PS3 to dominate in 3 to 5 years – Won’t that be too late?
The PS3 is currently a very definite third in the race to “win” this generation’s home console war. Whether that’s deserved or not (particularly against the Wii) depends on your point of view, but it’s a fact. Sony is now claiming the PS3 will dominate proceedings in three to five years. But surely we’ll have all moved on by then, won’t we?
It’s a bit of a running joke amongst Xbox 360 fanboys that their PS3-loving counterparts are constantly changing the goalposts about when success will come to the Sony console. 2007 will be the year of the Playstation 3. No? OK, then 2008 will be the year of the Playstation 3. No? OK, then 2009 will be the year of the Playstation 3. And on we go seemingly ad nauseam.
Sony, via outgoing Sony Europe President David Reeves, has finally admitted this year and even next year may not be the year of the Playstation 3. But his timeline for when he thinks the PS3 will hit the top leaves more questions and answers. In a nutshell, we’re looking at between 2012 and 2014 until the console hits its stride.
In an interview just before leaving his job, he told GI.biz:
I don’t think it will be next year, but in three to five years it will become dominant on the market. The legacy will be that people will see a tortoise and hare situation. In a way, in the end it will be a dead heat. People will say PS3 took a while to get going but it really caught up very quickly and confounded many of the critics from the first year.
I know Sony has always maintained the PS3 will have a 10-year lifespan, which is most commendable by the way, but that doesn’t mean the current console will be the leading platform for the whole of that ten years. If the Playstation 2 to Playstation 3 situation is repeated, we can expect the PS4 to hit the market six years after the PS3, putting it around November 2012, right at the start of when Reeves thinks the current-gen console will start to dominate the market.
Won’t that be a little, well, pointless? I can accept the tortoise and hare analogy to a certain degree and I certainly think the PS3 will close the gap on the Xbox 360 and Wii in its lifetime, but if it’s only going to do so when most of us will be looking to the next generation console then it all seems a bit late to actually matter a damn.
Related Posts:
107 Responses to “PS3 to dominate in 3 to 5 years – Won’t that be too late?”
Leave a Reply:
You must be logged in to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register today!
May 5th, 2009
No is not too late… And they will beat the Wii in sales before Wii 2. You just don’t get Sony like we do.
May 5th, 2009
Top article Uncle Dave! Lots of food for thought.
I love it how you can always manage to throw a comment about the Wii into almost anything.
May 5th, 2009
Wasn’t David Reeves the one that said
“PlayStation 3, you will see, will be far and away the winner when you look at it by March ’08. They really, really will,”
And
“It’s something that is going to be a slow burner, and suddenly it’s like a tsunami; it will just overtake you.”
I’m still waiting for that tsunami Dave.
May 5th, 2009
Some keywords to put this article in perspective: “In an interview just before leaving his job”… okay… but in any case, he does have a ton of experience with the company and the industry.
Personally, I believe if Sony continues their pace of releasing quality exclusives every year for PS3 they will have a significant library built up within two to three years that has contributed to the industry as a whole. In many ways they already have. Whether they beat 360 or Wii in sales doesn’t really matter in this regard, especially if they can still sell millions of consoles and units of software every year with what they have.
Taking the PS2 off the market next year will most likely contribute significantly to PS3 sales (and perhaps 360 and Wii sales as well), let alone stopping software support for it, but especially if they can put PS2 BC back in the PS3 around that time.
Of course, God of War III, Gran Turismo 5, and Final Fantasy Vs. (if it remains exclusive) all factor well for future PS3 sales, but price at this point still seems the major sticking point for most. 2-3 years should see it come down to that $250 “sweet spot”, and it will still make a difference at that time because PS2 still made a difference at this time.
Yes, Microsoft and Nintendo will still most likely have their iterations around as well, and all three will probably be presenting their next gen models, but Sony has learned several lessons this gen and is still incorporating them. These will follow into the next gen.
In the end, I am looking forward to a repeat performance from Sony as far as games that come out on the console that simply push the hardware to it’s max, at a time when the console itself has come down in price, and it has regained at least one major aspect it lost since launch.
I will still be excited about the next gen out at that time, but unless Microsoft (or whoever comes out the gate first with a non-Wii concept console) and third parties have a plentiful amount of next gen titles at that time to keep me busy, I will seriously be desiring to play titles like God of War III and others that are bound to have been released by that time.
May 5th, 2009
I was reading this new article about this persons view and opinion that they believe that Microsoft will launch a new console in 2010. I personally have some beliefe in what he was saying because it has already been mentioned that microsoft has games already being made for it next console. The beliefe was that Microsoft will launch a new system where the games will still be able to play on the 360 but the new system will be like a 360.5 that will have the best of everything and the graphics will be tops. Apparently games can be developed where it would be downgraded for the 360 with the lower spec and they will look how they look now but the new system will play them at full 1080P in all it’s golry. Apparently PC games do this as every computer does not have the same specs. It’s all speculation but it seems like it could happen because they said the next Halo was being developed for the next system. Could you really believe that the next Halo game is coming in 2012. I don’t think so. The person also believes it may be mentioned at E3. If this happens goodbye Playstation and you can bet the money this system will be RROD Free. The only thing is that it will probably still run on DVD9 and it won’t have Bluray.
May 5th, 2009
It also will also probably come packed with some serious memory that will be more then the 120 Gig.
May 5th, 2009
@CAD
“Apparently games can be developed where it would be downgraded for the 360 with the lower spec and they will look how they look now but the new system will play them at full 1080P in all it’s golry. Apparently PC games do this as every computer does not have the same specs.”
PC games do not do this.
You have to set the options for the game and even then lower end machines still get choppy even though it dumb down the graphics in the options.
May 5th, 2009
CAD:
“The only thing is that it will probably still run on DVD9 and it won’t have Bluray”.
I very much doubt that CAD.
It’s passed almost unnoticed but the DVD Forum keep releasing minutes of their monthly meetings and what was agreed etc etc.
HD DVD is still being developed, especially the 51gb triple layer version.
My own bet is that the next Xbox will come optimisied for digital distribution but that there will be a large capacity disc
(initially for those people who demand something physical but also because even by 2010-12 there will be far too many places without a fast enough net infrastructure).
It would make a lot of sense if Microsoft used this as their next high capacity disc storage media.
I must say I find this article hilarious.
Everything I’ve been saying for months vindicated by an out-going top-bod at Sony.
It’ll be funny watching them try and ‘dominate’ a full generation behind.
May 5th, 2009
Hey, maybe David Reeves is just an Xbox fanboy?
May 5th, 2009
Well I found the link. There is much more there then what I have said.
neowin.net/news/gamers/09/04/29/3d-why-a-new-xbox-is-coming-sooner-than-later
May 5th, 2009
Happy
Are you sure HD DVD is still being developed beause that would make me very happy.
May 5th, 2009
100% certain CAD.
The DVD Forum minutes are publicly available on-line if you want to check it out yourself.
You need to look at the steering committee minutes.
You’ll find refs to the on-going HD DVD developement mentioned in the Sept 17th 2008 minutes. –
h**p://www.dvdforum.org/images/43rd_Confirmed_minutes_of_SC_Meeting_080917.pdf
This is what it says –
“DVD specifications for High Density Read Only Disc (HD DVD ROM 51gb) part 2 file system specification Version 2 were approved by a vote of 13 – 0 – 7 (with Panasonic, Mitsubishi, Pioneer, Sharp, Sony, Disney and Hitachi abstaining)”.
In another part it says –
“In report to WG-9 the TCG chair provided a status report on AACS support for HD DVD in AACS specification.
The TCG chair requested steering committee confirmation that the Forum would appreciate AACS continuing support for HD DVD. This was confirmed.
Interestingly in the same minutes you’ll see that Microsoft got a vote approved so that they now only meet twice a year
(and so will only report twice a year).
That ties in nicely with keeping things quiet for now.
You may remember that when HD DVD ceased to be as a retail video format in the market Toshiba were offered the chance to sell all the rights (IIRC a Chinese group & a Taiwanese group).
They refused.
h**p://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20080826PB200.html
Now I think we know why.
Along with the many whispers about an Xbox having an HD DVD drive I think this is all pointing to the next Xbox having it’s own high capacity disc which, by being triple layer and HD DVD, will in most instances be about as ‘secure’ as they can get it.
(something Sony is currently enjoying what with their various security features the PS3 & Blu-ray employ…….along with the fact that almost no-one had a Blu-ray burner or buys much blank BD media)
May 5th, 2009
CAD,
Why?
-Arvis
May 5th, 2009
@ncassie
PC games do not do this.
You have to set the options for the game and even then lower end machines still get choppy even though it dumb down the graphics in the options.
That is actually what CAD is saying. This was discussed a while back (and I have no idea where it came from), but the idea being the games would be created with assets designed for the ‘next xbox’ and when it detected it was in a 360 it would crank its settings down automatically.
May 5th, 2009
I’ve said the same thing that Cad more or less said for my view of the next ps when it was discussed that the ps4 would be using cell tech.
May 5th, 2009
“No is not too late… And they will beat the Wii in sales before Wii 2. You just don’t get Sony like we do.”
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
May 5th, 2009
ha
May 5th, 2009
Ban CON for spamming
May 5th, 2009
Arvis
That way I don’t have to eventually replace my HD DVD with a Bluray Player. I still use it to upconvert my DVD’s.
May 5th, 2009
By the way rumor is that the Wii2 will also launch in 2010. That will leave Sony with their 10 year plan while Microsoft and Nintendo hop to the next generation. It’s all speculation though.
May 5th, 2009
SW
Thanks for clearing that up. With only 2 Spec to configure for it might be an easy task.
May 5th, 2009
Cad
The really interesting news for those with an HD DVD player and still buying movies for it (and why not, there are 450 English titles out there for it all going for peanuts right now?) is the Chinese CH DVD.
It’s very very close to ‘our’ HD DVD and may just be a firmware away.
With people like Warner announcing they are going to support it it may be a way for HD DVD owners to access newer content.
h**p://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1125915
May 5th, 2009
“Ban CON for spamming”
I say we give you both your own thread where you can play retard together…
May 6th, 2009
Here’s the thing: With this economy, and people just still buying current generation systems, i don’t see how releasing a console in 2010, makes any sense at all.
I mean, people are still JUST getting their hdtvs, and what not, 360s and PS3s, only to have to buy a whole new system? Even if it can play 360 games on the new 360.5 (Microsoft 540?? ) i can’ see this as happening…
BUT, it could explain why MS has been having such a drought of a year, with little to no games releasing…but then why have such a “great 2009″ lineup….
meh…i just don’t see it being a profitable idea for MS to release a new console when this year has only been the year they are in the black or actually profiting off the 360….it just doesn’t make economical sense…..
and CAD, even if the 360 launches early, that gives the PS3 even more of a reason to sell: Price advantage…on top of that since the PS4 is rumored to have Bluray( no more development costs) and again use the Cell Processor ( again no more development costs) it probably would be able to match or beat the new MS’s system’s price( New CPU/New GPU/New Architecture from scratch) …no, i believe the advantage will be going to Sony and Nintendo next generation…ESPECIALLY nintendo, they have LOADS of cash to spend on a new killer system ( although so does MS, but then again, if they had that much cash, why let the original xbox die like they did….makes you wonder huh…)
But in the end, i believe 2010 to be way too early for any new systems, just from an economical stand point for both consumers and corporations..
May 6th, 2009
As for PS3 dominating:
I can only really see this happening if Sony manages to get the system down to about the $300 price range….then i can see it selling in droves….there are a LOT of people waiting on just another price drop to buy one….the price is what is holding back the ps3 now…
May 6th, 2009
JoJo29
Easy answer. They have the money and pretty much everyone except for Sony kills of their previous console to support their new console. Lets face it. The ony reason the PS2 still sells is to help recoup the cost of the PS3. I’m sure Sony would love for the PS3 to gain all of the PS2 customers but at that price it’s not happening.
May 6th, 2009
If Microsoft launch a true next gen console anything like what is being rumoured then I’m in.
So too will all those game console fans who enjoy the latest games etc.
The leap the next lot make should be pretty spectacular as consoles are far far behind PCs now.
Even at launch prices it’s still only a percentage over the cost of my usual mid-life PC update, if that – and I’ll make a big chunk of the cost back selling off my Elite.
Cost is no big deal to me.
I just want the best & latest game console.
All the wireless networking etc etc is great and all but so long as it doesn’t lose sight of the fact it’s primarily a game console I’ll be happy.
I expect it to do DVD/video playback but I don’t really need more video players and I would not thank you for another (expensive) Blu-ray player I don’t need and which would be a total waste of money to me.
Just give me some decent backward compatibility so I can play my current favs
(and so it keeps them attractive to buyers when I get around to flogging off my 360).
May 6th, 2009
I agree HH. I am expecting the next Xbox to have full BC and stellar reliability. If so, I will have one. I have written off the 360 entirely, and will prob pick up those 360 exclusives I wanted to play once the next xbox hits, provided it has what I expect.
May 6th, 2009
Happy
Sadly, as evidenced by the Wii, you and i are in the niche market of having and wanting the latest and greatest..
Which is the point i’m trying to make…If MS releases the new 540, then it will be at a higher price point….which is what the general consumer does not want, also it would be probably released at a point where the PS3 is at its cheapest, and most people i believe would start seeing the value in that…yes, PC side of things, graphics are awesome, but check this out: Crysis is the best looking game on the PC, thats with the latest and greatest GPU/CPU ( i can run Crysis at its highest settings with a solid ~60fps on my machine at a 1080p resolution) Killzone 2, is arguably on par with that, in terms of console’s graphics…and that is GG’s first effort on the PS3…..
What im trying to say is, this generation has a LOT of potential on both consoles, and people always seem to forget about the difference between Console specs and PC spec:
Consoles DO NOT need to run an OS + many other applications that eat up resources, so for example, if you buy a PC with 4GB or ram with Vista64, bam right off the bat, you have to take away 1GB of RAM just to run the OS correctly….thats not even including any other resources like Anti-Virus etc…So consoles in essence can utilize more of their resources than PC……
Anywhoo, again judging by what is going on this generation, people want whats cheapest (Wii) and offers games, not neccessarily the best out there and latest and greatest….
So like i said, if the PS3 is to get to PS2 levels, i think a max price of $299 and cheaper could get them there
May 6th, 2009
jojo29
I think this may be where Microsoft take a turn with Sony’s PS2/3 tactics.
The 360 (soon to appear in it’s most inexpensive to produce final 45nm SoC form) will continue for a good few years yet.
The 360 will offer a sub-Wii price point and (if the rumours are true) will be able to play the latest games for the next version
(but at lower specs).
I just can’t see PS3 getting cheap enough in time to do much of anything.
It looks likely that PS4 isn’t going to set the world on fire either.
Provided they don’t bottle it Microsoft could have a hell of a line-up come 2010/11.
I certainly hope so.
May 6th, 2009
Happy
That is indeed quite a possibility with the 360 having prolonged support, but, ultimately, that is up to the consumers…MS in general has a bad rep, not because of bad products, but bad imaging/branding….
Allow me to explain…MS doesn’t do anything they don’t have to, unless their consumers say otherwise…meaning, yes, they were losing money on the original xbox, but it is indeed MS, they had the money to burn and could have supported the xbox at least 1 year longer, but they didn’t, because MS likes to move on to the better things, which is cool, it keeps tech going forward…BUT, this comes at the cost of its consumers feeling they don’t get support or whatever…
The point of that is i don’t see MS supporting the 360 very long….i could very well be wrong, but, it is MS we are dealing with…..
Yes, MS could have a killer line-up for 2010/2011 but that just reassures me that MS is not thinking of releasing a new console right now…
The PS3 is and will get cheaper, that just simple economics…something Sony apparently does not get…BUT, and this is stretching it, maybe it is all planned…If Sony is really in it for a 10 year span, and the way the economy is at this point it looks like that will be for the BETTER for gaming industry, Sony is the tortoise that will win the generation…a lot of their recent dealings have kinda reassured this theory..For example….The delaying of Killzone 2 for Resistance 2/Motorstorm 2 to have some sales room….Gran Turismo at the end of the year (maybe) God of War already slated for 2010, thats not including inFamous, or other exclusive titles not announced this year…What does this mean? It looks like Sony is spreading their games out..to keep sales at a steady place and having them “burst” at these key times….
Add to that, People are just literally WAITING and BEGGING for a price drop, to justify their purchase….They can drop that price drop at a very opportune moment…in a game drought….when the next Halo/Gears caliber games drops…..They have a lot of cards up their sleeve….whereas MS really just have a price game ( which is huge, an Joker Wild if you will ) but they will have to rely on their multi-platform strength as Sony/Ninty simply have them beat in the 1st party area in terms of variety and volume of games….
Now, add all the strengths that Sony has….now picture that on top with the PS4…i believe the PS4 will be huge…BUT, not bigger than whatever Ninty is working on..But this generation Sony is being humbled…the ONLY REAL weakness that Sony has NOT corrected is well…price…..that really is what has stopped Sony from dominating….All the 360 has is LESS than 10million units ahead of Sony….I emphasize LESS because before Sony released the PS3 the 360 had well OVER the 10million unit headstart….but it is ahead nonetheless….
All in all, i for one hope the next generation DOESN’T come till after 2012…not for hopes for Sony, but because i would like to see this generation’s full potential..2008 saw the release of truly unique games like LittleBigPlanet <–best example i can think of right now…Why go into a new console, which we know, when a new console drops, the only titles released are sequels and rehashes…We are finally at a point in this generation where we can finally start seeing some original IPs and developers can actually develop some “riskier” IPs out!!! lets not stop that
also, none of the systems have hit the 160million unit mark like the PS2 has…so no one had “won” this generation…until they hit that magic number, i believe 120-140 million is where the PS2 was at its peak and “early” last days….the current generation has quite a ways to go…..
May 6th, 2009
Yes Yes we know the past history but the decision to kill off the Xbox was justified. This time around if the rumors are true the 360 will still get all the games that would launch on a new system but it will be downgraded to where it is now (which is pretty awesome). The price point for Sony will take some time to come down and you also have to realise that the PS3 only competes with the 360 Elite. It’s also rumored that the Wii2 will be out next year. With 2 companies going to the next gen already where does Sony really stand to benefit with the PS3. They could come out with the PS4 but I just don’t think they are in a position to do that. They need to recoup the cost first before they can be ambitious. I personally think Sony has it’s resources stretched with support for the PS2/3 and the PSP. They also have all these supposed studios that are dong exactly what? Personally I think Microsoft wants to put the Playstation brand 6 feet deep and I just feel like they are going to make that move to seal the deal.
May 6th, 2009
JoJo29
By the way, you may be the only PS3 guy that can hold a decent conversation.
May 6th, 2009
‘I think Microsoft wants to put the Playstation brand 6 feet deep and I just feel like they are going to make that move to seal the deal.’
And somehow I can’t help but think thats bad for all of us.
May 6th, 2009
I think Sony is already in the position to move past the 360. Just take a look at E3′s potential line up this year. Exclusive DLC and timed exclusives will be the death of the 360.
Sony
GOW III, GT5, Ratchet and Clank, Heavy Rain, MAG, White Knight, Quantum Theory, Uncharted 2, Fat Princess. Possibly ICO and a PS3 Persona.
MS
Alan Fake & 3 hour Halo expansion *yawn* I’m sure they will also announce another timed exclusive.
May 6th, 2009
“JoJo29
By the way, you may be the only PS3 guy that can hold a decent conversation.”
I would be offended by this, but its coming from CADCON, therefore is as relevant and credible as Ivan.
May 7th, 2009
Barnabe is wanting to play ‘list wars’ again.
May 7th, 2009
Yeah I had a good laugh.
May 7th, 2009
BarabeJones said:
“I think Sony is already in the position to move past the 360. Just take a look at E3’s potential line up this year. Exclusive DLC and timed exclusives will be the death of the 360.
Sony
GOW III, GT5, Ratchet and Clank, Heavy Rain, MAG, White Knight, Quantum Theory, Uncharted 2, Fat Princess. Possibly ICO and a PS3 Persona.
MS
Alan Fake & 3 hour Halo expansion *yawn* I’m sure they will also announce another timed exclusive.”
This is why i think Sony will be and is ok this generation, they seem to have planned around this really well..
Also, like was said earlier, MS has a solid 2010 lineup, which further adds to the point that 2010 will not release a new console for MS or Wii..
@CAD
Thanks for the compliment
BUT, out of all the current consoles, Wii would make the most sense to be releasing the Wii2, as then they can also compete for the “hardcore” market as the system will obviously be more powerful along side its innovative control scheme…
But again, i can’t see this generation being cut short, nor do i want it too. The economy is a major factor in that, on top of that, Sony and MS and have a lot to gain from it, they don’t need to develop and spend money on R&D when they can stretch (milk <–Sony loves milking) this generation at a low cost to them, and to top it off, the longer the generation the bigger the dividends for them as hardware costs will no longer be an issue.
And here is a little bit of theoryism and biased-ness, in regards to this comment:
“I think Microsoft wants to put the Playstation brand 6 feet deep and I just feel like they are going to make that move to seal the deal.”
Personally, a Microsoft driven gaming industry WILL only lead to one thing: A video game market crash..Microsoft leading any market is a bad thing, they will monopolize it, and in the end the consumers will lose out, BIG TIME. The way MS practices, it will release a new console every 3-4 years, and if you don’t want to, tough, they are already charging you to play online, they already charge people who have OEM versions of Vista for Customer Support, you don’t think that will get worse?…Its the way it works with Windows, but with VIsta being a flop, it has humbled them a bit…..
Keep reading its not all doom and gloom. FIRST thing: I DO NOT want Microsoft OUT of the gaming industry, i just don’t want them leading it, if that makes any sense…I DON’T want MS in a position to dictate where the gaming industry goes…they can contribute like they have in regards to online console gaming, but not leading the pack…
I don’t know, but i just a feeling if MS leads the industry it will just be a bad thing, no evidence, no articles on it, just based on how MS does things….again let me reiterate that i DON’T want them out of the industry, i just don’t want them leading it…
I don’t that was just food for thought, no malice or anything just what i think can and might happen…
My head hurts lol
May 7th, 2009
Barnabe, sorry, but it doesn’t seem that the few AAA exclusives Sony spent serious money on (even those fewer that actually did well in sales) are making that big of a difference in the wake of hundreds of multiplatform games. Quality expansion packs for triple AAA games (via DLC) just dwarf those games even more.
“Exclusive DLC and timed exclusives will be the death of the 360.”
I remember this one when it was “DLC will be the death of 360″… funny how these statements evolve as the PS3 “validates” certain aspects for those with limited experience. Aren’t Metal Gear Solid 4 and Valkyria Chronicles technically “timed exclusives”? Technically, any “exclusive” from a third party is potentially a “timed exclusive” unless stated otherwise in the contract.
Btw, Broken Steel is great:
“By extending the game beyond the main quest, Bethesda has delivered exactly what the fans have been asking for.”
xboxlive.ign.com/articles/980/980045p1.html
May 7th, 2009
jojo29,
“The way MS practices, it will release a new console every 3-4 years,”
Stop. No seriously. You are basing this off of the first iteration of a company’s console? The same console that died a premature death because of a legal battle and not by choice of the parent company? What MS has stated is 360 will remain on the market 1 more day than PS3, and they are in a better position than Sony to do this now. Whether it will happen remains to be seen, but there has been no console trend with MS to make your statement above anything close to resembling even an educated guess.
“they are already charging you to play online…”
Why yes, multi-player gamers and/or Netflix Members (those that take up the most bandwidth) do choose to pay about $3-$4/mo (it is relatively easy to find 13 mo gold memberships through Amazon for $38). This allows those who use the most bandwidth to pay for it, while subsidizing free silver memberships (those who tend to use the least bandwidth, yet still have access to everything but multi-player and Netflix), not to mention free demos standard for almost every game (and achievements for almost every game as well).
Live came out a year earlier than PSN, set the standard online for it to follow, and because PS3 was late to the party, Sony had to sweeten the pot by making PSN free to gamers. It passes on at least part of the cost to third parties, charging them for every download (and discouraging some third parties in the process), even free demos. Another part of the cost is probably also passed on to the present price of the PS3 (as say a part of Kindle’s price is free EVDO, so is Sony’s free online multiplayer).
“FIRST thing: I DO NOT want Microsoft OUT of the gaming industry, i just don’t want them leading it, if that makes any sense…I DON’T want MS in a position to dictate where the gaming industry goes…”
So you would rather have Nintendo and the Wii philosophy leading it? Sad.
May 7th, 2009
Jojo29
Microsofts line up is much better then 2 games you just listed. Come on be fair because at this very moment all there is is Killzone and V Cronicle something. But really what is a game system without games. Even Sony remembered that after a while. That why PS3 is only getting games now and you guys are tooting your horns about this meanwhile 360 people are like Ohh, you finally got some games in the pipeline instead of the famine that you were experiencing. Listen I’m not talking about games. Make all the list you want because we all know who wins the list war. It’s actually funny that you guys keep bringing it up like it’s suppose to be significiant or something. Like I said before what is a system wihtout games. But this is not about the games. This is about if Sony actually has the resources to actually compete given the financial hole it has dug itself into. Are you going to hold on to the 10 year plan and become a dinosaur with Sony or if Microsoft and Nintendo go next gen can Sony do it to?
May 7th, 2009
Happy, Kev, Harry, Carl B
By the way are you going to do 1 vs 100 this Friday. The grand prize is a Elite with 4000 Points. The other prizes are Samsung HD Camcorder, Acer Aspire Laptop, and a Arcade game.
May 7th, 2009
Do aussies get to join in?
May 7th, 2009
CAD
I would rather the publishers front the bill than me…
No. Sorry, MS lineup is pretty stale and horrid..Remember we are not talking sales here, if you want to look at sales, look at Madden, that thing sells, doesn’t it make it the best quality game out there….heck even the Harry Potter games “sell”…
NOT to say Gears is bad..Gears is awesome…but Halo, is not for everyone…and thats it..Halo and Gears are really all MS have to offer that are quality, steller games….whereas Sony has Uncharted/Motorstorm/Resistance/Killzone/LBP/GoW/Ratchet/Jak/ICO/etc…see the difference….In terms of quality and variety as well as a lineup, sorry, 1st party games, Sony has MS beat…so does Nintendo…
Your right though, i don’t have a basis and or facts to back up my claims, but, thats what i said to begin with…BUT, i can base those off of how a company handles it businesses, and previous efforts, and the way MS cut off the xbox brand, left a bad impression in my eyes, i mean, i don’t care if MS was losing money, especially when Gates himself said he will throw money at the xbox brand until it sells…<—i actually have the magazine he was interviewed where he said that, i have to find it….
That says a lot about a company and what their ideals are…
And as for the games list…please, that argument is too old now…Yes, i will admit the PS3 had shit for games in its first year…but so did the 360 in it’s first year….aside from Arcade titles, both systems offer or will offer the same exact multi-platform releases save for the 1-3 few titles ( Final Fantasy VS <—if that even stays exclusive)
I’m sorry but Sony called it right this gen when they said exclusive days are over…That is why they have been focusing on their own development studios while MS closes theirs….Ensemble was a great company, why MS let them close was beyond me….
The above point is reason enough for me to believe Sony has its plans going right for them…1st Party games. Check. Multiplatform games. Check. Free Online.Check.
The ONLY real factor, the ONLY real thing keeping the PS3 from flying off the shelves is price, and Sony’s reluctance to drop the price.
Again, LIVE Gold can be had for $38…that is $38 more than free, again i don’t care if publishers have to foot the bill, especially since it’s MS and they have ‘all the moneys’. Its a principality thing for me. PC games are free to play online (minus MMORPGS of which there are only TWO worth playing/paying: WOW/WAR) and they have been for, well since the dawn of PC gaming….MS is and has just fooled you into thinking you are paying for a better ‘service’, and you know what? The more anyone defends that, the more and more i believe you are just brainwashed by MS, it really is that simple…
I just can’t understand how you go from PC gaming gems that you can play online for free (Doom/Half Life/Counterstrike/Command and Conquer/Starcraft/Warcraft/Age of Empires/Total War/Battlefield/Warhammer 40k/Company of Heroes/etc..) which have little lag, to “paying for a better service” that has worse or equal lag than the competition….
The above games would NOT have been genre defining games if people not only had to pay for their ISP service but then had to PAY JUST to play online….MS really has tricked you Gold subscribers..
And again, i don’t care if publishers have to foot the bill, obviously it has worked in the past ( Starcraft is STILL going on, it was a 97-98 release title) and it seems to be working for the PS3…
Now, please don’t get into the “well you technically paid for it with the PS3 price” because then you are adding features to the PS3 price….lets see how much the 360 comes out to adding a standard MS brand new from the Gamestop store: Hard Drive/Wireless Adapter/LIVE subscription…it becomes pretty even, in fact i believe feature for feature the PS3 comes out $1-$3 cheaper when all is said and done, and thats including a BT headset and HDMI cable. If you want i can do an honest to goodness, MSRP price comparison for you…just let me know, ill do it, i did it before when IGN fucked up their price list comparison…
Anywhoo, again, too much thinking for us and not enough playing….must get my games in for KZ2 and get B Rank finally on SF4
May 7th, 2009
I’m not going to get into the whole fee thing. I choose to pay and I don’t mind. There is a lot of quality and standards that going Live that justify the payment that 17 Million People enjoy and that PS3 people don’t get. But that’s OK. Besides with the new game shows I think that the price is even more justified now.
May 7th, 2009
Oh I also see your doing the List thing too. Really there is much more then Gears and Halo. Just open your eye. I’m not going to play who’s Dick is Bigger because in the end My Dick is Bigger. LOL
May 7th, 2009
Barnabe Jones:
“Exclusive DLC and timed exclusives will be the death of the 360.”
Barnabe do you just make this stuff up in your own head or what?
It’s even been a news topic here.
XBL along with the downloadable content is making Microsoft $ multi-millions.
Wake up.
CAD:
“Happy, Kev, Harry, Carl B
By the way are you going to do 1 vs 100 this Friday.”
Tell me more, I’ve missed this so far.
(mega week for footy, Man Utd through to Euro Cup final and to meet Barcalona in the final after they put Chelsea out last night…..tricky one for me, Man Utd should have beeen able to beat Chelsea but Barcalona ought to be the much better final & game of footy. Roll on the 27th!)
May 7th, 2009
@CAD
Well you kinda brought it up when you were saying PS3 has no games to offer or is just barely having games when in fact it has had quite a list of quality titles, dare i say moreso in the exclusive list of high quality titles than the 360, yes, i know there is more than those two games, i forgot to mention Fable, but aside from those 3 franchises, Microsoft FIRST party studio game FRANCHISES or original IPs are pretty lacking….
In the end, both have systems have games for everyone…
In terms of paying for LIVE, thats fine you don’t mind paying it, i just don’t see you benefitting from paying $50 dollars, i don’t see better servers, which is where it really counts, server quality, that is why people usually charge $$ for, for servers ( aka MMORPGs) and LIVE’s server are no better than the PSN’s servers and both are worse than PC servers….<—That is where i am getting at..
But, since you like wasting money thats fine with me, i just don’t get the reason or justification for paying for LIVE gets you other than making MS wallet fatter..but hey, you don’t mind right?
Also, off topic, has anyone played the latest FIFA game? or Konami’s soccer game, can’t remember the name PES? Which of those is 1) Better looking and 2) Better playing?? 3) In other words which one is better?
May 7th, 2009
Also the same can be said about all 20+ million people on PSN..that justifies the price of playing for free….
May 7th, 2009
Personally the lag issue only exsist for those who have a bad internet connection and yes I know about your free service. But that’s why I pay because your free service is good enough but content is king and overall Live has standards in place and content that PS3 lacks let alone the voice communication is better and the offerings just get better. Like I siad 1 vs 100 makes it even more justifiable. To be able to win real good prizes is just amazing.
May 7th, 2009
1vs100 is a very good idea…
As for standards…
I don’t see a better more mature community…
I don’t see better servers…<—at least if they offered better servers than the competition, this alone would make it worth it to me…but sadly that is not the case…no its not limited to those with bad connections because quite frankly, one person’s slow connection messes it up for everyone, and for $50 bucks this should not be the case…
I don’t see discounted games for free…
Remember you guys brought up that LIVE is paid for by the consumers, but then, why do you have to pay for games and DLC??? See Gold members are playing TWICE….once to play online and then for the price of DLC in the game you want to play…so where are the standards….why must MS make you guys pay?
Again, this goes to why i prefer the bill be billed by the publishers….PSN members need only to pay for the actual DLC….
PS3 has quite a bit of content, LIVE just has more of it…although i do like the demo before you buy on Arcade titles, i don’t like it enough to pay $50 for it though, and many PSN titles are starting to do the same…
Voice Communication is about the same; LIVE is no more clearer than a Bluetooth headset; the ONLY thing it has going for it is cross game chat, which in itself is neat, but again, i don’t even cross game chat in Ventrillo/but then again, thats just me.
To me cross-game chat is NOT worth $50…especially when i can chat at least in the same game on PSN….
Again, i’m not seeing the justification in price…of 28.93 million( i think that was the figure) Xbox 360s out there, only 17+ million are on Gold…and who knows how many of those are repeated accounts/how long they are active ( same can be said for the PS3 17million out of what, 21.3 million)
May 7th, 2009
“but then, why do you have to pay for games and DLC???”
You don’t, it’s called a Silver Membership, and it has the same free games and DLC that is on Gold, with few exceptions.
May 7th, 2009
The fee on Live is only for online play (Gold Membership). Everything else is included wihtout a fee like Carl B said (Silver Membership). That’s why content is King on Live because Publishers don’t have to pay a fee and they basically can put whatever on LIVE and get a percantage of the sales. When publisher have to pay it makes them second guess wether they will make back the money and is it worth it. There is no fear with LIVE.
May 7th, 2009
Just caught up with the 1 v 100 stuff.
Very cool, I’ll be there.
XBL is fantastic.
I’m loving Outrun appearing on it. Happy days.
May 7th, 2009
hey retard CAD… publishers arent paying for fees for the demo… YOU are… with your yearly subscription… yeah to you $50 may not sound much… and I would be happy to pay for a better online service from PSN… but till you actually buy and use the PSN… dont fucking talk to me about how the two services are so inferior/superior…
what you idiots forget… is that Live is a premium service… it is a privilege not a right… PSN is free… when you compare the two… you are actually insulting LIve… OFCOURSE it has better service… YOURE PAYING FOR IT RETARD!
Now whether you want the consumers or the publisher to directly or indirectly pay for demos is your opinion… I know that prolly wont mean shit to anyone… so dont fucking talk to me about online gaming… as long as youre happy with your service… you shouldnt need to care about the competing services…
May 7th, 2009
Quiet CAD, you know i’ve got the bigger dick.
dwh, that post was a whole lot of nothing.
May 7th, 2009
jojo29:
“one person’s slow connection messes it up for everyone, and for $50 bucks this should not be the case…”
That’s the nature of networking with current internet infrastructure.
How could XBL (or anyone else for that matter) alter that for a mere $50 p. a.?
XBL has quality content.
I know some people want to make a mountain out of a $1 a week molehill but there you go, some people will clutch at any old straw.
If $1 a day really is too much for you then maybe gaming isn’t your thing what with the price of games, consoles and all?
I just got Space Invaders, many happy memories.
May 8th, 2009
dwh,
“publishers arent paying for fees for the demo… YOU are… with your yearly subscription”…
… unless of course you happen to like the single player experience more with games and DLC for months on end in Fallout 3, Fable 2, GTAIV, etc. Then you pay nothing and enjoy Live and all it’s benefits except multiplayer and Netflix for free.
The Gold subscription winds up being less than I was paying for an extra dvd a month through netflix. It is also less than a WOW subscription, or an extra game a month through GameFly, and Microsoft just keeps on adding more value to it as time goes by.
I still strongly believe the only reasons PSN multiplayer is free is because they came out a year after 360 and needed something to differentiate their junior network, which was largely unfinished and attract users over the 360. As they build upon it they are figuring out ways to make money off of it through other means than multiplayer/Netflix customer subscription. One of these is having part of the costs still in the extra $150-$200 you pay for the PS3 itself. Another way is passing on charges for free demo downloads to publishers (discouraging some in the process). This is their model and they will continue to build on it by finding other things which can rake in revenue, like Free Realms.
Each one is good in its own right, and more than enough to sustain a sizable user base for the rest of the gen.
jojo29:
“one person’s slow connection messes it up for everyone,”
actually this is not the case, as they’re just usually the one’s to die first, unless they happen to be on your team, in which case you can avoid that player in the future by tagging them on Live.
HappyHockum,
I just played that demo, and it was awesome! This was one of my favorite games when the 2600 came out, and they have really done a great job of modernizing and adding a ton of content gems to it.
I would buy it, but I just bought Blue Dragon from New Egg for $9, and am still working on the Broken Steel DLC (which is totally worth the money you pay if you like Fallout 3).
May 8th, 2009
Happy, do you read what i post?
“If $1 a day really is too much for you then maybe gaming isn’t your thing what with the price of games, consoles and all? ”
FInd me a system that is capable of running Crysis on all highest settings at 60fps “cheap”.
Sorry but no sir, i am not cheap i own a killer pc rig/PS3/Wii
I said before the whole pay to play thing for LIVE is mere principality, i don’t get the point of paying $50 dollar nor do i see any value to it AT ALL…to me its a rip off…
CarlB,
Content…PSN has a lot of content, granted not nearly as much as LIVE but then again, LIVE has been out since Xbox 1….
As far as PSN being free…no matter the reason, its still free and it fits the principality of online gaming just fine
PC online gaming is free so should consoles online gaming…sorry but i guess i just don’t like getting ripped off, no matter how “small $1 a week” maybe to you all…to bad you can’t pay it like that…
And sorry, you don’t pay for PSN because of the PS3 price tag…that is just grasping there, we all know why we were fronted that bill: BluRay and Cell……to say PSN was part of that is just kinda…grasping…how can you argue with something that is free and offers just as good an experience as LIVE minus ONE THING: cross-game voice chat…Content is subjective….Netflix is nice but PSN has a nice structure as well, in fact i own 3 series through PSN…and i didn’t need to subscribe to Netflix ( i have a Netflix account though) and i didn’t have to subscriber to LIVE in order to DL those shows…in HD i might add
May 8th, 2009
@ Carl $9?!!? Damn!
I picked up The Last Remnant for $50 brand new today on Ebay, I didn’t want to wait 2 months for Star Ocean to get my Japanese made RPG fix.
May 8th, 2009
jesus christ carl… again with the comparing… what did I just say?
yeah over time you get more value out of LIVE… that is left up to you… how much you use LIVE is purely up to you…
but when you compare two services… one being premium… the other being free… you are insulting LIVE… ofcourse it has better services…
also… the extra $150-200 has more to do with the cost of the PS3 hardware… the cost of blu ray and things… you dont buy a console JUST for one feature… you wouldnt buy a PS3 JUST for the free PSN… thats just stupid…
so stop comparing the two… a coupla months ago… I was trying to play SSF2HD remix with a friend who live in the same time zone… IN USA! he had fios… I had… erm… so anyways… we get into the lobby… it kicks us out… we try to get in… I GET SIGNED OUT FROM PSN! I tried 10 times… I wouldve gladly paid money for better service… but it is a free service… you cant expect much more than that…
its like comparing the soup kitchen to a 5 star restaurant… ITS CRAZY!
and publishers need to shut up about paying for demos in PSN… its 16 cents to the gigabyte… if you cant pay for that… you are welcome to put it up on LIVE and not care about the PS3 users… its not like we are desperate for your game…
May 8th, 2009
@darkwhitehair
“t kicks us out… we try to get in… I GET SIGNED OUT FROM PSN!”
On LIVE SSFHD has as many kicks as PSN, BUT i do agree with your all caps point…getting signed out does suck, but i think that is more of a OS thing than a PSN thing? Not sure, it does suck though…still, i can live with it as it takes 1-2 secs to reconnect anyways
In other, off-topic news, i think it was Happy or whoever else thinks Bluray was not selling?
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15077
May 8th, 2009
Darkwhitehair
“but when you compare two services… one being premium… the other being free… you are insulting LIVE… ofcourse it has better services…”
What makes it a premium service? That in order to play online you have to pay $50 bucks? Other than cross-game chat, there is nothing LIVE offers me that is worth $50 dollars. PSN you can DL shows/movies as well as demos/games? LIVE does have more content, but that mainly is because LIVE has been out much much longer than PSN…
Its funny you try to talk up LIVE as being some “premium” service, only because you pay to be able to have the “priviledge” to play online….
To me “premium” service implies that the purpose of paying for premium services is because it is better than other regular services, in this case playing online.
In this regards, LIVE offers NO BETTER servers/server quality than PSN<—this is my point. LIVE overall might be more mature and offer more content, but that comes with the Silver Membership and i have no qualms about that..my qualms come with the Gold Membership, in that you are paying SIMPLY to be able to play online…. PSN
LIVE Silver offers EVERYTHING EXCEPT the ability to play online….THIS is where my problem stems from….Everything you guys are talking and defending about LIVE, can be had with the Silver Account…
BUT, I don’t get or understand why they charge you to play online….when the competition does it just the same or better.
Here is where i disagree and then the LIVE/PSN comparison for me goes like this:
LIVE GOLD < PSN…
Why? Because to me, THERE IS NO VALUE in paying $50 for servers that are not better or more stable than the competitions, aka, NOT Premium….
Do you guys finally understand where i am getting at? Its not LIVE as a whole i have a problem with, its with LIVE Gold….I hope this made more sense, but to round it up here is a quick sum up:
To the Xbox 360 guys: I agree with you in that LIVE as a WHOLE, generally is better than PSN in terms of more content offered/more streamlined( i dont really like the NXE or the MiiTOOs but that is subjective)/plus i like the new inverted XMB style of it
What i don’t agree on is the VALUE or “Premium-ness” or lack thereof, of LIVE Gold….
May 8th, 2009
man, however the system that reviews and does the posting for our actual posts, butchered my post, i hope it made sense all as i don’t really want to go back and redo that long ass post…please get it
May 8th, 2009
*facepalm*
jojo… youre not helping us here… seriously.. this is going insane… look we all know that PSN does not have the same quality of service as LIVE…
and LIVE is premium for exactly that reason… YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT! its like when you go to youporn… there is the free section… then there is the premium section…
you can jerk off to both… but the premium will have better quality…
seriously I thought I had explained it with my soup kitchen and restaurant analogy…
and youre not just paying for servers… you are paying for the services… like the customer service department that tracks all your complaints… like the exclusive DLC that they can pay for…
you cant judge PSN and LIVE in terms of content… like downloadable games… more doesnt mean better… theres tons of games on the PSN store in Japan… that the US does not have… similarly… theres a lot of crap in there too…
just stop it… stop comparing the too… as long as I can buy a game and play it online on my PS3… Im happy… and Im willing to look away at the shitty server connection problems that I face… but when I get LIVE… I will not tolerate it…
May 8th, 2009
“and youre not just paying for servers… you are paying for the services… like the customer service department that tracks all your complaints… like the exclusive DLC that they can pay for…”
But here is the thing: Customer service is available to Silver members as well, and heck if it’s not, that is kinda dumb to pay for Customer Service, that should be a “given” and it is at most stores/for products….
The exclusive DLC, from what i understand is what, 1 week ahead of Silver Members??? $50 for that week?
By the way, PSN also has Customer Service…My bro recently had a problem with his credit card, guess who he called? Thats right, Customer Service, and they fixed it….for free, without having pay $50 for that service…
I agree with the content, both services have crap and quality titles…
Server Connection problems are just as abundant on Live as well as PSN, only PSN is a tad worse in that you get ‘booted’ and you have sign back in….whooppdeedooo
So you see, where is the difference? I honestly do not see the difference for paying to play online at all…
Like i said: LIVE Silver > PSN
Live Gold < PSN <—- i do not see the justification for the price…
May 8th, 2009
DWH
I love the analogy.
May 8th, 2009
dwh,
You are preaching to the choir bub.
They are two different models for online service on two different consoles, and while I was saying one has this and one has the other, I was not “comparing” them in the light of one is better than the other, but rather to put what each has out there and why, then following up by saying “Each one is good in its own right, and more than enough to sustain a sizable user base for the rest of the gen”.
This is the first generation where major online services have been used across all three consoles, so each is finding it’s own path, and each is right in it’s own way and still evolving.
And I said only “part” of the $150-$200 extra you pay for PS3 is to offset PSN, not all of it. It is well know that this is part of PS3′s value option.
jojo29,
Gold Live is considered “premium” over the “basic” free Silver Live. As such, a few pay for the many who enjoy Silver as well as their own broadband hungry uses such as multiplayer and now Netflix HD streaming capabilities.
PSN is free largely because they are reactive and incorporating things from XBL and experimenting with things of their own, like Home and Free Realms. During this interim “learning period” for Sony, you get to enjoy many (but not all, rightfully so), of the benefits XBL Gold members receive.
There will always be those who only see one thing, such as multiplayer, while others are perfectly happy as gamers without it. If they ever miss it, they can pay as little as a $1 a week if they so desire.
One is not necessarily “better” than the other, just as one console is necessarily “better” than the other. Each one has it’s own strengths and weaknesses.
“Live Gold < PSN <—- i do not see the justification for the price…”
I guess this is because multiplayer is very important to you, you do not expect standardized servers, you do not wish to pay a dollar a week for it (or cannot afford it), and you do not have a Netflix membership.
I do personally do not care for multiplayer but am actually saving money with Netflix streaming over what I was paying before.
Is the download and game/firmware update speed as good on PSN as it is on Live? I don’t know for sure, but IGN didn’t seem to think so when they did a comprehensive report earlier this year:
ps3.ign.com/articles/947/947897p1.html
Realize also that much of what PSN has now it only received just recently, after much customer moaning and groaning for years:
(IGN PLaystation Team PSN Report Card) “Upscaling of games and movies? Added after some moaning. Custom themes and wallpapers? Custom soundtracks? Yep, added. And who could possibly forget the two biggest improvements to the system: Trophies and in-game XMB, both of which were openly begged for pretty much since launch.”
Most of these aspects XBox Live had well before PSN, so Sony followed their lead.
“That said, the PS3 is still a long way from being the online equal of the Xbox 360, and much of that comes down to Microsoft simply having a better way of conceiving and implementing its ideas — to say nothing of the fact that it had years to perfect the Live service with the original Xbox. On the 360, updates are insanely quick to download and install, thanks to the fact that the system can do both simultaneously. On the PS3, if you download something in the background from the Store, you still have to manually install it in most cases.”
“Until every feature is supported in every game and every mode (that includes stuff like being able to pull up in-game XMB while watching DVDs/Blu-rays or playing PS one/PS2 games, whole sections of the PS3 experience feel like they’re lagging behind the other parts.”
“one very glaring issue with the PSN in general: it’s slow as hell… a seemingly random crapshoot as to which server you’re going to get… inconsistent download speeds (and don’t even get us started on the speeds of some in-game content in titles like GT5 Prologue or SingStar) ”
“GT5P took over an hour to finally grab the files, but Hot Shots? We started grabbing the online update more than an hour ago and it’s not even to 50% yet. In fact, it was barely to 40%.”
“The network speeds — even for us on a ridiculously fast connection — are far too slow for the amount of content up on the store and in games. The patching process can be monumentally bone-headed at times (Hours of updates just to get online? Seriously, Sony?), and the scattershot nature of things like custom soundtracks and, at least for now, Trophies leaves more than a little room for improvement. If we’re still complaining about the lack of universal backwards compatibility in a year, expect to see some heavy-handed grading.”
ps3.ign.com/articles/947/947897p1.html
The bottom line is they are both great services, and each one is continuing to add what it can to improve the experience. Multiplayers and or Netflix subscribers pay a $1 a week on XBL for what they want, PSN users pay nothing and may get the same aspects that come out on XBL a couple of years later.
May 8th, 2009
Carl,
If there was ever proof of the adage “Competition is good for the consumer” your post is it…
-Arvis
May 8th, 2009
“I guess this is because multiplayer is very important to you, you do not expect standardized servers, you do not wish to pay a dollar a week for it (or cannot afford it), and you do not have a Netflix membership. ”
I do have Netflix Membership, but you would still need a Gold Membership to use Netflix….
Standardized servers PSN….again i have not stated that LIVE overall is still better than PSN overall, i just reject the Gold version as it only offers online gaming over Silver….which again, i don’t see the value/reason to pay $50 to do that when 3 other consoles (Wii/PS3/PC) do it for free and just as good or better than…
May 8th, 2009
again, why are my replys coming out with half of what i typed??
May 8th, 2009
Correction to one of my statements:”again i have not stated that LIVE overall is still better than PSN overall,”
It should read, i HAVE stated that LIVE is overall still is better than PSN
May 8th, 2009
jojo29,
“I do have Netflix Membership, but you would still need a Gold Membership to use Netflix….”
This is true, but if you had a 2 DVD at a time plan as I did, you could go back to the 1 DVD at a time plan with an XBL Gold membership (Netflix streaming) and still save $12-$24 a year.
“i just reject the Gold version as it only offers online gaming over Silver”
Gold offers the following over Silver:
1. Video chat
2. Multiplayer gaming (online leaderboards, etc. still work with Silver for single player games)
3. Parties
4. Netflix movie streaming (w/Netflix membership)
5. Timed exclusive demos
6. Extra Free Content such as music videos and tv shows that may or may not be released to Silver members
If these aspects are not worth as little as 65 cents a week ($38.99 for 12 Mo+1 Gold membership card on sale) to a 360 gamer, they can always be satisfied with the free Silver Membership. If they must have multiplayer gaming but refuse to pay extra via a subscription, they can always opt to pay an amount equivalent to 10 years worth of Gold Membership to get a PS3 to satisfy their subscription free online multiplayer gaming needs.
As a single player gamer with Netflix streaming saving me money, I am fine with the minuscule fee.
XBox Gold membership has helped to subsidize XBL as a whole over time though (including Silver memberships), many aspects of which you are just now starting to see this year on PSN, 3 years later.
May 9th, 2009
hey jojo would you do a price comparison for kicks anyways
May 9th, 2009
CarlB:
1. Video Chat. PSN has it
2. Multiplayer Gaming. PSN has it
3. Parties. Don’t understand this idea so i won’t comment other than is this worth $50?
4. Netflix. Good idea, worth $50? Depends, if you are a gamer, no<—see what i did there? Subjective if its worth it or not.
5. Timed Exclusive Demos. <—what a load of crock….exclusive Demos that show up on SIlver a week later….
6. Extra Free Content..PSN has extra free content as well…
SO really, Parties and Netflix movie streaming, and the ability to play online…is why MS is asking for $50…
Also CarlB… as for the features that are on PSN are thanks to LIVE….yes, thank you Live Silver for making PSN a great place and free
As i said, again i don’t see the justification in paying 65cents a week..again it s not a money issue moreso a principality issue for me….
May 9th, 2009
CarlB
Again as i pointed out, I, personally do not see the justification in paying for LIVE Gold, also over 60% of the Live Silver base agree with me…again if you feel it’s worth it for you, then all good, but this is why i wouldn’t want MS to lead the gaming industry, they would sneak in charges that 20+ million PS3 users, Wii users, and PC online gaming users, AND over 60% of the 360s own user base are against…
Kev, i will do a price comparison and i will try to be as fair and unbiased as possible, i will use the great “casual” store that is walmart for prices….trust me, i am not “out to get” the 360, but i don’t like it when people say the 360 is more of a value than the PS3 when in fact its not…again in terms of game quantity, i won’t argue that the 360 was the better value 1st year PS3…
May 9th, 2009
Kev, i am only going to use “base” systems and will find accessories according to what is at Walmart
The way i am putting this list together is matching feature for feature (minus the blu ray player on the 360) so as not to make this lopsided for either console…I am also adding/deleting things that come with the base system on the other system to match feature for feature ( for example some xboxs come with a headset. Ok so here we go:
(im breaking it up because the blog system seems to be butchering my posts…
May 9th, 2009
Playstation 3 List:
Playstation 3 80GB System $399.99
Nyko HDMI Cable $29.92
Sony Bluetooth Headset $48.77
Wireless-Built in
Hard Drive-Built in
Bluray Built in
Game: $59.99
Total Price: 478.08 (with Game: $538.07)
Xbox 360 List
Xbox 360 Arcade System: $199.99
NXG HDMI Cable $37.98
Microsoft Headset $17.82
Microsoft Wireless: $79.98
Hard Drive 60GB $98.76 (120GB is $149.73)
Bluray-Not included
Total Price $434.53 (120GB is $485.50)
So what we have here is a rather interesting conclusion: Feature for Feature, Bluray and extra game aside, there is a $43.55 difference in price in favor of the 360, …a far cry from the $200 price difference…..not too shabby…bear in mind i included two different prices for the different hard drives for the 360 and for that comparison i added the cost of the game for the ps3, i try to keep as fair as possible…
Now if we add in a “true” feature for feature comparison, you would have to throw in a Bluray player for the 360, which im not gonna look up prices for that, and for that comparison, you would have to throw in the price of a game for the PS3….one only has to use common sense on which console would end up “more” expensive.
May 9th, 2009
SHIT, i forgot about the price of LIVE….DAMMIT, DAMN this non editable thing…ok here go really quick:
Playstation 3 List:
Playstation 3 80GB System $399.99
Nyko HDMI Cable $29.92
Sony Bluetooth Headset $48.77
Wireless-Built in
Hard Drive-Built in
Bluray Built in
PSN Free
Game: $59.99
Total Price: 478.08 (with Game: $538.07)
Xbox 360 List
Xbox 360 Arcade System: $199.99
NXG HDMI Cable $37.98
Microsoft Headset $17.82
Microsoft Wireless: $79.98
Hard Drive 60GB $98.76 (120GB is $149.73)
Bluray-Not included
LIVE Gold $39.88
Total Price $474.41 (120GB is $525.38)
So what we have here is a rather interesting conclusion: Feature for Feature, Bluray and extra game aside, there is a $3.67 difference in price in favor of the 360, …a far cry from the $200 price difference…..not too shabby…bear in mind i included two different prices for the different hard drives for the 360 and for that comparison i added the cost of the game for the ps3, i try to keep as fair as possible…
May 9th, 2009
Man VERY sorry for the damn double post…but without the included LIVE Gold membership, the list would be incomplete, and the whole point of my post would be meaningless…
Again, even with LIVE Gold, the 360 is in fact cheaper…again, the problem with me for Live Gold has not been price but with Principality…theres prinicipalities in this smokey!!!
May 9th, 2009
We’ve been going around in circles for what seems like years over which machine is cheaper etc.
Jojo, your list is flawed. You listed the arcade model, plus a 60gb hard drive. If you listed the 60gb model, it already comes with the headset and HD cables (component cables that can output 1080p, I believe that the PS3 does not come with any AV cables), which would bring the total price down a bit, as you don’t have to add the cost of the 60gb hard drive, headset or HDMI cables. Also, not everyone needs wireless. I don’t, nor do many other people. Why should we pay for something that we don’t need? Same goes for the blu ray drive. Oh and the 60gb model is backwards compatible too, something I don’t believe the 80gb Ps3 does.
At any rate, any sort of combination of accessories can be made between units. It all comes down to one’s perception of things, which in some cases can be biased.
May 9th, 2009
On the topic of Wireless, any old wireless router will work, rather than shelling out for the official MS dongle, just in case you wanted to counter what I said earlier.
May 9th, 2009
not to mention ps3 is easier to upgrade for cheap like headsets and hard drives etc
May 9th, 2009
Shame we weren’t talking about cheap upgrades, kevo.
May 9th, 2009
“Also CarlB… as for the features that are on PSN are thanks to LIVE….yes, thank you Live Silver for making PSN a great place and free”
Thank Live in general, as it came out first and became so popular that Sony had little choice but to make PSN free and react to whatever Microsoft added (or will add in the future) while scrambling to come up with ways to earn revenue, like Home (it doesn’t seem to be working too well, so maybe Free Realms will be up to the task). Competitiveness is good, and it’s nice to see them making the effort.
“Subjective if its worth it or not.” I have already stated this many times. It is not worth it to you because you were willing to wait another year to get into present gen console gaming, then wait another year or two to enjoy almost all of the benefits of XBL, and you do not own the console you are speaking of (or you would know what “parties” are, that we have cross game video chat, and may even be able to see what IGN was talking about when quoted above). I do not own a PS3, so I am not about to say that PSN is “inferior”. It is not necessarily, but it is based on a different revenue model. Whether it works or not is yet to be seen.
Naturally you are satisfied with the console and service that is available for it, as I am with mine. Each stands on its own for several reasons, many are the same, some are different, but both are fine for gaming in general. As I said before, free PSN and online multiplayer gaming is an added (and differentiating) value to the more expensive price of the PS3 for the consumer. Whether they care about paying 65 cents a week for online multiplayer gaming is up to them, but I really do not.
“I, personally do not see the justification in paying for LIVE Gold, also over 60% of the Live Silver base agree with me”
Not sure where you got 60% from, but I will assume it’s right for now, so, let’s restate: That same Silver base is enjoying a lot of benefits of Live for free because Gold memberships help to subsidize it, whether they see it or not.
Maybe you haven’t noticed, but the console services are not static, and when one has something the other doesn’t it may try to add them, as is the case with PSN. This will probably not stop, as services will continuously be added.
65 cents a week per gold member subsidizes maybe 30% percent more free game demos (standard with every Arcade title and almost all major present gen games, it may not seem like much, but there are actually quite a few quality demos that are very fun to play) and content in general right now than you have with PSN (we did a count a few weeks ago, but Sony may have added since then), including achievements standard on all full present gen games and XBLA titles. So enjoy what you have, and let others do the same.
“this is why i wouldn’t want MS to lead the gaming industry, they would sneak in charges that 20+ million PS3 users, Wii users, and PC online gaming users, AND over 60% of the 360s own user base are against… ”
PS3 and Wii users came a year late to the game and couldn’t afford to charge customers for their online multiplayer play, as they would attract far less to their console. I was a silver member for a long time, but I wasn’t against gold membership… I wonder how many others are in the same boat. Just because a person does not have a gold membership does not mean they are against it. Maybe they just don’t like or care that much for multiplayer online, like me (I would be willing to bet that this takes up a vast majority of that 60%, if it is “60%”). Charges do not get “snuck” in, unless you really just spend money indiscriminately or are just ignorant of what you are purchasing.
Jojo, we’ve been through this before, but what the hell.
I don’t use or need headsets or wireless. Many (if not most) gamers are in the same boat. Subtract $100.
How many new (or even old) gamers are enjoying just the arcade version with the memory card? I don’t know, but I would imagine quite a few, and on the cheap. They can still play full present gen games and have game saves. Subtract another $100 for them.
How many do not want or need a Gold membership? Probably quite a few. Subtract another $40 for them.
So what we have here is where the $150-$200 price difference comes in. For the base customer who wants the “core” system, just wants to play games, and doesn’t need or desire all the “extra,” “nice-to-have” features.
Again, both consoles have their own strengths and justify their price in different ways. One pricing model is centered on giving the customer as much flexibility as possible in exactly what they want in their system from the start. The new user or user who doesn’t need or desire a lot of features right away and all they really want to do is play games on a game console, up to the pro who wants as much as possible (360). The other is centered on the one who may desire a console with all those added features built in (PS3) which may not necessarily be key to gaming in general (wireless, blu-ray, etc.).
Again, the principle of Gold is that it subsidizes what silver members and 360 owners in general enjoy because online multiplayers and Netflix HD/SD streaming uses most of the bandwidth of the network. That PSN has managed to incorporate some of the aspects of XBL years later and still remain free to the customer is to be commended.
May 9th, 2009
Harry
I dont care if you need wireless or not, i matched both systems feature for feature, that is all..
I started on the Arcade Unit because it is the cheapest one…
I even listed the cheapest cables for both consoles…
If you want to bend stuff around, i can easily take out the extremely overpriced Sony headset entirely, or include the Jabra HS which was 19.99, which would even the odds..i
I even listed the cheapest MS Headset in there…
Also the Arcade with the hard drive and headset is not $199, the price would go up…
I just looked at the base, cheapo, “bare bones” models on both systems…
I was comparing feature for feature…i even listed why i did….if you want to nitpick and be like “oh i don’t need wireless”, then this debate is pointless….Remember i tried to match it up feature for feature…and it the 360 came out $3+ change cheaper…
May 9th, 2009
“the base, cheapo, “bare bones†models on both systems…” to play games with:
360 Arcade: $200
PS3: $400
May 9th, 2009
“PS3 and Wii users came a year late to the game and couldn’t afford to charge customers for their online multiplayer play, as they would attract far less to their console. I was a silver member for a long time, but I wasn’t against gold membership… I wonder how many others are in the same boat. Just because a person does not have a gold membership does not mean they are against it. Maybe they just don’t like or care that much for multiplayer online, like me (I would be willing to bet that this takes up a vast majority of that 60%, if it is “60%â€). Charges do not get “snuck†in, unless you really just spend money indiscriminately or are just ignorant of what you are purchasing. ”
CarlB, Sony and Nintendo are doing it the “right” way…just like the PC Online has been doing it for years….Heres the thing, if LIVE online was free, whether people cared for multiplayer or not, they would at least try it…not so with its current Gold model…they have to pay for it…again, i don’t like getting charged for something that has been done better and free on other platforms..mainly on PC….Microsoft has released games before on PC where you can play online for free…Ensemble was responsible for the Age of Empire series….you could play those games online for free…why the sudden change? Microsoft saw a way to charge for it, they did it, and now over 40% of the LIVE userbase is fooled into thinking they are getting a premium service…that is my point…It does not offer anything better aside from in game cross chat…again, i don’t care if Gold subscribers “foot” the bill for Silver members for “free demos…Im trying to say LIVE users in general shouldn’t have to foot anything….Thats up to MS to find a way…and they did…they charge you guys, and yet you still have to play for the DLC or the “priviledge” of getting a demo on the market…see, it shouldn’t be a priviledge for us, its a priviledge for developers to get us to play and buy their games…in this case they get their cake and eat it too, you are paying to promote for them….and you get what, a free demo…1 week early..then you have to buy the game….buy the DLC..
Again, im pro-consumer, they have to earn my dollars…
Also as for this:
“I don’t use or need headsets or wireless. Many (if not most) gamers are in the same boat. Subtract $100.
How many new (or even old) gamers are enjoying just the arcade version with the memory card? I don’t know, but I would imagine quite a few, and on the cheap. They can still play full present gen games and have game saves. Subtract another $100 for them.
How many do not want or need a Gold membership? Probably quite a few. Subtract another $40 for them.
So what we have here is where the $150-$200 price difference comes in. For the base customer who wants the “core†system, just wants to play games, and doesn’t need or desire all the “extra,†“nice-to-have†features. ”
I agree to some extent…Headsets..meh, i only added the headset costs because usually some 360 SKUs come with one…so in my comparison it is only fair to add that cost to the ps3, which in turn, ps3 offers wireless, so to be fair i added wireless to the 360…I dont really care which is cheaper, i got my PS3 for free, i was just trying to do an honest to goodness price by feature comparison…in which the 360 is only $3+change cheaper….that is all, a feature by feature comparison…if you want minus that $50 headest and then the PS3 is even cheaper….
As for the IGN article, i already stated IGNs word to me, Pro-Sony or not, doesn’t mean jackshit…they sold out to the highest bidder/highest hyped game/company a LONG time ago…
Also, if you look at their 360/PS3 price list, it is heavily skewed, as they pick up value items for the 360, and pick official name brand items for the ps3…at least in my comparison i found the cheapest parts for BOTH systems…
May 9th, 2009
““the base, cheapo, “bare bones†models on both systems…†to play games with:
360 Arcade: $200
PS3: $400
Okay, so we are going to play it like that? F E A T U R E S was what was asked of me, and thats what i listed…
Also, good luck saving one Netflix movie on that 256MB card…good luck using your HD to save the game on…
May 9th, 2009
Jojo,
And that is where your little formula is flawed. Seriously, what type of idiot is going to buy an arcade model and then buy the hard drive, cables and headset when it is all included in the 60gb model for just $100 extra?
This debate is pointless because your logic is pointless.
May 9th, 2009
No matter which way you like to spin it, 360 gives you more bang for your buck.
May 9th, 2009
harry… the “bang” for your buck is purely subjective… I know after playing MGS 4 I felt that my PS3 was complete… its up to you how you use your console… look at Carl… he uses LIVE for Netflix and hardly plays COD or Halo or Gears online…
does that mean he didnt get a lot of bang for his buck? no… its cus he is a little sissy who like sissy JRPG games… BE A MAN! PLAY UFC 2009!
May 9th, 2009
lol @ dwh.
May 9th, 2009
Jojo,
“they sold out to the highest bidder/highest hyped game/company a LONG time ago…”
Right, just like with Barnabe and CNET… if any site has any valid negative points in addition to positive reviews it has automatically “sold out”. Even you admit that Live as a whole is better than PSN, and you do not even have Live to compare it with. Please.
At least I would be open to the possibility if the tables were turned, without labeling sites as “sold out” that have valid detailed reviews with some negative points on the console’s online service (it scored a B overall, which means it isn’t perfect and could use some work).
“Microsoft saw a way to charge for it, they did it…”
Yes, Sony or Nintendo would NEVER do this, lol.
“why the sudden change?”
Because instead of going with piecemeal servers they decided to standardize them and run them themselves. If it doesn’t work then they will change and try something new. Right now it is working, and at a nominal cost. Should it be free? I don’t know. How much work goes behind the scenes, what is planned for the future, and where does the money go? I don’t know. Could it be that Microsoft is simply laughing there way to the bank and not spending a dime on XBox live? I doubt it.
As much as people love to deny it, this is a profit war, not a happy happy joy joy lets make everybody feel good for free out of the goodness of our hearts one.
Microsoft has the least expensive console to get started in gaming and has gold memberships, which the majority do not need or desire, so they do not pay for them.
Sony has the most expensive console (the “future-proof” entertainment hub, so to speak) to get started in gaming on the block with many non-gaming essential features, but also free online multiplayer.
Nintendo did have the least expensive console to get started in gaming (to great success with effective marketing), but has lost that spot now that it really doesn’t matter due to their momentum. They have free online multiplayer, but those NES flash games may not take up too much bandwidth, and they can certainly afford to give it away considering the profit margin on a Wii and it’s games.
Each console and company has it’s own specifics, and again, there has been no precedent in home gaming console history across all three consoles. You loathe the “principle” of the matter and do not have the service, while I enjoy it.
Personally I understand your point of view, as I like to save money and couldn’t see the sense in buying a $400 console for a few more exclusive titles and blu-ray (the two differentiating features I would use). I also don’t buy DVD’s, Blu-Rays, or $60 games (okay, Fallout 3 and Sonic’s Ultimate Genesis Collection are it for this year and were an exception because I just came back from Iraq and didn’t have GameFly back in place), let alone even more money for collector’s editions.
I will spend $9 on a game though, if it got generally favorable reviews and I am interested in it. But I can also see why those people spend the money they do, and am actually grateful for it, to a degree, because I enjoy the fringe benefits of their practices. I see a lot of these benefits from the competition between live and PSN, and also enjoy them on a regular basis.
I think broadband wi-fi should be free, or at least exponentially cheaper than it is now, but I realize this will take some time. Both PSN and XBL or nowhere near finished products, and probably never will be.
dwh, I realize you like playing with your snake, but did you just say be a man and play a videogame? Join the Marines sissy.
May 9th, 2009
I CANT THEY WONT LET ME!! stupid Megan’s law… dont turn this back on me… Im not the one playing JRPGs… JRPGs IS FOR SISSIES! BOOOOOOOOO
May 9th, 2009
Wow, people will come up with any excuse these days, you’re like a modern day Klinger.
I’m playing Resident Evil 5 right now, and you?
May 10th, 2009
CarlB
On the IGN things…Its not that specific article that has got me labeling IGN as sold out…it precedes even the 360/PS3 that IGN has sold out….hence i said they sold out LONG LONG ago…i only visit the site for trailers that GT doesn’t have and screenshots…thats about it….Like i said, I agree that LIVE as a whole is better than PSN, just not LIVE Gold portion of it…to me its ripoff, as on PC you
“Because instead of going with piecemeal servers they decided to standardize them and run them themselves.”
Here is my qualm…these special “premium” standardized servers, are no more better than the “piecemeal” servers you so hate….PC servers, not only are free to play, are leagues above LIVE Gold/PSN servers…
Thats where i don’t see the point..the servers are no more stable, than PSNs…they are the exact same servers quality wise…hence i don’t see the difference…agian this is from experience from my Bro’s 360 when he had the free Gold Membership for what is it 30days?…. He had just as many dropped/DC games in SF4/BF:BC/CoD4 as i would normally have on PSN…the only difference is one extra step on PSN…signing back in…again whooppdeedooo and not worth $50
As for you other points, i truly understand where you are coming from…i do not think Sony “cares” about me, and MS doesn’t…i know they are corporations and they are out to make money..
May 10th, 2009
Jojo,
I don’t know why you insist on saying I hate things or think that they are a ripoff when I truly do not, but maybe you are just misunderstanding me when I say all models that exist now are fine for their regular users and I am perfectly satisfied with what I have and pay for now.
How do you know the servers are no more stable? I for one haven’t done a comparison, I have only been going off of what I read, which may admittedly be untrue or come from a site that has “sold out” (incidentally, exactly when did they sell out and who to?). Maybe PSN has been as fast and feature laden as Live from day one, I really do not know.
I do know that I have achievements and gamerscore across all my games, my downloads are quick, including updates, demos for almost every game, some free games, some free music videos, some free movies, some free tv shows, exclusive DLC, some early demos, etc., and I am perfectly satisfied with Gold’s extra content for the 65 cents a week I pay. Also, why do you keep on saying $50 when you just quoted $39.88 above?
Every 360 comes with a trial up front for a reason (i.e. no “sneaking” charges), to see whether it is worth it to the customer, and if it isn’t and they prefer free multiplayer so much, they can always return their product and get a PS3 or PC instead. Those who choose to pay for Gold see some value in it and use it. Those who do not stick with silver and get 65 cents a week less benefits.
I get that you “don’t see the point,” just quit trying to make Microsoft out to be some nefarious evil villain just because of Gold. They do provide a service, it costs them money to run, they are adding services to it over time, and there are some returns for the money you spend. If you don’t like it, you choose something else, as you already have.
Quit trying to preach to people who have already been in pc gaming with online multiplayer free for over a decade and in gaming for over three like they do not know what they are paying for, like they do not realize multiplayer has been and is free on other platforms; or like some corporation is “sneaking” charges in on them which they are unaware of, because it is simply not true.
I have tried explaining how gold memberships subsidize all Live aspects, how they are the heaviest bandwidth users on Live, that there is 65 cents worth of extra content a week on average, especially if you already have a Netflix membership, that there are other valid revenue models, and how other consoles have slowly been modeling their online services to include many things which have been in Live for years.
I also understand you do not see any value in Gold over Silver and see how it all should be free to the customer and those charges should be passed on to publishers or elsewhere. Ultimately what it boils down to is this, I can see your perspective, understand it, and respect it, but you cannot see mine and do the same.
At this point that’s fine by me, because there is really nothing more that can be said.
May 10th, 2009
“dwh, I realize you like playing with your snake, but did you just say be a man and play a videogame? Join the Marines sissy.”
Oh jeez, lets all just whip our cocks out and he (or she
) with the longest wins.
I suppose we could have a star trek fight.
duh duh dar dar dar dar dar duh da dar dar!
May 10th, 2009
SW, it seems as though you might have some repressed fantasies with the whole “whip our cocks out” thing, so I think I’ll pass on your request.
And while we don’t have “star trek” fights in the Marines, we do have pugil stick fighting, though it doesn’t have any theme music.
Now go be a man and play a fighting video game to make dwh happy.
May 10th, 2009
100!
May 10th, 2009
You’ve never compared the size of poultry Carl?
City slickers… sheesh.
May 10th, 2009
No, that wasn’t necessary on the farm I grew up on. There was only one male chicken and the rest laid eggs. We did have fryers one season, although we didn’t compare how “long” they were, and they were hens.
May 11th, 2009
Aww c’mon now, not every post has to be some kind of rebuttle/I’m gonna prove ma’ point!
Anywhoos, ill let you get back Jojo slapdown…
May 11th, 2009
CarlB
On LIVE Silver, i totally agree with you
On LIVE Gold, we will just have to agree to disagree…Online Gaming has been free since pretty much the dawn of online gaming…i just don’t/can’t/see the justification, again i don’t care if it costs a corporation money to run it, it should be free anyways…
You see the justification of it…its all good….
As for IGN…like i’ve said, they simply have sold out LONG ago, their reviewers have many double standards..
May 11th, 2009
Sorry SW, didn’t mean to be like that… so what are you playing now?
jojo29,
If online gaming were they only thing to come with it or what it paid for, I would agree with you. Fortunately this is not the case. I suppose the closest equivalent on PSN would be a Qore subscription.
Again, who did IGN “sell out” to, when, and what is a prime example of it? I see reviewers/previewers with differing views on a lot of sites (they are human after all), and changing their views in relatively short periods of time with more playtime, knowledge, experience. This isn’t necessarily a double standard.