Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Entertainment

Sony Console the Worst Launch Ever 193

Posted by Zonk
from the no-not-that-one dept.
No, not that one. 1up set out to see if the PlayStation 3 had the worst launch of any modern gaming console, and found that another Sony console held that title. The original PlayStation's launch was pretty dreadful, with Warhawk's average of 89.4 being fairly low for most launch title leaders. The worst launch lineup of the 'next-gen' systems is actually the Wii, which has averaged only a 71.3 over its 20 launch titles. The PS3 is next up, with 73.4, and the 360 has the overall best of the three consoles, having scored an average of 77.3 over its 18 titles last year. From the article: "Averages are just that, though, and don't tell you much about the best games that accompanied the launches. And the best of the batch wasn't a surprise, but it wasn't a Nintendo game either. Soul Caliber for the Dreamcast, with an average of 96.4 just barely squeaks out the win over the Legend of Zelda: The Twilight Princess for Wii. At the other end of the spectrum, both Wii and PS3 share the worst stinkers with Happy Feet for Wii coming in at a 45 and Gundam: Crossfire at the very bottom with its 34.8."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Console the Worst Launch Ever

Comments Filter:
  • by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman @ g m a i l . c om> on Monday November 27, 2006 @03:30PM (#17005488) Homepage Journal
    The worst launch lineup of the 'next-gen' systems is actually the Wii, which has averaged only a 71.3 over its 20 launch titles.

    That would be because the THQ [thq.com] conversions from the previous gen are dragging them down. Not to mention the Vivendi (Ice Age) and Ubisoft (Open Season) titles that are similar conversions. Most launches put their best foot forward, but Nintendo allowed a few tag-alongs to immediately fill out their software library. The result is that there's a lot of great stuff for the Wii, but there's also plenty of so-so conversion stuff that appeals to a very specific market.

    Of course, life would be better if movie and TV conversions were done better to begin with. Anyone remember when Capcom did the Duck Tales and Chip and Dale games for the NES? Now THOSE were great games first, but with quality TV tie-ins that tried to be true to the source material. Alas, once Capcom started chucking out unsuitable tie-ins of The Little Mermaid and other Disney properties, it was all over. :(

    Back on topic, these numbers don't really mean anything. If a store sells 2 HDTVs a year, but 3,000 DVDs, the averages will still say that the HDTVs are making them more money. For that sort of situation, you need a weighted average to find the profits compared to the number of units sold. It's the same thing here. A smaller launch lineup is going to have a better average than a larger, more varied lineup. Something which 1Up themselves admit when discussing the N64.

    So I wouldn't take these metrics as anything more than a cutsie invention. They certainly have little to do with the success or failure of a console launch.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I generally agree with you that an "Average" doesn't really tell that much about the quality of a line-up, and I think that the quantity of games within a certain ranking would probably tell you more about a software line-up

      The Wii had 1 game at 90% or higher, 5 games that were 80%-89%, 7 games that were 70%-79%, 4 games that were 60%-70% and 3 games below 60%; I may have made a mistake with the handful of virtual console games mixed in the Gamerankings list.

      The PS3 5 games that were 80%-89%, 5 games that w
    • by Total_Wimp (564548) on Monday November 27, 2006 @04:43PM (#17006668)
      "Slashdot Headline is Most Misleading Ever"

      Console launch? No, game title average.

      Relivance? Console two generations ago was worst, but the time of the article makes you think otherwise.

      Agreement with article? No, the title of the 1UP article makes clear it's about the games and that it's an open ended question answered in the text.

      You can tell the truth just by reading further? Well yeah, but it's a not a main-page aritcle so you have to click-through first.

      Do I care that the Wii was the worst of this gen? Not really, because it still has good games.

      Do I think the PS3 sucks because Slashdot keeps wanting to tell me it does? Oh yes. I really don't care to think for myself.

      Good day all,

      TW
    • by DeadCatX2 (950953)
      Anyone remember when Capcom did the Duck Tales and Chip and Dale games for the NES?
      Hell yeah I remember. Duck Tales and Chip and Dale are classics.

      *reminisces* Oh, to be young again...
  • by alexhard (778254) <alexhard@g m a i l . com> on Monday November 27, 2006 @03:30PM (#17005492) Homepage
    Dude, we got it. You hate the PS3 and Sony. It's OK, we do too but we are REALLY getting tired of your stories about it..
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Madpony (935423)
      Folding his arms in front of his chest Zonk looks at you sternly, and in the Comic Book Store Guy's voice he says, "Worst. Launch. Ever."
    • Re:Zonk and the PS3 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GoNINzo (32266) <GoNINzo@ y a hoo.com> on Monday November 27, 2006 @05:26PM (#17007286) Homepage Journal
      I completely agree. If it's not an xbox 360 fan boy story or a ps3 hater story, it doesn't get put up. If you'd like some examples from the past 2 weeks, I come up with this pretty rough count based on article titles:

      Sony: 11 anti, 2 pro
      Microsoft: 1 anti, 6 pro
      Nintendo: 4 anti, 5 pro

      Granted, Sony is screwing up pretty badly, and the xbox 360 is hitting it's stride, it is a pretty annoying bias.

      We get it. We're interrupting your gears of war sessions and you can't find a ps3. But get over it. heh
      • Microsoft: 1 anti, 6 pro
        Does not compute. Does not compute.
      • by CaseM (746707)
        Granted, Sony is screwing up pretty badly, and the xbox 360 is hitting it's stride, it is a pretty annoying bias.

        Perhaps Zonk's article selection is simply reflecting general mainstream concensus, then, hmmm?
      • by toleraen (831634)
        To me the bias is mind boggling. Everyone here hates Microsoft. It's usually abbreviated to M$, Microsuck, etc etc. Even if the article has nothing to do with Microsoft, operating systems, office suites, etc, there's always at least one thread of people that bitch about microsoft. Yet, for some reason, every gaming console article is just filled with Xbox fanboys. So everyone hates microsoft, but they make quite an exception for their main hobby. They realize the original xbox ran windows too, right?

        Can s
        • by Enahs (1606)
          Easy!

          The raving fanboys hate Microsoft when the story is about Windows, security, stability, applications, business practices, etc.

          However, when the story is about gaming, everything else is a moot point.

          I notice the same thing with raving GNU loons. I've seen name-calling, tantrum-throwing, etc. in forums devoted to Linux when proprietary software is brought up, yet some of these same people are more than happy to throw a party when some gaming company does a native port to Linux. The only exception is C
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by skingers6894 (816110)
          Maybe the XBOX actually improved the console world, unlike many other Microsoft products. Is it possible that they actually got the XBOX line right? Maybe the Slashdot crowd can actually recognize a good product when they see it.

          Maybe Windows is rubbish, maybe office is bloated, maybe the Zune is appropriately brown in colour and maybe the XBOX is actually good. ...just a thought...
        • by Blakey Rat (99501)
          A couple points:

          1) The Xbox is a damned good product, regardless of how you look at it. The Xbox 360 is even better.

          2) The bias in the comments here is for Nintendo products. The Xbox bias is NOTHING compared to the Nintendo bias.
          • A couple points:

            1) The Xbox is a damned good product, regardless of how you look at it. The Xbox 360 is even better.

            2) The bias in the comments here is for Nintendo products. The Xbox bias is NOTHING compared to the Nintendo bias.


            1) the Xbox was a terrible product with a very limited genre list and cost MS a fortune. The 360 is good.

            2) Fanboys are always loudest and th emainstream tends to have the fewest fan boys. Also Xbox tends towards western formerly PC style games. Which happens to cater to the slashd
            • by Blakey Rat (99501)
              1) the Xbox was a terrible product with a very limited genre list and cost MS a fortune. The 360 is good.

              1) What the hell does it matter how much it cost MS? Is that how you judge every product? "Well, I liked this vacuum, but it cost Hoover too much, so I guess it's a bad product." Crazy.

              2) Adding a hard drive was, if not revolutionary, was on the far end of evolutionary. Notice that every console in this generation has some kind of mass storage device... that's Microsoft's influence. So is Sony and Ninten
              • by toleraen (831634)
                Notice that every console in this generation has some kind of mass storage device... that's Microsoft's influence.

                Also notice that the Playstation 2 came out 1.5 years before the Xbox. It was designed with HDD support. The actual HDD came out several months before the Xbox was released. Not saying it wasn't a good system, but all the xbox is is a SFF computer. Microsoft built what they knew they could support...the already had the OS, they just needed something to run it on.

                I see a lot of nintendo fa
                • by Blakey Rat (99501)
                  The Dreamcast was designed with HDD support also, as I recall. The Nintendo 64 and SNES both had expansion slots that could (theoretically) accept a mass storage device of some type. That doesn't change the fact that the Xbox popularized the HD, and that every other console maker is now shipping their console WITH the mass storage instead of "the option" of mass storage.

                  Also I think you're fuzzy on dates... I don't recall hearing anything about a PS2 HD until Final Fantasy 11 came out, and that was several
              • 1) What the hell does it matter how much it cost MS? Is that how you judge every product? "Well, I liked this vacuum, but it cost Hoover too much, so I guess it's a bad product." Crazy.

                Ways to judge a product:

                profitability: In this regaurds the Xbox ia terrible. A failure. A abject failure. In 10 years it still will not recover Ms investment.

                Innovation: Not that much. As someone pointed out the HDD wasn't the first, the PS2 did it first. The only real innovation was that it was a cheap PC slickly packaged a
        • Not everyone on Slashdot here hates Microsoft. A lot of people on Slashdot live off of Microsoft - people with MCSEs and other consultants. Not only that, but every article that is negative about Microsoft always has at least several, "I know everyone here hates Microsoft, but...." rated +5 Insightful. Basically that's the way you get modded Insightful these days - praise Microsoft in a devil's advocate tone, or bash Sony. Fact is, there are some fanboy moderators (and editors *cough* Zonk), and they ar
  • by wampus (1932) on Monday November 27, 2006 @03:31PM (#17005502)
    ...but not this one. Is Zonk some 14 year old with Mario sheets on his bed?
  • Average Scores (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the dark hero (971268) <{adriatic_hero} {at} {hotmail.com}> on Monday November 27, 2006 @03:32PM (#17005522) Homepage
    What about average games sold per console sold? That to me would make more sense in determining the worst/best console launch.
    • Or the number or percentage of launch games that are ranked above a certain level. Personally, I'd rather have a console with 2 90s and 1 30 than 3 70s.
    • Re:Average Scores (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RemovableBait (885871) * <slashdotNO@SPAMblockavoid.co.uk> on Monday November 27, 2006 @03:51PM (#17005884) Homepage
      I think almost any other metric would be a better one than 'average review score of the launch line-up'...
      • by sabernet (751826)
        I agree. At least add the "how many people were mobbed, beaten, robbed, shot, ripped off" category, the "didn't prepare one bit for the eventual expected line-up" category, the "most systems acting up on first batch" category and the "public awareness of the new device" category in the metric.

    • Re:Average Scores (Score:5, Insightful)

      by donglekey (124433) on Monday November 27, 2006 @04:37PM (#17006568) Homepage
      Exactly, because a console doesn't succeed by it's average score, it succeeds by the number of really good games that are out for it. The PS2 isn't selling because there are 1000's of mediocre games, it is selling because there are dozens of great ones. The 360 is leading the way in the number of games people buy for the next gen. If the library was more diverse and the games were exclusive, it would probably be doing better than it already is.
      • by be-fan (61476)
        A console doesn't necessarily sell just for the "great" games either. "Good" games in a wide variety of genres also sells consoles. The PS2 has enormous numbers of "good" games in lots of genres. These games aren't Zelda: TP good, but they're something that any fan of the genre might find it worthwhile to play. One of the biggest problems with Nintendo consoles over the last decade or so has been that while there are lots of great games, there are very few good games. In other words, you can probably find a
    • Re:Average Scores (Score:5, Informative)

      by AArmadillo (660847) on Monday November 27, 2006 @04:40PM (#17006620)
      This is known as the attach rate. PS3's attach rate has been 1.5, the Wii's attach rate has been 3.0, and the Xbox 360's attach rate at launch was about 4.0 (now it is around 5.0).
      • by Phleg (523632)
        Clearly this metric is biased against Sony. I mean, after shelling out that kinda dough for the console itself, of course nobody has enough money to buy more than 1.5 games. :)
  • by Nevyn (5505) * on Monday November 27, 2006 @03:34PM (#17005542) Homepage Journal

    One obvious fact from this list is that it bears zero correlation to anything useful. Also, I thought the main complaint with the PS3 is that almost all the games are available elsewhere (resistance being the exception) ... not that they are bad.

    And Soul Caliber beating Zelda TP, is probably mainly due to gamespot not wanting "another" Zelda ... and it's upto 96.4 anyway (higher than the above article).

    If anyone wants the sure fire way to know which of the current "next-gen" consoles is going to win ... wait 12 months, maybe 18-24 to be sure.

    • by Pope (17780) on Monday November 27, 2006 @04:35PM (#17006540)
      Zelda Toilet Paper? Awesome!
    • Soul Caliber beating Zelda TP, is probably mainly due to gamespot not wanting "another" Zelda

      No, Soul Calibur beating Zelda is mainly due to the artificial use of a single absolute numerical scale to rank two games that have nothing in common except that they are, in fact, games. A multi-player fast-twitch non-story-based fighting game taking place in small, functionally identical arenas, versus a single-player story-based RPG taking place in a huge interactive world. Both are a lot of fun, and great lau

    • by MBCook (132727)

      Zelda does have two glaring flaws in my opinion. I've been playing it and it's a great game. I've got about 9 hours into it so far. But there are the graphics, which look perfectly Game Cube (not even top end Game Cube, some other games looked better) and the Wiimote (which except for aiming arrows/the slingshot often feels tacked on). If I were to give it a score for a gaming magazine I'd drag it down for that.

      If it came out on the 'cube, it's scores would be near perfect. I'm talking 99% range.

  • TFA reviews console launches, not consoles. The title should be "Sony Console Launch the Worst Ever".
    • by Daetrin (576516)
      TFA reviews console launches, not consoles. The title should be "Sony Console Launch the Worst Ever".

      What exactly is the semantic difference between "Sony Console the Worst Launch Ever" and "Sony Console Launch the Worst Ever"?

      • by Firehed (942385)
        The latter implies that it's of all console launches, whereas the former doesn't. I'm inclined to think that The Challenger would be better suited to get the title of Worst Launch Ever, which obviously wouldn't apply when you're only talking about consoles.
  • by Joker1980 (891225)
    Just out of amusement i would like to know what the average scores were for games over the entire life of the last gen (PS2/GC/Xbox). While i know that its hardly a fair comparision what with the PS2 having many more titles than it competitors combined i think it would still be interesting from a quality over quantity stand. for an anecdotel example nearly all the gamecube games i have i think are really good, i have twice as many (at least) PS2 games but i would say that only a 1/4 of them are in the excel
    • I think Sony will do much better then others if you changed average of all games to average of the top 100 or top 50 games per console. That is more representative of what most gamers will experience. As few people buy more then 25 games let alone 50 or 100. Who cares if the psx, ps2, or ps3 has 400 mediocre games as long as they have 100 decent ones.
      • by Carbonite (183181)
        This is an important point. If dozens of awful games were suddenly were released for the PS2 (or any other current gen system), would this somehow diminish the great games that were released for that console? Of course not.
      • by cowscows (103644)
        More useful would be to break it down by game types, then a person can make a more informed decision based on their particular gaming interests.

        If you're into Final Fantasy type games, you're likely to do well with a Playstation. If realistic sports games are your thing, you might want to avoid nintendo. If, on the other hand, you prefer to play with a bunch of drunk people at parties and such, Nintendo definitely has you covered.

        Who was the best selection of racing games? Where can I find the best collecti
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by oc255 (218044)
      Fine. I'll do the legwork. :)

      Using IGN I got the PS2 launch list. Using metacritic, I got the aggregate scores of today. So two things to consider:
      - TFA uses a single source where metacritic would churn that into a greater aggregation.
      - Present-day scores over a longer period of time for the PS2 VS present-day scores over a short period of time on the PS3.
      - There's no accounting for taste, ok three things. :P


      OMG PS2 Launch List
      -------------------
      Armored Core 2 - 78
      DOA2: Hardcore - 91
      Dynasty Warriors 2 -
    • by grumbel (592662)

      I havn't looked at the big consoles, but I recently did a little statistic of the NintendoDS and the PSP based on the review scores from Metacritic, you can find the resulting graph here [seul.org]. Some additional information, the average score is 65% for NintendoDS and 70% PSP. NintendoDS has 163 games available while the PSP has 195 games.

      Short summary: The PSP has more games and better gamse, yet still loses on the market against the NintendoDS, most likly due to far to much PS2 recycling on the PSP.

      • by justchris (802302)
        No, that's not why DS games are outselling PSP games. Stop being silly, and remember this one fact: review scores are not a good indicator of sales.

        To prove, the best rated title on PSP is Lumines at 89 on metacritic. The top selling game on DS is Brain Training 2, which doesn't appear to have a metacritic rating, but Brain Age (which is Brain Training 1) has a rating of 76. They are 2 completely different types of games, and understandably have very different ratings. It doesn't suprise me that Brain

  • Interesting but. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LWATCDR (28044) on Monday November 27, 2006 @03:39PM (#17005650) Homepage Journal
    How many titles does the PS3 have for launch?
    Just wondering if the greater number of titles for the Wii is dragging down the average?
    Of course the real question is how many PS3 where bought by people that are going to play them?
    From what I have seen on like Sony is selling only 1.2 games per PS3 sold while Nintendo is around 3 games per Wii.
    If they are not counting Wii sports I would say that more people are buying the Wii to play than the PS3.

    • Re:Interesting but. (Score:5, Informative)

      by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman @ g m a i l . c om> on Monday November 27, 2006 @03:51PM (#17005880) Homepage Journal
      How many titles does the PS3 have for launch?

      16. The Wii had 21.

      Just wondering if the greater number of titles for the Wii is dragging down the average?

      Indeedy, do. Although, the problem is more that the Wii has a lot of so-so multi-system titles like Happy Feet, Open Season, SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab, Cars, Barnyard, and Avatar: The Last Airbender. Not only do these games smack of little more than attempts to cash in on major franchises, but their cross-platform nature means that they aren't very well tuned for the Wii's new motion sensing abilities.

      Of course the real question is how many PS3 where bought by people that are going to play them?

      Very few. But in its defense, the systems *are* getting in the hands of players in the end. So the PS3 game sales are just a bit delayed.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27, 2006 @03:39PM (#17005654)
    I for one would like to see a console launch rated by the number of people that were mugged for a given console on launch day
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27, 2006 @03:47PM (#17005780)
    During the last 2 decades of the 20th century, 2 brands became synonymous with top-notch quality at a price that the common folks can afford. Those brands were Sony and Honda. When people wanted to buy top-notch quality that could rival what the rich snobs bought, the former would buy Sony and Honda. A Honda was just as good as a Mercedes or a BMW at a much lower price.

    By the start of the 21st century, Honda continued to be synonymous with affordable top-notch quality.

    However, Sony's star began to fade as Sony slapped a price premium on all its products. The quality is still quite good, but is it worth the price premium? Increasingly, people say, "No way, you arrogant SOB!"

    The sun has set on the Sony empire. The customer has stopped worshipping at the altar of the Sony ripoff artist.

    A new champion has arisen. It is Matsushita, which includes the Panasonic brand. This past week, I perused some old issues of "Consumer Reports". Interestingly, according to various customer surveys, Panasonic's quality is almost identical to Sony's quality. Yet, Panasonic's prices are typically 20% lower than Sony's prices.

    Here's the rub. The Panasonic product is typically (but not always) "Made in Japan", but the Sony product is typically (but not always) "Made in a Nation of Desperate Slave Labor". Why is the Sony product so expensive when its labor costs are so low?

    • by Maxwell (13985)
      agreed, but wrong target.

      c/panasonic/samsung and you've got it.

      JON
      • Oh, and don't forget the Sega Saturn, which launched 6 months earlier than developers expected it to.
      • by danpsmith (922127)

        c/panasonic/samsung and you've got it.

        Eh? Not so much. I've had samsung phones, mp3 players and other electronics all of which were poorly designed and failed in one way or another. I avoid the samsung brand altogether as they are very much not in line as far as quality per price point (a phone shouldn't just have the monochrome LCD die within a year of use and an MP3 player shouldn't just shut off randomly after 3 months of use and have the cheapest battery door ever due to bad design). I advise peopl

    • I don't know about where you live, but Honda has never been synonymous with quality here.

      Additionally, Matsushita have this incredibly annoying trend recently of releasing Laptop DVD drives which do extra CSS and Region Checking in hardware, and even libdvdcss-based software like VLC can't play DVDs region-free with them. The firmware is difficult to get hold of and very difficult to hack, but the drives are being used everywhere in laptops because they're so cheap.

      Actually, I guess your 'just like Sony' co
      • by GizmoToy (450886)
        It probably depends on your definition of quality. Reliable cars at affordable prices? Only Toyota can compete there. If your definition of quality is a luxury-type automobile, then Honda is not the place to start.

        Honda does pretty well in the US. They're consistently #1 in resale value, and always within the top 5-10 marques worldwide in both initial quality and long-term quality. I'm not sure where you're from, but ask someone from the US who makes a quality car and I'd bet the majority will give you
      • In terms of reliability, Honda is number two after Toyota according to statistics taken from car owners.

        Do you know a better, objective measure of quality than your car not breaking down?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.

    Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.
  • Regardless the average rating of the games (which is arbitrary in the first place, since it's one sources opinion), at least the Wii games are being played outside Best Buy kiosks and video game editor offices.
  • by kinglink (195330) on Monday November 27, 2006 @04:30PM (#17006488)
    Putting aside bias for a minute I've played all next gen launches. The Xbox 360s launch was moderate. It did have some high points (COD2) but overall there was few break out games. Though it does have a lot of what the system would become known for.

    ON the other hand the Ps3 has the worse. Nothing feels innovative, there's only three or four games that isn't on the 360 in some form already. And the ones that used motion control were poor (ridge racer and tony hawk both felt laggy in their responsiveness). That being said their "break out hit" Resistance, felt like a FPS, and only a FPS. Seeing as insomniacs record that was a low.

    The Wii on the other hand had a truely unique controller so even ported hits couldn't be played the same way, yet the control has such tight controls that games which would be problematic with lag feel tight. What drags down the launch however is Ubisoft's titles, Red steel which was supposed to be the second best game at launch turns out to be a pretty big dud. The two racing games they released are budget titles at best. And the systems graphics are constantly dinged by Gamespot mostly.

    Overall though the Wii has a great variety, improved by their unique controls. However the proper way to find out how good a launch is, isn't through scores, at least not averaging all the scores of the system. It's better to look at the uniqueness of the launch (AKA port city from the 360 and PS3), the variety available, and the quality of the top games. If there's 5 good games that come out, why should we care there's 10 crap games. We don't blame the Ps2 for having 50 good games and 200 crap games do we? Why does the N64 get high marks? EASY! they have 3 games at launch! That doesn't make it a great launch either.

    Of course on the other hand 1up is about as worthwhile as a gaming source as crap is a painting source. They arn't biased, but they have awful reviews and complain about minor things while ignoring the best part of games. They post biased top 10s and such, or they'll back up their facts with flawed or weak math (aka let's take the average of all games launched). If you read the worst games at launch you'll probably notice you don't know many of them. So why are we averaging them in?
    • by Jarlsberg (643324)

      Overall though the Wii has a great variety, improved by their unique controls.

      Well, a variety in mediocrity is not that big of a feat. Personally, I'm getting a Wii sometimes in december (I'm in Europe) and I'm only getting one game for it, and that's Zelda. The rest seem pretty bad overall. I'm waiting for the next Mario game after that.

      Recently, I've picked up several games for the 360, a few which were rather good (NFS:Carbon, though I think Most Wanted is a better game overall, the canyons notwithstand

      • by kinglink (195330)
        I don't know about the Amiga, but the Jaguar was pretty poor as well. Saturn probably had a great launch but it seemed to slam into a brick wall right after that point, not to meantion stuff like 32x or sega CD which... well you know the story.

        If you look at the games for the wii they arn't "mediocrity" in the least, they arn't scored as highly though and most of the problem is "graphics" and the control is taking time to get used to (not to say the fault is in the gamer. Some companies.... (UBI!) just scr
        • by Jarlsberg (643324)
          You're right that most of the 360 titles I mentioned weren't launch titles. For the 360 launch I got NFS: Most Wanted, King Kong, PDZ, Kameo, Far Cry and Condemned. Of those, NFS and Condemned were the real highlights (though King Kong as Kong was rather fun), but Zelda is in another league entirely.

          And yeah, that period with the Jaguar, the CD32, the Saturn et al, it just made me lose interest in gaming entirely. That, and the downfall of Sierra & Lucasarts. It wasn't until Max Payne came along that I

  • A better metric (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dlthomas (762960)
    No one cares how bad the worst game is for each system - even if purchased, it's not going to get much playtime if it falls below a certain threshold. How many bad games there are only matters if you're making uninformed decisions about what to play. What is interesting is whether there are enough good games to keep my schedule full, and the quality of those games. A much better metric would be the average of the best N games, where N is the number I'm likely to purchase. Now, this clearly differs from
  • by Pojut (1027544) on Monday November 27, 2006 @05:00PM (#17006912) Homepage
    Let's face it folks. Call them what you want, someone who says "this console is better than another" this generation is a Grade A Nimrod (thank you calvin & hobbes)

    Come on. This is like a movie critic trying to compare Dumb and Dumber with A Fistfull of Dollars...they are entirely different movies, just like each of the three new consoles have entirely different purposes.

    The Wii is for those that want something new, something fresh. It is the perfect example that graphics don't always make the game...and frankly, while comparitavely the graphics are so-so, they are still quite nice. They have a deliberate 'Nintendo signature' feel to them, which personally I am very happy was not abandoned. If there is one thing to be said about any of Nintendo's previous consoles, it is that they were entirely unique on their own, and you KNOW when you are looking at something on a Nintendo System. Modern day technology meets retro gaming demand: fun above all else.

    The PS3 is for those that want to be on the cutting edge. With it's ability to display 1080p, a next-gen optical disc format, and its configurability (read: simple Linux support), it just begs people to tinker with it. Sony's price is not just because the components are expensive, it is used as a method to bring in the drooling techies: if it is shiny, black, and expensive, it HAS to be cool. I for one am very excited to see certain next-gen entries in some series on the PS3...or have you all not thought about God of War 3?

    The Xbox 360 is for those that want a sleek, integrated system. Because of Microsoft's hold on the general public in the form of operating systems, it makes it EXTREMELY easy for them to design the 360 in such a way that allows it to integrate seamlessly with your system. Streaming media, accessing files over the network without even needing to check out the instruction manual, slick shape, comfortable controller...the 360 screams 'chic geek'. While it lacks first-party supported Linux now, I can assure you with Microsoft's recent aquisition in the Linux market, it is only a matter of time before Linux on the 360 becomes a reality. And given the way the 360 can already integrate itself into your home network, imagine the fun that could be had...the infinite application availability for Windows with the customization capabilities and rock-solid operation of Linux. It will truly be a thing of beauty.

    So this generation, I think all consoles win. They each are attempting to break into a different part of the market, and they all have succeeded tremendously.

    All I ask of my fellow gamers is that they stop comparing Dumb and Dumber with A Fistfull of Dollars.
    • But how else does one, who can only afford one console, confirm their purchase decision as the right one?

      Like it or not, the world needs a winner, and we all want to be on that team.

      That said, if I had mod points you'd get +insightful or +interesting.
    • So this generation, I think all consoles win. They each are attempting to break into a different part of the market, and they all have succeeded tremendously.

      I doubt that, the PS3 and Xbox 360 look like they are going after basically the same market to me ... and most everyone else I've read. Also, much like previous generations, the market just isn't going to support all three well (network effect). So the average person needs to know which is better ... because the other two are worth much less, in t

    • .they are entirely different movies, just like each of the three new consoles have entirely different purposes.
      Not buying it. Sure they have different features but the purposes are all the same. Seriously.
    • by Anthony Boyd (242971) on Monday November 27, 2006 @06:32PM (#17008400) Homepage
      So this generation, I think all consoles win. They each are attempting to break into a different part of the market, and they all have succeeded tremendously.

      I hate this kind of thinking. It ignores reality. It attempts to be politically correct and magnanimous over electronic devices. As if a PS3 can have a hurt ego.

      Look, if there is anything we've learned from recent gaming history, it's that there are losers. The Dreamcast should have had a bigger chunk of market share. In my opinion, it didn't deserve an early death. And the GameCube should have had more games. However good Nintendo's first-party games may be, they didn't have a Guitar Hero or EyeToy equivalent. People wanting that stuff had to look elsewhere.

      The bottom line is, some consoles falter, and when they do, sometimes developers kick 'em while they're down. And when that happens, customers get the shaft. So it is not only legitimate for customers to try to figure out the least shafty deal, but it's realistic, too. Right now, Sony is down. What's more, some customers (or ex-customers) want to kick Sony while they're down. It would be stupid to pretend that such thinking has no effect. Similarly, the Wii does have weaker graphics. It may be foolish to ignore that, especially if you consider what the console landscape may look like 2 or 3 years from now -- lots of very good looking and fun games on the PS3 and XBox 360. The Wii isn't going to corner the market on fun. So the question may be, do you want fun & good looks, or just fun? Are you willing to pay through the teeth?

      The second we start to engage our critical faculties, we can see that there are already some clear indications of who is headed for loserville. And when you're about to put down $500 or so, you may want to be sure you're not investing in the losing team. If you do make that mistake, you may end up having to invest another $500 in a year or two. I'm not suggesting that the PS3 will die like the DreamCast, as Sony is too big and egotistical to let that happen. But we can already see a dearth of games for that system, and many of the games that do exist are already available (with better multiplayer) on the XBox 360. A year from now, will PS3 fanboys be asking Santa for an XBox 360, just to get a better selection of fun games? Why not avoid that mess, and pick intelligently from the start?

      As for me, I've picked the Wii, because I believe three things. First, graphics have reached "good enough" level for enough people that sales won't be hurt. Second, the Wii controller isn't a gimmick, and will ensure good gaming for quite some time. Third, Nintendo has patched up relationships with third parties, and will see more games than the PS3 will. I could be wrong on all counts. But I want to put my money down on a system that will last me 4+ years, and so I did my best to determine who the losers would be, and steered clear.

    • Summary:

      Microsoft: Cool
      Sony: Powerful
      Nintendo: Fun
  • by smash (1351)
    Thats about all i have to say for people attempting to rate consoles based on their launch titles :D

    Or who even care/remember such things :D

    Game ratings are generally bullshit anyway, i've got no idea how many games rated "80%" that i've played for 5 minutes and thought "this is crap"...

  • The story summary was a bit weird, since it seems to imply having a terrible launch is actually a sign of success - I think few people would argue the Playstation had a bad run. So it would seem to mean good things for the PS3, or that Sony is much better at managing the long-term life of a console than other companies.

  • ... as group most obsessed with statistics.

    83.2% of gamers said they were at least 75% certain that they were likely to buy a console based on a statistical analysis of available game titles and their relative worth. Of those who said they would likelly buy a console based on a statistical analysis, 38.3% indicated that they were also running their own independent analyses in order to verify the accuracy of the initial analysis.

Real programs don't eat cache.

Working...