cliffbo
09-13-2006, 08:23 PM
Article by Aaron Dunlap
- 09/11/06
You probably know that the PlayStation 3 will be releasing in just a few months now, and you've probably been hearing some pretty nasty things being said about the future platform. Spin, hype, hate, and fanboy adoration are quite typical in this business, especially right around the time a big new system is set to release. In this consumer world, we like to break down simple things like colas and videogame machines into lifestyles and factions. Pepsi people hate Coke people, PC people hate Mac people, Nintendo people hate Sony people. People never seem to realize that they're putting way too much energy into drinks, computers, and game systems. So, with a clean mental palate we're going to examine some of the predictions of doom cast toward the PlayStation 3. Folks, this is Point-Counter-Counterpoint.
Point-Counter-Counterpoint works like this: we've scanned some forums and picked out 10 of the most common arguments people have made against the PS3. The anti-PS3 arguments will appear in bold, and below them will be an observation by some of our writing staff or other gaming experts.
Today we have contributing: Gaming Horizon's Editor-in-Chief Shiva Stella, Senior Writer Aaron Dunlap, and Staff Writer Evan Lahti, and a special guest contributor, Ryan Kincaid, administrator of Metal Gear Solid: The Unofficial Site (TUS).
The PlayStation 3 costs too much!!!
Shiva: Take a peek at all the games scattered about your desk, tumbling off your shelves, and lying on the floor in front of that great beacon of hope known as the TV. At more than fifty bucks a pop, you're looking at 10-12 mediocre titles that cost as much as the PS3. Which would you rather have – a system that'll supposedly last you 10 years or a handful of games you'll never pick up again? I spent $431 for an Xbox 360 that is less intriguing and boasts fewer titles of interest (how many damn rounds of Halo can you people stand?), but I've no regrets, and I won't regret a PS3 purchase.
Aaron D: The Xbox 360 is $400, right, so it's cheaper than the PS3, right? Well, if you don't want to run Cat-5 cable all over your house to connect your 360 to the internet you'll need the $100 wireless adapter (or a 3rd party wireless bridge, they all cost between $70-$100). If you want to use any of the useful Xbox Live features you'll be paying over $50 a year for it, and if you want to play your games in true HD with HDMI on your Xbox 360 you're out of luck until they figure that one out over at Microsoft. The PS3 may cost more upfront, but you get all the features that other consoles "get you" with. Don't forget, the cheapest Blu-Ray movie player right now costs over $1,000. The PS3 does that and so much more.
Ryan (TUS): Consumer electronics today have begun to cost more and more, and considering what comes included with the $599 PS3 super-package, I'm honestly surprised that it isn't more expensive. Most people have few qualms against shelling out several hundred dollars to upwards of over a grand to extend their entertainment system or video camera to record their family reunions in needlessly high definition. So I ask, when considering the proposed longevity of the PS3 hardware, why is the price-tag such a problem?
The specs for the PS3 keep changing, no HDMI support for the $499 version.
Evan: I can't understand why Sony wants to put out a basic version of the PS3 at all. Yes, it's excellent that they both have a hard drive (unlike the Xbox 360 ‘Core' system), but with the recent announcement of the European launch being delayed and the units available at launch being less-than high, it's curious that Sony didn't simply decide to focus its attention on putting out one model, and making that model perfect. It simply makes things more complicated for retailers and consumers alike to have to think about different features separating the two variants.
Shiva: A gamer who picks up the $499 "core" version isn't a gamer. I'll rephrase: he isn't a gamer in Sony's target audience, otherwise he would pick up the "full" version. The cheaper version is put out for the people who don't care about hard drive storage or Blu-ray or console bundles or even what games the thing plays; these people only care about price, because over little Jane's cries for Crash Bandicoot and little Billy's wailings for Madden, green is the only thing someone over the age of 25 can understand. As such, no HDMI support for people who don't care about HDMI features (or own a compatible TV) makes a lot more sense rather than charging them for crap they won't use.
Aaron D: Bingo. The cheaper version is really only for people who would pick a version based on price, the sort of person who doesn't know what HDMI is. In fact, most people who know and care what HDMI are the early-adopter, cutting-edge type people who will want the best and can afford to pay the difference. That's probably why Sony decided not to include an HDMI cord, because people who use HDMI are quality freaks and they'll NEVER use stock out-of-box cables and they probably have a bunch laying around anyway. As for the changing specs, I think Sony did bite off a bit more than they could chew with their initial specifications, but once reality struck they still ended up with a lot of power. I'm pretty shocked that all those memory card formats are still accepted (SD, Compact Flash, et al). They've barely said what those are even for; is it just for watching slideshows of your digital photos? Can you save your game status on them?
Conversely, not many people have High Definition televisions yet. Isn't it a bit early to start pushing so hard for a technology most can't afford?
Evan: As Sony is a company that manufactures HD-TVs, it's in their interest to add that compatibility to give consumers another reason to upgrade. There's various numbers about how long it'll take for HD to ‘replace' standard-feed televisions (just as broadband has all but eliminated dial-up), but it's conceivable that HD televisions will become affordable during the PS3's lifecycle, and for those of us that have been blessed by the high-def gods, it's another reason to take advantage of the highest-quality visual equipment available.
Shiva: So long as you hook it up to a TV that doesn't support HD and can still play the games, Sony is hardly "pushing" HD. The company that develops a console that is only compatible with an HD TV, however, is. And while companies continue to phase out the old junk and bring in the new, it's more than feasible that the average consumer will spend the next decade moving toward HD.
Aaron D: The reason nobody has HD sets right now is because there's so little content for it and what content there is remains so underrepresented. Has anyone ever seen the show LOST in HD? It's unbelievable, but nobody ever thinks, "I should buy this crazy new technology so I can see LOST in better picture." As movies and videogames are now moving toward HD, the people should start moving with it. Personally, I hope the developers for the PS3 do a better job of making sure their games look alright in standard definition as well; there have been a few games that are literally unplayable in SD (King Kong, Dead Rising among them). Besides, people tend to buy a new television every 5-7 years; so if they don't have an HDTV now, their next one should be – and their PS3 will be waiting for them.
No "shock" in my Dual Shock. Is cheesy tilt-sensing worth the loss of force-feedback?
Evan: The vibration function is an often-overlooked feature by gamers, or at least one we've grown to take for granted since the days of the 64's "Rumble Pak." It's unfortunate that Sony's legal situation means developers won't have another way of immersing us within the experience, but adding a simple axis-tilt input does allow them another avenue for adding unique gameplay experiences (I've no doubt Kojima has a long list of ways he'll implement this in MGS4).
Aaron D: Indeed, it is sad that Sony's patent issues somehow forced them to drop the vibration feature. It's also sad that, in attempt to replace it with something else, they had to emulate Nintendo's Wii controller so shamelessly. One nice thing is that, without the rumble motors, the controller feels really light in your hands. I think once people get over the loss, however, losing rumble won't be too big of a deal. I'm looking forward to some games that make good use of the tilt sensing.
Shiva: I'd rather have a game respond to my direct actions than a controller that spends most of its "vibrating" responding to cutscene explosions anyway. The tilt-sensing feature could make control schemes much more intuitive; do you really enjoy a controller that gives you a little motion when Bob falls out of an airplane and lands on his head?
Sony says they won't have enough consoles to ship for launch. Only 500,000, they say.
Evan: The launch is important, but what's more vital to the console's success is how many units Sony can put out by the end of the year. If Sony can produce close to another 500,000 by year's end (a spokesperson has said that 1 million to 1.2 million units will be on shelves in North America by December 31), it will be positioned well.
Shiva: Show me a console in gaming history that has launched with "enough" units to meet demand created by advertising. The affront from Microsoft came from a company still touting a system that nobody but Aunt May, who worked at Best Buy, could get a hold of. So long as Sony lets the system speak for itself and doesn't launch a blow-out campaign that makes the rest of the population want to commit suicide because Walmart's out of stock, the company should be fine.
Aaron D: Exactly, Shiva. I can't remember any console launch that wasn't preceeded by some cheesy "Oh No We Didn't Make Enough of Them!" drama. It's just a ploy to raise hype and demand. If people think they're hard to get, they'll want them more. The downside is that when the console launches and people have to buy them on eBay for Christmas presents, they'll have to pay even more money for them.
Sony is putting way too many figurative eggs in their metaphorical Blu-Ray basket. End users don't really care about formats so long as they work.
Evan: Much as the inclusion of the DVD format may have pushed many gamers over the edge to purchase the PS2 ("Hey mom, it can play movies too!"), if Blu-Ray ends up edging-out the HD-DVD format, it's another quality that'll make the system more versatile, which is never a bad thing.
Shiva: I've spotted several Blu-ray format new movie (DVD) releases in the past few months, but I haven't heard a peep from the HD-DVD camp. People like to compare the VCR format war of the 80's to the Blu-ray/HD-DVD "war" we've got now by claiming that what happened before will happen again – cheap people will win the day, and Blu-ray will go the way of Sony's special tape format. But gamers aren't traditionally cheap people, or they'd be watching The Simpsons or playing board games for entertainment instead of wasting away with EA's Sims Something or Other.
Ryan (TUS): In contrast to Evan's comment, the growth surge of the DVD format could in part be attributed to the success of the PS2. As more and more people gained access to playing DVD movies on their consoles, they found more of a reason to invest in movies. I'm sure Sony is betting on this as well with Blu-Ray, as the format isn't exactly booming at the moment. On the topic of whether or not gamers care about the format, I have to disagree. When the Nintendo 64 was released as using only cartridges, the response wasn't exactly positive. And moreso than with gamers, game makers expressed their disdain quite clearly. A better format means more developer adoption, and with the massive storage capacity of Blu-Ray, developers have already begun to voice their approval.
Developers say that the PlayStation 3 is difficult to work with or that the Cell processor is a pain to program for.
Evan: We heard similar qualms at the advent of the PS2's "Emotion Engine." As game makers start to develop an understanding of how to get the most out of the Cell processor over time, I'd expect a considerable visual gap between PS3 launch titles and games down the road.
Shiva: A PC can be "hard" to program for unless you understand its workings and know what you're doing. Given time, developers will start to tame the beast. It's sort of like Newton's Law of Gravity – all launch games suck; it's universal. The visuals and physics will improve as devs devote the time to master the hardware. Also, email me the name of a programmer who is not a whiny bastard.
Aaron D: I've talked to a few developers who say they've been having problems indeed (they'll only say that off-the-record, of course), but who knows for sure. What a hard-to-program-for platform means is this: really good exclusives, really bad ports. The people designing games just for the system will have to become very familiar with how the platform works (they can't just "bang out some code"), and companies designing multiconsole games won't be able to spend enough time focusing on each individual system's version so you'll end up with some buggy ports.
Ryan (TUS): In the same vein, the 360's development tools could be considered too easy, or point-and-click. Or, if I was feeling snarky, "amateuristic". "Difficult" is a subjective term and many developers, such as those working on Full Auto 2, have voiced their approval of the PS3's development kit, stating that the kit seemed to be extremely adaptive and easy to program for. Supporting this view is the fact that the PS3 is based on open (or publicly available) programming standards such as PSGL, COLLADA, and OpenMAX. This opens the door for would-be game designers to more realistically start work on PS3 homebrew games and applications. Microsoft has only recently adopted this concept with their XNA Game Studio kits for Windows and 360.
The PS3 launch library is pretty slim, only 13 titles or so.
Evan: This could be bad news. There's been some talk that Sony didn't make development kits for the PS3 available as early (or in a completed form) as it could have, but at the same time, developers understand that they've got a guaranteed group of purchases, and they have to take advantage of that early opportunity to make bank and create a reputation for the system. Either way, with a dozen-plus titles, the PS3 could still cover the necessary bases for a successful software launch: a fighting game, a racing game, a AAA first-party release, major sports titles, more than one shooter, a party game, and something with a lot of replay value. Games with solid multiplayer modes are also vital. We'll see.
Shiva: It doesn't matter how many launch titles will be available, because they will all be nothing more than a graphical introduction to the might that is the PS3. And they will all suck. It would be slightly pleasanter to have a larger variety of titles to choose from, but almost anything would be better than Kameo (no offense to the Kameo crowd).
Aaron D: Kameo wasn't THAT bad. The water boss did suck though. But yeah, launch titles are practically destined to suck, so I don't usually bother with them. I usually buy one or two games that I know I'll be able to get a few months out of, and once developers have had time to complete some decent games, I haven't wasted a bunch of money on crappy launch titles. The Xbox 360 is nearly a year old now and there are less than 5 titles that are really worth the effort. Lets not forget that the PS3 will have COMPLETE backwards compatibility, so you can still play all your PS2 games while you wait for some good PS3 ones.
Ryan (TUS): Actually, the last I checked, the roster was at around twenty or so titles for launch. Moreso than the 360, if memory serves correctly. But honestly, when have launch games ever been a clear indication of hardware potential? It took games like Metal Gear Solid 2 and Final Fantasy X to show developers and players alike just what exactly the PS2 hardware was capable of before we started to see a majority of the more impressive titles.
Where's the innovation? Xbox and Nintendo are trying new things and the PS3 seems like "Just another PlayStation."
Evan: "Just another PlayStation" is not necessarily a bad thing. Sony has hung its hat for more than a decade on bringing a diverse line of quality third-party content to gamers. Sony's online infrastructure is still completely unproven, and that's something that Microsoft seems to have locked down, but innovating on the software level is something Sony should be able to continue to provide.
Shiva: It's not just about hardware – 99% of it comes down to games. I bought an Xbox for KOTR, and I'd do it again (I'd probably have to, thank you semi-backwards compatibility). Nearly all of Sony's recent success came from repeatedly releasing good quality and diverse titles.
Aaron D: At their E3 conference, Sony said the PS3 is "not about gimmicks." Cut to footage of that EyeToy card battle game. Anyway, I think the Wii has people in a daze about gimmicks, as Nintendo may have finally found one that will work. In the end, though, sometimes you just have to realize what you're good at and focus on it.
Why is Sony staying so quiet about the PS3 if this huge new system is going to be launching in 2 months? Where are the ads and the hands-on reports? Are they hiding something? I've fallen and I can't get up!
Evan: Instead of simply banking on being able to carry over its userbase from previous hardware, Sony does need to take initiative and convince gamers that its console is worthwhile and represents a genuine contrast to the Xbox 360. I've been pretty disappointed with how Sony's PR has pitched the system thus far, but I think the company does seem more concerned with just getting the launch off the ground rather than aggressively marketing the PS3 and committing funds to that cause.
Shiva: If they're expecting a shortage then they're playing it safe and keeping the gaming community from getting as pissed off as it would be if Sony touted a system it didn't have to sell. Who said multi-billionaires never screw up?
Aaron D: I am a bit surprised how little we're hearing about the PS3. Though, in the months preceeding the Xbox 360 launch I was so utterly sick of hearing about it I couldn't wait for the thing to release just so everybody would stop talking about it. I would love to see those God-awful PSP commercials get replaced with some cocky PS3 commercials, as long as they aren't as racist and insulting as the PSP's. It's just kind of spooky that Sony hasn't made a peep in the mainstream about their supposed end-all console.
Source:http://articles.gaminghorizon.com/media/1158035888.88.html
:)
- 09/11/06
You probably know that the PlayStation 3 will be releasing in just a few months now, and you've probably been hearing some pretty nasty things being said about the future platform. Spin, hype, hate, and fanboy adoration are quite typical in this business, especially right around the time a big new system is set to release. In this consumer world, we like to break down simple things like colas and videogame machines into lifestyles and factions. Pepsi people hate Coke people, PC people hate Mac people, Nintendo people hate Sony people. People never seem to realize that they're putting way too much energy into drinks, computers, and game systems. So, with a clean mental palate we're going to examine some of the predictions of doom cast toward the PlayStation 3. Folks, this is Point-Counter-Counterpoint.
Point-Counter-Counterpoint works like this: we've scanned some forums and picked out 10 of the most common arguments people have made against the PS3. The anti-PS3 arguments will appear in bold, and below them will be an observation by some of our writing staff or other gaming experts.
Today we have contributing: Gaming Horizon's Editor-in-Chief Shiva Stella, Senior Writer Aaron Dunlap, and Staff Writer Evan Lahti, and a special guest contributor, Ryan Kincaid, administrator of Metal Gear Solid: The Unofficial Site (TUS).
The PlayStation 3 costs too much!!!
Shiva: Take a peek at all the games scattered about your desk, tumbling off your shelves, and lying on the floor in front of that great beacon of hope known as the TV. At more than fifty bucks a pop, you're looking at 10-12 mediocre titles that cost as much as the PS3. Which would you rather have – a system that'll supposedly last you 10 years or a handful of games you'll never pick up again? I spent $431 for an Xbox 360 that is less intriguing and boasts fewer titles of interest (how many damn rounds of Halo can you people stand?), but I've no regrets, and I won't regret a PS3 purchase.
Aaron D: The Xbox 360 is $400, right, so it's cheaper than the PS3, right? Well, if you don't want to run Cat-5 cable all over your house to connect your 360 to the internet you'll need the $100 wireless adapter (or a 3rd party wireless bridge, they all cost between $70-$100). If you want to use any of the useful Xbox Live features you'll be paying over $50 a year for it, and if you want to play your games in true HD with HDMI on your Xbox 360 you're out of luck until they figure that one out over at Microsoft. The PS3 may cost more upfront, but you get all the features that other consoles "get you" with. Don't forget, the cheapest Blu-Ray movie player right now costs over $1,000. The PS3 does that and so much more.
Ryan (TUS): Consumer electronics today have begun to cost more and more, and considering what comes included with the $599 PS3 super-package, I'm honestly surprised that it isn't more expensive. Most people have few qualms against shelling out several hundred dollars to upwards of over a grand to extend their entertainment system or video camera to record their family reunions in needlessly high definition. So I ask, when considering the proposed longevity of the PS3 hardware, why is the price-tag such a problem?
The specs for the PS3 keep changing, no HDMI support for the $499 version.
Evan: I can't understand why Sony wants to put out a basic version of the PS3 at all. Yes, it's excellent that they both have a hard drive (unlike the Xbox 360 ‘Core' system), but with the recent announcement of the European launch being delayed and the units available at launch being less-than high, it's curious that Sony didn't simply decide to focus its attention on putting out one model, and making that model perfect. It simply makes things more complicated for retailers and consumers alike to have to think about different features separating the two variants.
Shiva: A gamer who picks up the $499 "core" version isn't a gamer. I'll rephrase: he isn't a gamer in Sony's target audience, otherwise he would pick up the "full" version. The cheaper version is put out for the people who don't care about hard drive storage or Blu-ray or console bundles or even what games the thing plays; these people only care about price, because over little Jane's cries for Crash Bandicoot and little Billy's wailings for Madden, green is the only thing someone over the age of 25 can understand. As such, no HDMI support for people who don't care about HDMI features (or own a compatible TV) makes a lot more sense rather than charging them for crap they won't use.
Aaron D: Bingo. The cheaper version is really only for people who would pick a version based on price, the sort of person who doesn't know what HDMI is. In fact, most people who know and care what HDMI are the early-adopter, cutting-edge type people who will want the best and can afford to pay the difference. That's probably why Sony decided not to include an HDMI cord, because people who use HDMI are quality freaks and they'll NEVER use stock out-of-box cables and they probably have a bunch laying around anyway. As for the changing specs, I think Sony did bite off a bit more than they could chew with their initial specifications, but once reality struck they still ended up with a lot of power. I'm pretty shocked that all those memory card formats are still accepted (SD, Compact Flash, et al). They've barely said what those are even for; is it just for watching slideshows of your digital photos? Can you save your game status on them?
Conversely, not many people have High Definition televisions yet. Isn't it a bit early to start pushing so hard for a technology most can't afford?
Evan: As Sony is a company that manufactures HD-TVs, it's in their interest to add that compatibility to give consumers another reason to upgrade. There's various numbers about how long it'll take for HD to ‘replace' standard-feed televisions (just as broadband has all but eliminated dial-up), but it's conceivable that HD televisions will become affordable during the PS3's lifecycle, and for those of us that have been blessed by the high-def gods, it's another reason to take advantage of the highest-quality visual equipment available.
Shiva: So long as you hook it up to a TV that doesn't support HD and can still play the games, Sony is hardly "pushing" HD. The company that develops a console that is only compatible with an HD TV, however, is. And while companies continue to phase out the old junk and bring in the new, it's more than feasible that the average consumer will spend the next decade moving toward HD.
Aaron D: The reason nobody has HD sets right now is because there's so little content for it and what content there is remains so underrepresented. Has anyone ever seen the show LOST in HD? It's unbelievable, but nobody ever thinks, "I should buy this crazy new technology so I can see LOST in better picture." As movies and videogames are now moving toward HD, the people should start moving with it. Personally, I hope the developers for the PS3 do a better job of making sure their games look alright in standard definition as well; there have been a few games that are literally unplayable in SD (King Kong, Dead Rising among them). Besides, people tend to buy a new television every 5-7 years; so if they don't have an HDTV now, their next one should be – and their PS3 will be waiting for them.
No "shock" in my Dual Shock. Is cheesy tilt-sensing worth the loss of force-feedback?
Evan: The vibration function is an often-overlooked feature by gamers, or at least one we've grown to take for granted since the days of the 64's "Rumble Pak." It's unfortunate that Sony's legal situation means developers won't have another way of immersing us within the experience, but adding a simple axis-tilt input does allow them another avenue for adding unique gameplay experiences (I've no doubt Kojima has a long list of ways he'll implement this in MGS4).
Aaron D: Indeed, it is sad that Sony's patent issues somehow forced them to drop the vibration feature. It's also sad that, in attempt to replace it with something else, they had to emulate Nintendo's Wii controller so shamelessly. One nice thing is that, without the rumble motors, the controller feels really light in your hands. I think once people get over the loss, however, losing rumble won't be too big of a deal. I'm looking forward to some games that make good use of the tilt sensing.
Shiva: I'd rather have a game respond to my direct actions than a controller that spends most of its "vibrating" responding to cutscene explosions anyway. The tilt-sensing feature could make control schemes much more intuitive; do you really enjoy a controller that gives you a little motion when Bob falls out of an airplane and lands on his head?
Sony says they won't have enough consoles to ship for launch. Only 500,000, they say.
Evan: The launch is important, but what's more vital to the console's success is how many units Sony can put out by the end of the year. If Sony can produce close to another 500,000 by year's end (a spokesperson has said that 1 million to 1.2 million units will be on shelves in North America by December 31), it will be positioned well.
Shiva: Show me a console in gaming history that has launched with "enough" units to meet demand created by advertising. The affront from Microsoft came from a company still touting a system that nobody but Aunt May, who worked at Best Buy, could get a hold of. So long as Sony lets the system speak for itself and doesn't launch a blow-out campaign that makes the rest of the population want to commit suicide because Walmart's out of stock, the company should be fine.
Aaron D: Exactly, Shiva. I can't remember any console launch that wasn't preceeded by some cheesy "Oh No We Didn't Make Enough of Them!" drama. It's just a ploy to raise hype and demand. If people think they're hard to get, they'll want them more. The downside is that when the console launches and people have to buy them on eBay for Christmas presents, they'll have to pay even more money for them.
Sony is putting way too many figurative eggs in their metaphorical Blu-Ray basket. End users don't really care about formats so long as they work.
Evan: Much as the inclusion of the DVD format may have pushed many gamers over the edge to purchase the PS2 ("Hey mom, it can play movies too!"), if Blu-Ray ends up edging-out the HD-DVD format, it's another quality that'll make the system more versatile, which is never a bad thing.
Shiva: I've spotted several Blu-ray format new movie (DVD) releases in the past few months, but I haven't heard a peep from the HD-DVD camp. People like to compare the VCR format war of the 80's to the Blu-ray/HD-DVD "war" we've got now by claiming that what happened before will happen again – cheap people will win the day, and Blu-ray will go the way of Sony's special tape format. But gamers aren't traditionally cheap people, or they'd be watching The Simpsons or playing board games for entertainment instead of wasting away with EA's Sims Something or Other.
Ryan (TUS): In contrast to Evan's comment, the growth surge of the DVD format could in part be attributed to the success of the PS2. As more and more people gained access to playing DVD movies on their consoles, they found more of a reason to invest in movies. I'm sure Sony is betting on this as well with Blu-Ray, as the format isn't exactly booming at the moment. On the topic of whether or not gamers care about the format, I have to disagree. When the Nintendo 64 was released as using only cartridges, the response wasn't exactly positive. And moreso than with gamers, game makers expressed their disdain quite clearly. A better format means more developer adoption, and with the massive storage capacity of Blu-Ray, developers have already begun to voice their approval.
Developers say that the PlayStation 3 is difficult to work with or that the Cell processor is a pain to program for.
Evan: We heard similar qualms at the advent of the PS2's "Emotion Engine." As game makers start to develop an understanding of how to get the most out of the Cell processor over time, I'd expect a considerable visual gap between PS3 launch titles and games down the road.
Shiva: A PC can be "hard" to program for unless you understand its workings and know what you're doing. Given time, developers will start to tame the beast. It's sort of like Newton's Law of Gravity – all launch games suck; it's universal. The visuals and physics will improve as devs devote the time to master the hardware. Also, email me the name of a programmer who is not a whiny bastard.
Aaron D: I've talked to a few developers who say they've been having problems indeed (they'll only say that off-the-record, of course), but who knows for sure. What a hard-to-program-for platform means is this: really good exclusives, really bad ports. The people designing games just for the system will have to become very familiar with how the platform works (they can't just "bang out some code"), and companies designing multiconsole games won't be able to spend enough time focusing on each individual system's version so you'll end up with some buggy ports.
Ryan (TUS): In the same vein, the 360's development tools could be considered too easy, or point-and-click. Or, if I was feeling snarky, "amateuristic". "Difficult" is a subjective term and many developers, such as those working on Full Auto 2, have voiced their approval of the PS3's development kit, stating that the kit seemed to be extremely adaptive and easy to program for. Supporting this view is the fact that the PS3 is based on open (or publicly available) programming standards such as PSGL, COLLADA, and OpenMAX. This opens the door for would-be game designers to more realistically start work on PS3 homebrew games and applications. Microsoft has only recently adopted this concept with their XNA Game Studio kits for Windows and 360.
The PS3 launch library is pretty slim, only 13 titles or so.
Evan: This could be bad news. There's been some talk that Sony didn't make development kits for the PS3 available as early (or in a completed form) as it could have, but at the same time, developers understand that they've got a guaranteed group of purchases, and they have to take advantage of that early opportunity to make bank and create a reputation for the system. Either way, with a dozen-plus titles, the PS3 could still cover the necessary bases for a successful software launch: a fighting game, a racing game, a AAA first-party release, major sports titles, more than one shooter, a party game, and something with a lot of replay value. Games with solid multiplayer modes are also vital. We'll see.
Shiva: It doesn't matter how many launch titles will be available, because they will all be nothing more than a graphical introduction to the might that is the PS3. And they will all suck. It would be slightly pleasanter to have a larger variety of titles to choose from, but almost anything would be better than Kameo (no offense to the Kameo crowd).
Aaron D: Kameo wasn't THAT bad. The water boss did suck though. But yeah, launch titles are practically destined to suck, so I don't usually bother with them. I usually buy one or two games that I know I'll be able to get a few months out of, and once developers have had time to complete some decent games, I haven't wasted a bunch of money on crappy launch titles. The Xbox 360 is nearly a year old now and there are less than 5 titles that are really worth the effort. Lets not forget that the PS3 will have COMPLETE backwards compatibility, so you can still play all your PS2 games while you wait for some good PS3 ones.
Ryan (TUS): Actually, the last I checked, the roster was at around twenty or so titles for launch. Moreso than the 360, if memory serves correctly. But honestly, when have launch games ever been a clear indication of hardware potential? It took games like Metal Gear Solid 2 and Final Fantasy X to show developers and players alike just what exactly the PS2 hardware was capable of before we started to see a majority of the more impressive titles.
Where's the innovation? Xbox and Nintendo are trying new things and the PS3 seems like "Just another PlayStation."
Evan: "Just another PlayStation" is not necessarily a bad thing. Sony has hung its hat for more than a decade on bringing a diverse line of quality third-party content to gamers. Sony's online infrastructure is still completely unproven, and that's something that Microsoft seems to have locked down, but innovating on the software level is something Sony should be able to continue to provide.
Shiva: It's not just about hardware – 99% of it comes down to games. I bought an Xbox for KOTR, and I'd do it again (I'd probably have to, thank you semi-backwards compatibility). Nearly all of Sony's recent success came from repeatedly releasing good quality and diverse titles.
Aaron D: At their E3 conference, Sony said the PS3 is "not about gimmicks." Cut to footage of that EyeToy card battle game. Anyway, I think the Wii has people in a daze about gimmicks, as Nintendo may have finally found one that will work. In the end, though, sometimes you just have to realize what you're good at and focus on it.
Why is Sony staying so quiet about the PS3 if this huge new system is going to be launching in 2 months? Where are the ads and the hands-on reports? Are they hiding something? I've fallen and I can't get up!
Evan: Instead of simply banking on being able to carry over its userbase from previous hardware, Sony does need to take initiative and convince gamers that its console is worthwhile and represents a genuine contrast to the Xbox 360. I've been pretty disappointed with how Sony's PR has pitched the system thus far, but I think the company does seem more concerned with just getting the launch off the ground rather than aggressively marketing the PS3 and committing funds to that cause.
Shiva: If they're expecting a shortage then they're playing it safe and keeping the gaming community from getting as pissed off as it would be if Sony touted a system it didn't have to sell. Who said multi-billionaires never screw up?
Aaron D: I am a bit surprised how little we're hearing about the PS3. Though, in the months preceeding the Xbox 360 launch I was so utterly sick of hearing about it I couldn't wait for the thing to release just so everybody would stop talking about it. I would love to see those God-awful PSP commercials get replaced with some cocky PS3 commercials, as long as they aren't as racist and insulting as the PSP's. It's just kind of spooky that Sony hasn't made a peep in the mainstream about their supposed end-all console.
Source:http://articles.gaminghorizon.com/media/1158035888.88.html
:)