360 vs. PS3 vs. Wii - The Designer's Perspective

Gamasutra is running a piece today written by Ernest Adams, a frequent contributor to the site and an amusingly opinionated game designer. He writes to weigh in on the console war debate from the perspective of a game designer. He runs down the usual list of pros and cons for each machine, and then digs into the most creative aspects of each machine. Finally, lays out what he sees as the end result of this hardware generation: "So who, at the end of the day, will be the also-ran in this generation of consoles? On the global scale, I'd say it could well be neither the PS3 or the Wii, but the Xbox 360. The PS3 will win over the hardcore gamers who have to have the fastest, most amazing machine available. The Wii will skim off the younger players and those who don't have as much money to spend. Both have the advantage of being made in Japan, so they'll crowd the Xbox right out of that market. In the US and Europe, it's harder to say, but I see the Xbox's early start as more of a liability than a benefit."

I have to disagree

[HappySqurriel]

"So who, at the end of the day, will be the also-ran in this generation of consoles? On the global scale, I'd say it could well be neither the PS3 or the Wii, but the Xbox 360. The PS3 will win over the hardcore gamers who have to have the fastest, most amazing machine available. The Wii will skim off the younger players and those who don't have as much money to spend. Both have the advantage of being made in Japan, so they'll crowd the Xbox right out of that market. In the US and Europe, it's harder to say, but I see the Xbox's early start as more of a liability than a benefit."

I don't know what will happen in total sales, but I expect that the so-called "Hardcore" gamer will likely purchase multiple systems and will be very attracted to the Wii because the nature of the titles it recieves; what I mean is that many of the so-called "Hardcore" gamers will buy pretty much any piece of hardware that has enough exclusive games, and pretty much all Wii games are exclusive due to the nature of the console.

The majority of gamers are not hard-core and are no where near as big of graphics whores as some people assume; gaming is probably not their only form of entertainment so they're probably less likely to spend too much money on it. The price of the Wii is probably very attractive to them, but they also haven't played enough games to care about how stagnant the industry has become.

Doesn't that imply...?

[posterlogo]

...that the XBox360 might be good middle ground for many people, and would thus do quite well in relation to the other two? Don't get me wrong, I wish I had all three, and maybe for now I'd be happy with a Wii. But an XBox360 isn't that much more, and can do much the same stuff as PS3. Maybe it will come down to killer games, and Halo3 will help out a lot there. Wii's got its own fan base... With all the launch glitches from Sony, and recent evidence that they want even higher priced, PS3-based home entertainment systems, makes me think that as gaming consoles go, PS3 may end up the lose. My 2cents.

'game designer' AKA former EB sales clerk

[Anonymous Coward]

There are actual console developers with insight into the race between the PS3 and Wii, the problem is that anyone with an actual worthwhile knowledge is too busy actually making games.

So instead we get the worthless ramblings of the console dev world's deadweight:

'game designers' aka level monkeys
producers
testers ...

Wii for the win?

[Telvin_3d]

I think it is interesting that everyone seems to be assuming that the fight for first/second is between the Wii and whichever of the other two win out. In the article above as well as the other slashdot comments already posted there is a base assumption that the Wii is going to do quite well. It is as if everyone is acknowledging that the Wii already has a certain segment of the market sewn up and that gives the advantage in the three way battle for the rest of it. Now, that could be completely wrong, but I think it is very interesting to see that unspoken assumption in so much of what I read.

Useless

[PHPNerd]

This article is useless rhetoric about the "console wars". At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who has the best graphics or the best kind of control system. What matters is what you like to play, and which console will give you that. The people who want to play the games that only the PS3 offers will buy the PS3, regardless of what Nintendo and Microsoft do, and vice-versa. There will never be a winner to the "console wars", and thus ample opportunity for people to rehash the good and the bad of all of the systems to try and make it sound like a new angle, when they're really just kicking a dead horse.

Or,

[oGMo]

The PS3 will win over the hardcore gamers who have to have the fastest, most amazing machine available.

Or the gamers who, you know, like to have more than 3 games a year [slashdot.org] and care about more than Halo. It's not like the prices are going to stay fixed forever, and I know kids who have, on their own earnings, bought all three last-gen consoles.

Re:PS3 vs Wii

[HappySqurriel]

The Wii appears to have one fundamental problem now that I've been around multiple people who have the system, including myself. The novelty wears off pretty quickly. For some people it takes only a few minutes, for others maybe a couple of weeks. But it seems like everyone has a moment where the Wii goes from 'amazing and revolutionary system with a controller that has unlimited possibilities' to 'eh, just a GameCube with a pointer for a controller that doesn't really work very well for most games'.

I'll try to remember that to get people to stop asking me to bring my Wii to their Christmas party ... "Anonymous Coward Sony Fanboy Troll says that the Novelty wears off pretty quickly, so I don't think I should bring it over."

So far I have not seen anyone play with my Wii and not be immediately engaged. Honestly, from what I have seen, the novelty of shiny graphics wears out far faster than the Wiimote does; I've seen crowds gater for 5 minutes to check out the graphics of the XBox 360/PS3 only to disperse immediately to do something better with their time.

Most people don't care all that much about graphics when they're enjoying the game they're playing; in fact if you're enjoying the game you will probably not be paying too much attention to any of the graphical effects that are happening.

Re:Nintendo's achilles heel

[elcid73]

Good point. Nintendo will have to rely in the "whole product experience" and not the "added/kludge/hacked" approach the others will take if this input method catches on. But there is a lot to be said for the whole product experience.. it's a good reason the ipod keeps on top.

Re:Nintendo's achilles heel

[ontheheap]

The problem with this is that users have to buy the x-box or ps3 "wiimote" separately instead of it coming with the system. I forget exactly what the percentage is of users who buy additional peripherals (such as additional drives, special controllers, etc) after buying the core system, but I think it's quite low. Obviously, developers want to make games that the greatest number of people will buy, not just the few people who bought a particular peripheral. Basically what I'm saying is that if MS or Sony do come out with a "wiimote" chances are only a small percentage of console owners will purchase it, which means you probably won't see many games taking advantage of it.

Re:The 360's real liability is its game selection

[Jearil]

I have to disagree.. I think your friend just happened to be a FPS junky perhaps. Personally, I bought and played through all of Enchanted Arms (all 1k achievement points worth), and I was amazed by the quality of the game. It was really enjoyable, to me at least. As for other RPGs, Blue Dragon will be coming out sometime in '07 in the states (it's already out in Japan and sold pretty well), and I think that should be something to look forward to. Lost Oddessy is another RPG that should be coming out in '07 as well, as far as JRPGs go anyway.

As for other non-FPS 360 games, I'm personally greatly enjoying Viva Pinata right now. While it might look like a kids game (omg, a game with Color? What were they thinking!?), it's actually really good. I mean you get to beat things to death with a shovel and then see all of that things closest friends eat its entrails like a giant cannibal fest. Good Stuff.

The new sonic game that recently was released is pretty niffty. It's also on the PS3, though I'm not sure if it's been released there yet, but still a fun game as they finally returned Sonic to have that sense of oh-my-god-I-have-no-idea-where-I'm-going speed again.

There's also your sports and racing games if you're into that. I'm not, but I suppose some people are. Some of the arcade games are really interesting, but not all of course. And of course if you want soft-core porn there's always Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach 2.. It doesn't even have volleyball in the title now, seems like just a T&A fest.

Reguardless, the 360 definitely isn't where I'd like to see them as far as games go, but they're not really all that bad. Too many sports and not enough RPGs, true, but there are more down the line. I look forward to Blue Dragon and Lost Oddessy, but maybe we need a new genre, as everything has been so overdone that even without a number at the end of the title most games feel like rehashes in all categories.. and that applies to all of the consoles. The only console I'm really seeing anything "exciting" being done is the Wii, but even then companies like THQ screw it up with bad ports with poor controls.

Re:I have to disagree

[Das Modell]

The PS3 will win over the hardcore gamers who have to have the fastest, most amazing machine available.

People who buy a console because of its hardware are not hardcore gamers, they're assclowns. Hardcore gamers are primarily concerned with games, as the term implies.

Ok, this wasn't terribly on topic but I had to get it off my chest.

Re:Nintendo's achilles heel

[Chibi Merrow]

Yeah, but without an additional calibration method (ie: sensor bar) to fix the drift from the accelerometers in the Sixaxis, you'll never be able to use it for "aiming" at the screen or anything requiring precision... Just gross movements.

Re:I have to disagree

[twistedsymphony]

I couldn't agree more... I consider myself to be a hardcore gamer... I own every console from the last generation, and every console for the generation before that, I bought a 360 on launch day, I bought a Wii 2 days after launch... I have about 20-40 for each of the last gen console, I have about 20 Xbox 360 games already (only 3 Wii games). My Xbox 360 gamerscore is in the top 1500 world wide.

...and I have absolutely ZERO interest in the PS3. The price is ridiculous. I hated the controller shape back when they introduced it in 1995, and there aren't any exclusive games availble worth buying the console for. Not to mention with all the bad PR the exclusives are going cross-platform faster then you can say "dropping eBay prices".

If I really wanted the biggest and best gaming machine, I'd buy a PC.

As far as I'm concerned the only thing a PS3 is good for right now, is a cheap Blu-Ray player. But at the same time you'd have to convince yourself that it's even worth buying any blue laser disc player at all, nevermind the Blu-Ray over HD-DVD.

Re:Doesn't that imply...?

[Professor_UNIX]

Middleground is bad. It doesn't distinguish you from your competitors.

That's not true at all. Being in the middle means that you're better than a Wii at graphics, performance, and probably have better games, and you're cheaper than a PS3. I *always* buy the middle of the road computer hardware when I'm upgrading because it offers the best balance of price and performance. For example, there's no way I'd pay $400 for a CPU when I know it'll be $150 within 6 months. The same goes for expensive graphics cards. The only people that buy the newest and most expensive things are people with too much disposable income and too little patience. I'll probably pick up a Wii... in 6 months if they drop the price. $250 is a little too much for what is essentially a console that belongs with the last generation. It's just a souped up Gamecube with a different controller whereas the PS3 and XBox360 are truly revolutionary advances in gaming technology.

Winner: the PS2

[Animats]

The current winner is the PS2.

• Price: $129.
• Plays audio CDs and DVDs too, so it's a full entertainment system for the kids' bedroom.
• Plenty of games available, and more still being developed.
• Huge installed base.
• Small form factor.
• Games look almost as good as on the PS3.
• Price: $129.

Re:Nintendo's achilles heel

[Metasquares]

I don't think people are rushing out to buy the Wii because it has an innovative controller. IMO, the game lineup over the next few months (plus the low price point) is sufficient reason to get one, controller or no.

Re:I have to disagree

[DarkJC]

Available now, or available later? We all know that unless Sony drops the ball they're getting the Final Fantasy's, the Metal Gear Solids, and the Devil May Crys. They very well could drop the ball and all the amazing exclusives they've secured for their previous consoles will go flying to the 360, but I'm not counting on it. Honestly I think it's impossible to have a very strong opinion on the PS3 until it's been released for a year.

Considering you're a self professed hardcore gamer, you should know that the PS3 DOES have stuff going for it other than just Blu-ray.

Re:I have to disagree

[HappySqurriel]

As I said before, I don't really know how well each system will end up selling and I don't think anyone really can make an accurate prediction ...

What I can say is that in both the Sony PSP vs. Nintendo DS and Sony PS2 vs. Micrsoft XBox/Nintendo Gamecube "console wars" Graphics, AI, Physics, Media Playback and Internet Capabilities meant very little to the average consumer and the system that "won (is winning)" was the worst system in most of these ways. Gamers buy gaming systems to play games, the system that has the most games that fit their desired playstyle tends to attract them.

In general I would say that the XBox 360 is at a disadvantage because it lacks Japaneese development and Japaneese developers (unlike North American/European developers) tend to produce their games as console exclusives.

Re:Wii for the win?

[TemporalBeing]

I think it is interesting that everyone seems to be assuming that the fight for first/second is between the Wii and whichever of the other two win out. In the article above as well as the other slashdot comments already posted there is a base assumption that the Wii is going to do quite well. It is as if everyone is acknowledging that the Wii already has a certain segment of the market sewn up and that gives the advantage in the three way battle for the rest of it. Now, that could be completely wrong, but I think it is very interesting to see that unspoken assumption in so much of what I read.

I am really not surprised - but then again, I am very much in the camp of Nintendo will take the lead, and Microsoft & Sony will duke it out for second. Why? Because Nintendo realized that the market is not the 10 percent of gamers that make up nearly 100 percent of the hard core gamer market - they realized that there is another 90 percent of the market that is just not tapped - from the kindergarten kids to the elderly - not just the kids in their late teens and early twenties.

The Wii was made to reach all gamers, and be good enough for the hard core games but not with top notch specs. They're pulling from their backlog (which as registered will be larger than PS+PS2+PS3+xBox+xBox360 combined as, if I remember the statements right, they could release titles daily and go on for a century and still have titles to release) and adding new stuff that is truly innovative, fun, and entertaining.

I'll get a Wii - heck, even my wife wants to get me one so that we can play it together and have a lot of fun. We've been playing my old 2nd generation NES (the SNES form-factor styled NES) for quite a while now and love it. And with titles like ExciteTruck and and backwards compatibility, I'm all for the Wii.

So if anyone ever wonders why Wii is being thought to be in 1st place - it's because Nintendo did the job, and did it right. They remembered who their real market was and made a product for that market. Finally - the world can have fun gaming again, and it won't be on a PS3 or xBox 360.

Re:PS3 vs Wii

[freeweed]

And quite frankly, let's say the novelty DOES wear off after a month. Well, see, that person has ALREADY BOUGHT THE WII.

From the almost viral effect the Wii is having, in a couple of years we might see 100 million households with Wiis that are just getting bored of it. Remember the old shampoo commercial? "I told 2 friends, then they told 2 friends" etc. Every last person who's been over to play with my Wii (insert joke here) is now lining up every weekend trying to get one. Once they have it, every one of their friends will be doing the same.

If having half the the planet owning your console, and bored of it, is a problem - I'd like to have that problem, thanks. You think these people will stop buying games entirely?

Besides the fact that "a controller that doesn't really work very well for most games" is complete and utter bull. I've never seen a new idea implemented so nicely on a release lineup. The games designed for the wiimote work amazingly well RIGHT NOW - imagine how good this will get in a couple of years.

I've been a Nintendo fan for decades. I've loved nearly everything they've put out. Yet even I didn't think they'd see a TENTH of the demand and excitement going around right now. It's almost scary just how many people are telling me they want one. And it's got hardly any games yet. Wait until this thing has a few hundred titles out.

So which was the third-place one here?

[notsoclever]

In the optical media era, Sony brought out the Playstation, Sega gave us the Saturn, and Nintendo hung onto cartridges for one more generation with the N64.

From the context in the article, it sounds like he's saying the Saturn was the second-place one in that race.

Re:Winner: the PS2

[DarkJC]

Everything you said I agree with. Except the "Games look almost as good as on the PS3" part. That's spoken like someone who hasn't seen either the 360 or the PS3 in action. I've seen a huge difference between games even on an SDTV.

Re:I have to disagree

[ActiveNick]

The only real benefit of the XBox 360 is that it was out first and was a little cheaper than the PS3.

Excuse me, but have you tried Xbox Live? Every reviewer from any site agrees that Microsoft has the best online act compared to PS3 or Wii (which has no online gaming support yet).

Microsoft has proven that they can design a solid online offering, providing centralized friends lists, voice, chat, messages, easy matchmaking, really cool and innovative (as well as retro) games on XLA, coutnless downloads (that work in the background) and more. The PS3 forces each developer to provide their own online support or demand that gamers subscribe to a third-party service.

Online support on a console does not mean slapping on a badly integrated browser (every time I try to surf on my PSP I want to blow my brains out), it means seamless online gaming. We live in a day and age where people get connected for everything. From YouTube to MySpace, World of Warcraft to Instant Messaging, people do not want to stay alone at home, disconnected and secluded. Xbox Live brings gamers together, and that's the ace in the sleeve of the Xbox strategy, especially when paired with Live Anywhere which loops in the windows gamers too. Sony had a year to get their online act together and they have learned nothing.

I could cite many other reasons why the 360 will impress and endure, including community offerings using XNA, a non-Trojan horse HD-DVD drive, amazing non-Halo exclusives like Mass Effect, Lost Planet, Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey, but to me, Xbox Live carries a lot of weight on its own.

Yes, I am a huge Microsoft & Xbox 360 fan (although I also own a PSP and will buy a Wii as soon as I find one), and Microsoft might not beat Sony's numbers in this generation, but one thing is for sure, both the Xbox 360 and the Wii will eat a huge chunk off Sony's 70% market share.

Re:I have to disagree

[GeckoX]

You're only partially right.

What system _doesn't_ have games? Certain systems tend to focus more on certain types of games...but what's being implied here is that the Wii will win out because of the games available on it. Other than the fancy controller, what's different about the games available this time around?

Some people prefer non-nintendo games, or at least don't care about them enough to only buy that system.

Most likely is that there will be a larger multi-console camp this time around. Why not? The Wii is cheap enough that even if it is a gimmick in the long run, no big deal.

But chances are very very good that traditional non-nintendo gamers aren't going to 'switch' to the Wii. If anything, they'll get the Wii too. Probably after the 360 if that's your thing, probably before the PS3 if you're more in that camp.

What probably won't happen though is people buying a 360 and a PS3. Yes, of course some will, but in general most won't. Why? Because for all intents and purposes, they're very very similar, and more and more games are coming out for both consoles.

The 360 and the PS3 are similar enough to PC's that this is where the bulk of games are being targeted. Most bang for your development buck. It just makes sense. There's still a few proprietary titles on each system, but that's getting to be fewer and fewer all the time.

Consoles no longer appeal to the mainstream

[mabu]

Perhaps what Nintendo understands that no other maker does, is that the last two generations of consoles have cultivated a different kind of consumer/user than previous generations: the "twitch players" which represent a tiny portion of the potential market. Why have so many FPS and violent games come out? Why are developers pandering to this group? I suspect because these games are easy to crank out and don't require nearly as much creativity. As a result, most people don't really give a shit about the "console wars." I know I don't. My last console was the N64 which I abandoned after the dearth of quality games (other than the core Nintendo titles).

It's all about the software. It always has been. The console that has the best software will win. It doesn't matter what the hardware specs are. Great software can compensate for inferior hardware -- though most of today's developers don't seem to understand that. I saw games that ran in 16K of RAM that had more longevity that today's multi-gigabyte monstrosities.

The Wii's advantage

[rjung2k]

Quite simply, this [youtube.com] is why the Wii will come on top. There is no way you can do that with an XBox 360 or a PS3.

Re:Not to say I told you so.. but.. NOT

[MysticOne]

There are some of us who just want a console. I don't need another computer, another DVD or CD player (or HD-DVD/Blu-Ray for that matter). I just want something to play games on. I can do all the other stuff on other devices I already have, or I can purchase them later and use them. While it's sometimes convenient to have everything in one device, to me that's more of a problem than a feature. There's more code and more hardware, which leads to more things that can go wrong. On top of that, if it does happen to die, you lose ALL that functionality rather than just the one device.

I'm probably not going to buy a PS3 unless they're really, really cheap someday. I'm not buying an XBox360 either because the games just don't interest me. My wife and I went with a Wii on launch day and have thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. Now we can even browse the web on it, though it's probably easier to just get up and walk to the computer room. I'm not complaining that it does a few extra things, because it's taking advantage of hardware that's really already in the system. But, I don't want a living room desktop replacement, and I'd assume a lot of other people don't want one either. We buy consoles to play games.

Re:Doesn't that imply...?

[Chosen Reject]

It's just a souped up Gamecube with a different controller whereas the PS3 and XBox 360 are truly revolutionary advances in gaming technology.

Please tell me you were looking for a +1 Funny Mod here.

I'll grant that the PS3 has the new Cell processor, but other than that both the PS3 and the Xbox360 are just a souped up PS2 and Xbox respectively. Nintendo just decided not to soup up their console as much as their competitors and decided instead to spend their time and money on a new control scheme.

Perhaps you know more than me, but please do tell what the PS3 and Xbox 360 are capable of gameplay wise that the Wii is not. Perhaps extra enemies, perhaps slightly more sophisticated AI. But being able to push a few more polygons and higher res textures and lauding that as "truly revolutionary advances in gaming technology" is simply ridiculous.

Re:Doesn't that imply...?

[KingSkippus]

Here are a few reason why I disagree. I guess time will tell which of us is right.

Multimedia playback, internet capability via the web browser/keyboard/mouse, linux, and blu-ray built in have the PS3 off to a good start.

• The Xbox 360 also has multimedia playback. It can play DVDs out of the box, and one can purchase high def movies and television shows online to play.
• I'm certain Microsoft has more in store as far as the Internet goes, but keep in mind that most people don't use their videogame console to browse the web.
• Most users don't want to use a keyboard or mouse with their videogame console.
• Most users don't care about Linux on their videogame console. Again, that's what computers are for.
• Contrary to what Sony wants to believe, most users don't watch movies using media such as Blu-ray discs on their videogame consoles. I much prefer the Xbox's philosophy: If you want to watch high def movies, we have a piece of equipment you can add. We're not going to force you to buy one with every console we sell.

The 360 doesn't have HD-DVD yet and the only way it's going to be available in the near future is via external add-on so I really think that will come into play as well.

Yes, the 360 does indeed have HD-DVD. And yes, it is an add-on. I think that most people will like that. You have the choice of whether you want to pay for it or not. Microsoft isn't forcing you to buy it with their console. As a result, their console is considerably less expensive without giving up any of it's primary usage capabilities—gaming—and Microsoft was able to get a lot of the systems out and on the market a lot quicker than Sony has.

Finally, the PSP/PS3 combination is pretty neat.

Not very many people have PSPs. Honestly, I bought one because I thought they were going to be the Next Big Thing(tm). They're not. Their potential never materialized, and I've been sorely disappointed at the lack of cool stuff for mine. The games aren't that good, the UMD movies are dead, and I haven't even turned the thing on in a year or so. I wish I could go back in time and slap myself silly for buying one. Maybe now that the PS3 is out, I can get a little something back for it on eBay.

The fact that you can sync them up, and hopefully stream remotely to the PSP from the PS3 over the internet is an awesome feature for those who like to show off to their friends.

This sounds like a marketing clip if ever I heard one. This assumes that: 1) people even have a PSP, 2) people carry their PSP around with them, 3) people have wireless access to the Internet everywhere they take their PSP, 4) people's friends will care what's on their PSP or PS3, 5) people will actually want to watch movies on a four-inch screen. Is PSP/PS3 communication neat? Sure. Is it a reason to buy either? No.

When I can rip my DVDs onto my computer and have it stream them to my PSP or PS3, come back and talk to me. (Yes, I know there's probably some long, complicated, illegal procedure to do this, but we're talking about what average consumers can do.)

360 also has Xbox live, which you can't leave out of the equation.

No, you can't. Every review I have read says that the Xbox Live service is head and shoulders above Sony's online service.

But are people really going to be willing to pay $15 a month in the longterm?

As has already been pointed out, it's not $15 a month. It's less than $5 a month. And considering how much better the Xbox Live service is over Sony's, yes, I think that paying less than $5 a month for it is more than reasonable.

Also, the Xbox will be hampered by competing factions in Microsoft to push Windows Media Center as a valid platform

Not near

Re:Not to say I told you so.. but.. NOT

[Chibi Merrow]

Remember all the 'I will switch when all my games run on Linux' folks out there? They can now dual boot their shiny PS3 into Linux. Want to play a great game? Boot into PS3 console mode and play away. Need a larger hard drive? Any good SATA laptop drive will fit and work, and with a bit of cobbling you can hook up a 750GB SATA drive, for the true hobbiest.

'kay... that's about .001% of the market... maybe...

Sony Online for PS3 is free

And sucks...

Sony has donated code that has been accepted into the main 2.6.20 and above Linux kernels! That means that all PPC Linux builds from now on will work natively on the PS3.

Again, what, 0.001% of the market?

If your idea of an free open community being so great would apply to 99.9% of users, then Linux would beat out Windows in the market 10 to 1. But guess what? People are very very happy to pay to use something that works, whether or not they can tinker under the hood. Yes you pay $50/year for an XBox Live account. I pay $15/mo for WoW, what's your point? I finally had a chance to check out Live at a friend's house last week and I have to say I'm shocked. I've never seen something from Microsoft work so well and so intuitively. If it wasn't for the colour scheme having more than two colours, I'd think I was using something Apple made.

I think your view of the average consumer is a wee bit coloured by the glasses you're wearing. The type of user you're describing is Sony's nightmare. They're losing $300+ on each console. The last thing they want you using this thing for is a PC. They NEED you to buy 20 games and 40 blue ray discs so they can actually turn a profit.

Re:I have to disagree

[Total_Wimp]

People who buy a console because of its hardware are not hardcore gamers, they're assclowns. Hardcore gamers are primarily concerned with games, as the term implies.

I think the point is that you have more possibilities for great games with a more powerful system. Look at the Wii. It has a more "powerful" controller by many people's standards. That controller allows games that the others can't match. Similarly, the PS3 is more powerful in the traditional sense of the word. Theoretically, this could allow it to have more interesting games. Finally, both the Wii and PS3 have a tremendous amount of power over game publishers (including, of course, its parent company in the case of the Wii). This will also allow for the possibility of great games.

Judging any of the consoles by their launch titles is somewhat foolish. It's making the huge assumption that all the titles will be like that. In many cases, nothing could be further from the truth. Where's Mario, Halo and Final Fantasy? Those core games are yet to come.

If you want to wait a year to see which games show up then more power to you. It's not a bad idea. But those of us interested in starting to play now are going to pick the one that looks more "powerful" as it stands now, because the more powerful console has more possibilities.

TW

Re:I have to disagree

[ShadowsHawk]

"people do not want to stay alone at home" Speak for yourself. I don't have time to try to arrange to meet friends online and I don't really enjoy random fragging anymore. Quick, short games have been my main stay for quite a while now. When I do play a RTS or FPS, I would rather have the ability to save and walk away at a moments notice.

Re:Doesn't that imply...?

[Dutch Gun]

No, he's being quite serious, and he's spot on.

The Wii is most certainly a souped-up GameCube, but this detracts nothing from what Nintendo has done with it. A friend of mine, a Nintendo dev, were having lunch a few months ago. When I asked him a few months ago what the new Wii hardware was like, his response - "It's basically a Gamecube..." It rather surprised me. Obviously, it's been boosted in both performance (clock speeds have doubled approximately) and memory , but the point is that fundamentally, the architecture has remained consistent. Why exactly do you think Nintendo can offer the Wii at such a low price? Again, nothing against Nintendo, this. I think it's a pretty clever approach to focus on gameplay innovation with a wildly new controller paradigm rather than keeping up with the others in terms of raw power. I'll probably be getting myself one as soon as they're more widely available.

The 360 and PS3, on the other hand, are both radically different beasts architecturally than their previous incantations. Both utilize high-powered processors that are far and away. As a simple example, the Xbox had a single ~800MHz processor (I believe), and the 360 CPU now utilizes 3 3.2GHz cores with two hardware threads per core. The PS3 is even more of a radical departure hardware-wise, and may ultimately prove more powerful than even the 360 (if we can believe Sony at this point).

As far as gameplay - don't discount the idea that raw CPU power can open up new possibilities. As a simple example - look at Dead Rising. This game simply wouldn't be possible on lesser systems. The size of your game world, the number of enemies you can render at once, and the CPU "brains" you can allocate to them all do have a significant impact on gameplay. It's not just a matter of being "shinier".

Still, I wouldn't have used the pejorative adjectives the previous poster used in describing the Wii.

Re:I have to disagree

[king-manic]

Online gaming still doesn't appeal to a wider audience. The whole "ass kicked by foul mouthed 12 year old" factor discourages wide enthusiasm for online gaming. Xbox live is only used by about 1/2 of all 360's and less then 1/5 of all xboxes. I mean the free accounts. Less then half of those renew. It's nto a huge motivating factor.

Re:Doesn't that imply...?

[smash]

Sony could have won this round of the console battle, if:

• They had managed to get enough consoles out to satisfy the hype around launch day. Or at least come close. There's no telling how many people would have bought a PS3 that will or have already given up and gotten something else instead out of disgust.
• They had managed to get enough consoles out to at least satisfy Christmas demand. Even if parents wanted to buy a PS3 for their kids this Christmas, they can't, so they'll have to get them something else. After Christmas, well, they're not going to spend another $600 on them!

Question: What percentage of the PS2's massive install base was sold on launch day/launch year?

Question: When the PS2 was released, what was the most expensive console available?

My 2c.... launch day/launch christmas is irrelevant. I, like probably 90% of console gamers out there, will buy one in a year or so when it hits $400AU or less (as I did with the PS1 - it was $799AU on release from memory), or when one of the "must have" game exclusives for me comes out on it (for the PS2, this was GT3). "It" being Xbox360/Wii or PS3, or all three.

The PS3 has been designed to be competitive for the next 5+ years (which is where the extra BD capacity will be handy). Sure, lack of supply on launch day/this christmas may hurt sales a little bit, but in the scheme of things, I think christmas 2007 and 2008 will be far more important for all the current "next gen" consoles, when game selection is better and price is cheaper.

Expect a "revision 2" of the PS3 that will fix a bunch of issues - in fact, I'm willing to bet that many of the current issues will be fixed in the PAL version, which is due in March 07.

I'll probably end up buying all three consoles anyway, but that's how I see things.

Re:Nintendo's achilles heel

[justchris]

No, actually, no, that is not how the market works.

If Sony or Microsoft create a controller that works just as well as the Wiimote, they still lose. The winner is always the first to market with a functional concept. To stand a chance, Microsoft or Sony have to create something that is clearly better than the Wiimote.

Maybe if the Wii had launched with a whisper and no one knew about it, the competitors could have gotten away with introducting something similar and taking the market. But that's not what happened, Wii is a phenomenon. Sure, a lot of it is because it's new and different, and this is Christmas, but that means that everyone already knows what the Wii is and what the Wii does. A similar product just doesn't cut it, it has to be something that is so very clearly better that it doesn't look like just a knock-off to the average consumer.

So no, there is no achilles heel there.

this whole article is just a waste of time

[skam240]

not only do i disagree with the author on the same point as the parent but i think this whole article is just a waste of time. all it is, is the same idle speculation that everyone else is doing on the internet with nothing of real substance to back up any of the claims. who cares if it's "from a developers point of view" if said developer is as uninsightful as everybody else out there. plus he seems to be sloppy on the details like this little bit:

"In the optical media era, Sony brought out the Playstation, Sega gave us the Saturn, and Nintendo hung onto cartridges for one more generation with the N64. From being a major contender, Nintendo dropped into third place and has since failed to recover."

The saturn was number 2 for that generation? what? not only did the N64 have much better sales (over 3 times the sales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_ video_game_consoles [wikipedia.org]), but it also enjoyed a much greater lifespan. of course it got absolutely destroyed by the ps1 but it most definitely was not number 3 to sega's 2 for that generation.

he also glosses over important facts in pushing forward his 2 and a half consoles theory (which i think is rediculous)such as the fact that the market is expanding, creating more and more room for other consoles (you can see this by viewing the sales numbers in the above link). shoot, if you want to call the sega saturn a viable contender for its generation then you would have to except the fact that there were 4 major systems in this last generation with the dreamcast showing sales numbers just a bit greater than the saturn did in its generation.

if you really trace things out we've gone from one dominant company with nintendo's nes and a weak second in the sega master system, to two major companies with the genesis and the snes, to 3 with the saturn, n64 and ps1 (although the saturn did terribly here), to a more stable 3 with the gamecube, ps2 and xbox (with even a weak 4th in the dreamcast). Following this trend i think it stands to reason that there now might be room for three successful systems competing on the same level that the genesis and snes were competing at.

Re:Pointless anti-360 propaganda

[Weebot]

How is $339 not far from $249? That's nearly a hundred dollar difference.

Remember BLEEM! ?

[jbellis]

Somehow I doubt Sony Legal is going to let a ps1 emulator on the 360 slide.

Re:Doesn't that imply...?

[MeanderingMind]

I think you missed his point.

The GGP asserted that the Wii is [i]only[/i] a souped up Gamecube, with the implication that this makes it not revolutionary. He then asserts that the Xbox360 and PS3 are truly revolutionary advances in gaming technology, with the implication being this is because of their souped up hardware. This should seem rather odd for the reasons the GP stated. In all technicality, the Xbox360 and PS3 are also just souped up Xboxs and PS2s (albeit to a greater degree).

That, I think, was the major point the GP was trying to make, not that there wasn't new and interesting technology in the Xbox360 and PS3. Perhaps a remark on the part of the GGP specifically noting this comparison was specifically in terms of computing hardware might have been pertinent.

Re:I have to disagree

[pboulang]

absolutely. I certainly don't want to play with random dipshits. I just want to come home from work, veg out for about 45 minutes playing a game, then get back to life.

Re:Doesn't that imply...?

[calciphus]

Since when was adding a feature a negative?

When that feature costs $200, makes the device largely unavailable to consumers, and cuts its life expectancy from 20,000hrs to 6,000. Especially when there isn't a particularly compelling reason to add that feature other than to attempt to gain market supremacy in another area (home DVD play).

Secondly, it doesn't matter what "most people do" - the reason they haven't before is because the option wasn't available before. Just like "most people don't move their game controller around".

The ability to surf the internet on a TV, even a high definition TV, is absurd. Either the resolution will be too low (most people are not running 1080p), or the screen will be too large to be comfortable to read. I have a 114" projected image. Do you think I want to read your misinformed comments on three inch high letters? No, I'll read them on a screen so I don't have to move my head side to side to read a whole line. And even if browsers on a PS3 (or any game machine) were "as good" as on my computer, they'd be no better, so why would I bother to dig out a keyboard and mouse and plug them into my PS3 when I could just as easily get up and go sit at a computer, or pull out a laptop? Being able to do something "almost as good" as a machine people already own isn't something people will pay for. It'll just be there.

Over the course of the console's lifetime, that's roughly $250. So in the end, you're paying more for an XBox 360 than a PS3.

But the marginal utility of holding that money for 5 years, rather than handing it to Sony all up front means that, despite the prices being lower, I get more out of the money I spent on Microsoft. Especially if I (as most people who compare side-by-side have) prefer the Microsoft online system. PS3's internet capabilities are pretty...useless.

From my 360, I can stream movies and music from any machine on my network (not just Media Center PCs). I can rent HD movies for $5. I can get free content for the games I own. I can play lots and lots of games against other people, exchange video clips, text messages, and voice chat with my friends. I can download mini-games, and play them. I can develop my own mini-games and play them, with the development package costing NOTHING. And when all else fails, I can sit down to some Gears of War, Oblivion, or Blue Dragon and get some nice gaming done.

My local Fry's Electronics has PS3s just sitting around, not being sold. They've not had a Wii in stock for months.

And Microsoft has the capital to launch another system 3 years from now. Sony doesn't. Period.