[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by icruise 

I don't think it will last 10 years, but since when do consoles get refreshed "at least three" times in a decade? I'd say it's closer to two full console generations.

Pay attention. Microsoft especially, but also Nintendo, are pushing to decrease the console cycle to counter Sony's five-year cycle strategy.

This is similar to how Japanese cars unseated the American cars in their own market: They decreased the upgrade cycle and made their own offerings more attractive.

[ort888]

When sony says they want the PS3 to last 10 years, they mean that people will still be buying PS3s well into the life of the PS4... similar to how the PS1 and PS2 sold well even after the launch of their successors.

Oh and Cash, the Wii has a larger game library then the PS3, so I don't know what you're talking about when you say the Wii has a small library.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Pay attention. Microsoft especially, but also Nintendo, are pushing to decrease the console cycle to counter Sony's five-year cycle strategy.

"Pay attention?" Ok... How about looking at the historical data?

The Xbox was released in 2001 and the Xbox 360 in 2005. So that's 4 years for MS, but we only have 2 consoles to judge from (MS was losing money on the Xbox and wanted to move to HD, so there was very little incentive for them to stick with the old system for longer.)
The Nintendo 64 was released in 1996, the Gamecube in 2001 and the Wii in 2006. So that's 5 years in between consoles for Nintendo.
The PS1 was released in 1995, the PS2 in 2000 and the PS3 in 2006. So that's 5-6 years for Sony.

Now, it may be that there have been comments that I'm unaware of by MS or Nintendo that they will be quickening the console life cycle, but just looking at past performance, I don't see anything to justify saying that there will be 3 console generations in a decade.

[DuckRacer1]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Not to mention that the third party exclusive titles have all but disappeared this generation, leaving the first parties to come up with "killer exclusives". This is another area where the PS3 struggles compared to PS2.

...But how does it compare to the 360 and Wii? That's the real question. When Sony is the third largest publisher (behind Ubisoft and EA), and all of their games are exclusive to its system, that's a big advantage.

Pay attention. Microsoft especially, but also Nintendo, are pushing to decrease the console cycle to counter Sony's five-year cycle strategy.

And how does 4 + 4 + 4 = 10?

The reason MS moved onto the 360 4 years after the Xbox was launched was because the original Xbox was a total moneyhole. They weren't selling much, so they decided to give it the axe and go at it with the Xbox 360.

Not to mention, in a recent interview with Peter Moore in EGM, he already said that they will still support the 360 as long as it sell, into 2010 and onwards.

And how is Nintendo wanting to shorten the console cycle?

Originally Posted by ort888

When sony says they want the PS3 to last 10 years, they mean that people will still be buying PS3s well into the life of the PS4... similar to how the PS1 and PS2 sold well even after the launch of their successors.

Close, but no cigar... when they made the 10 year comment, they were talking about how they were going to support the PS3 for 10 years. As in, make controllers, phone support, etc.

[exca1ibur]

Had the Sony come out with guns blazing in terms of unit sales right from the start (and earlier than they did), I suspect we'd see more Sony exclusives right now. However, the PS3's sales have been tepid at best, so it doesn't make sense for a game studio to lock itself to only that small portion of gamers.

As long as they have a huge 1st party publishing unit, which they do, they will be fine. Some developers now are experiencing a case of the chicken and the egg. Creating games can create market share and sell consoles, as everyone knows. Sitting on your ass hoping that consoles sell so you can develop for it... hmm. However when you have a large 1st party studio you can at least kick start those developers who are the 'sit and wait type'. (Ubisoft)

Originally Posted by DuckRacer1 

...But how does it compare to the 360 and Wii? That's the real question. When Sony is the third largest publisher (behind Ubisoft and EA), and all of their games are exclusive to its system, that's a big advantage.

Originally Posted by DuckRacer1 

Close, but no cigar... when they made the 10 year comment, they were talking about how they were going to support the PS3 for 10 years. As in, make controllers, phone support, etc.

Exactly... and exactly

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by icruise 

"Pay attention?" Ok... How about looking at the historical data?

Funny how the historical data supports what I am saying then:

6th generation consoles are:

PlayStation 2: 2000-2007 (worldwide) 6-7 years
Xbox: 2001-2005 4 years
Gamecube: 2001-2006 5 years

Xbox 360 already has a 1.5 year lead on the PS3, which looks to extend the cycle even further. Even on the current four-year cycle, the next Xbox will probably be placed around half-way through the PS3 life cycle (2009) and presumably be more powerful than the PS3.

Seventh generation consoles life-span predictions are as follows:

Xbox 360: 2005-2009 (4 years)
Playstation 3: 2007-2012 or even 2017 if they REALLY want a ten year cycle (which I doubt)
Wii: 2006-2010 (4 years)

That will give the competing consoles two or more years on Sony the next round up.

And as I was saying, life cycle factor is not the only thing threatening Sony at the moment. Their success with the PlayStation 1 spurred a flurry of development for the PlayStation 2 - which had no serious competitor. This time around it seems they had banked too much on their "superior" technology, which so far has lead to higher development costs and no tangible return.

This might - and likely will - change over time (as it did with the PS2). But what Sony is lacking in this round is the exclusives.

Notice that I haven't even mentioned the price difference, as it is incredibly the smallest factor here. The PS2 was also quite expensive at launch mind you.

But right now it all combines to a very shaky start and an uncertain future for the PS3. Sony apparantly has banked too much money on repeating their old strategies.

What is interesting is how it's competitior is following different strategies. Microsoft with the Xbox being more affordable and shortening the console cycle. Nintendo with it's extreme affordability and innovative controls appealing to a whole new market, not as much being in direct competition with the others as carving a whole new niche for itself.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by DuckRacer1 

And how does 4 + 4 + 4 = 10?

How about 4 + 3 + 2 ?
There is no reason that can't happen.

Originally Posted by DuckRacer1 

The reason MS moved onto the 360 4 years after the Xbox was launched was because the original Xbox was a total moneyhole. They weren't selling much, so they decided to give it the axe and go at it with the Xbox 360.

That is ONE reason. They also saw that the console cycle, leading to a war every five years could easily be broken and create a superior console before the others.

Originally Posted by DuckRacer1 

Not to mention, in a recent interview with Peter Moore in EGM, he already said that they will still support the 360 as long as it sell, into 2010 and onwards.

Of course. Just as Sony supports the PS1 and PS2 still. Because they STILL SELL. The PS2 is still selling more than the Xbox 360 and PS3 put together (up until recently, March sales were 280K for PS2, 199K for Xbox 360 and 130K for PS3).

Originally Posted by DuckRacer1 

And how is Nintendo wanting to shorten the console cycle?

By deliberately creating a cheaper, less powerful console. Nintendo's selling point is it's innovative controls as well as creating markets where there was none before. A cheaper console will make it easier for people to purchase a newer model more often. As long as there is backwards compatibility, the "Wiii" will be just as successful if it was launched next year even.

Nintendo IS harder to predict though. But this is a completely plausible and sound strategy to counter Sony.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Funny how the historical data supports what I am saying then:

Funny, I read through your whole post and didn't see how you got to a 3 year lifespan from those historical numbers. I'm not saying that your theory is implausible, but you haven't offered a thing in the way of proof.

Still, I don't think 3 years, and especially not 2, is enough time to fully support a console. People don't want to have to buy hardware that often and consoles only hit their stride in their 3rd or 4th years, where the quality of the games is concerned. Just look at the early PS2 titles compared to the later ones.

[ort888]

You guys are nuts if you think any of the big three want to push console lifespan's below the 5 year mark. It doesn't make any sense financially.

Besides, if any of the consoles is not going to last the full 5 years, it's the Wii. It's going to start looking pretty dated rather soon.

[icruise]

That's the thing, though. It already looks dated. It's relying entirely on its control scheme and low price (and Nintendo's stable of games and characters, of course). And that seems to be working for it. I don't think the Wii can look much worse in 3-4 years than it already does in comparison to the HD systems. That's not to say that Nintendo might not come out with an HD version of it, though. Maybe not a full refresh, but something that can at least put out 720p.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Funny, I read through your whole post and didn't see how you got to a 3 year lifespan from those historical numbers. I'm not saying that your theory is implausible, but you haven't offered a thing in the way of proof.

Still, I don't think 3 years, and especially not 2, is enough time to fully support a console. People don't want to have to buy hardware that often and consoles only hit their stride in their 3rd or 4th years, where the quality of the games is concerned. Just look at the early PS2 titles compared to the later ones.

I never said three and two outside of a hypothetical context. Just Xbox skewing the cycle by one year is enough to offset Sony's cycle by two years by the next round as I have shown.

As for "people don't want to buy…", you are seriously underestimating some people's need for the latest and greatest. Other people, say the ones who are still buying the PS2 now, are happy without the latest and greatest. Thing is there is room for both groups and the inbetween as the market for games are expanding and widening.

Compare with the PC gaming market which have no cycle whatsoever, but works on a continuum with the software and hardware pushing and pulling each other. This is where the console market is heading with the shorter cycle and minor upgrades (Xbox 360 elite anyone?). You are still stuck in the old mindset, as are Sony.

With backward compatibility, newer hardware can afford to push forward gradually instead of making a big jump every X years.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ort888 

You guys are nuts if you think any of the big three want to push console lifespan's below the 5 year mark. It doesn't make any sense financially.

Besides, if any of the consoles is not going to last the full 5 years, it's the Wii. It's going to start looking pretty dated rather soon.

Bingo. You are right on target.

[papadopolis]

Market share data kinda

sorry if someone else has already posted

[pyrite]

agreed on the wii. it's great fun but was on its last legs (graphics-wise) from its first day of release. i think the real problem will come about when HDTVs are more prevalent in every home, and its video weaknesses are laid bare for all to see. there will be a collective 'wtf' when young owners compare their games with those on their friends' 360s or PS3s..

another thing to consider is that we haven't seen any naughty dog/insomniac-like games on PS3 (or 360) yet, which may make a MASSIVE difference to the acceptance of next-gen machines. kids may be into simple fun like the wii, but they're also into the latest and greatest, including graphics (i was at least), a race for which the wii doesn't even qualify. the wii is better than a kid's ps2 for now, because the graphics are just as good and the controls are amazing, but soon enough PS3/360 will be making games that make little young eyes glisten in shop windows (much to the dismay of the parents' wallets), and the entire game will change IMO. this will be a three horse race all the way.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I never said three and two outside of a hypothetical context. Just Xbox skewing the cycle by one year is enough to offset Sony's cycle by two years by the next round as I have shown.

The whole discussion came about because you chided me for questioning that there would be "at least 3 generations" in a decade. Now you're saying it's just a hypothetical?

Anyway, Microsoft's release of the Xbox 360 Elite has sort of paved the way for more frequent updates, it's true. It's the first case that I can recall where a console has been updated so quickly to include significant changes in its specs (although it's not replacing the current system -- at least not yet). In the past, consoles from Sony and Nintendo have been tweaked, coming out with new colors or a smaller enclosure, but for the most part the functionality remained the same.

As for "people don't want to buy…", you are seriously underestimating some people's need for the latest and greatest.

Some people, sure. The hardcore types who are even as we type eBaying their Xbox 360s so they can get Elites. But the other side of the coin -- the much bigger side, I believe -- are the people who felt shocked that MS was releasing a revised system so soon after the 360's launch. I've read quite a few people complaining about this, and we're only talking about fairly minor changes. How do you think people would feel if their entire investment was obsoleted after 2 years? That's even quicker than a PC, since consoles aren't upgradeable.

I think the big appeal of the console versus PC gaming is that you can be sure that the games you will work with no problems, and you don't have to worry about a new system suddenly coming out. It's a safe bet. Bumping up the cycle would change that. I also have my doubts that MS could come up with a system that would blow away the PS3 in 2-3 years from now. They're only just now tapping the potential of the 360, and the PS3 hasn't even started yet.

With backward compatibility, newer hardware can afford to push forward gradually instead of making a big jump every X years.

I think you're forgetting something important. MS and Sony both lose money on their hardware (well, MS now apparently makes a tiny bit on the hardware alone, but is losing it hand-over-fist on the Xbox 360 as a platform). Where they make their money is from the games and the licensing fees involved (a simplification, since Sony for example is using the PS3 as a wedge for Blu-ray and that means that they can afford to lose money to some degree). Why would they want to fracture the market by releasing new and incompatible consoles so often? They want as many people as possible to be able to play their games. The incentive to come out with new hardware so often just isn't there, IMHO.

Maybe if they could come up with a way that the same game could be played on several different types of hardware, it could work (as with PCs). If you had the latest and greatest Xbox, you'd get the best graphics, but if you had an older system, you'd get graphics appropriate to that system. But people aren't going to put up with having all the new software be incompatible with the old systems.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by icruise 

The whole discussion came about because you chided me for questioning that there would be "at least 3 generations" in a decade. Now you're saying it's just a hypothetical?

Do I work for Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony? No. Obviously it's pure speculation. But educated speculation nonetheless.

My point is the 5 year cycle is no more. And Sony will lose out because of it.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Microsoft still has it's ace, Halo 3, to boost sales of the 360.

Halo 3 will (sadly) push the 360 back on top, and I don't see it getting dislodged.

[starman]

Why sadly? Halo kicks ass, and the 360 deserves to be on top.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Anyway, Microsoft's release of the Xbox 360 Elite has sort of paved the way for more frequent updates, it's true. It's the first case that I can recall where a console has been updated so quickly to include significant changes in its specs (although it's not replacing the current system -- at least not yet). In the past, consoles from Sony and Nintendo have been tweaked, coming out with new colors or a smaller enclosure, but for the most part the functionality remained the same.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 360 Elite just includes a bigger hard drive and an HDMI port, right?

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 360 Elite just includes a bigger hard drive and an HDMI port, right?

...and its black now.

[icruise]

That is correct, but the point is that it's still a much bigger change than we've seen with consoles in the past. I can't think of a single instance in the past where a console has been upgraded to include basic functionality that can't be obtained on the previous version. Can anyone else? The only way to get HDMI on the Xbox 360 is to buy the elite. The hard disk on the previous Xboxes is upgradeable (only using MS's official HD add-on), but the price is rather high.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

So it seems the GTA dev's are saying it won't be quite the same on the 360 as it doesn't guarantee a hard drive and they really use the extra space on BR disks for the PS3 version.

Hmmm.

[DuckRacer1]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

By deliberately creating a cheaper, less powerful console. Nintendo's selling point is it's innovative controls as well as creating markets where there was none before. A cheaper console will make it easier for people to purchase a newer model more often. As long as there is backwards compatibility, the "Wiii" will be just as successful if it was launched next year even.

Point taken.

Originally Posted by erik

Nintendo IS harder to predict though. But this is a completely plausible and sound strategy to counter Sony.

Agreed. The Wii could be the new Tickle Me Elmo... or it might make legions of non-gamers become gamers and buy the Wii for the simplicity, and sell a hundred million units. I'm guessing it'll be in the middle somewhere.

Originally Posted by icruise 

and low price.

Honestly, I don't think that's a big factor... people could easily buy a core 360 for only an extra $50. I think they're buying it for the motion controls (like you said), and to a lesser extent the future game library.

Originally Posted by icruise

And that seems to be working for it. I don't think the Wii can look much worse in 3-4 years than it already does in comparison to the HD systems.

The Wii is more or less an overclocked GameCube. Developers already know the ins and outs of it, and there's really no untapped reservoir of power that developers can take advantage of. With the 360, they're now starting to tap into that, and the PS3 hasn't even started.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

As for "people don't want to buy…", you are seriously underestimating some people's need for the latest and greatest. Other people, say the ones who are still buying the PS2 now, are happy without the latest and greatest. Thing is there is room for both groups and the inbetween as the market for games are expanding and widening.

That, and most of the people who are buying the PS2 will want to buy a next-gen system within the next few years. By then, HDTVs will be more prevalent, and I'm not sure if they'd settle for a console that has an atrocious (in comparison) picture output compared to the competition.

Compare with the PC gaming market which have no cycle whatsoever, but works on a continuum with the software and hardware pushing and pulling each other. This is where the console market is heading with the shorter cycle and minor upgrades (Xbox 360 elite anyone?). You are still stuck in the old mindset, as are Sony.

With backward compatibility, newer hardware can afford to push forward gradually instead of making a big jump every X years.

That's the attraction of consoles, though. People buy consoles because they don't want to shell out a few hundred dollars every few years to play the latest games. If it comes to that, what's the point of game consoles anymore?

Originally Posted by icruise 

Anyway, Microsoft's release of the Xbox 360 Elite has sort of paved the way for more frequent updates, it's true. It's the first case that I can recall where a console has been updated so quickly to include significant changes in its specs (although it's not replacing the current system -- at least not yet). In the past, consoles from Sony and Nintendo have been tweaked, coming out with new colors or a smaller enclosure, but for the most part the functionality remained the same.

The PS2 removed the i.link/Firewire port, added a built-in IR receiver, added DVD-RW support, added 480p movie support, etc, in a revision. The Gamecube removed component cable support at one point as well. Does anyone know when those things happened?

Originally Posted by icruise

I've read quite a few people complaining about this, and we're only talking about fairly minor changes.

Wait. You just said this:

Originally Posted by icruise

It's the first case that I can recall where a console has been updated so quickly to include significant changes in its specs (although it's not replacing the current system -- at least not yet).

Originally Posted by icruise

Why would they want to fracture the market by releasing new and incompatible consoles so often? They want as many people as possible to be able to play their games. The incentive to come out with new hardware so often just isn't there, IMHO.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by icruise

If you had the latest and greatest Xbox, you'd get the best graphics, but if you had an older system, you'd get graphics appropriate to that system.

And judging from the reactions to the Elite, they're not going to put up with that either.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 360 Elite just includes a bigger hard drive and an HDMI port, right?

And the matte black color, yes. HDMI is really only for 1080p, and the bigger HDD is for mediaphiles who use the video marketplace more than their grocery. And for IPTV in the future as well.

[DuckRacer1]

Originally Posted by icruise 

basic functionality that can't be obtained on the previous version.

Like what? HDMI isn't basic functionality, it's a hardware component. If anything, it'll allow 1080p for TVs that don't support 1080p via component. For the HDD, it'll allow people to download more than one HD movie (which isn't very feasible, considering the time it takes to download a movie by itself), and it'll allow for more recording in IPTV. That's it. There's no feature you can't enjoy by not buying the Elite.

[icruise]

Let me step back and emphasize that I personally don't personally think that the changes that the Elite introduced are significant to the gamer. I think the difference between component and HDMI is minor and I personally have no interest in downloading movies etc from Xbox Live, so I'm getting along just fine with the 20GB hard disk. But clearly some people feel differently, and they are changes to the basic hardware specs coming after a short period of time, and in that sense they are significant. I hope that makes sense.

I was going to mention the switch to the slimline PS2, but first of all, that change happened 4 years after the release of the original PS2, and it didn't actually add anything that couldn't be had with the previous versions. It added built-in ethernet, but you could get that on the old model. Of course the PS2 and Gamecube have had features *removed* but that's not what we're talking about (and the features removed were ones that almost nobody used anyway).

[DuckRacer1]

Originally Posted by icruise 

I was going to mention the switch to the slimline PS2, but first of all, that change happened 4 years after the release of the original PS2, and it didn't actually add anything that couldn't be had with the previous versions. It added built-in ethernet, but you could get that on the old model. Of course the PS2 and Gamecube have had features *removed* but that's not what we're talking about (and the features removed were ones that almost nobody used anyway).

Just so we're on the same page, I mentioned the PS2 had a good amount of features added.

[icruise]

The only features that I can see that were not available on previous models are the DVD-RW support and 480p output of DVDs. These have no affect whatsoever on the PS2's usability as a gaming system. The IR receiver was a separate attachment before, but it was still available.

[Monstermind]

Commentary: PS3 Fall Guy

PS3 fall guy - 4/27/2007 - Video Business

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Oh and Cash, the Wii has a larger game library then the PS3, so I don't know what you're talking about when you say the Wii has a small library.

The PS3 is brand new. Compare the PS2 to the Gamecube. Compare the PS1 to the N64. It's always the same story. Nintendo just doesn't want gamers, they want children and families, hence their small, childish game library.

[- - e r i k - -]

Children and families are not gamers?

Have we not gone through this already? Metroid Prime and Resident Evil 4 for GameCube was targeted at kids? Sports games like Tiger Woods and Excite Truck on the Wii are for kids? Godfather Blackhand where you can garrotte people with piano wire by simulating the actual movements with the Wiimote surely is very childish.

Just because the Wii targets a WIDER audience does not mean it's not for gamers

[centerchannel68]

Dude, it has like 4 games that aren't childish. Big woop. Everytime I bring this up, someone mentions the same games over and over. The same very FEW games.

[- - e r i k - -]

These are the top reviewed games for the Wii:

WarioWare: Smooth Moves Party Game 9.1 Review Jan 25, 2007
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Fantasy Action Adventure 8.9 Review Feb 23, 2007
Super Paper Mario 3D Platformer 8.8 Review TBA
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Fantasy Action Adventure 8.8 Review Dec 7, 2006
Super Mario World 2D Platformer 8.5 Review Feb 05, 2007 (US)
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past Action Role-Playing 8.5 Review Mar 23, 2007
Madden NFL 07 Football Sim 8.4 Review Dec 7, 2006
Super Mario Bros. 2D Platformer 8.3 Review Dec 25, 2006 (US)
Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz Party Game 8.3 Review Dec 7, 2006
Gunstar Heroes Shoot-'Em-Up 8.1 Review Dec 11, 2006 (US)
Punch-Out!! Featuring Mr. Dream Boxing 8.0 Review Mar 30, 2007
Super Mario 64 3D Platformer 8.0 Review Nov 19, 2006 (US)
F-Zero Futuristic Racing 8.0 Review Nov 19, 2006 (US)
Rayman Raving Rabbids Party Game 8.0 Review Dec 7, 2006
Trauma Center: Second Opinion Action 8.0 Review Nov 14, 2006 (US)
Military Madness Sci-Fi Turn-Based Strategy 7.8 Review Dec 18, 2006 (US)
Super Castlevania IV 2D Platformer 7.8 Review Dec 25, 2006 (US)
Wii Sports Sports 7.8 Review Dec 7, 2006
Donkey Kong Country 2D Platformer 7.7 Review Feb 19, 2007 (US)
Star Fox 64 Shoot-'Em-Up 7.6 Review Apr 02, 2007 (US)
The Godfather: Blackhand Edition Historic Action Adventure 7.6 Review Mar 29, 2007
Ristar 2D Platformer 7.6 Review Dec 04, 2006 (US)
Sonic and the Secret Rings 3D Platformer 7.6 Review Mar 8, 2007
R-Type III Shoot-'Em-Up 7.6 Review Jan 15, 2007 (US)
Beyond Oasis Action Role-Playing 7.5 Review Apr 6, 2007
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07 Golf Sim 7.5 Review Mar 15, 2007
Metal Slug Anthology Compilation 7.5 Review Mar 26, 2007
Alien Crush Pinball 7.5 Review Dec 11, 2006 (US)
Elebits Action 7.5 Review May 7, 2007
SSX Blur Snowboarding 7.4 Review Mar 15, 2007
Bomberman '93 Action 7.4 Review Nov 21, 2006 (US)
Solomon's Key Puzzle 7.4 Review Nov 19, 2006 (US)
SimCity Modern City-Building 7.4 Review Nov 19, 2006 (US)
Bio-Hazard Battle Shoot-'Em-Up 7.3 Review Feb 26, 2007 (US)
Kirby's Adventure 2D Platformer 7.3 Review Feb 12, 2007 (US)
R-Type Shoot-'Em-Up 7.3 Review Dec 25, 2006 (US)
Sonic the Hedgehog 2D Platformer 7.3 Review Nov 19, 2006 (US)
Bonk's Revenge 2D Platformer 7.2 Review Apr 16, 2007 (US)
Soldier Blade Shoot-'Em-Up 7.2 Review Jan 08, 2007 (US)
Contra III: The Alien Wars Shoot-'Em-Up 7.2 Review Jan 29, 2007 (US)
ToeJam & Earl Action 7.2 Review Dec 25, 2006 (US)
Street Fighter II: The World Warrior 2D Fighting 7.2 Review Dec 25, 2006 (US)
Gradius Shoot-'Em-Up 7.2 Review Jan 08, 2007 (US)
Barnyard Adventure 7.2 Review Dec 7, 2006
The Legend of Zelda Fantasy Action Adventure 7.2 Review Nov 19, 2006 (US)
Call of Duty 3 Historic First-Person Shooter 7.2 Review Dec 6, 2006
Prince of Persia Rival Swords Fantasy Action Adventure 7.1 Review Apr 5, 2007
Tecmo Bowl Football 7.1 Review Mar 12, 2007 (US)
Ice Hockey Ice Hockey 7.1 Review Dec 11, 2006 (US)
Need for Speed Carbon GT / Street Racing 7.1 Review Dec 14, 2006

Now compare to the top reviewed games for the PS3:

Genre Score Latest Update Release Date
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Role-Playing 9.5 Review Apr 26, 2007
Resistance: Fall of Man Sci-Fi First-Person Shooter 8.6 Review Mar 23, 2007
Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection 3D Fighting 8.3 Review Mar 23, 2007
NHL 2K7 Ice Hockey Sim 8.3 Review Mar 16, 2007
Virtua Tennis 3 Tennis 8.2 Review Mar 23, 2007
Fight Night Round 3 Boxing 8.2 Review Mar 22, 2007
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance Action Role-Playing 8.2 Review Mar 23, 2007
NBA 2K7 Basketball Sim 8.2 Review Apr 27, 2007
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07 Golf Sim 8.2 Review Mar 22, 2007
Call of Duty 3 Historic First-Person Shooter 8.2 Review Mar 23, 2007
Def Jam: Icon 3D Fighting 8.1 Review Mar 22, 2007
Virtua Fighter 5 3D Fighting 8.1 Review Mar 23, 2007
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Double Agent Modern Action Adventure 8.0 Review Mar 29, 2007
College Hoops 2K7 Basketball Sim 8.0 Review Mar 13, 2007 (US)
NBA Street Homecourt Basketball 8.0 Review Mar 22, 2007
Ridge Racer 7 Racing 8.0 Review Mar 23, 2007
Mortal Kombat II 2D Fighting 7.9 Review Apr 12, 2007 (US)
MotorStorm Rally / Offroad Racing 7.9 Review Mar 23, 2007
Madden NFL 07 Football Sim 7.9 Review Nov 14, 2006 (US)
Armored Core 4 Mech Sim 7.7 Review May 3, 2007
The Godfather: The Don's Edition Historic Action Adventure 7.6 Review Mar 22, 2007
Major League Baseball 2K7 Baseball Sim 7.4 Review Feb 26, 2007 (US)
Need for Speed Carbon GT / Street Racing 7.4 Review Mar 22, 2007
Tony Hawk's Project 8 Skateboarding 7.3 Review Mar 23, 2007
Formula One Championship Edition Formula One Racing 7.2 Review Mar 23, 2007
Lemmings Puzzle 7.2 Review Dec 07, 2006 (US)
F.E.A.R. Modern First-Person Shooter 7.1 Review Apr 26, 2007
flOw Miscellaneous 7.1 Review Mar 23, 2007

Saying that there are four games that are not childish on the Wii is as silly as saying that there are four games on the PS3 THAT ARE NOT ****ING SPORTS GAMES.

[Gee4orce]

Why do people try and manufacture conflict where non exists ? Who cares if XBox 360 is doing well/badly, PS3 is going great/not so great, Wii is amazing/lame ? The only people who really care about this are the "gamer's gamers" - and those are precisely the kind of people who will probably buy one or more of each console anyway.

From what I have heard though, it's going something like this : Wii - storming success. XBox - a flop, and Microsoft is channel stuffing and tying distributors by threatening to withhold Vista. PS3 - great machine but too bloody expensive for anyone other than single professional males with large disposable income.

[siflippant]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Oh and Cash, the Wii has a larger game library then the PS3, so I don't know what you're talking about when you say the Wii has a small library.

Mmmmmmm, the Wii may have a larger library, but how many of those games are REALLY worth buying? (Sure, feel free to counter with the same reference to the ps3's own software suite). Yup, the Wii is fun at Xmas and parties, but long term I feel the ps3's quality will shine through (although potential needs to be converted to the reality). But hey, that's IMHO.. maybe we're all a tad fanboyish underneath the surface..

You think?

[icruise]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

These are the top reviewed games for the Wii:

I agree that the Wii has more than just kid's games, but don't you think it's a little misleading to include all those Virtual Console games in the list? By my count, less than 20 out of 50 are actual Wii games.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by icruise 

I agree that the Wii has more than just kid's games, but don't you think it's a little misleading to include all those Virtual Console games in the list? By my count, less than 20 out of 50 are actual Wii games.

Maybe I should include all the PS2 discs that still work in the PS3.

[zro]

And the GCN games that work in the Wii.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

The PS3 is brand new. Compare the PS2 to the Gamecube. Compare the PS1 to the N64. It's always the same story. Nintendo just doesn't want gamers, they want children and families, hence their small, childish game library.

The PlayStation brand always had more games because it also had the largest user base. So far, that is not happening this time around.

It's a self perpetuating circle too... you need good games to sell consoles which will encourage developers to make more good games. Sony is breaking the circle by releasing a $600 system without any huge games. When the console isn't selling well, developers are less likely to want to spend 2 years and 20 million dollars creating a game that will barely make them any money.

[ort888]

Oh, and the PS3 and Wii both have crappy game libraries right now. I was simply pointing out that the Wii had more games out then the PS3, which is does.

Here is my super official opinion...

Wii games I'm interested in playing: Wii Sports, Wario Ware Smooth Moves, Super Paper Mario, and Zelda
PS3 games I'm interested in playing: Resistance, Motorstorm

[DuckRacer1]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

These are the top reviewed games for the Wii:

Excluding Virtual Console games:

WarioWare: Smooth Moves Party Game 9.1 Review Jan 25, 2007
Super Paper Mario 3D Platformer 8.8 Review TBA
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Fantasy Action Adventure 8.8 Review Dec 7, 2006
Madden NFL 07 Football Sim 8.4 Review Dec 7, 2006
Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz Party Game 8.3 Review Dec 7, 2006
Rayman Raving Rabbids Party Game 8.0 Review Dec 7, 2006
Trauma Center: Second Opinion Action 8.0 Review Nov 14, 2006 (US)
Wii Sports Sports 7.8 Review Dec 7, 2006
The Godfather: Blackhand Edition Historic Action Adventure 7.6 Review Mar 29, 2007
Sonic and the Secret Rings 3D Platformer 7.6 Review Mar 8, 2007
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07 Golf Sim 7.5 Review Mar 15, 2007
Metal Slug Anthology Compilation 7.5 Review Mar 26, 2007
Elebits Action 7.5 Review May 7, 2007
SSX Blur Snowboarding 7.4 Review Mar 15, 2007
Call of Duty 3 Historic First-Person Shooter 7.2 Review Dec 6, 2006
Prince of Persia Rival Swords Fantasy Action Adventure 7.1 Review Apr 5, 2007Need for Speed Carbon GT / Street Racing 7.1 Review Dec 14, 2006

Just for perspective.

Saying that there are four games that are not childish on the Wii is as silly as saying that there are four games on the PS3 THAT ARE NOT ****ING SPORTS GAMES.

Agreed.

[siflippant]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Oh, and the PS3 and Wii both have crappy game libraries right now. I was simply pointing out that the Wii had more games out then the PS3, which is does.

lol...

sweet

[- - e r i k - -]

I copied the list straight from Gamespot, which choose to include VC games.

It just does not matter. As Ort rightly pointed out, by virtue of just numbers both the Wii library and the PS3 library sucks right now. And it will improve.

It just won't improve ENOUGH for the PS3 in the foreseeable future to make it worth the price.

Which means one out of two things must happen:

a) The price of the PS3 has to come down to a competitive level
b) There has to be some KILLER EXCLUSIVE titles for it

And frankly, I don't see neither happen before it's too late and Microsoft and Nintendo has moved on to the next "generation".

[icruise]

I do think this article (posted in the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD thread) is pretty eye-opening. Admittedly, the PS3 has a higher hurdle to overcome with its price, but the fact is that people were saying the *exact* same things about the PS2 at this point in its life, and the PS3 is actually doing better that the PS2 did at this point in its life. Admittedly, the PS2's supply was constrained for a lot longer than the PS3's was, though.

Salon.com Technology | Don't buy that PlayStation

[Dakarʒ]

The problem with the PS3 vs. PS2 argument is that two important things have changed:

• The PS3 was not first to market
• The 360 is a much more attractive alternative than its predecessor

[Chuckit]

For perspective: I waited out to get a Playstation 2 when it was released. I still haven't found a compelling reason to buy a PS3. I know a lot of other people who are the same way. Anybody who was really excited to get a next-gen system already bought an Xbox a year earlier.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

The problem with the PS3 vs. PS2 argument is that two important things have changed:

• The PS3 was not first to market
• The 360 is a much more attractive alternative than its predecessor

I totally agree. I just find it interesting to look back at how the consoles were received, since a lot of people only remember the PS2 as a huge success. It's kind of like how everyone is drawing parallels between the reaction to the iPod when it was first released and the iPhone now. It's a flawed comparison, but not one totally without merit.

I will say, though, that as of yet there aren't any really compelling reasons to get the PS3. Its ability to play PS1 and PS2 games as well as Blu-ray movies does go a long way, but without some really good original titles (which ARE on the way) it's just a sub-par Xbox 360.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Its ability to play PS1 and PS2 games as well as Blu-ray movies does go a long way, but without some really good original titles (which ARE on the way) it's just a sub-par over-priced Xbox 360.

Fixed.

[icruise]

Overpriced for a game console? Yes. Overpriced compared to the 360? Actually, no. It's true that both the 360 and PS3 are too expensive for a lot of people, but the problem isn't so much that the PS3 is overpriced. It's that Sony isn't giving you any choice in what kind of system you want to buy. With the 360, if you don't need wireless, or a bigger hard disk, or rechargeable batteries in the controller, or an HD movie player, or a card reader, you don't have to buy those components. With the PS3, you have no choice. Obviously the inclusion of Blu-ray is a strategic thing on Sony's part, but I think they could have tried a bit harder to make some of these things optional. And now that the 20GB model is gone, things are even worse.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Overpriced for a game console? Yes. Overpriced compared to the 360? Actually, no.

Eh, it's still overpriced compared to the 360 if the extra stuff you get adds no value. It's like charging $500 for a gallon of milk packaged with styrofoam and going, "What? This isn't overpriced compared to other milk. They just don't include a bunch of styrofoam."

[icruise]

It does add value to some people, certainly. Just not to everyone.