Support NeoGAF

[Jubenhimer]

The Seventh Generation was a very important one in the gaming industry. It was the period where the medium and its audience were growing larger, and the consoles were being made more appealing to people who weren't into games before. On one end, you had Nintendo and the Wii, who had a special focus on targeting people who never played video games before thanks to simple, yet fun games like Wii Sports. Then there was Microsoft's Xbox 360 in the middle, the solid all-round platform that was the home to the biggest "Core" games that gen, but also friendly enough for casual gamers to jump in as well. And for the first few years, Sony and the PlayStation 3 were at the very opposite end of the Spectrum. A $600 beast of a console filled with niche games, convoluted technology, and a focus on being some omnipresent media center instead of a games console.

We can joke about the price and Cell, and Sony's PR for the system all we want. But IMO, the main problem with the first few years of the PS3 was that Sony kind of missed the point, and was too detached from what the industry's future actually was. It's not about how much power and technology you can cram into a games console, if it's not fun or easy to use. The PS3 was a notorious bitch to develop games on, was overpriced for the casual gamer, and most of its early games didn't have the same broad appeal that the Wii or 360 did. This resulted in sluggish sales, lukewarm third party support, and millions in financial losses for the entire Sony Corporation.

What's even worse, was that the early days of the PS3 were very much the complete opposite of what the PlayStation brand was built on. PlayStation, as much as some fans don't want to admit, was never a "Hardcore serious gamers" brand at all. The original PlayStation was designed to appeal to a wider audience than Sega or Nintendo consoles. Sony used the CD format, simple yet cutting-edge 3D hardware, and more relaxed license fees to do this. This allowed developers to create new types of games and experiences that reached consumers, who would've otherwise, never bothered with video games. The PlayStation 2 built on this using DVD as its format, making it many people's very first DVD player, while still being a gaming machine first and foremost. Even the PSP attracted a hip, young audience with its multi-media capabilities. But the PS3 was simply trying too hard to be this high-tech gadget that only hardcore fans could afford, and none of that technology was even properly used for most of its first half.

Fortunately, Sony realized this was a problem, and by 2009 the PS3 was given a much needed facelift. A massive price cut, new smaller model, new logo that ditches the pretentious Spider-Man font, in favor of a more rounded logo reminiscent of the PS2 and PSP, and a new marketing campaign featuring the fictional Kevin Butler helped give the PS3 a much friendlier face, and more importantly, some real momentum to compete with the Xbox 360. By 2010, the PS3 was practically a completely different console than when it launched, bringing back some of that original PlayStation magic with games that had broader appeal, and some much needed improvements to features and UI. Plus, the introduction of PlayStation Move, Sony's foray into full motion control gaming, which up to that point, Nintendo had to themselves.

This all set the stage for the development and launch, of the PlayStation 4, a console that essentially, returns to the original vision of PlayStation. An Interactive entertainment brand aimed at everyone, casual, hardcore, kids, adults, and everyone in between. I mean, the first game Sony announced for it, was a cartoony Platformer called Knack, LOL. This all came as Nintendo and Microsoft were spiraling out of control with the cluttered and confusing messes that were with the Wii U and Xbox One. In 2013, PlayStation was back on top. And the PS4 was the result of Sony ditching their pretentious ego and those silly "Casual" and "Hardcore" labels, and just made a console that would appeal to consumers.

 

[Elder Legend]

PlayStation 3 was fucking horrendous.

Took forever to get games out and nothing was really good until like the 2nd half. God of War 3 and TLOU were like the only worthy titles. Uncharted 1 and 2 were okay, 3rd was horrid. 360 was far superior imo and had way better games at the time. The launch was also real shit for the PS3, I had both since day 1. Only played resistance cause it was the only decent game at launch and then it took them till like 2008 to start picking up. Meanwhile, 360 was riding on Gears of War which was phenomenal at the time, Halo 3, and plenty of other games from Rare at the time. Games played on 360 better too, but that's the Cell processor to blame. Glad Sony turned it around with PS4, if they didn't I don't think they would of existed anymore.

 

[Jubenhimer]

PlayStation 3 was fucking horrendous.

Took forever to get games out and nothing was really good until like the 2nd half. God of War 3 and TLOU were like the only worthy titles. Uncharted 1 and 2 were okay, 3rd was horrid. 360 was far superior imo and had way better games at the time. The launch was also real shit for the PS3, I had both since day 1. Only played resistance cause it was the only decent game at launch and then it took them till like 2008 to start picking up.

The PS3 eventually, ended up being a great console. I have one, and I love it to death. But yeah, it didn't start actually gaining momentum until the 2009 rebrand.

 

[Krappadizzle]

I dunno, I really like it at launch tbh. Resistance was awesome and the console had such a sharp O.S. U.I. Then not too far after we got Motorstorm and then Heavenly Sword, some pretty sweet titles. Being backwards compatible was a huge plus for me too as I just went to the store and bought a bunch of PS2 games I hadn't played yet at that point. I think I played God of War 2 on my launch PS3. 360 was definitely better out the gate for sure, but I was glad to have a PS3.

 

[Elder Legend]

The PS3 eventually, ended up being a great console. I have one, and I love it to death. But yeah, it didn't start actually gaining momentum until the 2009 rebrand.

Hmm..I don't think it was a "great" console. I had more fun with the Gamecube. PS2 was phenomenal though for me. During the PS3 days I was 16 years old and I was a big Sony fanboy, then 360 converted me over and I hated Sony lol, then with PS4 rolling in I became a gamer that liked both despite Xbox One's horrendous presentation and start in 2013.

I like what Sony is doing with PS5 and I like what MS is doing with XSX. So to me its basically like "Why Not Both?"

 

[Jubenhimer]

Hmm..I don't think it was a "great" console. I had more fun with the Gamecube. PS2 was phenomenal though for me. During the PS3 days I was 16 years old and I was a big Sony fanboy, then 360 converted me over and I hated Sony lol, then with PS4 rolling in I became a gamer that liked both despite Xbox One's horrendous presentation and start in 2013.

I mean, it was certainly leagues better than the later half of the 360's life. Third party ports were getting better, Sony's first party was some of the best on a PlayStation to date, and the PS Move was ideal for both Casual and Core games unlike Kinect. The only missteps that period were the great PSN hacking and lack of Cross-Game Chat. But otherwise, it's amazing how much the PS3 turned itself around during its later half.

 

[bender]

Hot Shots Golf and Folding@Home were well worth my $600.

 

[Jubenhimer]

I dunno, I really like it at launch tbh. Resistance was awesome and the console had such a sharp O.S. U.I. Then not too far after we got Motorstorm and then Heavenly Sword, some pretty sweet titles. Being backwards compatible was a huge plus for me too as I just went to the store and bought a bunch of PS2 games I hadn't played yet at that point. I think I played God of War 2 on my launch PS3. 360 was definitely better out the gate for sure, but I was glad to have a PS3.

Yeah, the PS3 did have some decent games in its first half. But most of them were aimed at a niche audience, that, plus constant software droughts and a ridiculous price meant it just couldn't keep up with the Xbox 360 in sales or mindshare. Sony turned it around later in the consoles life, but the first few years of the PS3 were, generally speaking, a disaster.

 

[ToughestSoul]

And yet, it gave us Demon's Souls.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

I got it when they slimed it down. Sony did a great job turning it around, they were losing 300$ per console. Its crazy.

 

[baphomet]

The PS1, PS2, and PSP were absolutely marketed as being for "hardcore" gamers.

 

[Jubenhimer]

The PS1, PS2, and PSP were absolutely marketed as being for "hardcore" gamers.

Not really. They certainly appealed to hardcore gamers. But Sony marketed those systems to a hip, mainstream audience who thought games were too nerdy or lame. Much of the PS1's success was built on games that attracted a broader audience than the hardcore gamer niche that the Sega Saturn attracted, and older than the Child audience that the N64 was known for. I mean, are you really going to tell me games like Parrappa The Rapper, Spyro, or even Final Fantasy VII were "Hardcore", FFVII in particular, opened RPGs up to an audience who never even cared about RPGs before, and almost single handedly made FF one of the biggest names in the industry.

Again, the PS1, PS2, and PSP attracted hardcore gamers, never said they didn't. What I'm saying is that you don't sell 100+ million units by only going after diehards.

 

[sephiroth7x]

I mean, in worldwide market share and sales, the PS3 won the generation. Have to agree with the points at the beginning of the gen though. The 360 hit all the right notes in comparison to the PS3, as you say, the PS3 was the high end super gadget that no one really wanted or could afford. Keep it simple and easy with lots of games and you will be on to a winner. MS made the same mistake for me THIS gen with the Xbox One. No one really knew what it was. Whereas the PS4 had a clear scope and vision.

Interestingly, both parties have about the same momentum at the moment going into the next gen. Will be a very interesting one.

 

[yurqqa]

I think it was completely opposite.

With PS3 Sony wanted to create a mediacenter, rather than a pure console for hardcore gamers. The trick that Microsoft gloriously repeated several years later.

After Sony dropped that idea, concentrated on games and reduced the price, PS3 started to thrive.

 

[yurqqa]

And I think that really first half of PS lifecycle had less diversity in games than PS1 and PS2, but it most likely to do with bigger game budget at the start of HD era, new tools were needed and indie hadn’t rise yet.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

PlayStation 3 was good but Xbox 360 was fucking great. Games simply looked, performed and played better. You could actually install the entire game and run it off the hard drive while PS3 had partial installs. The PSN games were fine but nowhere near XBLA games. Then of course, you have the exclusives. Xbox 360 completely dominated as for me, if it wasn't for Naughty Dog, I would have had literally only one game (Dead Nation) for the console.

I ended up buying PS3 when the slim model was released before Uncharted 2 for $300. I played Uncharted and Uncharted 2 back to back. Loved Uncharted 2. Uncharted 3 was great but not better than Uncharted 2. TLOU was the best game overall. All the other franchises, I simply had zero interest in. Guerrilla with Killzone, Sucker Punch with Infamous and Santa Monica with God of War simply did nothing for me. It took Horizon Zero Dawn for me to have interest in Guerrilla, the rebooting of God of War for me to care again (played the original GOW on PS2) about Santa Monica and the upcoming Tsushima for me to have any interest in Sucker Punch. Had zero interest in Resistance or Ratchet & Clank at the time. I love Ratchet & Clank PS4 but still zero interest in Resistance. Love Spider Man though.

PS4 is what made me actually care about Sony's first party studios because outside of Naughty Dog, all I cared about was Housemarque. PS3/PS4 for me is what Xbox One/Series X will end up being for me. Xbox One was like PS3 for me where I only played 5 exclusives with the rest being of no interest to me while I see Series X doing for exclusives what PS4 did for me.

Overall, PS3 is my 4th PlayStation console and I can already say that barring the games being horrible, PS5 has already surpassed it as well. And I will never understand or figure out why Sony went with the Cell processor. 15 years later, it's still kicking Sony's ass. SMH.

If it wasn't for PS4, I probably wouldn't even care about Sony and PlayStation if PS4 ended up being like PS3 but thankfully, they rebounded this current/past generation.

 

[Jubenhimer]

I think it was completely opposite.

With PS3 Sony wanted to create a mediacenter, rather than a pure console for hardcore gamers. The trick that Microsoft gloriously repeated several years later.

I mean, the 360 was marketed as kind of a media center as well. The difference was that Microsoft did a better job attracting a wider audience with a more affordable price and big mainstream exclusives like Halo 3, and Gears. The PS3 meanwhile was stuck with an esoteric processor, bloated OS, and games too niche to sell such an expensive console. Sony learned the hard way that hardcore tech heads are not the audience of games consoles, a lesson they learned with the PS4.

 

[UnNamed]

I think it was completely opposite.

With PS3 Sony wanted to create a mediacenter, rather than a pure console for hardcore gamers. The trick that Microsoft gloriously repeated several years later.

After Sony dropped that idea, concentrated on games and reduced the price, PS3 started to thrive.

This is so true the reason PS4 had such a huge success was because "This is for the players"

 

[cireza]

I am not a big PS fan but the PS3 is the only PS home console I had and actually enjoyed. Sure, games I like were probably not the most mainstream ones, but that's just how I am. I had the console at launch by the way, and felt that the first years were actually the best ones.

Games I enjoyed were Initial D, Bleach, Demons Souls, Doom BFG, Valkyria Chronicles, Dead or Alive 5, Virtua Fighter 5, After Burner Climax, Outrun Online Arcade. These are the ones that come to mind, essentially 60fps games by the way. This is the kind of output I am looking for. After a while I switched back to Xbox 360.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

Not really. They certainly appealed to hardcore gamers. But Sony marketed those systems to a hip, mainstream audience who thought games were too nerdy or lame. Much of the PS1's success was built on games that attracted a broader audience than the hardcore gamer niche that the Sega Saturn attracted, and older than the Child audience that the N64 was known for. I mean, are you really going to tell me games like Parrappa The Rapper, Spyro, or even Final Fantasy VII were "Hardcore", FFVII in particular, opened RPGs up to an audience who never even cared about RPGs before, and almost single handedly made FF one of the biggest names in the industry.

Again, the PS1, PS2, and PSP attracted hardcore gamers, never said they didn't. What I'm saying is that you don't sell 100+ million units by only going after diehards.

There is, in my opinion, a contradiction between what you mean by “hardcore” and your idea of “hardcore” not being meant for a broad audience.

PS1 was definitely replacing SEGA’s consoles as the gaming platform for the cool kids, but it absolutely didn’t do away with the nerdy image of video games and gamers. If you remember the ads for the original PS, they were as 90s-edgy as 90s-edgy ever was, but with a definitely nerdy touch. SEGA’s imagery for their Genesis ads was all about angsty teenagers with leather jackets and shades. Sony’s was mad scientists and heads exploding. SEGA’s ads reminded you of Michael Jackson and street gangs. Sony’s reminded you of Frankenstein and Blade Runner.

Sony offered very “hardcore” games compared to Nintendo, which was (and still is) a brand trying to appeal to all ages and tastes. Sony had hip, mainstream imagery and graphics and aggressive ads, but their games ended up becoming the standard of “hardcore”. Cue all the people who, to this day, scoff at Nintendo for abandoning the “hardcore” gamers. With PlayStation, “hardcore” became mainstream, and all the rest became ”casual”.

 

[JimiNutz]

Resistance was an incredible launch title.
Not quite Halo CE tier but honestly not far off and a lot of fun.

I had been a 360 gamer up until that point and was amazed by Resistance online MP. It was incredibly smooth and basically lag free for me because it was running on dedicated servers. It was a stark contrast to XBL which did have a fair bit of lag and where games rarely, if ever, ran on dedicated servers. It had 40 fucking players as well!

Motorstorm was also an incredibly fun arcade racing game. The combo of Resistance FOM and Motorstorm was pretty awesome for me.

360 did remain my primary console though because third party games always ran better on it.

 

[DogofWar]

Well, as a casual gamer. I bought PS3 relatively early and never noticed any of this. And I'm not even a fan of God of War.

MGS4 was enough to make a lot of people instantly buy it. Of course that is the turd in the (official) MGS saga but it was really fun when it was new and considered a great game when released.

Not to mention Demon's Souls which while not being super big when it was released retrospectively turned PS3 into something a lot of people bought only to be able to try it.

 

[Jubenhimer]

PS1 was definitely replacing SEGA’s consoles as the gaming platform for the cool kids, but it absolutely didn’t do away with the nerdy image of video games and gamers. If you remember the ads for the original PS, they were as 90s-edgy as 90s-edgy ever was, but with a definitely nerdy touch. SEGA’s imagery for their Genesis ads was all about angsty teenagers with leather jackets and shades. Sony’s was mad scientists and heads exploding. SEGA’s ads reminded you of Michael Jackson and street gangs. Sony’s reminded you of Frankenstein and Blade Runner.

I think the main difference between Sony and Sega was that Sega took gaming out of the kids isle, but they still mainly targeted a niche audience of hardcore arcade gamers who wanted hardcore arcade experiences such as Mortal Kombat and Golden Axe.

With PlayStation, the focus was more on attracting people who weren't really into gaming, using the power of the CD format to create new types of presentation and gameplay not possible to that extent before. Games like Crash Bandicoot and Spyro offered Animation and Voice Acting on par with a Cartoon. Games like Parrappa The Rapper used the CD storage to create interactive musicals, and games like Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy VII offered sprawling, complex narratives that rivaled any classic film or novel. The PlayStation may have taken Sega's mantle as the "Cool" console, but it was always intended to attract a broader, mainstream audience to gaming. Why else did it sell 100+ million units worldwide? The early marketing? That's just typical 90s radness everyone was engaging in, even Nintendo.

When I say the PS3 was too hardcore, I meant that it was an over-designed, over-complicated, and over-priced gadget that lacked the simplicity or immediate appeal that the PlayStation or even the PlayStation 2 had, and only really appealed to the most hardcore of gamers. That's why it struggled up until its 2009 rebrand.

Sony offered very “hardcore” games compared to Nintendo, which was (and still is) a brand trying to appeal to all ages and tastes. Sony had hip, mainstream imagery and graphics and aggressive ads, but their games ended up becoming the standard of “hardcore”. Cue all the people who, to this day, scoff at Nintendo for abandoning the “hardcore” gamers. With PlayStation, “hardcore” became mainstream, and all the rest became ”casual”.

This is why I don't believe companies should make consoles based on such labels. All that does stifle the products appeal, and limits creativity. Just make a solid console with cool features, and an affordable price and you'll get Hardcore, Casual, and any type of gamer on board. The PS4 and Switch are what happen when you forget about labels, and just make a game console for people who want to play games.

 

[ZywyPL]

I liked what the PS3 had to offer pretty much since the beginning. Sure, the first year or two were really rough, but they always are, same for PS4 and upcoming PS5, but games like R:Fom, Motorstorm, R&C:ToD, etc. gave me tons of fun, and that's what ultimately matters. Then Sony engaged the panic mode and the games just kept on coming, second half of PS3 lifespan saw like one exclusive each quarter, there were tons of games and genres to chose from, I'd go as far as saying that this was Sony's/Playstation's peak.

So it really saddens me to see the strategy they took after PS4 launched, with one, maybe two exclusives a year, with almost all games being the same 3rd person cinematic experiences on top of it, with some of the genres pretty much completely missing, like FPS, racing games, not a single MP title, and so on.

So I have to strongly disagree with OP, Sony dropped the ball with PS4, basically MS won them the generation by forcing people to pay 100$ extra for Kinect nobody asked for, if both consoles started with 399$ I'm way more than sure the generation would look vastly different than it is now, and Sony couldn't be so lazy and would have to fight for the consumers like they had to with PS3.

Like, let's take the racing games as example - one of the most casual friendly/appealing genres, what did Sony gave us? GT:S, a racing sim, and not only that, it's aimed precisely at the most hardcore audience, the one that wants to race in online events/leagues/competitions. There was Wipeout Omega Collection, but that's a ported PS3 game, if someone didn't got to play it on PS3 then cool for him i guess, but everyone else already finished the game twice by then, and again - WO is as hardcore as it can get. There was DC, which indeed was a casual title, but it was released like halfway into the development, it took half a year to get it into full/finished state, and but by that time most people turned away from it and never went back to check the progress, and then Sony decided to close the studio that could continue the franchise or even bring back Motorstorm...

Shooters? There was KZ:SF at the very launch day, and it had some appealing at first, but died pretty quickly, and Sony never bothered with shooters, or FPP games in general ever since. Or any MP title for the matter. Most of the genres and online games are covered by 3rd party publishers, if it wasn't for EA, Ubi, Activision, Rockstar, Bethesda, Bungie etc. there would be little to no games that appeal to the general casual audience. Sony's 1st party games are being played occasionally, in between another Fifa match, another GTA5 round, another skirmish in CoD/BF, while awaiting for another Assasin's Creed, and so on. I mean, Sony's games weren't even out there before 2016 when UC4 showed up, then HZD, then GoW, and so on, all the shows like E3, GDC, TGS etc. were filled with nothing 3rd party titles, PS3 remasters, and indie ports, so Sony's games obviously weren't the reason so many people got PS4.

But like I said, with such price difference between PS4 and XB1 it's hard to make a good judgement of how impactful the games themselves were, the upcoming generation which is rumored to be more or less priced on the same level should give us a more fair insight/understanding if Sony's strategy is really what drives people into their system.

 

[toker818]

ps3 was just too expensive and didn't have games until Mgs4 thats way i bought one

 

[ptuck874]

I dunno, I really like it at launch tbh. Resistance was awesome and the console had such a sharp O.S. U.I. Then not too far after we got Motorstorm and then Heavenly Sword, some pretty sweet titles. Being backwards compatible was a huge plus for me too as I just went to the store and bought a bunch of PS2 games I hadn't played yet at that point. I think I played God of War 2 on my launch PS3. 360 was definitely better out the gate for sure, but I was glad to have a PS3.

same here, I had a blast with the ps3 in the beginning, resistance multi on the aircraft carrier was the bomb, then warhawk came out and I have been a ps guy since, dont get me wrong, had a 360 and wii (still have the wii too!) but the ps3 was not bad at all in the beginning...

 

[SantaC]

Ps3 was average because cell ended up overrated and hard to develop for.

 

[Romulus]

The console was just awful imo. The architecture, games, price. Even when it hit it's full swing I felt even its top tier games were mediocre compared to the previous generation of consoles.

And by the time the ps3's visuals were maxing out, we'd already seen stuff like Crysis and Warhead that just took its spotlight. And even without that, I just never thought they looked good other than gifs.

I always rank ps3 at the bottom of my sony consoles.

 

[Laconian Sword]

After Burner Climax, Outrun Online Arcade

Loved these! Outrun in particular was fantastic and it's a shame it was delisted when the Ferrari licensing ended.

 

[Griffon]

The brown generation.

It was fucking trash.

 

[Roufianos]

There was just a huge dearth of quality games in the early days. When I think of PS3 exclusives I think of MGS4, GOW3, KZ2, Uncharted 2 and 3, R&C: ACIT and of course, The Last of Us.

All of those released from 08 onwards, I guess the initial wave of exclusives were way too rushed.

 

[Kokoloko85]

PlayStation 3 was fucking horrendous.

Took forever to get games out and nothing was really good until like the 2nd half. God of War 3 and TLOU were like the only worthy titles. Uncharted 1 and 2 were okay, 3rd was horrid. 360 was far superior imo and had way better games at the time. The launch was also real shit for the PS3, I had both since day 1. Only played resistance cause it was the only decent game at launch and then it took them till like 2008 to start picking up. Meanwhile, 360 was riding on Gears of War which was phenomenal at the time, Halo 3, and plenty of other games from Rare at the time. Games played on 360 better too, but that's the Cell processor to blame. Glad Sony turned it around with PS4, if they didn't I don't think they would of existed anymore.

......
Yes the 1st half wasN’t great but the whole generation wasn’t horrendous
There was a time great exclusives were coming out every month or 2

Uncharted 3 was horrid? And 1 and 2 were ok?

Uncharted 2 made waves and changed the Console “war” And gaming going forward just as much as Gears did. It was Phenomenal.

And 3 was pretty great and better than most games out there.

God of war 3 and Last of us were the only worthy titles?

So not Demon Souls?
Gran Turismo 6?
Heavy Rain?
Infamous 1 and 2
Valyrie Chronicles?
Little Big planet?
Kill zone 2 and 3?
Metal Gear Solid 4?
Ratchet and Clank?

Ni No Kuni?
Persona 4
Journey?
Yakuza Ttitles?
3d dot hero?
Resistance 2?

And obviously Tokyo Jungle....

Bit Biased no?


At the end of the day. The PS3 outsold the 360 in the endand has many MANY exclusives. It what drove the machine to Catch up with the 360 and outsell it despite the horrible launch and decisions sony made for the PS3

 

[Aion002]

It was the Dark Souls of the consoles.

Only the hardcore ones got in.... Then the casuals came when Sony added a easy mode.


Also, may I say: The Xbox One release was for the masochists ones.

 

[Bolivar687]

I vehemently disagree with the premise of this thread with every fiber of my being.

PlayStation had already established itself as a lifestyle brand with multimedia capabilities. The PlayStation 3's price was largely driven by Sony continuing the precedent established by both its predecessors of introducing a new optical format for the first time in millions of homes. Their first three consoles were bigger than gaming, almost single-handedly dictating the outcome of format wars for the rest of the entertainment industry. You cannot argue the PS3 was "detached from what the future of the industry actually was" when it set the blueprint for the next generation of consoles - mandatory HDD, high capacity Blu Ray, internal Wi-Fi, and rechargeable USB controllers. With full native backwards compatibility, flash card readers, bluetooth, and the option to install Linux with Other OS, it was a colossal evolution that met and exceeded what we had come to expect from PlayStation at the time. Maybe not all of these features survived, but they did not drive the premium price of the console and, as a consumer, I will always prefer a company taking a chance to innovate rather than playing it safe. If I were an investment banker, I, too, might share the OP's giddy enthusiasm for Sony taking away features and scaling back its ambition. But as a gamer, it is only a source of disappointment and shame.

I also firmly contend that Sony expanded the gaming industry by appealing to adults looking for deeper interactive experiences. Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil were seismic shifts that defined the PlayStation's identity. Final Fantasy VII appealed to non-RPG players because of its highly imaginative FMVs, but its story was also much larger and more complex than its predecessors. The PS3 still had Ratchet & Clank from the beginning, but even after the mid-gen course correction, its best selling titles include the likes of Heavy Rain and The Last of Us.

Don't blame Sony just because you were too lazy to work a second job to experience this visionary masterpiece of a console.

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

Lets put it this way:

- PS3 launch was so bad, third party and other games ran way better on 360, call of duty...360 was teh console to play...exclusive dlc deals (gta/COD?etc)...360. Lost exclusivity to Final Fantasy 13, Tekken 6 and other. PS3 had some terrible exclusives in the beginning.. ALL THAT and still came out on top at the end of the generation. That to me is insane. They gave it their all, pushed 300% and it payed off.

- Microsoft has all the momentum after 360, fucks it up for launch and NEVER catches up. PS4 has sold almost 3 times more than the X1. MS literally just gave up and called it quits. As a Playstation fan (not fanboy), I swear I thought this generation was going to be the end of PlayStation because 360 did it so well. Who would of thought that at MS office, they would take shrooms and heroin mixed together and come up with a new business plan and screw themselves so bad that even with XSX launch, them saying it wont have exclusive games to the system for some time...they are literally turning into Netflix and prob will be lagging behind again.

 

[Dr. Claus]

PlayStation 3 was fucking horrendous.

Took forever to get games out and nothing was really good until like the 2nd half. God of War 3 and TLOU were like the only worthy titles. Uncharted 1 and 2 were okay, 3rd was horrid. 360 was far superior imo and had way better games at the time. The launch was also real shit for the PS3, I had both since day 1. Only played resistance cause it was the only decent game at launch and then it took them till like 2008 to start picking up. Meanwhile, 360 was riding on Gears of War which was phenomenal at the time, Halo 3, and plenty of other games from Rare at the time. Games played on 360 better too, but that's the Cell processor to blame. Glad Sony turned it around with PS4, if they didn't I don't think they would of existed anymore.

Can't really agree. I feel that there was a very interesting Dichotomy between the 360 and PS3. 360 started strong with great releases at a good pace, excellent online services, and unique features that was adopted nearly across the board (such as an account-based achievement system). PS3 was overpriced, lacked quality games, and didn't really have all that many unique features. They would later adopt the Trophy system, but that was a rather... haphazard? achievement-styled system that was later improved by the PS4.

However, things started to change in the latter half of the generation. Xbox slowed down to a crawl with releases, with increasing misses, a focus on similar game types and the trifecta that most seem to associate with the brand (Halo, Gears, Forza). Meanwhile PS3 increased its gaming output, with both AA and AAA games from many different genres, artstyles, and regions. All alongside a killer marketing push with Kevin Butler.

Both ended up being on par with each other by the end of the generation.

Both consoles had fantastic games, but highly dependent on different halves of the generation. Claiming the PS3 was horrendous is rather silly (as would the 360). Both had their strengths and weaknesses with great exclusives.

 

[Elder Legend]

Can't really agree. I feel that there was a very interesting Dichotomy between the 360 and PS3. 360 started strong with great releases at a good pace, excellent online services, and unique features that was adopted nearly across the board (such as an account-based achievement system). PS3 was overpriced, lacked quality games, and didn't really have all that many unique features. They would later adopt the Trophy system, but that was a rather... haphazard? achievement-styled system that was later improved by the PS4.

However, things started to change in the latter half of the generation. Xbox slowed down to a crawl with releases, with increasing misses, a focus on similar game types and the trifecta that most seem to associate with the brand (Halo, Gears, Forza). Meanwhile PS3 increased its gaming output, with both AA and AAA games from many different genres, artstyles, and regions. All alongside a killer marketing push with Kevin Butler.

Both ended up being on par with each other by the end of the generation.

Both consoles had fantastic games, but highly dependent on different halves of the generation. Claiming the PS3 was horrendous is rather silly (as would the 360). Both had their strengths and weaknesses with great exclusives.

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed my Ratchet and Clanks, God of War, Uncharted 1 and 2 and TLOU but that was it for me. When 360 launched it was something else, it truly felt next-gen, Xbox Live was a whole crazy things. Microsoft became the pioneers of online gaming and with Gears coming out the following year after launch it just became incredible time to be alive. Crackdown games were actually good. Lost oddysey and Blue Dragon were fantastic. Loved both of the Viva Pinatas and the launch lineup was miles ahead of PS3. Yeah, I'l agree with 360 slowing down at the end, which was lame and Kinect wasn't helping either.

PS3 finished on a high note with TLOU but it took them forever to get there. You are correct that by the end, they both turned out to be great systems. But I felt kind of backstabbed by Sony with how expensive the console was and how launch was extremely mediocre and how it took them forever to catch up to MS when it came to online capabilities and games during that era. Also, publishers like Capcom and Square enix were absolute dogshit compared to PS1, PS2, and PS4 era. That didn't really help Sony either.

 

[The Alien]

Watched a video by Mystic on YouTube recently. It was pretty decent and highlighted a quick summary of the console wars between MS and Sony.

It was startling how the mistakes in prior gen's were alternatley repeated by each company. It was amazing how poorly PS3 launched (did a great job regaining position)....then Microsoft stupidly repeated many of Sony's mistakes.

SONY for PS3: "Get a 2nd job"
MS for X1: "We have a console for you...the 360."

Lol.

 

[jaysius]

Playstation 3 was a huge shitshow, but having Sony leading the pack is a HUGE MISTAKE, this generation has been awful for Sony fans(not fanatics they take any Sony shit and love it) the quality of the Dual Shock 4 sticks(rubber disintegrating), the awful shitshow that is the PS4 Pro(noisy as fuck, HDCP handshake issues with hardware combinations), a fucking lightbar on every DS4, just for the handful of people that want to try the PSVR alpha experiment...

Sony is a bad leader, but what made the later half of the PS3's life good is that Sony was playing catch-up, that's when they shine, when they need too. They've stagnated so badly this gen, being on top has made them lazy, leading them to think they win next gen just because they won this gen.

MS were wet behind the ears with Xbox 360, their SECOND console but they still managed to do pretty good innovations(1 vs 100 game), updated their awful UI to make it snappier, Ports were just better looking on Xbox 360 even in the later days(RDR is a snowy mess on PS3). Catch-up this gen has made them come up with Gamepass.

Sony's UI is even slower to react on the PS4 Pro when I push the PS Button, than the UI is to react on my OLD Xbox One when I press the Xbox button, WTF SONY?

I really hope Sony doesn't put fugly ads into their UI like MS has done, that's a huge mistake.

 

[leo-j]

Ps3 was touted as a ps4 with 1080p visuals and CGI quality games. Ps4 barely managed to do what the ps3 originally promised. They put too much $ on that Blu-ray and cell processor.

 

[Quezacolt]

The PS3 had a great collection of games, some of them, like demon's souls, leading to other franchises that are amazing too.

My problem with the ps3 was the hardware itself. The controller was a joke, breaking so easily it was like it was made out of paper and the OS was painfully slow.

 

[Valentino]

Thank god it birthed some of the most recognisable, award winning, iconic, recognisable, still talked about today games.

 

[Jubenhimer]

I also firmly contend that Sony expanded the gaming industry by appealing to adults looking for deeper interactive experiences. Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil were seismic shifts that defined the PlayStation's identity. Final Fantasy VII appealed to non-RPG players because of its highly imaginative FMVs, but its story was also much larger and more complex than its predecessors. The PS3 still had Ratchet & Clank from the beginning, but even after the mid-gen course correction, its best selling titles include the likes of Heavy Rain and The Last of Us.

That's what I"m saying. The PS1 opened up gaming to a whole new audience, the PS2 built on that. But they were still, simple, fun gaming platforms before anything else. The PlaySatation 3, at least initially, tried way too hard to be this over-the-top, expensive entertainment box. It lacked the simplicity and immediate appeal of previous PlayStations, and was just this overly complicated product that not many people felt like they needed. It was an impressive piece of technology, but if forgot the most important rule in the Gaming industry, Fun. What good is having the most powerful console, if its not fun or easy to use?

The Later half of the PS3 was a lot better, with a much needed makeover and a larger lineup of exclusives giving the PS3 some real momentum against the 360, who was shifting focus to doubling down on its Kinect Sensor. Sony meanwhile, offered a diverse library of games for every type of gamer, and lots of them. The PlayStation 4, effectively returns to the core mentality that powered the PS1, where yeah you can watch movies and listen to music, but at its core, it's a gaming platform first and foremost. The later PS3 and PS4 put the "Play" back in "PlayStation".

 

[Slings and Arrows]

The fuck is this shit

 

[Little Chicken]

I just think the 360 had better games initially, as well as the superior version of almost every multiplat game.

360 ending 2007 with Bioshock, Halo 3 and Mass Effect was amazing.

 

[GlockSaint]

I still love that ps3/360 generation, pretty much the biggest jump of all time in my opinion. Not just the games, the os, installing linux, wireless controllers, upgradable hdd, an online service (before that i always thought online gaming was for pc only). The ps4/one were just an evolution not a revolution like their predecessors.

 

[Lunk]

Last half of the PS3 was too streamlined, brought in the mainstream audience to gaming for good, started Gamergate, and created the schism that has ruined many aspects of the non-malevolent parts of gaming culture.