PS3 vs. 3DO: Is the Comparison Valid? Posted by XanTium | 28-9-2007 23:21 EST

From biz.gamedaily.com: [QUOTE] One anonymous respectable industry veteran told GameDaily BIZ that his company has been referring to the PS3 as the 'PS3DO' for some time now. The 3DO, introduced by EA founder Trip Hawkins back in 1993, sported cutting-edge tech for its time. A steep price ($699) and a lack of any real "killer apps" didn't allow the platform to live out the 32-bit era, however. By 1996 it was officially dead. 3DO's marketing even promoted the platform not as a video game console but more as a high-end audio/visual product. Sound familiar? But is the comparison to 3DO fair? David Cole of market research firm DFC Intelligence certainly doesn't think so. "I don't think there is any comparison at all to the PS3 and 3DO," he said. "The main argument would be that they were both priced high at launch. But 3DO was a startup company with a different business model to license their platform to hardware manufacturers who could really have cared less about promoting the platform. They also didn't have software support and thus they didn't have games to drive the platform. With no games, a shoestring marketing budget and no consumer base to start with it sold less than a million units in the time it was on the market." Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter agrees. "It's a pretty stupid (and unfair) comparison," he said. "3DO was a new platform, no brand ID, not compatible with legacy software, and with no first or third party support. The PS3 has a great brand, a loyal customer base, is generally backward compatible, has a ton of third party support, and an ever-increasing number of good first party titles. I hope the industry veteran was kidding. If he was serious, he's a fool." [/QUOTE] Full Story: biz.gamedaily.com

I don't think it is the same as the 3DO. I think it is the same as the Saturn.

PS4 better be good, or it's next gen could go the way of the Saturn's next gen successor.

I was just about to make that same comparison. PS4 = Dreamcast, we could be saying farewell to Sony Console machines.

IMO ps3 doesn't have any first part support... i havn't seen one impressive title yet, only thing i've seen is promises and release dates that just keep getting delayed... c'mon sony get with the program, idk what the major malfunction is but you guys are better then this :-\

except for the fact that sony actual has money, where sega didnt.

not to mention sega pretty much butchered all the franchises.

In some ways, I can see why he would make that comparison.

Aside from the advertising, and the licensing; the unknowing/uncaring could see them the same way.

1) expensive
2) too much too soon (before its time)
3) some great games

In 99,I bought a 3DO off e-bay (Philips model) and it quickly became my favorite gaming machine. the games where cheap (obviously) the some of the graphics rivaled Playstation games, and I liked the idea of "we don't filter content, we just make sure its compatible". Unfortunately, that last point ensured that alot of horrifically terrible games made their way to the 3DO. Some great games where also on the 3DO... GEX, Samurai Shodown, alone in the dark 1 & 2, The Daedalus Encounter, Psychic Detective, etc...

Within 6 months, I owned most of the non-sports games for the 3DO.

So, yeah, I can see how, at first glance, the path that the PS3 is on could resemble the 3DO. When you start looking at marketing, and brand, the fan base, thats when the fork in the road comes up. If you re branded the PS3 as something else, it might have been the same thing.

Change 2 to "too much" and end it there. It is in no way before its time.

It just has too much going on. Thereby, driving up costs. If people want a Blu-Ray player, they buy one. if people want a Linux PC, they buy one, if people want a game console they buy one. All 3 in one, is too small of a market.

If PS3 was priced the same as the competition and still added extra value, that would be fine. But, adding extra value and charging more for it is not.

If sony didn't have an endless supply of money the comparison may be valid.

I also agree that the PS3 is a jack of all trades and a master of none, if sony had implemented all those features and still focused on gaming it would be a stellar console in my opinion. As of right now however there are no games for me to play and i just have a blu-ray player and that is just Ok.

After what the PS3 has gone through so far I still really have doubts as to whether this thing is really going to take off. It won't 'die' per say, but the mediocrity it is experiencing right now could continue for some time. I hope I'm wrong, because then I would actually start using the thing. My PS3 currently gets 0% of my game time (my PC with team fortress 2 and Wii with Metroid Prime 3 get all of it) - and it has been this way for a few months.