MikeB on 27 December 2008
@ starcraft
I was not criticising the PS3 for being too "high spec." I was criticising it for being too highly priced.
They are directly related.
As yet, there is no substantial proof that the PS3 can deliver a performance advantage significant enough to have any effect whatsoever on mainstream console adoption.
Without games like Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Gran Turismo 5: Prologue and Metal Gear Solid 4 being what they provide, the PS3 would probably have sold worse.
The same I think will be the case for high profile PS3 exclusives in 2009, I think increasingly so.
What do you think this misinformation is?
PS3s burning down houses (actually it's a relative sturdy and reliable console compared to the 360), Sony not doing repairs (that actor who poured his vacuum cleaner dust bag over his PS3 and an service man refusing to touch it), Blu-Ray failing a certain death (actually it does better than DVD did taking equal time frames), etc.
but continuing to believe that Blu-Ray will lead to higher PS3 sales than if the console had launched at $400 with DVD9 is folly and nothing more.
Blu-Ray production costs are coming down rapidly. IMO the long term advantages far outweigh the short term disadvantages.
The PS3 is in a negative cycle. Declining sales relative to other platforms equals less game support from third parties, which in turn equals less game revenue and console purchases for the business. This will not reverse.
I don't think it will matter much for the long run. So far all best sold 360 third party titles have seen versions or sequels on the PS3 as well (only 6 Microsoft published exclusives in the 360's top 25). The PS3, at nearly 20 million units sold today is more relevant to third party games developers than it ever was. I think most third parties will continue to treat and support PC/360/PS3 as one target and the Wii (and possibly PS2) as another target.
