I have both the PS3 and a Xbox 360. The xbox doesn't have anymore dust on it cause its phisically impossible, the only readon the playstation doesn't is because I didn't really get it for the games but for the blu ray player.
Analyst: Nintendo Saved Sony in the Console Wars
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
... Anal-ysts: Full of shit as usual. (Pun intended) Nintendo's audience isn't the same as Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo isn't stealing gamers from them. It's tapping a previously untapped audience: non-gamers and ex-gamers. So many times said, so many times ignored.
And seriously, how many times will we hear this "PS3 will shine" or whatever thingy? As long as Microsoft and Sony are directly competing each other, it will remain a vicious cycle that will be difficult to break. And since multiplatform games continue to sell better on Xbox360, that also doesn't look too good for Sony.
And seriously, how many times will we hear this "PS3 will shine" or whatever thingy? As long as Microsoft and Sony are directly competing each other, it will remain a vicious cycle that will be difficult to break. And since multiplatform games continue to sell better on Xbox360, that also doesn't look too good for Sony.
Just because Sony's ass was saved for now, does not mean it has the advantage.
Only time will tell, and from what Ive seen, the 360 and the Wii (though not so much anymore, it would seem) stand the greater chance for success.
I know that Ill never get a PS3, because of the crap they have pulled so far
I also know that Im not alone on that matter, though Im sure some people who honestly prefer the PS3 (and not fanboys, mind you) will play that instead...
heres to hoping that the 3 will calm the hell down, and play nice with each other for a change
Only time will tell, and from what Ive seen, the 360 and the Wii (though not so much anymore, it would seem) stand the greater chance for success.
I know that Ill never get a PS3, because of the crap they have pulled so far
I also know that Im not alone on that matter, though Im sure some people who honestly prefer the PS3 (and not fanboys, mind you) will play that instead...
heres to hoping that the 3 will calm the hell down, and play nice with each other for a change
This actually makes good sense. Because of this, Sony isn't out of the little console dispute yet.
They're not gonna be a breakaway success anytime soon, but they're in the game. And hey, that's good.
They're not gonna be a breakaway success anytime soon, but they're in the game. And hey, that's good.
That is starting to change to be honest, as focus is turning onto the PS3, the sales of each system have levelled out I believe (feel free to correct me) and the PS3 having stuff like free networking makes it the better proposition for people buying online games such as the dreaded juggernaught that is Modern Warfare 2.TheTygerfire said:
Also with bad ports, Far Cry 2 is better on the PS3, so devs are starting to understand it more, also if Far Cry 2 which uses a modified CryEngine is more capable on the PS3 then I would hazard a guess that Sony's black box will be the console of choice for CryEngine3 games.... and you know what CryTek are like when it comes to pushing the technical boundaries with their huge volumetric soft shadowed stiffies.
Even though people only end up owning all of em. Not like people can only have one, nor should they. Its more hardcore to own a PS3 AND 360 than just one. (Wii too)
I will eventually most likely own one. Its practically inevitable. Would be sooner if I liked Sony. (I hate PS3 supporters (Sony itself included) more than the actual system, a theme I apparently have)
I will eventually most likely own one. Its practically inevitable. Would be sooner if I liked Sony. (I hate PS3 supporters (Sony itself included) more than the actual system, a theme I apparently have)
There's a little point that will NEVER come up in a Sony board meeting. This whole generation could be seen as a comedy of errors.
Microsoft had a year's lead and failed to capture the market because they stuck solely to the crowd they already had. Their only gain was slightly more polished games from experience developing for it. Only well after it proved to not be enough they started retooling (or at least repackaging) to be more open.
Sony completely tripped out the gate costing way too much and trying to justify it with a library infested with lackluster titles that poured everything into graphics. By the time real quality started churring they were way behind.
Wii started off great, burning so hot it's plauge of lazy shovelware couldn't marr sheer fun value. BUT 3rd parties never got the hang of it, they neglected their hardcore fans, and all efforts downshifted to resting on their laurels between hot titles until the mass public tired of their offerings.
We're about to start this generation's 4th year and in terms of really taking the industry crown it's still anybody's game. All three could turn it around with the right titles.
Microsoft had a year's lead and failed to capture the market because they stuck solely to the crowd they already had. Their only gain was slightly more polished games from experience developing for it. Only well after it proved to not be enough they started retooling (or at least repackaging) to be more open.
Sony completely tripped out the gate costing way too much and trying to justify it with a library infested with lackluster titles that poured everything into graphics. By the time real quality started churring they were way behind.
Wii started off great, burning so hot it's plauge of lazy shovelware couldn't marr sheer fun value. BUT 3rd parties never got the hang of it, they neglected their hardcore fans, and all efforts downshifted to resting on their laurels between hot titles until the mass public tired of their offerings.
We're about to start this generation's 4th year and in terms of really taking the industry crown it's still anybody's game. All three could turn it around with the right titles.
Some should point out that this doesn't suddenly mean that the Playstation 3 will rise from the ashes like a proverbial Pheonix and dominate the proverbial battlefield that is the console wars (simply being alive doesn't mean you're winning a fight).
The PS3 needed to be saved for a reason (before anyone says anything it wasn't a bad console and I'm sure it had it's fair share of good games), it costed too much and some of the features were either done better elsewhere (for example, Xbox Live) or were simply not as good as people made it out to be (Bluray wasn't much of a step up from DVD).
The big thing that was going for the PS3 was the graphics, sadly for them not everyone cared.
The PS3 needed to be saved for a reason (before anyone says anything it wasn't a bad console and I'm sure it had it's fair share of good games), it costed too much and some of the features were either done better elsewhere (for example, Xbox Live) or were simply not as good as people made it out to be (Bluray wasn't much of a step up from DVD).
The big thing that was going for the PS3 was the graphics, sadly for them not everyone cared.
"The main danger Sony faced was that the Xbox 360 would become embedded as the system of choice."
The headline and this entire article hinge on this one statement.
What justifies this statement? What justification could possibly exist? Why is it preferable for Sony that, of its two competitors, it has been losing to the Nintendo entry by a larger margin than they have been to the Microsoft entry? How does that make any difference whatsoever-- how could it make any difference?
The article says it makes a difference because if the order was Microsoft-Nintendo-Sony, then Microsoft would be in a dominant position and that would be bad for Sony.
Aside from nationalism, how is Nintendo being in the dominant position any less bad for Sony?
From last generation to this one, I'd say the salient fact is not that Nintendo and Sony have swapped spots. It is that the gap between them have narrowed. Despite the Wii's runaway success, it does not enjoy the same gap over the 360 worldwide that the PlayStation 2 did over the Xbox. Likewise, what ended up being a razor-thin margin between the #2 and #3 spots last generation is, at least for the moment, a bit wider. It has become an international sport for analysts to predict that this gap not only will narrow, but that Sony will eventually overcome it by 2013 or so.
Of course, assuming that both Sony and Microsoft continue to subsidize their consoles and depend on title sales for revenue, and that the 360's attach rate remains the highest of all three platforms, one has to wonder whether 2nd place is really worth having if it actually costs you money to get there.
The headline and this entire article hinge on this one statement.
What justifies this statement? What justification could possibly exist? Why is it preferable for Sony that, of its two competitors, it has been losing to the Nintendo entry by a larger margin than they have been to the Microsoft entry? How does that make any difference whatsoever-- how could it make any difference?
The article says it makes a difference because if the order was Microsoft-Nintendo-Sony, then Microsoft would be in a dominant position and that would be bad for Sony.
Aside from nationalism, how is Nintendo being in the dominant position any less bad for Sony?
From last generation to this one, I'd say the salient fact is not that Nintendo and Sony have swapped spots. It is that the gap between them have narrowed. Despite the Wii's runaway success, it does not enjoy the same gap over the 360 worldwide that the PlayStation 2 did over the Xbox. Likewise, what ended up being a razor-thin margin between the #2 and #3 spots last generation is, at least for the moment, a bit wider. It has become an international sport for analysts to predict that this gap not only will narrow, but that Sony will eventually overcome it by 2013 or so.
Of course, assuming that both Sony and Microsoft continue to subsidize their consoles and depend on title sales for revenue, and that the 360's attach rate remains the highest of all three platforms, one has to wonder whether 2nd place is really worth having if it actually costs you money to get there.