|
Good article and worth the read through.
Kinda shows Microsoft's arrogance but it kinda felt like he was defending the PS3 only because it was taking a lot of heat (devil's advocate).
Sony will stay alive becase of fanatics but we will see how well it does.
Really there are too main things in console games. Gameplay - Why I would play it more than once (what the wii is for) and Graphics - the amount of time it takes for my games to start looking ugly in comparison to what is out (what an xbox360 is for).
Really I see no reason to buy a PS3 other than titles. Sure MGS4 and FF13 will be awesome but those two games are not worth 600$ to me and niether is blue-ray. FF7, Chrono Trigger, FF Tactics would make the console worth it to me though.
I can't stand when people justify purchasing a PS3 solely because of blue-ray. Saying, "A blue-ray player costs 1000$ and the PS3 costs 600$ is a no brainer" is simply wrong. You still spending 600$ on something that may fail (with Sony's track history in the format wars its safe to say things aren't looking good) is a bad idea.
You can also take a look at last generation's record between the Xbox and PS2. Its like they switched roles or something!
Last generation:
PS2: Wealth of exclusive titles, least graphical power (than a Gamecube...), fanatical support, early release.
Xbox: Lack of titles, highest graphical, some support, late release
and I'm pretty sure (don't quote me) Sony made a hell of a lot more money than xbox did overall not only selling their systems but the amount of hardware sold.
Current Gen (not next gen anymore if we are in it!):
PS3: Lack of exclusive titles, undeterminable graphical power in comparison, fanatical support, late release
360: More exclusive titles, indeterminable graphical power, near fanatical support of Sony, Early release
Seriously its hard for me take anyone seriously who supported the PS2 but oppose the 360 and vise-versa. The edge the PS2 had on the xbox was the titles and the chokehold they had on developers.
It turns out developers don't like to be choked and forced to release a title for only one system (which means they lose money).
So if Sony's position before was that if you wanted to play a certain game you need a PS2 what is their current selling point other than blue-ray?
Why would I pay 600$ just for a blue-ray player? Simply because a blue-ray player costs 1000$. I think not. Thats like buying a product on sale only because its on sale, even if you don't use it. My point is buying a PS3 right now is crazy. Especially if you have an xbox360. For 200$ more you can get the same quality movies (that can also play on ur PC) without having to pay for an extra 40gb of space that is not used.
When two products look exactly the same (produce identical results), why would you pay more for one than the other?
Does Sony price and create their hardware based on the assumption that more people will pay more for their product simply because of a brand? (though I understand a lot of people do buy strictly on brand and product trust I believe consumers will go for the cheaper solution as has been proven in the past in format wars and product hardware).
I'll write something a little clearer maybe thursday and post it in the gaming discussion section. Everyone is more than welcome to disagree and I will consider each and every remark and position no matter the person.
|
