4 ms·

>The interviewer points out that Sony's PlayStation 3 is viewed as one of its least successful consoles, which is true. The PlayStation 3 pretty much lost the g

>The interviewer points out that Sony's PlayStation 3 is viewed as one of its least successful consoles, which is true. The PlayStation 3 pretty much lost the generation handily to Nintendo's cheap, casual-friendly Wii and Microsoft's less powerful but easier Xbox 360. In Europe, PS3 was widely popular especially in conjunction with Call of Duty because Xbox never really gained ground in EU, at least that was my impression growing up as an EU gamer. Wii was also popular af at the time but PS3 and Wii buyers were different audience, Wii was more casual type of gaming and it was suitable for family gaming while PS3 was for more serious gamers who played more hardcorish titles like COD, FIFA and PES and ofc there was and is PC master race for real hardcore gamers.

Forgeties79 2y ago
That may be true but overall, the PS3 was the loser at the time and it took until basically the end of that console generation, consisting of many price cuts and years of developing a strong catalogue, for them to (narrowly) outsell the 360 worldwide. Considering the absolute dominance of PSX and PS2, it was definitely not what they were hoping for. Not quite as dramatic as Nintendo with the market loss from SNES to the N64, but I’m sure Sony had a lot of similar conversations. You also have to consider that Xbox was the distant third place console in the previous generation, so barely losing to Sony at the last minute was definitely considered a huge success. Especially after the disaster that was the RROD. If that hadn’t happened Microsoft likely would have beaten Sony’s sales.
- mrkramer 2y ago
  My last gaming console was PS2 and yea I loved it because gaming consoles are meant for "couch gaming" with big TV screen and as one gaming friend of mine told me: "When you buy gaming console, you are set for the next 5 years." Moore's law kinda kills the fun for us PC gamers but I still prefer gaming on PC than on gaming consoles.
  - Forgeties79 2y ago
    There’s something really nice about consoles for me still. I love just dropping on my couch, pressing a button on my controller to start run console, pressing one more button to launch a game, and I am exactly where I left off last time with no load times. Takes me about seven seconds to get back in. As somebody with 2 kids it makes gaming more feasible haha
  - somat 2y ago
    When you buy a gaming console you can play that consoles current generation of games. When you buy a gaming pc you can play all prior generations of pc games. * Yeah, Yeah, I know this is not really all that true/over simplified. But you have to understand I am the type who enjoyed the fight, almost more than the game. the fight? you know first you fight the pc a bit and if you win you get to play the game. Really, if you just want to sit down and game get a console.
tekla 2y ago
You must not have been there for the nogaems memes.
kimixa 2y ago
Yes, for much of it's lifetime it was behind the 360 in worldwide sales, and might have been a disappointment for Sony, especially after the PS2 domination, but I wouldn't say it "Lost Handily" to the xbox360. It may have taken time, but it did outsell it. It seems an incorrectly strong wording by the interviewer. And people seem to sleep on how powerful the xbox360 was - the CPU was a fair bit smaller than the cell, true, (~150m transistors vs 250m in the cell) not not really the multiples some articles seem to imply. And the GPU in the xbox was arguably a fair bit more advanced - being a little larger (~300m vs ~335m transistors), and being a unified shader architecture that came to dominate GPUs from then on. And the more flexible architecture enabled more GPGPU-like tasks that the cell SPUs might have handled on the PS3. And these early GPGPU models were also a bitch to program for - like the cell SPUs were. So it's not like one was simple and easy, the other crazy complex and advanced, but more one had the fancy experimental stuff on the CPU/Cell die, the other on the GPU die. Just the techniques used on the GPU continued to be developed and supplanted much of the Cell-style tech.
- mrkramer 2y ago
  >Yes, for much of it's lifetime it was behind the 360 in worldwide sales, and might have been a disappointment for Sony, especially after the PS2 domination, but I wouldn't call say it "Lost Handily" to the xbox360. It may have taken time, but it did outsell it. As far as I understood, Halo was the killer app for Xbox but I suppose it was the killer app only in US, because like I said, from my EU gamer's point of view, Call of Duty was all the rage first on PC and then afterwards on PS plus FIFA and PES were huge on PS as well.
- sillywalk 2y ago
  > how powerful the xbox360 was Interestingly, the Xbox 360 (Xenon) CPU cores were based on the Power Processing Element (not the Synergistic Processing Elements) from the Cell processor. From [0]: "When the companies entered into their partnership in 2001, Sony, Toshiba and IBM committed themselves to spending $400 million over five years to design the Cell, not counting the millions of dollars it would take to build two production facilities for making the chip itself. IBM provided the bulk of the manpower, with the design team headquartered at its Austin, Texas, offices. Sony and Toshiba sent teams of engineers to Austin to live and work with their partners in an effort to have the Cell ready for the Playstation 3's target launch, Christmas 2005. But a funny thing happened along the way: A new "partner" entered the picture. In late 2002, Microsoft approached IBM about making the chip for Microsoft's rival game console, the (as yet unnamed) Xbox 360. In 2003, IBM's Adam Bennett showed Microsoft specs for the still-in-development Cell core. Microsoft was interested and contracted with IBM for their own chip, to be built around the core that IBM was still building with Sony. All three of the original partners had agreed that IBM would eventually sell the Cell to other clients. But it does not seem to have occurred to Sony that IBM would sell key parts of the Cell before it was complete and to Sony's primary video-game console competitor. The result was that Sony's R&D money was spent creating a component for Microsoft to use against it." ( From the WSJ ) [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20150129121858/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123069467545545011 https://web.archive.org/web/20150129121858/http://www.wsj.co...
bowsamic 2y ago
Maybe that’s a mainland thing. In the UK the Xbox 360 was definitely far more popular
- lomase 2y ago
  In Spain too. The PS3 released with very few games and all multiplatform games ran better on the 360.

Forgeties79 2y ago

That may be true but overall, the PS3 was the loser at the time and it took until basically the end of that console generation, consisting of many price cuts and years of developing a strong catalogue, for them to (narrowly) outsell the 360 worldwide. Considering the absolute dominance of PSX and PS2, it was definitely not what they were hoping for. Not quite as dramatic as Nintendo with the market loss from SNES to the N64, but I’m sure Sony had a lot of similar conversations. You also have to consider that Xbox was the distant third place console in the previous generation, so barely losing to Sony at the last minute was definitely considered a huge success. Especially after the disaster that was the RROD. If that hadn’t happened Microsoft likely would have beaten Sony’s sales.

mrkramer 2y ago
My last gaming console was PS2 and yea I loved it because gaming consoles are meant for "couch gaming" with big TV screen and as one gaming friend of mine told me: "When you buy gaming console, you are set for the next 5 years." Moore's law kinda kills the fun for us PC gamers but I still prefer gaming on PC than on gaming consoles.
- Forgeties79 2y ago
  There’s something really nice about consoles for me still. I love just dropping on my couch, pressing a button on my controller to start run console, pressing one more button to launch a game, and I am exactly where I left off last time with no load times. Takes me about seven seconds to get back in. As somebody with 2 kids it makes gaming more feasible haha
- somat 2y ago
  When you buy a gaming console you can play that consoles current generation of games. When you buy a gaming pc you can play all prior generations of pc games. * Yeah, Yeah, I know this is not really all that true/over simplified. But you have to understand I am the type who enjoyed the fight, almost more than the game. the fight? you know first you fight the pc a bit and if you win you get to play the game. Really, if you just want to sit down and game get a console.

tekla 2y ago

You must not have been there for the nogaems memes.

kimixa 2y ago

Yes, for much of it's lifetime it was behind the 360 in worldwide sales, and might have been a disappointment for Sony, especially after the PS2 domination, but I wouldn't say it "Lost Handily" to the xbox360. It may have taken time, but it did outsell it. It seems an incorrectly strong wording by the interviewer. And people seem to sleep on how powerful the xbox360 was - the CPU was a fair bit smaller than the cell, true, (~150m transistors vs 250m in the cell) not not really the multiples some articles seem to imply. And the GPU in the xbox was arguably a fair bit more advanced - being a little larger (~300m vs ~335m transistors), and being a unified shader architecture that came to dominate GPUs from then on. And the more flexible architecture enabled more GPGPU-like tasks that the cell SPUs might have handled on the PS3. And these early GPGPU models were also a bitch to program for - like the cell SPUs were. So it's not like one was simple and easy, the other crazy complex and advanced, but more one had the fancy experimental stuff on the CPU/Cell die, the other on the GPU die. Just the techniques used on the GPU continued to be developed and supplanted much of the Cell-style tech.

mrkramer 2y ago
>Yes, for much of it's lifetime it was behind the 360 in worldwide sales, and might have been a disappointment for Sony, especially after the PS2 domination, but I wouldn't call say it "Lost Handily" to the xbox360. It may have taken time, but it did outsell it. As far as I understood, Halo was the killer app for Xbox but I suppose it was the killer app only in US, because like I said, from my EU gamer's point of view, Call of Duty was all the rage first on PC and then afterwards on PS plus FIFA and PES were huge on PS as well.
sillywalk 2y ago
> how powerful the xbox360 was Interestingly, the Xbox 360 (Xenon) CPU cores were based on the Power Processing Element (not the Synergistic Processing Elements) from the Cell processor. From [0]: "When the companies entered into their partnership in 2001, Sony, Toshiba and IBM committed themselves to spending $400 million over five years to design the Cell, not counting the millions of dollars it would take to build two production facilities for making the chip itself. IBM provided the bulk of the manpower, with the design team headquartered at its Austin, Texas, offices. Sony and Toshiba sent teams of engineers to Austin to live and work with their partners in an effort to have the Cell ready for the Playstation 3's target launch, Christmas 2005. But a funny thing happened along the way: A new "partner" entered the picture. In late 2002, Microsoft approached IBM about making the chip for Microsoft's rival game console, the (as yet unnamed) Xbox 360. In 2003, IBM's Adam Bennett showed Microsoft specs for the still-in-development Cell core. Microsoft was interested and contracted with IBM for their own chip, to be built around the core that IBM was still building with Sony. All three of the original partners had agreed that IBM would eventually sell the Cell to other clients. But it does not seem to have occurred to Sony that IBM would sell key parts of the Cell before it was complete and to Sony's primary video-game console competitor. The result was that Sony's R&D money was spent creating a component for Microsoft to use against it." ( From the WSJ ) [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20150129121858/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123069467545545011 https://web.archive.org/web/20150129121858/http://www.wsj.co...

bowsamic 2y ago

Maybe that’s a mainland thing. In the UK the Xbox 360 was definitely far more popular

lomase 2y ago
In Spain too. The PS3 released with very few games and all multiplatform games ran better on the 360.