Sony: it would be "undesirable" for PS4 to launch significantly later than the comp

[Sufi]

Which are also services.

but then your argument completely fails.

Because if anything, Sony has positioned themselves as a software company this generation (games) than the rest.

Look back at your post, you have to decide what you're trying to say.

[Inzane2050]

Microsoft is doing much, much a better job being a software company than Sony.

And Sony didn't even really focus on software this generation until after they saw how their approach on hardware was backfiring.

[Sufi]

He's talking about games as well. As an OS company, yes they're doing incredible and will continue that pattern. Sony still has the edge in game software.

[Inzane2050]

He's talking about games as well. As an OS company, yes they're doing incredible and will continue that pattern. Sony still has the edge in game software.

Game software is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

Microsoft is actually outdoing than Sony in game software by about 2 to 1. Games like Crysis 2, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, etc, are good examples of that.

[Sub-stance1]

but then your argument completely fails.

Because if anything, Sony has positioned themselves as a software company this generation (games) than the rest.

Look back at your post, you have to decide what you're trying to say.

No it doesn't. Because if you look back at this gen you can see where there focus remains. Yes, they still have games but so does the competition.Games are a given.We know that both consoles will have their blockbuster 1st and 3rd party software. Now, take a look at the other services and where they still remain in that area. The things that will set them apart will be those services. For instance, MS adding skype to xbox live will be a good boost. Plus the way they are always improving the features and function of the dashboard. Those things matter and its something sony continues to overlook. Also with the security breach, it showed that their focus was not on software. Software is more than just games. We wanna know what they(sony) are doing to improve functionality and services on PSN as well as other areas.

[Sufi]

Game software is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

Microsoft is actually outdoing than Sony in game software by about 2 to 1. Games like Crysis 2, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, etc, are good examples of that.

I wasn't talking about sales.

No it doesn't. Because if you look back at this gen you can see where there focus remains. Yes, they still have games but so does the competition.Games are a given.We know that both consoles will have their blockbuster 1st and 3rd party software.

That's the problem, when it comes to games, you have to look far back into the generation to see when MS was coming out with more games than Sony.

The trend is far different.

Let's put it this way, a PS3 at $199 would sell more than the 360 at the same price. Granted you get more value as far as hardware with the PS3 and that may be partially why it would sell more, however, I don't think hardware would be the only reason...I think it's very partial.

It's due to game software that PS3 has more demand.

Now, take a look at the other services and where they still remain in that area. The things that will set them apart will be those services. For instance, MS adding skype to xbox live will be a good boost. Plus the way they are always improving the features and function of the dashboard. Those things matter and its something sony continues to overlook. Also with the security breach, it showed that their focus was not on software. Software is more than just games. We wanna know what they(sony) are doing to improve functionality and services on PSN.

I agree that MS would always have an edge there. It's like saying if MS ever put out a better hardware than Sony...I wanna see that day, seriously, I do.

MS has a lot of experience in the OS industry and it definitely shows in their setup.

Though overall the PS3 has more demand because of the hardware value and more importantly, the game software selection (also the fact that they keep pumping out games).

P.S. We know PS4 will at least have PS Vita's functionality but how much more will they incorporate? I'm not sure and honestly I think the difference may still be the same as we see between PSP and PS3. A good amount but not by a lot.

[Inzane2050]

I wasn't talking about sales.

Then clarify what what you mean by "software company."

[Sufi]

Then clarify what what you mean by "software company."

Actually I was asking Sub the same thing.

I figured I didn't need to clarify it when I didn't mention sales or how much something sold over the other. We were talking about the amount of games available on both consoles.

[Sub-stance1]

That's the problem, when it comes to games, you have to look far back into the generation to see when MS was coming out with more games than Sony.

Maybe disc games but if coun't xbox live then no.

Let's put it this way, a PS3 at $199 would sell more than the 360 at the same price. Granted you get more value as far as hardware with the PS3 and that may be partially why it would sell more, however, I don't think hardware would be the only reason...I think it's very partial.

I don't know about that. Yes you would get a BR player but that's really not offering a whole lot when stand alones are so much more affordable now. MS has sold over 60 mil this gen with less blockbuster exclusives so it shows that services are also an important factor.

I agree that MS would always have an edge there. It's like saying if MS ever put out a better hardware than Sony...I wanna see that day, seriously, I do

. In the end it wont matter who has the better hardware. We know both of them will have pretty much an equal amount of power next gen. Like I said before, it will be the services.

Though overall the PS3 has more demand because of the hardware value and more importantly, the game software selection (also the fact that they keep pumping out games).

Most people buying consoles nowadays don't care about hardware value. Here in the US, it seems that the 360 still has the demand despite of the games library.

P.S. We know PS4 will at least have PS Vita's functionality but how much more will they incorporate? I'm not sure and honestly I think the difference may still be the same as we see between PSP and PS3. A good amount but not by a lot.

That's my point. With sony, we don't have clear answers. Its clear what MS is doing They are starting to focus on areas where they are considered to be weak and that's with number of 1st party exclusives/studios. Sony put themselves in a bad position in the beginning of this gen because they put too much focus on the hardware and not enough for services. That is one area that they must improve on.

[Sufi]

Maybe disc games but if coun't xbox live then no.

Now we're comparing retail games to minigames?

Not to mention, I suppose PSN isn't that far off from Live when it comes to game content so again, there's little difference...retail is a completely different thing.

I don't know about that. Yes you would get a BR player but that's really not offering a whole lot when stand alones are so much more affordable now.

Sony has been closing the gap since the beginning of this generation at a much higher price tag and a lot less games coming out in the beginning years...I'm positive that PS3 would have more demand if the price was the same as 360's.

MS has sold over 60 mil this gen with less blockbuster exclusives so it shows that services are also an important factor.

Which is why I mentioned that services come at a close second. It's not the primary factor though. You need games first and then services to compliment them.

In the end it wont matter who has the better hardware. We know both of them will have pretty much an equal amount of power next gen. Like I said before, it will be the services.

Well, I'm not even talking about power. More like efficiency, all-in-one package, that sorta thing. But yea, I also don't think hardware is a big factor. Thus why I mentioned that it's the least important thing out of games, services, and price.

Most people buying consoles nowadays don't care about hardware value. Here in the US, it seems that the 360 still has the demand despite of the games library.

It has the demand because it's cheaper than the PS3. And yes, people do enjoy Live services. I think the price is a bigger factor though.

All in all, hardware value does matter but definitely not as much as games or services. It's definitely a factor though.

That's my point. With sony, we don't have clear answers. Its clear what MS is doing They are starting to focus on areas where they are considered to be weak and that's with number of 1st party exclusives/studios. Sony put themselves in a bad position in the beginning of this gen because they put too much focus on the hardware and not enough for services. That is one area that they must improve on.

Well, it's really all about perspective, isn't it? So far Sony has proved with PS Vita that they are taking care of services. I personally would be happy with Vita services on the PS4 but of course I would welcome more efficiency and, yes, I would want it to be better than Vita's functionality because it would be on a home console (much more powerful).

In the end, they're showing good signs as far as services. MS is announcing that they will be focusing on exclusives again...they haven't shown anything yet but obviously they have to work on that or they can't sell their next-gen console.

I don't think either of them are being negligible about it. It's pretty even so far.

[Soldier 95B]

That's the problem, when it comes to games, you have to look far back into the generation to see when MS was coming out with more games than Sony.

I am not seeing that being the case though. They seem to be releasing an equal amount of games from what I have seen.

Let's put it this way, a PS3 at $199 would sell more than the 360 at the same price.

I imagine that might be true in Japan and some countries in Europe (as they already do). But the 360 sells so well because of the games and Xbox Live.

Granted you get more value as far as hardware with the PS3

Depends on what you consider valuable for you. Some might find value that you get a BD player with the PS3. While others might find more value in getting 5 USB ports, IR sensor, and more HDD space. The value of the perception depends on the users needs.

I agree that MS would always have an edge there. It's like saying if MS ever put out a better hardware than Sony...I wanna see that day, seriously, I do.

Seems that the PS3 Slim and 360 Slim are pretty much identical in hardware quality now, which is nice.

[Sufi]

I am not seeing that being the case though. They seem to be releasing an equal amount of games from what I have seen.

Explain.

Are you also comparing retail to network games?

Both come out with more or less about the same amount of multiplat games and PS3 comes out with a plethora of exclusives...my rough guess would be about 10 or so quality games on the PS3 more so than the 360.

I'd like some clarification on what you mean here.

I imagine that might be true in Japan and some countries in Europe (as they already do). But the 360 sells so well because of the games and Xbox Live.

Sure it's because of games and Live first and foremost but I think the 360 wouldn't have such a large edge in NA, were it not for its price.

If I recall correctly, the arcade/core 360 was the most popular SKU in NA...recently they showed general search trends for Black Friday and the 4GB Kinect model was in the top 10, no sign of the other models.

Depends on what you consider valuable for you. Some might find value that you get a BD player with the PS3. While others might find more value in getting 5 USB ports, IR sensor, and more HDD space. The value of the perception depends on the users needs.

If you wanna go that way then we can also add the ability to change HDD, not having a brick, and bluetooth to that list.

I didn't realize 360's SKU had more space at the same price

Seems that the PS3 Slim and 360 Slim are pretty much identical in hardware quality now, which is nice.

I'm quite surprised by that. They also did a good job with the Slim model...the fact that they don't control the manufacturing side...they must've spent a lot of money to get it done right.

[MATRIX 2]

Explain.

Are you also comparing retail to network games?

Both come out with more or less about the same amount of multiplat games and PS3 comes out with a plethora of exclusives...my rough guess would be about 10 or so quality games on the PS3 more so than the 360.

I'd like some clarification on what you mean here.


Sure it's because of games and Live first and foremost but I think the 360 wouldn't have such a large edge in NA, were it not for its price.

If I recall correctly, the arcade/core 360 was the most popular SKU in NA...recently they showed general search trends for Black Friday and the 4GB Kinect model was in the top 10, no sign of the other models.


If you wanna go that way then we can also add the ability to change HDD, not having a brick, and bluetooth to that list.

I didn't realize 360's SKU had more space at the same price
I'm quite surprised by that. They also did a good job with the Slim model...the fact that they don't control the manufacturing side...they must've spent a lot of money to get it done right.

Pretty sure the 4GB was searched more because the discounted deal was offered in more location than the 250GB discount.

As for the rest: HDD is changeable, there isn't anything wrong with an external power brick and Bluetooth would have limited usefulness (same version as the ps3).

[sainraja]

Pretty sure the 4GB was searched more because the discounted deal was offered in more location than the 250GB discount.

As for the rest: HDD is changeable, there isn't anything wrong with an external power brick and Bluetooth would have limited usefulness (same version as the ps3).

For the HDD, it comes down to price (PS3) vs convenience (360) -- some people will pay more for convenience.

As for bluetooth, you are just downplaying it because the 360 does not have it and you also need to understand why Sufi brought that point up to begin with.

On the PS3 the bluetooth is very important. The first being the controls and second being accessories such as headsets, keyboards etc.

[radgamer420]

For the HDD, it comes down to price (PS3) vs convenience (360) -- some people will pay more for convenience.As for bluetooth, you are just downplaying it because the 360 does not have it and you also need to understand why Sufi brought that point up to begin with.On the PS3 the bluetooth is very important. The first being the controls and second being accessories such as headsets, keyboards etc.

Yeah, the bluetooth is a very nice feature imo.

[Soldier 95B]

As for bluetooth, you are just downplaying it because the 360 does not have it and you also need to understand why Sufi brought that point up to begin with.

On the PS3 the bluetooth is very important. The first being the controls and second being accessories such as headsets, keyboards etc.

Overall, Bluetooth was a good choice, but it set me back some bucks unfortunately. I had to buy a Harmony Adapter in order to use it with my Harmony One remote since the PS3 didn't support the industry standard I/R. With all of my equipment being in a media room behind the home theater area, it's a conscious choice I had to make though. Not something that the typical PS3 owner would have to worry about.

Bluetooth on the PS3 or Wifi on the 360 all work the same for me, be it with keyboards, controllers, headsets, etc.

[Sufi]

I like the bluetooth technology but I don't like the bt headsets. It's a hassle to recharge them and they're pretty shit quality for the most part.

I know the official one is supposed to be good but then you still have the recharging thing...it's enough hassle to recharge my controller every 10 hours of play time.

Got a PS Eye and I use that for chat whenever I need to. Works fine for me, especially since I use headphones.

What I love about BT though is that it's radio-based so you don't have to point it towards the console for it to work. Not that wireless devices do but if you have the Blu-Ray remote, it works in any position.

Also, I do like the option to have a BT mouse or keyboard...might not use it but it's a good option to have and of course, I'm sure a lot of people have BT keyboard/mouse setup for their PS3, instead of being usb-based (that is, if they have a kb/mouse hooked up).

[jj03]

i use a keyboard and mouse...

.

[sainraja]

Overall, Bluetooth was a good choice, but it set me back some bucks unfortunately. I had to buy a Harmony Adapter in order to use it with my Harmony One remote since the PS3 didn't support the industry standard I/R. With all of my equipment being in a media room behind the home theater area, it's a conscious choice I had to make though. Not something that the typical PS3 owner would have to worry about.

Bluetooth on the PS3 or Wifi on the 360 all work the same for me, be it with keyboards, controllers, headsets, etc.

Well, my point was that bluetooth wasn't included in the PS3 just for kicks, to one up the competition. It's an important feature in the PS3 as it is used for the controllers.

Bluetooth adds more to the PS3 than it takes away from it.

Also, keep in mind, the reason the PS3 does not have IR is not because of bluetooth. IR could have been added along side.

Bluetooth did not set you back a few bucks. IR not being included in the PS3 set you back a few bucks...

Unless the two technologies can't co-exist and I don't know of that?

[MATRIX 2]

For the HDD, it comes down to price (PS3) vs convenience (360) -- some people will pay more for convenience.

As for bluetooth, you are just downplaying it because the 360 does not have it and you also need to understand why Sufi brought that point up to begin with.

On the PS3 the bluetooth is very important. The first being the controls and second being accessories such as headsets, keyboards etc.

You need to understand why bluetooth doesn't matter on the 360 (assuming you use the exact same version found on the ps3 (2.0 edr).

Microsoft chose its 2.4GHz proprietary wireless protocol because they were able to make it have the best balance between speed, range, latency and reliability over other wireless connection protocols like bluetooth.

Lets say you want to use an external wireless keyboard that isn't an official 360 accessory on the 360. I believe that you can use wireless usb peripherals with the 360. So that takes care of that issue.

Lastly the ps3 uses the bluetooth 2.0 edr version of the standard. This is inferior to the 3.0 version due to lower data transfer a rates and lack of better power management. Not to mention the 3.0 high speed mode is done over an 802.11 (Wi-Fi) link the bluetooth link is only used for negotiation and establishment.

So there really isn't much of a reason to add it to the 360. It might make more sense for it to be an option on the next xbox, though.

[sainraja]

Who was talking about adding it to the Xbox 360?

All that was said was that the X360 does not have bluetooth and the X360 does not. That's like saying the PS3 does not use 2.4ghz proprietary wireless protocol and it does not.

Bluetooth was added to the PS3 in 2006. Bluetooth 3.0 was introduced in 2009. All you are simply doing here is downplaying a feature that the PS3 has.

Since the PS3 has bluetooth, it's compatible with various bluetooth accessories that the X360 is not, which is an advantage of using bluetooth.

I never suggested that you can't find similar accessories for the X360. You usually need a USB dongle etc.

It's just a matter of ease of use...going back to the HDD implementation. One is convenient over the other which does not = one not being possible over the other..

[Sufi]

i use a keyboard and mouse...

.

BT or USB?