Preview of Sony vs. Microsoft at E3

kukyfrope writes "After Sony stole the show last year with their dazzling game trailers, will actual hands-on impressions of the PS3 stand up to all the hype, or will Microsoft's second wave of Xbox 360 games (HALO 3 anybody?) show Sony why 360 is not Xbox 1.5." From the article: "While the Xbox 360 is off to a great start, Sony is not stupid. The company knows that the PlayStation brand name is extremely powerful, and that a lot of hardcore and casual gamers are waiting on the PlayStation 3 before deciding on a next generation console. In addition, if you want a cheap Blu-Ray player, the PlayStation 3 will be the only way to go. Stand alone units are looking to run $1500 or more, but it's unlikely the PS3 will release at anything higher than $500."

Re:Pricing...

[EMH_Mark3]

Unlike with games, DVD Player manufacturers don't get a cut off of the DVD sales.

PS3 & HDCP

[jbeaupre]

For a lot of folks, myself included, HDCP will negate the Blu-Ray. If you get downgraded content for not having the correct cables and TV, what's the point? Sure, next time I buy an HDTV it'll have more than component input. But by the time that happens players will be cheap and people will be looking forward to the PS4.

Sony stole the show? I think not.

[Casharelle]

I think the honor of 'stealing the show' at last years E3 went resoundingly to Will Wright and the rather stunning presentation of 'Spore'.

Re:Given^H keeping the choice

[dpilot]

Imagine for a moment that Microsoft WINS, though the situation would no doubt be similar if Sony were to WIN.

Right now, Microsoft is subsidizing the XBox with other revenues, and I don't mean just game sales. If they were unfettered by competition, they'd bring their games division back to at least break-even. They'd be nuts to do anything else. They'd probably also cut development resource to the minimum - just enough to keep competition from forming. (Or they'd cut below that, and restaff once it became apparent that a new competitor was coming on.) Prices would rise, progress would slow. Kind of like the way DOS 3.3 stagnated, back before DRDOS heated things up, again.

Re:PS3

[oGMo]

That E3 show set Sony back. The trailors were nothing more than CGI movies of what Sony hoped their games would look like.

Then their hopes were pretty realistic. Compare Old Snake [ign.com] from MGS4 which we know to be realtime with the Killzone demo [ign.com] shown, and you'll find that if anything, MGS4 is looking better. (Compare the high polycount, beads of sweat, skin texturing, and hair on Snake to what's in the KZ shot.)

And these are just the first-gen showings of the PS3.

The hardware no where near resembled what will really be in the PS3.

The... hardware? This is assuming you, a chronic Microsoft troll (mods: see poster's history), actually have inside information. Which is doubtful. This also assumes your statement makes any sense. What are you claiming? The specs Sony gave are false? That it won't have a Cell or nvidia GPU? That the box might look different? Seriously. If the games look like what Sony claimed (see Project Offset [ign.com] for some more impressive realtime videos), what else matters?

Also the PS3 will not launch any less than $500 without absolutely massive losses per unit. The 360 at this point will have markdowns to around $250.

You know this for a fact, do you? When it's already been confirmed long ago [ign.com] that the PS3 will launch at the same price-point the PS2 and PS1 did?

The PS3 will win this generation only if they can convince the average family that the PS3 is worth 2x the price. The normal fanboys will buy it no matter what the price, but these sales will be limited.

The PS3 will win this generation because they have all the games. That's what matters.