PS3 vs Xbox360: A Fair Fight for the Console War

CvG's Kaleb Rutherford is sure the PS3 will come out on top, but we're not so certain.



After chatting with cvgames.com's Kaleb Rutherford on the KomboBreaker
podcast about the future of the Xbox 360 and PS3, and of course reading
his article on Why the PS3 Will Ultimately Win This Generation,
I of course had to write a response. I'd like to focus the question a
little more though. Rather than asking which console is going to "win,"
I'll phrase it like this: Of the Xbox 360 and PS3, which console will
outlast the other as the primary gamer's console?

This removes the Wii from the equation and keeps us from going on
about it too long. Regardless of its validity as a console, it's not the primary gamer's console.
It has a lot of solid games, but it's not going to be the first choice
for someone who plays a wide variety of games or plays primarily
online.


There are a lot of variables that go into the discussion of this
question: the qualities of the respective consoles, the online services
that accompany each, and the games exclusive to each platform.


Things like hard drives and system failures are certainly factors here,
but not major ones. It's great that Sony includes a hard drive with
every system, as it certainly allows for some cool stuff, but
Microsoft's decision to have no-disk SKUs hasn't hurt it as much as
people thought it might. Sony's decision to include a hard drive has
given game developers carte blanche to require an install whenever they
like. Metal Gear Solid 4 requires what, four installs, every time you
play through? If I have multiple games to play, and one of them is a
PS3 game that requires an install, I often find myself avoiding that
game in favor of one of my 360 games or download titles. Why wait
twenty minutes when I could go play Flower again right now? It also
plays a role in purchasing decisions of multiplatform games. With so
many games looking nearly identical on either platform, I often find
myself asking if I'm going to have to sit through a long install to
play a game.



The red ring of death that the 360 is so well known for is slowly
becoming a thing of the past. I don't know if Microsoft will ever live
it down, but their warranty support has certainly dissipated a lot of
anger. I've heard of gamers on their sixth Xbox or some absurd number
like that, but that makes up a vocal minority. I had a first-run Xbox
and yes, it died and was replaced, so I'm not one of the lucky few.
However, the newer systems — the Elite and Arcade iterations — benefit
from the revised hardware and don't suffer the same degree of failure,
but rather something more in line with standard failure rates for
electronics. Of course, Microsoft keeps replacing our early adopters'
systems with the repaired first-run systems, so our consoles keep
failing and we keep screaming. It's a vicious cycle. However, it
doesn't seem to have played a major role in the actual sales of the
system. The system continues to sell and Microsoft continues to show profits.


So what about the power? The PS3 is unquestionably a more powerful
system than the 360, and the system exclusive games look great.
Uncharted 2 and Gran Turismo 5 are enough to give any gamer weak knees.
However, I seem to remember a generation ago, when the PS2 and Xbox
were exchanging salvos, that the PS2 was consistently shown as the
weaker system — without a hard drive, I'll add — and yet it not only
won, it utterly destroyed the competition. The first two PlayStations
did something unheard of, at least for a while: "PlayStation" replaced
"Nintendo" as the generic word for video game for mothers across the
country. Of course, Nintendo has taken some steps to regain its king of
the hill status, but Sony had it locked down for a while. What kept the
PlayStation 2 dominant was spectacular third-party support (along with
a slow-growing library of first and second party titles).







Uncharted 2: Among Thieves




And that support is part of what is keeping the Xbox 360 ahead this
time around. Between offering developers stronger support and paying
for exclusives, Microsoft took strong steps to capture the third party
market. Last year's E3, subdued as it was, had its share of bombshells:
Resident Evil 5 and Final Fantasy XIII. Bringing traditionally Sony
franchises over was a big deal. I had a hard time counting the number
of people I know that said "Well, guess I don't need a PS3 now!" when
Square's announcement hit the web. FFXIII is definitely going to look
better on the PS3, but it's not a system-seller anymore. Yeah, it
requires multiple discs, but I don't think 30 seconds of disc-switching
is going to be the tie-breaker for a 50-hour game. Not only that, but
Microsoft has done a good job making itself "the RPG console," in
general with games like Eternal Sonata, Lost Odyssey, and Blue Dragon.

The developer support I mentioned, along with a generally
easier-to-use platform resulted in the first few rounds of EA Sports
games looking better on the 360. Things are about even now, but that
was a helpful boost in the beginning, establishing the 360 as the place
to go for sports games. One recent example of the split between the
systems power and support not really having much meaning most of the
time was the Ghostbusters game. Lens of Truth's comparison revealed the
PS3 version to be substantially lower quality than the Xbox 360's. Was
the difference caused by the developer drama, or was the 360 just
easier to program for?


Bringing up the Xbox and PS2 again, it's important to mention the
importance of backward compatibility. Here's one place I think Sony
definitely shot themselves in the foot. The initial stance was that
backwards compatibility was very important to the platform. Boasts were
thrown about the thousands of games available for play on their
system. Then the hardware support disappeared, followed by the software
support. Instead, Sony decided they wanted to "look forward, not back."
I don't mean to sound cynical, but the consistent releases of
PlayStation classics makes me think that what they really meant was "We
can't sell you your old games if you can already play them." Of course,
with FFVII hitting 100,000 downloads in only two weeks, maybe that's something people want.


I think the biggest divide, though, is in the online services each console provides. On paper, the feature set isn't really that different. Sony can even throw the F-word out. I meant "free." What did you think I meant?

The nuances, though, make the difference. PSN almost feels like an
afterthought. Xbox LIVE, especially with Microsoft's NXE update, is an
integral part of the 360 interface. Microsoft has made it clear since
the beginning that they don't just want Xbox LIVE to be an online
gaming service, but also a community that keeps people coming back.
Things like avatars and gamerscore give many gamers something to get
attached to (and mean nothing to just as many others), and features
like Live Party chat and a unified interface for all games make it
easier to start a session. Sony's decision to support Bluetooth (and a
ton of other standards) was a good one, but the decision not to include
a headset as a poor idea. PSN is quieter than Xbox LIVE (some would
argue this is a bonus) but including the headset as Microsoft has and
keeping new ones cheap has made voice chat on Xbox LIVE a standard that
just doesn't apply on PSN.

Of course, the games will always be what will ultimately move the
systems off store shelves. There's no argument that both systems have a
lot of great games and a lot coming. With most third party games
appearing on both systems and looking equally good, we can dismiss most
of the library as not really important to the argument. This is
especially true on the PS3 side, where it could be argued that the
games are being held back by the 360's lower power level and the PS3's
slower sales.


So then it comes to exclusives and major players. Part of Sony's
trouble since the beginning of the PS3 has been a lack of really solid
exclusives. That's not to say a lack of exclusives, just ones that
really fly off the shelves. Metal Gear Solid 4 and Little Big Planet
are more exceptions than the rule. Until this year's E3 though, we
hadn't seen anything substantial about God of War III or Gran Turismo 5
in some time, and there just haven't been any games that have defined
the console the way Halo and Gears of War have the Xbox 360.


I have to give a point to each side in the exclusives debate,
though. On the Xbox 360 side, the big exclusive titles are all titles
with major online components. The titles have a bit of the Nintendo
Magic that keeps the games selling for years and at the top of the Live
list for just as long. Major Nelson posts the top LIVE games
each week, and the list stays surprisingly static with Halo and Gears
of War in the top five with third party stuff like Call of Duty and
Left 4 Dead in there as well.


Sony seems to have taken a different focus with their exclusives.
Microsoft has always been big on multiplayer, while Sony has put a
definite focus on single. Most recently Infamous and the upcoming God
of War and Heavy Rain releases don't have any multiplayer at all. Metal
Gear Solid 4 includes the install for a separate game, but is not
actually online itself. Some games like Uncharted 2 feature
multiplayer, but it's mostly thought of as secondary. LittleBigPlanet
and MAG suggest that they're starting to look more closely at online
gaming, but it's definitely not as well established as it is on the
360. Battlefield 1943's kill-count is a pretty good indicator, where
Xbox 360 players hit the 43 million kill count required to unlock the
new level when PS3 players had only made it up to 22 million. Where
Sony has it, though, is graphics. While most games are
indistinguishable on either platform, the exclusives on the PlayStation
really shine. Uncharted 2, God of War III, and Gran Turismo 5 all
garner hyperbole like "unparalleled," and "best yet." With that said,
Hideo Kojima has stated that he intends to rebuild Metal Gear Rising's
engine from the ground up so that it'll look even better than MGS4 did—even on the Xbox360.

Metal Gear Solid: Rising - Even better on 360?




So, who is going to win this generation? With the economy in the
condition it is, I think it's safe to say this console generation is
going to be a longer one than the last few. People aren't ready to buy
new consoles yet, and the upcoming Natal from Microsoft is a good
indication of how committed they are to the platform. Sony's more
powerful hardware has given it a bit of room to grow, while Xbox 360's
LIVE service has endeared itself to players a bit more. No matter what,
we won't see something as one-sided as the PlayStation 2 last time
around. If I had to give the advantage to someone as things stand right
now, I'd have to pick the Xbox 360, but a few years can make a big
difference, so it'll be fun to see if things change. As long as we get
great games to play like this year and last, you won't find me
complaining no matter who the victor is.


http://www.kombo.com/article.php?artid=13417

Citação :

"...it's not the primary gamer's console. It has a lot of solid games,
but it's not going to be the first choice for someone who plays a wide
variety of games or plays primarily online."

I'll give you
the 'primarily online' bit, but the rest I just can't. I'm a 'gamer'
(can't stand that label) who actually plays a wide variety of games.
I'm talking variety here, not 'number'. Variety is not a vast selection
of similar games, it's a selection of different types of games. I do
not, however play enjoy shooters, or massively violent games. Take
these two genres out of the equation and the PS3 and Xbox no longer has
a variety as most of their library falls into one of these two
categories. Which is why the Wii is my primary console as a 'gamer'. I
get my fix of all types.

Back to the actual content of your
blog... very well done. Great points really make your case and you
didn't belittle the other console at all. The PS3 is a great and
powerful machine, but if sales don't improve, it's long planned life
are meaningless in the world of business. There's a good chance that if
Natal is all that Microsoft hopes it to be, that the Xbox 360 will have
a second head start in this generation. If the PS3 continues to sell
poorly in comparison, Sony may even cut their lifespan to 8 years
instead of 10, just to the same patterns don't repeat next time around.
360 definitely has online in the bag. There's little hope that Sony can
even catch up and match it let alone surpass.

I believe
you've hit the nail on the head as to how each console will shine and
win on their own. Xbox with online and multiplayer and PS3 with single
player games with amazing looking exclusives. Third Party games will
likely remain the same as both consoles being developed in unison with
similar graphics. Third parties might slowly move to the PS3 to gain
the extra power and picture, but if the majority of users remain on the
360, this probably won't happen.

All around, great insightful thoughts.

Citação :

What I was trying to establish is that the Wii just isn't a part of the
point I was trying to make with the consoles. The Wii is far ahead in
sales, and the first party titles sell quite well and have long legs.
However, what the Wii is doing is so vastly different from what the 360
and PS3 are doing, that it's not worthwhile to bring it into the
discussion.

I said that the Wii isn't a primary gamers
console. I really believe that to be the case. I'm not saying that
there aren't spectacular games for the Wii. Wii Sports Resort is tons
of fun. I'm not saying the Wii doesn't have a place in a gamer's
collection. Despite the excellent first party support, there's
little-to-know third party support for the Wii. And what support there
is generally sells poorly. There aren't enough games on the Wii to play
it every day the same way you might with one of the other consoles, in
my opinion. Additionally, the online support exists, but not the way it
does on the 360 or ps3.

My intention really was not to
alienate Nintendo fans, but to establish it as something different to
include in another discussion.

Citação :

Just finished reading the editorial you are refuting. Kaleb makes many
valid points, however, even as a whole they do not add up to a win. Not
nearly. First off, even if Sony sells more PS3s in its planned ten-year
life cycle than the Xbox360, that doesn't mean it wins this generation.
They must sell more systems during 'this, current' generation. If
Microsoft (and/or Nintendo) has already moved on and begun the next
generation, that means this one has ended. Tally the votes, give Sony
and Nintendo an extra year to account for Microsoft's one year head
start and that will be the results. A new generation means the PS3 is
then old-gen and it's continues sales no longer count.

Yes,
the Xbox360 has a huge failure rate. RRoD was and still is a great
problem for many... but you know what? Most of these people still
purchase/replace and continue to play Xbox360 regardless. Only a few
have jumped ship in frustration. Most continue on because they want to
play the games they've purchased.

Kaleb's point that the PS3
is 'capable' of the same online service as Xbox live is valid, yes. But
capability is meaningless if there are no results. If they continue to
support it as a secondary or low priority feature, they can claim'
'capability' all they want. It won't boost sales.

Yes, Sony
has a huge library of First Party titles coming out this year compared
to Microsoft. But aren't these the titles that were supposed to be out
in the first and second year? If it's taken this long for them, how
long will the next batch take? Microsoft will continue to produce their
titles at a steady pace until they're ready to focus on a new system,
meaning the Xbox 360 will continue to have more First Party titles
overall and keep pushing systems moreso than the PS3.

Other
than Blu-ray capacity and greater power, the PS3 has no advantages and
will likely lose the war. Sony is beginning to play more and more like
Nintendo of old (and the current Nintendo due to the lack of Third
Parties gaining any real ground on the Wii). They are selling a system
to those who want to play Sony games. Microsoft sells a system for
those who want to play Microsoft, third party and online games.

Citação :

So... basically you're changing the definition of 'console'. The Wii
has games, but because they are purchased by grandmas (an no, they
don't just play Wii Sports, they do in fact pick up and play Mario Kart
Wii, Mario Party 8, and various puzzle/family games... which are still
games just like they were on the NES and PS2) and not by the
traditional 12-17 and 18-34 male demographics. Which also redefines the
term 'game'. An interactive graphical software is only a game when
played by the traditional demographic? So these grandmas purchasing
Wiis like they're going out of style aren't the driving force to a
'win' in a console generation? I thought these were 'console wars' not
'software wars'. Oh, right, the Wii isn't a console because grandmas
play them. So all the 12-17 & 18-34 males who actually use the Wii
and enjoy the software on it are playing non-games on a non-sole.
Basically, the once majority of video games users that may now be a
minority due to the broadened market, who seem to have no say in what
gets made as all manufacturers are moving to court the new broadened
market are still the definitive voices in who wins. Basically, anyone
outside the traditional category is not considered a person, thus their
vote doesn't count, or they just plain aren't allowed to vote.