Why the hate for the consoles?

[BaconLad]

just to clarify what i actually ment by saying that microsoft make more profit per unit sale than sony, becuse sony use better quality components.

by this i mean, it costs sony more money to make a ps3 than it costs microsoft to make a 360, because of the difference in the component quality used to manufacture them.
you could argue that the 360 is inferior tot he ps3 in that respect.

so microsoft should turn a bigger profit in a shorter space of time. but at what cost to the consumer? if you want quality and can afford it, buy from sony.

where i live, alot of people (well to do people - good jobs, big houses) see the 360 linked with younger, scruffy undesirable gamers, that you wouldnt want living next door to you. bad sterotype to have. (not my views/opinion)

it's like the car you drive, the clothes you wear, the house you live in, the places you go to, where you take your holidays...

thats just the way people think (not me personally - each to there own)

this is how bad the world is, my 15yr old brother demanded a ps3 shortly after they was launched because someone he knew at his school was frowned upon because he couldnt afford a ps3 and got a 360 instead, how sick is that! i actually remember being teased at school, becuase all the kids had sega mega drives and i had a nes...

im not sure what point im trying to make (if any) just make the most of what youve got. there both great machines.

 

[Thrallia]

I don't know if Crysis is being made for the PS3, but Crytek is definitely making something for the PS3 as they are actively hiring PS3 programmers.

http://www.crytek.com/jobs/frankfurt/ps3-programmer/

psm3 magazine is a unofficial mag, it doesnt recieve any funding what so ever from sony, and the info was provided by one of the lead developers of crysis.

how's about a quote directly from the head honcho of Crytek regarding Crysis?

"Crysis, developed by German studio Crytek and released in late 2007, was one of the most highly praised PC-exclusive games last year. It won GameSpot's Best of 2007 Editors' Choice award for Best PC Game and a host of other gongs.

However, it seems that all is not rosy at Crytek HQ in Germany. The studio's director and founder, Cevat Yerli, recently spoke out about the problems currently besetting his firm, PC gaming in general, and how Crytek plans to address the issues it faces.

In an interview with Croatian magazine PC Play, Yerli said, "We are suffering currently from the huge piracy that is encompassing Crysis. We seem to lead the charts in piracy by a large margin... PC gamers that pirate games, inherently destroy the platform.

"Similar games on consoles sell factors of 4-5 more. It was a big lesson for us, and I believe we won't have PC exclusives as we did with Crysis in future. We are going to support PC, but not exclusive anymore."

When asked if this meant that the rumours of Crysis coming to consoles were correct, Yerli simply stated that the port would be "impossible," saying that the game would have to be "largely changed to bring it to Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3," and that Crytek's "internal focus is not linked to bring Crysis to consoles.""

 

[Thrallia]

theres regular firmware updates that are free (yes, thats rite, ps3 owners can update/upgrade for free) these increase the performance of the machine. which at the moment is only operating at about 35percent of it's maximum capabillity. just think whats to come in the next 2/3 years.

ive owned 2 360's which in the opinion of most are poorly and cheaply manufactured, they both died after a few months and i wasnt that impressed with them anyway, theres a 30percent failure rate for the 360 compared to 3percent for the ps3 and i think the ps3 is superb.
microsoft make a bigger profit per unit sale than sony do on there machines, because sony used better quality components.
xbox live admittedly is better than the psn network, but you would expect microsoft to provide a better internet service than sony, but sony give us the psn network for free...



decent blu ray players are actually pretty expensive, buying a ps3 solely as a blu ray player wouldnt be a bad investment. but thers more to a ps3 than that, your ps3 can do just about anything that a mac can.
if you really wanted to, it could double up as a pc (with linux) remember the ps3 has 8 processers, so it can be pretty powerful. much more than a 360.

Yes, a PS3 as a blu-ray player is why there have been so many sold...I'd say roughly 75% of the PS3's my store sells are only used to play movies.

Xbox 360's get regular firmware/software updates as well, I'm not sure why you think that's only PS3s...and it doesn't matter what % of the cell processor is being used right now, the cell processor will never be anywhere near fully utilized in the PS3(which means it was a waste of money to bother putting it in in the first place) because of the sorry amount of RAM available to the CPU and the ridiculously low bus speed and bandwidths for sending data back and forth between the various processors in the PS3. That's why early high graphics games on the PS3 were broken(Lair), that's why you have to choose between 360 level graphics or 60 fps. That's why unless Sony redesigns it again in 3 years it will never last as long as the PS2 and PS1 did.

And for the record, I've never heard Sony's name used along with 'quality components'. The 360 does NOT have a 30% failure rate, it is more like 5-10%...but Microsoft gives a 1-3 year warranty, while Sony gives a meager 90 day warranty. So if you do have a problem with a 360, you'll likely get it fixed for free, but if you have a problem with a PS3, you'll have to pay for it.

As for how much they make on systems...Microsoft is currently making money on each system they sell, while Sony is losing 200 bucks per console...so sure, go ahead and buy a PS3....the more you buy, the faster Sony runs out of money

 

[Thrallia]

thats the most rediculous thing i'v ever heard, you can't lose money on something and break even.

When P < VC, your screwed, if your talking P < AC then thats fine, fixed costs can be re-couperated in the long-run. Besides that he didn't say sony was making profits, he said they were losing more money on each console (again comepletley wrong, they are just not making as much profit) becasue they are of higher quality and have higher costs, now tihs also porbably incorrect, they probably have jsut as much mark-up on thier console and microsoft, it's jsut gonna take them longer to pay off the cost of development, because they also spent more on that.

actually, Schuesseled, the only company that has ever reliably made a profit from their console is Nintendo...they always make a profit from day one. Microsoft started out with the 360 losing around 100 bucks per system, while Sony started out losing nearly 400 bucks per system.

The hope for console makers is to make back the money they lose on consoles with their royalties from sold games on their system. Microsoft has reached the point where they are making a lot of money reliably from the 360. Nintendo was always making tons of money from the Wii, and Sony is still bleeding money with the PS3 because there aren't enough worthwhile games out there that people want to buy for it, to make up for the money Sony is losing on each console.

just to clarify what i actually ment by saying that microsoft make more profit per unit sale than sony, becuse sony use better quality components.

by this i mean, it costs sony more money to make a ps3 than it costs microsoft to make a 360, because of the difference in the component quality used to manufacture them.
you could argue that the 360 is inferior tot he ps3 in that respect.

so microsoft should turn a bigger profit in a shorter space of time. but at what cost to the consumer? if you want quality and can afford it, buy from sony.

higher priced doesn't equal higher quality. The cell processor is no more powerful than the 360's processor thanks to the limitations of the rest of Sony's hardware, but it cost a heck of a lot more(and is more likely to fail, as it is new, experimental technology still). The cell processor and the blu-ray player are where the majority of sony's higher costs are located...so I don't see it as 'higher quality' I see it as adding unneccessary stuff.

 

[BaconLad]

The 360 does NOT have a 30% failure rate, it is more like 5-10%...but Microsoft gives a 1-3 year warranty, while Sony gives a meager 90 day warranty.

i baught a 360 on launch day, it had a 1yr warrenty, my 360 died within 6 months of purchase. microsoft put me in touch with a company that they use to fix the 360, they could NOT HONOUR THE WARRENTY because they was backed up with broken 360's they had to fix, so microsoft sent me a new 360 with a 1 yr warrenty, this one lasted a little bit longer but also died. microsoft again had to send me a new 360, this time it had a 3 yr warrenty, i sold it on ebay.... shortly after i saw i story on sky news, which stated microsoft was being threatend with legal action because of the number of people that only had 1 yr warrentys, who's 360's had conveniantly died just after the warrentys ran out... they also stated that the 360 had a 30 percent failure rate.

i baught a ps3 on launch day, it has a 1 YEAR WARRENTY, ive had it since the 23rd of march 2007 (uk launch date) and it works as well as ever.

 

[BaconLad]

higher priced doesn't equal higher quality.

why did microsoft release the higher priced xbox 360 elite?
was it to promote a higher standard 360?

the 360 does exactly what it says on the box, so does the ps3, there both great machines.

as a consumer, i feel more comfortable with sony. i know im getting quality.

christ, my ps1 still works perfectly after about 14yrs... i barely got 6 months from my 360...

 

[Thrallia]

it must be a store warranty, because Sony doesn't put a 1 year warranty on anything, not even their TVs.

And don't believe everything you see on tv, news stories are more about sensationalism than truthful statistics nowadays. Claiming 30% of systems are crashing is going to garner much more attention in the UK(where the 360 is considered anathema for some reason) than giving true figures(which a news organization wouldn't have access to anyway, only Microsoft does). Besides...Microsoft ate 1 billion bucks to cover repair expenses when they upgraded to a 3 year warranty...that's not equal to a 30% failure rate, that's much closer to 5-10% when you do the math.

Microsoft admitted they made mistakes with their early generations of the console, they changed how they were made, fixed the problems, and made sure that everyone who ever had a problem with a 360 was taken care of. That's a lot more than Sony ever did with their big paperweight called the PS2(now THAT had a 30% failure rate) I've had my 360 die on me, 6 months after I got it(got it used, it had been a launch system, so it died after nearly 2 years). I called Microsoft, got a box shipped to my house, sent it away, and got a brand new system in less than 2 weeks and less than 10 minutes on the phone. For you to have 2 systems die on you, even the launch generations of systems, is for you to have beaten the odds twice lol.

 

[Thrallia]

My PS1 works...very slowly and laggy. My PS2 still works also, but I'm in the minority there. You want a quality console, you should go with Nintendo...less than a .5% failure rate on every system they've ever made. My original Nintendo still works after 23 years!

 

[BaconLad]

My PS1 works...very slowly and laggy. My PS2 still works also, but I'm in the minority there. You want a quality console, you should go with Nintendo...less than a .5% failure rate on every system they've ever made. My original Nintendo still works after 23 years!

oh my god! so does mine!
forget all the next gen consoles, if you want real value for money get yourself a nes!!!

 

[BaconLad]

it must be a store warranty, because Sony doesn't put a 1 year warranty on anything, not even their TVs.

this is a quote from a section in the "safety and support" handbook that i just pulled out of my ps3 box.

"this guarantee is given to you, the first user of the product. it is personal to you, and can not be used by anyone else.
sony computer entertainment europe ltd (scee) guarantees that this product is free from defects in materials and workmanship that result in product failure during normal usage in accordance with the terms set out below and will, for a period of 1 (one) year from the date of original purchase, repair or (at scee's option) replace any component part of this product, free of charge, where it is faulty due to defective materials or workmanship. replacement will be with a new or refurbished component or unit at scee's option, which is guaranteed for the remainder of the original guarantee period."

so this should prove that sony do give yr long guarantees, but!!! further down on the same page it says.

"the benefits conferred by this guarantee are in addition to the statutory rights and remedies the consumer has in the uk and eire (ireland)"

so maybe those rights are different in the states?

when microsoft sent me a new 360, my guarantee was also renewed for that paticular 360, but it looks as if sony will only honour it for 1 yr, regardless of how many times they repair/replace your console. as soon as the yr is up on the original purchase date, your on your own. i might of had a lifetime guarantee with my 360's (unless microsoft have changed there policy)

 

[Thrallia]

Microsoft renews their warranty each time you get a new system, so yeah, you probably would've had a lifetime of warranties with them

And I think it must be a UK/Ireland thing, because Sony gives everything a 90 warranty in the US...I guess they consider Europe more important to court lol

 

[Zelig]

remember the ps3 has 8 processers, so it can be pretty powerful. much more than a 360.

Sure, if you want to just crunch numbers on parallel-processing optimized software.

For real games, the 360 consistently runs them at a higher resolution, with a better framerate.

 

[DS_Legionary]

I like how this thread went from being PC against consoles to a battle of the fanboys. Always happens I suppose.

Anywhoo I use both PC and console for my gaming needs. PC almost always provides a much more exciting multiplayer experience and better servers then consoles do, at least in my experience. The biggest downside to console multiplayer is the limited amount of people playing at the same time. I play BF2 (still) on PC and only play the big maps. It's that hectic sense of bullets flying around you all the time and always having to watch your back. Although I hear that there are some console game in dev for 60 player multi maps, so we shall see what happens there.

Then you've got strategy games. 99% of strategy games I prefer to play on the PC as well. This is just due to the limitations of a console controller. If a controller had as many easily accessible features as a keyboard and mouse did......I'd prolly play strategy games on a console.

Everything else is console for me. In the long run consoles are cheaper, more accessible to the masses and generally easier to use. I work tech support for my local cable company and you'd be surprised how few people actually know how to use their comp. I am astounded some of these people can feed themselves let alone find the power button sometimes if you catch my drift Consoles are just more user friendly. Pop the game in and it starts automatically. It's fool-proof (almost)

Now as far as this current generation of consoles go I'm a PS3 guy. I dislike the Wii due in large part to the selection of games. They are mostly kiddie games (some exceptions) and the novelty of the Wii-mote doesn't do it for me. The 360 is a piece of trash if you ask me. Everyone I know who has one has gotten the red light of doom at least once. 50% have gotten it more then once. I even worked with a guy who had it happen 9 times. That's unaccpetable for a console. I've never seen a PS3 die like a 360 (though I hear it does happen *crosses fingers it doesnt happen to me*), it's got an ok selection of games (only getting better if you ask me), blu-ray player and it's one of the most aesthetically pleasing peices of hardware I've ever purchased.

 

[LordRahl]

Yes, you got more than just a normal console, you got a console and a Blu-Ray player...that's about it though...you paid extra to get the Blu-Ray player, btw. You could have gotten a better console for cheaper by getting the 360 (prepares for inevitable onslaught of attacks)

I see no point at all in getting a 360. The best combination is a powerful PC, and a PS3. Why? Exclusives. Any game that's out on 360, is going to end up on PC. PS3 exclusives on the other hand, are truly exclusive to PS3.

And Blue-Ray is just the deal maker. If I never played any games on my PS3, it would still be an awesome deal for the blue-ray alone.

 

[cephalo]

One big disadvantage that consoles have is that you can't buy a console and make games with it. The fact that computers are used for both playing and making games means that anyone with the necessary skills and some talent can create a computer game. Creating a console game requires considerably more capital investment and specialized knowledge of a particular hardware set. So much so that console game makers can't afford to take a risk and stray from a tried and true formula.

The only place where you can play cutting edge games is on the computer. Every game genre on consoles today came to computers first. So long as computers are the tools used for making games, they will be the source for everything new and untested. If computer games are in decline right now, just wait until console shooters and sports games start to get extremely stale and flame out. Then, computer games will make a comeback as the gaming audience looks for the next big thing.

 

[Zelig]

And Blue-Ray is just the deal maker. If I never played any games on my PS3, it would still be an awesome deal for the blue-ray alone.

Although if you have a PC anyway, you can just buy a blu-ray drive for $150, and hook up your PC to the big screen TV.

 

[Sard]

I'm a gamer! I love all game systems!

 

[BaconLad]

One big disadvantage that consoles have is that you can't buy a console and make games with it. The fact that computers are used for both playing and making games means that anyone with the necessary skills and some talent can create a computer game. Creating a console game requires considerably more capital investment and specialized knowledge of a particular hardware set. So much so that console game makers can't afford to take a risk and stray from a tried and true formula.

The only place where you can play cutting edge games is on the computer. Every game genre on consoles today came to computers first. So long as computers are the tools used for making games, they will be the source for everything new and untested. If computer games are in decline right now, just wait until console shooters and sports games start to get extremely stale and flame out. Then, computer games will make a comeback as the gaming audience looks for the next big thing.

google "yaroze". also, you can write programs/games on the ps3 with a little help from linux.

it depends what you mean by "cutting edge games"
in my opinion, cutting edge games = titles like uncharted, little big planet, mgs4.

lookback abit further, and theres god of war/2, mgs/2/3, ico, shadow of the colossos, okami

you may disagree, but we're all entitled to our opinion.
these games may have been desgined and made with the use of pc's but these games are console exclusive and will never be released on pc's.

theres more going on than "shooters and sports games"

ive always found "the next big thing" to be on consoles, starting about 20yrs ago with the likes of sonic and mario.

 

[LordRahl]

Every game genre on consoles today came to computers first.

Look-up Eye Of Judgment, and you'll see that consoles are pioneering new genres as well.

 

[cephalo]

it depends what you mean by "cutting edge games"
in my opinion, cutting edge games = titles like uncharted, little big planet, mgs4.

lookback abit further, and theres god of war/2, mgs/2/3, ico, shadow of the colossos, okami

These games are notable for their quality, but the gameplay is nothing that we haven't seen a thousand times. I played Okami all the way through and it was awsome because it had a great story and a great atmosphere, but gameplay wise, not very different from many things I have played on the pc in years past.

Here's the kind of thing that will never happen on consoles, which is why I'll always have a computer, and then get a console if I can find a good deal on one.
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/