Slashdot Mirror
Sony To Go From First To Worst?
There have been many analyst predictions in the early days of the next-gen consoles, but rarely have they been so direct. DFC Intelligence President David Cole has gone on record saying there's a very real possibility Sony could lose this leg of the race to Microsoft and Nintendo. From the article: "Sony's clear strength is the first factor: brand strength and current market position. The glaring weakness of the PlayStation 3 is price, especially when compared to the competition. However, it is more than just an issue of whether the PlayStation brand strength can justify a premium price. Of course, Sony would like to point to the hardware horsepower and extra features like Blu-ray. The problem is that is only one factor in our forecasting matrix. Furthermore, with the competition having features like Xbox Live and the Nintendo Wii controller, the PS3 may not have that much of an advantage in the elusive 'Wow Factor.'" 1up Editor Sam Kennedy has further musings on this subject, with Next Generation reporting that there may be a problem getting high yields in the PS3 production process.
Even if they had priced the PlayStation 3 at $59 instead of $599, I wouldn't have bought one. I still have not forgiven them for installing rootkits on all of my boxen, thus 0wning my boxen. It just goes to show: "0wn me and I won't 0wn your stuff."
In my opinion, the battle for video consoles has even more strongly shifted from the best hardware capabilities to the best titles availability. Of course, title availability was always important, but with all video consoles providing hardware capabilities needed for most games today, it is all about development of titles at this point. This is where Microsoft excels. So, IMHO, the top dog of the future will be Xbox. Sony and Nintendo will duke it out for the second place.
PS3 is a computer not a gaming console, they have really screwed up, and this article is right, they could loose at lot of market share.
The video game industry is like a game of soccer. Nintendo and Microsoft have staked Sony to a 5-0 lead after 10 minutes. It's a little early to be predicting a 6-5 loss, isn't it?
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
After refusing to use my Sony fanboyism, I objectively looked at the next-gen consoles. This article is unfortunately right. Unless Sony's mission is to make it seem so expensive now, then drop it $100 for each version by launch date, I can't see the PS remaining the #1 console. Until the price drops significantly over the next few years or they DO as I suggest and drop the price towards launch date to make a huge buzz, I see the Wii coming out on top.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
The difference is that Microsoft said that the XBox is a console. Sony says The PS3 is a 'Computer', not a Console
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
That really is the only question remaining.
The Xbox 360 has pretty much flunked out of the race.
Massive hardware defects. Shitty graphics that are getting laughed at by pc reviewers. Sales worse than the first Xbox. Sales worse the Dreamcast. A system that is a nightmare for developers to code for.
All the talk about Nintendo changing the gaming world with the Wii now sounds silly with a machine that has crappy graphics like the 360 and a pointing device. So you swing swords in some games and you point at stuff in others. Ok.
Where are all of these 'innovative' Wii games that are going to make millions of people who have never bought a console before rush out and buy a Wii?
If if the PS3 didn't play games it would probably still outsell both the Wii and effectively dead in the market 360 now that both HD-DVD and the image constraint token have died. For $499 you get a 1080p BluRay movie player to go with the dropping like a rock in price 1080p TV sets.
And you get 1080p games.
And you backwards compatibility with virtually every PS1 and PS2 game you already own.
And you can webbrowse and other stuff right from your PS2.
And you get free online gaming - unlike the 200-250 dollars Microsoft forces you to pay just to play online.
The Wii and PS3 will go head to head in Japan, and the PS3 will still dominate in the US and Europe. Nintendo really needs to show gamers something wild before launch, because all that good will they generated over the first half of 2006 is slipping away as gamers are seeing how bad Wii games look. Otherwise, the Wii is going to be a console you enjoy fooling around with at the store or a friends house for a few minutes and then return home to your PS3.
Every single system selling exclusive Sony had that got them 105+ million PS2 sales is on the PS3 and as the pc game market continues to die outside of MMORPGs - Sony is even getting the pc developers(big whoop).
Didn't Sony themselves say that people will buy the PS3 even if there were no games out for it?
Instead they say the same Lies they said when defeating the dreamcast, and release a slightly more powerful but not in any significant way PS3 to fight the XBox at pushing twice the price (in the UK) a year later.
But this time we know that Sony is dicking us around. It won't go well for them.
P.S. I haven't ignored the Wii - I just don't believe it relates to these two machines anymore. Thankfully - which will hopefully means more people will give nintendo a chance this time round.
http://skeptobot.blogspot.com/ - A site for the Renaissance man and woman
*looks back at Sony's E3 2006 conference* *Sees Ridge Racer, Giant Enemy Crabs, and 599 US dollars* I'm pretty sure we all came to this conclusion after that.
Hey Zonk, I would like to ask you to stop accepting non-informative nieuws on how Playstation 3 is going to fail and how much it sucks for a change!
The only numbers I need to see are MSRP and release date. I concur with your assessment. Kiss my DVD loving ass BluRay.
As a PS2 and GameCube (Not to mention the PCs) owner (and potential XBMC buyer) I will not purchase the PS3. Let me count the reasons why.
RootKit
console Price
RootKit
MemoryStick
RootKit
MiniDisc
Betamax
Game Price
RootKit
RumbleLess Controller
About the only thing that interested me was linux. But damn I can build a pretty beefy linux box for the cost of just the console.
Oh, and did I mention the RootKit thing?
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
.er
5 24741
There's more than these gaming factors that's going to contribute to how Sony places. The HDDVD market will influence this as well. One of the primary functions Sony seems to have planned for the PS3 is market penetration for its Blue-Ray player. They've sacraficed things like cheap price and possibly even earlier release to include the Blue-Ray player. If the HD format war doesn't flop out; it could become an important factor as those who what HD have to decide if the PS3 with Blue Ray or Microsoft with an accessory HD DVD (or internal HD DVD for the 360 if you think like Toshiba: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151889) This have anywhere from a huge to an insignificant effect on what the Console war. It really is more of a Great Home Entertainment War rather than a format war and a console war; they are well intertwined.
Or atleast, they will be. I speculate that the Format side of the GHE War will slog along in a prolonged sitzkrieg for a year or even more before it starts to pick up as more consumers finally migrate (slowly) along to HD. With the sitzkrieg on the format front, Sony's Blue Ray justification for its price will languish; costing it valuable ground against Microsoft's established console (which I might mention consumers may enjoy not having HD DVD costing them up front when they don't need it yet; they can upgrade on their own terms, possibly cheaper than buying Blue ray before they need it.) Once the Format front picks up, the Console side will invigorate to as Sony's console will likely have come down atleast some, becoming a more economic competitor. That's the Great Home Entertainment War solved for X in terms of Y.
But, as I said, you can only solve for X in terms of Y and vice versa. It's really anybodies guess what the effect Blue Ray and HD DVD will have. Then their is the Z factor...Nintendo. But, I've already talked about what possibilities Nintendo can have, both on consoles and on HD Formats http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=188332&cid=15
Demented But Determined.
What are the strong points of the PS3?
Good hardware
Compatibility with the PS2
BluRay
Now, looking back to the PS2, we see similar factors, and the PS2 was a huge success. But with a very important difference: The PS2 was WAY cheaper than the (inflation adjusted) equivalent of 600 bucks.
The target audience for a consumer device costing 600$ is very distinct from one costing about 200-300. Instead of the young players market, you'd have to target hardcore gamers and people who can and will spend 600 without too much effort. And most of all, the PS3 will need its "Halo": A killer game, a 'must have', a signature title that makes you WANT to buy that PS3.
BluRay is cute, but useless as a selling point. First of all, the format war is far from being decided. And, let's be honest folks, how many of you got the PS2 as a cheap replacement for a DVD player? I know nobody who has a PS2 and no other means to play DVDs, more importantly, better (especially considering sound quality) alternatives? So BluRay will certainly NOT be a selling argument, unless there are no BluRay-only players out there by the time the PS3 comes along that are cheaper than 600. And, frankly, I would NOT get a player that only plays one format (I wouldn't get a player for either of those DRMcrippled formats, but let's assume I'm a movie junkie for now). Murphy's law predicts that, when you side with one of the format contestants, you side with the wrong one. So people will play it save and wait for players that can deal with BluRay and HDDVD.
Without the 'must have' game, people will stick with the PS2 'til the PS3 is cheap, if they already have PS2 games. If they don't, they might turn for Nintendo (if they don't want to spend much money) or the X360 (if they do). Price is definitly no selling argument for the PS3, and the X360 is already out. If someone didn't have PS2 games and wanted a top level console, they already bought a X360.
The 'geek factor' does also not play in favor of Sony. Too often the news about Sony are not really geek friendly, their MD-Recorders (that couldn't export the recorded sounds sensibly), rootkits in audio-CDs, not really something that works in their favor. Sony is about to become 'uncool', too. And I've noticed a significant decline in quality over the last few years.
So the only chance I see for the PS3 is a 'killer application', something that makes you want a PS3. Without, I'd guess people would turn to Nintendo or Microsoft.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
>> Nintendo is still for the kiddies. If that's so, then why are they making games that appeal to the entire spectrum of gamers, and non-gamers? Brain Age, Big Brain Academy, Nintendogs anyone?
Just compare consoles to PC's to see how quickly they become obsolete. During the hype before launch they consoles all seem like super machines capable of trashing the humble PC but as launch date nears the PC looks better and better and at launch a game PC will easily outperform a console.
The x-box showed it most clearly because it was a PC inside but I still remember people being all excited about a game called starfox and some pathetic 3D chip on the catridge while on the PC we were playing X-wing.
Even the 360 is vulnerable. Granted it is a powerhouse but a game like Oblivion proves that an expensive PC can compete. Right now. What is it going to be like in 2010?
The Cell is supposed to be more future proof. Offcourse wether that will work is anybodies guess. It seems unlikely but Sony probably hopes that by making a huge investment now it won't have to do so again in a couple of years. Developing a new console is risky and costly, if you can somehow afford to skip a generation you may very well trash the competition.
Sony hopes that when MS and Nintendo announce their next generation console their PS3 will still be able to compete. It is not that unreasonable an idea. The PS2 still competes with the 360 in some areas.
It is a gamble but what choice does Sony have? They can't afford to have generation after generation of moderate hits like MS, Sony does not have a cash cow to finance its console division.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Was this sarcasm?
Geeks, please don't respond that you love Nintendo... we all know that many of you don't care about things like story. I'm talking about MOST adults.
Yes, geeks don't like story. That is why they don't bother to read not only Lord of the Rings, but also all the other Tolkien books, letters and journals to get more into Middle-Earth. That is why there is hardly any backstory to Warhammer. That would be why there are only a few Star Wars Expanded Universe books. That is why Dungeons & Dragons has so little source material. That is why the original Half-Life did so poorly.
[T]heir profit margin is going to be significantly better than either MS or Nintendo with this generation.
MS I can understand, maybe. Nintendo only sells their console for losses for a few months each generation, and at that usually only in the single digit losses -- as in $1-$9 per unit. Sony and MS both lose hundreds of dollars on each unit.
It's fine if you feel like you have to spend a lot of money on "mature" things to boost your ego. The rest of us will base fun on things other than "mature content" and price.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
> And most of all, the PS3 will need its "Halo": A killer game, a 'must have', a signature title that makes you WANT to buy that PS3.
...and I'm sure there will be more.
I can think of two off the top of my head that are PS3 exclusives and potential system sellers:
Metal Gear Solid 4
Virtua Fighter 5
Nintendo is still for the kiddies. They have gimmicky controllers with a Fisher-Price look and feel.
The Lite and Wii do not look like a fisherprice toys. This only shows you bias.
More importantly, most grown-ups don't want to play Mario anything
My flatshare consists of mid-twenties adults, and my girlfriend, all of who aren't geeks (I hide my true self from them). And they almost only play games with Mario in. Mario Kart, Super Mario Bros, Wario Ware etc. And even games with silly little kiddy Monkeys like Monkey Ball. An Aside: Monkey Target is the most popular game I have even seen with actual Adults - I have seen it devour entire weekends of non-gamers.
I'm talking about MOST adults.
No. You. Are. Not.
Nintendo focuses on twitch games that generally skip story altogether, or have some bizarre Japanese theme that most adults can't figure out.
Fire Emblem, Zelda, Advance Wars, Geist, Metroid, Paper Mario (though that is a bit bizzare) all disagree. You also seem to forget that other people deveolpe for Nintendo consoles: Resident Evil 4, Phoenix Wright, Trauma Centre, Second Sight, Prince of Persia, Killer 7 and so on.
Also there seems to be a big theme of hating Japanese games through your post - but you do realise that Sony and most of it's "AAA" games are in fact Japanese?
The X-Box has moved in to the mainstream generic person arena
That doesn't even make sense. The XBox is a great machine - but you can't pretend it's in anyway mainstream - like I would be fool to pretend the gamecube was. But still I would expect mainstream to at least mean it also appealed to women, and men.
Also, people like me, who want more out of a video game than a twitch reflex also want a good story with movie level production value. I'm not interested in the typical Japanimation demon/dragon/kid hero story that is as embarrassingly bad as it is incomprehensible. I want good gameplay out of a game, of course, but I also want mind-blowing graphics and sound (The PS3 is supposed to be, unquestionably, the most powerful system). My game system gets plugged into a high-end amp and speaker system, and a high-end TV. I want all of that, packaged with a story that was written and created by somebody who speaks English (not Engrish), and some good Hollywood actors. I could care less about $600 or even $800 for a game box. And, I couldn't care less if the games are $70 each. It's worth it because 1. I've seen more games than most people have and 2. money really isn't an issue to me at this point. I just want the best.
I think that speaks for itself - get over yourself. Your awesome - we understand.
http://skeptobot.blogspot.com/ - A site for the Renaissance man and woman
Or it will be modded up by elitist punks who are just as ill-informed as you are.
PS3 is dead even before hitting the market. There's no "most wanted" games, no price slicing, no Blue-Ray, no "it's-not-a-console-it's-a-computer".
PS3 is too expensive, the performances are worse than xbox360, there's no cool factor, there's no service, and they are real assholes totally stomping the buyer-rights and the "do-no-harm" philosophy.
And while i'm writing it, I'm really, really angry, because in just 2 years of bad technological choices, Sony is beaten to death by Microsoft, a company producing 20 years of bad technology, harming buyers and competitors, and stomping rights with niceties like DRM, proprietary formats, abuse of monopoly.
This is what I really hate.
-- "If A equals success, then the formula is A=X+Y+Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." - Einstein
*Sony has moved into a new market: the older gamer. People like myself that have been playing video games for 25+ years that now have disposable income.*
I'm part of that demographic too. What Sony isn't counting on is the number of people who are tired of waiting for the PS3 to come out and are damned if they're going to pay $600 (plus $70+ per game) for the damn thing, especially for a company that's shown itself willing to infect their products with DRM that can be harmful to the hardware of their paying customers.
I for one don't plan on buying any of the 3 next-gen consoles. I don't think I'm alone in this.
My sig is too lon
> Yes, geeks don't like story. That is why they don't bother to read not only Lord of the Rings, but also all the other Tolkien books, letters and journals to get more into Middle-Earth. That is why there is hardly any backstory to Warhammer. That would be why there are only a few Star Wars Expanded Universe books. That is why Dungeons & Dragons has so little source material.
I think his point was that many geeks are more concerned with the trappings than the actual substance. Yes, they'll read Tolkien, but they'll just as happily read any piece of schlock with a dragon on the cover. They'll watch Blade Runner, but they'll also watch any crappy sci-fi movie that comes out. They'll listen to Nine Inch Nails, but they'll also listen to any old 60-minute techno mix borefest. As long as the same canvas and palette are used, the actual content is often irrelevant to them.
Are you Paris Hilton? Seriously, you comment that Xbox is for lower and middle class people like there is something wrong with that if it was true, which it is not.
I also find your argument that you care about story and that is why you love the PS2 pretty funny. Since most RPGs on the PS2 are from Japan, engrish and nonsensical stories are a common event on that platform. Xbox story based games? KOTOR 1&2, Indigo Prophecy, Jedi Knight 1,2, etc. Jade Empire, one of the finest western (i know its ironic considering the content) RPGs ever made (fans of Planescape forgive me). Finally, if you can afford $800 a console, good for you. Stop flaunting it. There are a lot of people out there who have crappy jobs and circumstances and don't have disposable income. The little extra they have is a serious investment in escapism for them and its important that they get value out of what they can afford. Im fine with the PS3 costing whatever, because I can admit I'm a Xbox fan.
And BTW, I've been playing video games for 28+ years, so I own your elitist ass!
If you want the best, buy a computer. It's graphics are better and you can constantly upgrade when your hardware isn't the best.
I agree with your post. My friends and I (mid to late 20's) enjoy sitting around a gamecube with beers in hand playing the party games like Mario Party or Super Monkey Ball. Mario Kart is another favorite. The simplicity of these games and the way they are designed to maximize fun as a group are great. It's a console to enjoy with your friends.
I do far less console gaming now and I'm undecided on buying a next generation console, but I don't want to buy a console that only plays shortened versions of games that are available on my PC. I like the uniqueness of the Nintendo games.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
I'd LIKE to buy one, but can't justify it at this point in my life. Like you, I'm part of the same demographic. First "video" game I played was a boxing game IN TEXT on a mainframe in the late 70's. My first computer was my Apple //c...
So now I'm late thirties, own my own home (which we recently gutted and had remodeled), am happily married, have a 10-year old daughter, and am trying to get a business of my own launched with my wife this summer.
Personally, I'd love a high-end cutting-edge console. However, while I could afford one (well, not this month...), I don't see spending this kind of money on it because what I DON'T have is enough time to play enough to justify that kind of cost. Maybe if that was my only hobby, but life's too short and interesting to spend that much of it inside a game.
I'll stick to a few games on my laptop. May not be cutting-edge gaming, but it's enough for an occasional distraction.
Life is short: void the warranty.
I believe that blu-ray will win this battle, even if the PS3 has the most dramatic failure in consoles' history.
The reason is not movies, even DVD is good enough for that. The huge capacity is meaningless in a movie, if human eyes can barely perceive the difference. We are a decade away from cheap HD TV sets. For other reasons is not better to have blu-ray in a console than HD-DVD or simply DVDs. The extra content is just more cut-scenes.
I see Blu-ray winning this battle by replacing DVD drives in computers. 25GB vs 14GB (single layer) is a big selling point for a computer writable medium. With Apple backing blu-ray we will see MacBooks with blu-ray/dvd/cd superdrives.
And with Apple Macbooks using blu-ray, all slashdots fanboys will declare the victory of blu-ray.
However, this means nothing for PS3. Without a big price cut, the PS3 will really lose.
Or even better, sell the PS3 at $1000, but include the HD TV set!
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
*cough* wanker! *cough*
Wait a minute. Were you just being sarcastic about the geeks not liking story bit? If so, then I retract my other statement.
If they can make some seriously fun MMO. Maybe something like Planetside, but with more depth. That price point is too high when I can just retro game all day long. I'm trying to beat Angband with an Ironman character of every class, that should keep me busy for a few years.
God spoke to me.
I see you've been modded "troll" already, but I'll just assume you genuinely hold those opinions.
First, on the current generation: I don't get why you think X-Box has "moved in to the mainstream generic person arena." That would be the PS2. The X-box has carved out a niche of FPS players and American RPG fans, and is struggling with other genres. The PS2 is what most people think of when they think "video game machine" these days. The PS1 basically invented the concept of a console as a generic appliance for adults, and the PS2 succesfully extended that franchise. The PS2 has much, much higher sales rates, it's demographics are much wider, and has a wider selection of games.
Nintendo is the console for people who don't mind playing video games, and don't need the words "combat" or "warrior" in the game's title. That's probobly why they have higher sales in Japan than in the States.
Your argument about being an "adult demographic" with lots of money to throw around sounds a lot like what Microsoft were saying when they were hyping the X-box rpior to launch. I suppose it's not suprising that you like both PS3 and X-box, then. But that strategy worked horribly for Microsoft, who found out that:
1) There aren't that many rich adults who want to spend big bucks on games, especially when the PS2 can grab the cheap/simple market and the PC can grab the expensive/complex end of the market.
2) Kids actually have more buying power than adults because they can get their parents to buy games for them. It's way easier to nag your mom into buying a machine than convincing your wife/gf that it was a great idea to get one. Plus, there are way more kids who want to play video games than there are adults who do.
3) If your consoles are going to sell fewer units(because of a smaller market of adults), you need to either sell more games per person, or increase the price per game. The former you can't do because game-playing adults often have less time to play games than kids, and the latter ends up restricting your audience to richer folks or pushing them to cheaper consoles(PS2). Oh, and smaller market = less developer interest.
For above reasons, the X-box's original marketing strategy failed, and now they have to play second fiddle to Sony. Interestingly, Sony seems intent to follow them with the PS3. If it weren't for the terrible impression left by the X-box(especially in Japan) and anticipation of the Wii/Ps3, I suspect X-box 360 would be able to grab the Ps2's spot as the 'generic' console of that generation.
Oh, and given the cost of creating games these days, it's quite possible that there won't be much of a difference between XB360 and PS3 games. Its really takes a lot of skilled artists and programmers to take modern consoles to the limit of their graphics, and it may not be worth going to the PS3's capabilities past the XB360's.
Unfortunately I think the PS3 will signal the second crash of the gaming industry. The playstation is THE gaming console right now, it's the industry leader and almost everybody has one. For a lot of gamers playstation is all they know when it comes to gaming, with the $600 price tag of the PS3 many casual gamers will not buy Wii's or 360s as most of us think...they won't buy anything and ultimately lose interest in gaming. Putting sales in the crapper and bringing the industry to its knees once again. Love Sony or Hate them, if they aren't at least moderately successful this gen we may all suffer.
I've also been gaming for 25 years and have disposable income. You can pretty much negate everything you just said in that post, and that would sum up my feelings pretty well. I guess my anecdotal feelings cancel yours out, right?
Also, people like me, who want more out of a video game than a twitch reflex also want a good story with movie level production value.
Production value, or a good story? There's a huge difference. Hint: most mainstream movies don't have good stories, either. I've played maybe a handful of 'adult' games with 'mature' themes (Killer 7 comes to mind) that were any more complex, story wise, than a kids' cartoon. Hint 2: giving your story sex and blood doesn't magically make it complex.
Splinter Cell? Crap. Final Fantasy 7+? Crap. Paper Mario? Crap. Resident Evil? Crap. Sure, they're all fun games, but the stories are all inane and pretty much just get in the way. Please don't make me waste time with a story that I can guess by looking at the cover of the game.
I'm talking about MOST adults.
No, you're talking about MOST single adult males. All of the adults sitting in my living room last night (9 of us, and 5 were women) were all playing Smash Brothers Melee, Mario Golf, and Bomberman. Maybe you're content to play single-player RPGs and on-line FPSes, but some of us like to have a few friends over (especially of the female persuasion), and party games are king here.
Oh, and your willingness to spend too much money on something just to prove how awesome your home theater is really speaks far more about you than about the game industry.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Well, I don't know about alone, but I don't think very many console gamers of any age will completely forsake the next generation. More likely, they'll wait and see what happens. If the PS3 doesn't completely bomb, and Blu-Ray and the Cell are relatively successful, then the hardware should come down in price pretty quickly. If, on the other hand, the PS3's reception is lackluster and the price stays in the 'insane' range, then we could see a lot of (North American) gamers heading towards the 360. And the Wii has the potential to be an out of the blue hit (I wouldn't think so, but hell, if you told me the DS was gonna be a smash hit before it was released, I would've said you were insane).
I really do wonder if Sony did any research into what sort of price range consumers would accept on a console. I mean, it's not like there are not ways to do this. Chances are they did, found out that this was too much, and ignored it. After all, Sony's whole strategy for not only to PS3 but the Cell and Blu-Ray is riding on this launch. I'm sure they just said, 'Damn it all, we can't turn back now...'
hot foreign sheep.
However, we should emphasize a third place finish for Sony is only one of several possible scenarios.
Several? Er, there's two other scenarios besides Sony comes third. Sony comes first, or Sony comes second.
Unless they're also factoring in the 'Sony gets trampled by Godzilla' and 'the Phantom rules all with its version of Duke Nukem Forever' scenarios.
You must think in Russian.
Go look on eBay for old PowerPC systems (mostly Apples) and old P3s. Those PowerPC are excellent chips, even ones back on the G3 architecture.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
As much as I'm bothered by the PS3's price and game selection, I think this conversation is way too rushed. Sony and Nintendo both have the factor of undersupplied/overdemanded content this Christmas--both systems are poised to sell out (even if, worst case scenario, only eBay hopefuls buy up most of the stock). It's the 2nd batch that means the most--a matter that, by the way, Microsoft hasn't done incredibly well with in the 2nd batch cycle of its lifespan. The true test comes in February-April 2007. Xbox will have the lead at that point no matter what, but when availability increases and gamers see their options, that's when the clear leader will pull away from the pack...from then on, the industry will judge in April 07 what platforms to focus their Xmas '07 development on. ...which means that Microsoft is a fucking genius for saving Halo 3 for "mid-2007." If they can have Halo in stores by May or June '07, the race is theirs, I think. If they wait until Xmas, though, then Sony will have a timetable to 1) get a price drop and 2) introduce more competitive games. Halo 3's release date and/or success level will determine all of that.
"Nintendo is still for the kiddies. They have gimmicky controllers with a Fisher-Price look and feel."
... oh.. 40 hours or so to get this story through. If it weren't for the more-or-less satisfying game play in between, it would have been a total bust. Even then, in both cases, it was quite formulaic. Walk around, shoot, go to point b, shoot again, rinse, repeat. This is why I have trouble calling this 'adult'. There's nothing adult about it. My 11 year old sister could play these games just as well as I could. The only thing 'adult' about it is San Andreas uses strong language and RE4 sprays blood all over the place. Adult, to me, means something I'd enjoy more now than I would have 10 years ago. This isn't the case at all. These games would have been far more interseting to me 10 years ago.
They have intuitive controls with an iPod'esque look and feel.
"Nintendo focuses on twitch games that generally skip story altogether, or have some bizarre Japanese theme that most adults can't figure out."
Nintendo focuses on fun-games. Sometimes, landing a series of jumps is more satisfying than shooting a zombie in the head and blood gushing out.
"Geeks, please don't respond that you love Nintendo... we all know that many of you don't care about things like story. I'm talking about MOST adults."
You're not even representing them very well. MOST adults don't have time to dick around with a confusing controller and 'adult-themes' catered to young teenagers. MOST adults WORK for a living. They come home, they want to relax. They want to play something simple and fun. That is, of course, assuming that games are even on these adults radar. What YOU are describing, is another geek clique.
I know where you're coming from. I've got my feet on both sides of the fence. I love Nintendo's offerings, but I enjoy a good 'adult' (I hate using this term. I'll talk more about that in a minute.) long game involving a story. I loved San Andreas. I enjoyed every minute of it. In that case, yes, it was the story I was after. I can nearly say the same for Resident Evil 4. Not as strong in the story department, but excellent presentation. The problem, though, is that I had to MAKE time to play these games. And for what? Well, sure, there was a bit of a story. It only took
You talk about 25+ year olds with disposable income. I qualify quite neatly into that demographic. But the time investment just isn't something that I'm willing to plunk down hundreds of dollars for. I barely have time to sneak a DVD in during the week. That's why, even though I loved the 'adult' games, the games I've put the most time into recently are Tetris DS, Mario Kart DS, and Brain Age. I can pick them up, play them for a short amount of time, and put them down again until tomorrow. And you wanna know something? This is why Nintendo has been successful. There are, however, 'adult' gamers that have more of this time to invest. This is why I mentioned you belonging to another clique earlier. It wasn't to be insulting. It was to point out that this isn't just a matter of disposable income, it's a matter of time investment, lifestyle, and priorities. You weren't necessarily modded down for going against popular opinion. (That happens all the time here on Slashdot, I can certainly tell you war stories about that.) You are just as likely to have been modded down for not getting what others are seeing. I don't think it's fair that you were modded down. Afterall, I think you're making points that will appeal to some. What you've said is certainly something to think about. But you just had to throw in what 'MOST adults' want. Too broad of generalization. Sorry.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
At one large store that's taking pre-orders in my country, the PS3 is already outselling the XBox 360.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
" The graphics for the PS3 are only going to be twice as good as the xbox 360 yes..."
I can't wait until the PS3 is released so we can find this out. So far, all indications are pointing to this not being true.
" It is going to be able to do some 30,000 physical interactions on the screen at one time. That means when your greneade hits a wall the wall will blow apart, chunks will go everywhere. This means no more hiding behind wood crates for cover from high caliber machinegun fire. Computers are heading in this direction now....sony decided to jump on the bandwagon with physics NOW rather than waiting for the next round of consoles."
Funny, you'd think Sony would be bragging about this left and right. I imagine they aren't though, because this is BS. Even if the system could do this, and I mean 'do this' in the sense that it is practical for games, one has to ask how it will work in a multi-player environment. If the games are in sync (i.e. on a LAN or split-screen) it shouldn't be a big deal. However, on the net, not only are the games not in sync, but they're also running on low-bandwidth connections. Suppose your PS3 registers a hit and makes 30k calculations about where the debris go. Will the other systems register the same change? Unlikely. The other systems have the characters in different positions with a whole 150 millliseconds for change. It'd be possible for one the machines to play host to the debris, but then it'd have to send out the co-ords and vectors for each of the elements flying aorund, easily eating up the out-bound pipe.
I doubt this is an unsolvable problem. Combine a few cheats with a few nips and tucks and you might be able to trade-off enough to make this work. But then how does it compare to the XBOX 360?
I think it's all academic, anyway. Sony needed to show that it could do what the other systems couldn't, and they didn't say anything about this.
"Developers said they had hit the limits of dvds without using crippling compression technology, compression is the main contributer to load times."
Bullshit. There may have been some truth to this in the PS1 days with its whopping 33mhz processor. But even the PS2 had sufficient processing power to imbalance this theory. It's laughable to think that Sony used Blu-Ray to keep the developers happy. If anything, the developers want faster random-access. The modern trend is to stream the levels into the game without that annoying 'Loading...' screen coming up. This takes some work to order the data efficiently on the disc. Burst rate would likely help to a degree, but if they had faster acess to the disc, they'd have less trouble organizing the assets. I'm sure developers would love to not have to deal with compression, but for load times? Nope.
"Just like the dvd to vhs switch you are not going to have a choice the studios will simply stop releasing movies on dvds."
Um, no they won't. They'll keep selling DVDs as long as people keep buying them. Supply and Demand. They won't just suddenly switch. Heck, you can still buy VHS's of new movies today. I'll give you partial credit, though, if you're thinking about Laser Disc. It died a rather sudden death after the DVD. You should consider, though, that DVD had almost all of the superiority, AND LD didn't have a massive user base. The business decision to stop supporting it made a lot more sense. But, no, the MPAA is not stupid enough to cut off DVDs. They love money just a little too much.
"If you watch a regular dvd on an hd tv it looks grainy as hell...."
Blurry, maybe, but not grainy. I've heard a number of comments on here, though, from people who have nice up-sampling DVD players. They say it looks pretty good. Meanwhile, both forms of HD DVD are suffering from 'so what?' with the early reviews. Again, I'll give you partial credit: DVDs had the same problem. It'll take a year or two before the high-def DVDs are encoded properly.
"One mor
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
2. Gears of War.
LOL
3. Halo 3.
ROTFL!
4. 360 Will Be Cracked/chipped/running XBMC by September, likely. But before PS3 hits the street.
Funny, people claimed the same thing would happen 4-5 months after the Xbox360's release, and that has yet to happen...
Otherwise, nice try at trolling, or great job at being a fanboy if you really mean the tripe you posted.
You don't get it either. Nice attempt at trying to pigeon hole people's preferences based on their sex though. I'm sure if you actually went and collected data your statement would be much more impressive. As a single adult male, I can say my idea of what is "fun" varies a lot from what you've just stated.
Or did anyone else, upon reading the headline in their rss list automatically think 'this will be from zonk'.
BitGenerations is giving me the warm fuzzies.
Frankly I believe Sony has been falling down over so many hurdles lately it's hard to forge a positive outlook over the next few years as regards their PS3 etc. I don't know who's on their management now but they seem to be making a lot of rash moves that aren't doing anything to help them at all. They kicked the dog out earlier this year (AIBO), then at E3 they hosted a rather dull press conference in comparison to even Nintendo, and then cheered everyone up with the great marketing strategy of announcing a $600 price tag for the PS3, around about the same time that Nintendo announced pricing of less than $250 for their Wii, presumably this was to make other consoles look "cheaper", but actually it did just that, make them look cheaper, and no one wants to pay more than they have to! We then found that they'd mimicked the innovative Nintendo Wiimote design in their PS3 control pad, thus coming in second, and the final one that springs to my mind is the potentially superb QRIO biped robot that they actually had started "feeding" consumers nice and early, and were in a good position to market something really hot that despite the price tags talked about I am confident would have sold... only to then chop it at the last minute. I could go on, but I think Sony are really going to have to pull a very healthy-looking rabbit out of the hat very quickly indeed to pull themselves around and keep their credibility as a main player.
In other words...never been laid, never talked to a girl without crying, and never had any sort of relationship beyond Rosy Palms and her five sisters. Yeah...I think I will keep you out of the demographic.
Your wrong on many issues......
" The graphics for the PS3 are only going to be twice as good as the xbox 360 yes..."
"I can't wait until the PS3 is released so we can find this out. So far, all indications are pointing to this not being true."
Moore's law plays the biggest part in this. I don't think Sony thought the PS3 would be released in spring. I think they said this to take the wind out of microsofts launch sails. I think they always knew it would be delayed until November.
"One more thing PS3 runs on linux not Micro$oft that alone should be a main reason for the readers here to support it."
"Oh boy. A.) The PS3 is capable of running Linux, it does not 'run Linux'. B.) Sony killed any sort of advantage they might have had with that argument with the root-kit fiasco. C.) Who gives a flying fuck if you can bring up a prompt on a $600 PS3?"
Your flat out wrong it's running a linux based operating system.
" It is going to be able to do some 30,000 physical interactions on the screen at one time. That means when your greneade hits a wall the wall will blow apart, chunks will go everywhere. This means no more hiding behind wood crates for cover from high caliber machinegun fire. Computers are heading in this direction now....sony decided to jump on the bandwagon with physics NOW rather than waiting for the next round of consoles."
"Funny, you'd think Sony would be bragging about this left and right. I imagine they aren't though, because this is BS. Even if the system could do this, and I mean 'do this' in the sense that it is practical for games, one has to ask how it will work in a multi-player environment. If the games are in sync (i.e. on a LAN or split-screen) it shouldn't be a big deal. However, on the net, not only are the games not in sync, but they're also running on low-bandwidth connections. Suppose your PS3 registers a hit and makes 30k calculations about where the debris go. Will the other systems register the same change? Unlikely. The other systems have the characters in different positions with a whole 150 millliseconds for change. It'd be possible for one the machines to play host to the debris, but then it'd have to send out the co-ords and vectors for each of the elements flying aorund, easily eating up the out-bound pipe."
Before falling into the graphics contest trap sony was touting the physics capability of the cell. It was stated over and over in thier press releases of the cell....I think the reason why they've went the way of touting the graphics is because it might be a little hard to implement in 1st gen games. It's also hard to show someone physics when all they have is to look at magazine and internet pics. This is also one of IBM's stated intrests in the cell proccessor. Also there would be no problem with online gaming. Most chunks would be no more than window dressing anyway and any pieces that would turn into something useful would be scripted as they are now. It could also simply be turned off for online play as well.
"Developers said they had hit the limits of dvds without using crippling compression technology, compression is the main contributer to load times."
"Bullshit. There may have been some truth to this in the PS1 days with its whopping 33mhz processor. But even the PS2 had sufficient processing power to imbalance this theory. It's laughable to think that Sony used Blu-Ray to keep the developers happy. If anything, the developers want faster random-access. The modern trend is to stream the levels into the game without that annoying 'Loading...' screen coming up. This takes some work to order the data efficiently on the disc. Burst rate would likely help to a degree, but if they had faster acess to the disc, they'd have less trouble organizing the assets. I'm sure developers would love to not have to deal with compression, but for load times? Nope."
What are you talking about what games are you playing? Aside from the GTAs, spiderman, and hulk I can't think of any game that has eliminated loadi
Niether of us has anything to offer other than speculation on this matter. Personally, I don't think it's true. I think Sony planned all along on releasing in Spring so not to give Microsoft such a lead. I'd even be willing to bet that they were over-enthusiastic in thinking they could get it down to a reasonable price. Oopsie. Like I said, though, speculation.
As for Moore's Law: It's not realy a law. There's no strange bizarre quirk of physics that causes processor speeds to double. It's a marketing goal for companies like Intel. Not that it matters much, anyway. There are so many places for a system to bottleneck that we just cannot have this discussion until the PS3 is released. In the mean time, what Sony's shown us has offered us little reason to think it's much above the 360.
The PS3 is running Linux so you can do your photo manipulating and web browsing stuff. Unless you can point me at a site that says otherwise, nothing's been said about the games actually running on Linux. If you care to point me in the right direction, I'll be happy to retract that point and apologize for the error. (I'd rather learn than argue.) The same used to be said about the Dreamcast. Everybody thought all the games were written for WIndows CE. No. SOME of the games were made for WinCE, the DC booted into whatever OS the disc had aboard.
All I've seen is a lot of hooplah over using the Havok engine with some games. If it doesn't do much for on-line play, though, I'm not sure where your faith in it really lies. Maybe I'm over zealous in that point, but I think most people would care more about multi-player than single-player with lots of physics. Again, speculation.
I've read the term 'streaming' ad-nauseum in the previews of games coming out. Whether they manage to do it or not is a different question. As for storage limits: That's fine and all, but we're having trouble getting DVDs filled today. The speed of the drive has always been the limitation. The 360 actually has an edge over the PS3 in this regard.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
after the rootkit fiasco on their music cd's doesn't anyone else hope sony looses some money? sony sux!
If Blue Ray takes if in a meaningful way between now and the PS3 launch date (and the implementation isn't somehow lacking), and one or more of the launch titles stronly appeals to me, I'll consider buying one. If some irresistable titles come out for the XBOX 360, then I'll buy one of those.
One of my favorite games was Rallisport Challenge II. Loved it. I also loved the S-controller on my XBOX - far and away the best controller for me, personally. In fact, there are about 12 XBOX games that I still love to play.
I never bought a PS2 because it was outdated before it hit the shelves. I had a 50" HDTV and a DTS receiver, so for me it was a complete no-brainer to pass by the ridiculously hobbled Sony hardware. The XBOX was ready for current technology - the PS2 wasn't. But I owe my allegiance to NO company, unlike the thousands of blinded fools I see posting their fanboyism online for all to see. I can't believe how strongly people feel about hardware that hasn't even hit the shelves.
And if neither produces something exceptional, or if the titles never come around to my tastes, I just won't buy one at all. I can always go back to RSCII and Sega NFL 2Kx on my "old" XBOX, and be perfectly happy.
Oh, and "Linux on PS/3"? Seriously, what kind of person would be impressed that Linux runs on a computer that costs $600+? Bet I can do it for under $300. What's the point? Some kind of "wow" factor is present here, but I just can't see it.
The PS3 is running Linux so you can do your photo manipulating and web browsing stuff. Unless you can point me at a site that says otherwise, nothing's been said about the games actually running on Linux. If you care to point me in the right direction, I'll be happy to retract that point and apologize for the error. (I'd rather learn than argue.) The same used to be said about the Dreamcast. Everybody thought all the games were written for WIndows CE. No. SOME of the games were made for WinCE, the DC booted into whatever OS the disc had aboard.
Aye, absolutely correct. Part of what's always allowed consoles to get more out of comparitely less power than a PC is the fact that they've always had less overhead.
Run a game on a PC and you've got Windows and all it's friends in the background eating up memory and CPU time. Run a game on a console, and the game gets ALL the resources of the console to itself (with the exception of the 360; it keeps some of it's dashboard crap running, but presumably that's all lightweight enough not to hurt things much...)
My sig can beat up your sig.
Get of your high horse your 36 yo amiga fan boy working for sony.
Yes, I loved the amiga in the 90s but fat old management playing golf ruined it, they should have sold it to apple in 1984.
Back to ps3.
No games are 1080p, I cant even show 1080p, so I dont care. My PS2 is gathering large thick dust layers, and yes I still have my amiga in the closet
with an amiga emu running on the xbox v1.
I can view the web on my xbox, but if I really want to view the web dude, I have a lap top or desktop in the lounge room with lcd.
Ps3 is still amiga 2006, im sure you are probably a psygnosis ex. Yes, great 90s games guys. But now is now.
Would I spend $1000au + on a games console? Inflation adjusted from the ps1 at $600+, yeah perhaps if it boots linux and I can ssh into it.
Learn from the 3D0, price it right, especially with oil prices going up so high. Sell it with NO HD, allow people to plug in flash drives 1g+ into them
for $20 a pop to get the game saves, etc.. and/or external 20/60gig/200gig USB2 harddrives. It'll save you tonnes of manf issues.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
"Geeks, please don't respond that you love Nintendo... we all know that many of you don't care about things like story."
Ah yes, real adults are more interested in the deep and moving stories such as those found in "DOA: Xtreme Beach Volleyball" than the non-existant story in any Zelda game.
Sony would disagree with you. A recent newspaper article by an obvios Sony shill stated directly taht the XBox 360 isn't even as powerful as the PS2, much less their new console. I'm guessing Sony's existing marketing department is supplying facts like this along with the rest of their brilliant strategy.
If a wife said, I want that $900 prada bag, i'll say, I'm buying that xbox360 tommorow, screw the bills, and
that holiday and those dinner nights out.
Bloody prada crap.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Personally, I predict Microsoft will sell their "HD-DVD" add-on to less than 5% of Xbox 360 owners. Who's retarded enough to buy a pricey external add on to a console to allow their game machine to play HD-DVDs? No, by the time Microsoft can produce them at an affordable price, there will be dedicate players available at a reasonably competitive price that won't tie up your 360 when someone wants to watch a movie. It's just MS FUD to say "Oh, we're gonna maybe, possibly have HD too!"
Fanatically anti-fanatical
"You've missed the biggest selling point. Every title/developer that made the Ps1 and Ps2 the most successful consoles of all time is still on board for the Ps3...nobody's jumped ship and there are more exclusives than you think. If you enjoyed FF, Gran turismo, Metal Gear, Shin Megami Tensei, Shadow of the Colossus, etc...guess which system you have to buy to keep playing the games you enjoy? for a LOT of people (especially if those people are in japan) there IS no alternative to the Ps3, since certain franchises and genres just won't show up on the 360 or the Wii. "
Um... no. Shadow of Colossus was a tiny success, megami Tensei I'm pretty sure no one has heard of, since I haven't heard of it and I actually flip through game magazines. Final Fantasy is played out with Sequelitis, which applies to most of the 'system-sellers' for the Playstation brand, that's why internet connectivity and the Wii have proven so appealing for the bleeding edge consumer.
I LOVED GT2. That game made me a console gamer. But I have grown less attached to Gran Turismo with each sequel. How much fun is it to play an increasingly longer and drawn out and harder Gran Turismo every 3 years? How many people still play Final Fantasy and HAVEN'T moved onto FFO or WoW?
Your 'system-sellers' theory applied to the NES and SNES. For example, pretty much everyone who owned those had a copy of Zelda and Mario, etc. That's no longer the case. It's close to being the case with Xbox and Halo, but not the PS2. GTA was a HUGE seller, and only in a quarter of the ps2 boxes at most. It's like the movie industry, where it looks like they break records every year - "Harry Potter is the biggest thing EVR!" but in reality a smaller group of people actually go to the theater. So GTA is this gen's blockbuster (our Zelda if you will ~shudder~) but hardly has Zelda's popularity.
X360 came to market first, it's games will be loads cheaper (you can already buy $30 games, but Blu-Ray discs will cost almost that much to make, so Sony can't do that in year 1...or 2) and their Live Arcade service is already in motion. So they will get to the diversity that people want quicker - they will finally have RPGs, for example. GTA will release the same time. EA is not going anywhere.
And there aren't many grown non-Japanese men who will want to wave a Wii-wand around in front of their spouse.
Blu-Ray discs, not the Blu-ray player, will doom Sony. The games will cost too much to burn, too much to sell and together with the slow adoption of the Blu-Ray movies, Sony won't sell enough discs or drives to bring prices down to 360 levels. The 360 already has $30 games. PS3 might never have $30 games, because if the Blu-Ray isn't picked up quickly, they won't be able to lower manufacturing costs. The X360 games are already coming down in price quickly because they are normal DVD discs. And that means used games are cheaper, too.
I have every faith that Sony will have better quality hardware. And I have every faith that Sony is shooting itself in the foot with another proprietary media format that will go nowhere.
Finally, the PS3 may not even be the cheapest Blu-Ray player for very long. Since Samsung doesn't need to insert a Cell chip, hard drive or ps2 chip in every one of their players, Sony could very well lose their big selling point in a couple years.
I've worked at Target Co. for a summer at the electronics department 2 years ago. Every single day 2 or 3 guys would ask why if the XBox was sold out and when we would get another shipment etc., but we always had GameCubes and sometimes PS2s. Turns out Target Co. sends out 5 - 6 XBoxes every month for the store and it would be gone in a week (go figure). Recently, when I go to Target to shop, I've noticed there's a constant supply of Xbox 360s in the case. Either the new Target is resupplying more often (right...) or 2 x the price tag is really making the difference.