Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Time says PS3 was a bust

  • By Staff, GameSpot
  • Posted Dec 19, 2006 5:07 pm PT

PlayStation 3 one of five things magazine says "went from buzz to bust"; calls console "hideously expensive," launch titles "lame."

When the New York Times said the PlayStation 3 "just isn't that great" in November, many Sony fans were up in arms. However, those words were relatively kind compared to what Time had to say.

In naming its "5 Things That Went From Buzz to Bust" for 2006, the magazine put the PS3 right up there with Snakes on a Plane, O.J. Simpson's If I Did It book proposal, and Bode Miller's goose egg at the Winter Olympics.

The piece begins harshly ("The big story in computer games this year was HOW TO BLOW A HUGE LEAD, by Sony." (capitals in original)), continues brutally ("The PS3 is hideously expensive," "the launch titles were lame"), and ends with a schoolyard insult ("You know you're in trouble when you get beat by something called a Wii"). Time's disdain for the PS3 isn't unprecedented.

For the console's launch, the magazine also ran an article titled "Sony's PlayStation 3 Is Not Worth the Hype."

2625 Comments

  • Staceys_Mom

    Posted Dec 6, 2008 4:03 pm GMT

    WTF!!!!!!!!!! Snakes on a Plane was awesome. Time doesn't know anything.

  • migelpsp

    Posted Jul 13, 2008 12:04 pm GMT

    I just want it to says is :

    The Sony Has to be more carefully with the systems before to sent it out .
    cause i have some problem with my ps3 40gb for their fault .
    I know Sony Is the best company but they have to be more careful with all the system.

    those tips i will like it that Sony make it for the worldwide.

    1. when you has trouble with your Playstation you could fix it by yourself
    2. Sony has to sell the tools that they recommend by Sony Playstation.

    those are the 2 tips that I will like it to Sony make it for the worldwide.

  • chronobyte

    Posted Jan 10, 2007 10:35 am GMT

    Good! Sony deserves a good bashing anyway. It's high time for gamers everywhere to drive the point through their thick skulls that their attitude toward consumers stinks. A good dose of humility should hopefully get them back on the right track.

  • Col_Swamp

    Posted Jan 10, 2007 9:00 am GMT

    @ SeanBond

    well said. I plan on picking up a Wii later on in the year but for now am happy with my PS3. I think that offering the virtual console (to get all of those awesome classic games) and a fun games list is very appealing to me. I can quench my thirst for HD gaming and classic Nintendo action at the same time!

  • SeanBond

    Posted Jan 9, 2007 10:16 pm GMT

    I think it's not that people are discounting the Wii (as everyone knows it's kicking ass), but since the 360 and PS3 are basically direct competitors (they're both trying to deliver the same thing), it's seen as a contest between the two of them. I think both Sony and Microsoft realize they can't compete with what Nintendo is offering, just like Nintendo can't compete with the graphics and multimedia capabilities of the other two. This is precisely the reason that I'm enjoying owning both a 360 and a Wii. And yes, you're right, Nintendo does seem to be the one who remembers the basic principle of gaming...

  • cwgr8621

    Posted Jan 9, 2007 8:56 pm GMT

    not that i miss the sony fanboys trashing the wii, but its seems nintendo is being regarded as such a small threat its ignored. please don't lie to yourselves in saying that the wii is so bad it wont affect the ps3 or the gaming industry in general.

    and im still kind of hurt that "getting beat by something called a wii" is used as an insult when they simply are better than sony in one important factor. having fun.

    a long, long, time ago, that was the purpose of video games. not watching movies. thats called.... watching movies. video game systems are kinda supposed to be for video games. i think sony, who started out making electronics other than video games, forgot this and made a multimedia player. nintendo, who started off and specializes only in video games, remembers this and made a video game system.

  • Dante565

    Posted Jan 8, 2007 7:48 pm GMT

    I say instead of arguing with each other play your games and enjoy them rather than bashing each others opinions and the consoles. I support all 3. Always Have. Always Will.

  • chibirevolution

    Posted Jan 8, 2007 1:49 pm GMT

    LOL just as I expected. All the hype got most people, but not me. I own the previous Playstations. But i'm not sure if i will get the new PS3 anytime soon. $600 to play some games??? The only game i wanted to play was MGS4. Sorry Sony, even with fall of man. It's not enough for me to put my money on one. I will wait for a PS3 slimline or something HAHAHA!!! (that's if i ever forgive you for shutting down lik-sang.)

  • ricsuave

    Posted Jan 8, 2007 11:21 am GMT

    "lancer-azaran
    Oh, and the fact that there's a crapload of good PSone and PS2 games out means that you can play those until other stuff appears. Sure, Guitar Hero might be out of the running (which does suck), but there's still God of War."

    Yeah, just what I want. To pay $600 to play last gen and pre-last gen games.

  • mruurds

    Posted Jan 8, 2007 8:06 am GMT

    I wouldn't quite say that the PS3 is doomed just yet, but it's going to take more than Resistance to get me to buy one... especially since I already have a decent PC, Wii and Xbox 360.

    I think it's just a case of too little too late by Sony.

  • Frags-o-Plenty

    Posted Jan 8, 2007 7:40 am GMT

    Even if they bash it, and turn a lot of people away, the people who want a Ble-Ray player that doesn't cost more than $1000 will probaly look for a PS3 anyway. After all, it does seem relatively superior to HDDVDs right now, and most adult technology buffs will likely want the option on their shelves anyway. Bloody rich people..... Anyway. The point is, it's still a usefull bit of hardware right now, and besides, who is Time to criticize a launch? Every last one of them has been horrible. Every last one.

  • WestSideAzn

    Posted Jan 8, 2007 6:46 am GMT

    Now even Time is talking about the PS3? Wow, I thought Time was all about adult issues, like the news, and Saddam and OJ and all that stuff.... interesting. But I suppose consoles can become part of history and adult issues as well...

  • Rect_Pola

    Posted Jan 8, 2007 5:58 am GMT

    Whoa... J. Jonah Jameson complex

    You can expect bias in public opinion, and we even expect a slant in serious publications, but when was that sort of hate was allowed in newprint?

  • Jermwarfare

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 10:40 pm GMT

    Time is just a bunch of fanboys!!!*sarcasm*

    ive never been a fanboy[have the receipts to prove it],and i usually buy all the consoles....but they can keep that overpriced bluray trojan horse.

    btw-EA and other 3rd party developers killed the dreamcast,not sony[although they sure as h*** benefitted].

  • martycrane

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 7:17 pm GMT

    Have you ever really stopped to consider that some people just don't give a **** either way and will buy both becuase they want both. I've got both, I play both. In my opinion, right now the 360 is better, but they've also had a years headstart. Give sony a chance before you jump all over them. So while you children sit around arguing about which one is better, I'm going to go play some games and hang out with friends.

  • SeanBond

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 5:09 pm GMT

    VegetaMaelstrom

    --R3DN1N3 is 100% on point in the previous post. The PS2 has market penetration far greater than the Xbox, Gamecube, or 360 (for the moment), so it would be financial suicide for Sony to just ignore it, and switch all support to the PS3, especially with the PS3 doing...well, let's be diplomatic and just say that the PS3 isn't knocking everyone's socks off at the moment. Also, keep in mind that the PS2 is essentially the "bargain buy" solution for a lot of people. For those who find the PS3 too expensive, and aren't sure they want to pay $400 for an Xbox 360, the idea of being able to play a bunch of the latest games (and all those $20 Greatest Hits) on a $130 console is very appealing. I don't personally think it's a great choice at this point in time (I never support buying a console if the next generation version is out too), but for a lot of people, it makes a lot more financial sense. --As to the whole debate about whether Time is qualified to cover gaming, that's not really relevant. What IS relevant about the article is that Time is prominent magazine with a huge reader base, and their article bashing the PS3 is just the latest in a series of articles in popular newspapers/magazines doing the same thing. While it may or may not be worth reading, it WILL affect public opinion on the PS3, which in turn will probably turn a lot of "casuals" (I hate this term) away from Sony's latest machine. As the Sony fanboy market won't be enough to win Sony this generation, public opinion is significant indeed.

  • YamiGuzz

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 4:59 pm GMT

    well the ps3 was expensive....

  • pencilpusher69

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 4:53 pm GMT

    http://www.vgcharts.org/?Wii=4m

    Yeah, remember when so many of you said the Wii wouldn't reach 4 million?

    Poor Sony, maybe if you hadn't been beating your chests about the power of your system, and focused on making something affordable that was fun to play, you wouldn't be eating dirt.

  • R3DN1N3

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 3:05 pm GMT

    VegetaMaelstrom, what do u expect would happen if the Xbox 1.) didn't rake in any money for the company. and 2.) only sold a quarter of what Sony's PS2 sold? I can understand Sony supporting the PS2 after the PS3 launch but when your in a position where your companie's product didn't exactly make u any profit but at the very least got u some foot hold into the gaming business, I ask, who wouldn't go into supporting the next machine right away? Well that's what Microsoft chose to do and so far they've chosen the right path.

  • theruiner_1

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 3:04 pm GMT

    VegetaMaelstrom
    "Time doesn't have any influence on me when it comes to getting a new console one way or the other. " ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is true in my case also. I could care less what Time thinks, but then again I'm not a PS3 fan. If I was a fan i would care, because all the bad press Sony has been getting lately is probably the reason the console has not been selling as well as expected. I believe thats also the reason 3rd party devs have gone multy platform with titles that where traditionaly Sony exclusives. We both now Time magazine don't mean s**t, but what about the casual gamers. If you're a parent thinking about getting a next gen console for your kid, and you have to decide between at 360 at $400 or a PS3 for $600 or $500 and you just read the Times review, which one would you buy?

  • VegetaMaelstrom

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 2:45 pm GMT

    Yeah, R3DN1N3, Microsoft will still support XP but not anywhere near the level at which Vista will probably get. It makes more sense for them to improve Vista and get people to buy that OS because that will bring in money. Supporting XP will keep the customer's confidence up but it won't bring in any more revenue for Microsoft. So it has a balancing act between keeping existing customers happy with what they have now and recruiting those same customers to make the jump to their newest offering. My whole point was that I thought Microsoft made the jump to the 360 far too abruptly for my tastes while leaving the original xbox owners with very little support coming in the way of new games. Many other people will disagree with me. Thats fine. I would simply like to see a smoother transition next generation. I think I am also getting a bit off topic here. Anyways, like a lot of others here, Time doesn't have any influence on me when it comes to getting a new console one way or the other.

  • theruiner_1

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 2:42 pm GMT

    @VegetaMaelstrom

    Well said. you see there is no arguing with this logic. Obviously your not a fanboy of any one console. You're right about it being a tough decision. Specially if your restricted by finance. You seem like a smart guy ans i'm sure you'll chose whatever best fits your needs. It's the idiots who just buy whatever is hot at he moment because of brand recognition that piss me off.
    As far as i'm concerned The PS3 is not worth buying right now. Unless you really want a bluray player at an affordable price, but that's just my opinion.

  • R3DN1N3

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 2:40 pm GMT

    cihant
    ".....but dont forget what sony did with sega the only reason that they cant degrade microsoft from a console maker to publisher is because they have **** of money..."-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sony didn't do squat to Sega, it was Sega's and in some way the consumer's fault that it failed. You make it sound like Sony is so incredible when in fact it isn't. So far your console is getting it's ass kicked by the Wii (which I love dearly) or as u fanboys might regard it as the Gamecube 1.5

  • R3DN1N3

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 2:35 pm GMT

    VegetaMaelstrom
    I expect when Windows Vista is released that Microsoft will put almost all of it's resources behind it and trying to improve it while pretty much leaving those with Windows XP to fend for themselves.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sorry for bursting your bubble but Microsoft will still support XP well after Vista. They've just recently announced that they would stop supporting windows 98 so yeah.....get your facts straight.

  • VegetaMaelstrom

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 2:20 pm GMT

    I'm not trying to start an arguement either theruiner_1. I am looking back at Sony's history and the PS1 was a viable platform for a good 6 or 7 or so years (after that it was just budget priced kiddy shovelware) and the PS2 will still be alright for the next several months. That makes two consecutive systems with extremely long lifespans. Microsoft made an abrupt change of focus from xbox to the xbox360 and it made me a bit wary about what they plan to do if they decide to release the 720 or whatever in only 3 or 4 years. Will they throw all of their resources at the next system they develop or will they make a smoother transition for fans to ease us into the next generation by keeping the 360 supported well past it's successor's launch? It just looks to me that Microsoft's consoles seem to be a good choice if you are one of the early adopters because you will get the best support and service. Once they release the next big thing, either get on board quickly or get your gaming fix from the competition who is still supporting it's system. I expect when Windows Vista is released that Microsoft will put almost all of it's resources behind it and trying to improve it while pretty much leaving those with Windows XP to fend for themselves. I have no problem with this mentality because this is a business trying to make the most money. I just like to keep a company's past actions in mind when making a long term choice. If I had the money, I would never complain about any of the big three console makers because I would own them all and be able to buy whatever games each system has. However, I can only get one so it is proving to be a tough decision so far.

  • NathanHawkins

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 2:08 pm GMT

    I agree with Time in some aspects. The PS3 did do less than stellarly. It's still early in its life, but as far as 2006 goes the PS3 (and the mainstream news surrounding it) harmed its own reputation vastly, even among many gamers. The language Time used seemed juvenile though.., and I wonder if that has something to do with the pervading belief (which is probably true in many cases) that gamers are necessarily juvenile. Time was hoping to strike a chord with gamers? I don't know, but I don't plan to read Time Magazine anytime soon when I want to know about news involving gaming.

  • theruiner_1

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 2:03 pm GMT

    VegetaMaelstrom
    " take MS's history of completely abandoning it's current gen system once the next gen one is released."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What history? You act like M$ is on their 4 console. I dont supose the reason Sony still has support for the ps2 is because they sold over a 100million and that means alot of people with alot of ps2s buying games.
    Do you Honestly think that sony would be so supportive of the ps2 and its fans if they only sold 20 million consoles? If you do your only fooling yourself. You brought up history, what about sonys history of screwing the customer with crappy Quality and bringing out different versions of the same junk every 2 years. I'm not trying to start an argument with you. The only reason why i bothered to post is because most of what you said made sense, which leads me to believe that you have the ability to reason. Otherwise I wouldn't waste my time.

  • lancer-azaran

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 1:18 pm GMT

    Hey guys, here's an idea: stop judging a console that's only been out for a couple of months.

    PS3 has yet to reach its full potential. When I look at the screens of other games like MGS4, I think "Woah, that so beats out Gears of War". Just you wait, the PS3 will rise soon enough.

    And just so everyone knows, I'm not a fanboy. I just believe that the PS3 will be the better of the 3 systems, and that XBox will be second yet again.

    Also, I haven't seen anyone mention how awesome of a game Resistance is. (But that's because I didn't want to sift through over 2000 comments to find one person that did.) Sure, it's only one game, but my god, that's the kind of game that will make the wait seem like nothing.

    Oh, and the fact that there's a crapload of good PSone and PS2 games out means that you can play those until other stuff appears. Sure, Guitar Hero might be out of the running (which does suck), but there's still God of War.

  • cihant

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 12:34 pm GMT

    u can all say that ps3 has lame games but which system had a good launch line-up??
    maybe the wii with zelda anyway u guys can say what u wanna say but dont forget what sony did with sega the only reason that they cant degrade microsoft from a console maker to publisher is because they have **** of money...

    n all the things that ps3 isnt able to do which x360 can do dont forget that linux is comming for ps3

    and most of all dont forget the ps2 which owns both the next-gen consoles
    the end of xbox360 is going to be like the xbox1 only ea publishes games for it now i dont want my console to become a dust collector

  • VegetaMaelstrom

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 12:23 pm GMT

    I think most people from both the 360 camp and PS3 camp will agree that the 360 is currently the better system and will be for the next 6 months or so. After that it will be up for grabs once Sony gets it's exclusives rolling and the kinks worked out. I don't buy a console just to last 6 months or a year. I buy one to last me at least a good 4 or 5 years and as of right now, I think the PS3 will have a longer lifespan than the 360. Therefore the initial $500 PS3 purchase will last considerably longer than a $400 premium 360 system will last if I take MS's history of completely abandoning it's current gen system once the next gen one is released. The PS2 is still going strong even after more than 6 years on the market (God of War is still coming along with Rogue Galaxy) while MS dumped the original xbox about one month after the 360 released. Don't get me wrong, there were and are still a few games being released for the original xbox but they are third-party games, not many from MS studios. Sony had better start getting some good games out for the PS3 quickly and work on keeping their exclusives locked up (at least for the initial game launch) or it can expect to loose even more marketshare to MS. As for the Wii, I'm not interesed anymore in a casual gaming machine. I was into it when the launch hype was building but after seeing and hearing about the games, I don't think the Wii will stand out in 2 or 3 years. I'm expecting it to show it's age very, very fast. Time magazine has no credibility in the gaming industry as far as I am concerned. If Time said the PS3 was the best thing since sliced bread, I would still think that writer's opinion was not worth the ink it was printed with.

  • 9344891

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 10:57 am GMT

    I dont care what times thinks but in my mind i have decided there is no need to purchase a playstation this time around however i think the wii will win not because of the current market i think it will expand the market i have had friends who dont own any systems and now 7 house holds have wiis .

  • theruiner_1

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 9:27 am GMT

    Bathyj
    "Is this thread still going? You people are sad. Kept alive no doubt by M$ fanboys all happy that a magazine agrees with them."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Right, we're sad. And what about you? I've seen you here plenty of times. You and your weasel pointing fingers at everyone. LOL, and now you're back, but you're not sad. NO, you're special. You're a Sony fanboy. You live in Sony fanboy land where all the fanboys can criticize everyone else for doing the same sh** they do. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "At least Sony Built and released the machine they wanted"
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Exactly, Sony built the machine they wanted. Not the machine us gamers wanted.
    All you sony fanboys keep Saying the same crap over and over again. "SONY GAVE US BLURAY." Here's a news flash. SONY DIDN'T GIVE YOU BLURAY. THEY FORCED YOU TO GET IT AND CHARGED YOU $200 FOR IT. I'm not a fanboy of any system, But for now I will stick with the 360, because Microsoft gave us gamers something which is worth more than all the blurays in the world. They gave us a choice. When I went to the store to get a next gen console. I was looking for a gaming machine not a HD movie player.
    I could care less about HD movies right now. I have a huge library of DVDs, and I'm not about to trash it so I can get the same movies on bluray or HD DVD. History proves that when it comes to new tech, the early adopters usually get screwed. Specially with a situation like this, where several companies are trying to push their product on the consumer. Look at what happened with Beta Max or Laser Disk, UMD, Mini disk. Only stupid people refuse to learn from their past mistakes, and this includes Sony and all their idiot fanboys. It's mind boggling how sony can keep on Screwing themselves and their customers by trying to force their crappy formats on the public. They always fail and people still keep buying their junk. Like I said before, if you want a cheap Bluray player then go ahead and get a PS3, but if you'e looking for a gaming console with better nex gen graphics, better online capability, better exclusive games, more games and more fun to play, get a 360.

  • bobreturns

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 7:03 am GMT

    well obdviously the 360 is winning its been out nearly a year longer than the others

  • Bathyj

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 4:21 am GMT

    Is this thread still going? You people are sad. Kept alive no doubt by M$ fanboys all happy that a magazine agrees with them.

    At least Sony Built and released the machine they wanted. Not half the machine and then add the rest later and in the process alienating their own fans of which I am one. Those fans that is that are smart enough to realise the way M$ is screwing their early adopters. The fanboys, are mostly blisfully unaware how they are being ripped off, so good luck to them I s'pose.

  • qwerty456123

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 1:00 am GMT

    any one with eyes could see that the 360 is currently winning the console war but it's too early to judge the ps3

  • frostbite27

    Posted Jan 7, 2007 12:17 am GMT

    Yeah sony really messed up with the Ps3 I am a huge fan of sony playstation 1 & 2 but I bought my ps3 and what a disappointment if you look at the games they released they were already out for all other systems and theres no graphics difference between the xbox 360 & Ps3 me and my friends bought fight night round 3 and need for speed carbon and madden 07 and we had 2 T.V.s hooked up to compare the 2 systems and there was no difference and not only that the load times on the Ps3 are longer than the xbox 360 and you can't talk online to other players or your friends plus you have to buy your own hdmi cable to get the good graphics your already paying $600 bucks and if you see on ebay right now you can get a 60 GB for $500 and a 20 GB for like $400 And if you all recall by this time last year Xbox 360s was still selling for over a $1000 bucks and that lasted for 8 months sony has only been in the market for 2 months and has already bomb so if everyone would just look to the reality side of this every system has its own uniqe pluses and minuses the wii has great game play and you can download the old school games where it all started for video games, browse the internet ,get e-mails,forcast for the world the 360 has gears of war, halo 3, xbox live arcade,you can talk to your friends online while you play them, you can rent movies and download tv shows in seasons and sony well a bluray player thats all no online chat.Theres no ground breaking games comming for the Ps3.There online is free but it still sucks with lagg. I WOULD DEFINITLY SAY THAT SONY LOST THE CONSOLE WARS THE HYPE WAS OVER RATED BUT NO MATTER HOW YOU PUT IT. IT IS VOICE OF OPINION A DIE HARD SONY FAN WILL LOVE THE PS3 AND A XBOX 360 FAN WILL LOVE THE 360 AND A NINTENDO WII FAN WILL LOVE THERE WII VOICE OF OPINION AND EVERYONE HAS IT

  • FFDickeyX

    Posted Jan 6, 2007 10:16 pm GMT

    whatever happens happens. no huge titles out yet for ps3 like mgs, ff, tekken, gt

    ps3 is new, so developers getting used to it

    x360 is great too, just different types of games

    ps3 costs a lot, but a comparable 360 (with hd-dvd player, with smaller hd, no hdmi) costs more

    something thats important to me, but maybe not to everyone else, is the fact that sony released a ps3 with all those features. now theyre not expecting people to pay more for hdmi, or next-gen movie playback, or a larger hd like microsoft is because they thought ahead and put everything into the ps3.

    some of you guys have the funniest arguments.
    and lets not forget, that time named 7 billion people, Person of the Year. you just can't do that.

  • JoeSmith34

    Posted Jan 6, 2007 9:11 pm GMT

    Kane04,

    I guess we will have to ask ourselves, "Who do we rely on more."

    So, do lets look at what the organizations say:

    * Time Magazine says that the Playstation 3 is one of the Five Biggest Disappointments of the Year IN ANY CATEGORY!!! And TIME Magazine said that the Playstation 3 has nothing but "lame games."

    * USA Today said that the Playstation 3 is the Biggest Disappointment of the year!

    * The New York Times said that the Playstation 3 is a terrible disappointment that is not fun to use. The New York Times constantly said that they lost track of the number of problems with the Playstation 3.

    * IGN said that the performance of the Playstation 3 is so bad that the Playstation 3 has literally ruined all of the momentum that Sony built up over the last 11 years with the PS1 and PS2.

    * Or, do we believe some very small company located in Ireland that makes an INCREDIBLY stupid comment about the PS3 selling well "someday by the year 2012" that gets attention simply because it disagrees with what everyone else says.

    *** No doubt about it: The Playstation 3 has already failed in terms of its sales. It is already a DEFINITE short-term sales failure, and there is no way in the world that a system with "lame games" like the Playstation 3 will ever be a long-term success.

    *** IGN has made it clear that the Xbox 360 is now the next-generation sales leader, and that will not change. IGN even pointed out that the Xbox 360 is receiving greater Japanese support than the Playstation 3: Companies like Capcom, Konami, and Namco have now made it clear that they support the Xbox 360 more than the Playstation 3. IGN said that those companies are even going to release games first for the Xbox 360 when they appear on both systems.

    ***** All of the games on both systems are better on the Xbox 360--just look at Gamespot for side-by-side comparisons. The Xbox 360 versions have better graphics and better online play.

    ***** Xbox 360 sports games, and all games, let you talk to the people you are playing with online, because the headset is packed in with the system. It is AWESOME playing Madden Football 2007, FIFA Soccer 2007, and NBA 2K7 on the Xbox 360, while TALKING online to the people I am playing online with.

    ***** Playstation 3 sports games do NOT let you talk to the people you are playing with online, because the headset is NOT packed in with the system. It SUCKS to try playing Madden Football 2007, NO SOCCER GAME, or NBA 2K7 on the Playstation 3, because you CANNOT TALK to the person you are playing with online!!!

  • Kane04

    Posted Jan 6, 2007 8:53 pm GMT

    The firm believes that the PS3 will ultimately carry the largest market share, with 75 million PS3s sold worldwide by 2010.

    http://www.gamespot.com/news/6163625.html?tag=lastword;link

    The company predicts that more than 120 million PS3s will be sold through 2012, compared to 60 million Xbox 360s and 23 million Nintendo Wiis. North America will account for more than 50 percent of all console sales over this period.

    http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7253/127/

  • X_gamer_god_X

    Posted Jan 6, 2007 7:45 pm GMT

    The 360 sucked when it first came out, but now it is amazing. So maybe the PS3 will suck now, but later it may be just as good as the 360. And at JoeSmith, get a life fanboy.

  • JoeSmith34

    Posted Jan 6, 2007 7:27 pm GMT

    Almost every game on the Playstation 3 is also on the Xbox 360, and the Xbox 360 version of EVERY one of those games is BETTER!!!

    Gamespot did a comparison of EVERY game that is on both systems, and each game is better on the Xbox 360!!!

    Gamespot said that EVERY game on both systems had more polygon detail in each frame on the Xbox 360, smoother framerates on the Xbox 360, better lighting on the Xbox 360, and faster loadtimes on the Xbox 360!

    I received a Playstation 3 for Christmas, and I took it back to the store so I could buy the Xbox 360 and a DS along with some awesome games!!!

    The Playstation 3 isn't worth a penny! I tried to sell my Playstation 3 on Ebay, and people didn't even want to pay $500 for it!!! So, I just took it back to the store, because I agree with Time Magazine when they said, "The Playstation 3 has nothing but lame games."

    Let's remember, it isn't just TIME magazine saying all of this. Remember all of this stuff:

    * USA Today also called the Playstation 3, "The Biggest Disappointment of the Year.

    * The New York Times said that the Playstation 3 was a HUGE disappointment that was over-priced and under-performing. They said that the PS3 took waaaay too long to get set up, and they said it wasn't fun to play once you did get it set up. They also pointed out that the games were not as good as Xbox 360 games.

    *** Many of the games on the Playstation 3 such as Tony Hawks Skater Project 8 and Virtua Tennis are NOT online playable, even though the Xbox 360 versions are!!!

    *** Even games that claim to be playable online for the Playstation 3, do NOT have the same kind of online play that Xbox 360 games do.

    ***** For example, all the EA Sports games like Madden Football 2007, and all the 2K Sports games like NBA 2K7 are playable on both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3...BUT the Xbox 360 version lets you use the headset that came with the Xbox 360 to talk online with the people you are playing with or against.

    ***** The Playstation 3 versions of Madden 2007 and NBA 2K7 and all of the other games from EA Sports and 2K Sports do NOT allow you to talk to the people you are playing with or against!!! The reason for this is because the Playstation 3 does NOT come with a headset, so very few game companies make games that use online chat.

    ***** Playstation 3 does NOT allow you to use a USB card or an iPod or a Zune in order to listen to music while you are playing games. The Xbox 360 DOES let you listen to digital music while you play games.

    ******** All of those wonderful things we took for granted on the Xbox 360, because we use them every day, were things that we thought the Playstation 3 would include...but the Playstation 3 DOES NOT INCLUDE those things!!!

    ******* The Playstation 3 does NOT work properly with HUNDREDS of older Playstation 2 and Playstation 1 games!!! There are sound glitches, graphics glitches, and every other type of random glitch in HUNDREDS of different games.

    The Playstation 3 controller does NOT rumble or vibrate!!!

    No doubt about it, TIME magazine is 100% correct: The Playstation 3 is a HUGE disappointment with "lame games."

  • opiumbrl

    Posted Jan 6, 2007 6:14 pm GMT

    Both the articles here were written by the same jaded idiot from Time magazine. The quote of not being worth the hype, is an article written on release day.... He obviously is either unclassed in what power is, or he's the least objective reporter since Bill O'Riely. I play a PS3 regularly and it's worth every penny. How in the world could anyone expect to have a blu-ray player in their home right now when they start at 600$? And you get a kick arse game system along with it? Yes please. Articles like the one that Lev wrote for Time feed ignorance.

  • kingofkongs13

    Posted Jan 6, 2007 4:53 pm GMT

    How old are the people at Time, 5!!!!!!!!!!!!They gonna choke on thier words all thorugh 2007

  • lpolitis

    Posted Jan 6, 2007 3:38 pm GMT

    ha aha hahah the ps3 sucks and everybody knows it!

  • AgentA-Mi6

    Posted Jan 6, 2007 2:42 pm GMT

    Time Sucks... Thats All I have to say

  • spikedwraith

    Posted Jan 6, 2007 2:21 pm GMT

    what you people are saying about the ps3 (its got more power, blue ray...rar rar rar) reminds me of what people said about the dreamcast, and we all know how that turned out, even with games such as shenmue,soul calibur,half life, soldier of fortune ect, it still died...myself i couldnt care less what happens to the ps3, wheather it rises or falls.

  • Staryoshi87

    Posted Jan 6, 2007 1:52 pm GMT

    Haha, spot on, spot on. Wii60 is more economical and offers a better range of games, features, and overall satisfaction imo. The PS3 is only slightly technically superior to the box...andt that's assuming they can use it to its potential, otherwise 360 hands down.

  • madltu2005

    Posted Jan 6, 2007 12:57 pm GMT

    I have a 360 and will be getting a PS3 for the games thats coming out for it. Too bad Sony doesn't know how to use the PS3 potential if it was so powerfull. Oh well, as long as the games that comes out of it is good, thats all it matters.

  • royal_demon

    Posted Jan 6, 2007 12:55 pm GMT

    ps3 is doing terrible theres no point in getting ps3 its got terrible games at launch and very few good games coming out 2007 and 2008. bluray is just going to end up being the new UMD and sell disastriously.
    when wii offers amazing games fun unique games and xbox offers great games and hd dvds then i really dont see why people should get a 500 pounds console

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!