Gaming Forums > General Gaming
Is PS3 Sony's worst game console ever?
Ian Sane:
I have not played the PS4 at all so I really don't have a full context here but it is arguably too new to make a call on it anyway.
Yeah, the PS3 is the worst. Not a bad console at all but, like with the Nintendo consoles, something has to be the worst by just being the least good. Ultimately I think it holds up poorly in how essential it is. I don't own an Xbox 360 so last gen my PS3 was the de facto platform for damn near anything that wasn't on the Wii. But if you owned both the 360 and PS3 there wasn't much to differentiate the two. The 360 was the more popular one. Games tended to be designed with it as the main platform and if you were into online games, odds are your friends owned the more popular console. Plus the 360 was way cheaper so odds are your PS3 purchase would have come after the price drop, in which case the point of getting it would be for Sony first party titles and Japanese first party exclusives.
Compare that to the PS1 and 2 which were very essential consoles for their generations. If you didn't own one of the those you were missing out on lots of games. Hell, MOST games being made at that time with PlayStation exclusives. If you wanted to keep up with the major games of the day you HAD to own a PS1 and 2 but didn't need a PS3 so that would make it the worst on that alone.
michaelbaysuperfan616:
--- Quote from: lolmonade on February 05, 2016, 12:48:14 PM ---You cite the Blu-Ray as an unappealing/unwanted feature, but honestly, back when the system came out, it was one of the biggest selling points. It was also considered one of the better ones you could get for its price at the time, amazingly enough.
To expand on this, Sony took similar gambles with PS1 with CD playback and PS2 with DVD. Sony was simply following what made them successful in prior console generations, which was piggybacking the gaming system with a new media format that could be a feature added to the box.
Reading into it, I thought it was the cell architecture of the system that hurt it more than anything from a gaming standpoint, it's why the ports were generally inferior to the Xbox 360 until later in the life cycle.
--- End quote ---
I meant in terms of what it added to gaming. I agree that media enthusiasts were drawn to the PS3 but they weren't gamers and as a gamer I wasn't that interested in Blu Ray initially, I had gotten into HD-DVD first so I was a little reluctant to switch.
But Blu ray added nothing to gaming, CD and DVD added so much for gaming they needed to be included in those systems. But we didn't even make use of Blu Ray as games were designed with the DVD9 limitations of the 360 in mind and thus gave birth to the whole digital download and expansion packs, DLC, etc that became a thing. Blu Ray was great but it added nothing essential to the mix, it just inflated the cost by way too much.
PS3 sold Blu Ray, it wasn't the other way around like it was with CD and DVD on the previous consoles. Sony sacrificed the quality and sales of the early PS3 in order to force HD-DVD out of the market. If MS had included HD-DVD drives for games out of the box it would have turned out differently.
Mop it up:
Ha ha, nice.
For me, I'd have to say PS4 is the worst, at least for now. Things could change, but for the time being it does not have any exclusive games that I want, and very few multi-platform games, even. I don't see myself ever buying one.
Meanwhile, I don't own a PS3, but I might get one. Its library doesn't look as good as PS2 or even 1, but it's racked up a decent number of games that I think I'd like. I still don't want to pay very much for one, though: I got a PS2 back in 2011 for $30, and that sounds about what I'd want to get a PS3 for. Might settle for $50 if I have to.
That said, I've always felt the PS3 seemed like a better system than the Xbox 360. I like its controller better for one, and also, it had free online.
BranDonk Kong:
For the first few years, yes, PS3 ports of games were not as well-developed as their Xbox 360 counterparts - for the last few years, it was the opposite.
How do you decide on what's the worst Sony console, when all four of them have been incredibly successful? They've won 3 out of 4 of the "console wars" that they've been in (stick a fork in the current one, it's over), and came in second place with the PS3 - despite coming out a year after the XBox 360, the PS3 outsold it.
I own all of their consoles, but none of them are my favorite. The only thing that stands out for any of their consoles is the failure rate of the PS3, which ranks right up their with the failure rate of the Xbox 360 - so based on only that, then I would say PS3 was their worst console - which comes with the caveat of still being a console that introduced some absolutely top-notch games like the Uncharted series and The Last of Us.
NWR_insanolord:
The PS1 and PS2 never really stuck with me. I owned them, but never really played them that much and didn't end up owning many games for them. I loved the PS3, though. I owned a ton of games for it, and ended up playing it a lot more than my 360, despite not getting it until later. It was their worst commercially, but probably my favorite so far.