Reports of Sony's imminent demise were greatly exaggerated . . .

[shmokes]

Is anybody still operating under the assumption that the PS3 is going to flop?  In spite of Nintendo's impressive success, I still think that the PS3 will very likely end up outselling the Wii (though I wouldn't be surprised if the Wii is always more profitable).  But things are looking really bright for Sony right now, IMO.  Mario, Zelda and Metroid are out, as are Halo, Bioshock, Gears of War and Mass Effect.  That means that those companies have already put down their ace cards.  Sony, on the other hand, still has Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2, God of War 3, LittleBigPlanet, Final Fantasy XIII and Playstation Home coming up.  And, with the recent pricedrop, the machine is finally selling in respectable numbers. 

I predict that Sony will even things up with Microsoft by the end of 2008, just as Nintendo has already done.  If Sony manages to surpass Nintendo, however, it probably won't happen until at least 2009, maybe 2010.  But by that time, Sony will have left Microsoft well behind I think.

[SavannahLion]

At this point in the game GoW3 would be the only reason I would consider even purchasing a PS3.

The price drop is good. The feature loss and the multiple pricing tiers is not. Did you read Gabe's article about Unreal on the PS3 the other day?. He smacked the problem right on the nail when he wrote (my emphasis):

Remember: if you want to use mods on your PS3, it's easy! Just install Linux on your music player. Look, I'm sorry if your scenario is so tangled that you can't even express it yourself in interviews. What type of external storage you need to use isn't even my concern, so the ability to use Jump Drives doesn't speak to the issue. The fact of the matter is that you can't play mods without additional hardware, or media, or both. Period. The problem is simply more substantial on some models than others. The reality is that there are still many people surprised to learn the actual parameters of your product's much-touted mod support.

And yeah, I know about Mutators. I doubt very seriously that Mutators are what comes to mind when people think about "mods." You don't want the liability, and you don't want to host, you don't want to moderate, and Sony's "Open Platform" is apparently only semipermeable, so owners of the more costly Playstation 3 version get a diminished experience. 

I believe I must be misinterpreting this. So not only does one have to worry about which PS3 version to get, consumers have to worry that getting the most expensive version will actually be a less fulfilling experience than the cheap model?

This is a HUGE difference from the 360 lineup where getting the more expensive model will get you a (more or less) more fulfilling product and it's nothing like previous models like the PS2 vs the Slimline where a very clear feature loss is incurred. I find that Sony PS3 marketing model is borderline ethical when consumers need to use a feature table to figure what model to purchase 

[versapak]

Trying to justify a PS3 purchase?






As long as the price keeps falling I have no doubt Sony will at least do ok with the PS3.

As it is though... Even the titles you mention won't really be drawing me to the PS3 at its current price point. Though it certainly has reached a much more attractive price already, it just isn't attractive enough being that I already have 2 Xbox 360's.

[shmokes]

Not justify.  Not necessary.  Seeing as I don't already have  a 360, I'd buy a PS3 today given the disposable income.  Unfortunately I don't have extra money these days.  PS3 is probably a 2009 purchase for me.  I'm just interpreting writing on the wall.  I could be wrong, but I doubt it.  Sony will pass MS in worldwide sales, and probably even in North American sales.

[DaveMMR]

Is anybody still operating under the assumption that the PS3 is going to flop?  In spite of Nintendo's impressive success, I still think that the PS3 will very likely end up outselling the Wii (though I wouldn't be surprised if the Wii is always more profitable). 

Don't be surprised.  Even if Nintendo were to sell exactly one Wii and Sony were to move 10 million PS3's, Nintendo would still have been more profitable since Sony loses money on each system sold.

I don't think the PS3 will "flop" as you put it, but instead they will find themselves failing in a relative sense since their previous two systems were at the top for so long.  I think Sony got a little too cocky with their popularity and figured they can release anything, however bloated and overpriced and people would be rushing to pick it up.  But their success was attributed partly to casual gamer's appeal, with their wide array of game selection and simple controls.  By releasing an expensive machine, they're only attracting the serious gamer who budgets in game hardware the same way we would budget food shopping.

Meanwhile, Nintendo struck at the right time.  For the first time in over a decade, they've made all the right decisions: a system that appeals to the whole family (including women), a low price-point, access to 4 previous generations of Nintendo classics (plus Genesis and TG-16), either through download or GC backwards compatibility, a novel control-scheme that works fairly well, and games that are just downright fun.

On the sidelines you have XBox 360 that fills the needs of the more serious gamer with much more anticipated exclusives, high-quality graphics comparable to the PS3 and a lower price than the PS3. 

As for PS3's "ace cards" - it may be too little, too late.  By the time they finally release these, many people already have their Wii's and Xbox360s since they didn't want to wait two years for these long promised "gems". 

I don't think any of this will kill the PS brand, but they've got to learn from their mistakes on the PS4 if they hope to ever be number one again.   I may buy a PS3 in the future, but only when it's cheap enough to make it worthwhile to play those one or two exclusive games.  In the meantime, my money's going towards Wii software and an Xbox 360.

[pointdablame]

I follow and agree with most of what you said shmokes until you get to this part --

But things are looking really bright for Sony right now, IMO.  Mario, Zelda and Metroid are out, as are Halo, Bioshock, Gears of War and Mass Effect.  That means that those companies have already put down their ace cards.

Things are looking up because they will have good games sometime in the future?  Meanwhile the 2 competing platforms have great games NOW, and that's a downside for them?  I just can't buy that.

I also don't buy that the competition has "put down their ace cards" which seems to imply that Nintendo and MS are now done with releasing great games this generation.  The bottom line is Nintendo and MS already have killer app software for their systems, and PS3 is only now seeing one or two games that you could even think of lumping into that category.  And when all those PS3 games do come out, Nintendo and MS will be putting out games as well... its not like they will be sitting on their hands waiting for the money trucks to come in because they have a few great games out.

I know what you are saying, but its a fairly foolish way to say it.  I certainly don't think the PS3 will "flop" but I don't think they'll trounce Nintendo and MS in the next year because of the games you mention.  They will sell systems though (and may finally get me to buy a PS3).

[Zero_Hour]

I just picked up a PS3, after much debate with myself over getting it or a 360.

Judging by the shelves at the stores. I'm still in the minority, as I counted a handfull of 360 Halo editions , absolutely 0 Wii's (no surprise there) and an ample supply of 80 and 40 GB PS3's on the shelf. This was Dec. 23'rd btw so I don't think the stock on the shelves was going to change significantly.

My decision to get a PS3 was based largely on Drakes Fortune, which was quite good, and future promise of Gran Turismo goodness, which is the franchise that ultimately got me to pick up my previous Sony consoles. If Turismo would have moved to the MS box, I would certainly be talking about how I just picked up a 360 in anticipation of it.

While Sony's demise may have been exaggerated, I don't think there is any doubt that they are no longer the undisputed leader in the console wars. Nintendo has pretty much tapped into markets that the other 2 players have completely ignored, and aside from Japan, MS has done pretty well with their marketshare, and has a deep library, and well regarded online service.

Sony will be happy to survive this generation of hardware, but will really need to take a hard look at how it does things if it wants to jump back to it's former position at the top of the heap. The First year of the PS3 has done more to harm their rep than help it. It will take more than Solid Snake and fast cars to fix it.

I am actually quite happy with my purchase, but I don't think I'm an indicator of the tide turning for Sony any time soon. There are a lot of people who will buy consoles for a single franchise (see the xbox 360's hardware sales spike when Halo 3 launched), but not enough to make up the numbers between Sony and its competitors.

[tommy]

Can anybody with both a 360 and PS3 say with any certainty that the PS3 has better looking graphics than the 360 or is it really too close to call?

[pointdablame]

Can anybody with both a 360 and PS3 say with any certainty that the PS3 has better looking graphics than the 360 or is it really too close to call?

It depends on the game.  Some multiplatform games are a complete wash and some look better on one console or another.  Overall I'd say the PS3 is capable of better graphics, but in today's world, its not a huge, huge difference (though there are always some games that really look great on one over the other)

For disclosure, I don't own a PS3.

[tommy]

I'm sure some of the games that were made to take full advantage or the most advantage of each console might both look pretty good on both consoles. I have a feeling as more time goes by and more is learned about how to dev for the PS3 it will look at least 1/4 better than the 360. If you can measure that 1/4 is some way just by looking at it.

[shmokes]

C'mon.  You know what I mean about ace cards.  Of course there will always be good games being released for every system.  But how many Super Marios do we get on on each console?  Usually one.  How many Zeldas?  Usually one.  How many Halos?  Exactly one since Microsoft lost Bungie. 

The bottom line is Nintendo and MS already have killer app software for their systems, and PS3 is only now seeing one or two games that you could even think of lumping into that category. 

Are you sure the bottom line is what you think it is?  Metacritic lists 39 PS3 games with a score of 8.0 or above.  The Wii sports a whopping 12 (Wii has 4 games with 9.0 or above while PS3 has only 3). 

You've got Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Ratchet & Clank Future, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Virtua Fighter 5, Unreal Tournament III, Call of Duty 4, Rock Band, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Folklore, Guitar Hero III, MotorStorm, etc.  A few of those are multiplatform, but most are exclusives.  At any rate, exclusive or not, PS3's lineup is not as weak as you are portraying it.  They've got big guns coming, but their 2007 lineup ain't bad.  Depending how you look at it, it's likely stronger than Wii's (it clearly doesn't touch the 360's library yet).

So, while Nintendo and MS will continue to release games right alongside Sony, I repeat, they have played most their Ace cards and Sony's still got most their best in development.  Add to that the continued strength of the Playstation brand and you have some pretty strong indicators that Sony's future is pretty bright.  Their sales have already skyrocketed with the drop to $399.  I assume they'll drop another $100-$150 by 2008 holiday season.  They also have much stronger support from Japanese developers than Microsoft. 

Nintendo, I think, played just about everything right except their hardware.  It's too weak.  They can't stay on top with it, IMO.  It also doesn't help that the motion sensors are pretty shoddy.  If they'd released at $299 (the cost of a core Xbox 360 at launch) and had graphic capabilities close to 360 I think they'd have an overall winner, but that ain't the case.  Actually, I'm speaking too strongly.  I think that's likely not the case, but their early lead is going to be pretty big so I suppose it might end up being insurmountable.  I doubt it, but maybe.

In any case, if Sony doesn't end up in the number one spot (albeit with a MUCH smaller lead than the previous two generations) they will at least beat Microsoft and they will still have won in terms of being the gamer's system rather than the casual gamer's system.

[tommy]

What Zelda game has come out for the Wii that was made especially for the Wii, shmokes?

None. No Ace in the hole yet.

[somunny]

I've also been thinking about picking up a PS3 (mostly for Drake's Fortune), but the 60GB model is the only one I'm interested in due to it being the most backward compatible.

[shmokes]

No . . . we'll likely get a Zelda made just for the Wii.  Not any time soon, but presumably (and for god's sake, hopefully) we'll get it.  And it'll be freaking awesome.  We'll also get Animal Crossing, which will no doubt be phenomenal.  Who knows what else?  Maybe a Kid Icarus (doubtful); maybe something brand new.  Certainly a Mariokart, which will at least be good fun, if not spectacular.  But what will the third parties give us?  Quick and dirty PS2 ports?  New games released on both the Wii and PS2, i.e., built around a standard gamepad?  With the exception of Trauma Center (a port) and Zack and Wiki, and maybe Raving Rabids, third parties have given us practically nothing but ---smurfing--- trash.  Junk.  Not-even-worth-a-rental - junk.  Nintendo can't develop every game for the system, Tommy.  They can only make a few.  Don't get me wrong; they are damned prolific, but we get a few titles a year out of them.  Period.  And not all of them are great.  Some are just Mario Party 8 or whatever number we're on now.

It takes more than Nintendo to make a killer software library.  There's no better developer to have in your corner than Nintendo, but they can't do it alone.

[tommy]

We still need a great Resident Evil game, and I've heard a long, long time ago that we will see a Punch Out game of some sort, but who knows.

[SavannahLion]

How many Halos?  Exactly one since Microsoft lost Bungie.

Incorrect. Microsoft has retained minority ownership in Bungie and they retained Halo IP rights. We'll very likely see more Halo games, won't begin to guess if Bungie will continue making Halo games though.

Nintendo, I think, played just about everything right except their hardware.  It's too weak.  They can't stay on top with it, IMO.

It's really a matter of opinion there. You are correct that the Wii hardware is weaker compared to the other two. But saying Nintendo can't stay on top of it is patently false. If anything, Nintendo has proven time and time again that they are the King of marketing hardware with deficiencies. I can't tell you how many times SNES slowdown pissed the hell out of me in intense games despite the more capable hardware, a console that still invokes intense debates of Genesis vs SNES. The N64 is generally regarded as less capable hardware in the light of the PSX, yet is still a highly regarded console by gamers. And how could anyone forget the incredible runaway success of the Gameboy series that effectively squashed every single competitor for nearly two decades. A family of handhelds whose only real competition may be a handheld appearing now? I'd say Nintendo has done a pretty good job of marketing most of their consoles.

[shmokes]

Is there a raised-eyebrow smiley?  Do you really think that Halo would still be Halo in the hands of someone other than Bungie?  It's like when Pixar and Disney were breaking up and Disney said, "Well, we own the Toy Story property and we're making Toy Story 3 without you."  Everybody knows it would have been awful.  When Disney then bought Pixar and Pixar became head of Disney's animation studios, the first thing they did was cancel the Toy Story 3 project.  Microsoft can have someone make Halo 4.  They can make Halo 10.  They can do whatever they want with their IP.  But it's not going to be Halo like we know Halo.  Bungie does that.

On your second point . . . well, I disagree I suppose.  SNES was more capable than Genesis.  The Genesis had a faster processor, but the SNES had a dedicated sound chip, far more capable graphics hardware, three times as much RAM (not to mention a FAR better controller).  I don't know off-hand about the Playstation, but I always thought the only thing it had on the N64 was storage.  In fact it was years and years before Spyro came out and showed that Playstation could do something approaching Super Mario 64.  As for the Gameboy, that was all about the batteries, and the portable market is a completely different beast anyway.  What's going on with the Wii is a first.  Nintendo released a home console five years after the original Xbox that has not produced a single game in a year's time that could not be done on the Xbox.  In fact, if done on the Xbox the game might even be played in Dolby Digital 5.1 surround.  The only thing we got was a new controller.  The controller is really cool (if majorly flawed), but it is still the only thing Nintendo brought to the table.  This has never ever ever happened before.  You're fooling yourself if you think this is the order of the day for Nintendo.

Anyway, you're taking my words out of context.  I followed up the line you quoted and responded to with:  "Actually, I'm speaking too strongly.  I think [they probably can't stay on top], but their early lead is going to be pretty big so I suppose it might end up being insurmountable.  I doubt it, but maybe."

[boykster]

It depends on the game.  Some multiplatform games are a complete wash and some look better on one console or another.  Overall I'd say the PS3 is capable of better graphics, but in today's world, its not a huge, huge difference (though there are always some games that really look great on one over the other)

That's my read on it; I own an xbox360 and have spent quite a bit of time this past week with a PS3 (friend got one for xmas).  The xbox360 has it's flaws - it's been subject to some serious hardware failures, it's graphics subsystem isn't as powerful as the PS3, etc.  But being the first "next gen" console to market, even with sluggish title releases for the first year or so, it still has a great lead over the PS3 for titles and adoption.  I haven't had much time with the PS3 online, but I have to say that xbox LIVE is a real treat to use.  Its easy, simple, intuitive, and 'just works' when it comes to managing friends lists, getting games going, etc.  Sure, you pay for it, but it's worth it IMHO.

I'd love to have both a 360 and a PS3, but I just can't justify the time (the $$ isn't a big deal).  I love the God of War games, and playing it on my PSP just isn't going to be the same as on the big screen by any means. 

 

[SavannahLion]

The Genesis had a faster processor, but the SNES had a dedicated sound chip, far more capable graphics hardware, three times as much RAM (not to mention a FAR better controller).

If you're going to argue technical aspects on a console, can you at least not inflate the numbers there? The Genesis leveraged two audio chips, a Yamaha and a TI. In my book, this pretty much indicates dedicated audio. If you mean by dedicated that the SNES leveraged a DSP alongside the Sony chip, then yes, that is true. Genesis's failing in this regards is the fact the Yamaha didn't have DMA which meant the CPU had to baby the Audio a bit.  The SNES does not have three times as much main RAM, it's 64K vs 128K.

Now about the graphics capabilities. I've always felt most of the graphics capabilities the SNES employed were underemployed or incurred a costly performance hit due to the snot slow CPU. A couple of very skilled SFII fighters could slow the game down on the SNES... that's kind of sad. In an interview with a Nintendo engineer I read years ago, Nintendo admitted that they designed the SNES specifically for the Japanese market and their tendency towards RPG's. They failed to understand consumer desires of the U.S. at the time. There's a pretty good reason why SEGA's "Blast Processing" marketing scam worked so damn well around here... besides most people not really understanding how a computer works.

I've decided to cut the rest of my comment out because:

Anyway, you're taking my words out of context.  I followed up the line you quoted and responded to with:  "Actually, I'm speaking too strongly.  I think [they probably can't stay on top], but their early lead is going to be pretty big so I suppose it might end up being insurmountable.  I doubt it, but maybe."

Then I apologize. However, I still stand by my previous comment. Nintendo may not have done their hardware up right. But at this point Nintendo's marketing team is doing a damn good job of selling the console and their strategy of coming out of the gate and staying in the black on each console seems to be spot on. You may be right, Nintendo may not finish first in this race, but I'll bank they'll come in a close second.

I can't say for everyone else, but I find it irritating that Sony tries to pack so many features into their console that they're eating them at a loss, then develop, what? Six different price/model tiers in an effort to reduce their losses. Mark my words, with so many  disparate models out there, it's going to hurt the gamers in the long run.

What's going on with the Wii is a first.  Nintendo released a home console five years after the original Xbox that has not produced a single game in a year's time that could not be done on the Xbox.

Can you at least check your game list before making that comment? If you're talking strictly about graphics, OK, you have that. But as for gameplay and control, I can name at least one, Elebits, that can't be done on the Xbox due to the control scheme. If I wanted to go digging, I'm sure I can find others. Graphics are just a small part of the gaming equation. One of my favorite games, Katamari, looks like its more suited on a previous gen console than the current one, but it's still a game that finds gaming time with me.

At this point, all I'm saying, shmokes, is that if you want to argue the merits of any console, can you at least get the facts straight? Quite a bit of your argument sounds an awful lot like a fanboys argument. I find myself wanting to tear apart your commentary ala PBJ and I'm just not in the mood for that level of... how would one put it? Pigheadedness? Ugh, just thinking about that makes me sick... I hope I don't have food poising.

[Howard_Casto]

The ps3 will NEVER surpass the other two, in terms of world-wide sales.  There's too much of a head-start.  Assuming the ps3 were to get some killer app, the ps3 would still have to sell 3 times as many systems as the other two just to approach getting evened up with their sales.  Then they would have to continue to sell at this rate for some time to make any kind of real lead.  This just isn't realistically possible.  I mean it's technically possible, it could happen, but a lot of really unlikely events would have to occur.  

I would like to address this 10 year lifespan idea that sony throws around as well, because a lot of sony supporters site that as the reason the ps3 will be a success.  Really?  You believe that b.s?  Ok let us assume that sony is right (and they very well could be) and the ps3 does have a 10 year life-span.  Well the other two almost definately have 5--7 year spans, so when the ps3 "hits it stride" nintendo and m$ will come out with bigger and better consoles and people will be willing to spend money on a new console again.  So sony will be left with a cheap platform with some life in it, but it'll be the inferior of the other two and have a developer support base that wasn't that strong to begin with.  In the mean-time, sony still isn't making any money, due to poor software sales and a loss on every system sold.  Nintendo makes a profit on every console and their first party sales are quite strong.  M$ is doing fairly well, especially considering that they absolutely don't care if they lose money on the 360, just like they didn't care that they lost money on the xbox.  Their strat is to bully out everyone else, as they can afford to.  Sony could potentially do this, but seeing as they are a Japaneese company, rooted very much in turning a profit, it is unlikely they would implement this policy in the long-term.  

Also, just a side note, but m$ will NEVER do well in japan.  Sony, even if they came out with a turd with USB ports will ALWAYS do fairly well in Japan.  Just accept this as a given.  I hate to say it, but for lack of a better term, the Japaneese are very racist when it comes to foreign companies, american home electronics in particular.  Even in the golden age when the american gaming company's were the only ones that mattered world-wide, the sales of popular consoles like the 2600 were fairly poor in japan.  With that being said, the US is the major market, so you only have to do well in the US and not be a complete failure in Japan to be the world-wide leader.


While I don't think that sony is going to go out of business mid-cycle.  (Although that is certainly possible.) I think we can all agree they are going to come in a solid 3rd this go around unless something major happens.  Especially with the 800lb gorillias that are smash bros and what I predict to be insainely popular wii-fit have yet to be released in the US. I dbout they'll be console sellers, but they are new titles that'll have big sales, thus keeping the wii's library current into the next year.  People say that the wii isn't competing with the others, but when you can only afford a single console (which is often the case with this new market) and you want a wii first, it certainly does.  If anything, once the wii's supply issues are sorted out, I'd expect to see a noticable drop in sales of other consoles, admittedly hurting m$ (the other popular choice) more than sony.  


Btw, SLion is quite right.  I can name a game that the xbox can't do right now.  Super Mario Galaxy.  While the xbox was technically capable of doing it graphically, it wouldn't have been able to keep up a decent framerate like the wii as smg can have upwards of 60 enemies on the screen at a time with various lighting effects attached to each individual enemy, not to mention the world itself and mario and the game NEVER looses a frame. People look at smg at first-glance and think it looks like every other mario, but this isn't true.  It's just unlike other companies (cough m$, cough sony, cough cough) the lighting and shading effects nintendo utilizes are quite subtle and not overly flashy.

Schmokes, I've gotta agree here, sounds like you are rooting for sony and making up excuses for them instead of sticking to the facts regarding the other consoles.  There's nothing wrong with that, it just really hurts any argument you might make in their defense when you say things like that.

[Pops]

One thing nobody mentioned is the side uses of consoles, Dvd, Blu-ray HD dvd.
I know of three people who went for the PS3 because of the Blu-ray. It's cheaper to buy a PS3 than a dedicated player.
The HD drive is an add on to the 360 and Nintendo haven't even considered video as an option.

We have both a 360 and a PS3 in the house, it's much of a muchness as to which is better for games but the Blu-ray gets the Ps3 into the livingroom hooked up to the 1080 pi TV (50'')
Yeah I'm a jammy so 'n' so  3 working sons all still living at home has it's drawbacks but it has some advantages 

Spend more time playing games on the PC  tbh....

[versapak]

You've got Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Ratchet & Clank Future, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Virtua Fighter 5, Unreal Tournament III, Call of Duty 4, Rock Band, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Folklore, Guitar Hero III, MotorStorm, etc.

Exclusive:

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune
Ratchet & Clank Future
Ninja Gaiden Sigma (Though this is primarily the Ninja Gaiden we have already played on Xbox, and 360 will be getting Ninja Gaiden 2)
Folklore
Motorstorm



Multiplatform

Virtua Fighter 5
Unreal Tournament III
Call of Duty 4
Rock Band
Elder Scrolls Oblivion
Guitar Hero III



No, it seems most of the games on that list are NOT exclusives.

[shmokes]

No, it seems most of the games on that list are NOT exclusives.

Hey . . . I'm going to be a lawyer, not a mathematician!     Also, I consider Virtua Fighter a PS3 exclusive just cos they got it well before anyone else. 

Howard, it only took Nintendo something like 9 months to erase Xbox 360's 10 million-unit lead.  PS3 is currently sitting at 5.5 million sold and Xbox 360 has 12.7 million.  That's a 7 million difference.  Do you really think that's an impossible lead for Sony to catch up to?

Also, I think you misunderstand the 10 year lifespan thing.  PS2 is still going strong after seven years.  It has at least an 8 year lifespan -  probably longer.  Sony does not have to wait until the PS3 is dead to release a PS4. 

[DaveMMR]

Nintendo, I think, played just about everything right except their hardware.  It's too weak.  They can't stay on top with it, IMO.  It also doesn't help that the motion sensors are pretty shoddy. 

Okay, again you're viewing the industry from the eyes of the hardcore.  Other people, those that don't sit there and count the number of polygons on screen, have money too.  At my apartment, we had 10 people all playing the Wii (and the arcade cabinet when it wasn't their turn) and I don't think I heard anyone utter "wow, these graphics suck".   As a matter of fact, these are 10 people who don't play videogames much but left saying "wow, I want to get a Wii".  One already has.  And that's why Wii is on top.  No one cares about the graphics when they're having fun. 

And why is it weak to begin with?   Simple, they want to make a profit.  Cheap system for the family that's also fun.     

Howard, it only took Nintendo something like 9 months to erase Xbox 360's 10 million-unit lead.  PS3 is currently sitting at 5.5 million sold and Xbox 360 has 12.7 million.  That's a 7 million difference.  Do you really think that's an impossible lead for Sony to catch up to?

You are comparing apples to oranges here.  Nintendo units are priced much cheaper that PS3, and can move much more in a shorter span of time.  It's simple economics.   It's not impossible for Sony to catch up, but highly unlikely.   They'd have to seriously slash their prices in order to come close.

[shmokes]

Graphics do matter.  They matter a lot.  Graphics are not just eye candy.  For one thing, eye candy is important.  It increase immersion.  The special effects in The Lord of the Rings made for a considerably more immersing experience than, say, Labyrinth or Willow.  The same goes for games.  Additionally, graphical advances (not to mention other processing-intensive things like physics and AI) ENABLE new and better gameplay.  Splinter Cell could not exist on a system that can't process handle light sources and shadows.  Madden is better when a player is not just a block to collide with, but when his arms and legs are modeled and colliding with just an outstretched arm produces a different effect than a full-body check.  Enemies that hide, strategize, communicate, cooperate create a better gameplay experience.  Not having buildings and trees suddenly pop into view makes for a better gaming experience.  It also enables fast, immersing games like Burnout. 

And, whether you want to admit it or not, they matter to people who buy games.  Lots of them.  If they didn't, we wouldn't have ditched the Playstation for the Playstation 2, which has an identical controller and does absolutely nothing different, other than increasing the processing power.

The Wii looks dated now, while its graphics capabilities are five years old, but what will it look like further into the cycle, when it's graphics are nine or ten years old?  We were perfectly happy with 2600 graphics until the NES came around (5200 and 7800 didn't really make too much difference).  Those were great until SNES/Genesis appeared, which were spectacular up until PS and N64 came on the scene.  The point is, our standards constantly rise, and as they do, we expect more from our systems.  Our standards will be higher three and four years from now than they are today, and Wii will look all the more dated.  And the PS3 will cost $150 by then.

[pointdablame]

One thing nobody mentioned is the side uses of consoles, Dvd, Blu-ray HD dvd.
I know of three people who went for the PS3 because of the Blu-ray. It's cheaper to buy a PS3 than a dedicated player.

This is already a moot point as you can get dedicated BluRay players for under $399 now.  That may have sold some systems in the past year when folks wanted bluray and the PS3 was the bargain player, but its not the case anymore.

Will they still sell some PS3s b/c it can do bluray as well? Of course... but it's hardly going to be a deciding factor.  Just like the PS2, where the Japanese were picking them up as a DVD player just as often as they were as a game console, that fad ends once the hardware matures and declines in price.  You can get relatively inexpensive HD DVD and BluRay players now, so that argument is all but dead.

[pointdablame]

You've got Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Ratchet & Clank Future, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Virtua Fighter 5, Unreal Tournament III, Call of Duty 4, Rock Band, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Folklore, Guitar Hero III, MotorStorm, etc.  A few of those are multiplatform, but most are exclusives.  At any rate, exclusive or not, PS3's lineup is not as weak as you are portraying it.  They've got big guns coming, but their 2007 lineup ain't bad.  Depending how you look at it, it's likely stronger than Wii's (it clearly doesn't touch the 360's library yet).

And while it's nothing but my personal opinon, I'll submit that the PS3 has exactly TWO "ace cards" right now... Uncharted and Ratchet and Clank.  That's it.  You can try to put Motorstorm in there or Warhawk or even VF5 for the folks who will drop $500+ on a system just to play a game for a few months before it goes multiplatform, but I'll argue those points.  Those aren't mass market system sellers (though VF5 definitely sold some machines to big time fighter fans).  Ratchet and Uncharted are the only reasons I (and many folks I talk to) want a PS3.  Those are the potential system sellers.  I WANT a PS3, but I don't want to spend $500+ just to play 2 games. 

The PS3 2007 lineup is/was not bad at all, but most of it could be had elsewhere (read:360) or is mediocre enough not to warrant a system purchase.  And what is on the horizon?  Gran Turismo will be out eventually, MGS will be great, but may also see delays.  God of War 3 will make me buy the system if I don't have one by then.  That's all much deeper into the cycle though and the Wii and 360 could conceivably still be selling the way they are compartive to the PS3 for the next year

I still challenge your assertion that MS and Nintendo have "played most of their ace cards"  There's no reason to believe that we won't see as many big time games for those systems in the next few years as we've seen in the first few.  You can already see Mario Kart and Smash Bros creating a nice first half of 2008 for Wii.  And even if MS hired ME to code Halo 4, it'd still sell a bazillion copies and sell systems.  It'd ruin the sales of Halo 5, but it would still make 360s fly off the shelf for a while.

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess, but I just don't understand how you can reasonably believe that MS and Nintendo are for the most part "done" with their big games.

In any case, if Sony doesn't end up in the number one spot (albeit with a MUCH smaller lead than the previous two generations) they will at least beat Microsoft and they will still have won in terms of being the gamer's system rather than the casual gamer's system.

Care to make a friendly bet again?  You remember how that worked out for you with the Wii name-change bet, right? 
 

[tommy]

The Wii looks dated now, while its graphics capabilities are five years old, but what will it look like further into the cycle, when it's graphics are nine or ten years old? 

The Wii is a family experience that anyone can just pickup and play and most of the people who are going to buy it do not care about weak graphics.

There is no chance a whole family is going to sit down and play anything on the 360 or the PS3, those systems are mainly a one person online system and rarely will you ever have another person sitting next to you enjoying it with you.

This Wii is about enjoying games with actually people, not people online.

[shmokes]

This is already a moot point as you can get dedicated BluRay players for under $399 now. 

FYI, you can get them for under $299 now.

[shmokes]

Care to make a friendly bet again?  You remember how that worked out for you with the Wii name-change bet, right? 
 

  Well, the difference is that we both thought that you would probably win that bet.  I was just willing to put a little money on it for fun and I thought it was possible that you could lose.

I would definitely put a $10 on PS3 beating MS in worldwide sales by the end of 2009.  I think it's even possible that it could happen by the end of 2008, but I wouldn't put money on it.  I don't think I'd bet on PS3 beating the Wii, though I think there's a good chance it will happen.  If it does, though, it will likely be after the successor to Wii is already on the market.

[pointdablame]

This is already a moot point as you can get dedicated BluRay players for under $399 now. 

FYI, you can get them for under $299 now.

Last I checked, $299 was also under $399     It's nice to see them dropping like that.

On the HD DVD side, Walmart actually blew out the old Toshiba A2's a few weeks back for about $100.  Crazy crazy price for a really nice player (I've got one myself).

[shmokes]

Yeah . . . I just suspected you didn't know just how under $399 you could get them.

[DaveMMR]

Graphics do matter.  They matter a lot.  Graphics are not just eye candy. 

Okay, the Wii graphics are not horrible.  Yes, a little outdated compared to the other two systems, but they're not Atari 2600 blocks or anything like that.  But again, Nintendo is not appealing to the people who are buying their systems according to graphical capability.  They're selling to the people who want to play games with their girlfriends, grandparents and children.   They don't need "total immersion", they want to have a good time.

Now if people bought video game systems strictly according to graphical capabilities, then the Sega Master System, the Sega Game Gear, the Atari Lynx, the Sega Saturn, the 3DO and the Neo-Geo home systems should have all been winners.  And the Gameboy, with 4 measly shades of gray, would have been a failure out of the gate.  But history has taught us otherwise.  So to say that the PS3 is going to come out on top because "it has the best graphics" would be incorrect. 

[MajorLag]

It seems to me that we've passed the point where better graphics can convey more information to the player, so I would have to say that at this point yes, better graphics are just eye-candy.

[AcidArmitage]

ew a lawyer 

[DaveMMR]

It seems to me that we've passed the point where better graphics can convey more information to the player, so I would have to say that at this point yes, better graphics are just eye-candy.

Hehe, I think we pretty much past that back in the NES days, when dragons no longer looked like ducks and the hero was not a square holding a key three times his size.   

[versapak]

[EDIT]

Forgot what thread I was in. 

[SavannahLion]

While I don't think that sony is going to go out of business mid-cycle.  (Although that is certainly possible.)

Might I suggest rewording that a little bit? I've had to read that sentence (and paragraph) a couple of times before I realized you were talking about Sony pulling out of the console business, not necessarily out of business entirely. Sony is mind bogglingly huge. After reading an article about all the Microsoft partners and MS owned companies at :censored:microsoft.com, I wanted to see if I could do the same with Sony. After spending weeks researching as many of Sony's subsidiaries I could find, I finally gave up when I spotted an earnings blurb on a world-wide corporate lending bank owned by Sony.

Graphics do matter.  They matter a lot.  Graphics are not just eye candy.  For one thing, eye candy is important.  It increase immersion.  The special effects in The Lord of the Rings made for a considerably more immersing experience than, say, Labyrinth or Willow.  The same goes for games.  Additionally, graphical advances (not to mention other processing-intensive things like physics and AI) ENABLE new and better gameplay.  Splinter Cell could not exist on a system that can't process handle light sources and shadows.  Madden is better when a player is not just a block to collide with, but when his arms and legs are modeled and colliding with just an outstretched arm produces a different effect than a full-body check.  Enemies that hide, strategize, communicate, cooperate create a better gameplay experience.  Not having buildings and trees suddenly pop into view makes for a better gaming experience.  It also enables fast, immersing games like Burnout. 

Oh wow... Coming from someone who hangs out with a group that plays 20 year old arcade machines, this is just downright shocking. If eye candy really is so important, why does a place like BYOAC even exist? Everyone would be scrambling to buy the latest $8,000 arcade cab or sitting in front of their HDTV's playing their PS3 and/or 360, not trying to restore/construct cabinets.

Eye candy isn't the only consideration for playing games. I won't even bother to figure how many game titles I have in my collection that were hailed to have amazing eye candy for their time yet only received one play through before being permanently shelved. If eye candy is so important, why do games like Katamari (A PS2 game no less) warrant such impressive sales despite the fact the modeled people look like Duplo blocks? Where does eye candy come into play when Nintendo feels a back catalogue of ten and fifteen year old games warrant online release on the Wii network?

Great eye candy sometimes warrants attention sure. When those graphics improves the gameplay itself and isn't just there just because the developer happens to have the source available. Remember the first time you popped in a 3DFx card and realized you could see your enemies through the water? I remember the savory joy I had while standing on a platform above a river and killing opponents swimming around. Conversely, do you remember all the hype surrounding lense flare and how every game just had to have it? I remember one pathetic ---Cleveland steamer--- hole of a magazine (who shall remain nameless) actually adjusted game scores on whether flare was in the game or not. Christ, what a stupid waste of processing power.

For every game released where graphics really help the gameplay, there seems to be at least five others where those same graphics did absolutely nothing to help the gameplay. Those games sit on shelves the world over, remembered only by the game developers, collectors and the handful of people who actually still play the game for whatever reason.

And do I really have to point out that

Enemies that hide, strategize, communicate, cooperate create a better gameplay experience.

have zilch to do with better graphics?

C'mon shmokes, this is what I was talking about fanboy arguments.

It's really ---smurfing--- difficult to compose a message when a seven year old keeps pestering you and a baby is screaming for no apparent reason. So I'm sure there's a lost thought in there somewhere. 

[stephenp1983]

But really how much are they loosing now on the hardware for a ps3?  Wii make something like a 50 dollar profit right on hardware along.  Sony's only margin for profit really is in the software sales.

[Jdurg]

I wouldn't consider the PS3 to be a "flop", but when you look at all the hype surrounding it and the cocky attitude that Sony had with it, I would say that it failed to live up to its expectations.  Sony pulled a Nintendo.  They figured that if they put the Playstation name on it they could charge whatever they wanted and that people would flock to it because of the name alone.  Sony has subsequently found out that it's not true.  Sony itself has been trying harder than you could imagine to win the HD war with the Blue-Ray format.  They made a somewhat poor move by expecting the more expensive Blue-Ray systems to become popular because they were in a PS3.  They failed to take into account the high prices they'd have to charge in order to make a profit and that not everybody is a multi-millionaire.

The public wants a good system that plays great games and doesn't cost them an entire paycheck.  Right now, the PS3 simply isn't that system.  This is where Nintendo has won because they came up with a system that is affordable, has great games, and is fun to play.  

The other thing that Sony has to deal with is the fact that the console market is not stationary.  I can guarantee you that Microsoft and Nintendo are already thinking about their next system and what they want to do with it.  Yes, Sony may be able to catch up with their PS3, but by then will the other companies have come out with something else?

For the record, I own none of these systems.  I've just outgrown console games and don't have the time to play them.  Plus, with the insane price of these new consoles I can't even afford them.  I'd much rather play emulated games on my computer because I think the older games have better gameplay and an overall better experience.  Graphics mean nothing.  In fact, I've yet to play a game that was graphically hyped that was actually fun to play.