Thoughts Of A PS3 Owner

[neverendingwhitelights]

Let me open this first by not saying I'm a Sony fanboy. I'm not fiercely loyal to them or anything of the sort, the other systems out there have just always done something that was enough to make me not like them. But I'll get into that in a second.

The PS2 dominated last gen, except for the Xbox had a great online component, whereas Sony's was kind of more of a, "Well, let's try this", also the PS2 came out before online was really a huge deal, so Xbox got to come into it fresh. I remember having to buy an online adaptor to even go online with the PS2, so it wasn't something they had planned from the beginning, whereas Xbox did. This led to theirs being much more centralized (from what I read) and cohesive. Nintendo meanwhile completely ignored the whole thing and sat in the corner twiddling it's thumbs.

Now, keep in mind I did not own a PS3 until just recently. Do I play it? No. Not really. I played through Resistance, I play the demos that they release of the upcoming games, and enjoy those. Downloaded a couple small games and enjoy them as well (right now Puzzle Fighter). Their online is much improved from the last gen, they now have a central place for everyone to go, it's not just on a per-game basis, which was all they could really do at the time. They hadn't build the console with online in their mind as a main feature. This time they know it will be, and are showing it.

Okay, so the people who have used Xbox Live say this, and this is what really grinds my gears, "Xbox Live is better". OK, how long has Live been up? How long have they had to work things out and get it running as smooth as it does? It came out 2002, so what 5 years? How long has the PSN been up? Less than 1 year? Are you really going to compare the two at this point? How would Xbox Live have held up against the PSN if we were to travel back in time and look at it? It would have been about the same if not worse. You can't expect Sony to know how to do it all yet. They weren't doing it before, it was the game makers that were doing the online back then.

I am very pleased with what is given to me. Sure XBL gets many more demos and things, but again to reiterate, THEY'VE... BEEN... DOING... IT... LONGER!

I expect that soon they'll be on a more even platform with regards to their online capabilities, specifically once Home gets released. Home is one of the best ideas Sony has had in a while, and I'm surprised that Nintendo wasn't trying to do something like this with the Wii. You get a Sims-esque aspect to the online, and it's more social than XBL. As far as I know (I admit, I have no experience with XBL), it's geared towards the more hardcore gamers, whereas it seems with Home, Sony is going for the middle ground. The people that don't play every day, the people that just want to chat perhaps, then maybe pick up a game with a friend or two that they just met. This just seems smarter to me.

Not that I like online anyway. I am about the opposite of Alex, in that I don't like playing with other people. Or more specifically AGAINST other people. Maybe it's just me, but everytime I go online, it seems like every single person can whoop me 311 ways with one finger. Admittedly, I don't play a lot of online, and I don't really get into learning specific games exponentially well (save for Guitar Hero, and any other rhythm based game, which just comes natural), but still online never seems fun to me because I'm always getting beaten. I wish that they could even it out so that the people who are better are easier to kill, and the people who are worse are harder to kill, that way everyone is kinda on an even playing field and the game gets much more fun and interesting to veterans and noobs alike. Playing with people though, as in a friend, or someone I know does seem fun, and thus I'm looking forward to games like Army of Two and Rock Band where I will get to meet people in Home, or friends I already know in real life and get together and have fun, as opposed to just getting beaten down.

This is why I didn't get a 360, because that aspect of actually finding a new friend who you can really enjoy playing with doesn't seem like it'd be that easy to do. Not to mention the cost, it isn't much, granted, but when you've got someone like me who doesn't really go online all the time that seems like highway robbery. I have so many things going on that I may not be able to game online or play WoW for months at a time (incidentally that's why I play Guild Wars, no recurring fee there either).

Plus what does Xbox really have that's not multi-platform? Mainly because I think Sony created the perfect gaming controller, because ever since I held the first one, everything else just isn't comfortable, and thus no matter how many platforms it's on, I'm gonna want to play it on Playstation because the controller is just perfect. And how many of those games aren't going to (likely) come to the PC as well? I'm not interested in Halo, I don't get Halo, I played a bit of 1 and gave up because I couldn't even get any farther in a level because the place was so big I had no idea where to go. And played Halo 2 a bit recently on the PC, and gave up on it because it was just repetitive, it didn't innovate like Bioshock, it didn't engross me like Doom 3, it was just boring. I'm sure the multiplayer is great when you have a bunch of cool people to play with, but I never do. I have 2 friends, one who lives in nostalgia land and still plays SNES and SEGA all the time, and one who lives about the same way I do which would make it rough to setup a good time to play.

That to me is why Home looks great is that I can pop in, find someone that sounds cool, talk for a bit, jump into a game like Rock Band and have fun. (Speaking of, I will completely avail myself to the TRS guys if they need a 4th. I have no doubt that I'd be able to bring the noise, and if necessary, the funk as well.)

And the Wii? Don't get me started. That IS just a novelty. They're going to get the parents, and the little kids, and it's going to act as sort of a gateway system that gets them into others perhaps. But it has no long-term playability, their games just aren't that way. I haven't played one, but can you say, wrist pain? Arm pain? Broken TV's? No thanks Nintendo. Why don't you stop remaking the same dozen or so games over and over and come up with something original (like LittleBigPlanet) and remind us why we liked you so much in the first place?

OK, sorry about that, I had to get that rant out there into the world. It was eating my mind up.

[poltah]

"also the PS2 came out before online was really a huge deal,"

The Xbox made it a huge deal. And yes, it's been out longer. But really I don't care why it's better, it's better.

[filch]

"also the PS2 came out before online was really a huge deal,"

The Xbox made it a huge deal. And yes, it's been out longer. But really I don't care why it's better, it's better.

Exactly. The fact that Live has been out longer doesn't invalidate the fact that it's better. I don't see why that's a component of the argument for Sony.

[johnnysix]

The fact that PSN is not as mature as Xbox live is irrelevant. We're looking at two products that exist in the same market and are competing against each other. Sony has had, at the very least, since Xbox Live began, to get it's game plan and infrastructure in order. I have not seen PSN, so can not offer any direct comparison, I'm basing this on this forum post alone, using maturity of the service as an excuse for an inferior product is simply letting Sony off the hook.

As for the controller, I'll agree, the Playstation controller is an absolute classic piece of design. However, I'd ask you to get some hands on experience with the 360 controller. I think most people would agree that Microsoft has really stepped up in this area since the first xbox controller. I think anyone who's used it for an extended period of time would say it's pretty close to the Sony controller in terms of comfort and layout.

Also, I think you'll find that right now, the 360 has more exclusive titles than the PS3. The arguement about future releases is a good one, however, the 360 has already had a great run and it's owners have already got great value from the system. Microsoft has chosen to concentrate on this years releases in it's marketing, but that doesn't mean the games aren't there for next year.
If anything, I think your cross-platform argument actually works more in favor of the 360. The PS3 actually seems to be loosing exclusives.

Having said that, I have no doubt that the PS3 is a great system, and something i'll probably buy in time. It's just that right now, it's too expensive and doesn't have the games. I know a LOT of old PS2 junkies that have purchased 360's because the system really has hit that same sort of low price point market that the good old PS2 used to dominate.

[darknessgp]

The fact that PSN is not as mature as Xbox live is irrelevant. We're looking at two products that exist in the same market and are competing against each other. Sony has had, at the very least, since Xbox Live began, to get it's game plan and infrastructure in order. I have not seen PSN, so can not offer any direct comparison, I'm basing this on this forum post alone, using maturity of the service as an excuse for an inferior product is simply letting Sony off the hook...


You need to see the PSN. I've seen both the marketplace and PSN, and IMO I think the PSN has a better interface, feels more web-based (cause it is) and I love the fact that it uses actual dollars instead of some made up points that convert in a way making it so you almost always have points left over, though PSN does do almost everything as $2.99 instead of $3. so there is always a penny left over.

In any case, I only see most people complaining about the selection of videos, game, etc. in which case, I'd say them only being out for a short amount of time is shown in that their selection is fairly limited. However, they do decent updates every Thursday, usually a few movie trailers, game trailers, small games, and at least 1 demo (the last update had 3 demos). I definitely wouldn't say it is "letting Sony off the hook" it's more about understanding that they are not going to have years of content, the system itself though I would say is about the same level, and the only complaint would be any issue that are caused because it is web based.

[nobodysleeps]

First off, thanks for a great, opinionated first post. I've never really had the diligence to go into my opinions that far in the forums, which is why this reply to your post will be a horrible, rambling, incoherent mess.

yes, Xboxlive is pretty good. I'd say from playing Tekken Online(which is the only game I've played online on PS3 so far...Calling All Cars was empty) Xboxlive will give you a game and keep you in that game for longer. No drops. Xboxlive is 50 bucks, for essentially a fraction of the amount of better performance than the PSN can offer.

I'm paying 50 dollars a year for what is essentially a slightly better connection. And Achievements.

You can download games and share them up to 5 times with your friends PSN. Last night, I got a 30 dollar Tekken Online game from my friend...free and he got Calling all Cars and Super Stardust. And Sony's cool with that. That's 50 dollars worth of free games already between the two of us. Awesome. Sony is much more generous with their services and what they allow the consumer to do and to not do(hard drive/.media center)

I'm kind of just rambling right now.

[stubadub]

It makes sense why PSN wouldn't be on par with the quality of XBox Live (I'm not saying it isn't, I have no experience with PSN), but as a consumer I want what is the best and not what has the potential to one day be on par with the other services. I have heard many people complain that it isn't up to the quality of Live, so I'd want to experience it before giving it the thumbs up.

One thing that would be of concern with me is the potential lack of 3rd party online gaming support. In the last generation Xbox consistently had online support in there games because they had a platform available that users were paying to support. I have read that they actively encourage 3rd party developers to do so on the 360 by providing the servers to support these online games. Because Sony's service is free they leave it up to each company to eat the expense of providing the backbone. Supposedly this is why Virtua Tennis 3 has online support on the 360 and not the PS3.

I didn't realize Sony let you share games you buy. What are the limitations for your friends once you share the game with them?

[nobodysleeps]

It makes sense why PSN wouldn't be on par with the quality of XBox Live (I'm not saying it isn't, I have no experience with PSN), but as a consumer I want what is the best and not what has the potential to one day be on par with the other services. I have heard many people complain that it isn't up to the quality of Live, so I'd want to experience it before giving it the thumbs up.

One thing that would be of concern with me is the potential lack of 3rd party online gaming support. In the last generation Xbox consistently had online support in there games because they had a platform available that users were paying to support. I have read that they actively encourage 3rd party developers to do so on the 360 by providing the servers to support these online games. Because Sony's service is free they leave it up to each company to eat the expense of providing the backbone. Supposedly this is why Virtua Tennis 3 has online support on the 360 and not the PS3.

I didn't realize Sony let you share games you buy. What are the limitations for your friends once you share the game with them?

besides Warhawk, there are no limitations to what your friends can do,feature wise with the game. my friend got Tekken 5 Online...downloaded it onto my system with their PSN account...and now it's on my PS3. I can play online with it and play all modes of the game just fine. And he can play my Super Stardust and Callign All Cars no problem.

Warhawk makes it so that if one person plays it on one console..you have to wait 24 hours to play it on a different console. I think this is the restriction for warhawk. Feel free to correct me.

You can have 5 different downloads of a game. I'm assuming this means after letting 5 friends download it.or any combination of redownloading or what not...you have to buy it again to download it again. Say if you ran out of disc space and you deleted it for something else and wanted to play it again. That probably counts as another download. I don't know for sure that this is the case, but it makes sense to me.

[cab00se]

Mainly because I think Sony created the perfect gaming controller, because ever since I held the first one, everything else just isn't comfortable, and thus no matter how many platforms it's on, I'm gonna want to play it on Playstation because the controller is just perfect.

I'd have to disagree with you on that, I used to love the PS controller, but I think the 360 controller is so much better (aside from crappy d-pad), just fits your hand perfectly and no uncomfortable stretching to reach the analogue stick.

People have just got used to the PS controller as it hasnt really changed in nearly 10 years.

I've tested my theory with non game playing people who have no experience with either controller, and xbox controller does get the vote for being more comfortable.