as far as i know, the PS3 has been an engineering fiasco. originally the idea behind it was that it would eb cheap to make and insanely powerful. It would accomplish this through Cell a revolutionary new processor sony was developing in conjunction with IBM. They thought they could use cell to render every major calculation necessary, from AI, to physics to graphics. After a while they discovered Cell can't render graphics for shid, it's hard to program for, and its very dificult to produce, yields are as low as 10%. Since then they've downgraded Cell, and lisence d nVidia to make their GPU. Nvidia decided to base their GPU off of the then top off the line G71 architecture which was being used in their GeForce 7800 cards for the PS3 and dubbed it RSX. A year and a half later, nVidia declares the 7900s obsolete and launches the 8800s, a week before the PS3s debut. The 8800GTX, outperforms two 7950GXs, a 7950GX2(by nearly 50$ in some cases, though in others the 7950GX2s do fall ahead, but it's 4 chips against 1) essentially being two 7900GTs. In lay mans terms, that means that in many cases, a single 8800 could outperform four 7800s and by significant amount. Also, nVidia lowered the clock speed on their RSX by about 10% http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1671_11.html in short... PS3 has had a very tough past, costs about 50% more than originally projected, doesn't perform as well, has had relatively little time for developers to create games for it, and is apparently a bitch to program for. compare the overall performance of the PS3 to the xbox, as it is right now, it seems the PS3 has a weeker GFX solution and a stronger CPU solution. Further more, it has dedicated RAM which is faster than the xboxes, but since it only has two 256mb slabs of RAM, over 1 slab, it's harder to program for.
But remember this is the first batch, and you know sony they will improve on there misteaks and get it and make it a whole lot better.
True, but in the first one (the only one I read) he doesn't mention once an error. Just features, or lack there-of, that he didn't like.
I would have to disagree with you here. In one of the articles you posted yourself it clearly states that however the processor isn't as good as they assumed it to be, it is great for graphics. I'm assuming that you are one of the people that say they would rather buy a good computer instead of a Ps3. After all the console is only meant to play games right ? Then why does it matter your music doesn't keep playing. I'd actually find that extremely anoying if I was playing a game and all the sound went mixing up. That's probably me because I don't play FPS's on consoles though. A HDMI cable is sold seperatly. I think that every post regarding the add-ons and extras for the xbox360 not made by me states how it is great that you are not forced to buy them and that they are sold seperately. And after all, 5% of all people owns a tv capable of full HD ? Plugging in your wireless controller the first time... the agonizing pain, you have to plug it in to charge it anyway so that's not a very big con. The article also states that in terms of hardware it is indeed better then xbox360 and that the graphics of the games he played, all ports and launchtitles are pretty equal. So this only means there is still room for improvement. The only actual con in that article is the friendslist. Not in my opinion because I don't do much online gaming. I'd much rather play FEAR or HF² on my computer then on a console. But compared to xbox live it doesn't seem to be that great. You get what you pay for I guess. It's not like the actual online gameplay has more lag or doesn't look as good because the friendslist suck. Sony could have put more time into polishing that but after all, it is free.
Wow that's too bad. I never like to see a videogame company do bad since it ultimately hurts us more than them. But I think the blame falls on Sony's shoulders for this one. They really had only one option when dealing with the 360 and that was to make the PS3 seem like the second coming of gaming. Why? Because the biggest thought going through peoples head's was, "I have a 360 why would I want a PS3?" So Sony over hypes their system and like Halo 2 discovered, fall short and the fans gets angry. Honestly, I think Sony should have just said "Here is the PS3" and they would have done fine. Let the brand sell itself.
Free or not, its crap, all the ports from the 360 have had worser reviews because one reason, the online sucks on ps3. You can say your not into online gaming but there are millions of people who are so this is where the 360 leaves the ps3 trailing
i read the whole Arstechnica review and its kind of depressing right now it feels like sony made some big mistakes, and considering that sony actually looses money for each ps3 sold it kind of sounds like the ps3 is just totally screwed
