@b00mFargl3

"I still dont understand why people praise the ps3 title killzone 2"

Watch a MP video then.

@siligon

"Well, people who were hoping for a good port of Bio shock for starters. People who bought a ps3 for moe practical use and were told they'd get the game."

Well you do have a good port of Bioshock. Ue3 and PS3 don`t work well together, this isn`t a secret.

Killzone2 was announced 2005 so its only been 3 year in development. xbox360 was release a year earlier then the ps3, so Gears had about 2years of development and EPIC had no trouble working on the 360 because of similar it is to the PC. Also gears2 isn't a big leap from gears.

@ b00mFargl3

The reason why Killzone 2 keeps getting brought up is because if the PS3 is capable of the type of graphics that are in Killzone 2, it is EASILY capable of the graphics in Bioshock on the 360. If you want to hear a game other than Killzone 2, how about Heavy Rain.

Also, Killzone 2 is getting brought up because it's a FPS just like Bioshock, so it would only make sense that it would be compared to another FPS game like Bioshock.

Without a doubt, the response in this thread is quite predictable. Those formerly prasing bioshock now denounce it as "meaningless" or vaporware.

What's more, others hide under petty defense mechanism like "gameplay over graphics", which ironcially they use in order to construe irony...

In my opinion, the evidence is clear and straightforward. The 360 installment of Bioshock is, in fact, superior in quality. However, this does not disolve PS3's 1st party exclusives, like LBP or Resistance 2, but it does put Sony's gaming corporation in an awkard position.

To explain, if SOny continually has to finacne its success, it will never be able to achieve a sufficient profit a la Microsoft's gaming division.

Indeed, if one were to consider the original Xbox, he/she might recall how the majority of third party developers at the time dedicated central focus to the PS2. In other words, Sony could simply let others furnish its gaming services, compared to Microsoft, who almost embarassingly had to rely on 1st part exclusives in order to get a leg up.

Is this not unlike Sony's current predicament? Clearly, they need a better strategy towards cultivating third party support, as well as quality. Again, their first party support is admirable, but that weapon is a double edged sword.

talking logic and making a whole lot of sense....stop it, I say! This is n4g, where the truth is overlooked and the BS meter is always full. Hell alot of the members who take the time to comment on the news post only read the headlines before quickly giving us their full "insight" on the latest news posted.(A trend I've noticed for quite some time now) Well back on topic, I have to say that it makes you wonder about the ps3 when a great game like Bioshock turns out subpar a year later on the ps3, I mean how much time, money, and experience do you really need to make a game to push the ps3 vs 360?

JOY

Edit: vvvvvv Kuest

"Don't get me wrong, I like a healthy dose of choas and bufoonery myself, but... just every once in a while, I would like to see some quality posts."

I've always wondered if a place like that actually exists...or is it just the stuff of myths and legends, a fantasy land only thought to exist in the deep underground bowels of the internet. Ahh well at least for now, just for a brief moment again, I can believe its possible that one day I shall find such a place.

Please do enJOY your stay here at n4g.

However, your advice is well taken. Wouldn't it be something, though, if users posting in threads could actually "think" for a change; actually cosnider both the pros and cons of a particular situation?

Don't get me wrong, I like a healthy dose of choas and bufoonery myself, but... just every once in a while, I would like to see some quality posts. Thankfully, you're not a complete stranger yourself.

Bubbles for the laugh, and cheerful insight. You, and others like you, posting with the wit you do, gives me nothing, but

JOY

Bubbles+ Kuest.

You made some extremely good points... lol, especially for a N4G thread...

MOST IMPRESSIVE.

You'll find that I'm full of suprises.

bubbles for you too...

Kuest, I see from your post history that you are one of few on N4G capable of a mature debate, so I welcome such a reply.

Your analysis of Sony's current situation and strategy has raised some interesting points. Hence, there are several points I would like to highlight.

In general, should a business (Sony) encounter a hinderance in achieving it's economic goal (to provide value to shareholders), there are 3 main forms of recommendation in change to strategy:
-Status Quo (no change necessary)
-Expansion (everyone's favorite, grow market share etc.)
-Consolidation (focus on core competencies etc.)

Bringing this to your critique concerning Sony, allow me to elaborate. Yes, I agree they appear to be between a rock and a hard place. But this situation to me is far more complex. We as individuals are making assumptions of a complex level of strategy from a 3rd party perspective using little internal information from Sony themselves. I have studied, especially in Japanese companies, that the strategy and direction in multi-national companies is often extraordinarily difficult for those to understand when they are not directly involved in the organisation.

From what I can tell, Sony have made clear their long term "vision", as repeatedly stated from their "10 year lifecycle" plan. I personally believe this is their attempt to convey a snapshot of their strategy in an easy to understand one-liner to outsiders (aka fanboys). Their goal is not to follow Microsoft, that is clear as daylight. Neither is it short term. They publicly stated that they are shifting reliance to their 1st and 2nd party support and that 3rd parties was becoming less of importance. Thus, I feel, they knew this was coming, and smart businesses prepare and anticipate for future.

Futhermore, since many like to claim Sony was/is in "trouble", Sony do not particulary fit into the 3 models of recommendation - they have a mix of expansion and consolidation in different areas. While you are correct they are not currently making a profit, this is very short term outlook for an entrenched brand. When an automotive maker develops a new, expensive engine, it is rare that it is solely for one car, but spread across several models over a sustained period of time in order to achieve profit.

Sony, with Blu-ray and the Cell, is no different - this was my feeling long before the rumors of a Wii-sized PS4 (with the upgraded Cell ship) being developed came out. Hence, the PS3 to being used to grow and solidify Sony's brand and subsequent IPs (ie. Blu-ray), while the PS4 will be used to return the balances to black; their strategy dictates that they can take the hits for the time being.

My point is, I would argue that their current strategy of achieving long term profit through short term losses (ie. 3rd party support, that they knew was coming and therefore prepared for) is sufficient enough to be successful, and therefore does not require change... but only time can tell on that one.

As such, may I call you, Jack the Muse? For you surely got mind working harder than I'd thought possible twenty minutes earlier.

The premises you outlined earlier are quite excellent, and therefore I will not waste my efforts fleshing them out again. Instead, I will focus primarily on the final recomendation you prescribed at the end of your fairly long post. Also, for the convience of other readers, i will not devle too deeply in business strategy, with respects to long term/ short term.

Now, the issue at hand! Who, between Microsoft and Sony, boasts the foremost long term strategy, whith respects to consumer satisfaction and expected profit. Note, the frameowrk of either company's strategy can be divided by 1) cost distribution and 2) in-house development.

As such, I affirm- indeed, on the merit of your own post- that Sony's premiere strategy corresponds chiefly to the latter principle, or at least in comparison to last generation. Of course, the first strategy aspect (cost distribution) pertains to how well a company can outsorce its production. In doing this, a company could theoretically eliminate the bulk of its costs related to services (i.e. games, online network).

Allegdly, Sony percieves outsourcing, or third party development, as a dying breed in the sense of LOYALTY. This, in my view is an extrodinary lack of insight on Sony's part, as it opens the door for Microsoft to capitalize on Sony's indifference, and thereby DO exactly what Sony once deemed impossible. That is, Microsoft is slowly, but surely, increasing third party LOYALTY, which equates not neccesarily to exclusive per se, but DLC, enhanced graphics, etc.

Now, with respect to in-house development, the problem essentially boils down to cost versus the product's accesibility. Specifically, if all the games Sony produces are hardcore, than what prohibits Sony from being pigeonholed in that respective market? For as you stated earlier, Sony places considerable priority with 1st, or 2nd party exclusives. How, then, can Sony even contemplate mainstream appeal, if it does not put "potential" emphasis on the developers who are responsible for such titles.

Lately, we have witnessed the popularity of Sony's mainstream wildcard LBP, which will- in effect- conclude PS3's future; that is, if the aforementioned game installment can perform satisfactory (I daresay unprecedentely) with the mainstream market, that will in turn indicate if PS3's in-house development has what it takes to barge in the establsihed market share of EA, or Nintendo respectively. In other words, if LBP fails to attact a mainstream audience, than Sony's development will forever be trapped in a hardcore hell (a place where nerds compare pokemon cards, and dig their 2 inch nails deep inside their nostrils).

To summarize, what I'm merely proposing is that Sony, by withdrawing its stake in external development, thereby put the burden on itself to increase market share. I say this because Microsoft has, for all pratical purposes, grabed the reigns of that particular field. Indeed, MGS has performed admirably, but it pales in comparison to what 2k, Bethesda, Bioware, Epic, etc. has done for microsoft. By the way, how much did such titles cost Microsoft? Relatively little, from a development standpoint.

Consider Sony, on the other hand. Uncharted, Heveanly Sword, Resistance, KillZone 2. It doesn't take a genuis to realize Sony's hamburger meal comes from its own restaurant, which I believe hurts its ability to expand within a mainstream audience. WHY? Its busting its balls just try to appease you guys!

I have delivered quite a lenghty argument, which is not at all finished, or absolute. there is alot of additional points i would like to make, but feel... that no one would care to read them.

As such, I will wait for your next response, if you so dare, and then i will respond.

Again, Sony unwisely misjuged the extent that third party support would have on the market, while choosing instead to consolidate its resources. Now, all it can do is continue consildating with the hope that a gem pokes out. Microsoft, whose employee officials have snatched a disgraceful amount of third party support from Sony, can now sell off its costs- which it has been doing- while simultaneously increasing its profit. And, who is responsible for mainstream titles? Third party developers.

I think microsoft has the best strategy; although, to be fair, sony is considerably more gracious to the hardcore consumer. Microsoft, by choosing the wisest business module, has put undue burden on its public relations team with respect to hardcore consumers

Thank you for your insightful reply, Kuest. You again bring some good points to the table... Welcome to my track list. This reply is less of a critique, and more of some musing.

There are many aspects of your reply that I agree with, particularly the comment of "Sony unwisely misjudged the extent that third party support would have on the market...". This is quite true; I also agree with your notion that by doing such, this opened the door for Microsoft to capitalize on Sony's indifference.

As for the question of who has a better long term strategy? Although at the risk of appearing indecisive, I believe neither is better than one or the other, but in terms of risk, Microsoft's is clearly safer (and thus, arguably, somewhat "better").

Oddly enough, I feel both companies are in the midsts of consolidating; Microsoft with the closing of some of its own 1st party studios (Essemble); and Sony shifting importance to in-house development. Market-share wise, however, is a different kettle of fish - I disagree and think that Sony's brand (historically) has more accessibility to the casual market, of which Microsoft is only now attempting to attract (Lips, Avatars etc.) I feel this is a recent shift in strategy for Microsoft, who have previously dominated the "hardcore" market with franchises like Halo and Gears, while Sony's major franchises (among others) were GT and SingStar. I am unsure whether you alluded to this or not, but I will await your reply.

Sony is in a difficult position, no doubt about that. Their framework of reliance (which you pointed out) is clearly on in-house development - of which such "loyalty" is quite common for Japanese multi-nationals. Toyota and Honda, for instance, both own stakes in their suppliers so they have a vested interest and control in terms of quality. Hence, Toyota's quality control is heavily regulated right from supplier to consumer. Back to Sony, this would allow them to control the quality of titles, so to speak, and we have seen that from the likes of Heavy Rain and Killzone 2. In-housing has worked for other big Japanese companies, so Howard Stringer probably asked, why not for Sony?

This could pay bid dividends in the possibility that such titles become major hits and raise the Playstation profile - exclusively. The difficulty of that, which you wisely pointed out, is: 1. Cost, & 2. Product accessibility. Sony is placing importance on the hardcare gamer - great news for us, yes... But this has me mystified. I cannot fully understand their strategy, which I alluded to in my previous post. Thus I feel, again, that the short term losses they are making during this cycle of hardware has been factored into their strategy, and being used to raise their brand and subsequent IPs... of which will be made up in the next generation, unless someone can actually say with a straight face that there will be no Resistance X on PS4.

Again to the automotive industry, few know that Bugatti do not make any money via their supercar the Veyron- they sell it at a loss. Yet the company believes that the benefit gained outweighs the loss. As such, we, as outside observers, cannot comprehend the value if there is no money being made (in the short term).

It is ironic, however, that by focusing on quality, Sony neglected to enforce it for 3rd parties, and as such we are in this situation today. I think Sony *may* have predicted the likes of Square Enix and such going multi platform, simply because publishers have a responsibility to provide value to shareholders, not loyalty to Sony. Hence, the consolidation and investment in 1st party developers, to prepare for such a situation, as per their strategy of high quality, high profile 1st and 2nd party exclusive games.

What Sony did NOT anticipate, however, was Microsoft capitalising on Sony's consolidation, and here we are today. As we both know, flexibility is absolutely vital in the business world, and I feel Sony may be slow at changing - but they are, at their own pace. Microsoft, I would argue, as a more reactive strategy - adapting to current market trends, and capitalising on other's mistakes. Sony, I feel, is more proactive - forging their own way and anticipating changes. Hence, Microsoft is less risky, but Sony's strategy be successful, it will give them significant competitive advantage, particularity with the lock-in effect in exclusive 1st party games have (of which, 3rd party games are becoming less and less of).

I have not critiqued Microsoft's strategy, but will leave that to my next reply, should you take the time to return the favor, as I think most will have stopped reading by now...

Excellent, excellent points... I now can comprehend just what you meant by Sony's "long term" development. Just for organizational purposes, let me clarify the distinction between Long term and short term, as it would better enable me to respond effectively to your above post.

By, short-term, we accredit the subseqent two years of this current generation. By, long term, we not only allude to the conclusion of this console generation (whenever that may be), but the transitional pahse into Next-Gen as well. Bearing that in mind, allow me to briefly calibrate my ealier assertions regarding in-house development, and outsourcing.

The philosophy behind the two, given the timeline outlined above, is fairly contiguous, if not cyclical in nature. That is, the internal buildup Sony is presently embarking on signifies less of a permanent direction, but more of a survival mechanism.

Again, Sony sincerely considered third party support to be mute, thereby painting themselves a picture of an island among other, similarly competing islands. As such, Sony's response was to survive this evolutionary phase of "next-gen" mentality by becoming part of it. Note, the reason Sony, an esteemed market leader, would take such a position of survival/consilidation is primarily because it was determined to RETAIN its market share via the PS3.

Perhaps now, people might realize the brilliance of Microsoft's early release date. In effect, it forced Sony into a defensive position, by which it primitvely would act in order to protect its status, rather than expand it. This was showcased through Sony's central appeal to the hardcore crowd, which it mildly thought was in danger of converting to microsoft's camp. Why? Because, Mircrosoft- in the previous generation- had been infamously catalogued the hardcore product, and therefore if Sony was to regain its base (from which it could expand later), the executives believed a consilidation strategy would have to be put into effect. Again, consilidating indicates measures taken by a world leader in order to SURVIVE, not expand.

Clearly, then, one must acknowledge that microsoft held the clear advatange during 2006, with regards to expansion. Unlike Sony, it constructed the task of difussing its somewhat intimadating reputation into a more user friendly, mainstream product. Therefore, Microsoft from the beggining held a position of enhancing product accesibility, and dividing costs among external support. To do this, however, would require sufficient resources toward 1) Live network and 2) initial MGS studio development.

With regards to MGS's initial upkeep, Microsoft employed their hardcore status to solidify their presence in the market, albeit with just a slightly more expanded user base than what it had acquired with the orginal Xbox. Consequently, it could appeal eraly on with ambitious third party developers, accepting huge risks at the expense of sufficient profit. This strategy paid off, in the short term, and Microsoft could gradually build its empire of third party support based on a business module similar to Xbox 1.

With early success, MS could effieciently revamp its Live network, implementing a phase in which they could manage, and thereby influence third party support by providing the neccesary infrastructure, and consumer base. Again, this was merely MS solidifying its base.

MS's true shift in business policy arose follwing Halo 3, in which its market status within the hardcore base was sealed, and third party developers would undoubtedly recognize this fact by perputually feeding the beast. Thus, the 360 obtained a foothold where it could appeal to the hardcore consumer without radically beefing up its internal development. Literally, developers around the world were begging to put their franchises on the Xbox console, which could almost gurantee some mild success. For that reason, MS could reasonably focus on true expansion, rather than come at it sideways through online serivces.

Sony, by contrast, continues to this day to consildate the hard core consumer, which MS has already suceeded in. Of course, this apparent weakness is, in some ways, a strength due to your enligntened notion of time. In particular, if Sony consildates effectively its first party support, even at the expense of mainstream appeal, it can set the pieces up later for complete domination with both hard core consumers and casual audiences.

To do this it would need third party support, which looks dubious presently. However, if Sony were to concentrate all its efforts on third party support, after having established its own base, than the effect could potentially be suffocating on MS- whose managers placed all their eggs in a public basket.

So, I agree with you, that in the VERY long term, Sony will once again restablish their foothold on the market. However, this will almost certainly come after they finish consolidating their first party support, which could take the greater remainder of this generation. Ultimately, though, Sony will boast a more solid foundation than Microsoft's sole depednece on external support, which is short term.

What belies my entire argument, as you have probably noticed, is the unprecedented success of Nintendo, whose success I cannot rationalize nor predict. Thus, I would argue all the principles I listed above are mute because i cannot account for the biggest threat facing either MS or Sony. But, it was nice thinking about it.

I see you are unfortunately down to your last bubble Kuest, so I will (try) to stick to topic. It has been a rare pleasure to have such a discussion on N4G. For the younger readers, this can be seen as a (very) quick lesson on international strategy.

I agree wholeheartedly with your notion that Sony has been forced into a defensive position - the very corner that they did not want to play in. Yes, Microsoft has pulled a brilliant strategy of (some would argue) rushing the 360 to market to gain a foothold before the other major player - of which forced Sony to rush their own product to market before being locked out. I will not diverge into RROD and Blu-ray conspiracies, but will say that by pricing the PS3 at such a high mark, Sony effectively locked out the casual market they built up from the previous generation... and the 360 already had a lock on the hardcore market. In essence, Sony shot themselves in one foot while Microsoft shot off the other.

Once forced into such a defensive position, henceforth the 'survival mechanism' you mentioned. Sony had to rapidly react to changing environments when they had previously had a trend-setting mentality. However, a successful business does NOT change their strategy during the launch of a new product, so they stuck to their overall direction... I agree, I don't think Sony, an esteemed market leader, pictured themselves in such a dire position, but they knew the cost of developing the Cell and Blu-ray, and this would have had to have been factored into overall lifecycle estimate... any temporary loss would be outweighed by the long term benefits continuing into the "next" generation, so the product (PS3) got the go-ahead from HQ.

Interesting enough, Howard Stinger let slip some months ago that it was unlikely the PS3 would make any money back in its lifetime... further reinforcing my belief of a 'generational cycle' strategy.

In-housing does not happen overnight... such a direction takes a lot of resources to undertake. It is an investment build up over a decade... and Sony did not know the 360 would be launched a year early a decade ago. I sincerely believe that it has always been Sony's strategy to *gradually* shift reliance from 3rd party publishers (where only "loyalty" was keeping them exclusive) to in-sourced, quality controlled 1st and 2nd party exclusive titles, catering to a wide market. Look at their 1st party games; each has a market opposite: EyePet -> Killzone 2, Singstar -> Resistance 2, Motorstorm -> GT5, etc. Thus recently, Sony officially 'announced' such a strategy.

Yes, consolidation is usually undertaken to survive... but in many cases, focusing on core competences is the best way to:
1. Drive innovation
2. Differentiate yourself in a competitive market.
Funny enough, considering Sony often claim to be the most innovative of the 3 manufacturers, and innovation has driven the company in the past (Walkman, etc.)

Then there is Brand Dilution... which Sony, again, perhaps did not foresee. Whereas Sony planned for 1st party games to showcase the Playstation brand, and the PS3 would showcase the Sony brand, this is currently being undone by poor ports like Bioshock, however such a great game may be. Not everything can be planned for!

Microsoft I am not so sure on; I have not studied their strategy at significant level. However, in passive observation, I maintain they have a reactive, adaptable strategy, and seizing opportunities; reliant on external factors. My opinion is further reinforced by MS having fully integrated global operations (just look at Sony, divided up into separate regions). In order to be flexible, one must have a integrated system not requiring heavy coordination, and thus complexity, between regions (like Sony).

This follows a typical European 'Trans-national' strategy... whereas most Japanese companies follow a 'Global' strategy (Sony sits in the middle). Ultimately though, like you said, it is a short term outlook; reliance on 3rd parties, much like Sony did a decade ago. In comes the term "Console exclusive" and "DLC exclusive", terms I had never heard of before until this generation, tit-for-tat used (by both) to promote their respective 3rd party 'support'.

In addition, many analysts believe Microsoft have yet to break from the "hardcore" gaming market (but they are trying)... which Sony already has a food in the door, from last generation. MS don't quite have a cohesive, long term strategy - their strategy success relied on jumping to beat Sony to this generation, and while current support for the 360 is strong, their long term outlook is not clear with less high-profile exclusives... I hesitantly predict another jump to next generation, again simply by reacting to competition, and hope for good future 3rd party support. MS is the Hare, and Sony is the Turtle, plodding along.

Never mind the fact I strongly believe MS's main objective is to provide that value to shareholders, whereas Sony's is growing their brand strength (and with it, IP). 3rd party publishers, simple: sales.

In summary, Sony has stronger foundations (guaranteed 1st/2nd party exclusive support) and brand strength; while Microsoft currently has bigger market share and better 3rd party support. The difference is, which one will disappear at the conclusion of this generation?

Market share. And without it will go a lot of that 3rd party 'support'.

You make my brain hurt..

:D

Sony is undoubtedly poised to amass a bombast of market share in the future if, of course, it can further its title development from first party exclusive to third party support; note this will not at all alleviate MS's increasingly strong grip on third party influence, but it will essentially eliminate the "perks" they've acquired.

Underneath this seemingly soild strategy, however, belies the unprecedented momentum of Nintendo, which may very well curtail Sony's reach to the mainstream market. However, like you implied earlier, this does not deviate from Sony's ability to erase MS's current lead. What's more, Sony may eventually be poised to acquire a greater pool of resources following its inception into Next Gen, where it can acquire both third and first party support. This strategy, though, must be buttressed by quick action, not a slow push for the future.

Microsoft's entire ability to attract hardcore third party developers has depended on its foundation of Live, and initial third party buy outs. To eloborate, through Live, MS acquired the neccesary framework by which it could INFLUENCE third party developers by furnishing them with a dedicated audience, and additional channels of revenue. In comparison, Sony's online service requires chiefly the dedication of individual developers, albeit without the same gurantee of Live success.

So, as it stands today, Microsoft is left not having to produce the majority of its blockbuster titles, which as you stated, can be percieved as a short term objective.

However, consider Rare and Microsoft's further intergration with Live, through netflix and wacky "supposedly" mainstream titles like the "jeapordy-style" game (I can't recall the actual name), as well as "Who's in the movies". These can be cosidered acts of consilidation, though in a different region of development.

In other words, MS has predicted that the majority of its appeal will not derive from standard, tangible items, but online services instead. Therefore, their capacity to interact with mainstream depends on Hardcore consumption that sparks casual curiosity. The big risk, of course, is that online entertainment can be relatievely intimidating to the casaul audience; for that reason, I argue MS's steps to enrich its online infrastructure is a long-term strategy that is predicated on gradual casual awareness.

Moving back to Sony, its emphasis on games development indicates- I believe- that said company is not yet CONSIDERING breaching the casual market; instead, Sony's strategy is most likely to intercept MS's foothold on the hardcore market, even before it manages to properly attract mainstream consumers. But, still, one must acknowledge who is chasing whom, and on what particular field. Notice, how Nintendo rudely bypassed the hardcore consumer, and thereby was able to avoid the neccesary expense of "consilidation". In my mind, NO ONE wants to do that, unless forced to survive.

Innovation, creativity, etc. all signifies "progressively reactionary" steps (if that makes sense) taken to capitalize on a changing market structure; That is, Sony predicted one way, and took the neccesary steps (progressive) to retain its position through internal means (reactionary). Microsoft predicted another way, and thus took the neccesary steps to eliminate its cost production, while furthering its online service.

Jack, your knowledge of international market strategy is superb; the discussion made regarding trans national strategy versus a global strategy was especially profound, and placed this whole debate on a larger scale. For what you touched on (perhaps unintentionally) corresponds to national productivity, as well as geo-politics with respect to mercantilism. That discussion, however, has room for a poitcal blog, not for a gaming blog such as this.

Bubbles, jack. I have tracked you as well, and i am anxious to hear your last response. If you so dare, my friend.

Thank you, but I feel you haven't conceded anything! As a MBus student that happened to specialise in International Strategic Management, your original post perked my interest considerably, and I jumped at the opportunity to share thoughts.

Yes, Nintendo... a very interesting case, and one I was hoping you wouldn't mention... Like many, I am mystified by their extraordinary success, and believe that they well may become a case I will be studying in the near future. Drawing back to my original framework for recommendations, I would clearly advise them: 'Status Quo'.

Although this may not be what many want to hear, even Sony have conceded 'defeat' to Nintendo - by claiming they are "not in competition" with each other. Personally, I see this as an admittance of concession; since even though many would (rightfully) argue that they target different markets; like you mentioned, Sony DOES aspire to reach the mainstream market. Toyota is still regarded as the No.1 car manufacturer in the world, even though they do not compete for the same market as Ferrari - Apples to Oranges, but at the end of the day, people who buy them are after fruit.

You had an interesting point about Microsoft's infrastructure in terms of Live... that I had not considered, if I am honest. Perhaps in hindsight, both Sony and MS are attempting to build their infrastructure foundations; abit via different perceptions of "infrastructure". Sony with their 1st/2nd party Devs, and MS with online service. As to which one will provider stronger foundations, is another debate for the future ;)

Yes, I agree, Sony's *short term* strategy is to halt Microsoft's grip on the hardcore market... but again, Sony have the framework and brand to (eventually) attract the casual market, whereas MS will have to rely on external factors such as 3rd party support to do it for them. Their in-house attempts (such as the recent Avatars), received questionable press coverage indicating many frown on MS's ability to succeed in this. Sony, on the other side, has had their opposite (hardcore-orientated) Home being developed for 4 years and counting now... again indicating a much longer (and arguably inflexible) vision and direction.

But as you pointed out, my opinion is perceived as a 2 horse race... which it isn't. Different strategies and short-term/long-term goals work for different companies... such is the nature of business. Each has their own targets, and are achieving them different ways at different paces - Microsoft's goal of revenue (being achieved), Sony's goal of growth in brand and IP (being achieved)... Nintendo's goal of both? (being achieved). This truly is a fascinating competitive market to learn from.

how did i know that you would track me just so you could follow me around and make a fool of yourself? good job man, i'm sure everyone will be impressed with your lack of intelligence, inability to construct a sentence or spell at all, and your absolutely pointless babble.

It's great considering you pretty much just made the biggest hypocrite out of yourself in comparison to your other post. im sure people see who the whatever name calling you want to get into thing you called me. I just think its funny that you used your opinion as fact and got called on it and now your telling someone they cant do it. We have to clear that up its becoming a problem : )

LOL its so funny to me that you call others names when you obv. contradict yourself in less then 2 days.

LOL

it takes a moron to go around posting pics of "his girl" on message boards as his avatar. The fact that you think anyone really cares is what makes you a joke. as far as the gay comments if that were your girl she wouldn't be yours for long after she met me. Now fock off you little internet wannabe tough guy.

isn't this e-town that mexican kid that tries to act black??

LMAO

Go on and smack the disagree buttons assholes.
I played the demo and there's not a damn thing wrong with the game. Unless you were using the bloody magnifying glass to view every single spec...then you are full of sh*t.

Comparing a freakin' DEMO to a full game.

Desperation!

Oh, and Jason.
Get a life.

If that's the best you can do.

whatever, juuken. keep deluding yourself. they must hand out crack rocks with each PS3 because the Sony Defense Force is high as a kite.

Even 2K admitted they screwed up in an offical forum. maybe they'll try to patch it but I doubt you can put a patch on the weak PS3 GPU that can't handle textures and maxes out just trying to anti-alias. however, have fun in your dream world. Look at it this way: 2K doesn't want to break all your little hearts and they want to sell games. so go buy the crappy version of Bioshock and keep flaming away on N4G.

Stay strong Sony Defense Force! HOOOOOOOOO!

I've never heard so many PS3 fans BAAAAAWWWWWWW at the same time!

You know full well that if a game were released on the PS3, and then ported to the Xbox 360, and had inferior graphics, even if it was just in a demo, you would be all over that comment section throwing around disagrees and trying to pass off the PS3 as Jesus.

You're a Sony troll, and a hypocritical one at that. You're not gods gift to comment sections spreading the word of PS3. You're just annoying, and stubborn. 9 out of 10 of your posts are trolling, and quite frankly, it's getting old. Either live with the fact that not everyone is going to agree with your opinions, or find a new hobby and debate something that actually matters.

As a side note, I do think the games should be compared once the full game releases and not full game against demo, unless of course you can get two pictures from the two demos.

It's ok to be a fanboy, (I am) but the 360 is my front page and I never go out unless it says 360 or PC. I don't go to the PS3 side and I don't need to. All the flambait articles make thier way to the 360 side anyway, so I never realy need to leave this section. If you want to call me a 360 troll while in the 360 section, thats fine, but you juuken spend most of your time in the 360 section and your a droid.

I still don't really like fanboyism, but I really don't like fanboys that go out looking for a fight. juuken trolls about in the Xbox 360 articles that have nothing to do with the PS3, and then gets upset when there's a fanboy for the 360 in a PS3/ Xbox 360 article.

juuken's comments can be very headache inducing.

@ Jason, that was Juuken as a kid. THis is Juuken now

(remember, her uncle will give her a Wii and Wiifit, but no warranty on it because it has a maximum kg's)

well atleast she is starting to exercise a little.

Here comes the trollllllllllllllls!

Lmfao, you guys crack me up. You love these comparison videos, don't you? That's the ONLY thing you can use against the PS3 because you're a couple of freakin' losers. I don't really care for Bioshock-I just played the demo to see what the fuss was about. The game looks fine to me. The 360/PC version, of course would look better because err...IT CAME OUT FIRST!

It's been known that the piece of poo known as Unreal Engine doesn't work well with the PS3 all the time.

And then you're comparing a demo to a full game.

Bravo 360 fanbrats.

Microsoft has *clearly* won the console war.

And I don't really care how much you make fun of my weight. You don't know what I look like outside of the internet so it's pathetic you know.

FIGHT ON MICROSHAFT DEFENSE FORCE!

a demo is a demo off the full game lol noob

Some rather immature posts, but nothing can be done about it, people will be jerks to jerks, nothing more can be said.

But, wouldn't the fact that the game came out a year earlier on the Xbox 360 be a good reason for the graphics to be, I don't know, better on the PS3? I seem to remember many Sony Defense Force goons talking about Oblivions improved graphics on the PS3, and then the Xbots defended it with the rather sane argument of "PS3's version came out a year later"

If the graphics had ended up better on the PS3, then there would be no need for debate, it would make sense. But as it stands, the circumstances are flipped, and the lack of presentable graphics is a problem. Not with the PS3 mind you, but with the developers not being given enough time to make it work right. Right now, the Xbox supporters have a right to point out that the graphics are inferior, because the are. It's very clear, and anyone who says otherwise is lying flat out.

Like I said, you're quite the hypocrite, but I suppose that you can't turn upon your own nature. You're arguments consist mainly of the word "Xbots" and sarcastic remarks that in no way represent your side with any finesse. You would be doing Sony a favor if you just stopped posting, because I'm sure that after reading your posts on here, nobody would want to buy a PS3 for fear of running into you online.

Like I said earlier though, the graphics shouldn't deter any would be buyers. Bioshock is an excellent game that any PS3 owner should definitely play.

Why are you trolls on a PS3 article?
Let me start with this:

This is by no means Sonys or Sony's System, Playstation 3, fault. The bad textures, and I will say that the textures do SUCK, is the devs fault. NOT SONY. Just because 2K devs where to lazy to rebuild the game doesn't mean that the game is Sonys responsibility. You trolls are sounding more and more desperate every day an Anti- Ps3 article is posted.

And as far as Etownone goes, He should get a life. I wonder what your "girl" would say about you giving other guys pics of her. A matter of fact you should be BANNED from this site you sick lunatic. This is a gaming site not a "Brag about your fake girl" site.

Logic for the win!