Sony aims for comeback win with PS3

[Arnwyn]

I think MS is looking to extend the lifespan somewhat for the 360,

You not only need to think that, it's indeed a fact. MS has already said that they are now expecting support of the 360 to last considerably longer than the original Xbox. Hell, Attack of the Show (on G4) already reported it some weeks ago.

Anyone who says that MS is "soon" to be going to a new system in just a couple of years clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.




As for BC, I've read that the 80 GB PS3 is at least comparable, if not better than the 360's lackluster BC, so I don't know what to believe.

 

[drothgery]

You not only need to think that, it's indeed a fact. MS has already said that they are now expecting support of the 360 to last considerably longer than the original Xbox. Hell, Attack of the Show (on G4) already reported it some weeks ago.

It's probably worth reiterating, though, that most of that 'longer' period than the 4 years they had the original Xbox around is going to be after the 'Xbox 3' comes out. They're talking about a PS2/PS1/NES-like 'long tail' period.

Anyone who says that MS is "soon" to be going to a new system in just a couple of years clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

Two years from now? Almost certainly not. But three is likely (as that would fit with the normal five-year console upgrade cycle), and four is pretty much an absolute max.

 

[Vocenoctum]

As for BC, I've read that the 80 GB PS3 is at least comparable, if not better than the 360's lackluster BC, so I don't know what to believe.

Well, what's lackluster about the 360's BC?

The list I saw for the 80gig, seemed many games had increased flaws, but it may only be in comparison to the 20/60 gig's slightly flawed BC.

The main thing is, the Xbox games stopped as soon as the 360 came out, so not a big deal, whereas they're still making PS2 games and Sony has stated they won't be emulating any anymore (for 20 or 80).

 

[Arnwyn]

Two years from now? Almost certainly not. But three is likely (as that would fit with the normal five-year console upgrade cycle), and four is pretty much an absolute max.

*shrug* Didn't sound from the report that the "normal five-year console upgrade cycle" was going to apply to the 360.

 

[drothgery]

*shrug* Didn't sound from the report that the "normal five-year console upgrade cycle" was going to apply to the 360.

See I read that report as MS wanting a normal cycle with the 360 (i.e. 5 years as the lead console, 2-3 years as discount bin option), rather than the truncated 4-year cycle they did with the orignal Xbox.

I don't think anyone at MS thinks it's plausible to have the 360 as their high-end console much past 2010. They made some design choices with the 360 that were absolutely essential for getting the thing out in 2005 at something vaguely resembling a reasonable cost -- most notably including a standard DVD drive rather than an HD-DVD or BluRay drive -- but which limit its longetivity.

 

[John Crichton]

What's crummy about 360 BC? I mean, I don't have every game by a long shot, but the titles I still play have all worked great.

Lack of support for all games and many of them have issues plus no ability to transfer saves from the old Xbox easily. I put in KotOR2 earlier this year and it played terribly. It's cool that games like Halo and Jade Empire look even better on the 360, but that needed to be icing on the cake not the endgame. The Wii & PS3 did a much better job supporting last gen with their current consoles. So it's just by comparison. I haven't been impressed.

Mind you, the internet is never a good way to judge a person, but since the start you've posted in an anti-MS/ pro-Sony style (at least IMO), so that's generally how you're responded to. I myself had a RRoD by Halo3, but I also had a defunct original XBox and my brother is on his third PS2.

I do tend to come off more on the Sony side but that is typically because of all the hate. I love/hate all three companies equally, that's why I own them all. And that said, the 360 is the one I've easily played the most over the last year. We use the PS3 alot around here but it's typically been more for PS2 games (FFXII) and Blu-Ray/DVD viewing.

Meanwhile, my Sega Genesis lasted forever!

I think mine crapped out on me. But I did buy another one last year.

On the tech side of things, I think all of them are just hoping for tech to resolve in such a manner that they can provide dirt cheap consoles later on, but I don't know that the PS2 experience is repeatable. I saw somewhere that the PS2 parts in the PS3 cost $50ish, and I can't imagine that the actual PS2's made now cost $50ish!

That makes sense.

Sony's BC problem is $. They had to cut the cost of the unit (cutting the chips helped) to lower prices. They don't want to pay for software emulation, so that's off the table. From what I gather, the 80's BC is subpar compared to the hardware of the 20/60, and they won't be improving on it. It's a dead deal for Sony right now.

That's a little up for debate among people who have them but then again I was never for them dropping the BC from hardware to software then altogether. It doesn't bug me that much because it's really only now that Sony is really pushing the PS3s as the full HD experience or really at all. I really do think they released it to get it out there at that crazy high price (terrible game line-up and all) because they still had plenty of revenue coming in for the PS2.

The halfway decent thing about the PS2 if you want to lump it in with the BC conversation is the size and price. I would rush out right now (just like I did with the slimline PS2) and get a cheap slimline Xbox if I could. I've got just enough games that it would be worth it. But that huge box just doesn't work with my setup nor does my older PS2. The PS2's are easy to find and all the different colors makes it a pretty easy purchase. In the end, it would be so much cheaper than re-buying games at $15 a pop over their DLC Xbox Originals service. Heck I can get the disc used for half of that on ebay.

 

[TwistedBishop]

The Wii & PS3 did a much better job supporting last gen with their current consoles.

The discontinued PS3 models did a better job. The current ones not as much. Either you have absolutely none (40GB) or you have limited and, at times, buggy emulation (80GB). I know that, as a Ratchet fan, the 80GB is useless to me.

 

[Felon]

The Wii did what all of the consoles should be doing: trying to appeal to the casual gamer, or even the sort of person who doesn't consider themselves a gamer at all. These people outnumber hardcore gamers exponentially.

Sony went the opposite route, trying to appeal to the ultra-hardcore who would sink $600 on a device that doesn't give you any games up-front, merely the capability to play them. That doesn't register well with a lot of folks. Sony's in a bad position because so many folks went out and bought Xboxes. For them to catch up now, they've got to get a bunch of hardcore gamers who already have a great console to buy another--and for the most part, they have the same games available. They need more PS3-exclusive games. Lots of'em. And they'd better be good, with lots of gameplay value.

I haven't gotten a Wii yet, but now that the Virtual Console is out, and that they're rolling out games for it left and right--supporting it to a much degree than the trickle of games that MS has gotten out for XBox Live Arcade--it's a certainty that I'm going to hunt one down next year.

 

[John Crichton]

The Wii did what all of the consoles should be doing: trying to appeal to the casual gamer, or even the sort of person who doesn't consider themselves a gamer at all. These people outnumber hardcore gamers exponentially.

That's where games like Rock Band come in. The Wii did something different and it can do things that the other consoles don't right now but it doesn't mean that the PS3/360 doesn't appeal to casual gamers. The PS2 did that very well. It's really all about game selection rather than simply catering to the casual gamer.

Sony went the opposite route, trying to appeal to the ultra-hardcore who would sink $600 on a device that doesn't give you any games up-front, merely the capability to play them. That doesn't register well with a lot of folks. Sony's in a bad position because so many folks went out and bought Xboxes. For them to catch up now, they've got to get a bunch of hardcore gamers who already have a great console to buy another--and for the most part, they have the same games available. They need more PS3-exclusive games. Lots of'em. And they'd better be good, with lots of gameplay value.

I disagree that Sony needs lots of them. A few good ones will be enough to get it going. You would be surprised at the amount of people waiting to get a PS3 but aren't because of the lack of a killer exclusive. And I still don't have an issue with the initial $600 price. The only way the PS3 failing is the lack of exclusives, not that the console was expensive at the start.

I would have also like to have seen more 360 exclusive RPGs and less FPS with their lead time, but that's just me.

I haven't gotten a Wii yet,

Quick questions out of curiosity: Are you getting it for the VC first and the Wii games second? Would you get one at all if it didn't have the VC?

but now that the Virtual Console is out, and that they're rolling out games for it left and right--supporting it to a much degree than the trickle of games that MS has gotten out for XBox Live Arcade--it's a certainty that I'm going to hunt one down next year.

I like the games released on XLA so far. Don't like the prices, but its good stuff (not talking about Xbox Originals, here). I'm much more disappointed with the Playstation Network's selection.

 

[Felon]

That's where games like Rock Band come in. The Wii did something different and it can do things that the other consoles don't right now but it doesn't mean that the PS3/360 doesn't appeal to casual gamers.

It means that the PS3/360 don't do a good a job of it. Give one of those controllers to somebody who's never played a console before. With two analog thumbsticks, a D-Pad, four color-scheme buttons, two shoulder buttons, and two trigger buttons, they wind up wondering where the extra fingers are supposed to come from. A three-year-old can figure out a Wii controller.

I disagree that Sony needs lots of them. A few good ones will be enough to get it going. You would be surprised at the amount of people waiting to get a PS3 but aren't because of the lack of a killer exclusive. And I still don't have an issue with the initial $600 price. The only way the PS3 failing is the lack of exclusives, not that the console was expensive at the start.

True, one Halo can make all the difference.

It's well-accepted as factual that sticker-shock was a major problem for the PS3, so you're out on your own little island if you're insisting otherwise. Lack of titles didn't help, of course.

Quick questions out of curiosity: Are you getting it for the VC first and the Wii games second? Would you get one at all if it didn't have the VC?

I like the games released on XLA so far. Don't like the prices, but its good stuff (not talking about Xbox Originals, here). I'm much more disappointed with the Playstation Network's selection.

To answer your question, I wouldn't be pursuing the Wii without the offerings of the Virtual Console. The Wii doesn't have many AAA games that pique my interest.

XLA is fine for coin-op classics, but the fact that they're not aggressively offering virtual board and card games like they were planning to is becoming very disappointing. Uno was a huge hit. Catan and Carcassonne were great for the strategy lovers. Where are the follow-ups?