Oh, I definitely agree Sony needs to do plenty of other things to their next system to help win people over, but I feel like even if they made all the right decisions and had a superior product there's still a whole audience of gamers that wouldn't give them any chance if it was called the PS4. I feel like they need to make all the right changes to make an excellent product, plus rename it.

That was just my thought though. Maybe the name wouldn't matter that much.

fred smith, do you even own a PS3? All the things you say are just typical biased, anti-Sony generalizations that many Xbox fanboys spout. You say that "PSN isn't even close to Xbox Live." How is it not "even close?" I've been using PSN for online gaming for 5+ years now, and it has rarely let me down. Does the cross-game voice chat and party system really mean that much to you, that makes it so "far superior" to PSN? I don't think so. In fact, PSN has some features that Xbox Live lacks, such as Cloud-based game saves and the entire Playstation Home community/social network. I agree that Xbox Live is generally better overall than PSN, but the difference is really not that huge; you can play online games perfectly fine on both platforms. And that's the most important part... the gameplay.

You also claim the 360 has the "superior controller for shooters," but that really is entirely subjective. I, and many of my friends, actually prefer the PS3 controller, especially the superior PS3 analog sticks with more precision and less deadzone than the 360's analog sticks. In fact, controller modding companies and stores actually sell PS3 convex analog stick replacements for the 360, claiming to enhance your precision and accuracy for shooters! Just google "Evil Controllers" for one example out of many.

You also act like the PS3's XMB sucks, when it works perfectly fine. Yes, they haven't changed it in a while, but why fix what isn't broken? One could make the argument that Xbox keeps changing their dashboard because it sucks every time (and is actually getting worse with every iteration).

I really question how much you have ever used the PS3 for an extended period of time, if at all, when you spout out these anti-PS3 generalizations and misconceptions. I am NOT saying the PS3 is perfect by any means. Sony made many mistakes this generation. But Microsoft has made many mistakes as well (not least which the RROD fiasco which cost the company billions of dollars). No videogame system or company is perfect, period. However, for whatever reason, Microsoft has recovered from their mistakes this generation and been forgiven more by the press and gaming public more often, than Sony has.

Its not just party chat, its a ton of options.

1.Party chat

2.Single person private chat

3.Send voice messages in game

4.view your friends friendslist, this comes in handy when your looking to add people for clan reasons

5.The ability to appear offline

6.clearer voice chat overall, the voice chat codecs are superior

7.Easier to navagate friends list, profiles and avatar setup

8.apps and XBL shows to show whats coming up as far as DLC or games in general, as well as music and movies. ESPN, free radio and a ton of other options.

9.Feedback system to report cheaters or bad content. You can give or take rep, avoid people for various reasons ect... 

10. Just way more streamlined for competitive gaming, better to look at and easier to use. 

I actually liked the PS2 controller, the PS3 six axis is utter crap and too light and the bottom triggers are crap on the DS3. Try to defend it all you want, but the Xbox 360 controller is superior for shooters, which is why all shooters sell better on the Xbox 360, that and superior online which also offers a safer overall online experience. No hacks going on there. 

I always say PSN users are more casual or in some cases poorer and cannot afford a premium service, there is nothing wrong with that, but don't try to sell me oranges that look at taste like apples. 

I have had a PS3 since 2007, PSN is crapgamer and my Xbox live tag is MoH Crapgamer. I've even had a Wii since launch.

I'm in a unique position because I've always had all the consoles and feel like I'm in a better position to judge.

Sony lost it this generation because for all their power in the PS3, 3rd parties port Xbox versions over to the PS3. Xbox 360 is easier to develop for and it shows. Call Of Duty is usually horrid on PS3, superior versions of games like Grand Theft Auto and Bayonetta as well as the likes of The Orange Box and Skyrim, makes most games better on the box.

Also, like I said earlier, you need to advertise well and Sony sucks at advertising. 

"superior online which also offers a safer overall online experience. No hacks going on there. "

this isnt true at all 

The PS3 controller is better to me I cant stand dislocated joysticks one reason is because your left thumb when moving a character up and right or left your thumb rides the bottom of the joystiq which is anoyying.

Its a myth that people bought all of these new Xbox 360's to replace RROD ones. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft gave out free 3 year warranties on all the Xbox 360 consoles. I had one red ring early on and I certainly didn't go and buy a new one, I simply sent in my broken one for free, got a refurbished one back in like 10 days, a free 3 month card for XBL and a points card as well.

When you take into account that Sony dropped the price of the PS3 in 2011 and it still didn't beat the Xbox 360 in world wide numbers, you get an idea of why Sony is struggling. 

They put all of their money behind a fad like 3-D, they try to capture casual gamers with the "Move" but they fail to market it properly. They even turned down the Kinect tech, which was offered to them first.

As for the games situation, Microsoft overall has MORE exclusives than Sony. Even if you didn't count Kinect exclusives the Xbox 360 saw a ton of release year exclusives that had no other console to come to, like the original Saints Row, Call Of Duty 2,  Condemned and Prey.

As for exclusives and ratings, the Gears series has a better overall Metacritic score than Uncharted. All three Gears Of War games are ranked in the 90's, where as not all the Uncharted games are.

Forza Motorsport is also the best rated racing game of all time and we cant forget Halo, which is a juggernaut all its own.

I think the lack of quality online for the PS3, lack of marketing and general lack of direction all hurt Sony and their PS3. 

60 million consoles is good, but when your coming off console generations where you absolutely dominated all regions and had well over 100+ million consoles sold, its a huge letdown. 

I guess I'll do this one by one.

-No, it is not a myth. It is truth. Microsoft's refurbished Xbox 360 service was terrible. My 360 broke more times than I can count, and every single Xbox they sent back broke within days. I have purchased many Xbox 360's to replace broken ones. As did literally everyone I know who owns one. If my and my friends combined had to purchase 11 Xbox 360's to replace broken ones, the worldwide numbers are obviously much larger.

Square Trade polled nearly 24% of Xbox 360's users have had their consoles break on them. And that poll was in 2009. The number today would obviously be much higer. That is a heck of a lot of Xbox 360's. And can you truly assume that every single one of those gamers sent their console back to Microsoft and waited 2 to 4 weeks for a refurbished one to be returned?

Like I said, me and my friends alone have gone through 11 total.

- Sony did not put "all of their money" behind 3D. If you reseach it, it is incrediblt cheap to add 3D to movies and games. This is why so many games on the PS3 support 3D. It is quick, easy and cheap to add it. Hence why Sony has made such a big push for it. And it was successful, 3D TV sales have been growing steadily, and even Microsoft updated their console to support 3D games.

- Actually, they didn't fail with Move. It has moved 10.5 million units according to Sony. As well as a ton of Move supported games. Many of them core games for the core gamer. And many more Move games are on the way.

- Actually, the Knicet is just an updated version of Sony's Eye Toy, which allowed the same kind of motion controlled games to be played. I actually find the Eye Toy to work better than Kinect. And although Kinect intially sold well, nobody is making any worthwhile games for it. And the games that are being made aren't selling well with few exceptions.

- No, it is not true that Microsoft has "MORE" first party exclusives than Sony. Sony has more. This isn't opinion, this is fact. Look it up. Sony has published 61 games on the PS3. Microsoft has published 51, many of them Kinect titles and downloadable games. Sony's published games are mainly comprised of core titles.

- Actually, your Gears of War comparison isn't true. I just looked it up. The only Gears title that score better was the first.

Gears of War - 94

Gears of War 2 - 93

Gears of War 3 - 91

Compare to Uncharted

Uncharted 1 - 88

Uncharted 2 - 96

Uncharted 3 - 92

So actually, Uncharted typically reviews higher, but that wasn't my point. I am comparing all of them overall, not one single series. However, I do want to point out that you were also wrong about Forza. Where are you getting your info? You just say things without actually checking to see if they are true. That is a terrible way to do a debate. You have to research and provide numbers, otherwise people like me are just going to prove you wrong and ruin your reputation as someone who knows what they are talking about.

The highest rated Forza games, Forza 1 and 3, only reached a 92 on Metacritic. The highest rated Gran Turismo games, GT1 and GT3 have a 96 and a 95 Metacritic rating.

See what I mean, you have to research things first before you say them to make sure you aren't just repeating what you heard some fanboy say. Many fanboys just make things up to try and justify their console purchase to themselves.

They will make up sales numbers, boast about review score, etc without even fact checking. I, for example, own 2 Xbox 360's and 2 PS3's in my home. I play both regularly. My favorite game of all time, Mass Effect, was an Xbox 360 console exclusive. My gamerscore is over 100,000. I don't speak with hate for Microsoft. I have no reason to try and make Microsoft look bad.

As a matter of fact, I just wrote an article here on Bitmob detailing how Sony completely ruined our relationship and how I plan on taking them to small claims court. I didn't want to turn this into a Microsoft vs. Sony thing....but...

-Sony's online is more quality than most. It offers absolutely everything that Microsoft offers minus cross game chat, and it is free. Everything you can do on Xbox Live, you can do on PSN. And I find competitive games on PSN run better. I rarely get dropped from games or find lag in when playing games online on the PS3, yet I get it all the time on the 360.

The 360 has faster download speeds for sure though.

Most households in america do not have a PS3 as a gaming machine, but a cheap blu-ray players that has added functionality, making it a better deal. 

For example, when my parents were in the market for a blu-ray player some odd years ago, I told them to pick up a PS3 instead of a stand-alone blu-ray player for that same reason.  They are not gamers, but they are considered one of the millions of ps3's in households, even though all it ever gets used for is a movie-machine.   Heck, my ps3 even gets more use out of it as a dvd/blu-ray player than playing games. 

As the OP pointed out, the main reason why I don't play games on the ps3 is because the majority of my friends are on the 360.  Also, I'm a gamerscore junky and the trophy system is just a tacked on afterthought to me personally.  The one glaring problem I have with the PS3 is the way that it updates it's system and the lenth of time and frequency in which it takes place.

@Brian Shirey: You're pulling facts out of thin air. "Most  households" use PS3 as a Blu-ray player and not a gaming machine? Do you have actual statistical facts to back it up? Mainstream games like Assassin's Creed, COD, and Battlefield sell almost as many copies on the PS3 as they do on the 360. This contradicts your assertion that "most people in America use PS3 as Blu-ray only."

You must not use your PS3 very much, because the trophy system is NOT a tacked on feature. In fact, many people regard it as deeper and better than the 360's simplistic achievement and gamerscore system, with a leveling system, different types of trophies, and valuable platinum trophies that you only get by going 100% on a game. I'm not a huge trophy whore, but I've gotten enough platinum trophies to know that  the system in place works very well.

You spout a lot of fanboyism BS my friend. The PS2 Eyetoy was NOTHING like the Kinect, which has processing power and motors and tracking ability. The Eyetoy had NONE of that. It was nothing more than a PC webcam and a low quality one at that.

I think Move is of course a failure because its sold less than 2 million in the last year. It might have 10.5 million units shipped, but Sony counts each navagation control, Move wand and PS Eye as a "Move sale". They are sketchy at best and its hard to guess the actual install base for Move, most people that own a Move end up owning two wands and at least a nav controller. So my guess would be the actual install base is less than 5 million.

There are hardly any Move games that are Move only and that are interesting, Sorcery looked good, but it took forever for anything to show up. 

As for Microsoft and their tech support on broken 360's, its the easiest thing in the world to get a 360 replaced. They send a shipping label in an email, on the same day and it literally takes less than 2 weeks to get it back. I doubt very many people opted to spend $400 to buy a new one as opposed to getting their old one fixed. 

Sony is the ones who could learn from Microsoft when it comes to console repair. 

As for Gears, the Gears series is almost at 20 million units sold, compared to less than 11 million for Uncharted, hardly "catching up". If you average out the scores for all three games, Gears wins handedly. 

Forza might not sell like GT, but it sells better in America and is the highest rated racing game series of this generation, easily outdoing the mediocre GT5. 

Sony has been playing catch up since the start of this generation, they try to copy the Wii, they try to copy Microsoft's Achievement system and they try to copy Nintendo yet again with touch screen and integration with vita. 

Sony used to innovate, now they copy and their advertising is the worst I've ever seen. Remember those stupid baby commercials? or the promises of 4-D graphics? 

So what?

Any of you. So what?

They're both remarkable systems. They both pack great exclusives. They both pack their own strengths and weaknesses.

I bought a first gen XBOX 360 like 60 days after its US release for 580$ so I'd be the only guy in a warzone to have one; It lasted 5 years of nearly flawless gaming; that's with 8 months of Iraqi sand gettin' all up on's.

I bought a PS3 and it broke in 3 months. Sony shipped me out a brand new one, at no charge, within 30 days.

Is that a typical expirience for either?

People like to game. Not everyone has the same tastes. I can sit here and brag about how my Sega Genesis had all these great games; and that SNES was censor happy; and if I said SNES was inferior? I'd be retarded.

I'm a proud Xbox owner.

I'm a proud PS3 owner.

Weighing all the strengths and weaknesses? I perfer PS3 because of ONE specific exclusive title (not that it matters, but it's The Show in case anyone actually reads this) - is that reason enough to call one console superior? Some may think so, but to me, that does not mean the PS3 is better than XBOX, because Rob from Washington State said so.

Sales cant back me up. GPUs cant back me up. Warranties cant back me up; The games cant even back me up.

It's about personal preference. Bits didnt matter; they dont matter now.

There is a HUGE Xbox fanbase. There is a HUGE Sony fanbase. Niether is going away anytime soon. A portion of both would like to see this arguement abandoned due to its futility.

That's exactly how I feel. There weren't any 360 exclusives that I felt like I needed to play, so I went with the PS3. Doesn't seem like we're in the majority though.

@Alex R. Cronk-Young: Maybe it doesn't seem like we're in the majority because Bitmob is a mostly Xbox-centric site. I know plenty of people who enjoy and respect the PS3, both online friends and real-life acquaintances. For what it's worth, I live in Northern Cali.

Interesting article, but I think the argument misses the point of why these people are so vehemently pro-360 and anti PS3 (and likely anything else).  Getting to the bottom of this suggests that changing the Playstation brand now won't change this much at all.

I think it's all marketing. It doesn't have anything to do with a theorized "Playstation Stigma." I think Microsoft, being an American company, just knows how to market and advertise to American gamers a lot more than Sony; Sony is an international company with their marketing efforts spread out across numerous other territories. They just aren't as saavy as Microsoft is at appealing to the American public.

I  still have my original PS3, but it did have a video card problem at one point that took sending it back to the factory for servicing. (It started getting multicolored snow on the screen, definite GPU corruption issue.) I've since put that one on the shelf and switched to a slim PS3. Why? The old PS3 used about 290 watts when in operation, while the slim PS3 uses only about 70 watts. Big energy savings.

I never had to send my Xbox360 back, but that was probably because I didn't log more than 120 hours on it the entire time I had it. I've probably put a couple thousand hours on each of my PS3s.

Rich,

He was using a personal experience to relate to a problem he sees with the PlayStation brand. Many writers (even many good writers) glean inspiration from personal experience.

Asking him if this is his first job is immaterial and amounts to you doing some bullying of your own. How about staying civil and actually giving us a logical explanation as to why you disagree?

He is the one that brought up the scenario that he goes to work and is bullied by his fellow workers that he plays PS3. 

Asking him if this is his first job is not immaterial because it doesn't sound like he has had tons of experience in the work force.  Sounds like he is working with a bunch of younger immature people.  Which doesn't suprise me that they own Xbox. :)

America loves Xbox because MS went out of their way to spend a ton of cash to insure that.  They did the same thing in Japan and it failed miserably.  It didn't hurt that they got the system out a year early and they used their massive experience in software to keep the slapped together system humming.

That logical enough for ya? :)

Feel free to disagree with me or him, but please stop the personal attacks on the author. We don't allow that here.

Is that clear enough for you?

I wasn't personally attacking him.  I was asking him to point out if this was his first job.  Thats a question not an attack, but if you think a question is an attack it's no wonder you guys publish complaint department blog posts.
 

@Rich

1. Alot of people fell into M$ trap and they advertise COD like it aint on any other system I went to walmart and the xbox game stand was a giant MW3 add to go along with there COD advertising and guess who was standing in front of the stand a little kid who cant think for himself but just follows he doesnt know MW3 is on PS3 also plus tons of other games and the little guy probably wants to play COD with other cheap kids who bout a xbox to play COD.

2. PSN is no different in terms of online play

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E-gFnq1BVA&list=UULoouJmAFdzpaA_7LbLGZ0w&index=5&feature=plcp

There is no trap, its no secret COD games are worse on the PS3 than the Xbox 360. On the PS3 there are tons of frame rate issues and a lot of other issues. Also you get the map packs in advance on the 360 and you have more competitive teams on a place like Gamebattles and the communities last longer on the Xbox 360 version.

Throw in the superior Xbox 360 controller for shooters and that is why the Xbox 360 gets the rep in America. 

It's funny that so many people blame the PS3 when a developer can't get their act together on a cross platform game. There's more power on the PS3 in total, but with more of that power being in the CPU and less in the GPU, and the need to properly optimize the game for the PS3's divided resources (Not just memory, but there's two different kinds of shader processors in the GPU as well, whereas the 360 uses unified shader processors. Unified is easier to develop for, but if you taylor your workload you can get as much or more power out of specialized shaders. Also two different kinds of processors in an asymmetric layout takes more planning and skill to uitlize. Cross platform developers are content to just skate and release a crappy port on the PS3 rather than get it right.)

The 360 controller being superior is entirely a matter of opinion. I personally prefer the PS3 controller in almost every way.

thats a lie only black ops was like that and PC also suffered MW2, MW3 and COD 4 had no problems at all. You get map packs in advance that doesnt really matter thats just to make people feel as if they arent getting scammed by live microsoft adds things you can use free everywhere else and says you have to have gold to use them they want you to have every incentive to sub to gold PS3 gets maps first on other games and again that doesnt matter. I disagree with the controller the dislocated sticks are annoying like I said your thumb rides the bottom of the left stick when moving forward and left and right at the same time and PS3 has the option to add triggers on bottom buttons.

not all devs are like that @Ek

@Rich - It is by no means my first job. Me and most everyone I work with are late 20s to early 30s. And I wasn't complaining about being bullied. It is a factory. 99% of the interactions that go on there could be considered bullying. I get along great with everyone I work with and when they give me crap for playing a PS3 I give them crap right back.

The example made for a good introduction to the article, which is why I used it. I even sent it to the coworker who I'd had that conversation with just to make sure he was cool with me using it.

I own all 3 of the consoles this generation, and I'd actually reverse that list. At least as far as how many hours I've put into each of them. It's also reversed in how many exclusive games for each system that I've wanted to play.

Not to say the 360 isn't a fantastic system, but it's main strength is in multiplatform titles. It gives you the stability and guaranteed-to-work qualities of a console, with the simplicity of PC style development. Microsoft's first party development is laughable and most developers who make games for it also release them on PC at the very least. There were a few exclusives I wanted to play, but once I killed them, there wasn't much that it could do that I couldn't do between my PC and PS3.

Well Sony should care about the United States because its the biggest terriory. Microsoft was number 1 world wide last year and that was thanks to the United States. Japan doesn't do numbers anywhre close to America.

Move sold 10.5 million or "Shipped" as it were, but it only shipped less than 2 million over the past year and its hard to track an actual install base since most people bought a nav and wand or two.

As for Steam, Xbox can do that, but Microsoft chooses to keep their system closed, funny that PSN got hacked due to its open nature right before Portal 2 even released. 

I feel like Sony caters to the Japanese crowd, I notice a lot of PS3 American owners are into Anime and weird stuff like that. Where as Xbox 360 owners aren't usually into that. 

I don't think Microsoft cares about Japan and its not as important to do well there as it is to do well in America. 

In what world is Uncharted surpasing Gears in sales? Gears as a franchise is at almost 20 million, while Uncharted is at less than11. GT5 has outsold Forza overall, but not in the states and Forza is the highest rated racing series this generation. 

1. True. No argument. But PS3 is catching up. Xbox 360 only lead the 1st week of 2012 in sales, since then PS3 has been selling more. Only the 3DS outsells the PS3.

2. No argument, but I still wouldn't agree saying the Move is a failure. I love playing Killzone 3 with the Move and I consider it over the Dualshock.

3. Well Microsoft is tight about Live, Dust 514 was being developed for 360 but Microsoft wouldn't alllow that. As for the PSN fiasco, I didn't affect me, I came away with inFAMOUS and LittleBigPlanet. I would later on purchase inFAMOUS 2 and LittleBigPlanet 2 something I would most likely have not done if I didn't know about them.

4. PS3 owners that I know don't act like that.

5. I wouldn't bet on it. I heard this year's TGS for Microsoft will be the biggest ever.

6. My bad, they are 3 million apart, but that's not bad considering how new Uncharted is.

It's not so much that Sony caters to the anime crowd, it's that PS3 is biggest in countries where that stuff is popular, thus there is more of it available to bring to the US at a lower cost than developing a whole new game or porting it to a new platform.

Microsoft DID care about Japan, and they funded the development of a number of Xbox360 exclusive games in japan in the launch era of the 360. (Some of those wierd Anime games that you denegrated in your post.) It's just that it never caught on over there so they pretty much gave up the territory for this generation.

Sony is a Japanese company that caters to the Japanese crowd. Which includes all that weird anime, Naruto crap.

I think Microsoft would have liked to do better in Japan, but I think they are definitely happier to have the hold on North America which helped them reach number 1 world wide in 2011. 

What do you think is going to happen when they lower the Xbox 360 and Kinect price this E3? Its going to get a whole lot worse for Sony in NA. 

@De - I live in Michigan. It could very well be a regional thing as most trends are, but the sales numbers show a huge gap between the two systems in the US. Sony isn't far behind worldwide, but with such a huge difference in the US, that should probably be their focus for making improvements.

North America is the largest territory, look at the numbers my friend. In 2011 the Xbox 360 had its best year ever and was only ever number 1 in North America for the whole year, yet that was enough in sales to propel them to number 1 world wide for the first time since 2007.

What do you think is going to happen when we see a Xbox 360 price cut this year? Along with a Kinect price cut? I think we might actually see a $99 Xbox 360 4 gig console. 

I don't think Sony can catch up at this point, they lost ground last year and that was with the PS3 getting a price cut and it looks more and more like Microsoft will roll out a new Xbox console next year. Sony will end the generation where it began, that isn't to say its not a decent console with some decent games, but I have to believe Sony is disappointed with where they are at, especially in NA where they dominated the last two generations.

Microsoft does well in EU, also just to clarify EU and Japan are two totally different territories. North America makes up a larger chunk than both combined. 

Microsoft has a hefty lead of over 12 million in North America, which is larger than Sony's lead in EU and Japan which would be a little over 10 million combined. Sony has around 24 million PS3's sold in EU and Microsoft has over 20 million in EU. That is hardly PS3 kicking butt in EU.

When you compare the rest of the world its almost even, so its a common misconception that Microsoft does poor in other areas. Its true they do poor in Japan, but I think its a territory they can afford to do bad in. 

The thing about a Xbox 360 and Kinect price cut would be that Microsoft has been steadily making money on their hardware for the last few years, where as Sony only recently started to turn profit. I don't see them doing another price cut this year. Where as Microsoft hasn't cut price in over 3 years.

Sony's price cut didn't force Microsoft to cut their prices did it? I don't see how Sony could afford to cut the PS3 again to try and match what Microsoft does. 

You keep saying Sony's dominance will help them topple the Xbox 360 in world wide sales, but last year world wide the Xbox 360 was number 1 and with a price cut looming, I'd say its a safe bet it'll be that way again this year. New console from Microsoft next year would be my bet. This console generation is drawing closed and Sony is in last place and even if it hit second place, it'd be a overall disappointing generation compared to the last two. 

Jeff Grubb liked this post.
 

You can't retire the Walkman name! That brand still holds a lot of nostalgic power!

Yeah, I was just joking around. I completely agree that it is pointless to keep that brand alive. Also a very good point for the case that Sony probably won't kill the PlayStation brand. We'll probably see something like the PlayStation Vita. PlayStation will be tacked on the front of a new name as a largely pointless way to keep the brand alive, though everyone will just refer to it by the new name. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

I can't resist slipping in a good poop pun.

That entire paragraph you wrote defines what's wrong with the gaming populace today.

You can't just bring in new IPs and expect people to come running to buy your console. As was stated before by multiple people, it's about advertising, appealing to locale(knowing what it is that area of consumers wants).

It's all about favoratism and simplicity these days... at least in america. Look at Mass Effect 3 and Resident Evil:ORC, they both abandoned their core values(more RE than ME), they were originally RPG's(Role Playing Games) but because there was too much reading, dialogue, picking weapons for bosses or big enemy battles, or just using strategy to win instead of forcing your way through levels with overpowered weapons, America complained.

Bioware(I should say EA) and Capcom(I should say Slant Six) both know that America has the biggest potential for sales, so they added the "high-octane shooting" to the classic games that us, now growing smaller, RPG/Horror fans love and value.

I'm getting off topic here.After everthing I've said there really is no conclusive point. But are people so narrowminded that all they want is a $60 dollar explosion?

http://www.screwattack.com/news/north-america-blame-resident-evil-ditching-survival-horror

I have to disagree with you on several points.

1.The PS3 might have 60 million units sold, but they don't have 60 million online users. When you look at a game lik Call Of Duty the number of players online at the same time are far less than that of those on the Xbox 360 versions.

2.The PS3's biggest selling games are Call Of Duty titles, which are first person shooters. So all this "Xbox 360 only sells shooters" stuff is nonesense.

3.We are in the middle of a HDD shortage due to flooding, the Xbox 360 HDD's are actually the cheapest of the two and Sony is forcing people to do the same thing your accusing Microsoft of doing with the Vita and its memory sticks.

I think the key to online gaming is communication, its a bit hard to do on the PS3 when everyone sounds like the McDonald's drive through guy, the voice codecs are terrible and I'd guess less than 25% of PSN users have a mic at all.

Xbox Live was never hacked in any way, shape or form. Check into it, they had maintenance that affected certain people, but as a XBL user for 7 years now, I've never heard or seen a hack or have had my service interupted. Let alone my credit card info leaked or my service of choice close down for a month.

If you think the PSN store is better than that is opinion, but I'd disagree. I think XBL Arcade is the far better choice with the far better games. Microsoft is always running promotions on their XBLA games and they even offer indie games for a mere $1. 

The fact that the PS1 and PS2 were so far ahead by this time in those console generations proves that Sony did indeed make a lot of mistakes this generation. 60 million is nice, but when your coming off back to back 100+ million generations and when you absolutely dominated the competition, its gotta hurt. I don't care how you try to spin it. 

I don't think the PS3 is bad, but I think it gets poor 3rd party ports and the online setup is bordering last generation in style and functions. I personally look at PSN as the poor mans online service, I play competitively and for that I see XBL as the only way to go.

There are more players and competition on the Xbox 360. check out www.gamebattles.com and compare teams for Xbox 360 games against the PS3 versions of the same game. I own both consoles, right now on Xbox 360 Mw3 there is almost 1 million on, on the PS3 there is only 200k. Big difference.

There are also almost 40 million Xbox Live users and there is no accurate way to track PSN users, I personally have 9 different PSN accounts. They count PSP accounts as PSN users as well. 

Nice try with the whole fanboy thing, good luck with that. 

@ Fred, the big difference between the numbers on MW3 online between 360 and PS3 may be partly due to the greater variety of experiences on PS3, and the greater availability of dedicated server gaming.  It'll also be due, in part, to the wider range of gamers on PS3 - 360 has a much stronger focus on shooters, whereas PS3 gamers cover a much broader spread.  There's a lot more to online than just MW3 (hell, MW3 is lowest-common-denominator online - there's almost nothing done in that game that isn't done better somewhere else).

@Fred, your wrong about nearly every point;

"The PS3 might have 60 million units sold, but they don't have 60 million online users" - neither does the 360 - i know i'm one, i cancelled my gold account years ago.  Plus like you say you have 9 PSN accounts each account on a single 360 needs it's own gold membership so the numbers are just as skewed.

Best selling games, well lets compare shall we.

360 Top 15 - 12 out of 15 games are shooters and you say it's nonsense to say the 360s biggest games are shooters.

PS3 top 15 - 6 out of 15 games are shooters, a clear indication that the PS3 is more focused at produsing a wider genre range of games.

The 360 HDDs are not cheaper than the PS3 ones at all, i don't know where you are but in the UK a slimline 360 320GB HDD costs aprox £56 from Amazon.co.uk whereas the same site will sell a compatible 320GB HDD for the PS3 for under £30.

Oh and Xbox live has been hacked in some form google it - http://lnk.nu/google.co.uk/1zi4 - people had their accounts hacked and money taken from their accounts.  I'd rather have the network be down for a few weeks than have it stay up and money taken from my account - while the service provider denys anything is happening.  Sony say that card detail MAY have been stolen however a) it may not have, b)it's encrypted, c)the people who hacked the PSN were clearly after bringing down the network and not taking money from the users.

"The fact that the PS1 and PS2 were so far ahead by this time in those console generations proves that Sony did indeed make a lot of mistakes this generation" - What, did you not read my comments? The PS3 is ahead of the 360.  Stop taking everything at face value and actually look into things before commenting.  The 360 has got a whole years extra sales under its belt yet has only sold 3m more units.  The 360 has sold 65.4m units, at this point 1 year ago it had sold 52.8m units.  The PS3 has sold 62.6m units, so working out sales from an aligned launch the PS3 has sold 7m more units than the 360 in the same time period.

The PS3 is a failure in terms of the other PlayStation consoles. At this point in the life cycle the PS1 and PS2 were well over 100 million consoles and Sony dominated the market and the share.

I bought a 250 gig HDD for my Xbox 360 slim on Dealextrem for $45.

The top selling games on PS3 are all CALL OF DUTY games. Which are shooters, so for all the variation people claim on PS3, the top games are Call Of Duty...deal with it. 

Xbox Live has NEVER BEEN HACKED. You are pointing out Phishing scams, where people get your password, that is not a direct hack on Microsoft or their network, which has NEVER been hacked. At least try to get your facts straight kiddo.

Only Sony lets people attack their network and steal info. 

Actually, no, heaps of large organisations have been hacked, including Valve (Steam, with millions of account details compromised, including credit card numbers), security contractors to the US Government, you name it.  So no, it's not just Sony.  But never let facts get in the way of a good fanboy rant ;).

Just becasue the PS3 has had more of a shared market with the 360 than the PS2 or PS1 did with their competators doesn't make it a failure, as previously stated the 360 had a years head start, and given the blu-ray technology there was difficulty early on developing games.  Not to mention for about the first 2 years Sony weren't making a profit on any console sold.  Yes they made some poor choices, they tried to be too advanced in some areas and it cost them but given all the trouble Sony has had and the apparent 'slow start' to life the console had a 7m units sold lead doesn't seem like a failure to me.

Seriously, everyone knows the popularity of shooter games has risen substantially recently, so shooters are going to be top on most lists.  However when saying 'the best selling games' i don't mean the 1 game that's sold more than others or even the top 3.  There are hundreds of games on both consoles so a fair representation of the top selling games would be at the very least top 10.  Many more exclusive titles for the PS3 are not shooters, when compared to ones on the 360.  As for multiplatform titles if they're popular on one they're going to be popular on the other too.  If they weren't then they'd be an exclusive because the company would take this into account.

$45 for a 250GB HDD, kinda proves my point rather than yours.  $45 works out to £28.  Which is the price i can find a 320GB HDD for the PS3. I can get a 250GB HDD for the 360 for $34, and that's given that everything cost more in the UK.

XBox live may not have been hacked in the same way the PSN was but it wasn't just phishing scams, there were brute force attacks on peoples passwords which allowed access to their accounts.  I don't know about you but i would still consider this a hack.  And even with proof that it was going on Microsoft sat there denying anything was happening. I'd rather have the network go down than have people forcing their way into my account and the company do nothing about it.

When you consider that the Xbox 360 won the world wide sales for 2011 and that was based off what it did in North America, you realize how important the NA market is.

Xbox 360 is geared towards gamer's, the same gamer's the PS3 is trying to get. I could care less about total numbers at this stage of the game, but no matter what Sony's PS3 numbers right now, those pale in comparison to the PS2 and PS1 at this stage of those console generations. The PS3 is a failure in terms of follow up success, while the Xbox 360 is a success in comparison to the original Xbox, both in terms of units sold and profit. Seeing as how the original Xbox was never profitable. 

If the US has such a "zeal for home-grown brands" as you put it, why was Sony so dominant the previous two generations? The writer has his opinions and is entitled to them, just because you disagree doesn't make his opinions less valid or wrong. 

I don’t get it Fred.  How is it possible that the far superior console sold only 3 million more units worldwide being 1 year longer on the market? How come?

It’s interesting how you use the facts and numbers. Gears of War sells much more than Uncharted! Forza scores better in the reviews than Gran Turismo! Well…let’s put it in this way… Gran Turismo sells much more than Forza. Uncharted scores better in the reviews than Gears of War:-)

I never said the Xbox 360 was superior, I said the online is superior. Its a premium service so of course its going to be better. Sony didn't really have a plan or focus on their online functions for the PS3 and it shows. Lack of security, lack of chat, voice messages, feedback system and lack of general usability.

I don't hate the PS3, just the online. As far as scores go, if you add up the scores of Gears and Uncharted and average them out, Gears has the edge. Uncharted 1 isn't even ranked in the 90's. 

"When you consider that the Xbox 360 won the world wide sales for 2011 and that was based off what it did in North America, you realize how important the NA market is."

Scores are nothing but fanboy flames. The only important thing is sales. Everything else is irrelevant. 

@ John: Who the hell gives a damn if a game is good but doesn't sell? The only thing that matters is sales because that is the only thing that will be looked at by the people who have the power in the industry. In an ideal world it would be quality, but look at the success of the Wii. This generation has shown the importance of marketing and sales. 

Saying no one cares how much money they get is just naive and wrong. The only reasons publishers invest in games is for a capital return, not because they want to progress gaming or some other misguided reason. 

@fred

Sony was dominant in the 90's because they had no home-grown brands to go up against. In the PS2 era, they didn't have any home-grown brands to go up against until a couple of years into the cycle, and the original Xbox picked up a surprising number of fans in the US given its pedigree (a software company that knows nothing about hardware, and next to nothing about games, and patterned after one of the bigger failures in gaming, the Dreamcast.)

I actually got the same response back in college, when I wrote an article about how Pearl Jam's newest album was horrible. At least Alex said some honorable things about how he was an Sony fan, though. I often forget little things like that.

lol, and "Xbox" doesn't? ;).  Both brand names are designed to sound cool to teenagers, and should (and are) pretty lame-sounding to anyone over the age of 16 that hasn't got unhealthy levels of emotional buy-in ;).

In your comment, you note that "Microsoft's online multiplayer system adds plenty of reasons to keep playing many of my old games".  Just wondering how this differs from anything on PSN or Steam, say?

To tell the truth, I have no clue how these marketers think of these names. I stopped thinking about it after Nintendo upgraded to the N64. I can't find anything appealing in the name "Nintendo 64," aside from the big number. Lol.

You asked a very interesting question, so I decided to do a little research myself. Many of the gaming websites don't do a good job at covering all the differences between the Xbox 360, the Playstation 3 and the Wii.

The biggest difference with Xbox Live is that it has one of the most sophisticated voice chat. Xbox 360 has the option to choose the particular players that people want to mute. The GamerTag is a much more personalized indicator to show how big of a gamer each person is. Xbox Live also has a greater variety of avatar pictures and gamer pics. It's like a Steam ID, but the personalized information is much easier to access over the Xbox 360 interface.

The other big benefit is the wide range of online downloadable content. In general, the Xbox 360 features a greater variety of community games and add-ons that are very easy to access over the dashboard.

The best features involve setting up multiplayer parties. There's plenty of voice chat interaction and message tools, so that players can quickly join up and play over a simple pop-up system. It is also a handy indicator to let people know when the system is disconnected.

In short, the Xbox 360 is the system where I typically socialize with friends. I've also played quick rounds over the Internet.

Playstation Home is nice, but it's a different world in itself. There are plenty of unique worlds, some of which are personalized cities for each Playstation exclusive game. It's more like a virtual Second Life community.

Those are the main differences. I could use my PC to access the same type of stuff, but it would take much longer to set up. I think that's why game consoles are currently gaining the upper hand over the PC.

With the Xbox 360, I can also set up music playlists to listen to while I'm playing Battlefield 3. It's a much groovier game system for my after-work hours.

And then there are some differences with lag time, etc. That would take a lot more research on my part.

While I'm not sure you're on the money with the add-on content (multi-plats generally release their DLC on both systems, although also often give timed priority to one over the other, although this is becoming pretty rare these days outside of CoD), you're dead right about the social aspects of XBL - it's got a much stronger partying and chat system.  But in terms of the impact on gameplay, once you're in the actual game it's generally the same on either platform (for multiplats) - unless you're playing in pub games, but only want to talk over party chat, which deffo constitutes a difference.  But the system doesn't really give you more reasons to play your old games, it more gives you the old games as something to do while you socialise (ie, the games themselves, if they're multi-plat, are exactly the same on PSN).

The Gamertag, as far as I'm aware, is just your name on XBL (and Games for Windows Live) - but you do have your Gamerscore as well, but that's pretty much the same as a PSN trophy card (I think trophies are slightly more nuanced, and that the non-linear nature of trophy levels works better than a simple aggregate gamerscore, _if_ people were comparing how much of a gamer they were, but the best place to do that would be Raptr, as that combines systems (and PC) - any gamer worth their salt is likely to be on more than one system).

Custom soundtracks on 360 are also a great feature - while they pop up in some PS3 games, 360 having them standard is excellent.  I'd say this'd be the biggest 'one-up' the 360 would have, in that you could chill to your fave tunes while playing your old games - in that by actually changing the soundtrack, it does change the gaming experience.

As for lag issues, most XBL games are peer-to-peer - XBLs just the matchmaker - so lag depends on whoever else you're playing with.  There are exceptions (BF3's the current standout), but my big beef with paying for XBL is that you're paying mainly for peer-to-peer gaming - something you don't have to do anywhere else.  And voice chat and parties is something provided free over both Steam and (on Vita) PSN - so it clearly doesn't cost what MS suggests it does.

A lot of the comparison articles date back to the pre-2010 era. I think the online updates really evened out many of the differences between the two systems.

These comments make me wonder where the system designers will go next. Are they all going to move completely to vamp up the Internet capabilities? Are they all going to move to Blu-Ray? Sony and Microsoft usually have a very modern style of upgrading their hardware.

And then there's the question of whether each company will knock off pre-packaged software ideas from each other. I guess everyone will figure out the details when either company makes the first announcement at E3.

Rumors are that Microsoft is going to flash/internet and away from DVDs, rather than going to Bluray. Don't know if that'll be true or not.

Sony is likely to keep bluray, there's still life in the 50gig discs. I don't know if they're going to adopt any of the denser versions of bluray, such as the 100 or 200gig discs. I haven't seen any movement on those techs in quite a while in fact.

Also from rumors, Microsoft is going with a PowerPC chip paired up with a mid-range fusion video card on the same die. This should give them a solid boost from the xbox360, but cost a heck of a lot less to produce than the 360 did initially.

Similarly, rumors say that Sony is going over to ATI and is also using Fusion products, but they're switching off PPC over to an x64 Bulldozer module style system with stacked dies, and putting a lower-high end video chip on. The benefit to fusion with stacked dies is that it'll cost a bit more up front, but it'll be much easier to reduce it down to a single die when they start doing chip shrinks for later models, in keeping with Sony's focus on making a second and third spin of their consoles at a much cheaper price. Of course, stacked dies isn't a perfected tech yet, so there will be some risk involved.

I doubt we're going to hear about them at E3. Sony and MS are still doing a bit of a staring contest, neither one wants to end this generation just yet, but neither also wants to be the last to market with the next generation of consoles. Whichever one gets hit upside the head with market forces first will be the first to blink and announce a new console, and the other will follow right up with their own plans as soon as they can get someone out in front of a microphone.

I also imagine the next generation isn't going to be the budget buster that the last generation was. I expect the top end will be around $400-450 max. I imagine MS is going to try and shoot for Wii U's $250 price slot. They've really shifted and are trying to steal the niche that Wii created as the Wii's faded out.

Also, I expect the Wii U will be another 4-year console just like the Wii was. The Wii hung around for 6, but it pretty much slid into oblivion in the last 2 years. Hopefully nintendo has planned for the Wii U's eventual replacement.

To me, the biggest thing that Sony could do to improve right now could be done with the PS3. They really need to build up their CDN. Put servers at various ISPs and datacenters around the country. Right now PSN is very uneven, some areas get blistering fast performance, some areas crawl. I have a 30 megabit connection and PSN crawls for me because their datacenters are too far away on the internet.