Uphill Struggle

By Rob Fahey Published 17 January, 2009

Sony's expected operating loss isn't the PS3's fault, but that's where the blame will rest.

Published as part of our sister-site GamesIndustry.biz' widely-read weekly newsletter, the GamesIndustry.biz Editorial is a weekly dissection of one of the issues weighing on the minds of the people at the top of the games business. It appears on Eurogamer after it goes out to GI.biz newsletter subscribers.

Sony's quarterly results aren't due until January 29th, and its financial year still has two and a half months to run - but storm clouds are already gathering over the electronics giant, after an insider at the firm hinted that it could end up posting a USD 1.1 billion operating loss for the full year.

It's not a good time to be in the electronics business in general - rival firm Toshiba is also expected to report a loss, faced with similar issues of slowing demand for LCD televisions, PCs and laptops. In Sony's case, however, a downturn in its finances will focus attention back on what's widely seen as the company's lamest lame duck - the PlayStation 3.

It's worth being specific here - we really are just talking about the PlayStation 3, not Sony Computer Entertainment as a whole. The PlayStation Portable may not be any threat to the dominance of the Nintendo DS, but it's still a console with a very healthy installed base and fairly solid ongoing sales. (It compares far more favourably with the DS than either the PS3 or Xbox 360 do with the Wii, for a start.) The PlayStation 2, meanwhile, has been the most successful console in history, and even in its decline it continues to be a license to print money for Sony.

It's the PS3 that makes the whole operation look bad - or at least, less good than it might do otherwise. This time last year, many commentators were somewhat cautiously suggesting that 2008 might be the year when things came together for the PS3 - with the installed base rising, developers getting to grips with the hardware and a rash of exclusives (presumably) in the pipeline.

It didn't happen that way. Sony would protest that they sold a lot of PS3s in 2008, and they're right - it was by no means a terrible year for the company. By mid-year, the gap with the Xbox 360 was narrowing slowly, and even if the USA was expressing a clear preference for Microsoft's console, Sony could point to Europe and Japan and claim that two out of three ain't bad.

However, they needed something a lot better than "by no means terrible". By the end of the year, Microsoft's lead over Sony was widening again, with the Xbox 360 hammering its rival in most territories during the run-up to Christmas. Big games like Resistance 2 and LittleBigPlanet weren't flopping, but they weren't making the kind of impact Sony needed. Worst of all, the figures seemed to support Microsoft's claim to have wrested superiority in Europe from its rival.

If Sony reports an operating loss - its first in 14 years, despite the tough times it has endured in the past decade - then all of these things will be pointed to, discussed and dissected. This is, in some respects, a little unfair. The PS3 isn't doing well, but Sony's financial troubles have far more to do with the ludicrous strength of the Yen on the currency markets and the slowing sales of luxury consumer goods thanks to the global recession. The similar situation experienced by Toshiba, which has no hand in the games business, is a demonstration of this - and it's worth noting that Microsoft, too, has been surrounded by rumours of cost-cutting and layoffs in recent weeks.

(I'm reminded, in fact, of the large loss which Nintendo posted towards the tail end of the GameCube era - its first for a century - which was seen as a death knell for a company that had forgotten how to be relevant to the market. The reality was rather different to the commentary of the time. In fact, Nintendo's losses were almost entirely down to currency market fluctuations which had forced down the value of its "war chest" of overseas investments.)

In other regards, however, there's much about the PS3's performance which is worthy of consideration. Sony's console isn't selling as well as Microsoft's, and even when it does sell, it doesn't have the strong attach rate which its rival boasts. The situation only looks worse when you consider that both companies have been roundly trounced by Nintendo in this generation, at least in terms of straightforward hardware sales.

The problem isn't Sony's hardware, regardless of what internet forum arguments may rage. Consumers don't know or care about memory bottlenecks or comparisons of textured, lit polygon throughput, and the success of the PS2 ably demonstrates that developers will work around these issues if the market demands it. In hardware terms, the past few years have proved that from a purely consumer standpoint, the PS3 is more reliable, vastly quieter and offers more non-gaming functionality than the Xbox 360.

Yet they still don't want to buy the machine, and that can perhaps be explained by the areas in which Microsoft is unquestionably superior. Sony is a hardware company, and it has built a reliable, quiet, solid system. Microsoft is a software company currently going through a metamorphosis to become a services company, and it has built a great interface which ties in transparently and effectively with a superb online service.

Herein lies the rub, in two key ways. Firstly, Sony's superior hardware (and I say that purely in the sense of its reliability and build quality - arguments over its actual power are really not of interest to the majority of consumers) seems to make the PS3 into a much more expensive system to build than its rival. You can buy an Xbox 360 now for less than a Wii, while the PS3's price point remains stratospheric, a factor which is hurting the company more and more as the recession bites and its rivals drop prices.

Secondly, Microsoft's superior software and services influence both buying decisions and attach rates. The focus on online is still one that's less important than its advocates would claim, but this generation is the transition - it's the last generation of hardware in which any significant percentage of consoles will not be online, and already the figures are at a tipping point. Xbox Live, as a result, drives sales in a way which Sony's badly presented and altogether weaker service does not, because existing Xbox owners convince their friends to join them on the online service.

Moreover, Xbox Live drives sales of games and content in a way which Sony's system does not. The large Xbox Live community and the use of systems like Gamerpoints make owners of both systems (an appreciable number of innovators, early adopters and early majority consumers alike) more likely to pick up the 360 versions of multi-platform games, a view generally supported by the attach rates of both machines. In addition, Xbox Live (especially NXE) drives information and buying opportunities to consumers through an attractive, graphical interface. Sony's equivalent? A slightly pathetic RSS feed which scrolls in the corner of the screen.

Most of these disparities between the systems have existed from day one, but in the wake of 2008, they have become even more pronounced. The launch of NXE, while not exactly the massive event which Microsoft proclaimed it to be, does put even more open water between the Xbox 360's software and services and their equivalents on PS3. Meanwhile, more and more consoles are getting connected to broadband networks, and there's a valid argument which says that critical mass of connected gamers will snowball into domination for one system or the other - you could call it the World of Warcraft argument, perhaps, since that's almost exactly what has happened in the MMO space.

One other issue, however, is worthy of consideration - and this, arguably, is the most surprising failure on Sony's part of the past 12 months. For all that Sony has made mistakes in the past, it has always been extremely strong on the marketing front. However, in the latter part of 2008, it was Microsoft's marketing messages which dominated the airwaves.

In the UK, at least, the Xbox and its games seemed to be advertised in almost every ad break on prime-time television - with a canny and well-considered series of ads pushing home the message that the console has a wide variety of entertainment for all the family, and that it's cheaper than its rivals. It didn't help Microsoft to close the gap with Nintendo, admittedly, but it handily outsold the PS3 in the UK in 2008 - a significant victory given the region's strong affinity for the PlayStation brand. Where was Sony's marketing, during all of this? It was there, certainly, but it was surprisingly low-profile compared to Microsoft's push. Perhaps Microsoft plans to spend Sony out of the territory - and no matter how cynical you are about the power of marketing, the fact remains that with enough time and money, they probably can.

This race, however, isn't over yet. Perhaps more importantly, this race may not be the one that matters, since the Wii has effectively nixed the chances of either PS3 or 360 ever emulating the success of the PS2. The rest of this generation remains for Sony to get its act together, to learn how to be an effective, integrated software and services company as well as a hardware company that can produce systems which hit a market-friendly price point, rather than being excellent but unaffordable.

For 2009, nobody is predicting - no matter how cautiously - that it might be Sony's year, but that doesn't mean that the company can't or shouldn't be lifting its game with the PS3. After getting so much wrong in this generation, Sony needs to overhaul how it thinks about the market, how it approaches the market - and perhaps even who's in charge of its whole approach to the gaming space. Unless it can do that and start to pull the PS3 operation around, it'll be too late by the time new hardware appears and the whole merry-go-round starts again in a few years' time.

For more views on the industry and to keep up to date with news relevant to the games business, read GamesIndustry.biz. You can sign up to the newsletter and receive the GamesIndustry.biz Editorial directly each Thursday afternoon.

Picture of Rob.

About Rob Fahey

Read more articles from Rob by visiting the Rob Fahey archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (161) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Dante_Cubit #1 3 years ago

    It is still fucking shit.

  • richardiox #2 3 years ago

    An interesting read

  • élbéróss #3 3 years ago

    Great article. Sony should try push the price down to £200 early this year, before Street Fighter IV hits the shelf, or do some special pack with SF IV and 2 dual shocks.

  • bionutz #4 3 years ago

    price is not everything. they need to sort the services and the delivery of software to the console. Why don't games have a unified approach to multiplayer? no integration with the gaming community.
    All of this being said, I might get a PS3 this year though (multiplayer is not a bigggie for me).

  • bad09 #5 3 years ago

    LOL it's gonna be a bloody Saturday on EG!

    It's gonna be interesting what Sony come up with in 2009 and there is some nice goodies gaming or not coming this year. So many things were done wrong or need fixing though I don't think PS3 will ever be the home of Playstation if could of been, shame.

    Mind you I know EXACTLY how Sony can turn this around. In just 10 easy steps.

    1. Some GOOD Playstation brand exclusives! Sure there are many already is but Sony should look further back in the brand for their inspiration, seriously how many would love a new Colony Wars or G-Police. I don't really care about Buzz or Singstar or God of War, my PS2 was truly busted by then and I'd moved on to online goodness of Live.

    2. PS1. seriously Sony sort your f**king life out, there are some good ones on there but come on! Put those PS games I actually played and loved up on PSN.

    3. PS2. how many times Sony, fix it and more people will think about upgrading their PS2 and you will please many current users if you can do it through software (don't say it can't be done I have a PS2 on my PC - It don't work to great but I'm sure you can do better). Hell you might even, you know, make money by selling PS2 greats on PSN.....

    4. PSN, like Live, is being filled with absolute worthless tat 80% of the time. Is this really the future of digital download gaming?

    5. Price.....

    6. Stop idiots like Konami ruining potential by going off and doing their own online system

    7. Getaway 3 - slags!

    8. G-Police remake - slags!

    9. Colony Wars remake - Slags!

    10. Jet Moto remake - slags!

    There bad09 fixes PS3 for Sony, job done.


  • bdgr #6 3 years ago

    i have all 3 consoles... why? the wii is good for a few games ( super smash bros has hardly left the wii!, and the rayman rabbids games are brilliant (esp. with friends) despite what the reviews say!) and i bought the ps3 because my dvd player packed up and i wanted a blu-ray player. I have a couple of games for it, but its mainly used as a blu-ray player. The xbox is definitely my games console of choice, lots of good quality games in a variety of genres - and yes if i want a game that's multi format i'll always go for the xbox version (the lego (star wars / batman) games tho will always be bought for the wii...)

  • El-Dev #7 3 years ago

    The blame will rest solely on the credit crunch.

    The integrity of this article is extremely questionable it has to be said.

  • dirk_aircool #8 3 years ago

    Xbox live is a very big weapon. So is GTA which is no longer a PS sony exclusive . its about the experience of the games , not the hardware we play on . game developers will go to the lowest common denominator EG: game sales . they just want to sell stuff . I dont care what system I play on , but have chosen xbox due to the online gameplay . I dont even bother with my Pc for games now . its just an expensive net surpher and photo lab . I wont bother with a ps3 cos games are more or less same as xbox .

    PS . I do think we need rival systems though and wouldnt like to see the PS3 die . leaving another microsoft monopoly . that would be bad for our wallets .
    Edited by 1 at 17/01/09 @ 13:19

  • bad09 #9 3 years ago

    "So is GTA which is no longer a PS sony exclusive"

    very true GTA was a great weapon against the original xbox, Sony don't have that kind of muscle this gen IMO.

  • Kill_Crazy #10 3 years ago

    Hopefully Sony can ride out the storm. Only one proper gaming console could be more damaging for us gamers in the long run. Good to see Dopey_Cuntbit keeping up his intelligent debating skills.

  • Tomo #11 3 years ago

    Good read if slightly misleading. The article is basically a discussion of the console wars, but shhh, don't tell the fanboys ;]

    Personally I think it's simply more to do with the pricing and marketing than the online implementations - certainly that has a factor to play, but I'm not sure the amount of people hitting Live over PSN are enough to account for a significant proportion of the sales disparity.

    Like you say, MS' marketing has been far more direct - prices on the adverts highlighting how cheap it is etc, whereas all I can remember from Sony is more obscure, artsy marketing. So, things like the recent LBP adverts talking about Dave or someone and then there's all those "This is Living" adverts which were truly dreadful. The message they conveyed was pretty much bugger all. I think Sony took for granted that they made a lot of money with the previous generation, fairly easily, then tried to manipulate the gaming market to become a lifestyle option. So, they plonked in blu-ray and pushed the PS3 as a home entertainment system rather than - primarily - a games console. And the artsy Living adverts reflected their change in focus, to something far more sophisticated than it ought to be.

    Sony got too far ahead of themselves, too soon. They changed the PS3's model quite considerably from the PS1 and PS2 and it hasn't really paid dividends.
    Edited by 1 at 17/01/09 @ 13:26

  • beastmaster #12 3 years ago

    I think if Sony knock off £100, you'll see a big difference in sales. Of course M$ will do something equivalent and still probably win out. I don't think there's anything in this article which is untrue. Sony's advertising has been piss poor. Not just the lack of advertising but the ads themselves.

    The cinema add for Buzz made me ashamed to be a gamer!

  • Tomo #13 3 years ago

    Also Rob, whereabouts is your article on the 1up takeover? I can't seem to find it. Don't make me go over to GI :p

  • sneetch #14 3 years ago

    @El-Dev
    "The blame will rest solely on the credit crunch.

    The integrity of this article is extremely questionable it has to be said."

    What does that mean? If you feel you have to say it then maybe you should actually say it. Vaguely implying that there's something wrong is pointless: you sure you don't just dislike what you've read?

    Sony have put more than a few dampers on my plans to buy a PS3 over the last couple of years, keeping the price high is one of them but removing backwards compatability to force people to buy games from the (at the time) sparse PS3 catalogue was a huge negative for me.

    A price drop would be a huge incentive, but is unlikely as Europeans have proven that we're generally willing to pay their prices and Sony are, naturally, only too happy to take our money, same as any other company.

  • Kenshin001 #15 3 years ago

    I would have thought the article would have mentioned that the PS3 was outselling the 360 in 2008 until the price drop. Kind of weakens the argument that Xbox Live drives sales more than price no? I mean when MGS4 was released it had a 250,000 lead over the 360.

  • Tomo #16 3 years ago

    Ugh, found that article you wrote Rob on the changing landscape of gaming media.

    Here if anyone likes

    Boy that is a depressing read :{. Very good though.

  • CunningLinguist #17 3 years ago

    @Rob Fahey

    Quite an opinionated article you got here. I guess EG is still upset with themselves after getting so hyped for the PS3 during E3 2005 that they will never forgive it.

    You write "arguments over its actual power are really not of interest to the majority of consumers" in regard to the PS3. This is the equivalent of FOX News using "some people say (...)", a subterfuge to mask what in fact is an opinion rather than a fact. If you want to say that you base this on sales, again that would be speculation. I am sure a lot of people would prefer a quiet console, with a Blu-Ray player, HDD and Wi-Fi out of the box. I base this statement on common sense.

    Yes, one is expensive and the other one is cheap, but then again that is reflected in the quality and specs of the hardware. And again, one has a very well defined online aspect while the other is more liberal, but then again one costs money and the other one is free. It all depends on how you look at it. How do you look at it Rob Fahey?

  • Tomo #18 3 years ago

    Here they come /o\

  • SeesThroughAll #19 3 years ago

    Herein lies the rub, in two key ways. Firstly, Sony's superior hardware (and I say that purely in the sense of its reliability and build quality - arguments over its actual power are really not of interest to the majority of consumers) seems to make the PS3 into a much more expensive system to build than its rival.

    How politically correct! You sound so afraid of offending the resident XBots, that you have to be very careful with your wording when referring to superior hardware. (when using just an expression like "build quality" would have sufficed)

    What's wrong about writing the truth? The "better build quality" and openly saying that the actual power is almost equivalent to that of a 360? Enough that it in practice it doesn't make a significant difference to most consumers? Your extremely vague wording is in fact, insinuating a bigger inferiority than the one that really exists...

    In addition, Xbox Live (especially NXE) drives information and buying opportunities to consumers through an attractive, graphical interface. Sony's equivalent? A slightly pathetic RSS feed which scrolls in the corner of the screen.

    This criticism I also don't fully understand. Sony's "pathetic RSS feed" can be easily turned off. The "attractive, graphical interface" that I presume you're referring to probably is the advertising (let's call "opportunities for the consumers" what it really is, shall we?), spamming the screen, that a lot of 360 owners complain about.

    Other than those little quibbles, very good article. Your reasonings for your side of the discussion are clearly exposed.
    Edited by 2 at 17/01/09 @ 14:10

  • Tomo #20 3 years ago

    "How do you look at it Rob Fahey?"

    ROFL

    Please let this become a new EG meme. Please. rauper - get a t-shirt made for this, stat!

    The article is supposed to be an opinion piece! That's the whole point. Asking him how he looks at it is completely moronic. He's just told you!

  • lovely2cu #21 3 years ago

    I just have two major problems with the PS3:

    1. The controller is gash (position of the left stick, triggers)
    2. Lack of FULL PS2 backwards compatability

    Fix those two things Sony, and I will buy a PS3.

  • CunningLinguist #22 3 years ago

    @Tomo

    I was speaking in terms of being subjective or objective, maybe I could have made that more clear. But please don't let me stop you from choking on EG genitalia. Anyone know the Heimlich maneuver?

  • Tomo #23 3 years ago

    Hahaha :]

  • Kami #24 3 years ago

    Sony do have problems. The PS3 isn't the main one, as most consoles historically have made a loss for a while and recouped back at later dates. This is par for the course for any console manufacturer, the only exception to the rule is Nintendo and christ knows how they manage to do it. Dealings with the devil, maybe? But Sony are the only company right now that seems to be in some slightly serious dog-doo.

    Credit crunch can be blamed, as can the PS3. But so to will Bluray, and the completely unrealistic targets that Sony felt it would be able to meet to justify the expenditure. This is not merely a current problem, as Sony targets have been unrealistic for a while now (they were before PS3 launched), but it exposes a weakness within a big company that targets can be moved upwards if the costs spiral too much. This does not make for a profitable company, Sony must know this by now and if they don't, they're going to need to learn it fast.

    You get the feeling Sony haven't really been that careful of late. "We don't need to try." and "We've got tons of money." and "We have a recognisable brand name." - none of which has helped as the public - who were already not buying their goods start slowing their spending and are not buying Sony goods even more. With stiffer competition in their various markets, some of which have dwarfed their own sales, Sony are no longer the huge untouchable powerhouse they once were. They are not invincible. And they need to realise that - big companies are crumbling under the pressure of the collapsing economy. That's just how it goes.

    Sony's troubles have been there for a fair while now. It's just now as the economy heads south for the winter, those troubles and problems and mistakes are becoming stark and clear. Sony can patch up the problem, and indeed, it should. It's lost a bit of water but the dam doesn't need to collapse... if it did, I guarantee the economic situation which is already struggling is going to drown in a flash-flood...

  • Rash' #25 3 years ago

    I think this article failed on so many levels. i agree, looking long term, addressing Sony's shortcomings as a service provider is crucial, but far too much emphasis was placed on this when Wii continues to out sell the competition irrespective of similar shortcomings. again the industry "experts" neglect to give credit to Ninty's strategy and what that strategy says about the market these manufacturers operate in, namely; the consumer is less aware and concerned with online than Microsoft would have us believe.
    Edited by 4 at 17/01/09 @ 17:54

  • wanderingkid #26 3 years ago

    Well back when the 60gb PS3 was available I had a choice;
    gaming console/blu-ray player + hdd + ps1/2 compatibility + wi-fi/online play out of the box. Or an xbox which was a completely unknown risk basically. Yes it wasn't cheap but no it wasn't a hard decision. I didn't think twice about it even. Of course sony's mistakes are obvious, but I still think the console has a bright future and much potential!

  • knightmt #27 3 years ago

    I really hate brand exclusives (not the games but the exclusivity). I wonder how much power companies have to move the profit loss,
    it seems a very popular time to announce historic losses,
    maybe they have been revaluing their assets.
    Edited by 1 at 17/01/09 @ 14:30

  • konniehuqfan #28 3 years ago

    if sony hadn't invented blu-ray, what disc format do you think the ps3 would have used?

  • bibalasvegas #29 3 years ago

    It all comes down to price. You may argue that the ps3 is still good value for money with its features but at the end of the day until it's around £200 sales are not gonna pick up much. I honestly think software differences have little or no effect.

  • StooMonster #30 3 years ago

    @ El-Dev: "The integrity of this article is extremely questionable it has to be said."

    What on earth do you mean by that?

  • Les #31 3 years ago

    Sony's biggest problem is it doesn't have a monopoly or two to rip off customers...

  • Les #32 3 years ago

    "if sony hadn't invented blu-ray, what disc format do you think the ps3 would have used?"

    Simple: HD-DVD

  • secombe #33 3 years ago

    Considering I don't own either the 360 or PS3, I feel I can comment on this and my potential purchasing decision...

    Essentially, the PS3 is too expensive, that really is all it comes down to for me personally. When you can buy a fully functional 360 for less than £200, which to the average buyer appears to have virtually the same games, then the PS3 doesn't even appear on the radar. Exclusives are the usual 'swing' factor, but there is nothing on the PS3 that would really warrant an extra £100 or so of my cash. If GTA had remained a Sony exclusive, and full PS2 compatibility been available, then the £100 would have probably been easier to swallow, as it is, there just isn't enough to pay the extra cash.

    Also, I'm not entirely sure if it can be backed up by hard evidence, but 360 games appear to be cheaper generally as well, which is another major factor. I've lost count of the number of cross-format titles I've seen in shops that have been more expensive on the PS3.

    Edited by 1 at 17/01/09 @ 15:55

  • morriss #34 3 years ago

    A good article but noting to do with Sony Corp's operating losses, imo. Still, it was a good segue into the argument.

  • citizenHUNTER #35 3 years ago

    Agreed Lovely2cu:

    "I just have two major problems with the PS3:

    1. The controller is gash (position of the left stick, triggers)
    2. Lack of FULL PS2 backwards compatability

    Fix those two things Sony, and I will buy a PS3."


    Sony need to let go of their beloved controller design because ergonomically it just really does not work well anymore. The Left analogue stick should gain priority rather than be stuffed down in the center, and those triggers... I LOVE racing games and those triggers are horrendous. The Dreamcast, where they originated in the first place even had better triggers than the PS3, it's designed specifically so your fingers keep slipping off it, and when using them the rest of the pad's ergonomics makes it feel like you're constantly at risk of losing grip of it. The Xbox pad is a major reason I love the 360 so much, it's pretty much perfectly designed (except the d-pad admittedly).

    And I'm beginning to think that backwards compatibility wasn't removed to reduce manufacturing costs of the PS3 itself, but actually as some sneaky ploy to force a few more of us to buy a whole PS2 unit just for playing the huge back catalogue of games. The ever high price linked with the REDUCING of feature on the PS3 hardware over its lifetime is a sad sad mistake for Sony and they'll have lost out on a lot more than the few pennies they saved from castrating their original PS3 hardware.

    And of course, third of all is price. The PS3 as a piece of hardware is solid and impressive most definitely, but even so they still need to compete on price. I don't mind paying a premium for it considering how much functionality comes out of the box, but being still about £100 more expensive than the 360 (incl cost of wireless adapter) when the games themselves are generally the same if not slightly worse off to the 360 equivalent, just does not make sense. I'd buy a PS3 now for a brand new one at £250, but at £200 they'd massively increase sales.
    Edited by 1 at 17/01/09 @ 16:02

  • GamesConnoisseur #36 3 years ago

    Good article I thought, okay perhaps skimming over some bits but as a concise take of Sony/PS3 situation is fairly apt.

    Agreed that this doesnt meant that MS or even 'mighty' Nintendo got through the 2008 without any fluffs, I m may be termed as one of the 'biased' X360 multi platforms owner but I do feel that there are a good number of us who for various reason find X360 taking more of our attention (got level 6.5 trophy on PS3 mind you!).

    I still think PS3 is a good console and in just term of hardware/software content should be in better position compared to the underpowered and underwhelmed Wii. But at the end of the day Sony made the decisions and history will prove if these decisions re PS3 was made with too much confident and overestimation of their product/underestimation of rival consoles. I do not wish to see PS3 tanking and Sony retreating as would not do us gamers any good. Hoping they have new found healthy respect.

    I fully agree the assertations that the powers/specs of the hardware is not the main considerations for the mass consumers, its the price!

  • rarebit #37 3 years ago

    i like my ps3, it's alright you know. sony can can worry about their billions and i'll worry about buying the odd game or two, or blue ray...

  • lovely2cu #38 3 years ago

    @ citizenHUNTER

    1. The Dual Shock had its genesis as a riff on the SNES controller. Remember, PlayStation was originally meant to be a CD-based add-on for Nintendo's console. It was good at the time and the handlebars were a masterstroke, given how successful PlayStation was in making games (more) mainstream and getting older people with bigger hands to play. Then along came the N64 with its analogue stick. Sony chose to bung a pair into an unergonomic position on their own controller, in order to stay relevant, and 10+ years later it's all a bit outdated. Sony can't/won't refresh the design though, presumably because its silhouette is too iconic as a semi-logo, which is why the triggers are shaped the way they are, to fit, thus why they're crap

    2. Maybe you're right about Sony removing PS2 BC from PS3 in order to prop up PS2 sales, which of course are profitable to Sony, but if that is indeed the case, all they're doing is holding up uptake of the PS3, with people not wanting to get rid of their PS2 games. Remember, a lot of non-nerd casuals probably don't want multiple games consoles under their TV, they've already got the Sky box, DVD player, etc under there

    3. The PS3 is expensively prohibitive for cost-conscious families no doubt, but for someone like me who's young and has a decent amount of disposable income, it's palatable. And tbh I'd spend such money on a laptop or an iPod easy. The problem is one of value. What do you get with the PS3 that you can't get with the considerably cheaper 360? A much worse online ecosystem for one. A worse controller. Poorer multiplatform games, technically-speaking. A dwindling number of important exclusives. This is why the price seems worse than it is, there's a serious lack of value attatched to the sum you pay. Blu-Ray is the only source of any real value in the PS3 but I and many people don't really care about it, DVD is fine.

  • jonsaan #39 3 years ago

    300 quid is hardly 'stratospheric'.

    An interesting read but one with far more personal opinion than hard fact.

  • secombe #40 3 years ago

    300 quid is hardly 'stratospheric'.

    It is when for £200 or less you can basically have something which - for the majority at least - offers pretty much the same stuff.

    As I said, full BC and hanging on to some important exclusives (such as GTA) might have made it more appealing, particularly for current PS2 owners, but as it is, there really isn't a great deal of difference between the two.

  • spudsbuckley #41 3 years ago

    Price is the problem. Who in their right mind is going pick a PS3 when they look at the 360 and PS3 and see that they share a lot of the same games and both produce comparable graphics performance yet one is considerably dearer?

    The thing is most people who are deciding which console to buy don't realise that the PS3 is region free so you can import Blu-Ray discs and games cheaper that most EU 360 titles from the US/Canada and recoup the additional cost after about 5 software purchases.

  • TheComedian #42 3 years ago

    '300 quid is hardly 'stratospheric'.'

    It is if you're not a bourgeois bastard. Especially when compared to the 360.

    I thought this article was a great read, although that might be because I love Xbox and the article reads as essentially '360 > PS3' but with economic terms thrown in.

    PS3 exclusives are going to dominate this year though

  • jonsaan #43 3 years ago

    Ah yes, my ability to not quibble over 40-50 quid makes me bourgeois, silly me. I would argue that your willingness to pay 60 quid for a wireless adaptor, 40 quid for LIVE services, 20 quid for a quick charge kit and 60 quid for a hard drive makes you more bourgeois than I. And a bastard to boot ;)

  • CunningLinguist #44 3 years ago

    @jonsaan

    Succinct and pertinent, much like the surgeon general's warning.

  • ChadSexington #45 3 years ago

    I thought this was a well written article, but underlines why I don't consider people who write about video games to be journalists - there's absolutely no work been put in to investigating the claims put forward.

    Okay, so 360 owners are convincing their friends to buy the same console and join them online. Where's your evidence to back that up? Care to get any statistics. Of course not - you're not a journalist, you write about video games.

  • darrenb #46 3 years ago

    I have never understood the PS3 is too expensive argument.. Machines have always been this price point!! Have you all got shory memories and not remember how much it cost to buy a Saturn and a PS1 10 years ago?? I bought aboth a Saturn and a PS1 in the same year and that cost me £700.. that was a lot of cash back then, never once did i care that my PS1 was £100 cheaper than my beloved Saturn ;-)

    If a PS3 is what you want then it shouldnt matter how much a X360 is, just bloody buy one!!!

  • CunningLinguist #47 3 years ago

    @ChadSexington

    Again you point out another instance of the classic "it's been said/ some people argue/ some say" which rules opinionated journalism. EG reads more like involuntary satire than anything else. You can have all the game consoles in the world, it doesn't mean it will hinder you from becoming an aficionado ;)

  • tomnol #48 3 years ago

    It is when for £200 or less you can basically have something which - for the majority at least - offers pretty much the same stuff.

    Don't agree. I like my 360 for the software, but contrary to my older PS3 I am constantly worried about it falling apart. The 360 doesn't really radiate trustworthiness and it is clearly build to the bare minimum specs. If you toss in a few periphals (like WiFi) the gap isn't also that considerable anymore, and to me personally the price difference is warranted given the solid and reliable way the PS3 is build. I can see, however, that someone else might consider the gap too high. Horses, courses etc.

  • byron_hinson #49 3 years ago

    I'm lucky enough to have all of the consoles without worry about any financial problems as I got them all for nothing. Overall I agree with the article completely, the PS3 is by far and away the best made console without any doubt, but the price is what brings it down in my view, I have friends who are just not willing to pay out for it, they have no opinion about which is faster, better graphics etc - just the price. Once it drops I can see it selling far far better, though it isn't selling that badly anyway.

    Though is saying about the price of it, again I still feel the PS3 offers better value for the price in terms of what it comes with, Wi-Fi and Blu-Ray, but a lot of buyers still don't use a HD-TV anyway.

    In fairness to all consoles though - anyone saying the PS3 itself is shit really shouldn't bother posting as they clearly have no clue about hardware and reliability. Software side is another thing.
    Edited by 2 at 17/01/09 @ 18:42

  • ozzit #50 3 years ago

    "Microsoft's superior software"
    Written with no irony whatsoever?

    As an aside: can someone please explain to me what is so vastly "superior" about MS's online services such that they would actually be worth paying for? its been nagging at me for ages.

  • merkdot #51 3 years ago

    ozzit: for an example of just one feature, click the username of any eurogamer who has bothered to put their Live account in their profile.

  • byron_hinson #52 3 years ago

    @ ozzit - anyone with all the consoles wouldn't need to ask that. The 360 software is far far better than that of the PS3, much easier to use, so much more available, easier to find. Friends lists so much easier to manage and chat, everything integrated together so well. The mutliplayer side of things to me isn't worth paying out for - I still feel the PSN multiplayer side of things has worked perfectly for me with all titles I've used just as well as Live has. But software side - no question, 360 wins hands down and that was even before NXE came out to improve things again.
    Edited by 1 at 17/01/09 @ 18:54

  • Tomo #53 3 years ago

    £300 is far too much, especially after 2 (?) years on release. The previous generations launched at that price for gawd's sake. That's only the PS ones as well. The DC was £200, the GC something like £150 and the Wii was £180.

  • merkdot #54 3 years ago

    I think you can trace most of Sony's issues back to being fundamentally too slow at producing software. Featureless XMB at launch, still no GT5, Killzone being shown in 2005 (albeit as a render) but only now coming out, no movie rentals outside of the US, and they were beaten to the punch there too. Late and therefore inconsistent in-game support for voice, trophies and custom soundtracks.

    Regarding the marketing; I think it goes hand-in-hand with their other problems. People looking for a Blu-ray player can get that significantly cheaper elsewhere, likewise a console. Without any significantly well known "only on PS3" thing to show, it's difficult to advertise on TV at the same time as the £179 Wii and £129 Xbox 360.

    PS3s advantages are simply not tangible enough in a market that isn't really looking for a high-end big ticket product.

  • spiny #55 3 years ago

    The number one issue has to be marketing.

    Q: How many xbox ads did you see over xmas? A: Craploads.
    Q: How many PS3 ads did you see? A: One. Possibly. If you went to the cinema.

    Even MS have been quoted as saying that over marketing it, having done "launch level marketing" (their words). They've successfully managed to get joe public to think "xbox=games" and possibly "oh yeah, there's this other playstation thing"

    The headline price of the 360 will get a lot of people buying arcades, but for what you get, the PS3 is comparable in value, at least to anyone who can add up. (XBL @ £35, wifi £50, hard drive $40).

    I'm not convinced on the argument for live selling lots of xboxes outside of core gamer demographic. I bet there's lots of punters who still never connect to the internets.

  • mikeck #56 3 years ago

    "It is when for £200 or less you can basically have something which - for the majority at least - offers pretty much the same stuff."

    By the time you buy the additional extras for the 360 (wireless adaptor, extra disc space etc) that price differential is reduced somewhat. For the 360 to offer the same as what the PS3 does out of the box you have to spend a bit more money. However, the point does still stand, the price is a very significant factor - and most people buying a console right now would lean towards the 360 over the PS3. Shame, as I love both consoles, but it seems the PS3 is going to finish dead last this round.

  • ozzit #57 3 years ago

    @byron

    "anyone with all the consoles wouldn't need to ask that."

    Quite right, hence the question :)

    Cheers for the answer by the way, I'm glad there is more to it than being made to pay to play online.

  • TheSpaceCowboy #58 3 years ago

    Main reason I dont buy games for my PS3 is I bought my PS3 when sony said Dual Shock was old tech so I dont have rumble, the games on 360 seem to have more DLC and Xbox Live. Plus the SIXAXIS controller is pants, way too light and cramps my thumbs.

  • SlackMaster #59 3 years ago

    I think one thing that hasn't really helped the PS3 is that this generation there are far less exclusives. The competition is a lot cheaper and many of the games that were exclusive to the Playstation have now become multiplatform so for many it's just a price issue.

  • captain-future #60 3 years ago

    Actually Sony PS3 isn't doing too bad considering the almost double price point. But it's nowhere near the stellar performance of the PS2... ironically it looks like the Xbox 360 is the "PS2" of the HD generation. It come early to market, had a lot of quality problems and is cheaper.

    Meanwhile Nintendo is really printing money with NDS and Wii, which must bother Sony much more.

    The real reasons why PS3 isn't firing on al cylinders are:
    1. It's not really a good value - don't get me wrong I bought my PS3 for 600 EUR on launch day, and I consider it a "fair" price for what's in the box, but actually most people don't need Blu-ray, DVD-playback or Super Audio CD support. What they might want is B/C for PS2 games which was removed in the later models.

    2. Only a few exclusive must-have games, nameley Uncharted and Metal Gear Solid 4... that's it. And the real deal is GTA IV and FFXIII also on Xbox 360 (with more content sometimes).

    3. Sony's marketing is really lazy these days. I remember times where PS2 was out there on every billboard, tv commercial etc.etc.etc. But for PS3 it's not enough. Also Microsoft gets the hype for mediocre games like Halo 3 (yeah, it's really not that great!) much better done.

  • kaya08 #61 3 years ago

    The 'PS3 is better value' argument just doesn't add up. It costs £170 (less if you shop around) for a 360 WITH a HD, everything else available on the PS3 is unnecessary for a games console.

  • TheComedian #62 3 years ago

    jonsaan: 'Ah yes, my ability to not quibble over 40-50 quid makes me bourgeois, silly me. I would argue that your willingness to pay 60 quid for a wireless adaptor, 40 quid for LIVE services, 20 quid for a quick charge kit and 60 quid for a hard drive makes you more bourgeois than I. And a bastard to boot ;) '

    My 360 isn't online :)

    If I want multiplayer I have actual friends to invite round to play with (edit: they bring their own controllers). I don't have arcade; I have the 60GB model bundled in with some very high quality games for £180.

    Kinda scraps your argument doesn't it?

    Inproper use of 'I' btw - if you want to convey a feeling of superiority over me, at least don't screw your basic grammer up and look like an idiot.

    Anyway, I posted that comment with a whiff of humour. Sorry if it didn't come across - the internet is kind of rubbish at subtlety.
    Edited by 2 at 17/01/09 @ 21:17

  • Whatsfor #63 3 years ago

    <a href='http://vgcha rtz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=Wii®1=All&cons2=PS3®2=All&c ons3=X360®3=All&weeks=200'>Life time sales.</a> Like for like by date the PS3 is ahead of the 360 still...

  • oupe #64 3 years ago


    Don't agree. I like my 360 for the software, but contrary to my older PS3 I am constantly worried about it falling apart. The 360 doesn't really radiate trustworthiness and it is clearly build to the bare minimum specs.

    About the only console that radiates trustworthiness is my original gameboy which still works. Also, I don't want you to get worried but there are rumours about blu-ray drive death ;)
    Edited by 1 at 17/01/09 @ 21:55

  • coolbritannia #65 3 years ago

    Nicely balanced article. The price point and lack of quality exclusives from last gen are the main issues I think. Want to play GTA? FF? Devil May Cry?

    It's a shame the new IP's like LBP aren't doing it for them.

  • Mongoose #66 3 years ago

    I thought this was a nicely balance articled from someone who clearly knows both consoles well. I think the 360 or PS3 could be as successful as the PS2 when the prices come down though. Remember that the PS2 has been dirt cheap for ages now - if Microsoft continue to support the 360 for long enough (unlikely I admit) it could probably do it. The PS3's reliability and Sony's penchant for long-term plans mean I'm not counting them out either!

  • Mr-Bozzey #67 3 years ago

    hmm imtresting read and to be honest i agree while a ps3 owner myself i have noticed this. thing is if i didnt have a laptop or access to any of these sites id be completly oblivious to all of this.

    frankly its how i want it to be really like the ps1 and ps2 days console wars raged online on pc and and companys but me well i was buying my OPSM mag with demo disks happyly not knowing or learning anything about it.

    out of site out of mind is how i'd like it and i would quit these sites and go back to the old ways and i could

    but ive been exposed to it to much and i know and cant forget about it all so i can only stay and watch as people tear into consoles and the slow fate comes around that maybe just maybe we have another dreamcast storyline on the cards .....

  • NHDave #68 3 years ago

    But..but...the PS3 has da cell and teh bluray!!!!!ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

  • bioreit #69 3 years ago

    I actually think Rob pretty much nailed this thing on the head with his World of Warcraft comparison. I mean,look at that game - it's basically geek nirvana and yet millions of 'regular' folk buy, pay the subs and forget how to do things like wash themselves because they become so addicted.

    A significant part of the Wii's success is the introduction factor, whereby non-gamers are exposed to the Wii and have fun bowling or playing tennis or whatever and decide to buy one for themselves. It was also no doubt helped in part by the press, who just couldn't stop talking about it to the point where even your gran would know what a Wii was.

    Xbox Live definitely goes some way to emulating this kind of purchasing behaviour - once enough members of a circle of friends buy a 360, the majority of those yet to buy a console do tend to also buy a 360. It's easier to lend/borrow games and peripherals for a start, and with Xbox Live, it means you can play online - which IS becoming more and more mainstream.

    The PS3 is still displaying a too high price for normal people and you can argue about how it's cheaper to buy it all-in and right from the start until you're blue in the face; that if you want wifi on a 360, it starts costing the same as the PS3, which is kinda true, but ask yourself this: If normal, regular folk aren't going to buy a 3o60 and then gradually add extras onto it over time, because to do so would mean paying a higher price in the end, then how the bloody hell do Littlewoods and all the catalogues and websites that let you pay on finance stay in business? And who do you think their customers are? It certainly won't be the people who can afford to pay full price up-front with 0% interest. It's the people who can't afford £1000 in one go for a new TV, but can afford £50 a month, even if it means they almost double the cost of their new purchase.

    The PS3 is perceived to be too expensive for normal people, especially now of all times. The fact that buying a 360 and then adding extras to it may cost them more over a longer period is inconsequential.

  • niteninja #70 3 years ago

    The games industry will not start again when the next batch of consoles comes around.
    Why simple because we are heading for a massive crash studios are already shutting.
    Putting out propoganda like the games industry is ok in a recession is grade A bullshit.
    Mark my words the games industry will hit the dirt before the next batch of consoles is out.
    Saying the ps3 is to expensive is correct but its complete unlike the 360 which you have to pay 40 quid online,60 quid network adapter and 15 quid play and charge.
    M$ rapes the shit out of you on extras.
    Shocks me to see how many dumb people havent figured it out yet.
    Edited by 1 at 18/01/09 @ 01:18

  • BonzoBanana #71 3 years ago

    Gaming is here for good now I think . That doesn't mean the market won't shrink in a recession but no way will there be a collapse. However if it did collapse that would be worse for wii as that is the casual gamer console. Hardcore gamers are more likely to own 360s and ps3s and hardcore gamers will be more likely to stick with gaming.

  • chris_ace #72 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 11:55:13 13-12-2011

  • niteninja #73 3 years ago

    The reason the 360 sells so well these days is because its so easy to chip pirate 360 games are a fiver round these parts now.

  • wonton #74 3 years ago

    The increase in revenue by putting in full backwards compatibility will probably be negated by the increase in cost.

    So in the grand scheme of things, it probably won't make a difference.

    just my 2 cents.

  • smoothn00dle #75 3 years ago

    study how to be alive!!

  • WelshPhoenix #76 3 years ago

    People keep saying that they think the Dualshock is outdated and that Sony are afraid to have a new controller design.

    Does anyone remember the boomerang controller?
    Edited by 1 at 18/01/09 @ 05:23

  • Knot #77 3 years ago

    The article puts too much emphasis on 2008. Especially considering MS' statement that the 360's life cycle will be stretching past 2010, similar to Sony's PS3 planning.

    This'll be a long breath race and 2009/2010 will be a crucial year for PS3 developers : Developers from Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 are finally showing what really can be done with PS3's potential AND potentially sell lots of software units.

    So, has 360 development hit a proverbial ceiling already and will it really have to sit out a long life cycle while PS3's development is finally picking up steam ? This year's GDC might confirm PS3 development improving, swaying many developers back to PS3 afterall.

  • Dizzy #78 3 years ago

    "So, has 360 development hit a proverbial ceiling already and will it really have to sit out a long life cycle while PS3's development is finally picking up steam ?"

    Dude it must be clear by now that the PS3 hardware is not superior to the 360. Both are the same. Stop wanting for the potential... it isn'tthere.

  • jjolley #79 3 years ago

    As to the potential thing, I can only say as a blind person that blu-ray, by it's definition has given me more potential. Potential to enjoy more movies. They have more audio description services on blu-ray films, probably because of the space. I've been able to watch things i'd not normally bother with, imagine watching say "rambo" with your eyes shut and no description as to what's happening?

    The other potential for me would be the fact that blu-ray games may have more commentary in them. A lot of the sports games are good now, what would they be like if someone actually made a couple of them exclusive to blu-ray? Perhaps smackdown could be that way, not that it probably will be. It's all just ideas of mine really, but even if you don't have an HDTV, blu-ray can still have it's uses.

  • dacicus #80 3 years ago

    Bottom line: it's not a hardware problem. It's a management problem.
    Price, a lack of AAA titles(which Xbox 360 managed to attract) and a poor understanding of the market. Add to that a poor developped online service and the fact that Sony didn't managed to attract too many 3rd party developpers, the complaints about how horrendous Sony game developpment kit is and it is pretty much clear that Sony should fire some of its CEO and replace them with someone who has a better understanding of how to run a gaming business(one can dream...).
    Not the hardware is at fault, but how everything else was managed.

  • rotmm #81 3 years ago

    @niteninja, "Saying the ps3 is to expensive is correct but its complete unlike the 360 which you have to pay 40 quid online,60 quid network adapter and 15 quid play and charge.
    M$ rapes the shit out of you on extras.
    Shocks me to see how many dumb people havent figured it out yet. "

    And by the time you buy a HDMI cable (as the PS3 isn't HD "out of the box";), a new Hard Drive because of all the mandatory installs and the Sony remote to properly use Bluray, it becomes more expensive all over again. Notwithstanding that the DS3 are also more expensive than the 360 controllers, so buy more of those and the price increases further.

    Shocks me to see how many dumb people havent figured it out yet.

  • spudsbuckley #82 3 years ago

    A HDMI cable is about 5 quid, the hard drive is plenty big considering you can delete game data that you're finished with plus not every game has a mandatory install and i wasn't even aware of the existance of a Blu-Ray remote because you can use the joypad to control playback.

    The DS3 is dearer than the 360 pad but each 360 pad also needs to have a play and charge kit bought for it.

  • RobTheBuilder #83 3 years ago

    The problem is simple.

    Sony gambled the PS3 against Blu Ray winning the HD format wars. They pushed up the component price in order to make Blu Ray a profitable beast.

    Problem was, despite winning the gamble; Blu Ray hasn't become a new DVD. It's now fighting downloads and consumer apathy.

    If we'd all decided to buy Blu Ray players, then Ps3 would have shot off shelves. But its not worked out like that.

    Sony have got a loss making console in a loss making company; they can't cut down the price in case people fear a Jaguar style panic clearout. They also can't afford it.

    The only way Sony will get out of this is to make Blu Ray ESSENTIAL for film fans. A few good exclusives will help, but MS know that and are doing their best to prevent anything not made by SCEA/J/E being PS3 only.

    Oh and the lack of GT doesn't help.

  • Beek4257 #84 3 years ago

    @Knot
    The article puts too much emphasis on 2008.

    I'm afraid Sony is partly to blame for that, what with 2008 supposedly being/been "the year of ...".
    Edited by 2 at 18/01/09 @ 11:53

  • rotmm #85 3 years ago

    @spudsbuckley,

    See, arguments can be made for each. Of course you don't need a play and charge kit for each controller, as must households now have things like digital cameras and therefore will also have a supply of rechargable batteries and chargers. With the PS3, the machine actually has to be switched on for DS3 charging to work, so there are extra costs for electricity and whatnot.

    Why it is that the machine wasn't designed to provide power to the USB ports when it is switched off I don't know.

    Hard drive? Most people on forums seem to talk about how they've installed a 320GB hard drive when challenged about mandatory installs. Sure, it's not an actual requirement, but then neither are play and charge kits, Wireless dongles and various other "additions" spouted by fanboys when trying to explain how the 360 is more expensive than the PS3. And I'd actually say that a large HD is more important once you have a decent game collection, as it's kinda stupid when a friend comes around to play GameX and you have to uninstall another game to make space and then install another one before being able to play it. Yes, not all games require an install, but enough of them do to make HD size an issue.

    HDMI for 5 squids? Yes, there are places online where you can get cheap cables. But buy your PS3 in Comet or Game and you are looking at a minimum of 20 quid. It's either that, or buy it, look online, place an order and wait a week or two for it to be delivered for whatever price you can find plus postage. Better would be to have HDMI in the box I'd have thought.

    As for being able to use the DS3 for media menu navigation, sure you can do it. Of course, the DS3 doesn't have a pwoer-down mode so you're using the batteries all the time and have to recharge with (with the PS3 on of course) more often. Also, the DS3 is designed for gaming, a media remote is designed for navigating media. It just looks and works better.

  • Rash' #86 3 years ago

    as we're on to potential: bluray certainly has the capacity to offer devs with big budget productions more ambition. there is no doubt it can become a differentiator, whether publishers view large scale game productions as economically viable is questionable at this stage...

  • Rash' #87 3 years ago

    how on earth did we get to media remotes? anyway, the remote is very good on PS3 and of course if you are that way inclined then you will buy it. but it isn't necessary as the pad is perfectly workable and can be turn off at will very easily. 360 doesn't come with a remote either so this "hidden costs work both ways" is... fanboy propaganda.

    ;o)

  • Ryze #88 3 years ago

    @Rob Fahey

    Firstly, Sony's superior hardware (and I say that purely in the sense of its number of expensive components - arguments over its actual power are really not of interest to the majority of consumers) seems to make the PS3 into a much more expensive system to build than its rival.

    FIXED
    Edited by 1 at 18/01/09 @ 12:27

  • spudsbuckley #89 3 years ago

    @rotmm

    'as must households now have things like digital cameras and therefore will also have a supply of rechargable batteries and chargers'

    Yeah, because when the batteries run out in a joypad mid-game it's prefectly acceptable to have to wait for them to recharge before being able to play again rather than just playing on while a battery pack charges like the DS3 or 360 pad and battery pack 0_o

    'Most people on forums seem to talk about how they've installed a 320GB hard drive when challenged about mandatory installs.'

    There's no need for a 320gb hard drive on either machine. That's just fanboy willy-waving in sigs on PS3 forums.

    'HDMI for 5 squids? '

    I bought a HDMI cable in Zavvi the other day for a fiver. If you pay anymore than a tenner for a decent lenght one you deserve to be ripped off.

    'As for being able to use the DS3 for media menu navigation, sure you can do it. Of course, the DS3 doesn't have a pwoer-down mode so you're using the batteries all the time and have to recharge with (with the PS3 on of course) more often. Also, the DS3 is designed for gaming, a media remote is designed for navigating media. It just looks and works better.'

    The exact same can be said about the 360 being used for DVDs. Plus you're obviously going to have the PS3 turned on when watching a Blu Ray disc or DVD so you can charge the controller then.

    I personally own all three current consoles and i think the PS3 is better value out of the box by a tiny amount. The 360 is under-spec in it's vanilla form and while the Elite goes some way to addressing this it still needs at least a wireless adapter and a play and charge kit to compete with a vanilla PS3 and even then it still can't play Blu Ray. The Wii is a complete anomally however because it's just terrible and yet it's trouncing both the PS3 and 360. Mine is just an expensive dust collecting impulse buy :(


  • IneptPercy #90 3 years ago

    I have to say this is the first generation since I have been earning money that I haven't just bought all the consoles that really is a testament to the lack of value the PS3 offers to me personally.

    Right now I can play blu-ray/HD-DVD and a good amount of games on my PC. The wii has the occasional good game for me and keeps my other half and nephew quiet. The 360 is getting less use now as multi platform goes to the PC most of the time, but when I bought it my PC was nowhere near playing games to that standard now its used for the occasional 360 exclusives and some where the 360 is a better option than the PC.

    At £425 I didn't even look at the PS3, by the time it came down to £300 my PC had surpassed it in games and could play blu-ray.

    So now its only hope for me to buy it is some amazing exclusives and a huge price drop, if it was £150 I would buy it right now as there is enough interesting games for that, but the current price for something I don't really need its a no sale.

    To sum it up, the PS3 was too late and too expensive.

  • Bremenacht #91 3 years ago

    Nice, objective article.

    I'm interested in the reference to services. Apart from shops (games, films, tunes) and on-line gaming servers, - oh, and IM - do you expect to see more from Microsoft? Do you expect 360's to turn into the equivalant of standard-build PCs?

  • byron_hinson #92 3 years ago

    @rotmm - actually the DS3 can be powered down after a certain amount of time of not being used. It is set through the XMB

  • rotmm #93 3 years ago

    @byron,

    That's true of course, but just goes to highlight the unsuitability for media control. The DS3 turns off after (eg) 30 mins, an hour into a BluRay the phone rings or someone is at the door, you have to press the button to power on the DS3, wait a couple of seconds for it to connect and only then pause the movie and answer the door/phone/whatever.

    Small things sure, but doesn't happen on a remote.

  • jjolley #94 3 years ago

    I have to say that the remote for blu-ray is essential for a blind user. Firstly, it has the dedicated buttons for audio and so on, and secondly, it's a lot easier to locate the various buttons as it's a more tactile experience using it. The fact that the audio button is dedicated makes it easier for me personally.

  • Rash' #95 3 years ago

    rotmm, what you on about? do you get a remote to do media on 360? no. the DS3 can be turn off when ever you like: hold the ps button and switch off controller. and instead of pausing i would turn down the volume, take the call and rewind the film at my own leisure. all depends on how you want to look at it...

  • Knot #96 3 years ago

    @ Dizzy " Dude it must be clear by now that the PS3 hardware is not superior to the 360. Both are the same. Stop wanting for the potential... it isn'tthere. "

    FFS Damnit, don't twist my words. Nowhere am I claiming anyone's supposedly "superiority" over the other.

    However, no one can deny that development of games such as KZ2, Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain etc. prove an improved PS3 development situation, steadily evaporating that forever after untapped potential anti PS3 fanboy myth. A clear situation before - situation after case.

    Whether that results in better PS3 sales numbers remains to be seen, but it's an undeniable healthier development situation for PS3 with Game Developer Conference 09 as a possible turn-the-tide landmark, where studios such as ND and GG will share some hefty tech for PS3 developers.
    Edited by 2 at 18/01/09 @ 13:51

  • danodynamo #97 3 years ago

    Next Generation around to beat the credit crunch Microsoft and Sony should team up, split the costs of console gaming. let microsoft handle the software side and Sony the hardware side. I have both the XBOX 360 and the PS3 and my xbox is still a launch one too boot!. XBOX is the better machine for gaming by far. I don't care what anyone else says. The PS3 is fantastic aswell but i really only use it for blu-ray movies.

  • Spekingur #98 3 years ago

    Anyone who thinks that a wireless adapter means that the connection to the internet is better is an utter fool. A wireless system is only for convenience, for people who don't like to have cables everywhere. Anyone who knows what is what know that a network cable is and will always be better than wireless. A wireless connection is alot more unstable and is sensitive to outward influence - highest possible speed is 54mbps. A network cable is only suspectible to influences from the user and the network speed is normally either 100mbps or 1gbps (I suspect that consoles use a 100mbps network card).

    I lost all respect for Sony because of their representatives prior to the next gen console release. A few Playstation PR guys were basically just trolling in the media. Acting like stuck-up high-class self-important oblivious-to-consumers bignobs. Basically saying that they didn't care for the consumer, the consumer would just have to deal with what they created and the price they put on it - and the consumer would buy it! Yes, they were basically dissing their own consumers. Good job.

    I'd also like to point out that if Blu-Ray would have lost its battle against HD-DVD the PS3 would have had a really hard time being sold. Microsoft had little involvement with the developement of HD-DVD or pushing the format. A wise decision on their part, in hindsight. HD-DVD did not become a part of the X360, most likely because of costs (and then resulting price towards the consumer). Sony, however, had a hand in the developement of HD-DVD but they broke off - a disagreement on something, if I remember correctly - and went on to develop their own format. Something that took a long time and alot of money; part of which went into some major copy protection developement that was eventually scrapped. Then they spent some more good sums of money "convincing" movie studios that Blu-Ray was better than HD-DVD.
    The biggest feud I have against Blu-Ray is that to make a Blu-Ray disc (former) DVD factories needed a great big equipment overhaul. With HD-DVD you could pretty much use the same equipment as a DVD - which results in lower costs of production, which would have resulted in lower costs for the consumer if HD-DVD had prevailed.
    Will Nintendo go into developing their own format? Movies on Vinyl?!
    Edited by 1 at 18/01/09 @ 14:05

  • Rash' #99 3 years ago

    retibra, articles like this poorly considered write up by supposed experts doesn't help. thankfully these publications don't hold much weight in the mainstream. in fact alot of the views on this thread aren't in tune with mass market perception of the platform. resignation to the system's price is largely agreed to be the general view. i believe the platform is in the ascendency, with a raft of exclusives set to define the consoles mainstream credentials and a price drop eminent, i'm not cautious at all when i suggest this could the system's defining year.
    Edited by 1 at 18/01/09 @ 14:08

  • Spekingur #100 3 years ago

    @Rash': Because mainstream similar to Fox News is so much more "experty"?

    If a person is writing an article there will always be the opinion factor in there, it is unmistakably human.

  • Rash' #101 3 years ago

    Spekingur, as i said, this writer's analysis pays too much credit to MS's achievements in the online space when the sales numbers demonstrate consumers don't recognise that as a differentiator worth investing in. the figures speak for themselves.

  • Spekingur #102 3 years ago

    Yes, the figures speak for themselves. Everyone is buying a Wii.

    How many AAA games are on the Wii? How good is the online system on the Wii? Casual gaming is all in all good but in the end it is the hardcore gamer that is more willing to spend more money than any casual gamer (just look at PC gaming).

  • Rash' #103 3 years ago

    Spekingur, and the dedicated gamers will spend money on games like Madworld, Sin and Punishment 2, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, Dragon Quest, Monster Hunter tri, Tatsunoko vs Capcom... That argument is lame, but let's not digress. 360 is the cheapest system on the market with the best online infrastructure and the largest, as you put it, hardcore collection of games and yet after considerable price cuts it stays flat in YoY sales. i'm talking about sales reflecting the appeal products hold for consumers. it seems that so far the mass market doesn't get the 360.
    Edited by 3 at 18/01/09 @ 15:07

  • TheComedian #104 3 years ago

    'the dedicated gamers will spend money on games like Madworld, Sin and Punishment 2, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, Dragon Quest, Monster Hunter tri, Tatsunoko vs Capcom... That argument is lame, but let's not digress.'

    It's not, name me 3 good games that a relatively hardcore gamer would enjoy that came out on the Wii last year. I bet you can't. Games that are coming up can't really be counted on for your argument either; as there is still a possibility of them being either cancelled (extremely unlikely) or really rather crap.

    '360 is the cheapest system on the market with the best online infrastructure and the largest, as you put it, hardcore collection of games and yet after considerable price cuts it stays flat in YoY sales. i'm talking about sales reflecting the appeal products hold for consumers. it seems that so far the mass market doesn't get the 360.'

    They don't seem so flat to me, all these years after release and in competition with both the monolithic Wii and the superior hardware of the PS3, the 360 is turning profit, increasing its sales and its presence in the online community?

    But yeah, the mass market doesn't get the 360, nor the PS3; because the mass market is full of mummies and daddies buying Wii's.

  • FenderMaster #105 3 years ago

    I agree with this article that Microsofts Online service isn't as important as its been made out to be, nor is hardware superiority. Mass market consumers don't give a flying fuck about DLC, and you can gurantee that they aren't aware that the 360 version of GTA IV has dlc in the pipeline.

    The biggest drivers are Games, cost and advertising. And while Sony's finally getting the games side right, its advertising and especially cost thats killing them.
    Another aspect that has been totally ignored is the HD barrier, don't underestimte the number of kids, college students and teenagers that don't own HD TV's, and rely on old hand me down tv's for game playing, thats what first deterred me from buying a HD console. If you have only an old 50 hz sd tv, then the only machine you can be sure will work fine on it is thew Wii.

    I still think though, that in europe, the Sony brand alone is strong enough that they can still beat Microsoft and claim the number 2 spot.
    Edited by 1 at 18/01/09 @ 15:48

  • rotmm #106 3 years ago

    @Rash, "what you on about? do you get a remote to do media on 360? no."

    Nope. But of course any universal remote works just as well, on top of the numerous "cheap" 360 remotes available.

    " the DS3 can be turn off when ever you like: hold the ps button and switch off controller. and instead of pausing i would turn down the volume, take the call and rewind the film at my own leisure. all depends on how you want to look at it... "

    Yes, it's always much better to turn down the volume, go answer the door, deal with whoever is there and come back, turn on the DS3, hit rewind and follow the onscreen action to find out where you were, press play, turn up the volume, turn off the DS3 and then return to your favourite movie-viewing position.

    In fact, whoever invented the Pause function was clearly out of their mind. Sony should just remove it from ALL their products. Your way is much better.
    Edited by 1 at 18/01/09 @ 15:51

  • darrenb #107 3 years ago

    You have to press a button to pause a film??.. I would have thought that the PS3 would have been powerful enough to know that somebody had rang your doorbell, pause itself and then resume the film when you returned.

    Actually, i thought the cell would have been capapble of giving you a 30 second round up showing relevant clips of the paused film to remind you where you had got to.

  • richardiox #108 3 years ago

    lol @ Rash'...awesome, knew he would be all over this article like a pig in shit.

  • lefizz #109 3 years ago

    I also own both the proper consoles and the only game on wii i have really been annoyed at missing was BoomBlocks which havign played it is utterly brilliant.

    As other have said the PS3 is the better made device in terms on build etc. Main issues having had mine for 18months and the 360 since launch are these.

    The PS3 controller is piss poor, really is, i loved Uncharted :Drakes fortune, great game, but had to stop so many times from crippling hand ache> i got call of duty 4 on PS 3 last year same thing.

    The PS3 is stupidly expensive, here in Madrid in the run up to chistmas a decent 360 pack was about 269 euros i.e. 1 or 2 games you want plus machine with HD. A PS3 was around 399 with 1 game, usuall LBP, which was never gonna be a seller in a country where people who think they are gamers play fifa.

    The PS3 has a piss poor library of exclusives. Uncharted was blinding for me but i cant think of any other must buys this gen in the Sony camp. OK MGS 4 for a lot for people, there are a lot of deent thign comign out this year, Killzone 2 looks great but how many console shooter fans are going to have waited half way through this generation and then decided to buy a PS3. About 2 people, the xbox has been the place to be for shooter since the launch of the first one.

    The 360 has a huge library of exclusives or at least titles that came out first on it. 99% of the time those games run better on 360 than PS3 and if your a fan of online multiplayer well lets the 360 is a no brainer. The machine may be a bit cheap, and very modular i mean who buys a fuckign core/arcade whatever unless it is to replace a rrod one, but the fact is a machien which is you are tight as a duck arse can be bought for £130 but almost always performans better than the PS3 in multiformat games.
    The thing is MS have simply done a hugely better job this time around on all the other thing. They designed a great box of tricks, ok it has been woefully unreliable but the actual chip design etc is so much simpler than the PS3 and yet consistantly beats it.

    In many ways thoguht the PS3 is actually the nicer box to use, its quiter, great with media playback, decentish webbrowser.

    I think both camps ahve learnt a lot this generation, i personally think that Moore did a stunning job in turnign around the xbox division before he jumped ro was pushed due the the rrod issues.
    Sony produced a nice machine but this time lost out buy simply being too arrogant( you dont need rumble, you need to save to buy our device, we can just build it and the developers will fall over themselves to work on it etc etc... not signing up many if any exclusives.

    They really had this generation to loose and did so in stunning fashion

  • FenderMaster #110 3 years ago

    I really don't think that exclusives, online service, reliability, media functions, controller preference or games have anything to do with it.

    At the end of the day, the PS3 just arrived too late, and too expensive.

    If it was released in November 2006 for £250, then it would almost certainly be in first place this generation, regardless of exlusives, online service etc. The guy on the street just wants to play FIFA and Need For Speed on his playstation, he isn't aware of console/publisher exclusivity.

    Hell, I have (stupid) PS3 owning friends who think Gears of War is coming out on PS3, and my Dad is still waiting for Call of Duty 4 to come out on Wii!! That just goes to show how unaware the public is of console exclusive games, and how unimportant they are outside the informed hardcore market ...

    Don't overerestimate the old (pre Wii) casual market, they are grossly uninformed, and would be happiest sticking to what they know --- PlayStation and EA Sports

    All Sony had to do is give it to them for a reasonable price, in a reasonable timeframe, and they fucket that up bady, because they were arrogant, late, and forced Blu Ray on us, jacking up hardware prices, simultaneously winning the HD video format war (to little benefit), and losing the much more important console war.

    Never has a company been so completely responsible for its own downfall through arrogance
    Edited by 1 at 18/01/09 @ 18:05

  • CunningLinguist #111 3 years ago

    @lefizz

    Well said, Sony shot themselves in the foot by behaving in such arrogant manner. Goes to show that even a multi-billion dollar corporation can be run by incompetent people. And on another note I would like to applaud lefizz on his straightforward unbiased opinion; you are a sort of Sancho Panza in this sea of Don Quixotes which we call EG.

  • IneptPercy #112 3 years ago

    By all means I don't expect the PS3 to be £150 any time soon, I know the technology in there is worth more than that, just the point of with all that tech the only bits I would need is worth about £150

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #113 3 years ago

    I love the arithmetic PS3 fanboys come up with to justify the price difference. Oddly, they forget to factor in the cost of buying a PS2 if you want to have any compatibility at all for your old games, and a new house if you want the absurdly fucking enormous media remote. So really, the PS3 is more expensive by roughly £185,100.

  • TheNinkyNonk #114 3 years ago

    This article is spot on. An extrememly balanced and informed view of the market as it stands.

    I can't be bothered reading all the posts but safe to say, anyone disagreeing with this article is a narrow-minded moron deeply afraid that they invested in the wrong machine.

    And yes, I love my PS3.

  • TheNinkyNonk #115 3 years ago

    Although, on refelection, perhaps there is one issue this article doesn't address.

    I perhaps would trade my PS3 on the basis of a weak exclusive title portfolio, but I'll be damned if I trade in my Blu-Ray player.

    They are appearing in supermarket now y'know. The format war is over. Perhaps 2009 will be the year of Blu-Ray in which case, Sony's gamble of making the PS3 a Blu-Ray trojan horse may yet pay off.

  • Rash' #116 3 years ago

    rotmm, if, for a platform notorious for it's expensive proprietory add-ons, all you can offer is universal remotes, believe me, it isn't much to gloat about... but i'm sure you'll disagree.

    edit. i thought i'd humour you and decided to see what the issue with the pad was (which i'm using to type this post). 2 secs. 2 SECS!!! you're making a fuss over the 2 secs it takes betwen you pressing the ps button and the pad fully registering with the console. man that's sad and depressing. you my friend are clutching real hard there.
    Edited by 1 at 18/01/09 @ 19:57

  • TheNinkyNonk #117 3 years ago

    " In late 2008 Blu Ray got an enormous boost through movies like The Dark Knight. In that instant 600.000 copies were sold on the first Day in the US and Canada alone. After a week 38% of the Units of this Movie sold were Blu Ray Discs."

    Wikipedia

  • Rash' #118 3 years ago

    Fender, agreed it is about games, cost and advertising. however, if your product is priced out of the mass market, it makes little financial sense to invest big in advertising. when sony drop price that's when they'll advertise big, as that's where the larger percentage of sales lie. MS did it last year and Sony will... return the favour.

    incidentally how did you come to the conclusion the article was suggesting online isn't important. it raved on about MS's online service and regularly implied that's the area Sony need to address.

  • FenderMaster #119 3 years ago

    @Rash

    The focus on online is still one that's less important than its advocates would claim, but this generation is the transition - it's the last generation of hardware in which any significant percentage of consoles will not be online

    This is the part that suggested that online isn't important to the mainstream, which I wholeheartedly agree in.

    I actually disagree with almost everyone on exclusives, to the hardcore (us) they're deal breakers, but for the casual market... well the casual market isn't really aware of them like I said in my above post. All they want is a cheap PlayStation to play FIFA, NFS and Gran Turismo on. For all they know GeoW is coming to PS3, and Gran Turismo is coming to 360

  • GamesConnoisseur #120 3 years ago

    A better yardstick to measure PS3, X360 and Wii is....time!

    Come January 2010 we here will be discussing the 'progresses' after the fact... nothing we say here will actually change the fortunes of these company. Mass consumers doesnt care re the hardware power, or even the exclusvities (my PS3 owning mate at work also thought Gears of War 2 would be coming to PS3 soon!).

    Pricepoint and not always easy to grasp 'fickle' factors leads the comsumers one way or other! Advertising do greatly helps but the words of mouth is more difficult to influence.

    I never regretted buying Gamecube, Dreamcast or Nintendo 64 even though they did not succeed as well as we hardcore gamers would have hoped, would have purchased Saturn but did not had the opportunity These consoles provided gamers with some great gems.
    I think all the current consoles apparently would be actually doing better than these 'failures. However I believe Sony will suffer the most as they apparenty (based on the current trends) 'threw away' the level of dominance from PS2 and other two platforms made a good gains.

  • spudsbuckley #121 3 years ago

    FenderMaster should have written this article :D

  • Rash' #122 3 years ago

    Fender, that quote is ironically from a paragraph suggesting online is driving 360 sales, which further demonstrates what a poorly considered article this is. read on from that quote and it's apparent the writer doesn't actually believe in that quote preferring instead to place weight on the counter-argument that online is very relevant. i'm with you i don't believe it is yet, but to suggest this article backs up our theory is off the mark. i don't mean to be pedantic but this guy's analysis is pretty bad.
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/09 @ 07:31

  • Rash' #123 3 years ago

    retibra, what's your PSN ID?

    oh and the posters on this site always find something to complain about with the PS3.
    Edited by 3 at 18/01/09 @ 20:43

  • FenderMaster #124 3 years ago

    @ Rash

    Yeah, I wasn't sure whether to quote the article or not, since like you said, Rob goes on to backtrack and contradict himself

    At least we can all agree that at the moment, online services have yet to assert themselves as dominant driving forces for console sales, except among us hardcore gamers who demand online multiplayer, and downloadable games and demo's.

    tbh, I'm a hardcore gamer, but with the exception of SSF2THDR i don't even play online, because games are played to such a high level its a little intimidating.

  • lefizz #125 3 years ago

    @ CunningLinguist

    Thanks, simple fact is most generations i buy most of the machines.
    I think true game fans often can't stand to miss out on the exclusives.
    I bought the 360 because although the original xbox was late to the party and had too many shooters and not enough variety i actualy though in terms of user experience it was a great machine. Significantly better than the PS2 even though there were a few issue, too big no style etc.
    The 360 at a launch price of under £300 was a superb machine, I have had most consoles, everything from PC engines to Vectrex etc and have never put anywhere near the hours onto a console like i have with the 360. It just managed to fix 90% of the issue the original one had and at a great price, which importantly has been reduced often enough to now entice the casual gamer out there.
    MS have almost either through bunging them money or just building an exciting machine that is relatively easy to programme got loads of dev on board. I think really these are the two crucial thign you need to win sales, good machine at the right price with loads of games. Worked for Sony for about a decade.

    Whilst i think people are right when they say online isnt that important to get the casual gamer I actually think the relationship is a lot more complicated than that. Why are casual gamer lapping up 360 now? Because there hardcore gamer friends have been going on about the 360 for years have been saying what a great machien it is. Mr/Mrs Casual gamer wouldn't even consider a machine at £300 but at £130 it seems ok and an if it doesnt get used much we can use it as a DVD player anyway. Now there friends, family , people they know who are into games were into it because of the online multiplayer, the downloadable content, the demos the whole 'Live' experience. This make them almost evangelical about what a great machine it is. So indirectly the online is important to casual gamers cos they might not know shit all about the machines and what they can do but like most people they take advice from people around them that do.

  • Rash' #126 3 years ago

    Fender, I hear you man, which is why i call myself dedicated rather than hardcore... ;o)

  • Rash' #127 3 years ago

    lefizz, i'm not convinced yet there has been significant improvements in sales to suggest the casuals are "lapping" up 360 online. lets see how sales for the console develop over the coming months. certainly the price cuts haven't improved sales as dramatically as the cuts suggest they would. making such cuts and still remaining on par with the previous year's sales figures suggests there isn't pent up demand for the console, as it is believed to be for PS3. casuals lapping up the 360 is a bit romantic.
    Edited by 1 at 18/01/09 @ 21:33

  • Foxclose #128 3 years ago

    From my prospective: What the PS3 needs is more games like MGS 4. Long interesting story-telling cut scenes, with great long game play. You could definitely tell why it needed 50GB. (despite what others might say). I wish every action game was like that.

    I don't know if it's financially viable though. And MSG is a long successful franchise, that's why it has big budgets. Difficult to start great AAA projects from the start.
    Edited by 1 at 18/01/09 @ 23:04

  • lefizz #129 3 years ago

    Rash Microsoft claim to have doubled sales over the christmas period in europe compared with last year.
    That seems like a pretty decent improvement to me, i dont think the UK sales were anythign like that but still.

  • lefizz #130 3 years ago

    @evilfoxhound

    Not so sure Sony are happy about their main console being seen that way but still.
    And XBL might be full of chavs and yanks but it does work 99% of the time.
    I remember trying GT4 prologue the day it came out online, and that fact a flagship product had been launched with with an online service or code like that was just jaw dropping. I think quake 2 online with a 56k modem 10 year earlier was a better experience.
    Hopefully it has been patched up to a decent level but at launch it was just plain embarassing.

    Truth be told MS could learn a lot from Sony about build quality and Sony could learn a hell of a lot from MS about networking infrastructure.

  • Spekingur #131 3 years ago

    Online services will be more of a factor later on, at least that is what I'd guess. Seeing how online services have become so mainstream and important to us in the last 5 years it is just one of those things you can't fight against.

    Also, in a war, the "weapon" that you can mass produce the cheapest and quickest will become the winner. Wii is nothing but a glorified Gamecube. And in the end, the market will have its fill with consoles - that is, it will have reached the point where everyone that wants one will already have one - be it a Wii, X360 or PS3. The question is though, what console will reach this critical mass first?

    Of course, this critical mass might be very far off, seeing how many PS2 consoles are still being sold today.

  • Slipstream #132 3 years ago

    An interesting read full undeniable facts, well written.

    the sense of its reliability and build quality - arguments over its actual power are really not of interest to the majority of consumers

    I've been saying this for a long time, due to my part in games retail.

    1st hand experience > Internet Jargon

  • Rash' #133 3 years ago

    TheComedian, in response to your question regarding games worth owning as a dedicated gamer on Wii, heres a collection of games i picked up or have yet to pick up from last year: Mario Galaxy, No More Heroes, Lost Wind, Okami, Super Smash Bros., Boom Blox, World of Goo... and Sin and Punishment.

    Now... Do i win anything???

  • richardiox #134 3 years ago

    "expensive necessary add ons" - what are these things people keep bringing up about the 360? I have had mine for 18months regular use and other than my XBL sub haven't HAD to buy anything extra at all.

  • DjFlex52 #135 3 years ago

    "expensive necessary add ons" - what are these things people keep bringing up about the 360? I have had mine for 18months regular use and other than my XBL sub haven't HAD to buy anything extra at all.

    I'm glad someone finally said this. I don't need wireless or play+charge but I do need a headset and a HD cable which the 360 gives freely. The PS3 does not.
    Which are more necessary add-ons?

  • Rash' #136 3 years ago

    DjFlex52, well clearly for you the HD cable and headset, but don't generalise. and the issue is expensive proprietory add-ons. i can decide on the quality and price i pay for the add-ons i may need for PS3... unlike the countless early 360 adopters who will pay an arm and a leg converting to larger HDD.
    Edited by 3 at 19/01/09 @ 09:55

  • layleeloo #137 3 years ago

    lovely2cu

    Why the FUCK do people still go on about backwards compatibility. Im not saying the PS2 is shit cos it isnt and I loved mine, but playing most of it now seems rather gash. Get into the modern generation for gods sake. Backwards compatibility should be the last thing on peoples minds with a new console.

    PS2's are cheap enough, just buy one you cheap bastard and stop winging about back compatibility

  • Dizzy #138 3 years ago

    TBH I think Sony could make a great comeback with a new PSP. The PS3 is a bit of a lost cause but the PSP is doing well and with a well designed and great PSP2 they could make an awesome return to form the next few years.

  • VeyronMick #139 3 years ago

    I see little discussion on the types of games having an influence on the popularity of the 360 vs PS3.

    This generation has seen a much stronger showing from US/EU game developers (sports games aside), especially in the FPS genre.

    MS seems to have tapped these more then Sony has, possibly the ease to port between the PC and 360 has helped get more of these developers interested in consoles.

    I would have played RPGs the most in the previous generation of consoles, this time around it's FPS games, and the 360 does seem to win here especially online.

    I almost bought a PS3 last weekend, but couldn't see any game that I would really want that I don't already have for the 360. I couldn't really justify paying that much money for a console that I didn't really have a reason to buy.

  • drumbaby #140 3 years ago

    The article should have just said: "PS3's higher price point is hurting it, because they've sorted out everything else."

    But it didn't, and now the comments-boosting fanboy wars will no doubt begin again, as planned.

  • AliRay #141 3 years ago

    But is it really that big a deal? Financially, Ninty didn't do so well with the GC last generation, it was a solid last-place (altho I only had a GC and loved it).

    And look where they are right now with the Wii/DS. Sony might be the same next-gen, who knows!

  • 200k #142 3 years ago

    Rash' wrote: "clearly for you the HD cable and headset, but don't generalise. and the issue is expensive proprietory add-ons. i can decide on the quality and price i pay for the add-ons i may need for PS3... unlike the countless early 360 adopters who will pay an arm and a leg converting to larger HDD"

    Ok, once more for reason as you keep changing your arguement.... what expensive "essential" proprietry add-ons are you talking about?! I paid £170 for a 360 with 2 games, 60gig HDD, HDMI cable (not included with PS3) and a headset (not included with PS3).

    There is literally nothing else I need to play games missing from that package. Like most people I know I use a wired internet connection.

    Granted early adopters "only" got a 20gig drive but an upgrade is in no way "essential" for ANY gaming functionality.

    Please enlighten me as I hate this "MS FORCE you to buy loads of hardware" myth especially when PS3 doesn't even come with HD leads or a headset - two "essential" items for online enabled HD gaming.

    Please give me just 1 example of essential 360 hardware that i dont get out of the box with all units other than the core? Also acknowledge that by excluding HDMI leads and headsets Sony are as equally guilty.

    It's hilarious how many defensive posts you have made in this comments thread, the true definition of SDF.

  • Rash' #143 3 years ago

    200k, relax and let me reiterate, what works for you doesn't necessarily work for every buyer. MS pushing proprietory hardware at extortionate prices on to unsuspecting customers is the crime being levelled against them. I'm happy what's in the package suits you, but if you wanted to upgrade in future, you would be at the mercy of MS's dubious add-on prices. Permit me to give you an example; in under two years i've virtually filled my original 60GB HDD with content. with my needs changing i can upgrade my 60GB to a 320GB HDD for less than what early 360 adopters would pay MS's proprietory 60GB HDD. With shrewd buying i could get a HDMI and Bluetooth headset for under the price of a play and charge kit. Do you see?
    Edited by 1 at 19/01/09 @ 15:08

  • Rodster #144 3 years ago

    As someone who owns all three consoles I have to say it's a fair and insightful article.

  • richardiox #145 3 years ago

    @Rash - again, I reiterate, what is this hardware MS are criminally pushing at me and friends because none of us need any or have brought anything other than what we got with our Premiums. Yes, the standalone HDDs are WAY overpriced but with no games having a mandatory install, 20gig was a reasonable amount and 60gig should be plenty. I can still buy a cheap external USB HDD for my media and run that through the 360 so why would I or anyone else ever need to shell out for a proprietory one unless they brought a core pack?

    You starting in this thread banging on about the "expensive NECESSARY add ons" for the 360 counting against it. What are they exactly...? Your HDD arguement - whilst valid in terms of the overpricing issue, doesn't actually prove your original point as an HDD upgrade is never neccessary to have full functionality. Plus, the 360 is primarily a games machine not a home emdia hub which means that 320g's of storage isnt neccessarily an issue. And as I stated, if I did want that storage for my media I'll just buy a cheap USB storage device.

  • IneptPercy #146 3 years ago

    I have to say a hard disk upgrade isn't needed for the 360, I got the 20gb model on release and yes it fills up so you know what I do... delete old videos/demos.

    If I had a 60gb model it would take 3 times longer to fill, and then I would delete stuff.
    If I had a 120gb model it would take 6 times longer to fill, and then I would delete stuff.

    The point I am making is no matter what size you get you will find a way to fill it in time, luckily I don't have mandatory installs to deal with so I have no issues with 20gb.

    The only accessory I have bought for my 360 was a VGA cable at £5 and a play and charge at £13 (but you could just buy some rechargeable battery's at £4 if it bothered you)

    So really out of the box it has not really needed any expensive add-ons, a blu-ray drive add-on would be expensive but us 360 owners weren't forced to buy one where we... blu ray trojan...

  • EmiliasHorse #147 3 years ago

    Great article.
    I bought a PS3 in November when LBP launched, not because I really wanted that game but I needed a reason to fork out for the machine...LBP is great. My second reason for buying the PS3 was as a BLU-RAY player to back up my huge but dwindling collection of HD-DVD's.

    The PS3 is quiet, it is cool running so I can hide the frankly ugly black pump in a cabinet. The Dual shock 3 takes no time to charge and stays charged for ages...but the whole system reeks of Meh!

    The online PSN store is utter shit, no other way to describe it. Shit. Poor selection, no demos, just poor quality trailers. Yes the occasional full price demo, but I want demo's of games I might fancy bunging a few quid at. XBLA is simply in a different league.

    The 360 is a noisy wheezey, grunty machine that should not be better than the silent running Sony jobby but is in ways that even a credit crunch cannot fathom. The 360 is cuddly, soft, firm and homely. It wants you to love it and it will love you back.

    I am way too old to be a fanboy, but if I were a few years younger I would sell the PS3 and buy another two 360's.

  • Rash' #148 3 years ago

    rich, if you're trying to telling me you didn't invest in a play and charge kit after your "everything in the box" original purchase then i'm sorry you are lying.

    This debate didn't start with me and I never suggested the issue is about the necessity to own the overpriced add-ons. The issue as i said in my previous post is MS pushing their expensive proprietory hardware on to unsuspecting consumers whose needs don't necessarily reflect your own. As i implied before generalising consumers needs to fit you own agenda doesn't support your argument. There will be consumers for whom Wifi is necessary. Play and charge should be standard.

    Percy, as for 20GB being fine, well MS certainly doesn't agree with you otherwise we'd all still be buying them. And if you want to keep that noise down then installing games to the drive is pretty much mandatory, so at some stage, as those Arcade games continue to expand in size, that 20GB won't be enough.

  • darth2d2 #149 3 years ago

    The only folly that Sony made with the Playstation 3 is that they made the judgment that the consumers in the market of console gaming were rational buyers who thought their purchases through. For that you cannot blame them, they come from a country where consumers are rational people who don't have the space of money to waste on a sub par piece of machinery. The credit crisis wont hurt the Japanese as much as the rest of the world because their purchasing power is in the money they have earned instead of what a company deems them "good for."

    Lets do some basic math. (All prices from Gamestop.com

    The refurbished Playstation 3 40 gb with one wireless Controller is 349.99 USD.

    The refurbished Xbox 360 without hard drive and one wireless controller is 169.99 USD.

    A 20gb refurbished hard drive for Xbox 360 is 59.99 USD

    So that brings the XBOX 360 up to 229.98 USD with 20gb less Hard drive memory and only DVD capability.

    Now lets add a year of online service @ 49.99 USD.

    With the total package your XBOX 360 has come to 279.97 with a year of online, 20 gb hard drive, and DVD capability. Another year of Online will bring you to 329.96 USD.

    Also since it is a REFURB your warranty is void. So there is a 60% chance that in the next 2 years you will either purchase another 360 or have to send it to Microsoft @ 100.00 USD. Lets keep in mind that the Red Ring of Death is not the only problem that the 360 has experienced. This 100.00 USD would be charged for any problem such as a fault disk tray system that either interferes with the game or dvds ability to play or may play the game or dvd while leaving scratches (an unfortunate event that Microsoft will not reimburse you for.)

    Honestly I don't care about the Online Network interface as long as I can read my messages and find my friends. I spend most of my online game time in the Lobby of whatever game I am playing. Also while I know that the developers have an easy time developing for the XBox 360, I enjoy the satisfaction of buying PS3 exclusive titles that still cost 59.99 USD, the same as Xbox 360's, but I know that my exclusive game is far superior in programming ingenuity.

    With the global recession it will be unlikely that we will see any next generation systems soon. So while the Playstation 3 is out of the gates slow, it has already prepared itself for the next generation with superior hardware while the Xbox 360 and Wii will have to spend their time and money on R and D. Lets also not forget the worst part of the original Xbox, Microsoft's cash cow, the poorly designed accessories. How long did an Xbox controller last? Not as long as the Playstation2 controller that is for sure. While we run down the long stretch I wouldn't be surprised to see PS3 come out on top of XBox 360 by the time Next Gen comes.

  • Rash' #150 3 years ago

    Furthermore as you pointed out rich these aren't issues to you yet because you see 360 merely as a games console, but as MS continue to shoehorn media capabilities into the box no one can guarantee what demands the changes will bring to customers. Contrary to Percy's assertion early adopters are finding it necessary to upgrade their HDD.

  • richardiox #151 3 years ago

    lol @ rash', still

  • Rodster #152 3 years ago

    @darth2d2

    I don't know where you do your shopping but I just bought three 13 month XBL Gold cards for 29.99 USD at Walmart.com. Amazon.com as well Buy.com are selling the same card for under $30 USD as well.

  • IneptPercy #153 3 years ago

    You will find MS stopping with the 20gb Hard drives is nothing to do with it not being enough storage, the problem is nobody makes 20gb hard drives anymore so it actually became cheaper to ship with a 60gb.

    As for future needs as a media center... Well I could get a bigger hard drive and move everything accross, but why when it streams everything so well, I stream music while in games a lot of the time. Past that its connected to the same TV as a full media PC so not an issue. But I can see in the future that it may move to another room, so then it can still stream accross aswell as tap into the PC's TV tuners and recording so I would say its best to stream it all anyway.

    So I am still failing to see the need for a hard drive upgrade for most users, I am not going to deny there may be some people out there but I doubt it.

    I see it as most 360 owners bought the 360 as a games console so that would mean that most 360 owners don't actually care.

    I am not arguing about the price it is ridiculous , but most people don't need it.

  • Rash' #154 3 years ago

    Percy, the problem i have with your argument is that it's based on personal experience? your knowledge, experience and time for your platform is different to others, so it is incredibly presumptuous of you to assume most will have the same needs as you for the lifetime of the system.

    and that's the fundamental point: for the lifetime of the system. permit me to discuss this from the facts. MS may have got the 360 into your home as a games console, but their long term ambition is to delivery all your entertainment needs through it's services on the platform, effectively making it a media centre. if you are suggesting that you won't ever have to invest in addition to your original buy, then you are mistaken. MS, as a proven software and services provider, will present compelling reasons to it's consumers to upgrade because that's where the future revenue is. Netflix on NXE is an example of that ability of theirs. those are the the unmistakable facts.
    Edited by 2 at 21/01/09 @ 09:57

  • Rash' #155 3 years ago

    by not being open and honest about their strategy in their hardware offering, MS are asking unsuspecting consumers to pay through the nose to join that strategy later.

    when i look at the PS3 i see a media centre that has games console as one of it's offerings. i feel confident that as the system evolves through software and services i have everything in the box to make the most of such new offerings. whether i partake in those offerings will be up to me, but at least i won't be short-changed. that is choice, my friend, not paying through the nose at a later stage.

  • Rash' #156 3 years ago

    i don't believe Sony's software and services will be as compelling as MS's but with regards to hardware, considering the similarities in their ambitions, MS's hardware isn't up to task.

  • IneptPercy #157 3 years ago

    I will admit its very much from my point of view, but I do have many friends who own different consoles and each one I have asked why they bought a 360/PS3/Wii? none of them have said because it will be the better media center in the future.

    I fully agree that if I want to start using netflix and such like then my 20gb HD isn't going to be up to much. What I am trying to say is that most people who have bought a 360 to play games on are going to keep playing games on it. It will come to a point where netflix will be going etc and at that time I would weigh up if it was worth it and would then have to add the price of a overpriced HD into the equation, personally I would just call it a bad idea and just keep using it for what I bought it for which is to play games.

    The actual arguement of which is the better media center is debatable, my personal view is if you want to connect it to a network with a media PC then the 360 could be the better option as it intergrates very nicely, meanwhile the PS3 is a better standalone media center as you can chuck a huge HD in store everything on it, play blu-ray etc

    This is where the PS3 falls down to me, its great it does all that, but not everybody wants all that.

    If you want a good media center then build a PC, mine can play HD-DVD and Blu-ray, 2 freeview tuners, 2 satellite tuners, card reader and a 7.1 speaker system attached. I know that the PS3 and 360 both look weak in comparison. As it is I also chose to spend more and get it upto gaming spec to but that isn't needed.

    Basically if somebody wants a great media center they will build one, if somebody wants to play games they will buy a console. There is a cross over where people will actually consider the media capabilities of a console before buying, but most consoles are sold for games, both the 360 and PS3 have great games but then the price comes in, when all you want to do is take it out of the box and play games then the 360 is the cheapest by a long way.

    I can honestly say I don't have anything against the PS3, it is nice but its just too late and too expensive, I bought the 360 because it was first and it had nice graphics, the PS3 is yet to make me go 'wow, I need that'.

    Just think of any product in the world, you buy one at £280, 3 years later somebody trys selling you something which does nothing better or worse for £300 would you accept it? That is why I still haven't bought one.

  • Rash' #158 3 years ago

    Percy, before we digress any further let me remind ourselves that this is about overpriced add-ons in the mainstream games market. you argue those additional features aren't necessary, yet my argument, which is the most crucial that you haven't addressed, is: when Microsoft's hardware strategy is to turn the 360 into a mass market media device, how can those add-ons not be necessary at some stage in the consoles lifespan?

    i understand building your own can be the best solution, but the practicalities of that to the consumer as well as revenue potential aren't as rewarding as an all in one standard.

    again you're looking at this from your perspective, while i'm looking at the business. Microsoft's hardware isn't designed well enough to deliver on their ambitions. in the long run, the unsuspecting consumer will pay for that.

    p.s. by most accounts PS3 is a better media server than 360. check that.

  • IneptPercy #159 3 years ago

    Basically if microsoft are trying to push the 360 as a media center and that is there future business model then due to the over priced add-ons which are needed for that purpose will ultimately lead to less people taking up the services than they hoped, so overall it would fail.

    I just believe you are grouping media center people and gamers as the same thing when I don't believe the 2 are exclusively the same.

    Right now I would say the majority of consumers view the 360 and PS3 as games consoles, to which as games abilities alone there is nothing between them, on that note you have to admit the 360 offers the best value.

    When you start adding media capabilities overall I will admit the PS3 is the overall strongest, there is some points the 360 wins on, but as mentioned cheap HD upgrades and blu-ray playback overall win that side of things.

    Overally I won't debate the PS3 is excellent value if you want everything it does, but how many people actually want everything it does? this is where the sting comes in and that is why the PS3 is struggling.

    To sum it up:
    PS3:

    Positives:
    Games
    Media ready
    Cheap add-ons
    Blu-ray playback

    Negatives:
    You have to pay for all the above if you want it or not.

    360

    Positives:
    Games
    Cheap to buy

    Negatives:
    ridicously expensive add-on's
    said add-ons needed if you want it to do 'more than games'

    You have to consider a lot of people bought a PS2 later in its life as it was cheap and had loads of games, now its the 360 which is cheap with loads of games. I would say the playstation brand and loyalty is the main reason the PS3 is doing as well as it is. Dare I say if you take the 2 consoles and literally kept everything the same expect for who manufactured each console then the PS3 would be first, with the brand and being first to the market Sony would have cleaned up the market and it would be the late and expensive xbox in a lot more trouble as the xbox brand was nowhere near as strong at the time.

    If you look last gen, the xbox was the better console power wise but it was too expensive and too late and with no brand name/loyalty it didn't get a huge share of the market. This generation the PS3 is the one which is the later more powerful console but its price is much higher. As said if it didn't have the playstation brand it would have much bigger problems.

    Glad this has remained a sensible debate either way, sure we will agree soon. :-)

  • m0thr4 #160 3 years ago

    I think FUD is the prime cause of the PS3's failure.

  • IneptPercy #161 3 years ago

    "I think FUD is the prime cause of the PS3's failure. "

    I am sure it has slowed the 360's sales too, not sure which will be hit worse be the cloud of FUD actually.