Many people I've spoken with about the so called 'console race' have blamed Sony's lack of foresight for its position at the back of the pack, as it were. But lets face it, thinking about that for more than two seconds proves that line of thinking to be faulty. Lets deal with the Wii first - all due respect and admiration for the Wii both as a concept and as a product. No one can deny that its thrashing the other contenders in this race (if you want to believe there is a race at all) and by a hefty margin. But Sony couldn't have predicted this and neither could Microsoft, because at the end of the day it's success took Nintendo by surprise as well. Who would have thought selling games to housewives and grandparents would work out as a strategy? Sony can't be blamed for falling behind Nintendo because no one could have seen it coming.
So then, the Wii - a great console that succeeds by having a low price point, drawing in the casual market by firing out casual games faster than anyone else and having an easy control system that doesn't scare the elderly.That might sound derogatory but it's a system that works. But lets put the Wii to one side in this argument, partly because it appeals to a clearly very different market to the two next gen consoles and partly because Sony and Microsoft are clearly butting heads with each other, not with Nintendo who is winning largely by tapping areas of the market out of desperation that no one else considered viable at the end of the last generation.
That leaves us with the 360. This shouldn't even need to be thought about to be honest - the 360 is in every way inferior to the ps3. The console has recognised and acknowledged faults that Microsoft first denied and then ignored before eventually lackadaisically addressing, in terms of processing power and overall capability it falls behind the ps3 even with over a years head start - killzone 2's graphics being a fine example - and it support a now defunct media format, whilst making you pay extra for the privilege. Lets not foget the fact it also makes you pay for its online service, on top of the fees it takes to have the internet anyway.
The ps3 has no hardware issues. The bluray player (which was not only the superior format to start with, but the one that justifiably won the format war) is integrated from the get go, with games coming on this new larger format which promises us greater and greater things as time passes. Online play is free. And insiders in the industry indicate the bluray will be introduced to the 360 package in 2010 - a sign that Microsoft is roundly capitulating by turning the 360 into a white and green ps3. While Microsoft forces you to buy a separate charging cable for the wireless pads, Sony includes one and constantly improves on itself by re-introducing a last gen feature like rumble due to popular demand.
When you look at the above it is clear which is a superior console, so you've got to wonder why the 360 is ahead in the stakes. The answer is simple and damning; the consumers. The 360 is cheaper and people don't want to pay for quality. Faced with the choice of a Fabergé egg and a cadburies cream egg, the sugary treat has won the day. People who loved the ps2 but swapped to the Microsoft franchise out of disappointment complain that Sony have let them down - I fail to see how providing a superior service for a relatively low price is letting anyone down; lets not forget how much that integrated bluray player should and does cost separately.
The point is if you want quality you need to pay for it and even though Sony have provided nothing but quality with a host of awesome games - resistance 2, killzone 2, motorstorm 2 (all, you'll notice sequals to existing successful Sony brands, only one of which was on the ps2) - people are turning elsewhere and then complaining about Sony forgeting them. Blame needs to be placed where its due - and it ain't with Sony.
