Hard to imagine, but Sony was once considered the upstart in the recurring "console wars" like the one we're currently enduring. The company more famous for the Walkman entered the fray with the original PlayStation back in 1994 (ironically, the system was originally co-designed with Nintendo to be an optical disc format for the SNES). It was a quiet inauguration that no one noticed for a least a year, but the PSX went on to sell some 80 million units after it caught on, as did its successor, the PlayStation2.

The PlayStation2, launched in 2000, was not necessarily the best game console available, but it did have more cachet in the public's eye and the momentum of two successful brand names behind it; both "Sony" and "PlayStation" were, by then, household names.

PlayStation2 man-handled Sega's Dreamcast into an early grave (Sega got out of the hardware business altogether but remains a software publisher), relegated Nintendo to dead last in the console race and brushed off the new upstart in town, the Xbox from Microsoft, like an alternate-reality Goliath laying the smackdown on David with the simple flex of the bicep.

However, the dismissive posturing was to Sony's detriment, as Microsoft endured the learning curve and went on to develop functions for various Xbox features, including an onboard hard drive and broadband internet connectivity that all others today, including Sony, try to emulate, which otherwise smacks of a game called "catch up."

With the advent of the PlayStation 3, Sony seems to have thrown everything it has into the new-generation console war (kitchen sink, baby, bathwater et al), almost all of it upping the theoretical ante proffered by Microsoft's new Xbox 360. PS3 has more storage space, for example, i.e. a bigger hard drive: 20GB or 60GB to the 360's zero GB or 20GB (both systems have an entry level and premium version). Sony also added a few features to PS3 that Xbox 360 simply does not have, including Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity out of the box, a multi memory card reader and innate support for HDMI to allow max resolution output of 1080p to HDTVs.

Furthermore - and most importantly - Sony's PS3 stands alone with onboard proprietary technologies known as the Cell Broadband Engine microprocessor and Blu-ray optical disc drive, both righteously touted as a full generation ahead of Xbox 360's CPU and standard DVD.

As far as hardware is concerned, the PlayStation 3 is technically more system across the board. Games made for it have the potential to both look noticeably better than anything else out there - indeed, a lengthy, pre-release playing session with Resistence: Fall of Man for PlayStation 3 was an undeniably superior gaming experience in every respect. Plus, each game can contain much more content as Blu-ray discs can store as much as 10 times the content of a conventional DVD, allowing the PS3 to accommodate larger and generally longer-playing games, all rendered in high definition. Meanwhile, the PS3's 60GB hard drive can store much more digital content, be it game assets or the music, movies, photos and related media Sony is also making available through its freely accessible PlayStation Network.

The problem with all this Goliathian superiority, of course, is that it all comes at a cost. At an unprecedented US$500 or $600 (C$550 or $660 in Canada) for either the basic or the premium PlayStation 3, Sony is essentially force-feeding consumers with features and functions they may not want, need or be equipped to use.

Inherently, a PlayStation 3 is a high definition Blu-ray movie player out of the box. The problem there, of course, is that there's little evidence to indicate the Blu-ray is going to be adopted by the masses as the preferred movie format of the future, with the alternate new format of HD-DVDs showing equal or greater signs of likely acceptance despite its lesser overall capacity but because of its natural and more cost-effective advancement of the current DVD standard. Sony is stuck with a superior optical storage medium in the PS3's Blu-ray, and so are you.

Anyone old enough to remember Betamax, the videocassette format that was technically superior to the rival VHS but failed anyway, will no doubt be leery of Blu-ray. Sony's inability to deliver but a scant couple hundred thousand PlayStation 3s on day one due to production problems relating to the Blu-ray's requisite diode, plus the company's recent mass recall of their proprietary pocket-warming devices known as laptop batteries haven't exactly bolstered Sony's reputation for quality products, either.

Too, though the PS3 can output games and movies at 1080p, the highest resolution currently possible, not all HDTV sets can accommodate the HDMI format that enables it - worse, even if they can, you need to buy the cabling to do it for another $50 - $100. And that's assuming the consumer owns an HDTV set at all, which the majority of people don't, yet.

Furthermore, game developers are not necessarily making games to that resolution. On top of openly decrying the PlayStation 3's difficult development environment (the "faster" Cell processor is also slammed for its linear nature; good for rocket scientists, not so much for artisitic designers), many game makers develop software to a common-ground resolution of 720p, generally considered "the sweet spot," because it's exponentially less taxing to program for it while yielding nearly identical results.

And that's assuming they bother to make games for it at all. Note the conspicuously lack of PS3 games coming available for the system on launch day. Last count, only 14, down from more than twenty originally announced, with many publishers announcing last minute game delays until 2007. Besides that, only the aforementioned Resistance shows any signs of superiority over the competition; the rest look generally just as great on Xbox 360 (if available).

All told, it's not looking good for Sony; the days of PlayStation domination are over. That's not to say the thing is going to be a total wash, but the PlayStation 3 is at least a year away from even being considered a viable alternative, much less market leader. In the long run, it will still sell in appreciably huge numbers - mainly to the millions of ardent Sony loyalist - but those numbers will be no greater than that of the competition. Quite likely smaller.

PlayStation 3 in Bullet Time

The Goods

• The most powerful game console on the planet


• Priced fairly considering it's a games player, multimedia/entertainment hub and high definition Blu-ray movie player all in one, out of the box


• Backwards compatible with (some) previous generation PlayStation games


• Subscription free online network


The Grief

• Overwrought with production problems and software delays


• At least a year away from being readily available and amassing a library of top-tier games


• Developers not exactly gonzo about the Cell development environment


• Not even Sony has a firm handle on PS3 programming, as evidenced by the fact the the PS3 is not backward compatible with all previous-generation PlayStation games as Sony originally declared; apology issued


• Blu-ray smells like Betamax


Should you buy it?

• No. Alternately, if you have money to burn, buy products for the sake of ego and don’t mind waiting a year or two for the bugs to get ironed out and the games to get good – and if you can even find one -, go nuts.

Also see:

• Console Wars '06 - Historically Speaking


• Console Wars '06 - Exhibit A: The Xbox 360


• Console Wars '06 - Exhibit B: The PlayStation 3


• Console Wars '06 - Exhibit C: The Nintendo Wii


• Console Wars '06 - Exhibit D: The Windows PC