Sony's Phil Harrison: Don't judge console by launch titles

Its simple:

Good launch titles can make a huge difference (See: Wii, Xbox 1, NES)

But poor launch titles really don't kill you (See: PS2, 360, Genesis)

Wow, lawrence... your comment hurt my brain.

Yeah, me too sheppy.

Do you people know how to read and write? And if not, why are you trying? You just make yourself look stupid.

Repeat after me: TXTspeak is not english.

Bullettooth said "show me 1 just ONE game for the 360 MADE at 1080p, (not upscaled) and 60 fps.. like the ps3 did AT LAUNCH, (NBA07) if the ps3 was indeed bad it wouldn't be able to do this.. but what you're saying is that is"

This is a misleading statement. While nba07 can run at 60 fps and 1080p it comes at a severe hit to the 60 fps. In other words if you try to run this game at 1080p the frame rate drops periodically below 60 fps. It can run smoothly at 60 fps but only if you run the game at 480i which is a significant drop in graphical quality. Check the website reviews that are out there if you don't believe me.

@Crono

I don't even think that was TXTspeak. I think that was more akin to what happens when two cats are having violent sex on your keyboard while you're trying to reach through claws and goop to type your message.

LOL Sheppy has 2 PS2's, no wonder he's defending them so much.

Come on now. The PS3 is a total disaster. And people who own all 3 aren't winning, unless you count owning mediocre Nintendo-clone games on a super expensive video player. My PS3 paid for itself once I was done selling Japan imports in the UK so I feel no need to defend such a lacklustre system.

NBA 07?!?!?!?! It's at 1080p and at 60fps but how come NBA 2k6 and NBA 2k7 looked better?

Also Lawerence slow down when you type you might give your little fat fingers a chance to catch up with your mush brain.

Other than the 360 failure rate. The 360 is head and shoulders above the PS3 in every category. It's just plain fact.

sheppy,

I like how you "fix" someone's poor written English while making a typographical error yourself. I think you owe that guy an apology, lol.

Also, you mentioned that the PS3 got a better version of Oblivion, though I'm not sure what your point was. Was it to prove the PS3 has superior hardware or to prove that programmers are lazy? If it was the latter, I think that's a no brainer (it's business), but it isn't fair to use a game that was ported nearly a year later to a multiplatform release. Bethesda had a LOT of time to tweak their game for the PS3's hardware. If your point was to prove PS3's superiority, again I don't think it's a fair argument due to the time issue. Plus, Bethesda went on record saying all that they improved for the PS3 version could (and would eventually) be done on the 360. Not only that, but the 360 version has more content available (Shivering Isles), so I would still consider the 360 the console of choice for Oblivion.

I know you're a multiconsole guy, and that's great, I'm glad you have the cash to be so. For me, the PS3 has a host of issues that I can't stand, including price, the decade old ergonomics of the SIXAXIS, the poor online implementation, the lack of compelling games and the fact that Sony's electronics haven't been in the consumer's best interest to purchase for the last 5-10 years. I honestly have no reason to buy a PS3 at this point or in the forseeable future, especially since some of the issues I have with it won't change. The ONLY point I would conceed to the PS3 is hardware stability, however the system is still too young to really know. I for one have had my 360 red ring once, which was over 18 months after purchase. Fifty bucks later and with the Talismoon Whisper fans, I was back in the game. So I'm not one of the ones who hasn't had any problems with the 360, but I still prefer it over any other console. If hardware reliability was truly what mattered to consumers, then the original Xbox would've outsold the PS2 hands down. But the fact is that last generation, the poorest hardware in terms of reliability AND performance sold more than the other systems combined. In fact, the poor reliability most likely aided in this feat. So while I agree that the PS3 at this point looks more relaible than the 360, that should not determine even the average consumer's prefered console, let alone a "true gamer's". With that mentality I expect you to be a die hard Xbox 1 fan for consoles and Mac fanboy for computer gaming- both of which I doubt you are...

sheppy,

I like how you "fix" someone's poor written English while making a typographical error yourself. I think you owe that guy an apology, lol.

Also, you mentioned that the PS3 got a better version of Oblivion, though I'm not sure what your point was. Was it to prove the PS3 has superior hardware or to prove that programmers are lazy? If it was the latter, I think that's a no brainer (it's business), but it isn't fair to use a game that was ported nearly a year later to a multiplatform release. Bethesda had a LOT of time to tweak their game for the PS3's hardware. If your point was to prove PS3's superiority, again I don't think it's a fair argument due to the time issue. Plus, Bethesda went on record saying all that they improved for the PS3 version could (and would eventually) be done on the 360. Not only that, but the 360 version has more content available (Shivering Isles), so I would still consider the 360 the console of choice for Oblivion.

I know you're a multiconsole guy, and that's great, I'm glad you have the cash to be so. For me, the PS3 has a host of issues that I can't stand, including price, the decade old ergonomics of the SIXAXIS, the poor online implementation, the lack of compelling games and the fact that Sony's electronics haven't been in the consumer's best interest to purchase for the last 5-10 years. I honestly have no reason to buy a PS3 at this point or in the forseeable future, especially since some of the issues I have with it won't change. The ONLY point I would conceed to the PS3 is hardware stability, however the system is still too young to really know. I for one have had my 360 red ring once, which was over 18 months after purchase. Fifty bucks later and with the Talismoon Whisper fans, I was back in the game. So I'm not one of the ones who hasn't had any problems with the 360, but I still prefer it over any other console. If hardware reliability was truly what mattered to consumers, then the original Xbox would've outsold the PS2 hands down. But the fact is that last generation, the poorest hardware in terms of reliability AND performance sold more than the other systems combined. In fact, the poor reliability most likely aided in this feat. So while I agree that the PS3 at this point looks more relaible than the 360, that should not determine even the average consumer's prefered console, let alone a "true gamer's". With that mentality I expect you to be a die hard Xbox 1 fan for consoles and Mac fanboy for computer gaming- both of which I doubt you are...

@Geo "PS3 may win the movie format but never never in games"

Given the choice, I'm sure Sony considers the movie format more important than games. Here's a bit of a history lesson: Sony launched Blu-Ray in response to the official DVD forum choosing Toshiba's IP. HD-DVD was the official successor to DVD, but Sony was envious of the license fees that Toshiba was going collect on HD-DVD, so they launched Blu-Ray. So tempting are those licensing fees, they even burdened their game system with Blu-Ray in the hopes of boosting the format. And if the PS3 loses its battle against other game system but Blu-Ray wins the format war, then Sony still wins overall. There's a lot more going on behind the scenes than just selling video game consoles.

BTW, I really hate joystiq's comment system. Stupid double posts...

"LOL Sheppy has 2 PS2's, no wonder he's defending them so much."

Ummmm, when was the last time you SAW a White PS2? Tell you what.. Region locking sucks. I pretty much killed my last PS2 with a modchip so when I needed to replace it, imports dropped enough that I could snag one. So I have a silver (US) PS2 and a white (Japan) PS2.

that's ok Spartacus, that was a good post.

not necessarily saying sheppy, but most PS3 cheerleaders haven't even noticed that their arguments are now the same exact arguments of Xbox1 over PS2.

only back then, the Xbox1 was clearly technically superior to PS2. 3rd party games AND 1st party games looked better than PS2. and from the very beginning, not "when they finally got a handle on it". unlike today with PS3 and 360.

it's like those NFL commercials "get your story straight"


.

@Leobebes "NBA 07?!?!?!?! It's at 1080p and at 60fps but how come NBA 2k6 and NBA 2k7 looked better?"

Because effects and quality are more important than resolution... Many PC games have configurable options that let you set the resolution and image quality, so you could run 1920x1080 on a three year old video card when all the effects turned off, basic geometry, and low resolution textures. But few people do that. Most people would choose a medium resolution with better quality settings.

1080p does not mean better looking graphics, but Sony chose to make that game for 1080p because they can advertise "1080p" easier than they can advertise the shader effects and filtering that actually make prettier looking images. In reality, 720p games can look better than 1080p games because they have more power-per-pixel for effects and filtering.

It's like cameras... they all advertise mega-pixels, but the sensor type and lens have a bigger effect on image quality than the number of pixels! My cell phone's camera has the same mega-pixels as a digital camera I used to use, but that says nothing about the image quality, because the digital camera had a CCD verses the cell phone's CMOS sensor, and the digital camera had a proper lens. Understand?

hey sheppy - you're a smart guy. HUGE Sony fan, though not a stupid one.

but - I'll bet you a large amount of money that if Oblivion was developed the other way around (first PS3 then 360). you'd see similar improvments - given the extra time.

Don't get me wrong. I do think the PS3 is powerful, though I also think the 360 is equally so.

I'm so tired of hearing about the PS3's potential.

"show me 1 just ONE game for the 360 MADE at 1080p, (not upscaled) and 60 fps.. like the ps3 did AT LAUNCH, (NBA07) if the ps3 was indeed bad it wouldn't be able to do this.. but what you're saying is that is"

First of all, 1080p wasn't prevalent when the Xbox 360 launched. Blu-Ray wasn't available. Nor was HD-DVD.

Just because the Xbox 360 did not have 1080p titles available at launch doesn't mean the hardware isn't capable of supporting it, nor does it mean you cannot have 1080p supported in software.

The first 1080p title for the 360 was Virtua Tennis.

If I'm not mistaken, Forza 2 runs at 60fps, supports 1080p, plus it can operate on multiple displays.

sheppy,

I think you are one of the better posters here, but you have been sneaking shots at the 360 and praise at the PS3 since before either one even came out. You're not a ravenous fanboy, like me at times, but you definately got a little bias in you. Stop trying to hide it. It doesn't make you look smarter or make your arguments somehow better.

I like all three systems, will own them (just need a PS3), but after all of the hype and promises and fanboy rants about the PS3 leading up to launch, and its current game situation, I have a hard time thinking of the PS3 as anything but a failure so far and giggle to myself when I even think of buying one.

I just did it again while typing this post. I have owned all Sony consoles and can honestly say that I would not have time to play its three exclusives, two of which seem meh, with all of the exclusive and multiplatform games coming out on the 360 this summer.

@64 Evan

You are so correct. People are so cought up in 1080p and think it is so great when it reality it isn't anything special. It goes on into the old thinking the bigger is better.

One point here that proves this is Pioneer's new 8G Plasmas. The picture quality kills anything out there now and guess what? It is only in 720p with 1080p coming later in the year...

http://www.canadahifi.com/comments.php?id_entry=161

"We were initially led to believe that the Pioneer, like most of the TVs in this comparison, was a 1080p TV set. But at the very end of the demo, we found out that in fact it was Pioneer’s XGA (768p) panel that we were watching. Why did this panel appear to display as much detail and resolution as the other TVs in this test? Pioneer claims that 1080p resolution cannot be resolved by the average person when sitting further than an arm’s length away from the screen (for a 50-inch or smaller TV) – everyone of us sat much further from the TV than this and hence we couldn’t tell the difference."

Maybe I should just leave the Oblivion debate alone, but I'm feeling reckless.

I presume that the PC version of Oblivion (like most PC games) gets updates at least somewhat regularly, so I think a good way of testing your hypothesis, Supino, would be to compare the PS3 and PC versions of Oblivion.

@ Jake & Digi Smalls

Add me to your Xbox Live friends

Smoke Dawg 187

To all those who complain about hardware failure, it only costs $60 for the Xbox 360 warranty that comes with the system. I think the people saying $150 are liars.

@ lK

you say the xbox was a success right lol.. both the xbox and gamecube got pawned by the ps2.. 25 million is not exactly success its only 4 mill more than the gamecube so check what you say next time

@38 Agreed. I've returned my 360 for repairs for the 4th time. Good software, not a very reliable console.