Sony thinks 360 and Wii are over-priced

[Reginald]

Another week, another company issues more pre-console war statements. Speaking to The Age this week Sony Computer Entertainment Managing Director, Michael Ephraim, stated that he thinks that rival consoles Nintendo Wii and Microsoft Xbox 360 are "pricey".

According to Next-Gen, The Wii in Australia is set to launch for $400 AUS ($300 US, €239, £160) with a standard console bundle including Wii Sports. "…Even though it's affordable, whatever you need to buy accessories-wise, I'm guessing you need to spend about $500 to take home a Wii and enjoy it… $500 is a lot to fork out… I think the price for what it specifically does as a videogames machine is a bit pricey…"

He did, however, offer some positive comments on the Wii – "I think that their strategy long term we have great respect for."

Speaking on the Xbox 360, Ephriam praised the console’s initial sales as doing “fairly well at launch", but has lacked the momentum to the next level of sales – "I think their product offering is still not broad enough. The content is narrow and appeals only to a very core group. Microsoft's price point at $600-plus a big investment for family entertainment."

Whilst Ephraim has a point in that accessories can be fairly pricey in the next generation of input devices, it seems that he’s forgotten that the Wii comes fully equipped with a game and controller out of the box.

With the price of the Wii and Xbox 360 being expensive in Sony’s eyes, the $869-$999 (AUS) price point for the PS3 seems like a steal…

Oh dear. Sony are really clutching at straws now.

Doesn't it occur to them that people will have to spend money on accessories for their console too?

 

[AmishSlayer]

Oh dear. Sony are really clutching at straws now.

Doesn't it occur to them that people will have to spend money on accessories for their console too?

lol

Nah, apparently you need to buy $250 worth of games and accessories to have fun with the Wii while the initial investment in the PS3 is all you need to have the time of your life.

 

[VictimOfScience]

They're all over-priced, but the PS3 is obviously at the top of that list. Oh well, can't wait for some price cuts!!

 

[Raxxman]

sure, once you buy a wii, an extra controller and a jewell encrusted sceptre, the price difference rapidly diminishes.

I take no credit for that statement from the boys as PA

 

[Aenama]

I think the Sony guys had to many magic brownies.

 

[Asus]

Something like that

Sony thinks the other 2 consoles are priced too high for their market? Nintendo is just $50 more than their normal console and yet they are including a more advanced controller and a game. Xbox360 is targeting the HD crowd just as much as the PS3 is and it's $200 cheaper. So the PS3 is expensive, did the Sony Exec forget to say that? The only way it isn't expensive is if their target market is the early bluray adopters.. lol

 

[AmishSlayer]

Something like that

Sony thinks the other 2 consoles are priced too high for their market? Nintendo is just $50 more than their normal console and yet they are including a more advanced controller and a game. Xbox360 is targeting the HD crowd just as much as the PS3 is and it's $200 cheaper. So the PS3 is expensive, did the Sony Exec forget to say that? The only way it isn't expensive is if their target market is the early bluray adopters.. lol

Yeah, and for those of us that couldn't care less about bluray (and can't afford a nice HDTV...it's WAY too much to pay for like 2 games I know of coming out EVENTUALLY I would buy...

 

[smwScott]

You're forgetting what the PS3 has. It's the most powerful console and it's equipped with a Bluray player. The 360 isn't too overpriced at the $400 level, but the $300 version is grossly overpriced. The Wii is the most overpriced of them all considering what you actually get with the hardware. Also, the controllers are ridiculously expensive, which instantly jacks the price up.

The PS3 doesn't require hardly any extra accessories. If this PS is anywhere near as popular as the last one then lots of people will have their own controllers, and the controllers are fairly cheap. Also you don't have to pay for online, which in my mind is huge. If you have a HDTV then you need a HD cable ... that's it, nothing else is needed.

See how it works? Spending $20,000 on a Corvette would be a much better deal than spending $13000 on a Pinto. My point is that while they're all overpriced, the PS3 doesn't stand out from the crowd at all and might even be relatively the cheapest one.

 

[Asus]

You're forgetting what the PS3 has.

Thats a good point but that wasn't his point. He was looking at price and target market, not the specs (which is closer to how they will sell IMO). Here

 

[Narcolepsy]

You're forgetting what the PS3 has. It's the most powerful console and it's equipped with a Bluray player. The 360 isn't too overpriced at the $400 level, but the $300 version is grossly overpriced. The Wii is the most overpriced of them all considering what you actually get with the hardware. Also, the controllers are ridiculously expensive, which instantly jacks the price up.

The PS3 doesn't require hardly any extra accessories. If this PS is anywhere near as popular as the last one then lots of people will have their own controllers, and the controllers are fairly cheap. Also you don't have to pay for online, which in my mind is huge. If you have a HDTV then you need a HD cable ... that's it, nothing else is needed.

See how it works? Spending $20,000 on a Corvette would be a much better deal than spending $13000 on a Pinto. My point is that while they're all overpriced, the PS3 doesn't stand out from the crowd at all and might even be relatively the cheapest one.

I definitely see your point. The thing is though, the Xbox 360 and PS3 are really underpriced. Imagine how much a PC with that kind of technology would cost. They'll lose money on the console, and make it up with the games and accessories.

The Wii is the only console this generation that's going to be profitable on a hardware level. So yeah, when you look at value on a pure hardware level, you're getting the worst deal with the Wii.

But everyone knows hardware is hardly the whole story.

 

[Cole]

I definitely see your point. The thing is though, the Xbox 360 and PS3 are really underpriced. Imagine how much a PC with that kind of technology would cost. They'll lose money on the console, and make it up with the games and accessories.

There underpriced compared to a PC but thats not what is being talked about.

Heres the thing though. They can mass produce 5 million parts and know they will all be sold. Nvidia isn't just gonna mass produce 5 million 7800GTX's when only 1,000,000 get sold. Therefor in order to take in revenue to pay for the chips, pay for development, pay for advertising, pay for employees, pay game companies to use there logo, keep the big guys insanely rich, pay $$ to that celebrity there using to photo realistically render, and etc... they have to raise the price pretty high.

I mean hell if Dell ordered 20 million 7800GTX's, they could probably get them insanely cheap. Then if Dell put one of these for low - mid range computers, they'd have one big hand over the competiton.

 

[AmishSlayer]

Here we go again...

 

[destrukt]

It's the most powerful console and it's equipped with a Bluray player.

Care to 'prove' that the PS3 is the most powerful console. I'm talking facts, technical specs., benchmarks, etc. Not just "LOL CELL ROCS."

You make it sound like have a Blu-Ray drive is something magical and good. We don't know if it will be the format, it hikes the price up, causes manufacturing delays, etc.

The Wii is the most overpriced of them all considering what you actually get with the hardware.

Is there someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy everything ?

Also you don't have to pay for online, which in my mind is huge. If you have a HDTV then you need a HD cable ... that's it, nothing else is needed.

If you had to pay online for what we've seen/heard of their online service that would be pathetic.

A HD cable which isn't included default. Not even a freaking component cable.

.. the PS3 doesn't stand out from the crowd at all and might even be relatively the cheapest one.

It does and I don't enjoy things being forced on me either.

 

[AmishSlayer]

Guys, we all know where this discussion is headed. EVERY Wii thread ever made has eventually come to it. It always stands that some demand better graphics hardware for their money and others demand something else for their money.

 

[Combine Hybrid]

This thread was ok untill sony fanboy bombed thread to hell.

 

[smwScott]

Care to 'prove' that the PS3 is the most powerful console. I'm talking facts, technical specs., benchmarks, etc. Not just "LOL CELL ROCS."

Well, I have read various articles on the matter from journalists to developer blogs and the general consensus is that the PS3 has a higher potential but is harder to develop for. Not only that, we're seeing games in the launch lineup alone that can compete with some of the best the 360 has to offer graphics wise.

You make it sound like have a Blu-Ray drive is something magical and good. We don't know if it will be the format, it hikes the price up, causes manufacturing delays, etc.

Well, regardless of whether or not it wins, it does have a large benefit to games. And of the two competing formats, I'd say Bluray has the best chance.

Is there someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy everything ?

I'm sorry but there's no nice way to put this - retarded arguement. By this logic I can just quote that little sentence everytime you mention something being overpriced (like ... oh, I dunno, the PS3?)

If you had to pay online for what we've seen/heard of their online service that would be pathetic.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=68677

A HD cable which isn't included default. Not even a freaking component cable.

Yeah this annoys me too, but fortunately I already have one so I don't care too much.

BTW did the 360 have one? I'm not saying it didn't I just honestly don't know.

It does and I don't enjoy things being forced on me either.

Well I want a Bluray player so I think it's a good deal.

I don't even know what you're bitching about to be honest. I said the $400 360 wasn't too overpriced. I do think the Wii is a bit pricey for what it offers, but I still think it's a really cool console with an interesting controller (and one game I want - Mario). And I said that the PS3 isn't as overpriced as so many people claim because it offers more than the others do.

But really all this bullshit is a moot point to me. The only reason I want a PS3 more than the other two is the simple fact that most of the developers I like make games exclusively for it. I'm not a fanboy of console companies ... but maybe I am of developers (in the same way I am of certain writers or directors), which I don't see as a bad thing.

 

[destrukt]

Well, I have read various articles on the matter from journalists to developer blogs and the general consensus is that the PS3 has a higher potential but is harder to develop for. Not only that, we're seeing games in the launch lineup alone that can compete with some of the best the 360 has to offer graphics wise.

I've read various articles which state the 360 as being superior, and vice versa and all seem to have valid points and valid technical info.

Bottom line is, neither will be significantly further ahead or at least not for another 2-3 years.

Well, regardless of whether or not it wins, it does have a large benefit to games. And of the two competing formats, I'd say Bluray has the best chance.

It doesn't have a large benefit for games though or at least not for a few years. :x

Why would you say Blu-Ray has the best chance ? HD-DVD is outselling Blu-Ray by 3x or so, it seems to have had the best visual quality on first gen players, has a familiar name for the average customer, etc.

I'd put my money on HD-DVD but I don't care too much right now. I will care in 6 or so months and by than we will have a decent idea of who is/isn't going well, right now there isn't much.

I'm sorry but there's no nice way to put this - retarded arguement. By this logic I can just quote that little sentence everytime you mention something being overpriced (like ... oh, I dunno, the PS3?)

No, there is a difference. With the PS3 you don't have a choice, with the 360/Wii you have choices.

So, while a 360 /w a HD-DVD and WiFi addon may work out to cost the same as a PS3 which has them stock, or even a tiny bit more it doesn't matter, the 360 has the better option/plan.

Right now I do not need wireless for my 360 as we have LAN cables throughout our house (As in, through the walls/roofs). So I saved myself $100 or whatever.

Also, since we don't know which format will be the winner I've said $150-$200 or whatever the price is and I can than buy whatever add-on or stand-alone player I want without it being forced on me and having to spend money I don't want.

See, that's why your whole "it's relative" argument is flawed, or you simply don't acknowledge this way of thinking which it seems most people are following.

Bottom line is, 360/Wii are better choices in terms of cost, etc, even relatively.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=68677

The master/associated account is a good idea though MS already has a similar thing [in terms of parental control] in place.

Read the article, all it basically says is that it's a near carbon-copy of Live /w a few little differences and some glaring deficiencies such as:

- No replying ingame, I thought the PS3 was oh-so-powerful, especially vs 360...
- Can I invite friends to join a game I'm playing or is that not possible or messy due to XFire (Unified online service, ffs Sony) in some games, etc.
- Voice chat in 'channel's like on 360 ?
- Their Gamerscore/Achievements rip, how's it work and how is Sony working with developers ? MS has worked brilliantly with developers.

I could go on for awhile..

SOE's (Sony Online Entertainment) products where shaky when the customer was actually paying for them (See: MMORPGs, etc) I wonder how they will fair when they won't have the extra cash for support, improvement, etc.

A browser is pretty awesome though but for now I'll slot it into the gimmick folder. Also, their Wallet 'feature' is good, especially with Associated accounts.

Yeah this annoys me too, but fortunately I already have one so I don't care too much.

BTW did the 360 have one? I'm not saying it didn't I just honestly don't know.

I can understand HDMI and I don't care about that, but no component is just plain ridiculous especially when you're pushing HD as THE selling point for your console. It's just freaking stupid.

The PREMIUM (More expensive) package of the 360 came /w component though the other didn't but it makes sense. The Core package is for those wanting to save money / don't have the equipment like a HDTV. Once again MS shines with how they thought out selling things though I'm a little iffy on no hd / having hd but like I said, it's for people wanting to save money and people bashing MS for this are clueless.

Well I want a Bluray player so I think it's a good deal.

See the part me talking about your relative argument, blah blah, above.

I don't even know what you're bitching about to be honest. I said the $400 360 wasn't too overpriced. I do think the Wii is a bit pricey for what it offers, but I still think it's a really cool console with an interesting controller (and one game I want - Mario). And I said that the PS3 isn't as overpriced as so many people claim because it offers more than the others do.

I'm not really complaining about anything just pointing out how your argument is flawed. Well, I do indeed complain about no component, that's just dumb, even for Sony. I hope it's a joke.

But really all this bullshit is a moot point to me. The only reason I want a PS3 more than the other two is the simple fact that most of the developers I like make games exclusively for it. I'm not a fanboy of console companies ... but maybe I am of developers (in the same way I am of certain writers or directors), which I don't see as a bad thing.

Fair enough, we all have our reasons on what we choose hence why I decided to go 360. Backing from MS (Integration with Media Centre, Zune, etc), games (Halo, Lost Planet, GoW, Table Tennis, etc), online (Live is just plain awesome), etc.

I really want a PS3 but right now it's ridiculous and I feel sorry for those having to buy it for exclusive games (Which are dwindling) though I will definently get a PS3 some time next year to play FF and whatever though it will get barely any action compared to my 360 like with my XBox/PS2. I bought a PS2 for Killzone, FF, Shadow of the Colossus, etc.


For the record, the controllers are absolutely pathetic. By pathetic I mean badly designed (So sick of the PS2/PS1 controllers), no rumble, tilt gimmick, weird placement of LEDs, apparently they feel 'cheap' (Like the original PS1 controllers), etc.

 

[Jintor]

Is this the company selling the $500 thing I don't want? Yes it is. I've got two Playstations in this very room (I'm using one right now, FFVIII ftw) but I really can't see many awesome awesome games on the PS3 that I'm wanting right now. I mean, all I play on Playstations are SquareEnix games anyway.

 

[AiM]

Is this the company selling the $500 thing I don't want? Yes it is. I've got two Playstations in this very room (I'm using one right now, FFVIII ftw) but I really can't see many awesome awesome games on the PS3 that I'm wanting right now. I mean, all I play on Playstations are SquareEnix games anyway.

Heh then you're really missing out, try Shadow of the Collosus, Ico, God of War, Okami, and MGS 2 / 3 just to name a few...

 

[-Psy-]

SCE makes me laugh out loud...

Especially when they said that Europe doesn't mind delays.

 

[Warbie]

It does put me off having to pay extra for a blueray. I am after a HD movie player, but every indication suggests that HD-DVD is the better option, both in visal quality (better codecs) and in price. Go to any AV enthuisast forum and you will read the same thing - the poeple in the know are picking up HD-DVD players. As i'm not concerned about disc size for games this makes all the difference to me.

'Not only that, we're seeing games in the launch lineup alone that can compete with some of the best the 360 has to offer graphics wise.'

Which is largely because developers have had that much longer to work on their games - every delay allows some more polish and optimisation. I've read a few reports suggesting the PS3s superiority over the 360 due how much better Fight Night looks. The truth is, had the PS3 been released when advertised, and the game released on schedule, it would have looked worse than on the 360. Instead these extra months have been used to give the game a make over.

This generation began a year ago - if the PS3 didn't launch with titles that could match the best on the 360 it'd be deep in the shite and beg the question, what have Sony been doing for the last 12 months?

 

[KU_]

The only reason I want a PS3 more than the other two is the simple fact that most of the developers I like make games exclusively for it. I'm not a fanboy of console companies ... but maybe I am of developers (in the same way I am of certain writers or directors), which I don't see as a bad thing.

Care to list some exclusives the PS3 offers over the 360 from developers you like?

 

[dream431ca]

I don't know if sony can turn themselves around and get out of the bad situation they put themselves in. It looks bleak right now...but all that will change once MGS4 and FFXIII come out.

 

[smwScott]

Care to list some exclusives the PS3 offers over the 360 from developers you like?

Yeah sure:

Naughty Dog - one of my favorite developers ever
Kojima Productions - MGS is my favorite series and will probably stay exclusive
Insomniac - not one of my favorites but they do make great games
God of War team - not sure of the name, but they make GoW, nuff said
ICO team - again one of my absolute favorites, ICO and Shadow are classics
SCEA in general - they're always pumping out good titles like Getaway, Motorstorm, Warhawk, etc.
I feel like I'm forgetting some, but oh well.

As for 360, they have two exclusive developers that I value:

Bioware - one of my favorites, but so far all their games get ported to PC :cheers:
Rare - used to be my absolute favorite developer, but they've gone to the shitter since the original Conker

Most of the other developers I like make games for all parties, like Rockstar and Free Radical. Team Ninja is also releasing an improved version of Ninja Gaiden for the PS3, one of the only X-BOX games that I wanted and couldn't get elsewhere.

So for me and my personal tastes, the choice is beyond obvious. Also, the Dual Shock 2 is my favorite controller and the addition of motion sensitivity should be awesome, so it wins that in my book too.

 

[AiM]

It does put me off having to pay extra for a blueray. I am after a HD movie player, but every indication suggests that HD-DVD is the better option, both in visal quality (better codecs) and in price. Go to any AV enthuisast forum and you will read the same thing - the poeple in the know are picking up HD-DVD players. As i'm not concerned about disc size for games this makes all the difference to me.

'Not only that, we're seeing games in the launch lineup alone that can compete with some of the best the 360 has to offer graphics wise.'

Which is largely because developers have had that much longer to work on their games - every delay allows some more polish and optimisation. I've read a few reports suggesting the PS3s superiority over the 360 due how much better Fight Night looks. The truth is, had the PS3 been released when advertised, and the game released on schedule, it would have looked worse than on the 360. Instead these extra months have been used to give the game a make over.

This generation began a year ago - if the PS3 didn't launch with titles that could match the best on the 360 it'd be deep in the shite and beg the question, what have Sony been doing for the last 12 months?

It's not like they're making you break the bank with the Blu-Ray player, the price difference is only $100 between 360 and PS3 (not to mention you're getting other things such as HDMI, free online, etc). The fact that the PS3 will use Blu-Ray discs for it's games is enough justification for the blu-ray player, the ability to playback movies is an added bonus.

edit: Just for the record, damn you Scott for making that list first ... I had pretty much the exact same one and then I saw that you had just made that post.

 

[Asus]

It's not like they're making you break the bank with the Blu-Ray player, the price difference is only $100 between 360 and PS3 (not to mention you're getting other things such as HDMI, free online, etc). The fact that the PS3 will use Blu-Ray discs for it's games is enough justification for the blu-ray player, the ability to playback movies is an added bonus.

The difference is $200 here. Low end Xbox360 $299, low end PS3 $499. High end Xbox360 $399, high end PS3 $599. The difference is almost the price of another Xbox360 (core) or a good number of accessories/games.


If you want to playback Bluray movies then that's awesome. If you want to playback HD-DVD movies or you don't care then you wouldn't want to pay extra for Bluray, would you? The less interested someone is in any console the more the price will dissuade them from buying. The PS3 has the most to prove because of it's price. It will have to come down in price before more people consider it an option.

 

[AiM]

The difference is $200 here. Low end Xbox360 $299, low end PS3 $499. High end Xbox360 $399, high end PS3 $599. The difference is almost the price of another Xbox360 (core) or a good number of accessories/games.


If you want to playback Bluray movies then that's awesome. If you want to playback HD-DVD movies or you don't care then you wouldn't want to pay extra for Bluray, would you? The less interested someone is in any console the more the price will dissuade them from buying. The PS3 has the most to prove because of it's price. It will have to come down in price before more people consider it an option.

The premium 360 is spec-wise equivilent to the low-end PS3, and there's absolutely no reason to get the premium PS3 aside from the desire to blow away cash (the ONLY reason for premium PS3 was for HDMI, but now that it's available for the low-end version, the premium becomes obsolete). There's no reason to get the core-360 either unless you enjoy a gimped console, so for me, the only valid comparison should be high-end 360 vs low-end PS3 as the other alternatives are a waste of cash.

The PS3 will also use the Blu-Ray for it's games lineup and while it's positive might not come into effect immediately (I honestly don't know enough about this matter to make a solid claim but...), logically I can't see any downsides in having extra space for the ever-growing size of videogames. I remember Sony saying that they will remove region-codes since the games will be able to fit all versions on one disc. It may also grant developers more flexibility with the extra space, who knows, but there is certainly a positive in using Blu-Ray for games.

 

[Asus]

You just pushed both of them out of my budget. :O See what I mean.
I'm kidding, I know the Xbox360 core system lacks the hard drive etc but I do know a few people with the Xbox360 core system that didn't buy the hard drive. And $100 still could be a deal breaker for a lot of people. It seems that way the people I've talked with and the sale predictions anyway.

 

[bigburpco]

Kojima Productions - MGS is my favorite series and will probably stay exclusive

I don't think so - I mean, Snake's gone to Super Smash Bros. Brawl, a franchise exclusive to Nintendo.

 

[AiM]

You just pushed both of them out of my budget. :O See what I mean.
I'm kidding, I know the Xbox360 core system lacks the hard drive etc but I do know a few people with the Xbox360 core system that didn't buy the hard drive. And $100 still could be a deal breaker for a lot of people. It seems that way the people I've talked with and the sale predictions anyway.

Thing with the core-360 system is, it also negatively affects the games themselves. If you think about it, the developers HAVE to create games without the HD in mind, otherwise they would completely alienate the core-360 owners.

If I were to decide which next gen console I would get, I'd rather look at the big picture rather than just focusing purely on the price. When I see the extra $100, I don't automatically think 'OH MY GOD! IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE!' but rather, 'What does that extra $100 give me?'. The extra $100 you pay are for completely different exclusive titles, HDMI support, Blu-Ray player, and free Online Gaming. Whether that's your cup of tea is of course, up to you, but to judge an items value soley on price is pretty ignorant if you ask me.

I don't think so - I mean, Snake's gone to Super Smash Bros. Brawl, a franchise exclusive to Nintendo.

Having a character in Super Smash Bro's hardly signal's multi-platform support. If anything, Kojima productions may create some unique titles for Nintendo here and there (think SquareEnix with Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles), but to expect say MGS4 / ZoE on the Wii is pretty absurd.

For the record, the controllers are absolutely pathetic. By pathetic I mean badly designed (So sick of the PS2/PS1 controllers), no rumble, tilt gimmick, weird placement of LEDs, apparently they feel 'cheap' (Like the original PS1 controllers), etc.

No rumble does disappoint, but to label tilt-sensor a gimmick before you've ever tried it is a bit early, no? I'm not sure what your problem with the LED is, I mean from what I gather it's suppose to seperate which controller is for which Player and it seems natural for it to be at the back unless you enjoy x-color shining in your face all the time. As for feeling 'cheap', without the rumble-weight that might be an issue, but personally it's not something I can't get used to since it's IMO still the most ergonomic controller around. And I completely disagree about the original PS1 / PS2 controllers being badly designed, if you want badly designed controllers go look at the GameCube or especially the original Xbox controller. That big bulky piece of sh*t was the worst controller I've ever used, and only after they copied the Sony DualShock design did it start to resemble a controller. One major irk I do have with the PS2 / PS1 designs is that they're too damn small, and my hands aren't even that big.

 

[destrukt]

Don't you dare start complaining about people who complain about prices. I've already addressed everything you said and since you failed to post a retort (Besides my comment about the controller) I'll assume you took what I said to heart and understand just why people are complaining. :x

Also, what's so good about HDMI ? Picture quality ? Nah.. than what, oh, the ability to play content with DRM in what, 2012 ? Super rad.

If it was all out like the Wiimote thing than it'd be okay but from what I've seen, it just looks a gimmick and something so Sony can say "me too !"

The LEDs indicating which 'port' your controller is are placed on the top area thing, it's not as elegant as the 360.

Shining in my face ? Err.. are you seriously saying that it somehow is bad having it there and draws your attention ?

The Gamecube was an excellent controller though the original Xbox one was quite bad though very bearable. Copied the dual shock design ? There are only so many ways you can do a controller, and speaking of copying.. tilt ?

I'm just sick of the PS controller design, it's always been mediocre. Not bad enough to complain and not good enough to praise. I just want them to spend a few dollars and give it some decent improvements, is that too much to ask ? What's Sony spending all their time doing, cutting features, bloating the PS3 design and asking their executives to say stupid things ?

Hmm.. never really though about the size though in comparison to the 360, GC and other controllers they are quite petite.

 

[Baal]

Something like that

What are the grounds for this comic? What is it based on?

I'm not a PS3 fanboy, or even care which console it better, I just want to know how PS3 is bad.

btw, I don't plan on buying any of these consoles for at least another year, but it will probably be a PS3 if I do.

 

[-Psy-]

That big bulky piece of sh*t was the worst controller I've ever used, and only after they copied the Sony DualShock design did it start to resemble a controller.

Rofl. The Xbox controller looks sod-all like a PS Controller

 

[AiM]

Don't you dare start complaining about people who complain about prices. I've already addressed everything you said and since you failed to post a retort (Besides my comment about the controller) I'll assume you took what I said to heart and understand just why people are complaining. :x

Also, what's so good about HDMI ? Picture quality ? Nah.. than what, oh, the ability to play content with DRM in what, 2012 ? Super rad.

If it was all out like the Wiimote thing than it'd be okay but from what I've seen, it just looks a gimmick and something so Sony can say "me too !"

The LEDs indicating which 'port' your controller is are placed on the top area thing, it's not as elegant as the 360.

Shining in my face ? Err.. are you seriously saying that it somehow is bad having it there and draws your attention ?

The Gamecube was an excellent controller though the original Xbox one was quite bad though very bearable. Copied the dual shock design ? There are only so many ways you can do a controller, and speaking of copying.. tilt ?

I'm just sick of the PS controller design, it's always been mediocre. Not bad enough to complain and not good enough to praise. I just want them to spend a few dollars and give it some decent improvements, is that too much to ask ? What's Sony spending all their time doing, cutting features, bloating the PS3 design and asking their executives to say stupid things ?

Hmm.. never really though about the size though in comparison to the 360, GC and other controllers they are quite petite.

I never engaged in your conversation with smwScott, my comments were mainly for Asus, I didn't bother reading your entire previous post but I caught a glimpse of the controller comment hence why I just quoted that part. I'm not 'complaining about people who complain about prices', I'm merely pointing out the fact that deciding which console to buy purely on price is flawed. Not to mention, the Premium-360 should NEVER be compared to Premium-PS3, it's two completely different products.

As for the tilt sensor, I'll reserve judgement until I've actually used the damn thing. I don't see any reason to call it a gimmick, if anything, the initial impressions were positive.

What's so good in NOT having HDMI? I'd rather have it available if I have the hardware to make full use of it, rather than having to invest money into another system to have that functionality.

Yeah there's only so many ways to do a controller, but why didn't MS copy from the GC style controller? The PS2 DualShock design was the best design on the market and the new 360 looks almost a clone of it (only major difference is adjusting the left analog stick). The tilt may have been copied from Nintendo (but I remember reading somewhere that design plans were done way before announcement), regardless; I don't care who copies what as long as the consumer benefits. When I pickup the 360 controller, I'm glad they took Sony's design since I'd rather shit a brick than to use that sorry excuse for a controller from the original Xbox.

I wasn't sure what you were referring to when you mentioned a LED problem, I thought I remembered (couldn't care enough to look it up) the LED being at the back of the controller which is why I thought you wanted it at the top attracting attention, although even if it is I doubt it's strong enough to detract you away from the game.

As for saying Sony is force feeding you, maybe if the PS3 wasn't going to use Blu-Ray for it's games. But they are, and there's a beneficial side to it so whether or not you watch Blu-Ray movies are irrelevant (since you use it for the games which benefit from it). The low-end package including the hard drive is a much BETTER option than if it came without it. Think about it, developers would have to develop games with the lowest common denominator (in this case, without a hard drive) and thus the games will suffer. In Sony's package, both setups contain the necessary hardware so developers won't have to create games that meet both requirements.

As for your questions about Sony's online plan, I have no answer for your questions simply cause I've never used it. There's no point in criticising it before it's release, once we get to use then we can make a valid judgement. I've never had prior experience with SOE but I'll take your word for it that it was bad (even though EQ was one of the most popular MMO's before WoW?)But if we're looking at the past, I'd say their support for the PSP has been absolutely stunning. I'd be surprised if that same work ethic doesn't carry over, seeing that both of them seem to share a similar base (menu's, support system, etc.) The fact that it doesn't require a monthly subscription is a huge positive for me though, I find it ridiculous to charge for a ****ing matchmaking / lobby service that has traditionally remain free.

 

[Reginald]

Rare - used to be my absolute favorite developer, but they've gone to the shitter since the original Conker

?

 

[Stigmata]

Yeah there's only so many ways to do a controller, but why didn't MS copy from the GC style controller? The PS2 DualShock design was the best design on the market and the new 360 looks almost a clone of it (only major difference is adjusting the left analog stick).

I don't see how you can possible qualify that. If you look at the DualShock2, Xbox S, and Gamecube controllers, they are all fundamentally exactly the same. But if anything, Microsoft "copied" the Gamecube controller more than it "copied" the Dual. Between the three controllers, there are only two true fundamental differences, and both the Gamecube and the Xbox share them.

1) Triggers. Yes, the DualShock has analog buttons, but they weren't designed very well, at least based on the hundreds of hours I spent playing Gran Turismo 3 at my friend's house. On the other hand, the 'Cube had analog triggers that felt discretely analog, and didn't take relatively great amounts of precision in order to push in half-way.

2) Joystick location. The placement of the Xbox and GC joysticks are far more conductive to first-person shooters, and as the Xbox's launch-day killer app was slated to be Halo, it made a lot more sense to use the Cube's layout.

 

[Asus]

What are the grounds for this comic? What is it based on?

I'm not a PS3 fanboy, or even care which console it better, I just want to know how PS3 is bad.

btw, I don't plan on buying any of these consoles for at least another year, but it will probably be a PS3 if I do.

The address has the date (Oct 11th) and I believe the Sony Exec's comments about the other consoles as 'pricey' was the 10th or so. Probably just saying sony is shoothing themselves in the foot yet again (A lot of comics in the past have taken that viewpoint). It isn't saying the PS3 is a bad console. But Sony's execs have had a big mouth this year and not everyone agrees with what they say. If they didn't try to bring untried technology (Bluray, Cell) with their console it would be cheaper and they would have had a chance to easily take the market.

Price does have a whole lot to do with it for most people. I would easily pick up a Xbox360 core system. But I'd probably want live and the extras that the $400 price system gives. Problem is I don't want to set aside $400 or more for the console alone. All the popular consoles used to be priced about $200-300. Nintendo is the only one still following that trend. The Xbox360 premium is more expensive and Sony's PS3 even more so. If I wanted to increase my budget to buy one of them I probably could. But I wouldn't buy a PS3 because it has Cell, Bluray or developers design around a hard drive unlike the Xbox360. These things are for the developers to worry about and Sony to market like 'blue crystals'. I'd pick because of the games, mp, etc (for me I'd be leaning toward the Xbox360).

 

[AiM]

I don't see how you can possible qualify that. If you look at the DualShock2, Xbox S, and Gamecube controllers, they are all fundamentally exactly the same. But if anything, Microsoft "copied" the Gamecube controller more than it "copied" the Dual. Between the three controllers, there are only two true fundamental differences, and both the Gamecube and the Xbox share them.

1) Triggers. Yes, the DualShock has analog buttons, but they weren't designed very well, at least based on the hundreds of hours I spent playing Gran Turismo 3 at my friend's house. On the other hand, the 'Cube had analog triggers that felt discretely analog, and didn't take relatively great amounts of precision in order to push in half-way.

2) Joystick location. The placement of the Xbox and GC joysticks are far more conductive to first-person shooters, and as the Xbox's launch-day killer app was slated to be Halo, it made a lot more sense to use the Cube's layout.

For some reason I kept thinking the N64 and GC controllers were more or less the same (it's been a long while since I've used a GC controller.) What I meant in copying was the ergonic design. The PS2 had the curves down pat where the controller felt absolutely natural (along with the shoulder buttons) and MS copied that. Regardless, this isn't a very big issue as like I said earlier, in the end the consumer wins and I'm glad MS adapted to Sonys / GC / whoever's design since I don't want to feel like I'm holding a brick when I'm using their controller.

 

[Warbie]

//edit

 

[Dynasty]

Apparently the controller is panse. And they even stole the Xbox 360's middle button, allowing you to switch off the controller or the console at any time. Jeez, i mean if you can switch the PS3 on by holding the button down, then they must have had a spy in Microsoft's evil dungeons..uhh i mean offices.

But seriously, more expensive than the 360, too late on the release, shoddy controller and apparently the buttons on the console look cool but arent 'heat sensitive' as they claimed (havent seen them say that, but i heard it through the grapevine).

PS3 will sell, no doubt about it...but its too little too late really. They better have a HUGE selling point if they want to compete against the already massively popular 360.

Go on Sony. Stop making accusations, release the bloody thing before you critisize the competition in your market!!