PS3 unable to hold its own against Wii, Xbox 360 this holiday season
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted Dec 29th 2008 5:34PM
posted Dec 29th 2008 5:34PM
Considering the way that the Wii flew off shelves last month, this next item probably won't come as a shock to anyone. According to the Wall Street Journal, both Nintendo's console and the Xbox 360 trounced the PS3 in holiday sales, with U.S. sales falling nine percent from this month last year. During this same period, sales doubled for the Wii and rose eight percent for the Xbox 360. Perhaps none of this should be a surprise, as Sony declined to cut prices on their system, while a lack of exclusive game titles and a number of inexpensive Blu-ray players went a long way towards making the PS3 the least attractive option in an already difficult retail climate. If anything, it looks like Sony won't be able to rely on the console to help prop up a flagging electronics division that just announced it will be cutting thousands of jobs in a bid to boost profitability going into 2009. Happy New Year, indeed.
When the competitors are half the price what do you expect?
When the competition has halfway decent games, what do you expect?
::flame suit on::
This comes from someone who owns all three.
especially when the competitor has better games and online service.
Just sayin' all the blame cant be placed on the price...
It's like all top'o'theline gear, you pay alot extra to get alittle performance-boost, but just enough to place you above all else. Some buys it, most don't.
I have all three too. I just think it's more of the PS3 loosing exclusives that's killing it...
Final Fantasy
Grand Theft Auto
Resident Evil
Add to it titles like Lair and Haze don't meet expectations then you have the reason why it's not doing so hot with moving hardware.... But hey this is just stateside in Europe and Japan the PS3's moving units...
I don't care. Sales figures don't matter to me. Games I want to play do. The PS3 has stuff like LBP and the cross-platform games. If I wasn't entirely anti-MS I might get a 360 for some of the RPGs (though to be honest, the ports of stuff I've played have not impressed) and a few of the smaller things (Braid?).
The Wii has what this year? Mario Galaxy? Oh wait, that was LAST year. Yet it still continues to outsell. With no games that interest me. So sales don't matter to me, as a gamer. Games do. And as the Wii shows, increased sales != increased games.
Are u kidding me? no exclusive games, there are tons. more than xbox and in my opinion better exclusives but i wont go into that. Sony cant cut their prices because it STILL costs more to make a ps3 than what they sell it for.
I have to totally agree with the first post. Wii is the cheapest, Xbox 360 is the last-gen console, offers the same things as PS3 (mostly) but at half price. Which one would you pick?
Statistics say that people pick the console based on its price. I hate to admit it, but PS3 is screwed.
I got a PS3 running Folding@Home under my desk right now. Contributing to Team Engadget, of course! ;)
The price is the major factor.
@ Whoever said wii is cheapest...
Actually Xbox 360 is the cheapest by $50. Most people don't realize that still tho, sadly.
-Taylor
The low end of the 360 is cheaper than a Wii, but it's also not completely functional. You also need to add on the price of online service if you want a complete package. Games are more expensive on both the 360 and PS3. BluRay movies tend to cost more, as do the TV's that offer the full experience of even having BluRay. There's also the electrical bill that nobody considers with the PS3 generating the highest bills and the Wii generating the lowest.
I have a WII, PS3 and XBOX. The only game I've played on the PS3 is Resistance. Other than that it just runs Folding@home, but I've even turned that off to save electricity. The PS3 turned me off since you can't control it using a universal remote. Its games seemed to come out later than the XBOX so I'd buy them on the XBOX. The online community on the XBOX is more robust. Regrets, I have a few, the PS3 is one I'll mention.
What's with these people saying PS3 exclusives suck? Let's take a look:
-LittleBigPlanet: It isn't childish, it's alot of fun when you get into it - couldn't stop laughing the first time I played.
-Resistance 2: Awesome game, cool weapons, 60 players online (which works like a charm, PSN doesn't suck here at all).
-Motorstorm Pacific Rift: Very nice successor of Motorstorm 1, much better graphics and gameplay.
-MGS4: Unbelieveable graphics, gameplay is again very awesome, the best PS3 game if you're a MGS fan.
-Valkyria Chronicles: Unique, but cool graphics. Very nice RPG to play.
And some upcoming exclusives which look very promising:
-Heavy Rain
-MAG: 256 players online!
-Final Fantasy Versus XIII
-Killzone 2: However alot of people didn't like Killzone 1 (which wasn't very bad at all), alot of in-game footage make this game look awesome.
-Gran Turismo 5
-God of War 3
-inFamous
-Uncharted 2
Just to name a few. So much for not enough games I suppose (and since when does quantity equal better quality..?). And however it's a little more expensive than the Xbox's games, you get a lot more content thanks to Blu-Ray as opposed to DVD (50GB vs 9GB). I think it's worth the extra 10 or so dollars. Especially when you look at the awesome exclusives still coming out, it's safe to say the PS3 is very competitive even though it's twice the price of the Xbox 360 (the cheapest version WHICH DOESN'T COME WITH AN HDD, yeah thanks for this great update which lets you install games.. On your HDD).
@Nick, chill homedog. Nobody is saying ps3 exclusives suck, it just doesn't standout as much as multi-platform games that can easily won over by xbox-live service. People service, what can I say? It's just the invisible hand at work.
Personally, the things I like about the PS3 are exactly what make it expensive and keep its sales low: standard-HDD, Nvidia graphics, Cell, and Blu-ray.
I have all three systems, the Wii I barely play, 360 I play a lot, but the PS3 is a great media machine. Its dead-quiet, which the Airbus 360 is not, and it plays Divx, Blu-ray, etc (its also a great upscaled DVD player). There's an elegance to it. I'm finding I'm playing more and more PS3 games when its multiplatform which I previously always relied on my 360 (maybe because my 360 Elite I feel will die on me sooner rather then later). I'm also finding a lot of quality games on their PSN network that gets updated weekly that I'm actually buying. Lots of really unique indie titles like Last Guy and Crash Commando.
PS3 definitely has the best games all around (tons of exclusives, the best cross platform, and blu-ray) but its $400 price point is too much. Thats a fact. Even though the Xbox 360 is more expensive for most people with Xbox Live, a WiFi card, rechargable stuff, hard drives for some, etc. People just don't care. $400 as a base price was too much this holiday season.
Oh well. PS3 is an awesome system and it is far from dead. It's sales are higher than Xbox 360 give the amount of time it's been out so it's got a long way to go.
Platinum is right.
PS3 is OVERPRICED
Lacking exclusive titles - developers see the 360's XBL is more profitable
Comparatively lame online system compared to XBL
Regardless who disagrees with me...this is the perception on the streets. Lay consumers and kids aren't arguing about which is better, they just percieve PS3 to be the weaker of the 2 systems. And I said "2 systems" because Wii isn't even a real competitor. It sells cause its cheap.
I bet you this year more garbage bags will be sold than PS3's too....
It is all about the price. And Sony cannot lower the price. Let me explain:
People still don't realize that when it comes to pure graphics/computational power the PS3 has the other two beat by a mile (five miles if comparing to the Wii.) The Wii is a Gamecube on steroids with a nifty controller and the 360 is just a sprused-up version of the old G5 Power-based macs with a nice graphics card and the Halo brand. They cannot hold a candle to the architecture that is inside the PS3 in both their cell-based processor and their graphics subsystem. Add on to that the possibilities that come with the extra space on the blu-ray disks and you will find that Sony sorta overshot this generation of systems when it designed the PS3, putting in technology that is so insanely complex that it costs a fortune to actually build their systems (still.)
A cell-based blade for an IBM bladecenter costs approximately $10k, the company behind Yellodog Linux or the PS3 just announced the pricing on their PCI-E-based cell processing module of over $6k ( http://us.fixstars.com/store/index.php?submit=software&submitimg[hardware][fixstars]=1 ), the PS3 starts at $400.
I have Wii & PS3. Not keen on the Egg Box. I tried one out again the other day and it may just be a matter of taste but the decision I made in the first place to get the Playstation over the Egg Box was certainly the right one to my mind.
Uhm half? According to Amazon, the price difference between a PS3 with 80 GB and a Xbox 360 Pro with 60 GB (best comparison I found) is $100.. So not really half.. And I'd rather pay the $100 for the Bluray and lack of RROD :p
The sad thing is, there are morons that believe this cr@p.
The thing with statistics, you can twist them to say what you want. Yes, PS3 got beat on holiday sales in the US. But it still (marginally) outsold the 360 in total sales in 2008 in the US. and outsold the 360 by a large margin in Japan and Europe.
At the end of the day, that means the PS3 -> 360 gap has closed by another 1.5m consoles worldwide. Meaning Microsoft only have a 3m console advantage (and some of those will surely be RROD's that were thrown away because the owners did not know about 3yr warranty extension for RROD).
I wouldn't be suprised to see the actual on the ground active number of PS3 and 360 consoles to be with a million of each other globally.
I think the sales comparisons are dumb because most gamers have made a conscious effort to buy all 3 systems - or at least - have 1 of each console per household.
People seem to be purchasing the systems as they become available.
As for all that "cell processor architecture" bullshit... A PS3 and an Xbox360 work just like a regular desktop. Games don't benefit from the CPU as much as they do the GPU because CPU's aren't good at 3d graphics - that's the GPU's job.
360 has the better Graphics processing system while PS3 has a better sound system. tell ya what, compare FALLOUT 3 on PS3 and XBOX and you'll see that PS3's draw distances are much shorter and the PS3's antialiasing isn't up to par.
Now compare the 360/PS3 version to the Wii's.... Oh wait....
that's unfortunate. as a 360 owner i keep finding myself wishing i had gotten a ps3. sony's got to start getting it together or the war may be between two consoles.
Well, my 2 cents.... Beta:Xbox 360 as VHS:Wii. Maybe the same argument could be made for HD DVD and Blu-Ray.
Well if that was the case then Beta would have won because they are kicking the shit out of VHS. By the time the PS3 gets its shit together MS will have the 720 or whatever the heck they call it out which will take 2 years to start selling because everyone will be scared as hell to purchase a first gen MS console after the initial cluster that is/was the 360.
War between Wii and Xbox360? Wii wins. Its cheaper.
@Shinigami:
No.
They got it together a long time back. Unless you hadn't noticed, Microsoft enjoyed 12 months in the US, and 18months everywhere else, where they were selling consoles with no competition.
Where did that lead go? Sony had amost managed to destory it, whilst having to fight with 2 other consoles in the market.
How can anyone think that is poor performance???
The 2008 exclusives were better on PS3.
The Multi-plats looked as good, and sometimes better on PS3.
2009 is almost entirely PS3, as I don't see a single Xbox exclusive worth owning on the radar..
I would be really disappointed to have opened a Xbox360 on Xmas day, knowing my parents just bought me 2007's console of the year....
I know I was looking at Blu-ray players, and considered a PlayStation 3... when it came right down to it, though, I didn't buy it. There haven't been many games I've seen for PlayStation 3 (that I want) that I can't get for Wii (Bad Company is the only one that comes to mind).
In the end, I ended up with the Sony BDP-S350.
True.. would be hard getting all those versions of Mario on the PS3.. better stick with your Wii..
Wait, wasn't Little Big Planet and Resistance 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4 and all those other awesome exclusives supposed to make the Sony PlayStation 3 GOVERNOR OF THE UNIVERSE this holiday season?
It looks bad for the PS3 but we just don't know how long the PS3 production cycle will be.
The cost of the console and software will be the true test of it's sucess if it falls in the future.
Completely agree, Not setting out to be a fanboy, but the writer's comment that the PS3 has a lack of exclusives is ridiculously unfounded when you consider that IGN just voted the PS3 as the best console for exclusives this year...
I completely disagree with anyone who says the PS3 is failing now due to its lack of exclusive titles. I think the main reason is that tthe 360 has already gained too much momentum in one year before the PS3 was released. It has penetrated the market more, so people would rather stick with it for non-exclusive titles. Companies then jump ship and Sony loses a bunch of exclusives. People who don't have a console yet would buy one that has a larger consumer base.
Dreamcast 2: It's sinking.
you never know, could happen..
if sega was to re-enter the game console business again; they would have my business for sure.
the current generation of systems are lacking in way too many areas; not exactly in the performance department, but where a console is supposed to be... think about it..
I was implying that the ps3 will have the same fate as the Dreamcast (thus calling it Dreamcast 2), but a new console from sega would be ****ing sweet.
Sega's been failing miserably on a lot of games since they went software.... Sonic will never be the same video game mascot especially since he's been on every competitors system... Sega's just better off calling it off until the get a A+ sonic title then I can say I'll reconsider it...
@ Platinum skeet
Unfortunately, I have to agree. lately SEGA's dropped more balls than a busload of eunuchs. I used to be such a hardcore SEGA fan... still have my Genesis and Japanese Dreamcast tucked away.
Problem is, Sonic's now way too childish, and the kids that SEGA's trying to woo these days really don't care for him, whereas the actual Sonic fans are now in their 20s. Someone needs to tell SEGA that their target demographic has shifted.
A mature Sonic game with darker tones and a muted Tails might actually fare well.
It's simply a price issue. I understand that they don't want to keep losing money, but they need a $300 model. In return, the Wii will probably cut costs, but there is no way a person should pay $250 for a Wii over a $300 PS3. It's worth the $50. Might save that in batteries for the controllers within a year.
Unless they, you know, want a Wii? I have all three systems and my Wii has provided me with a hell of a lot more entertainment than the PS3 has, even when you throw in Blu-ray movies.
I think its a little more than price. The Wii is still doing well from being the new kid on the block type deal. I mean when you can put a video game console in a retirement home and only have to explain to the elderly how to use it once, you have something.
Next, the 360 offers, IMO, the best online play. Period. People aren't buying 360's to play games all by them selves anymore, or with a friend next to them (the Wii has that market). They are buying these to play online. And as broadband becomes more and more wide spread, this trend will go up.
PS3 needs something up their sleeve.
It would be nice if there was a 300 dollar PS3 unit available. But IF people are merely buying Wii's because they're cheaper @ $250 compared to PS3's $400 price tag, perhaps you shouldn't be spending money on a game console to begin with. If 250 bucks is your limit, maybe gaming isn't what you should be concentrating on. On the other side, if you CAN afford 250 bucks, why can't you afford 400? You're gonna end up spending 150 bucks more eventually anyway when you realize you actually want to play games on the Wii so why not just spend the extra 150 and get a blu ray player, built in HDD, wi-fi, and hi-def video/audio output (just to name a few)?
I guess, to me, if I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars on a game console i'm going to play for the next 10 years, I might as well get the one that packs the most punch for my dollar. Thus far, that has been my PS3.
I'll probably buy one when FF13 comes out and/or it drops to 300 bucks. The only games I kinda want to play is Metal Gear 4 and Little Big Planet. Needs more killer games and price drop. The numbers speak for themselves.
If you already own a 360, you won't need to get a PS3 for FF13 as it's coming to XBox. MGS4 is almost worth it though. Almost.
http://www.edge-online.com/news/final-fantasy-xiii-goes-360
This is disappointing. I got a PS3 as a blu-ray player but hoped for better games. Things just seem to be getting worse. The online experience is way below the Xbox, the games are more expensive, and its falling behind a a media player. The whole Netflix thing really pissed me off. Why doesn't Sony just shoot themselves in the head and get it over with.
The only way they could salvage things at this point it to really open up to new applications. Get full Hulu support. Go back and get Netflix running. The hardware has so much to offer but Sony is acting way too much like...Sony.
Sony has been adding in features. Things have been much better in 08 than they were in 07.
The biggest complaint with the PS3 was a lack of games. Sony responded with Resistance 2, MotoStorm: Pacific Rift, LittleBigPlanet and Metal Gear Solid 4. Those are all top quality games, and they're all exclusive to the PS3. On the non-exclusive front, the PS3 also got Fallout 3, Grand Theft Auto 4, Call of Duty, and loads more top quality games. In 2009, we should see Killzone 2 heading up another very good list of games.
The next biggest complaint with Sony was the online services. I've never used a 360, but I feel entirely satisfied with the PS3's online gaming experience. There's no gaping hole as far as I'm concerned, other than the disparity between EU and US stores. Sony tried to add to their offering with a video store and Home. The jury's still out on Home, but from my experiences with it, it'll be a fun addition once more content gets added.
Whilst all of that's been going on, Sony's added in-game music and XMB access and trophies (which according to reports are going to be mandatory next year). They've also added Flash 9 support to the browser, revamped Folding@Home, held numerous beta code scrambles, and cleaned up the XMB's account management features. The PSP has gained access to the PS Store from the device, and from next year all first-party releases will be available to buy online as a download.
Sony's made massive improvements to their gaming line-up. They've done well to address the biggest two parts of the PS3 that fell short. The one issue where they should have done more is the issue of price. The PS3 has dropped quite a lot over the year, but it still can't compete with cheaper consoles in an environment where people are in high debt and have little or no disposable income. The comfort Sony should take from this is that people likely aren't rejecting the PS3 because it has little to offer. Traditionally, Sony would continue to add new features and leave the price alone to try and make the purchase worth it. I don't think that will help them this time. People aren't buying not because they don't think it's worth it, but because they just don't have that much money, however much they would like to own one.
@ KarlW,
You say you have never used a 360, if you had, you would realize how extremely lacking the PS3 is in the software department. The 360 is incredibly smooth in its integration and how things work. The PS3 seems incredibly awkward in comparison.
The online experience, the music and video integration, friends, achievements etc, are all done so much better on the 360.
The games are getting close, and the PS3 wins on hardware, but it is not enough considering its poor software and higher price.
Between the two consoles it is so obvious which one is built by a software company and which one by a hardware company. Too bad the two couldn't join forces, they could team up and build the perfect console.
i've own and have used both and the only thing i like about the 360 is it's exclusive titles. my ps3 is older (first gen 80g) and it's quiter and has a bettter menu (IMO). The 360 which is a holiday pro is loud (damn dvd drive) and the menu is more confusing then learning linux.
@ Dusty and KarlW
I know Karl has not used a 360, and I don't know if Dusty has used a PS3, but the differences are slim these days. PS3 doesn't have (native) Netflix support, but you can browse Hulu over the fully functioning web browser. It's not a media center extender, but it's codec support is far and away better than what the 360 offers, including full, certified, DivX support. It also supports DLNA, which is as easy as sharing your WMP library with it. It's harder to stream from a Mac, but that's true with the 360 as well. And the stupid NXE is terrible compared to the XMB in my opinion.
As for online, Xbox Live leads PSN in a few areas, not the least of which is voice chat abilities. It's really a shame that you can't talk to other people while playing games, unless you're playing games with them. Also, the message center is not quite as streamlined. On the other hand, it's free, and online games run just as smoothly, and isn't that the main point?
As for games, Engadget's statement of a "lack of exclusive game titles" is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time, and it's a sad argument that has long run it's course. Motorstorm, LittleBigPlanet, Metal Gear Solid 4, Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, and Resistance 2 all are exclusives and all have done well either critically or in sales or both. And that's just this year. Last year you had Rachet and Clank and Uncharted, and next year you have Killzone, inFamous, Uncharted 2, and God of War 3. Xbox 360 has some exclusives too, but some of those (Gears 2) will eventually make their way to PC anyway, so they're only marginal exclusives. And the days of cross-platform games being better on 360 are long gone.
Sadly, it's obvious that price is the main thing holding the PS3 back. It's really a shame considering that (IMO) it is a high quality piece of hardware (and much more reliable than the 360 in my experience, not to mention quieter). But all these statements of lack of games and features is really old, and is just FUD spread by people who don't really know what they're talking about. If the PS3 drops to $300 next year, it will become quite a bit more competitive, and things may begin to turn around, especially as PS2 sales dwindle and people move on.
Now, if you want to complain about lack of software, features, and lots of delays... then point to the PSP. Sony has had tons of problems there and they are mainly to blame. But they're doing what they can for the PS3.
Netflix doesn't mean anything to anybody outside the US. Flash 9 support in the browser is arguably better. It means that, as a UK user, I can watch TV with BBC iPlayer, and US users can watch TV through Hulu. Oh, and as a UK user, I've also got PlayTV allowing me to watch Live TV on my PS3, upscaled much better than my MacBook with EyeTV does.
If Sony really are falling behind in the PS3 being a media machine, there's still lots that can be done, such as providing a native interface for these streaming web services. An application-like interface for Hulu or iPlayer straight from the XMB would ease navigation, and use the same Flash 9 streaming that is already supported on the PS3.
@ Johnson,
Yes, I have used the PS3 quite a bit. Multiple friends have it.
You are right that the PS3 can do most of what the 360 can, it is just so much EASIER to do it on the 360. Everything just works more seamlessly.
I agree with the games is a wash anymore, which I think I mentioned.
am i the only non retard here that actually knows that ps3 games and 360 games are the SAME PRICE. the only console games that are cheaper are ps2, and wii. am i the only one thats no drinking the koolaid here?
The PlayStation 3 is nothing more than a BLU-RAY player with a wireless Playstation 2 controller....
I think you are wrong there. The PS3 is great hardware, they are lacking the software. BluRay aside the system is way better hardware. Using bluetooth was a great choice. As a new 360 user having to buy all of the Microsoft branded crap is kinda lame. I should be able to use my bluetooth headsets like the PS3. Hard drives that are user replaceable, not having to spend for the Microsoft one...
Wrong. As a gaming machine, 360 is slightly on top due to its better GPU, memory bandwidth, optical read speed , and software API. This is why so many multi-platform games look slightly better on the 360. The ps3's (2x) blu-ray drive is too slow to read on-the-fly, which is why tedious hard drive installs are required to play some heavy performance games.
As a dvd player or media hub though, the ps3 wins; but I doubt gamers are looking for that when they go shopping for a console...I mean just look at the wii and 360 sales.
Erik: I'm guessing by the way you're loving on bluetooth that you don't own a universal remote.
I bought a PS3 in November and I think it's one of the best purchases I've ever made. It makes a great media center. I stream my movies through it and it works flawlessly. I like the upscaling DVD feature and blu-ray which I've rented from Netflix and think is amazing. Resistance 2 multiplayer is insane and I love that I don't have to shell out $50 a year to play on PSN. I'm not into arguing the smallest of details as far as which console I find better, I just find the PS3 to be a better value. $50/year adds up when you plan on using your console for 3+ years.
I'm just surprised by the slumping sales.
Yes, it adds up to $150+ dollars, something I would gladly pay if the PS3 online experience improved.
$50/year vs. $0. As the cliche' goes you get what you pay for. XBox Live continues to be a vastly superior online service. PS3 had a window with Home and they blew it.
They key to the sales is obviously the price and Sony has no one else to blame. They pushed their Blu-Ray player and unnecessarily expensive processor on a public that largely didn't want it. They gambled and lost. They can't cut the price on their system because they are losing their ass on each console and not making up for it with games. Considering where Sony was 4 years ago with their consoles, they blew it big time.
Again. $38.99 for 13 months = $2.99 per month
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16874103030
PS3: $499.99 for 3 years equals $13.89 per month...
Why cry about pennies a month when you just purchased an expensive console? Especially if you buy approximately 3 games a year at $59.99.
I'm just torn on your logic.
Wait, where are you getting your Xbox 360 for free, Lowest Ranked?
From your basement window.
Keep replacing them, sucker!
That's another thing I don't understand. How is Xbox live superior to PSN, I find them to be the same exact thing as far as gameplay. Both of them are smooth, no hiccups, with plenty of people to play, way it should be.
As long as there are people to play and the gameplay isn't chop-chop-choppy, I'm happy. I think they've both accomplished that.
He claims his old 360 RRoD into flames, consuming all documentation that he bought one in the first place, and gets a new one from MS.
I have had a PS3 since launch and I can say I have been disappointed with the number of quality games coming out. Drakes Uncharted and Little Big Planet where the only two recent titles that were great and exclusive. Killzone 2 and Drakes 2 are coming but I think if you are a gamer you need both systems.
I just got a 360 and it is not cheaper. $300 for system $20 for recharge kit $50 per year for online game playing. We are at $370, if you want the Wifi it will run you more than a PS3.
That said, I think I like the Xbox 360 better, but that might be cuz for me she is the new girl on campus.
Okay, so add the wireless bridge which is ~$30.
$30 + $370 = $400
This is the path most consumers take when purchasing anything. They realized they will have to pay for everything at once, upfront with Sony, or they can take Microsoft's buy what you want, if you want, when you want, if you can afford it.
When it comes down to it, would you rather be forced with your decision or given options?
Well you could have gone with the cheap-ass route and get a $199 arcade bundle (usually comes with 1 or 2 games + 1 month of Live), a $20 20gb drive offer (for core and arcade owners only) from Microsoft, a $25 Linksys mod (for WIFI; skip that if you use LAN), a $40 1yr Live card from buy or newegg, and some rechargeable AA batteries you probably have lying around the house. That all adds up to a fully functional 360 for well under $300; maybe add $40 for a decent game. With ps3 you'll have to spend close to $500 to start having any fun at all.
PS3...$250 delivered with 2 year warranty. Done.
SONY Visa.
Real gamers know that WiFi in the 2.4GHz band is pathetically awful for gaming unless you have no neighbors for at least a mile radius. Why? So, let's say you are playing your favorite FPS online running a good 25ms of latency. Then, your neighbor turns on his awful, leaky $20 microwave, or his fat wife picks up the cordless phone. Suddenly, your latency begins spiking to 100 ms, or, in severe cases, stops working altogether.
WiFi makes sense in a mass-produced consumer device like the Wii. But, in a hardcore system (that the PS3 claims to be in their everything including the kitchen sink marketing), WiFi has little to no value. The PS3 is a great device, but PS3 fans need not insist on the WiFi argument when it comes to cost.
It's terrible for gaming, and gamers know that latency means the difference between life and death.
The install base, I think, isn't so bad, third was a profitable place to be for Nintendo for years. But when the plan is to make money by reducing costs and revenues from games and peripherals, It seems essential to be in a better position than they are in now.
Price is what did it for me. I wanted a blu-ray player. Standalones got under $200 and the PS3 sat fixed at $399. If there would have been a $299 PS3, it probably would have swayed me to go that route as an additional $100 to have the ability to play the handful of PS3 exclusive games on top of blu-ray playback would have bee worth it. A $200 price difference? Not so much.
Now that I have a blu-ray player, a lot of the motivation I had for getting a PS3 has evaporated. I still may pick one up eventually, but not till it undergoes a few hardware revs and pricedrops (basically whenever it reaches PS2 Slim levels and all the A titles are in the bargain bins.)
The Wall Street Journal was just re-hashing the same November NPD data that made the Silicon Alley Insider/CNet guy cry "Sinking Ship!" two weeks ago. It's not complete "holiday sales" figures yet.
Are you expecting it to be any different?
I would like a ps3, but it really is too expensive.. for £300 i can get a 32" LCD TV
That's Sony for you... they have a great piece of hardware, but they would rather let it die as compared to letting it do what it should easily be able to do in a more open environment.
Examples of other Sony Failures
- Mini-Disc/ATRAC | This could have been the Walkman (or iPod for you young whippersnappers) of the late 90's
- Memory Stick | Another quasi failure. SD and even CF ARE the standard.
- Super Audio CD | I still see these around and laugh.
- PSP | OK, not a failure, but it's not great. I owned one and it just never did what I wanted it to do.
- UMD - It's just a bad format for
I own a 360 and a PS3, but I do all my gaming on the 360 and just use the PS3 as a Blu-ray player. I like the 360's interface, online experience (its worth every penny), Netflix support, exclusive games, Arcade, controller (I can't stand the Sony controller), etc. That being said, the PS3 is an awesome Blu-ray and DVD player, although no IR and a non-backlit remote annoy me.
Keep in mind that if you want an Xbox and play online, it's really $350, and the PS3 has a lot of things you don't just get with the initial purchase of the Xbox - like built in wireless, without which I would be screwed since the best area in my house for a TV is absolutely nowhere near an ethernet port or the router, and to resolve that the wireless adapter would have been 87 on Amazon. Purely as a device, the PS3 is a better value, but the 360 has the games.
People buy the wii because it's interactive and fun and granny can play it while she babysits the kids, but if thats not your thing you can snag a 360 pro for 300 bucks with two games and a whole bunch of other shinanigans that will get you well on your way to online domination. Something comparable on the PS3 runs 499 at bb. The problem is the target audience is so narrow with the PS3 and the blu-ray just isnt that much of a turning point apparently.
I keep thinking that one of the mistakes that Sony made is not charging for the PlayStation Network. i would venture to guess that Xbox Live memberships really bring in revenue for Microsoft's gaming division. I for one am willing to pay for good online services. and I would bet a lot of other people would be too.
Okay, your comment stopped me in my tracks. You wish a free service would become a subscription service? You really think Halo would have not been as good as it was if Xbox live was free. I'll ignore the fact that Microsoft doesn't even really that heavily on first party games (thereby making you comment make even less sense), but how would more money for the producer of the hard ware equal better quality software? Even if the PS3 has more first party games then the 360, I doubt more capital would show a dramatic spring in the quality of games.
...Sorry about that, but you struck of chord with me.
What I am saying is that a subscription service would generate revenue for Sony's gaming division. Making up for the cost of the losses on each console sold!
I own a PS3 and 360 and brother has a wii so in my unbiased opinion 360 is a better gaming machine, PS3 is a better multimedia machine, and wii is mostly appealing to very casual gamers or people who had no interest in gaming before like my mom which is working out for them quite well.
Despite how poorly PS3 sales are doing in a way they are probably still happy with the way things are going because lets face it Sony designed a device that was made to win the HD format war, which they did. I dont think the PS3's main focus was ever gaming, it was a multimedia experience as a whole.
Microsoft on the other hand im sure is happy because they keep gaining more and more of the marketshare and have been ahead of sony this entire generation. To take away Sony's massive domination of the market among the core gamers is a pretty big victory for them. Even if they end up coming in 3rd place when all is said and done Sony doesnt dominate the market like they used to and im sure thats what was most important for MS this gen.
As far as Nintendo goes, well what do they NOT have to be happy about
Come on Sony get your head straight, you make the only console out right now that dosn't have a mass hardware defect or get old after a rounds of play.Cut prices, get more exclusivs, make home better(possibly charge for it). I really like my ps3 and blu ray player.....
What do you mean "lack of exclusive games"?! While, I won't argue with you that the sales of the system itself weren't at it's highs this season, I think "lack of exclusive games" is just pointing out some body's bias.
Yeah, do:
LittleBigPlanet
Resistance 2
MGS4
And the upcoming: GOW3, Uncharted 2, and Killzone 2
ring any bells?
And also, an 80gb PS3 costs $399.99. The closest Xbox console in terms of hard drive space is the 60gb at $299.99. But when you add in $50 for the FIRST year of Live, plus $99.99 for the wi-fi adaptor (built in on PS3), it comes to $450. If you want Blu-Ray, the cheapest player is around $150. So that comes to a grand total of $600, which is $100 more than the 160gb PS3 bundle which includes everything I talked about. You pick the better deal.
Except I don't need the WiFi (Have Ethernet). I stream media from my PC so the HDD size on the 360 isn't a big deal but I'l take 60GB even if I don't use it.
Live is $38/13 months coming in dang near $3/month.
and the PS3 doesn't even do Media Center Extender/Live TV/DVR like the 360.
For me, the 360 is BY FAR the better value.
Well you could go with the cheap-ass route and get a $199 arcade bundle (usually comes with 1 or 2 games + 1 month of Live), a $20 20gb drive offer (for core and arcade owners only) from Microsoft, a $25 Linksys mod (for WIFI; skip that if you use LAN), a $40 1yr Live card from buy or newegg, and some rechargeable AA batteries you probably have lying around the house. That all adds up to a fully functional 360 for well under $300; maybe add $40 for a decent game. With ps3 you would have to spend close to $500 to start having any fun at all.
BTW, there is no need for a blu-ray player anymore now that 360 has HD netflix.
I may not have bothered to get one for a while, but my g/f got me an 80gb for Christmas this year. I was considering a bluray player soon anyway and there are a few games I plan on playing. Not to mention I'm playing around with the media streaming from the collection on my PC. That feature alone is pretty damn cool.
I figured I could ditch my upconverting DVD player but still wanted to keep it for the USB port and divx/xvid support. Turns out the media streaming so far is great. So I may be able to ditch it after all.
Would I have shelled out $400 for it? Not right now... and I can certainly see why it is getting spanked in sales. I don't have a 360 yet, but I still love my Wii.
Perhaps the lesson here is that the market is only big enough for two players. The history of console is littered with failed attempts at being the "third banana".
i own a ps3 (traded an old lappy on craigslist for it) and i have to say it is pretty mind blowing. the graphics are top notch..i had a 360 and the hd, while good was subpar to that of the ps3. and the most clear cut example i can draw is a particular arcade/store game: super street fighter hd remix.
i had it on 360 (loved it) then i bought it on ps3 and it blew my mind. the smoothness of the cel shaded graphics was impeccable and there really was no competition as to what was the better piece of hardware.
now true, i wouldn't have been able to afford the ps3 on my own so i see why the sales are down. sony needs to cut some big time exclusives (lbp and mgs4 are awesome, but two games don't make the system and neither one of them are the caliber of halo) if they can get some good exclusives they can lower the price of the hardware and then we'll see some actual competition.
I like the PS3 as a media streamer. I stream all kinds of stuff through it, it works great. And I got it originally because of the Blu Ray capability and games like Gran Turismo. I'm not missing out on much vs. having a 360 instead. Oh, also Ratchet and Clank. Yes.
I like the graphics and the games on the PS3, my main issue is the system itself. We have gone through 2 consoles since may 08. The 1st just stopped working and the second stopped reading games and blu rays. Sony refused to do anything about either one so thank god I bought the extended warranty. We are now on our 3rd ps3 and if this one craps out we're not buying another one. I like sony products and I will choose them over others but this dissapoints me. I don't mind paying more for the PS3 than the other consoles but I expect to get my money's worth.
Well, I'll be getting a PS3 soon. I want a next gen console AND a blu ray player, and I don't care that much about gaming online. Plus, I like MGS and (eventually), God of War.
I own all 3 sytems,. My ps3 is collecting dust. While I play Xbox live 99% of time,.I can totally see the ps3 being killed beyond resurrection when Xbox throws a built in Blu ray player,.that will be the playstation killer.
a day that will (in most likeliness) never happen
@V Langs
Probably true. So that Microsoft can show Sony who is the greatest stubborn moron around.
Doesn't need to happen now that we have HD netflix on the 360. Broadband media is the future, not some blue coffee mug coaster.
Yeah, Digital Downloads are the future. Except that in the future, ISP's will have bandwidth caps so great we won't be able to do anything but use the services that cable companies provide themselves.
BTW, the quality of Netflix movies is really below-par when compared to the quality of Blu-Ray films. But keep telling yourself whatever makes you happy in order to continue the anti-PS3 / Blu-Ray / Sony tirade that is the hip thing to be on nowadays...