Do gamers really want all that capability? Marketers say yes, sales say no
Look at all them freakin' configurations!
I feel like the PlayStation 3, its seemingly erratic amount of forms and features, and the confusion this poses is something which hasn't really been addressed in full form, so today, on this old Saturday, I'll take the time.
Now, naturally, this is going to require a bit of a disclaimer, so you get where I'm coming from. Firstly, I don't have any kind of fanboy bias. I mean, I love all systems and games in general. The games are far more important than the systems themselves. I think any game could really work on any console, some just better than others. Everything else is really just marketing gobbledegook. So, I think the 360 is a great system, though I wish it was more stable. The Wii is awesome, though more "core" games would help it out. The PS3? Great system, but it's too freaking confusing. In spite of its faults, it's the one I'm eyeing most, for a variety of reasons.
Allow me to explain. While I've heard in the past Sony has contracted research on what gamers want out of their consoles, and similar companies have done similar things for cell phones and the like, and the result has been (apparently) they want them to do everything (play games, video, music, etc., as well as perform their supposedly primary functions), I'm not quite buying it. Apparently gamers aren't either:
Of course, last I'd heard of this, it was a few years ago, and times they do change. But what I'm proposing (merely proposing) is if Sony had took an approach more akin to the Wii and/or 360 in its feature set with the PS3, it would be a lot more successful today (though yes, it is gaining ground), dominating the industry as it did after some time with its predecessor, or at least being significantly more "up there."
I'm aware this is a controversial topic (see comments here), but I wonder if Blu-ray shouldn't have been used from the beginning (something we touched on before), thereby saving consumers quite a chunk of money right there. If BioShock would look just as good (according to its producer) on the PS3 without Blu-ray, does it really make that much of a difference, in the big picture? I recognize games like Metal Gear might suffer due to the decreased storage capacity, but would some adjustments to a presumably small amount of games make that much of a difference? How many developers can even afford to produce a game like Metal Gear 5 anyway?
Now, for the portion of people who want the movie playing aspect included with their console, I understand this doesn't apply, and I understand Sony has its reasons for ushering the whole Blu-ray thing in. But this brings up another thought: do most gamers who own a PS3 or are thinking about buying one really want a Blu-ray player? Studies have been showing most people aren't making the switch from DVD to Blu-ray, and won't be for a few years to come at least, mainly because the jump isn't significant enough, and, I presume, because to really get much out of it, you need a sweet (and expensive) setup. If they don't want a standalone Blu-ray player, wouldn't that mean most PS3 owners/would-be owners probably don't want it with their system, all things considered? I can tell you I would have a PS3 right now if there was just a standard DVD player or no movie player in there at all, and the system was that much cheaper. But that is just me, so let's work towards some kind of consensus, here!
The other thing is what Codemasters' Rod Cousens brought up the other day: too many SKUs and price points. The 360 has its own problems, mainly due to its instability in relation to this situation, but I'll focus on the PS3. There are seven different versions of the PS3. Does this seem absurd to anyone but me? I think I'm at least fairly knowledgable in the gaming world, and I was very confused for awhile about which one to get, and still kind of am. Seven?! Really, Sony? I think two should really be plenty, with each clearly differentiating in advertisements, flyers, and on the box which one is right for which gamer's needs. Three would be tolerable. Seven! I can't get over that.
So, to conclude, here is my ideal PS3, forever unattainable, but hey, I'll deal:
- Plays PS1/PS2/PS3 games (all through hardware/Emotion Engine, and without Blu-ray)
- Has Wi-Fi/Ethernet capabilities for online play
- 40GB only (option is always there to upgrade)
- Cell processor w/65nm process (cheaper, less power consumption)
- HDMI support (I suppose)
Aside from a few things which are given ("Graphics Synthesizer" GPU and whatnot), that's it. That's all I need. Can you imagine how cheap that would be? $300? Maybe less? And the system would probably be relatively trim, too, unlike in its current state:
Oh, PS3, I only hurt you because I love you.
Everything else the configurations offer I can just make my actual computer do if I so wish, when I so wish. Blargh!
forums
Sales are picking up, because the software attributed to the System is picking up. As has been the primary complaint from everyone thus far. If there's anyone out there, still bemoaning the addition of BR, they've obviously not played MGS4. And as such are communists.
Morne
Things were simpler at launch though. Fewer models and most of the ones that were out had the good stuff like backwards compatibility.
Software is obviously a factor, and one of the main reasons I'm so interested now as opposed to before..but I'm saying I think sales would still be higher if the feature set/model thing was simpler.
Anyway, let's say Blu-ray is worth it. I still say scrap most of the other features. And services (Home, Qore, etc) while they're at it, if it would keep the price down.
And I really liked the chrome.
Without it it looks so cheap. I know Sony is trying to make it more profitable but they could of at least kept the chrome on the 160GB. It almost seems like Sony is trying to convince people not to buy a PS3. I was planning on getting a PS3, now I'm not so sure. Anyway these features aren't exactly necessary but it's not right to just remove them from all models.
Great article though chautemoc.
I'm not attacking the PS3 in anyway, it's a geniune question.
BluRay offers more storage, not better graphics. The BR disc has nothing to do with the GPU powering the system.
More storage for textures does not mean better looking games simply because with a fixed 256mb of graphics memory in the ps3 it has a fixed bottleneck and one that isn't miraculously cured by the addition of BR disc format.
Even if textures were dynamically streamed in and out of memory, the PS3 would require that the game be installed onto the HDD in order to overcome the relative slow access times of the BR disc.
The BR size benefit is fallacious when you way it up against the hardware limits.
The only reason MGS uses so much BR space is the uncompressed 1080p video cutscenes. The actual final install size of the 'game' is arounn 6gb smaller than a DVD-DL. Cutscenes / FMV is loaded off the blu-ray disc and not installed.
So yes BR has it's benefits - but a sudden increase in graphical quality.. NO!
I think Sony should give us the choice to have full BC, card reader ect and also give us the choice to not have BC, card reader ect.
I found it very unfair that SCEE removed the EE chip from the PAL PS3 60GB, Europe had worse BC than USA and Japan.
Morne
Blu-ray drive is the hallmark of the PS3 console, That's why I bought PS3 60GB, becasue I don't want to buy separate Blu-ray players at the rip off prices.
I also can't imagine PS3 without Blu-ray Drive!!!! Unmistakably, Sony's PS3 is the pioneer of great technology just like they introduced a new version called DVD back in the November 2000. By the way, where were the Playstation critics at the time? I suppose none could not criticise PS2 as much as PS3!!!
Furthermore, if you compare DVD Movie with Blu-ray Movie on 1080p screens, there is a world of difference in picture and sound quality, I don't want to mention myriad advantages of Blu-ray Discs further, when you see it you will know it, because that's Blu-ray.
Overall, Just patiently wait until 2010, you will see the triumph of Blu-ray. It is only a matter of time!!!!
Whenever my friends and I talk about the PS3, blu-ray is definitely brought up. Plus, Sean, there are possibilities of blu-ray that you are not thinking of.... You can fit an entire season of a show instead of multiple DVD disks!!! And with a 500GB Blu-ray disk, imagine how many features can be in a game. Some games just feel as though they don't have enough content. Free-roam games would also be awesome.. I'm guessing that blu-ray might be able to hold a San Andreas sized world with the graphics and detail of GTA IV.
Case in point, plenty of PC games look better than PS3 (and 360) games, and they run off of DVDs....
I like the PS3's Blu-ray capabilities, and the increased storage on it allows for uncompressed textures (which IS a benefit), but the differences are generally not noticable, I think.
The PS3's choice of GPU has been explained in an article, as to why it is very good. MB size isn't nearly as important as archetecture. I dislike the fact that there is only 256MB ram, but that too has been shown to be sufficient (for gaming and video).
Yeah, Sony uses new storage medium for each iteration of consoles they release. PS1 used CDs (excluding Sega CD, was a first for consoles I think), PS2 used DVDs (though so did Dreamcast, but that flubbed), PSP used UMDs (UMDs kinda flubbed though), and now the PS3 uses blu-ray. Dunno what they're going to use next....I'm thinking they might start with 50 or 100GB Blu-ray disks. Same basic medium, but increased starting size, and I imagine the drive speed would be around 16x to start.
heretofore those textures do NOT look like they needed the 5x or so capacity of a DVD. sorry.
unimpressed. still, ill buy it, eventually..... probably used... because i loved mgs1-3 so much. so far 4 looks to be the worst. hope it changed its tune.
PS3 has nice Bluray player, yep, except not, it chews up around 200W when running while normal player takes about 50W. Also PS3 is pure asian product, just a reminder.
anyway there's something that's not been covered yet, blu-ray disc protection
cd, dvd and dvd dl's protections have been cracked but blu ray's hasn't (i think)
even if it does get cracked people will still hesitate to illegaly upload games of such sizes and it would take forever for others to download
so blu-ray has an advantage on that, yet, i still don't think sony should have jumped this forward, what's wrong with using multiple dvd dls to play the games? it wouldn't have to be integrated with a br player too which would drop the cost dramatically.
.
.
and besides, its supposed to be a GAMING CONSOLE, remember?
I am a gamer, I wan't to play games not pay an extra $200 so that I can also watch movies. If theres anything Sony should of learned it's that power doesn't mean more sales. If I remember correctly besides for the 5th gen of consoles the weaker ones have always come out on top.
HAHA!
http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/images/ps3_vs_xbox360.jpg
with the ps3 you get a lot more for your money. a comparably equipped 360 would cost you much more. as far as your complaints about the inclusion of blu-ray, it was a smart move by sony. they future proof their consoles, man. I mean, as of last summer the PS2 was still the top selling console and continues to sell well today. another factor in consoles is reliability. the 360 has a failure rate of 34% Thats 10,000 units per week. While the PS3 has a failure rate of .2% making it 150 times more reliable than the 360. And in response to your comment that developers cannot utilize the PS3's power, all new technology needs time before the full power can be tapped. There is no exception to this in the PS3's case. You can easily see more game developers backing the PS3 as comprehension increases. The 360 had a good run, but take a look at the stats. The 360 having a year head start, selling 20 million units over 31 months, averages 640,000 units per month. The ps3, selling 15 over 21 months, averages over 710,000 units per month. The PS3 is the the future and the 360 was the yesterday my friend.
when a company makes a product it chooses an audiance the wii choose family kids everyone fun fun not hard core games. the xbox choose gamers with (fanboy talkin now sorry) a desire to watch there consoles crash or go wrong sorry boys but its MICROSOFT did you REALLY think they could pull off a good console AND have it work lol and the ps3 that aided rightly or wrongly at the higher end for cutting edge perfermance and future proof. yes yes we all know people claim its no better but seriously if the ps3 was no good why would all the major super computers in the world now be incorperating the ps3 cell proccesor. its got the power but as with all new technology it takes time to use it bteer than a system with less overall power that crashes all the time lol to all xbox 360 owners
when a company makes a product it chooses an audiance the wii choose family kids everyone fun fun not hard core games. the xbox choose gamers with (fanboy talkin now sorry) a desire to watch there consoles crash or go wrong sorry boys but its MICROSOFT did you REALLY think they could pull off a good console AND have it work lol and the ps3 that aided rightly or wrongly at the higher end for cutting edge perfermance and future proof. yes yes we all know people claim its no better but seriously if the ps3 was no good why would all the major super computers in the world now be incorperating the ps3 cell proccesor. its got the power but as with all new technology it takes time to use it bteer than a system with less overall power that crashes all the time lol to all xbox 360 owners{/quote]
Wrong.
All my friends who own 360's got it because of the game selection Halo 3, Gears of war. I won't list them all, I think you get the idea. There's many others compared to the PS3. Sure the PS3 has bluray but for the most part bluray disks are expensive right now. If you think of the consoles on a gaming standpoint the 360 wins because it has a much better choice of games.
You also argue that 360's crash, well the first ones that came out did I won't argue there. But the newer ones are doing fine. Me I've only own one and it has been going strong no crashes or any sort of hiccups.
Also Xbox Live is superior to the Playstation 3 network. More selection to demos and trailers. Also since a lot of my friends own the 360 most have Xbox live and I can play online with them.
I would also like to point out how the hell is the PS3 controller next gen? It uses the same build as the first Playstation more closely to the the 2nd one. They really haven't done much with it.
So I feel sorry for you Ace because the game selection that the PS3 has isn't to good. While it's getting better over time the exclusives that it has aren't too impressive excluding MGS4. I won't deny that it is future proof for bluray and what not. But seriously when the time comes. The next generation of the Xbox will come out and compete. So I would have to say the 360 did a good job for the current generation in offering good games. It is also still continuing to do so as well.