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.'"
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
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.
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?
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?
That's a pretty good fraction. If Microsoft gets that fraction, the Xbox 360 would definitely be a success.
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
First of all, no official price has been announced.
Second, the 27 games are games playble at E3. They are not games that will necessarily be available at launch.
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.
"...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
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.
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.