nytimes.com— "Howard Stringer, you have a problem. Your company's new video game system just isn't that great." Interesting to read this type of review from the New York Times.
Nov 20, 2006View in Crawl 4
Sony deserves every bit of abuse they get.They promised a machine that would be better than anything on the market.They did not even come close. The xbox 360 may be a year ahead, but that says more about microsoft's ability to plan and bring product to market.Sony had the extra time to get this all figured out. They were delayed because of BLURAY laser availability (or so they say), so why does nothing work as well as the 360? They had an extra year to work on the software. The fanboy excuse that you can't compare them because the PS3 just came out is invalid. They not only had all that extra time, they also saw what worked well on the 360...and they still screwed the pooch.The other key factor is that everything except first party games will be ports of the xbox 360 version. That means the cell processor is no better than the 360's triple core CPU, yet the 360 GPU is far superior.
--->SilentBobSCDon't forget BetaMax! hahahaI agree that MS added features through updates just as Sony can but the Xbox 360 was a complete system with well thought out components....the integrated online service, downloading of trailers, game trailers, demos, arcade games, etc. And I definitely agree about the Xbox 360 controller. Much, much better than PS3 or PS2 or PS1. I have always hated the Sony controller esp the D-Pad. And its way too small. But thats just my opinion. And whats up with not being able to connect the controller to a PS3 without the cable. Helloooooooo - what genius thought of that one. New idea - look at the Xbox 360 first. Then make improvements...not back step. All it would take is a connect button on the console and on the controller just like the 360. Oh well I can't wait to hear what PS3 fanboys have to say."I paid more so its better""Its future proof"Yeah ok if that future definitely has Blu-Ray in it which is not likely based on Sony's track of propietary formats. Time will tell but if I was a betting man, I would put my money on the 360. Have to applaud MS with doing a great job on it.
The new york times isn't very good even at its primary role as a news service, why should I give two f**ks what they think about video games? Thats like reading gamespy for editorials on the war in iraq.
What NY Times failed to mention was that he didn't spend anytime online with the system. Sure it has a bunch of things that are annoying and they need to fix, but those are all very minor firmware updates. Why do you think they held back their most promising titles. The best part about the ps3 is the ability to have very large multiplayer games going on with no lag at all, which the xbox360 failed to deliver... dont get me wrong i love my 360, but Sony made a great system and its only going to get better. So stop hating on Sony and go get Resistance Fall of Man and join me in a 40 player blood bath.
From what I've read, this article seems to nitpick at the more minute flaws of the PS3 carefully avoiding the more important issues that a real review would address. The author doesn't even address the "main" issues PS3 currently suffering from (such as lack of games, developer support, etc.). Instead he argues about all the minutiae of the general experience, such as not being able to play while downloading, no music in games, etc. Most of these being software flaws that can be easily fixed. As I see it, the author is doing this because either: A) He doesn't see any real bugs with the PS3 (which it does have), and must therefore complain about things such as the UI, or Online Store (which has just opened and is most definitely going to see updates in the future) or B) He doesn't really know what he is talking about. The fact that he brags that he has played thirteen PS3 games over the week and yet doesn't comment on any of them only helps my argument. If you really look at it, this isn't a real review on the PS3 at all: it's more like a small Gaming Blog's list of "PS3's Top 10 Things That Bug Us," usually released a week or two after the "real" review. In fact, the idea that about 90% of his arguments can be fixed with a simple firmware update almost makes this entire "review" pointless. Instead of complaining about how you have to spend less then a minute to connect your PS3 controllers to the PS3 via USB (He actually complains about doing this), he should be addressing PS3's major flaws such as the instable future of Blu Ray, lack of developer support and games, etc. Seriously, I really don't care about all the things he rants about, I want to know how it plays games, how it runs them, the online aspect of them, what Blu Ray is like, the quality of the picture on Blu Ray movies, and such: not this pointless crap.
Closed AccountNov 20, 2006
Sony deserves every bit of abuse they get.They promised a machine that would be better than anything on the market.They did not even come close. The xbox 360 may be a year ahead, but that says more about microsoft's ability to plan and bring product to market.Sony had the extra time to get this all figured out. They were delayed because of BLURAY laser availability (or so they say), so why does nothing work as well as the 360? They had an extra year to work on the software. The fanboy excuse that you can't compare them because the PS3 just came out is invalid. They not only had all that extra time, they also saw what worked well on the 360...and they still screwed the pooch.The other key factor is that everything except first party games will be ports of the xbox 360 version. That means the cell processor is no better than the 360's triple core CPU, yet the 360 GPU is far superior.
amg55njNov 20, 2006
--->SilentBobSCDon't forget BetaMax! hahahaI agree that MS added features through updates just as Sony can but the Xbox 360 was a complete system with well thought out components....the integrated online service, downloading of trailers, game trailers, demos, arcade games, etc. And I definitely agree about the Xbox 360 controller. Much, much better than PS3 or PS2 or PS1. I have always hated the Sony controller esp the D-Pad. And its way too small. But thats just my opinion. And whats up with not being able to connect the controller to a PS3 without the cable. Helloooooooo - what genius thought of that one. New idea - look at the Xbox 360 first. Then make improvements...not back step. All it would take is a connect button on the console and on the controller just like the 360. Oh well I can't wait to hear what PS3 fanboys have to say."I paid more so its better""Its future proof"Yeah ok if that future definitely has Blu-Ray in it which is not likely based on Sony's track of propietary formats. Time will tell but if I was a betting man, I would put my money on the 360. Have to applaud MS with doing a great job on it.
almadielNov 21, 2006
The new york times isn't very good even at its primary role as a news service, why should I give two f**ks what they think about video games? Thats like reading gamespy for editorials on the war in iraq.
maxo1128Nov 21, 2006
So you think they're lying? Its not opinionated. Its fact. Besides, look at all the quotes from people who DO know video games in there.
beernutz14Nov 21, 2006
What NY Times failed to mention was that he didn't spend anytime online with the system. Sure it has a bunch of things that are annoying and they need to fix, but those are all very minor firmware updates. Why do you think they held back their most promising titles. The best part about the ps3 is the ability to have very large multiplayer games going on with no lag at all, which the xbox360 failed to deliver... dont get me wrong i love my 360, but Sony made a great system and its only going to get better. So stop hating on Sony and go get Resistance Fall of Man and join me in a 40 player blood bath.
mrstylzNov 21, 2006
...
negativenancyNov 21, 2006
From what I've read, this article seems to nitpick at the more minute flaws of the PS3 carefully avoiding the more important issues that a real review would address. The author doesn't even address the "main" issues PS3 currently suffering from (such as lack of games, developer support, etc.). Instead he argues about all the minutiae of the general experience, such as not being able to play while downloading, no music in games, etc. Most of these being software flaws that can be easily fixed. As I see it, the author is doing this because either: A) He doesn't see any real bugs with the PS3 (which it does have), and must therefore complain about things such as the UI, or Online Store (which has just opened and is most definitely going to see updates in the future) or B) He doesn't really know what he is talking about. The fact that he brags that he has played thirteen PS3 games over the week and yet doesn't comment on any of them only helps my argument. If you really look at it, this isn't a real review on the PS3 at all: it's more like a small Gaming Blog's list of "PS3's Top 10 Things That Bug Us," usually released a week or two after the "real" review. In fact, the idea that about 90% of his arguments can be fixed with a simple firmware update almost makes this entire "review" pointless. Instead of complaining about how you have to spend less then a minute to connect your PS3 controllers to the PS3 via USB (He actually complains about doing this), he should be addressing PS3's major flaws such as the instable future of Blu Ray, lack of developer support and games, etc. Seriously, I really don't care about all the things he rants about, I want to know how it plays games, how it runs them, the online aspect of them, what Blu Ray is like, the quality of the picture on Blu Ray movies, and such: not this pointless crap.
ggiiiNov 22, 2006
"held back"?You mean "Couldn't release their most promising titles in time, even though they had an extra year to do so."-.-