Sorry for the long post but I have to say something since most fan boys continue to delude themselves, make excuses, and be hypercritical.
It is funny how many people here have no idea of what they are talking about. It is even funnier how fan boys are bringing up the most irrelevant topics for reasons why a system will do good or not.
First of all anyone that says hardware is what wins console races obliviously does not know the history of video games and, most likely, do not remember life before their PS2. Software have and will always determine console race winners. Anything else makes no logical sense.
Stop bringing up the dreamcast because Sega lost that small battle for totally different reasons than what is being brought up in this forms. And Sega having a head start and still losing isn't because having a head start doesn't matter, because it does, but instead they lost because of the environment, lack of developer support, etc of its time. There is no way a Dreamcast, selling the numbers it was, was going to hold its own against the PS2, XBOX, and GameCube. Of course it retrospect we can say the GameCube wasn't much of a threat to any console but at the time that wasn't fact since the successor to the N64, in itself, had a lot of promise when the console was first announced. Sega bailing out when they did was the only real move they could have made without losing millions of dollars trying to compete against three other highly anticipated and hyped consoles.
Secondly the PS1 is basically Super Nintendo CD before Nintendo bailed on Sony (they were partners at the time to create a new CD system) and Sony decided to go it on their own since they owned the format and the technology was there. The PS1 won the battle between the N64, Saturn, Jaguar, etc because they had third-party developer support that far surpassed the other systems. THE NUMBER 1 REASON FOR THIS WAS COST AND INSTALL BASE. As the PS1 gained in install base so did its developer support, which also gained for other reasons like cost (as in cost per disk not development cost). The PS1 out beat the N64 simply because the N64 cost $28 (give or take) US dollars to produce one single cart vs a CD which was, at the time, around $2-$4 dollars. I'm not sure how many of you have any math knowledge but with numbers like that you could sell literally a fraction of games on the PS1 and still make the same or more money than with the N64. Same with the music industry in that independent artist can make more money and sell less albums than they with a major label.
The Sega Saturn was a move powerful system but lost because it had extremely little developer support. No one will buy a system if there are barely any, if any, games to be played on it. THIS TRUTH can be seen throughout the history of video games. The PS3 is more expensive and does not have the strongest support both by companies and by many personal developer opinions and yet PS3 fan boys want to argue that a few games can actually sell the 100 million world-wide consoles Sony is aiming for. That makes no sense. It doesn't matter if the PS3 has a few exclusives because those few do not outweigh the incentives the 360 offer.
The PS1 was the weakest (technically speaking of course) out of all systems in its generation but it won because it has developer support that surpassed the competition. BOTTOM LINE. You can twist whatever wishful thinking you want but no one game won it for the PS1 but a lot of games. The first XBOX was Microsoft's way to get a market share, which they not only did but they did better than what they expected to do. Anyone bringing up the fact that the XBOX didn't sell as many as the PS2 and therefore wasn't a player is fooling themselves. The XBOX's purpose was not to take the number one spot worldwide but to allow Microsoft to move into a position where they can take over with successors. If you look deep into the XBOX 360 outside of personal opinion you will see that the 360 is the better console. Not only that, but Microsoft has moved it, Vista, Live, XNA, and other technologies into a position that will basically ensure that Microsoft will have the thrown. Looking into the long run based on FACTS will show this to be not even a maybe but a truth. Of course Sony can do things to change this but the FACTS of today, and not the "I think the PS3 will win because I like Playstation", means that dramatic things will have to happen on both fronts to allow Sony to keep the crown. This of course would be extremely unlikely with the strategy Microsoft has publicly, and I would bet privately, have laid out for the 360 and other technologies. At this point if Sony does make a meaningful play for the crown then Microsoft is in a position to match it. Microsoft had the money to burn in the experiment known as the XBOX. A lot was gained form the multi-billion lost from the XBOX 1 as they are playing for the long run.
The PS2 won because that same developer support carried over from the PS1, plus the DVD feature sold it. This is FACT because, and you can look it up, the number of systems sold vs. games sold at the launch of the PS2 in Japan and the US showed that people were buying it as a DVD player and not a game system. Plus Ebay selling helped. The DVD was established enough to make it a feature that alone sold many systems vs. games but Blu-ray is not at that point, nor is HD-DVD, and according to analyst (which you can google) they won't be until near the end or possibly even after the life-span of the PS3 and 360.
The GameCube LOST because it did not have developer support, which didn't help since any developers' biggest competition on a Nintendo system is Nintendo.
Anyone that makes the argument that the cost of the system has no factor because the GameCube lost but was cheaper makes no sense. It doesn't matter how much the system is if there is relatively no games anyone wants to play on it, thus no one will buy it. I remember a while back when KB-Toys were selling Jaguars for like $50 dollars and I still didn't buy it because I couldn't think of one game I wanted to play on it. Now if the system does have many great games AND is cheaper then the story is different! It is called a domino affect and when things stack up they can make or break a system's success rate.
Plus when it comes to Nintendo most of the games that appeared on that system didn't interest hardcore and older games, which make up 90% of game buyers and have for the last few generations (again you can Google this since it is easy to find many figures and ratios on this that was proved by various studies). Wii on the other hand will not be as plagued, if even at all, by this since the innovations, experience, and cost offered by the Wii will make this negligible, which is already proven since it is King of Japan right now.
Sony fan boys are known for making excuses and being hypocritical. The reasons why the PS1 and PS2 had dominance do not exist for the PS3 at this or the foreseeable future. You can't say give the PS3 a year because the 360 and Wii install base will continue to grow at great numbers. The only way for the PS3 to catch up will be for either people to get over the reasons why not to buy the system and to just invest in it anyway (and to buy games in decent numbers now) or if the incentives to buy the system outweigh any other console by A GREAT DEAL!
If games are going multi-platform that DOES HURT because incentive, in that area, is decreasing for the PS3. It does not matter how many 360 games go to the PS3 because:
A) It disproves a lot of myths about the PS3 being superior if it is being used to play 360 games
B) Has no affect on 360 since the winning feature for the vast majority of its games is its community and online experience
C) Going from 360 to the more expensive and, at this time, overall less attractive PS3 is not an incentive to buy a PS3
D) Acts as an incentive to buy a 360 for reasons that will make this post twice as long (i.e. the disadvantage of C for Sony is an advantage for Microsoft)
It is also funny how many people have no idea of game development. Stop saying give developers time to figure out the system. All that means is to allow them to find hacks, work-around, etc so that they can actually make something out of Sony's complex design other than what we've seen. Complex meaning complex not powerful, not superior, but complex, which in today's world is unnecessary to have complexity for the sake of complexity. Not to say that is what Sony did but the end result is a system that is much more difficult to develop for. The PC can have games that surpass what the PS3 can do TODAY. Not because developers need to educate themselves on doing techniques that, although might seem new to average non-technical gamers, are actually not by a long shot. Gears of War would be hard to do, or in the words of Cliffy B impossible, on the PS3 because the tricks, work-arounds, etc that would be required to make that game on the PS3 would be so complicated, assuming if possible, that the payoff would not even be worth it. That is what John Carmack argued and that is fact. You can research their, and other developers, interviews and opinions yourself. These are professional developers and not fan boys so their words have more weight than what is posted in forums like this.
Oh and I know someone will say then why are the PC games not pwning the PS3 by leaps and bounds. Simply put PC developers have to work around a lot of factors, with the number 1 (related to this arugment) being the average consumers hardware. They can't make games for the most powerful (or even PCS semi-powerful) of PCs because only a small fraction of users with those kinds of machines exist, which is even smaller for those that use their machines for something other than work, research, etc. Not everyone upgrades anywhere remotely near as fast as they can, so this is a factor.
And stop looking at the PS2 vs. XBOX as a reason why the PS3 will win because that battle was extremely different. Again for reasons already pointed out and even more reasons that will make this post 4 times larger.
And even if the PS3 is, from a tech spec perspective more powerful, that difference is so negligible that I am surprised people think they can even use it as an excuse to why the PS3 is better. If you where comparing the PS3 vs. the Dreamcast then yes there is enough of a difference in the quality and advancement of games that can be played. If you were talking about the PS3 vs. the XBOX then yes that fact can be brought up. But the PS3 vs. the XBOX 360...don't kid yourself. A few Mhz here or there (plus other meaningless differences) will not change the quality of the games that can be made on the PS3 vs. the 360. THAT IS WHY the PS3 has not lived up to the hype not because developers need more time to figure out ways around the complexity just so they can MAYBE do a Gears of War on it. The PS3 has not pwned the 360 because it technically can't. Even if a few figures are slightly higher in some areas (but far from all), the fact remains that those differences in the world of real-time applications mean nothing. I remember when Sony hyped the PS2 by releasing figures and stats that were so meaningless to game development that it was almost funny. If the processing that can be done means not rendering anything to the screen, no AI, no physics, no game-play, etc and deal with what boils down to floating-point operations on polygons that are not rendered then that MEANS NOTHING TO GAMES.
Sorry for making this so long. I just get tired of seeing forums like this without saying something. Also I am NOT a PS3 hater. I own a PS3, actually I own and collect ever game system ever released and I don't dislike Sony at all. This post is not my naïve opinion but the state of the PS3 vs. 360 using FACTS.
New0001
And a very nice and informed opinion as well. I would only disagree with one thing. 360 games going to PS3 do hurt the 360, because it is zero sum. 
Log in to comment