Cost per unit
Give it a while and the PS3 will come up smelling of roses, just a matter of time really.
In the meantime, Microsoft and Nintendo are doing what they ought to - making hay whilst the sun shines.
Sony is to delay the launch of Home, its virtual community service for users of the PlayStation 3 console, until spring 2008. The service, which was originally scheduled for release this autumn, is a real-time interactive virtual world that serves as a meeting place for PlayStation 3 users. Much like Second Life it allows …
So, still no Home for all the fanboys and girls out there.
PS3 and no home - which is what happens when you buy one and realise you can't afford mortgage payments and the games cost the earth each (And, tbh, really aren't that good at all .... )
PS3 - Oh, when will you die the death you deserve. We can only hope that the PS4 is actually a semi decent machine with some kind of uniqueness and not just "more of the same, but later and more expensive".
To be fair, Sony as a corporation have a lot to answer for, namely the music and movie branches but the SCEE department tends to get an unfair kicking I think.
The PS3 might have been delayed but,lets face it, the machine is much better designed than the xbox, more stable, quieter, more powerful and probably a lot more reliable.I am still to hear complaints about the PS3 breaking down, unlike the xbox 360 video problems. Im on my 3rd xbox 360 after the 0ther 2 died after 4 and 9 months respectively. I was lucky I didnt have to send them to MS, Dixons replaced them for me from the store.
I assume that Sony arent releasing HOME because they cant get it to work properly yet, which means that unlike Microsoft, they will actually put out a product that works and hopefully wont be too buggy. I had a PS2 the week it came out and it still works with no problems, I hope my PS3 does the same. Why a company gets slagged off because its Quality Control say, hold off lets delay for a bit and put out a good product, I dont know.
The problem with Sony is not that they are delaying features, it's that they tend to put their head in the clouds about what their system can do, and how well it is doing it. If they had kept in better touch with the customers and their engineers they would have never given us a wrong release date, or at least it would be less frequent that they push back a date.
Sony has good hardware, but bad support. For those that say the PS3 is not unique, I say they know nothing about the current machine. The current machine is very different in comparison to the previous Playstation. As such they have an extremely long teething time which is compounded by development teams being aggravated by having to spend more time on something to get it to market later than the XBox 360 competition. Sony pushed forward with innovation (*applause*) but then forgot they are running a business with BOTH clients (game studios) and customers (*boo*).
As a beta trialist, I have this.
You're not missing much. There's barely ever more than 8-12 people on. Obviously a lot more when they announce something new (twice during the Summer).
It's a nice enough product. But, it lacks anything that will keep making you want to fire it up and come back for more.
It's is not! The published performance figures were based on a theoretical maximum non real world IBM lab result running on 1 Power PC core + 8 SPEs running ASYMETRICALLY
The PS3 only uses 6 SPEs as 1 was dropped due to wafer yields and another is reserved for the OS.
The GPU is a 256mb 7900 nvidia gfx card. 32mb of which is eaten by the O/S
It’s only got 256mb of ram 64 MB is eaten by the O/S.
Then you've got the extremely slow reading from the blu-ray drive.
In the end what was announced was a 250gflop processing monster when in reality they never get more that 70gflops
Then if you compare this to a 360 which has 3 Power PC SYMETRICAL cores that can handle a lot more diverse input of data all at once that the SPEs are incapable of processing.
Then you have the memory 512MB ram that can be allocated between the CPU and GPU however the specific game maker feels like.
The biggest advantage the Xbox 360 has is its GFX card that is so much more revolutionary because it uses unified pipelines that can do vertex data or pixel shading rather that the PS3 GPU that has specific ones to do the job and if they aren't used they sit idle.
Another thing that the xbox360 does better is its O/S only takes up 3% of the processor power 32
MB of memory that’s it.
And considering that they are always running in the background I’d say it makes a measurable difference
Over all the Xbox 360 is more powerful as games console. The ps3 has some advantages in some ways but they are not relevant for gaming as we use at the moment.
"which is what happens when you buy one and realise you can't afford mortgage payments and the games cost the earth each"
They cost from £31 to £40 how is that any more expensive that any other next gen console? or even PS2 games?
People really need to look at reality not just make things up.
PS3 games are cheap, the only fair criticism is that there aren't more.
My mistake, I thought this was an article on the delay of 'Home', not a call to alms for 360 fanboys.
PS3 has more of this...
360 has more of that...
Myself? I'm a gamer. I couldn't care less about the hardware. After all, if I like the game, I own the hardware it plays on.
Ps: My condolences for Colin.
"People really need to look at reality not just make things up."
I totally agree with that sentence, but
"PS3 games are cheap" is totally wrong on a variety of levels.
In reality, £10 for a game is cheap, not £40. Please avoid suggesting to SONY execs - and other game makers - that they can sell their games at £80 or more.