The Playstation Loses.. To the Playstation

[TsunamiWombat]

Don't you think a ten year plan is ridiculous though. In a few years technology will change and become better. With accurate timing a console will outplay the PS3 by making a higher spec model while it continues to use what will then be old tech. I feel planning towards the future was a bad move. Especially considering the rate at which technology improves.

Nope, I do not think that it's ridiculous, infact I encourage it. I don't want to have to worry about buying a new console in two years and you can optimize the hell out of a console in 10 years.

Again, I reiterate, technology does grow faster and faster but that does not mean that it will be cheap, affordable, or accepted by the masses. It takes time.

DVD came out, it was expensive, people didn't want it. DVD then got cheaper, people bought it, and it became a wild success.
Blu-Ray came out, it was really expensive, and people didn't want it. Soon when Blu-Ray prices go down, I wouldn't be surprised that it would sell much better.
How about the next innovation? Deep-UV, we'll call it (according to my dad, it's the next step). Right now my dad works with over a $100 million dollar machine that produces a Deep-UV ray. Sooner or later, that will become much cheaper and it could even be sold to the masses.

It's the same cycle, but until then, Blu-ray could very well take over for as long as DVD has.

You keep forgetting... DVD had no real viable competition. At all. It was a noticeably large leap in quality, sound, size, portability, and even durability to an extent. It was the next and ONLY media format. VHS had reigned long enough and there was absolutely NOTHING ELSE to compete with DVD realistically.

Blu-ray does not have that luxury, nor does the PS3's technology.

I'd also like to chime in and point out that I believe the PS3 IS a good system and great exsclusive, but on a whole it was pushed out with too much fancy new shit. Is it FAIR that Sony made this great new thing, that gets left to the wayside because no one uses it? Shit no it's not fair. But life and games aren't fair. Especially Ninja Gaiden. Grrr... Ninja Gaiden bird...

The 360 is an AVERAGE Product that has more or less claimed the 'average' market. Wii has more or less claimed the low end/casual market share, PS3 is on the high end. The problem is the market works like a pyramid, the further you move up the smaller it gets. At the top, PS3 might be able to sustain itself the same way Yacht makers do, but given the current social impressions of videogames I doubt there is a large enough market for luxury games. The PS3 won't die of course, it will have a good run, and some real good games, but commercially be a flop.

This isn't the first time Sony has done this, ironically. Anyone remember Beta-Max vs Blu Ray? Betamax was MUCH more superior visually then VHS, but VHS was cheaper so the porn industry adopted it.

...hhmm, maybe the 360 needs porn.

 

[Pendragon9]

Sony is a horrible company. I'm a proud owner of many sony devices (DVD players, CD players, TVs, PSP) but they are just a damn stupid company. Look at the psp; drastically more powerful than the DS with so much potential, then it fails horribly. Now people don't even run the official Sony firmware on it (aka M33, I'm one of those people) because it offers so few features compared to other types. The PS3 would've done very well if not for several key mistakes. First off, Blu Ray. Blu Ray is NOT needed for video games.... yet. Most devs are too lazy to make any real use of this format. It just makes it so people expect these amazing graphics for all of the PS3 games, which is why most devs produce for the Xbox 360. Second, it lost PS2 compatibility too quickly. The PS2 is better than the PS3 just because of this reason, 'nuff said there. Third, Price. This goes hand-in-hand with using Blu Ray, the format is currently so damn expensive that it is made almost useless. And with Blu Ray, the PS3 needs all these powerful processors and other incredible internal devices, most of which are only used to full potential in exclusive PS3 games. Short and sweet, the PS3 was too futuristic for it's time. Things will catch on, but I really doubt it will be soon enough to save the PS3. Sony messed up... again... on this thing. I hope Sony can stick it out, they make good products, just they've been moving away from the idea of the 'Playstation' for so long, I don't think we should even count the PS3 as a Video Gaming console anymore.

FANBOOOOOYYYYYY.

Go cry some more while others actually play the games you seem to think don't exist.

Also, by your logic, the Wii isn't a gaming console any more. It's just a distraction for young/old people.

 

[bounceback11]

I'd just like to point out that saying the ps3 can achieve 2 teraflops and the xbox 360 1 teraflop is total tech company bs. These numbers are based on peak theoretical performance which essentially means that companies swindle the numbers. To get the cell processing at that speed you'd have to have strip away every single element of a game e.g sound, AI, animation and merely focus on one such as graphics. Games are so complex to run that you're talking gigaflops. The ps3 is never likely to hit 3 figures of gigaflops whilst processing games its just too complex and the xbox 360 definitely never will.

Intel are working on an 80 core processor that could might hit 1.5 teraflops but not for games. do you realli think that games developers as talented as they are will ever be able to reach that kind of performance out of a console? Nope not a cat in hells chance. The cost of doing so is extremely prohibitive. Only companies that focus solely on tech can afford to invest that kind of money in development.

The cell was a good idea at the time but it is physically too difficult and time consuming to become a feasible gaming technology. I just thought I'd point this out because a lot of peple seem to be swallowing what companies say. The idea that a ps3 is more powerful than a pc is laughable. Newer gaming PCs are way ahead of the ps3 but they suffer from the same problem as a PS3 as no developer is gonna ever push it to its limit because it would cost too much money. Plus only 1% of gamers are gonna be able to run the game.

I'd just like to say if you think this is anti ps3 its not because xbox 360 and microsoft are just as guilty of this so if you're gonna compare console power look at what you see on your screen not the numbers cos theyre meaningless.

 

[Ghost1800]

You forgot to add wireless internet and a hard drive

Xbox 360 120GB (to be as big as PS3 hdd) Hard Drive $129.97

xbox 360 wireless adapter $99.99

= $429.95 Plus internet for life =$10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000429.95

ok?

And for those of us who enjoy wired networks and only need 60GB of space (after all it's not like you're forced to install any of the 360 games), that still leaves it at $299.99 + tax.

Don't try to bring in optional accessories into the equation.

P.S. the $399.99 PS3 has an 80GB HDD.

 

[Jumplion]

The cell was a good idea at the time but it is physically too difficult and time consuming to become a feasible gaming technology. I just thought I'd point this out because a lot of peple seem to be swallowing what companies say. The idea that a ps3 is more powerful than a pc is laughable. Newer gaming PCs are way ahead of the ps3 but they suffer from the same problem as a PS3 as no developer is gonna ever push it to its limit because it would cost too much money. Plus only 1% of gamers are gonna be able to run the game.

I'd just like to say if you think this is anti ps3 its not because xbox 360 and microsoft are just as guilty of this so if you're gonna compare console power look at what you see on your screen not the numbers cos theyre meaningless.

But we're not talking about PC gaming, we're talking about console gaming and those are two completely different enchiladas. PC gaming will always be ahead of consoles, obviously, but at the expense of not being as optimized as it could be (in my HUMBLE opinion).

The PS3, as a console is technically superior to the other consoles. Nobody is claiming that the PS3 is more powerful than a newer PC, but it is more powerful than the other consoles (depending on how you look at it, there's a bunch of different ways to look at "power")

And again, I'd bring up the point that how many people even have those state-of-the-art PCs? Most people are content with a simple business computer, nothing more. Say what you will about your efficient GPUs and quasi-duple-core CPUs and diamond encrusted Motherboards, until those kinds of GPUs/CPUs/Motherboards become the norm, I'm not buying the whole "PC gaming is ssssoooooo much more advance!" crap, at it's fullest anway.

 

[lightningsax]

ok?

And for those of us who enjoy wired networks and only need 60GB of space (after all it's not like you're forced to install any of the 360 games), that still leaves it at $299.99 + tax.

Don't try to bring in optional accessories into the equation.

P.S. the $399.99 PS3 has an 80GB HDD.

True, the PS3's higher-end system is more expensive, but what many PS3 owners and almost every X360 fan doesn't know is probably its biggest asset - the HDD in the PS3 is easily swapped out with a SATA hard drive with the same specs.

I got my new hard drive for 70 bucks on Newegg and turned my 40GB PS3 into a 320GB PS3. I now encode my favorite DVD's for PS3 and upload them via media server, plus I never have to worry about what I get from the PS Store or for Rock Band 2.

You *can* switch hard drives in your X360, but the big M doesn't want you to - you've gotta do a workaround including Norton Ghost software.

Honestly, I just wish I had a wad of cash so I could get an X360, solely because PS3 does not have Rez HD. I love Rez that much.

 

[Donbett1974]

I agree that kinda is a fail but the PS3 is still young enough to make a come back.

For years people have been saying PS3 is still young or this is the year of PS3 so when does it stop being new. The 360 only came out a year earlier but no one ever call it young even when it just came out.The Wii came out after PS3 and it was call many thing but not young. I hope ten years from now PS3 fan-boys are not still calling it young or saying it going to be the year when the evidence says other wise.

 

[bounceback11]

I know we're not talking about pc gaming (and just to point out there are quite a few people in this thread who did say that a ps3 is more powerful than a pc) and believe me no-one thinks the pc gaming scene is more of a mess than me. What I'm trying to say is that all the people who are pointing out that the ps3 has a tonne of power are fundamentally misguided if they think developers are well positioned to use it. The ps3 is only as powerful as developers are going to push it. The reason I bring the pc into it is as an example. If a company wanted to could they could make a pc game that blows all the consoles out the water but they don't because it will cost a fucktonne of money.

Right now even first party devs have no incentive to really push the ps3 because it is financially a waste of time to do so. As I have previously said why spend $50 million to make MGS4 (as Ryan Payton said it cost) and then sell less than Mario Kart Wii which cost drastically less than $5 million to make. The economics of ps3 development right now dont make sense and if the casual market continues to grow it makes even less sense. It makes even less sense when you factor in that a good number of companies still dont really understand cell tech.

These consoles are only ever going to be as powerful as money and profitability allow. Even in the future it is only going to be profitable to push the ps3 just a little bit more than its rival which is EXACTLY what they're doing now.

 

[Da_Schwartz]

9 -pages later and we officially have an all an all out war. Can we end this please before someone gets hurt.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Is this really anything new. They have been behind for quite a while now.

 

[phar]

On amazon.com, the cheapest ps3 (80gb without game) costs $389.99 and the cheapest xbox360 (the arcade one ) costs $199.99 .

I am NOT trying to make a comparison here between these two console versions. But it's just a fact that you can get a next-gen console for a lot less money by buying a Microsoft console instead of a Sony one.

You forgot to add wireless internet and a hard drive

Xbox 360 120GB (to be as big as PS3 hdd) Hard Drive $129.97

xbox 360 wireless adapter $99.99

= $429.95 Plus internet for life =$10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000429.95

Not to mention that the Arcade console doesnt come with a HDMI port or component cables. Plus if you want to pay for the rechargable batteries for the controller they are about $50. Oh and the Arcade model isnt backwards compatible, which is one of the big reasons everyone hates the PS3 in this thread.

You have to be a complete moron to get the Arcarde. I really feel sorry for those people that have to sit there listening to the DVD tray since they cant install games to their HDD

 

[Da_Schwartz]

I had tunafish for dinner tonight.

 

[bounceback11]

I had tunafish for dinner tonight.

Dude me 2!

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

I hope the PS3 gets bad enough to lose InFamous as an exclusive.

...Want...

Lose it to what? If the Ps3 goes, then that means inFAMOUS goes, as its the only console that can run it. Same with pretty much every Ps3 exclusive.

Add in the fact guerilla studios will close. Seeing as they are basically super-glued to sony.

Note: I love my ps3 so much more then the draconian xbox 360.

Fuck you people. I share what I buy. Yay for psn store!

 

[PrototypeC]

If I really have to go to hell and back just to keep playing my PS1 games, then no, I doubt that Sony's black monster is going to be worth it. I love my PS2 because I've had it for years and it's never crapped out on me.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

OMFG---high end consumable sees a drop in sales during a world wide recession!!!?! Must grab a pen and paper, write this down, and file it under "Bloody Inevitable."

... Its not that its going down, its because its gone down below the console its trying to replace. Please sir, stop trying to be witty when you know not what you speak.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

OMFG---high end consumable sees a drop in sales during a world wide recession!!!?! Must grab a pen and paper, write this down, and file it under "Bloody Inevitable."

... Its not that its going down, its because its gone down below the console its trying to replace. Please sir, stop trying to be witty when you know not what you speak.

The console it was trying to replace was a low-end consumable.

 

[SmoothGlover]

Sony is a horrible company. I'm a proud owner of many sony devices (DVD players, CD players, TVs, PSP) but they are just a damn stupid company. Look at the psp; drastically more powerful than the DS with so much potential, then it fails horribly. Now people don't even run the official Sony firmware on it (aka M33, I'm one of those people) because it offers so few features compared to other types. The PS3 would've done very well if not for several key mistakes. First off, Blu Ray. Blu Ray is NOT needed for video games.... yet. Most devs are too lazy to make any real use of this format. It just makes it so people expect these amazing graphics for all of the PS3 games, which is why most devs produce for the Xbox 360. Second, it lost PS2 compatibility too quickly. The PS2 is better than the PS3 just because of this reason, 'nuff said there. Third, Price. This goes hand-in-hand with using Blu Ray, the format is currently so damn expensive that it is made almost useless. And with Blu Ray, the PS3 needs all these powerful processors and other incredible internal devices, most of which are only used to full potential in exclusive PS3 games. Short and sweet, the PS3 was too futuristic for it's time. Things will catch on, but I really doubt it will be soon enough to save the PS3. Sony messed up... again... on this thing. I hope Sony can stick it out, they make good products, just they've been moving away from the idea of the 'Playstation' for so long, I don't think we should even count the PS3 as a Video Gaming console anymore.

FANBOOOOOYYYYYY.

Go cry some more while others actually play the games you seem to think don't exist.

Also, by your logic, the Wii isn't a gaming console any more. It's just a distraction for young/old people.

Stop saying Fanboy,

your like a fanboy... fanboy.

I mean your point is fair enough and pretty good, but seemingly all the posts of yours that I have read start with some variation of "FANBOOOOYYYYYYY".

Can't you make a point without some sort of relatively-immature declaration or judgement of the person your responding too?

 

[HyenaThePirate]

It used to be that people could settle for technology you that you would consider "outdated" because of the cost, but that model is no longer valid. Again, look at any technological field out there... instead of people sitting around with old technology waiting for newer technology to drop in price so they can get that when even newer technology is out of their comfortable price range, people are now storming to buy the next big thing as quick as possible if they feel the purchase is warranted. That reflects in PS2 sales. People choose the PS2 because it is the better system for the price than the PS3, even though the PS3's price has been dropping as well as the price of the xbox. The thing is however, people are already looking past the current gen to the NEXT gen which I honestly believe will arrive in the next 3 to 4 years. If that happens, Sony's 10 year plan gets blown out of the water because by then the PS3 will be their ONLY system on the market, but it will have a slew of competitively priced competitors with potentially equal or better technology.

That is an utter lie and I can prove it.

My PC is crap. I'm not in any rush to go out and buy the latest CPU or GPU for my computer. Neither is anyone else I know.

When have people ever constantly gone out to get the "next great thing"? And even if that were true, that does not mean that it's accepted by the masses.

You can have a few rabid technophiles go out and buy every single latest advancement, like OLEDs, 3D monitors, the latest CPUs, or any other crazy advancment that comes out these days, but that does not mean that it's available to the masses.

And the PS2 was out when the PS1 was still going, and the PS1 went for a good near 10 years also. It's not improbable for Sony to have two simultaneous consoles out, and it's already happening!

You're going all over the place, first you say that everyone is going out to get hte latest stuff, but then you say "People choose the PS2 because it is the better system for the price than the PS3, even though the PS3's price has been dropping as well as the price of the xbox."? You're jumping all over the place.

And we just went over this. I'm sorry, but you're starting to piss me off now. I just completely disproved your last sentence;

"If that happens, Sony's 10 year plan gets blown out of the water because by then the PS3 will be their ONLY system on the market, but it will have a slew of competitively priced competitors with potentially equal or better technology."

By proving that the PS2 is still selling and is still alive!!!!!

Look at the fucking Wii for Pete's sake! It does not always matter about the damn hardware, the PS3 could do just fine if some random new competitor steps in the ring with more and better technology, that does not mean that it's automatically better as it would still be brand new and it'd probably be in the same situation as the PS3 is in now!

You're repeating the same thing over and over again when I've already explained to you how it's not like that. I'm sorry if I'm coming off as an asshole, but in all honesty it's frustrating me.

I'm sorry to make you angry...
But it's apparent that you are thinking personally and not objectively examining the TREND of business... you dont know much about business do you my friend?

To me you seem to remind me of a chain of stores called Kmart.
When chains of stores like Walmart and Target began to reexamine consumer models, and adjusted, Kmart bull-headedly continued to do the same thing it always had. Another business that did this is Macy's.

As a result, those two companies virtually crumbled and Walmart and Target have a near monopoly. Why? Because in business, those who do not adapt to changes are doomed to failure.

But we've been over this. You are trying to use the PS2's continued success as a proof positive model that the PS3 can and will do the same thing when the world and indeed the way people purchase technology has changed.
If Best Buy followed your model they'd still have packard bells sitting on the shelves next to the latest Intel rig, trusting that they will sell because people will buy outdated technology because it's been around longer and therefore is a more worthy purchase.

By the way, you cannot prove a lie based on what YOU and a few people you happen to know do. For all we know, you might just be someone who doesnt care about your PC and use it only to check email here and there.

The current market however supports what I am saying, and that is WHY the PS2 is still outselling the PS3, and will probably continue to do so until Sony officially retires the line, and then the PS3 will have to face competition from a newer console that will only draw away more sales.
Tell you what, meet you back here in 2017 and lets see who was right and who was wrong.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Well, to be honest, the better system won. *prepares for flaming*

*Whap*

I don't understand why Sony would decide not to include backwards compatibility for games of THEIR BEST SYSTEM EVER (PS2) into the PS3.

Sony actually did a poll amongst its consumers and they wanted the system cheaper. Most of them already had a PS2 so why bother?