Sony: Wii Owers Will upgrade to PS3

[ssddx]

Must over half of the comments resort to console bashing? Each of the consoles offers a different user experience. I have/had a ps/ps2/ps3. Fanboy? not at all, I just prefer what they have to offer. I will admit that I would prefer a game selection more in tune with what the xbox 360 offers, however, there is enough to keep me entertained. Also: back when I bought my unit blueray players were going for the exact same price as a new ps3. Why wouldnt I get a dvd/blueray player that also has gaming capabilities? In addition, think about the controllers&accessories. I still believe that the ps style controller is the easiest to use out of the bunch. IMHO the xbox style controller seems a tad confusing/bulky for my liking. And the wii? sorry but this seems a little kiddie for me.

And about reliability... I have never had a sony product fail on me. The ps3 is on daily 5-6 hours, and not in an a/c room. The only care treatment it gets is a light dusting & making sure nothing sits on it. Overall I'm pretty happy with my choice.

Last, Why complain at all about the cost of the gaming consoles? If you cannot afford them, go with the previous generation.

 

[danny69t]

Last month i bought a PS2, mainly play God of War 1 & 2. After some google searches i found some 30 games for it that i was interested in. If i would buy another console it would probably be the PS3, but it's to expensive for me . The only thing i don't like about the PS3 is that Sony removed the backward compatibility for the ps2 games, that sucks. I would not go for the xbox360 because i had only bad experience with M$ hardware, the only piece of M$ hardware i did not have any problems with is my 5 years old keyboard . The Wii does not appeal to me as i want to be layed back when i play a game, don;t even think of humping around ), at a party or something like that it would be ok, but the Wii is not for me.

 

[Guest]

Well being that XBOX sucks I would think more would go to Sony. The original XBOX had tons of faults, fire hazards etc... the new XBOX already has faults and lawsuits due to ring of death issues. Not only that, but PS3 comes with Blue Ray and Xbox does not want to go that direction. Lets talk about the lame controller Xbox is coming out with also. If you saw the E3 demo you could see how detailed PS3 was on the controller and no lag...but XBOX was laggy, nothing to detailed on movement etc...

 

[nottheking]

Once again, yeah, Sony's execs fails at being other than cocky and ill-informed; the N64 and PS1 both came out (in Japan) in 1995, and competed against each other, where it was the case that the N64 was vastly more powerful than the PS1. Yes, a lot of people went from the N64 to the PS2, because the Game Cube simply didn't have as good a game library as the N64; it might've had more games overall, but vastly fewer "amazing" games. The PS2 had a crazy-huge library, that has managed to have a slew of great exclusive or semi-exclusive titles from almost the start.

The PS3? Not so much. I'd like decoppel to count the "blockbuster" titles himself for the PS3. When you go down to exclusives, you're left with, uh... Resistance, Resistance 2, Motorstorm, Uncharted, and MGS4. Compare Wii, which has a bajillion mega-selling titles with the word "Wii" in them, as well as Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Mario Galaxy, both of which over double the sales of Resistance, as well as Twilight Princess, Red Steel, Umbrella Chronocles, Metroid Prime 3, Super Paper Mario... And then comes a lot of non-exclusives, such as how the Guitar Hero and Rock Band games have sold FAR more on the Wii than either the Xbox 360 or PS3. (only the PS2 sales compare) Then, of course, is the Xbox 360's library... I doubt I need list its own "blockbusters." But it's safe to say that the PS3's library is pretty paltry by comparison, and has lots of games one couldn't argue sold big purely because there was nothing else to buy on the platform.

All told, Sony either fails to see the difference between the PS2 and the PS3, or are pretending they don't for fear of their stock prices plumet. (oh wait! They already were dropping even before last fall's stock market crash) The PS2 was quick out to sell a lot of units, hence it got a lot of developers, and hence a large library, which then helped continue massive sales. Plus, it started as a pretty cheap and good DVD player when those were still NEW. The PS3 was late, didn't offer much for a library, cost too much, and as a result, sold poorly. Now, Sony can hardly hold any exclusives, (GTA4? Oops! FF XIII? Darn!) still has pretty anemic sales, and the Blu-ray player isn't quite as enticing, as Blu-Ray isn't the ludicrous upgrade that DVD was over VHS. And by now, it can no longer wow with graphics, since compared to the likes of Crysis, even inFAMOUS looks positively quaint.

All told, I don't honestly see much of a "Wii owners upgrading to the PS3" within its standard lifespan. If they do, it might be for a cheap&powerful Blu-Ray player when it's already got a good market. (such as when the PS4 is out) Much more likely, if Wii owners don't ALREADY have a more potent system on hand, chances are I'm willing to bet that they'd go for an Xbox 360 instead, due to its impressive games library. And in such cases, it wouldn't be so much of an "upgrade" (Wii owners generally don't want potent console graphics) but rather simply to access the large range of games unavailable for the Wii; the 360 has a vastly large library than the PS3, including a number of PS3 titles not available on the Wii (like GTA4, COD4, AC, BS, R6V...) as well as what is frankly a larger and more-compelling list of exclusives. (Dead Rising, Saints Row, L4D, ME, GoW/GoW2, and, of course, Halo)

All told, I consider it a done deal that the PS3 finishes this generation dead-last. It already gained the benefit of both major things that could boost it, (the victory of Blu-Ray over HD-DVD, which spiked sales temporarily, and then the release of MGS4) so I predict the Xbox 360, thanks to its library, will likely widen the gap between it and the PS3; chances are no more big-name titles will come as PS3 exclusives, as the PS3 simply doesn't have the 75% market share the PS2 had, but rather 22%. So this will continue a vicious cycle, the exact opposite of what helped the PS2 so much. As for the Wii... They could probably cease production today, and with well over 50 million units sold, possibly never be surpassed by the PS3, which has a mere 45% of its quantities after nearly 3 years out for each; that means it'd likely take more than 3 years for the PS3 to catch up, by which time Sony might've instead bet on a PS4.

 

[scook9]

I know its not ideal...but complaining about the ps3 lacking compatibility with ps2 games is not really a valid complaint, just an inconvenience. If you have the games and want the compatibility....guess what - you already own a PS2 as well (unless you are very odd). So just change inputs on the TV where they both are plugged into. Like I said, not convenient, but very doable.

I researched and compared the 360 and PS3 for about 2 months before deciding on this: I will build a PC instead. Of the 2, I was preferring the PS3 but really enjoyed playing HALO and didn't want to give that up - the PC was there for my needs. Considering I was prepared to spend in the area of $600 just for the console and accessories, it wasn't much more than that to build my first PC (already had HDD and video card from another system). I did this in March 2008 and have not had a moments regret since. And I'll add, although my PC HAS grown to a $1700 machine since then... it is also a hell of a lot more powerful and versatile than ANY console. Since every good game that is exclusive to 360 comes out on PC (sooner or later), if I were to buy a console, it would be a PS3 hands down for me. Built in wireless, no power brick, better looking, more reliable, blu-ray (although I already have that capability in HTPC), sanely priced hard drive options just to name a few of my deciding factors. And I forgot to mention...games on PC are generally much cheaper than games on console (albeit often ridden with DRM in one form or another)

The xbox360 doesn't come anywhere close to the value of the PS3, that statement is true. The hard drives are outrageously priced and the wireless adapter is a huge ripoff. Dual layer DVD is nothing special, especially next to blu-ray. I DO prefer the controller of the 360 though - that is why I use it on my PC.

 

[nirvanabah]

Sponsored links
Fallout 3 Sex
Parents! Learn more about this video game for the Xbox 360.
www.whattheyplay.com

^ lollercoaster?

 

[bourgeoisdude]

Having only recently returned to console gaming (I bought a 360 a year ago this month...before that, the last consoles I owned were the SNES and Genesis), I am totally disinterested in the PS3.

Why? Because most RPGs are coming out on the Xbox 360 anyway, and the price is atrociously high for a video game console. Even it it were just $99 for a PS3, honestly there are more PS2 games I am interested in playing than there are PS3 games.

Speaking of which: just this month I bought a PS2. Why? Because there were some great RPG games that I've been wanting to play that I hadn't had the console to play them, and of course the price was right.

 

[matt_b]

This sounds good and all, but the problem is that the two consoles are totally different machines and offer two totally different experiences. If I were an "expert" analyst like the ones at Sony making this claim, I would be more optimistic to say that if indeed there is the "upgrade", it would be towards the Xbox 360. Microsoft is taking a cue from the Wii and is currently trying to implement the same experience with the motion control. Those that picked the Wii, did so with a reason - and I guarantee you it wasn't HD output, flashy and next-gen graphics, Blu-Ray optical player, and a few other points. Yet, this is everything that Sony harps on to sell their console in the first place *shrugs*.................

 

[smlong]

I would think more Wii owners would be interested in switching to Xbox360 when Project Netala comes out. This would be more in-line with what people bought the Wii for to begin with.

I own a Wii for that very reason. My initial reaction was that it was kind of fun. In the end though, I'm a PC (mostly FPS) gamer. So, my Wii is collecting dust.

When Project Netala comes out, I may get an Xbox360. The only thing that would convince me at this point to get a PS3 is a price-break and it's Blu-Ray capability. At the current price point, though, I can put together a pretty capable HTPC.

 

[antilycus]

ROFL... omigod, i cant stop laughing at how stupid Sony is. Hold on... i swear I can catch my breath here.... lol omigod i cant stop!

 

[beeyang78]

I can tell you that when the Xbox 360 came out, I wanted one, but didn't want to spend the money for one. Then, the ps3 and Wii came out a year later and I got a Wii because it was cheaper. The Wii was fun for the first 3 months, but afterwards I just never played it anymore. So eventually, I did upgrade to a ps3. I had to purchase a TV for it also. I went all out, and it was way worth it. The deciding factor was the Blu-ray player included. You can talk all you want, but if you have not played Valkyria Chronicles, then you don't even know what you are missing. I've been using my ps3 non-stop for the past 8 month at least 5-10 hours per day, and I haven't even been through half of the games that I have bought for the system. I love the ps3, for the games and the blu-ray capability. I love the fact that when I don't feel like playing a game, I just throw in a blu-ray and dang, my movies are theater like! Also the audio of a blu-ray movies blows away the audio from a DVD. So, in that sense, I did upgrade to a Ps3!

 

[ncudmore]

I own a PS3, I purchased it back when it was the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market, and I have used it mainly for that. But to be honest I'm just a likely to go get a 'normal' blu-ray player now the prices have dropped, and a Wii for games, as I am to buy another single game for the PS3.

There isn't the 'fun factor' in the PS3 games, even Virtual Tennis and Harry Potter the kids need to be shown how to select the options, playing a movie is fine, but the ps3 always sounds like it's about to take off with the noise of the fans.

Two player games on the Wii with the picture split vertically make far more sense than "who's on top" with the PS3. Adults, teens and kids play Wii games, PS3 games seem to be mainly single player, aimed at 12-30 years males.

Sorry, but PS2 reminds me of betamax, a better product than VHS, sure, but just can't get what you want on it.

 

[thegh0st]

personally when I finally retired my N64 which I loved, I got an XBOX. I didn't even think playstation even though I like SONY electronics and even though the PS2 had more games.

and I completely agree, the statement in the article about the N64 being an entry level system is really misspoken, as everyone pointed out that those two consoles are from different generations.

heck the N64 was the upgrade for its time. and it was supposed to come out with a DISK (CD type) reader/player add-on that was supposed to turn it into a 128-bit system though I might be remembering that a little bit wrong. I think they did release that in Japan though. and heck again, N64 did one thing I wish they would do today - they had an upgradable video option. the card you could replace in that bottom slot. I think it was just more memory but still. being able to upgrade during a console's lifespan is nice and way cool.

 

[techtre2003]

"When the PS3 is $150, the size of a Wii, and isn't louder than a diesel truck engine, a lot more will sell."

"but the ps3 always sounds like it's about to take off with the noise of the fans."

I've seen other comments too on how loud the PS3 is. I'm not doubting these people, but my PS3 is whisper quiet; I never hear the fans running. The only sound it makes is the laser going back and forth when it reads a game and I have to be right by it to hear it then. My 360 on the other hand is so freakin' loud I have to wear headphones or crank the stereo up so loud the whole house hears it!

 

[pochacco007]

people bought the ps2 instead of the other two systems because of sony's backward compatibility of ps1 and ps2 games on the ps2 system. that makes a huge library of games that people are able to play and have access to. gamecube and xbox only had games that were only for that system.

people may say that people bought the ps2 because of all the other features [dvd player, cd player, etc....] but it wasn't becaue if it was then xbox would have sold just as much as sony but it didn't. so blu ray isn't a reason why. if it was then people are buying the ps3 not for gaming but for the blu ray.

some people may also say because of power that the ps2 had, which is not the case again because the gamecube and xbox were more powerful then the ps2. so that can't be right.

the right answer is because there is a huge library of software for the ps2.

 

[beeyang78]

I did buy the ps3 for the Blu-ray, wireless, and bluetooth. If it didn't have Blu-ray, I think I would have waited for it to come down in price before buying it. $400 dollars for a Blu-ray player + game console was worth it for me.

 

[matt_b]

[citation][nom]beeyang78[/nom]I did buy the ps3 for the Blu-ray, wireless, and bluetooth. If it didn't have Blu-ray, I think I would have waited for it to come down in price before buying it. $400 dollars for a Blu-ray player + game console was worth it for me.[/citation]
That's just it, without the Blu-ray player, the PS3 would have been way cheaper and much more adopted (based on launch and current pricing). But Blu-Ray was Sony's baby and they won the HD war (although not the rising digital content war brewing) strictly because of them gambling by using it in the console. It was a sacrificial win-lose situation in my book.

 

[Guest]

I have a wii and will not be buying a PS3 in the future.

 

[beeyang78]

[citation][nom]Matt_B[/nom]That's just it, without the Blu-ray player, the PS3 would have been way cheaper and much more adopted (based on launch and current pricing). But Blu-Ray was Sony's baby and they won the HD war (although not the rising digital content war brewing) strictly because of them gambling by using it in the console. It was a sacrificial win-lose situation in my book.[/citation]

It's ok, We are just early adopters, the ps3 will be alive and well 5 years from now and I'm thinking it will have sold more units than the xbox 360 and maybe even the Wii by that time. The system is here to stay and people will buy when the price is right. It's fine if it isn't today or tomorrow.

 

[nottheking]

The lack of PS2 compatibility for the PS3 does mean a detriment to it; it means that it has a particularly pathetic library available compared to its competitors. Wii's 100% native hardware BC means that for the vast majority of the market that panned and skipped the GameCube, they can now pick up what GC games there were worth playing (Such as Eternal Darkness, Windwaker, Metroid Prime) without having had to drop $100-200US on a GameCube a couple years back just to play the 2-3 games they wanted. (as an added bonus, they can pick said GC games up for the $5-20US range now)

Similarly, the Xbox 360's software BC is still pretty decent, allowing for another extension of its library to include the older Xbox titles that are still worth playing, like Morrowind, KotOR, and all the Tom Clancy games. (and of course all the Microsoft titles like Fable and Halo) The built-in upscaling and AA is a nice touch as well.

While some might think that because of how many PS2s there are floating around there, (some what, 120-130 million? More than the two best-selling non-Sony consoles combined) that this really doesn't matter. But it actually can; there's more than 120-130 million gamers in the market, so a lot of them are NOT going to already have a PS2. So for those millions of users, the fact that the PS3 can ONLY play its own (small) library of games, is a serious detractor. There's but a handful of exclusives to justify buying a PS3 as a gaming machine; what I mentioned earlier, plus one game I forgot, LittleBigPlanet. Still hardly justifiable to drop a minimum of $400US on, especially when the list of good exclusives for the PS3 doesn't cost that much.

Really, the PS3 is just selling as a Blu-Ray player that happens to be able to play a small handful of games. Unfortunately, being a Blu-Ray player isn't a huge selling point compared to what being a DVD-player was. One must think for a moment to recall what a huge revolution DVD was over VHS: the discs were cheaper, easier to store, not easily ruined by magnets, dirt, fingerprints, more resistant to heat/sunlight, let you skip right to scenes, offered options like variable subtitles, and best of all, you didn't have to rewind them! For almost everyone, I bet that the support for true stereo and 480p was far from the front of their minds when they upgraded from VHS to DVD. But here we are with Blu-Ray, and that's really ALL it offers for movies over DVD: more audio channels, and higher resolutions. You need a surround speaker set/HDTV in order to use those features anyway, and even then, it makes less of a difference than all of what a DVD brought. So yes, it's superior and an upgrade. It's just apparently proven to not be ENOUGH of an upgrade to justify the steep price.

As far as the future goes, I'd predict that the sales levels will not change much between the consoles. PS3 sales might pick up once Blu-Ray becomes far more established, but that will take years for it to achieve more than 50% the saturation of DVD. So far, disc sales show DVD still out-selling Blu-Ray by a 10:1 or so margin. So I'd think we're still a long time from seeing Blu-Ray being the standard instead of DVD. This, in turn, will hurt the PS3, especially since Sony resists price drops given how expensive the machine is to produce. Microsoft dropped prices once they could do so and keep the production cost below the sale price; I think the PS3's sale price is still below the production cost, so that would mean no price drop anytime soon.