singard

I have both the PS3 and XBOX 360 -- I love my PS3, and the first-party titles are great. However, the third-party titles -- particularly COD: W@W -- have not been as good on the PS3 as they have been on the 360 in my opinion. W@W had a lot of technical bugs -- especially a well-documented game save corruption bug -- that made it difficult to play. It looked great, though and mapped well to the PS3 controls.

One could probably blame Activision for any issues regarding COD: W@W. They certainly seem to not take the PS3 very seriously as a platform. However, only Sony seems committed to putting the extra effort into making AAA games for the system -- inFamous, Killzone 2, Resistance 2, etc. With a few notable exceptions (such as MGS4), third parties almost always half-ass their approach to the PS3, and that's a big problem.

It seems to me that this guy is trying to pressure Sony into cutting prices so that they'll sell more systems and people will buy more games. I agree that a price cut is in order for the PS3 -- I want it to succeed, and I want to see more and better games on it. The only way that will happen will involve expanding the user base.

The article featured the usual desperate Sony fanboy talking points. The sad fact is, the Sony suits couldn't do a better job arguing for their machine, so they're lucky they have all this free online support.

Objectively speaking, Sony's PS3 strategy is the same losing strategy they employed for the PSP. Why did the DS crush the PSP internationally? It's simple really, the DS does a great job of playing games -- that's Nintendo's focus on the product, and that's why it's successful. The PSP is a media device that plays games, along with movies, music and other media. Sony wants it to be all things for all people, but in reality, people just wanted a Playstation handheld -- they wanted a portable system aimed at adults.

PS3 has the same problem. What is it? It's a supercomputer! It's the world's cheapest Blu-Ray player! It's a gaming console! It can accept every type of flash media! Yes, the 360 has many of these features (DVD player, Windows Media Center hub, etc.), but they're treated like value-added features and not what the machine is about. At it's core, the 360 marketing strategy says what it is -- a game system.

Sony, with all its various divisions dependent on the PS3's success, wants their machine to be anything but a dedicated gaming console. And that's where they're floundering -- in their design decisions, in their marketing, in their hardware shortages. If they weren't pinning their Blu-Ray hopes on the PS3 and went instead with DVD-ROM, they'd have a more plentiful supply, and 99% of gamers would be happy.

Yeah, line-up's are purely subjective. I don't really want to play ANY of those games. My favorite line-up for fall is the 360's:

Gears of War
Splinter Cell 4: Double Agent
Rainbow Six Vegas

I'm sure there's plenty of Sony fans who would disagree with my picks, but those are the games the I personally want to play.

It's funny, I was just thinking today about how I really don't want to pick up COD3. I've played WWII games since the original Wolfenstein 3D and the original Medal of Honor. I did the math, and if you count Wolfenstein 3D, Medal of Honor, Medal of Honor Allied Assault, Medal of Honor Spearhead, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Battlefield 1942, Call of Duty, Call of Duty 2 and Brothers in Arms, I've played 10 WWII shooters. That's a lot.

"Fall of Liberty" looks interesting in concept, but I don't know if I really want to shoot alternate reality Nazis, as I've probably killed a million Nazis in games set in the real world. I think it's time to give the genre a rest for a while.