If this thread is any indication of the gaming world in general then its going to be a rocky start for the next generation if they launch next year. People seem content with the current systems and playing their games backlog and are wary about quality of launch hardware.
What I am interested to see with next generation is what happens which the main players. MS are releasing their third console which historically have been a tough console to release for companies (N64, Saturn, PS3) and Sony are onto their fourth console which haven't been easy either (Gamecube and Dreamcast (Which eventually killed SEGA, Sony could go this way with their financial problems)).
MS certainly have the arrogance to balls up their third console Sony style and Sony seem to have no clear way out of the hole they are in like SEGA. Hopefully both can buck the trend.
The whole playing field is completely different from when the other companies released 3rd or 4th systems. It's not like bands with "tricky second albums"...
Just to go down one track, Sony are in a completely different situation from Sega when they released the Dreamcast. Sega pretty much ONLY had the Dreamcast. They decided to not have it as a DVD player and then plunged a ridiculous amount of money into marketing and advertising the system. Unfortunately, a lot of folk had been put off by the Saturn which, in turn, had had potential buyers put off because of the add-ons that Sega released for the Mega Drive (MegaCD and 32X - folk were of the "once bitten, twice shy" mindset). Sony aren't in that position.
The Saturn and Dreamcast weren't 'bad' systems (I had the DC, love it still) but their main potential user base had had their hands bitten and Sony came on the scene with the PS and dominated things.
The N64 came onto the scene too late after various delays and, initially, at a silly high price for the time. The games were also more expensive than the PS and Saturn coz they were still cartridge based. Nintendo shot themselves in the foot with what was, again, still not a bad system. They tried to rectify matter with the GameCube but they were already on the back foot.
If MS and Sony drop the ball with their next systems it won't have anything to do with the sins of the past, more to do with folk still being happy with the current gen if anything. They have to deliver something completely different that will make the customers want/feel they need to make a new purchase whilst, at the same time, offering everything that the current gen offers. Can you imagine folk being happy if all the current gen downloadable content isn't compatible with the next gen machines?
(How did Sony balls up the PS3, by the way? Apart from making it difficult to code for, initially... It certainly seems to be doing alright now, at 70 million shipped units in 6 years...)
Love the assertion that Sony ballsed up with the Ps3: 70m units sold, the same as the 360, without the years' headstart and without RROD.
Anyone would think it's still 2008 the way some people talk.
I'm fine without a new gen of consoles for another 18 months at least, plenty of life in the PS3 yet given the right developers, even when the new tech comes out we're not going to see a stellar leap in graphical quality like the previous jump between generation.
Love the assertion that Sony ballsed up with the Ps3: 70m units sold, the same as the 360, without the years' headstart and without RROD.
Anyone would think it's still 2008 the way some people talk.
I never said Sony ballsed up the PS3, just that they had a tough time with it.
FYI N64 and PS3 are two of my favourite consoles so my post was not aimed at saying they were bad machines just that the companies had a good time with previous systems on to have a tough time launching their third consoles.
FYI N64 and PS3 are two of my favourite consoles so my post was not aimed at saying they were bad machines just that the companies had a good time with previous systems on to have a tough time launching their third consoles.
Yup, and there were many reasons why there were problems, especially with the N64 (delays, costs etc.) but they're not relevant to what the companies are going through now. Completely different situations going forward.
But, again, I wouldn't say Sony exactly had a tough time with the PS3...
But, again, I wouldn't say Sony exactly had a tough time with the PS3...
I have own a PS3 from near launch and back then there were almost weekly reports that Sony was about to do a SEGA. Add in the constant complaints that the system was too expensive, that they had no games, that they came too late to market, that BluRay was dead in the water, that games were inferior (That remains true today with most games getting video comparisons to point out a couple of pixels difference) and that the PS3 was wrong to focus on media and games as all anybody wants is a games machine.
So IMHO it was a tough time for Sony in the early days of PS3.
Preformance wise It's closer to the PS3/360 than it will be to Orbis/Durango IMO.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Although, the release games include Arkham City & Assasin's Creed 3 which look the same as the PS3/360 versions 5/6 years into their lifespans so it would be interesting to see what the Wii I can do at the same stage of its lifespan.
I have own a PS3 from near launch and back then there were almost weekly reports that Sony was about to do a SEGA. Add in the constant complaints that the system was too expensive, that they had no games, that they came too late to market, that BluRay was dead in the water, that games were inferior (That remains true today with most games getting video comparisons to point out a couple of pixels difference) and that the PS3 was wrong to focus on media and games as all anybody wants is a games machine.
So IMHO it was a tough time for Sony in the early days of PS3.
And all of the above claims have since been proven to be complete poppycock (I'll take a couple of pixles less resolution in a comparison my own eyes will never be able to make in exchange for an infinitely better line-up of exclusives), the 'tough time' Sony had was with the nerdier corners of the internet, most of whom had grown too attached to their 360s by the time the PS3 came out..
And all of the above claims have since been proven to be complete poppycock (I'll take a couple of pixles less resolution in a comparison my own eyes will never be able to make in exchange for an infinitely better line-up of exclusives), the 'tough time' Sony had was with the nerdier corners of the internet, most of whom had grown too attached to their 360s by the time the PS3 came out..
I'm a proud PS3 owner but I think you're giving Sony a free ride here.
The first two years they had a very tough time. A console that cost close to £500 was never going to shift in the numbers they had envisaged, and that will be a lesson that all console makers will have learnt from in the future.
Now I know what you're going to say:
"But Sony sold the PS3 at a loss even at that price!"
Yes. Does that in any way make a difference to a consumer parting with such a large sum of money? Of course not. They don't care whether Sony was selling it at a loss or a 400% profit; all that mattered was that the technology was at least 2-3 years ahead of its time, the price point reflected this, and therefore nobody but the most serious gamers and film fans were willing to part with that amount of cash.
Let's also not forget that Sony didn't have a killer-app for the console until Metal Gear Solid 4, and even that was devisive.
I love the PS3 and Sony got it right in the end - I consider it the best console and would always take one over a 360 - but to say that they didn't make huge mistakes along the way is foolish, in my opinion.
The first two years they had a very tough time. A console that cost close to £500 was never going to shift in the numbers they had envisaged
It wasn't quite that expensive, it was £425 RRP and I managed to pick one up for £300 with 2 free games and 2 free blu-ray movies just 6 month after release.
I'm a proud PS3 owner but I think you're giving Sony a free ride here.
The first two years they had a very tough time. A console that cost close to £500 was never going to shift in the numbers they had envisaged, and that will be a lesson that all console makers will have learnt from in the future.
Now I know what you're going to say:
"But Sony sold the PS3 at a loss even at that price!"
Yes. Does that in any way make a difference to a consumer parting with such a large sum of money? Of course not. They don't care whether Sony was selling it at a loss or a 400% profit; all that mattered was that the technology was at least 2-3 years ahead of its time, the price point reflected this, and therefore nobody but the most serious gamers and film fans were willing to part with that amount of cash.
Let's also not forget that Sony didn't have a killer-app for the console until Metal Gear Solid 4, and even that was devisive.
I love the PS3 and Sony got it right in the end - I consider it the best console and would always take one over a 360 - but to say that they didn't make huge mistakes along the way is foolish, in my opinion.
huge mistakes? that's an overstatement.
A huge mistake would have been to release a console with cheap components that ran so hot it fried the motherboard of EVERY UNIT (almost) for at least the first 12 months of the console's life.
It's all about perception IMHO, and the kneejerk nature of internet reporting means that the first 24 months of the PS3 was painted as an abject failure, simply becuase it didn't match the 360 at the time, in fact Sony and Microsoft took completely different approaches to producing consoles which ended up being expected to do/be the same thing, Sony's was more a long-term plan, with the console coming into it's own in the final half on a ten-year life cycle, wheras Microsoft's was a bit more short-term born out by the fact they had to focus so heavly on Kinnect in the last couple of years to keep profits up.
A free ride? OK, maybe I'm a bit myopic, but I'll adress the original points here:
Add in the constant complaints that the system was too expensive
: For what, the first 6 months? it never seems to stop people buying Apple products.
that they had no games,
While I can understand this to a point, I've had a PS3 since launch and at no point have I twiddled my thumbs wishing I could be playing Halo/Gears/Fable.
that they came too late to market,
some could say MS came out too early with hardware that wasn't ready.
that BluRay was dead in the water,
Has anyone ever claimed that? HDDVD maybe, Bluray may have been slow at the start, but no slower than 3D is now, or than DVD was in 1999.
that games were inferior (That remains true today with most games getting video comparisons to point out a couple of pixels difference)
In real life these comparisons mean nothing to anybody.
and that the PS3 was wrong to focus on media and games as all anybody wants is a games machine.
Whoever claimed such a thing was pretty short--sighted.
huge mistakes? that's an overstatement.
A huge mistake would have been to release a console with cheap components that ran so hot it fried the motherboard of EVERY UNIT (almost) for at least the first 12 months of the console's life.
It wasn't the cheapness of the components, it was the fact they produced too much heat, warped the motherboard around them and eventually pulled away stopping the console from working. It took a die shrink of the CPU and GPU(not something you can do overnight), extra glue, a few things moved about and I believe an additional heat sink connected via a heat pipe to solve the problem.
Either way, Microsoft had an excellent system set up within the first year and gave very generous warranty extensions. I think it currently stands at 5 years for the RROD fault.
It's all about perception IMHO, and the kneejerk nature of internet reporting means that the first 24 months of the PS3 was painted as an abject failure, simply becuase it didn't match the 360 at the time, in fact Sony and Microsoft took completely different approaches to producing consoles which ended up being expected to do/be the same thing, Sony's was more a long-term plan, with the console coming into it's own in the final half on a ten-year life cycle, wheras Microsoft's was a bit more short-term born out by the fact they had to focus so heavly on Kinnect in the last couple of years to keep profits up.
The PS3 had a higher price, lacked the number of A rated exclusives that the Xbox 360 enjoyed at the and game ports often ran or locked worse of the PS3. The controller also originally had a rather limited 6 axis feature but no dual shock.
Kinnect is an extension strategy designed to get more sales, the same way the Move controller is for the PS3. They are both designed to do the same thing of attracting more customers, as sales were starting to tapper off on both consoles.
: For what, the first 6 months? it never seems to stop people buying Apple products.
Slight difference between the perceived value of an Apple product and a games console. I will admit I prefer the look of the original PS3 compared to the newer versions.
While I can understand this to a point, I've had a PS3 since launch and at no point have I twiddled my thumbs wishing I could be playing Halo/Gears/Fable.
A personal choice, however I think I would of been bored with either the Xbox 360 or PS3 in their first year. The game selection were pretty poor on both sides.
Has anyone ever claimed that? HDDVD maybe, Bluray may have been slow at the start, but no slower than 3D is now, or than DVD was in 1999.
HD DVD fans
In real life these comparisons mean nothing to anybody.
I think it was worse at first, some PS3 ports would run terribly in comparison or were somewhat inferior. Now the difference is so little nobody can really notice unless you crack out the 400x zoom .
: For what, the first 6 months? it never seems to stop people buying Apple products.
Gamers are tight asses, The Wii U is too expensive, The Vita is too expensive, The 3DS was too expensive and the PS3 was too expensive. This is not my view but was a very popular view amongst gaming websites and forums. Even today when the PS3 Super Slim was released I was still reading comments about how it was too expensive for a 5year old system.
Many gamers will spend £500 on a phone but expect to pay £99 for a console which costs £500 to make.
Has anyone ever claimed that? HDDVD maybe, Bluray may have been slow at the start, but no slower than 3D is now, or than DVD was in 1999.
In real life these comparisons mean nothing to anybody.
Whoever claimed such a thing was pretty short--sighted.
The BluRay been dead thing was commented on this forum a lot, people even guaranteed its failure. I have played so many of the poor versions of multi format games that I know even the most slated games like Orange Box were playable, enjoyable and not half as bad as made out to be. And while I wanted and bought the PS3 because of its media capabilities I regularly read comments from people saying they wanted a games machine not a media player.
Just because I thought a lot of what was said back then was crap doesn't mean it wasn't been said and wasn't a popular opinion amongst gamers and gaming "journalists".
PSX won its generation, PS2 dominated the games industry, PS3 is still just in last place this generation, I would call that having a tough time for Sony.
@bluesmurf Sixaxis was awesome, best controller for the PS3. Rumble is so over rated IMHO.
Not at all.
Ive tried getting back into consoles after being bored of gaming when i was 16 (im now 31), tried all the Playstations and seen my cousins son playing on his 360 and a friend on his NIntendo and another friend on his 360... always reminds me and made me really appreciate how much better PC gaming is, even with the constant console ported games. PC has the vast online community thing going for it which has always made multiplayer gaming a great experience, which simply doesnt really exist on the consoles.
Pretty much all they've got is facebook and youtube comments... which nearly always results in people slagging people off over nothing, which didnt happen all that much until the 360 and PS3 went online... when loads of kids started showing up in online gaming.
Not at all.
Ive tried getting back into consoles after being bored of gaming when i was 16 (im now 31), tried all the Playstations and seen my cousins son playing on his 360 and a friend on his NIntendo... always reminds me and made me really appreciate how much better PC gaming is, even with the constant console ported games. PC has the vast online community thing going for it which has always made multiplayer gaming a great experience, which simply doesnt really exist on the consoles. Pretty much all they've got is facebook and youtube... which nearly always results in people slagging people off over nothing, which didnt happen all that much until the 360 and PS3 went online... when loads of kids started showing up in online gaming.
There's no real need to build a gaming rig anymore. Games used to be developed for the PC which were then ported across to consoles. Now it tends to be the other way round.
There's no real need to build a gaming rig anymore. Games used to be developed for the PC which were then ported across to consoles. Now it tends to be the other way round.
And for those games that are ported to the PC they are still the exact same game on the consoles.
PC exclusive/focused games are great, theres plenty of RTS, FPS, MMO games that are better than nearly every console game. PC gamers tend to play a game for a long time so theres no need to keep buying the next no.1 game in the charts. Surely on the console if you are buying a new game every month shows the games arnt that good (especially more so if you're constantly swapping back and forth)... but no, people dont seem to see it like that, that would make you "less of a gamer" if you arnt playing all these so-called amazing games.
I pretty much dont get any of that in PC gaming, i get a game and usually find that i like it then i wont need to play any other game for at least 6+ months, games usually last me 1-2 years without having properly played any other game.
And as commonly known, the PC is much more than just a gaming machine, and performs a lot better than any console and hand held device. If more people were into PC gaming there would be more and even better games, instead we have to make do with a limited amount of good games. People now are shooting themselves in the foot with lesser quality games, all because of their passion for cheap gaming that is consoles.
And for those games that are ported to the PC they are still the exact same game on the consoles.
PC exclusive/focused games are great, theres plenty of RTS, FPS, MMO games that are better than nearly every console game. PC gamers tend to play a game for a long time so theres no need to keep buying the next no.1 game in the charts. Surely on the console if you are buying a new game every month shows the games arnt that good (especially more so if you're constantly swapping back and forth)... but no, people dont seem to see it like that, that would make you "less of a gamer" if you arnt playing all these so-called amazing games.
I pretty much dont get any of that in PC gaming, i get a game and usually find that i like it then i wont need to play any other game for at least 6+ months, games usually last me 1-2 years without having properly played any other game.
It all depends on the type of games I play more than the platform. I will play a story based single player game to 100% completion before buying my next game. There is no way a story based single player game will have enough content to last me 6months unless its an RPG and then even something like Skyrim I had the story complete, a large amount of side quest complete and my character well developed in the couple of months I played it.
But online games I normally stick to for a couple of years before moving on, I played CoD4 for 2years before moving to Bad Company 2 which I played until I got BF3 a couple of months back.
This is how I have played games on PC and Consoles. I dont like MMORPG and I dont like RTS games which are the giant time sink games that can be played for month after month.
I have also bought hardly any games at £40, the vast majority I buy are in the £10-20 region.
As a gamer since the Megadrive days, let me add my own two cents on this subject.
Am I looking forward to the next generation of consoles? Yes, I'd be lying if I said otherwise. However, I will not be splashing out cash for a launch Xbox720/PS4 or whatever they end up being called, simply because I don't see the need.
With the Xbox 360, Microsoft has arguably dominated this generation. It was released first, and had built up a solid library of games and had an established online service by the time the PS3 was released. It did however, suffer greatly with the RROD (Red Ring Of Death) and that may have pushed some gamers away. Kinect arguably won over some Wii gamers with it's motion controller, and made the 360 appeal more to a wider fan base (children, families).
Sony came into this generation the more succesful, after the success of the PS2. However, the PS3 was later onto the market, and struggled against the more well established 360, and the casual appeal of the Wii. It did have certain advantages though, the hard drive was upgradable, you could run Linux on it if you so desired (until Sony removed the option) and it worked well as a media system, more so than the 360.
However, it also has struggled with hardware issues, with the YLOD (Yellow Light Of Death), and then with online issues, such as the hacking of the Playstation Network. I am currently on my third PS3, after suffering with a Blu-ray problem, and then a fan problem. This was never an issue for me with previous generations, I only ever had ONE Sega Mega Drive, ONE Sony Playstation (well, two technically, my first one was stolen - NOT Sony's fault), and ONE Playstation 2.
Graphics will improve, games will look prettier, and hopefully gameplay will remain just as addictive and fun, but in my opinion, the hardware needs to be robust. It needs to be more reliable, which will arguably become more difficult as consoles become more advanced and complicated. There will always be a few issues with new consoles at launch, but if the hardware is strong, then people will remain loyal. Both Sony and Microsoft have struggled with that this generation (Nintendo arguably have come out on top in that regard IMO), so that's what they need to concentrate on in order to make their next generation consoles as good as they possibly can be.
With the Xbox 360, Microsoft has arguably dominated this generation.
Not an accurate statement at all.
From a purely business perspective, the Wii absolutely trounced all competition, and then tea-bagged them while they were down.
If you want to exclude the Wii, it's still not an accurate statement, as PS3 and 360 sales are roughly equal now, even taking into consideration the 360's headstart.
And if we're talking about this from a purely gaming and enjoyment perspective, of course it's all going to come down to personal opinion. For me, GOW stands for God Of War, not Gears of War. For others, they'll take a Halo 4 over an Uncharted 3 any day. And that's perfectly fine. Others will prefer a Blu-Ray player over a more coherent online system. I could go on all day, trading the various features the consoles either have or don't have, but ultimately it all comes down to personal preference.
Comments
What I am interested to see with next generation is what happens which the main players. MS are releasing their third console which historically have been a tough console to release for companies (N64, Saturn, PS3) and Sony are onto their fourth console which haven't been easy either (Gamecube and Dreamcast (Which eventually killed SEGA, Sony could go this way with their financial problems)).
MS certainly have the arrogance to balls up their third console Sony style and Sony seem to have no clear way out of the hole they are in like SEGA. Hopefully both can buck the trend.
The whole playing field is completely different from when the other companies released 3rd or 4th systems. It's not like bands with "tricky second albums"...
Just to go down one track, Sony are in a completely different situation from Sega when they released the Dreamcast. Sega pretty much ONLY had the Dreamcast. They decided to not have it as a DVD player and then plunged a ridiculous amount of money into marketing and advertising the system. Unfortunately, a lot of folk had been put off by the Saturn which, in turn, had had potential buyers put off because of the add-ons that Sega released for the Mega Drive (MegaCD and 32X - folk were of the "once bitten, twice shy" mindset). Sony aren't in that position.
The Saturn and Dreamcast weren't 'bad' systems (I had the DC, love it still) but their main potential user base had had their hands bitten and Sony came on the scene with the PS and dominated things.
The N64 came onto the scene too late after various delays and, initially, at a silly high price for the time. The games were also more expensive than the PS and Saturn coz they were still cartridge based. Nintendo shot themselves in the foot with what was, again, still not a bad system. They tried to rectify matter with the GameCube but they were already on the back foot.
If MS and Sony drop the ball with their next systems it won't have anything to do with the sins of the past, more to do with folk still being happy with the current gen if anything. They have to deliver something completely different that will make the customers want/feel they need to make a new purchase whilst, at the same time, offering everything that the current gen offers. Can you imagine folk being happy if all the current gen downloadable content isn't compatible with the next gen machines?
(How did Sony balls up the PS3, by the way? Apart from making it difficult to code for, initially... It certainly seems to be doing alright now, at 70 million shipped units in 6 years...)
Anyone would think it's still 2008 the way some people talk.
I'm fine without a new gen of consoles for another 18 months at least, plenty of life in the PS3 yet given the right developers, even when the new tech comes out we're not going to see a stellar leap in graphical quality like the previous jump between generation.
I never said Sony ballsed up the PS3, just that they had a tough time with it.
FYI N64 and PS3 are two of my favourite consoles so my post was not aimed at saying they were bad machines just that the companies had a good time with previous systems on to have a tough time launching their third consoles.
Yup, and there were many reasons why there were problems, especially with the N64 (delays, costs etc.) but they're not relevant to what the companies are going through now. Completely different situations going forward.
But, again, I wouldn't say Sony exactly had a tough time with the PS3...
Preformance wise It's closer to the PS3/360 than it will be to Orbis/Durango IMO.
I have own a PS3 from near launch and back then there were almost weekly reports that Sony was about to do a SEGA. Add in the constant complaints that the system was too expensive, that they had no games, that they came too late to market, that BluRay was dead in the water, that games were inferior (That remains true today with most games getting video comparisons to point out a couple of pixels difference) and that the PS3 was wrong to focus on media and games as all anybody wants is a games machine.
So IMHO it was a tough time for Sony in the early days of PS3.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Although, the release games include Arkham City & Assasin's Creed 3 which look the same as the PS3/360 versions 5/6 years into their lifespans so it would be interesting to see what the Wii I can do at the same stage of its lifespan.
And all of the above claims have since been proven to be complete poppycock (I'll take a couple of pixles less resolution in a comparison my own eyes will never be able to make in exchange for an infinitely better line-up of exclusives), the 'tough time' Sony had was with the nerdier corners of the internet, most of whom had grown too attached to their 360s by the time the PS3 came out..
I'm a proud PS3 owner but I think you're giving Sony a free ride here.
The first two years they had a very tough time. A console that cost close to £500 was never going to shift in the numbers they had envisaged, and that will be a lesson that all console makers will have learnt from in the future.
Now I know what you're going to say:
"But Sony sold the PS3 at a loss even at that price!"
Yes. Does that in any way make a difference to a consumer parting with such a large sum of money? Of course not. They don't care whether Sony was selling it at a loss or a 400% profit; all that mattered was that the technology was at least 2-3 years ahead of its time, the price point reflected this, and therefore nobody but the most serious gamers and film fans were willing to part with that amount of cash.
Let's also not forget that Sony didn't have a killer-app for the console until Metal Gear Solid 4, and even that was devisive.
I love the PS3 and Sony got it right in the end - I consider it the best console and would always take one over a 360 - but to say that they didn't make huge mistakes along the way is foolish, in my opinion.
It wasn't quite that expensive, it was £425 RRP and I managed to pick one up for £300 with 2 free games and 2 free blu-ray movies just 6 month after release.
huge mistakes? that's an overstatement.
A huge mistake would have been to release a console with cheap components that ran so hot it fried the motherboard of EVERY UNIT (almost) for at least the first 12 months of the console's life.
It's all about perception IMHO, and the kneejerk nature of internet reporting means that the first 24 months of the PS3 was painted as an abject failure, simply becuase it didn't match the 360 at the time, in fact Sony and Microsoft took completely different approaches to producing consoles which ended up being expected to do/be the same thing, Sony's was more a long-term plan, with the console coming into it's own in the final half on a ten-year life cycle, wheras Microsoft's was a bit more short-term born out by the fact they had to focus so heavly on Kinnect in the last couple of years to keep profits up.
A free ride? OK, maybe I'm a bit myopic, but I'll adress the original points here:
: For what, the first 6 months? it never seems to stop people buying Apple products.
While I can understand this to a point, I've had a PS3 since launch and at no point have I twiddled my thumbs wishing I could be playing Halo/Gears/Fable.
some could say MS came out too early with hardware that wasn't ready.
Has anyone ever claimed that? HDDVD maybe, Bluray may have been slow at the start, but no slower than 3D is now, or than DVD was in 1999.
In real life these comparisons mean nothing to anybody.
Whoever claimed such a thing was pretty short--sighted.
It wasn't the cheapness of the components, it was the fact they produced too much heat, warped the motherboard around them and eventually pulled away stopping the console from working. It took a die shrink of the CPU and GPU(not something you can do overnight), extra glue, a few things moved about and I believe an additional heat sink connected via a heat pipe to solve the problem.
Either way, Microsoft had an excellent system set up within the first year and gave very generous warranty extensions. I think it currently stands at 5 years for the RROD fault.
The PS3 had a higher price, lacked the number of A rated exclusives that the Xbox 360 enjoyed at the and game ports often ran or locked worse of the PS3. The controller also originally had a rather limited 6 axis feature but no dual shock.
Kinnect is an extension strategy designed to get more sales, the same way the Move controller is for the PS3. They are both designed to do the same thing of attracting more customers, as sales were starting to tapper off on both consoles.
Slight difference between the perceived value of an Apple product and a games console. I will admit I prefer the look of the original PS3 compared to the newer versions.
A personal choice, however I think I would of been bored with either the Xbox 360 or PS3 in their first year. The game selection were pretty poor on both sides.
HD DVD fans
I think it was worse at first, some PS3 ports would run terribly in comparison or were somewhat inferior. Now the difference is so little nobody can really notice unless you crack out the 400x zoom
Gamers are tight asses, The Wii U is too expensive, The Vita is too expensive, The 3DS was too expensive and the PS3 was too expensive. This is not my view but was a very popular view amongst gaming websites and forums. Even today when the PS3 Super Slim was released I was still reading comments about how it was too expensive for a 5year old system.
Many gamers will spend £500 on a phone but expect to pay £99 for a console which costs £500 to make.
The BluRay been dead thing was commented on this forum a lot, people even guaranteed its failure. I have played so many of the poor versions of multi format games that I know even the most slated games like Orange Box were playable, enjoyable and not half as bad as made out to be. And while I wanted and bought the PS3 because of its media capabilities I regularly read comments from people saying they wanted a games machine not a media player.
Just because I thought a lot of what was said back then was crap doesn't mean it wasn't been said and wasn't a popular opinion amongst gamers and gaming "journalists".
PSX won its generation, PS2 dominated the games industry, PS3 is still just in last place this generation, I would call that having a tough time for Sony.
@bluesmurf Sixaxis was awesome, best controller for the PS3. Rumble is so over rated IMHO.
Ive tried getting back into consoles after being bored of gaming when i was 16 (im now 31), tried all the Playstations and seen my cousins son playing on his 360 and a friend on his NIntendo and another friend on his 360... always reminds me and made me really appreciate how much better PC gaming is, even with the constant console ported games. PC has the vast online community thing going for it which has always made multiplayer gaming a great experience, which simply doesnt really exist on the consoles.
Pretty much all they've got is facebook and youtube comments... which nearly always results in people slagging people off over nothing, which didnt happen all that much until the 360 and PS3 went online... when loads of kids started showing up in online gaming.
There's no real need to build a gaming rig anymore. Games used to be developed for the PC which were then ported across to consoles. Now it tends to be the other way round.
PC exclusive/focused games are great, theres plenty of RTS, FPS, MMO games that are better than nearly every console game. PC gamers tend to play a game for a long time so theres no need to keep buying the next no.1 game in the charts. Surely on the console if you are buying a new game every month shows the games arnt that good (especially more so if you're constantly swapping back and forth)... but no, people dont seem to see it like that, that would make you "less of a gamer" if you arnt playing all these so-called amazing games.
I pretty much dont get any of that in PC gaming, i get a game and usually find that i like it then i wont need to play any other game for at least 6+ months, games usually last me 1-2 years without having properly played any other game.
And as commonly known, the PC is much more than just a gaming machine, and performs a lot better than any console and hand held device. If more people were into PC gaming there would be more and even better games, instead we have to make do with a limited amount of good games. People now are shooting themselves in the foot with lesser quality games, all because of their passion for cheap gaming that is consoles.
Over 3 years:
PC:
£900 for the PC
5 games? £30/each, £150
£1050 total.
Console:
£250 for the console
20 games? £40/each, £800
£1050 total.
Just an example to emphasize my previous post.
Everyone spends differently.
It all depends on the type of games I play more than the platform. I will play a story based single player game to 100% completion before buying my next game. There is no way a story based single player game will have enough content to last me 6months unless its an RPG and then even something like Skyrim I had the story complete, a large amount of side quest complete and my character well developed in the couple of months I played it.
But online games I normally stick to for a couple of years before moving on, I played CoD4 for 2years before moving to Bad Company 2 which I played until I got BF3 a couple of months back.
This is how I have played games on PC and Consoles. I dont like MMORPG and I dont like RTS games which are the giant time sink games that can be played for month after month.
I have also bought hardly any games at £40, the vast majority I buy are in the £10-20 region.
Am I looking forward to the next generation of consoles? Yes, I'd be lying if I said otherwise. However, I will not be splashing out cash for a launch Xbox720/PS4 or whatever they end up being called, simply because I don't see the need.
With the Xbox 360, Microsoft has arguably dominated this generation. It was released first, and had built up a solid library of games and had an established online service by the time the PS3 was released. It did however, suffer greatly with the RROD (Red Ring Of Death) and that may have pushed some gamers away. Kinect arguably won over some Wii gamers with it's motion controller, and made the 360 appeal more to a wider fan base (children, families).
Sony came into this generation the more succesful, after the success of the PS2. However, the PS3 was later onto the market, and struggled against the more well established 360, and the casual appeal of the Wii. It did have certain advantages though, the hard drive was upgradable, you could run Linux on it if you so desired (until Sony removed the option) and it worked well as a media system, more so than the 360.
However, it also has struggled with hardware issues, with the YLOD (Yellow Light Of Death), and then with online issues, such as the hacking of the Playstation Network. I am currently on my third PS3, after suffering with a Blu-ray problem, and then a fan problem. This was never an issue for me with previous generations, I only ever had ONE Sega Mega Drive, ONE Sony Playstation (well, two technically, my first one was stolen - NOT Sony's fault), and ONE Playstation 2.
Graphics will improve, games will look prettier, and hopefully gameplay will remain just as addictive and fun, but in my opinion, the hardware needs to be robust. It needs to be more reliable, which will arguably become more difficult as consoles become more advanced and complicated. There will always be a few issues with new consoles at launch, but if the hardware is strong, then people will remain loyal. Both Sony and Microsoft have struggled with that this generation (Nintendo arguably have come out on top in that regard IMO), so that's what they need to concentrate on in order to make their next generation consoles as good as they possibly can be.
Not an accurate statement at all.
From a purely business perspective, the Wii absolutely trounced all competition, and then tea-bagged them while they were down.
If you want to exclude the Wii, it's still not an accurate statement, as PS3 and 360 sales are roughly equal now, even taking into consideration the 360's headstart.
And if we're talking about this from a purely gaming and enjoyment perspective, of course it's all going to come down to personal opinion. For me, GOW stands for God Of War, not Gears of War. For others, they'll take a Halo 4 over an Uncharted 3 any day. And that's perfectly fine. Others will prefer a Blu-Ray player over a more coherent online system. I could go on all day, trading the various features the consoles either have or don't have, but ultimately it all comes down to personal preference.