Slashdot Mirror
Sony vs. Microsoft, Tortoise vs. Hare
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Was Microsoft smart to rush out the Xbox 360 or is Sony smarter to wait and load PlayStation 3 with the latest technology? The Wall Street Journal analyzes the opposing camps' strategies; the stakes are high, as 'the Xbox group has lost billions of dollars since its start five years ago and will continue to lose money if Sony trounces Microsoft.' Several expected Microsoft announcements today, besides 'Halo 3', are meant to deliver the message that the Xbox's head-start was an advantage: 'Microsoft will also demonstrate ways for mobile phones to link with its Xbox Live service, which allows Xbox 360 users to play games with each other over the Internet. Executives will also announce new games for the Xbox Live service and are negotiating a partnership to build a "massively multiplayer" game for Live that allows thousands of people to play each other over the Internet, say people familiar with the company's plans.'"
"build a "massively multiplayer" game for Live that allows thousands of people to play each other over the Internet,"
In other news, the Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XI has been on store shelves for several weeks now...
Sony vs. Microsoft , Tortoise vs. Snail... In a gunfight.
:)
There, I fixed it for you
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
"Microsoft will also demonstrate ways for mobile phones to link with its Xbox Live service, which allows Xbox 360 users to play games with each other over the Internet."
Playing games on cell phones with friends?
Sounds... N-GAGE'ing. Can't wait.
Never count them out. They've such a huge time lead and enormous resources, they'll eventually get it. And I think XBox 360 is when they do finally get.
...two hares having a fistfight on the starting line, while a friendly, unassuming tortoise toddles happily across the finish line.
While the race could go to either the tortoise or the hare, there is another animal in the contest: a dark horse. Nintendo Co. is rolling out its console, dubbed Wii, about the same time as PlayStation 3. The Japanese game maker has deliberately tried to stay out of the Microsoft-Sony battle by focusing on a younger audience than the others, forgoing the flash of cutting-edge graphics for easier-to-play games.
Frankly, the author fundamentally fails to understand what Nintendo is trying to accomplish with the Wii. While the young market is still decidedly one of Nintendo's target audiences, they're far more interested in tapping into the (possibly huge) mature non-gamer market. Virtually every piece of marketing we've seen for the Wii has showcased a primarily adult audience, including couples, the elderly, and other demographics that aren't generally associated with gaming.
If the author doesn't get this very, very fundamental aspect of what Nintendo is trying to do, you have to wonder just how deep his knowledge of the current next-gen fight is...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Classically, the mentions of good games in this article have to do with the manufacturers trying to reach thresholds at which game manufacturers will develop "their best games" and with Halo driving Xbox sales. The WSJ also manages this amazingly lame description of the Wii controller:
Yeah, it works just like a remote control. That's why it's a big deal. Gotta buy me one o' them fancy ree-motes.
(The WSJ is always an interestingly mannered read even in stylistic terms, isn't it? Phrases:
Arsy-versy sentences like that read like the "News... On the March!" half-parody newsreel at the beginning of Citizen Kane.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The Sega Dreamcast was about as powerful in practice as the PS2, but got killed by hype. Microsoft realized that Sony can kill a good system simply through hype and is trying to build up mindshare and marketshare before the PS3 can come out. The fact that they are shooting for solid backward compatibility is a good thing, and Sega could no doubt have done better if they'd worked on providing a download service for old Sega games or at least had backward compatibility with Saturn and SegaCD.
As a fan of the DC, I hope Microsoft succeeds and whips the shit out of Sony this round.
Is anyone else bored of reading criticisms of Zonk with every single post?
Doesn't matter what either of these two overbloated behemoths do. Nintendo has already stolen the show at E3 and with its reported launch price of $250 and 27 available games on launch day it will trounce the PS3 and Xbox in both innovation, marketing and an all-around great and FUN system.
As long as I get my Tony Hawk and Final Fantasy games on the Wii I could really care less what these other two consoles do with themselves. I mean, the PS3 isn't even going to support HDMI (unless you wanna fork over $600 which I am definitely not doing).
And honestly, what in the hell is so great about Halo in the first place? I played Halo 1 on the PC and it was a "meh" game. It was fun for a little while but got incredibly repetitive and boring. Halo 2? Same story but with prettier graphics. Halo 3? OMGWTFBBQ graphics but those don't sell me. I demand gameplay.
I prefer talking about this generation as the Tortiose vs. the Hare vs. the Alien (as was used in another article). Personally I'm rooting for Alien (Nintendo) and so are most of my gamer friends even though we're skeptical about all of the companies chances.
Microsoft: It has little to no chance to make an impact in Japan and has yet to make that big of an impact in North America or Europe (and don't say this is because of shortages, if there were serious shortages you'd see sustained $1000 systems on eBay and you wouldn't find them in stores anywhere).
Sony: Sony is producing a multimedia powerhouse with some (stolen) unconventional input; as I've argued before (when people complained about the Wii's one handed controller) you can't do much with 6 axis control when your hands are together (try it, hold a book and rotate it in as many ways as you can, now try with a remote control) so I doubt the added features will be of much use. The big problem with the PS3 (in my opinion) is the Price; at $500 and $600 you're looking at 3 price cuts, and three years (if you average a price cut of $100 per year, which is pretty typical) before your average "casual" gamer is willing to buy your system.
Nintendo: Nintendo's biggest hurdle is whether the public will 'get-it'. Gamers in general understand what Nintendo is trying to do, and are either excited or at least happy that someone is trying something; I'm not so sure the Madden playing public will understand though. If you play 2-4 hours a week, and buy a game every couple of months are you going to be tired of the same crap that is being produced year after year? You can ask the same question of movies, are you better of making movies with greater acting/plot/direction or should you pack in as much special effects?
The article says the Wii controller "functions like a remote control." That alone should tell us exactly how seriously the WSJ took this one.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The Genesis came out years before the SNES but only amounted to a fraction of Nintendo's sales.
I certainly am. I'm not sure why, but the minute any of the editors show the least bit of non anti-microsoft feelings, they immediately get lambasted.
Do you know of anyone who's personally clamoring for the PS3 because of its BluRay player? Do most people prefer to watch DVD's on their PS2?
In terms of launch date, there's a one year gap for the PS3.
In terms of price, the PS3 will launch at $500 (or will be $600, if it's like the XBox360 launch, where nobody in their right mind would get the low-end version? It's still not clear whether HDMI will be required to view BluRay movies or not) ... the PS3 will launch at $500 or $600 at a time that the Wii is launching for $200-$300, and the XBox 360 will have dropped in price to $400 or $450 (for the high-end version). $600 vs $450 and $250 is really tough to swallow, in my humble opinion.
In terms of features, PS3 seems to have added some Wii-mote functionality last minute. PS3 rightly copied the XBox 360 central network service, and we'll have to wait to see if they did anything to innovate on top of XBox 360 (though MS did a pretty thorough job, implementing almost everything one could want with XBL).
And sentiment among many gamers right now is that PS3 has a poor showing at E3 so far compared to Nintendo. I don't think it's inaccurate to present PS3 in a poor light right now.
Poor journalism there, really.
Now, for the wider "console wars" struggle: Sony failed to show much of anything particularly impressive from their extra year of development. Graphically, things seem to have regressed since last year - perhaps since last year they were showing mocked-up CG rather than real footage. Gameplay-wise, they showed absolutely nothing new - an (admittedly pretty) God of War clone, a WWII shooter (with aliens!), and several racers do not make for exciting next-generation play. With their obscene price tag and the fact that they've no longer got a timed-exclusive hold on some big series, like GTA, they seem to be setting themselves up for a fall. They seem to be flailing for new ideas - the motion-sensing function of the controller was apparently tacked on only two or three weeks before E3.
I suspect that the 360 may begin to gain the upper hand, at least in the US, and possibly in Europe (where they're getting shafted even worse on the PS3 price - 599 Euros translates to some $760). I'm not sure how Japan will fare; from the sales to date, it seems that the 360 has little hope of taking a lead there, but the Wii may see significant success, bolstered by the DS' mindshare and popularity. There's also the classic "big console" issue - the PS3 is some 2 inches bigger than the original XBox, making it less attractive to Japanese consumers. Japan is generally very brand-loyal, but shifts have occured in the past - that is, after all, how Sony came to power. On a personal note, I find Sony's arrogance about the system's price (their executives have been quoted as saying that it's probably too cheap) to be faintly disgusting, too.
Apologies for the rambling.
--- Bwah?
No, I think the message of the body is valid. The title poses the question, "Did microsoft start off too fast/early?" In the message he gives some reasons as why launching first wasnt necessarily a bad idea. Of course, only time will determine whether it was a smart idea and we should know almost for certain in 2-3 years.
I love to slaughter the english language.
For my money -- literally, for my money -- there is a price threshold beyond which brand loyalty will not win the consumer over. Between MS and Sony, I'm not sure who's proving this point with more determination right now. The sales figures for the 360 are maybe not as anemic as sometimes gets suggested, but this is a next-generation machine with a year's head start that is about to face competition for the first time; it'd be surprising if it suddenly became the "It" option. That wave broke last Christmas. Their time to gain marketshare without competition is almost over, and the PS2 is still outselling them. In Japan the dang Gamecube is beating the 360. Sony's attempt to "leverage" its console dominance into a Blu-ray DVD standards win is possibly going to sink the company.
(Meanwhile Nintendo has all the buzz in the world with a machine that's going to be significantly cheaper, still profitable [unlike the others' loss leaders], watchable on people's existing TVs without another $1500 expense, and actually a little bit different and kind of fun looking. Gee. How hard is this choice? For me, not at all.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
...the XBox 360 will have dropped in price to $400 or $450...
The Xbox 360 is already $400 for the HD version, $300 for the "core" system.
Oops. Right, so $500 or $600 for PS3, vs $350 for the upper 360, and ~$250 for the Wii.
I don't think it's inaccurate to present PS3 in a poor light right now.
That's fine. Perhaps even correct. Time will tell, etc, etc...
That's not what happened here though. The title says Sony vs. Microsoft, the story talks about Sony and Microsoft, and the summary only talks about how great Microsoft is. He didn't say anything negative about Sony, he just said great stuff about Microsoft. Doesn't that seem a little unusual to you? I don't care who you think is going to 'win'. That's not the issue. The issue is that the games section reads like a paid advertisement these days...
Do most people prefer to watch DVD's on their PS2?
If you mean "do most people with a PS2 use it as their primary DVD player", then when the ps2 first launched, the answer was apparently "yes". I have DVDs that came with stickers proudly announcing that it would be compatible with my PS2, and later revisions of the PS2 included the DVD firmware so you wouldn't need the memorycard and remote to play (though controlling playback with the controller is "interesting"). It pulled this off because it was reasonably priced, if one wanted to watch current DVDs and play games, they could buy a $200 dvd player and a $200 console, or they could just buy a $200 console.
Now, whether Sony can work this magic with a $600 bluray player, we'll have to see... it beats the $800 Toshiba HD-XA1, except for the fact that the Toshiba is out now, and the fact that Toshiba also has a cheap $500 or so version also out now. There may be cheaper hd-dvd players out by the time ps3 comes out, which would pretty much seal its fate as "just a console" at that price. As for its fate as "just a console", well, that pretty much depends on what kind of exclusives it can get.
I have to hand it to MS this time around. While the initial Xbox was 'meh', the 360, launched almost a full year ahead of Sony, seems to me to be on equal footing with them this time around. Sure, the PS3 will have built in Blu-Ray (which IMO Sony has made a HUGE gamble on it being the proprietary format for next gen DVD), and a few other bells and whistles, it really has nothing a full year later then what you can't get with the 360. (Well, besides some half ass motion sensor controller thing...which, I can honestly say, I really am not that excited about).
Why I really think that the 360 will take this round in the console wars is going to be the Live service. Playing a game on the computer, see a bud come online on his 360, invite him to play with you? That is cool.
I was planning on buying the other 2 systems when they come out(my guilty pleasure, gaming. I own/ed pretty much all the consoles at one point or another), as my son and wife will love to play the Nintendo, and I am intrigued by the controller. But, with the outrageous price point of the PS3, and not alot of exclusive games that are must plays on the PS3 (actually... I can't think of one that I would want to play), there will be one more system on the shelves this holiday for someone else.
The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel...
You are out of your mind if you think there is going to be a 360 price drop before they start to turn a profit on it. The only way that happens is if Microsoft perceives that they are losing the market share battle in a horrible way.
I also wouldn't be shocked by Nintendo announcing a $199 price tag for their offering.
I also think that within the price range you're talking about, history has shown they won't make much of a difference. After all, the PS2 cost $100 more than the Dreamcast and the Gamecube at launch, and $100 isn't what it used to be back in 1999/2000. The platform exclusive titles will, as always, be the deciding factor, and we won't know which of the three will have what yet.
What parents are willing to spend only has limited effect too. If Junior asks for a Playstation 3, Mom and Dad don't go to the store and buy an Xbox 360 because it's cheaper. They buy the PS3, or they tell the kid it's too expensive. They certainly don't spend $300 on something the kid didn't ask for.
consoles do not sell games... games sell consoles Whoever comes up with the next exclusive-to-particular-console-only GTA:SA or any other blockbuster seller will dominate the market.
...what matters is what you like, not what you are like...
The difference is, last generation, the price was $300. This generation, Sony's expecting people to pay double or 2/3 more. Microsoft only asked for 1/3 more, which is actually _less_ than Sony's previous generation price hike of 1/2 more.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
You are out of your mind if you think there is going to be a 360 price drop before they start to turn a profit on it. The only way that happens is if Microsoft perceives that they are losing the market share battle in a horrible way. A price drop by Microsoft on the 360 at the time of the PS3 (especially around the holidays), especially since Microsoft has stated that the components in the 360 are getting cheaper to manufacture, would boost 360 sales by a huge amount, while at the same time making the PS3's price even more outrageous. I for one would but my money on MS dropping the price.
The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel...
I have a ps2. I had a ps one, so the ps2 was the obvious choice as it played the ps one games. It was also my first dvd player.
Now, next generation. I will probably choose the ps3, because it will play the older games.
MS basically is starting from scratch with most older games not working well.
Combine that and fact the old xbox costs more than it used to (forced bundle) as well as monthly fees to get the most out the xbox (xbox live). I don't think being first out will matter so much.
the minute any of the editors show the least bit of non anti-microsoft feelings, they immediately get lambasted.
...
...
He doesn't "get lambasted" because he isn't anti-Microsoft he gets flamed because he spreads misinformation inorder to make Microsoft and the XBox look better; yesterday he posts that GTA:4 is XBox 360 exclusive where (if he had read the article or looked at the press release) he would have found out that it was multiplatform (on both the XBox 360 and PS3). It is one thing to post information about Gears of War with a quote like "I'm excited about this one" it's another to post "PS3 in Trouble: look at the awsome Gears of Wars!!!"
But I guess you thought Dan Rather was unfairly treated for making up fake news for political gain
Dude, I got to say, I love your sig! I want to start my own party called, "the former republicans" or "the lonely moderates".
especially since Microsoft has stated that the components in the 360 are getting cheaper to manufacture, would boost 360 sales by a huge amount, while at the same time making the PS3's price even more outrageous
If they're already on the course to victory, though, why would they turn down the extra cash? Unless Sony is winning the hype war and 360 sales are in the toilet, Microsoft won't have any incentive to lower price.
I'm willing to take your bet. I'll bet one next generation console game of your choice that the premium edition Xbox 360 costs the same amount on November 17th 2006 that it does today.
Microsoft has sold about five million consoles in eight months.
Citation please so I can tell whether that's "sold" to retailers or "sold" to end users.
Anyone who thinks "Playstation" was not by far the biggest name in consoles when the PS2 came out is confused. By comparison the Dreamcast came from a known name that had fallen on hard, hard times, and it never had anything like the name recognition of "Playstation."
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Unless Sony is winning the hype war and 360 sales are in the toilet, Microsoft won't have any incentive to lower price.
So what happens if Nintendo wins the hype war? Is Microsoft counting on people having enough money to buy Xbox 360 in addition to Wii?
I'll take your bet. My guess is with the hubris of Microsoft, especially after the Xbox, that they are not out to just win the console war, but to 'fucking kick Sony's ass'.
The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel...
/me bookmarks this thread for November reference...
"...or is Sony smarter to wait and load..."
With Sony, someone's always waiting and loading.
The slate is always clean when you're the one holding the eraser -Newton Tenderfoot
If MS cuts the price from $399 to $349, that's $50,000,000 additional loss per one-million 360s sold. That's how much it costs to produce two AAA games. Maybe GTA 4 will cost 35 or 40 million, but you see where I'm going with this?
It would be stupid to cut the price by $50, because that's $500,000,000 in losses per ten-million 360s sold. For that much money, MS could buy a large game studio outright, or pay to get 5 to 15 exclusive games that are currently going to be PS3 exclusives, or on both platforms.
MS is out to win the race, but if they wanted to 'fucking kick Sony's ass', they'd already be doing it by purchasing more exclusives or just more developers. The way I see it, MS and Nintendo are going to sell about 12 million consoles between now and E3 2007, while Sony will suffer with chip yield difficulties and sell about 5 million. Unfortunately for Sony, the high price of $500 (since HDMI isn't truly needed by most) will criple the PS3 in 2007. Christmas 2007 will go to MS and Nintendo again.
Sure, it would cost them that much in initial loss vs the current price point. But, if that means they sell more systems because of it, and more importantly more games for those systems, I imagine that the deficit is quickly made up.
The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel...
You nailed it there. Like the PS2, the PS3 has a very short window where it might be useful as a movie player. On one side, HD-DVD and Bluray media are very early in the adoption curve even by November '06. On the other side, standalone players will get more affordable over time. By the time they hit $200, nobody will care about playing HD movies on a PS3.
mid-90s Flops: Laseractive (1993, $970/1268), 3DO (1993, $700/915), Atari Jaguar (1993, $250/327, company went under)
It's not an absolute rule, but releasing early was WILDLY successful for Sega's Genesis and Sony's Playstation, giving them access to an industry that they were previously all but unknown in. Dreamcast's failure was due to Sega falling apart, kind of like what happened to Atari's delayed and corporately ruined 7800.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
The deficit is not quickly made up. Every 360 is already sold at a loss. Losing an additional $50 per machine means MS needs the buyer to purchase an additional two to five games on top of the five+ already, just to break even.
If MS spent $500,000,000 to get exclusives, that alone would get 360s to fly off the shelves, but just as importantly, make the PS3 look terrible with pathetic software support. Besides, the 360 can't compete on price if the Wii costs $200 or 250. The best way to sell consoles is having the better game support.
Right now I can say why I'm looking forward to a 360 (right in time for the Christmas price drop) and eventually a Wii. Both MS and Nintendo seem to have a point, or a reason for doing what they're doing, whereas the PS3 seems very much like a case of 'I'll have what they're having'.
The Wii is clearly trying to try something completely new in terms of controllers. I mean, the thing is weird. New gameplay, new options, new styles. All good.
The 360 seems predicated on networking. Live is the best thing MS has going for that thing. They're getting a new influx of tiny designers coming up with weird and different things, possibly entering the market under the threshold of price. I blanch at coughing up $50 for a game, but hey, $5 isn't too bad. It's a heck of a lot easier to rationalize, that's for sure.
Sony doesn't seem to have a reason, other than Blue Ray, and that's not compelling to me. I admit I may not be their target audience, so hey. The controller seems like a pale imitation of the Wii and their networking setup isn't Live, not yet and perhaps not ever.
I know if I get a Wii, I'll have new game play. I know if I get a 360 I'll get new networking options on my console. I know if I get a 360, I'll have to buy a whole bunch of movies over again. Eh.
Try "almost no difference". Hell, the PS3 even has a weaker GPU, according to reports.
Sorry, I was just stating my opinion. Sorry that it didn't meet with you Halo fans. Trust me, if I were trolling I would at least make it funny.
Jesus. Speak your opinion and get blasted. Oh well, I should have expected as much.
Another consideration is ease of development. Cell processors are apparently much more difficult to code for so any gaming house that wants to get a title in on a budget will choose the XBox 360 or Wii platforms.
blah blah blah...
you're retarded.