Slashdot Mirror
PS3 In U.S. In November?
Next Generation reports that yet another analyst sees the U.S. PS3 launch a ways off. A gent from the Pacific Crest Securities group forsees a 1M unit strong launch in the U.S. sometime in November, with a Japanese launch the summer before and an EU launch the spring after. From the article: "Despite speculation of high launch prices - some quoting a ludicrously high $700 mark - these numbers will certainly lead to severe shortages. Sony will struggle to meet retail demand with a million units at launch, and will face the same kind of criticism leveled at Microsoft if it fails to back the launch up with regular pre-Holiday shipments."
"If they minimize their shipments by avoiding doing something crazy like...oh...let's say giving away a PS3 every 10 minutes for a month. I guess the reality is that sort of scheme doesn't dent the overall shipments much."
Crazy?
60*24*31/10 = around 4,000 Xbox360's. That is nothing compared to the demand. It was effective advertising for both Mountain Dew and the 360. There were some people with a few hundred caps they saved for one drawing.
speculative. Who are the sources for these analysts? I'll wait to hear from Sony, thanks.
Wow, a whole million? If you look at the actual facts, you'll find Sony sold just shy if a million PS2s on opening weekend... in Japan alone. Over half a million in the US on opening day. And over 100 million to date.
If Microsoft were to continue selling, on average, 500k a month, it would take them sixteen years of consecutive continuous sales to match the PS2's record.
Oh yeah, the 360 is a success all right.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
For once I wish I had mod points to Mod up some of the comments below this Post.
As stated in other comments, Xbox has a long way to go before reaching the level the PS2 has managed to reach. Technical Problems aside, the hardware problems has tarnished the image of the X360 release. 2% or not, many seemed to know someone who knew someone who's brother's dad had problems with it. True or not hearsay is powerful.
Next-Gen is still unknown to the masses. Technology right now is diluting itself. Retailers are pushing Hi-def, but there is little content for it, and non-techies can't tell the diffrence less they see it side by side. HD/Blu-Ray are pushing for new Media, but DVD is out there, and VHS still has a significant role as well, evident by the availablilty of new movies on DVD and VHS Format. Game is no diffrent. It looks like a game. It plays like a game, wow this must be another game!
It's highly unlikely the PS3 will Fail due to blu-ray, and every article and speculation (since there is NOTHING ELSE but speculation) I've read indicates Blu-Ray costs will most likely get eaten by Sony, akin to DVD drives in the PS2 Release. Sony can build most of the parts for their consoles in house via their own manufacturing plants further reducing the costs.
Anything is possible, but its pretty unlikely the PS3 will fail. Many thought the market would not support 3 Mainstream consoles when Xbox Came out, but its proven it can, and looks to continue that trend.
WHY ISNT LS WORKING ON MY PC?! well it's ls not LS LS IS NOT WORKING! turn caps off CAPS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LS!
I've got all three last-gen consoles, plus a 360.
Of the three older systems, I like the XBox the most; I've preferred the games and the presentation there. Most of the time, when you have the same game on both the PS2 and the XBox, it will load and run fastest, and look the best, on the XBox.
The Gamecube, despite being unpopular, has always impressed me. It hasn't had as many games, but they've always been well-done... fast and easy to play. It's quite undeserving of its red-headed stepchild reputation. If it had used full-size disks, I don't see any reason why it couldn't have done just as well or better than the other two. I think the tiny game disks were its biggest limitation.
The PS2 has always felt sort of hackish. It has good games, but the limitations of the hardware are almost always visible in some way. Look at Shadow of the Colossus, for example... a great game, but the PS2 has trouble animating the Colossi. It's still a great ride, but it's rather marred by the lack of horsepower to do what they wanted.
I haven't seen it, but I've read that the PS2's version of Resident Evil 4 is the best of all three consoles. This surprised me, but I'll take it on faith. If it's true, it means that they are still figuring out ways to make the PS2 run faster, which is pretty cool. The major downside is that there must be, like, 12 guys in the world who can make that hardware sing to that level.
An easier-to-program architecture strikes me as a better bet, most of the time, for most gamers. 'Normal' programmers are in pretty good supply... truly brilliant ones are hard to find. An easy architecture means that most games will look good and play well. An arcane architecture like the PS2 will start to pay off late in its life, but for a long time, the games will probably be better on the consoles with simpler architectures.
The best comparison I can think of is the old Commodore Amiga versus Atari ST debates, way back when... the ST, being simpler, had good software sooner. The Amiga's much better architecture started paying off after a few years, and the software (particularly games) on that system ended up being much, much better. But for the first couple years, the ST looked stronger in many ways.
It strikes me, as a multi-console owner, that the smart thing to do is to buy the easy-to-program system early in the lifecycle, and the tough one near the end, when it's cheap. (assuming you're not a diehard that must own everything, at least.) It's not like a computer... it's not an investment that can pay you back. It's just a toy. You don't really CARE what the architecture is like...all you care about is the games.
As far as actual GAMING goes, the Revolution is likely to be the best out of the gate. The 360 will hit its stride a year or two out, as the programmers learn its medium-complex architecture. The PS3, most likely, won't truly develop for another year or two longer.
Ultimately: wait until there's a game you want, and then buy the console. It's about the GAMING, not about wanking over how "powerful" one's console is.
Remember, too, that the 360 is an actual, shipping product, though still hard to get. You can look at the games NOW and judge for yourself. The PS3 may be better. It's easy to compare the present reality of a shipping product with the possibilities of vapor hardware, and of course Sony would love for you to do that.... anything to keep you from buying a 360. But you can't look at the games on the PS3, can you?
I'm sure I'll end up with a PS3 eventually. I do not think, however, that it's likely to make the bed and do the dishes, and if it's as arcane as the PS2 was, it's not truly going to hit its stride until 2010 or so.
So why not wait and buy it when it's cheaper?