So after starting to turn a profit in the third quarter of 2007 Sony's game division is continuing to post gains. Also in terms of consoles sold: So it would also be expected had the two systems launched at the same time that the PS3 would be leading in sales as they are averaging around 7 million sold a year to the 360's 6 million although it would still be a close race. It appears the PS3 is gaining steam but the 360 will be sure to see a sales spike with Gears 2 this fall. However it surprises me that with all of the PS3's pitfalls that it has outsold the 360 when looking at similar time frame comparisons especially with the library the 360 has. So the question I'm wondering is will it be the 360 or PS3 that ends up taking the 2 spot at the end of this generations. It's looking quite interesting right now. Here's the link to the article: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6195131.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0
Let's see no real games until MGS4 that the masses cared about, PSN being inferior to Xbox Live, the cost being too high for most people (which they've finally solved), letting the 360 get a year head start assuming the PS3 would demolish it. Do you want me to continue?
Not to start the inevitable fanboy war here or anything but most of those "pitfalls" are opinions and the last one is really a non-issue based on the sales numbers you just posted.
And I even have a hard time including the Wii as a member of this generation of systems. Hardware-wise it is last-gen (IMO). Even still, the Wii may very well be #1 in sales of this generation, but it is still #3 overall in my book.
I hate to say it but I agree about it not being next-gen. You want get a fanboy war from me as the only system I own is the PS3 but I'm just as harsh on it as I am the 360/Wii. Come on about the pitfalls being opinions they are pretty much fact. I mean people didn't flock to the PS3 because of the high prices at first, whereas they ate the Wii up. As for the online portion of the 360 and PS3 even a majority of PS3 owners would admit that Live is better. Plus I agree the PS3 has plenty of great games but compare what it had over its first couple years to Halo 3 and Gears of War (nothing there until MGS4 that most cared about). Personally I think the PS3 will end up taking 2nd place this gen because its just hitting its stride whereas the 360 is slowing down but its gonna be close (which in the end means MS has gained over Sony, since the PS2 blew the Xbox out of the water).
I will agree that the price was an issue at first, although like Stitches I don't and won't compare the PS3 or 360 to the Wii because they are totally different beasts with different target audiences. I won't argue that PSN is better than Live or vice versa, thats personal preference of whatever your into. As is the game selection, I was/am a diehard Warhawk fan, loved Drake's Fortune, and liked what I saw and played out of GT Prologue so the no good games til MGS4 statement is an opinion as well in my book. I just would label any of those things as "pitfalls" thats why I asked what you were referring too.
But the masses move products so I doubt the Big Three dismiss them that easily. Plus Motion I prefer PSN over Live because its free but that doesn't mean I think its better. Honestly Motion what are the problems of the 360 vs. the PS3? Also yes the PS2 had a head start of the Xbox Stitches but it continued outselling the Xbox even after its release (not the case with the 360/PS3).
Other than the RRoD and no standard HD on the 360 I don't think either one of them have "problems", they are both good consoles.
Too make a more cost effective model. The real question is why did they go with their unique hard drives instead of the standard like laptop PCs/PS3s use.
That is probably the answer to my question. I still think it was a mistake. For me that has been a deal breaker The answer to the second question is money. They make money on each hard drive unlike PS3, which you can buy a Seagate and they don't get anything.
Agreed. The lack of a hard drive has hampered game development whereas on the PS3 their can be game installs. Also MS may make money on each hard drive sold but probably not that much more since people usually go with the hard drive it comes with (and if they buy the Arcade they already know they won't need one).
I don't think money had anything to do with it. I think it was console security. Because any seagate can go into a PS3, it makes access to saved infrastructure of the PS3 accessible from the jump. In Microsoft's case, it's very difficult to exploit the HD. It's proprietary and it uses a weird file system (unlucky for them, the optical drive was exploited this generation - The HD was exploited on XB1 because it was a standard PC HD on a basic file system). The PS3 was exploited almost the day it came out (where as playable 360 hacks took well over 6 months to surface). Luckily for Sony, Blu-Rays aren't easily burned (or cheap) or mass produced by anyone with a PC. This prevents a standard optical drive exploit (if possible). The loader on the PS3 also has not yet been fully exploited. This means that the state in which PS games are exploited is: All downloadable games are fully playable and all home brew works. Full PS3 games aren't playable from the HD... yet. My $0.02
Uh... the 360 uses standard 2.5'' SATA hard drives just like those found in laptops. Only difference is, it comes in an enclosure shaped to fit the top of the 360.
im poor, im still stuck with a PS2. But I would definately upgrade to PS3, although by the time i get to it theyll have another platform out. As for the the Wii, I still cant figure out how it works.
Ah how can I ever begin to respond to that. Good stuff Mor. Now I did not know that so is their a way to replace the hard drive then without buying an official Xbox hard drive?
Well why in the world doesn't MS let that be more of common knowledge. It would be an advantage that they aren't currently capitalizing on. I don't know of anyone that knows that.
Yeah but knowing that could be a factor that would push people to buying the 360 (say someone said that with the PS3 they could upgrade their hard drive but not on the 360). I would think its worth it.
I still fail to see these "problems", judging by the numbers you posted yourself seems they are doing just fine.
They are doing fine but most people expected more out of Sony this generation. Sony was the juggernaut of last gen systems and I think most people thought that when this current gen got started that the PS3 would just take over the reigns again. Now nobody expected the Wii too blow up like it did, but people felt that the PS3 would be seeing PS2 like numbers thus far. Basically I think most people are shocked that the PS3 is in third place and that it isn't at least in second if not in a battle for first. The reason I see for this is that they had problems upon launch with high prices, no blockbuster games to get gamers away from Wii/360, PSN being inferior to Live, etc. Now does that mean its going to continue....well no. I actually see the PS3 starting too show its true potential now, but I fail to see that although it is beginning to gain ground now how you couldn't see it as somewhat of failure up until now. To me the PS3 should not be in third place this long into the gaming cycle but ultimately the final tally won't be made until the PS4, Xbox 720, Wii2 are released to see what place PS3 will take this generation. We shall see what we shall see.
PS3 is seeing PS2 numbers. It is selling really well at this point. The Wii is seeing Wii numbers. It is selling more than any console at any time. Also PSN being inferior to Live has to be important to probably .00001% of the population. It is just that is the population that is also represented in forums who say awesome things like, PSN Suxxors, XBOX Live RULZ. The PS3 has been out for 2 years, the Xbox 360 has been out 3 years. It does make sense that it is behind it. The Wii on the other hand is a different beast. My honest opinion is that all three consoles are winning. Gaming has skyrocketted in the last 3 years. It has been totally horrible economy proof. I could imagine how much better all three would be doing, well not the Wii since they are still selling out, if the economy was on one of its upswings.
Fair points but I still don't see how the PS3 being in third place this generation can't be a bad thing. I understand that the PS3 is outselling the 360 in the same timeframe but I still think most people expected the PS3 to have surpassed the 360 even with the year headstart. Yes the PS3 is doing well and the gaming industry is doing amazing but I'm sure if you talked to Sony gaming execs they would be quite dismayed that they are in third place right now.
I honestly do not think so. I honestly do not think they really see Wii as a competitor. Also since 3rd party exclusives is more and more becoming things of the past, it just doesn't seem as big of a deal in becoming the top gaming console as it was in the past. I am sure they would love to be in first place. However with the sales they have had and actually posting a profit in their gaming department is something the sony execs care more about. They are in the business of making money, not winning the console race.
But winning the console race would equal more profits so they would have to care. Its common sense, if your winning the console race you are making more profits so that is why they care (since as you said all they care about is profits). Also the Wii to me isn't a next gen system but because it is in the market and is selling at a high rate it is a form of competition for Sony and MS. Why else would they try to make their consoles more family friendly and try to rip off the WiiMote. The reason Sony and MS say they don't consider the Wii competition now is because they know its a juggernaut they can't catch. I agree with 3rd party exclusives going away and my theory is that MS and Sony will actually continue what has been happening and buying these third party games to get them cross platform if not buying the company that produces them themselves (limited cases such as Bungie for example, I'm not suggesting they'll buy out giants like EA). My argument isn't that Sony isn't doing well now it is they have done poorly in the past (in comparison to what was expected) and they are just now getting in the console race. Which is due to missteps (that's for you Motion not problems but missteps) along the way. I agree Sony has been labeled dead in the water this generation which isn't true but they have certainly had missteps/failures along the way. He gets it.
Maybe those assumptions could have paid off had Sony actually been on the ball and had a better selection of titles around launch. I won't hold their chestnuts to the fire over the launch titles exactly, but it has taken them far too long IMO to get their console pushers out. Microsoft hit it big with games like Gears of War and Bioshock about a year after the console hit the market. Sony seems to be slacking in this department, and the biggest advantage the PS2 ever had was it's game selection. Now that the PS3 is finally getting a much better game library things are changing for the better for Sony. That is no coincidence.
Sorry, not everyone can put out a port and have it be praised as a console pusher and revolutionary (not a knock on 360, though CoD 2 was likely ported from the PC). RFoM was every bit as good as any game that came out for the 360 during it's launch window. Edit: Bioshock was also like 2 years after release. btw Ratchet & Clank came out a year after release, and is just as much a quality game as Gears is.
Sony has a policy that it will not pay for exclusives. This can be right or wrong. I agree with that to an extent, however they should of tried to get FF13 locked up. Also, Sony owns way more studio's then MS. To use a baseball analogy, sony has a great farm system and MS does not (they own, like what? two companies?). In the long run, sony is better off. MS is paying by a game by game basis. It's hit or miss and expensive. As far as I'm concerned this generation of consoles is an experiment of sorts. Never has gaming been so expensive and with the Wii leading the way with inferior hardware, the next gen will be cheaper. As of the here and now, PS3 is catching up to the 360 and if the past is any indicator momentum never swings back to a console currently selling less then it's competitors. If this holds true, Nintendo wins, Sony gets 2nd (which you can look at as 1 depending on how you define these next gen consoles) and MS finishes a much improved (over the xbox) 3rd (2nd).
Well its good to see someone agrees with me. How do you not see it. Take a look at MS's version of the Wiimote. Plus here is the link detailing it: http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/microsoft-s-wiimote-style-controller-for-xbox-360 Also here's a link about Sony's attempt: http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/sonys-wiimote-competitor-to-come-as-break-apart-dualshock-3/ There's a video but it doesn't work. Maybe these things will never amount to anything but they are trying.
