Hirai: We're the "official" industry leader Comments by Robert Purchese

"Your argument would only make sense if Sony had developed a technology that would bring great benefits to gaming in comparison to other platformsThen you could complain about "lazy devs" if they don't make use of it."

They have developed technology that could bring great benefits to gaming. Developers have to realise that potential though. I'm not complaining about lazy devs, don't know what gave you that idea. I'm complaining about devs that are not open to change and just want to do what they always did the way they've always done it. And that is the message Valve transmits time and time again with their insistence on just supporting PC architecture. I can understand it from a short term business POV but as a long term strategic decision it's not that smart IMO and limits innovation.

"Oh, and calling Valve "idiots" makes you look like a bitter fool. Just a tip."

Why? "We're idiots" beams from every interview they give and press statement they release. I'm amazed that a company consisting of such morons can actually make such awesome games. HL2 is still the best FPS around and most of the stuff nowadays can't even hold a candle to part 1.

I got here late unfortunately, but I would like say "bravo chaps". Not only the best article I have read on Eurogamer, but also the best comments.

I can't add anything that hasn't been said a number of times before. Granted, there haven't been many "PS3LOL"s, so maybe i could stick another 3 or 4 of those here.

Perhaps a "HiraiLOL"?

hello_fi
20-Jan-09 15:23:56

I bet that Hirai's blue bus has the cleanest windows in the world

----

lol.
the wheels on the bus go round and round...
seems like Sony's boss just had a minor brain fart.

Why? "We're idiots" beams from every interview they give and press statement they release

Ok...

o_O

They have developed technology that could bring great benefits to gaming. Developers have to realise that potential though. I'm not complaining about lazy devs, don't know what gave you that idea. I'm complaining about devs that are not open to change and just want to do what they always did the way they've always done it. And that is the message Valve transmits time and time again with their insistence on just supporting PC architecture. I can understand it from a short term business POV but as a long term strategic decision it's not that smart IMO and limits innovation.

If I exaggerate things to the point of absurdity then you'll get the point the other poster was making. Let's go back a few years to the days when VGA 640x480 graphics cards were the dog's nads and say we have two machines; 1) A 386 PC connected to a VGA monitor and 2) Some strange contraption which is a Cray Supercomputer connected to a VGA monitor.

We're writing software which hits the graphics card. Which, as a developer/publisher, would you choose; the 386 PC or this strange contraption? This contraption isn't particularly easy to program, has a low user base, and what's the return you get for all that extra development time if the graphics it puts out are just as limited as the other platform and most users couldn't really tell the difference?

That in a nutshell is why the PS3 will fail. Platform longevity isn't related to difficulty developing software, especially when there's another platform around with a higher user base which can do more-or-less the same thing.

Hahaha on all the PlayStation 3 haters! Everyone who knows the console and plays it also knows how awesome it really is, no denying that.

"If I exaggerate things to the point of absurdity then you'll get the point the other poster was making."

I got the point the other poster was making. Your post shows you didn't get mine. Which is probably my fault as I made it poorly so I'll try again. ;)

What Valve are saying is that things should stay the way they are. Same architecture that just gets faster as time moves forward. Real progress is about change. If things stay the way they are you get the uninspired stuff that's been released the last 2-3 years on 360 and PS3. And for that kind of crap, clearly the 360 is best suited as it is easiest to develop for and appears to be most affordable to the consumers it tries to reach. If Sony intended the PS3 to run that stuff, clearly they made a huge mistake as it's ill suited for that however you look at it. But look at the Wii. Clever piece of hardware that took the emphasis off of graphics. Revolutionary in that sense and matched well with what consumers wanted. It makes a much better return than both Sony's new tech box and MS's upgraded old tech box. Sony took the wrong gamble and will have to pay for it. Nintendo made the right gamble and reaps huge rewards. MS didn't really gamble and as such might break even.

"Hahaha on all the PlayStation 3 haters!"

Gosh, well that's put everyone in their place hasnt it?


"Everyone who knows the console and plays it also knows how awesome it really is, no denying that."

Wrong. Know it, played it, does nothing better than my 360 but does a whole bunch of things worse. Some people prefer the non-gaming attributes the PS3 adds to the mix but as a gaming platform the 360 is superior.

They're PR gods!

The main point I took from your post was "I'm complaining about devs that are not open to change and just want to do what they always did the way they've always done it".

The thing is if the PS3 allowed developers do better things in a different way then it wouldn't be a problem. However the graphics card is only as capable as the 360's one so you're not allowed to do anything better and it also makes you do the same things in a different way.

Maybe if developers were allowed to start with what they know instead of working so hard to get the same result and then were allowed to improve from there on then it could be claimed that the PS3 is a platform which has a longer lifetime than the rest.

It's been out over two years now, developers really shouldn't be having these problems at this time. Valve probably decided it wasn't worth it, they've expressed more interest in the Wii than they have the PS3 in their press releases.

What Valve are saying is that things should stay the way they are. Same architecture that just gets faster as time moves forward. Real progress is about change. If things stay the way they are you get the uninspired stuff that's been released the last 2-3 years on 360 and PS3.

Don't tell me you still believe in the mystical PS3's power that just needs to be tamed, and will allow for miracles not possible on the "old" technology. Hello? Please. Valve are a PC developer first and foremost.

And what do you actually suggest? That Valve now go PS3 exclusive? Because you said yourself just now the PS3 isn't suited for the "old ways of programming".

First farticusmaximus in the "flower" thread, now this, a confused mess of unfounded PS3 hype and bitterness about Valve.

"However the graphics card is only as capable as the 360's one so you're not allowed to do anything better and it also makes you do the same things in a different way."

What's with the obsession with graphics? And with PS3? I was reacting to a comment on people whining about developers like Valve. That's one developer that does nothing but showing a resistance to change. They don't like PS3 and Wii because they're not based on PC architecture like the 360 is. Those platforms make them do difficult work and they don't like that. Which is fine, it's their business decision. But I personally am glad not all developers think that way or gaming would be dead before this generation is over.

As I said, PS3 is a poorly conceived platform if all it's used for is generating pretty pixels for yesteryear's games. 360 was optimized for that, PS3 isn't. So far, Sony have shown little though that justifies PS3's architecture change. But at least they took a gamble and for that I praise them. Sometimes they pay off big (like with PS2), sometimes you lose (like with PS3 as things stand currently). Nintendo took a gamble as well and it paid off big time. MS didn't take a gamble, didn't move things forward one iota and as such are lucky if they break even. They are a hit with gaming's traditional audience while the rest of the world remains cold. Nothing wrong with that except that it's too costly to just attract the core gamers. They demand pretty pixels and expensive GPUs which in turn ask for ridiculous development cost of the actual games which destroy profitability of everything that doesn't sell a couple of million units.

So we pretty much agree on the state of things regarding PS3, as we did all along. It's too expensive and difficult to just be a 360-alike.

"Don't tell me you still believe in the mystical PS3's power that just needs to be tamed"

PS3 is definitely the most powerful console from a CPU perspective, nothing mystical about that. Whether that power can be put too good use in games is another thing. Just using it to create PC/360-like graphics is a waste IMO. So overall, I think Sony made a poor decision with the architectural change with PS3. Next to the skyrocketing cost of development that HD graphics brought, learning to program for a processor like Cell was too much to ask. Especially as limited demand for HD consoles means that for an HD title to have reasonable chances of actually making money it needs to be AAA and multi-platform, making taking advantage of platform strengths highly unlikely.

"And what do you actually suggest? That Valve now go PS3 exclusive? Because you said yourself just now the PS3 isn't suited for the "old ways of programming"."

One thing doesn't lead to another you know. I think Valve are idiots for resisting change for being change (as well as for slamming DRM while offering their own DRM but not calling it that way, amongst other things). It's just not a viable strategy in the long term and TBH it disappoints me from a company with roots in the mod scene, at the forefront of innovation. As things are now, Valve needs to decide whether they want to reach a mass audience (invest in building up a Wii capability) or just focus on the core gamer for which eventually the PC will be the only option. If they're happy with the gaming audience they're reaching right now, I don't think it makes much sense for them to invest heavily in the PS3.

"now this, a confused mess of unfounded PS3 hype and bitterness about Valve."

1) I'm not hyping PS3, I'm slagging it; 2) I'm not bitter about Valve, why should I? They've done nothing to harm me. Doesn't mean I can't think they're idiots. One doesn't preclude the other.

Oh Well! I had faith in Kaz Hiai being the person to turn the PS3 around...

...until I read this bloody article!

What a fool!

@ Les

So much bollocks in your comments - it's unreal. You seem like you're reasonably intelligent, but continually spout shite. Maybe you're just a dummy who can type reasonable English, so it's easy to read your shite.

If M$ had put an 8 core Intel x64 into the 360 - bumping the price up to £600, but the games turned out just the same, would that suddenly make them innovative?

From what I've seen, the 360 is 'shit' because they designed the case and cooling before finalising the spec, and they use noisy DVD drives that have to run at 12x, and will kill themselves in the long run.

Where are the other problems? Lack of innovation vs. Sony? Really?

Strange.

/stops hating

Les: "Can't see Coin-op's comments so they're probably about as idiotic as this one... Indeed, nuff said."

So you haven't played either of them...

"So you haven't played either of them... "

You really don't get it, do you... :(

About the obsession with graphics.

It's because the PS3, in spite of what's under the hood, has (more-or-less) the same controls, graphics, and sound as the 360. So, despite what's under the hood, whatever developers do they're limited to using those same ways of input and output. I mention graphics because it's being compared to the 360, but it could have had innovative sound or controls (like the Wii) but hasn't either.

Yes, Microsoft didn't innovate in the 360, but in that respect it was a good decision, because it lowered costs for developers because they could build upon what they learnt for the XBox and the PC. What they have done is set up a decent online system which has set the bar for online gaming without the need to throw out everything learnt before. It's so good that people are willing to pay for it.

We all know the Wii is also based on the Gamecube. The PS3 is completely different and in that respect Sony really did mess up and set back developers 1 or 2 years.

Which brings us to the second point, developers (Valve)...

If developers see that a platform is more expensive to develop for but is limited to similar results for the reasons given above and in the end games will have fewer sales, why would they want to develop for it?

If Sony had allowed developers to build on what they learnt with the PS2 then Valve might have decided differently, considering the knowledge they've already gained from HL1.

Before saying what they've said, Valve have probably tried developing something basic for the PS3 and maybe even tried porting Source and have probably found out that it's not worth the effort.

"He can say what he likes- that's his right, but as the saying goes, "what goes on toast stays on toast""

What?!

"Rash'?


.... "

lol

"i feel the need for one of your lists apologie, come explain to me why i need my PS3 "

I was thinking *exactly* that when I read this :)

"In 10 years the PS3 may well sell more units than the 360 but how many 720's will have been sold by then? "

XBOX 1080's by then I would imagine :)

"It's because the PS3, in spite of what's under the hood, has (more-or-less) the same controls, graphics, and sound as the 360. So, despite what's under the hood, whatever developers do they're limited to using those same ways of input and output. I mention graphics because it's being compared to the 360, but it could have had innovative sound or controls (like the Wii) but hasn't either."

They're vastly different on the sound front but never mind... And the way they process graphics are totally different as well. The fact that they can both output to 1080p HDTVs doesn't necessarily mean that their graphics need to look alike. That's more due to a lack of artistic vision on the part of the average developer. For some reason someone has decided that sterile HD graphics are the way to go and ever since then all game engines look alike. The spread of the gruesome UE3 probably has to do something with that as well.

"We all know the Wii is also based on the Gamecube."

And we all know developers struggle more to do something innovative with the new control scheme than they will ever struggle programming on the PS3. The first one requires actual talent, the latter mainly perseverance...

"If Sony had allowed developers to build on what they learnt with the PS2 then Valve might have decided differently, considering the knowledge they've already gained from HL1."

Would have made little difference, Valve only know DirectX. Every non-PC (xbox = PC) version of their games was developed by other parties. They just don't want to or can do anything else. But again, why the focus on PS3? Like I said, if anything, Valve should open up its eyes for Wii. Unless they want to be stuck forever with the PC hardcore market (as 360 and PS3 are likely to be the last ever hardcore consoles). And something tells me that with L4D sales being as they are, they probably won't.

Altogether now!

"And the way they process graphics are totally different as well. The fact that they can both output to 1080p HDTVs doesn't necessarily mean that their graphics need to look alike. That's more due to a lack of artistic vision on the part of the average developer."

Umm, it entirely depends on the engine being used. I'd happen to say that you can argue this with Assassins Creed and Prince of Persia. Allegedly same engine used and both pretty. But drastically different styles. It is done, but making games is hard work! These people earn their money, trust me on this - I can program but nowhere close to how those guys can. When you're ploughing $X-million dollars into a project - any project - you also want to know that it's not going to alienate the market. This is why we see a lot of carbon-copies. It pays their overheads and the people who work their arses off to bring games to your ungrateful little doorstep. That makes sweet nuggets of goodness extra-specially sweet.

"The spread of the gruesome UE3 probably has to do something with that as well."

Companies are going to buy into an engine that has provenence. There have been known issues but you know, live and learn. You take a shortcut, you take a risk.

"And we all know developers struggle more to do something innovative with the new control scheme than they will ever struggle programming on the PS3. The first one requires actual talent, the latter mainly perseverance..."

Okay, you sort of have me here. However, we have seen numerous flashes of genius with how to use, wield and modify the Wii Remote. Yeah, sometimes it's shoehorned in but I'd like to take you to the PS2 and the disporportionate amount of shovelware that was released for it.

Difference is though that developers have free reign on how to experiment with and use the Wii Remote.

As for Valve, their choice. The PC "hardcore" market appears to be doing them quite nicely however so I can't really say I blame them.

And something tells me that with L4D sales being as they are, they probably won't.

What are the sales? Link, please. And no, NPD retail figures don't count.

Besides, Valve have said ages ago that they're interested in the Wii. Pretty much an open secret that they're developing a Wii game.

You also don't seem to quite understand that Steam is becoming something like a platform on its own.

And man, Naughty Dog are such idiots. They really need to expand from the hardcore Japanophile market.

@Kami
"When you're ploughing $X-million dollars into a project - any project - you also want to know that it's not going to alienate the market. This is why we see a lot of carbon-copies."

Agreed. But as Wii shows, the average consumer is pretty cold with regards to HD games. With much smaller investments, better results can be generated, which opens the door for innovation and creativity. But I'm glad you mentioned PoP. Haven't played it yet (it's on its way to me as I could get it pretty cheap on eBay the other day - too much PS2 stuff still to finish to justify picking it up soon at full price as I probably won't play it before it's reached the discounts bins) but am looking forward to it. It's one of the few HD games that appears to take chances, that tries to do stuff differently and for that it cannot get too much praise.

"However, we have seen numerous flashes of genius with how to use, wield and modify the Wii Remote. Yeah, sometimes it's shoehorned in but I'd like to take you to the PS2 and the disporportionate amount of shovelware that was released for it."

My point is more that a ridiculous proportion of industry resources is currently allocated to generating pretty pixels while it's quite clear that graphics are irrelevant for expanding the video game market. Resources are wasted on projects with a low growth potential. I read an article in gamesTM the other day about how Japanese developers would lag behind their Western counterparts because in general they don't create much HD games. I think Japanese developers are the only ones to really realise that consumers don't care much for HD graphics or 40 hour single player games. They understand that if video games want to attract a large audience, they should be just one part of a person's entertainment diet, instead of trying to consume it all.

The video gaming landscape has changed, whether its constituents like it or not. While in the past console makers focused on expanding the hardcore market, it has reached its limits in terms of growth potential. Nintendo realized that the real money is in expanding the market to the casual players. This is a serious threat for the traditional hardcore game with its excessive focus on graphics. A hardcore game requires a summer blockbuster investment while only reaching an art house audience. And to make matters worse, it also requires investment in a more expensive player.

@UncleLou
"Besides, Valve have said ages ago that they're interested in the Wii. Pretty much an open secret that they're developing a Wii game."

If NDP data doesn't count, I think we can rule out open secrets as well... ;) But jumping on the Wii bandwagon would show that Valve can learn from past mistakes and that would definitely make them less idiotic (but still insincere with regards to their own DRM scheme and rip-off FX conversion rates).

But I really fail to see why you got so wind up about my Valve remark. Yes I used the word 'idiot' and though it might be a bit strong for a general conversation, we're on the internet and it definitely got my comment noticed. Shame it overshadowed the rest of the conversation as all I was trying to say is that I didn't like their (initial?) change averse attitude (and I have some Steam related gripes with them as well but they're less relevant to this discussion) though I stressed from the very beginning I could understand it from a business POV.

I don't get this. If you're saying too much is being put into graphics and sound and say that Japanese developers should be praised for concentrating on gameplay, the PS3 loses anyway (reducing the argument to winning and losing).

In a game where gameplay is important, the PS3 loses because developing software for it is a pain in the arse.

In a head-on competition against the 360 for graphics and sound the PS3 loses because its graphics and sound are restricted to the 360's level yet it's more difficult to develop for. (The PS3's chip is based on an nVidia so we're not talking about any otherworldy different technology here. The sound is also to all intents and purposes like the 360's.)

In a competition against the Wii for casual games the PS3 loses because the console is aimed at a different market and the controller isn't suitable.

I think developers and publishers are pragmatic, not lazy. At this stage Sony should have recognised that their hardware is terrible to develop for for no reward and by now should have made a devkit which makes developers' lives easier. Without developers on board you don't have anything.

@Les
22-Jan-09 09:27:28

@Kami
"When you're ploughing $X-million dollars into a project - any project - you also want to know that it's not going to alienate the market. This is why we see a lot of carbon-copies."

Agreed. But as Wii shows, the average consumer is pretty cold with regards to HD games. With much smaller investments, better results can be generated, which opens the door for innovation and creativity.

Hang on, that's spurious logic, Wii owners want the Wii because the Wii is what they've heard of, it's what their friends got. The Wii is the iPod of the console world, synonymous with gaming for people who have never even heard of the Xbox 360 or PS3 (as it used to be in the 80's playing Nintendo).

The absence of HD games on the Wii can't really be taken to mean that they don't care about HD games in the same way that if the Wii had HD graphics it couldn't be taken as proof that everyone wants HD games it's just something the console does or does not do. When it comes to buying a Wii HD doesn't enter into the equation for such consumers who may not even be aware that HD is an option in gaming.

HD, although people keep talking about it as if it carries intrinsic costs, (it can if you want to pump up the poly count) is at it's most basic merely higher resolution: Mario Galaxy would look as good in 1080p as it does in 480p. Well, better actually. Throw some AA on top as part of the basic package provided by the chip and it would look awesome. With no need to spend a cent more on your models.

"I don't get this. If you're saying too much is being put into graphics and sound and say that Japanese developers should be praised for concentrating on gameplay, the PS3 loses anyway (reducing the argument to winning and losing)."

No, you don't. :) I only said there's too much emphasis on graphics, not sound. I fail to see why the PS3 should lose when developers start to focus more on gameplay though. Yeah, it's harder to develop for but much of that is related to trying to make it do graphics in the way 360 does.

The reason I think PS3 has more (if little) chances of challenging Wii than the 360 is that its audience isn't as hardcore centric and it has the in-house development talent to reach casual gamers. Has little to do with the hardware in the box which is more than adequate for pleasing the masses for years to come. Right now pricing stands in the way and the standard controller isn't suitable for the job, I agree. But a bigger focus on EyeToy, SingStar and the release of its own motion controller might counter that. Investing in stuff like Killzone 2 clearly will not.

But I agree the fact remains that the PS3 is seriously overpowered and too costly for the job right now and as such was a bad investment decision from the part of Sony. But if they can learn from it and take countermeasures instead of trying to flog a dead horse, there might be hope left.

"The sound is also to all intents and purposes like the 360's"

Wrong. PS3 uses Cell for sound instead of a dedicated audio chip. It can do 7.1 uncompressed audio. That's completely different from the 360's capabilities. Will not matter though to the average consumer and will not impact the outcome of the battle with 360.

"I think developers and publishers are pragmatic, not lazy."

I think developers and publishers are first and foremost stupid and then pragmatic, but not lazy (I never used that word, that was Lou). They fail to recognize that they've been betting on the wrong horses. Gaming as it used to be will never reach mainstream, its audience will diminish rather than grown as the casual alternatives start to get better and better. It's a sign of the industry's immaturity that it takes so long to adjust to the changed circumstances. Developers consist mainly of hardcore gamers that want to create what they want to play themselves rather than what the public craves. Publishers often consist of former developers and are in a poor position to judge in which projects to invest.

"The absence of HD games on the Wii can't really be taken to mean that they don't care about HD games in the same way that if the Wii had HD graphics it couldn't be taken as proof that everyone wants HD games it's just something the console does or does not do. "

True. As a short-cut I use the term "HD games" for games that primarily focus on graphical fidelity. Of course Wii Sports would be just as popular if it used the same in-game assets but output in 1080p. My point is more that while the hardcore want ever more realistic graphics, the masses don't care about that at all. Till the Wii it was generally assumed that non-gamers didn't get games because they didn't look 'real'. Wii shows that non-gamers didn't get games because they didn't like the content of the games themselves and don't care much about 'realness' of graphics. But I could have expressed myself better, thanks for your feedback.

@Les
True. As a short-cut I use the term "HD games" for games that primarily focus on graphical fidelity. Of course Wii Sports would be just as popular if it used the same in-game assets but output in 1080p. My point is more that while the hardcore want ever more realistic graphics, the masses don't care about that at all. Till the Wii it was generally assumed that non-gamers didn't get games because they didn't look 'real'. Wii shows that non-gamers didn't get games because they didn't like the content of the games themselves and don't care much about 'realness' of graphics. But I could have expressed myself better, thanks for your feedback.

Fair enough, in that case I agree completely, well said.

The obsessive focus on improving presentation (especially graphics and physics) would be better switched to improving the experience of playing the games. Personally, if it comes down to a choice between graphics and physics or gameplay I'll go for gameplay every time. I've lost track of the number of games I've got that that looked amazing, had realistic and highly detailed physics but played like soggy cardboard, games where the developers spent so much time tweaking the gibs and particle effects that they forgot to add the fun. Thank you for your feedback on my feedback. ;)

@Les

Wrong. PS3 uses Cell for sound instead of a dedicated audio chip. It can do 7.1 uncompressed audio. That's completely different from the 360's capabilities. Will not matter though to the average consumer and will not impact the outcome of the battle with 360.

I was always under the impression, and the specs that I had read said, that it had Dolby Surround 5.1 like the 360. I'll revise that piece of trivia.

So why are developers "stupid" because they "fail to recognize that they've been betting on the wrong horses"?

If you're saying the PS3 is overpriced and overpowered for the market, then surely developers are right for not bothering with it, so it's not a case of stupidity. Maybe they can be charged with "resisting change" but change for change's sake, if it would lead them down an evolutionary dead end as the PS3 is looking like it's turning out to be, would be stupidity. The way things are going there are two clear markets, defined by what the 360 and the Wii offer and who buys them. The PS3 is rapidly turning into an also ran.

If Valve (and other developers) specialise in FPSs, have low development costs on the 360 doing them, and have a market to sell their games to then I'm not sure what the problem is. If people get bored of FPSs then change will come. Maybe they'll bring their games to the Wii after seeing how The Conduit does or maybe they'll move into other genres if sales of FPSs start to flag.

"If you're saying the PS3 is overpriced and overpowered for the market, then surely developers are right for not bothering with it, so it's not a case of stupidity"

The stupidity lies in the fact that they still put 90% of resources in generating high cost, high risk, low return games for 360 and PS3. Easier profits can be realized on Wii but what's even more important is that future players can be reached through that system.

I'm not saying developers aren't bothering with PS3, clearly they are, most titles being multi-platform nowadays. I'm saying they should stop with doing what they're doing right now on 360 and PS3 and that they'd be better off making Wii games instead or trying to find ways in which to actually harness all that processing power in 360 and PS3 in a way that matters to the expanded audience.

But what's quite ironic is that the two companies in the fiercest battle this gen actually are better off if their competitor is doing well than they are if the competitor would stall. Only combined PS3 and 360 have a chance to seriously oppose Wii and prevent publishers from totally jumping ship and leave them with little content. PS3 and 360 right now need each other.

But what we're seeing now is a symptom of that, either developers not bothering with a PS3 version or just going porting the 360 version to the PS3 but not really trying (choppy frame rate, etc...) due to the high cost of development.

Eventually, if the PS3 seals its reputation as the console with crappy ports of some 360 stuff and no ports of other 360 stuff and few exclusives which make up for it, sales will shift completely over to the 360. Who wants to pay more for less? At that point developers end up dropping the PS3 altogether.

"Eventually, if the PS3 seals its reputation as the console with crappy ports of some 360 stuff and no ports of other 360 stuff and few exclusives which make up for it, sales will shift completely over to the 360."

By now that fate seems unlikely as PS3 ports only get better* and the public where PS3 needs to get its growth from don't know or care about the porting difference at all. But if you only play multiformat games, don't care about region-free-ness, don't want to play online, don't care about a higher risk of losing it now and then for a few weeks because of repairs and don't use the system for anything else but games then the PS3 is not your best choice, agreed.

The train is rolling for MS and Sony and they now have to make the best of it. But in hindsight (which is always easy), they could have invested their money much better.

* Devs have come to grips with it and realise that if they want to continue creating stuff they like versus what the massses want, the 360 brand simply isn't good enough outside the States & UK so it's in their interest to make the PS3 versions as good as possible, within reason of course.

umm...as an Xbox and Wii owner, does anyone care how long until the next console generation as long as the games keep coming?
what's to stop MS holding out until just before the PS4 is released...call Sony's bluff as it were.

Theoretically, PS3 could pull the same turnaround that the PSP has, but as yet this has only happened in Japan and shows no sign of happening here. I guess it's easier for Kaz to say this stuff when he's sitting in a country where Sony's most unsuccessful product in an age has suddenly been heralded as Handheld Jesus. (I love my PSP by the way, but there's only so long you can play Patapon and Crisis Core for).

That includes you Valve...more games please.