The Wii is stacks cheaper, and offers something genuinely different, even if the graphics are crap...
Nintendo's Wii continues to dominate the Japanese games console biz, outselling Sony's PlayStation 3 by a factor of four to one over the past six months. According to Japanese games magazine publisher Enterbrain, Nintendo sold 1.6m Wiis in its home market between the beginning of April up until the end of September. Sony …
This goes a long way toward Keeping It Simply Simple.
Most people do not play for hours at a time and do not want to go through thick manuals to learn how to use 1'000 different weapons and in what situation each comes in handy.
The WII is a games console for having fun and that's what games ought to be about.
Well done Nintendo.
I wonder who will come up with the next brilliant idea in the games industry. Microsoft could have a first time experience (it would be their first idea ever), one never knows.
wow.... shock.... cheap things sell better than expensive things!
i have both - ever since i got my ps3 i have rerely played on the wii. wiis are good for parties but the games are pretty pants and the gfx arent a patch on the ps3 - plus the ps3 is a BD player and media station - try getting all HD'd up for the price that you can get a ps3 for.
i can't help but laugh here. after the stunning success of the Wii, Microsoft was actually pretty quick to congratulate Nintendo, while Sony didn't even consider doing the same, all they did was take shots at Nintendo, not once admiting the Wii was a masterfull product. now they're seeing with their own eyes that their PS3 can't match the Wii
Shock news - Apples sell more than pears!!!
@all the fanboys, Sony haven't had to even bother to drop the price yet, but there are still plenty sold. Why oh why do you feel the need to "laugh" at Sony? If you want a console, you buy one. If you don't then no one's forcing you. Do you laugh at BMWs in the street because Vauxhall's are cheaper and sell more????? All this childish bickering between whatever-fans is getting FUCKING annoying!
"their PS3 can't match the Wii" - Are you fucking JOKING?????
Nintendo kept it cheap, significantly under that £200 mark which pretty much put it into the pocket money price point for the 20-30 somethings.
I myself have owned a PS1 and PS2, I adamantly will not get a Xbox no matter what happens but until PS3 drops below £350 (with a nice bundle or £299 bare) or so they can forget it.
The Wii however I pretty much bought on impulse, it had seemed fun, and heck, it was only £179, perfect. it sure has been fun too, graphics do not make a great game, playability does, I'm old enough to have grown up on the vic20 and c64, going through computers and consoles as they came, gameplay wins every time thank you.
PS3 too expensive, won't work blah blah blah.....
I have a PS3 and access to a Wii. At first the Wii was fun - but it's novelty soon wears off when you've wiggled the Wiimote in exactly the same manner for the last six different games.
And to those that keep saying that PS3 is too expensive etc etc. Please do your homework. In comparison to Xbox 360, you get a hell fo a deal - a machine that's considerably mroe powerful, has both gaming and high definition media functions, and would cost twice as much to implement a HD setup using seperates.
People touted the PS2 as too expensive, and wrote it off - then look what happened ;-)
Give it time Danny. Maybe another year yet for the ps3 ball to get rolling, MGS4 and Killzone ort to do the trick, alongside a below £300 price tag of course.
The wii is a gimmick, once the hype ends people will realise that yes its great fun when you've a load of pissed up mates round your house, but as a stand alone device on a stupidly big HD tv it looks sh1t and doesnt do much.
"wiis are good for parties but the games are pretty pants and the gfx arent a patch on the ps3"
You seem to have missed the point... the graphical capabilities of the Wii were never intended to be comparable to those of the PS3 nor the 360 (incidentally, I find the graphics of my PS3 inferior to those of my 360 so does that alone make the 360 the best console?). Nintendo haven't targeted the Wii at the "traditional" gamer, instead they've concentrated on making the console as much fun as possible for the largest demographic as possible. The console isn't as expensive as a PS3, because everyone knows that gameplay is always more important than graphics.
As for the games being, as you put it, "pants" well I guess we differ here in what determines a "pants" game. I think the Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is easily one of the best games I've played this year, and Resident Evil 4 has been a blast, along with Mario Strikers, Super Paper Mario, Rayman, etc... the list goes on and on. That's not even mentioning the "big hitters" that are about to be released, such as Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Super Mario Galaxy, Guitar Hero 3, Mario Kart Wii, etc...
"the ps3 is a BD player and media station - try getting all HD'd up for the price that you can get a ps3 for."
Who says I want my games console to be a Hi-Def multimedia centre? What about those who only want a games console to just play games? At least with my 360 I have the choice of upgrading the games console to also be a Hi-Def multimedia centre, if I so choose. Sony, however, don't offer me the possibility of downgrading the PS3 so that it plays games without also being a BD player (I'm not interested in BD films, and when I am I'm sure Tesco will sell me a standalone player for twenty quid).
the Wii is two products rolled into one, its a dvd, cd player and a games console, and a weak one at that.
The PS3 is a BD played, dvd, cd player, a media center,and the most advanced Console ever produced.
Of course its pricey and of course not everybody can afford it at its current price. But, after the initial impulse cash flow that nitendo receive the sales wii'll drop off, at this point of course, the slight PS3 price drop, thats hit the states already, will be a much larger price drop that will hit globally, PS3 sales will begin to grow and people witnessing the immence performance will indeed realise this piece of top-end technology is available within their budget and the PS3 sales will grow, PS3 will out sell PS2 Which outsold all else, and you Wii loving hippies will just have to deal with it, get ya wallet out and get over it!
To some extent I agree. The natural early adopters are done; the compelling nature of the Wii is going to wane over time.
When the PS3 and Xbox360 do get their serious price drops it will be a very different market. I know the Wii will drop as well, but a £200 PS3 with all the extras it provides is more compelling (to me) than a £100 Wii.
I also, believe it is not in Sony’s interest to sell too many PS3s until they can reduce their costs. They had to get the PS3 out to be in the market with the Xbox360 and Wii, but commercially I expect 2008 is the year Sony real turns on the marketing machine when they have the PS3 costs reduced and real compelling games to promote it.
My expectation is that the PS3 will still be the king of the hill when we are talking about the consoles replacing the current generation.
The flip-side of this is that Wii winning the console war can only be good for PC gaming and in my book that is a 'Good Thing' (TM).
Both Sony and M$ are notorious for their monopolistic practices (one more so than the other: no prizes for working out which) and their consoles are designed to lock the customer in to a gaming platform in which every aspect is controlled by the particular MegaloCorp Inc. and is 'monetized' (horrible word but useful in this context) to keep as many and as large revenue streams flowing as possible.
With PC gaming however, while there are monopolies operating, their scope is much more limited: for example M$'s attempts to 'leverage' sales of Vista to gamers by making a popular title like Halo 2 DX10 only have had limited success. Diversity of hardware has led to more innovation and lower prices, player content creation flourishes and on-line play is largely free (over and above the cost of a broadband connection).
So what did Nintendo do? Instead of attempting to colonize PC gaming like M$ and Sony, they decided to innovate and create something complementary. As a (mediocre & occasional) PC gamer I would never contemplate getting a PS3 or Xbox 360 but a Wii is much more attractive. I hope they kick both of the other consoles into touch.
Would all the XBox touters in the above conversation step aside; you may love your machine for it's all-American values (heavy bias towards shooting games, shoddy manufacture...) but in Japan it simply isn't a player.
Whether Sony were wise to include so much functionality in their machine, however, is certainly a debate worth having. Sure it sells fewer units than the Wii, but a lot of those Wiis are expanding the games market, and at this stage in its life (and price) cycle the PS3 was only ever going to appeal to established gamers and techies.
Given the performance of the X360 so far – it's not selling much outside the core US gamer market, who don't seem to mind regular hardware purchases – I would have thought the most likely broadside to the PS3 would be MS abandoning the 360 as early in it's life as they did the original X-box, and replacing it with a next-next gen machine incorporating Wii-like tech? Then Sony would lose the technical advantage that they've yet to capitalize on anyway (though MS would pay a heavy price in customer trust, I suppose). Or was that what the Elite was meant to do?
If the Wii wii's on the other consoles from a great height, all games companies will make are kiddy/party games, meaning those people that make hardcore PC and console games (and probably make more from the console versions) will be up Wii creek without a Wiimote, and there won't be any more of your beloved PC games.
Just a Wii thought.
If you are not the most socially driven person, and a gamer, then the PS3 will probably be the console you can't live without. There is a market for that, definately.
But the Wii is more of a party favour. Kind of like a next generation game of Twister. It's use is social, not just for pure gameplay. As such, it has succeeded in transcending the traditional market for console games, reaching out to new demographics. Heck, there was even an article in the New York Times about how big a hit Wiis are in nursing homes.
The Wii doesn't look black and sexy - it's iPod-white cute. It's non-threatening, because it's biggest games aren't about killing or destruction.
They are two very different products, and two VERY different target markets. It's not surprise that the Wii has a larger market, and probably always will if the games keep up. Me, I'm just waiting for the Wii game that is the equivalent of "nude Twister"...
It doesn't matter whether you are a gamer that prefers the PS3 or the Wii, what will drive overall success are economic factors.
As of now, the PS3 is screwed: both the Xbox360 and Wii have much larger user-bases. The PS3 is losing every month to the Wii by a factor of 3 or 4, and is close to the Xbox360.
If you're a games company accountant, which platform looks appealing? Hint: the biggest and lowest-cost-to-develop-for.
The PS3 is now stuck in a vicious-circle of low-sales, leading to less game development, leading to low-sales.
The only reason I see to get a PS3 is if you want Blue Ray with a few games and internet connectivity in one box. I've no idea if the PS3 is a good BD player - I'm assuming real AV geeks would prefer something different. That's not a compelling product from my point-of-view. Time will tell.
Yawn, is this a regular occurence now? Its not even christmas for fucks sake.
Honestly, with the PS3 being more than twice as expensive its like comparing sales of mars bars to caviar.
Now if they were the same price it'd be interesting, otherwise its just getting tiresome.
You do have a point here but I think there are at least two things that will work against the scenario you paint:
(i) the Wii will not completely wipe-out the other consoles and even the PS3 is likely to survive the twin pressures of Wii and Xbox 360;
(ii) as has been pointed out above: good games are about creativity and playability and PC gaming will not suffer from game development budgets being trimmed a little. Too many games are bloatware sequels or 'me too' games trying to profit on the back of previous hits: duff games with lots of expensive eye-candy that are dull as dishwater to play.
Anyone remember Wing Commander: Privateer? Shockingly bad to look at, sprite-based pseudo-3D but fabulous to play. Then Privateer 2? Beautiful SVGA 3D, FMV cut scenes with real actors: I nearly lost the will to live after playing that for a couple of hours!
I think PC gaming is safe and will do very nicely alongside a console market with Wii as the biggest player.
Why has the Reg not reported on the recent industry alarm at the utter lack of third-party games sales on the Wii?
Nintendo games? Selling bucketloads, great for ninty.
EA and other major publishers games? Selling fuck all.
Sure, its mostly because they are conversions off other systems that have been tried to make work with the non-standard control system.
But also its because the casuals are happy buying a couple of party games and thats it.
That spells major trouble on the horizon for the Wii if you ask me.
The problem with the PS3 is the cost of making a new game.
A 'high profile' game can cost anything from 10 - $20.000.000 to develop and market. Lets just assume an even $10.000.000 shall we?
If a QUARTER of the market buys the game(an even 1.000.000 or so, to be nice), they'll only need to earn $10 on each game sold...
Now, how many games sell that well?
Most games sell to 5 + 15% of the market.
(I'll leave it as an exercise to calculate earnings and what the price must be to break even)
So, game manufacturers have the following choices:
1. Create cheap games, and hope that they'll at least manage to get a return of the development cost and chalk it off as 'learning the platform'...
2. Wait until there are more consoles among the gamers, and therefore a larger market, which can take time if there's a lack of good games...
3. Sod off and start making games for Nintendo instead as customers seems to rip them out of the clammy fingers of shelf-stackers in stores all over the world...
BTW: The GC had graphics capabilities on a par with the PS2(The PS2 may have a higher theoretical capability, but practical... no... ), which wasn't all that bad, really. And the Wii is supposed to have doubled that. I think we'll call that 'Good enough' :-)
Sorry folks, but to compare PS3 and Wii sales while ignoring PS2 sales is like comparing iPhone sales to only one particular model of Nokia phone, and then claiming that Nokia is doomed. Sony's strategy has been to continue to sell AND support the PS2 for the entry-level market, while slowly phasing the next-gen PS3 as it's replacement, just as they did when the PS2 replaced the PS1.
According to the latest weekly Japanese sales charts, Sony is selling AT LEAST as many TV consoles per week as Nintendo is selling. So sure, Nintendo got a nice jump on sales, but Sony is now moving as many consoles as Nintendo, some weeks more. About half of those console sales are PS2s, which are more likely than not to turn into PS3 sales down the road.
Look what happened to PSP sales when they released the new model and a single Final Fantasy title came out for it. It handily outsold the DS. What do you think is going to happen when Killzone 2, MGS4, FFXIII, Home, LittleBigPlanet, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, DualShock 3 and the $399 40GB PS3 hit the market? Sony has sold over 100 million PS2 consoles. What console do you think the majority of those players have their eye on for their next long term purchase? It's not the Wii, that's for sure.
Get over it. The Wii doesn't compete with the PS3. Anyone who was going to buy a PS3 didn't chang their mind and buy a Wii instead. They may have bought a Wii, but they still want and plan to buy a PS3. By 2009, the lot of you who think the Wii is king of the hill are going to look mighty foolish.
Childish bickering? Pot, Kettle, Prat.
Sony are very worried about their sales, and public perception. They aren't worried about Wii, they genuinely don't see it as a competing product.
A price drop isn't going to save the PS3, they have to change the case, and they need the 3rd generation titles to come before the 3rd generation hits. For every year that passes, the 360 is a generation ahead, and there will remain very little difference between 360 games and PS3 games - many games that currently appear on both systems are actually better on 360. There are many reasons for this - don't listen to anyone that says it's because PS3 is harder to develop for, that's not true. PS3 has some serious shortfalls; shortfalls which give the 360 many advantages, and make it a far more attractive platform to develop for.
PSP has started selling well in Japan for the first time. Why? PSP Slim.
Japanese customers want small. Wii is small. Xbox is big. PS3 is big, and amazingly, uglier than the 360. Cheap and nasty are the words I'd choose.
@The PS3 economic disaster...
You're talking unsubstantiated rubbish. PS3 is no more expensive to develop for than Wii. The game type and scope decides the budget, and can be just as expensive (or inexpensive) for any platform.
@Hardware sales are secondary...
Hardware sales aren't secondary. Nintendo are a good example, they make a lot of money from their accessories. Actually, they're the only company making money from every piece of hardware.
Without selling hardware, they won't have a userbase to purchase the software. Hardware sales are critical. Software and accessories are in the tail-end.
PC gaming will never compete with console, despite being more powerful on the top-end, because of the variations in configuration. You think 10 million XPS & Alienwares will be sold this year? Of course not.
Will the PS3 win? Maybe. Maybe not. Right now, if you like playing games, 360 is King. Personally I've started going out more, it's much more fun.
Lets say the Wii is out-selling the PS3 by 3:1
The retail price of the PS3 is roughly 3 times that of the Wii.
Correct me if I am wrong but if I sell 1 cookie for $3 then I am making the same amount of money as the guy down the street who sells 3 cookies at $1 each.
The price of the games is about the same. $40-$60 each. Both machines have cheaper "retro" games and small 3rd party "pop-cap" games available via the online service for $10 or less (I have actually bought a full PS3 game for $2.99 on the Playstation Network).
I own a PS2, PS3, XBox 360 and a Wii. I enjoy all of them -- though I don't use the PS2 much anymore since I can play 99% of its games on my 1st-generation PS3 (which contains the PS2 hardware instead of just software emulation)
I typically only break out the Wii when a mixed group of friends are around and we are all drinking booze (also usually play Dance-Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero II on the PS2) or when I am babysitting my 11-year old nieces. The Wii controllers can be a lot of fun for sure but after owning it a while I now find it more of a social "party piece" and "novelty" than anything else.
My "serious" games consoles are the XBox 360 and PS3. I also own a fairly large catalog of BR movies -- fantastic quality difference between those and standard DVD when played on my 50" 1080P HDTV.
Looking forward to some of the Xmas releases for the two "next generation" consoles -- Note: Wii is basically a GameCube with a fancy controller setup (ie. previous generation technology with a twist).
is that many, if not most, of us didn't throw out our 30 plus inch tube TV's and jump onto the "OMG!shiny!" HDTV bandwagon. Hell, there's still standards wars going on, issues with cabling and compatibility and DRM! Why should I care about a practically proprietary DVD video format when my TV is incapable of noticing the difference? Why would I care about supermegahawt resolution capability that my 32 inch Sony Trinitron (less than 5 years old) can't deal with?
Why would I even consider shelling out obscene cash for those completely (to me) useless capabilities? By the time I shell out for a new display (c'mon inexpensive OLED!) it'll be a few years down the road and you bet yer arse there will be a "next" next gen console.
Right now, the Wii displays at resolutions that my TV can handle. It plays Gamecube games without the need for patches and firmware upgrades and crap-and since I didn't own a Gamecube, that's a ton of fun bargain basement games I can now play. And, oh yeah, there are games out for it *now*, not promised in a year or so because of lawsuits with the game engine manufacturers...
I get a chef simulator (Cooking Mama) which one of my girlfriends adores, I have a surgical simulator (Trauma Center) which entertains my more macabre lady. I'm having a blast in shootouts in a great FPS environment (Metroid:Corruption) thats even better than a mouse/keyboard setup. And soon, a new version of Mario Kart that both ladies like to play.
All for hundreds less than the PS3. This is before I get into the Sony arrogance and attitude. I'm going to get myself a Xbox 360 in the spring, for the hard core games that the Wii can't handle. Not just to give an admittedly unnoticed finger to Sony, but because the Xbox has *gasp* GAMES available. Lots of them. Lots of cheaper ones too. And no useless Blu Ray HD DVD UltraMega crap.
But Sony fanboys and those who bought the Kool Aid probably woulda paid extra for a PS2 if it's come with a Betamax player on top as well.
The Emperor was naked, but this time, the crowd follows along with the illusion, because they're too prideful to admit they were fooled too.
"You're talking unsubstantiated rubbish. PS3 is no more expensive to develop for than Wii. The game type and scope decides the budget, and can be just as expensive (or inexpensive) for any platform."
Development costs for the Wii are a quarter to half compared to PS3/360.
Now who is talking talking unsubstantiated rubbish?
...I feel compelled to stick my oar in having read the same arguments from both sides repeatedly.
Shocked as I'm sure you will be to learn, everything in my house does not revolve around what is going on with the television.
So, when I do play a game, I want it to be fun and easy to use.
I've got a PS2 and I love it and have loads of games for it, some of them PS1 games. I dont care what the graphics are like as long as the game play is good and its interesting.
I've got a Wii for the same reason. Its fun and different.
I'm not going to buy a PS3 for many years to come, because all the fabulous extras that the PS3 fanboys witter on about dont mean anything to me. I dont care if its the best media center / console around because I dont want a media center / console. I just want some fun.
Thats why the Wii is outselling the PS3. It appeals to more people.
My mum just bought one for herself and she's 60.
She doesn't like the PS2 because its too much like hard work for her.
I know serious gamers love the PS3 but some of us have other things to do and want something more accessible.
I've got a Wii. I bought it because it was only £179, my daughter wanted one (ahem) and because it'll work fine on my non-HD plasma TV.
I haven't bought a PS3 because it's £425 and needs HD. Ok, it might work in SD but what's the point in that? So my purchase of a PS3 will have to wait until I buy a nice new 1080p TV. And even then I'm still not paying £425 for it - too much! When it drops to under £300 I'd consider it. When it drops to £200 or £250 my wife might consider it :-)
I really want one (more than I wanted a Wii), but I suspect a lot of people are in the same situation as me,
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Nintendo should be proud, the released a cheap and cheerful and very unique console.
Sony should be proud, their albeit expensive console has the best graphics I have seen
Microsoft should be proud, their online Xbox Live is fantastic and overall the graphics and sound are superb.
The Wii has not released as a competetor for either the Xbox or PS3. The reason why they have done so well is because the Wii is cheap and a hell of a lot of fun for parties and groups of friends/families. They priced it to encourage not only to sell but so u can afford 2 consoles.
They have done so well because Sony have spent the last 12 months putting Nintendo down at the same time releasing a console too expensive for most.
Another way to look at it is PLAYABILITY, and the Wii Kicks Butt over the Xbox and PS3
One thing you've conveniently overlooked, is how poorly PSP game sales have been globally. Been to games shop recently? Seen how the price of the PSP games have been slashed? Or how the UMD media strategy crashed and burned.
Although the PSP has sold well in fits and starts, Sony has been alarmed at how poor its games sales has been (six months after the PSP's release, the average user owned two - yes, two count 'em games) - rather important when its strategy is aiming to make its money there. Yes, a new model of the PSP does drive up sales - but only hardware ones. Many users prefer to play homebrew and despite Sony's best effort to prevent this with new firmware, it ain't going to happen.
Sure maybe plenty of PS 2 users may buy a PS 3, but I knew people who had a PS One that didn't go onto the PS3... I usually buy just Nintendo consoles, but I've got a PS 3 - so you can't take things for granted.
I'm sure that all Sony shareholders will take the long view you're taking....
A lot of the Sony fanboys seem so proud of the graphics, but they are exactly the problem for developers- the more real the graphics need to be the more artists and designers you need on your project and the more time they need to create your environments. Consequently your games get more expensive to develop and fewer companies can afford to do it so the games that do get produced are more conservative until you end up with a market largely saturated with tired movie tie-ins.
And still all the characters in the games have cold, dead, emotionless faces.
It's only the Wii that has me thinking of splashing out.
@ Anonymous Vulture: "For every year that passes, the 360 is a generation ahead, and there will remain very little difference between 360 games and PS3 games - many games that currently appear on both systems are actually better on 360."
I see this a lot, and I was surprised to learn (as you will be too I'm sure), that for example Rainbow 6 Vegas was ported from 360 to PS3, and only makes use of the PS3 3.2GHz dual-core GPE, and doesn't even touch the 6 developer-available 3.2GHz SPEs (source: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7598043&postcount=1).
Developers are taking their time to learn how to make best use of the PS3 hardware, and while arguably cross-platform ports are not going to even bother when they can use the 360-like GPE, first party games, third party exclusives and timed exclusives, and cross-platform simultaneous development games will begin to use this as-yet unharnessed power of the PS3. In contrast, Halo 3 was pushing the 360 boundaries, and they couldn't quite up the resolution to HD on that, instead having to settle for 640p.
The PS3 is not inherently more difficult to program for, it's just a number of factors; 1) The 360 has been out for almost 2 years, and is based on a design which is very similar to the original xbox and PC development; 2) The PS3 has been out for under 1 year, Sony released their devkits late, and it is an inherently different design to the 360; and 3) Developers which have ready-made 360 versions of games would rather rush ports at smallest cost to a PS3 soon after launch, to make a quick buck.
Firstly, I own all three consoles (and used to own a PSP before I sold it as there ARE NO DECENT GAMES) and I am unbiased on this subject. Let's face facts, the Wii is cheaper than its competitors, easier and cheaper to produce games for and has outsold all of them many times over. Nintendo is NOT competing in the same space as Sony and MS, it is dominating that space to a point where companies producing games exclusively for MS and Sony are massively going to lose out and struggle to survive in the long term on a purely numbers basis. Anybody who argues this point is speculating, simple as; they are not living in the real world. The Wii has a buzz about it which has been picked up by the mainstream.
Nintendo, an already extremely cash-rich company, is making profit on every unit and game which they sell, unlike the massive losses of its competitors in console production costs and *cough* reliability issues (I've had 3 of the offending console). The graphics aren't as good, but they are serviceable and I've never had a reason to complain when playing the games, as they are more involving and to me this is the whole point.
The 3rd party games on Wii sell badly because with only a couple of exceptions, they are dull and lifeless ports. resident Evil 4 sells well. Not all consumers are stupid. Only the 1st party Nintendo games get the backing of adverts, sponsorship tie-ins etc and this helps them outsell the others. As will be shown by the upcoming 1st party titles, the games do not have to be partymegaminimix type games to succeed, and Nintendo's commitment to real (not necessarily hardcore) gamers stands firm.
I played Halo 3 last night, and got bored of it after an hour. Graphics: underwhelming, Gears.O.W. is far better in both geometry and artwork. Music:great. Gameplay, unwieldy and stuck in the past although as good as the last generation's Halo 2, very uninvolving. Plot: derivative and unoriginal, see Aliens, Starship Troopers, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek with many lines of script being pilfered and whole plot lines/set-pieces 'paid homage to'. I don't play multiplayer over the net, I don't know anyone else that does either. Whenever i played online i've not really enjoyed the experience. Net result. plenty of hype, average game. I've had more fun playing Katamari...
The PS3 is built like a tank, is all well and good as a BD player, and for the odd game until you get one and realise that there are actually 1 or two games worth getting and not alot on the horizon which I might want. This is because the games cost so darn much to make! Worse is that Xbox games often have better/more features/graphics in practice (not in potential) than the PS3. Is it really useable as a media hub for the average person? Nope. Far too complicated to configure. Is it really worth spending all that money on for anybody right now?? Really? No it is not (sole exception is to use as a value- added BD player). If mine wasn't a freebie then i certainly wouldn't have bought one. Anybody out there who really does want one, needs to stop and ask why exactly you're buying one right now. Don't assume that the previous generation's performance will reoccur, Nintendo is back in control this generation and both of its competitors are painfully aware of this salient fact. Its not a fad or a trend, the Wii is a platform which has now reached critical mass in the public consciousness like the Gameboy before it, and those who are unhappy about this, for whatever reason, sorry but I told you so.
> I see this a lot, and I was surprised to learn (as you will be too I'm sure), that for example Rainbow 6 Vegas was ported from 360 to PS3, and only makes use of the PS3 3.2GHz dual-core GPE, and doesn't even touch the 6 developer-available 3.2GHz SPEs
And this will happen again and again. Many "gamers" are way to cool to pay any attention to history, even gaming history, so cannot spot a history repeating itself even when it happens just a decade later.
Same thing happen with Sega Saturn -- although more powerful than PS1 only Sega's own games used both processors; most other games used the same engine for PS1 and Saturn so used only one of the Saturn's two processors. End results was that most games looked worse on Saturn.
People who think that huge amount of great PS3 games that use its hardware to its full potential are just around the corner are in for a major disappointment -- there are more 360s than PS3s around so third party will concentrate on making them for 360 first and porting them to PS3 later, and none will bother with extra cores in any significant way. PS3 is going to end up the same way that Saturn did -- a clutch of fantastic first party titles with most of the rest just inferior ports from weaker 360.
@ Anonymous Vulture: "People who think that huge amount of great PS3 games that use its hardware to its full potential are just around the corner are in for a major disappointment -- there are more 360s than PS3s around so third party will concentrate on making them for 360 first and porting them to PS3 later, and none will bother with extra cores in any significant way."
Any third party serious about cross-platform concurrent development (such as EA for example), will have teams dedicated to each console, working alongside the modellers and artists. It almost becomes a competition between platforms, even though the content of the games can't change much for obvious reasons, there will always be "we're running this framerate, this native resolution" arguments etc. Look at Burnout Revenge on the PS2 compared to the original Burnout, it looks like it's running on a different console, that's the advantage of having a team eeking out the performance over a product lifecycle. For the first year or so of the PS3's life, it has seen more than it's fair share of "let's port this successful game to PS3 as quickly as possible to cash in", but that's not how third parties go about releasing cross-platform games when both platforms are available from the start of development.
Having said all that, my original point still stands, that games such as Oblivion, Rainbow 6 Vegas, Fight Night Round 3 and Half-Life 2 are running perfectly well on PS3 hardware without using the SPE's, at least not in any fundamental way, and that games which do come to use them will be the ones which begin to show the possibilities.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020