Topic: Sony getting hit Hard lately

[nickmitch]

Sony is really going hard with 3D in every aspect, not just games. Joe Consumer is definitely gonna see the PS3 as the better buy when they see Sony cameras filming 3D event shown on Sony 3DTVs and Sony's 3D movies on Sony's 3D BluRay disks, also Sony's 3D PS3 games. They might just be in the best position of all current gen consoles, if this 3D thing really takes off.

[vudu]

Those 3D cameras, TVs, & movies are gonna cost Joe a lot of money.  Probably more money than what he wants to spend, considering all he wants to do is play Modern Warfare with his 3 friends who already own 360s.

[nickmitch]

That's true, but the cost of these things is going to come down (eventually), and when Joe is ready buy them he'll be thinking Sony, since they're at the forefront of the 3D movement. When 3D catches on, they'll be attacking it at every angle. Keep in mind, the 3DS is just gonna help the argument for 3D gaming and other media content.

[Ian Sane]

I think the PS3 looks more high-tech and current than the Xbox 360 largely because it was so expensive.  People tend to assume that a higher price means higher quality.

But the general vibe I've heard is that for multiplatform titles if you have both consoles the Xbox 360 version is usually the way to go.  I think Final Fantasy XIII is a big exception.  But since I don't own an Xbox 360 I don't pay that much attention to that stuff.  I only look at the PS3 version.

[Chozo Ghost]

One thing the PS3 has going for it that the 360 does not is that online multiplayer is free for the PS3, but on the 360 you have to pay $50 a year for it (or something like that). But on the other hand, the cheapest 360 is $100 less than the PS3, so that kinda helps I guess...

Both systems are notorious for hardware failure, so maybe they're both about even in that respect. I know two people that have had their PS3 fail on them, and of course the 360 is notorious for that red ring of death crap. Nintendo may be "last gen" hardware, but at least its reliable and isn't notorious for constantly failing.

[TJ Spyke]

3D TV's won't catch on for many years (likely after the PS3 is done). Hell, it took HDTV's like 10 years to become affordable and they still have less than a 50% penetration rate. 3D TV's are basically brand new, I bet it will be at least 5 years before eve 10% of homes have one.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Even still, lots of people like to think they are making a future proof purchase when weighing the value of their purchases.

Do I want a 360 that has games but is likely to be replaced for good in a few years or do I want a PS3 that can play Bluray movies (even though I don't have an HDTV yet) and 3D movies even though I can't afford a 3DTV yet and it has alot of the same games. We all know that Bluray "won" the format war so the PS3 may have a place on the shelf in the living room for many years to come, the 360 is yet another DVD player that has a reputation for failing.

[nickmitch]

3D TV's won't catch on for many years (likely after the PS3 is done). Hell, it took HDTV's like 10 years to become affordable and they still have less than a 50% penetration rate. 3D TV's are basically brand new, I bet it will be at least 5 years before eve 10% of homes have one.

Actually, that number has gone up to 65%. And some analysts are saying that 3D will have 50% penetration in 5 years, though most are predicting it to be more on the low end.

[TJ Spyke]

I think it's only up to 65% because basically all TV's sold now are HDTV, I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell 3D TV's will reach 50% in only 5 years. People who are only now getting HDTV's are now gonna spend money to upgrade again so soon.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I can't think of anyone that is specifically going to the store to buy a 3DTV and ditch the TV they just bought 1-7 years ago if it's still works fine.

But there might be an increase in 3D capable TV's (assuming all TV's that can do 120hz or higher are considered to be 3D capable - not necessarily compatible), but I doubt in 5 years time 50% of current TV owners will have upgraded to a 3DTV especially when so many of us just bought our 2nd, 3rd or 4th HDTV in the last 24months due to falling prices.

[nickmitch]

I dunno. I doubt 50% in 5 years, but I could see 30%. The prices just have to come down, which they should. TVs aren't gonna get (much) bigger (or thinner), and if the tech stays the same, prices should come down a little quicker than HDTVs.

[Pale]

The latest trend is that multiplatform games are better on PS3.

Could you site some examples, because this is the first time I've heard someone who's not a complete fanboy make that claim.  (Note:  This is not a dig; I'm saying you're not a fanboy and therefore I'm interested in why you think this.)  I can't think of any super recent examples, but I've heard lots of claims that 3rd party games have better frame rates, better lighting, etc. on 360 (most recently with Bayonetta).

I'm not going to argue about which system's exclusives are better because not only is it subjective but it's also irrelevant to this discussion.

I know FF 13 is a ton better on PS3.  I've heard that Red Dead is marginally better on PS3.

So at the very least, the multiplatform games are balanced in terms of quality.

[TJ Spyke]

FF13 is not a "ton" better, it's SLIGHTLY better and that is likely because they started working on it sooner than the 360 version.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I dunno. I doubt 50% in 5 years, but I could see 30%. The prices just have to come down, which they should. TVs aren't gonna get (much) bigger (or thinner), and if the tech stays the same, prices should come down a little quicker than HDTVs.

But the main problem is the glasses. The cost of the TV may come down, but you still need to buy glasses and wear glasses to view the 3D. And don't go and get a sweet deal on a 3DTV of a different brand because you're gonna need a whole new set of glasses to watch that on in 3D.  Until they fix the issue with wearing glasses, glasses being so expensive or glasses only working with same brand 3DTV's I really don't see 3DTV in it's current form gaining much traction.

Just look at Sony cry about Nintendo making fun of the glasses. Who doesn't look so cool now?
Sony sees the 3DS stealing all the thunder of PS3/3D especially if it comes in at under $200 and you can buy/rent/stream movies for the device.
Sony apparently had nothing ready to combat the 3DS and if Nintendo didn't didn't spill the beans before E3, their conference & booth could've been quite embarrassing.

[Pale]

FF13 is not a "ton" better, it's SLIGHTLY better and that is likely because they started working on it sooner than the 360 version.

I disagree. The visual fidelity of the cut scenes is a ton different.  If you don't think so I can only assume you don't care as much abou them as I (and many others) do.

Gameplay is more or less identical though.

Changing discs is also a minor annoyance that tips it in the PS3s favor.


In general, I think the main reason people are still buying multiplatform games on 360 is because of online integration and achievement points.  Important to some, but you surely can't blame the games themselves for infrastructure bonuses like that.

[Caliban]

The only reason why I bought this mulitplatform game:

- RDR on PS3 because my local gaming buds all have PS3s. If not for that I would have gone for the 360 version for visual fidelity alone. What is wrong with these devs when they can't even get the same game running exactly the same on 2 separate platforms that can handle whatever it is they are trying to do.

- Any other game with single-player only on 360 just for visual fidelity.

[Pale]

Rendering engines are just different and thus things can't be identical.  You are the first person I have seen who prefers the look of RDR on 360 though.

I think this debate is just proving that it really is a non issue.

[Caliban]

Rendering engines might be different only because the processing architectures are different, but that doesn't mean you can't achieve the same result even if they come about in different ways.

[Pale]

We are talking about nuances like RDR seeming to have a "softer focus" on the PS3 than it does on the 360.  I think it's unreasonable to make them match to the level that things like that still wouldn't be around.

[Chozo Ghost]

Hasn't 3D TV/movies been around since like the 1950s? Its nothing remarkable. What is remarkable is when you get it where you don't need to wear those stupid red and blue glasses.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Hasn't 3D TV/movies been around since like the 1950s? Its nothing remarkable. What is remarkable is when you get it where you don't need to wear those stupid red and blue glasses.

Have you seen a 3D movie in the last 2-3 years? There are no more red & blue glasses.

[nickmitch]

I dunno. I doubt 50% in 5 years, but I could see 30%. The prices just have to come down, which they should. TVs aren't gonna get (much) bigger (or thinner), and if the tech stays the same, prices should come down a little quicker than HDTVs.

But the main problem is the glasses. The cost of the TV may come down, but you still need to buy glasses and wear glasses to view the 3D. And don't go and get a sweet deal on a 3DTV of a different brand because you're gonna need a whole new set of glasses to watch that on in 3D.  Until they fix the issue with wearing glasses, glasses being so expensive or glasses only working with same brand 3DTV's I really don't see 3DTV in it's current form gaining much traction.

Just look at Sony cry about Nintendo making fun of the glasses. Who doesn't look so cool now?
Sony sees the 3DS stealing all the thunder of PS3/3D especially if it comes in at under $200 and you can buy/rent/stream movies for the device.
Sony apparently had nothing ready to combat the 3DS and if Nintendo didn't didn't spill the beans before E3, their conference & booth could've been quite embarrassing.

I'm sure there will be 3rd Party glasses that'll be cheaper. The main issue with compatibility is the rate at which the glasses open and close the shutters. In fact, Samsung and Panasonic use the same tech, just in reverse. So cross compatible 3D Specs are possible.

[ThePerm]

Hasn't 3D TV/movies been around since like the 1950s? Its nothing remarkable. What is remarkable is when you get it where you don't need to wear those stupid red and blue glasses.

Have you seen a 3D movie in the last 2-3 years? There are no more red & blue glasses.

polarized 3d

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDzkRmOmwfA

[Spak-Spang]

The difference I see is that when HDTVs first came out they were expensive and there wasn't much use for them in the general markets eye.  And the standard definition television was cheaper and fit everyone's needs.

Now HDTVs are the rage, and 3D is kinda just being shoehorned into all future models of HDTVs.  So as the late adopters of HDTVs starting buying them...they may only have the 3D choice. 

The thing about 3D television is its optional.  Its not like you buy a 3DTV and everything will be in 3D or has to be 3D, I feel that gives help to get into everyones homes.  If I hate 3D but my television costs about the same with 3D as without, then I will buy it with 3D and never use it...just in case.

[TJ Spyke]

3D TV's are just now coming out, very few TV's actually support it. There is also the factor that they don't cost about the same, they are more expensive; so you pretty much have to want 3D and plan to use it, otherwise you can just save yourself a ton of money and get a regular HDTV and know that 3D won't really take off for many years.