Hope Fades for PS3 as a Comeback Player

[DainBramaged]

For most of this year, Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 3 videogame console seemed finally to be taking off after a slow start. The PS3, trailing Nintendo Co.'s Wii and Microsoft Corp.'s Xbox 360 consoles, was closing in on the No. 2 Xbox 360, with new games and quarterly sales growth at twice the speed of last year.

But early results from this holiday season aren't promising. U.S. sales of the PS3 fell 19% last month from a year earlier, while sales doubled for the Wii console and rose 8% for the Xbox 360, according to research firm NPD. Analysts say they expect PS3 sales for this month to be flat or lower than last year, while sales for its rivals are likely to rise. And Sony may not reach its goal of selling 10 million PS3 consoles in the fiscal year through March, analysts say.

The sales decline is a heavy blow to Sony, which was banking on the videogame division to provide a bright spot as its core electronics business is hit by the global economic downturn. Sony in May forecast that its games division would turn a profit this fiscal year after two years of losses since launching the PS3 in 2006. Meanwhile, poor sales of television sets and digital cameras are forcing the company to lay off thousands of staff and close factories.

Sony's strategy of selling a pricey game machine with advanced features and cutting-edge components appears to be backfiring as a deepening recession has U.S. consumers more price sensitive than ever.

If Sony doesn't close the gap with its rivals, it could risk making the PS3 an afterthought to game publishers, who focus most of their resources on the machines with the most users. At the end of September, the Wii had a wide lead with nearly 35 million units sold since its launch in 2006 compared with about 22 million Xbox 360 consoles and 17 million PS3 machines. Nintendo last month sold 2 million Wii machines in the U.S., while Microsoft sold 836,000 Xbox 360s and Sony sold 378,000 PS3s, according to NPD.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123050978162738293.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace

[SteppingRazor]

1. Another side of this is that Sony may be a victim of its own success.

The PS2 was easily the best system of its generation, and it inspired a lot of brand loyalty. But its so good that it's still a perfectly fine system, games are still being created for it, and so the people loyal to the PlayStation brand have yet to trade up to the PS3. I know I haven't.

[EconomicLiberal]

3. Bingo.

I have a PS2 and I haven't yet bought up a PS3. However, one reason for that may be because of the PS3's extremely high price tag compared to its competitors.

[alfredo]

11. Same here. I love the racing games for PS2. GT3 and 4, V Rally3

[Maestro]

5. Good point

I just happened to be in the market for a blue ray disc player and since the PS3 came with one, I decided to get it and upgrade my gaming too.

[kstewart33]

9. PS3's added bonus as a Blu-Ray player is a major reason

that we purchased one. The extra benefit is the reason why the player is more expensive than xbox360 and wii.

We play all non-blu-ray DVDs on the PS3 because the video is far superior to xbox360.

I'd expect that xbox360 will eventually produce a machine with blu-ray capability. Until then, PS3 is a better buy.

[Romulox]

14. XBOX360 can stream HD movies on demand, which diminishes the benefit of Blu Ray considerably...nt

[yeswecanandwedid]

47. It's the only reason I have a PS3... the problem is I only have 1 Blu Ray movie, LOL nt

[mduffy31]

100. From what I have read the Blu-Ray in the PS3 is just as good as any high end one

with the added bonus of being able to play games as well.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

12. The PS3

is superior to the PS2. We have both (along with the PS original. We also have a Wii. Here is what the difference - The PS3's graphics are clearly better, having more depth and versatility.
Also - the on-line capabilities are superior to PS2 - The PS3 also plays Blueray discs and this is well worth paying more for the system. We use the PS3 to play all of our DVD's - including the Blueray discs.

The Wii is a fantastic system. I have nothing bad to say about it.

Nintendo will always have a loyal following - As will Sony - I saw both companies strengths and enjoy them for what they are - As for the XBox 360 - I have zero need to buy a faulty Microsoft POS with a multitude of inherent problems.

More and more families are buying more than one game system - :)

[SteppingRazor]

13. Oh, I have no doubt that the PS3 is superior to the PS2.

I'm saying that the PS2 is better than systems of its generation. So much so that it has a longer shelf-life than its competitors (the other sixth-generation systems being the GameCube and the Xbox), and so PlayStation loyalists have yet to step up and get the PS3.

[Romulox]

17. Actually, the original Xbox was clearly superior to the PS2. nt

[EOTE]

30. Hardware wise, anyway.

The original Xbox was the first system to really share the bulk of its architecture with PCs of the time. I believe it had a 733mhz Pentium III processor compared to the PS2's 233. It also had more faster and better memory. This often times allowed XBox games to run faster with better looking graphics (Xbox games typically had anti-aliasing which the PS2 lacked) and some games for the original Xbox even ran in hi-def (I believe there's only 1 or 2 games for the original PS2 which ran in HD).

Given all of that, I still preferred the PS2 to the Xbox (I owned both) because I preferred the library of games for the PS2. However, now I own an Xbox 360 (I don't own a PS3, yet I've got a number of friends who do) and I greatly prefer my 360 to the PS3. The 360's architecture was way ahead of its time (especially in terms of its GPU). Sony made much ado about Sony's CPU (the Cell), but it's turned out to be so complicated to program for, very few developers actually take full advantage of it. In terms of the GPU, the 360's Xenos has proven to be a good deal more advanced than the RSX in the PS3. Even though the 360 came out a full year ahead of the PS3, the GPU in the 360 is actually a full generation ahead of the RSX using an early version of ATI's 2900XT (two generations old) compared to the PS3's RSX which is basically a modified Nvidia 7800GTX (three generations old). Because of this, we've seen lots of multi-console games look a good deal better on the 360, or run at twice the frame rate on the 360. It's only when games are programmed from the ground up to take advantage of the PS3 (the Cell CPU specifically) or developed with OpenGL in mind that the games look really impressive on the PS3 (see Metal Gear Solid 4 or the Resistance series for examples). Ports that appear on the computer as well typically look and play better on the 360 too. Blu-ray is certainly a nice feature, but being able to stream HD movies on the 360 is really nice as well. Also, the benefit of Blu-ray is also a lot less now considering you can get a Blu-ray/HD-DVD drive for your computer for around $100 now.

[Romulox]

56. Agree that I prefer the PS2 library. It's just silly to extol the PS2 hardware as "superior"

as it's inferior in terms of both raw power AND (more importantly) programming ease.

[Downtown Hound]

36. In terms of its graphics power, yes

But the PS2 was widely considered to have better games. Ironically, people are saying the exact opposite about the current generation. The PS3 is said to have better hardware, yet the XBox 360 has the better games.

[EOTE]

38. Better hardware how?

In terms of CPUs, the PS3's Cell is most likely capable of greater throughput than the 360's Power PC chip, but that's only if developers take the time to utilize it fully (which they haven't been able to as of yet). In terms of GPUs, the 360's Xenos tramples all over the PS3's RSX. Even though the 360 came out a year earlier, the Xenos was way ahead of its time while the RSX was already dated by the time the PS3 came out.

[charlie and algernon]

21. same here

I love my PS2 and the games they have for it are still great. plus, it doubles as my DVD player. I can live without the very few games made solely for PS3 since nearly all of them are available for PS2 still.

[acmavm]

32. If you buy a PS3 and you want it to play games from previous

models, you have to pay a hunk of money extra.

When they told me that, I told them they could keep their crap.

What a racket.

[EOTE]

37. It depends on which model you bought.

Oddly enough, the cheaper model (the 20GB model, I believe) had the "Emotion Engine" (PS2 CPU) actually built into the unit itself. So it really didn't need anything to do backwards compatibility because it had an entire PS2 built into it, pretty much. The more expensive units had to use software emulation to get PS2 and PS1 games to work on it. So that meant that you needed to download the emulation to get the games to work, you'd typically download one patch which had dozens or even hundreds of games covered by it. But as far as I know, you don't have to pay for any of the software emulation to get PS2 games to work on the PS3.

[acmavm]

39. I didn't buy either. When they wanted 50 more bucks so the PS3

would play PS2 games, I told them to keep it.

[EOTE]

40. I think someone might have been trying to hustle you.

Once again, all the 20GB models had hardware emulation (actually, pretty much an entire PS2 inside of the PS3). The 60, 80 and 120 gb models are capable of backwards compatibility as well, but require you to download patches to provide software emulation depending on which PS2 game you wanted to play. Either way, you shouldn't need to shell out any more money to be able to play PS2 and PS1 games on a PS3.

[Romulox]

55. None of the current model PS3s have PS2 hardware compatibility.

Like the poster upthread, this was a major reason for me not to purchase one this year.

[EOTE]

97. I didn't say that the current ones did.

The older 20 gig model PS3 had hardware compatibility because it had the PS2's emotion engine built in to the PS3 itself. The current ones do it via software emulation, but it doesn't do half a bad job. I've played Gran Turismo 4 in HD on a PS3 60 GB console and it looked better than I remember playing it on a PS2.

[Juche]

58. True

I was out of console gaming after the fourth generation (SNES was the last console I seriously played and I got tired of that around 1996, aside from trying and disliking GameCube).

I got a used PS2 with controller for $50 and alot of great games are only $5-10 used. The PS3 will cost $300-500 and the games are $30-60 each. Not worth the investment when teh PS2 is pretty good itself.

The BluRay player is kindof interesting, but not really worth it to me since it only provides a slightly better picture and I don't have an HDTV. Same with PS3. Its got better graphics than PS2, but not enough to be worth paying 5-10x more for games and the system. I'm a cheapass, I try to stay a generation behind in technology. However I may buy an XBOX 360 and just get a bunch of regular XBOX games for $5 each.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. And it makes a fine DVD player to boot

We have ours... and if it broke... we went, perhaps we should just replace it for another PS 2

Buying the three is kind of out of my price range

[dysfunctional press]

2. i got to be a hero, because i was at meier 3 days before christmas...

and just happened to be in the electronics area when they were restocking the wii consoles.
i had two friends that were desperate for them for their kids, and i was able to satisfy them both. and- even though i didn't ask them to, they each gave me $40 extra as a "thank-you".

[Maestro]

4. I like mine and the blue ray disc is cool!

However, it is pricey, but gaming in HD is better than on my PC. I hope Sony can weather this. Sometimes you gamble and come up short. The Microsoft juggernaut and the cool factor with the Wii just outdid Sony and the PS3.

[Renew Deal]

7. Sony gambled and came up big in another area.

They set the standard with Blu-ray by killing off HD-DVD.

[Romulox]

15. Many analysts believe Blu Ray is a technological dead end

Since consumers are beginning to have several choices to stream HD movies on demand...

[anigbrowl]

20. Apples and oranges

I have both options and while it's nice to be able to hit Netflix instantly there's a significant quality tradeoff. For old TV episodes or films I might just want to watch out of curiosity streaming is fine, but for anything I'm enthusiastic about I want quality picture and sound. Streaming video is a long way away from HD quality, and since I work in the film business I care enough about image quality that it has a real value to me.

[Romulox]

26. No, there's no "quality tradeoff". 1080p is 1080p.

Netflix on demand is currently standard def only. But true high def content can be streamed in the Xbox Video Marketplace.

[anigbrowl]

31. Not so. Resolution doesn't equate to image quality

If I'm encoding h.264 video (which is the format used on Blu-ray as well as for streaming HD offered on Xbox) I have a variety of options on how it's encoded. For streaming purposes I'm going to do so at a much lower bandwidth than I would for local (disc) playback. Be nice if they were all the same since it would save outputting multiple delivery versions, which is very time consuming...but they're not. The differences are in things like block size and color gamut - on streaming video, you can see far more 'mosaic' and the color gradients are significantly flatter. It's particularly noticeable in scenes with lots of shadows or light diffusion (eg smoke, fog, certain kinds of fabric).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264 - particularly, the differences between extended profile (XP) and high profile (HiP). Just because they're using the same codec and resolution does not mean the quality is equal.

[Romulox]

50. "1080P" refers to BOTH resolution and bit rate. nt

[Statistical]

65. Completely wrong.

1080p is the resolution & format.
One thousand eight lines of resolution displayed progressively.

It has NOTHING to do with bitrate.

A BD player is up to 40.0Mbps (40,000,000 bits per second).

Most stream able content is maybe 5Mbps
Most downloadable HD 1080P content is 5Mbps-8Mbps.

A BD disc holds up to 50.0GB of content. The "movie" itself usually runs about 30.0 to 40.0GB.
To download a similar quality picture would take 6 to 7 hours on a 10Mbps connection.

Now I do think the PS3 is in a world of trouble.
Recession + most expensive console doesn't really work out very well.
By the time we come out of the recession both the 360 & Wii will be so far ahead the PS3 will likely just be the machine that developers port the game to.
Sony can't really cut the costs. They way over spent on the PS3 and the BD vs HD DVD wars cost them a couple billion.
Maybe they can get some TARP money? :sarcasm:

[anigbrowl]

67. No, it doesn't. 1080p means 1080 lines, progressive.

The alternative is 1080i, where the i stands for 'interlaced', which is a method of drawing the screen by showing showing half the lines in the image per refresh cycle, while progressive shows a full frame on every cycle. Bit rate has nothing to do with it. I work in film/video for a living, and knowing the formats and codecs in detail is part of what I'm paid for.

Here's a list of Blu-Ray films with average bit rate for each (bitrates vary for a variety of reasons to do with image complexity and color gamut): http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338 You'll see the median value is in the mid-20s. I didn't find a similar table for XBox streaming video, but the various Xbox compatible 1080 torrents I found topped out at 11-12mb/s, which is consistent with the ~6.8mb/s used for their 720p streaming.

This article http://gizmodo.com/5048025/giz-explains-why-hd-video-downloads-arent-very-high-def gives a quick introduction, though it's a bit sloppy insofar as it doesn't mention the Blu-Ray data rate is a maximum rather than a constant.

[Romulox]

80. Point conceded. I was way off base here. nt

[wuushew]

63. I don't believe Netflix offers 1080p yet only 720p

Today we have rights to deliver about 400 streams in HD (720p). More titles will be added over time. We experimented with first-generation WMV3 encodes at 4000kbps and 5500kbps, but settled on second-generation HD encodes with VC1AP at 2600kbps and 3800kbps, which extends their accessibility down to lower home broadband connections. As with SD, encodes of film material are at 24fps, and encodes of shot-to-video material are at 30fps (or 25fps for PAL), rather than the 60fps that would come from a Blu-ray disc - we judged the 60fps content as too expensive of bandwidth for now. In general, these encodes are definitively better than SD, but won't challenge well-executed Blu-ray encodes - that would require a bitrate out of reach for most domestic broadband today. We believe Moore's law will drive home broadband higher and higher enabling full 1080p60 encodes in a few years.

http://blog.netflix.com/2008/11/encoding-for-streaming.html

[Statistical]

66. Netflix is pretty cool....

However 3800kbps = 3.8Mbps and that is cutting it close for HD content.

Even the now defunct HD DVD had 30.0Mbps and BD offers up to 48.0 Mbps.

Eventually I hope they raise their bitrates as "higher" highspeed becomes more common.

[anigbrowl]

29. That's true. I think it'll work out all right for them

Betamax lost to VHS way back when, but what most people don't realize is that Betamax remained the standard for professional video and Sony made their investment back many times over in the broadcast market, even carrying the format forward into DigiBeta. Blu-ray has won the format war by a mile this time around, and Sony will get a small cut off every blu-ray disc manufactured, which will be every new film that comes out in the next 10 years. The PS3 is the Lexus of the game console world, as opposed to the GM (XBox) or the Honda (Wii); this isn't the ideal situation given the current financial climate but they'll still be at the top of the technology pile when the market turns.

Sony could give themselves a boost by throwing a bit more support behind Linux for the PS3. Yes, for about $100 (external hard disk plus mouse and keyboard) you can install Linux on the PS3 and have a rather zippy computer. downsides are that you can't expand the RAM in the ps3, and that (obviously) you can't run anything that depends on x86 assembly code. Upside (for Sony) is that the RSX graphics card in the PS3 is still very powerful, and Sony can boost its attractiveness if they choose by removing the hypervisor restriction that prevents access to the full power of the graphics card. Doing so 100% puts their DRM (copy protection) on games and movies at risk.

I'm not too worried for Sony. They're well-known for playing a long game and it's a strategy that has always worked out well for them.

[ACTION BASTARD]

88. Sony will NEVER give up DRM for the PS3

The homebrew crews busted open the PSP and Sony nearly shit the bed over it. 3rd party developers are really leery or hesitating on making games for the PSP. However, now that they released the PSP 3000 model the hackers have been shut down...for now. What the big time hack crews are now saying is that the PS3 just "might" be beyond their abilities to bust open. Yet, the PS3 is moving less units than the inferior PS2 which was compromised a looooong time ago.


In sharp contrast, the 360 and Wii have already been compromised and are selling like cocaine to Whitney Houston. If your dumb enough to go on xbox live with a modded 360, Microsoft will drop the ban-hammer in a second. The Wii is selling so amazingly well, it seems Nintendo can't (or won't) stop to catch their breath to deal with compromised Wii's. Also Nintendo's DS was easily compromised and yet sells about a million units every month.

[zane25]

35. More like Sony bought off the studios for about 800 million

And they are still selling the PS3 for a loss. They won the HD format battle, but will likely lose the war. So far they are in for 3-5 billion and if Blu ray doesen't take off and soon they will never make that money back.

[NashVegas]

70. What Was the Point, Again?

I'm in my mid-40s. Didn't have a Betamax (wasn't making enough when they came out) but did eventually bite the bullet for a VCR and tapes.

When DVDs came on the scene 10-15 years later, I signed on but a funny thing happened: where my VCR lasted over 10 years, my DVD machine - which wasn't a Wal-Mart cheapie in the first place - died before it was even 3 years old. So I bought a new one, a good one. It's still going strong after 5 years. I'm happy.

Did I mention I have a CD collection of a few thousand, and no iPod? And don't feel any particular need for an iPod? Or that I sold another few thousand in vinyl between 1993-1994?

In short: I'm not doing this anymore. The electronics/entertainment industry has officially made itself obsolete from my purchasing plans, thanks to its own policy of planned obsolescence. Funny how that works.

I have a feeling they'll lose even more collectors in the long run, the next go round.

[Renew Deal]

6. I love my PS3.

It is a terrific system. Unfortunately it's a little pricier than the other systems, but I think it's totally worth it. One of the biggest pluses is that you don't have to pay to play online. I love that.

[K Gardner]

8. I bought one, but they have GOT to lower the price if they want to be competitive. I would never

have bought one if the system didn't play Blu Ray.

[merh]

10. If they lower the price they will sell units

it is too pricey - better to make some profit by selling at a lower price than no profit because it doesn't sell.

[tammywammy]

22. Economics 101

Lower the price and demand will go up. :)

[Romulox]

23. Except that they already lose money for each unit sold.

Unless they can improve the games sold/per installed unit ratio (reportedly much worse than Xbox or Wii), this "razor and blades" marketing strategy will never work.

In other words, lowering prices may not help much.

[NashVegas]

72. They Don't Need to Lower the Price

They need to offer a hacking window of some sort, that will allow coders to build in apps/progs with more functionality than the manufacturers ever dreamed of.

That's how iPod took off.

[merh]

76. that'll work too

.

[Statistical]

77. Sony: closed source & proprietary as it gets. Memory Stick anyone?

[Romulox]

16. PS3 had a pathetic christmas line up. Anything worth having on the PS3 this Xmas was also on 360

I would buy a PS3 if it had more than 1 or 2 exclusives worth buying. Most of the AAA titles on PS3 appeared on Xbox a year earlier.

[Bjorn Against]

18. Actually it had the best exclusives of any system this year.

Check out Metal Gear Solid 4, Little Big Planet or Resistance 2 and you will see PS3 has some great exclusives, there are others as well.

[Romulox]

19. Disagree completely. Not interested in MGS4 or Resistance 2.

LBP is a game I would buy if it were on a system I own, but not a game changer, imo.

MGS4 is the sort of game I'm simply not interested in. Resistance 2? My guess is anyone interested in that game would rather play GOW2. :shrug:

[anigbrowl]

34. What is the sort of game you're interested in?

Just curious, since you're obviously not into first person survival/shooters.

[Romulox]

52. Fallout3, Bioshock were recent games I've enjoyed. I also enjoy SRPGs.

Favorite game of all time: X-Com: UFO defense.

PS3 exclusive I most want to play: Valkyria Chronicles.

[Bjorn Against]

42. duplicate

Just because you are not interested in them doesn't make them "pathetic" (especially when it sounds by your response as if you have not played any of them). Metal Gear Solid 4 will probably win several Game of the Year awards despite your lack of interest, as many critics rate it among the best games of all time. Resistance 2 is actually quite different than GOW2, and personally I prefer Resistance to Gears of War. That is a personal preference, some will disagree but I don't think either game can be dismissed as pathetic. And Little Big Planet is one of the most innovative games ever produced, there is quite simply nothing else like it on any of the consoles. Whether it helps sell more consoles or not it is certainly a game changer as it is the first ever console game that essentially allows users to create their own game, the word revolutionary may be overused but Little Big Planet truly is revolutionary.

[Bjorn Against]

43. Well they were some of the best reviewed games of the year...

Just because you are not interested in them doesn't make them "pathetic" (especially when it sounds by your response as if you have not played any of them). Metal Gear Solid 4 will probably win several Game of the Year awards despite your lack of interest, as many critics rate it among the best games of all time. Resistance 2 is actually quite different than GOW2, and personally I prefer Resistance to Gears of War. That is a personal preference, some will disagree but I don't think either game can be dismissed as pathetic. And Little Big Planet is one of the most innovative games ever produced, there is quite simply nothing else like it on any of the consoles. Whether it helps sell more consoles or not it is certainly a game changer as it is the first ever console game that essentially allows users to create their own game, the word revolutionary may be overused but Little Big Planet truly is revolutionary.

[Romulox]

51. MGS4 came out in early 2008. It was NOT a release for Xmas 2008.

I didn't call MGS4 "pathetic", I called Sony's lineup of for Xmas 2008 "pathetic". :hi:

"Metal Gear Solid 4 will probably win several Game of the Year awards despite your lack of interest, as many critics rate it among the best games of all time."

:eyes:

[Bjorn Against]

59. Alright even if you don't count MGS4...

Resistance 2 and Little Big Planet most definitely are part of the Xmas 2008 lineup, plus if you count in the numerous cross platform titles the PS3 had an excellent Christmas lineup. I mean can you honestly claim that XBox had a significantly better lineup of exclusives over the Christmas holiday? Sure Gears 2 may be great, but it is certainly not so great that it completely obliterates everything the PS3 has to offer to such an extent that you can rule the PS3 library "pathetic".

[Romulox]

78. self-delete. responded to wrong post. nt

[ACTION BASTARD]

89. Left 4 Dead , GOW2, Fable 2, and Braid ( Xbox Live Game)

would like to have a word with you.

[Bjorn Against]

93. And I will throw in Valkyria Chronicles, Wipeout HD, and put MGS4 back in the mix

Considering that Braid is almost as old as Metal Gear Solid 4 I think it is fair to count both of them if we are going to count one. And I can get Left 4 Dead on the PC so I don't need a 360 to play that, I will most likely be able to get Gears 2, Fable 2, and Braid for the PC within the next year as well. That doesn't mean the 360's lineup is bad, it just means that I would prefer the PS3 lineup.

[Romulox]

91. The problem is that I (and many others) already own 360s.

So the availability of cross platform games on PS3 is not a compelling reason to go out and buy additional hardware. This is especially true the fact that most cross platform games seem to run better on the 360 (see recent Gamespot articles on the subject.)

So it's a bit of a double standard: because PS3 was late to the game, it needs to offer exclusives to win over 360 owners. Offering a library that is chock full of games that came out on the 360 8 months ago isn't going to cut it.

"Sure Gears 2 may be great, but it is certainly not so great that it completely obliterates everything the PS3 has to offer to such an extent that you can rule the PS3 library 'pathetic'."

I didn't enjoy GOW1, nor did I buy GOW2. But I know that both are system sellers, and that this is all about commerce. I can call the PS3 Christmas lineup pathetic because it lead to dismal sales. QED.

[Bjorn Against]

94. That is a better argument, and the same reason that I would not buy a 360

I already own a PS3 and the 360 just does not have enough compelling exclusives to warrant a purchase from me. If I owned a 360 I probably would not want a PS3 because there aren't that many exclusives for either system, most games are multi-platform now. That doesn't make one system's lineup pathetic though.

[BulletproofLandshark]

24. You sound like the XBox fanboys on some of the gamer forums I frequent.

It wouldn't matter how many exclusives PS3 had, they wouldn't buy it out of some sort of misplaced loyalty toward Microsoft. I have both, and the PS3 is MUCH more reliable. My first XBox red-ringed on me 3 months after I bought it. The replacement lasted for 4. My third one had disc reading errors, and I'm forced to install my games to the 360's (grossly overpriced and proprietary) hard drive to get it to run properly. The 360 is a great console, but its failure rate is completely unacceptable.

[Romulox]

25. Yeah, an "Xbox fanboy" who owns a PSX, PS2, PSP, Vaio, and two Sony TVs...

"It wouldn't matter how many exclusives PS3 had..."

Er, yeah it would. I'm not buying a PS3 to play Bioshock when I beat it 8 months earlier on a Xbox I already own...

"they wouldn't buy it out of some sort of misplaced loyalty toward Microsoft."

Which is why my main OS at home is Leopard?

"I have both, and the PS3 is MUCH more reliable. "

I have a launch 360. No RROD. :hi:

[BulletproofLandshark]

28. Well, you're one of the lucky ones then.

Just because yours hasn't RROD'd doesn't mean millions of others haven't. That's not much of a defense for a multibillion dollar corporation putting out such a notoriously unreliable product. Would people tolerate this level of failure (estimated at anywhere between 16-30%) with TV's, computers, or cars? Of course not.

[Romulox]

53. No I'm not. MS published their failure rates for launch era 360s, and a majority are not affected.

"That's not much of a defense for a multibillion dollar corporation putting out such a notoriously unreliable product."

MS extended the warranties to cover RROD. Why should I be put in the position to defend MS, any way. Just because I said that Sony's holiday '08 lineup was weak? :shrug:

[BulletproofLandshark]

62. "A majority are not affected."

Even 51% of consoles unaffected would be a majority. What kind of a weak standard is that? Is that where we're at now? Accepting any trash that comes off the assembly line as long "I got mine"? MS' initial stubbornness on its multiple technical issues cost them at least $1 billion in replacements and repairs that could've been largely avoided if they didn't rush it out the door in time for Christmas '05. It sort of reminds me of the way Ford treated the Pinto.

[Romulox]

79. Sorry that I'm not offended that you had a problem with your Xbox...

" Accepting any trash that comes off the assembly line as long "I got mine"? MS' initial stubbornness on its multiple technical issues cost them at least $1 billion in replacements and repairs that could've been largely avoided if they didn't rush it out the door in time for Christmas '05. "

My Xbox works and MS replaced those that didn't. Why am I supposed to be offended again? :wtf:

[leeroysphitz]

27. The PS3's price point is an insult. I'm surprised it has sold as well as it has.

It's a video game console. Six hundred dollars? Four hundred? Ridiculous.

zOMG!11! it has Blue-Ray! Who cares? Blue-ray is a DOA technology that nobody but fanboys needs or even wants. (Please don't quote the specs I know them and still don't feel the need to plunk down three hundred bucks for a player and 30 bucks for movies.)

The PS3 going down gives me the same warm and fuzzy schadenfrued as watching Obama lick McCain this year. Sony deserves to have their ass handed to them for being so arrogant.

Six hundred dollars! LOL.

[anigbrowl]

33. Hmm, I think it's pretty good value

In this household we are pretty geeky - between 5 of us we have multiple computers, 2 ps3s, 2 xboxen, a Wii, 2 PS2s and some other nintendo stuff that I don't remember, a gamecube or something. About the only thing we don't have is a Mac, for some reason. It's not consumerism run wild, we just happen to all be into computer stuff as opposed to cars or fancy furniture.

I don't consider Blu-ray DOA at all...it's vastly more pleasant to watch than DVD (and I can easily spot the difference with HD-DVD too) and we rent more films than we buy. No doubt the PS3 is pricey, but it's easy to pick one up on Ebay for under $300. It's been engineered for a long product life; just as the ps2 was considered hugely over-engineered when it came out, but the quality of the games kept improving over several years because it was a long time before developers hit the limits of the hardware.

Similarly, it'll be some time yet before programmers learn to fully exploit the parallelism in the Cell processor. But by making it widely available and accessible (it's easy to install Linux on it, and there's a wide range of free or affordable dev tools targeting the Cell), it means that the PS3 is the entry point for high-performance computering. If I was pursuing a CS degree right now and wanted to have high-dollar skills by the time I graduated, I wouldn't be focusing on the x86 architecture.

[K Gardner]

48. Considering that I can use it to check my email, surf the web, watch BDs, DL movies, and at the same

time, it will keep my grandson entertained for hours, it does pack a lot of bang for the buck. If it had not been multi-purposed, I wouldn't have sprung for it.

I have no idea what half of your post meant :-), but I'm aware I haven't even begun to plumb the depths of what my PS3 will do !

[anigbrowl]

69. Well put it this way (minus geekspeak), I think you'll find it grow with your needs

It's not perfect, (like anything else) but 'what it can do' will continue to expand. The chip in it is quite a new thing and few programmers really know how to make it sweat so far. So there is much room for improvement.

[K Gardner]

46. You sound extremely angry - and judgemental. Never really considered myself a "fanboy"..

don't even know what that is, but I'm certain it was meant as an insult.

[mduffy31]

99. You are right on Blu-Ray

I did pick up a HD-DVD player after the announcement that they were going to be discontinued. There was a vast library out there and I have been able to get a few discs really cheap and it plays my regular DVD's really well, until DVD becomes "dead" no one is going to plunk out the money for Blu-Ray.

[DainBramaged]

41. My take

Been a PC gamer for nearly 20 years (I go back to some of the wonderfully elegant Dos games of the 80's and 90's) I never understood the attraction of game consoles. My beautiful Daughter had Nintendo 64, PS1 and PS2 (I think she still has it but it is in a closet) and another system so she could (at the time) play Crazy Taxi. Correct me if I' wrong, but console games are expensive (the razor/blade analogy) have poor replay value, and don't have the capabilities of on-line gaming like World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, Everquest II, Warhammer 40,000, etc. Even the Sims 2 games for consoles are very weak compared to the PC versions (which by the way have sold over 20,000,00 combined). Regarding Blu-Ray, I just don't think the difference in quality (I am blind in one eye) justifies the investment. I really can't "see" a difference.

I guess it doesn't matter to me.

[Hanse]

45. IMO...

a mid-range gaming PC will set you back, what, $2000? Higher end systems will put you back $4000 and up.

With a console like a PS3, even at it's large price you're only paying maybe a quarter of what you would for the same performance with a PC.

And you've got less of a problem with bugs. And installation. And if you have friends over you can play multiplayer. And if you want an on-line game, they have those too.

[EOTE]

49. You can make a good mid-range gaming system for under $600

depending on what parts you already own. If you're a PC gaming hobbyist, then you've always got some left over parts on hand that you can use in your latest build. If you've already got a decent monitor, here's a parts list that will get you a really nice mid-range gaming PC for around $600 that you can do a hell of a lot more than just gaming on:

CPU: $100 - Intel E7200
Motherboard: $50 Biostar G31-M7
Memory: $25 to $40 2 to 4 gigs of decent DDR2-800mhz memory
Mouse and keyboard: $30 for both.
Case and power supply: $70 will get you a very decent case with a power supply capable of running just about any single graphics card out there.
Hard drive(s): $100 will get you a huge terabyte hard drive or a couple of smaller (maybe 320 gig) SATA II hard drives for a very fast RAID 0 array.
Optical drive(s): $50 should get you a couple of cheap DVD-RW drives or one nicer drive depending on what type of setup you want.
Graphics card: $100 Nvidia 8800GT (you can of course spend a good deal more on a GPU, or any other part of the system here, but the 8800GT is a good deal more powerful than any console GPU and provides a fantastic value at around $100).

My math has that at under $550 for everything you need aside from the monitor. Not a bad deal at all considering all that the computer can do. And if you're looking to make a more future-proof system, get an SLI capable motherboard (add another $75 to $150 to the cost of the build) and you'll always be able to add another 8800GT to greatly increase your gaming performance. You can do the same thing with an ATI based card and a Crossfire capable motherboard. But either way, you don't need to spend huge amounts of money to make a PC that's a good deal more powerful than any console out now.

[Juche]

60. You probably wouldn't need most of that either

I know when I've had new computers built I was able to salvage the optical drive, case, power supply, mouse, keyboard, monitor, hard drive, etc. The only things I needed new were the motherboard, CPU, cooling fan, RAM & graphics card, which could be had for $300 or so. At least that is what I recall from the last time I had one built, that was several years ago.

[DainBramaged]

64. I made a GREAT gaming system for less

Case w/350e power supply: $35

Motherboard: ECS 6100 AMD $60

AMD 6000 "Black" dual core OC to 3.4 : $84

4 GB PC 6400 Crucial "Ballistic" memory: $80

9500GT XFX 512 MB video Card: $70 (Originally a 8400GS at $44)

300GB WD Sata HD: $55

SATA DVD/CD drive (not burner)$28.

Almost everything bought from Buy.com or Geeks or Axiontech. Windows XP Pro was most expensive component, $129.

Total: $412 without OS. And it took about 2 hours to build it without software installation.

And I am installing Warhammer on line as I type this!

[Hanse]

44. As the most expensive system, I'd expect it to take the biggest hit in the tough economy.

But I still think it's got an edge in the long run. It's the more powerful system, and Sony's won the format battle of HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray. That'll be huge, I think, once the economy picks up again.

And a doubling of game sales is much bigger news, I think, than a 19% loss of system sales. Game sales are the key to this industry.

[Romulox]

54. It hasn't really done well since its pre-recession launch.

It's been out for a couple years now.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

57. I want the PS3 because it is one of the best Blu-Ray players.

But I also want the Nintendo Wii, because I think I would have more fun playing games with it.


I haven't bought either yet (because I can't justify spending that much in my budget yet).... but I want both eventually!

[Marr]

61. A PS3 costs $400, while the X-Box can be had for half that.

And it's got a better library of titles.

I think Sony put way too much faith in the brand loyalty they built up with the PS2. No one wants to spend $400 on a platform that could be abandoned in a year. Hell, I could build a great gaming PC for just a little bit more than that and it'd do a lot more.

[ACTION BASTARD]

90. I think it was more Sony's arrogance that because it's ZOMFG a PS3

the unwashed masses will pay for it and price be damned!

Whoops.

I don't think it's a bad machine at all. It's just where are the killer AAA games? I don't play RPG, sports, racing games. MGS4 and those 20 minute cut scenes..WTF? LBP looks noice, but no 1 game or a couple of games is enough for me to cough up 4 bills for that kind of paltry action. Next year maybe?

[johnlucas]

68. People forget: Nintendo IS the game industry

Interesting to find this thread over here at DU. I'm big into videogames. Been playing since Pac-Man Fever. It's a really great budget-based pastime.

Lots of interesting posts on the subject (liked the unnoticed outcome of the Betamax vs. VHS battle http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4730596&mesg_id=4731600">someone put up) but nobody really has pinpointed the reasons why the videogaming scene has turned out the way it has between companies Nintendo (Wii, DS), Microsoft (XBox 360), and Sony (PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable).

The Videogame Market Crash of 1983/1984 and what happened in 1985 explain what's going on right now. A little backstory to paint the tale first.

Atari and Odyssey...and Nintendo

In 1971, Nolan Bushnell, a tech student/all-around hustler, took computer gaming from the exclusive domain of the MIT crowd to the public arena when he began the videogaming business. What would in 1972 take the name of Atari was the beginning of digital electronic gaming as a business venture. He began the coin-op arcade videogames inspired by his many days working at an amusement park as a teen.
Without Atari, we wouldn't be typing these communications on our home computers right now because what Atari did in its pioneering of videogaming inspired the two Steves, Jobs and Wozniak, to create Apple which brought us the first personal computers.

But there was another founder of videogaming business and his name was Ralph Baer. Separate from what Bushnell was about to do, the inventive Baer began working on a console nicknamed the Brown Box in 1966. By 1972, this box was released to the public as the Magnavox Odyssey, the first videogaming console. While Bushnell was transforming bars across the country, Baer set the stage for introducing videogaming to people's living rooms. The focus was on a family-friendly experience since consoles were in people's living rooms.

Atari followed what Baer was doing in 1974 and introduced their own consoles initially built around superhit PONG. While Odyssey started videogame consoles, Atari enjoyed wider success and for all intents and purposes (and despite all copycats) WAS the videogaming industry in the 1970s.

Now here's where Nintendo comes in. Nintendo, a company originally began to make playing cards in Japan in 1889, had branched out to toys by the 1970s. And a videogame console was, of course, a toy as well even if a technological one. Nintendo caught on this rising comet by distributing the Odyssey in Japan in 1974. Learning from both the founders of videogaming, Nintendo decides to make their own consoles for hometown starting with the Color TV Game console series in 1977. With their own PONG clones for Japan they were now the first Japanese VG console makers. Atari's innovations had already lit a fire under Japan for years and now Nintendo went in headlong in this new enterprise.

Atari, Odyssey, and their copycats; Nintendo and the other Japanese arcade makers created two halves of a burgeoning videogame industry which you could call Western and Eastern. By 1980, you already saw the crossover of two very different creative sources. Space Invaders and Pac-Man which set game audiences on fire were out of the fertile imaginations of the Japanese. Breakout and Centipede came out of the vivid imaginations of folks right here in U.S.A.

But just as videogames were significantly influencing the national culture at the start of the Reagan 80's, Bushnell was pushed out of his own creation, Atari (which led to pursuing other hustles like Chuck E. Cheese). In need of financial backing, he made a deal with a devil called Warner Communications (now known to you as Time Warner) and they shook loose the reigns of his control forcing him to sell it to them in 1978. A bunch of bottom-line greedy money-hungry execs running the show vs. the guy who conceived the whole design of the company. Already the stage was set for the market to crash with idiots at the helm. But it would take a while to show.

Atari was the hotness and everybody got in on the videogaming act both in arcades and at home on the consoles. Even freakin' Quaker Oats started making videogames under the label US Games! The fierce competition of the early 1980's made the PONG copycat competition of the 1970's look like crayon scribbles. So many consoles on the market, such a recession in 1982, so much greed leading to poor quality/content control and then Michael Jackson happened in 1983. Whoa!

In the U.S. all of sudden just as it seemed this new era was cementing its ground, videogames were going out of style. It was considered a passed fad and not even a Toys 'R' Us would stock the things! People were talking about videogaming tournaments of the Twin Galaxies variety and then the bottom was falling out. In Japan, it was a whole different story with Nintendo riding the success of its liquid-crystal display handheld the Game & Watch of 1980 (inspired by the busy go-go lives of the Japanese) and interchangeable cartidge console — the Famicom, the Family Computer of 1983 (remember Baer's focus on the family?). In the arcades and at home Japan was videogaming but in the U.S. while it didn't show so much at first videogaming was headed toward extinction. Atari, the beginning of this videogaming business, was about to be the end of this business by 1984.

Here's where we get back to the point.

Apple beginning the home computer eventually led the way for many competitors which asked the question "What do we need videogaming consoles for if we can play them on out home computers which do that and so much more?" Baer's boxes were about to be obsolete and digital electronic gaming was about to be relegated to the general purpose computers like the Commodore instead of those specialized gaming computers that had been around for almost 15 years.

Nintendo already successful in Japan and with some fanfare in the West with hits like Donkey Kong, Mario Bros., and their various Game & Watches had decided to take the Family Computer out West. A fateful miscommunication between Coleco and Atari over rights to Donkey Kong allowed Nintendo to go it alone in bringing their version of gaming consoles to a soon-to-be barren market wasteland. Cultural differences necessitated a redesign and a Family Computer went from an Advanced Video Gaming System to an Entertainment System with a look enticing to both American audiences and wary retailers.

All alone in a atmosphere that said videogames as we knew them were dead, Nintendo single-handedly resuscitated the videogame industry in the U.S.A. with the Nintendo Entertainment System of 1985. The turn-knobs and wood grain of the Odyssey, the joystick and red action button of the Atari, were replaced by the Game & Watch-inspired plus-sign shaped Control Pad and lettered action buttons on a rectangular plank perfectly fitting in a player's palms. Nintendo's hardware and of course software design (Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, Metroid), not to mention their efficient (if sometimes ruthless) business models, forever relinquished the torch of the VG industry from the hands of Atari, its American originator, to its new Japanese saviour. Maybe it was destiny with that Japanese word 'atari' on the face of an American company.

Through Nintendo, Japan became the capital of the videogaming industry with Japanese game design predominant on the consoles and American/European game design predominant on the personal computers. Kids growing up with this unique cultural exchange began learning about Japan from manga, anime, and the customs and symbolism rich within them (who here knew what a Tanuki was before Super Mario Bros. 3?). With Nintendo fueling the innovations of videogaming, over time new competitors from Japan got in on the act including Sega and Sony. But no matter who competed and how well they did, in the end it always came back to Nintendo's endless ingenuity in the gaming experience and inexhaustible efficiency in running a business. They touched base with the founders of this industry long ago, learning from their mistakes to ensure their longevity. In doing so, they rewrote the bible on how to operate the business and have controlled it ever since despite what it may sometimes appear.

The PlayStation was originally a Nintendo idea. It was to be a collaboration between Sony & Nintendo that fell apart due to royalty issues. It was a mistake on Nintendo's part not to read the fine print of the contract and they reneged on the terms after the fact in order to preserve the company control which allowed them to be so innovative. Sony capitalized on Nintendo's mistake, improved upon the alternative marketing Sega used on Nintendo in the early 90's, and gained power in the videogaming market. But even with their record-selling success (over 100 million original PlayStations sold, over 140 million PlayStations 2 sold - standing world record), they never truly understood the creative process that goes into the videogaming business nor did they understand the waste-proof business model that allows tech to be mass market.

Back to the present

With Nintendo's Wii and DS, Nintendo reclaimed the inevitable total control of the industry that would always come back to them. The Wii is the NES, the Family Computer reborn in full glory. Always following what Baer set out to do with consoles being a family-friendly experience, Nintendo focused on what REALLY drives the business better than ever before in creating that duo. It ain't tech. It's the experience. Mid-range to low-range tech used in a novel way allows for these complex items to sell for affordable prices especially when an economy goes south. It is why videogames seem to be recession-proof and Nintendo's the guardian of these types of principles.

Neither Microsoft nor Sony recognize this simple fact. Problem for Sony is they don't have the endless money to throw at the problem like Microsoft and their historic dependence on 3rd party developers (who must by design follow the most successful consolers) dooms them when they are not successful. The PlayStation 3 will not make it out of 2009 alive. Sony not truly understanding this business or its customers thought that previous success could command loyalty to a ridiculous price. They thought that high tech was the answer not realizing it was usually the least technologically advanced machine that did the best in the market since the very beginning. PCs are where you go if you're looking for high bleeding edge tech. But hell, with how the PC market is even PC developers cross over to the console world to make some money. Sony forgot that the company who makes its own hardware should also make its own software and have that as the focus (Nintendo's poor-performing Gamecube was kept alive for this very fact). 3rd party is to buttress your 1st party/2nd party success not be your primary success.

In 2009 Microsoft will soon find out what Sony knows now, Nintendo IS the videogame industry. They are the holders of the torch lit by Atari and the Odyssey.
John Lucas

[anigbrowl]

73. Great analysis...

although I think you're being a bit pessimistic about Sony's prospects (as mentioned elsewhere, this household has all three consoles plus a bunch of PCs, so no brand favoritism here). Sony did gamble on the technology, but arguably that's a gamble that's paid off by making Blu-Ray the future format of choice for home video. Games are only about half of what we use the PS3 for here, it's definitely the preferred player for movies. I'm this >< close to installing Ubuntu on it...

[johnlucas]

83. Thanks anigbrowl (glad you got thru all that text!)

Thanks for the compliment, anigbrowl. I'm shocked anybody actually read all that! Hahaha!

Sure, outside of gaming the PS3 has promise. For those looking for a Blu-ray player/videogame combo, it's perfect. But that's rarer than you might expect.
Blu-ray is just a better disc. At the price range it stands and the usefulness it provides, it will only sell to video connoisseurs. Most people don't want to re-buy a bunch of movies just to see them with just a little more clarity especially when those movies are more than the old DVDs that have only been around a little over a decade. You'll get a few who'll do it but not as much to make it mass market. Especially now in these economically strange times.

You DID bring up a good point about the general consumer market and the professional market that I had not considered before (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4730596&mesg_id=4731600">right here). But something tells me that something out of left field will replace Blu-ray discs as a physical medium much like DVD replaced VHS. I'm thinking the form of a card or a cube. I don't think everybody will want to do away with tangible physical media. Merely for the simple purpose of ownership and personal control. But I don't see Blu-ray as part of that future. The improvements of DVD over VHS were obvious but not so much for Blu-ray over DVD.

I think Blu-ray ownership will not be as mass market powerful as Sony & friends hope it will and DVDs will be here for many years to come until that card or cube or whatever replaces that. So because of that I don't think there will be as many people looking for a Blu-ray/gaming combo ESPECIALLY at Sony's price.

It's a great machine craftsmanship wise. Much better than the PS2 was when it came to fragility. Not to mention the XBox 360. But an old imperial headed Nintendo exec once said something to the effect of people came to play the games not the machines themselves. And Sony is stuck in a whirlpool with the XBox 360 around to suck all of its support. The 3rd party companies which built the Sony empire to snub a once-overbearing Nintendo are split between Microsoft's XBox 360 and Nintendo's Wii unsure on how to approach both. The American-centric 360 which is improving its global viability (so needed in Japan) but still not quite there and the source of the industry and thus its tyranny, Nintendo and its Wii/DS which rule Japan and the rest of the world. The capital of videogaming, Japan, is split between hometown virtual monopoly and foreign region-biased underdog. XBox 360 is strongest in U.S.A. but Wii outdoes it even here. Wii is a monster in every region along with its handheld sibling the DS. And both consoles are going in opposite industry directions forcing companies to pick a side (pick a philosophy). 360 undercuts what the PS3 could control and Wii locks out what 360 and PS3 would like to control. PSP has lost the fight to DS long ago so while Sony's first challenge to Nintendo's handheld dominance put on a good show, in the end Sony's stuck up a paddle-less creek.

Sony's the odd man out based on the existence of the competition and Sony's own decisions. They started out selling console at a loss hoping to make it back on the software. Microsoft's been gunning for Sony ever since they started in this business and has been aggressive in trying to supplant Sony's market role. As a result the 360's getting many of the PS3's software offerings (exclusive or not exclusive) and therefore audiences upending Sony's aims. With the high-reach with Cell and Blu-ray, they forced the price to be high making it harder to cut if needed. With that, they are stuck holding onto a high price that looks less juicy to customers as economies go down or reducing to risk greater loss. They didn't capture the novelty factor the Wii owns through its Wiimote and associated gadgets so little new interest comes their way from newcomers. With their price they alienated much of the PS2 audience preventing the rollover that comes from the last round's market champion (NES to SNES, PS1 to PS2). Then their timing of launching the console led to the competition putting their footprints down in the market grounds.

It was the PS3's job to get ahead of the 360 in 2008. And they couldn't keep this up especially after the 360 dropped price with perfect timing this September (before news of the "strong market fundamentals" hit the airwaves). Now the almost 9 year old PS2 is in natural decline with much of its audience already camped into XBox 360 or Wii groups and it doesn't have enough flame to pass a torch to the shaky hand of a struggling PS3 in the midst of economies forcing people to reevaluate wants and needs.

It's still losing money on the console 2 years in, it hasn't set up a functional reciprocating handheld to home console flow between PSP to PS2/PS3 like Nintendo has done since Game Boy and NES/SNES, holiday sales are depressed across the board (except for things like Nintendo products), and soon Microsoft or some yet unknown competitor will try to upend Nintendo with a brand new console of some sort making the PS3 fight an old fight in the face of a new one. Nintendo's going to finish the job in 2009 as it slowly forces the 3rd parties to give in to its vision obstructing Microsoft's progress. If Sony's supposed to get ahead of Microsoft & Nintendo starts putting the squeeze on Microsoft, where does that leave Sony? Home consoles are #2 in Japan compared to handhelds and while PSP gave DS a few good battles this year, DS still rules. Wii is leading home console by far so what does that mean for very distant 2nd PS3 (which is beginning to be bested by the 360 of all things there!)? Sony's losing ground in the PAL-TV territories like Europe to both Microsoft and Nintendo. Sony's already cut 10% of its manufacturing base and 16,000 of its workforce so this obviously means they can't use performance-enhancing green steroids (money) to hold them up like Microsoft did when they lost $4 billion on the original XBox. And beyond all that, the Depression's coming.

2 divergent industry philosophies; 3 major companies. It can't be sustained. When Little Big Planet didn't move PS3 console sales, that was the final straw for the PS3 as a competitive gaming console. Owners should enjoy it while it lasts and have fun. I don't see a PS3 existing as a current platform in 2010.

At the end of the day, these things are supposed to play games in the primary. Once that's forgotten, eventually the house of cards will fall. PS3's position will prevent it from getting enough games unique to the platform. Without the games all other goals for the machine will fall short. I don't have anything personal against the machine (other than the prospect of high-priced game machines becoming normal) but I can't ignore all what's going on here. Maybe Sony will pull a miracle out of their hat and position their PS3 into a broader use like multimedia play but I don't see it as workable.

Just my take.
John Lucas

[DainBramaged]

74. Family gaming, why old consoles had 4 controller ports

and why Wii is knocking the other two dead. The family experience, not the solitary prepubescent gamer playing shooters with half-neked women in the basement, involving the whole family with unique games just like they did 20+ years ago.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bygdnz2gZIQ

We would like to play

[K Gardner]

82. While I hope your final prediction is less than accurate, what a WONDERFUL History of Gaming ! I'm

printing this to keep for my young gaming-addicted grandson and sending the text to my son, now 31 yrs and an XBox Fanatic - but who was weaned on Pac Man and Nintendo 64.

Most excellent piece !

[johnlucas]

84. Thank you K Gardner

I'm surprised someone else read through all that!
Let me know what they thought of this.

Thank you for the compliments!
John Lucas

[Blue_Tires]

71. i've balked...mostly waiting for the price to come down

but then i saw that i wouldn't be able to play my huge library of ps2 games on the ps3...so i guess now i'll bide my time and keep playing the ps2 until it falls apart (which should be soon) -- after that, i'll re-evaluate what consoles are on the market, or i'll just go back to playing on the PC again..

[lovuian]

75. the price is just way to high

its ridiculous

[McCamy Taylor]

81. PS3 costs too much and has no titles.

XBox 360 has disposable parts. The earpieces, headsets and the box itself all burn out regularly and have to be replaced, but all are just cheap enough that players will put up with the shitty engineering to feed their game addiction. However, if PS4 came out with a system that was so solid that gamers did not need to replace the parts on a weekly basis the way they do with XBox and if Sony was willing to come out with games that take more than 12 hours to complete so that people do not have to shell out $60 bucks every couple of days for a new game----plus the system had an online feature with a translate mode so that people could hook up with others around the world and it did not cost any more than XBox---then they might be able to get back into the gaming world.

It does not help that the old PS2's still play games just fine and they still have plenty of games available cheap at GameStop.

Wii is uber cheap and has the family market cornered with such titles as Mario. Plus, Nintendo products never break, even if the baby sticks a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in them. The PSP could not compete with the Nintendo hand held games either.

Here is a free idea for Sony. Make a $250 portable computer/game player that comes in cute colors with its own screen that is about ten inches across. The screen swivels so that you can let anyone see it. You can plug it into a full screen TV if one is available. Make it lightweight. Have a built in phone. Get an exclusive franchise for a couple of must have games, too, even if it means selling them at a loss. The drawback of current gaming systems is you can not take them with you. Current hand held systems have itsy-bitsy screens. Be sure to have a split screen function so you can look up game cheats while you play or email/text friends or do homework while you play.

Every girl will want one. Trust me on this. Every woman who wants to be young at heart will want one. It will be a whole new market. They will tell their parents "It's a computer! I can do my homework on it!"

[NuttyFluffers]

85. as an unabashed SEGA fanboi, let me guffaw with bitterness in their direction

:rofl:
i am happy now. i crawl back into my lair of favorite games again.
:hide:
:evilgrin:

[EOTE]

101. Long live the Dreamcast!!!

If Sega made a current or next generation game console, it would rule all others. I'm so sad that the Dreamcast ended up killing Sega. I thought the games looked better than the Xbox and still look and play impressively today. I really hope they enter the console market again.

[JCMach1]

87. Sony is loosing money on every box- not a good business model!

:(

[MadHound]

92. Wow, what a telling, and sad, commentary on our society

When a thread on video games gets 90+ comments, yet other, more pressing matters slide on down the board.

Tells you where peoples' priorities are, and how we got to where we are. Keep the people tranquilized with their electronic pacifiers.

[Bjorn Against]

95. I spend far more time on here talking about serious issues than I do about gaming...

I would suspect that you are probably interested in some things that have little to do with the serious issues facing our nation as well, so are your interests a sad commentary on society as well? If DU was filled with video game threads then I could see your point, but having one thread and a gaming forum that hardly anyone posts on do not suggest that we are ignoring the important issues. If all we wanted to talk about was games there are much better forums to talk about them, most people signed up here to talk about politics but that does not mean all subjects here are limited to politics.

[johnlucas]

96. Actually, the PS3 is part a telltale of the economic situation

Looking at the performance of the PS3 in comparison to the XBox 360 and especially Wii tells a part of the story of the economic situation and how some hold onto unrealistic expectations in light of it (Sony execs in particular).
The situation with videogaming speaks directly to how society is shaping itself in times like these. People's buying habits for more social inclusive and cheaper games in comparison with solitary expensive ones shows who understands and doesn't understand the relation between society and economics, the people and the profits.

Nintendo gets it, Sony does not, and Microsoft is trying to.

When you can't travel for real, you want to travel virtually. TV used to be part of that escapism and now videogames are more and more stepping up to that role. When things are down, you can conquer an adventure in magical world through your TV screen via a game console. No different than any traditional game like, say, the perils of capitalism-centered game Monopoly during the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_board_game_Monopoly">read it).

Usually when people don't understand something, they automatically react with kneejerk negativity towards the subject. Television IS educational but to this day there are people who act like there's absolutely no value in it whatsoever ascribing all viewers as dumb sheep. Knowledge is everywhere and you can learn from the most unlikely of places if you open your mind. I'm not a fan of the tabloids but I've learned how press works (and people too for that matter) seeing them. I've learned long ago about media lies following the tribulations of one of my favorite music stars, Michael Jackson.

The honest truth is that if you REALLY want a movement to work you had BETTER understand media and all of its forms. Videogames are a part of media. A conduit through which a message is passed.
John Lucas

[NashVegas]

98. For What It's Worth

Gaming is to the economy what music and movies used to be, and perhaps it is, to teenage male culture what 60s Cameros and Malibus used to be.