NY Times Review of PS3 237
An anonymous reader noted that the NY Times has done a fairly negative review of the PS3. It would seem that there have been a fair number of these; it's pretty evident at this point that Sony's launch of the PS3 was not exactly well planned out; issues are still rolling in but the real test will be how it does over the holidays and into the next year.
Wii! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's even selling out, in spite of its very healthy retail supply (10x the number of units as PS3).
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/11/20/tec
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7278/52/ [itwire.com.au]
Isn't Slashdot going to mention it?
My Experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Disapointment (Score:5, Interesting)
What this means for the Playstation is that they needed to deliver a dramatic improvement over the XBox 360 for the $100/$200 extra cost up front in order to meet people's expectations. I haven't used the PS3 yet so I don't know whether they did, but I suspect that anywhere they're lacking will be a Huge issue to many people and where they're equal to or better than the XBox 360 will be seen as a Small benefit.
Mixed Review (Score:5, Interesting)
If that was the only review I'd read I'd still be quite tempted to buy one, since I preferred the PS2 to the XBox for the games.
Not exactly well planned out... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just a souped up PS2 (Score:1, Interesting)
I can't really say that's true. Going from the first-gen (2600, Intellivision) to the Super Systems (Colecovision, 5200) felt very different. Going from the Super Systems to the NES and Master System felt like a major overhaul in console gaming. Then going to the Genesis/SNES felt like a tremendous leap in the complexity and detail of games. Going to the N64/Playstation was an entirely new experience in 3D.
It was only this last generation of the PS2/XBox/Gamecube (sorry Dreamcast, we knew you well) that felt like just a graphical upgrade. Which wasn't all that bad for the last generation, as the first 3D generation was kind of weak with what the hardware was capable of. (Though honestly, the Gamecube could have been so much more.) I personally skipped owning any of the current gen consoles as nothing really appealed to me enough to make a purchase. Still, my relatives had a PS2 and they enjoyed it.
But with all the hype surrounding this generation, all the competitors are promising us the moon and more. Especially Sony, who has been telling people to get another job [joystiq.com] so they can afford the PS3. Just what exactly is so great about the PS3 that we should all go work our tails off to get it? With that kind of hubris, I was at least expecting a unique experience, even if the console doesn't appeal directly to me. (And I'm boycotting Sony anyway.) Finding that Sony's next-gen offering costs three times as much for nothing more than the same experience, but prettier, does little to improve my opinion of Sony.
That being said, some people will like the PS3. For some of them, a PS2 with HD is exactly what they're hoping for. For them, the PS3 will be a great system. (Especially since they have deep enough pockets to invest in HD in the first place.) But IMHO, the mass appeal of the PS2 is missing. Unless the price of HD equipment (of which the PS3 is an example of) comes back out of the stratosphere, the average joe is not going to see much value in the PS3. Certainly not the value that the PS2 provided.
zune (Score:-1, Interesting)
Re:Retarded review (Score:4, Interesting)
As much as I hate Sony and love my 360, I too recognize that this review is very unfair and biased.
-Eric