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."

35 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Good news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't wait until those computer-destroying sons-of-bitches Sony go down in flames and honest consumer-friendly companies like Nintendo and Microsoft take over.

    1. Re:Good news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seeing as this is /., and the gamer section to boot, just take all posts as sarcasm unless otherwise noted. Only way to be safe.

    2. Re:Good news. by NVP_Radical_Dreamer · · Score: 2, Funny

      I typed Microsoft + Consumer Friendly into my thesaurus and it gave me Oxymoron.

      --
      The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

      - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Good news. by G-funk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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!
    4. Re:Good news. by dq5+studios · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, they wanted to stop another atari 2600 from happening. So evil of them.

    5. Re:Good news. by Elite+Xizer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nintendo...not consumer friendly? Bullshit. I had my Nintendo DS repaired last week completely free. I scratched the touch screen, Nintendo paid for shipping there and back, and they even replaced the touch screen. It was shipped there, fixed, and mailed back. The total time for all this? 6 days. Now, you think Sony would do this for you? I believe they have a policy that they won't accept a PSP for a free repair unless it has 14 dead pixels - all close together. Nintendo will replace a DS if it has only one dead pixel.

  2. We Have More Options That Just Those Decisions by BigDork1001 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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."

    No, no, no no, no no. Customers don't have to decide between the three. They can choose more than one. I own all three (actually four, Dreamcast too) of this generations systems. Eventually I will own all three of the next gens too. There is no law that says I can only get one and I won't.

    Not to mention that these predictions have little to no value. They are just predictions. People have predicted that Microsoft will flop. People predict that Nintendo will go the way of Sega. People have predicted that the world will end. It's just someone's opinion and while there's a chance it'll happen, whatever, there's a chance it won't too. We'll just have to wait and see.

    --
    "Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
    1. Re:We Have More Options That Just Those Decisions by Phyvo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't forget that Halo 3 will not be able to counter the PS3's launch (as the author seems to think it still will). It's been delayed. Good thing too, because even if you downplay Bungie's continued work on H:2 it still wouldn't have had the slightest chance of being good otherwise. A little more than a year is simply not enough time to make a good sequel.

    2. Re:We Have More Options That Just Those Decisions by RoadDoggFL · · Score: 2, Informative

      Halo was mostly done in a little over a year. Work on Halo 2 was nearly reset at about the time the E3 2003 video was shown. And those were with fewer resources than are likely being made available for Halo 3.

      Factor in the fact that the PS3 will possibly be delayed until 2007 (Sony never gave a firm US date, and who's to say it won't also be delayed in Japan?) and a Halo 3 release date that coincides with the PS3's is entirely possible and to the optimist, even likely.

      --
      "This is considered plagiarism."
    3. Re:We Have More Options That Just Those Decisions by harrkev · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No, no, no no, no no. Customers don't have to decide between the three. They can choose more than one. I own all three (actually four, Dreamcast too) of this generations systems. Eventually I will own all three of the next gens too. There is no law that says I can only get one and I won't.
      You are every company's wet dream. Unfortunately, people like you are in the minority, and cannot support an entire industry for very long.

      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."
    4. Re:We Have More Options That Just Those Decisions by RoadDoggFL · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I feel it's almost guaranteed that the price cut will happen either at or shortly before the PS3's launch.

      The possibility is that MS could bundle Halo 3 with an HD-DVD drive or even a BluRay drive if HD-DVD remains as dead as it is right now...

      --
      "This is considered plagiarism."
    5. Re:We Have More Options That Just Those Decisions by harrkev · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Maybe, but the "videogame generation" who grew up on the NES is now in their 20s and 30s, probably don't have a family to support, and are willing to buy 2-3 consoles. We have money, and we are the gamers.
      Huh? What planet are you from? People in their 20's are generally starting a family. People in their 30's are mostly firmly entrenched in doing the "family" thing. I am a part of the Nintendo generation. My first console was an Odyssey 2 (look it up).

      If you look at the demographics, I think that you will find a fair amount of hard-core gamers with money. But you will probably also find even more teenagers who rely on their parents money on order to buy games and systems. A 16-year-old kid likely cannot afford multiple consoles. If you totally ignore the limited-income families, then you are ignoring a large market. Halo 3 might be the killer app, but how many copies of Halo 3 are you going to buy? Will you enjoy it enough to buy three or four copies
      You are not the sort who supports the industry; you are the "later buyers" who support sales in the 3rd and 4th generation, after the large chunk of the market has adopted, and keep playing the last-gen consoles well after the next gen has launched. Do not think that most people are like you. The market is already well-defined by the time you buy in.
      You are right. That is because I have a wife and two kids to support. But I still "support the industry." Every sale is still a sale. The initial cost of a console is high partially because of trying to recover the NRE costs. By the time the price drops, the NRE is paid for, so Nintendo will still make a profit off of me. While I am certain that Nintendo would rather have a bunch of early adopters, they would rather have the "late buyers" buy their stuff rather than Microsofts.
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
  3. And Then by ViperG · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't forgot about sony's DRM stuff. Nobody wants a rootkit included in their PS3.

    if (Halo.3 > DRM.rootkit)
            DONT_BUY_PS3

    --
    Black Sky
    2D Elite Inspired Game
    1. Re:And Then by Xugumad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

  4. Hmmm... by fodi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Hmmm... by blincoln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they were still innovating like they did back in the days of the VCR and the Walkman then they wouldn't be needing to treat customers like criminals in order to screw money out of them.

      Microsoft is certainly no better. I wouldn't be surprised if they're astroturfing some of the anti-Sony sentiment in the hopes of making people forget about "Trusted" Computing, DRM, et cetera.

      Nintendo are the ones who invented unlicensed third-party lockout chips for home consoles, censored tons of games, and fixed retail prices for NES titles. I'm sure if they would act the same as Sony and MS again given the chance.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    2. Re:Hmmm... by blincoln · · Score: 2, Informative

      Would you be willing to elaborate more on your line of thinking?

      When I think of MS, I think:

      - First company to require online/phone activation of a mainstream product (Windows XP).
      - Inventor of Windows Media, the format that made useless an entire library of "free*" (as in "*some restrictions apply") music I'd downloaded when the authentication server was turned off.
      - First company to market a game console that depends on an online service for a good portion of its functionality.
      - First company (at least, that I know of) to market a non-streaming video file format (WMV) that lets the author block random access, so you can't skip commercials.
      - Palladium
      - HailStorm
      - The biggest development company pushing for software subscriptions instead of purchases.
      - Restricted HD-DVD video in Vista.

      I know Sony has done some stupid things, like ATRAC/Memory Stick/other-proprietary-format and the rootkit, but at least to my knowledge they have put far fewer intrusive and crippled technologies on the market than MS. If I've missed out on something big, I'd really like to hear about it.

      As for Nintendo, right now they're relatively benign, but I still remember them well for the things in my original post.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    3. Re:Hmmm... by illumina+us · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The biggest development company pushing for software subscriptions instead of purchases.
      Not sure if you mean biggest in size or biggest in push, if the latter be the case, perhaps you've never heard of Valve Software.
      --
      -illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
  5. Hit the History Books by Jerf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hit the History Books by Jambon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking of the history of game consoles, Joystiq has an interesting article about the ~10 year dominance cycle of gaming consoles.

  6. Insufficient by dbhankins · · Score: 5, Funny

    All this is not enough to ensure the PS3's failure. To make it complete, Sony needs to:

    - Reduce or eliminate backwards compatibility, like the Silver Slimline PS2 but more so
    - Implement nodelocking of game- and video-disks, using the technology they've recently secured a US patent on
    - Make game development as difficult as possible and as different from conventional architectures as possible to reduce the number of game companies willing to crossdevelop for or port to the new system

    Only then can they guarantee the PS3 will flop.

  7. 10 pages? bleh by GoNINzo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    After 10 pages of extensive advertising, I see some problems, besides the about.com revenue stream.

    1. Needs a much stronger outline form. I'm not the best writer in the world but that is a rambling article.
    2. The handhelds are basically useless in this discussion, unless you talk about integration with the platforms. And I'm sure the market will accomidate whatever is popular.
    3. The market has already seemed to have pushed the revolution out of the running as the 'next console'. But as long as they continue to make money on the hardware and the software, I'm sure they will continue to sell. It just won't be the 'it' console, which is okay with Nintendo.
    4. It's not clear the market has the room for another console entry such as the ybox or ps3 or revolution, especialy if people keep making sequels for all the old generation machines.
    5. I don't believe online will make/break this generations release, still. However, the download part might seriously help some platforms.
    6. The consolidated control preferences and user details within the ybox series might seriously help them, as people are generally lazy. heh
    7. Halo 3 is not the 'killer app' it used to be. Halo 2 didn't sell more xboxes.
    8. The Revolution is not getting nearly the developer support that the PS3 or the ybox.
    9. 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.
    10. I don't think the sony rootkit problem has much to do with their games division, really. And I doubt it will bankrupt them.
    11. Backwards compatibility is still questionable on all three systems. Xbox 360 has 200 some titles they've announced, but how well they work and the requirements for a hard drive make it somewhat questionable. The others are questionable entirely. I think this will influence buyers, as it did when the PS2 came out.
    12. The use of the multiple cores on the ybox and ps3 might be a total success on some software titles and a total bomb on others, it's an unknown and dependant upon the developers.
    13. The prices of the hardware are pies in the sky, it's what they'd like to get near. And it's not completely clear if microsoft can drop the price of hardware, though they have the deepest pockets to do so. They won't let it get dreamcasted. (*sob*)
    14. 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.
    15. I'm not without bias, but damn, you could at least pretend for a bit.

    Anyway, I'm not convinced either way, it's still wait and see. With this subject matter, you'd be better off getting a random games.slashdot.org reader to come up with a comparison between the machines and the possible outcomes. Plus, you might not have to deal with 10 pages of ads.

    --
    Gonzo Granzeau
    "Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
    1. Re:10 pages? bleh by BigDork1001 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm just going to hit on a couple of these. I don't necessarily disagree with your post on a whole. I'm just bored at work and looking for conversation.

      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
  8. Man, it's so early yet this getting old already by Morinaga · · Score: 2, Funny
  9. Highly doubtful! by ssand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Highly doubtful! by king-manic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      90% of owners didn't purchase an addon for playing online. Gee, do you think it might be more popular when it's built into the system? So, based on the fact that the PS2 hard drive sold for shit, can we assume that gamers don't prefer a hard drive? Or does it mean that optional accessories consistently sell for shit?

      Even though you still have to pay for a subscription to Xbox Live Gold to get all of the features, the vast majority of people who buy an Xbox will get a free trial to Xbox Live Gold, many of whom will decide they like it and keep it on after the free trial.

      What percentage of game players have wireless controllers now? Not that high of a percentage. Just about everyone I know who's looking forward to the 360 has mentioned those as a reason. But because not a lot of people bought them before, it must not be a large factor?


      Live isn't that popular. Most people actually prefer not to play with random retards who scream in thier ear or who are so ridicoulously betters/worse then they are that playign isn't fun. The subscription rate per xbox hovers at around 10%. Same wiht Pc online play, most people just aren't that interested. They prefer real people or solo play. So while Sony is being backwards with thier online support, it likly won't hurt them.

      But only time will tell.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  10. Revolution by CH0DE · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Revolution by BigDork1001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sony and MS have spent a lot of money to hype up their products. Boasting impressive numbers that mean little to most people and making claims that might or might not be met. All the while Nintendo has kept quiet. I think their plan is to just let the product speak for itself. In the end I hope it works for them. It may or may not. But as long as there are quality games and they aren't losing money who cares if they are #1 or #6?

      --
      "Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
    2. Re:Revolution by HarvardAce · · Score: 2, Interesting
      But as long as there are quality games and they aren't losing money who cares if they are #1 or #6?

      The shareholders will. If the difference is between being #3 (or #6 as you say) and making $10M in profit and being #1 and making $100M in profit, then you can be sure that the shareholders will care. Now, what is more likely the case is that Nintendo knows that in order to get close to #1 or #2 they would have to spend too much money in marketing. Therefore, the profit wouldn't be any greater (or perhaps even less) than where they are now. Remember, Nintendo is a business just like Sony and MS, and they are going to try and make the most profit that they can. If that means that they stay back in #3 instead of selling their console at a big loss and being #2 or #1, then that's what they'll do.

      --
      Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
  11. Duplicate Article by esampson · · Score: 3, Funny
    http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/25/ 2034217&tid=10

    This article was posted on Slashdot on October 25th talking about how the Microsoft's game console was going to be released and completely crush Sony's.

    I realize it's a different author but its pretty much the same talking points. Microsoft has endless supplies of money, it will be easier to program the XBox than the PS2, people will have to choose one or the other (since we all know that at night when everyone is asleep the two systems would fight to the death), blah, blah, blah.

    Do we really need to have such similar articles posted within the same 1,846 day span?

  12. Not all of us are Holo fanboys by Nursie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  13. PS3 = far more powerful hardware than 360? by HunterZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sony introduces the PS3, sporting far more powerful hardware than either alternative system

    What? I admit that I haven't been following this for the last month or so, but from what I've seen the XBox 360 will be at least as powerful as the PS3. Yes, the PS3 has a bunch of processing units in its cell processor, but most of them are special-purpose and not as powerful as the XBox 360's three generic cores.

    --
    Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
    1. Re:PS3 = far more powerful hardware than 360? by harrkev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gaaaa. Processing power again.

      Processing power != fun
      (or for you VHDL jocks, processing_power /= fun)
      (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."
  14. BOYCOTT SONY (and do yourself a favour) by FFFish · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First, Sony needs to be boycotted as a consumer act that sends a clear message to Big Business that we will not accept invasive DRM, such as that which made the headlines this past week. Smashing a security hole into our systems? That must be protested, no two ways about it.

    Second, Sony will not be destroyed by the boycott. And to your benefit it will motivate Sony to perform so very, very well that they regain their loyal customers. This time next year they'd re-release the product with such stunning capabilities that you'd happily purchase it at even a premium price. Your boycott will spur them to outperform themselves.

    Win-win situation all around. Boycott Sony. :-)

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    1. Re:BOYCOTT SONY (and do yourself a favour) by FFFish · · Score: 2, Informative
      BoingBoing has a nice list of what Sony has done wrong. Take the boycott suggestion seriously: this is a prime opportunity for the consumer to communicate with the company. Opportunities for communicating such a very clear message do not come around often. In fact, if the companies have their way, the opportunity will never, ever happen again.

      Summarized:
      Oct 31: Sony DRM uses black-hat rootkits
      Nov 3: Sony releases de-rootkit-ifier, lies about risks from rootkits
      Nov 3: Felten on Sony's rootkit-"remover: they're still adding something"
      Nov 3: Defeat WoW spyware using Sony's rootkit: proof it has side-effects
      Nov 9: List of CDs infected with Sony's rootkit DRM
      Nov 9: Sony's EULA is worse than their rootkit
      Nov 10: Sony Music CDs infect Macs, too
      Nov 10: Fantastic screed against the coders who wrote the previous Sony DRM junk: they've done it before
      Nov 11: Sony will stop shipping infectious CDs -- too little, too late
      Nov 12: Sony's *other* malicious audio CD trojan
      Nov 12: New Sony lockware prevents selling or loaning of games
      Nov 13: Sony's malware uninstaller leaves your computer vulnerable
      Nov 13: Sony's rootkit infringes on software copyrights

      Other stuff:
      Sony lied about its rootkit. They said it didn't phone home with information about your deeds. It does. When they were caught in the lie, they said that they didn't pay attention to the information it sent back, so it's OK
      Microsoft is building a Sony rootkit-remover into its anti-spyware product
      Lawsuits against Sony are already underway in Italy and the US
      At least one piece of malicious software that exploits Sony's rootkit has been discovered in the wild

      Update: Christopher sez, "You missed one in your Sony timeline that I think is excellent. A call from Dan Goodin over on Wired to boycott all Sony products until they make amends..."
      posted by Cory Doctorow at 09:40:06 AM
      If you expect to be treated fairly, you must take this seriously. You need to boycott Sony products. You harm yourself if you do not: you will make it okay for them to harm you again and again.
      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.