posted
I almost never replay games that are the same (or close to the same) every time. Games with more open worlds and/or multiple endings are the ones that keep me coming back. Oblivion and Mass Effect come to mind. I also plan to go through BioShock a second time.
I don't re-read books all that often, either. I think your metric for who is and is not a "real gamer," whatever that means, is flawed.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I almost never replay games that are the same (or close to the same) every time. Games with more open worlds and/or multiple endings are the ones that keep me coming back. Oblivion and Mass Effect come to mind. I also plan to go through BioShock a second time.
I don't re-read books all that often, either. I think your metric for who is and is not a "real gamer," whatever that means, is flawed.
Interesting, I'm pretty much the same way. There are very, very few games, books & movies that I will watch more than once.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious, what are the main selling points of the more traditional consoles over playing on the computer? Obviously there is game selection, but are there aspects of the experience that are fundamentally different (other than what is for me the far inferior shooter control set up)?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm curious, what are the main selling points of the more traditional consoles over playing on the computer? Obviously there is game selection, but are there aspects of the experience that are fundamentally different (other than what is for me the far inferior shooter control set up)?
Bigger Screen.
[Edit] Also a more inclusive gaming environment. The living room/family room/den with a big TV and a couch in front of it is a lot more conducive to social video gaming (party games) than a desk and desk chair.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm curious, what are the main selling points of the more traditional consoles over playing on the computer? Obviously there is game selection, but are there aspects of the experience that are fundamentally different (other than what is for me the far inferior shooter control set up)?
Bigger Screen.
[Edit] Also a more inclusive gaming environment. The living room/family room/den with a big TV and a couch in front of it is a lot more conducive to social video gaming (party games) than a desk and desk chair.
There is the expense, computer gaming can get very expensive, especially with higher end games. Consoles being standardized and mass produced and then usually sold for less than production cost is a big plus.
There's also the out of the box playability, you don't have to consider hardware or drivers and there's usually no install time (with the exception of some PS3 titles to my understanding).
Control schemes would definitely be a subjective matter, personally I find the controller more ergonomic than the keyboard/mouse for most games (with the exception of RTS).
The online factor is also very big (at least on the Xbox, the Wii is a bit behind on that front) when you turn on your console, you can instantly see which of your friends are on, and what they are playing, and you can jump right in with them by just changing out your game. You also don't have to worry about viruses.
On the subject of different consoles, I have a Wii and a 360, and I find myself enjoying both equally, although for different reasons. That's not to say I hate or think the PS3 is stupid. It definitely seems like a competent machine. It just doesn't have any appeal to me.
Each of the consoles have their pros and cons, as does computer gaming, I have found for the 360, Wii, and low-level computer gaming, the pros outweigh the cons, at least for me.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the screen and environment can be independent of whether it is a computer or a console (i.e. I share my largest screen between a console and a computer, and the environment... is what you make of it)
In many ways, the line between traditional computer and console is somewhat blurring, especially with the XBox360.
However, these are some advantages to the console approach that I can think of:
* More compressed time between R&D and deployment, reducing the "chicken and the egg" problem. We saw how long it takes for certain parts like DVD-ROM drives, gamepads, etc, although available on PC far ahead of consoles, are never really taken advantage of. Developers do not want to develop for something few people have, and few people will buy something for just one game. By forcing everyone to have the same setup (or close to it), the console manufacturer can ensure that the developer can develop for these peripherals much faster.
* Standardized hardware also contributes to an easier to use OS. Its a lot easier to program a simple, yet effective OS when everyone has the same hardware
* Planned obseletion, this may not seem like an advantage, but it really is. When playing games on a computer, you don't really know for sure how long you hardware will last. You just wait until you find a game (GTA4? Starcraft 2? Fallout 3?) that you will need to upgrade for, you do so, and then wait for the next required upgrade. If someone designs a game with oddly high requirements (Guitar Hero 3?), then you're out of luck. Meanwhile, your hardware is either overpowered at the beginning of the cycle or grinding away near the end, when you're trying to drag out the process of upgrading) With a console, you know that you don't have to upgrade for the next five or so years, and everyone else will have the same experience too, so developers have to optimize performance for that same hardware.
* Console media (usually) means less patches for games and thus a more stable and polished initial release.
* For the developer, more effective DRM. People can pirate console games, but I would bet that the prevalence is less than in the traditional PC community due to the need to mod/chip the actual hardware
I'm sure that there are more points, but those are a few.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Up until fairly recently, I would have suggested simplicity. It used to be that all you needed to do to start playing a console game was insert the disk or cartridge. Consoles still seem to be somewhat easier to "get into" than computers, but the differences between complexities of interface do seem to be narrowing.
I'd echo Mucus' comment about standardized hardware, although again, that doesn't seem to be reaping quite the benefits it used to. Console gamers used to be able to definitively say that their games were the ones that didn't require five patches to be playable; now, console games are indeed coming to market with significant bugs, and even getting patched (for those with broadband, at least.) The number of patches that have been applied to the PS3 firmware and MS' "red ring of death" difficulties aren't encouraging trends either.
I do think there's significant differences in the experience, however. Console games are far more likely to be played by multiple people in the same room. Everyone may not know how to play from the outset, but they probably at least know the functions of their controller. (MS is working on standardizing Windows gaming to the 360 controller, but it's a long way from market penetration as yet. (As a PC gamer, I must admit to some ambivalent feelings on this point.)) PCs tend to be used in a very close environment, with the user a few feet away from the screen at most; consoles are centered around a television, and our habits tend to dictate that we stay six feet or more away from televisions, which also makes the experience less "closed off". For that matter- and, again, MS is trying to make this less the case- consoles tend to be in the living room with the television, while PCs are in offices, studies, and bedrooms, often tucked away almost like some kind of dirty secret.
Consoles are perceived as fun. Slightly nerdy fun, perhaps, but basically happy-go-lucky toys. PCs are perceived as tools, and the very skills that are necessary to use them effectively contribute to them being seen as far more nerdy.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess for me, the sort of games that I see the PS3 and XBox 360 playing are ones that I'd generally play alone or on multiplayer on a network. I guess Rock Band, Guitar Hero, etc. are not, but I'm thinking of Halo or Grand Theft Auto (which looks amazing, by the way) or God of War or Bioshock, etc. These are all solitary games for me. I could be totally wrong, but it seems like these sorts of games are the main focus of those consoles.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My 15 year old daughter always wants to be elsewhere, because of Rock Band. I miss the kids hanging out at my house!!
I'm solving this issue by getting Rock Band for our home.
*If you buy it, they will come*
I'm sure I'd enjoy it as well.
It's been a while since this was posted. What are your feelings on the different consoles now? Any one out performing the other? Are there more games out for WII now? I'm not even sure what questions to ask.
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
PlayStation 2 101.2K PlayStation 3 203.2K PSP 172.3K Xbox 360 309K Wii 679.2K Nintendo DS 510.8K
WII FIT (WII) 777K WII PLAY W/ REMOTE (WII) 415K MARIO KART W/WHEEL (WII) 292K LEFT 4 DEAD (360) 243K CALL OF DUTY: WORLD AT WAR* (360) 235K SKATE 2 (360) 199K GUITAR HERO WORLD TOUR* (WII) 155K NEW SUPER MARIO BROS (DS) 135K MARIO KART DS (DS )132K LORD OF THE RINGS: CONQUEST (360) 113K
Wii's doing unbelievably well and is officially at this point a profound success that marks the resurgence of Nintendo
360, while not pushing the absurd numbers of the Wii, is holding up well as the 'serious gamer' platform, and the two consoles largely get to have their own assured markets carved from the gamer populous.
PS3 is dead. No system movers. Declining sales. Not a single piece of PS3 software moved over 110k. Very awful situation for Sony.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got a Wii this summer! (After this thread so I didn't notice it then.) I am NOT a gamer and had no interest in a gaming system but heard about Wii fit and decided it would be cheaper than a gym membership. I am so thrilled that I bought it. My husband is more into these things than I am and he says that the Wii is a gaming system for the non-hard core gamers. For this reason, he suggested, that many people did not take it seriously -- to their cost! It has outsold the other systems because it found this niche.
I don't know about how many games it has vs. other systems, but what gets me is the type of games it has vs other systems. I am so thoroughly enjoying Guitar Hero, Dance Dance Revolution, Samba Di Amigo, and We Cheer -- which were all Christmas presents.
They are getting me off the couch, which was the big reason I got the system in the first place!
There are new games coming out soon. EA, which managed to do poorly at Christmas despite the fact that game sales did very well, finally realized that people are loving the Wii and is going to make some games for it. I don't know if they will be good or not. The bad games for the Wii are the ones that don't understand how to use the wiimote as anything other than a normal controller. I try to avoid those. But there will be new games.
I don't think I'd own any other system.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is actually what makes the Wii such a schizophrenic system. The people who make games for the Wii are, by and large, actual gamers. The people who buy games for the Wii are not gamers, and in fact hate video games. So as long as the people making games for the Wii make games they hate, the people buying games for the Wii will love them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
This is actually what makes the Wii such a schizophrenic system. The people who make games for the Wii are, by and large, actual gamers. The people who buy games for the Wii are not gamers, and in fact hate video games. So as long as the people making games for the Wii make games they hate, the people buying games for the Wii will love them.
It's some sort of crazy like a fox business model.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: PS3 is dead.
This seems like a bit of a stretch. I saw you say the same thing in Blayne's stolen PS3 thread and I disagreed then too. Selling 200k units last month (based on your numbers, I didn't research myself) doesn't translate into failure in my eyes. It's true that Sony hasn't advertised as well as it could have, and it's true that I own a PS3 (and a Wii) so I am no outsider looking in and I may benefit from the success of the PS3 because developers will continue working on it. But it doesn't seem in danger. Xbox 360 came to the market a year before the PS3 and only has 7mil more units out there to show for it. Seems to me that the PS3 is catching up. Even if it comes in 3rd place at the end of the game, it will still have respectable numbers to show for it. Nobody is jumping ship on it, I doubt anybody will. I am sure Sony will be in the game next generation and it's foolish to declare the platform dead.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: PS3 is dead.
This seems like a bit of a stretch. I saw you say the same thing in Blayne's stolen PS3 thread and I disagreed then too. Selling 200k units last month (based on your numbers, I didn't research myself) doesn't translate into failure in my eyes. It's true that Sony hasn't advertised as well as it could have, and it's true that I own a PS3 (and a Wii) so I am no outsider looking in and I may benefit from the success of the PS3 because developers will continue working on it. But it doesn't seem in danger. Xbox 360 came to the market a year before the PS3 and only has 7mil more units out there to show for it. Seems to me that the PS3 is catching up. Even if it comes in 3rd place at the end of the game, it will still have respectable numbers to show for it. Nobody is jumping ship on it, I doubt anybody will. I am sure Sony will be in the game next generation and it's foolish to declare the platform dead.
Just because people are stating that the platform is an abject failure does not mean they are declaring the death of the parent.
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are all still in the game. Nintendo almost died between the Super Nintendo and the Nintendo 64. You can bet that Sony when it releases another console will not simply make a PS4. In fact I'd be willing to bet it won't even be called a PlayStation. The PS3 isn't even in contention for being one of the worst consoles, but compared to the PSX and the PS2 it's an embarrassment.
Next time around I expect Microsoft and Sony will incorporate some devices clearly designed to emulate and improve upon the wiimote, while Nintendo will release a console that is something like $300-$400, shying closer to 300, that will be more of a graphics monster, with hopefully some more surprises. The bane of the Wii so far has been that third party developers have not been very effective at incorporating the control scheme in their game designs. Further the Wii has not gotten nearly as many third party titles as the other two consoles because some games simply can't be ported to it. The latter problem is certainly solvable. I think the former problem simply requires time, we've had so much time to develop games for a stationary remote, having the remote moving around was a large leap.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even accept that. The PS1 sold 28 mil, PS3 has already sold 21mil. I don't find that a failure at all. What makes it a failure to you?
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh. I have all three consoles and I only own one game for the PS3. I use it for Blu-ray primarily. This is not an uncommon arrangement. As standalone Blu-ray devices get cheaper, the incentive to purchase a PS3 decreases. If I were in the market right now, I'd probably buy a standalone rather than a PS3. In addition, it has only a handful exclusive titles, and only only a few of them are "must haves". The PS3 may not be dead, but so far it is not doing very well. There are few objective reasons to go with a PS3 over an Xbox 360. Blu-ray movie playback is one, but it is diminishing. Exclusive titles is another, but they are few the value will depend on the individual gamer. If you aren't a MGS fanboy, then you probably don't need to care that MGS is only on the PS3.
To the original poster: If Rock Band is the reason you are getting the system, then you want a 360 or a PS3, not a Wii. The Wii has limited storage so it can't take advantage of the huge downloadable song library.
You may also want to consider getting whatever your child's friends have so they can share games, play together online, etc.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
This is actually what makes the Wii such a schizophrenic system. The people who make games for the Wii are, by and large, actual gamers. The people who buy games for the Wii are not gamers, and in fact hate video games. So as long as the people making games for the Wii make games they hate, the people buying games for the Wii will love them.
This doesn't seem right to me. In fact, I have a different suggestion. The people making games they hate for the Wii are responsible for the huge gap between the good games and the bad games. Because the Wii has some real stinky games. I can only assume that they were made by actual gamers trying to make a few quick bucks off of a new hot system but who hate the games they are making. These games tend to get very bad reception. I cannot imagine that the people who have written the real winners hate the games they make. In fact, one of my favorite games, Samba Di Amigo, has a video you can unlock of the people making the game.
This is why I carefully read all the reviews at Amazon.com before selecting a Wii game.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ben: I don't even accept that. The PS1 sold 28 mil, PS3 has already sold 21mil. I don't find that a failure at all. What makes it a failure to you?
It's just pining for the fjords...
The thing is, during the PS1 era, software companies didn't have to sell (according to some estimates I've heard) 500,000 units just to make their costs back.
I don't really think the PS3 is exactly about to kick up its heels, but it's in a surprisingly unenviable position despite being a platform for what is now the only high-definition movie format.
When "God of War III" comes out, I suspect its numbers will tell the real tale as to whether we should be preparing a eulogy for the PS3.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: EA, which managed to do poorly at Christmas despite the fact that game sales did very well, finally realized that people are loving the Wii and is going to make some games for it. I don't know if they will be good or not.
EA's fourth quarter looks bad due to a one-time restructuring charge that the elected to write down in that quarter, sort of like how MS wrote down the Xbox 360 warranty charges in one quarter rather than spreading the losses out.
Added: While I think the PS3 may be catching up to the 360 worldwide, it definitely isn't catching up in NA. For the first three quarters of 2008, the PS3 did outsell the 360 by a little bit, but nowhere near enough to close the installed base gap. When MS cut the price of the 360 late in the third quarter, 360 sales leapfrogged PS3 sales and haven't looked back.
posted
I got a Wii last year for Mother's day/my anniversary. I haven't got to play as much as I would like having a little one around. However, I have loved playing when I get the chance. I love the Wii fit. We also love Wii bowling. Even people who don't play video games have loved coming over and bowling.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ben: I don't even accept that. The PS1 sold 28 mil, PS3 has already sold 21mil. I don't find that a failure at all. What makes it a failure to you?
Your numbers are flawed. Yes, the 'PS1' sold only 28M, but that's the PlayStation One, a more compact version of the Playstation. If you want to give a more accurate number, it would be 102.49M units as of March 31st, 2007.
Your numbers also ignore the PS2's sales, which surprisingly are STILL selling better than the PS3. And by that I mean from each quarter, more PS2s are sold than PS3s. (Same source from above, comparing the tables.) The PS2 is at over 140M. (Same source as above.)
The PS3, on the other hand, dramatically failed to meet Sony's expectations. It's only sold 21.3M as of December 31st, 2008.
Really, the only thing the system has going for it is the Blu-ray player. Now that HD DVD is dead, that's the next medium. But as pointed out from above, as the price in stand-alones drop, the motivation to buy PS3s decrease.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The people who buy games for the Wii are not gamers, and in fact hate video games.
Tom, I'm assuming you're saying this tongue in cheek and don't actually believe it.
I don't think he is. A huge number of people who went out to buy a Wii have said time and time again things to the effect of, "I don't typically play video games, but the Wii is just different."
Or, "I myself do not play video games, but I bought a Wii for my children/grandchildren because we enjoy playing Wii sports together."
And even, "The Wii is a huge hit in senior institutions, none of them ever played video games until now."
----
Ben: Vadon pretty much stated what my response to you would be. Also remember the first Playstation was Sony's initial foray into video games. At the time Nintendo and Sega dominated the market. The PSX was so successful that by the time PS2 was released Sony was now a household name in the video game market, just as Microsoft is nowadays whereas it was not when they initially released the Xbox.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the PS3 is great, and since it isn't almost outdated...in fact I don't believe there are any games out there that completely use it's full capabilities even now.....I bet it will continue to grow. As opposed to the 360, which was never strong enough to last more than a few years,,,,and tehy are already talking about replacing it with a new machine. ...In the long haul I'd still bet on the PS3 being a great machine.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I think the PS3 is great, and since it isn't almost outdated...in fact I don't believe there are any games out there that completely use it's full capabilities even now.....I bet it will continue to grow. As opposed to the 360, which was never strong enough to last more than a few years,,,,and tehy are already talking about replacing it with a new machine. ...In the long haul I'd still bet on the PS3 being a great machine.
Really that is what i think the best hope for the PS3 is, I am not going to have to buy a PS4 in 2010, buy I might be told to go get a X-box whatever.
The other great thing is that if i still had a Ps2 I am still getting some new games. But by now X-box is useless for next-gen games.
I also have reason to beilieve that by 2010, in order to play a ew Wii game you are going to have to dress up like a gundam. But you will lose weight, and seniors just LOVE IT!
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The extent to which this is true is very much open for debate.
Indeed. The quality of 360 games is also still improving and there is not really any objective way to determine how much headroom remains on either platform from which you can project future improvement. So far the PS3 has not demonstrated any obvious technical superiority regarding graphics quality or processing performance.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The people who buy games for the Wii are not gamers, and in fact hate video games.
Tom, I'm assuming you're saying this tongue in cheek and don't actually believe it.
I don't think he is. A huge number of people who went out to buy a Wii have said time and time again things to the effect of, "I don't typically play video games, but the Wii is just different."
Or, "I myself do not play video games, but I bought a Wii for my children/grandchildren because we enjoy playing Wii sports together."
And even, "The Wii is a huge hit in senior institutions, none of them ever played video games until now."
----
Ben: Vadon pretty much stated what my response to you would be. Also remember the first Playstation was Sony's initial foray into video games. At the time Nintendo and Sega dominated the market. The PSX was so successful that by the time PS2 was released Sony was now a household name in the video game market, just as Microsoft is nowadays whereas it was not when they initially released the Xbox.
This describes me; however, it does not describe my husband. He loves video games and thinks the Wii is great. He loves Star Wars Force Unleashed because he can act like he's really swinging a light saber.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are also "hardcore" gamers with Wiis. However, Nintendo has definitely expanded the Wii's audience outside of that core group to people like you and the others Mucus describes.
Added:
quote:Originally posted by Ben: Nobody is jumping ship on it, I doubt anybody will.
Here's an example:
Final Fantasy XIII is no longer a PS3 exclusive. That's actually a pretty big deal; AFAIK the only major exclusive JRPG that Sony has kept is White Knight Chronicles. Everything else has moved to handhelds, gone crossplatform, or even become a 360 exclusive. Last gen, if you wanted to play JRPGs you pretty much had to buy a PS2.
Grand Theft Auto IV was a simultaneous crossplatform release as well. Last gen, if you wanted GTA at release, you had to own a PS2.
Really, the only huge exclusive PlayStation franchise left is God of War. (Although I'm sure Killzone 2 will sell well, the Killzone franchise doesn't have the long history of consistent big sales that the God of War franchise does.)
The PS3 is this generation's GameCube in terms of sales, but unlike the GameCube it hasn't even been profitable. The PS2's longevity and profitability have propped Sony's gaming division up so far, but PS2 sales are starting to tail off. For that matter, PSP sales are dropping as well.
I don't think Sony is out of the game this gen any more than Nintendo was last gen. They'll be around next gen, although the next gen may get here later rather than sooner due to the economic situation. But I can't think of a marketplace metric by which the PS3 has been a success -- and I say that as someone who owns one and likes it.
(Full disclosure: I own a 360, PS3, DS, PSP, GameCube, dead PS2, and a Mac.)
posted
I think the statement "people who buy games for the Wii hate video games" is a bit broad.
I love video games, and I really enjoy the Wii.
Many people I know who own a 360 have also recently bought a Wii, simply because it's a lot more fun in a party environment to bust out Wii Sports than it is to bust out CoD4.
Even more than that, Wii games are still video games, as much as self-styled "hardcore gamers" want to plug their ears and go "la la la la" whenever anyone points that out. So, you can't like Wii games and hate video games... it's like saying you like hamburgers but hate meat.
A more accurate statement would be that "Wii games are primarily bought by people who don't appreciate the niche of 'hardcore' games that has recently been in vogue".
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stand corrected on my sales figures. Chalk that up to hasty research on my part.
While I understand that sales have been disappointing and falling short of Sony's hopes and predictions, I still wouldn't classify the system as dead. Not a runaway success no, but not an out and out failure or dead either. Yes Final Fantasy and GTA IV launched/are launching multi-platform, they are still releasing for both. I think because of smaller install base of the PS3 in the U.S. it makes sense to go multi-platform at launch for those games. They will recoup development costs much sooner that way. That is just good business, but the PS3 isn't an afterthought in these instances. In fact, it's my understanding that the PS3 is the lead platform for FF13 development. So it doesn't seem to me that anybody has abandoned it (in reference to my jumping ship comment above and twinky's response). You can call it third place, or even distant third if you'd like, but it's certainly not dead. I would be more likely to grant that the PSP is dead or dying before the PS3. It just seems premature to call the PS3 dead when it still has support from alot of 3rd party developers making exclusive and multi-platform games for the system.
Wow, upon reviewing this post I seem mighty defensive like a fanboy. Heh.
*As I mentioned in an above post, in the interest of full disclosure I own a PS3, Wii, DS, and PSP, and buy current games for my Windows system as well.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ben: I stand corrected on my sales figures. Chalk that up to hasty research on my part.
While I understand that sales have been disappointing and falling short of Sony's hopes and predictions, I still wouldn't classify the system as dead. Not a runaway success no, but not an out and out failure or dead either. Yes Final Fantasy and GTA IV launched/are launching multi-platform, they are still releasing for both. I think because of smaller install base of the PS3 in the U.S. it makes sense to go multi-platform at launch for those games. They will recoup development costs much sooner that way. That is just good business, but the PS3 isn't an afterthought in these instances. In fact, it's my understanding that the PS3 is the lead platform for FF13 development. So it doesn't seem to me that anybody has abandoned it (in reference to my jumping ship comment above and twinky's response). You can call it third place, or even distant third if you'd like, but it's certainly not dead. I would be more likely to grant that the PSP is dead or dying before the PS3. It just seems premature to call the PS3 dead when it still has support from alot of 3rd party developers making exclusive and multi-platform games for the system.
Wow, upon reviewing this post I seem mighty defensive like a fanboy. Heh.
*As I mentioned in an above post, in the interest of full disclosure I own a PS3, Wii, DS, and PSP, and buy current games for my Windows system as well.
I don't think it's quite dead yet either, I was merely correcting your numbers, showing why it wasn't a success, and talking about the trouble brewing for it in the blu-ray market.
You're right, FFXIII was being developed for the PS3 in mind, but as time went on and the PS3 didn't make the sales numbers they wanted, they extended the franchise to the XBox 360. Square-Enix is also making DQ9 for the Nintendo DS as opposed to a console release, GTA went multi-platform as well.
While the PS3 isn't dead, the fact that they're losing exlusive titles is a sign that it is dying. That's not to say that in the future Sony won't create the next, winning system. They've just lost this round of the console wars.
For full disclosure, I suppose, I have a Wii, DS, and my older systems. (PS2, SNES, Famicon, N64, and GBA) I don't have money to be a big gamer. Otherwise I'd totally go for a 360 and/or PS3 of my own.
My biggest investment in these console wars came from when I made a bet with a kid. Specifically, he bet that the Xbox 360 would be more profitable than the Wii after Halo 3 was released given a month. I took the bet in a heart beat after clarifying he said 'profitable.' Easiest 20 bucks I ever made. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the PS3 is dead either, and didn't say so.
Trivia:
The PS3 is the lead platform for an increasing number of 360/PS3 crossplatform games nowadays, because it's way easier to get your PS3 game running on the 360 than it is to do it the other way around. The 360 has three symmetric general-purpose cores, each of which can execute two concurrent threads, and it also has a unified memory architecture. The PS3 only has one general purpose core and a number of smaller cores, and the CPU and GPU each have their own batch of memory*.
Consequently, from what I've read, if you build your game from the ground up for the 360, you basically have to hack it apart and completely rethink your threads and how data flows between them to make it work on the PS3, but you don't have to do that if you go from the PS3 to the 360. Because Microsoft's architecture is easier to develop for and MS provides better dev tools and support, early on this gen a lot of crossplatform games ran better on the 360 due to these differences. Now with more developers leading on the PS3, the performance of crossplatform games is generally fairly comparable, with the exception of antialiasing. The PS3 versions of crossplatform games often either lack AA or use quincunx, whereas their 360 counterparts are antialiased. I first noticed this when I downloaded the Mirror's Edge demo for both systems, but it's evident in other crossplatform games as well.
*The PS3's GPU can technically address main memory as well, but it's extremely slow in doing so.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Say what you want about the PS3, at least it doesn't RROD...
For me, it goes like this -- Any game I want for the 360 is out on the PC, or will be out soon. And I love my PC. I also love my big, overweight, loud ps3. And little big planet. Now I just need a Wii.
Posts: 86 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Say what you want about the PS3, at least it doesn't RROD...
*shrug* The 360 is over that too. Big, huge, expensive ($$$ and goodwill) problem, but it's not an issue for current consoles and hasn't been for over a year now.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ben: I am sure Sony will be in the game next generation and it's foolish to declare the platform dead.
I didn't say sony was out of the game, though they're hurting massively right now.
Sony was looking bad in the end of 2008, they're looking bad now.
Despite the fact that the 360 had an earlier release, its sales grew considerably between last year and today. The PS3 is the only console to see its sales base shrinking.
That in mind, profit is not earned based on systems moved; the PS3 sells at a considerable loss to Sony, which must be recouped by the sales of titles.
Sony does not have any system movers, and it has very weak game sales.
The apt summarization of PS3's January performance is that the system is dead in the water.
360 is alive, fo sho. Healthy even.
Wii is more than alive. Its sales have increased so profoundly that we can put it in the category of 'undergoing apotheosis'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mocke: Say what you want about the PS3, at least it doesn't RROD...
Sony is a hardware company, and Microsoft is a software company. Those strengths are readily apparent on both of their consoles this gen.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Say what you want about the PS3, at least it doesn't RROD...
*shrug* The 360 is over that too. Big, huge, expensive ($$$ and goodwill) problem, but it's not an issue for current consoles and hasn't been for over a year now.
posted
Haha. I'm not saying they never break. I'm just saying they don't ALL break any more. When a current system RRODs it's a legitimate "$*&% happens" experience now.
I feel for you, man.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love my wii- but I am not a gamer. I also love my wii fit. My dr and I were discussing it with weight loss and she said that the big problem with it is people buy it and then feel good. They just never bother using it. But I use it all the time (I also use my exercise bike regularly). My husband and I enjoy playing tennis against each other and some of the party games are a lot of fun.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: This describes me; however, it does not describe my husband. He loves video games and thinks the Wii is great. He loves Star Wars Force Unleashed because he can act like he's really swinging a light saber.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Haha. I'm not saying they never break. I'm just saying they don't ALL break any more. When a current system RRODs it's a legitimate "$*&% happens" experience now.
I feel for you, man.
ARGH, mah 360's have always consistently broken.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want it for Rock Band primarily, I have to agree that you should consider getting a 360 instead of a Wii. (I have both, and a PS2.) I don't have Rock Band, but I've played it, and the option to expand your music library by downloading more songs is great. And you don't get that on the Wii. If you think you'll be using it for other games, and you're not a traditional gaming household, then go for the Wii.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rock Band 2 for Wii does have downloadable content, but only a small subset of the DLC for 360/PS3 is available on the Wii, and your only storage options are the 512MB internal flash memory and 2GB external flash memory.
I have over 5GB of Rock Band content. Between Rock Band 1 songs I've exported to my 360's hard drive, Rock Band 2 disc songs, and DLC, I've got on the order of 200 songs available to play when I fire up Rock Band 2.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good to know...about the downloadable content. We would most likely want to keep adding to our music library.
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Rock Band 2 for Wii does have downloadable content, but only a small subset of the DLC for 360/PS3 is available on the Wii, and your only storage options are the 512MB internal flash memory and 2GB external flash memory.
I have over 5GB of Rock Band content. Between Rock Band 1 songs I've exported to my 360's hard drive, Rock Band 2 disc songs, and DLC, I've got on the order of 200 songs available to play when I fire up Rock Band 2.
Though I believe the Wii version allows hot swapping of SD cards (annoying) to get all your songs. And they are committed (they say) to getting all the songs on the Wii store ASAP, and seem to be following though, if the early indications mean anything.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
