While he states up front that it will take months to determine the success of PS3, Wildstrom declares Sony's new console a winner on the gaming front -- a verdict I take exception with because of a simple admission he makes halfway through his write-up: "I'm not much of a gamer." During his short time with the PS3, he experienced how the controls work for Tiger Woods 07, Resistance: Fall of Man, and Genji: Days of the Blade -- and not much else.
I enjoy reading Wildstrom's weekly columns, as he spends a lot of time reviewing personal media products that focus on movies, music, and photos. Ironically enough, he says the PS3 comes up short in these areas, and he's not impressed with it as a home entertainment device. Instead, his praise for the system is based solely on its gaming prowess.
Even recommending the PS3 for consumers who "have the budget", and are willing to pay "at least $100 more than an Xbox 360", has faulty logic. First off, if you expect to have a PS3 before the end of the year, the difference will be significantly greater than just a few hundred dollars (and the cost has been even higher for those who've been mugged, beat up, and shot). Secondly, how can a system be considered a winner on gaming merits alone when it's currently "a bit short on games"?
So, does the PS3 really "got game"? Potentially, but people that don't (like Mr. Wildstrom) are not really qualified to decide.
From the same BW issue: Can the "Father of the Xbox" make Microsoft hip?