PS3, XBox or Wii: Pros and Cons of Gaming Consoles 22 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The cons of Sony's (SNE) PS3 vs the others:
1) Memory card slots: to play with existing data from PS2 titles you have to purchase an additional memory card adapter as the PS3 does not feature original PlayStation memory card slots. Likewise, not all PS2 games will play properly on the PS3, only adding to the frustration of the gaming experience.
2) Logistics and distribution: what pisses me off the most is I have to wait until the end of Feb 07 to get my PS3, which is totally ridiculous. I just can't believe that Sony's management would have missed the massive demand of this product. PS2 has been the best selling console, so Sony just releasing 400,000 units is hubris! You'd think after delaying it twice they would have gotten their act together.
3) The price: having talked to friends who received their PS3s, some even paying hefty prices on eBay, this was not an issue. Why? the Ps3 is not just a gaming console, its an entertainment system...which brings me to its pros.
The pros of PS3 vs others:
1) It is far superior to the Microsoft (MSFT) Xbox: as some one who has an Xbox 360, I've played plenty of PS3 at their launch parties down here in Canada and even in Dubai. The revolutionary Cell Broadband Engine in the PS3 can deliver smooth performance as it is able to handle a higher workload much more easily. So, what does this mean? It means much smoother transitions and virtually no slow down in frame rate. With that in mind, PS3 games are far superior graphically than its PS2 predecessor, are faster than most PC games on the market today, and in my view, better than Xbox 360.
2) Blue-ray: Blu-ray discs are the next leap forward in disc technology. It provides for more storage, up to 50GB, which allows it to meet the requirements of high-def games and movies. The best part about Blue-ray is that Blu-ray drive featured in the PS3 will also support many of the older disc formats, including CD-ROM, CDR+W, DVD, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, and DVD+R.
At the end of the day its "you get what you pay for". When you buy a PS3 you get the amazing new technologies, not to mention the wicked good line of upcoming games and IMO graphics that are better than the Xbox 360.
That being said, this Christmas will be a Xbox 360 Xmas in terms of sales. Unfortunately all the pros don't matter if you can't have one.....or have to wait ages for one. Hence, Microsoft will be the sales and volume beneficiary.
With regards to Nintendo (NTDOY) Wii's problems- whether its Xbox 360, PS3 or the Wii I can promise you they all have their flaws. Good thing is they are working to make them go away. I remember having lots of problems when PS2 came out, such as not being able to play PS1 games and hard drive reading problems, but all those eventually went away.
So when consumers will complain, the 3 console makers will listen.
Related Articles
|
Find People on SA
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largest
increase in followers
in the last 7 days-
1
David Fry
-
2
Bill Gross
-
3
Peter Schiff
-
4
TraderMark
-
5
Serge Hagopian
Fastest Climbers » -
1
-
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 22 comments:
As far as the delay. Well Yaser, you can complain all you want but the fact is that if Sony can't have enough consoles ready in time for Christmas then you can't blame them. It's just a design and manufacturing fact of life. I can name a multitude of other delays that have happened recently: Microsoft Vista, the release of HD DVD and Blu-Ray, the new Halo movie and game, the new Wembley football stadium in London. Do you think that they do this just to piss you off? Get a grip.
I do fear for Sony slightly by missing out on the Christmas sales (especially in Europe where no one will get a PS3 for Christmas) but victories within the tech market are not decided by seasonal sales. They are decided by the technology itself. And this is where Sony have been 100% right in delaying the PS3. They may lose a few million sales to the Xbox 360 but they not done that for nothing. They done that to ensure that the Blu-Ray drive is in every PS3 and this technological advantage along with all the other advantages it has over the Xbox will ensure that it is Sony technology and not Microsoft technology that wins in the long term
A word about the Wii. It seems unique and somewhat genius. I like it. But while it offers something unique in terms of playability it doesn't offer us anything new in terms of everything else it offers. Graphically it's no great deal. While some people may not deem this important I do. We are in an age of ever increasing screen sizes that offer HD pictures that can leave people breathless. Sony have built a machine that is not only for the here and now but is for the future. It will take games developers years to really use all of the potential that the PS3 processor and graphics chip has to offer.
In two or three years time don't expect anyone to be talking about how the Xbox 360 or the Nintendo Wii created history. They can't. They can only be about the here and now. The PS3 could still fall on it's face but it is the only console that gives itself a chance of going down in history. It's all about convergence. The PS3 to lead the way in home entertainment and the mobile phone to lead the way in every other aspect.
Interesting points.
"Do you think that they do this just to piss you off? Get a grip."
Carl I never said they do this to piss me or any consumers off. I'm just conveying an emotion I feel, irrespective of anyone else, though I can sure bet that a lot of consumers are angry, I mean PS3 fans, for the delay. I'm sure management didn't do it on purpose, why would they? Its not in their best interest.
"I do fear for Sony slightly by missing out on the Christmas sales"
That is exactly my point. PS3 maybe a great product but its no good if consumers can't have it. Hence Xbox and Wii will have the bulk of sales for this x-mas.
Here's where I am sure Sony have made the right choice.
The PS brand is huge. People are very loyal to it and they are also aware that the PS3 is far more powerful than it's competitors. Blu-Ray on the other hand is completely new and has no customer loyalty yet. It is also competing against a competitor that costs half as much that does exactly the same thing. Sony knows that in order for Blu-Ray to win it need some serious help. Not least because early market adoption of Blu-Ray and HD DVD is likely to be slow. So what better way to give Blu-Ray the advantage than to include it, as standard, in the big brother of something that has sold 100m units and has an army of fans and that is also much more powerful than it's new rivals.
Short term? Yes Sony definitely loses out. Long term? Well it's far from guaranteed but by saying no to the carrot on the stick they've given themselves a chance of feasting on far more profits in the future.
I say Bravo Sony. Or should that be Bravia?
Furthermore, you keep addressing the PS3 as a total entertainment system rather than simply a games console! However can you realistically point out one feature other than the Blue-Ray compatibility that isn’t common place in practically every home! For example it acts as a CD player, a DVD player etc, but in reality everyone already has each of these! So essentially you are forking out twice as much as you would for the dubiously named Wii, simply to have an average Blue-Ray system!
By the way Carl, how you can possibly say that the PS3 is the only system out of the three that could go down in the history books! The Wii is the only system which can pull the games industry out of this monotonous rut of regurgitated bollocks it is now finding itself in! And should it manage such a momentous achievement I’m fairly sure it will go down in history! Who is going to look back and pick out the PS3 as the benchmark of gaming? All it is, is a PS2 with better graphics! It offers nothing even remotely original! Don’t you realise that regardless of the PS3, Sony would still have gone ahead with their Blue-Ray ambitions so your suggestions that a game console will go down in history for it’s non-gaming functions is total baz buddy!
You've mentioned an excellent point & I concur with you on Sony's short-term loss and their pro-activeness when it comes to PS3 and Blue-ray.
Would it be ok with you if I quoted what you said on my blog? I'll reference your name and if you've got a blog let me know.
Good stuff. Y
Regards
Carl
My concern however, is that you see this shrewd marketing ploy, as a great bargain! I find it hard to believe that Sony have pumped all their money into giving you the highest quality Blue-Ray machine before the technology has even taken off! I don’t know if I am explaining this very well, but basically what I’m trying to say is that Sony have surely included a lower quality Blue-ray machine in the Playstation in the hope that when the technology does finally take off, the can pump their money into fine tuning the technology, and then and only then will people really be getting the higher quality machines and ultimately, value for their money! So essentially gamers are being used as pawn (and I don’t mean to sound too over-dramatic) in a far larger battle! They are being forced to pay a huge deal more money so that Sony can boost the chances of a Blue-Ray future!
Marcus- How can you say its not a high-tech Blue-ray? I mean with each gadget/product of such kind there are always updates. The first ipod wasn't the greatest, it didn't work with Windows (I think) but soon AAPL figured it out and now its a big hit.
You maybe right about the blue-ray not being of the highest quality, I just think like any new technology there are going to be updates along the way.
But what you are not putting into perspective is that these PS3 owners are getting a Blu-Ray device machine for only $200 (if you take that as the amount that has been added on to put it in the machine. I actually think it might only be $120 though). How much do the first stand alone Blu-Ray machines cost? Many times more than that anyway. So even though I'm sure the quality isn't as good it is still sure to be worth well beyond the $200/$125 extra that it's adding to the machine. And I actually think Sony are absorbing some of the costs of the Blu-Ray chip anyway so I doubt you would have seen that amount shaved off the total cost of the PS3. The main thing that it has done is cause major delays. Those delays are worth it in my opinion.
The other point is that by integrating the Blu-Ray in to this I truly believe that it does change this from being just a games machine to a home entertainment system. The processor and graphics chip are powerful enough to use the PS3 for a number of other things. The internet and live streaming from various HD movie sites and music sites being one of them. When the PS1 had cd capabilities and the PS2 had dvd capabilities people weren't as excited about them as they are about the PS3's Blu-Ray drive.
Sure, the Wii may be attempting to change the face of gaming. But I believe the evolution that we are getting from the PS3 is a huge step in terms of all round home entertainment convergence.
I think Sony believed in the PS brand enough to try and use it to make the Blu-Ray brand get the head start that it needs. By flooding the market with Blu-Ray (even if it isn't the primary reason for owning the PS3) you are telling the movie studios that there is enough market penetration to need plenty of Blu-Ray content. It gives the market the kick start that it needs. That's especially important considering that neither Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is guaranteed to succeed.
Carl
I accept your suggestion that the extra cost added to the PS3 as a result of the Blue-ray technology may well be less than the Blue-ray is actually worth, however this still doesn’t necessarily represent a bargain! Take the launch of the DVD for example! When DVD’s first took off, I bought a high quality Sony DVD player! I did so not only because in the short term it provided better picture quality, but because it offered a longer shelf life and would date at a slower rate to the other lower quality machines! To this day it still holds its own! Given my ownership of this machine, if somebody offered me a low quality DVD player worth 100euro for half that price (50euros in case your mathematics aren’t the best), I would still say no! This is because it would be a waist of 50euro given that I have one already that is of higher quality! Thus the same rationale can be employed when looking at the PS3’s blue-ray function! If Blue-ray ever does take off I will surely buy myself a quality machine, and therefore the Playstation machine will be of little use! Off course one could argue that it could be placed in a different room etc. but personally I only have need for one!
By the way I’m Irish so I speak of the euro rather than the Yankee dollar but as far as I am aware the exchange rate is practically even so the prices shouldn’t vary too greatly!
I see what you're saying there and have to say that I'm sure that's what most of the disgruntled PS fans feel themselves. What I'm saying though is that I doubt the final cost of the PS3 has been increased that much by the inclusion of the Blu-Ray drive. If we're led to believe correctly the manufacturing costs of the PS3 with the 60gb hard drive is $840.35 (although this is a matter for some debate as it seems some of the breakdown is slightly inflated in it's estimation prices):
www.digitimes.com/bits...
Of that $840 the Blu-Ray Drive only costs $125. I think that price has been confirmed as far as I'm aware and isn't an estimation. So the Blu-Ray drive represents 15% of the final manufacturing costs of the PS3. Let's say we take out the Blu-Ray drive. That brings the manufacturing costs down to $715. That is still $115 above the retail price of the PS3. So I think it's safe to assume that Sony wouldn't have just passed on the $125 saving on to the consumer. On top of that they would have still needed to fit a dvd/cd drive. I'm guessing that consumers would have only seen a $60 reduction in price.
So, you can either have the PS3 for $600 with dvd or $540 with Blu-Ray. What do you want? That's only 45 euros more. Most can spend easily that much in the pub in a few hours.
Now in reality I don't think the extra cost is an issue then is it? Do you agree? But what is an issue is the time delay. Without Blu-Ray everyone worldwide would have had a PS3 for Christmas. Sony have taken a gamble on losing Christmas sales to get an extra piece of state of the art technology into their PS3 for hardly any extra cost to the consumer.
As for you point on the Blu-Ray drive not being up to standard of a stand alone machine. How do you know it's going to be that bad? There are a number of reasons why previous technologies weren't so good in the PS's. One of the main reasons was the low quality DAC's (digital to analogue convertors). The DAC is one of the most important parts to a CD/DVD player. But the DAC in the PS3 is not so important for Blu-Ray. Why? Because to transfer true HD pictures the signal remains in it's digital form via the HDMI cable to the TV. Only once it has got to the TV does it get converted. Obviously when you're dealing with pictures and sound there are other things to consider that make up quality but not having to rely on the PS3 DAC is very important.
So I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing the results of the Blu-Ray on the PS3 and comparing them to stand alone machines. For 45 euros I'm sure even you will be suitably impressed enough to hold off buying a Blu-Ray machine until they come down to a reasonable price.
Oh, and I bet a 100 euro dvd machine would beat your older more expensive machine. These upscaling DVD players are better than 4 or 5 year old machines that cost up to £1000.
However I was disappointed today to learn that all isn’t fine and dandy in the world of the Nintendo Wii either! All this talk about Nintendo meeting the supply and demand criteria in Europe appears to have been a load of baz. I pre-ordered one this afternoon before being told I wouldn’t get my hands on it until February! Here was me looking forward to some Wii Sports on Christmas morning! It looks like there’ll be no Christmas in the Flynn family this year!
I don’t know whether you read the review of “Resistance: Fall of man” on channel 4 teletext today but from what they are insinuating it isn’t all it’s been hyped up to be! Given that it is the only genuinely anticipated launch title it’s not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination. Of course that’s only one review but I generally agree with what they say myself. “Zelda: Twighlight Princess” on the other hand has got rave reviews all over the net! That said you can’t trust a lot of internet reviewers who seem to have their final verdict set in stone before even playing the game! That aside however the Wii line seems similar to the PS3’s in that it’s fairly weak!
Now I do think it will be loads of fun to begin with. But all of this motion control will get tedious after a few months for one simple reason. The motion control isn't really that advanced. Fair enough it's one step closer to virtual reality and we should commend Nintendo for that. But even in the fighting games all that you will be able to do is perform the same moves that you would have been able to do with a controller. For instance, if I picked up a sword in real life there are probably millions of different angles I could point it in (all varying by a matter of mm's). With the Wii I'm sure you'll be able to swing the controller and make the character swing the sword in a few different directions but that's it. So you may as well do it with your fingers on the control pad. The same with the tennis. The variables are many millions of times less than actually playing a real game of tennis so eventually you'll start to think "I may as well just use my fingers on the control pad".
The PS3 on the other hand is 10 times more powerful than the PS2 and 3 or 4 times more powerful than the Xbox 360. This doesn't just mean better graphics. It means far bigger games that allow you to do far more exploration. It also means far more characters and much better AI. While this isn't ground breaking it's a evolution that is far more superior. To use an analogy, in the real world we see ground breaking inventions in the field of transport every now and again that seem very interesting to start with. But the car remains the king. It evolves and improves and as a result we stick with it. We get traction control and abs breaks (Blu-Ray), we get satellite navigation (wireless controllers), and we get better fuel economy and more safety feature (faster processor and graphics engine). Microsoft is the equivalent of Ford and Sony is the equivalent of Honda. Nintendo is that wacky scientist who's invented the flying car. Well ahead of it's time and not quite working they everyone wants it to. But genius nonetheless.
What winds me up is the analysts who say that the Wii is cheap enough to buy now and not be broke enough to not be able to afford the PS3. What is this world coming to? The Wii costs £180 in the UK and games will cost £30 each. Although it's cheaper than the Xbox360 that's hardly cheap.
You're right, Sony have been devious with Blu-Ray. But look at it from Sony's point of view. Do you think that they were right to do it? I think so.
Firstly with regards to your promotion of the PS3’s technical power, and the evolution to which it is a supposed catalyst, I would like to point out that the PS2, the Xbox and the Gamecube were all vastly superior to the N64, yet few of their games came even close to recreating the expansive landscapes of Zelda: Ocarina of time. This serves to prove that games consoles have for years been powerful enough to facilitate the sprawling landscapes and immense detail you are depicting, but the fact remains that games developers are to lazy to take advantage! Look at the newest Pro Evolution game on the Xbox360 for example! It was lambasted for containing even less detail and fewer features than the PS2 version! Why was this? Because the developers find the next generation of consoles harder to programme because of their complexity so they just don’t bother! As far as I’m concerned we are highly unlikely to witness any game on the PS3 that is so gigantic, the Wii would be unable to handle it!
Graphically it is clear that the PS3 is streets ahead of its competitors but as I unfortunately discovered with my Xbox and Gamecube this power is often left unutilised. This is because most games bar those developed ‘in-house’, appear on more than one console, so, as was the case with the GTA game on my old Xbox, the graphics were only made to the specifications of the weakest console (PS2) so as to save the developers cash and to insure that all consoles were catered for! So essentially, despite the Xbox’s superior capabilities, I was in reality looking at PS2 graphics.
In relation to your suggestion that the Wii remote would soon become monotonous to use, I can’t say I agree with that either! I could put together a convincing argument to suggest that in theory using a controller to simulate the turning of a car or the movement of a character should become equally monotonous. I assume you understand that the Wii controller comes with a ‘nun-chuck’ device that includes an analogue stick so if developers vehemently intend their games to be played in the traditional manner the Wii is well capable of facilitating their needs! However in my opinion, once developers strive to think up new and innovative ways to use the motion sensitivity, then the controller will have endless uses and should stand the test of time! Even if developers don’t do this, Nintendo still will and we all know no matter how biased we are, that Nintendo are incredible games producers and quite frankly their games alone are capable of justifying the price of the machine.
Furthermore, we haven’t even mentioned the Virtual Games concept that Nintendo have introduced! I’m sure you’ve heard about it! If not you can download old NES, SNES and N64 favourites for next to nothing! Now in my opinion that makes it more of an all round entertainment system than any other console!
(Sorry about the rant but your last post hit a few nerves)
I suppose we will just have to wait a couple of years to find out which console comes out on top. I for one am starting to think that the Wii may take top spot for the next year. And not just because the PS3 is short in supply. But gradually over the next 12-24 months I can't see how something like the Wii will win. Nintendo have always been great at innovation and doing something just a little bit different but I have to say that I'm sticking by my argument that different hardly ever wins. Better generally always wins. Sticking to tried and trusted formulas but improving on them is normally a sure fire way to win. Evolution rather than revolution is the name of the game. Especially when you are the market leader with huge brand loyalty.
As for the Wii being capable of coming up with games that have as much depth to them as games on the PS3 then we'll see. While something like Zelda is huge in detail and sprawling landscapes the new PS3 offers the opportunity to make the whole landscape completely interactive. Everything can be altered. Not only that you could have 200 characters on screen with a PS3 who are all completely different in looks and personality which I doubt will be something that you'll see on the Wii. Detail is now something that the PS3 will take to new levels.
As for games developers only developing a game to a certain standard that will look the same on all formats then I agree that this is what happened in the past with the xbox and PS2. But the only reason this happened was because even though the xbox was more powerful than the PS2 all of the games developers had stronger links and bigger contracts with Sony. So games were made for the PS2 and then adapted for the xbox without changing much. This time the tables are turned and the PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox360. What you will see is the games being developed for the PS3 and then adapted for the Xbox360. Because the Xbox360 is less powerful then the games will just be cut back slightly. Sony is in a very strong position to demand that this is the way things work being the market leaders. They still have strong ties with the developers (although not as strong) and as a result don't expect them to not utilise the power of the PS3. To be honest though I don't even expect this to have much of a bearing on whether people choose the PS3 or Xbox360. People will buy the PS3 regardless.
As for the Wii controller I am by no means saying that a normal controller is on par with it. It is far more unique and advanced. But in principle all it does is replace the analogue control stick with the ability to use your own body movement. But if I'm playing a game where I'm holding a sword then I'm still going to be able to move that sword in exactly the same ways with a control stick as I am with the Wii motion controller. It's not like the Wii controller increases the range of movement that the game character has. Granted it makes the whole experience more enjoyable and more life like but the limitations of the in game character will limit the abilities of the controller.
As for the virtual games concept. Well, it's nice enough but I can't see many people using it too much. It's not as if we all yearn to play games of yesteryear other than for just old time sake. With the exception of Mariocart 64 that is :)
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/te...
With regards to your claim that the Wii-mote doesn't allow any additional movement to an analogue stick, well honestly that's untrue! Fair enough analougue sticks did provide full 360degree movement, but one aspect of ovement they couldn't acount for was speed! Take your sword example for instance. In games of the past, i.e Zelda, your sword swipes wheren't controlled by the analogue at all! They were carried out by pressing the "A" button! The resulting action was of a set speed and velocity! With the Wii-mote you can control the acceloration, speed, velocity, etc. A better example would be a boxing game! With the Wii-mote, natural athletesism and reflexes are rewarded! This may be bad news for pubesent nerds, but I like to thing i've avoided such a stereotype, and thus I welcome these new gaming possibilities!
As for your insinuation that the PS3 will facilitate totally interactive landscapes, well you're living in a dreamworld my pedigree chum! I read recently that development of a PS3 game costs approx 8.6million euros! this means that a game must sell at least half a million units before it represents any reasonable bargain! You must take into consideration the fact that games developers are intent first and foremost on making profits and this augmentation in development costs means that insuring financial stability will breed either corner cutting, or increased retail prices! Personnally I reckon the former of the two is most likely!
As for the Virtual Console concept you seem to be over-looking Nintendo's recent DS and GBA releases! For years now Nintendo have been realing out retro games on their portable consoles, at prices between 30-50euros, and people have been lapping them up! why if they're getting them for a reduced price would they refuse?
Sorry about the delay in my reply! I wrote up a massive rant a few days after your second last post, but for some reason it never appeared when I clicked 'Add Comment'. Frankly I was too pissed off to re-write it! However it was prtty similar to the above!