• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gabe Newell calls the PS3 a 'total disaster'

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
How did PS3 turn into Steam? I've never had a problem with Steam...it does what I want. I don't know why everyone else has such a problem with it.

I just read a recent article from the developer of God of War, and he compared the 360 to the Dreamcast, and the PS2 to the PS3. A lot of the things said made the Dreamcast sound WAY better than the PS2. But when you get people working on the system, they realize it's really not that bad, but actually interesting to develop on. That's where the PS3 will shine, when we don't have complainers/lazy people working on it. Otherwise we'll get crappy games, which will lead to a crappy system.

You can call the PS3 a "crappy system" because it lacks games like GoW, but did you know the Wii has the 2nd worse average launch review for any console (out of the launch games)? No, the PS3 was not first...Suddenly is the Wii a "bad" system because it lacks really good launch titles? No, it's not. The PS3 only has one worthwhile game on it, Resistance. Whether or not you personally like it, you can't ignore the average 9/10 review. Everything else is "meh", but that does not make it a bad system. Both have promising games coming out.

And for people who say the 360 is more powerful because of GoW (yes, I have heard it), think of this. GoW runs on the Unreal Engine 3. Unreal Tournament 2007 runs on the Unreal Engine 3. Their graphics are pretty much equal. UT 2007 runs on the PS3. Therefore, GoW should also run on the PS3. I know that no one mentioned this, but people have said this before, and it's annoying.

VIAN, about GT4...why did you even bring the 360 into it? I was talking specifically about the PS2. The only thing that should have been compared to it was systems from the generation. You failed to see my point, though. People thought the PS3 was weak, and that it was too hard to develop for. BUT, when you get the RIGHT team on it, do you see what you can get? GT4 was one of THE best looking games on any console. Even running in 480p it looked too much for the PS2, but it ran it great. To think they could get it at 1080i, on the "weak" PS2, is outstanding. It doesn't matter how long it took, games get delayed like crazy. You might as well complain about every system and every game now because of delays. Look at Halo 2...exactly.

Consider this though. What could a good team like Polyphony get out of the PS3? I have seen no developers really push any system as much as the PS2, and I'm sure we'll see the same with the PS3.

Guerilla Games has commented a bit about developing for the PS3. From what I've heard, developing is about the same or a bit easier than the PS2. They said they enjoyed working with the PS3. They're another team that really gets everything they can out of the system. Look at Killzone, it was very graphically impressive for a PS2 (though it did have issues).

Suddenly because a few "big" people don't like the PS3, it becomes a bad system. There are plenty of developers that are fine with the PS3, and they'll push it as far as they can. Who really cares if it's harder to develop for? They will still create amazing games for it.

I understand that people have been paying thousands of dollars for computers, and that's become accepted. Eventually consoles will be expensive, just like that. Is it so unreasonable to expect a price increase with each generation of consoles?

How much do you think people will pay for a 360 when they're done with it? With Xbox live and overpriced accessories, it's not too hard to imagine that a majority of people will pay more for the 360 than the PS3, or about the same.

At $500-600, the PS3 IS expensive. Is it overpriced? Considering the $500 model basically offers what the $400 360 does, I don't see why people complain about $100. It's mostly because of the cell and Blu-Ray. Maybe you don't want to HAVE to get Blu-ray, but I don't see people complaining about the $600 price of a 360 and HD-DVD add-on. Did you know those things are selling very well? No one complains about that, but they complain about Blu-Ray because it's not optional.

What exactly is overpriced? Is it just above what the consumer wants, or is it when a company literally overcharges for something? Why would Sony lower the price when they're losing $200-300 dollars on it?

Most of us are geeks on here...for $500-600 and the advanced hardware the PS3 has, I see it as a very reasonable price. I think the hardware, if used correctly, will cause the PS3 to pull ahead of the 360 in terms of games. If not used correctly, yeah, it'll be crap. But there are many promising games coming out eventually.

Since when has a cheaper price suddenly caused something to be better? There are many more factors than that.

All I know is that I'm thoroughly enjoying my PS3. I'm even considering getting a 360 and Wii. Trust me, I have less money than all of you.

No one should be declaring the PS3 as a failure when it's only 2 months old, regardless of complainers and it "being overpriced."
 
Why do people think that paying more for the cell processor is any reason at all. It doesnt mean squat, its not something that matters at all to anybody here.
 
The cell in itself is unimportant. It's what developers can use it for that counts. If it is used properly and to it's full potential, it really is an extremely powerful processor. If used properly, the processing power could give games that technical edge over the 360.

Not to mention it helps the general system over all.

On its own it's just a processor for a system. Until it's either used to its full potential or used in a mass amount of items (doubtful), it really is nothing special.

I'm more into the Blu-Ray aspect of the PS3. I back Blu-ray due to the larger disc capacity, and it has more movie companies backing it. I also like the idea of having upwards of 50gb for games, which has far more potential than a standard DVD. From what I've heard, games like MGS4 will require a double layer Blu-Ray disc to hold everything.

Just the hardware on the PS3 opens up a lot of possibilities, and it has a lot of potential. Of course, on it's own it is nothing. It will take great games and a great Blu-ray collection to really make it worth the $500-600. Considering Sony's success with the PS1 and PS2, I have little doubt in the PS3.
 
How did this turn from *lets bash ps3* to *lets bash steam* I dont see how theyre related. PS3 dosent need bashing as it will fail anyways (i am psychic! 😛) sonys had their limelight and since they dont understand what the consumer want they will go the way of sega, who also (far more severly than sony) didnt get what the consumer wanted.

As for steam, its pretty good, and works, unless your on dialup or at uni, which i was when i bought half-life 2. Steam wouldnt connect on the p*ss poor wireless i had in halls..... Half life 2.... possibly the 2nd most exciting game ive ever bought and wanted to play and i couldnt. That really really ticked me off.
 
Originally posted by: Soviet
How did this turn from *lets bash ps3* to *lets bash steam* I dont see how theyre related. PS3 dosent need bashing as it will fail anyways (i am psychic! 😛) sonys had their limelight and since they dont understand what the consumer want they will go the way of sega, who also (far more severly than sony) didnt get what the consumer wanted.

As for steam, its pretty good, and works, unless your on dialup or at uni, which i was when i bought half-life 2. Steam wouldnt connect on the p*ss poor wireless i had in halls..... Half life 2.... possibly the 2nd most exciting game ive ever bought and wanted to play and i couldnt. That really really ticked me off.
Click to expand...

Uh...consumers do want what the PS3 has 😕. The only real thing keeping it from selling is the price and lack of a large game library. Notice: I did not say "it's not selling because it's overpriced." Get some MGS and FF on it and people will buy it.
 
Originally posted by: hans030390
Originally posted by: Soviet
How did this turn from *lets bash ps3* to *lets bash steam* I dont see how theyre related. PS3 dosent need bashing as it will fail anyways (i am psychic! 😛) sonys had their limelight and since they dont understand what the consumer want they will go the way of sega, who also (far more severly than sony) didnt get what the consumer wanted.

As for steam, its pretty good, and works, unless your on dialup or at uni, which i was when i bought half-life 2. Steam wouldnt connect on the p*ss poor wireless i had in halls..... Half life 2.... possibly the 2nd most exciting game ive ever bought and wanted to play and i couldnt. That really really ticked me off.
Click to expand...

Uh...consumers do want what the PS3 has 😕. The only real thing keeping it from selling is the price and lack of a large game library. Notice: I did not say "it's not selling because it's overpriced." Get some MGS and FF on it and people will buy it.
Click to expand...

mm yes, thats why theres wii's sold out in so many shops, and ps3's still sitting on the shelves.
 
Originally posted by: Soviet
Originally posted by: hans030390
Originally posted by: Soviet
How did this turn from *lets bash ps3* to *lets bash steam* I dont see how theyre related. PS3 dosent need bashing as it will fail anyways (i am psychic! 😛) sonys had their limelight and since they dont understand what the consumer want they will go the way of sega, who also (far more severly than sony) didnt get what the consumer wanted.

As for steam, its pretty good, and works, unless your on dialup or at uni, which i was when i bought half-life 2. Steam wouldnt connect on the p*ss poor wireless i had in halls..... Half life 2.... possibly the 2nd most exciting game ive ever bought and wanted to play and i couldnt. That really really ticked me off.
Click to expand...

Uh...consumers do want what the PS3 has 😕. The only real thing keeping it from selling is the price and lack of a large game library. Notice: I did not say "it's not selling because it's overpriced." Get some MGS and FF on it and people will buy it.
Click to expand...

mm yes, thats why theres wii's sold out in so many shops, and ps3's still sitting on the shelves.
Click to expand...

The Wii is $250 and has motion sensing (well, it's based around it). It appeals to the mass consumer. Like I said, the PS3 isn't just sitting there because people don't want it. Right now it's lacking the games. Not many people wanted a 360 at launch because of that and it was "too expensive" (yes, a lot of consumers said that). The PS3 is more for the "hardcore" consumer now, but as more titles come out and there is a price drop it will become extremely popular. Undoubtedly, the Wii is more popular, but as time goes on you'll likely see the PS3 pull ahead (as the PS2 did).
 
Two words: Final Fantasy.

As long as Sony holds exclusive rights over the numbered Final Fantasies (and the remake of FFVII), the PS3 will sell, and will sell very well. Just wait.

I rather dislike the post-SNES Final Fantasies, but their power is undeniable. Just wait, and see the weeping Aerith fanboys rush to the streets to pay $600 in a heartbeat and save the industry's white elephant.
 
Lots of misinformation in this thread, blind sony fanboi's, and overall idiots.

First what people need to realize is that the PS3 is in big trouble. They are 2 months from release and they have units sitting in stores. The demand for the PS3 is minimal atm. Add that to the fact that it is a PITA to dev for....you see 360 getting tons of dev love because of this. I don't care if it is price or games available YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSOLES SITTING IN STORES 2 MOS AFTER LAUNCH.

You all also aren't looking at this from a Dev's perspective. The reason you see Square releasing DQ9 only on the DS is because they literally have millions of them out. That equates to boku $$$. The reason the devs even tackled the ps2 was because it was market leader. For them to make any money they HAD to dev for the ps2...now it is not that way. They once again have a machine that is a pain to dev for...BUT they aren't market leader and their new console isn't selling. The current market leader is selling and that is why MS is getting so much dev support atm.

Already we have seen that Square is going to support all platforms, and there have been rumors of Konami pressuring to have MGS 4 go multi plat...I don't believe it myself though. The reasons of this is because the costs to develope these fancy games has increased soooo much. Devs have to sell like 500k or more just to break even. Now lets look at the PS3 (which costs more to dev for than all other platforms). It has an installed user base of like maybe 1mil. As a dev are you going to spend $40 million dollars making a game that is only going to be available for less than 2 million people to buy? No you are going to publish that game for the 10mil 360 users.

Get my drift
 
Originally posted by: rhit90
That equates to boku $$$.
Click to expand...

It's annoying when people don't know French and tries to be a sophisticated smart a$$.
It's BEAUCOUP, not boku. I hate when morons say "WALLA" instead of voila.

Anyways, I mostly agree with your argument. Microsoft learned from their mistakes from their first console, and they are way ahead of Sony in terms of consumer base. However, one thing Xbox 360 lacks right now is most of Japanese developers and gamers. This may change, but as long as Sony has Final Fantasy, God of War, Gran Tourismo, and Devil May Cry, it will sell.


 
I don't think people who use the word "beaucoup" yet can't spell it are trying to be sophisticated. It's just one of those words which we've adopted into our own language, and the spelling doesn't follow English norms. You could just correct people instead of being mean about it.

As for the PS3, they have a chicken and egg problem. They have to charge a lot for the system because the system is expensive to build and was expensive to design. They've got to recoup at least a part of those costs. Speculation already says they're losing lots of money per console. So they can't lower the price until they sell a lot of them. But they can't sell very many unless they lower the price. If they can somehow figure out how to cut manufacturing costs by a couple hundred dollars per unit then they may have a shot, but it is a state of the art system using expensive chips/lasers/etc. so don't expect manufacturing costs to come down any time soon. If Sony wants to stay in the game, they may have to call the PS3 a loss and expect to take a couple billion dollar loss like MS did with the Xbox. Sell the consoles at a massive loss so they can move some systems and sell some games. Suck it up, call it a mistake, and try not to screw up with the PS4.
 
1st: Boku = less chars to type

2nd: Square is starting to waiver some. As for Japanese dev support we are already seeing MS have like 300% more Jap. Dev support than last gen.

3rd: Sony can't afford to lose billions like MS did with xbox 1. The company as a whole is so far in the red it isn't funny. If the PS3/Blu-ray fail...sony fails. Sony is losing like 250 or so per console...even more on the 20gig unit. That is why we see nothing but 60gigs out on the stores. They lose too much with the 20's.

So sony is infact screwed unless blu-ray wins the war.
 
Originally posted by: rhit90


2nd: Square is starting to waiver some. As for Japanese dev support we are already seeing MS have like 300% more Jap. Dev support than last gen.
Click to expand...

Could be. But both FFVII redux and (the) FFXII(s...remember there'll be at least two versions) are both confirmed PS3 exclusives. And those games can move a lot of units and sell thousands upon thousands of systems, which in turn can create a sort of feedback loop and in turn encourage developers (specially Japanese ones) to create more PS3 exclusives. One game can have a tremendous impact in the way the market is balanced. Remember the 16-bit wars? Having Street Fighter II one year before the Genesis did single-handedly put Nintendo ahead of Sega. And arguably FFVII was a big reason for Sony's success (remember that their track record back then was 0, and they didn't have killer apps back then) over Nintendo in the late 90's.

I have no love for Sony, but I don't consider the PS3 'dead' by any stretch of the imagination.

 
Originally posted by: hans030390

How did PS3 turn into Steam? I've never had a problem with Steam...it does what I want. I don't know why everyone else has such a problem with it.
Click to expand...
That's good for you, I only wish that it was like that for me. Crashes and quirky favorites menu inhabit my steam.

I just read a recent article from the developer of God of War, and he compared the 360 to the Dreamcast, and the PS2 to the PS3. A lot of the things said made the Dreamcast sound WAY better than the PS2. But when you get people working on the system, they realize it's really not that bad, but actually interesting to develop on. That's where the PS3 will shine, when we don't have complainers/lazy people working on it. Otherwise we'll get crappy games, which will lead to a crappy system.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. If developers have an easier time to develop a game, they can save money and spend it on making other things, that gamers appreciate, better. For instance, better gameplay, story, controls, graphics, etc...

And for people who say the 360 is more powerful because of GoW (yes, I have heard it), think of this. GoW runs on the Unreal Engine 3. Unreal Tournament 2007 runs on the Unreal Engine 3. Their graphics are pretty much equal. UT 2007 runs on the PS3. Therefore, GoW should also run on the PS3. I know that no one mentioned this, but people have said this before, and it's annoying.
Click to expand...
Then again, because the PS3 is harder to program for, the graphics may not look as nice, since they have to spend more time figuring out how to program the game.

VIAN, about GT4...why did you even bring the 360 into it? I was talking specifically about the PS2. The only thing that should have been compared to it was systems from the generation. You failed to see my point, though. People thought the PS3 was weak, and that it was too hard to develop for. BUT, when you get the RIGHT team on it, do you see what you can get? GT4 was one of THE best looking games on any console. Even running in 480p it looked too much for the PS2, but it ran it great. To think they could get it at 1080i, on the "weak" PS2, is outstanding. It doesn't matter how long it took, games get delayed like crazy. You might as well complain about every system and every game now because of delays. Look at Halo 2...exactly.
Click to expand...
So let's use the Xbox. They could've accomplished the same thing on the XBOX in less time. Time is very important in developing video games because time is money and not every developer has a large cache of cash.

Consider this though. What could a good team like Polyphony get out of the PS3? I have seen no developers really push any system as much as the PS2, and I'm sure we'll see the same with the PS3.
Click to expand...
You give them too much credit. It wasn't that the team was good, it was that they had nearly all the time in the world to develop the game. A luxury.

Guerilla Games has commented a bit about developing for the PS3. From what I've heard, developing is about the same or a bit easier than the PS2. They said they enjoyed working with the PS3. They're another team that really gets everything they can out of the system. Look at Killzone, it was very graphically impressive for a PS2 (though it did have issues).
Click to expand...
Developing for the PS3 is much easier than developing for the PS2 because you can develop for the PS3 using High level language. In comparison, the PS2 forces developer to use Assembler. I've you've ever programmed with assembler you'd know that it takes forever to do something that a High level language like C++ can do in seconds. The XBOX uses C++. The 360 does the same. The point is why develop for these hard to develop systems, when you can make more money developing for the XBOX and the 360.

Suddenly because a few "big" people don't like the PS3, it becomes a bad system. There are plenty of developers that are fine with the PS3, and they'll push it as far as they can. Who really cares if it's harder to develop for? They will still create amazing games for it.
Click to expand...
Developers than think the PS3 might win... or are being paid. Developer care if it's harder to develop for. Time is money.

I understand that people have been paying thousands of dollars for computers, and that's become accepted. Eventually consoles will be expensive, just like that. Is it so unreasonable to expect a price increase with each generation of consoles?
Click to expand...
It is when it's a 100% price increase.

How much do you think people will pay for a 360 when they're done with it? With Xbox live and overpriced accessories, it's not too hard to imagine that a majority of people will pay more for the 360 than the PS3, or about the same.
Click to expand...
\
Initial price drives the market more than long term price.

At $500-600, the PS3 IS expensive. Is it overpriced? Considering the $500 model basically offers what the $400 360 does, I don't see why people complain about $100. It's mostly because of the cell and Blu-Ray. Maybe you don't want to HAVE to get Blu-ray, but I don't see people complaining about the $600 price of a 360 and HD-DVD add-on. Did you know those things are selling very well? No one complains about that, but they complain about Blu-Ray because it's not optional.
Click to expand...
Like I said above. Initial price. People are OK with wasting 400 bucks now and then 200 later for something they might want to look into. But 500-600 for a feature they don't really care about.

What exactly is overpriced? Is it just above what the consumer wants, or is it when a company literally overcharges for something? Why would Sony lower the price when they're losing $200-300 dollars on it?
Click to expand...
Overpriced is charging a lot of money for an experience (a next gen gaming experience) that someone else provides for cheaper.

Since when has a cheaper price suddenly caused something to be better? There are many more factors than that.
Click to expand...
You're pulling all stops aren't you. Better VALUE. Look at the response above.

All I know is that I'm thoroughly enjoying my PS3. I'm even considering getting a 360 and Wii. Trust me, I have less money than all of you.
Click to expand...
Then you don't know the value of money.

No one should be declaring the PS3 as a failure when it's only 2 months old, regardless of complainers and it "being overpriced."
Click to expand...
It is a failure. There are too many things going against it. And the "high price" is the biggest one. Then it's the 360 one year lead. Then it's the Wii selling like hot cakes. And the fact that Sony is losing tons of cash per console. And a few more things. Logically, the PS3, unless by miracle, will not win.

<br
 
Well the thing about FF moving units is true, but Square won't release a game just so they can move PS3 units. That is very risky as a developer not to mention stupid. Yes FF has been said a PS3 exclusive. Ya know what though? So was VF5, Assassins Creed, and many other titles. Also don't forget what Square Enix did to Nintendo. They were saying that the new FF was going to be N64 exclusive....we all know what happened there.

Also lets note that the Sega Genesis was very much competitive in the 16bit era. They were leading in the US as one point if I remember correctly.

See the thing that you REALLY dont realize is that Sony's strength is in it's 3rd party exclusives. FF, MGS, DQ, VF, etc. A lot of these games though are becoming multiplatform and the PS3 is really losing it's appeal gamewise. Right now if you look at the exclusive list the 360's is by far leaps and bounds above the PS3's, and these titles are NEW franchises. Games like Blue Dragon, Lost Oddessey, Bioshock, Alan Wake, Mass Effect, etc.

Now lets start talking about another hot topic of Japanese developers developing for the 360. What we've really seen is Capcom take the initiative on this one. Dead Rising has sold over 1 million units...that is HUGE in the japanese developer's eyes. Why is this huge? Because the US is a far bigger market than the japanese market. Euro is bigger than the Japanese market, and what these companies are faced with is do I want to make the most money I can make or be a nationalist? They are being shown that they can make good money in the foriegn territories if they decide to. So if you want to ramble on about the PS3 being this and that go right on ahead, but realize that you are being one STUPID consumer.

ps Mistwalker (360 exclusive dev) has aquired the rights to the Chrono Series....Daddy has his baby back if this one is true. Expect 360 exclusive Chrono game =/
 
^^ If a ChronoTrigger revision done right comes out for the 360 I will go and buy it that second. Not that there aern't games that I like for it now but I'd rather wait for the v2 version since my hdtv only accepts hdmi for high def.
 
If my words aren't enough about developers, watch this interview below (David Jaffe, aka God of War guy):

http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/8593

You can say all you want about the "360 saving time, so more people will develop for it", but if really think about it, games are constantly delayed regardless of how easy it is to develop for a system. It's funny how the PS2 got a lot of great games out with minimal delay. And if the Xbox was "so easy" to develop for, why did Halo 2 miss launch dates constantly? I bet they lost a LOT of money from that. Why are PC games missing launch dates constantly? There's a lot more factors that developmental time in everything. Developers always come across problems, want to tweak things, etc, and it usually has little to do with how hard the thing was to develop for.

I think David Jaffe puts it very well. That's coming straight from the guy behind God of War, which was undoubtedly extremely popular (and very well rated). This is not some random developer who makes crappy games, so he has a lot of credibility.

As far as sales go, I've heard the 360 sold less in the first couple launch months than the PS3 did, and they didn't have the manufacturing problems either. Just because it's still on shelves doesn't mean it's "failing."

You can say that I don't "value money" because I would like to purchase all of the systems, but I'm able to realize that my money for each system is going for games that I know I can't get anywhere else. That's why I didn't originally get a 360, because I knew it wouldn't have as large as a library as the PS3 eventually would have. The only games that will move the 360 will be GoW and Halo. The PS3 has plenty of games to really move the console. But I would really like to be able to have a 360 for GoW and Halo. I'd like to have a Wii for Zelda/Mario games. I'm not looking for "the best value." I'm looking for the games I want to play. A majority of them will be on PS3, but I still won't get everything on it.

Resistance is fairly unknown, so it's no wonder it's not moving the console. Today it's hard to move a console from a FPS due to Halo. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, and similar games will really push the PS3. The MAIN FF games will be kept on the PS3, that's pretty much a fact. MGS4 is not going to 360 because Kojima directly said that he wishes Blu-Ray had more space for the game. Why would he even consider putting in on the 360, since it uses DVD? Gran Turismo...we know that's not going over. Just because a few games are going to 360, it does not suddenly mean "any game could go over now!!"

The 360 may have more "value" now, but in the future, people are going to want the big titles (besides Halo 3). That's how it's going to be. Once the PS3 gets it's true great games, it will likely destroy the 360 in sales. Just look at the PS2. It completely dominated the Xbox, and the Xbox had a LOT of better things going for it.

Correction: If you compare the $400 360 with the $500 PS3 (which offer about the same features), it's only a 25% increase. Let's not compare the lacking $300 360 to the $600 PS3, because they aren't really comparable as far as features go. And you know people only want the $400 360. Suddenly a 25% increase is satan.

It would be ridiculous to call the PS3 a failure now, because in the future you know it will be the best seller out there with the best games (unless you're a Halo fanboy). You can talk about developers, price, and current consumer demand all you want, but that's how it will be. Even the analysts are predicting that. Pretty much everyone besides 360 fanboys are predicting that. The PS will dominate less and less as time goes on, but it still has the most going for it.

 
Originally posted by: hans030390
If my words aren't enough about developers, watch this interview below (David Jaffe, aka God of War guy):

http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/8593
Click to expand...
He said, "We, at Sony..." This guy is totally advertising for Sony. And some of the things he says does make sense, but then other things don't make sense. For instance. He says that Sony built the PS3 for how they think people are going to experience the PS3. OK, so that means you support only a limited number of resolutions. And that also means you don't include Hi-def cables. Of course. He was basically saying that if everything on the PS3 worked properly, the price wouldn't be such an issue.

He says that people eventually got used to the difficulty of programming in the PS2 and it will happen with the PS3. But developers will be able to make good games faster on other systems before the other developers. PS3 isn't easy to develop for because it has more powerful hardware than the 360. What a crock of ******! First, that doesn't make any sense because easy of programming and powerful aren't related that well. He needs to specify exactly what is powerful. The Cell might be powerful, but the system as a whole isn't more powerful.

I think David Jaffe puts it very well. That's coming straight from the guy behind God of War, which was undoubtedly extremely popular (and very well rated). This is not some random developer who makes crappy games, so he has a lot of credibility.
Click to expand...
What about John Carmack. He's a great developer that is neutral and gives an honest opinion go search google for what he thinks about the PS3.

You can say that I don't "value money" because I would like to purchase all of the systems, but I'm able to realize that my money for each system is going for games that I know I can't get anywhere else. That's why I didn't originally get a 360, because I knew it wouldn't have as large as a library as the PS3 eventually would have. The only games that will move the 360 will be GoW and Halo. The PS3 has plenty of games to really move the console. But I would really like to be able to have a 360 for GoW and Halo. I'd like to have a Wii for Zelda/Mario games. I'm not looking for "the best value." I'm looking for the games I want to play. A majority of them will be on PS3, but I still won't get everything on it.
Click to expand...
I buy just one system. I believe that every system has their good games. And if you wanted to buy every system and play them all it would be really expensive and take forever to beat them all. Therefore, one system is enough... for me.

Resistance is fairly unknown, so it's no wonder it's not moving the console.
Click to expand...
Halo moved consoles.

The 360 may have more "value" now, but in the future, people are going to want the big titles (besides Halo 3). That's how it's going to be. Once the PS3 gets it's true great games, it will likely destroy the 360 in sales. Just look at the PS2. It completely dominated the Xbox, and the Xbox had a LOT of better things going for it.
Click to expand...
The only things that the XBOX had going for it was graphics. Everything else was iffy and that's why people didn't catch on. The PS2 had the great games at the time XBOX was released. So we would hear, F Halo, I'm playing GTA3.

Correction: If you compare the $400 360 with the $500 PS3 (which offer about the same features), it's only a 25% increase. Let's not compare the lacking $300 360 to the $600 PS3, because they aren't really comparable as far as features go. And you know people only want the $400 360. Suddenly a 25% increase is satan.
Click to expand...
I also think that it's more fair to compare the $400 360 to the $500 PS3. But that doesn't exclude the fact that people who don't have money can still have a next gen experience with just $300. You're right it is only 25% increase over the $400 360, but it's also 66% increase over the PS2 when it initially came out. And that's what people are looking at. In comparison, the 360 is a 33% increase over last gen launch systems.

It would be ridiculous to call the PS3 a failure now, because in the future you know it will be the best seller out there with the best games (unless you're a Halo fanboy). You can talk about developers, price, and current consumer demand all you want, but that's how it will be. Even the analysts are predicting that. Pretty much everyone besides 360 fanboys are predicting that. The PS will dominate less and less as time goes on, but it still has the most going for it.
Click to expand...
There are many analysts saying different things. It can still go either way. Although I think Sony will have an uphill battle. It's even worse that Sony is dishing out money as Jaffe said for titles to be make on the PS3. Sony doesn't have an infinite amount of cash. And the bottom line is that developers aren't going to develop for a system that doesn't have numbers to it, unless their being paid. If the PS3's sales don't come up, Sony may not be able to keep paying all these developers for first rate titles. But those damn Japanese developers are A-holes, we'll see what happens.

 
Yeah, the guy is obviously advertising for Sony. That's why he says "I love the 360." and "I love Xbox live" and "I want a Wii but can't find one." He says "I love the 360" more than anything else. If someone was really advertising for Sony, would they say that? No. The guy compliments the other systems, and I doubt he's doing it just to look good.

I don't know why you're complaining about resolutions. It supports everything from 480i to 1080p. I've personally played it on every resolution I could, and as long as it's the best the TV can do, it looks fine. Sure, it doesn't come with cables, but what if you want HDMI and not component? It'd be a waste to put component cables in it. Besides, just get some old component cables for PS2 and they work great. They're cheap too. Big deal.

I don't think you completely understood Jaffe. He's not saying it will take longer for developers to make great games on the PS3, it will just take them longer to get EVERYTHING out of the system, and that is largely due to its complexity. I'm sorry if you don't like Resistance (or if you've ever really played it), but it's a great game. Yeah, developmental hardness kept great games for coming out for the PS3, even though we had a great game at launch. That makes sense. It's not a mind-blowing game, but I don't think the 360 had any better games either. It took a whole year to get anything mind-blowing out on the 360, and that was GoW. Considering MGS4 and FFXIII (as well as a few other games) should be coming out before the end of this year, that would be about the same time frame it took the 360 to get the best games out.

Developmental difficulty really has little impact in "how fast they can push out great games." I've never seen a system "take too long" at getting great games out because of developmental difficulty. That's not was Jaffe was saying.

Let's all rush out and get a 360, because better games will be out on it FASTER!!!!!!! WOOOO!

No, it does not work like that. I think a majority of people know developmental difficulty won't slow developers at getting out great games, unless the team is lazy to some degree.

I know what Carmack said about the PS3. So, we have 2 PC developers that don't really like it. Carmack wasn't as negative though. PC developers can stick to the PC if they want. A majority of developers don't mind the difficulty of the PS3. From what I've heard, most actually enjoy working with it.

I don't disagree that the 360 or Wii have a lot better value that the PS3 currently. But when you factor in the future, there's a good chance the PS3 will give more for your money.

Halo didn't sell the Xbox right away. It picked up steam as it went along, and then Halo 2 really pushed the Xbox. Resistance likely won't pick up much steam though, because Halo seems to steal most of the FPS spotlight now.

The Xbox had a lot of the same things the 360 had going for it...It was definitely more powerful than the PS2 (the 360 and PS3 are very close), it had a lot better online, it was "easier to develop for", etc etc. On paper, it looked better than the PS2, but when you looked at games people realized it had less to offer (unless you love Halo).

I don't know of anyone that wanted the $300 360. I don't know why you would want one, because it really lacks what you want, and you have to spend more to upgrade it. I think most people realize that systems will increase in price as time goes on. Most people aren't aware of why the PS3 costs more...and they see it as lacking. They'll probably change their minds about the price being too high once online services mature and more games come out. I'm pretty sure people would rather spend $500 on a system that has MGS, FF, GT, and a host of other games (which may or may not be exclusive) than $400 on one that stands out because of Halo and GoW. A lot of people do just want Halo/GoW, so it really depends.

Does Sony have an uphill battle? Yeah, they really do. They're not doing the best right now. They don't have as much money as Microsoft, but I think most developers know the power they have behind the console situation. Developers aren't going to give up anytime soon with Sony, because they made the most money last gen. It's a safe bet that they'll do well this time around too, and the developers know that.

Honestly it all comes down to what games you will want. I personally think the $500-600 price is justifiable due to the hardware (and its possibilities) and the guaranteed game library. It's all personal preference though. I really don't care if Newell and Carmack don't like the PS3. For one, they're not huge with consoles to begin with. Second, I know there will always be many developers that will enjoy working with the PS3. I'm really not concerned about Newell and Carmack, and I think they'll feel silly in a few years after bashing the PS3.
 
Personally, I like Steam and the concepts behind it, and wish more developers would follow suit. This would lead to developers skipping on publishers entirely and allow them to finish their games before release.

Episodic content, I'm not overly crazy about, but I'll bite if they offer enough game play at a fair price.
 
My dear Mister hans030390,

For 600 freaking dollars it is NOT a waste to put all the cables in the retail box.
For that ridiculous sum of money they should make darn sure the thing has maximum enjoyment potential.

I dont give a damn about how much money they lose. Thats their problem.
As I've said before I dont own stock in SonyCorp. I am a consumer. I care about what I get at home.
If they wanted to make money from the system itself they should have gone the Nintendo route and made it for cheaper than the selling price.
I only have some basic business and economics behind me and even I know that their model is a piss-poor idea. Mostly because it leads to making all sorts of other problems in an effort to turn a profit.

The only reason Sony used such high-end components was for advertising purposes. They did not need a high-end system to play quality video games. They just wanted to be able to say "Ooooh looky! We are leet haxors with 1.21 jigawatts of pixel-pushing power!"
They thought about game quality and quantity last, which is the first thing a consumer needs to enjoy their product.
 
You're right, Sony didn't have to put in "1.21 jigawatts" of power. They didn't have to put in Blu-Ray either. They could have gone the Nintendo route, but then everyone knows they would have screwed themselves over. Microsoft would have had the power advantage, and Nintendo would be more innovative (Honestly, what could Sony come up with that is innovative? Not a whole lot outside of the inside hardware.

I agree though, you don't need high-end components to play quality video games. But what does the consumer expect out of each new generation? They expect those next-gen graphics. That's what Microsoft delivered. Sony could have gone the 360 route and had a much cheaper system. Still, even then they'd be losing money. Microsoft loses money on the 360s. Either way Sony loses money, so they might as well do the most they can.

Personally, I think choosing more advanced hardware was a good choice for Sony. It has a lot of potential. The Cell, IF used properly, should give games a good power advantage. Blu-Ray gives games much more space. You can get great games on DVD with compression, but it still has limits. Eventually people will surpass DVD and will need something like Blu-Ray, or we go the route of multiple DVDs. The 25-50gb gives Blu-Ray and the PS3 another potential in the future. Not only that, but Sony has a lot of big developers backing it (the kinds the consumers really want). Consumers always want the best games (in every aspect), especially from those big developers. Sony really wanted to give them a lot of room to push farther and farther with games.

They chose the hardware due to its potential. That could fail, just like any new advanced hardware out there. You can't deny that there isn't potential in the system, and a bit more than the 360 has. If I'm correct, the 360 has a slight advantage with the graphics processor, but I think the Cell has an advantage over the 360 CPU(s).

Somewhat going along with what Vian said, it's harder to develop for the PS3. There will likely be more companies that don't get enough out of the PS3 than there will be getting enough out of the 360. There will still be companies pushing the PS3 and using its potential, so there will still be great games, but there will also likely be a large pool of crappy games.

Sony is just giving a lot of potential for its console. It's not necessary, and it could screw them over. But it could also end up in their favor.

Thinking about quality and quantity last? If the PS2 is any example of what they got, I wouldn't be too worried about what the PS3 will get (also looking at upcoming games too).

I do agree though, they should have put some sort of cable in with the PS3. The 360 can include either composite or component (neglecting S-video). That's what it supports. The PS3 supports those and HDMI. It would be a waste to include component when someone wants HDMI, and it would be a waste to include HDMI when they need component. To include both would be a waste either way.

They honestly could have though, and should have. There's just a downside to every situation. After paying $500-600 for a system, paying $10 for component cables (at walmart) isn't too bad. As far as HDMI goes, you can get those pretty cheap online too (just get them ahead of time).

They could have put them in, but it really shouldn't be a big deal.

I'll admit, the PS3 has had a disappointing launch, and all of the games but one suck. The network has problems and is slow. The system has potential, both with hardware and future "big" games (the PS2 is evidence of that). I may seem like I'm being paid by Sony (that would be nice, because my current job sucks), but I don't think anyone should be calling the PS3 a failure because of developing difficulty, price, or how well it's selling. The PS2 was harder to develop for, and the price is not good value right now (because it's a lacking system right now). It has potential. It's not failing NOW, but depending on what happens, it very well could fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top