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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/arts/20game.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

[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 :p

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

[nhlhockey]

That article was written by another XBOX fanboy. My friend is one of them. They bash Playstation any chance they get. I don't understand why XBOX fanboys all follow the Playstation scene very closely more so that Playstation users themselves. I don't like the XBOX and I don't follow its scene at all. I think deep down XBOX users all have Playstation envy. Its the only explanation.

[Shadowblind]

I still think the PS3 is far overated. Im not really rich so I cant afford $600 of electronics

Another thing: If this was writen and published, I doubt the writer was just saying this to make the PS3 look bad. He/she most likely tested it over and over and came to this conclusion.

[F9zDark]

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

You say that yet only point out the release day and the Xbox360's retarded hard drive feature? Don't debate with me unless you have an equal or significantly more amount of evidence to prove your claim.

The release date issue is just BS; the only markets that really matter in terms of the PS3s success are Japan and the US. And the Xbox360 HD point you suggested, doesn't mean shit either; opening your 360 voids your warranty; opening your PS3 doesn't. So yeah, remove your HD from the Xbox360 but forget about getting it repaired for free...

[Makaveli777]

I guess its just fun to kick the mighty while they are down. Let hope sony can get back up with a the haters kicking.

[Darksaviour69]

about the 360 hard drive: You just push a button to remove it, that is, you don't open the console. Next time check you facts

teraflop speed: both number are Theoretical Peak Performance, which are never achieved is real life/ in an actually game. Its just BS that both companys put out to impress people.

You can't compare spec like that number to number as every components is very different from each other.

for a very details technical look in the ps3 vs 360 read this (http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1).
its a very good article, and unbiased. Over all both the 360 and ps3 have there own pros and cons. But he did point out that the 6 cells (one cell is used only for the OS and can't be used for games) are more powerful than the 360 3 PPE's but the xbox 360 are more robust and easier to program for.

now, potentially the ps3 can produce "busier" games than the 360, but very complex and accurate proraming is need to use all 6 cells at once, at their max. The question is, how hard is it?

[mnuhaily22]

PS3 is so nice, how can he insult it like that, he should be shot.

[F9zDark]

about the 360 hard drive: You just push a button to remove it, that is, you don't open the console. Next time check you facts

teraflop speed: both number are Theoretical Peak Performance, which are never achieved is real life/ in an actually game. Its just BS that both companys put out to impress people.

You can't compare spec like that number to number as every components is very different from each other.

for a very details technical look in the ps3 vs 360 read this (http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1).
its a very good article, and unbiased. Over all both the 360 and ps3 have there own pros and cons. But he did point out that the 6 cells (one cell is used only for the OS and can't be used for games) are more powerful than the 360 3 PPE's but the xbox 360 are more robust and easier to program for.

now, potentially the ps3 can produce "busier" games than the 360, but very complex and accurate proraming is need to use all 6 cells at once, at their max. The question is, how hard is it?

Well that article is certainly informative and interesting. Hadn't known it was as complicated as that...

But even though you mention the Xbox360 hard drive being removable, isn't it proprietary, that doesn't allow for upgrading without buying Microsoft hardware?

[Darksaviour69]

if you mean you have to use a Microsoft hard drive, then yes. Is that not the same with the ps3?

having said that you can attach (near) any external HD, fpen drive etc to the 360 but that's only for mp3 and videos etc, but not game data. I thought it was the same with the ps3

back in the mega drive and snes days it was easier to compare systems as they were far less complex, but these days, you can judge from raw numbers.

[ElRazur]

You dont have to use sony's official harddrive. Iirc, you can use the Seagate hd or whatever hardrive you want.

[Darksaviour69]

for saves, gamer profiles etc?

the reason saves a locked to the MS hard drive is to stop cheating with achievement points (even though people have got round it, MS have plug a good few holes)

[F9zDark]

You can use any drive you want, so long as it fits the specs and one site even made a hack that allowed them to use an 'incompatible' drive and it worked perfectly without a problem.

About game saves, I haven't a clue. Perhaps locked saves will be put on a memory stick.