WSJ: PS3 Stuck Behind Xbox 360

[Guest]

While late 2007 and early 2008 were promising for Sony's PlayStation 3, the Wall Street Journal claims the console will never overtake Microsoft's Xbox 360 for the #2 console spot.

WSJ: PS3 Stuck Behind Xbox 360 : Read more

 

[Tindytim]

They're already selling at a loss. They really need a model in that $200-$250 sweet spot, which would be a large loss, but they would certainly see a larger gain.

However, it is much to late to really become to competitive. Hopefully they won't follow the Wii and make an underpowered system, with over simplified games.

 

[zodiacfml]

there will be a PS4, only using most of the parts of PS3.
all ps3 need is to survive for the years to come.

 

[megamanx00]

The PS3 needs

1) Better developer support. Too many are complaining that programming for the Cell CPU and RSX is a bitch even if it's just to port a game that's already on the Wii or 360.

2) The system is still too expensive. A big part of the expense has always been blu ray due to the dumb blu ray consortium and their asinine licensing fees. The PS3 is going to need to really drop to a $299 price point to make any headway.

3) PS3 needs more exclusive games that gamers care about. Sorry, I've said it before, but Metal Gear Solid geriatric snake isn't going to cut it.

 

[enforcer22]

"A year after many were calling the PS3 a shoe-in for #1 worldwide"

wow who was that dumb. I been saying it since before it came out the thing was crap.

Anyways im not much for a xbox either. two consoles that my comp could beat underclocked 50% dont care..

I would take a wii though

 

[Master Exon]

It's weird. Ever since the fiascoes and shenanigans at E3 2006, it seems pretty obvious that the PS3 would be number 3 this generation. The facts simply added up. I honestly think that maybe 50% of the PS3 sales are directly related to the 360's red rings of death.

 

[decoppel]

I can't believe how many of you are writting them off, once this recession wears off and the PS3 is cut down to a price more competitive (even though the 360 costs equal if not more to equal the PS3 in features) people will mass for it.

 

[antilycus]

Not hard to figure out. Sony is sony's worst enemy. They are pig headed liars (Killzone 2 trailer anyone?). Coming from someone that has experience, the CELL wasn't designed for CPU tasks. While technically it should be easier on developers because you can't write to individual cores (they are controlled by a MASTER SPE), the processors inside the CELL aren't full processors and arent designed for the type of instruction sets that games pose on a CPU. No amount of developers is going to change that. that's hardware.

But on the flip side of that, developers still dont have the time and resources to take advantage of writing for multicore processors either. Most of them are writing for 1 processor and seeing how far that gets them.

As of right now the technology isnt the problem, the brains behind the games are. Not saying they are stupid, but to completely forget or completely rethink how you write a video game is nowhere near easy.

 

[bunz_of_steel]

Sony gets what it made for itself. A console toy for only the snotty rich kids. Who wants a $400 toy that only plays games or movies anyway? I know there are ppl that do but I'm not one of them and most ppl want something that is inexpensive.... yeh that means not $400 dollars dudes! Buy PC that's the way to go and you would learn a lot more instead of watching movies, playing games and getting fat.

 

[fulle]

When the PS3 was about to release I was really excited about all the cool new features, blue-ray playback, cell, the whole bit....

But, then I looked at its memory specifications and knew it would just be an overpriced machine that will usually fail to produce superior graphics to the Xbox360. "256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz"... its hard not to laugh when you consider Sony's trying to game at high resolution with that. Can you imagine the HELL of trying to program a game for this system, knowing that you have to get it running as fast as on the 360 with Cell to deal with and no freaking memory.

More expensive *is not equal* to more powerful.

 

[deltatux]

Like I've commented on Tom's Guide many times before, the PS3 is more positioned to be a computer or a media centre than a gaming console. Great, it has Bluray, but for gaming, it's still slower than good 'ol DVD. I think most gamers and developers will rather have speed over "ample space". The space on the Bluray is an OVERKILL over the DVD. You don't need Bluray for gaming this generation. The only reason why you need Bluray is if you have very poor compression algorithms.

If Sony adds a TV tuner built into a PS3 and has a good media centre software, I'll gladly pick one up.