MikeB on 17 June 2008
@ starcraft
Better for who? Sony? Or for the consumers that would be forced to buy a very expensive console to play Ghostbusters?
The PS3 will eventually have a much bigger install base and lower entry pricing. IMO a more impressive version of Ghostbusters would be better for consumers, if the publisher/developing company doesn't have to deal with some sort of financial issues.
Sony produced a system that is economically unsustainable
The install base will increase like you can see at a healthy pace and production costs will come down further through improved middleware, this roadmap is perfectly sustainable for Sony. Creating simpler games distributed on the PSN is a cheap alternative for smaller companies. PS3 owners expect much more from full price Blu-Ray releases, a Wii or PS2 like game would be (rightly so) unacceptable.
proven unnecessary for large scale high definition games
Games will become far more demanding in the upcoming years, you don't make such judgements this early in a console lifecycle. Those tapping into the potentials and those devs who complain about the 360 specifications, see the value in the long term potential of the default harddrive and the default Blu-Ray drive. Some multi-platform developers complain about the CPU differences between the PS3 and 360, but all acknowledge the Cell is potentially far more powerful just like IBM the manufacturer of both chips also underlines. IMO they have themselves to blame, taking the easy route early on isn't always the better route for the long run.
It is OBVIOUSLY in direct competition with the Wii, and it is failing.
Do you really think those who bought a Wii would have flocked en masse to the PS3 if there was no Wii? I don't think so and even if that would be the case, Sony would not have produced enough hardware to meet demand.
