Sony's PlayStation 3 Versus Microsoft's XBox 360 Console in 2009
In this feature we're going to leave all the fanboyism at the door.
Despite the fact that this is a PS3 Web site I do take some pride in knowing that we don't pander to Sony and certainly don't pretend Microsoft don't exist: I personally keep both consoles (and a Wii) at the side of the television and of late it's the 360 that has seen the most playtime, my recent acquisition of PlayTV notwithstanding.
Why? Perhaps it's just a case of catching up with all the Xbox games I've missed whilst hammering the hell out of the PS3 for the last 12 months, catching up with Gears or getting involved with the whole Community Games angle, or perhaps it's just nice to have the option to play all the games released.
But such whimsical fence-sitting doesn't help with this article, which is intended to do just one thing: decide the victor of 2009. Yes, there's going to be an awful lot of educated guesswork here, because naturally we don't know everything that the major players have planned for us this year, but we know one thing for sure: not a great deal will change from 2008.
Sony will still promise the earth, extend the firmware to new realms and delay key titles beyond belief, and Microsoft will do pretty much the same - it's the way things are in the world of consoles just now: get the kids in the playgrounds talking, get the parents buying and the rest will take care of itself.
And what gets people spending more than price? In this cash-strapped economy (thanks, America) we're currently sinking in, the initial price ticket is the one that shouts the loudest. Sure, you can do little spreadsheets to prove that ultimately, pound for pound, the PS3 provides the better value but on the shelves, when Mum is glancing over which console to buy, it's the one that costs £129 that'll shift more than the one that sells £300.
Personally, I bought a launch 60GB PS3 for £425. £425 I didn't really have, and had to save up for a few months, sell pretty much everything I owned and trade-in almost every game I'd ever bought last generation, and I ran a PS2 site so had quite a few.
If the PS3 still cost £425 this article (and this website) probably wouldn't exist. The arrogance that Sony showed when pricing the PlayStation 3 over here still beggars belief, and the whole notion that people will pay that "even if it had no games" still makes me cringe.
Whether or not the ridiculous price had any effect on sales for the first two years we're not concerned with - the PS3 now costs a penny under £300, so that's what we're working with. On the flip side, you can get an Xbox Arcade for £129, less than half the price and although it doesn't come with a hard drive, it is an Xbox 360 and with that £129 purchase you can play 99% of all the 360's games.
So, that's the issue here. Does Sony need to offer a cut-down PS3, sans wi-fi and Blu-ray player, to compete? Sony, and in particular SCEE, have always stuck with the rule that bundles are the way forward, and continue to offer almost the same hardware and just throw in more and more accessories and games to extend the value of the purchase.
To an extent this works, if you're clued-up on what the PS3 offers then £300 with wi-fi (which costs £50 on the 360) and a HD-movie player (which we'll come back to) is a fantastic deal, but recent anecdotal experience over Christmas suggests otherwise: people don't understand, at all. And why would they - what have SCEE done to promote the features of the PS3 on television?
Who's seen an advert that says the PS3 plays the future of HD movies, has free internet gaming and works with whatever network you already have, out of the box? Nobody, so they expect the GAME sales staff to relay this information to the customer instead? Really?
Let's face it, some gamers won't even know that the bundled AV cables don't offer the best picture; some gamers won't have access to a HDTV and some won't even have access to the web. These are the gamers for which price is the main factor, assuming they can play GTA IV and FIFA, and thus the low entry price of the Xbox 360 can only result in lots of sales for Microsoft, and the opposite for Sony. Round one, then, goes to the Xbox.
Much has been made recently of the New Xbox Experience. Compared to the old 'blade' interface it's a huge step forward, one away from pushing the 360 as a games console and moving towards a future-proof, expandable media hub.
Sure, it's not immediately obvious how to find your way around and 75% of the menu options end up trying to get you to spend money, but the consistent look and feel as you drill down the menus works a treat, and the box-arts for everything are really neat.
It's just fast, slick and very un-Microsoft, but it isn't going to sell consoles or decide the 'winner' this year, because at its core it's just another way of navigating the menus, much like Sony's equally (but rather more muted) XMB.
No, the reason the 360's interface keeps gamers coming back is the way that everything on the console is superbly linked and cross-referenced. From anywhere, in any game, a simple tap of the Guide button brings up a cool sub-set of the NXE from where you can manage friends, messages and check things like Achievements, which we'll come back to.
Yes, the in-game XMB does a similar thing, but in comparison the decision to present the user with the entire XMB menu wasn't the best idea - try showing the feature to a non-gamer, or someone unfamiliar with the structure of the XMB and even the option to quit the game requires a bit of searching around. Couple this with the somewhat clunky Trophy implementation and it's clear that the Xbox 360's interface is leaps and bounds ahead of the PS3s.
But, again, how does this translate into winning a console war? Well, when forced to choose between two otherwise identical versions of a new game, which do you go for: the one with Achievements guaranteed and the ability to easily invite friends at a consistent console-level or the one where you might get Trophies and you might be able to work out how to invite your buddies assuming the developers have a) coded the feature in and b) not made it almost impossible to figure it out.
I'll not mention any specific games, but you know who you are. And then we come to the one of the biggest issues I have: the title updates. If a PS3 game requires a patch, it's usually at least 25 MB and you're at the mercy of the PS3's wifi as it slowly crawls across the internet to your console.
The equivalent 360 update? Grabbed in seconds, literally. If you don't think this is an issue, try unboxing a brand new PS3 on Christmas day and playing LittleBigPlanet - if it's not the massive firmware update it's at least one title update - we've heard stories of new PS3 owners having to wait an hour after first putting in the disk before playing.
These things, like everything else, spread by word of mouth. Sony needs to sort out its firmware and game update patching regulations, enforce mandatory Trophies and take a good hard look at what makes the 360's interface so damned user friendly, and that's without mentioning full game installs, a feature that really does silence the critics. Round two? Yep, you guessed it, 2:0.
HD-DVD is dead, thankfully. With a dual-format high definition movie war the only losers were the consumers themselves, having to either edge their bets or stay clear until somebody kicked the bucket.
Clearly, Sony's decision to include the Blu-ray player as standard will have repercussions throughout the rest of the year: the Blu-ray sections in major stores are only getting bigger, the prices are slowly starting to come down and in terms of functionality and performance the PS3 offers outstanding playback of the new format. This, out of all the things in this particular feature, stands out as being a major contributing factor to the recent sales of the PS3, yet Sony are still reluctant to advertise the fact to the masses.
With HDTV penetration on the rise (and we'll bet there's been a massive spike after Christmas) it's the non-gamers that Sony should now be looking towards: push the fact that the PS3 plays this new movie format and no other console does and those sat on the fence might bite.
At £300 for a Blu-ray player alone the new PlayStation is a steal, yet as a games machine alone it looks overpriced. Of course, those of us already sporting the shiny black console under our TV know all this, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Joe Average has no idea, and unless he's blind will not only see the benefits of buying a PS3, but also will then go on to purchase the HD movies in the future.
And if you're in the US you can also watch movies on your PS3, although it's clearly not as developed as the 360's Netflix option. Why we don't have a similar function here in Europe is presumably down to licensing issues and the notion that Sony Europe need an additional six months of time to get anything done, but we will see the option soon.
Microsoft is adamant that Digital Downloads are the way to go, but call me old fashioned: I'd rather have the boxed version on my shelf as part of my movie collection, thank you very much. There's no question here, if you're looking for a reason for the PS3 to win in 2009, the ability to play Blu-ray movies must come into play. Round three: PS3.
And, finally, we arrive at the thing that gamers want the most: games, and it's probably one of the toughest areas to cover because whilst the above is reasonably objective discussion, games by their very nature are subjective and usually encompass much of the fanboy debate as console exclusives are used as the main weapon in the my-console-is-better-than-yours war: Is Left4Dead better than Uncharted 2? Is Forza 2 a better racer than Gran Turismo 5 Prologue?
And then we have the utterly ridiculous cross-console comparison features, normally started by some bored forum member and pushed to the masses by the otherwise readable Eurogamer. Does it matter if the PS3 version of GTA has less pixels than the Xbox 360 version? Does Devil May Cry's slightly-quicker-on-PS3 load times really push that version of the game?
Probably not. However, the recent trend of buying exclusive content almost certainly does. Microsoft's initial gamble with Grand Theft Auto IV's downloadable content (DLC) for a reputed $50M meant that if you wanted the definitive version of Rockstar's latest you bought the 360 version over the PS3 version, and if you didn't have a console and were waiting for GTA, then you'd buy a 360 to play it on.
Naturally, getting hard evidence to support these notions isn't easy, but in the content of such a feature it's not unreasonable to assume that such decisions were made by gamers new to this generation of consoles. Sadly, we're still to see the release of the GTA DLC, although we're assured it's on its way, but such pauses have long term consequences as the recent exclusive DLC for Tomb Raider Underworld don't seem to have had much effect on sales of the game, with the initial batch of PS3 versions outing the rival 360 version.
Games do sell consoles, though, and in the war of 2009 it'll be the exclusive games that finally decide the victor, at least in our idealistic but probably ridiculously naive world. Who had the best games in 2008 isn't relevant here, both consoles had some absolute stormers, but looking ahead to the rest of this year is entirely relevant and we're still ignorant about anything that Sony and Microsoft are holding back from the public eye until E3 or some other game show in the coming months.
What we do know, though, is that Sony will absolutely own the first quarter of 2009. Why? Well, think Killzone 2 mainly, the first person shooter that has been at the forefront of PlayStation gamers since that movie back at E3 2005. Yes, it's been quite a while, but the recent beta and playtests of those fortunate to have spent time with the game have been almost entirely positive, and in terms of system-sellers Killzone 2 is as big as they come.
And then the rest of the AAA titles start to roll in. In 2009, the PS3 will exclusively play host to Uncharted 2, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, inFamous, God of War 3 and Heavy Rain, and hopefully something from Polyphony Digital to test our force-feedback steering wheels. Each and every one of the above has been hyped beyond normal rational levels, with the mere mention of any of them enough to hopefully get gamers not yet on the PS3 wagon well and truly ready to splash the cash.
Of course, Microsoft isn't going to roll over and just let the PS3 walk away with all the bragging rights in terms of software: the 360 will exclusively feature Alan Wake, a follow up to Mass Effect and a new Halo title, but in my humble opinion none of these hold the same weight and we can't see them actually selling machines.
So we're calling this 2:2. The Xbox's interface and pricing may make the 360 an initially attractive purchase, and one that sits happily underneath the television in TSA Towers, but long term, and where it really matters, the games, the PS3 starts to shine through and although this has been said for the last two years, 2009 really is the year of the PS3.
It has to be: gaming has always been where the PlayStation brand has excelled, and it's clear that the developers are really starting to get to grips with the architecture of the machine and that the publishers are getting behind it more than ever before.
We look forward to seeing what happens in 2009, then, and as always welcome your comments on this topic.
More PlayStation 3 News...
I bet that its what we will hear at the End of 2009. Oh well, ps3 is just starting to spin. 2010 WILL be THE YEAR OF PS3. FTW OMG ABRA KADABRA.
I dont know dude. I've 1st bought PS3, then Wii, never xbox. And i am really not happy with the games. The fact that they released Resistance 2, home and LBP in the last 2 month doesnt even out 10 month of waiting for games in 2008. And lets get real, Home is not 1/10 of what it has to be. I barely use it, LBP is fun with friends, but i rather play Wii when everyone comes over. (Resistance is awesome though.)
The only good games in 2008 are GTA4 (that ive also could of enjoyed on 360) and Metal Gear Solid. The only problem with MGS is that ive really hated it. Its rlly not my type of game. Ive finnished it in 3 days and sold it on ebay.
I have a 32 HD-ready sony bravia TV and that i can use with my blu ray player. In my intire life ive only watched 2 movies: James Bond that came with PS3 and The Fantastic 4. And i must be honest, i see no difference with DVD's at all. For me BluRay players and movies are just anthother waste of money and space. I really dont need it at all. There is a great difference between analog and HDMI, but almost none between dvd resolution and bluray res. Atleast not on my 32 inch.
Lets stop *****in and admit, XBOX is a much greater value right now. You dont need bluray to play games. 360 does great without it. You can use wire instead of wifi. You can say "But.. but... the time will come... The time will come when all those extra features will beat the crap out of xbox".
Well, maybe they will, but they probably wont. And while you are dreaming, Xbox owners has already enjoyed full scaled current generation gaming for 3 YEARS now!!
Dont get me wrong, i am very happy with my PS3. But if i would go to the shop 2day. It'll be an xbox with 60gb hard drive and 2 games for 219euro, rather than 80gb version of ps3 with bluray that i dont need and wifi that i dont use for 400euro.
Great article. agree with pretty much everything, except leaving previous years behind, i still got a lot of games in the xbox to be finished/played in 2009 and I sure hope I can get the best outta my ps3 and I do mean games.
I dont care about anything else, its a gaming console, I simply wanna play games and have fun with then, and so far, my favorite has undoubtedly been the 360 but I really hope sonys console will reach its potential before the next xbox arrives.
Could be a hell of a media player but...
I don't own an Xbox. I have a PS3 and a Wii. I totally agree with Antognio here.
With the PS3 I have a BluRay movie player which I don't use. I would prefer to download the movie from the internet at **a fraction of the price**. I never liked movie boxes anyway bc they take up space on shelves. I believe that everything spinning and mechanical is going to be obsolete in the following years. BluRay included. Microsoft is 100% right about digital downloads. All the BluRay movies I own, I have them ripped in my 1 TB HDD.
Here we come to a MAJOR drawback: PS3 CANNOT PLAY MKV's nor SUBTITLES. This is a SHAMING DISGRACE.
Games: Not much time for games. I really like Little Big Planet, it's fun to play with my gf. It would be nice to see PS3 games with controllers like Wii's.
PS Home: It's great, but I got bored with it. I'll give it some time to mature.
Linux/Other OS: Good if you run linux on textmode and use it to crunch numbers, but for every other use, this is the joke of every year from the time PS3 got on the market and on. I would dare to say it's a C-O-N for the average Joe Consumer.
Wifi: Don't use it/need it. Getting enough radiation from my cell phone, anyway...
1GBps ethernet: Great, but what's the point? File-serving? You wouldn't buy a machine that devours 140W on stand-by for serving files, would you?...
DLNA: WTF??? Don't Let Normal Access? Is SMB that hard to implement as well? How am I supposed to grab files from my file server (doesn't support DLNA **OF COURSE**)
Interface: I think the XMB is awesome, highly disagree with the poster. I don't have an Xbox on the other hand though. Still, I find XMB, very practical, easy to learn and use.
CONCLUSION: If I were to buy today a gaming machine, I would get an Xbox Arcade for less than half the price. It seems Sony never learns...
I guess I'm the target audience
On a 32-inch TV, from any distance at all, Blu-ray isn't going to make much difference. We have a 52-inch TV, though, and it does make a difference in our family room. From 8-10 feet, you can see a big improvement in quality over an upscaled DVD. Though I'll admit tha at the far end of the room, around 15 feet, not so much. But we subscribe to Blockbuster's mail service, so Blu-ray and DVD are the same price - I've rented a lot of Blu-rays, and got Iron Man on Blu-ray for xmas.
The Wifi is a big bonus for me, as there's no way I could run Ethernet to where the PS3 is. With the Linux box in the basement, and MediaTomb (free DNLA server), I can stream a ton of music and videos. It'd be nice to have MKV support, but it's not a dealbreaker for me; I can convert nearly any video I want to look good on the PS3.
Linux on the PS3 is currently a toy, I admit, but it's getting better now - they found a way to use the video RAM as system RAM, essentially, so that effectively doubles the RAM available to Linux. Another six months to a year, and it'll finally be something usable.
For a lot of people, the 360 may be a better choice. But for me, the PS3's a media station that also plays games, and we've been enjoying it a lot - it's fun to play LBP w/my kids. As the games keep coming, it'll just get better.
I still see it like:
Wii is a lot of fun with friend
Xbox is a lot of fun in online gaming in HD for a very cheap price
Playstation is just a fancy mediacenter that can play games how and then.
I think Sony risked everything to win the HD format war, and they surely did... One year now since HD-DVD is defunct, and still Blu-Ray market share is very small...
With upscalling DVD players, lets face it, there's not a lot of difference to blu-ray. Most people got a lot of DVDs and are not willing to embrace a new format.
The Blu-Ray is going to kill the PS3, they cant cut prices, the xbox has a clear advantage on everything, from price to more titles.
And in the end, Blu-Ray might kill sony as well, they're throwing A LOT of resources in a media format that may be obsolete in a couple years... I mean, downloadable HD content is on the rise, people really dont care about media. I hate media. Since i bought my first PJB 100 MP3 player with a 4GB hard disk while people had mp3 players with 32MB, i realized how much I hate physical media.
And with this crisis, I dont know, people will spend even less on things like videogames, so we'll see the Wii and the xbox 360 in a clear advantage over the ps3 and its doomed blu-ray drive.
I love my PS3. But I wish Sony didnt rigged it with useless things and a war flag and instead worked the videogame experience more.
While I admit that the 360 is a fine game machine it is by no means leaps and bound better than the PS3, when you want to hate a console nothing anyone says can convince you otherwise so, people would ***** and moan about all those "useless" things that come included with the console like blu-ray, wireless, etc. if they were sold separately although I do agree that the console is stupidly expensive right now.
The 360 came out on Nov. of 2005 while PS3 came out Nov. of 2006, that whole year difference in game production means a lot, while Gears 2 is 3rd generation software MGS4 is second generation and already on par with 360 graphics.
Blu-ray in gaming is still in it's first steps but it's improving rapidly and pretty soon storage will be a problem for 360 when the 5 or 6 disk games start to come out (with an increase on price for the number of disks probably). The true test of this will come late 2009 or early 2010 when FFXIII comes out, if Square-Enix is really pushing the PS3 to create the game and they have no problem making a perfect port for the 360 then I will change my mind about the whole Dvd blu-ray thing.
As for Digital Downloads I agree that it's the future but several things are necesary for it to happen and most don't apply to the 360:
First: A wide distribution of Really High Speed Broadband, I mean downloading a 4GB movie takes forever while I can go to my local blockbuster and rent the same movie for almost the same price.
Second: The 120GB storage of the 360 is not enough for a lot of games and movies and the first thing to go when cleaning up space are the movies so, if we want to watch them again we have to re download them because apparently they can't be backed up on disk and I really can't afford several 120gb Xbox HD drives.
Third: Digital Downloads are already a big thing on PC where the whole movie piracy is rampant so you can get any movie you want for "a fraction of the price" and then safely back it up on a dvd which can be played on any stand alone player and even the 360 or PS3 but it's not quite legal and doesn't have all the bells and whistles of a blu-ray store bought disk (say no to piracy kids hehe).
And I could go on and on.
In the end it's all about the games, that is what makes the real difference not the XMB, Home, Xbox Experience, Digital Downloads or Blu-ray.
I can't really say that 2009 will be the "year of the PS3" or even the "year of the 360" because we don't know that much about those games, Alan Wake could be the best game ever but it could also be crap, the same could be said about Heavy Rain or any other non sequel.
Online the clear winner is the 360, although some may argue that the "free gaming" of the PS3 gives them a little bit of an edge.
No one can really anticipate the surprises that this year will bring in gaming, hell the Wii may get a blockbuster hit and completely destroy every other console, MGS5 could come out exclusively for 360, Square-Enix could go back on their word again and delay the 360 version of FFXIII, anything can happen.
The only thing that is for sure is that 2010 will bring us great games and fanboy wars will keep on raging until either side decides to give up (which i find very doubtful.)
I`m sorry my priorities don`t meet with your approval, but I`ll try not to let it ruin my day.
That article is from thesixthaxis.com, but yeah I think its a pretty good review personally.