New York Times, slates the PS3

[Darksaviour69]

We know that the online community/media, have add a good dig at Sony in the last few months (with good reason). But the main stream media have still been loving the PS3... until now!

The New York Times have posted a review of the PS3 which, generally states the PS3 is a big let down...

Howard Stringer, you have a problem. Your company’s new video game system just isn’t that great.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Sony Computer Entertainment

A view of the screen of “Resistance: Fall of Man,” one of the games for the new Sony PlayStation3.
Enlarge This Image
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The controller of Sony PlayStation 3 looks like earlier ones.

Ever since Mr. Stringer took the helm last year at Sony, the struggling if still formidable electronics giant, the world has been hearing about how the coming PlayStation 3 would save the company, or at least revitalize it. Even after Microsoft took the lead in the video-game wars a year ago with its innovative and powerful Xbox 360, Sony blithely insisted that the PS3 would leapfrog all competition to deliver an unsurpassed level of fun.

Put bluntly, Sony has failed to deliver on that promise.

Measured in megaflops, gigabytes and other technical benchmarks, the PlayStation 3 is certainly the world’s most powerful game console. It falls far short, however, of providing the world’s most engaging overall entertainment experience. There is a big difference, and Sony seems to have confused one for the other....

Full story

[irongiant]

Pathetic review. Another journo who thinks it's cool to have a dig at Sony. All the 360 offers over the last gen is better graphics and sound, the Wii launch games are disappointing aside from Zelda yet the PS3 gets slated. Right.

[jme]

the 360 was'nt perfect in it's launch week either, and the ps3 can still do everything the 360 can + more

[muffinman]

whoever wrote that should be shot

that is a very poor article i hope they didnt pay the guy who wrote it

[F9zDark]

The reviewer neglects to realize quite a bit about the PS3:

-Its inherent use of homebrew via Linux
-Sony's online service is totally free; when people are paid to make service that will earn them money, they tend to work on it much quicker
-The level of technology in the PS3 is higher than the 360.

Really, why should any real gamer take what this reviewer says seriously? Most real gamers have known since the days of PS1 that launch units and their buyers are essentially beta testers...

[Darksaviour69]

The level of technology in the PS3 is higher than the 360.

thats debatable, as the 360 GPU is far more advanced that the ps3's

[DCergo]

thats debatable, as the 360 GPU is far more advanced that the ps3's

And that's debatable too. There are some things Xenos does well, and there are some things the RSX excels at. Neither is the hands down winner, and different developers have championed either - it depends on what your goal is.

[Edshugeo]

The reviewer neglects to realize quite a bit about the PS3:

-Its inherent use of homebrew via Linux
-Sony's online service is totally free; when people are paid to make service that will earn them money, they tend to work on it much quicker
-The level of technology in the PS3 is higher than the 360.

None of these contradict the main thrust of the article; ease of use issues, fun factor, etc.
The second bit is just an excuse. The third bit, about the tech, is actually covered in the excerpt above.

Really, why should any real gamer take what this reviewer says seriously? Most real gamers have known since the days of PS1 that launch units and their buyers are essentially beta testers...

Real gamers maybe shouldn't. But ultimately, if the PS3 is going to be successful, it will need more than "real" gamers. It will need "real" people. The kind who don't pitch tents outside of BestBuy.

[F9zDark]

How is it an excuse? Xbox Live costs money, something most gamers don't have much of. Granted, the PS3 price is not that great considering the point I just made, but a 1 time payment for the system is a far cry better than having to pay 20 bucks a month to play online games with friends, especially considering that its BYOC.

About the tech, here is the specs courtesy of IGN

Processor

PS3: 3.2GHz Cell w/ 7 SPEs
2.0 TFLOPS

Xbox360: 3.2GHz G5 w/ 3 Cores
1.0 TFLOPS

Memory

PS3: 256MB XDR @ 3.2GHz
256MB GDDR3 @ 700MHz

Xbox360: 512MB GDDR3 @ 700MHz
10MB Embedded DRAM

GPU

PS3:550MHz NVIDIA

Xbox360: 500MHz ATi

Best Display

PS3: 1080p Standard
Dual Screen Output

Xbox360: 1080i Optional
Single Screen Output

Network

PS3: 1000BASE-T Ethernet
Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g

Xbox360: 100BASE-TX Ethernet
Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g

Audio

PS3: 5.1 Digital

Xbox360: 5.1 Digital

Wireless Input

PS3: x7 on Bluetooth 2.0

Xbox360: x4 on 2.4GHz RF

Storage

PS3: Removable HDD
40GB
60GB

Xbox360: Removable HDD (we now know its NOT removable)
20GB

Release

PS3: Spring 2006

Xbox360: November 2005

Dimensions

PS3: About 13.5" x 3.25"
Xbox360: About 10.25" x 2.5"

The PS3's processor has a whole teraflop more of computing power than the Xbox360. So no, its not debatable about what is better, the PS3's processor is hands-down, FAR BETTER than the Xbox360's processor.

As well the ram runs at a faster clock speed than the Xbox360's, the video card clock speed is faster and the PS3 is capable of dual display where the Xbox is capable of a single display.

[SnesR0X]

PS3: Removable HDD
40GB
60GB

Xbox360: Removable HDD (we now know its NOT removable)
20GB

Release

PS3: Spring 2006

Xbox360: November 2005
.

wrong, November 2006, and other places March 2007, the ps3 has 20 and 60 GB hard drives, and the 360 hard drive is completely removeable, but there are no others avaliable for it yet. so yeah, don't use really old stats to argue with