[quote name='thrustbucket']Really nothing of interest for me that's exclusive for either platform that's coming out. But I had a lot more invested into the 360 by the time I bought a PS3 for a movie player. All my friends and family have 360 and are on my friends list, so that weighs a lot heavier than God of War 3 (the only exclusive I might be interested in).[/quote]
That's totally understandable, and several people on the boards have expressed similar interest. It can be hard to justify $400 if the PS3 is being used only as a blu-ray DVD player.
I still don't think Blu-ray will ever replace DVD's popularity. And I do think Sony was betting it would (using PS2/DVD logic).
I'm inclined to agree with you. As time goes on, I believe that direct download will become more popular and eliminate physical media assuming the broadband rates keep up. If we keep our "slow" (compared to the world) standards, then I expect physical media to maintain strong dominance.
Of course I realize that. I do not think that the PS3 alone can sink Sony even if it was a dismal failure (it isn't). But I do think both the PS3 and Blu-ray together, are so depended on by Sony that a dismal failure of both (hypothetically) could mortally wound Sony.
You have to remember, Sony invested something like 2 billion in Cell research alone. Then they spent nearly 1 billion in fluffy incentives to studios to get Blu-Ray to win. No company, no matter the size, can afford to put that many eggs in two baskets without depending on them a great deal for overall company success.
I agree that Sony has invested heaps of money into both the development and promotion of both Cell and blu-ray, probably as much as any tech company has in any emerging technology. But that's the risk Sony has always been known for and it's paid off handsomely (ex. Walkman). They have of course failed before (Beta tape and mini-disk in the West).
Unfortunately, technology has reached the point that each incremental advance requires even more money to be successfully developed. If Sony wanted to control the future of computing and gaming, they may have had little choice in the investment. The stakes made the investment almost a matter of necessity.
I will maintain that Sony will not fold because of the money they put into blu-ray and Cell. If they were to go down, it would be because of the greater drop in consumer spending if there is a prolonged recession or they can't drop price. Otherwise, they'll continue to earn royalties from both the PS3 and Cell to at least break even or return a modest profit.
The PS2 was a runaway success that will likely never be repeated, that's an important point to accept. The PS3 has cost Sony so much money, and they still lose so much money on the hardware, that they releasing another console in the next two years would be near suicide.
They will have no choice but to try and convince people that buying a PS3 is a better idea than Microsoft's next console for at least 2 years of the "720's" life.
PS2's success was certainly a large contributor to the widespread support it received from the industry.
I believe that Sony invested so much into the PS3
because they wanted it to have a long life cycle. Otherwise, they could have released an incremental change. Sony may have tried to leap-frog Microsoft and Nintendo by creating a beast at such large financial cost. Only time will tell how well it will pay off.
There was also 25 million PS2's in homes at that time, which was one hell of an incentive for a developer to focus resources on squeezing it's lemons.
The development of tools to make programing for the PS2 must have come out sooner than the 25 million mark. That figure seems a bit suspect, personally.
At least for the PS3, I know that developers like Gorilla (makers of the PS3) are making tools and will license them to other developers for future development. Heck - Sega made the new Canvass engine for Valkyria Chronicles in a few years and would be willing to license it out to anyone interested.
Things will only get easier as first party developers and exclusive titles are being made, and shared community wide.
I am certainly not arguing that Cell architecture is awesome and can and will be used in many devices in the future. Nor would I argue it has awesome potential.
But I always have, and still do, question Sony's faith in Cell for games. There is still no reason that they have yet provided that it was a good investment for games, especially using version 1.0 of any architecture. It's clear they simply wanted to use Cell because they had invested so much in it already.
The PS3 was in development was the explicit idea of using the Cell, not using Cell because it was being developed. I believe that we'll start to see any benefits of this architecture when Killzone 2 is released at the earliest. From some beta videos I've seen, it's certainly impressive and hopefully will showcase the Cell's capabilities.
Although I doubt any developer will enumerate why the Cell is awesome.
I really don't think the PS3 will ever be a failure. It's already sold too much for that, and Blu Ray will ensure it isn't. But it will certainly not come close to repeating the PS2's success story.
The only console to have a chance at beating that record is the Wii. But I have serious doubts that the number of games sold will match that of the PS2, just based on the emerging demographics and reluctance of developers for making anything besides kiddy games. Which is a shame, because I honestly had such high hopes for the system. Now it just sits unplugged for 8 months.
I was a MASSIVE Sony fanboy with PS1 and PS2. I hated Xbox, even though I was the Xbox QA lead for my company at it's apex. I hated the idea of the 360 even more. But 9 months after 360's launch, after seeing what it could do, and witnessing a mudslide of Sony lies and shitty tactics across many technologies, I decided to buy a 360 and haven't looked back.
Everyone has a different falling-in-love story.
Um ok. The Sony fanboy's, for the first year of the PS3's existence, excused it's same-as-360 graphics on the technology being so new, as I'm sure you know. So how much more time needs to pass before the "time" excuse runs dry? Even Sony published titles with gaggles of money behind them haven't shown the "true power" of the PS3. Seriously? You still believe two years from now we'll see something earth shattering that "truly proves the PS3 is far beyond 360"? Seriously?
Is it fair to compare two systems when one had a year-head start? If you compare the games the PS3 is making to those in the 360 line-up of 2007, how would the two stack up?
Both systems did not start out of the gate together, and that was a strategic choice by MS. So far, it's paying off. But some would argue the 360 didn't really hit its stride till this year. Which, if you allow the same amount of time, would mean that this is the year when the PS3 comes of age.
So I say this year or bust. Killzone 2, Final Fantasy XIII, Uncharted 2, the new Team ICO game, God of War III, Gran Turismo 5, Heavy Rain, etc. I can see no better time for the PS3 to put-up-or-shut up.
Yes, my discourse on Sony betting the farm on Blu-ray is a hunch, but not just my own. Many published analysits have been saying the same thing for a year now. It's still a hunch though.
My Cell/PS3 power "hunches" are based on facts. Based on games released and in everyones hands. Your assumptions it's true power is yet unlocked are based on faith and hope.
Yes, our assumptions are based on faith and hope. But negative press & criticism will always get more air time on the nets than good news. I don't put much stock in what analysts have to say since there is always a way to spin statistics to suit your needs or perspectives.