasticky? It is console, for God's sake. I don't think it looks any cheaper than shiny slim X360, which is still better machine than original "solid" looking X360.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I agree. My son has a iPod touch and a Nintendo DS. I bought him a plethora of $. 99 games which he'll play for a little while and won't play them again. Many are copies of Temple Run or Angry Birds. He always goes back to his DS.
Apparently your son and his fellow users havent done enough to help Sony.
I do have a PS3 but will not purchase a PS Vita at it's current price.