I'm an Xbox 360 owner, but I'm still interested in the PS3. There's no reason why an 'Xbot' can't comment on what he/she feels is correct/incorrect about a story. I hate fanboyism, but I wouldn't call you a fanboy if you think (using all available evidence) that PS3 ain't gonna sell 11 million units in this year.
You'd have to be wearing blinders to believe that Sony's PS3 hasn't performed under expectations (sales projections). Every game site has discussed it. It's not like Sony's 'doomed', that's ridiculous. But things aren't hyper rosy either. Every single analysis that I've read that places Sony in the lead at the end of 2009 also projects that their overall marketshare will diminish relative to the competition (i.e. much closer to the Xbox than in the last competition).
Maybe that...
Is it in terms of number of titles? Then it's the PS2. Number of sales? PS2 again. Or maybe it's the ratio of quality to sub-par titles released. Dreamcast maybe?
I think that Sony's been really good about releasing a good variety of titles that please everyone, and that's their strength. However, Nintendo's systems are almost worth owning just for the 1st party games. Finally, Xbox 360 is where it's at for multiplayer, PC ports and especially shooters (although with eveything ...
Pretty much every game site (IGN, Gamespot, etc) ran the story that it was canceled officially by THQ! Where did the previous story come from?
It's far too early to make any kind of call here. And sorry, I wasn't trying to accuse you of calling me a fanboy, I find that these conversations get out of hand when people think you're just here to bash their favorite system.
I'm not PS3 bashing. I'm only comparing the PS3 to the PS2. Everyone nay-says a console when it comes out. The PS2 was slow at the beginning, like the PS3 is now. All I'm saying is that the PS3 situation is not exactly like the PS2's was as Dreamcast wasn't really a competitor and the real competition (Microsoft and Nintendo) came out a year later. It's fine for the article to compare the PS2 and Dreamcast, but in that case the Dreamcast, despite I guess two-years of lead, wasn't even selling...
But once again, you fail to realize that the predecessor to the Dreamcast was the extremely unsuccessful Saturn. People (and developers) weren't as keen about Sega as they were about Sony. The PS1 was massively successful.
And so what? I don't for a second doubt that the PS3's processor is more powerful (at $599 it darned well better be!). But F@H ain't selling consoles. This 'war' is about games, pure and simple (and maybe Blu-ray if it becomes the de facto next gen movie format; though I don't see DVD leaving for a few years yet).
Way to friggin' go.
EDIT: Where are all the stories about how Sony's TVs are overpriced? Or how about how my Sony VHS recorder broke down or whatever. This is just fanboy flame-war fanning.
Sony had a 1 year lead on the competition then. It could just as well be argued that the PS3 should be compared to the original Xbox -> better hardware, 1 year later, etc. I'm not saying the PS3 is doomed, but anyone can quote history out of context.
Stories about HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray are somewhat relevant. This is not and should be removed.
when more exclusive games come out, sales will increase. That's obvious. However, if we assume that there are 3,000,000 PS3s out there, how come Blu-ray sales aren't higher than they are? Once Blu-ray becomes the defacto next-gen format (looking pretty good so far) I'm sure that the Blu-ray factor will be a huge help in selling consoles. Unfortunately, your personal experience is not everyone else's. Most people will buy the PS3 for games, not for features, not for Blu-ray, but games. I'm not...
Wi-fi and Blu-ray don't matter. All they want to see is games and most people don't read previews as much as we do. Sony is having trouble because a) price, b) lack of games, c) horrendously negative press. The PS3 may very well be the greatest system in the world, but Blu-ray isn't selling consoles, it's probably more of the other way around.
Thinking about this realistically, the PS3 isn't going to drop by $200 bucks. You should listen to the GameSpot podcasts. There was one about 2 weeks ago where they were discussing how Sony prices its products slightly above average as it allows them to retain the allure of 'You get what you pay for' especially in Europe where Sony is a very respected brand. I could see $100 drop, but that's just going to bring the 60 GB in line with the 20 GB... I'm not sure that that would have a huge effec...
Dawn of War?!?!?! One of the best PC games ever?!?!?! What the hell????
It says 7kg on the side of my box. Must have included the weight of the controller... which doesn't weigh 2 kg. I can't be blamed for what the box says.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if a price cut was announced at E3S. Sony may not be as worried about price as gamers are (they're more concerned with winning the Blu-Ray war, not the game war most likely). However, the Wii's performance and 360 picking up steam may move them to force their hand. Media interest needs to be generated for the PS3.
My PS2 slimline weighs 900g (about 1.9 lbs) whereas the PS3 weights 7.4 kgs (over 15 lbs)! I used to bring my Ps2 to friend's houses all the time, but the PS3 would be a bit unruly. Not that this would ever really factor into whether or not to buy one!
The Dreamcast was 'lightyears' ahead of the PS1. Where is it now?
Recently GameSpot did a segment on their 'HotSpot' podcast in which they found that there was absolutely no evidence for this. It was all based on a hypothetical analysis by a securities company.
There are probably very many Sony fans waiting to get a PS3, but it would be naive to ignore the Wii and 360's killer lineups and assume everyone's going to go PS3. Remember, Sony has the least amount of announced exclusives. This may change over the course of the year though...