Playstation 3 - Xbox 360 - Nintendo Wii ^21

Last 5 posts worth mentioning:

quote ShadowGuard

and the 360 had a one year head start.

32million sales/44months = little over 700,000 per month
26million sales/32 months = little over 800,000 per month

This is if those sales are accurate, vgchartz seems to be off, but many sites say different things. I am using your numbers FB...

Those are also sales statistics you forgot to mention final blade. No here should bash the 360 because it is doing very well and now that the RROD is not AS MUCH AS a problem, with great exclusives it is a solid console.

However, both the PSX and PS2 had comparable starts to the PS3 and they both had less competition than the PS3. To also say that the PS3 will never catch the 360 is a little naive. Many experts are predicting Sony to come in second this generation. While I do not take their words as absolute truth, they know what they are talking about more than us.

The Wii is the only console I am disappointed with its lack of hardcore games...

quote Subzer0

But the Wii is not a hardcore gaming console. It's casual.

quote ShadowGuard

that is why I do not like it and the hardcore Nintendo fans are getting upset. You will not win the next generation with just parents playing Wii Fit...

quote ZL

quote ShadowGuard

that is why I do not like it and the hardcore Nintendo fans are getting upset. You will not win the next generation with just parents playing Wii Fit...

Agreed. I have a Wii and there's nothing good on it. The only time I actually had a blast with the Wii was playing Rockband and Guitar Hero, but I can get that on the 360 or the PS3 and even have a bunch of extra content if I feel like it with online. The Wii on the other hand, to have that extra content, I have to buy an SD card to hold the data and buy a Wireless Router or buy the USB Ethernet Port for it. Kinda makes it a hassle for me.

Then there's the game library that I see when I go to my local Gamestop or WalMart. Just a few games of my interest and those games are the ones that came out a LONG time ago. In fact, Twilight Princess has been a game I've been wanting to play for a long time, but after 3 years since its release it's still the same price. Why isn't Nintendo reducing the price of these games? Microsoft and Sony are doing this with things like "Greatest Hits" or "Platinum Hits" which is great for people that are looking for a good game at a good price. Seriously, Nintendo doesn't even care about its hardcore fans, they've always been more interested in sales.

quote Final Blade

quote realmofthewolf

quote Final Blade

quote Kave En

The trey (PS3) is by far the superior console. You can't argue with facts, and the facts are: The PS3's hardware is better. 8 core processors, vs. the 360's 3. Devs are just realizing the amount of potential the PS3 has. That's why games like MAG are going to rock. 256 players online in one match? Epic. EPIC.

And, Sony knows how to make a reliable console. That is very important. All the 360 fanboys try to cover. "If you can't go 2 weeks without a console your pathetic" Meanwhile when their 360 RRoD's they cry themselves to sleep. Oh, the irony. Not one 360 owner can tell me they don't get *bleep*ing pissed when their console RRoD's.

<sub>Let me tell you something, if this is your way of trying to image yourself as the old final blade, and people know what that image is, you're doing it far worse.

While the PS3 IS technically superior with a few things that 360 doesn't have, the bottom line is super console means JACK *bleep*ING SHIT. The XBOX 1 was miles ahead technological and yet it failed in 3 years and MS made another console and launched it in 05 and doing quite nicely.

You want facts? Well here's one for ya: 360 hardware sales worldwide right now most likely is 32 million where as PS3 is probably not even close hitting 26 million. AND GUESS WHAT? It's in third place trailing the 360 and the *bleep*ing Wii. Guess the PS3 isn't as dominate as people say it is.</sub>

Sales mean very little man. VERY LITTLE. Its a bad arguement and only propaganda used by game companys and fanboys. (not saying your a fanboy just that it is only propaganda).

Sales doesnt indicate how many are sitting in a closet like alot of Wiis.
Sony has always been a late starter .

In the end though both consoles are great both have there faults and strong points. PS3 better hardware so will win out on that BUT microsoft is a money company and gets alot of exclusives before ps3 and has much better online.

<sub>Actually this is half true. Console sales are irrelevant to the CONSUMERS unless you're a fanboy who throw that out trying to one up people, yet it backfires. Which Kave En did, so I equally brought up facts on estimated console sales atm for both consoles proving that hardware of the console is irrelevant as it was last generation as PS2 and Xbox 1 went at it. If console superiority in specs meant anything, than Xbox 1 would have been a hit, and PS3 right now would be dominating the charts which neither is doing at this moment. My post was a sarcastic retort as you see from the smiley. I was hardly being serious.

But, on the other side sales means alot for the companies, developers, advertisers. If you're selling alot more consoles then someone else, if your console is cheaper than another console, if your console has a much LARGER install base than another it'd usually means more business for that specific console: AKA 360. Sales are important, if it wasn't Activision Kotick wouldn't be asking Sony to lower the price of the console so it'd gain more sales.</sub>

quote Subzer0

Would you stop comparing both consoles by how much they sold? It's a weak argument.

_{Hardly weak, it's an effective counter point to Kave who's shown himself around neo and gamegrep as a fanboy. Something which cannot be dismissed. While I don't honestly care about sales or whoever is winning, I just used FACTS to counter 'his' own facts.}

quote ShadowGuard

and the 360 had a one year head start.

32million sales/44months = little over 700,000 per month
26million sales/32 months = little over 800,000 per month

This is if those sales are accurate, vgchartz seems to be off, but many sites say different things. I am using your numbers FB...

Those are also sales statistics you forgot to mention final blade. No here should bash the 360 because it is doing very well and now that the RROD is not AS MUCH AS a problem, with great exclusives it is a solid console.

However, both the PSX and PS2 had comparable starts to the PS3 and they both had less competition than the PS3. To also say that the PS3 will never catch the 360 is a little naive. Many experts are predicting Sony to come in second this generation. While I do not take their words as absolute truth, they know what they are talking about more than us.

The Wii is the only console I am disappointed with its lack of hardcore games...

<sub>Those numbers was based off a guess than anything I can linked to. I don't know what the total sales are at this current moment, I only brought it up as a counter point to Kave's ridiculous post. I didn't think people would attempt to use it against me for actually making a brilliant retort.

As for PSX and PS2 starts, yes the first year wasn't anything to write home about but the second year both the systems started to get a plethora of quality titles, unlike the PS3 which the second year while having better games wasn't anything to write home about either. The third year, this year, the PS3 has been pumping out alot of quality games. But mentioning the previous two consoles in this generation, when it's entirely different, isn't needed.

As for my statement regarding PS3 not surpassing 360, I'll still firmly believe that. Sony doesn't even need to. Wii will be the winner, 360 still has more install base, better online service(for some) and other things which in the end multiplatform titles will be bought and played on the 360.
Right now, Sony just needs to focus on bringing out quality titles and not care which place they're at. The PS3 was a building block of the future thus why it's more packed with hardware in some places compared to 360. But unless sony starts lowering the price by 100, and brings out a game to have crap ton of players congregate and buy the console consistently and not for 2 months and then stop, the PS3 will stay exactly where they are.
I don't give a crap what these 'experts' say. Cause more often then not, they're like Patcher who speaks BS most of the time and people just get tired of what they say.</sub>

Previous Thread

Ya, i agree, the PS3 still has not really lost MGS, at least according to MGS fans.

DMC is a loss, but FF is still a huge loss for Sony, but that is old news and Sony has plenty of AAA exclusives coming up...

_{Yes the one that's coming out on 360 and PC besides PS3 is Metal Gear Solid: Rising. Featuring Raiden which was similar to Substance(MGS: Rising [Xbox360, PC, PS3])
There's another MGS game coming out for PSP which is dubbed as a true sequel for MGS4 which is a big boss game which is MGS: Peace Walker [PSP].
There's some post regarding it here on the forum.}

You bring up a lot of great points, Johnny. The only problem I see with the PS3 is not with the PS3, but with the fact that developers claim that the 360 is so much easier to developer for. While the PS3 has the technical hardware superiority, I think we all saw that this was NOT enough last gen when it was the XBox with the superior hardware losing BADLY to both the PS2 and the GC.

That said, however, the PS3 has a lot of factors going for it that the XBox did not have last gen.

First, SONY is a proven console company for the last 15 years! For this reason there are a plethora of developers who intrinsically trust SONY to continue supporting the PS3 because they were SO GOOD about supporting the PS1. In fact, that (in my opinion) was SONY's biggest blunder of this generation, removing the support for the PS2 from the PS3! With no BC anymore, it flies in the face of supporting "last gen's consoles" like they did in the PS2 generation, and this is pissing off a LOT OF gamers. So this is something SONY ought to consider for the future of this gen, which I believe they already are.

Second, SONY has a bunch of developers loyal to them already, because of their name in console manufacturing. MS DID NOT have this last generation, and it was one of the reason the XBox did so poorly. Gamers spent half of last gen wondering if MS was just "dabbling" in console manufacture to simply add to their overwhelming wealth, and people just did not trust them to support it.

Third, if Developers ever really learn how to develop for the PS3, I think that it will either leave the 360 in the dust or force MS to abandon the platform and bring out the next XBox. Perhaps MS might also be forced to go back on their word and release an add-on Blu-ray player for the 360 to make it more able to keep up with at least the media storage capacity of the PS3.

You want to know what the 360 has in its favor, unfortunately for the PS3? Name recognition, or should I say "console recognition?"

Like it or not, bringing the 360 out a year early, even though it is underpowered in several ways compared to the PS3, was a BRILLIANT move on MS's part, in hindsight! Because it gave developers a FULL YEAR to learn what is reputed to be an already easy system to develop for. It gave developers a chance to put out a ton of games because it was the ONLY game in town. When I bought my launch 360, I purchased about TEN Exclusive 360 games, the VERY DAY it came out. In the coming year, I must have bought another 5 games. So before the PS3 even launched, I had 15 "next gen" games. Add to that the SERIOUS problems SONY had getting started and this gave MS over ANOTHER YEAR. Why? Because for about a year or more after the PS3 release, there were like THREE freaking exclusive games for the platform.

While SONY is definitely catching up now, and I give them a lot of credit, I believe the PS3 has a sizable mountain to climb.

A few things to consider, Gamesta:

The Wii is absolutely and positively of NO interest to me (and probably to you) but that doesn't mean it is a piece of crap. The truth is that the Wii is designed to be pure, 100% entertainment. I don't think the games are meant to frustrate the living crap out of people, and I think that anyone, and I mean anyone, can dive into the console and just have pure fun. My Dad is a grandfather, and my nieces and nephews have a Wii. He and I drove out to my sisters and, while I found the Wii to be boring and could not get into a single thing about it, he LOVED it. Now he owns a PS3, XBox, and a 360, and his biggest complaint about MOST GAMES on those consoles that are of any interest to him is that they are just too damned difficult to really get into. You and I take it for granted that most games come pretty easy since we have a lot of experience with the games of the last couple of generations. I bought my Dad a PS2 for Christmas about 7-8 years ago and got him into GTA III. To this day, that is the only GTA game he likes or can play. The rest are just too "difficult" for him and he doesn't have the time to dive in deep enough. Halo I, II, and III he plays a lot, but guess what? He either sets the game on EASY when he plays himself or he sets it on whatever I want if we are playing Co Op. The point is that along comes the Wii that asks you to press a few buttons and swing your arms around, and guess what? The games are accessible to anyone, not just more old-school gamers like those of us lurking these forums.

I am playing Spidey 3 on the PS3 right now again, and I am struck by how absurdly difficult the game is in many places. I cannot even begin to imagine a little kid picking up this game and getting anywhere in it. I don't think most adults will ever be able to do the hard races or bomb tours in it. Now again look at the Wii. Most of the games seem to lend themselves to a low enough learning curve and a level of difficulty that will challenge people not hardcore into gaming a lot, and maybe be fun for most other gamers, more "relaxing" than insanely hard.

Now guess which category the vast majority of gamers fall into? That's one of the reasons the Wii is doing so well.

quote ChiroVette

developers claim that the 360 is so much easier to developer for.

I gather that problems arise not necessarily just from the PS3 being a difficult platorm to develop for, but rather that there are simply fewer people out there who can work with it. A director of a UK-based developer recently told me that PS3 programmers/coders are 'like gold dust'.

This of course may be because it is difficult to work for, but it might also be because fewer people are interested in working with the PS3 - less lucrative, perhaps? I'm not saying that is the case, but it's possible.

quote ChiroVette

SONY is a proven console company for the last 15 years! For this reason there are a plethora of developers who intrinsically trust SONY to continue supporting the PS3 because they were SO GOOD about supporting the PS1.

Same thing could have been said of Sega!

quote ChiroVette

if Developers ever really learn how to develop for the PS3, I think that it will either leave the 360 in the dust or force MS to abandon the platform and bring out the next XBox

I don't think that's feasible. Firstly, the 360 isn't that far behind the PS3 in terms of technology. It's behind, but not enough to be left i the dust. Secondly, money talks, and consumers speak that same language. There are enough 360 gamers, and enough dollars in Microsoft's purse, to keep teh console going for a long time. And thirdly, if Project Natal works in tandem with the 360 it could really push its expiration date fruther back!

quote che_don_john

Firstly, the 360 isn't that far behind the PS3 in terms of technology. It's behind, but not enough to be left i the dust.

I agree to a point, "leave in the dust" is a little exaggeration. However, the PS3 has yet to show us what its max is. Not even Metal Gear Solid 4 was supposedly using 100%. Storage capacity is a huge advantage Sony has over Microsoft, but the hardware itself is more powerful than the 360, the problem is that no one really knows how much more powerful.

quote che_don_john

if Project Natal works in tandem with the 360 it could really push its expiration date fruther back!

This is very true, but everyone seems to forget about sony's wand thingy and to be honest. It got just as good as reception, and probably a better one from the hardcore gamers, compared to Natal at E3. Whatever Natal does, expect Sony's wand thingy to do the same thing.

quote DeadCell

The Wii is either played by kids, or parents and gamers into Wii fit, and that junk. A interesting concept, but it's really hurt the Wii for "hardcore" gamers like myself.
The only games I really find interesting on Wii at this point are the new Resident Evil exclusives

That is why I feel as though Wii or Nintendo fans should start worrying. Nintendo is realizing what audience is buying their product and therefore they will just keep it going. I have a feeling the next generation will not be as good for Nintendo...

One thing with the PS3 is that a lot of casual gamers still haven't bought a new console yet this generation. A lot of my friends that play here and there said they will get one at some point. If I ask what they will buy they always say PS3, because they had PS1 and PS2 and have no reason to change. That will help Sony. BUT, with more casual gamers having 360s this generation that will hurt Sony a little bit because some of those casual gamers may buy 360s instead this time only because other people they know have 360s. It goes both ways.
Unlike what Dead Cell said, I can say I hate 360. I actually went into this generation only planning on buying a 360 and maybe a Wii, and now ended up with all 3 again lol. Only because 360 disappointed me and pissed me off so much with the terrible reliability and the games getting washed up. I was let down with Halo 3, and then to see spin-offs being released to milk it I got even more pissed. Gears 1 wasn't bad but Gears 2 seemed like garbage to me. And then MS with their "New Xbox Experience" was the final straw. It seems to me that MS is catering to the casual crowd for the money and I just don't want a part of it with their watered down games and unreliable console products. I've never had a MS CONSOLE headset last more than 3 months for me. They all stop working, can't hear anything, after 3 months or so. I find it odd because they make great PC accessories from mice and keyboards to headsets.
Sony seems to have more hardcore based games that are watered down(yet) that appeal to me more. And with my HDTV I got at Christmas it was a no brainer to get a PS3. Haven't touched my 360 since.
Sorry, just venting, a lot, lol.