Is PS3 the great unwanted console?

[popopot]

Story below. Source: http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gamesgear/0,39029441,49288445,00.htm


With ten days to go before the PlayStation 3 launches in the UK, where is the cavalcade, the banners, the streamers and bunting? Where are the crowds chanting on the street corners? Where are the geeks camping outside Virgin Megastore, poised expectantly, fire-axes in hand, waiting for the moment the clock strikes midnight on 23 March?

There is no crowd, there are no streamers. You can walk into a Blockbuster today and order one for launch. In the Great Rule Book of Games Console Launches, rule number one is: "Thou must under-stock for launch." So why has Sony got so many consoles available?

The optimistic view is that Sony is above the petty playground boasting that insiders suspect drives some manufacturers to withhold some stock in order to claim a 'sell-out' on the first day of launch. The cachet attached to good first-day sales is hard to ignore -- console manufacturers get great press coverage if they can claim all their consoles are sold out. Both the Nintendo Wii and the Xbox 360 sold out on the first day of launch.

The more realistic view is that gamers just aren't that interested in the PS3 and Sony is now massively overstocked. The same company that cited component shortages as a reason for giving Japan just 80,000 PS3 consoles and America 400,000 at last year's launch -- and delaying the European launch until this month -- seem to have gone the other way in the UK and stocked the nation's shops with more PS3s than gamers want.

The PS3 will be so easy to get hold of on launch that GameSpot's Guy Cocker told us, "Right now, it's about as hard to get a PS3 for launch as it is an orange in California -- either Sony has poured units into Europe, or the demand's just not there."

So why is the PS3 so undesirable? The obvious answer is the lack of any cut-off-your-hand-to-buy-it game for the platform. The console's most-vaunted title, MotorStorm, is glitzy but prosaic -- only Sony's forthcoming Second-Life-alike social space Home is worth getting excited about.

The £425 price tag could have something to do with it, too. Sure, that's comparable to the PS2's launch cost, but consumer electronics prices have tumbled in the last five years and the Xbox 360 is only £280.

Sony may also have been over-zealous in emphasising the 'power' of the PlayStation console over its games. Improved processing power, after a point, won't make a game play any better -- it can only really make it look better.

The PlayStation 3 is an incredibly powerful machine -- so powerful in fact that Sony's Nick Sharples last year proclaimed "no one will ever use the full power of the console". Sharples gleefully preached to us at CES that any one of the PS3's several processors could be dedicated to "making a character's hair move in a realistic manner", or "rendering the contours of a cape". But some critics accuse Sony of inviting developers to neglect gameplay and invest heavily in these amazing graphics.

The PlayStation 2 was so overwhelmingly popular that it's hard to imagine the PS3 won't find success. For now though, thousands of the things sit stacked on shelves in the backrooms of a hundred Blockbusters. This must be the most unwanted console in recent memory.

[Bucktoof]

I think I'll try getting the ps3 when gta4 roles out. I have a friend who already has a modded ps3, and another friend who is picking his console up this week.

It needs more titles to come out though

[mountain_rage]

Chances are you will be able to get gta4 on xbox360 too, it won't be their killer app like it has been in the past. Their only current notable exclusives are final fantasy, metal gear solid and Grand turismo.

[silentscream]

yup gran turismo is all im after

i liked the previous game so much il be willing to buy a 1080p hd tv and a ps3 for the privalege of playing the next one lol

.

[tightface]

Has anyone seen Sony Home? Do you think this will change your mind?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,129701-pg,1/article.html

I got a 360, but I never play it.

[mountain_rage]

I have seen Sony home and it doesn't interest me. Of the social networking environments I have used, none have kept me interested for longer then 5 minutes. Personally I have no need for such a virtual world, I would much rather see all my stats, games, misc information in one well organized central location. Sony home just seems like a highly bloated user interface. Microsoft current model, and Nintendo's soon to be online model are actually of my preference.

[tightface]

^ Agreed. The way they look to integrate their achievements requires you invite people over to your 'apartment', which seems like it could take a lot of time. On Microsofts platform, you simply pull up the blade and see your friends stats right there.

[Psilaxs]

Has anyone seen Sony Home? Do you think this will change your mind?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,129701-pg,1/article.html

I got a 360, but I never play it.

They are wasting all this money on glitz WHY? MS and Nintendo proved it was not necessary. That money would be better spent aiding developers to cope with the new architecture, just give us the gawddamned games already.

[Signa]

finally some good gaming topics to converse about

its just totally mind-blowing that anyone who was so strongly #1 fail so miserably this time around. and then their attitude about it afterwards as if everything is going better than they could have wanted. do they not realize the trouble they are in if things dont get better?

[inmate347]

Well your right, if the ps3 is a failure there will be quite a few people over at Sony looking for new jobs. However, I still have a great deal of faith in Sony because they've earned it. I got six good years out of my playstation and when all is said and done will have gotten eight good years out of my playstation 2. We can argue about taste all day long, but in that 14 years I feel that I have been playing the best games of the time. Sure there has been a great exclusive title here or there that I wished were available on my playstation (there always are), but there are far more Sony exclusives that I would have missed. That is a lead that can't be lost in the space of a year, it's called customer satisfaction.

Right now the ps3 isn't doing so well, that much is obvious. The wii is cheap and has a very good gimmick, but many of the games don't appeal to my sensibilities (I like a good story). The xbox 360 is cheaper (not including online costs that make it more costly in the future), has better games right now after a year on the market, and may be able to rival sony's offerings in the future. Sony has a bit more horsepower, blu-ray (I believe that extra storage space has the potential to extend the life of the ps3 well beyond the wii and 360), and a great track record. In a few years time when the prices are equal; who will offer the better value?

I'll place my bet on Sony again, but that said the launch could have been handled much better. They should have dropped the price by $100 and taken the extra loss (and actually had the cheaper model available).

[Kronithus]

In regards to inmate347's comment:
Faith is always a good thing to have, and I am glad that you recieved so much satisfaction from your previous consoles. However, calling the entire Wii a gimmick (which Sony itself did, mind you) and dismissing the Xbox 360 as an "I guess they might have a chance when Sony actually starts trying" console does little but reveal the extent of your fanboyism.

Despite this, I can agree with you on some points. The Wii in its current state provides an awkward situation for developers, as "ports" are difficult to play on a Wii controller, and tailoring a game for the Wii will require a lot of extra work to be ported - since its controller represents a minority, and businesses love money, most of the good games will be targeted towards the tried-and-true controllers of the Xbox and Playstation instead. The Xbox has its merits, and although it charges for online play, you have to remember that businesses like money. With the Xbox, developers are getting paid to offer online bonuses. With the PS3, developers are getting absolutely nothing for their time. Developers of PS3 games are allowed to charge you for an individual game if they wish, but that defeats the purpose of free, does it not?

One thing I definitely respect from Sony is the great licenses they have. Although I cannot justify paying the price of the machine to play Metal Gear Solid 4, I can admit that it, and similar franchises, will make me want one - hell, I still play MGS3 on my Playstation 2 every now and then. But the point I'm trying to make is that a great game doesn't necessarily come from a powerful machine. Think of how old the PS2 already was when MGS3 came into existance. I fear that the PS3 has put too much emphasis on pretty graphics, and that new games will do nothing but look good. It has already been questioned how difficult using 8 processers simultaneously will be to program, it has already been proven that blu-ray reads more slowly than a DVD drive, and it has already been shown that although the X360 and PS3 both have 512 MB of ram, the PS3 only allows developers to allocate half of it in games (google the Oblivion "horse armor" issue for more info).

And let's not forget how much businesses love money. Games are, what, sixty dollars these days? Consider this - if you're a developer, you can craft a game that's 9GB when completed, and you can sell it on a DVD for $60. Or, you can spend extra months, countless dollars, many sleepless nights, give up your other project ideas, and make a game that's 50GB - spending even more money to press blu-ray discs - and still sell it for $60. Increasing the price is always an option, but that just means new titles will sell less and get less recognition, and I feel I can safely say that MGS4 could come on a DVD and still sell out at $90.

I recognize that each console has its good and bad points, but there is no clear-cut winner at this time. Having hope that the console you purchased turns out to be the best is a good thing, and I encourage it. But kicking down the ones you didn't buy, and blindly buying a console are just bad practice. In the end, it's all about satisfaction. In the long run, we enjoy games, not gimmicks. Pretty graphics and extra worlds do not make a game, they simply enhance a game; let's hope that the developers haven't forgotten that.

[loujob]

I might get one when mgs4 comes out. If im not too busy with crysis though

[Obsession6789]

Need more games to be number 1.
I like it but still missing something

[Bucktoof]

Huge wait and see I guess. The only thing I knew prior was that the wii was going to do well even though people had their doubts. The nintendo players are some of the most loyal out there. I enjoy my wii, but I think i need some more and better games. The mario game got pushed back, from march/april to now something like november...that irritated me. Now smash bros might do the same...

I wish video game companies could just make a date and stick to it.

[Xermalk]

I might considder buying one when ff XIII is realeased but only if they manage to get some moor good games out, as it is now its way to expensive to buy just to play resistance.

[Signa]

I wish video game companies could just make a date and stick to it.

that would be a horrible choice as many games have been ruined by rushing. movie games are representative of this problem as they are always pushed to meet the date of the movie's release. if they started doing that with other franchises, like mario, nintendo will quickly lose a lot of the support they have. hell, when was the last time you played a zelda that actally sucked?


EDIT: i take that last part back, i hated majora's mask, but it wasnt a *bad* game, just not one that lived up to my expectations.

[askj]

that would be a horrible choice as many games have been ruined by rushing. movie games are representative of this problem as they are always pushed to meet the date of the movie's release. if they started doing that with other franchises, like mario, nintendo will quickly lose a lot of the support they have. hell, when was the last time you played a zelda that actally sucked?


EDIT: i take that last part back, i hated majora's mask, but it wasnt a *bad* game, just not one that lived up to my expectations.

I agree with you.

[robotnation]

right now ps3 is having some difficulties, but its definetly the top dog of the next gen consoles. it just needs more time before getting better games. stick with xbox360 for another year or so until the games start rolling out for the ps3.

[mountain_rage]

that would be a horrible choice as many games have been ruined by rushing. movie games are representative of this problem as they are always pushed to meet the date of the movie's release. if they started doing that with other franchises, like mario, nintendo will quickly lose a lot of the support they have. hell, when was the last time you played a zelda that actally sucked?


EDIT: i take that last part back, i hated majora's mask, but it wasnt a *bad* game, just not one that lived up to my expectations.

I guess you never played any of the CDI Zelda games... Nintendo Philips deal was about as bad is the virtual boy, thankfully most people did not fall for the CDI and the games from it are almost unknown.

As for Sony, the ps3 its suffering from their own arrogance. They were telling people to get a second job for it, telling people blue ray was worth it and telling people that it could launch with no games and that you would still want to buy it. Meanwhile it does not blow xbox360 specs out of the water, its loosing exclusives left right and center and being out sold by a system with a quarter of its power. Sony is going to have to pull a rabbit out of its hat with this one, Final Fantasy and Metal gear are their only strong exclusives left.

[Signa]

nintendo didnt make those cd-i games, they just lent out the franchise for it. besides, even if you have to count that, it was how many years ago? games just kinda sucked back then no matter what. not to say that games like the orginal zelda wernt any good, but even the first mario was kinda lame for so many reasons. like, no walking backwards, yet a turtle shell still could bounce off of some unseen object and bite you in the ass. not to mention that you got only 3 lives and would have to start the game all over every time you die too much. dont get me wrong, mario was awsome, but back then, there was so much shit a game could bitchslap you for with no good reason and we would take it because IT WAS A VIDEO GAME! NEAT-O!!

my point in all this, we have come to expect a certain quality in games over the years. nintendo's first party games offer it, most modern games offer it. cutting game releases is just a bad idea. even if zelda cd-i was horrible, it doesnt change my point much.