The Console War of 2007
Posted by 7th on September 07, 2007

First off, let me say for the record that I do have a reputation for being A) a technophile, and B) a Sony enthusiast.

I deny neither. There's nothing I love more than having the latest high tech doodad. And I've been a die hard Sony supporter more or less since the death of the Dreamcast (I had a PS1 before that, but only after the Saturn died, hence a pattern emerges.)

With Christmas around the corner, one of the big questions will no doubt be which shiny new system to buy. And there's been a lot of forum chatter with various faction fanboys supporting their system of choice, and slamming anyone who shows interest in buying something else (this is for you, Webber! Fight the good fight, lad!) So I'm going to try and be as unbiased as I can (truth be told, I'd like to own all three) and provide the pro's and cons of the PS3, 360, and the Wii so you can make an educated buying decision.

1) Xbox 360

Anti-fanboy Nicknames: Xbox PleaseFixMe, Xbox 180, SuxBox

Pros: Second most affordable system, wireless controller, next-generation graphics, year head start provides a larger library of titles than the other two systems, currently has the best online platform of all three

Cons: Three different versions of the system with different features, must buy the top of the line to get the full benefit, infamous Red Ring of Death problem, must pay monthly fee for online access, will most likely only be supported for four-five years before being discontinued by Microsoft

The Lowdown: I want to like the Xbox 360. No really, I do. It has at LEAST three games I want to play on it right now. In fact, we're currently working diligently through club.live.com to get one for free. Why free? Because as it stands right now, there's no way in hell I'd pay cash for one.

The 360 currently has three different versions: The Core, The Pro, and the Elite (and a special Halo 3 Elite coming shortly that's just an Elite painted like Master Chief, and no, it doesn't come with Halo 3. You're mainly just paying for the cool paintjob.) We'll start by stating what all three SKUs are lacking, and then move on to the Elite, since it's really the only viable option of the three to compare to the PS3.

None of the SKUs have built-in Wi-fi, so if you run off a wireless router, you'll have to shell out for an adaptor. None of the SKUs have built-in high-def DVD capability (though the 360 does sport a very nice DVD upscaler) so you'll have to shell out 149.99 for the external HD-DVD drive, which will take up more space on your console, and you'll be limited to fewer selections because Blu-Ray has more exclusive studios (and is selling better, so the viability of the external drive may be in question within a year or two.)

The Core unit has no hard drive at all, so forget about dloading all those cool Xbox Live Arcade games, or playing any online games at all, really. All of them come with one wireless controller with rumble built in (no motion control from Microsoft, kiddies, Bill Gates has stated in interviews that he no likie.)

The Pro unit comes with a 20 gig hard drive, but when Microsoft's downloading service really kicks off, that won't be near enough for all the dloading of movies and what not you'll need. Hell, if Warhawk wasn't a PS3 exclusive, dloading it off Xbox Live's Market Place would take up a good chunk of that, just for one game. So the system of choice for Xbox enthusiasts is the Elite.

The Elite is the only SKU out of the bunch who can do full 1080p hi-def video. It has a 120 gig hard drive, the largest currently provided for any platform. It comes with a headset, a month of Xbox Live Gold, and an HDMI cable, which is a nice edition, as just a three foot HDMI cable for my PS3 ran me 20 bucks (50 bucks for the Sony brand of decent length.)

The 360 is essentially a next-generation Xbox. The lineup of games for the system mirrors the demographic of its predecessor: primarily games that PC converts would look for, like first-person shooters, PC ports, sports and racing titles. The RPG contingent, for a system that's been out a year, is poorly supported, with Oblivion being the only real stand out. The Japanese RPG is almost non-existent, with Enchanted Arms and Blue Dragon being the only options (and both got subpar reviews.) if you're a platforming fan who enjoys games like Mario, Jak and Daxter, or Ratchet and Clank, well you can forget about it, as the only noteworthy platforming you'll be doing on the 360 is old refitted titles in the Live Arcade like Castlevania: SOTN. But overall, the system has the largest library available due to its one year head start, and has the highest number of AAA titles, with plenty more on the way.

The Xbox Live service is currently the best online platform for console gamers. The Achievements system allows gamers to earn points they can use towards Live Arcade titles and additional level packs for premium games, and the ranking system allows you to see how you stack up against players from around the world. But it will cost you about 10 bucks a month to use it, and if you were unfortunate enough to buy the Core system, don't even bother.

Lastly, all three of the 360 SKUs have an absolutely HUGE power brick that runs really hot, so you might want to keep it placed on a book or something to keep it off the carpet.

So why should you pick another system over the 360? Well, first you should look at the history of the brand. The Xbox was only out about 4.5 years before Microsoft released this graphics monster, and they completely abandoned the original Xbox upon the 360's release. This left Xbox owners who'd just received their systems the Christmas before out in the cold. The 360 has limited software-based backwards compatibility, but that sadly is becoming the norm (which I'll get to in a minute.) So right off the bat, Microsoft has a history of just abandoning their platform, so don't count on still being able to buy new AAA 360 titles in 2009/2010.

Pricewise, the 360 Elite is still more affordable than the cheapest PS3 available, but only on face value. Were you to stack them up feature by feature, you would have to buy a wireless adaptor plus the 150.00 HD-DVD add-on to get the same performance and options out of the 360 that the (currently) cheapest PS3 still available offers right out of the box. So 479.99 + 150.00 plus (if you go cheap) 20.00 = 650.00, fifty dollars more than the PS3's original launch price. So those who taut the 360's price point aren't really looking at all the facts.

But the biggest hold off for me has been the system's reliability. Visit any gaming site on the web right now, and one of the biggest gripes you'll hear about the 360 is the infamous Red Ring of Death. Essentially, Microsoft really went on the cheap to get their unit out at a cheaper price point than the PS3, and consumers are paying for it. In the current build, they used cheaper microchips with larger transistors that run hotter, and actually placed the GPU right under the drive motor. And the GPU doesn't have a dedicated heatsink, so there's only the one cooling fan to keep the system running icy.

Long story short, 360 owners around the world start buying the 2nd generation 360 titles like Gears of War and Bioshock that really pushes the GPU to its limits, it starts running hot, and eventually expands to the point that it just, in some cases, pops right off the board, which brings you to RROD and a bricked system.

The OTHER 360 problem is a cheap DVD drive, which has been scratching the hell out of discs bought with hard-earned money. This problem isn't as widespread, but there are enough reports of it out there that a company overseas is selling a "pad pack" of soft adhesive pads to stick onto the bottom of the drive door to prevent the disc from running aground, such as it were. And 3rd party hardware companies are making a mint selling 360 cooling fans that pop onto the side of the unit.

When this first started happening, Microsoft denied it all, and stated it was coming from user abuse... turning the system on its side during play (which shouldn't affect a cd in a GOOD drive anyway), keeping their 360s in a poorly ventilated area, and so on.

As more and more calls came in, they extended the warranty from 90 days to a year. As the problem grew worse, they expanded it again just within the past couple of months to 3 years. The layover time it takes for them to repair a bricked 360 has gotten so bad recently (reported average of 6-8 weeks) that Microsoft have now resorted to simply sending out new Xboxes, which hasn't helped in some cases because the new ones they send out break shortly after use and then the customer has to wait another 6-8 weeks.

Microsoft have announced that these Xboxes will soon be replaced with systems that have smaller transistors that run cooler, and rumor has it they're moving the GPU and putting a heatsink on it, but I personally haven't seen any firm word on that.

Bottom line, I'm holding off on getting one till they get all the kinks worked out, and considering that this has been going on for almost two years now and they just started doing something about it six months ago... well let's just say my already shaky faith in Microsoft's customer service policies has developed a case of Parkinsons.

That's why they named it the 360, you know. That's the maneuver you pull from store counter, to home, and back to store counter.

2) Playstation 3

Anti-fanboy Nicknames: BS3, Cashstation 3, The Black Hole, Blu-Raystation

Pros: Built-in Wi-fi, Remote access to games, movies, and other media via PSP Remote Play, Sixaxis motion controls, built-in Blu-Ray player with DVD upscaling, comes standard with a 60-80 gig hard drive (20 gig model discontinued), online play and Playstation store offering downloadable games and add-on content, Playstation Home online platform coming before Christmas.

Cons: Most expensive system out, popularity of the 360 and poor decisions on Sony corp's part has caused the loss of a few exclusives to bolster loyalty, games designed on 360 and then ported up to PS3 are lackluster compared to the original design (though not in all cases, see Oblivion), current online offering is lackluster and non-uniform, system designed around the Cell processor, which is incredibly powerful but is much different to program for due to its multi-core nature.

The Lowdown: Sony really fell into the Nintendo of the mid-90's trap of arrogance with the PS3, but unlike the N64, they still have a good chance of coming out on top in this gen race.

It all comes down to the system's designer, former head of SCEA Ken Kuturagi. The PS3 is essentially a Trojan Horse being used to get a Blu-Ray player in the hands of every former PS2 owner, thus making it the de facto platform over HD-DVD. What they didn't count on was the difficulty of programming for the Cell processor, the continued success of the PS2, and general lack of interest in paying over 400 dollars for a gaming system.

Those who say that the 360 is currently "beating" the PS3 are kidding themselves. The only thing that is beating the PS3 is Sony. The PS3 has been regarded to as everything from a hub to a home media center to a super computer, much as its predecessor was, even though it clearly was none of those things.

Only in the past seven days has Ken's replacement, Kaz Hirai, come out and stated for the record "I'd like to clearly say, the PS3 is a gaming machine. It's nothing more than that."

It's a step in the right direction for Sony, along with another price cut coming soon with a better SKU, but I can't agree whole-heartedly, simply because the PS3 can do so much more than just play games.

Like the 360, the PS3 originally came out in two versions: the 20 gig, and the 60 gig. The 20 gig didn't have all the memory card slots, and didn't have built-in wi-fi, but otherwise was identical to its higher priced brother. Since that time, the 20 gig unit has been discontinued, so now there is the 60 gig unit, and a soon-to-be released 80 gig unit that comes packed in with Motorstorm, one of the PS3's best titles, and (currently) at 599.99, the 60 gig's launch price. Soon, the 60 gig model will also be discontinued, leaving the 80 gig unit, which should also be having a significant price drop before Christmas.

The PS3 has a built-in hard drive, built-in Wi-Fi support, and a built-in Blu-Ray player. All PS3 games are on Blu-Ray, which offers more than double the storage capacity of a DVD-9 like the 360 titles. So essentially a game that would take 2+ discs on a 360 will come on one disc on the PS3.

The controller is a modified Dual Shock 2 called the Sixaxis, a bluetooth-based wireless controller that has built-in motion controls. There is currently no rumble, but this is being rectified in a future revision due to customer demand.

The 60 and 80 gig units include numerous media storage slots on the front of the device so that mp3's, photos, and so on can be easily ported to the system. While both have HDMI ports, neither comes with an HDMI cable, a real slight from Sony. Come on Kaz, throw in another cable. The RCA jacks aren't cutting it anymore.

Which brings me to resoltuion. When the PS3 first came out, one of Sony's big harping points was that the 360 wasn't a true HD machine because it couldn't do HDMI, which was rectified by the Elite SKU. But even Sony could only claim this under certain conditions. You have to have and HDTV that supports 1080p to get the full effect, and even then, many of the PS3 titles only support 720p. And if you have an older TV that only goes up to 1080i, it may downscale 720p games straight to 480p, which really hampers the experience (Resistance is a good example of this. Despite numerous firmware releases since the PS3's release, this issue still persists for owners of older HDTV's, which leads me to suspect that there might not be a software solution for it. So if you want the best graphics for your buck and you are an owner of one of these older sets, you may have to choose between either buying a new TV, or waiting with the hope that newer versions of the PS3 (a PS3 slim perhaps) will have the issue corrected. Again, Sony dropped the ball on this one.

Another renovation the system has going for it is portability. With the help of the PSP's Remote Play feature, this allows all your files to be accessible from anywhere in the world where you can find a wi-fi hotspot, assuming you leave your PS3 on all the time of course. One neat example of this is the new PS3 title Lair, which actually streams live to the PSP, converting the motion controls to the PSP's straight forward control scheme on the fly.

Ported games on the PS3 have taken a lot of flak. In the most glaring cases (Madden '08, F.E.A.R.) the game underperforms compared to the 360 version. This is due to the original build being designed for the 360, and then thrown "up" to the PS3, a configuration that quite frankly couldn't be any different. This is not a fault of the system itself, but a fault of A)lazy programming and B) Sony being slow to offer better support for the PS3 dev kit.

But don't be quick to assume this is the case for all titles. The PS3 version of Oblivion is superior to the original 360 release in graphics, sound, control, and content. And the only difference between the PS3 and 360 versions of the upcoming Devil May Cry 4 is the PS3's motion controls.

The fact is, if these games had been designed originally for PS3, they wouldn't be able to be ported down to 360 at all without making cuts, as has been the case with Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto 4. So to really compare power to power, you gotta look at first party titles.

The 1st party titles on the PS3 are phenomenal. Don't let anyone kid you into thinking that the PS3 is short of great exclusive "must haves." On most of the gaming websites, you'll find a distinctive bias towards the 360 or the Wii, mostly due to a dislike of the Ps3's price and Sony's arrogant stance, both of which, honestly, are warranted. However, if you read through reviews by everyday gamers, you'll see a different story entirely.

Resistance: Fall of Man, a PS3 exclusive launch title, generally got high 8's and 9's, though a few 7's sneaked in. Most gamer reviews are 9.5 or up. A recently released title, Heavenly Sword, is the same way. Lair, on the other hand, a long awaited title, has gotten as low as 4.9 out of ten. The reason?

"We hate the motion controls."

Much like the Wii, some diehard gamers are having a hard time adjusting to the Sixaxis, especially with games like Lair where motion controls are the only option (though oddly enough, if you have a PS2 controller and a USB adaptor, you can play the game with the PS2 analog sticks just fine.) I have played Lair, and I have played other titles with motion controls (Blazing Angels, Ridge Racer 7.) if you spend more than an hour with them, it becomes second nature. The big difference here is you can't be swinging the controller and jerking it around. Simple, steady movements win the race.

The system itself is built like a tank. It feels like it weighs a good 25 lbs. The system may be overpriced, but the tech for that price is top notch. This is a very well-built machine, folks. There's no power brick either. It's built in, much like the original PS2.

One drawback though. Backwards compatibility. When the PS3 came out, the ability to play all PS1 and PS2 games was thrown around a lot by Sony due to all the negative press over the 360's software based Xbox emulation. Well guess what. The new 80 gig PS3 has had the PS2 Emotion Engine removed, so all future PS3s will also rely on software emulation. The current compatibility list is already online on the Playstation blog site. So if you're looking for a system that is guaranteed to play all PS1 and PS2 games, you'd best keep your PS2 on backup or hurry up and buy one of the 60 gig US PS3's before they're all gone (which is approaching fast, according to recent sales figures.)

The Playstaion 3's online experience is, to say the least, sorely lacking. There is no uniform platform. There currently is no Achievements system, and thus far you cannot invite players to other games, and what not. It's similar to playing online with the Wii or DS, really. Each game has its own online world, with its own advantages and weaknesses. the Playstation Store has been available for almost a year, and yet doesn't have a whole lot to offer. Short of Super Rub-a-dub, all the PSN exclusive games are a lot of fun. There just aren't that many of them. And since there's no Achievements system (the Sony version, Trophies, is coming with the advent of Playstation Home this fall) one can only get these games by shelling out cash by way of credit card. But still, there's no fee. Play online all day, all you want, you won't be charged a dime.

However, come fall, this will no longer be the case. Playstation Home is coming, a uniformed format that combines the online community of Xbox Live with a realtime 3D interactive world like Second Life to create an online community experience unlike anything else out right now. You wanna watch a movie? Go to the theater! You wanna play some pool, bowling, or arcade games? Go to the arcade! (and yes, the bowling title has motion control like Wii Sports Bowling.) Every user will have their own custom avatar, and each avatar will have its own "apartment" that can be designed from the ground up Sims-style. You can invite friends over to your apartment and play games, watch movies, etc. Of course, for those that just want to get in and play, all of this can still be accomplished with the PS3 XMB system. But I have to admit, Home just seems like a much more enjoyable experience than a simple system of menus.

As for exclusives, the PS3 has a ton coming. Lair and Heavenly Sword are already out, and both are truly amazing. If they'd just managed to get Lair going at 60 fps, it would easily look better than anything currently out on any other console. It has fantastic battles and glorious controls (if you bother to actually play through the tutorials to learn them) and Heavenly Sword is God of War with a chick. Nuff said. Warhawk just came out, and is being almost universally hailed as one of the best MMO experiences on ANY system. Next month brings the newest Ratchet and Clank title, which finally deliver's on Sony's PS2 promise of "games that look like Pixar movies." Naughty Dog has Drake's Fortune coming out, a Tomb Raideresque actionfest, and then there's Haze, a new FPS that plays like a cross between Halo and Half-Life, but has a very unique story and new gaming elements. There's also a unique and quite beautiful Japanese action RPG called Folklore coming that just looks astounding. And don't even get me started on White Knight Story. Those are just the ones that spring to mind. And of course, next year brings Killzone 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, and Final Fantasy XIII.

Bottom line, the Playstation 3 is a gaming powerhouse that has a great lineup of titles on the way, sports the current best DVD format (and most popular of the two next-gen formats) requires no add-ons short of an HDMI cable out of the box, and will give you the most bang for your buck, since it will have the longest lifespan. Look at the PS2. Came out in 2000, and is still enjoying a diverse library of AAA titles like God of War II. It'll easily hit a ten year cycle before it disappears completely from the gaming scene, though God of War II was officially Sony's last 1st party AAA title. Compare that to the 5 year old Xbox's collecting dust in Gamestop closets and flea market shelves across the country.
give the PS3 time. The 360 seems to have already hit its peak with Gears of War (Halo 3's graphics are, shall we say, less than jaw dropping.) PS3 is already hitting that level graphics wise, so just imagine what upcoming PS3 titles will look like another year down the road. And three years from now? It boggles the mind.

3) Nintendo Wii

Anti-fanboy Nicknames: The Nintendo Wiik, The Nintendo Wii(nis), The Wii-pod

Pros: unique motion-based Wii-mote controller and nun chuck, cheapest of the Big Three by far, Wii Virtual Console allows players to purchase classic NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, and TG-16 titles. Top notch 1st party titles.

Cons: 3rd party games are complete ass, Wiimotes become anti-TV missiles if the wrist strap breaks, controllers use regular batteries, graphics and sound are at last-gen level (look no better than Gamecube), new games will look completely laughable by the time the 360 and PS3 hit their 3rd generation titles.

The Lowdown: I don't really consider the Wii as a contender in the Console Wars. It's more like a toy, albeit a really fuckin' FUN toy. Nintendo made a smart move in focusing more on making the games simple to play over looking their best, as much like the DS, they've used an underperforming chipset with a unique control scheme to tap into a new market: that of the casual gamer.

But I don't see this as a viable longterm solution. First off, much like the DS, anything that's not 1st party designed either sucks outright (many of the 3rd party Wii games are already selling at 19.95, which has 3rd party developers complaining that Nintendo are the only ones making real money off the Wii) or are old-gen titles with a few Wiimote gimmicks thrown in. Secondly, there are thousands of Wii's sitting out there with only one title sitting beside it: Wii Sports. Casual gamers are drawn to the Wii by the easy pick-up-and-play of this pack-in title, but if you were to sit them down with something like Twilight Princess or the upcoming Mario Galaxy, they'd look like a virgin face-to-poon for the first time after years of doing the knuckle shuffle.

This is why the Wii library is replete with dumbed down, simple games that, were it not for the motion controls, would be no more appealing, innovative or deep than your average free Yahoo game. Wii fanboys can talk about how new, innovative, and exciting the system is, but when the proponents of the system that are getting the most news time are geriatrics in old folks homes, something is amiss.

One of the biggest complaints I've heard is the following scenario. A guy goes to a party, and plays Wii Sports with his friend. This guy is not a gamer. He never got into it because he was intimidated by the number of doodads on a typical console controller. He has the time of his life playing Wii Sports at the party, so the next morning he goes out and buys one. He takes it home and has fun with it for about a week, but soon comes to discover that the game isn't nearly as fun when you don't have all your buddies around you watching you look like an drunk idiot swatting the wiimote around and vice versa. So he goes to the store looking for something fun on the Wii that can be better enjoyed in a solo fashion, only to find that most of the titles for the system are either kiddie games, or titles that really only use the Wiimote in a gimmicky fashion, titles like Zelda or Red Steel that really still play like standard console games and are way beyond him in terms of complexity.

So his Wii sits and collects dust. This is not an isolated example by any means.

Now true, this scenario would not fit me at all. I love Mario, I adore Zelda. I will eventually get a Wii just for the joy of playing those two titles. But that's as far as my Wiilove will ever go, short of me having Wii parties and watching my co-workers drunkenly swinging away. When you look at a hot selling game system whose best titles include Wiimote-ized ports of Gamecube titles (Zelda and Resident Evil 4) you have to wonder about the longterm viability of it as anything more than an amazingly successful fad. The very limitations of the wiimote forces Nintendo to split its userbase into two groups: hardcore gamers who want in-depth games with deep story lines and engrossing game play, or casual gamers who want quick fixes of 10 minute fun like Wii Sports. The problem being is there's no cross-market potential there. The hardcore gamers will undoubtedly be disappointed by the majority of anything coming to the system that isn't made BY Nintendo, and the casual gamers will be turned off by the learning curve of games that actually require more than a flick of the wrist.

The Virtual Console kicks ass, I must say. I'm a huge fan of the NES and the Genesis, and would love to be able to play all my old favorites on my TV again without hitting the garage sales. But for someone who already owns all those titles for free on his PC, the idea of shelling out 5 bucks a pop for them isn't so appealing. Nintendo needs to really lean toward's the 360's concept and less towards the PSN in my opinion. Beyond that, online on the Wii is shit.

The Wii plays no movies at all. It's a straight forward gaming machine, so for those looking for the most bang for your buck, forget about it. It's also not in Hi-Def, and the graphics, well... it's a Gamecube with online features and a pointy stick.

One of my co-workers bought a Wii, and after much mocking by the rest of us, brought it in and opened it up so we could see what was inside the box. We took down some part numbers and did a little price checking.

There's no nice way to say this, folks. The Wii is running on a 12 dollar motherboard and an 8 buck GPU. You get what you pay for. There's nothing really proprietary in the system. Everything is off-the-shelf, even the motion sensor technology in the Wiimote is licensed from another company. Nintendo was looking for two goals, and they achieved both: to be easy, and cheap. The Wii is the two dollar whore of the gaming world. It represents the dumbing down of the medium so as to make gaming more palatable to the unwashed masses. It's homogenized gaming. It's a Big Mac to the 360's (undercooked) steak or the PS3's overpriced lobster restaurant (that the night before its grand opening built in a drive thru window but forgot to hire anyone to man it.)

But I'd still buy one, because the games made by Nintendo are still as fun and whimsical as they were when you were 12... But if Mario and Zelda does nothing for you, if your idea of a completely new gaming experience is waving a remote control at outdated graphics in standard definition, then you can get an equivalent experience in the toy department at Wal-mart for about 19.95.

So what's my final vote?

Easy. All three. I'm a Sony gamer, but I'm a gamer enthusiast in general, first and foremost. And if the only way I can play the best of the best out there is to have all three, then ideally that is what I would do.

But if you don't have that kind of capital to spend and are looking for a true next-generation experience, at least until Microsoft gets their head out of their ass, I'd get a PS3. Unless you just HAVE to play Halo or Gears of War (which was also a PS3 game before Microsoft paid out the ass to make it an exclusive, and I have a magazine from a couple of years ago to prove it) then you won't be disappointed or feel you paid too much money. And I guarantee you, you won't have to replace it every 3 to 6 months either.

-=7th=-