Network now...NEWS
Analyst: PS3’s 10-Year Plan Makes Sense
Sony’s plan to support the PS3 for ten years is a smart objective, and something which all platform holders ultimately aspire to.
That’s according to Ed Barton, Games Analyst for Screen Digest. Barton’s comments follow SCE chairman Kazuo Hirai’s suggestions that the PS3’s long lifecycle will ultimately see the console win a majority market share.
While Barton didn’t suggest that the PS3’s projected ten-year lifecycle would inevitably mean it will outsell its competitors, he did bring up the subject of Sony’s encouraging track record.
“When Sony talks about the PS3’s lifecycle, they’re not simply referring to how long the console stays on the market, but also how long Sony’s internal development teams are producing reasons for people to carry on buying it,” he said.
“Seven years into the PS2’s lifecycle and Sony dropped a little-known game called God of War 2 on the Western market. That game, in my opinion, stands up pretty well to a lot of current generation games. Thinking about the level of investment games like God of War 2 required, and looking at how well Sony has supported the PS2 in the latter years of its lifecycle, I think the company has a pretty good record in that sense.”
And while Hirai’s inflammatory remarks on the Xbox 360’s lifecycle quickly saw a backlash in comment sections and forum posts across the net, Barton asks why anyone would want to criticize Sony’s plan to support a console for ten years.
“A hardware transition is a very expensive and traumatic experience for the entire industry and its consumers,” he said. “I don’t see why people wouldn’t like the idea of any of the console manufacturers supporting a platform for ten years.”
“We’ve heard anecdotally from some of the big console manufacturers that the cost of launching a console is in the region of $3-5 billion,” he adds. “I don’t see any enthusiasm right now from any of the console manufacturers to go through through with that any time soon.”
Hardware transitions are also particularly painful for software publishers, Barton adds. “You’re going from an addressable audience of tens of millions to an addressable market of nought. We’ve seen a pattern where publishers’ earnings margins are at their best when the addressable market for a console is at its largest. Those same figures are obviously at their lowest during a console transitional period.”
A ten year strategy for a console should be applauded, Barton says, “as long as platform holders are supporting their consoles in a meaningful way. Which means strong first-party software, a vibrant and constantly-evolving online service, as well as a really interesting and constantly-updated variety of digital media to download.”
“I think if you spoke to Microsoft, they would say a similar thing. I think the reason that Hirai’s comments have been leapt on today is, obviously, there is a lot of sensitivity in the market share debate.”
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
on whether the "PS3 will not last that long", we will have to see what happens when Sony finally makes the Price Drop this year and meassure the boost in sales. But even withouth it the PS3 is still selling decently, just not as good as the other consoles, and i belive will continue to sell like this if good games keep comming in like Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, God of War 3, etc...
10 year life cycle suggests value for money and stability but I didn't think that I would have to wait at least 5 years of it for Sony to start releasing some half decent games that make the most of the hardware (and that's me being optimistic).
I am a loyal Playstation fan but must confess to being narked off by inferior ports (Fallout 3 is a disaster compared to the 360 version and no dlc either), pointless sequels (let's face it, Killzone 2 and God of War 3 will look and sound pretty but hardly extend the already small variety of games available on the system) and uninventive games being pushed in my direction.
Am I the only PS3 and PSP owner who is looking at his / her two consoles wondering what to use them for? I've played the few decent games that have come out, what now? I don't want to use my PS3 as an expensive ipod / digital photo frame / tv recorder....
I agree with everyone else that a 10-year life cycle is a great thing, but it's still a little bit misleading, I feel. If Microsoft launches the next Xbox in 2011 (just to pick a year out of the air) and Sony follows suit with a PS4 the year after (as they felt compelled to do with PS3 when the 360 launched before Sony were expecting it), then 6 years into that 10-year lifecycle, PS3 will no longer be Sony's premium platform. Nothing wrong with that - PS2 will probably still be selling 4 years after PS3 launched - but it does mean that anyone enticed into buying a PS3 at launch under the impression that it would still be playing state-of-the-art games 10 years later will be seriously disappointed. Sony is therefore courting disappointment amongst less thoughtful fans when it comes to launching its next system.
Here's a thought though. Why is it that the big systems all have to launch around the same time and then compete with each other head to head for 5 years? Why couldn't Sony launch PS4 2.5 years after MS launches the next Xbox? Maybe if Sony had taken their time over PS3 and launched it at a more reasonable price point with more settled hardware in Spring 2008, it would have totally taken the wind out of Microsoft's sails. A conscious decision to launch later would also have meant that Sony would have been spared the constant and negative comparisons on total installed base, price, etc, as they could convincingly argue that they weren't part of the same generation so shouldn't be compared directly.
I appreciate that the urgency of the Bluray battle influenced the rush to the PS3 launch, but could Sony maybe do that for PS4? Launch when PS3 hits the 7 year mark, even if that's years after the new Xbox and Wii, and thereby avoid going head to head with Microsoft before PS3 has had time to run its course? What would be the downsides? And why have non-cyclical console releases (i.e. Dreamcast) failed in the past?
"Maybe if Sony had taken their time over PS3 and launched it at a more reasonable price point with more settled hardware in Spring 2008, it would have totally taken the wind out of Microsoft's sails."
I was thinking about this, about how Sony could have gone about releasing the PS3 differently, and this is exactly what I thought. They could have afforded to ride the PS2's coat tails a little longer until a 2008 release and I think now would have been the perfect time to encourage the uptake of Blu Ray through the PS3. Of course this would have been dependent on Sony winning the format war, something which wasn't certain a couple of years ago. The only issue, and this wouldn't have been Sony's fault, would have been the economic downturn which would effect sales.
While a staggered release would seem less like direct competition i'm not sure that's the case, wondrous new control systems aside, any console released significantly later than others of it's generation would have to show a proportionate increase in the quality of it's software (through better hardware) in order to be seen as a worthwhile investment. Also giving rival hardware a 2.5 year head start gives developers a long time to get to grips with the system, narrowing the perceived power gap and making the new systems launch titles look even less appealing.
All this is assuming the older system has not gained an unyielding grip over the entire industry by selling shed loads during it's rival free years.
10 years is a good shout I'd say. There is plenty of power still locked up in that beast to last the fight. I think Sony are in a good position, Nintendo will probably release a new wii sooner rather than later to compete in the graphics dept. I think MS could shoot themselves in the foot if they follow up the 360 any time soon. The PS3 is the most viable console to last 10 years. Not only is it built to last but Sony are reducing the number and cost of the components, a price cut is surely on the cards once they can still make a tidy profit from each unit. The next few years are going to be big for Ps3, the Ps2 will drop from the radar and people will upgrade to the PS3 in their droves. Ultimately does it really bother you if PS3 isn't the best selling console? If I was the only owner then I'd be happy. The quality of games coming through now is great and I'm happy to be an owner and I'll feel the same way in 2016.
Anyone familiar with the Demo Scene and Sonys current PS2 support will understand that Sony aren't being ridiculous when they say they want to support their console for the next 10 years (Why not longer?). Google some demo scene stuff and check out what's being done (still) on Amigas and Commodores. Programming has become an inefficient practice, theres no way to keep up with bleeding edge hardwares true capabilities, and with CPUs maxing the amount of microchips they can have, dual, quad, octo core, the fishtank or hurricane apparatus needed to cool things any bigger than this will just be ridiculous, not to mention the space needed which is not what I look for in a console, I would be happy with the current generation of consoles until quantum comes around. The PS2 is still producing incredible games nearly 9 years into its life cycle (Yakuza 2, Persona 4) which clearly shows that not only is Sony making promises for their current console they have already nearly followed though with the same promise on their last console. I praise Sony (And Microsoft) for aspiring to support their consoles for a long time, it makes absolute utter sense for both me and them. PC's can still be upgraded and specd out if you so desire, but that niche will be filled and the rest of the world will opt for cheap, accessible, user friendly, well supported and possibly a little old consoles which still have graphics that blow the average Joes mind, plus your friends who don't care about the latest greatest gaming accessories might decide the price points so low in a few years they'll jump in! YAY!
A ten year lifecycle for a console is something to be applauded. Unfortunately I'm not sure that the PS3 will last that long. A growing consensus seems to be indicating that the 360 is going to win this particular race (ignoring the Wii of course). At the moment the PS3 is lacking the momentum needed to carry it through to 2016 (long way away huh?) and this is why this situation is different from the last gen where the PS2 became the market leader pretty early on.
I think the more people buying 360's, the less people are going to buying a PS3. There aren't that many exclusives for the PS3 anymore and I never hear any praise for Sony's online service. The only thing the PS3 has above the 360 is the Blu Ray drive and that it doesn't seem to brake down nearly as much. In theory the Blu Ray drive adds a lot of value to the console but in my opinion I don't think people are quite ready to upgrade their television and digital sets to take advantage of that medium. Therefore, that USP is marred pretty quickly. Of course this recession isn't doing Sony any favours either.
I think Sony went in the wrong direction with the PS3 and I think most of it is to do with arrogance. They became overly confident after the PS2 wiped the floor with the competition last generation and the decisions they made when designing the PS3 reflect that.
This is all coming from someone who doesn't own a PS3 or a 360, just a PSP and a PC. I have no real interest either way who wins what but from an outsiders point of view, this is how I see it.
He doesn't seem to understand that the PS3 is not the same as the PS2. The ps2 grabbed the whole market, in comparisson the ps3 is a total failure. Sony cannot afford to support the ps3 for 10 years when the userbase is so small and the attach rate for games is frankly laughable.
Wait people, i think we need to puts some things clear here:
- This doesn't mean there won't be a PS4 in 10 years.
- This doesn't mean the 360 wont last 10 years.
- The original Xbox didn't last 10 year because MS took bad design desions by not owning the internal components of the console, so they could not produce it cheaper than what they have been doing. Now with the 360 they can, they learned from that mistake.
- The PS3 will continue into the 10 years lifespan as planed, as long it is profitable, even if they are positioned into a distant third place. Same goes for the PS2, as long that it sells and there's people interested in buying it (and it's games) they will keep it on the market.
- As long as a console is profitable, there are no real losers in the console race. It's true that the last place will have fewer games, but succesful consoles always have very good exclusive games. Take for instance the GameCube, or the N64. You can't say that Nintendo loose, c'mon, they never report looses, ever!.
- Of course, the winner in the race will have lots of cash, heh =)
While i'm not sure if "10 years" is a concrete target, or just a metaphor for "a longer time then you'd expect, " I think 10 years itself is a bit unrealistic.
The PS2 is into, what, it's 8th year? That's 2 more years still. Granted, the PS2 is still getting attention (though you have to admit, recently, sales of the system and new title releases are starting to dwindle compared to even just a year ago), i have a hard time believing this will go on for another 2 years. If it does, then kudos to Sony. But personally, I can't see another 2 years of support.
As for the overall article, I don't think anyone would argue that as long a lifecycle as possible is in any console makers best interests. The PS2 right now, supplementing Sony's income along with the PS3, is a perfect example of this in action. I don't think any company would NOT be followiing this model, if they could. The problem is having 2 viable consoles that can do this. I believe the PS2 is the except, rather then the standard.
I thought Sony may have finally started learning from some of their mistakes, but this makes it clear at least Hirai has not. The man is clearly delusional. There has never been, and will never be, a 10-year console cycle. Technology does not stand still because it is in Sony's best interest for it to do so.
Think about how dated PS1 games look today if you want a barometer for how this generations games will look if these consoles actually stay around for 10 years. PC technology has already shot past this generations consoles (they always do after about a year) and console gamers will look mournfully at what PC games are able to do until their numbers hit critical mass (when PC game sales start rivaling console sales) and the next console round starts all over again.
If anything, this is just spin from Hirai because he knows Sony can't afford to develop another console, so they're stuck with this one until their fortunes turn. Given a 4+ year console development cycle that means Sony probably can't afford to release a console when the next gen actually arrives (from MS and Nintendo) or this may end up being the last console Sony releases and they'll just ride it out as long as they can.
2 questions
Do you think we will ever see a single console.
Do you think we'll ever see a console that can be upgraded.
I was a staunch PC gamer for ages (hadnt consoled since Dreamcast until i threw my hat on the PS3... ok ok i also have a Wii), i wasnt always at the forefront but i was close behind. Its just too damn expensive to play cutting edge and develop cutting edge (ask Crytek). yes PC's push the envelop and i use to brag about that to console only gamers, but theres a trade-off... for the most part with consoles you get more stability and compatibility. All software has bugs but is just easier to develop for a single configuration/architechture. And while theres certainly a limit, more and more i think we are at a point where 5 years in we are going to be seeing efficiency/performance beeing squeezed out of consoles (MGS, GOW2 are examples of stuff that couldnt be done at launch)
@shamanNY - I believe the only way we'll see a single console is if the industry collapses and will only support 1 console (a very distinct possibility with the Atari like parallels the Wii is creating). I don't think an upgradeable console is viable (other than HD).
I agree completely that there are significant trade-offs with PC gaming and that the frustrations and costs of PC are part of the reason it always ends up losing market share. The point of my post was that console gamers who have no intention of doing any serious gaming on PC still follow the market closely and will grow increasingly vocal about wanting those capabilities on their consoles. I'm not just talking about graphics, but also things like A/I, emergent gameplay, etc.
I've been gaming for 30 years and this argument comes up literally every generation. There's always a group of people (usually spurred on by console gaming execs) who say that graphics are as good as they can possibly be and we don't need new consoles. While it's true developers can learn to get more out of the existing consoles, one rapidly reaches the point of diminishing returns with the existing hardware. Without more RAM (something neither system can expand) and support for DX10 (not to mention future iterations we'll see in the coming years) there is only so much developers can do compared to what is possible on PC's or future consoles.
Why is DX10 so crucial to gaming? It can't do anything that is not possible on a non-microsoft system.
I don't think it's Hirai that's delusional mate....
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/hirai-we-continue-official-leaders...
He can be a little delusional. This article shows a bit of the old-school "we're better because we say we're better" attitude Sony had prior to their humbling experience when the PS3 launched to underwhelming numbers. For some reason after the beating the PS3 took this holiday (outsold 2:1 by the 360 for the last 3 months of the year, the most important 3 months of the year) Sony is finding it necessary to put on their BS faces again and spout nonsense (I'm speaking in regards to the article I linked up above). Apparently no one noticed, but Sony is actually leading this generation (According the Hurray, Hirai).
The one thing I do want to add in regards to the actual article this thread is responding to is that factoring the average annual worldwide sales for the 360 and PS3 (roughly 9 million annually) they are actually neck and neck this generation. Not bad, just bad by standards the Playstation brand is used to. This year with the potential strong software lineup and inevitable price drop I can see the PS3 either matching the 360's numbers or surpassing it for the year...maybe.
edit: Have to add this little tidbit of info. To put the Wii and 360's holiday performance in perspective, the Wii didn't outsell the 360 2:1; it was close, but not 2:1 at 2.65 million for 360, 5.0 million for Wii. However, the 360 did outsell the PS3 2:1 (PS3 sold 1.29 million). The 360 actually outsold the PS3 by more than 2:1 which is actually more impressive than the Wii's performance over the 360. I know this has little if any relation to this article, but oh well, gotta brag sometimes. Those are US numbers only by the way.
That means the Wii outsold the PS3 by almost 4:1
Just a little tidbit of info ;)
Ouch, yep. But Sony is the leader this generation according to Hirai.
Honestly Nick if u really wanna get down to the nitty gritty and everyone else can say what they will but facts are facts in alot of ways Sony is in the lead this generation Sony still holds the most market share with its three gaming machines than Xbox and Nintendo combined not to mention the most gaming hours logged is still on the PS2. When you look at it this way he is 100% right whether anyone likes it or not Sony as a whole still has the top spot we seem to forget that just bc a new rig comes out the old ones dont matter but for millions of gamers out there they do and Sony still reigns supreme. If we look at the whole picture Sony is way ahead of the pack and that my friends is a FACT.
Fair enough ryda.
As a famous Jedi once said, "When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view."
Personally I think there's a lot of pointless speculation about the strength of the PS3. The games line-up is getting stronger this year and with an imminent price drop on the cards I'm sure we'll see the PS3 continue to grow.
Will it take off like a scalded cat ahead of the 360 or the Wii, or hold it's head up high in future company - no-one can know that for sure but Sony must have looked at it as a business case and decided that it is a sounds business practice.
From a personal point of view I think Sony need to start supporting European gamers a bit more. Recently I've read about releases in Japan and the US which never reach us over in Europe - both in terms of Software and Hardware. I know they're trying to catch MS in their home market but it does get my goat sometimes.
Still I'm looking forward to this years PS3 line-up, which seems to be a lot stronger this year. In fact I have the same level of excitement for the likes of Killzone 2 & God Of War that I had for Gears Of War 2 (which is awesome).
As for the argument about resolutions - what a load of old cock. I bet most people wouldn't be able to see the difference between the two on the same game.
Yeah, I think Kim took the comment that God of War holds up well to today's standards a bit literally. Of course if you compare some solid looking next gen games to God of War 2 it soundly trounces it but God of War 2 (especially being a PS2 game) looks pretty sharp in its own right. I think he took the comment as if the person was saying that God of War 2 looks as good as 360/PS3 games in general.
And also, resolution doesn't equal good graphics, not at all. You can have a puzzle game running at 1080p (which some do). There's this misconception that 720p or 1080p means the games look better because of it, or they ONLY benefit visually from the resolution. Gears of War 2 or Uncharted (my personal picks for best visuals on each console) would look amazing weather they were running on a 50' 1080p or a 27inch 480p television. Resolution only enhances the picture and gives it more crispness (is that a word?). For God of War 2 to look as it does running only at 640x480 (does anyone know if they were able to get that game running natively in progressive scan?) says a lot.
I think it’s great that the PS1 and PS2 (especially) had long life cycles. The only thing I see there being a problem with that this time around is if by the time the next batch of consoles start coming around the PS3 is still lagging behind or near even with the 360, I don't think Sony would have the luxury of supporting the PS3 so strongly. The PS1 and PS2 had huge leads over the competition when their respective generations ended (or the next generations started). I think the PS2 and PS1 benefited from publisher support well into the following generation's lifecycle mainly due to the installed base lead being so huge with their previous console. If the PS3 doesn't have a PS1 or PS2-like lead at the start of the next generation publishers will have less reason to stick around and potentially more reason to turn their focus to the new consoles. If the PS3 has a 15-20 million console lead over the 360 when the nextbox comes out, I for sure see the PS3 sticking around for quite some time. If it’s pretty neck and neck, I don't think Sony can afford to spare development assets for a previous generation console (at least not to the extent they were able to with the PS2). If the PS3 was smashing the competition this generation like they did the previous 2 there's no doubt in my mind the PS3 would be around for a long time, but that doesn't look like that'll be the case (we still got a good 3 years left though anything can happen).
I'm not trying to be a hater or naysayer, but I think the PS1 and PS2 mopping the floor with the competition had a lot to do with their lifespan being so long, and less to do with Sony's ambition. They're currently not benefiting from PS2-like success (comparing the two at the same point in their respective lifespans) especially when compared to the competition being number 1 and 2 ahead of them.
If i have my facts straight, in response to the PS3 10 year lifecycle MS basically said they intend to support the 360 1 day longer than the PS3.
Now i believe their intentions, and being the leader among the two its definitely doable (if we compare it to the PS2 [attach rate/market share] then yeah MS could be selling the 360 in 2015 and beyond.), but i believe that this is more of a reactionary comment if not strategy, while the PS3 may have been bred with that purpose.
(I completely agree with the author, this does not mean that SONY will be the more profitable or successful console maker... just that they will have the one with the higher longevity)
Now enter my very personal and perhaps uninformed opinion/comments on why MS will have another console before the 10 years are up:
- IT WORKED LAST TIME - They were first to market with the 360, that not the only reason why they are beating the PS3 but its an important one
- THE Wii 2 - I honestly think a new Wii is coming, (Wii 1.5 if you will, which will translate into GC 2.0) seriously though they will throw in the damn harddrive (solid state), add HDMI and better sound options. Ultinately they will shore-up the need for homebrew and the like.
- MARKETING aka THE NEXT GEN - C'mon MS wants to be cool, they want to be cutting edge they cant be stuck with 8/10 yr old technology (this ties the previous point) specially when the Wii just came out with new stuff.
- BLURAY (what if) - Bluray was supposed to be the difference maker, it didnt work (some may say it backfired) but what if in 3 to 5 years it starts to (the running joke among fanboys is that sure FF is coming to 360 but in how many discs, or theres the Kojima assertion that MGS was only possible on the PS3).
Bluray is simply bigger media storage, graphics arent everything i know but some people seem to think so (not talking about you Kim-Naroz i pinky promise) but to that point i also give you sound, effects and AI... i hope that games keep advancing in those fronts. Complex and higher amount of date require more storage or compression. This also speaks to the need to be cutting edge, and Bluray add-ons may work for movies, but not for games.
There... again, never did i say XBOX will lose and PS3 will win
just my opinion on the 10 year cycle argument, and my desire to further the discussion rather merely add fuel to the console war fire.
I wholeheartedly welcome when improvement of graphics really hits a hard ceiling where the amount of minor improvements comes with a high processing cost. There are many parts of the video game experience which are are considered low priorities next to graphics.
On the sound note, here's an interesting interview with someone from THX talking about how Radical (Prototype's developer) is using their sound tools (which have the ability to output a 7.1 audio signal): http://www.gametrailers.com/player/44433.html
I would really like to see more advancements in the AI used in games. My specialization in University was AI, and this is one area most developers are not pushing the envelop. Most it is due to the significant amount of CPU resources, more interesting logic based "planning" algorithms use, so usually industry game AI programming involves using simple techniques with some corner cutting, to try to produce interesting character behavior. The one professor I had which was very interested in how games and the most advanced AI techniques could benefit from each other, and he imagined at some point, there'd be dedicated AI cards, like graphics cards. I don't think that's too far off a possibility for consoles of the future, but it might not be a widespread reality for PCs.
AS much as I make fun of Sony for bringing their "Ten Year Plan" up in every interview (Any one remember the 5 year plan in Big Daddy?) It make sense.
When some companies start talking about a universal platform for games, they think of it in terms of making it easier to develop games for. My thoughts have always been to keep the existing platforms on the market longer so that developers can learn them better and develop better games.
Just like a good cheese or wine, they only get better with age.
The only other option is to make the change from one platform to the next as seamless as possible. This is one of the failures of the PS3 in my eyes. Development on the PS2 and the PS3 are so drastically different that it made it a requirement to keep the PS3 around longer.
Kim is both ignorant and biased dont mind him we dont.
A career in game journalism is not for him then as the sense of biasedness (in any profession) makes me sick.
I remember reading that Sony was in a rush to get the PS2 started and later realized they lost opportunities by not supporting the PS1 better as well. So, the 10-year plan makes sense.
And while its easy to criticize Microsoft for the Xbox's lifespan, I have to ask how long one should support a system that is losing money hand over fist? Sega didn't (Dreamcast) and I've never heard anyone criticize them. Atari didn't. How many companies called it quits on their handhelds that lost out to the Gameboy family? If Sony had been losing that kind of money with no hope of profitability, they would've thrown in the towel for that generation too. Its simple business.
@ Kim_Naroz
What are you talking about? This story is about gamers looking forward to playing their games 10 year from now on the PS3. Not pissing up useless resolution dimensions! Who gives a fuck!
Don't turn this story into the PS3 Vs 360 bullshit you usually see, let's not even go there.
Stay on topic.
God of War 2 absolutely does NOT "compare well" with today's games...not unless he was talking about the Wii, since both run at lower resolutions of 480p.
If you want to look at some games from the previous generation of hardware that "compare well" with the software in the current generation of hardware, you need to look at the original Xbox.
For example:
Soul Calibur 2 on the original Xbox ran at a resolution of 1280x720p, which is TRUE "High-Definition."
Compare this to the Playstation 3 version of Soul Calibur 4, which also runs at 1280x720p.
Compare this to the Xbox 360 version of Soul Calibur 4, which runs at 1365x960p.
Conclusion: If Sony refers to the Xbox 360 as an "Xbox 1.5" then we can say that the PS3 can be approximately measured as an Xbox 1.2
Surely he meant production value, not graphics... you know there are other things about games besides "pretty"
and wouldn't resolution be a developer choice not the consoles, we almost have it as fact that multi-plat releases usually dont bode well for the PS3 (specially when the 360 is lead)
I believe Tetris had a resolution of 160×140. It stands up well against Lumines, does it not?
Is he referring to gameplay or the less important graphics?
When the price reaches £200, i'll buy it. Too many good games on the system to ignore. God of War 3, fuck yes.