Has Sony won the console war?

With the popularity of the PS3 seemingly on the rise, especially given its recent pricecut, has the PS3 effectively dealt a decisive blow to the 360? Increasingly, reviewers claim that games featured on both the 360 and PS3 are superior graphically on the PS3, as more often than not, they sport better framerates and an overall cleaner presentation. In addition to that, the PS3 network is free and for the most part works rather well.

Having said all that, the PS3 isn't without its faults. The PS3's network was recently hacked and shut down. There is also some debate as to the quality of its network relative to the 360's, which of course is charged. Exclusive titles are also something to consider, as both systems have their fair share of great titles, as well as shared titles. So in the end, is there a reason to purchase a 360 instead of a PS3? Or has the PS3 clinched the top spot in this drawn out, fierce console war?

Thoughts?

Personally, while I think it's a bit much to say Sony has one the console war, I'm leaning towards getting a PS3 for a variety of reasons. The main one would be because of the exlusives, which are more to my taste than the 360's, though the small improvements to the graphics are nice, and if I ever get the chance to play online, I'll settle for the inferior, free version.

Sony has done quite well despite a lousy start, and I'll give them the battle, if not the war.

Ditto

frozentreasure wrote:

If any company had "won" the console war, no other company would be developing consoles. The answer is "no".

I hate posting rather contentless posts such as the one I'm about to but: thirded (new word - patent pending). I don't really think it's as clear cut as it was during the Dreamcast-GameCube-PlayStation 2-Xbox era where Sony was clearly the champ. It's a much closer run this time around.

I would say PS3 won the war in Japan
But here I would its probably more popular then the Xbox except for the halo addicts

I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, and of course there's the age old argument that there should be no war, seeing that gamers win in the long run if all systems do well. I actually fourth that argument (patent pending for the use of this word in this context) as all the systems have something to offer (especially since I'll own all 3 IF I buy a PS3).

But for the sake of a fascinating discussion, I think it's an interesting question to ask. I agree with Everlong that it is an extremely close race, but based on my experience it seems that Sony may be gaining the edge at this point, especially as it seems to have clinched a victory in Japan.

Like I said I think it has
Specially after E3 in 2010
I think thats when Sony really started getting more popular then Xbox
The exclusives announced there made PS3 pretty the winner (in my opinion) of E3
And if Im not mistaken Sony's sales started going up

Forsaken Lament 44 wrote:

With the popularity of the PS3 seemingly on the rise, especially given its recent pricecut, has the PS3 effectively dealt a decisive blow to the 360? Increasingly, reviewers claim that games featured on both the 360 and PS3 are superior graphically on the PS3, as more often than not, they sport better framerates and an overall cleaner presentation. In addition to that, the PS3 network is free and for the most part works rather well.

Having said all that, the PS3 isn't without its faults. The PS3's network was recently hacked and shut down. There is also some debate as to the quality of its network relative to the 360's, which of course is charged. Exclusive titles are also something to consider, as both systems have their fair share of great titles, as well as shared titles. So in the end, is there a reason to purchase a 360 instead of a PS3? Or has the PS3 clinched the top spot in this drawn out, fierce console war?

Thoughts?

I don't think so. You brought up online, which, despite it being free on the PS3, is still not even close to being on the same level as the Xbox 360. Competitive shooters live on the Xbox, not the ps3. There are a number of reasons for this, the most notable being the lack of party chat, cross game chat, the crappy netcode and the fact that all their servers are run by 3rd parties as opposed to Microsoft, who runs them themselves. Not only that, but Sony is slowly starting to try to turn their online into a must pay, as Playstation Plus subscribers quickly find themselves getting more and more rewards that would have normally been free for everyone.

Then there's the general feeling of elitism in hardcore gamers. The casuals have already chosen their white box-toy to play with, so Sony and MS are playing tug of war with the rest of the gaming crowd while simultaneously trying to pull a few from Nintendo. Usually, when someone thinks about hardcore shooters, they don't think about Uncharted and Killzone, but of Halo, Gears, and Call of Duty, which has consistently sold better on the 360 and even releases the DLC earlier for MS.

waaar81 wrote:

I would say PS3 won the war in Japan
But here I would its probably more popular then the Xbox except for the halo addicts

That has absolutely no basis at all... PS3 has yet to outsell the 360 in North America, so there must really be a lot of "Halo Addicts", even though the Halo fanbase in its entirety has been in uproar for almost a year and has been dying out at an almost rapid pace.

frozentreasure wrote:

If any company had "won" the console war, no other company would be developing consoles. The answer is "no".

I believe the correct term is "Winning", as this console generation is not yet over. When it ends, there will be a winner, and that doesn't mean the developers will stop making systems. Sony very clearly won last year, while Nintendo very clear got destroyed, yet, for some reason, Microsoft and Nintendo are still making systems.

Clearly if you're looking for shooters, the 360 is stereotypically the better of the systems...but by how much? You can still play CoD and the like on the PS3...and from what I can tell, the PS3 STILL has the more varied library of games and genres.