Slashdot Mirror
Console War Just Sony's Side Quest
Next Generation is running two pieces today about Sony's upcoming console. In 'Console War a Side Quest for Sony?', they examine an analyst report suggesting that the company is more interested in winning the movie format war than in taking the lead on this generation of consoles. They also have a piece wherein some industry figures weigh in on the PS3. From that article: "The impact will be enormous. Digital distribution will allow for new ways to generate excitement for these games - from being able to purchase new game packs that extend the life of gameplay and purchasing cool new items that make your character and experience unique, to the emphasis the consoles will showcase linear programming much like an iPod or OnDemand service does. With something like Steam, the entire console channel is avoided, and suddenly the game developer is selling directly to a consumer.
"
Considering neither HD-DVD or Blu-Ray have been released, that's a big assumption. Personally I suspect (and hope) that the VHS vs Betamax war will still be in many people's minds, and both new formats will end up flopping. If that does happen, then WMS's own analysis suggests the PS3 may crash as well.
Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
They said the PS2 would last longer than the original PlayStation too... I remember reading it in some old copies of Next Generation (print magazine that doesn't exist any more). I'd have to dig up the old articles for an exact quote, but I definitely remember them saying that the current generation would last longer than the previous generation (I think they predicted 7-8 years, which it still will, but not as a primary console... it'll do the same thing as the original PS and be used by those who don't want to upgrade/used for younger children). However, they had competition and their competition upgraded, so they followed suit. If Sony had a monopoly in the conosole world (and if there wasn't this format war going on) then you better believe they wouldn't worry about moving on to the PS3 right now... But then same goes for Microsoft and their move to the 360... And same for Nintendo... But that's just why competition is good.
Read my blog posts on usability.
Any one using the phrase or concept of 'first-mover advantage' in discussing the console market has discredited themselves from having anything relevant to say on the subject.
The next gen console race is over. It has been over for months and months. Just like every other console market cycle. The battles are won and lost months to years before the actual hardware hits the shelves.
The 360 has sold a miserable 1.7 million consoles in its first six months on the market. That is the worst selling console since perhaps the 3DO a decade or so ago. The 360 is getting outsold by a wide margin by the six year old PS2 - and that was before Sony cut the price on the PS2. The 360 is completely dead in Japan. And the 360 is selling at half the rate of the US. The 360 is a walking corpse.
And Nintendo had a chance of selling N64 level numbers with the Revolution. In a week we will see if they pulled off the greatest marketing stunt in console history or simply committed marketplace suicide with a product named that brings to mind urine in English speaking countries.
Inane articles like the one referred to in the summary are almost cut and paste copies of Dreamcast/Pre-PS2 hitting the shelves era predictions. Don't worry, we only have another week to go and we won't have to read any more articles like these. The PS3 and Rev will be unveiled and reality will take over from journalistic fantasy.
The PS3 is in a vastly stronger, as incredible as that sounds, position than the PS2.
It's been obvious the PS3 is Sony's trojan horse for Blu-Ray since they accounced that the it will use the format. Gaming may be profitable, but becoming the standard format for movies and possibly data is several orders of magnitude more profitable. Between hardware and HUGE cash cow on their hands.
They seem to believe that PS3 will establish their beachhead in the new DVD format wars and/or digital distribution, but even if they sell as many PS3s as they hope, will that really help? How is PS2's market penetration compared to DVD players in general?
Let me be clear: I think micropayments definitely have a future (on consoles, as well as on the Net), but the way they are doing it now ; by making incomplete games at first, and then releasing items/gameplay-variations for money, is imho a complete rip off.
It's funny how this comment,
- The impact will be enormous. Digital distribution will allow for new ways to generate excitement for these games - from being able to purchase new game packs that extend the life of gameplay and purchasing cool new items that make your character and experience unique -
is describing game-mods in its purest form: But no, they won't open up the Marketplaces for third party mods, as it would snoop away from their own (unimaginative at least) by-products: And people would actually notice that paying 2 dollars for some random model is complete bullshit.
When the pre-Xbox360 hype was going on, it was mentioned a few times how MS would like to interact with the community (eg. hinting on being able to sell/offer (custom playercreated) content on Live), but the only interaction that I've seen until now is one-sided: MS offers, 'we' buy.
They really should have a look at how Valve's model of great mod/tool support has lead to -alot- more sales of Half-Life, as well as HL2.
The PSP on the other astounds graphically. Very nice indeed. GTA Vice City is amazing that that can be played in your hand. Pity the hardware is so cheap (pixel problems), the interface is kinda bad (the joystick just isn't a joystick) and a lot of the games are boring and not really handheld games.
Then again, the PSP has one mobile advantage over the DS. Safe anywhere. Just briefly switch off the power and resume where you left off when you power back on.
Compared with Nintendo Animal Crossing slow slow save it shows that Nintendo can still learn a thing or two.
frankly the way things are going at the moment? I think we are going to see a repeat of the last generation. PS3 will still be the big console BUT Sony will still barely make any money of it. MS will still subsidize its losses through losses and Nintendo will survive because of the handheld and be the smallest player yet be the only one to actually turn a clear profit on their consoles.
The only thing that could change it is if the Revolution launches with a killer title. So far I am not aware of one being announced.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Sony is claiming it's supposed to last double the time of the PS2 (5 years) so this console is meant to last 10 years.
The PS2 has already been on the market for six years and will likely remain on the market for some time after the PS3 is released (just as the PS1 was on the market for some time after the PS2 was released). The PS1 also lasted almost exactly ten years from its original launch date to the date production stopped.
I think that this whole "five year cycle" thing is a little confused to begin with. Most successful consoles last well beyond that artificial limit. The NES/Famicom was on the market from 1983-2003 - 20 years. The Intellivision was on the market for 11 years. The Atari 2600 was on the market for around 15 years. The PS1 lasted ten. I could go on and on.
In addition, it's very rare that all console manufacturers launch systems in the same year. For example, the Sega Genesis was released in 1989, with the SNES launching in 1991. The Atari 2600 launched in 1977, the Intellivision in 1980, the Coleco Vision in 1982 and the NES in 1985. Some of these systems then went on to stay on the market for years afterwards. Where are the "generational" lines there? Even nowadays, the Dreamcast launched in 1999, the PS2 launched in 2000 and the Xbox in 2001 - even as the PS1 stuck around. The Xbox 360 launched in 2005 and the PS3 and Wii will launch in 2006. So it's really hard to divide the timeline up into these five-year chunks. It's a much more organic industry than a lot of people seem to realize - consoles stay on the market for as long as they're profitable, whether that's two years or 20.
Where I think the five year cycle came from is hardcore gamers who may themselves only consider a system relevant as long as it's the latest and greatest thing. (It's also an unfortunate fact that a lot of systems popular with the hardcore crowd - like the Sega Saturn and Dreamcast - die early deaths.) But that's not the way the market or industry works as a whole. Hardcore gamers wouldn't have considered buying an Atari 2600 in 1990, but it was out there. Same with the PS1 in 2004.
And same, probably, with the PS2 in 2007 and the PS3 in 2015. I don't think Sony's out of bounds in making that sort of prediction. If Atari can take a console that was underpowered to begin with and sell it from 1977-1991 - through the crash of 1983-1984, no less - why can't Sony do something similar with the PS3?
As for speed of writing and reading. No competition. Nintendo has chosen not to have onboard save. That no doubt saves them money meaning that Nintendo makes a profit on a cheaper console but now the save file has to be in the game catridge and it is not going to be top of the line because of again the cost issue.
AC:WW takes about 30 secs to load and 30 secs to save. Since I love the DS lite for its ease of use in those lost 5 minutes that is a bit too long. The PSP is a bit to large to carry in my pocket but it allows me to play faster and quit faster.
DS is a good console but I wish they had spend just a few more bucks on it. On the other hand, I wish the PSP had a touchscreen. No pleasing me I guess.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.