28 replies to this topic

[godslabrat]

Two hardware generations ago, it made a lot of sense to own both an N64 and a Playstation, because the two offered very different styles of games, with very different experiences. If you only stayed in one camp, you missed out. In the last generation, you really needed to have a PS2 in order to get the major titles, but it also made sense to pick up a Cube and/or Xbox... no one wanted to miss out on Mario or Halo. And in the current generation, the Wii is the system nearly everyone has, in addition to either a 360 or PS3.

The thing is, looking at what the PS3 and 360 have in terms of system exclusives... combined with the very similar feel of cross-platform titles, I have a hard time saying that you really need to have both HiDef systems in this generation. You really could pick just one and run with it... and given that all three systems are really heavy on accessories and add-ons, it's making a lot of sense to be more critical of your hardware purchases. It seems like this is the first time in a long time you can have a solid gaming experience without owning every system on the market, IMO.

Do you agree? And if so, do you think this trend will continue? Are there any other formerly "have it all" gamers that are looking to go light in the next generation?

[pocketmego]

It's lost its appeal for me. But, I'ma bad example, because I have decided to strictly use ONLIVE as my main source of gaming.

[Jibbajaba]

Yes and no. I don't think that there is much reason to own a 360 and a PS3, although I know plenty of people who do. I have a 360 and a Wii. Those two systems are very different, and one is not a substitute for the other.

I totally understand what you're saying though. Back in the day we had Nintendo vs. Sega for a couple of generations, and they each had strong first-party titles that made their systems compelling. Then we had Nintendo vs. Sony for a couple of generations (Sega was a non-factor with the Saturn and Dreamcast), and again both companies had strong first-party titles and systems with very different target demographics. Now, you have Sony vs. Microsoft vs. Nintendo. The problem here is that Sony and Microsoft are really aimed at the same demographic, so they're just diluting the market. On top of that, neither company's system is really defined by their first-party titles. Yes, we still have Halo and Resistance and Little Big Planet, but most of the blockbuster titles like the Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Madden, Battlefield, etc. franchises are third-party and come out for both systems. Honestly, right now if I didn't own either system, I'd have a hard time picking one, because there just isn't much to differentiate them. I would have been all over the PS3, but then they removed the PS2 compatibility.

The Wii is a completely different animal, and is still largely defined by its excellent first-party titles. As such, were you in the market today for your first modern console, your choice would really be the Wii vs. PS3/360.

Mind you, having said all that, I hardly ever play either my Wii or my 360. I stick to the old stuff. I bought Skyrim on launch day, but have already wandered back over to my Genesis.

Chris

[Cybergoth]

There's really not too much difference between the two HD consoles. I basically went with the PS3 for free online, Uncharted and because I thought its exclusives would rather be japanese-style stuff like JRPGs than american-style first person shooters like Halo/Gears.

[TheGameCollector]

I think this current generation. The appeal was much stronger when the three systems first came out and you didn't know quite what to expect. I'm glad I adopted the PS3 early in July 2007 because I got the benefit of having backward compatibility in the midst of the first $100 price drop. I am not glad I adopted the Xbox 360 In June 2008 because even though I got the more reliable Elite system still with HDMI, it didn't come with built in wireless internet.

As far as games go I'm a bit more picky about not missing any titles. I have to be able to play Blue Dragon just as much as I have to be able to play Demon's Souls.

[MagitekAngel]

This is actually the first generation I've had all the consoles in my living room while they were current. It's simply all about the games. Both consoles still have important exclusive franchises, and until gaming slips entirely into the cloud (and likely even after), it's going to stay that way.

Edit - I said "both" consoles and completely forgot to include the Wii, which is also in my living room, but is getting very little love lately. Hey NOA - spread a little JRPG love, will ya?

Edited by MagitekAngel, Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:22 PM.

[Chris Leach]

Owning a Ps3 1st gen release was always a fav of mine....!
Not only did you have full access to 3000+ games from the Ps1 and Ps2 you could now also play Ps3 games.
As far as exclusives....I have never been a fan of anything exclusive to the microsoft brand until Oblivion or Mass Effect. Then those jumped ship and are now on both consoles...so I see no reason to own an X360 and have never purchased one....even today

[NE146]

I actually agree. In the Sega Genesis, Turbografx, and SNES days it made a LOT of sense to have all 3.. because you'd go into the store and have all the libraries available to you (each of which had their unique offerings) and you wouldn't miss out on any of the top games for each system.

However today with my 360 & PS3.. I find I end up just getting the 360 versions as it's pretty much homogeneous.

[bomberpunk]

i own a wii and a 360. even blu-ray compatibility couldn't sell me on PS3. that goes without saying we still don't have a blu-ray player or a big ass HDTV. i'm still playing games on my 26-inch 1980s woodgrain console tv. sometimes i have to stop playing because i can't read what's on the screen (Dante's Inferno, i'm looking at you)

i just have no need for a PS3. most of the titles i am interested in are either already on xbox or are wii exclusives. this guy prefers bright/colorful and cheery graphics over dark/realistic.

[onlysublime]

When I was a kid, I was solidly in the Atari camp. 2600, 1200XL, 1040STf, Lynx, and Jaguar. Part of it was computers/game systems were just so expensive and I was already pushing my parents hard to get these things for me. There's no way I'd touch a Commodore even though the Atari game selection was much slimmer, games were designed for the C64 and then poorly ported to the Atari, and the whole world seemed to have a Crappy64. But if we had all the money in the world, I'd probably get all the systems.

There's no way I'd be able to justify having multiple Nintendo and Sega systems as a teen either because the games were so expensive! I remember Street Fighter II for the SNES being $70! And we thought games for the 360/PS3 are expensive. But that big friggin cartridge was hella expensive.

But starting with the PS2, I also owned the Dreamcast and the Xbox1. PS2 because of the huge game selection, large used game selection, etc. Xbox1 because of Halo and better graphics/XBMC. Dreamcast because it was first and had that arcade-like quality that Playstation1/N64 didn't have.

Nowadays, having some real money, I don't see how people don't have multiple consoles. There's so much good gaming out there that to restrict yourself to one console would be a disservice. To me, if you had to own only a single console (and you shouldn't only own one system!) I think it should be the 360 because its games have the most sales; Gamestop, Gohastings, etc. have more used 360 titles than PS3 titles; Xbox Live Gold's features are that good; you have a better shot of finding players to play old games with online; Kinect; and multiplatform games tend to run better on the 360. I even keep my Wii in rotation because it has titles that the other systems don't have (though I must profess that my Wii is modded so I'm a cheapskate on that system, but then again, I've bought many Wiimotes, nunchuks, motionplus, etc. for 4-player gaming and I have bought a few games for it that I felt was worth the cost).

[Eltigro]

My first response was going to be, "No, I still want them all!" But looking at it realistically, and thinking about my past decision making, I'm going to agree. I have a Wii and an XBox 360. I want a PS3 just to have them all because I have a hardware collector bug, but I've told myself before that it's just not worth the price. The 360 and the PS3 share so many games, and one version is not really that much better than the other (and at any rate, when one is claimed to be better, I fear that fanboyism is the deciding factor). And when I looked at system exclusives for PS3, I just didn't feel that they justified the purchase. The last game that made me want a PS3 was Gran Turismo 5, but I just held off and got Forza 4 and I'm happy.

Edited by Eltigro, Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:34 PM.

[moycon]

I think since the beginning of video game consoles anyone who purchased any one game console would have a solid gaming experience. Maybe some more robust and with more plentiful of choices (PS2) than others (Atari 5200). That said, a "hardcore" gamer (I know some people hate that term) have never had a problem shelling out the cash to get multiple consoles for various exclusives. It happened for as long as I can remember, and continues to happen today. Most, if not all the people I regularly game with now have multiple consoles. Not really seeing where much has changed from 10 years ago. If a person has recently decided to only stick to one console, it probably has less to do with an over all trend and more to do with a personal change of priorities. If anything I see the opposite happening. Thanks to advances in networking and multi-player options of games, (not to mention fatter wallets) a lot of friends/gamers are not only buying the different consoles, they are also buying multiples of those different consoles.

[atarian63]

Ps3 since release and several around the house, Wii also. owning both makes sense as they are both unique. Never bought a 360 as it's mostly just duplication of my ps3.

[godslabrat]

Yeah... see, I'm looking at my buying decisions over the past five years, and I'm glad I bought the PS3 because I'm a BluRay fanatic. When I bought my 360 back in 2008, the PS3 was overpriced, had a pathetic selection of games, and no Netflix. Now the PS3 has a library that matches the 360's, and it's a better media center to boot. Also, way back when, who knew the 360 would have such reliability issues?

In hindsight, I realize I could have gone 100% PS3 since 2008, and saved myself lots of hassle. And I've NEVER been the kind of person to advise against buying an extra console. For a while I thought I was just getting older, but as I said in the OP, I think the industry has changed to make multiple console ownership not as big of a deal anymore.

[Animan]

It's different this generation than some other generations. The PS3, 360, and Wii are all amazing systems. You can't go wrong with any of them. Most people I know only own one of the three systems, and if they do it's always either a Wii and PS3 or a Wii and 360.

[moycon]

godslabrat, on Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:55 PM, said:

I think the industry has changed to make multiple console ownership not as big of a deal anymore.

I don't think this has anything to do with the industry, unless you have data that shows a decline in multiple console purchases compared to a decade ago. Still you might be right, easy test, start a poll right here on the forums and see how many gamers still purchase multiple,different consoles as opposed to those who now only purchased one.

As far as the PS3 matching the 360 not sure what you are refering to. Both have exclusive games, many of them GREAT games. Anyone who states the libraries are duplicated is simply ignorant. Here's a link to the list of exclusives. For the record the 360 lists 197 exclusives, the PS3 clocks in at 102 exclusives. That a whole lot of non duplication in my book.

http://en.wikipedia....rosoft_Xbox_360

[xg4bx]

had a ps3. ditched it. had a wii. ditched it. no urge to ever own them again.

now i've got a 360 and a ps2 and i'm perfectly happy.

[Asaki]

Personally, I don't even see the point in owning a PS3 or a 360; the only games they have that I want to play are also available for PC with much better graphics/framerate/modability and much less $$$.

Whereas something like Mario, Zelda, Metroid, there's only one place to go to get my fix.

[Reaperman]

This gen, I tried to roll through with one console, but I seem to have picked the wrong one, and eventually I got so mad at it that I bought hardware from each and every one of its competitors.

I'm planning on rolling into next gen with Onlive to prevent me from having to pay launch-prices on new hardware. Heck, if Onlive starts supporting racing wheels (and the whole cloud concept doesn't take a dive), I could see myself just sticking with their service entirely. If not, I'll probably have to get a next-gen xbox at some point for the next Forza game.

In every generation I can recall, I went with the 'wrong' hardware first, and wound up enjoying one of my 'secondary' systems far more in the long run. I'm cursed, I suppose.

Edited by Reaperman, Thu Dec 1, 2011 8:13 AM.

[Bilnick]

I have found as I get older and have had kids that also want to play games, that I have bought multiple copies of all the systems. I only had one Xbox, one PS2 and two Gamecubes (original GC broke) last generation, but it was mostly only myself who played games. Near the end of the last generation my oldest kids started playing Xbox mostly (my son loved Star Wars Battlefront).

This generation I have 3 Xbox 360s, 2 PS3s, and 2 Wiis. (not to mention multiple DS and PSP systems)

Convenience is another issue. If my wife is watching TV in one room, I have other rooms that have systems hooked up as well.

Another factor is that I can afford more consoles now compared to when I was in my 10s, 20s, and 30s.

[Video]

For me, this generation. It was really the price that kept me out of the big three.

Back in the 8 bit and 16 bit days, all the consoles cost in the $200 range. Same with the N64 vs PSX. Then PS2 and Xbox came out and they were $300 each. I bought both of those, but I held off on the cube for a bit, I did get one, but by then I was a different gamer and more interested in what was on the PS2/xbox.....

But this generation. THIS Generation, game console makers simply lost their god damned minds. People are looking at the current prices saying "why don't you have all 3" but they forget that when they came out, the PS3's cheap console was $600, and the Xboxes cheap console was $400. For the cost of admission to all consoles in the 8 and 16 bit era's, you could buy the Xbox, or for the price of the consoles last generation, you could get the PS3. I've never been hard up for money, but I simply couldn't justify the cost. Xbox had halo, which I loved, and a lot of original titles (which seem to have dropped off the map at this point...like where's mech assault for instance) so I bought that. The wii was late, and went with a weird controll style that didn't appeal to all, and gave a big fuck you to the people that wanted traditional play...still many of us got one because it was cheap.....later on. I think I paid $150 for mine back in mid 08, and even there I got it for $50 less cause walmart was trying to unload them. The PS3 at that point still cost more than I paid for my Xbox when I bought it new, before it's price dropped.

I'm sorry, but I'll wait and get the PS3 later. I'll eventually get all of them, but I just couldn't justify the excessive cost of the thing, especially since the one reason that it cost what it did, was a unnecessairy over priced feature that I simply wasn't interested in. Add to that, they took out the BC, and they just lost it. Now I hear the Wii no longer supports the cub either so....

Nest generation, I'll be going with microsoft for sure, they have the games I want. Nintendo is going to have to prove they can still put out the games I'm interested in, without gimicking them up. And Sony will just havve to get their heads out of their asses and realize it's the games they make money on, not the console. If I bought the same average of games fromthem from day one I did on my other consoles...they are about 80 games down because of excessive price. Sad thing is, I still have half a dozen PS3 games sitting on the shelf, waiting for a console. mostly because I wanted to play them, but wanted to have access to them when I ever got t console.

[Lord Helmet]

This is the first generation that I haven't bought every console. There just hasn't been a good reason to buy a PS3. I can hardly keep up with all of the 360 games I want to play, and the vast majority are cross platform anyway. I do also own a Wii so I can play the first party Nintendo games.

[atarian63]

most of the 360 exclusives have no appeal to me, so for me anyway a 360 is just duplication of my ps3 and without Blueray.

[onlysublime]

atarian63, on Mon Dec 5, 2011 6:20 PM, said:

most of the 360 exclusives have no appeal to me, so for me anyway a 360 is just duplication of my ps3 and without Blueray.

did you forget you said this in post 13?

[TheGameCollector]

Back when I bought the original Xbox, the main reason I got it was just to continue the Oddworld series since it jumped from Playstation to Xbox. Then there turned out to be some exclusive RPGs like Morrowind (cause I don't really like using PC), Dungeons & Dragons Heroes, and Sudeki. I haven't seen any other main Playstation series jump over to the Xbox line exclusively ever since. But there are some exclusive RPGs on both systems that made me have to get both this generation.