Slashdot Mirror
PS3 To Slow Game Industry Growth?
simoniker writes "DFC Intelligence's game analyst David Cole has released a new report on the next-gen video game market, and he's especially harsh on PS3 plans: 'The high price of the PlayStation 3 is going to slow overall industry growth, especially for software,' and '...if Sony does not change its current strategy for the PS3 the system will probably end up in third place in installed base.' He also suggests that 'the PS3 would be more than 35% of the monthly household income' of average families in some world territories. When will the backlash end?" The bottom line is that, even if they ramp up to 200,000 units a month starting this month, they're still not going to hit their 2 million unit goal in time for a November launch. Shortages and the high price tag will mean this is going to be a very weird Christmas console season.
Considering that the PS2 is shipping more units than the XBox 360, things are already weird. It would very embrassing to Sony if PS2 was selling more units than the PS3 (assuming that Sony doesn't cut production of the PS2 first). If Nintendo comes out on top, welcome to brightly colored weirdsville.
"He also suggests that 'the PS3 would be more than 35% of the monthly household income' of average families in some world territories."
At the prices ive seen suggested for this system, its going to more liek 350% of some world territories. Maybe they ment 1st world countries.
I dont think this will slow the market at all though. If anything all the people that have been waiting around for the PS3 will realize that they arnt going to get what they have been hyped up to belive. Once they have all the options before them, they will chose one, right now its Xbxo360 or nothing...so people are still waiting to see what the others offer.
There is no way that its going to slow down the market, xbox will drop in price, Wii will be out, sales may be bad for the PS3, but i think over all the industry will grow, just like in the past with new generations of Consoles.
You also cant forget how many people out there are buying the 3000$ TV's....they dont buy these so that they can watch their VHS tapes. They buy them because they have the money, im sure the PS3 will go like hot cakes. Just becase 90% of the world cant aford it, doesnt mean that they poeple that can(and there are LOTS of them) wont.
-EL
When the gaming media has real stories to go after, instead of more bitching about early adopter pricing or the technological risks sony's taking. And also when the competition stops paying for 'studies.'
Same old bullshit, different product.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
The bottom line is that, even if they ramp up to 200,000 units a month starting this month, they're still not going to hit their 2 million unit goal in time for a November launch. Shortages and the high price tag will mean this is going to be a very weird Christmas console season.
Yes, Zonk, we know, sony is teh doomed and someday soon you will stand victorious upon the rubble of the bulldozed Sony headquarters, clutching your XBox 360 and laughing maniacally. We get it already, you don't have to keep ramming it into our heads.
Anyway, the article seems a bit dumb to me. It may be that the PS3 will slow sales when it's first out because consumers can't buy/can't afford one, and so will just opt to buy nothing at all since they can't have the biggest and most expensive thing-- but I don't think that many will have this response. After all, this winter will not be 2005's, when releases were mostly scanty. This winter it seems to me slightly more likely than consumers looking at this situation and realizing they can't afford or can't find a PS3 will just shrug it off and buy some of the great games coming out for the PS2 or Wii, both of which are cheap and will have actual games (i.e. not untold legends) coming out this winter.
If Nintendo comes out on top, welcome to brightly colored weirdsville.
I wouldnt' consider that weird at all, in fact, I anticipate just that. The Revolution/Wii looks like a truely innovative console, with some amazing games, and great gameplay. Nintendo is really doing the right thing here.
In my mind, the Wii looks poised to do what i haven't seen from a console since the NES/Super NES days - It's the type of console parent's will *want* to buy for their children for christmas, rather than the kind they are *asked* to buy by the children.
If the Wii falls anything short of first place after this season, I am convinced it would be because of the name change - I still hate it.
Sony's brash stance on "The PS3 is awesome, people won't care about the price" is getting way out of hand. I hopefully DREAM that this is just the biggest mark-up ploy of this century and they surprise us with a price drop a few days/weeks before launch date. If people found out that the price was going down, they'd jump all over it, even it was just a $50-$100 drop for each console type.
I was planning on getting a PS3, but with the way they're treating their customers, as if we need to be grateful for handing them over $600+ for a machine and some games, I won't until it drops in price considerably, which will be in a few years since obviously we all shouldn't care about the price, it's "THAT GOOD". Fuck you Sony, learn to respect your customers because you're going down if you don't.
"Nintendo rules"
"The gaming industry is falling apart"
"Sony is greedy"
"The Nintendo Wii is a great console"
"The gaming industry is doomed"
"Sony is arrogant"
"The Videogame Industry is Broken"
I am a Nintendo fanboy and this stuff is pretty much making me sick of slashdot
I think Sony might succeed in slowing thier own growth, but Sony isn't the only game in town. You've still got Microsoft and, slightly more signfigantly, Nintendo. Nintendo is already making strides to move the gaming world forward. Ignoring Nintendo and declaring that Sony is going to grind things to a halt with the PS3 plays right into Sony's arrogance.
Of course, it's not like the linked article didn't point this out. It's not like it was actually titled "Analyst: PS3 To Slow Industry Growth, Nintendo & Microsoft Could Capitalize".
So, yes, PS3 is likely going to slow Sony's growth, and Nintendo is definitely poised to capitalize on that by offering an innovative platform at less than half the cost of the PS3 that, above all, doesn't require a new $5000 home entertainment system to take advantage of.
Sony will slow down, but Nintendo and Microsoft can only speed up from here. I think Nintendo's in a better place than Microsoft, but Microsoft has a bunch of Japanese RPGs coming soon for the XBox360 and there's still Halo 3, so it's way too early to count them out yet.
So let's stop ignoring Nintendo and Microsoft and only concentrating on Sony. It's fun to watch Sony continue to self-destruct, but it's more fun to imagine the possibilities that the Wii is bringing.
" The bottom line is that, even if they ramp up to 200,000 units a month starting this month, they're still not going to hit their 2 million unit goal in time for a November launch. Shortages and the high price tag will mean this is going to be a very weird Christmas console season. "
Based on the layout of that quote, I believe the editor said this. If they had actually read the link they quoted, they would know that 200,000 is a first run and Sony plans to produce 2 million units in October alone.
Wow.
So if people find the PS3 too expensive they will just choose to buy nothing or just hold out until prices drop? Prices normally drop when prodcution gets less expensive, sales have started to offset costs or popularity wanes. If sales are not generated that allow those things to happen then price cuts are generally a long ways off unless they console in jeopardy in which case people wont buy it anyway (i.e. dreamcast). That wont happen with the ps3, it will be successful its just a question of how successful.
I really dont thing any one console is going shrink the market, increase it maybe, but not shrink it. If a gamer wants to play games he is going to buy something, especially when his old console is no longer supported with new games, he/she just might not be buying the one he originally wanted. If this was truly the case wouldnt the market today be slowed by the death of Sega hardware due to all those Sega fans dropping out of gaming?
I don't like Sony any more than the rest of the world (as represented by slashdot, the actual world seems to think they are fine) but at this point, I hope Sony dominates the market for the next ten years just so Zonk will be laughed off of the internet
If there are shortages then that fellow really was right and the PS3 isn't selling at high enough a price.
FUD, FUD, funny FUD... My penis threatens your virgin-infotainment-whore-ass!!!
I have a PS2 and a PSP, and I was expecting to buy a PS3 as soon as I could get ahold of one - primarily for a cheap blu-ray drive, but also for backward compatibility. I have plenty of other Sony products, and like the company's engineering and manufacturing quality control. But the company's arrogance over PSP homebrew and the poor game availability, combined with this ridiculous $600 price tag for a PS3 w/hdmi has convinced me that Sony is in a tailspin. I simply don't want to give them my money any longer.
I \*can\* afford it. I don't want it. Until Sony refocuses on the consumer again, I'm not giving them a dime.
Sony needs to get the PS3 down to $299 for the base system before the Xmas shopping season, or it's not going to happen.
For what the PS3 currently is proposed to cost, you can get the kid a PS2, a cell phone, a TV, a DVD player, a Game Boy, and some games and DVDs.
Nintendo
--------
Console #1: NES = popular. Nintendo does the Hammer Dance with glee.
Console #2: SNES = uberpopular. Nintendo plans world domination by crushing everybody with their giant ego
Console #3: OOPS!! Where'd everybody go?! WE ARE #1, DANGIT!! YOU CAN'T LEAVE US!! MUHAHAHA!! *CRIES*
Sony
----
Console #1: PlayStation = popular. Sony does the Hamster Dance with glee.
Console #2: PS2 = uberpopular. Sony plans world domination by crushing everybody with their giant ego
Console #3: OOPS!! Where'd everybody go?! WE ARE #1, DANIT!! IT'S A COMPUTAH! COMPUTAH!! MUHAHAHAHAH! *CRIES*
Nintendo is just now recovering from their egomaniacal fall and is poised to get back in the game and they are no stranger to the #1 spot.
If Sony follows Nintendo, it'll be another generation or two before Sony gets their act back together.
There are other similarities, such as Nintendo falling down because they stuck with proprietary cartridges instead of jumping on the CD/DVD bandwagon. Sony is now pushing proprietary Blu-Ray technology.
the only selling point for the PS3 is backwards compatibility, until the prices are sane I'm keeping my PS2, plan on getting Wii for Christmas
http://www.bookforce.net
Sign me up! This seems like a really sweet gig, especially during lulls in product cycles like we have now. I would love to get paid to point at random companies and say "They're doing something that won't make them as much money as they want it to." The beauty of it is, with that statement I'd always be right!
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Hah! Awesome post. But, you forgot the part where Sega skips step 2 entirely in exchange for an extra couple of cracks at step 3.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
if you can write a 600-page report on it without resorting to repeating te words "Screw Flanders" over and over for the last 595 of them, then yes, you can have his job.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Will the PS3 slow down the game industry or is it already showing signs or slowing down? Who wants to buy a new football or basketball game year after year after year? The game industry is only looking for excuses.
I already have my cash reay for the launch of the PS3. i have saved $$$ each check since last November... and put it into a whole seperate account just to hold for a PS3. I think that loyal Sony fans like me will be doing the same thing. i am so very sure that PS3 will blow the stupid Xbox out of the water. (plus my home system has more power then a Xbox ever will, and most games for Xbox are put on PC at the same time or even before the console release.) Now dont get me wrong. i love Microsoft more then the next guy, but a Xbox i will not buy, might play it at a friends house and rag on him for shelling out the money for a computer you cant upgrade. ;)
Long live sony! .. hmm now where is that Sony OS.. that is where they need to go.
And let's not forget Nintendo. The Wii is currently projected to cost no more than $250 (if that), and will certainly be an enticing holiday gift. Not to mention that having a Zelda release game is going to make these things fly off the shelf, so they are likely going to be a big boost to the gaming industry.
The PS3 will cause slow sales for Sony's console department, which may cause slow down compared to the sales of the PS2, but it won't slow down the entire industry.
"In fact, even under the best case scenario for the Xbox 360 we predict the system will finish third in Japan while being the number one system worldwide."
I found that amusing, even if Sony totally screws up and comes in last place in the world, they'll still beat Microsoft in Japan.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The analysit's prediction DOES have merit. You can't compare it to the auto industry because all cars can take you down the same roads. Not all consoles can let you play the same games. You can't compare a console's games to features in a car, a console's purpose is to play games, a car's purpose is to take you places. If there was a car on the market that was the only one capable of traveling through a certain set of roads, I'm sure people who wanted to travel down those roads would buy that car over any other, or wait until they could afford it. Similarly if there are particular games you will ONLY be able to play on a PS3 there will be a group of people who will buy the PS3 because of it or sit on their cash until they can afford it... thus shrinking the market.
Collector's Edition
"I found that amusing, even if Sony totally screws up and comes in last place in the world, they'll still beat Microsoft in Japan."
Why wouldn't they? The Japanese are some of the most brand-loyal consumers in the world. Like hell if they are buying an American product over a Japanese product, even if the Japanese product is overpriced and underdelivers.
Yes, I don't see the PS3's horrible pricing or low availability as being a major issue. Unlike Nintendo, Sony has plenty of games coming out for its current generation hardware, so it doesn't need to ship the PS3 by Christmas. In fact, since margins on the console will be very low at first release, they probably won't benefit much profit-wise if they do manage to ship it.
Nintendo's the one that could slow the industry. There's hardly anything for GameCube coming out, so if people decide they don't want to wave a Wii stick around and the system tanks, Nintendo won't be selling anything at Christmas.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
While you are almost correct, there are some glaring problems with your analysis and it is a bit too oversimplified. Nintendo really wasn't looking around for customers so much as developers... that was who they alienated and the consumers left as a result. The cartridge is actually what _helped_ Nintendo, not hurt it. They are damn near copy proof (within reason), have no load times, have no moving parts which lower failure, raise battery life in portables, lower power consumption in consoles, and make them very sturdy and tough.
Sony was only an entrant into videogames due to the Nintendo/CD debacle. They were not interested in the consumer or providing great new innovative games. They wanted to capitalize on the work they had already done and make a quick buck as a big FU to Nintendo. It was successful to some degree. They tried so hard to manufacture a mascot like Mario or Sonic, and it never worked. They succeeded because it was cheap and easy to produce games for it and the profit margin was higher than with Nintendo. That wasn't going to last forever, and is now starting to show. They tried to ride on their more, better, faster philosophy too long and it is now catching up to them.
Microsoft was an almost mirror of Sony as far as intentions. They shot themselves in the foot from the getgo. They continue to do so every day. The 360 is actually a pretty decent console, but it is floundering with a total lack of quality games, price, and unpopularity.
Not to sound overly pro Nintendo, but they have been consistently the only true innovator in console gaming for over 20 years now. They are not simply "cashing-in" but creating a market and then selling to it. Sure, they are not some benevolent company either, but their intentions and products are as close to it as you will find. That is what real gamers should support, even if it isn't the cool thing or doesn't push 90gazillion polys per nanosecond, they are the only company that has the real gamers interests in mind and not just dollar signs. For a group like Slashdot, where "community" and Linux and ideals are supposedly so strong, you would think it would be a no-brainer.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Wow, Sony single handedly builds a console so expensive that the gravity of the error sucks the whole gaming industry into a black hole of doom.
Just possibly, people will buy or not buy the console and buy, or not buy, other things as well or instead of. You can either say "The PS3 is going to be really successful and thus people are going to have less money to spend on games", or "Not that many PS3s will sell and therefore there will be no market slowdown as people buy other systems". Yet this article seems to try to say both of those things at once, that the PS3 price is too high yet it will slow down the whole market.
Well which is it? Are people buying the PS3 or not? In reality, only time will tell.
As for Slashdot, we know where they stand - any Anti PS3 news you got, no matter now non-sensical - throw it their way!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't know why, but I suddenly have the urge to buy one...
Nintendo's the one that could slow the industry. There's hardly anything for GameCube coming out, so if people decide they don't want to wave a Wii stick around and the system tanks, Nintendo won't be selling anything at Christmas.
Mm, not really. From a market perspective the low number of Gamecube titles this winter makes no difference-- The end of Gamecube support basically came a year or so ago. Nintendo released almost nothing for the Gamecube last Christmas season (mostly just some second party titles), and the releases since then have been even more paltry. In a worst case scenario the Wii could do poorly and thus result in slow growth compared to say Christmas 04, but it couldn't possibly be any worse than Nintendo's disastrous last console year.
The Gamecube's just been getting slower and slower with time, especially with the paltry support Nintendo's been giving to it as it ages and the DS consumes more and more of their attention*. I don't think the Wii can go anywhere but up from this position, even if you don't think the Wii is a good strategy.
And even if we ignore the Wii, the Gamecube is at least getting a much better lineup of games this winter than they did last winter-- they're getting both Zelda and Super Paper Mario, and Japan's getting that Kirby game. Frankly I don't see any way Zelda could sell worse than Super Mario Strikers, which was pretty much all Nintendo had to offer America last Christmas.
(* Though also I should maybe note I for one still suspect that one of the big reasons why Gamecube support at the end of its life is so crappy is that Nintendo migrated all of its planned Gamecube software projects to being Wii software projects. For example there is reason to believe that Super Mario Galaxy began its life planned for Gamecube release. I could of course be wrong.)
In that case, I'll wait in 2009 to buy one at 25% of the price and still be good for 7 more years before they introduce the PS4.
Where'd you get that from?
Cynical Idealist
Strangely enough, Slashdot.
Ah. Merci beaucoup, mon ami. (ma amie, si tu es une femme) Let no one say that my french is sexist.
Cynical Idealist
Not sure if it alters your choice any, but the base PS3 is $500. If you think you need the $600 model for anything, you have been misled by people looking to make the PS3 seem more expensive than it is already (which is odd as $500 is still very expensive).
You will be able to watch Blu-Ray movies at 1080i on a $500 PS3.
You will be able to play games at 1080p on a $500 PS3.
A lot of this misunderstanding is buying into TV marketing FUD that you "need" HDMI to do 1080p. That is not so, 1080p will work over component cables and set makers are all including component inputs because a lot of HD gear sold to date only has component outputs.
If you "need" to view photos on your PS3, then the built in media reader on the $600 model might be worth something to you. But for playing games or watching movies the $500 PS3 has everything you need. It's not like the 360 where the "base" version lacks a crucial component like the hard drive.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sony sold a million or so units last Christmas where people could hardly get stock and on eBay the normal selling price for all of December was $800.
Why do you think Sony needs to have a price of $299 to move units? The first million or two, $500 is not that much to a lot of die-hard fans and even more casual fans that are looking for the cheapest Blu-Ray player possible. Since you can do 1080i over component inputs from the cheaper $500 PS3, and movies will not have ICT enabled for a few years it should make for a great early-adoptor Blu-Ray player until the more expensive standalone players drop in price.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why inflate the price? The $500 PS3 is all you need for playing games and watching movies at 1080. What compels you to think that anyone needs to spend $100 more for things like a media reader - in a gaming system?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Here is a simple question... If you were Sony and you anticipated that - at the quantity of consoles you could provide - they were going to be selling at $800-$1000 on eBay this Christmas season, then what price point would you set the console at? Why not price it higher and line your own pocket instead of someone else's? Sure some demand will drop off because its not priced at $300, but those people weren't going to shell out to get one at the holiday season anyway. Plus the components will come down and then they can (and will) drop the price. If executed properly this is a good strategy - a profit maximizing strategy. If executed poorly, then the 3 in PS3 will be quite apropo.
Trounced in what sense? The Gamecube has shipped almost the same units vs. the Xbox (20.6 million vs. 22 million). They are in 3rd, but barely. Hardly a "trounced" rating. Combine that with all of Nintento's portable sales which have constantly led the marketplace.
Nintendo is doing just fine.
as many people care about the PS3 as Sony and many folks in the industry believe. I don't think it will hold back gaming, because if it is overpriced, people will pass it up for the Wii or the 360 (or both). Game publishers will start puting out more games for the Wii, and the 360 will have no shortage of titles either way. Sony will reduce the price untill it's competitive. It's not a big deal really.
That is how long it will take for the kiddies to scrap up enough coin to buy one!
er, no. The cartridge model was extremely developer unfriendly. Carts are MANY, MANY times more expensive to manufacture than CDs, could only be manufactured by nintendo itself (this is not the case for CD based media) and had to be paid for up front- if a game failed to sell, the developer would be stuck with a lot of very expensive unsellable bricks. Make no mistake, Devs LOVE the CD model.
Successful to some degree? Sony was a first time entrant to the market and the Ps1 ended up doubling the sales of both the SNES and the Genesis, and exceeded the sales of the previous all time seller (the NES) by a good 25 million. It also drew in older gamers in a way that Nintendo, Sega, and Atari never had. It's successor was ALSO a blockbuster success and outsold it, based largely on favorable impressions of the Ps1. make no mistake, Sony's first console was a VERY big deal. As for "trying so hard to manufacture a mascot like mario or sonic..." This is a fallacy. never happened. All of the "mascots" that people associate with the Ps1 (crash, lara croft, klonoa, solid snake...etc) were made by third parties. Sony never made the attempt to market their console this way.
Blatant fanboysim at its very finest. When nintendo was market leader it's monopolistic tactics in the console market matched or exceeded microsoft's behavior in the desktop market. For instance, if you wanted to make a game for the NES, not only could you not port the game to any other system, third parties couldnt make ANY games for ANY competitor or be blacklisted. Nintendo is a company out to make money any way it can, make no mistake.
Nintendo is just now recovering from their egomaniacal fall and is poised to get back in the game and they are no stranger to the #1 spot.
I'm sorry, there's nothing more egomaniacal than calling your console "wii" and expecting heterosexual males (the dominant paying customers in THE ENTIRE WORLD) to buy it without embarassment.
has an article on Sony that flows onto another page, which points out the stock is way too high in terms of PFS, and says that many industry analysts believe that Nintendo's Wii is likely to gain much more market share than Sony's PS3 will. They point out that the pricing point of more than $500 for the retail PS3 will cause consumers to avoid purchasing the PS3 for the Blu-Ray aspects, and that standard economic models show that next-generation DVD successors (such as Sony's Blu-Ray and the competing HD-DVD - the latter will play existing DVDs, which means consumers could watch their existing DVD libraries, which is not the case with Blu-Ray) will drop in price rapidly.
They also point out that the game software cost for the PS3 is regarded by industry analysts as high enough that it may negatively impact adoption of the PS3.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
1080i is special mostly because many people seem to think you can't do 1080i without using an HDMI connector to your TV.
Other than that, 1080i provides a much clearer image than standard TV, or even 720p. If you run your monitor at 1600x1200 instead of 800x600, then you have an idea of why 1080i is better than standard TV.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If sales are not generated that allow those things to happen then price cuts are generally a long ways off unless they console in jeopardy in which case people wont buy it anyway (i.e. dreamcast).
Doesn't Sony have some other sources of income? Like, say...music? Movies? Consumer electronics? Sony will cut the price to move systems even if it means taking a loss; most of the profit comes from software, and Sony can (and may very well have to) take a hit on the consoles to make that software move.
Goo goo g'joob.
Yeah, how could we ever stand to say we?
My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
Have you seen the launch line-up for the PS3? Even Sony admits it's unexciting! I don't see anyone sitting on the money they would otherwise spend on a 360/Wii for those launch games... yet Sony is still worrying about shortages (and they're trying to have 2 million units ready). I just can't see any real gamer sitting on money for unexciting launch games -- games aren't about investment (games aren't like a car in that you don't buy them to last for years... it's usually one or two plays through, worth maybe 40 hours of your time) so I have a hard time seeing anyone wait THAT long to save up money for PS3 over the 360/Wii. If people REALLY want one that bad -- they would've started saving a while ago. I honestly can't see this slowing the market (though it does help that most of the people I know are either going with the 360, Wii, or both).
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
As for Slashdot, we know where they stand - any Anti PS3 news you got, no matter now non-sensical - throw it their way!
It's not Slashdot, you know. I have Google news dig out some PS3-related news from random places every day, and you know what? It's all negative. I also have Nintendo-related stories, and they're almost all positive.
I also read a ton of other gaming sites, and it's the same story.
It's not a conspiracy. It's either badly-managed PR, or the facts have a Nintendo bias. Or a little bit of both.
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
I own a Sony CD player from 1987 that still works great after almost twenty years of use.
Yeah, that's 1080p/24 and 1080pp/30 (24/30 fps) over component, not 1080p/60 - which is limited to hdmi due to bandwidth requirements. IOW: you are full of shit and have no idea WTF you're talking about.
Can't speak for you, but those of us who have matured past middle school won't have any problem buying a Nintendo Wii without embarassment
The cartridge is actually what _helped_ Nintendo, not hurt it. They are damn near copy proof (within reason)...
Were they really now?
-Shawn "If the Name Don't Rhyme It Ain't Mine" Conn
I read other gaming sites as well. Yes anti-Sony PS3 stories abound but there are positive and interesting things about the PS3 or upcoming PS3 games. For instance, there was an interview with War Hawk developers on IGN that not only talked a bit obout what they thought they could do with the PS3 but also brough to light that Sony had in fact been working with them on motion detecting controllers for some time, it's just that they got the first working prototypes a few weeks before E3. That goes contray to what much of the media has been saying about the motion control, that they only added it weeks before E3.
That's one example but there have been other tidbits like that. Yet you do not see them on Slashdot, only story repeats that were debunked months ago when they first came out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Project Gotham on the 360 is not running at 60FPs either, yet people seem to be quite happy. Why does it matter if component doesn't do 1080p/60 when few games would even be using it?
And for movies of course (24 frames/sec) it really doesn't matter.
So what were you trying to say again? That the PS3 can "only" do 1080p/30 even though it's acceptible for games? I mean what use makes it mandatory to support 60FPS?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...those of us who have matured past middle school...
<smirk>You are not the intended audience</smirk>
Zonk hates the PS3 and loves XBOX360. Move on!
how dare you talk down to women with the "tu" form, you sexist clod!
As the father of two boys, I can support your theory. My older boy really wanted the XBox 360. However, as the details and pricing of the Nintendo Wii have been released, he's come 'round to my thinking. The motion controllers are what really started to sway him. Now he'd rather we buy the Wii and use the difference in price to buy a few games right off the bat. Which suits me just fine.
I agree. At first, I was thinking I would probably buy a PS3 when it came out. But when I saw the Nintendo Wii demos and the gameslist for them, and the PS3 details, plus the major price difference, I decided for him. The xBox 360 was already not in our scopes, as we had bought an xBox, and still only have two fun games for that which aren't cross-platform. And when I saw the gameslist for the 360, filled with FPS and sports game, it was "not gonna happen".
Now, if he wants to, he can go out and buy a PS3. With his own money. Not with my money. I'm perfectly willing to buy a Wii, cause it has tons of games I'm into, and the whole moving the controller thing sounds way more fun. And I'll probably buy the games I think are good, and maybe get some he wants that I don't if he has a birthday or Xmas. The rest he'll have to buy himself with his own money.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
...is because it will be churning out millions of boring, uninspiring sequels, just as the PS2 did.
Fair enough. But remember that you also have to think about all the people who are buying off-brand CRT televisions for $129 at the discount stores, as well as all the people who are still looking at the same TV they bought in 1991.
Actually, the WSJ had an article today about how the HDTVs that used to cost $3000 will be selling for $299 by next year. The future isn't that far off. I personally plan to get a flat-screen HDTV in about 2-3 years, for about $300. I'm in no hurry.
And, I plan on spending $5000 a year for the next four years buying a Platinum Lifetime membership to Cinema Seattle, to see the Seattle International Film festival. I could afford a $3000 TV, but I can't see the point.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The difference was that it was a different trade-off. Nintendo stuck to cartridge that were more expansive, offered a LOT less storage, but higher speed access. They did it to keep their income in that market (you HAD to buy your cartridge from Nintendo).
Although Sony has the same type of motivation (make money on their standard), it is a bit different. Blu-ray will have MORE storage, will be only marginally more expensive (on the manufacturing of each media) and comparable for access. It is a much bigger gamble push though, as it is their trojan horse for the next gen video format. Even if PS3 sells only 50% of their target (3M by next year), that would be much more than stand alone HD-DVDs and the gamble worked.
I probably wont by a PS3 at release (too expansive), but i'll wait to see what runs on it to make my decision.
Mm, not really. From a market perspective the low number of Gamecube titles this winter makes no difference-- The end of Gamecube support basically came a year or so ago. Nintendo released almost nothing for the Gamecube last Christmas season (mostly just some second party titles), and the releases since then have been even more paltry. In a worst case scenario the Wii could do poorly and thus result in slow growth compared to say Christmas 04, but it couldn't possibly be any worse than Nintendo's disastrous last console year.
I agree, GC growth has probably started the decline, but with a Wii selling at $300, that's not really a problem. And since the Nintendo portables all work with the Wii, it's even less of an issue.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the Wii version of Super Mario Galaxy, as it looks even more fun on a Wii than it would have been on a GameCube.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I have. projected with a high end Sony Qualia 004 SXRD digital projector. 1080i introduces obvious scanline artifacts (even though no Plasma, LCD, or DLP device actually scans an electron bean across a phosphoro-luminescent surface). The point is that 1080p/30 is no different from 1080i because the bandwidth utilization is the same.
There is a dramatic difference between 1080i, 1080p/30, and 1080p/60. As for games using or not using 1080p/60 - you'vr got to be kidding me. If the PS3 CPU/GPU can push out enough graphics horsepower to support 1080p/60 (which I doubt - but they claim it can) then I would expect game developers to support the feature. Or maybe they won't. Beats me. But film and -- especially sports broadcasting -- will make great use of it.
He's comparing a one-time fixed-cost (the price of the PS3) to a variable (albeit slowly-increasing) rate (household income)?
He should try again. Now, if he's comparing estimated monthly expenditures on games to monthly income -- *then* you have a rate vs. rate comparison which is arithmetically-sound.
But to follow the logic of his comparison, why don't we take a house purchase -- which is generally several times the *annual* income of a household -- and compare it to the individual annual income of a 10 year-old? Then you have a comparison that looks atrocious (and it is even for adults, which is why most people get loans and mortgages)...
None of this is to suggest that IMO, the PS3 isn't going to be intolerably expensive, even for those of us gainfully-employed in a professional capacity, and especially since those of us who can afford it haven't the time to play games, usually. I love every Metal Gear game ever made for NES, MSX, PS1, and PS2 (haven't played the others), but I will wait quite a while to buy MGS4 if it requires buying a $400 console to play it on...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
You really think they are abandoning the PS2 anytime soon? Or perhaps do you think 1000 games are going to be available for the PS3 at launch?
Read your video game industry history. The PS2 will still be sold for the next five years. New games are still going to be created for it because it has the installed base.
The PS3 is the next generation where generations last 10 years and overlap previous and suceeding generations. Consoles are stable computers designed for games, they don't come out with new versions every six months like camcorders. It's expensive now because it has to be as powerful as possible so that it can be viable for ten years. Spend the big bucks now and be smug that you have the best system out there or wait five years and you can get it for $150. Your money, your choice.
Sony did their homework. You didn't.
of course, if the ps3's price is too high, it will alienate everyone other then hardcore gamers. Actually, it will alienate everyone other then hardcore gamers with a job. So most likely, the ps3 will sell maybe 5 units.
Klingon Software is not released, it escapes, inflicting terrible damage onto the enemy as it does
I have only seen examples in stores as I do not have a 1080p display myself, but I know the difference - and I don't think it's enough to throw people off one way or the other. There are very few people that are going to care at that level.
There is a dramatic difference between 1080i, 1080p/30, and 1080p/60. As for games using or not using 1080p/60 - you'vr got to be kidding me. If the PS3 CPU/GPU can push out enough graphics horsepower to support 1080p/60 (which I doubt - but they claim it can) then I would expect game developers to support the feature. Or maybe they won't. Beats me. But film and -- especially sports broadcasting -- will make great use of it.
In a way you are agreing with me, for my main point is just that with component cables you can reach 1080i, in terms of raw resolution. Will it be the most sparking clear pictures posisble? Not exactly, but it would be plenty good for most people. So really it still doesn't matter that it can't do 1080p/60, especially when the source signal from movies will probably be limited to 1080i anyway by AACS.
For games 1080p/60 would be nice... but like you say that takes a lot of power to spit out and I really doubt many titles would be doing that. So it only matters really if it can support 1080i (again for resolution and detail) or 720p (for those jaw-dropping crystal clear frame rates).
Again, my primary point in all this is that for most consumers there is no need for a $600 PS3 because a $500 PS3 will display games and movies just as well - and I think that holds true to a very large degree.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Even though PS3 will be more expensive than the other consoles, ultimately it will be the available games that will define if PS3 will succeed. If PS3 games are jaw dropping, then the PS target audience (traditionally people from 15 to 25) will keep their money to buy it. If, on the other hand, PS3 games are a yawn, then Nintendo will win this round, as it currently seems to be.
Personally I am holding my breath for Wii. I love sports games and can't wait enough to try them with the Wii's control method.
[carts] are damn near copy proof
I guess that would explain all the N64 ROM sites that popped up once N64 emulation got up to speed. Oh wait.
Obviously, ROMs and emulation are not the same thing as playing copied carts/discs on an actual system. However, your point here is that carts cut down on copying/piracy. This is absolutely not true. For more recent examples, see the GBA and DS.
Nah, Microsoft will release the Xbox++ in 2009, forcing Sony and Nintendo to scramble and put out a new system prematurely. Go ahead and laugh, but I'm beginning to think this is an actual part of their attack plan.
Start by looking at their "real" business of Windows and Office, and it makes a strange sort of Microsofty sense, however illogical. Business "analysts" love blowing steam about new product X from megacorp Y and how it will dominate the marketplace. Wall Street wants more more more. The mainstream press still doesn't understand games, but they know Microsoft == computers, so they'll obviously get top billing.
Obviously this doesn't mean any of this will succeed. So far, it hasn't. But you never know.
My bad, rom readers and writers must be as ubiquitous as CD/DVD burners in homes across the world. I made no mention of ROM's and emulators, in fact IMO ROM's and Emulators help SELL games. People fall in love with a long lost favorite, or a newly discovered old gem and then purchase the original system and game to have the full experience. Sure it is not a direct sale, but it is a sale and it does help the overall industry.
I know what you are trying to say, and you know what I meant... no one is trying to say that carts == 100% pirate proof.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
In some world territories? My mom can't even buy it with 80% of her months income.
Umm, I said the exact same thing as you are saying except mine is adjusted for the real world. Sure CD's are cheaper, and sure carts are more expensive up front... but the number of copied PS1 games far eclipses the knock off carts for the NES/SNES/Genesis. These are lost sales and a bigger cost to a company by far. But in typical console gamer land profitability and media cost are just arbitrary numbers that people think they understand. Take a glance at actual company profitability and earnings before trying to talk about an area that others people may just know a bit more about. But nah, that elementary profitability stuff that everyone seems to think is so profound is easier to spout off.
Yes, successful in the sense of dollars and quickly garnering market share. But UNSUCCESSFUL in many key areas, innovation, quality, customer satisfaction, etc. How many defective units and multiple sytem purchases did people need over the PS1/PS2 lifespan? Success in business is not measured by the here and now, it is not a sprint but more of a marathon. Nintendo made this mistake, Sony made this mistake, and MS has made them all. Because Sony did NOT lay a solid groundwork built on customers and innovation, they have stagnated and run out of road to go forward. The "more, better, faster" ideology has worn out, and the "FPS, GTA, RPG" one will too. But again, to only look at short term success as a basis for actual success is more your speed and most other console armchair analysts, it is just totally wrong. Take a look in every field for examples of this, not just consoles.
This "blatant fanboy" here worked for Sony for over 4 years, covering nothing but Sony. Oops. The fanboy card doesn't apply here, my current enthusiasm for Nintendo is exactly for the reasons I stated. They are the only one catering to the users, being innovative, trying to break out of this funk that gaming is in right now, and NOT trying to be "hardcore." Hardcore gamers are a fallacy, they are a very small (but dedicated) market. Industries can sustain but not grow in that environment, and that is what has been happening. Real growth comes from diverse markets and wide target audiences. But that means "kiddies" and women, and that means your console must be teh suxorz. To tell the truth I actually hate Zelda games, not a fa
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Don't forget that the analysts also thought that the Nintendo DS didn't have any chance against the "superior" Sony PSP. And with all the bad press Sony is getting lately, I'm starting to wonder if the PS3 has any chance in the short term.
As for Microsoft releasing a new version of Xbox every few years, don't forget it also killed SEGA. Only a few people bought the SEGA Genesis/Megadrive, then the CD-ROM add-on, then the 32X add-on, then the Saturn and then finally the Dreamcast. Customers aren't made of money and can't afford an expensive new console every 2-3 years.
Nintendo also seems to be right: like computers, consoles have reached a peak where "more CPU/GPU/RAM/whatever" won't improve games, only the way they look. Fun games and innovation is becoming more important than specs alone, and it's where Nintendo shines.
As for the Wii not being hi-def capable, it's not really important right now, only a handful of people have hi-def capable televisions. And those people are into specs and will buy an Xbox360 and/or PS3 anyway. Nintendo are probably aware, of course, that their next console will have to be hi-def.
o - pun
o - you
H
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
She *skip* crazy *skip* one *skip* Ooo *skip* drives *skip* I *skip* myself.
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
"works great" means that it works great!
Atari, Nintendo and Sega, remember them? In the end, Nintendo has the market, they have the older gamers from the 80s (people like us), they have the kids (N64 and DS Pokemon), The only audience they are missing are the current teenagers, who don't really make up a big market share to begin with.
The gaming industry has changed now, everyone is looking forward to the Nintendo Wii, people I know who havent been playing video games since Dreamcast are coming back. The Nintendo Wii will outsell the PS3 because it's a better system, with better games, and better marketing. PS3 is just a brand name, and brand name only takes you so far. Sony has ruined it's brand name with the rootkit BS. Do you really think the average teenage hacker or geek likes the Sony brand right now?
Sony has almost no leverage, Nintendo has all the SNES games, all the Sega games, Turbo Grafix games, and if they can get SNK games, they'll be unstoppable. They have internet connection too, honestly I HAVE to buy the system just because of all the games, you'd have to be foolish to give up thousands of great games.
Sony does not make games, Sony only beat Sega because they had third party support, and now Nintendo has equalized this. I'd say it's over for Sony, I expect Microsoft to take Sony's place, I mean tell me why would anyone want an Xbox360 AND a PS3? The average person will be one or the other, dividing Sony's market share in half. Nintendo will take the majority because the hardcore gamers, older gamers, and people who are price conscious will choose the cheaper system with the most games. The cheapest system almost always wins, with the exception of the Sega Dreamcast which ran out of money, even the Sega Dreamcast would have beat PS2 if Sega had enough money to keep making it. In a way, Sony has been riding on the mistakes of Sega and Nintendo, now Sega makes the games and Nintendo makes the hardware and games, leaving Sony to compete with Microsoft as a hardware company.
I'll admit, the PS3 and the Xbox360 are awesome pieces of hardware, but if I want hardware I'll buy a computer not a game system. I think most people buy game systems for the games, the proof is in the success of the Nintendo DS which does not have the most superior hardware. Nintendo is trying to pull another gameboy, by launching a gameboy or DS style system in the Nintendo Wii, everything from the name, to the look seems like they are trying to make gaming fun again, and make toys while Sony is trying to make portable computers along with Microsoft.
In the end a system is judged by how much fun it gives the user. PS3 just won't be as fun.
When I last checked, Nintendo was the kiddie gamer system. How did Sony somehow become the system for kids?
That's the main point, Nintendo has the children all the way back going to N64, and Gamecube, and now they are about take the hardcore gamers, leaving Sony with the mainstream gamers who don't buy a lot of games anyway. I see this as a profit losing strategy for Sony, because the mainstream gamers will be divided between the Sony and the Microsoft system. The hardcores and the children will definately be going with Nintendo.
Most PS2 owners decided to buy the PS2 because they needed a DVD player. You are trying to tell me, that people who know what games they want, need to be convinced to buy the system with the most games?
It's about the games, and PS3 does not have the games. Mainstream gamers keep buying the same games over and over, Madden 2006-7-8 will sell on the PS3 and Xbox, but the hardcore gamers want NEW games, or OLD games, but not the same game with a different year on it. So I don't think people will buy PS3 for Tekken 6 and Final Fantasy 2007. It's all about the games, and once people play the Nintendo Wii at their friends house, that will be enough to sell it. The hardcore gamers and the kids will sell the system to the mainstreamers.
Sony has never made a fun game. I cannot think of any game Sony has ever made that was fun. PSX had good games, I was not impressed with PS2. I can admit PS2 did not have any good games. I did not buy one. I did buy PSX.
Hey, if Sony's plan is to sell overpriced systems and TV's to rich parents, let them go ahead. This strategy only works with early adopters, and it's just barely selling the HDTV. How many rich kids are there? Thousands? a few million? The rest of the parents in this country who arent millionaires, arent buying their kids brand new cars and paying for college. And honestly, if the kid is colleged age, the kid remembers growing up playing with SNES, and remmebers the way the game industry once was. So you are right a few rich kids will buy PS3, about as many bought 3D0, and other over priced systems. Remember Sega Saturn? It came with 3 free good games made by a gaming company and it couldnt outsell the PSX or the N64. Why? Because it was too expensive.
Sony has not been running a very profitable business. They don't make as much money as Nintendo, the N64 made Nintendo more of a profit than Sony made off the PSX. Pokemon and the handhelds made Nintendo more of a profit than any Sony game ever released. Nintendo is the most profitable game company, Sony simply plays with numbers and people act like numbers have anything to do with profitability?!
You can sell a billion systems but if you can't sell a billion games you cannot profit. Sega Dreamcast sold more systems than PS2 in the beginning, but people started pirating the games and game sales couldnt keep up with system sales, the result, the fastest growing marketshare system the Dreamcast failed because Sega couldnt afford to keep selling systems.
Sony is about to be in the same state, with a very expensive system, which they can afford to sell because of their money, but which won't make a profit due to lack of quality games. It's about selling GAMES not SYSTEMS. It always has been about selling GAMES. Sega always sold SYSTEMS and went out of business while Nintendo sold GAMES. Sony sold SYSTEMS and GAMES with PSX, but from PS2 on they focused only on hardware and SYSTEMS. Therefore Nintendo will just sell GAMES, and this is why Sega made the brilliant move of selling GAMES.