Impulsivity said:
Actually I would say the natural aliance is Wii and PS3 vs 360 TBH. The Wii is the best casual low end system. It's made for people who like a certain kind of game (character based games, low on violence and realism while high on approachability) and is the best console on the market for that kind of thing. It doesn't want to be a media center, it doesn't want to get you to buy HD, it just wants you to play Mario games and maybe get some old classics from the Wii store. Alternately the PS3 is the best choice for people who want the very high end. It has Blu Ray (which almost anyone with a decently sized 1080P set and HD setup can tell you is AMAZING esp with action movies), built in wireless, virtually infinite HD space (since its swappable with any 2.5 drives which are up to 1TB now) and all kinds of other goodies. The majority of the best high end games are either on both the PS3 and 360 or just on the PS3 (with a handful of exceptions like Gears of War 2 and Halo 3). So the Wii is covering the low end casual consumer who doesn't really care much about HD but does care about Mario Kart and the PS3 is covering the high end enthusiast consumer who really cares a lot about HD and prefers Gran Turismo 5. Where does the 360 fit in? It's not low end and casual friendly like the Wii (bad attempts like Banjo nuts and bolts not withstanding) but certainly isn't the high end enthusiast console either with the tiny built in (and more or less non swapable) hard drive, limited media capabilities and no Blu Ray. That the original 360 (which I still have since it won't sell for more then 140 bucks on ebay) doesn't even have an HDMI port speaks volumes about its limited capabilities relative to the PS3. So it has a lot of the PS3 games and very few unique games (much less good unique games) mixed with less capability and nothing to really make it stand out. Its kind of pinched between Pepsi and Coke. You'll have Nintendo people who want the casual, Sony people who want the hard core but MS is kind of a me too console trying to be both (and not being great at either the high or low end market). MS is RC Cola to Nintendo and Sony's Pepsi and Coke. Sure when RC Cola is DEEPLY discounted and the cheapest thing on the shelf it can sell vs Pepsi at full price, but when prices converge there is just no reason to own a 360. Wii has Nintendo games and a unique controller, PS3 has Blu Ray, tons of options for media sharing better graphics and the most studios working on exclusive games (most of which, like Naughty Dog, are AWESOME studios). What does the 360 have? A good exclusive or two each year? Looks like low price is the only thing the 360 has going for it and that type of differentiation won't last forever. How do you defend something without something to point to for superiority? That is probably why a lot of people don't really bother (though I would argue there are a LOT of 360 fanboys on this site, I don't know how you don't come across it OP) |
Impulsivity
Your argument would make sense were it not for the fact that the PS3 is really just a big disappointment in so many ways. There is nothing it excels at. There are cheaper and better Blu Ray players available, a cheaper HD gaming console around (arguably a better one too) and it doesn't appeal to the casual market in the same way as say the Wii or even the 360.
In the past, the more expensive, newer console was OBVIOUSLY the more powerful. Master System, SNES, N64, Xbox. This time around the one cannot use the word 'obviously' as to say whether the PS3 is indeed the more powerful console. Time and time again we see games looking better on the 360 and sometimes looking marginally better on the PS3. This was never the case with the past generation consoles. SNES graphics of the same game on the Mega Drive nearly always looked better on the SNES. Same with the PSOne over the Saturn and Xbox over the PS2. I think this lack of absolute technical superiority of the PS3 is really hurting it's high end appeal and making it difficult for the high end user to want to part with their cash on the most expensive system that seems to be getting the inferior versions of third party games. After all Gears of War 2 looks better than pretty much any thing on the PS3 and that can be bought on a console thats costs roughly £150-200 pounds less.
Another thing I think one should understand is that just because a console can play something, doesn't mean people will use it for that. Gaming consoles are not dedicated CD players, DVD players etc. Many people still buy dedicated entertainment systems. Dedicated systems will always have better technical characteristics than an all in one system. That is obvious.
