Slashdot Mirror
Sony May Delay PS3 Until 2007
GodFather writes "ArsTechnica posted an article that claims the PS3 may be pushed back as far as 2007 if the Xbox 360 launch flops. The reasoning behind it? If Microsoft comes out with a weak set of titles at launch Sony could delay and build a larger launch library to lay the smack down on Microsoft."
I can't imagine this being a good idea, Sony would be giving Microsoft a chance to keep moving next gen units and Nintendo a chance to leapfrog them with the Revolution while they sit idle just so they can have a larger library on launch? Every moment they sit without units on the shelves gives MS the chance to release the next Halo, plus they'll have next gen titles that would've been ported to both systems. Madden '06 may not be the difference maker, but '07 just might, EA will have had time to tweak to the system more, and make the games better on the 360, but Sony fanboys will be stuck with the weaker PS2 game. My suggestion is kill this idea immediately and get that PS3 out as soon as it's ready for production. Even if the 360 doesn't have a good launch, doesn't mean it wont be successful throughout it's lifetime, something they should think about with reference to their own PSP.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
If Sony insists on delaying ths long, they're having serious trouble.
The source for this is "an analyst".
In other words, some random guy who doesn't work for Sony is predicting that Sony may delay the PS3, based basically on having read the same news reports you and I do.
This should be taken with exactly as much credence as if you'd heard "well this guy on the internet thinks that Sony is going to..."
Which is to say.
None.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
IF the 360 flops? Of course the 360 launch is going to flop. Let's not forget that Microsoft announced that 360s will ship with standard DVD drives and the HD-DVDs will be coming later (next year most likely). I was going to go out and get a 360 at launch, but now I'm going to wait for HD-DVD, as I suspect many other people are. A bad move on Microsoft's part is going to end up giving Sony the opportunity to delay their console without losing much market share. I do think, however, that the aging PS2 hardware is nearing the end of it's lifecycle. Consumers are ready for something new, and as far as I'm concerned, the PSP is a niche market.
Its interesting that this comes quite soon after Bill Gates himself announced that the first next-gen Xboxes would ship with non-HD DVD drives, effectively limiting the launch software to dvd media, and perhaps even limiting all games throughout the lifetime of the platform. If Sony do choose to take extra time in ensuring the launch titles make the absolute most out of the additional storage capacity and performance available on the PS3, it could be enough to provide a killer blow even to a successful xbox 360. If the PS3 manages to blow the xbox away in terms of game visuals/depth, then they'll almost have skipped a generation and taken the fight right back to microsoft.
Business Voyeur
Disclaimer: I do not own the Playstation 2.
I used to own a Playstation years ago, and one of my favorite things about it was that the library of games for the system was incredibly vast. However, scratching the surface revealed that many of the games were cheap ripoffs of each other and that truly original games were few and far between.
Nintendo has always seemed to have a talent for coming up with a decent library of original games that keeps the devoted coming back. Sony, on the other hand, seems to push quantity over quality when it comes to their library. If they are going to take 2 years to fill out their launch library, I wonder how much of that will be really good games and how much of it will be cutscene movies (Final Fantasy), sequels (anything by Rockstar), and played out genres (the FPS comes to mind).
I really like Sony. I owned many of their walkmans years ago, and I enjoyed the gaming I did on the original Playstation. But both they and the audience must learn that just because you have many times the number of games as your competitor, it is not a very good metric because the number of good, original games in that library may be only a fraction of that amount.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
This would be a disastrous move on Sony's part. No matter how crappy the XBOX launch titles are launching the PS3 in 2007 will give MS two Q4s to push out games and get traction. Microsoft is no Sega and there is no way that Sony could repeat its success in the PS2 vs Dreamcast fight. The fact that this idea is even floating suggests that Sony is having serious problems at some stage (I guess manufacturing) of the PS3 development.
Another year might not mean launching with drastically better hardware (think the newer slim ps2 vs the original layout) but we'll probably have fewer heat distribution problems, better wireless technology, all of that.
Realistically though, all of the publishers working on games for a mid 2006 launch are unlikely to site on potential profits for a year so sony can have a PR "trouncing", no matter how big sony is.
Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
I don't think it's all that bad of a move. First off, both the Xbox 2 (Quick, give it a name with a 3 in it or it'll look bad compared to Sony...feh.) and the PS3 were rushed due to competition with each other. If the Xbox fails because of that, and because they rushed to undercut even Sony's timetable, then it clearly makes sense. Above and beyond that, though, Sony is really more about franchise loyalty and the flavor of games produced for it, and they have plenty of games slated all the way through next year for the PS2. They're not going to lose their core audience to Xbox. Most Playstation fans who want a game that comes out on XBox will wait and buy it for their actual computer. Meanwhile, if they did delay, the PS3 might actually manage to live up to part of it's hype, something I don't have a lot of hope for given the release-date war between Sony and Microsoft. Eventually it reached some obscure level of corporate triple-dog-dare, and Sony called them on it. If they succeed Sony will have to launch, if not they can stand their laughing and calling MS a dumbass for trying it. I can only imagine the screams of pain from engineers everytime MS and Sony's marketing teams released a revised release date.
I wouldn't mind seeing both of these consoles delayed for a year or so. It seems like both systems were hyped far too much to even begin meeting the expectations of gamers and programmers. This way the hardware might be upgraded some and developers would have more time to fiddle with it. This actually seems like a good move for overall quality.
Normality is now: overrated.
Sure, at first the lack of another next generation system could allow Microsoft to grab more market share in the beginning, but it is the truth that if sony were to take this track, then when they do launch, many people will be more than willing to shell out the money for a next gen system with an extensive launch title list, rather than one with a short list that slowly grows. Additionally, with the extra time allowed to work on their games, many of the launch titles would probably be of high quality.
The guy I mean.
How can Sony delay for a year and have more games on launch than a console
which will have had an 18 month head start?
Neko
After Bloombergs false report in 2003 saying that production would begin that year. Remember that?
[subconscious rant]so it is all about who can make the biggest buck!?! I know I may be playing against the grain, but is money all they really think about these days?! What about the 12 year olds who were dying for this on their next birthday, and they will have to wait another year, just because of the bottom line! Insane I tell you![/subconscious rant]
It seems to me that this is just a smokescreen. Maybe they're having problems getting the PS3 going? Maybe they're having yield problems with the Cell processor? Who knows, but a delay like this would really send the message that PS3 is vapor and lead to more people going out to buy the XBox 360.
Come on, whats the point of even debating this. Microsoft is not going to be weak at release anyway. Even the games are complete turds people are going to lap it up because they have the jump on the next gen.
Crapshoot.
If anything would inspire delayed release I would say it would be prohibitive release cost - which they have alluded to somewhat.
Honestly there are too many articles about these new consoles that are just clear efforts by the guys in marketing to keep the tongues wagging. I believe this wasted to fark like 24 hours ago too.
Jingle all the way...
that the Phantom console has been waiting for!
sony could have determined its own release date of ps3 if there is no xbox 360 (or xbox in the first place). m$ cannot be underestimated though its products are usually buggy and not the best.
the problem of having 2 mighty forces in the console market is that both of them must play catch up to each other, and if one declared that it will ship a major product soon, the other cannot just sit still and let it pass.
the ps3's current estimated timing of a few months after xbox 360's end 05 release is just nice, i thought. anything longer might give m$ a huge window to enlarge its installed base. and i do not want to see this happening. m$ is too entrenched in many markets, and console is not what i want to see m$ to be top in.
We are the Microsoft. You will be assimilated. The exact date of assimilation has slipped once again, but we expect to be at your planet sometime Q1 next year. Be sure to watch for us.
We will bring your total cost of living down through universal cybernetic hardware implants. Periodic software updates may be purchased to allow you to control the new hardware that will periodically sprout from your body. Your normal motor functions will be replaced with an expensive yet inferior system that will only allow you to shuffle along like a crippled old man.
You will have access to the ultimate Peer-to-Peer network with secure music downloads direct to the brain with properly activated frontal lobes.
We will tell you where you want to go.
I could easily see where this could backfire. Sure, Xbox might have weak launch titles, but while Sony is preparing their launch, the Xbox will have had time to not only build upon their library as well as possibly lower their price.
I am more inclined to think that any delay would be more indicative of a difficulty in churning out the required hardware rather than some willingness to delay the launch.
Well, it depends on how many people buy the Revolution really.
Makes sense, doesn't it?
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
If the 360 "flops" at launch then a lot of that may be because people have high(er) expectations of the PS3 and are prepared to wait and see before spending their hard earned cash.
Possibly the worst thing they could do in that situation is to launch a PS3 that doesn't meet those expectations. If you do that then the main reason people haven't been buying the 360 suddenly disappears. As long as people do appear willing to wait it would make sense to use that time to ensure your product is better placed than the competitors when buyers finally get to make their choice.
It's a balance of whether you will lose more customers who get tired of hanging on or will lose more through releasing a product that isn't clearly more attractive than the alternative.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
There's no indications anyone outside the company even has something looks like a dev kit yet, they haven't revealed what the machine even is to the public and I don't think they've revealed it to most developers. Microsoft's got, like, near-finished games. Sony's got devkits going out and they're publicly apologizing to developers for not being able to manufacture enough of them. Ask Nintendo what they're up to? They talk about the DS and its online plans.
I don't think Nintendo's anywhere near ready to ship this thing.
Also their memory supplier let slip that they believed the revolution would ship in "mid-2006". Take that however you want.
My personal suspicion would probably be that the Revolution is going to be released last. Nintendo's either got the most amazing show of secrecy ever constructed among men, or they aren't nearly as far along as Sony and Microsoft. And I doubt Sony will delay a console release just because they don't have any games. They didn't delay the PS2 launch for lack of games, they didn't delay the Japan PSP launch for lack of games, and when they delayed the American PSP launch (for lack of games at the time of Japanese launch?) it didn't really help them much.
If I'm right about this, though, Nintendo probably won't suffer much for coming out last. They seem to be going for a very different sort of strategy next generation than Sony and Microsoft.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Can't be a good idea. All the 3rd party publishers are waiting on the PS3 launch to start getting their investment back. An extra year before you can sell your game ? They'd scream bloody murder.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Tell that to the XBox 360....
While the Analyst may have some things wrong.... what IS correct is that Sony cannot afford another lackluster launch with crappy titles. And it cannot afford another disastrous Christmas where demand for their console can't be met... It was appallingly bad to see such a problem with a mature item like the PS2.
If the 360 has a title drought like the PS2, people will be more likely to avoid the PS3 if it comes out in Spring with the same drought (or a similar one...) It's the games... and Sony knows that. Their position would be strengthened by waiting 8 months and going for a 2007 launch with oodles of titles and a decent supply of consoles to boot.
It's a win-win. But Sony's not been known to be "all that bright" in recent years....
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
You missed the point of the article. That is not Sony's intention at all by delaying. It has nothing to do with component pricing and trying to squeeze more profit out of the consumer. It has to do with sustainability. If the XBox 360 has a dearth of decent titles at launch, it might signal a backlash (we've seen the dearth of titles at launch with the PS2... Unless everyone has ADD, I don't think it'll repeat itself.)
Microsoft better have a decent stable of non-shovelware with their new 360, or they might be looking at a long trench battle for 3rd place.
Do you want the hardware now with no games? That seems to be what you're implying...
I'm in no hurry to replace my PS2/XBox/Gamecube. Why is everyone else rushing to do so?
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
They want to launch with more titles? How many titles will people want to buy with the $300 hardware? They really just need one really good launch title with others trickling in to keep interest up. If Sony launches with a bunch of new titles people will only buy 1-3 of them and then buy the newer titles that come out after the launch and forget about most of the launch titles.
I just looked at the back of my PS2 box today and recognized maybe one game. Of course...their last launch was abismal so that doesnt say much.
But really...how many people buy a lot of games right after they buy a new console?
As long as I can get a $100 XBox out of the deal.
We're 1 month past mid 2005. I know I'm gonna be getting a haircut in 2007 and I know that's good planning, but I know for a fact that my hair is gonna grow longer then (if I'm not bald then). Who knows what's gonna happen to the console world 1.5 years down the road? Maybe this will be out then? ---> http://www.phantom.net/
Ken Lai
People have already pointed this out, but titles make so much of a difference. The problem with Xbox 360 right now is that the only strong title it has for itself is Halo 3. Sure some of the other titles look pretty, but who the hell knows if the actual game play is any good. Then they also have a good amount of titles that will probably be on the PC to, which wont turn people into dumping $300 when they can play it on their pc. Now add on top of that the Xbox 360 might add a HD-DVD down the line, and developers will either have to develop for it or not use the capibilites at all. This in turn will probably result in 3 main groups:
1. People who will be waiting and seeing how the whole HD-DVD pans out.
2. People who don't just want to buy the Xbox 360 for 1 or 2 titles.
3. People who want the latest hardware will undoubtly buy it similiar to dreamcast.
The only hope that Xbox 360 has is by convert a lot of the good main console developers to them. Like Square, Namco, Capcom, and Konami to develop Xbox 360 only titles. Or they develop a lot of good titles themselves.
Maybe its just me but looking at the Xbox 360 future releases that are coming out it doesn't look to great for them right now. Most of them looks as though they will come out on the PC, and theres just not enough intresting titles there for now. But who knows maybe there might be some suprising new developers that might help push Xbox 360 to the top.
Wow,once again the clueless analysts have shown us the light. Honestly, if these people were really all that good at spotting industry trends and making accurate predictions they'd be working in the industry.
Desktops and laptops?
Mind-boggling.
Linux?
FreeBSD, just to show Apple up?
(No, I'm not really biting here, but the phantasy is, well, maybe I'm biting. Lousy troll.)
There's an old marketing adage...
Be first, or
be second and be happy with that, or
go play elsewhere.
You cannot underestimate the value of being first into the market with a new gadget. The '360 and PS3 are 'new generation', and therefore I'll define them as new gadgets.
Few will care if MS titles aren't *that* strong at the get go - the graphics will apparently be awesome. And, for a while anyway, that will be important.
Sony: you have *got* to release the PS3.
duh! they, like told us to! obviously the previous, inferior products are like totally lame and stuff, what are you, like stupid? i mean those consoles can't even do... whatever... whatever the new ones do, whatever! moron.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
From the column:
Merrill Lynch estimated that the cost to produce a single PS3 would be a shade under $500. Considering that the Xbox 360 is expected will be priced at around $299, it was felt that even a $399 price tag on the PS3 meant Sony taking a $1bn hit on hardware costs alone in the first year.
When you consider that they've packed Bluetooth, HDTV (a feature Nintendo ended up dropping because of cost) and the first Commercial release of Blu-Ray in there, it's not too surprising that the earlier they launch the console, the harder Sony's going to get hit in the pocket.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.
- George Orwell
Sony risks shipping hardware that is outdated at the day of launch. If it takes years for launch software to be written for a new platform then how can the hardware be bleeding edge?? The hardware spec gets finalized the day your developers start working. From that point onward you are obsolete.
What I think Sony or others should do, if they are moving in a parallel direction, is try to anticipate this gap between initial hardware finalization and the launch of the console, and have developers write to a more stripped down version of the hardware while you anticipate the final version having more cores or an additional CPU by the time you launch. That way the initial games might not take full advantage of the hardware but the second you start making consoles you'll know you are at as close to the bleeding edge as possible. When the 2nd wave of software gets finished it will be able to take advantage of the "last minute" extra hardware.
You either do that or you write the software to automatically elegantly upscale to theoretical extra parallelism.
"Smackdown"...? I prefer playstation over Nin and xbox, but even I am considering getting a 360 just because i could be bothered waiting 6 months (after 360 is released), and i would definitely get one if the ps3 was due in 2007. There would be no advantage to sony, but every advantage to MS as it would have over a year to become entrenched. I would happy grab a 360, as the ps2s graphics look like cat vomit!
You forgot the evil genuis laugh at the end of your post.
That and the mention of octorocks with 'fricken laser beams attached to their heads.'
Mwah ha ha ha
-You're only as clean as your towel.
Maybe, but maybe not.
Most likely the 360 won't flop, and won't do as well as MS would hope, it will probably do pretty good and have a much better shot of giving the PS3 a run for its money with the earlier launch. As seen with the PS2 having old hardware doesn't hurt your games at all.
early launch > best hardware
If you release too close, you're telling consumers, "Okay, pick one." People don't want to spend too much money all at once. The company that forces this situation is the one that things it will be the first choice, and maybe Sony is having some reservations about this.
On the other hand, if they wait some years until the novelty of the XBox has worn off and peoples' wallets have had a chance to recover, there will be a fresh consumer budget to draw from. In this way, even people who have already purchased XBoxes are more likely to buy a PS3 in addition, and those who passed up the XBox will jump on the newcomer (good things come to those who wait).
The rationale here--presented, as someone noted, by an analyst--is not technical issues, but marketing issues. I have no idea why ArsTechnica picked the story up.
The issue is not whether technical reasons relating to game development will delay release. Obviously delaying release of a platform does nothing to let you get more games out--it lets you get more games out at release. The issue is whether an entire platform can be sunk if its marketing on the day of its release fizzles. I don't think any platform thrives or dies on one day. The fate of Nintendo and Sega consoles was not determined by marketing (pricing, hardware, game selection, forward/backward compatibility...)
Sony might "buy time" by slashing PS2 prices, offering forward compatibility, and persuading buyers they can wait a little longer for unspecified technology of tomorrow rather than buying XBox 360 "old technology". But that course no longer seems plausible: I don't remember it offering PS2/PS3 compatibility, and it has frozen the specs of PS3 hardware.
They really just need one really good launch title with others trickling in to keep interest up.
If the one good Xbox 360 launch title is a first-person shooter, as many people expect (rumored Halo 2 Special Edition), then the console has no chance of getting into households without fans of first-person shooters. Or even if it's not an FPS, if the one good launch title is rated M by the ESRB, then the console has no chance of getting into households with single-digit-year-old children. Point: You need a wide variety of launch titles to attract a wide variety of players.
DUH.. how could I have missed it!
I don't have a TV, so I don't get the important information. I just plug games into my PS2 and imagine what they look like.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Considering that most Ps2 owners I know loathe anything microsoft, i doubt that waiting another year will do anything to the fanboy fanbase. Since I loathe sports games, I'll happily wait for another year so i can have my ps3 rpgs.
That may be so... but you forgot this part of the equation:
360 in 2007 - $200 w/ a couple hundred games available
PS3 in 2007 - $300 w/ strong launch titles
For a lot of people, the $100 makes the decision for them, and the games available seals the deal.
Except [calling the original PlayStation the PS1] invites confusion with the PSOne.
PlayStation (original form factor) and PSone are the same platform, just as PlayStation 2 (original form factor) and PlayStation 2 Slimline (colloquially called PStwo) are the same platform.
I can't imagine [delaying its product] being a good idea, Sony would be giving Microsoft a chance to keep moving next gen units and Nintendo a chance to leapfrog them with the Revolution while they sit idle just so they can have a larger library on launch?
That's what Sony is doing in Europe, especially with the intolerance toward imports of PSP units.
Delay so they can go head to head with Microsoft, who will have also increased their title library since launch, and already have an install base? We'll see how it plays out, sounds like a stupid strategy to me...
sig fault
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's some irony for you:
Of all the new, next-gen consoles, with HDTV support and dolby digital+ sound, just guess how many are going to be hooked up to an old color tv with an rf adapter.
I mean it damn you, GUESS!
progress: It's like fun, only it sucks.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
I really doubt that Sony would wait until after Christmas 2006 to release the PS3. I could understand some delay if the XBox 360 were floundering, but I bet we'll see the PS3 sometime next year, possibly delayed until summer or fall.
I'm amazed no one has looked at what this means for Blu-ray - that would seem to be the biggest casualty of all. If it's delayed a year, then it definitely will be the next betamax.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
They are playing US.
They are telling the public (a la press release) that the M$ console is not really that big of a threat and is willing to wait while the paint dries on their product.
Apply this to the mentality of little johnny Uber-1337, 'whoa I better make mommy and daddy wait until the sony comes out before I throw my tantrum because they already know they are better then M$!!!"
This is all chess, its all about the moves... When some company tells the public something they are just that, telling you something. It has no warrenty, guarentee or even the assumption that they are telling you this in an unbiased whole hearted manner.
They like M$ and pretty much evrey other high roller company is just trying to fuck with as many heads as they can and hope for the best.
Take this with a pound of salt....
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
we could go back further. The history of gaming consoles is littered with the burnt out plastic husks of cool, sophisticated game machines released without adequate software support.
Hell, some of them had some great titles -- TG16, for example, had some cool stuff built and released in Japan -- but nothing that really resonated.
I'm amused by the comments here: the Xbox supporters tout technological superiority and mutters "shovelware" at the opposition; the PS crowd points to unit sales, and refers to their opposition as if it were Rommel's Afrika Korps: sure they've got fancy hardware, but not enough of it; their supply stream is messed up; besides, they are the minions of Evil intent on securing the precious oil fields of bourgeois living rooms to power the Dark Empire; the Nintendogs revel in security through obscurity and point to the "Nintendo Magic", and refuse to rule out the Seattle Mariners from this years' pennant.
The point of the article is that right now the reality is sinking in to these companies, a reality that has hit every console company, and is probably the reason why Nintendo is the only console dynasty around: consoles reinvent their business with every generation. There's a tremendous pressure to keep pace with technology, just as there's a tremendous pressure to have "killer titles". But I challenge you to go out and find cases of when a "killer title" came out on cutting-edge technology. For that matter, I challenge you to find a successful console release when that console was technologically the most sophisticated.
The point of the article is that developers need to acquire a familiarity with these new boxes: that doesn't mean just poking around -- that means finding the talent capable of understanding how these little buggers work and squeezing the most out of them. Two rules come to mind:
1. The more complex the system, the more potential points of failure. Consoles can't be buggy. Developers are right now figuring out how tough these systems are.
2. There is no science of the accidental. Okay, my boy Harry came up with this one. 3 cores? 1 core and 8 vpus (or whatever they are)? Meanwhile the code is being written top-down; when stuff from entirely different sections of codes collides with unintended consequences, it's a bitch to debug, since it doesn't follow classic philosophical cognitive rules. The article linked some comments by Gabe Newell that implies this is happening with development here.
So whatever xbox may have at launch, if Sony's looking at their platform, and not seeing much in terms of stable software that will be ready, they'll have to defer.
I really think Nintendo is going to do well next generation, what with five excellent game consoles in one (NES, SNES, N64, GC, Revolution!) Third parties will re-release their old software via download (Square-Enix's original Final Fintasy or Tecmo's Ninja Gaiden anyone?), then have a built in customer base to sell their more recent version of classic IP to. They just announced Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest will no longer be PS2 exclusives, opening the door for the regular series to come back to Revolution...where they belong! Nintendo's is a can't miss and can't really copy strategy (because the other two systems have only ever had high-memory use CD and DVD drives and games) that will only build on its own success. And that doesn't take into account the controller and arguably the best looking and ergonomic next gen design and mass market price... Watch what happens when details are released, and even more when people actually get to play with the thing! Don't overlook Nintendo. They've got a pretty good chance of winning us back.
Alright, let's assume for a moment that the Xbox 360 launch is a total flop. People just can't seem to justify the price tag for the one or two games they want to play at launch. Sony then delays the PS3 for a year so they can bolster their game library. Seems reasonable, except for the fact that the Xbox 360 will ALSO be bolstering it's game library continuously from the day of it's launch. Is the analyst just assuming no more games will be released after the launch titles? That's simply ludicrous. Hell, if Sony delays the PS3 for a year to improve it's game library then Microsoft will have a chance to lower it's console's price during the PS3's launch a year later. Then you have an interesting scenario where the Xbox 360 is cheaper and has more games that people know are good while the PS3 is more expensive with a ton of games that nobody has played yet.
Second, I don't think the new PS2 price cut is going to take away the Xbox 360's thunder. That's just on opinion of course and I have no idea how it will pan out. But considering the PS3 launch is (supposedly) fairly soon after the 360's launch I would rather save my money and buy that than an aging PS2.
Third, I've seen a lot of mention about the whole HD-DVD thing in this thread. Now console players are usually not as tech savvy as say a PC gamer. They don't have to be. Out of idle curiosity I asked my friend who is a major console gamer what he thought of Microsoft decision to not include an HD-DVD drive with the 360. He just sort of looked at me blankly, he had no fucking clue what it was. So will this hurt Microsoft in the slightest? Possibly if the media screams about them not having HD-DVD, but more than likely, no. I personally feel that an HD-DVD isn't even needed for the next-gen consoles, but hey, everyone can have an opinion eh?
Now assuming Microsoft doesn't completely fuck up the launch (i.e. - letting a major bug that renders the console useless slip by them, such as exploding power supplies) then I can't even see the console flopping. But even if it does Sony would be making a huge mistake by delaying the PS3 another year.
Besides, the Xbox has Halo and a few other decent games. The main one is Halo though. Halo 3 will sell the Xbox 360, there's no question about it. This is a moot speculation by an analyst who obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.
Hah, that's an amusing and incredibly stupid idea. Sony wouldn't be that dumb. Yet another non-article.
Yes, because the launch library matters.
Wait, no it doesnt.
The PS2 had a bunch of crap right out of the gate. The leader of the pack was a mediocre snowboarding game that was propelled to stardom by the fact that it was one of the very few games worth owning at the time.
Yeah, the xbox had Halo at launch, but that didnt matter either. They could have released it at any time and still garnered the same results (a lot of sold hardware).
The Gamecube had one outstanding game (Rogue Leader) at launch, and then THREE MONTHS OF NOTHING until Super Smash Bros Melee, and the console continues to be #2 worldwide.
Two crappy launches (in regards to titles) and those are beating out a wildly successful launch in the long run.
Now, if the consoles launch at the same time it matters... Or at least one would think so. The cube's poor launch was within days of the xbox's great one (again, in regards to games only), and they are in a dead heat now.
So I guess my point is: "Analyst" speculation is less than worthless, and history reveals that supposedly obvious things make no sense at all.
Quit posting what amounts to random guessing about the ps3 and 360. We dont see a story every time a new fake Revolution controller pic hits the net, so why do we still get this crap?
Look at all the good games coming at or shortly after launch: Perfect Dark Zero, Kameo: Elements of Power, Project Gotham Racing 3, Ghost Recon 3, Full Auto, etc. I haven't heard too much about Full Auto, hopefully it will still be released this year.
On the other hand, Ken Kutaragi was reported to say, "Well, it would give us more time to train the magic pixies we are incorporating into our console design." Mr. Kutaragi then walked away, waving his hand in front of his face.
this would really send the message that PS3 is vapor and lead
:)
Isn't that what we call an oxymoron?
If I recall correctly, Sega beat Sony to market twice, once with the Saturn, again with the Dreamcast. Both times, with relatively poor titles available, leading up to the time Sony released the PSX, and then the Playstation 2.
In both cases, Sega lost enormous amounts of money, and abandoned both platforms almost the moment Sony released their competing systems.
Of course, others could say it was economic backlash from the time Sega tried competing with Nintendo with the SegaCD, and then their severely botched 32X.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
But unlike DVD, where is the consumer excitement for HD-DVD? 90% don't have HDTV despite glowing reports of how wonderful DVDs look when played on them.
You may well be right about no more than 10% of the population viewing HDTV.
However, that percentage is misleading as there is a larger percentage that does in fact have an HD capible set, even if they are no using the HDTV portion - mainly because DVD's look really nice on a large crisp screen. People have been buying these things at a pretty good clip for some time, egged on by really cheap financing.
HDTV is difficult to get (unless your cable system supports it, whcih is growing). But people that do get HDTV get very excited about the quality, I've seen it in a few friends of mine. They would re-buy a lot of movies if they have a good reason to buy a player - which a game console offers.
Just as the PS2 (and indeed also the XBox) really drove the acceptance of DVD sales, so too with the next generation consoles act as the mechanism to draw people in to HD-DVD's - which, sadly for Toshiba, will really be Blu-Ray because Microsoft has decided not to ride that train anymore.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...then you need a very large base of drek to produce one Katmari Damacy.
I'll take the console with the relativley huger pile of drek please - it stand to reason if I look in a haystack three times as big I'll get three needles instead of one.
I just wish console makers would let ordinary people in on programming for consoles, with that large a base of drek the number of gems would be untold.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The only one on that whole list that I have much interest in is Gears Of War. I looked at all of the preview video I could find from E3 and nothing else really grabbed me.
Even Halo 3 I'm not sure is a draw for me, given that I never played the first ones (apart from local lan-based multiplayer). Console shooters after Goldeneye just leave me cold now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Console release is like F1 pit tactics. YOu have to release a console, but when?
/. article) but kept his gamecube, and shrugged, I am sure someone will buy me a PS3 for Christmas. He thinks the XBOX/360 sucks, and doesn't even know who Microsoft are.
PS1 relied on some great timing and release games. Will the XBOX and the PS3 both delay and build up their game offerings until one makes the first move?
I think the PS3 will not delay to be honest - Christmas is looming, and if they can release in time for this, then they will lead in many respects.
My newphew (who as you may have heard knows everything about every gaming platform, game and addon) sold his PS2 (for much more than the $70 described in the recent
Aaaanyway. The innocence of youth.
This next gen of consoles may break some more competitors out of the ring. As multiplayer gets hotter, and platform exclusive games get more prevelant, then for the consumers one platform is the best choice, as kids want to play the same games together.
Therefore this may be a case of survival of the fittest, and my money is on PS3, as sony have 2 very successful releases under their belts, and XBOX was just a couple of trillion gajillion dollars of advertising, and Halo, which was a SHIT game, and I don't care what you say. An FPS with vehicles that feels like tribes, but can the playability of a 1997 game.
To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image: condemn
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
Has anyone emailed and found out what happens if you are visually impaired?
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Wow, you really just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you?
Sony wouldn't release the PS3 at $100 more than the 360 unless it had significantly more capability. Sony is consistently at or below Microsoft's console's price. Usually stealing the spotlight from Microsoft right before they do a planned price drop.
And you think that the 360 would have a couple hundred games available? What are you smoking? I'm not sure the XBox has had a couple hundred games made for it yet, years after it came out!
And you're right -- the games seal the deal. How many XBox exclusive games do you get excited about? I have a nice list of PS-only games.. Final Fantasy, GTA (at initial release), Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid..
I think the PS3 will do just fine whenever it comes out.
Slashdotters. If you value your geekery, do not buy an xbox. I am pretty miffed at the numbers who did on here (you know who you are!). Just think. Cell architecture. YOU KNOW linux is going to be working on PS3 much cooler than XBOX, and you just know the best use for all this new technology is to run tux racer, so just think about it!
Which is whack - check out:
The Inquirer and TotalVideogames claim that Wal-Mart employees apparently have leaked the launch date and price of the Xbox 360. According to these reports, the Xbox 360 will retail for $299 and the launch will be Friday, November 4th.
From Aug 2nd told at some site
Now, personally, I think this article was a little FUDDY, but customers may wait out for the PS3, i.e. when making a choice, wait for the second option, when it appears, it always looks newer and sexier. Now, Christmas may make a hiccup in these strategies, but XBox is aiming for this period.
If people decide to wait for next gen, then a 99$ pstwo may leap in sales, this christmas may be the christmas for PStwo and PSP!!
People might step over the Xbox launch, to look at handhelds, and then wait out for the next next-gen , the PS3.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
...I heard they were waiting to launch it with Duke Nukem Forever.
...Not Playstation. The Dreamcast was of this generation, last generation's Sega console was the Saturn (which was buggy and prone to death). The flaws that were the Saturn was the reason the dreamcast shipped early, hence making it look like it was of the N64/Playstation gen...
Sega fanboy for life...
I'll see your computer nerd, and raise you two Chess Clubbers and a role player
It just might also be
that Sony has been finding
the next generation requires
hurdling some massive hurdles.
Though my guess is this is a
"leak" to try and get M$ off
guard. Meanwhile the PS3 being
launched earlier.. Anyway it's
not like anybody who knows what
they're talking about is talking
right? Not that this silly
bit of news is startling enough to
make me want to RTFA.
Too right. For that matter, how much more fun are the PS2 games than the ones on the original Nintendo? 10%? 20%? Not that much more than that. I could go for a game of Gauntlet right now. Certainly playability is not a direct function of the processing power increase - more like a factor of 1+log(increase). Same goes for PC games. Since Doom the graphics have gotten a little better (though again, nowhere near in line with the increase in computer power) but all FPS are just the same shit in a shinier can. The imagination of the game designers is not keeping up with the hardware.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
If Grand Theft Auto 4 is a PS3 launch title, I don't think Sony will have any worries.
Sony reduced the "Profits" forecast by more than 88%, not the "Revenue" forecast. "Revenue" acutally declined by 1%. Reducing a "Revenue" forecast by 80% would be like an earthquake with magnitude 8.5 in the center of Tokyo.
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
At the rate we're all going GTA will be outlawed and the only thing the PS3 will be allowed to publish at launch will be a new Putt Putt game.
Bleeding edge hardware? Again, another classic Slashdot-ism: Assuming the entire world si populated by uber-geeks.
No, most people don't give a shit or even know what kind of hardware is in their console game thingy. They just want it to be easy to use and be fun and have pretty graphics.
I don't respond to AC's.
But unfortunatly that's the only thing for Xbox anyone was interested in. (the second table is only for the US market and it's gonna be a lot worse worldwide).
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
.. more than 1.5 years with that already outdated console without proper multiplayer features? Ouch.
When has Microsoft announced that? The only info about HD-DVD and Xbox360 I found was this quote from Bill Gates:
"The initial shipments of Xbox 360 will be based on today's DVD format," Gates explained. "We are looking at whether future versions of Xbox 360 will incorporate an additional capability of an HD DVD player or something else."
That could just as easily mean Blu-Ray, depending on which format takes off in the consumer market. And yes, I know Microsoft is one of the supporters of HD-DVD, but if Blu-Ray becomes a great success in the couple of years before the Xbox360 2.0 comes out, I don't really see how they could try to force HD-DVD on people.
Not to mention, as the article states, these machines are so new and powerful, some of the features are going to take quite a while for programmers to be able to tap into. Imagine that... releasing consoles that will take almost the units' entire lifetime to fully realize their potential. :)
...and that's what it was supposed to be about before the hype took over... fun. Nintendo "gets it", but for whatever reason cannot translate that to #1 slot dominance anymore. *shrug* Times are changing I guess. I just remember when a console was just a gaming system, and people weren't clamoring for it to be something else, like a DVD player or music box. The marketeers have successfully driven the masses to think they need a DVD/music/toaster/PVR/ez-bake-oven/Pez dispenser for game consoles. Oh yeah, it also plays games!
It's rather like the old days, when you'd see the first trickle of titles from say, an Amiga or C= 64. In the beginning, things pretty much looked standard, and in some cases were hard to differentiate from the competition. But as the machine matured, and as programmers learned the innards of these boxes, things got neater, games got better looking and more playable. Basically, as the programmer got efficient and skilled in the inner-workings of a system, the game quality reflected that. (Heck even the games coming from the C= 64 towards the end of its life had some amazing tricks that you wouldn't have thought possible with such a simple 6502 unit.)
These next-gen consoles are no different. Heck, the PS2 has gotten pretty good looking titles that you'd swear it wasn't capable of playing. Even the XBox has some stand-out titles now in its twilight that you'd probably never thought possible at launch (even in spite of the overhyped "horsepower" of the unit, and the insistence on making every FPS imaginable for it.)
The next-gen game systems are going to come and go before they're fully exploited, and like the previous generation of video cards on the PC, will never be pushed to the limit. (I don't blame developers for the most part, because they're hitting a moving target and doing the best they can, with some very sloppy exceptions. But that's to be expected with any system.)
And despite all the hype on graphics etc... I have the most fun playing the old FF games on my PS2. (PS1 titles...) The other great fun (besides the awesomely addicting retro-arcade and 2600 titles) is the Romance of the 3 Kingdoms series. None of these titles are "A-list" graphic titles, but they're darn fun... And like any console game, I can pick up an play for a bit, without spending 3 hours in a manual learning which key does what.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Well then their is the possibility of SquareEnix porting Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy to both MS and Sony platforms... See here:
1 329/
http://www.xbox365.com/news.cgi?id=GGuPGddLiP0803
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
is just a higher density dvd rom. It isn't a format change in itself. HD DVD can be used to store MP3's, that doesn't make them "HD MP3's"
A standard dual layer dvd can hold ~9 gigs. For the games in the forseeable future that is plenty - especially considering they can have some of the data uncompressed on the hard drive or available on the network as downloadable expansion packs and updates.
Come to think of it, most of my pc games if not all of them could fit on a dvd.
Sony is using the PS3 as a tool to push it's hopefull blue-ray format. Microsoft is atleast waiting for a standard for a change.
Sony is playing to win. They built the PS2 to destroy the Sega Dreamcast. And it worked.
They did not however build the PS2 to defeat the XBOX. But the PS3 will be there to defeat the XBOX360. And the price reduced PS2 will be awesome competition. A 99$ PS2 will outsell a 149$ XBOX. And alot of parents can not afford to buy a new 300$ console plus extra controllers and accessories when they can spend that same 300$ to buy a PS2 and a ton of games. Sony is playing their cards well.
The Xbox 360 is an advancement of the existing platform.
The xbox was the first to market xbox live services and it SMOKES ps2 hands down.
The xbox was the first to offer true component HDTV and it SMOKES the ps2 hands down.
First to market is a complete mis-udnerstanding of the market.
Microsoft is delivering on it's promise, Sony is trying to play the game. simple as that. Just because it worked against Sega when they only had 500 million dollars to support the dreamcast launch i doubt it will work against Microsoft with the 4 billion they plan on having..
Read this article. The points made in the article I just linked make a lot of sense.
The PS2 has *the* strongest software library of any current console. In addition, the new slim PS2 is actually profitable! This means they are making money on each system they sell.
If Sony can ride out '06 on the PS2 sales due to a strong software library and now-profitable PS2 units, they will shore up their profits for the year, which is quite enticing for SCE.
"He meant, they let Dreamcast release first"
But that's revisionist history.
The Dreamcast had everyone beat. The system was good, it launched reasonably well in Japan, and Sega spent big on the 9/9/99 date.
It was only after Sony realized they'd been beaten to the punch that they tried the "Oh, if you wait for PS2, it will so much better" whisper campaign. Meanwhile, Sony didn't even have prototypes when they started their announcements.
This is more of the same. The difference is that MS has much deeper pockets than Sega and so this is at best damage control by Sony for being beaten to the punch.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
the Saturn (which was buggy and prone to death)
Huh? From a self professed Sega fanboy, I'd expect a little better. The Saturn wasn't buggy or prone to crashing... unless you meant something else with the word "death".
The Saturn failed because of engineering mistakes that made it hard to program and expensive to make. Sega was building a great 2D machine, saw what Sony was doing with the PS and 3D, and stuck some more processors into the mix.
This beast was so hard to program that Sega's own Dev teams had difficulty with the system when putting together the SDK.
When Sega of America decided to release it three months early and didn't tell third party developers who were still struggling with the dev kits, they doomed the system to it's place in history.
The only really buggy part of the hardware was the cartridge port. That thing was worse than the NES's. The rest of the system was solid. My original JP release grey Saturn, under heavy use (including a running for a 3 day weekend non-stop) has survived 2 Playstatons, a PS2 and an Xbox.
The system did decently enough in Japan. Both Sega and Capcom eventually put out some mighty fine software after they figured out how to program for it but most developers went with the simple PS and the public followed.
Many might think this isnt a smart move but to be honest i think this as smart as it gets. When Sony pushed back the PS2 release over and over again PS fans stood their ground and waited When most newgen consoles claimed over the years that they got better hardware/software with long technical details than most dont ppl dont even begin to understand PS fans stood their ground When almost every magazines has at least 1 articles thinking that the PS2 might or might not run a specific game or that i wont look as good as other consoles fans still stood their ground and the PS and the PS2 are still there. The truth is Sony has made one of the strongest and largers fan base by releasing not only a console that is good but a console that fits under everyone need so perfectly that they wont mind wating a year more. PS fans are the same that wait for every new Hideo Kojima game , that rush to play the latest FinalFantasy no matter how cheesy have they got, that play every rockstar games no matter how many times have they stole that same damn car and the same that go looking for obscure game like Disgaea . They might complain, but at then end Sony fans are going to wait for a better more stable more enjoyable console no matter what.
Blah Blah PS3, Xbox 360... What I wanna know is: How long will I have to play mario sunshine 4, or mario party 23? If you ask me.. any wait is too long. *Gag*
our commerce structure. This waiting to release products based on specific competitive information, or to see if a similar product bombs out so you can make yours just that little bit better and maybe take some more sales from someone else is crap. Sony - the people obviously want your product with a large library at release or not! The 200,000 sales you might gain over the course of waiting 6-8 months is realistically the 200,000 units you didn't sell during those months because the procuct wasn't on the market.
If you have the PS3, and it is ready to go to market at Christmas, sell the dammed thing at Christmas in direct competition with the xBox. The people will buy the one they initially think they want, and if it sucks they'll buy the other one soon enough. Who cares if a console launches with 250 games, as long as it launches with Madden 2006, NHL 2006, some golf style game, (*name of current kid movie craze here*) game, and a "Halo" ripoff, the console will sell like hotcakes.
* Begin Rant*
Quit screwing the public out of a product they desire just so you can screw with your sales numbers a small fraction of a percent. This applies to all companies, not just Sony. */rant*
PS. If sony really pulls some crap like this, I won't buy one.
Is it reading or comprehension skills you lack? They were talking about the Xbox at the $149 pricepoint, not the Xbox360.
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?
The critical criterion for a winning product is not only timing but also the following:
i meline illustrates the 'gaps' in the market. The consumers in this market are not always ready to shell out $300 every two years, unless they see a greatly increased perceived benefit which brings us to ...
A. The right target market
B. The right features/content
C. The right price
Let's take these each in turn, because these one liner 'sega', 'ipod' and 'virtual gameboy' proofs are simplistic and don't shed any light on this discussion.
A. The right target market: by this I mean demographics (type of games being created and marketing perception), market timing (not in the sense of who is first, but time between generations of consoles. Also skipping ahead to 'B', the right features for the target market. After the initial wave of original home consoles such as the Atari 2600, Intellivision, there was a successful second wave: Colecovision, SNES et. all, and then there was sort of a period in the mid-ninties where people weren't ready for a new console. There wasn't a technology leap for the mass market until the advent of the first 3-D in the Playstation and N64. There was a similar period in time in the mid-eighties after the 2600. I don't have market figures handy but this timline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console#T
B. The right features. In this case this means both features and content. Sony and Microsoft included a DVD player into the PS2 whereas Nintendo didn't. For a lot of people the PS2 was their first DVD player. The HD in the Xbox is a definite differentiator for them. The next generation console might be a credible media centre, providing a hub for mp3s, digital photography and internet browsing on televsions in addition to gaming. The convergence of two key features (I call this 'point convergence') seems to be a pattern for killer apps. I'd put my money on internet browsing and gaming being the point-converged feature that characterizes the successful next-generation console.
C. The right price. Pretty self-explanatory, but pricing is really hard. Not even Microsoft has the luxury of losing money on consoles indefinitely. It would be interesting to see the statistics of profitability (or lack of) between the 3 console makers.
*If* I buy one of these consoles, it'll only be because it does serve multiple purposes, including high-def DVD playback (whether blue or red ray).
Not to disparage your point of view about what a console ought to be, but some people do want an everything box.
You don't need a gazillion games at the beginning, just some really strong contenders. I remember back when SNES first came out, I saved my money... and actually bought Zelda before I bought the system because I wanted it so badly.
Similarly, I bought a PS2 to play FFX.
As you might notice, both were part of a franchise. A new game on a new system takes time to gain a following. So it might be just as good to go with the franchise and gain followers, then move to more original content.
Speaking as someone who just bought a PSP, and there are no games for it, waiting for a strong game lineup is a good idea. Since the initial launch of the psp only like 5 games have been released. Also all the games are already available for playstation and playstation 2 in some form or another besides metal gear acid. I dont regret buying it because I purchased it for emulators, but unlike the DS, I cant buy a good new game if I wanted too, the DS has a number of good games comming out on a regular basis and is releasing great games like advance wars: Dual strike, nintendogs and Lunar in the next month or so...but the ds cant play SNES.
I read this as an admission that the PS3 is in trouble, perhaps because developers are finding its complex architecture harder to develop for than expected. So Sony needs to lay the groundwork for delaying the PS3 rollout. Now, they'll be able to say that it was because the XBox360 was a flop. That should be an easy charge to make--the initial crop of games for a new platform rarely completely live to the hype, and the XBox360 will doubtless be no exception.
The dreamcast launched with the best launch lineup of the new systems, xbox, gamecube and ps2, it has soul calibur, power stone, crazy taxi, resident evil code name veronica, marvel vs capcom, etc. and in its first year it got many strong releases, but the point is that everybody was waiting to see what the PS2 was going to be like, so didnt buy a dreamcast. Also it didnt hurt that the PS2 was a dvd player, but the point is that if people want a new playstation, their going to wait for it, and it could actually hurt microsoft more if Sony DOESNT release the ps3 on time, since often anticipation is better than reality. Just look at the DS, it came out early and critics were always comparing it and its games to the PSP unfavorably, even though the PSP was not released yet and for some reason game reporters cant say anything bad about stuff thats not released yet. Now that the PSP is out they are all complaining about the lack of games, so the PSP actually was doing better before it was launched in the gamming press because it was so overhyped.
See here is where we see a fundimental difference in people's tastes. Personally I find the Romance of the 3 Kingdoms series games boring as hell, As for retro games they only keep my interest for about 5 minutes before I get over the nostalgia and realize they just aren't as good as I'd originally thought. Ditto for platformers (hence why I really have very little interest in anything Nintendo for the last 6 years).
I play games for very different reasons than I used to when I was younger. My tastes have changed.
I like immersive enviroments, decent stories and yes I do like good graphics to go along with it. I also like multiplayer, A.I. opponents give very little if any challenge to me so anything that has multiplayer where I can play against other actual people is a major plus. Nintendo continually misses the boat on this fact and Sony's hardly better. Say what you will about the Xbox in any other respect but they "get it" when it comes to multiplayer and this will be a huge advantage in the next-gen console wars.
Am i the only one that sees the Xbox 360 as more than just a GAMING Console? I Don't plan on buying any games for it in the first year unless they are given to me as presents. The main reason i want it is a Media Center.
As much as everyone says "You can take an old PC and do that." Maybe i don't want a big box sitting out, or taking the time and energy to try and figure out a way to hid the dang thing. Add to that transfering all my MP3's over to a Samba Network Share just to access them with a keyboard. No thanks.
I'm buying this for my Media Center. Not for gaming. Right now i don't realy play my Xbox much except Halo and Tony Hawk. but i use it to watch DVD's all the time and to play music in my living room. Now with the 360 i won't have to have copy's of the music i want to play on my Xbox because it will see my music share over the wireless network and i'll be able to play any of my 30,000 songs by just browsing.
Gaming... ya thats a good secondary job. But for me no thanks.
The PS3 graphics will be so awesome (and so hyped!), that Sony will win MS and Nintendo hands down. Remember that after 6 years of PS2 technology, the PC has only one game that has 'head and shoulders' better graphics than the PS2, and that game is Doom 3. Neither GTA-SA nor Far Cry or HL2 are quantum leaps over PS2 technology yet.
Is there really an overwhelming majority of gamers who do not like console FPS games?
Also, I thought Gears was a 1st/3rd person mix.
Your comment raises one very good point, however: MS needs to build up their franchises. They've got Forza, which in my opinion beats Gran Turismo by a healthy margin. They've got GTA cross-platform, and they need to do pretty much whatever Rockstar wants in order to keep it that way. Still, they need to make sure that gamers don't just know they can get "as good or better" titles - instead, MS needs to get gamers to want the Xbox franchises instead of the PS ones.
What I was pointing out was not that all the good games are FPS, but that assuming that the Xbox 360 will be a flop is a pretty naieve view. I know there are other games besides Halo. I just happen to have more experience with the popularity of Halo. It also happens to hold the record for initial video game sales (yes I know GTA: San Andreas sold more overall on the PS2 ).
Besides, if Sony liscensed the Unreal 3 engine, and Unreal Tournament 2007 is due in 2006, why would they release it in 2007? It just doesn't make any sense.
Oh, and will someone inform the mods of the definition of sarcasm, because I think they seem to have missed it. I seriously wasn't trying to start a flame war.
I had gotten the playstation when it first came out, and shortly stopped buying anything console-oriented.
I got FFX in the mail yesterday, and my ps2 will arrive on monday.
Why am I now buying a ps2 right when ps3 is coming any day now? It's because the ps2 cost me 65 dollars, and FFX cost 12.50. I've got 5 more award-winning games coming in each at less than 15 bucks.
The PS2's graphics aren't unplayable compared to the brand-new games I'm playing on PC. It's in my tolerance level for graphics so long as the gameplay is good. I think I'm going to stick to a strategy of only buying the console of yesteryear so I pay a fraction of the cost. The games are still new to me even if people had already beaten them 4 years ago. I also get the clarity of hindsight to see which games actually turned out to be great rather than hyped trash.
You lose out on multiplayer experiences since there'll be fewer people online. But for those that primarily play console games alone, think about pausing the purchasing for a few years and then playing the same games you would've played, but for a much lower cost.
I'm seeing so much buzz and a churning rumor mill on the new consoles. By the time I make the next buy, I'll be certain I picked the winning platform(s). Heh, my friend remembers buying the Neo-Geo at $300...poor guy.
And as for the PS2 release games? 90% crap.
But then again, 90% of everything is crap.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I'm really lost by your post. The Xbox languished for almost a year before it sold much. Partially this was because of hardware availability, but partially it was because it only had one game. Really Xbox didn't start selling well until MechAssault came out. Just look at Penny Arcade.
- 22
http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php?date=2002-11
On November 22, 2002 Tycho says: "It's been a good couple weeks for the Xbox, huh? It went from something I could mostly do without to something I use every day in the space of like eight days." Xbox was launched November 15, 2001. The PA guys finally turned on to a a year later. Does that seem like a great launch to you? Xbox only had one game worth having for a year, it was a good one, but one game isn't enough to make a great launch, let alone sustain a console for a year.
Gamecube did have some bad games, but as was pointed out elsewhere, Super Smash Bros Melee was out very quickly. Also, the Cube had Super Monkey Ball, which was an excellent group-play game.
PS2 had an average launch I would say. Despite what you say, SSX was a great game. SSX Tricky was better, once they got more time in to fix it up a bit. I still play Tricky to this day. If it weren't for Tricky, I'd still play the original SSX to this day (SSX 3 isn't as good in many ways). The rest of the PS2 titles were mediocre, as launch titles usually are.
Anyway, I would say your conclusion is incorrect. You say two consoles with poor launches are beating out one with a great launch. But you say the Xbox launch was great, when it wasn't. Really, it's a console with a decent launch (helped by being a DVD player at a time when not everyone owned one) beating out two with medicore launches.
Honestly, consoles never get good launches. It costs too much to delay launch until the games are good. The closest we get is when consoles come out in Japan first (with truly awful titles) and then come out in the US with 2nd gen titles. Also production usually ramps up slowly (and production costs down slowly) so it's nice to spread out adoption a little bit anyway.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Is to play PS2 games now, then PS3 games when compelling titles come out. I don't own a PS2, but if the PS3 comes out next Spring, my son will be old enough to get him one. Backwards compatibility with PS2 is what will get me on that platform.
Of course, Nintendo Revolution really interests me. If it's as backwards compatible as Nintendo is promising, I might just go that direction. Much more interesting titles on that platform...
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
You could have bought a used one in 2003 after the price drop to $199 for say, $150. That's a difference of ~$85. Over the course of two years, that amounts to about $3.00 a month.
Why do people go through such drama over such miniscule amounts of cash? It wouldn't be so annoying if you didn't boast about it like you were pulling one over on everyone who spent that $3.00.
If you had bought it new at the launch price of $299, you'd have been out the equivalent of $5.00/month. What a bargain! Thank god you waited! That's like the tax on one game per month and you'd have had 5 years of gaming enjoyment.
Give me a break.
Personally the multiplayer aspect is of little interest unless the other players are in the same room. There are too many 12 year olds on Live to make it even a passing curiosity in my book. (Or full of people with 12 year old developmental skills... I don't know which.)
I don't mind immersive environments, but you cannot beat text adventures for immersion. Sure you have to do the imagining, but that's the beauty of it. FPSes bore the life out of me. I've seen MOTS so long, it's annoying.
The Xbox caters to a specific kind of gamer with its multiplayer... and I am not among that group.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
I'm not suggesting this as a be all and end all solution, but the PS3 has been confirmed as being 100% backwards compatible, but the XBOX 360 only partially. I think even if the launch titles are weak (which I doubt) the fact that I can still boot up timesplitters ( a PS2 launch title that I enjoyed) or any of my other games will make it a better investment.
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
Microsoft might just have a general problem with the attractiveness of their new console.
I don't think you can apply the same circumstances there were with this generation, to the next.
The majority of casual gamers probably aren't looking for a new console at the moment, and with a last push from Sony and Nintendo for their current consoles, they might see the XBOX 360 as much a major console launch as Microsoft hoped.
I bought an Xbox almost the first day (refused to buy a bundle, which was required to get one first day). I had one within a month of it coming out.
I, like the Penny Arcade guys, had an Xbox all that time, there just was no reason to turn it on. There was only one good game, and once you'd finished that one, you were stuck unless you had friends over a lot.
I have two Xboxes, I don't have any kind of MS bias. But their launch was terrible, because they had awful availibilty and almost universally terrible games. MS had to purchase several game companies to even get those awful games produced.
Xbox sure came on strong after MechAssault though. It's a great game, and there have been plenty of gems since. And even though RARE and the Oddworld Inhabitants still produce complete crap, other of MS' purchased companies learned a lot and are doing great now. After PGR1 was a poor game that became frustrating in no time, PGR2 is the flat-out best non-sim racer there is on any platform, and by a large margin.
And for the record, I didn't say the GC launch was better than the Xbox one at all, I specifically said it wasn't better. I did say the PS2 one was though. You apparently didn't even take the time to read my post.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
And where do you get this information?
I was referring more to FPS's on PC as using a console controller to try and aim makes me want to commit sepukko (sp?). While I do like getting together with friends for a some console multiplayer (mostly racing) it's just a lot nicer not having to split the tv in half/quarters and having everyone squinting to try and make out whats happening on their piece of the screen. And are you speaking from experience about the 12 year olds on Live, or just quoting what someone once said that one time somewhere on the internet? If I want text-based adventure I'll just read a novel :)
Both, this article sucks man, talking about 360 coming out, ps3 delay, pstwo price changes, xbox price changes, argh my head, ffs.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
I don't know why you think a couple hundred titles is so far fetched by 2007.
According to a report from an industry research firm there are already 160 titles in development and we're still in mid-2005.