By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS3 performing better than PS1?!

thismeintiel on 05 February 2010
mundus6 said:
Ps3 never been a complete failure not even when it launched for $600. The thing is that Sony really went overboard with PS3, they should just had made a console with similar specs to Xbox 360 and slapped on a Blu-ray drive on there and they would have won this generation hands down (over M$ anyway).

But noooo, they have to make a console with a retarded architecture, 10 year old controller without rumble, worse launch games than PS1, more expensive than the 3DO and the list goes on and on. If it where any other company than Sony PS3 would have been dead long ago.


I have never understood the complaint about the PS3's "10 year old" controller.  This is mostly from 360 "fanboys" (not accussing you of being one) who are grabbing at straws for arguments.  First of all, it does have the same setup as the Dual Shock of old, but it is hardly the same controller from it's first version.  It features analog input on all buttons, L2 & R2 trigger buttons, Six-Axis controls, and bluetooth connectivity.  Also, are these same 360 fans really going to complain next gen when there controller is "10 years old", too?  I highly doubt it.  My opinion is if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Oh and the 3DO was $700 at launch.  The PS3 was $600 for its most expensive version.



 

Around the Network
xxmob on 05 February 2010

it hasn't made black in years? so since i guess thieve been in red this whole time and the company is still going, man investors have got to be pissed.




MikeB on 05 February 2010
jesus kung fu magic said:
MikeB said:
mundus6 said:
Ps3 never been a complete failure not even when it launched for $600. The thing is that Sony really went overboard with PS3, they should just had made a console with similar specs to Xbox 360 and slapped on a Blu-ray drive on there and they would have won this generation hands down (over M$ anyway).

Although a lower specced PS3 would probably have been positive with regard to short term sales, I think it would have been bad regarding console sales in general. It would probably have eaten more into XBox 360 sales and to a lesser extend Wii sales and have resulted in a more juvenile userbase than is currently the case.

But I think from a grand perspective the current specs helps widen the console market as well as the console's long term potential (the 10+ year plan Sony talked about way before the PS3's release). Certainly also scientists and militaries are certainly more happy with the current specifications. From Sony's perspective not only short term sales are of importance, but also what the console provides to help advance the consumer electronics market.

Lower specs means a more juvenile userbase?

Than the ps1 and ps2 userbase were run by juveniles going by your theory.....

Yes, that was clearly more the case for the PS1 and PS2.

Higher specifications and higher entry pricing go hand in hand, thus more expensive devices are much better affordable to people who earn more money. Also making optimal usage of the PS3 requires an upgrade in home electronics like a surround sound setup and HDTV and not all kids are allowed easy internet access by their parents (for online only gaming like the excellent Warhawk or MAG, or excellent online only distributed content like Super Stardust HD or Trine). Most kids seem to have to settle with their parent's yesteryear's SDTV.

Of course the sales damage which would result from this was heavily invested on by Sony, so the PS3 faired much better than for instance the 3DO despite based on the specs the PS3 ought to have been priced higher in comparison. Probably the 3DO had a relative mature gaming audience of early adopters as well compared to for instance the PS1.



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

Falcon095 on 05 February 2010
MikeB said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
MikeB said:
mundus6 said:
Ps3 never been a complete failure not even when it launched for $600. The thing is that Sony really went overboard with PS3, they should just had made a console with similar specs to Xbox 360 and slapped on a Blu-ray drive on there and they would have won this generation hands down (over M$ anyway).

Although a lower specced PS3 would probably have been positive with regard to short term sales, I think it would have been bad regarding console sales in general. It would probably have eaten more into XBox 360 sales and to a lesser extend Wii sales and have resulted in a more juvenile userbase than is currently the case.

But I think from a grand perspective the current specs helps widen the console market as well as the console's long term potential (the 10+ year plan Sony talked about way before the PS3's release). Certainly also scientists and militaries are certainly more happy with the current specifications. From Sony's perspective not only short term sales are of importance, but also what the console provides to help advance the consumer electronics market.

Lower specs means a more juvenile userbase?

Than the ps1 and ps2 userbase were run by juveniles going by your theory.....

Yes, that was clearly more the case for the PS1 and PS2.

Higher specifications and higher entry pricing go hand in hand, thus more expensive devices are much better affordable to people who earn more money. Also making optimal usage of the PS3 requires an upgrade in home electronics like a surround sound setup and HDTV and not all kids are allowed easy internet access by their parents (for online only gaming like the excellent Warhawk or MAG, or excellent online only distributed content like Super Stardust HD or Trine). Most kids seem to have to settle with their parent's yesteryear's SDTV.

Of course the sales damage which would result from this was heavily invested on by Sony, so the PS3 faired much better than for instance the 3DO despite based on the specs the PS3 ought to have been priced higher in comparison. Probably the 3DO had a relative mature gaming audience of early adopters as well compared to for instance the PS1.

Are you saying that Sony did the right thing with the PS3?



||Tag courtesy of fkusumot - "Heaven is like a Nintendo theme park!"||Join the Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 American League HERE!||

MikeB on 05 February 2010
Falcon095 said:
MikeB said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
MikeB said:
mundus6 said:
Ps3 never been a complete failure not even when it launched for $600. The thing is that Sony really went overboard with PS3, they should just had made a console with similar specs to Xbox 360 and slapped on a Blu-ray drive on there and they would have won this generation hands down (over M$ anyway).

Although a lower specced PS3 would probably have been positive with regard to short term sales, I think it would have been bad regarding console sales in general. It would probably have eaten more into XBox 360 sales and to a lesser extend Wii sales and have resulted in a more juvenile userbase than is currently the case.

But I think from a grand perspective the current specs helps widen the console market as well as the console's long term potential (the 10+ year plan Sony talked about way before the PS3's release). Certainly also scientists and militaries are certainly more happy with the current specifications. From Sony's perspective not only short term sales are of importance, but also what the console provides to help advance the consumer electronics market.

Lower specs means a more juvenile userbase?

Than the ps1 and ps2 userbase were run by juveniles going by your theory.....

Yes, that was clearly more the case for the PS1 and PS2.

Higher specifications and higher entry pricing go hand in hand, thus more expensive devices are much better affordable to people who earn more money. Also making optimal usage of the PS3 requires an upgrade in home electronics like a surround sound setup and HDTV and not all kids are allowed easy internet access by their parents (for online only gaming like the excellent Warhawk or MAG, or excellent online only distributed content like Super Stardust HD or Trine). Most kids seem to have to settle with their parent's yesteryear's SDTV.

Of course the sales damage which would result from this was heavily invested on by Sony, so the PS3 faired much better than for instance the 3DO despite based on the specs the PS3 ought to have been priced higher in comparison. Probably the 3DO had a relative mature gaming audience of early adopters as well compared to for instance the PS1.

Are you saying that Sony did the right thing with the PS3?

For me personally, absolutely. (Not everything, but in general)

For dissapointed kids, probably not.



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

Around the Network
Falcon095 on 05 February 2010
MikeB said:
Falcon095 said:
MikeB said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
MikeB said:
mundus6 said:
Ps3 never been a complete failure not even when it launched for $600. The thing is that Sony really went overboard with PS3, they should just had made a console with similar specs to Xbox 360 and slapped on a Blu-ray drive on there and they would have won this generation hands down (over M$ anyway).

Although a lower specced PS3 would probably have been positive with regard to short term sales, I think it would have been bad regarding console sales in general. It would probably have eaten more into XBox 360 sales and to a lesser extend Wii sales and have resulted in a more juvenile userbase than is currently the case.

But I think from a grand perspective the current specs helps widen the console market as well as the console's long term potential (the 10+ year plan Sony talked about way before the PS3's release). Certainly also scientists and militaries are certainly more happy with the current specifications. From Sony's perspective not only short term sales are of importance, but also what the console provides to help advance the consumer electronics market.

Lower specs means a more juvenile userbase?

Than the ps1 and ps2 userbase were run by juveniles going by your theory.....

Yes, that was clearly more the case for the PS1 and PS2.

Higher specifications and higher entry pricing go hand in hand, thus more expensive devices are much better affordable to people who earn more money. Also making optimal usage of the PS3 requires an upgrade in home electronics like a surround sound setup and HDTV and not all kids are allowed easy internet access by their parents (for online only gaming like the excellent Warhawk or MAG, or excellent online only distributed content like Super Stardust HD or Trine). Most kids seem to have to settle with their parent's yesteryear's SDTV.

Of course the sales damage which would result from this was heavily invested on by Sony, so the PS3 faired much better than for instance the 3DO despite based on the specs the PS3 ought to have been priced higher in comparison. Probably the 3DO had a relative mature gaming audience of early adopters as well compared to for instance the PS1.

Are you saying that Sony did the right thing with the PS3?

For me personally, absolutely. (Not everything, but in general)

For dissapointed kids, probably not.

How is it better than the PS2 or the PS1 for you?

Who would fit in you disappointed kids description? Would Sony investors or people who expected the PS3 to be the PS1 or PS2 fit too?



||Tag courtesy of fkusumot - "Heaven is like a Nintendo theme park!"||Join the Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 American League HERE!||

GodOfWar_3ever on 05 February 2010

The 10 Year Plan FTW !

PS3 will sell 200 million WW by the end of 3079.



Kasz216 on 05 February 2010

Why is everyone ignoring the fact that the PS3 isn't in fact selling like the PS1?



MikeB on 05 February 2010
Falcon095 said:
MikeB said:
Falcon095 said:
MikeB said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
MikeB said:
mundus6 said:
Ps3 never been a complete failure not even when it launched for $600. The thing is that Sony really went overboard with PS3, they should just had made a console with similar specs to Xbox 360 and slapped on a Blu-ray drive on there and they would have won this generation hands down (over M$ anyway).

Although a lower specced PS3 would probably have been positive with regard to short term sales, I think it would have been bad regarding console sales in general. It would probably have eaten more into XBox 360 sales and to a lesser extend Wii sales and have resulted in a more juvenile userbase than is currently the case.

But I think from a grand perspective the current specs helps widen the console market as well as the console's long term potential (the 10+ year plan Sony talked about way before the PS3's release). Certainly also scientists and militaries are certainly more happy with the current specifications. From Sony's perspective not only short term sales are of importance, but also what the console provides to help advance the consumer electronics market.

Lower specs means a more juvenile userbase?

Than the ps1 and ps2 userbase were run by juveniles going by your theory.....

Yes, that was clearly more the case for the PS1 and PS2.

Higher specifications and higher entry pricing go hand in hand, thus more expensive devices are much better affordable to people who earn more money. Also making optimal usage of the PS3 requires an upgrade in home electronics like a surround sound setup and HDTV and not all kids are allowed easy internet access by their parents (for online only gaming like the excellent Warhawk or MAG, or excellent online only distributed content like Super Stardust HD or Trine). Most kids seem to have to settle with their parent's yesteryear's SDTV.

Of course the sales damage which would result from this was heavily invested on by Sony, so the PS3 faired much better than for instance the 3DO despite based on the specs the PS3 ought to have been priced higher in comparison. Probably the 3DO had a relative mature gaming audience of early adopters as well compared to for instance the PS1.

Are you saying that Sony did the right thing with the PS3?

For me personally, absolutely. (Not everything, but in general)

For dissapointed kids, probably not.

How is it better than the PS2 or the PS1 for you?

Who would fit in you disappointed kids description? Would Sony investors or people who expected the PS3 to be the PS1 or PS2 fit too?

I was a PC gamer last gen. I love FPS games. Both PS1 and PS2 were weak consoles for that. But in hindsight having bought God of War 1 & 2 for my PS3, I underestimated what could be accomplished with that console, I should have given it more consideration. For me now the PS3 is much better for FPS and TPS gaming than the PC was. I also love well presented story telling like with the Uncharted and God of War series, PC games are usually not that great in this regard. The PS3 being much technically capabable than a PS2 in combination with a HDTV and a good surround audio set and the online and media functionalies are much improved as well.



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

NiKKoM on 05 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
Why is everyone ignoring the fact that the PS3 isn't in fact selling like the PS1?

Cause in our hearts we always knew... and MikeB is posting.. him defending the PS3 is always fun.. :)



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!)