The PS3 is the New Saturn

[racketboy]

Makes sense, I suppose
http://www.insertcredit.com/archives/002610.html

Did Sony make the same mistake as Sega in planning such complicated hardware?
The plan might be fine if you're the only big console on the block, but when you have a strong competitor that is easier to develop for, you get in trouble.

[PhilExile]

Too bad the PS3 doesn't even have many unique and exclusive games. The Saturn had a great library that, at the time and many years after, were exclusive to the system.

It is a good Blu-Ray player though...

[racketboy]

I'll give it credit for Little Big Planet though....

[molotovwars]

I can only imagine how much worse Sony would be doing if they hadn't paid to make Blu-ray the winning format (instead of HD DVD)...

[Ramatut4001]

Yeah I like mine but I use it to watch Blu-rays more than anything. I have some good stuff from PSN but I actually only own 2 PS3 games on disc.

[tbeeghly]

Very true. You would believe that quote is about the PS3 all the way up till the last sentence when he mentions the Saturn.

[MrPopo]

I've been saying this for years. $100 more than the competition, no games on release, more complicated hardware, it's massive hubris from the stomping Sony gave to Sega back in the day.

Meanwhile, Nintendo just continues to do it's thing and eventually comes out on top. Go Nintendo!

[the7k]

Well, I don't think we'll have to worry about the PS3 killing Sony like the Saturn killed Sega. Sony has many venues of making money, while Sega only had one.

As for PS3 not having as many exclusives as the Saturn, I personally bought the PS3 for the exclusives first. MGS4, LBP and Valkyria Chronicles are much stronger games than the games I want for the X360 (Ninja Gaiden 2, Gears of War 2 and Dead Rising), in my opinion. Not saying they are better games, just saying that some people will prefer PS3's selection of X360's.

System Architecture isn't going to screw Sony as much as price point will. Despite the fact that the PS3 is a bargain considering the tech, it's still twice as much as its competitors, and that's a strong blow in a weak economy.

Still, the PS3 is basically the same as the 360. If the Saturn had 90 percent of the games that were on the PSX, I think the Saturn/PSX rivalry would have been significantly different.

[Curlypaul]

See now I dont know which way to jump at all... I've not been spending nearly as much on games lately on the grounds that I already own a whole bunch of great games that I havnt even played yet as such I've amased a little spare cash. I plan to get a tattoo but after that I was thinking about getting a 360 since they are so cheap now, but then I was put off by the high failure rate so I thought about betraying sega, saving for a bit longer and getting a PS3 since most of the games that I want to play are on both systems anyway.

Now I'm thinking I might end up buying another saturn (I blew about a grand on the one I bought in 97 for the platform to die in 98) but without the interesting and unique games to satisfy the collector in me. I think I'm just gonna ride this out for a while longer and see what happens with these 2 platforms.

Sony is sure in no danger of being taken to the wall and I dont think the complicated architecture is as much of a hinderence as the saturns was, it seems easy enough to port 360 games to the PS3 but ports dont show off what the PS3 can do. For people to see where the money is going the PS3 needs more games that were specifically developed for it that can push it further than the 360.

[Jrecee]

Saturn was Sega's 3rd system (yes ignoring the cd 32x etc) and the PS3 is Sony's 3rd. So maybe at you're 3rd system you're just destined to fuck up. Same with Nintendo, at the N64 sony took their lead.