Slashdot Mirror
Prognosticating Sony's Downfall
Via Evil Avatar, an article on About.com theorizing Sony's defeat at the hands of Nintendo and Microsoft. An interesting piece of speculation. From the article: "Sony introduces the PS3, sporting far more powerful hardware than either alternative system, limited online system support, and a fairly solid launch line-up. Nintendo introduces the Revolution. At the same time that the Revolution and PS3 hit the store shelves, Microsoft reduces the price of the Xbox 360 and releases Halo 3. Halo 3, combined with the price reduction, effectively undercuts the momentum of the PS3 launch. Customers have to decide between the 360 with Halo 3, the PS3 with a potentially high price tag, and the Revolution, priced near current generation game consoles."
What a perfect time to spread some FUD about Sony. Perfect timing, since the whole tech-world hates them at the moment. Not that I'm discounting the articles opinions, it's just funny that the DRM debacle has helped bring this article out...
History pop quiz: What video game company has managed to dominate three console generations (~5 years)?
By my reckoning, nobody. (Atari: 2600 era. Nintendo: NES and to some degree SNES. Sony: PS1 & PS2.)
If anyone's going to make it, it's Sony. (I mean that beyond the obvious historically-tautological aspects of the statement; they have a better chance IMHO because this is clearly a "more of the same" generation, which I think is a first, and that makes it easier to maintain momentum. I think the best way to understand the Revolution is as an attempt to disrupt the momentum by disrupting the "more of the same"-ness of this generation.) On the other hand, flaming people for questioning it is probably excessively fanboy-ish. I wouldn't commit to that exact scenario, personally, but scenarios where Sony is not #1 are quite plausible.
While online gaming is a large factor for the xbox, and is a nice feature, there are still quite a few gamers out there who don't go online with their consoles. Even though Sony won't have a fortifide online structure, that still does not mean that some games will have it. In addition to that, as an xbox owner I have never really seen any big titles for the Xbox. Sure there is Halo 3 for the 360 but At the rate Halo 2 was going, it won't be anything more than a good game. Many large titles that will be on the 360 like GTA or Burnout will be on the PS3 at the same time, if not before the 360.
It just won't be the 'it' console, which is okay with Nintendo.
I think it's okay with Nintendo fans too. Not the fanboys but the fans. I'm okay with Nintendo not being number one. As long as they are cranking out good games what do I care if PS3 is outselling them?
Halo 3 is not the 'killer app' it used to be. Halo 2 didn't sell more xboxes.
True but Halo 2 came out after X-box was in a lot of homes. People who loved Halo didn't have to buy a new X-box to enjoy Halo 2. In order to enjoy Halo 3 they have to buy a 360. Halo and Halo 3 have more in common than Halo 2 and Halo 3. Halo 3 will definitely sell 360s.
The PS3 will have exclusive titles that people will be willing to buy one for. And they are promising on release now, but we'll see.
Revolution will have exclusive titles that people will be willing to buy one for too. SMB Melee, Mario Kart, Zelda, Metroid, these are going to be exclusive and they're going to sell systems. I agree that PS3 will sell systems for the same reason though.
The launch of the ybox is not looking good currently, due to the restricted inventory and lack of revolutionary single platform games. However, microsoft will throw money to make it 'good', I'm sure.
Lord knows they have enough money.
Anyway, I'm not convinced either way, it's still wait and see. :)
100% with you on this.
-BigD
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
As everyone is talking about the next gen consoles the revolution is rarely mentioned. Is it because Nintendo isn't aiming to be the "it" system? I really think that a lot of us who go back several generations of consoles have a quiet respect for Nintendo and what they've done for console gaming. Not to mention you can almost always guarantee that Nintendo will sacrifice flashy graphics, blood and gore to make fun games. IMO that is the biggest downfall of sony and M$. Lots of games lots of explosions but not tons o' fun.
The average family has a lot of financial stress. Even affording one next-gen system would be tough. In the end, it might be a choice of the Revolution that you can afford, or the PS2 that you will have to save up for in time for next year's Christmas. As for me, I will likely pick up a Revolution after the first round of price cuts (probably a year after release). I do not see a 260 or PS3 in my future.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Riddle me this :
Say two men came up to you and offer you differnt gaming systems. Both promise great hardware and good games (in the long run), but both at a hefty price. One man raves about his product, blasts all of your senses with how awesome it will be, claims the other's hardware will be lacking and too costly, but goes out of his way to make sure there will be a limited supply of his own.
The other man speaks softly and carries a big fuckin' stick. He says nothing of the other company. He let's his reputation as being a power house in the game console world speak for itself.
Personally I would rather give my money to the latter. Given that past performance does not guarantee future results, both consoles will be great and I really doubt one will bankrupt the other. There are plenty of people in the world who wont touch a piece of Microsoft ANYTHING in less they absolutely have too, and there are people who feel the same about Sony.
I beat Halo into the ground on legendary while on my roommates Xbox in college. I graduated, moved out and haven't played since. I enjoyed it, it was a fun AND great game, but I didn't buy an Xbox when 2 came out, and I won't buy a 360 when 3 comes out. Personally, I'd rather play metal gear solid, even if I spend more time watching it.
i don't care
You know that right? The last thing I want to do is play an FPS on a console. Just doesn't work for me. I like consoles for the more social games that are not done better by PC.
I'm sure Halo sold well, but I' equally sure there are many more like me out there.
Having said all that I'll be buying the 360 because it's out first. Later I'll likely get a PS3.
Microsoft, sure (but I'd still rate them less evil than Sony). But what's evil about the big N? Besides the whole virtual boy thing.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Yes, they wanted to stop another atari 2600 from happening. So evil of them.
This is a point I've been trying to make, actually. Until Sony actually realise that backstabbing the people who actually buy their products (I don't mean reluctantly taking them off the shelves while muttering about it not really being a big deal, I mean actually understanding this is a bad idea) I cannot trust their products. CDs are the first thing we've noticed with DRM in, but I wouldn't touch a DVD they've produced, right at the moment.
And frankly, I'm not willing to trust that the PS3 won't try hacking the rest of the systems on my LAN to discover if they have pirated music, right at this point. Sure, that's almost definitely not happening, but if I told you a month ago that Sony were releasing CDs with rootkits on, you'd look at me like I'm crazy, is this so much of a further leap?
Gaaaa. Processing power again.
/= fun)
Processing power != fun
(or for you VHDL jocks, processing_power
(or PERL, processing_power ne fun)
What really matters is the GAMEPLAY. A great game with fewer polygons is still a great game. A crappy game with more polygons is still a crappy game. This war will NOT be won or lost on technical specifications. It will be decided by the game quality, availability, and price. Period. In the end, that is what people look at.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."