Don't Count Sony Out Yet

Eurogamer is hosting a GamesIndustry.biz article, an editorial that wants readers to make sure not to write Sony off yet. From the article: "Even if Sony is failing to endear itself to the media, to analysts or to gamers at the moment, that's no reason for the reality of the next generation console battle to be ignored. Judging from reports in the past fortnight, it would be easy for an outside observer to assume that it's all over already; the media paints a picture of Microsoft being victorious before the first shot is even fired, with Sony's overloaded battlecruiser set to sink before it even leaves port."

Comments

Thanks, but...

[Spazntwich]

I'll write them off anyway.

I have no interest in a $600 console and $70 games.

Re:Thanks, but...

[Jeppe Salvesen]

how sure are ya? people pay monthly fees. then, 50 or 70 bucks for the initial investment is not a big difference..

Re:Thanks, but...

[Spazntwich]

I guess to more accurately state my intentions, I'd have to say I won't INITIALLY be buying one.

Once the PS2 gets down to the $200-300 price point I'll consider it, but to drop $70 on one game means it better be one hell of a good game.

As I've grown older, my interest in videogames has waned anyway, and I think Nintendo's approach of pick-up games will work better anyway, which is another reason I'm writing Sony off: The people who can afford it aren't the target audience, and the target audience will have a hell of a time convincing the parents to drop that kind of money on a videogame machine when it works out to two average car payments just for the console.

Re:Thanks, but...

[mgabrys_sf]

The N64 had plenty of 70-dollar games. And this was Nintendo - HA - slag off on THAT!

I think the 500-dollar config is fine, and once it drops to 350-400, we'll see the usual demand past the bleeding edge weenies (like me) go for it.

The thing that struck me odd was how long the PS2 stayed above 250. I mean we were talking YEARS compared to the quarterly price drops everyone else had for the previous decade.

Re:Thanks, but...

[fimbulvetr]

Judas, give the guy a break. Now the sony fanbois are using the "You should make more money, so you could buy one too" line?

Sounds like they're getting wound up. What's next, blackmailing us? I make a pretty good living for being in the US. I have the normal stuff like a car payment, rent, 401k, and I'll have a hard time fronting the money for this because it's a minimum $900 purchase before I walk out of the store (A couple games, a few controllers, etc).

Re:Thanks, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony said that PS3 games will cost "no more than $100". So those $70 games you're not interested in may be the cheap ones.

$600 console and $100 games. Yep, definitely too early to count Sony out, especially when it's competitors are pricing their consoles and games at least half that.

Re:Thanks, but...

[stigmerger]

Seems like a bargain, if the games are three times as good as $40 games running on a $300 console. I don't get all the whining about the price. You don't always get what you pay for, but you rarely get what you don't pay for (talking about consumer items, I mean). You could just as well whine that you aren't going to pay more than $1000 for a computer. So, fine. You can have a cheap computer.

Re:Thanks, but...

[ravenshrike]

Think of the PS3 as being a car with two gears. The first gear is really short and fast, representing the initial run of consoles as those who really want them snap them up. The second gear is a really really long second gear that accrues speed, or in this case owners, for a long time.

Re:Thanks, but...

[KDR_11k]

A monthly fee is only paid for something that lasts you months. Some FPS that takes 10 hours to play through and won't be looked at ever again wouldn't be able to commend monthly fees.

The rising price hurts impulse buyers more and more, if you buy a game that turns out to just be bad or simply not to your liking (in the latter case the game can have stellar reviews so you wouldn't have known beforehand) you are already out 50$. Now Sony is set to increase that by 40%. And publishers wonder why you can't sell anything without brand recognition these days. Of course, who's going to waste 50$ on something they have never even heard of?

Also rising prices mean less sales to kids who usually control the flow of a lot of money (by asking parents to buy them stuff) and are easily influenced by marketing. Kids can buy a game in two ways, get a parent to buy them (most parents already balk at 50$ prices, 70$ is way too much for them) or save up allowance to afford one (at 10-20$ a month that's going to take a while). Kids mostly buy bargain-bin games but what's going to count as bargain for a 70$ game?

Well, of course kids aren't going to get a PS3 anyway as the 500$ is about 300$ too much for most parents.

Re:Thanks, but...

[KDR_11k]

Actually he said we will see a gradual increase, he doesn't expect games to suddently jump to 100$. Nothing else.

Re:Thanks, but...

[Thangodin]

All of this stuff about the PS3 being dead is pure media hype originating from Microsoft. No one who is actually in the game industry believes a word of it. We watched the sales of the XBox 360 and could already see the writing on the wall. All hype to the contrary, it tanked. Within a couple months of release, Microsoft was already making the "We'll get 'em next time" speech. Piles of them collected dust in the Asian market, and they are still collecting dust.

The PS3 will own the Asian market. That's a given--the brand loyalty over there is very strong, and $600 is nothing for a console over there; game afficionadoes in Japan, Korea, Singapore, and the richer parts of china have a stack of consoles, a drawer full of handhelds, and a state of the art PC. They'll spend $600 on their graphics card--every year. They love their gadgets, and they always want the latest. In Japan, you can walk down the street on garbage day and pick up year-old big screen TV's that have been left out of the curb just because they're a year old. You can furnish your apartment in grand style by garbage picking--I know people who've done just that. Those for whom it is a lot of money are already saving up for their PS3. The PS3 will make more sales in Japan alone than the 360 has made worldwide.

Sales in the North America and Europe may start off slow, but they will continue to be steady throughout the PS3's lifespan, as prices and production costs drop. The PS2 continue to sell more units than any form of XBox. And to get to the basic configuration of the PS3, you have to spend almost as much on a 360.

Nobody in the industry would even consider writing off the PS3. To see posts about the alleged failure of the PS3 on Slashdot of all places, the most anti-Microsoft site pushing Microsoft FUD, is mind boggling. I'm sure the people at Microsoft's PR department are all high-fiving each other, even as the bean counters look at the numbers and glumly acknowledge the awful truth.

Re:Thanks, but...

[execute85]

This makes perfect sense. I mean everyone in the world (especially asia) is super rich and can afford anything.

This explains how everyone drives BMWs and Mercedes (just hang around rich neighborhoods on trash day, I have friends who got cars this way). People for whom an M5 is a lot of money are already saving up their $100k.

All this honda/toyota FUD is just that.

Re:Thanks, but...

[Tweekster]

How did you come up with the notion that the games are gonna be three times better?

Because something is more expensive does not make it better.

Re:Thanks, but...

[acidrain69]

And the N64 was, for the most part, a dismal failure. Nintendo learned from their mistake. Sony does not pay attention to history, they are blinded by their success with the PS2.

I love my PS2, but I'm tired of Sony's arrogance. I don't need them to force another new format on me, I'll get blueray or HDDVD when I'm ready. I don't want ATRAC or BETA. I don't want their overpriced memory sticks. I don't want "Magicgate" technology included in the cost of my devices so they can lock other companies from selling memory cards etc, so they can gouge me $35 for an 8 meg memory card (I know they are cheaper now). I certainly don't want them rooting my computer with software intended to block me from using music I purchased. It was that same arrogance that kept the PS2 above $250.

F Sony. I'll probably look into the WII once the first price break hits on the next gen consoles. I still have a stack of games to play from the last 2 console generations.

Re:Thanks, but...

[stigmerger]

> How did you come up with the notion that the games are gonna be three times better?

I didn't. What I said was "if". If the games are three times as good, and the price is double, it's a bargain for those that can afford it. I suspect there will be some impressive games. The power is there, anyhow. The price of the console isn't excessive until you can compare what it does. See?

> Because something is more expensive does not make it better.

Wow, it's like you read what I wrote.

Re:Thanks, but...

[buffer-overflowed]

The PS3 will "fail" for a few basic reasons. The launch and lead-in library is no better than the PS2's was, and the PS2 had the advantage of also being a reasonably priced DVD player at a time when the writing was on the wall for DVD being the next movie format(which isn't the case for blu-ray[if blu-ray is as successful as DVD, we're looking at 2010 as the year the PS3 hits the same sweet spot the PS2 did]). It was also half the price. What games are being released with the PS3 that in aggregate make it worth $500-$600 and the cost of those games? I've raised this question time and time again and no one has given an answer to it(which is odd because it's an opinion question). It's all about the games that are hitting in 2007, or the TBA games. Namely Metal Gear Solid 4 and Final Fantasy XIII, which, assuming there's no overlap in the fanbases, and every fan of those series buys a PS3, won't get the PS3 above 15 million units sold. Mario, Zelda, and Metroid manage the same feat and it hasn't propelled Nintendo to "success" in the past two generations.

It's also incredibly expensive to develop a PS3 title, so the games need to either sell better or you need to charge more. Very few games are going to make decent profits during the first year of the PS3, at least off the PS3 alone, which is why so many titles are 360/PS3/PC. Bets need to be hedged. We see this happening for the most part. Then we have the cheap Wii, at current gen development prices.

Now, you bring up Asia. No, the 360 doesn't stand a chance here, but this doesn't automatically mean a PS3 win. Hell, Famitsu's recent poll of developers and consumers shows just as many people think the console is too expensive as think that here, the difference being that Microsoft may as well not exist so there's no competing high-end system. And we also have Nintendo, which commands much brand-loyalty, and is coming off the recent run-away success of the DS over the PSP. If Nintendo pulls a repeat of this, the PS3 will become a niche system similar to the Gamecube's position last generation. I have no doubt that regardless, it'll still have it's home run titles, but you don't hit 100 million console sales off the greatest hits, you hit that off a ton of singles and doubles by having title diversity(it's a positive feedback loop as well). It is full and well possible that the realities of the next generation of consoles leave Nintendo in an extrememly strong position, and this possibility is confirmed by the number of Wii titles in development and the statements of the various executives(they all said to buy a Wii(and a PS3 or 360)).

So no, nothing is settled yet. About the only safe thing to say is that in Asia the PS3 will beat the 360. But, will the 360 compensate for that in Europe and NA? Maybe. Will Nintendo pull ahead in Asia due to various reasons and thus weaken Asian dev support for the PS3? Not assured, but there's a good chance of this. Will Nintendo capitalize on the same things in Europe and NA? Maybe.

It's fun to speculate, but all I care about as a gamer is what's on the shelves when the systems launch later this year.

And by that criteria, neither the PS3 nor 360 interest me.

Re:Thanks, but...

[Goaway]

Meanwhile in reality, if you had been actually following the discussion online in Japan, you'd see that they are laughing their asses off at the high price point and the idea that anybody would pay that much.

Re:Thanks, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

LOLLERS ROOTKIT

jesus christ, give it a goddamned rest already.

every damn post it's 'OMFG SONY ROOTKIT' or 'ROFLKIT' or 'SONY OMGZ THEY'R BAD FOR ROOTKIT!'

just shut the hell up about it. you didn't buy any of the cds that had the rootkit installed on it, as such, it didn't affect you. wrong as it was, just shut the hell up about it now.

Re:Thanks, but...

[mgabrys_sf]

I also recall that the PS2 had many "kitchen sink" features that were phased out including Firewire support, the hard-drive bay and the disktray. I predict that over the lifespan of the product we'll see the unpopular features phased out - except for Blue-Ray of course.

Re:Thanks, but...

[ElleyKitten]

If they're 3 times as good. That's a pretty big if. There are some really good games now, and a lot of shitty games. That's how it's been every generation, and I don't imagine this one will be different. $70 is too much to pay for a game with such a high risk of it sucking.

Re:Thanks, but...

[apoc06]

The ps3 doesnt use memory cards. As a matter of fact they just announced a device you can use to convert your old memory cards to work on the PS3's harddrive if you don't want to lose your progress on ps2 games.

No one is forcing a new format on you. If you dont want to buy any blu-ray movies... then don't. If you're complaining about the price, wait a year or two and the prices will drop. By then you might be caught up to date with your stack of games to play.

The $500 model PS3 doesn't have a memory card reader, so no one is "gouging" you for one. Memory cards/ sticks will not be required to store save games.

The rootkit FUD doesn't apply because the PS3 won't connect to your computer unless you explicitly do so.

The way people have already passed judgement on the PS3 and the Wii before even seeing a single finished game tells me one thing; the whole "it's the games that matter" philosophy doesn't count when its time to pick on the market leader.

As for the PS2 being over $250 for two years, it has always had an equal or lesser pricetag than the xbox.

Re:Thanks, but...

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

I have a feeling that you've never met an Asian. I don't know enough of them to make a sweeping generalization like you've said, but I do know about 2 dozen rich Japanese students who have come over to study at the various universities in my city. I mean, these students have the nicest apartments, awesome cell phones that we won't even get over here for another year or two, and they buy the best food in the highest quantities just to have cuisine parties.
But the one thing they aren't "luxury" about is their video games. They play a lot, but they don't waste money on them. They all have modded ps2's and between the bunch of them they easily have 2 thousand "backup" games. they don't buy their games because it's too much of a waste. They don't plan on buying a new console because it is a waste, they'd much rather use that money for travel, alcohol, and tuition.

My biggest question though is, when you went to Submit did you forget to tick the "Post Anonymously" box or what?

Re:Thanks, but...

[Thangodin]

What I said is based on industry reports on game and console sales and subscriptions in Asia, as well as weekly reports on XBox 360 sales vs projected sales, and what co-workers who vacation in Japan have been told by their friends over there.

Lineage went to the top of the MMORPG market based on the Asian market alone; WoW went from 3 millian to 6 million subscribers in 3 weeks on entering the Asian market. People in South Korea regularly play these games until they literally drop dead; this has happened often enough that the government is drafting a law to try to limit this. These are subscription based products--no piracy possible. Wizardry, long since a memory here, is still updated and reissued in Japan--it was the only thing that kept Sirtech afloat in the latter days. We get about half of the gadgets on the market here that are available in Japan. The demand there far surpasses the demand here.

So this isn't anecdotal evidence, based on a couple guys I met. This is a long established pattern going back 30 years.

You know the old saying...

[__aaclcg7560]

Nothing is over until Nintendo sings a wheeee!

Too much for a console.

[GigG]

Why should I spend $500-$600 on a console when I already spent $3000+ on an Alienware?

Re:Too much for a console.

[Doytch]

Where to start... 1) Probably the most obvious, 4D 2) You can use your PSP as a rear view mirror in racing games 3) Innovation such as real-time weapon switching 4) The ability to flip over this crab and stab it in it's weak spot for MASSIVE damage 5) The ability to swing your controller around like someone with cerebral palsy while playing an average flying game 6) Crappy Yu-Gi-Oh games 7) Being on the cusp of innovation with Blu-Ray Honestly, I could go on and on...

Re:Too much for a console.

[RingDev]

I would actually venture a guess that the type of person who spends $3000+ on an Alienware is significantly MORE likely to buy the PS3. That kind of disposable income coupled with a strong desire for top-end/latest greatest.

The PS3 is trying to be a cutting edge entertainment system. The question is, will the BluRay player (err HD, whichever it uses) make enough value for consumers to buy it? If you are already in the market for a $300 HD/BluRay player AND a $300 console, then the PS3 makes sence. If you are in the market for a $40 DVD player and a $200 Console, then a Wii makes sence. If the high def video disk market doesn't pan out, then the PS3 is screwed.

-Rick

Re:Too much for a console.

[Osty]

If you are already in the market for a $300 HD/BluRay player AND a $300 console, then the PS3 makes sence.

That's not the target market, though. BD players are in the $1000 range (HD-DVD players are a bit cheaper, but still in the $500-1000 range). The type of person who's going to buy a $1000 BluRay player is not the type of person who will compromise with an integrated unit, because integrated units generally suck (the PS2 was a horrible DVD player, for example). What Sony is really hoping for is that they can get the people in the market for a $600 console, and have them decide to buy BluRay movies since they get a player for "free". The problem is that there's virtually nobody in the market for a $600 console. It doesn't help that the few people in that market (who normally wouldn't pay above $400 for a new console, but are willing to pony up $200 more because it's Sony) are quickly being alienated by Kutaragi's reality distortion field.

Besides, nobody wants to use a game controller as a remote control for movies.

If you are in the market for a $40 DVD player and a $200 Console, then a Wii makes sence

If you're in the market for a $40 DVD player, buy a $40 DVD player. It'll still be a better DVD player than a Wii, Xbox 360, or PS3. The Wii's rumored to be priced in the "optimal" price range ($200-300) for a new console. The market for a $250 console is huge. Maybe you're not in that market (preferring to buy when prices are < $200), but your absence does not make the market any less significant.

If the high def video disk market doesn't pan out, then the PS3 is screwed.

Just like the PSP is screwed because the mobile video disc market didn't pan out? UMD sucked, and is thankfully (almost?) dead, but the PSP could pull it together and still be a kickass game machine. It probably won't, given the utter lack of must-have games (the few top-notch games have also seen releases outside the PSP, or will shortly -- GTA: Liberty City Stories on PS2, Lumines on Xbox Live Arcade). The PS3 could still pull off being a kickass game machine even if BluRay tanks as a video format. Sony is making a big bet by including BluRay (without BD, the PS3 would probably be priced the same as Xbox 360 -- $300-400), and that'll probably screw them whether or not BluRay takes off, but they just might pull it off.

Re:Too much for a console.

[b0r1s]

Simply put,

The $200-$300 console market is much larger than (the $600 market + the $300BluRay AND $300console) market.

Sony is going to take a hit this round - still not out, they can always catch up in 5 years with the next round...

Re:Too much for a console.

[teslar]

Because you evidently have a thing for overspending on unnecessary yet overpriced things? :)

Re:Too much for a console.

[ZakuSage]

Metal Gear Solid 4.

Re:Too much for a console.

[RingDev]

"The PS3 could still pull off being a kickass game machine even if BluRay tanks as a video format"

But how many people will spring for a $600 game console? If BR tanks, Sony would be better off re-tooling for a cheap CD/DVD player and dropping the price. $400 for a top end console makes a lot more sence then $600 for a top end console with a worthless feature.

-Rick

Re:Too much for a console.

[Nossie]

.... and in the process piss off all the cash wadded fanbois that did decide to buy a PS3 this time...

they are starting to sound like Sega.

Re:Too much for a console.

[Osty]

But how many people will spring for a $600 game console? If BR tanks, Sony would be better off re-tooling for a cheap CD/DVD player and dropping the price. $400 for a top end console makes a lot more sence then $600 for a top end console with a worthless feature.

Exactly. However, I don't expect Sony to retool, because BluRay won't be an obvious failure until at least a year into its life. That means there's a good chance there will already exist PS3 games on BD media, which means Sony can't retrofit the PS3 back to a DVD drive.

UMD as a video format is dead, but Sony's not going to rework the PSP to use a different medium. Similarly, if BluRay fails as a video format that doesn't mean it's now useless as a game medium. The point is that failure of BluRay will not cause the PS3 to fail. The PS3 is quite capable of failing all on its own (and possibly taking out BluRay with it on its way down).

Re:Too much for a console.

[RingDev]

But if UMD added $200 to the price of the PSP and sales were in the tanks anyways (as in no product shortage at launch), what do they have to lose?

-Rick

Re:Too much for a console.

[spiderbitendeath]

I thought Microsoft was the one coming out with the add on optical drive. Sony must be Sega around Saturn era, and Microsoft is still stuck in Genesis era.

Re:Too much for a console.

[drsquare]

and Microsoft is still stuck in Genesis era.

No, the Genesis was successful.

Re:Too much for a console.

[KDR_11k]

A year after launch I wouldn't even expect any major savings from replacing the bluray drive with a DVD drive. Those things are going to get cheaper pretty quickly.

Re:Too much for a console.

[Osty]

A year after launch I wouldn't even expect any major savings from replacing the bluray drive with a DVD drive. Those things are going to get cheaper pretty quickly.

I don't know about that. DVDs were on the market as early as 1996, but prices didn't really plummet until 1999 or later (higher-end DVD players were still $800-1000 in 2000). BluRay just shipped this year, so I'd expect it to take at least a few years before technological advances and economies of scale make drives dirt cheap. The difference here is that game consoles didn't switch to DVD until prices were already dropping (2000 for the PS2, 2001 for the Xbox). Microsoft and Nintendo are following history and waiting until at least the next generation in another ~5 years before shipping a console using HD-DVD or BluRay (the upcoming 360 HD-DVD attachment not withstanding, since that's video-only and not a way to allow games to use HD-DVD as a medium). Sony isn't, and they're going to take a huge hit to do so.

While it's accepted that the console market is a razor/razor blades type of market, it doesn't have to be. Nintendo eventually made a profit on the GameCube (not necessarily at launch, but not long after either), and Microsoft's set up to be able to do the same with Xbox 360 (they own all of the IP this time around, which means they have no restrictions on chip manufacturers or consolidation of chips to produce cheaper parts, and using a removable hard drive means they won't have to pay a premium to be able to get 8-10GB drives in a market where the smallest 3.5" drives are 40GB). Even if Sony could conceivably innovate away the entire cost of the PS3 besides the BD drive (which they'll not even come close to doing, given the complexity and horrible yields of the Cell chips), BluRay drives won't drop in price fast enough to allow for a profit on the PS3 within its lifetime.

Maybe the PS3 will buck the trend and get 10 years of life out of the console ("life" meaning "between release of the console and release of its successor", as there will almost certainly be PS3 games released for a year or two after PS4 ships), but history makes that seem very unlikely. Using US release dates, the gap between PS1 and PS2 was 5 years (95 to 00), the gap between NES and SNES was 6 years (85 to 91), the gap between Genesis and Saturn was 6 years (89 to 95), etc. Even going back to the Atari days, there was only a 5 year gap between the 2600 and the 5200 (77 to 82). Historically, console generations only last 5 years, 6 at most. There'll be another generation of consoles come 2010-2011, and Sony won't want to be left behind.

Re:Too much for a console.

[steveo777]

I've thought about that, too. But I have to ask you and anyone else. Is the momentary satisfaction really worth wasting $700 on? Even if there will be other games, is the 20-50 hours of distraction really worth it? Not to mention the cost of a TV that can display it properly? Though it's very possible that you already have that.

I've been gaming since the Commadore 64 my parents bought when I was young, but never have I considered paying more than $200 for a console. And I lose interest in gaming every day. Mostly because I don't enjoy playing games by myself. I love the Metal Gear series (save anything to do with Raiden, unless he is dieing in a fire), but $700 just for the next game is about 500 too much.

Re:Too much for a console.

[apoc06]

Yes, but just like with DVD, Sony has partial ownership of the technology. They can give themselves a much larger discount and don't have to deal with licensing fees. As the manufacturing process gets more streamlined and factories become more efficient, manufacturing prices will drop significantly. If the PS3 starts taking a hit in sales, they will have the liberty to drop the price for the consumer. Prices do drop pretty quickly; they just aren't always reflected in drops in the retail price.

Major titles for ps1 were released for 9 years; At least until 2003 [I recall waiting to buy Final Fantasy Origins]. Sony so far is the only company that's been dedicated to the support of their older consoles well past the release of a next generation successor. Every title doesn't have to be AAA, but there's enough software out there that is enjoyable to keep you searching through bargain bins for ten years. By the time you get tired of that, I'm sure the ps3 will be cheap enough for most people to buy it if they want.

Re:Too much for a console.

[elrous0]

real-time weapon switching

Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see it.

-Eric

Re:Too much for a console.

[ZakuSage]

It's MGS4. I'd pay any amount to play it.

Sony who? Already sold my shares

[WillAffleckUW]

and bought a PS2 cheap to last until the Wii comes out this fall.

Face it, day late and a dollar short, even if Sony suddenly "decided" to sell PS3 at $299, they've already lost mind share and many game developers have already added Wii support (not originally planned) and are shorting the number of game units they're planning to ship for PS3, according to the news reports in the print edition of the Wall Street Journal ...

Re:Sony who? Already sold my shares

[Anonymous Coward]

I love Nintendo, but I don't know if you are blinded by your own fanboism or you simply lack the logic to think the situation through. As long as the big franchises remain exclusive on the PS3, fans of PS2 will pay any price for the PS3. In fact, price is only a small part of the equation once gamers see their favorite games in next-gen glory. Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Metal Gear Solid, Devil May Cry, God of War, Virtua Fighter, Kingdom Hearts, Shadow of Colossus, Gran Turismo, and many, many more are exclusive for the PS3, and that is what PlayStation fans care about.

Re:Sony who? Already sold my shares

[spiderbitendeath]

Uhm... on IGN they said Dragon Quest was coming to Wii. http://wii.ign.com/articles/709/709625p1.html

Re:Sony who? Already sold my shares

[aliquis]

Many(?) of the games you mention exist on other platforms to, some probably arrived on another, and nothing say they will remain sony exclusive forever (if they aren't made by Sony and they really want that ofcourse.)

Final fantasy was a Nintendo game, 1-2, 4-6 exist or will exist for the GBA, 3 for DS, also crystal chronicles.
Someone had already answered with dragon quest for wii.
I know metal gear solid exist for Gamecube, some virtua fighter game aswell.

And so on.

Re:Sony who? Already sold my shares

[KDR_11k]

Devil May Cry is no longer exclusive, by the way. It's being made for the 360 and Wii as well.

Re:Sony who? Already sold my shares

[ZakuSage]

No, that rumor was confirmed false.

Re:Sony who? Already sold my shares

[WillAffleckUW]

Well, they announced that Spore is coming out for the Wii, think target date is March 2007.

So, I have no further reason to wait for the PS3, and I won't miss the DRM.

Re:Sony who? Already sold my shares

[apoc06]

Not quite. Sony is a partial owner of Squaresoft. Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games technically can appear on other consoles, but not main titles; only the spinoff series like Crystal Chronicles and Final Fantasy Tactics. The game you are thinking of is Dragon Quest Swords, not Dragon Quest IX. If you read the article, you will see that the game barely even resembles an RPG.

Wah?

[Anonymous Coward]

" the media paints a picture of Microsoft being victorious before the first shot is even fired"

Uh, and where exactly are these media stating anything of the sort?

Can't be talking about Japan...
Can't be talking about Europe...
Can't be talking about the trashing MS took over botched backwards compatibility...
Can't be talking about the insane numbers of defected consoles that the media has been reporting...
Can't be talking about the lower than first Xbox sales the media has been reporting...
Can't be talking about the ridicule almost everything is met with in the media from any of the Xbox execs...

If there is good press for the 360, I'd love to see it.

Re:Wah?

[Anonymous Coward]

What Zonk wrote:

" the media paints a picture of Microsoft being victorious before the first shot is even fired"

What Zonk meant:

" I paint a picture of Microsoft being victorious before the first shot is even fired"

Re:Wah?

[Tyger]

Maybe by "The media" they mean people like Zonk.

Re:Wah?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is good press for the 360, I'd love to see it.

Try getting your news from a source other than comments on Slashdot.

Re:Wah?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy. The best press for the 360 ever is super-easy to find.

"Five-hundred and ninety-nine dollars" ~ Sony

Re:Wah?

[marshallbanana6]

Not that I'll buy a 360, or anything, but MS has gotten some decent press in NA over the "success" of Live and Live Arcade. Just sayin' it's out there.

Re:Wah?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only good press for MS is MS owned, and Xbox fanboys - personally I have zero desire to play the new xbox and eagerly await the ps 3. Why? Well aside from being better in every way from a tech spec standpoint by at least a factor of two, the PS 3 uses Blu-ray, and while many are quick to denounce Blu-ray, personally it's where I see the future of the format. Then there is the games, Sony has all the games I'm interested in playing and most of them aren't even available on other systems. Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Devil May Cry, Tekken - to name a few Sony-supporting franchises I know I'll enjoy and can't get anywhere else. Of course, there is the terrible price of the thing, and many are quick to point it out but if you include the cost of upgrading to the latest format, it is lessened (though still hefty), but I'm willing to chew it down over the latest xbox just because of the games it plays. If the Playstation 3 is anything like the PS One and Two in the games that come out for it, I can expect to find all the games that actually appeal to me are already made for it - can't say the same thing for the xbox, and I haven't been able to say the same thing about the Nintendo in a long time (too kiddy for me now, bring me back Zelda when the polygons hid his apparently (as seen on n64 onward) boyish looks and frilly world.

Not endeared to ANYBODY

[sehlat]

After the infamous ROOTKIT incident, I'm not interested in giving Sony a dime ever again.

Re:Not endeared to ANYBODY

[pembo13]

How is the post flame bait? I too will not be conciously buying any Sony products unless it is to save someone's life.

Re:Not endeared to ANYBODY

[|/|/|||]

Hmm, this is currently modded flamebait, which strikes me as unfair. Is it not sensible to boycott a company that engages (or at least has recently engaged) in shady business practices?

Take me, for example. I own several Sony products, including a PS2, an NTSC monitor, and a receiver. Will I ever buy another product from them? Not in the foreseeable future. I've been shopping around for digital cameras and camcorders for the last few days, and I've been skipping right over the Sony models. They probably have exactly what I'm looking for, and in the right price range too, but that big SONY on the side of it might as well say 'Made by slave labor'. I'm not even going to give their offerings any consideration.

In other words, I don't like their business practices, so I won't give them my money. Not only is that not flamebait, it's completely pertinent to the topic! I was planning to buy a PS3 this generation, but not now. The high price that they've announced isn't even the deciding factor, since I was going to wait a couple of years for it to come down - the real reason is the rootkit, pure and simple.

Re:Not endeared to ANYBODY

[Ant P.]

I'd give them a bit of credit, their headphones are good. But at this point I'd never trust anything from Sony that isn't entirely built from discrete components.

Re:Not endeared to ANYBODY

[cthellis]

After the infamous ROOTKIT incident, I'm not interested in giving Sony a dime ever again.

I'm curious, have you ever given a dime again to Ubisoft, Codemasters, or anyone that's ever used StarForce?

Re:Not endeared to ANYBODY

[setien]

To be fair, SCE and sonys music division are like 2 different companies.

Re:Not endeared to ANYBODY

[masklinn]

Their earphones are "not too crappy" at best, you can get much better 'phones from others (AKG or Sennheiser for example, and maybe Koss if you don't care about sound quality but want a lot of bass)

Re:Not endeared to ANYBODY

[marshallbanana6]

I wish the general public were as cool as you. But seriously, many of MS business practices are quite shady as well. Are you still going to buy their products? (Quite possibly since this is /. you never have, but the point is that many people find it hard to stand on principles they know are right when faced with a product that is just too difficult to pass up.)

Case in point: I'm not going to cite it here but much commercial chocolate especially in the US comes from Ivory Coast, where for years chocolate plantations have "employed" young boys (sometimes kidnapping them) and mistreating them to harvest their cocoa. Do you pay attention to this when you buy chocolate? Or is it only when someone steps on -your- right to privacy that you begin to boycott?

Re:Not endeared to ANYBODY

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you should stop doing busness with just about every compnay out there. They are all in it for $$$.

Take the beloved Apple for instance. They are ALL about vendor lock in. They have been since the mac hit the street. They got 'open' for a little while but it destroyed their company. So they unopened themselves. In all of the ironies they company everyone loves to hate is more open, Microsoft. Now I am not saying Microsoft is a joy to deal with software wise. But as a business I have *NEVER* had a bad dealing with them. I have dealt with them a few hundred times. Every *SINGLE* time I have come away being strangly impressed. Maybe my expectations were low enough that I was not disapointed. Apple, Dell, Sony on the other hand I have felt I needed to take a shower after dealing with the many levels of crap I do not want to deal with them anymore. Does Apple have a better OS than MS? That could be debated for many moons it is just Unix BSD after all with some wizzy graphics added on. But I do not buy computers for wizzy OS's I buy them to use my applications. Am I going to give up my apps for a similar set of apps? No.

Sony used to be a company you *KNEW* you bought Sony and you were getting maybe not the BEST piece of kit but you were getting a solid piece of hardware. The last 3 things I have bought from them had to go right back because of defects. I do not care about lock in with them we are talking a console anyway. But straight up bad manufacture. They *NEED* to get their act together.

Also the made by slave labor you might as well skip just about anything you buy in any store of with any sort of electronic part inside. Including your TV, your microwave, stove, car, fridge, computer, consoles, etc. Even the cloths you wear I bet much of it was made by people who are *GLAD* to get 10-15 dollars a week. For 60-70 hour weeks. This includes big name companies like Nokia, Cannon, Microsoft, Apple, IBM. Get off your high horse. Your justifications for not buying sony are weak and pittiful. A real reason is 'it does not do what I want', 'it does the same thing as this other thing and costs more', 'I do not like the way it looks'. Use the 'slave labor' one and you better not buy just about anything that has the word 'china' or 'mexico' on it, anywhere.

Will I be getting a PS3? Maybe. But at 500-600 it is a bit out of reach for now. I shall wait and get it the next xmas, maybe.

Re:Not endeared to ANYBODY

[YomikoReadman]

I know you're trolling; the mac whining makes that obvious. However, you do server as a nice stepping stone for a point I'd like to make.

Then you should stop doing business with just about every compnay out there. They are all in it for $$$.

Ultimately, everyone, business or not is in it for the money. You are, I am, everyone is in it for the money. That doesn't mean shut yourself up in a closet for the rest of your life. However, when a company engages in unconscionable business practices, as Sony has proven themselves quite willing to do, following the 'Rootkit Incident' as well as their patent on locking discs down to a single player, it is at that point a great deal of informed individuals will make the decision to boycott their products.

Generally, this doesn't stop at the level of the product affected by the bad decision. It generally effects every market they're involved with. Personally, I can speak the truth of this. Not only do I have no plans to buy a PS3, but the Sony monitors I was planning on picking up will likely be from someone else. Cheers!

Re:Not endeared to ANYBODY

[ivan256]

It should be moderated flamebait along with anybody who calls it a 'rootkit'. We should have seen it coming, back when the first stories were posted saying the software used rootkit technology to hide itself from the user that it would be called a rootkit from then on, but it's not a rootkit. Rootkits are very specific things that exist to give a remote entity root access to your machine. This was spyware, pure and simple.

Yes, I'm being pedantic, but it's important. You are using a pseudonym: '|/|/|||'. Terrorists use pseudonyms. Should we call you a terrorist because you're using one of the same techniques?

Re:Not endeared to ANYBODY

[Mark Gillespie]

Nowhere near as dodgy as Microsoft buisness practices. The Rootkit issue was blown out of all proportion, some media channels reporting it was spyware or a virus!! By posting something like you did, all you have confirmed, is that you have been suckered in by the Sony bashing sites, that have something to gain by knocking back Sony.

Re:Not endeared to ANYBODY

[|/|/|||]

Hmm. I didn't study the Sony software in detail, but if I remember correctly it ran hidden in the background and prevented you from ripping Sony CD's. I wouldn't call that alone "spyware", but maybe it was also phoning home to report the user's actions. If so, then yes, it was spyware.

That aside, what would you call a rootkit that was modified to run independently, without requiring input from a "remote entity"? It's similar to a trojan, but the defining characteristic of a trojan is that it sneaks in by looking like something desirable. That doesn't apply in the case of Sony's software, so what was it? It existed to give a local, alien program root access to your machine. Seems to fit your definition with the exception that the remote entity doesn't interact with the program at runtime. They just set it up initially and it does it's thing on its own.

In other words, "rootkit" seems more applicable than "spyware" to me. I'm completely open to suggestions, though - I'm not an expert on malware taxonomy, I just know what I hate. ;)

Re:Not endeared to ANYBODY

[ivan256]

The software did, in fact, phone home every time the user played an XCP 'protected' CD.

Re:Not endeared to ANYBODY

[tbannist]

It's simple. The fact that you plan to overreact and boycott a company for something they did months ago is now irrelevent. You shouldn't repeat it every single time the company is mentioned. It makes you a dull boor, and your friends start avoiding you because you act like an asshole. So save your diatribe until somebody asks you if you plan to buy, otherwise just shut up about it. We've heard it all before and we're tired of your loud mouth griping. So it's correctly modded as flamebait.

Too early to tell.

[Ristol]

It's true that we won't actually know for certain the winner of this generation's console war until a year and a half from now. Of coures, that isn't going to stop anyone from speculating!

3-way tie

[ProppaT]

I honestly see this generation war being a 3 way tie amongst the comeptitors. Nintendo offers something different, MS offers a strong online gameplay, and Sony offers the uberhaus of game power. Where as the last gen was really pick or choose (i.e., nothing really differentiated the systems except for the lincenses on each system), this generation will see much more of a differentiation of the type of games for each system. Old Skool gamers will probably lean towards Nintendo, PC and online gamers towards MS, and new skool gamers towards Sony.

We could actually see a 3 way split for the first time in history. It'll be interesting to see what Nintendo and MS do in 5 years when Sony insists their console will last til 2017....

Re:3-way tie

[Anonymous Coward]

>MS offers a strong online gameplay

Huh?

MS has the worst online system of the three by a huge margin.

Only a tiny percentage of 360 owners even play online due to the ridiculous 50 dollar a year charge - that adds up to two to three hundred bucks players have to waste over the life of the console.

Even being generous and taking the Xbox marketing numbers at face value, the first Xbox had less than seven percent of owners playing online. And the latest press release from Microsoft about their online service didn't even mention the number of people currently paying the 50 dollar charge - so the numbers can't be very good.

And even if you are willing to stomach the online charge, 360 games have much less players than the better looking pc versions of games. Even something as simple as Street Fighter was just talked about a couple days ago of having tremendous lag.

Microsoft better get their act together on the online front or they are going to be completely irrelevant in the console market.

Re:3-way tie

[ScaryFroMan]

You're right. Xbox Live is far, far worse than the PS2 and Gamecube online capabilities. I don't even see why Microsoft can even call it an online service.

Re:3-way tie

[Blakey Rat]

Where to start...

MS has the worst online system of the three by a huge margin.

Uh. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Microsoft, at this exact moment in time, have the *only* online system of the three? Sure, Wii has a online system announced, as does Sony, but they don't exist right now... correct?

So it might be accurate to say that MS has the worst online system, by definition. They also have the best online system, but definition.

Only a tiny percentage of 360 owners even play online due to the ridiculous 50 dollar a year charge - that adds up to two to three hundred bucks players have to waste over the life of the console.

Actually, 360 owners can access the vast majority of Xbox Live functions without paying a single cent. Whether or not you think the $50/year fee is a waste or not, that kind of comes down to opinion more than anything else... personally I think the service is worth it.

Even being generous and taking the Xbox marketing numbers at face value, the first Xbox had less than seven percent of owners playing online.

Ok; and how does that convince me that Xbox Live is bad again? What percentage of PS2 players played online games using their console? What about Gamecube players? Without comparing your "7%" number to anything, it means nothing.

And the latest press release from Microsoft about their online service didn't even mention the number of people currently paying the 50 dollar charge - so the numbers can't be very good.

Or maybe it didn't mention it just because it, uh, didn't happen to mention it.

And even if you are willing to stomach the online charge, 360 games have much less players than the better looking pc versions of games.

Cite, please? Additionally, "pc versions of games" doesn't imply "pc versions of the same game"... so that's pretty meaningless.

Even something as simple as Street Fighter was just talked about a couple days ago of having tremendous lag.

1) The article was talking about needing something like 13ms timing to fulfill his expectations. That's not possible over the Internet whether you're playing on a Xbox or on a super-buff PC.

2) At least Xbox Live Arcade *has* Street Fighter 2 available for purchase. Where's my downloadable version for GameCube and PS2?

Microsoft better get their act together on the online front or they are going to be completely irrelevant in the console market.

Uh. Yah. Don't hold your breath.

Re:3-way tie

[Yvan256]

Uh. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Microsoft, at this exact moment in time, have the *only* online system of the three? Sure, Wii has a online system announced, as does Sony, but they don't exist right now... correct?

Ok, you're wrong, so let me correct you.

Sure, the Wii isn't out yet, but Nintendo's on-line service was up and running months ago. How do you think Nintendo DS players go against each others online? Nintendo's Wi-Fi Connection, of course (and I'm not talking about their hotspots/McDonald's venture either).

Actually, 360 owners can access the vast majority of Xbox Live functions without paying a single cent. Whether or not you think the $50/year fee is a waste or not, that kind of comes down to opinion more than anything else... personally I think the service is worth it.

"Xbox Live!" functions indeed. If you have an "online system" for a gaming console, I'd like to assume it's to play the damn games, you know, "online". Paying 50$US/year on top of your internet connection to really have an "online service" for a game console is just stupid.

Ok; and how does that convince me that Xbox Live is bad again? What percentage of PS2 players played online games using their console? What about Gamecube players? Without comparing your "7%" number to anything, it means nothing.

If I'm not mistaken there's only two online games for the Gamecube. And one of them (MMORPG) had a monthly fee. Add to that the fact that you had to buy the network add-on, and Nintendo really dropped the ball on that one.

As for the PS2 players, well.... if I'm not mistaken, there's no central network for the PlayStation 2 (apart for games such as FF XI), so keeping track of PS2 on-line usage is near impossible.

Or maybe it didn't mention it just because it, uh, didn't happen to mention it.

I think what the OP meant was that Microsoft can say "1 million Xbox 360 users go online" when the actual number of people really "playing online" (as in, paying for the gold membership at 50$US/month just so they can play against other players) could be as low as 5000.

Re:3-way tie

[Blakey Rat]

Sure, the Wii isn't out yet, but Nintendo's on-line service was up and running months ago. How do you think Nintendo DS players go against each others online? Nintendo's Wi-Fi Connection, of course (and I'm not talking about their hotspots/McDonald's venture either).

So the system for the DS is the same as the system for the Wii? If so, this is the first I've heard that little gem of news. In any case, Live is still the best service available because it has tons more features than the DS service. When the Wii comes out, that might change, but for now I stand by what I said.

"Xbox Live!" functions indeed. If you have an "online system" for a gaming console, I'd like to assume it's to play the damn games, you know, "online". Paying 50$US/year on top of your internet connection to really have an "online service" for a game console is just stupid.

That's an opinion, of course. Like I said, I think the Live service is worth the money. If you don't, Microsoft doesn't force you to buy it-- but you still get all the free demos, updates and Live Arcade availability as anybody else.

Is this better or worse than the DS system? Well, you can't download demos on the DS system, so there's a strike against it. You can't download game updates, either. Nor can you download casual games from it. Look! Live is still the best online service right now!

If I'm not mistaken there's only two online games for the Gamecube. And one of them (MMORPG) had a monthly fee. Add to that the fact that you had to buy the network add-on, and Nintendo really dropped the ball on that one.

So Live is doing far better than the GameCube's "online system", which probably had closer to 0.7% of owners than 7%.

As for the PS2 players, well.... if I'm not mistaken, there's no central network for the PlayStation 2 (apart for games such as FF XI), so keeping track of PS2 on-line usage is near impossible. ... and you have no clue if it's better or worse than PS2. That's not very convincing.

I think what the OP meant was that Microsoft can say "1 million Xbox 360 users go online" when the actual number of people really "playing online" (as in, paying for the gold membership at 50$US/month just so they can play against other players) could be as low as 5000.

And?

If people are too stupid to recognize the difference between "1 million users can go online" and "1 million users are online" then that's their own problem. The fact is, the article doesn't mention it simply because it doesn't. It's not some conspiracy theory.

Re:3-way tie

[ivan256]

Uh. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Microsoft, at this exact moment in time, have the *only* online system of the three?

Doesn't that technically make him correct?

Re:3-way tie

[ivan256]

It seems unlikely.

Microsoft seems to have forgotten how to market a product in a space where they have no monopoly to leverage. They took an excelent product (the 360) and completely blew a year lead through terrible marketing and third party relations. They're not even outselling the competition's previous generation products. The best they can do for the system thus far is release classic video games from their competitors' platforms. Microsoft has two modes, run-away success, and utter failure. They're about to miss the boat on run-away success as of the day the Wii comes out, so the question is how long they are willing to flush money down the toilet on what isn't really a gaming effort, but an effort to get their DRM technology in everybody's living room. They know they can't win that battle from second place. If I had invested in a 360, I'd be scared right now that Microsoft is going to pull the plug early just like they've done with all their other failed attempts at being a market leader... That includes the original Xbox.

Who says it's one or the other?

[The Living Fractal]

Last I recall, the gaming business is HUGE.. and growing still.

Who says if Microsoft makes a bundle of money that there won't still be a bundle for Sony and Nintendo left over? I mean, I think all of the companies can turn a profit in this industry.

And besides, the PS3 is far from just a gaming console. The Blu Ray player capability is what some might call Sony's 'stratz 4 teh win'. I have never owned a Playstation or an Xbox (I play PC games) but even I am thinking about getting a PS3 now. Though I doubt I will, there's no reason for me to want Blu Ray until major rental outlets carry them in my area. I am not someone that wants to watch a movie a hundred times, so renting them is my game.

Anyway, like I said, there's enough pie for them all to get a nice piece IMHO.

TLF

Re:Who says it's one or the other?

[pikakilla]

Id reconsider purchasing the playstation 3 for use as a bluray player. If history repeats itself (which has held consistent for all previous sony consoles), the first gen will have massive problems. I remember my friends complaining about the audio hell that sony shipped for dvd playback combined with a less than stellar picture, but then again, the console was not designed primarily as a game console, not as a dvd playback machine, so if you are willing to endure a less perfect picture and possible hardware failures (ie: disk read errors not unlike those found on the ps2), then the ps3 would be an ok choice; however, as it seems you have never owned a gaming console (or do not play on them anymore), what reason would you have to get the ps3 aside from viewing bluray videos? Just wait for the prices of the machines to come down and forgoe having to worry about all the baggage that a gaming console may bring.

Re:Who says it's one or the other?

[swanriversean]

Actually, the last I remember, the game industry was hurting.
Lower than expected revenues, forcasts revised downward, MS starting the next gen. early ...
This is why the Wii, the DS, Spore, etc. are such big news. They are different, and might attract a new audience.
I'm sure MS and Sony will adapt, they have the resources, but more and more it seems like they are on the wrong track and the train of the future is picking up speed and passing them by.

Re:Not a deer to ANYBODY

[WillAffleckUW]

After the infamous ROOTKIT incident, I'm not interested in giving Sony a dime ever again.

Come on, what's a few Ring 0 takeovers of your system between frenemies?

Besides, the new PS3 includes Blu-Ray DRM as an extra bonus feature, and the controller takes over your toaster and makes it sing ditties about Sony movies! And then it makes the coffee pot ask if you'd like to replace Hot Java with Sony Java!

To be fair...

[vertinox]

Metal Gear Solid just looks freakin awesome on the PS3 that it almost made me cry when I saw the demo videos.

That said... The PS3 price tag actually made me cry along with baby Jesus.

I think my DS can hold me out for a few more years.

Re:To be fair...

[grumbel]

Metal Gear Solid just looks freakin awesome on the PS3 that it almost made me cry when I saw the demo videos.

Wouldn't worry to much about Metal Gear Solid, if PS3 tanks we will see ports of it to other consoles very quickly and even if it doesn't, ports to other consoles are still quite likly. MetalGear2 already has an XBox version and MetalGear1 a Gamecube one, so MetalGear4 on XBox360 or Wii isn't that far of a stretch.

Re:To be fair...

[BlackRookSix]

Metal Gear Solid just looks freakin awesome on the PS3 that it almost made me cry when I saw the demo videos.

*doubletake!* "You still believe demo videos?!?"

Re:3-way tie, maybe in US, not World

[WillAffleckUW]

Microsoft? Worldwide, they didn't sell any more units than Nintendo's supposedly "failed" GameCube.

Now, if I just wanted sports games and FPS, I'd be totally agreeing with you, but MSFT isn't even in the running right now, and Sony's just trying to see if it can be profitable in the second pole position.

Wasn't the first shot already fired?

[Anonymous Coward]

If not... what do you call the Xbox 360? oh... wait... this guy is a sony appologist, OF COURSE the party doesn't start until sony arrives. Idiot.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

[mgabrys_sf]

A POSTIVE article from Slashdot about Sony?

Must be a beer bash at the slashdot offices or something.

I thought I was on Digg for a minute there...

Re:HOLY FUCKING SHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

It's full of backward compliments. This is an article trying to propagandize the debate into "Sony digging itself out of a hole"

Of course, they HAVEN'T SHIPPED A CONSOLE YET, so there is NO HOLE for them to dig out of.

I wonder whether Zonk is getting kickbacks, or is just dumb enough to FUD for Microsoft for free?

Re:HOLY FUCKING SHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

Digg hates Sony more. They're stuck up Microsoft's ass over there. At least on Slashdot it's just Zonk, over there it's all those kids that make you want to never log onto XBox Live again (the ones who yell in "Haha I headshotted your faggot ass!! Fucktardfaggotmonger!" in high pitch girly voices). Then they wonder why people like me hate XBox Live. . .

You guys have it so cheap its not funny.

[bunbuntheminilop]

In Australia/New Zealand, we regularly pay $100-120 for games, and the Xbox360 is around $700 ffs. I WISH I could pay $600 for a console. That would be a dream! Instead, I paid nearly $1000 for my ps2 on the first day, and that didn't include the extra controller/games/memory card etc.

You guys have it so cheap its not funny.

Re:You guys have it so cheap its not funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

but is that before or after the conversion to USD? if before, it's only moderately more expensive than in America.

Re:You guys have it so cheap its not funny.

[bunbuntheminilop]

Yes, with conversion, its about the same, but our average wage rates are roughly the same, dollar for dollar.

Average income, USA = approximatly $35,648.55 (2004)

Average weekly pay, New Zealand $586 * 52 weeks = $30472 (2005)

Now that I see it worked out, thats sorry reading. Thats a pitiful average income. I wonder about Australia.

Australian average weekly income $816.80 * 52 = $42432 (2006)

Oh! Thats a bit better! Maybe I should move to Australia rather than the US. I was thinking about working in the US for a little while, but Austalia doens't seem that bad and it isn't that far away.

Anyway, my point is that I (on average) earn less than someone in the US, dollar for dollar, but videogames are twice as expensive.

Re:You guys have it so cheap its not funny.

[aliquis]

So can't you just import it? Maybe used / from private person / as gift / .. ?

Re:You guys have it so cheap its not funny.

[bunbuntheminilop]

No,

1. I still get killed by the exchange rate and

2. The games all region locked, effectivly. I would have to buy the games from the UK, as they run PAL TV's as well.

Re:You guys have it so cheap its not funny.

[Guppy06]

"In Australia/New Zealand, we regularly pay $100-120 for games,"

In real money, or those funny-colored things you folks like to call "dollars?"

The AUD is worth less than even the CAD these days, and the NZD is worth les than that.

Re:You guys have it so cheap its not funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that we have it cheap. It's that our dollar has value, whereas yours is worthless.

lol

[spykemail]

You can't really lose to Microsft per se, you just sort of run out of money.

There's going to be a winner in the console wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. It seems to me that I've been hearing this same song since Atari vs. Intellivision. There will be no clear victor and until technology changes seriously. There will always be 3-4 viable consoles on the market with real support from game makers.
 
And let's not get hung up on the "slashdot effect" in the real world. No amount of DRM, rootkits or media blubbering is going to stop Joe Sixpack Jr from wanting the latest gaming box. I know that a handful of naysayers on here think that they have the market cornered on common sense but let's face facts; if we really had that much insight into the market of home entertainment what the hell are we doing posting our analysis of the situation for on slashdot for free. People who truely have the market insight are snorting coke on a private jet to the Bahamas today on your dime.
 
As much as I'm not a console man myself (my last being a 2600) I don't see any real reason for this to fail. People I know paid over twice the market value for a XBox 360 when they came out and would have paid the same exact price even if it wasn't the thing to own, at the time.
 
You may call them suckers but they're the ones paying the bills.

the only outlet

[sgt scrub]

If IBM is able to sell MB & processor kits for the CELL platform I won't buy a PS3. Unless someone here on /. knows of a devel kit for under $600 I'll still be waiting. I prefer my games to be on my PC.

Re:the only outlet

[Wesley Felter]

If Sony allows you to run Linux on PS3, then it becomes the Cell dev kit. Anything other than PS3 will not be sold at a loss and thus will cost more.

Re:the only outlet

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you, you know, need more than the 256+256 meg of RAM that it provides. Quite a few programs do, though maybe not stuff that an average desktop user comes across. Or you need a better graphics card (or SLI) for visualisation apps. Or you need 8 instead of 7 SPEs (IBM is using Cells that fail quality control on 1 SPE as PS3 chips, they can't get the yield otherwise), or even that you need 2 or more Cells, or you're doing something involving an add-on card.

PS3 probably makes a great budget Cell workstation but it has lots of limitations from the perspective of someone doing heavy-duty stuff (i.e. the Cell workstation target market).

Re:the only outlet

[CompSciStud4U]

The Wii dev kit comes in under two grand: http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/wii -development-kit-under-2000

Re:Is it one or the other, or only in Paris?

[WillAffleckUW]

One should point out that this was in Euro Gamer, so perhaps they are predicting that Sony will do relatively well in Western Europe, at least holding it's own with Nintendo. As we know, the xBox360 has done better in the EU than in Japan, so perhaps for their own particular market segment this might be true, even if worldwide we're looking at Nintendo domination with Sony a second in Japan and worldwide, while xBox360 will fill the second spot in the US.

But, since we know that most Sony business plans were based on total domination of the console slot, and that Blu-Ray sales were closely tied with this planned dominance, my guess is Sony's going to bleed a lot more before they do well in those two spheres, while Nintendo has a long track record of always being profitable on the consoles alone, and then cleaning up from the game gravy as well.

Re:Too much for a PC

[2nd Post!]

Another question... why should you spend $3000+ on Alienware?

I could have spent:
$599 on a dual core Mac mini with Windows in virtualization and BootCamp for all my PC, Linux, and Mac needs
$599 on a Playstation 3 for my MGS4 needs
$129 on a Nintendo DS for my Tetris DS needs
$249 on a PSP for my Lumines needs

For only $1,580... plus tax.

PS3 better drop in price quick!

[Brian_Ellenberger]

First, let me start with saying I owned a PS1 and a PS2. I was waiting till I heard the price of the PS3 to decide whether to get an XBox360 or wait. When I heard $500-$600 just for the console I got a 360. Why? Because despite a great job, I have a family to support and could not justify spending that much just for the console. It doesn't matter how much better it is, or how many features it has. Just plain couldn't afford it. I think that probably describes a large number of people who aren't "single no kids"---whether they are buying it for themselves or their kids. The only response I have heard to that question is, "DUDE, YOU LOZER IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD ONE YOU SUCK TOO BAD YOU DON'T DESERVE ONE.". To which I shrug, and say fine. Wii looks pretty cool and I may pick one up with the kids are a little older. And if Sony wins the console wars, and lowers the price, I may trade in the 360 for a PS3. I'm not a fanboy. But right now, it just looks like it is out of the price reach for many people.

Re:PS3 better drop in price quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I think you represent the majority of console owners out there.

In spite of how much money a person makes, they usually spend most of it before they get around to looking at "Luxury" items; Rent/Mortgage, Car Payment, Clothing Costs, Investment, and so on tend to increase at a similar level to your income meaning that most people don't have $500+ to purchase a toy at the end of the month. Items like TVs often can get past this because everyone in the family can enjoy a brand-new television, whereas your gaming system tends to exclude the wife/mother and daughters (and often some of the sons) in a household.

It is my belief that Microsoft has been strugling against this with the XBox 360 as well; at $300 and $400 it is still a difficult purchase for the family.

The Wii at $200 (an assumption by me) may very well get past this, the cost is dramatically lower than what the PS3 is and yet it (may) apeals to more than just the core-gaming demographic.

Re:PS3 Baaaaaby!

[Wesley Felter]

Stop posting this crap in every PS3 thread. 1080p over component does not exist, and several of your other points may not exist either.

I'm buying a PS3 and their $70 games

[Travoltus]

And I STILL think that "Try moving to a country with better social programs, you fucking bum" AC is a flaming retard.

PS 3 Online Dark Horse

[SuperKendall]

Granted Microsoft's online offering is really nice.

But Sony is also going online in a big way this time - including free match play that Live costs $50 a year for (today).

So really, part of Sony's success depends on how well the online component works.

Re:PS 3 Online Dark Horse

[Abcd1234]

But Sony is also going online in a big way this time - including free match play that Live costs $50 a year for (today).

'course, the irony here is that the people who'll be willing to drop the dough for a PS3 would presumably be perfectly happy paying for an online service.

Re:PS 3 Online Dark Horse

[Mark Maughan]

I'm not. I am only willing to pay so much for the PS3 because it has a BluRay player. I prefer upfront costs and I don't like the Microsoft model. Perhaps I am an outlier.

I'm Ok with a $500 PS3 though

[SuperKendall]

I have no interest in a $600 console and $70 games.

While still expensive, you can get a base PS3 for $500 that can do everything the $600 model would do as far as games or movies go - don't believe the HDMI hype. That's only $100 more than the 360 with hard drive.

I agree $70 games are starting to get a little rediculous, just wait to buy the console then until the greatest hits releases start coming out much cheaper.

Re:I'm Ok with a $500 PS3 though

[UbuntuDupe]

Oh! Or you could buy the way-old PS2 games (which are the same thing, just with slight worse graphics and different stories) and play them on your PS3! That would save you a ton of money on console games!

Re:I'm Ok with a $500 PS3 though

[UbuntuDupe]

Yeah, that's what I thought, bitch.

Like it's really an either-or proposition.

[Politas]

I know of many gamers who own a high-spec PC, a PS2, an Xbox, etc, etc.

The PS3 is sure to make plenty of cash, and a lot of it will come from people who already own an Xbox360 and a Wii. Hardcore gamers don't care about money.

Re:Like it's really an either-or proposition.

[7Prime]

...yeah, when they run out, they just print up more of it!

Re:Like it's really an either-or proposition.

[marshallbanana6]

Hardcore gamers don't care about money.

D-A-M-N that's hardcore. I wish I was hardcore enough to not care about money! But I guess part of the reason I do care about money is because I am getting married soon, have other priorities, etc. I just spent $420 on a bed today (this was a rediculously good deal, over 25% off a sale price for a great Sealy queen mattress.)

But I guess if I were hardcore I would just sleep on the floor (or still live in my parents' house) and buy a PS3 in addition to my Wii.

Sony's history

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony pulled the CLIE from the US market, despite the fact they where making a profit, just because they had no hope of dominating the PDA market in the US.

Sony Connect music store remains poorly implimented and under marketed.

Sony demostrated no loyality to it's Playstation 2 consumers resulting in a class action lawsuit.

Sony demostrated no loyality to being able to install a hard drive in future iterations of the Playstation 2. If a consumer's PS2 breaks down and they get the latest version of the PS2 then Final Fantasy XI unusable and ensuring that companies would not port other classically computer style games to the PS2.

Sony demostrated no loyality to it's audio CD consumers resulting in a class action lawsuit.

Current reviews of HD-DVD's than Blu-Ray disks indicate that HD-DVD is preferable.

There is currently more HD-DVD titles available than Blu-Ray.

Sony's first priority for the design of Blu-Ray seems to be the triple copy-protection instead of any consumer friendly priorities.

If you don't learn from history then you are doomed to suffer when Sony again pulls an anti-consumer move.

Nintendo and Microsoft seem more interested in this latest round of consoles of delivering features to the consumer than pulling a fast one over on them and then excusing themselves from responsiblity.

Re:Sony's history

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony demostrated no loyality to being able to install a hard drive in future iterations of the Playstation 2. If a consumer's PS2 breaks down and they get the latest version of the PS2 then Final Fantasy XI unusable and ensuring that companies would not port other classically computer style games to the PS2.

I'll buy the rest of your points, but come on, that one is entirely bogus. Yep, players of ONE GAME (that's available on other consoles, mind you) might be inconvienced if their PS2 dies. ONE game. Out of the ENTIRE PS2 library.

Final Fantasy XI isn't exactly a popular enough game for anyone to worry about that.

Sony made the right choice in that case - exactly one game required the hard drive (I think a total of four even used it), and it simply wasn't worth the added cost to maintain compatibility.

There are still enough old-style PS2s in production to keep the minority of FFXI players satisified.

Re:Sony's history

[apoc06]

Sony demostrated no loyality to it's Playstation 2 consumers resulting in a class action lawsuit.

This is different from nintendo denying there being a problem with the DS lite cracking and it affects .02%? Which they actually DO not officially offer to repair for free; the "press release" was faked by DS fans http://www.gwn.com/news/story.php/id/10036/ [to their credit they have offered to fix many, but not all cracked DS's] Or how about MS initially saying that there were no problems with the xbox360 overheating? and that it only affected 4%? [even though people still complain about crashes, overheating and other glitchiness in games: chromehounds for example] Sony is definitely guilty, but no more guilty than any other big corporations in any industry.

Sony demostrated no loyality to being able to install a hard drive in future iterations of the Playstation 2. If a consumer's PS2 breaks down and they get the latest version of the PS2 then Final Fantasy XI unusable and ensuring that companies would not port other classically computer style games to the PS2.

How about blaming Square Enix for not rereleasing a FFXI client that supports external harddrives?

Sony demostrated no loyality to it's audio CD consumers resulting in a class action lawsuit.

I thought we were talking about video games here? How many class action lawsuits have Microsoft and Nintendo been involved in? No one is innocent, don't forget that.

Current reviews of HD-DVD's than Blu-Ray disks indicate that HD-DVD is preferable.

the review is comparing a bad transfer to a good transfer. They both use the same codecs. Both formats can hold a HD quality movie using the exact same transfer, I am more concerned about using the media for storage

There is currently more HD-DVD titles available than Blu-Ray.

I would hope so considering that Blu-Ray only recently came out. More studios support blu-ray, so in the long term your point is moot.

Sony's first priority for the design of Blu-Ray seems to be the triple copy-protection instead of any consumer friendly priorities.

Both next generation movie formats employ the same form of content protection. The DVDs you own currently have copy protection, do you cry about those too? If/ when AACS is cracked, this will become a moot point. [note: AACS has already been "cracked" at least two different ways]

If you don't learn from history then you are doomed to suffer when Sony again pulls an anti-consumer move.

So I assume you complain as loudly when Microsoft and Nintendo pull similar anti-consumer moves too?

Nintendo and Microsoft seem more interested in this latest round of consoles of delivering features to the consumer than pulling a fast one over on them and then excusing themselves from responsiblity.

Again, I say all of the consoles are still on even footing until this fall's launches.

Re:Too much for a PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, silly parent, framerate on CS:Source on your puny Mac Mini will suck.

/amd64/sli 7800s = still gets awped by preteens :(

I love people's lack of memory

[Babillon]

I'd just like to point out for you all the previous prices for Sony consoles: PS2 release -> $600 Yeah, you remember when it first came out right? $600, system only, one controller, no memory card. Games were a good $60 a pop, and so was the frickin' memory card! Oh, here's the fun one... PSX original release, only in Sony Stores -> $600 I like that myself. I just love how no one remembers the fact that *all* of the Playstations in the past (save PSP, but that thing doesn't count anyway, it's a glorified portible DVD player) have been in the neighbourhood of $600. I can also remember a few PS2 games in recent memory that cost roughly $70 (well, $69.99 + tax). I don't see why people complain about the price. Personally, I'll wait until the second batch so they catch any exploders.

Re:I love people's lack of memory

[Anonymous Coward]

That's strange dude, you're the only person on the entire internet with the memory of ANY game console costing $600 except for the CD-i. I wonder why that is? perhaps because you're full of it?

Re:I love people's lack of memory

[Tanmi-Daiow]

Even if, and thats a big if, if those prices were true, I still prefer to look at Nintendo's past of low prices. NES was $200. SNES was $200. N64 was $200. Gamecube was $200. I expect the Wii to be $200. Now, lets look and see which has a more desirable pricing past, hmm? I thought so...(not to mention that the only Nintendo games that cost more the $50 had an extra periperal with them e.g. Rumble Pack + Starfox 64; Bongos + Donkey Konga; etc...)

Re:I love people's lack of memory

[dr.banes]

Where are you getting $600 from for a PS2?-You're memory is all fucked up!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation_2#History Price history North America * US$299.99 (October 26, 2000, Launch Price) (CAD$449.99) * US$199.99 (May 14, 2002) (CAD$299.99) * US$179.99 (May 13, 2003) (CAD$249.99) * US$149.99 (May 11, 2004) (CAD$179.99) * US$129.99 (April 20, 2006) (CAD$139.99) Japan * JP¥39,800 (March 2000, Launch Price) * JP¥35,000 (June 29, 2001) * JP¥29,800 (November 29, 2001) * JP¥25,000 (2002) * JP¥19,800 (November 13, 2003) * JP¥17,800 (June 2004) United Kingdom * GB£299.99 (November 24, 2000, Launch Price) * GB£199.99 (September 26, 2001) * GB£169.99 (September 1, 2002) * GB£139.99 (October 1, 2003) * GB£104.99 (August 18, 2004) Taiwan, Republic of China * NT$10,900 (January 24, 2002, SCPH-30007, Launch Price) * NT$ 7,980 (January 1, 2003, SCPH-30007) * NT$ 6,980 (2003, SCPH-39007) * NT$ 6,980 (October 10, 2003, SCPH-50007) * NT$ 6,480 (January 1, 2004, SCPH-50007) * NT$ 5,888 (June 1, 2004, SCPH-50007) * NT$ 5,888 (November 3, 2004, SCPH-70007) Australia * AU$749.95 (Original Price; the price begun to drop within weeks of its launch) * AU$249.95 (Slim PS2 Launch Price) * AU$199.95 (June 1 2006 Price Drop) Germany * DEM 869 [EUR 445] (Launch) * EUR 140 (August 2006) Russia * RUR 5500 (current) Middle East * US$149 (current) Philippines As of June 2006, shop bought warrantied units of PlayStation 2 Slim (SCPH-70006) run around US$ 217. A recent month long promo of a popular console shop offers trade-in of working or non-working PlayStation console to a brand new PlayStation 2 Slim for US$ 142. Portugal * EUR 129,99 (current) Poland * PLN 2,599,00 z (starting) * PLN 549,00 z for Black Slim and 599,00 z for Silver Slim (current) Finland * Eur 500 (Launch) * Eur 149 (current) Republic of Ireland * IE£ 379 (Launch) * EUR 149 (Current)

Re:I love people's lack of memory

[generic-man]

Based on the fact that you say "neighbourhood", I'm assuming that you live in either Australia or Canada, where the dollar has been worth less than the U.S. dollar (but the American dollar has been losing a lot of value lately). The PS2 started with an MSRP of US$300, but there were widespread reports of people spending over $1,000 for one at launch. I haven't seen a PS2 game debut with an MSRP of higher than US$50, except for games that include extra hardware like DDR pads or guitars.

That said, the Xbox 360 was selling for well over its MSRP after launch: many people ended up spending more than $600 for a platinum bundle. Perhaps the $500/$600 price points are just a way for Sony to milk money from the early adopters leading up to Christmas this year.

Re:I love people's lack of memory

[generic-man]

Both of the launch games for the Nintendo 64 (yes, only two launch games) cost $60. Your "extra peripheral" theory falls flat since neither Super Mario 64 nor Pilotwings 64 supported any sort of multiplayer capability.

Nintendo was roundly criticized for pricing games at $60 and prices eventually dropped, though.

Re:I love people's lack of memory

[Babillon]

I agree wholeheartidly with your point on Nintendo's previous prices (which is one of the reasons I think Nintendo will probably be top dog this run around the block), it still doesn't change the fact that people are complaining about Sony's pricing, but convieniently forgetting their prior systems. I don't disagree that the PS3 is going to cost alot of money ($600 is alot for a system, no matter what you compare it to). I just find it funny how people forget the last two Playstations also came out excesivly expensive. As a note: My quoted rough figures are also in CAD, which may of meant something back when those systems came out, but not anymore.

Re:I love people's lack of memory

[grumbel]

### I'd just like to point out for you all the previous prices for Sony consoles: PS2 release -> $600

You might be thinking about an imported PS2 or live in some kind of parallel universe, but official PS1 and PS2 prices weren't even close to $600:

US$299.99 (October 26, 2000, Launch Price)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2#Price_h istory

Launch price in the American market: US$ 299.00
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation

Re:I love people's lack of memory

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa Im glad I dont live were you live got my Playstaion in the store when it came out 299. And the PS2 came out similarly. I do not recall a 600 dollar cost but either you speak of a none standard release or an import of the system. I followed it well I remember enos lives and still have my demo CD that has Korn on it. If these are special Sony factioned super special releases maybe they will release a 1200 special release.

Re:I love people's lack of memory

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang man, use some line breaks. I might have been able to read your post then.

Re:I love people's lack of memory

[Anonymous Coward]

No one asked your opinion anyway, fucktard.

Re:I love people's lack of memory

[Mattintosh]

The average price for NES games was:
Big-name games: $50
Lesser-known games: $40
Budget games: $30
Greatest Hits: $20

For SNES, that changed to:
Big-name: $60
Lesser-known: $45
Budget: $25
Greatest Hits: $30

To compare/contrast, the Genesis (at roughly the same time) was like this:
Big-name: $60
Lesser-known: $40
Budget: $20
Greatest Hits: $30

The N64 stepped it up to:
Big-name: $60-$80 (depending on raw-cart costs for the much larger ROM chips)
Lesser-known: $60
Budget: $50
Greatest Hits: $50

And the reason Nintendo got so much flack for "high prices" was because the PSX (using much cheaper CD's) was priced like this:
Big-name: $50
Lesser-known: $40
Budget: $30
Greatest Hits: $20

Pretty much everyone that has made disk-based games has priced them at the PSX/NES pricing structure ever since.

Re:I love people's lack of memory

[Chibi-Hikaru]

I haven't seen a PS2 game debut with an MSRP of higher than US$50, except for games that include extra hardware like DDR pads or guitars.

Here's an interesting point about the $70 price point for a game. As much fun as Guitar Hero is to play (at Best Buy) I still can't bring myself to dump $70 for a single game, special controller be damned no matter how much fun I've had with it. Now do you think I'm going to throw $70 at a game that doesn't even come with anything other than the box and instructions? Most probably not.

Re:I love people's lack of memory

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hear it for the Canadian dollar!

Re:I love people's lack of memory

[Mr. Hankey]

You're right about the PS2, people were definitely paying that on eBay. Nonetheless, I have a feeling that past the early adopters paying $1200 or so for the first PS3s, there's going to be some resistance to the price point by parents come the holiday season. Remember that using the PS2 as a DVD player wasn't good for its life span, and doubt the same will be true of the PS3 for blue ray media. If most games will be $70, then I'd bet a few are going to go over $100. I don't write Sony off completely, they did well with the PSX and PS2, but I don't intend to buy a PS3 anytime in the next couple of years. The Wii definitely looks like the way to go for me.

That doesn't make any sense

[why-is-it]

When I heard $500-$600 just for the console I got a 360. Why? Because despite a great job, I have a family to support and could not justify spending that much just for the console. It doesn't matter how much better it is, or how many features it has. Just plain couldn't afford it.

I'm sorry, but that line of reasoning does not any sense to me. If you can afford an Xbox 360 now, I assume you could have saved up the additional money to purchase a PS3 when it becomes available later this year.

It's not as if the PS3 will cost that much more than the 360. It's just incrementally more. Yes, it is expensive, but microsoft isn't exactly giving the 360 away either.

I would have been more partial to your argument if you had said you were holding out for a Wii because that was your price-point.

Re:That doesn't make any sense

[Vegeta99]

Yeah, he could have saved his money up. But his point was that no console is worth $500+. Duh.

Re:That doesn't make any sense

[why-is-it]

Yeah, he could have saved his money up. But his point was that no console is worth $500+. Duh.

Thanks for the flame and all, but you might actually want to go back and actualy read the GPP again...

He says that he bought a 360 because the PS3 is too expensive. He did not offer an opinion on whether any console was worth that much money.

MOD GRANDPA UP

[hotdiggitydawg]

I agree entirely. Had my mod points not expired no less than 10 minutes ago I would've fixed that too.

I too refuse to do business with Sony becuase of their business practices. I've even taken to selling any Sony goods I have so (a) there will be less of a market for new ones (b) I never have to see that offensive brand name in my house again.

If Sony and Microsoft are battle ships...

[LordZardoz]

Than I suppose that makes Nintendo the submarine lurking below the waves, with no one quite knowing where it is or what it will ultimately do. Sure, it has a compliment of torpedo's, but will they be enough to sink either opponent?

END COMMUNICATION

Re:If Sony and Microsoft are battle ships...

[Yvan256]

Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe the next war will be fought under water, where the other two can't even go (unless they sink).

Re:If Sony and Microsoft are battle ships...

[PixelScuba]

Or maybe in SPACE, where NONE of them can go!

One time vs. subscription

[SuperKendall]

'course, the irony here is that the people who'll be willing to drop the dough for a PS3 would presumably be perfectly happy paying for an online service.

Why would you say that? I canceled cable TV and have a pay as you go cell phone plan because I don't like recurring costs. It makes a lot more sense to me to pay $500 + $0 for something I will use for five years (or more) than it does to pay $400 + $50 a year for five years.

Re:One time vs. subscription

[Namarrgon]

That argument might make good sense, if Sony's online service is similar to Microsoft's.

I'm just concerned that "free online gameplay" will be closer to the free XLink Kai for Xbox, than to Xbox Live - i.e. a basic list of player-hosted servers to connect to, then you're on your own.

What about Nintendo?

[nukem996]

I thought the Nintendo Wii was teh predicted winner? From everything ive read its cheaper, has better games, and a more creative/exciting user interface(the controller). Im thinking of getting one it comes out and ive been a PC only gamer for years.

Re:What about Nintendo?

[hkmwbz]

I agree. From TFA:

the media paints a picture of Microsoft being victorious before the first shot is even fired

Huh?!

I don't get these people. Why do they always ignore Nintendo? As far as I can tell it's Nintendo which has been predicted the winner, not Microsoft.

Re:PS3 Baaaaaby!

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP is an obvious PStroll, but component cabling is more than capable of handling 1080p bandwidth, as is VGA. You are only right in the sense that PS3 will be the first consumer-grade device to output 1080p natively over component to compatible display devices (which do exist), sans pricy external upscaler.

AACS may not permit 1080p over component, but if Sony says they want to allow their own games to output a specific high res over a specific carrier, NOBODY outside of the FCC (or equivalent) can stop them. I guess the short answer is that all limitations to 1080p over component/RGB/VGA are bureaucratic ones, not technical ones.

Who cares, I'm all for Wii anyway, with PS3 on the books for whenever they release a non-limited version at a reasonable price. Whooo! I'm sure my large, ISF-calibrated CRT-based HDTV (yay for accurate black levels and variable resolutions!) and I will be quite happy for the years to come.

Just imagine how screwed they are in Japan!

[Corngood]

Please try to understand how currencies work.

Re:Just imagine how screwed they are in Japan!

[bunbuntheminilop]

Please try to understand the principles of burgernomics.

Notice that New Zealand is roughly the same on the BMI as the US, yet our video games are twice the price!

Re:Just imagine how screwed they are in Japan!

[bunbuntheminilop]

burgernomics = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_index

Note to self, preview first!

Luminesweeper is $300 cheaper

[tepples]

$249 on a PSP for my Lumines needs

Or $40 on a SuperCard adapter for your DS for your open-source Luminesweeper needs, right?

Where's the shared-view multiplayer?

[tepples]

Why should I spend $500-$600 on a console when I already spent $3000+ on an Alienware?

Because your $3,000 Alienware doesn't have many games that take full advantage of its video card's TV output or your HDTV's DVI/HDMI input. Name a few Windows native titles that allow the user to plug four gamepads into a hub and play on the same view. I know a lot of you are thinking that you bought into PC to get away from split-screen, but console titles like Smash Bros., Bomberman, Gauntlet, Secret of Mana, Rampart, Amplitude, and the like are simultaneous multiplayer without being split-screen. All four players fight inside one arena, and the game shows the whole arena (or at least enough of it to show all four characters) at once.

Becoming a licensee first?

[tepples]

The Wii dev kit comes in under two grand

But aren't Nintendo development kits, even these cheap ones, available for sale only to established companies that already have a successful commercial title on another platform?

Re:Too much for a PC

[ravenshrike]

Pppphhht, if you want to play a real simulation fps go play WWII online. All CS source is is a game of guess the hitboxes.

Re:Too much for a PC

[KDR_11k]

People buy an Alienware to play games. You aren't going to play many games on a Mac Mini. Never mind that you can get a PC that CAN play games (even pretty recent ones) for the same amount of money.

Re:Not a deer to ANYBODY

[Anonymous Coward]

accidentally modded you instead of your parent...

You're not helping!

[ichigo 2.0]

I'm sorry but that's just bizarro.

How...

[LordVader717]

How can someone make an article like this and only mention "Nintendo" once, without going into anything about the Wii?

If you only leave Microsoft, well then, yeah, it might be a little stupid to write off Sony. But come on.

Re:Too much for a PC

[2nd Post!]

Yeah, well, I didn't post, "Why should I spend $500-$600 on a console when I already spent $3000+ on an Alienware?"

Of course maybe the post was being sarcastic. People spend $600 on a console to play games :)

Online sales

[SuperKendall]

I think Sony has probably seen the potential revenue stream of selling smaller games online and in-game contentas well - which is why Sony's service is free, as they wish to get more people involved and subsidise the costs in other ways. So I'm thinking it will be more like Live than not.

You're right though that the fundamental correctness of my argumnet lies on a service we know nothing about - I admit deducing features by what would bring maximal proit to Sony and fit with what they are doing and have said.

Excuse me?

[Guppy06]

"Even if Sony is failing to endear itself to the media, to analysts or to gamers at the moment, that's no reason for the reality of the next generation console battle to be ignored."

I can understand leaving out media and analysts, but if not the gamers, just who exactly does the PS3 need to endear itself to?

Re:Too much for a PC

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

or Red Orchestra.
Or if you want a demonstration of the frustrating futility of war go get Battlefield 2. You'll thank me when you hose down an enemy 10 feet away with an M249-SAW only to have him go prone, spin around, fire one round and kill you instantly -- Social commentary at its best!

Hey moron

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "bore"--as in your entire existence.

-Your friendly grammar national soci...