Why the need for 2 consoles, xbox and ps3

[mounky]

I was just thinking about how strange it is that there are two consoles that do exactly the same thing and have exactly the same games with extremly similar controllers.

I know in the past different consoles had very different games with different controllers. The ps had good games with a controller with 2 sticks, N64 had great multiplayer games with a extremely wack controller.

Next Gen there was the xbox which was great for multi player, the ps2 that was good for single player and the gamecube which was great for casual multi player. They all had similar controllers but were unique in their own ways.

Now we have the wii which performs the same task as the Gamecube, casual multiplayer. But now the xbox and ps3 have the same 4 contollers, the same games with a few exclusives which could easily be made on the other. It seems silly to have 2 consoles if you want to play every game. Also when making your choice for which to buy for if you have both, it always seems like a hassle to find out what console my friends have it for. Also if like me I have only the PS3 and your friends have a 360, you are put into an annoying position of isolation.

My main point is that since these 2 consoles are principally the same, why the need for both.

 

[HardRockSamurai]

The fact of the matter is, we really don't need more than one major gaming console, but as long as there are giant companies that want to make money, there will be several.

And guys, please don't try to start a flame war.

 

[Gxas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_360_games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_3_games

I spy, with my little eye, something console exclusive.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Sony and Microsoft should combine to make... Sicrony.

It will work a lot better for the industry if the creative forces behind both combine.

 

[Xan Krieger]

A single system would be kind of dull because you wouldn't have companies trying to outdo each other. A console war can be fun to watch and can help keep the prices reasonable.

 

[SonicKoala]

No, competition is important - by having stiff competition with each other, this will encourage Sony or Microsoft to try to be more innovative or original or offer better deals etc etc... Yep, capitalism works.

Edit: Hm, I kinda got ninja'd sorta.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Why are there so many companies that make computers? Why are there so many different types of cereal?

It's all competition, and the illusion of product superiority. And the majority of consumers are willing to go along with it. Back in the older generations, there was a substantial difference between the products. Anymore it just boils down to fussing for the technophiles.

I have a PS3 and will stand by my decision for getting it. It works great, and I haven't come across a game that has drastically suffered from being on the system (likely because I had the Orange Box for PC.) I have no real intention of getting a 360, because it would only serve as a center for it's exclusives and nothing else. There's nothing wrong with the system, I just have one that does practically the same things.

 

[Enzeru92]

I actually don't mind two console (I have both) because it'll help the two companies to compete against each other to make a better console which makes it a win for us the gamers. And there are subtle differences between the two

 

[TailsRodrigez]

a few things, one, this is a ps3 vs xbox thread in disguise and intent, and competition is good for the market, three, there are exclusives to each system.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

I think the whole console exclusive titles is a bit weak this generation. For me, in order to justify buying a console I need at least 5 games on it that are good enough to make the console worth owning. The majority of those should be console exclusive. I personally have a 360 because it came down to : "Would I rather play Mass Effect or Uncharted?" I chose the 360, but I can see why others would choose the ps3.
I agree both are too similar to really warrant a war over which is better. Maybe in a couple of years a few amazing games will come out that are exclusive that make the systems stand out. But I doubt it.

I would say buy both but I'm poor, so there you go. Plus I still get a lot of use out of the ps2 I have.

 

[King CoN]

I'm gonna try and not stray into flame war territory here however...

I currently own a 360 however I intend to get a PS3 for christmas or just after. The reason? Not for the games but for the BluRay and the video playback as it is superior to the 360.

 

[Kollega]

We need competition between consoles. Sure, flamewars are not pleasant, but companies themselves also try to out-do each other. Competition is important - if monopoly is allowed to form, prices fly up while quality plummets down.

But what i agree with you on is that consoles need to have more variety. Xbox 360 belongs to shooters - how about, say, optimizing Project Natal for them? And PS3 could use more platformers, both 2D and 3D - it's just that genre itself needs some fresh ideas.

 

[Beatrix]

A single system would be kind of dull because you wouldn't have companies trying to outdo each other. A console war can be fun to watch and can help keep the prices reasonable.

Exactly this, if there's no competitive environment then everything will suck.

 

[Bruden]

The 360 has great online support, so great in fact it's painfully obvious that Sony is taking cues from Microsoft in that department. On the other hand when you go to start up your PS3 you don't get that little voice in your head going "oh god is this the day I get a red ring of death?" Both have their good points. Speaking as someone who's done a lot of playing on both I'd say they're different enough systems to both deserve a spot in your entertainment system if you can afford it.

 

[mounky]

What I'm saying is that the PS3 and Xbox 360 are EXACTLY the same in performance, graphics, the only difference being blue ray. There can always be alternative things with different goals, ie the wii for casual and the pc for mouse and keyboard. But it seems unnecessary for there to be 2 consoles. It would be okay if they were different but the only difference I can see is price tag and blue ray support. It is too inconvenient to have to have 2 of the same thing.

For the argument about exclusives, those things could have easily been made for the other console, halo would run on the ps3 and uncharted on the xbox if were going performance wise.

For the competition argument. There may be no progress without competition but neither console seems to be changing at all in order to beat the other. They both are equally stuck in thier ways and need to either merge together or go completely separate ways, warranting a new console. ie wii's motion control and completely different games.

 

[Arcadia2000]

Why? Because I DO NOT want to see Microsoft and Sony snuggle up together. As long as they are two companies they can have two consoles and the world is a better place. Trust me.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I was just thinking about how strange it is that there are two consoles that do exactly the same thing and have exactly the same games with extremly similar controllers.

I know in the past different consoles had very different games with different controllers. The ps had good games with a controller with 2 sticks, N64 had great multiplayer games with a extremely wack controller.

Next Gen there was the xbox which was great for multi player, the ps2 that was good for single player and the gamecube which was great for casual multi player. They all had similar controllers but were unique in their own ways.

Now we have the wii which performs the same task as the Gamecube, casual multiplayer. But now the xbox and ps3 have the same 4 contollers, the same games with a few exclusives which could easily be made on the other. It seems silly to have 2 consoles if you want to play every game. Also when making your choice for which to buy for if you have both, it always seems like a hassle to find out what console my friends have it for. Also if like me I have only the PS3 and your friends have a 360, you are put into an annoying position of isolation.

My main point is that since these 2 consoles are principally the same, why the need for both.

They are NOT, I repeat... NOT the same.

Both of them have different functions, the PS3 has more advanced disk technology and more general interactivity, internet access, Blu-Ray, DVD, etc. Both of them have games that are exclusive to the other such as Halo for the Xbox or Final Fantasy (I think) for the PS3. The controllers are COMPLETLY different, the PS3's is smaller and has SIXAXIS technology whereas the Xbox's is bigger and more comfortable to use with didicated trigger shoulder buttons.

I'm sorry but I'll never appreciate the xbox for it's multiplayer while I have to pay monthly/yearly for the pleasure of having some whiney kids yelling in my ear down the headset, though I'll side with you on the PS2's single player. Those were better, simpler times.

How you can put the Wii in the game leage as the gamecube is astounding, it can never match it. The Wii's far too reliant on their Wiimote and alike, and it just doesn't have the charm of the Gamecube, although I suppose it works to sell off your Gamecube and use your Wii as a shinier version.

The Xbox and PS3 have the functionality of more then 4 controllers, for example the PS3 can have up to 7 functioning controllers in one game (Depending on the gamer itself.) Your friends have their consoles for a reason, to ask them is to find out that reason, theres no reason to isolate yourself from them because of consoles and if they do that to you your not exactly in the best group of friends, are you?

Fundamentally, these 2 consoles perform the same as the other, but theres a world of difference between them that fits the user's principles and style. Its up to you to find out what that style is. If you have both of them, well more power to you, you don't have to choose.

Actually Final Fantasy is multiplatform and while I agree that are not the exact same they are far too strikingly similar on so many level particularly game library that it really doesn't make a huge difference in what console you get.

What I'm saying is that the PS3 and Xbox 360 are EXACTLY the same in performance, graphics, the only difference being blue ray. There can always be alternative things with different goals, ie the wii for casual and the pc for mouse and keyboard. But it seems unnecessary for there to be 2 consoles. It would be okay if they were different but the only difference I can see is price tag and blue ray support. It is too inconvenient to have to have 2 of the same thing.

For the argument about exclusives, those things could have easily been made for the other console, halo would run on the ps3 and uncharted on the xbox if were going performance wise.

For the competition argument. There may be no progress without competition but neither console seems to be changing at all in order to beat the other. They both are equally stuck in thier ways and need to either merge together or go completely separate ways, warranting a new console. ie wii's motion control and completely different games.

No the xbox is nowhere near as powerful as the PS3 when it comes to performance which is one of their few differences.

 

[Smudge91]

*shudders* what would a ps3 combined with an xbox360 look like. I'm thinking it wouldn't be pretty.
Could you also imagine the co-operate super power that microsoft and sony would create.