Does the Xbox 360's 'lack of longevity' matter?
Kaz Hirai, Sony Computer Entertainment America president and CEO, told Official PlayStation Magazine in its latest issue that the Xbox 360 "lacks longevity."
He went on to say that "unless things go really bad, there's no way that at the end of a life cycle, our competition is going to have a higher install base."
_270x270.jpg)
But what is "longevity" in gaming hardware? Sony has promoted this idea for years now and it always points to the PlayStation 2 as proof that its consoles have lasting power.
December's NPD sales numbers might prove the company's point: 1.1 million PlayStation 2 units were sold in December, besting both the PSP and the PlayStation 3 for the month.
Sony has said on numerous occasions that it plans to keep the PlayStation 3 going for 10 years, and to judge the victor of the console war before that time period is up would be foolish. So far, the PlayStation 3 has just over two years under its belt. If Sony gets its wish, the console will still be in production until at least 2016--a whopping 7 years from now. And quite a bit can happen in that time.
But that doesn't answer the simple question of whether or not longevity in gaming really matters.
To find out, we need to look back at the top consoles from each generation of the modern gaming era--the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES), PlayStation, and PlayStation 2--and determine if they had longevity.
The NES was first released in 1983 to Japanese consumers and in 1985 in the U.S. Selling more than 61 million units, the U.S. version was finally discontinued in 1995 by Nintendo, while the Famicom, Japan's version, was in production until 2003. Its total lifespan was approximately 20 years in Japan and 10 years in the U.S.
The SNES, the follow-up to the NES and leader in what was then known as the "16-bit generation," was originally released in 1990 to Japanese customers and in 1991 to U.S. consumers. After selling 49.1 million units, Nintendo discontinued the U.S. model in 1999 and 2003 for the Japanese version. Its total lifespan was approximately eight years in the U.S. and 12 years in Japan.
The PlayStation was originally released in Japan in 1994 and in the U.S. in 1995. A hit from the beginning, the console sold 102 million units worldwide. The PlayStation's production was discontinued in 2006. Its total lifespan was approximately 12 years in Japan and 11 years in the U.S.
The PlayStation 2, Sony's wildly popular follow-up to the original PlayStation, is still in production. It was first released in 2000 and Sony has sold well over 140 million units of the console. Sony currently has no plans to discontinue the console.
Maybe Sony is on to something. The leaders in each generation since the NES have lasted approximately 10 years on store shelves before the hardware manufacturers decide to abandon production. If both the Wii and the Xbox 360 fail to last 10 years, it's possible that the PS3 could catch up to its competitors, since Sony is intent on making its own console last that long.
In an interview with CNET in 2006, Kaz Hirai said that he believes the PS3 is providing "a very good value for the consumers." And that's exactly why his company will be sticking with the PS3 for 10 years.
"We look at our products having a 10-year life cycle, which we've proven with the PlayStation," he said. "Therefore, the PlayStation 3 is going to be a console that's going to be with you again for 10 years. We're not going to ask the consumers to suddenly buy another PlayStation console in five years time, and basically have their investment go by the wayside."
Perhaps 10 years really is important to Sony, but it begs the question of why the company and all its predecessors released new iterations of their respective consoles before that 10-year period was up. Doesn't that fly in the face of its longevity claim? I don't even remember the last time I bought a new PS2 title and yet, Sony believes it's still providing value to me. It might to those 1.1 million who bought the console in December, but for someone like me who owns a PS3, the PS2 is but a memory.
And that's exactly why I believe the 10-year life cycle matters more to hardware companies than consumers. For Sony and the rest, it matters because it gives them an opportunity to recoup their investments over the long-term.
Hardware manufacturers typically launch consoles at a price that's lower than their production costs. As production costs start to decline over the life of a console, vendors start turning a profit on each console sold. In some cases, like the Nintendo Wii, that's almost instantly. In other cases, like the Xbox 360, Microsoft didn't make money on each console sold until a year after its release.
But Sony is different. Even though the PlayStation 3 has been available for over two years, it's still being sold at a loss. According to a report from iSuppli, each PlayStation 3 unit costs Sony $448.73 to produce--almost $49 more than its current sales price.
Realizing that, Sony has a vested interest in seeing its console last 10 years on store shelves--it needs to make money.
But for me, someone who buys new consoles when they're made available-- usually every four to six years--I want the best bang for my buck in that time frame. Once a console's follow-up is released, longevity means nothing to me.
Whether or not the Xbox 360 has longevity wouldn't stop me from buying it. Sure, it's nice if the company continues offering an older model, but if I knew that production would stop once its new console was released, it wouldn't stop me from wanting to own the hardware.
I know that Microsoft will support it until it releases a follow-up and I'll keep enjoying games that are made available on it until that happens. But once the Xbox 720 (or whatever it will be called) hits store shelves, I'll put my Xbox 360 in my closet and forget about it. Or, if I don't want the next version yet, I'll keep playing my Xbox 360. No harm, no foul.
Longevity or not, the Xbox 360 suits me just fine.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Fact is: Sony needs a price drop to compete - particularly in this economic climate. They could also do from listening to their customers a bit better.
Frankly, I know a number of folks switching over to the PS3 (which has some serious challenges to overcome [i.e. private voice chat, voice messaging, in-game music play, etc.] just out of frustration with the "lack of longevity" of the 360. The red rings claim us all. I spoke with a gamer the other day who was playing on his seventh Xbox 360. Seven! My own PS3 has outlasted 3 XBox 360's now. I've had to rebuild my last 360 just to finish out my XBox live account.
I'm not a shill for either system, but the truth is, my PS3 seems to be a far better built piece of hardware.
Anyway, I own all 3 consoles, and I can honestly say, the PS3 get the least playtime.
"Frankly, I know a number of folks switching over to the PS3 (which has some serious challenges to overcome [i.e. private voice chat, voice messaging, in-game music play, etc.] just out of frustration with the "lack of longevity" of the 360."
What lack of longevity? The 360 will be around for about 6 years, by which point new technology will allow a new Xbox to be built that is state of the art. At that time PS3 owners will be playing a unit built on obsolete technology. Longevity in anything is trumped by new technology. Cars can be driven for centuries if treated right, yet no one drives a model A Ford as a daily driver, new cars being safer, quieter, more fuel efficient, less pollution, seatbelts, etc. Would you try to force your computer to last 10 years, especially without any upgrades besides memory, not likely?
As Far as the Sony fanboy's favorite topic, the red ring of death, I have a launch day 360, never has it failed, and I abuse it. I leave it on for months at a time; it has been dropped twice and taken all over the country. I'm not saying there is not an issue, but it has been ridiculously overblown.
Consider yourself lucky. I'm on my *fifth* 360 since launch. My launch console went to the Microsoft service center after two weeks because it locked up every single time I tried to play online. Unfortunately, the service center "dead pool" is responsible for the vast majority of those failures. Once you got in, you were pretty much guaranteed to get a half-assed refurb in return, which would die within a short period of time. Knock wood, but this last one's been working (minus an occasional DRE or lock-up here & there) for about a year and a half now.
Things may have changed since I last went through that fiasco, but response times dropped significantly when the call center moved from Canada to India. Console turnaround times more than doubled in quite a few cases, especially in the period leading up to and for months after Microsoft acknowledged the RRoD problems and announced the 3-year warranty. Quite a few consoles were also "lost" in transit, with both Microsoft and DHL placing the blame on each other.
And, heaven forbid if you bought anything on Xbox Live Marketplace and had your 360 replaced. My family got locked out of their DRMed content for months, and it took the intervention of both the BBB and my state Attorney General's office to get that resolved (twice). They've since provided a once-a-year user-initiated transfer process that has alleviated that issue for many, including myself (thus far).
During the last go-round, which included a six-week turnaround for the console replacement (and re-replacement due to a DOA), I purchased a PS3. The PS3 has been *far* more reliable than the 360. Also, before anyone starts spouting off about lack of games, take another look at the PS3 catalog; there's plenty to play.
We have all three consoles, and play-time is pretty evenly split between the PS3 and 360. The Wii only gets played occasionally due to a wealth of shovelware and only a few quality titles here and there.
I totally agree with you about the argument that in ten years a given system will be based on outdated technology. I believe the ten year life-cycle was contrived to help ease the sticker shock of PS3 original $600 price tag. If you divide an obscene amount of money for a console over 10+ years then it seems a bit more manageable; only $60/that nothing. This idea ties into Sony?s ?value? argument.
As far as 360 making 10 years?don?t hold your breath. I?m on my third Xbox 360 (actually waiting for my third). They don?t want my power supply with the broken box so there?s no hope of getting any thing other than a refurbished machine. I can only expect to get 2 years out of the console I get back. I wouldn?t consider the RRoD at all over blown. A friend of mine just had his Elite bite the dust this last weekend.
PS2 was cheaper than X-box, had a ton of third party support, and backwards compatibility. Even though it had technical issues, it outsold the X-box.
Now 360 is cheaper than PS3, has a ton of third party support, and backwards compatibility. Even though it has technical issues, it's outselling the PS3.
Back when I was a M$ hater, I predicted 360 would have direct correlation to the Dreamcast, with PS3 acting as the X-box of this generation. I was wrong. What Microsoft has shown is that 360 filled the niche of the PS2.
In 10 years PS3 might be still good looking and marketed as a nextgen console, but X-box 360 will be $120 or less, have tons of bargain bin $10 or less games, while you'll probably have the next X-box as an option, probably with backwards compatibility (speculation, who knows).
By the way, new X-box 360s (I mean one you can buy in a Wal-mart today, not just any "replacement" X-box 360) is less likely to have RRoD in my experience. None of my friend with new X-boxes in the last year have RRoDs and only one had one from a 1 year old X-box.
A friend of mine was letting his 6 year-old son play a PS2 game on his new 40" LCD and the graphics looked horrible. The new generation of consoles (360, PS3) look way better. I've hooked up my SNES and N64 to my 46" LCD and they look pretty blocky and gross.
So if you don't have any PS2 gear or games - don't even bother unless you've got an old crappy TV to connect it to as it will look crappy on a modern HDTV.
The orginal model was backwards compatible to a larger extent than the 360. The 360 flat out said they were not targeting backwards compataiblity and I lost half my libarary of unplayed games (gotta love the discount rack) because of this.
Later Sony had software emulation (perhaps with partial chip level support) that worked better than the 360 but not as good as the chip level compatibility of the first. That's what I have and I've got a PS1 game that works.
Now they have dropped that and I've not messed with it. I made sure I got one that was backwards compabitle. Since I didn't have a PS2 libary I don't have to throw away games and can just get the occasional title that's worth going backwards for.
You could use a modchip and play halo 3, but mayn problems exist with that, such as the controllers, but you could hook a wired 360 controller in the ps3, i tried it but didn't really work, so i had to mess around with ps3 contorller, and 360 has much better online content.
But free on ps3 lol
So, yeah, if I'm Sony (or Microsoft, or Nintendo)--longevity matters.
To some guy who can afford to and relishes having the newest things, you might not think it matters, but those people buying the PS2 are subsidizing the PS3 (and future R&D), so it should still matter to you.
I think there is still huge potential for both 360 and PS3, but that potential is largely untapped because most American's haven't upgraded to HDTV. Until HDTV adoption goes up, I don't think many people will clamor for better graphics (early adopters and fan boys make up the bulk of those ready to buy new hardware already). I don't even think software companies are that anxious for the next round of new hardware, because they are struggling to create games that turn a good profit now; even some well-reviewed titles have lost money due to high development costs. Everything doesn't sell as well as Halo or GTA.
2010 is a pipe dream for Xbox 3rd gen--MS will be content to sell the 360 at a profit as long as they can, and time the next version about one year before PS4. They will only go as fast as the competition pushes them. They are more likely to launch a 360 with motion controls to compete with Wii HD before they launch Xbox 720.
For me Microsoft's strategy is working against them. I'm not going to spend $600 a new console and $60 per title. I'm going to wait a year or two until the price drops, buy a console, and buy last year's good stuff for $20-30.
Even now a decent XBox 360 is expensive. To get the hard drive version will set you back $300 and to get it on your wireless network is another $100 so for me the PS3 and the XBox 360 have the same up-front costs.
So in a year when the PS3 and Xbox 360 are really about $300 and Microsoft says we're coming out with a new box soon and Sony claiming they'll support their box for another 6 years one might lean their way. This may be why the PS3 is outselling the XBox 360 if you align their totals since launch. Although I think it's really because Microsoft cannot crack the Asian market and Sony can sell into the US market with decent numbers + the blu-ray factor.
I do feel sorry for Sony. Microsoft does not seem to care how much money they lose on the XBox. If you look at their annual reports since the XBox launch they are a little under $7 billion in the hole (net) for the BU the XBox/Xbox 360 is in. It's hard to run a for profit BU against something like that.
That is tantamount to some twerp at Apple saying "Nanny nanny boo boo, Windows PC's suck." Yeah, well who has the market share, especially in the all important business desktop and server market? Windows. Period.
Sony will be lucky to be in the console market in 10 years. The only advantage the PS3 has on the 360 is the Blu Ray drive, and even that is questionable. The 360 has a dual layer DVD, which can hold up to 8.5 GB. No game publisher has yet to demonstrate that they actually need more than 8.5 GB for a console game. Any game that requires more than that is probably poorly designed.
Case in point. Epic bellyached that the 360 only had a DVD drive, and that they would load up the PS3 version of Unreal Tournament 3's Blu Ray disc with content. Guess what? The 360 version of UT3 is not more than 5 GB. Until Epic adds at least 3 GB more of maps and character models to UT3, they do not need the 25 GB or 50 GB of Blu Ray.
Consider PC gamers. Would any PC gamer purchase a game that required 30 GB of hard drive space? Maybe the ultra hardcore gamers, but the average consumer would never put up with that situation.
Fail for Sony. Maybe they can try again in 10 years.
and i'll really keep my 20+ year back catalouge of games
At least one 3 disk title is announced: http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/12/06/new-xbox-360-game-needs-3-dvds-ps3s-blu-ray-would-do-in-one/ although of course that could change. I thought that Microsoft only allow 2 disk games to be certified for the XBox 360.
I just IMed several of my friends in the game industry and all of them have said it's been a thorn in their side; especially since they're not allowed to count on there being a hard disk either.
"Any game that requires more than that is probably poorly designed."
Very ignorant statement, go check out MGS4, huge game, and isnt poorly designed.
Strange huh?
Also disk's are going to die out, they can only hold a certain amount of storage where as Flash based cartridges can hold terabytes and terabytes of storage, c'mon, if you can fit 2TB in a M2 card then you just know it's going to own 12cm disks that can only hold 400gb,and that's a 16 layer disc, sure holodisks or whatever can stretch to a TB but that's still only half of what the M2 can hold in theory.
The smart move for Sony is to rework the PS3 into a pc.
Also customizable PC gaming will rapidly decline but the thing that replace's it will actually be your PC if you get what I mean.
The PS3 isn't a PC, and doesn't try to be a PC (unless you install Linux on it). What it is and does do very well is act as a home media hub. I use mine to watch TV shows, movies, listen to music, browse photos AND play games.
I read multiple posts about the PS3 games overall being under-whelming. Why would I pay $399 for a Blu-Ray player and to be under-whelmed when alot of my PS2 games still WOW me?
C'mon, Sony...put that backward compatibility back in. I just gave up and bought another PS2 for $129 to play my games cuz $399 isn't worth it.
There is also the price point, although I've seen some amazing deals as of late. My buddy got a PS3, 2nd controller, Drake's Uncharted, Resistance 2 all for under 500 bucks. Granted, he had to sign up for a credit card and cancel it immediately, but if Sony brings the price to 300 bucks for a solid version of the system, I'm all over it. The graphics are, sadly, better than the 360, load times are less, etc. I just don't have a PS3 and I haven't touched my PS2 since getting the 360 and Wii.
The point is, well I don't know, but I have yet to be really impressed Sony.
Also if it costs them $450 to make, somehow I doubt they'll sell it at over a $150 loss
Are you trying to say that those cancel each other out or something?
If you saying the graphics are better on Metal Gear Solid 4 then you'd be right, but the load times are VERY long. In between each chapter you have to sit and stare at Snake Smoking a cigarette. It almost makes me wish I was a smoker so I'd have something to do while I was sitting there waiting.
I was very impressed with several Xbox 360 games. The PS3 has yet to demonstrate its better. Right now, I'd say they're even, and thats only bad because sony took a year longer to get out and has been saying since 2005 that the PS3 pwns the 360 in power.
Not true. It wasn't a hit from the beginning. For the first two years, it had to face competition from both Nintendo and Sega (neck-and-neck with the Saturn). It wasn't until TWO YEARS later, when FF7 was released, that the tides finally turned. And the PS1 only had 4 million units sold worldwide at that point.
Most of the PS1's sales were made between its 3rd and 5th years (1997-1999).
Don't get me wrong.
You do have *some* valid theories (this time), but your evidence is false.
of course seems like lots of you guys are buying for blu-ray...you'll have to give up the gaming experience in order to have the blu-ray experience, its all about wha tyou're looking for..
You see, putting sales numbers aside, what the PS1 and PS2 had that the PS3 did not was a STRONG LINEUP during their first 2 years. And if you were dedicated enough to buy a console at launch, you were GUARANTEED the best gaming experience in exchange for the hefty early investment. Like you said, Don, I don't care how long I'm going to keep my machine because as soon as the next big thing comes out, I will ditch my old system, ALWAYS. Because better hardware = better games.
But, the PS3, despite having so much more power (unfortunately as evidenced only by a small number of exclusives) was not able to demonstrate this through its titles over the last two years, primarily due to confusion among the developers. So, in a sense, this was the very first Playstation that bit the early adopters in the rear.
---
That said, we have to realize that the phrase "lack of longevity" was Hirai's politically-correct way of stating that the 360's hardware is less powerful (and therefore will not last as long). Anyone who has seen MGS4 in motion has to agree that the PS3's hardware is clearly more powerful than the 360's.
You can cry foul all you want. But every time I play a 360 game, I cringe at the limits of the 360. Mass Effect had a horrible framerate (and too many elevators). L4D has a weak resolution with flimsy graphics (gameplay is fine). And while those who haven't kept up with technology may choose to keep defending the 360, the simple matter of fact is that the 360 does NOT represent the state of the art. The high-end PCs are what always define state-of-the-art, and one has to be blind not to see the difference between those and the 360.
Yes, I love the connectivity on the 360. And I still continue to use the 360 to play with friends who do not own PS3s. But I always feel like that kid who's playing an older game just because his friends don't have the newest/hottest games when I'm on the 360.
You'll soon see what I mean, and it will not be hard for even the average consumer to tell that the "360 lack longevity". All the "cool games" will be out on the PS3 and run better on the PS3, and noone will be able to deny it.
The real question is, Don, will you still deny it and chose not to buy a PS3 when that day comes? You claimed that you are "someone who buys new consoles when they're made available", yet you still do not own a PS3. I see two issues of hypocrisy there:
1) You obviously do not buy all new consoles. You pick and choose.
2) The 360 had no real games for the first year. So your "bang for the buck" argument is a lie.
"2) The 360 had no real games for the first year. So your "bang for the buck" argument is a lie."
I have to point out the absurdity in your statement. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Gears of War, Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6 Vegas, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent and Dead Rising to name a few.
So your "lack of bang for the buck" argument is a lie.
"That said, we have to realize that the phrase "lack of longevity" was Hirai's politically-correct way of stating that the 360's hardware is less powerful (and therefore will not last as long). "
What would you expect, he is desperate, Sony lost big money last year , $1.1 billion. Their first loss in 14 years, Hirai is just trying to save face and his job.
The PS3 is not more powerful then the 360, the have a very different architecture, and are both very powerful in different was. See the article by former IBM technical architect David Shippy, who worked on both the PS3's Cell-specific PPU chip and Xbox 360's Xenon CPU:
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21820
The hypocrisy seems to be on you.
1) About the 1st year's titles... Out of all of those, Gears was the only great title that would justify your argument. But even that one didn't really come out in the first year. It came out at the very very end, and was played during the 360's 2nd year. Counting that as a 1st year title would be like counting UNCHARTED as a 1st year title for the PS3; and I chose not to stretch the definition.
And as for the rest... look I'm trying to be honest here. I don't consider GT5Prologue, AC4, Resistance:FoM, Heavenly Sword and Lair as being great titles, because they're just "decent". And those titles you listed (the THREE Tom Clancy Titles, Dead Rising and Oblivion) are also just "decent" (i.e. on par with those titles I listed on the PS3's side). So, what I am saying is that NEITHER console had a strong 1st year lineup. So, my point stands: the 360's first year was mediocre (like the PS3's first year), and therefore the "bang for the buck" argument presented by Don is flawed.
2) The "processing power" argument. I actually read the article you linked. Did you?? Because if you did, you'll have noticed that the person tried to be as politically safe as possible. But if you could read between the lines you'll see that he's actually acknowledging that the Cell has a HIGHER CEILING. For your kind reference:
"I think you can really leverage the Cell hardware technology -- but it is harder to get your head around".
"once you do understand it and can program to it, you absolutely get the most out of the hardware, and really write some fairly low-level code that's REALLY HIGH PERFORMANCE"
"Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3"
"in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores? with the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system"
Go read the whole thing. Actually, you'll just try to cling onto his phrase "I think they're pretty equal", while completely ignoring the phrase that comes right before that ("DEPENDING ON THE SOFTWARE").
And that's exactly my point. The latest games have already proven the potential that can be unlocked with the right programming. Too bad you haven't seen them to realize it. The joke is really on you, and I will sleep peacefully tonight knowing that I enjoy both your 360 games as well as those on the PS3.
Nice try though. ;)
Issue 2, the processing power issue is moot, by the time that any designs and develops any games that can actually make use of the Sony's possible higher potential the Xbox next gen will be here to blow it away.
The PS3 is known for being harder to develop for. Sony has not done enough to convince developers to put in the extra time and effort to produce a superior game. Games available on both 360 and PS3 appear similar because the 360 is easier to program for. Sometimes games even appear a little better on the 360, often with PC ports of games.
In a business and consumer driven economy, those who run game development studios are under pressure to spit out games. If the PS3 version takes longer to develop, then the studios nearly always choose to release it underdone to meet a deadline imposed by an accountant, or to get it out same time as 360. So 360 fans proclaim their system better or at least as good. By giving a bit longer to the PS3 version, you would see a marked improvement in graphics and sound (don't forget how important sound is in games - and with blu ray, all that extra space allows for full HD sound and graphics).
The evidence is there that PS3 games can and should be superior... when given the time. Look at MGS4, Drakes Fortune, Resistance 2, Killzone 2 and even PS network games or "demos" like Wipeout HD and Gran Turismo 5 Prologue. There just aren't enough, and Sony needs to really target developers. There is a big enough install base now for them to really promote the PS3 to 3rd party developers, and maybe subsidise some of the expenses if they weren't losing money in their other divisions.
I have a number of friends (and a brother) who work as game developers and game designers, and a number of others who are studying games development at the moment. They all love the PS3 and can't stop talking about it, and want to develop more for it, but nearly always end up working on 360 projects instead, given little or not enough time on PS3. Outside of Sony studios, I wonder if the 3rd party support the PS2 had will ever be had by PS3 because it is harder to develop for than the 360. Some may argue this is Sony's mistake, but they are striving for something higher than 360, and so far not enough developers are joining their crusade.
While it's just unfortunate that studios are pressured into releasing games by a certain date, no matter what, this fits right in with Microsoft's business strategy, and Sony, who believes in quality, is suffering as a result. The 360 was released too soon to market and it had record hardware failures, but it fit with their business strategy and jumped Sony by a year into the market. Sony waited on the PS3 release to sort out the hardware, and have very small hardware failure rates, but handed market share to MS in the process.
Time will tell on the PS3's longevity, but if Sony can get developer's onboard in good numbers and get them to really push the machine, the PS3 will triumph. If developers continue to be imposed by tough deadlines (an obvious reality in gaming studios) on PS3 development, then the PS3 will never break free from seeming like an expensive 360, with a blu ray add on. And this sells it far short of its ability and potential.
PS3 maybe equal in every most way's but they aren't equal RAM wise 256 system +256 dedicated is not as good as a single 512 dedicated
Sony takes a long term view. Their installed base of PS2's which they still support trumps everthing else and they have taken a long term view with the PS3 as well.
GM took the short term view. Toyota the long term view. Hmmm...I think we know which works better in the long run. MS better enjoy it while it lasts. It's going to take a long term view to keep it up and I'm not seeing that from them.
Sony batteries explode.... Just saying that ever since they moved their product to china they haven't been on the "quality" side of thing, at least I felt their quality was way better 7~8 years ago
BTW, to lazy to make another reply so I'll say it here, both MS/Sony has way more money than Nintendo, I felt Nintendo did one hell of a job getting on top of things and getting over the mistakes they made before( namely GameCube, had it didnt' like it liked 64 more instead lol)
peace
And to you saying you just throw your console in your closet and forget about it, why dont you go recycle idiot! Unlike you I actually still play my Ps2 games (Sonic Mega Collection to be exact) that have actual value to playing. Unlike that Halo 2 game of yours.
One of the biggest reasons for Sony's success with the PS2 was that it introduced the world to DVD. At a time when Nintendo was still using carts, Sony gave the developers what they really wanted. Space and the tools to use that space. Now the question is will developers take advantage of Blu-ray or is DVD enough. From what I've seen with games like GTA and Fallout 3, DVD seems to have enough space to make some very large and incredible games. And when you throw hard drives into the mix, the space requirements all but disappear. Is Blu-ray even needed by the developers? I don't really think it is but I'm not a developer. And from several articles I've read, developing on the PS3 is a nightmare compared to the XBox.
There's no doubt that Sony sold a TON of PS2 systems and continue to sell them. And my guess is that as long as the PS2 is supported, it will continue to sell. But when the next XBox is released, will I care about the PS3? I really doubt it. When the XBox 360 was released I completely stopped playing the PS2 (with the exception of Guitar Hero until that was released on the 360). I have a PS3 that I only use for the occasional game, mostly I use it to watch movies.
One last comment, the XBox 360 does not have Blu-ray but other than that it blows away the PS3 for multimedia functionality. Especially if you have a Media Center PC with TV tuners. I have 4 XBox 360s connected to a Media Center PC with Digital Cable TV tuners. With this setup, I can watch and record TV on the PC from any of the XBox systems. I can easily record something from cable and watch it from any room in my house. Not to mention the music and other features. I love being able to replace the lousy game music with the music from my PC collection. Yes, you can playback music using the PS3, but is it easy and seemless? As you can see from my comments I'm not afraid of tech, but just can't figure out how to replace the crappy music in Little Big Planet (not that I spent a lot of time trying). But on the XBox, no problem.
Developers will try to out-do each other when it comes to graphics and level size. Not to mention, FMV is par for the course when it comes to games like Final Fantasy. Once developers start taking full advantage of the PS3's 1080p output for games, you'll see that 8.5GB just doesn't buy you a fully interactive and immersive experience over a large-scale gaming world.
One thing PS3 certainly has over X-box 360 in regards to HDDs is disk cache and swamp files which developers can (in theory) utilize and require to run the game. When the lowest end PS3 has a HDD, a game can simply say "requires 1 GB for swap" or something of that nature, and all users can buy the game. That's something X-box users cannot benefit from.
I don't know where I'm going with this, I just wanted to throw some things out there. All in all, PS3 has massive optical disc space, as well as required hard disk space, which really give developers leeway when developing their games. There are way more aspects to programming a game than the speed and size of the media, however.
The problem is the cost of developing a top selling game. In the old days of the Atari 2600, development teams were very small, costs were fairly low and games didn't need to sell a million copies to break even. As the consoles became more capable, the development costs began to rise. Even as recently as the PS2, the development costs were much lower than they are with the PS3 and XBox.
With cross platform games usually selling about 2-1 for XBox vs. PS3, it seems that it is only a matter of time before even more developers turn on Sony. Yes, Microsoft has deep pockets to lure some away, but others just jump ship because that is where the money is. I seriously doubt MS paid for Ace Combat to become XBox exclusive when it was Sony.
Simply put, the PS2 continues to do well because it is less expensive to develop for and the install base is massive. Even if a game only sells to 1% of the install base it's a hit. When the PS1 came out, the big players in the hardware were Nintendo and Sega. Sega now only makes games. Nintendo must have known they couldn't compete with Sony and Microsoft so they went a different direction in creating a game system for the non-gamer. Actually a pretty smart move. If they hadn't made that move, Nintendo would just remain king of the hand held systems and probably would have just thrown in the towel for home systems.
On another note, as for installing the games to the HDD, I'll pass. Sure you may get a second or two or maybe even 10 off of the load time and with the XBox it might run a little quieter, but if you're playing Fallout with the sound so low that the system noise is bothering you, you're doing it wrong. Crank it up! Jump out of your seat when a Super Mutant surprises you. Personally I think the reason most of the games on the PS3 require an install is the speed of the Blu-ray drive. Blu-ray holds more, but the drive is still pretty slow. Now on the XBox 720 or 1080 or whatever it will be called and on the PS4, the Blu-ray drive will be faster but for now the drive is pretty slow.
My PS3 is a pretty good movie player, but for games my choice is XBox. That is unless they're exclusive to PS3 and worth playing. So far, there just haven't been that many exclusives for the PS3. I have about 50 or 60 XBox games (not even counting the ones I've sold) and only 2 for PS3.
This is probably the best comment I've seen all day as it tells the truth and Fanboy's can't deny it
It's obvious Sony no choice but to lie and take losses in this gaming industry year after year. It lied about its strength in the original Playstation to oust the Dreamcast. People believed the hype and Dreamcast fell. Then came the so called revolutionary PS2. Luckily for Sony, it is pulling off the longevity sale game but only because of its outrageous pricing for the PS3.
Xbox hasn't been the greatest thing to hit the world either but its nice to have a 3rd choice back in the running since Sega was forced to trash its console.
As for longevity, yes the DVD and the CD are slowly fading away with MP3 and MP4s flooding the market every year. But these MP3/4 players only bring a hault to the production of CD's. This is where Sony has its advantage. By means of Bluray they are ahead of the game. Shame most families aren't destroying their 100-1000 DVD collection just to go bluray and by them all over at a higher price. Most people will rather get a hardware device that will just upscale the video to close to bluray quality. I don't know about everyone but i'm use to making sure i'm on a line every 4-6 years to get that new powerful console. But the big question on the mind of many is this Xbox720 (or whatever). Will it be bluray? If it does go bluray, Sony will be getting an extra check every time Xbox sells a console. I doubt MS wants that. They would really be behind in the game then. And at this time the 360 outsells the PS3 and Sony has taken a bigger loss this time around. The other thought is to erase the production of DVD's and video game cases and booklets and allow for a simple hard drive based console where you purchase your games online and they are downloaded onto your console's hard drive. This would be difficult as well. We are currently just too slow for that type of onslaught of downloading. Especially media as large as a video game by billions of people across the planet. I can't see myself waiting an hour or so to download a game and or it freezing and i have to start over etc etc. This is a big dilema for Xbox. Even though the terabyte is here and a new Xbox isn't due until September 2010. I personally would love to stop stacking Xbox or PS3 titles on a shelf and keep the place nice and neat using an internal hard drive next to my dish network ViP922 slingloaded DVR. That hard drive sounds real nice. Plus Bluray will fall to prices that a person with a black and white tv would say, hey, i'm going bluray! Especially the players. All you bluray wannabees that don't have it yet, please wait until Christmas 2009 and don't get robbed.
Heres whats going to happen. As long as we keep having children on this planet and they sure don't give a damn about graphics, Nintendo will always sell. Afterall the Gameboy is the number one selling everything to date and is not being pressed by anyone.
2. PS3, the price drop sucks for Sony. They are struggling! There only hope is a failed upcoming Xbox. It would have to compete against a 2010 PS3 that will probably be selling for $199. A new Xbox720 will probably be $400/$500. And with what specs? A moster internal hard drive or Bluray? The future looks bleek for MS. Apple is running rampid. MS has already bought the company that makes the super popular Tmobile Sidekick (Danger) and has plans on the Zune Cell Phone but between fighting with Apple and Sony and a struggling economy thats slowing technology down, i'm pretty worried. Afterall i do own MGS4 for PS3 but thats it. I use the thing as a bluray player and i refuse to buy more than 12 bluray movies due to the fact that the salvation army gives me a hard time to pick anything up and when they are obsolete thats just extra dusting for me. Xbox360 on the other hand has the greatest online gaming network and the better games hands down. Don't know about 2009 with GofW coming out and R2 but so far Xbox360 is my favorite gaming system while PS3 is my favorite bluray player.
Good luck to all but it looks like Xbox will have to push their new console back to mayber 2011/2012 and wait for technology to catch up but bluray waits for no man. Looks like winner, PS3. For now...
- by harlem_chocolate January 21, 2009 6:57 PM PST
- The thing that ps2 had was awesome EXCLUSIVES!!
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 5 pages (166 Comments)-Final fantasy X, x-2
-GTA, GTA Vice City, (initally GTA San andreas before port to xbox)
-Devil may cry 1, 2, 3
-Gran Tourismo
-God of war
-Jak and Daxter
-TEKKEN
-onimusha (partly)
-Frequency
-Amplitude
-Hot shots golf
However all the developer loyalty and exclusivity has gone away and has found that you can sell more units if you take advantage of mulitple platforms and now the tides are turning and the 360 is gaining speed with the development of its own exclusives which the original xbox lacked. to me this is like the ps2 vs original xbox, only we're 7 years later and the 360 has the exclusives and PS3 has a lot of work to do to re-establish itself and redevelop its exclusives.