Slashdot Mirror
European PS3 Launch Delayed to 2007
An anonymous reader writes "Sony has finally admitted that the November release date for the release of the PS3 is unfeasible. Specifically, it will not be available in any PAL territories until March 2007. Sony cites '(a) delay in the mass production schedule of the blue laser diode', forming a critical part of the much-maligned Blu-Ray drive. With the Xbox 360 having been released for almost 6 months in overseas markets, and the Wii looming large, can Sony afford a delay like this?" Update: 09/06 17:58 GMT by Z : Just to make sure you caught it, the announcement includes the word that the U.S. will only be getting 400,000 units at launch in November, with Japan at 100,000 units. Go Sony.
Sony really seem to be shooting themselves in the foot lately, even if this isn't their fault.
I've got ask now, does anyone else feel that Sony are completely screwing up everything with the PS3?
No really, no troll, no Xbox fanboy'ery - seriously, what the hell is going on with Sony?
I've been following the news on these new consoles from the beggining, there's always been a fairly steady stream of rumours, proven to be true / false, comments, press releases etc, however one thing has stayed solid throughout, Sony keep having bad stuff to say.
There's the price, people speculated for ages, Sony prepared us for a high price with the "you should get a second job, because our console is so great" - the Sony fanboys responded with "they are using reverse psychology, it's going to be well priced, you'll see" (hell not just fanboys, game journalists said this too!) - then bam, 600$
Then they've got 2 units (sku's you Americans call them?) - why?! Don't copy Microsoft it was stupid of them too, it dilutes the market and makes it harder for developers to target a SINGLE stable platform, which is what console gaming and development is about! (idiots! both MS and Sony, bloody idiots!)
Then there's enforced blu-ray, which they may see as a bonus, we may or may not, depending where our loyalties lie.
Then there's the removal of rumble, then there's the loss of GTA4 as an exclusive, then there's delays to PAL regions, then there's rumours of less of them coming out at launch than suspected (it goes on!)
Then there's developer rumours "totally difficult to code for" then there's more rumours "isn't that much more powerful than 360" then there's screenshots pretty much showing it's really not that substantially better
Also the unit is quite a bit bigger than the X360!
The unit is using bluetooth, rumoured to have shitty latency for wireless controllers
On top of all the rumours and debates / speculation, every comment from Sony exec's seems like they are making it up as they go along, not really 100% solid on anything? - it sounds like a small nitpick but for goodness sakes I'm serious, I really am having trouble beleiving anything, some of the things they confirm / deny or speculate it can do seems like the person at the time is just thinking "that sounds good!" and the poor saps in engineering need to figure it out.
Case in point, E3 last year the "mock up" PS3 came with a boomerang controller, it had 2 HDMI out ports, it supported 7 controllers and had 3 network ports, it was capable of pretty much anything according to Sony.
At the time, I call them on it saying due to Microsoft surprisingly announcing the X360 much more complete than expected 1 week before E3, Sony panicked, pulled out a beta unit from the development cupboard, stuck a backplate on the empty plastic box and grabbed a beta controller to boot!
The back of the 2005 E3 model was a joke, it was like some dickhead manager was telling the illustrator designed, no no copy and paste, we want more of that port and more of this port, more ports! yeah! - 2/3 of them removed now, hummmmmmmm
You've also got Sony far less capable of making a decent unified online system like live as well (no, not an MS fanboy, see my post history, I'm just a cynic)
I do NOT WANT Microsoft running the gaming industry then nickel and diming us gamers with microtransactions and monthly / yearly fees, so I need Sony to do fairly well, but they are arrogantly riding on brand loyalty assuming they will be the best period, I feel they could be wrong.
(Yes, I'm also aware Sony would nickel and dime us like MS with microtransactions and fee's HOWEVER I firstly don't feel Sony would do it as aggressively and secondly with competition Sony can at least keep MS in check)
Either way the PS3 (in my opinion) thus far has been a shambles, a complete ballsup of epic proportions, I hope it does work out and I hope it does drop price, but at this rate who knows.
[NELSON] Ha ha! [/NELSON]
Circumcision is child abuse.
Why bash when they do such a fine job of looking stupid all by themselves?
I'm struggling to remember the last time they did anything right.
http://www.totalvideogames.com/news/North_America_ And_Japan_Also_Hit_By_PS3_Component_Crisis_10566_0 _0.htm
400 000 units for USA and 100 000 for Japan - the launch starts to sound not-so-spectacular.
Or is this clever marketing?
The only reason they're using Blu-ray in the PS3 is to try and take over the HD media market. So, yes, this is their fault. If the stuck with DVD which is more than adequate for next-gen gaming, they wouldn't be having this problem and the PS3 might have already launched.
But their insistance on trying to abuse a monopoly they don't actually have is causing them to become more and more of a joke and less and less likely to be even relevant this generation. If it winds up being a choice between a $300 Wii now and a $600 PS3 months from now the choice of which to buy becomes even easier than it was before.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Nothing's changed:
The PS3 was originally not going to be released in Europe until Q1 2007
It then got brought forward to November 2006
It then got put back to March 2007
Not really much of a delay in my opinion...
Summation 2
Short answer: No Long answer: No, they can't afford a delay like this.
games journalism blog
I'm posting this on pure speculation as I've not investigated but AC I don't know if you're aware of this but apparently Sony is very much in the RED financially, they are betting the whole lot on the PS3 and blu-ray adoption.
There was even a large article recently on how Sony the entire corp NEEDS the PS3 to win or they are stuffed.
Assuming this is true, this means the PS3 doesn't just have to keep the gaming division up but the rest of Sony too.
The PS2 was an amazing success overall and it might be capable of that but it's dwindling now, what about the PS3, can it save Sony so they can get back on track? Who knows but based on what I've heard from them, I'm not touching that thing until it's at least PS3 revision 3 or 4 with some problems fixed and software released.
But then I thought, well... I dunno... somehow, everything is.
Meta will eat itself
But it's the Americans who buy the shitload of Madden 2007, after having bought a shitload of Madden 2006, after having bought a shitload of Madden 2005... ... ...
A company who makes a new-gen console which is the same old stuff but more powerful won't care about Katamaries and Loco Rocos, they only care about a nicer looking Madden.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
This may be tired and old, but I think they are pulling a Romero, they did really well at first and then they got arrogant and it all went to hell.
You mad
The best part of this is that several retailers here in Australia have been advertising pre-orders for the PS3 (notably $big_chain_store) and some of them were aiming it as a possible Christmas present for the kids, this is REALLY going to piss off any parents who were dumb enough to do so (although a pre-order for an A$1000 console is pretty high up there as it is).
/* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
I know, it's standard Slashdot fodder to talk about something big, important or well-known coming to an end, but I am really starting to wonder if Sony will be able to survive all of this stuff. Frankly, I don't want them to. But just off the top of my head, what does the general public know about Sony?
* Rootkit CDs
* Exploding batteries
* Delays and Failures associated with their new proprietary DVD format
* Delays and Failures resulting from the previously mentioned DVD stuff
Sony used to be widely held up as the gold standard for quality and innovative design. As far as I was concerned, Sony "invented" everything. (I know that's not true, but still.) But with all this crap going on, it would seem that the company is not unified and is pulling itself apart by having too many leaders. Solutions that would seem obvious to everyone else, Sony is just too thick-headed to make happen. For example: Put out the PS3 with a REMOVABLE DVD drive that can later me upgraded to BlueRay when it's available. They can virtually sell the thing twice! Seems pretty obvious to me and I'm just a consumer with a worthless opinion and no experience in the industry.
... for Nintendo to announce a Wii launch date. Speculation has placed the launch between October 2nd and November 15th, and many users are already foaming at the mouth to get a pre-order in. It's only a matter of time before Sony buckles and announces either mass-shortages on the PS3 this holiday season, assuming they even get it out the door by then.
Nintendo has a perfect opportunity here to dominate a market it's been trailing behind in for the last decade, especially with folks like those who are holding out against the XBox 360 as their next game console. But they need to act quickly on this before anymore addictive next gen titles (like Dead Rising) end up falling into Microsoft's lap.
Needless to say, I'm keeping a close eye on sites like EBGames for the instant they open the pre-order floodgates on the Wii.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Now, IANAB, but from what I understand of this, Sony is in the black.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Uh? How are these things not game console related?
They probably wouldn't care any way.
Because Nintendo is sitting on a fucking huge pile of cash, because they never lost any money in their whole history (which includes the console-gaming part).
Because 15 years of Game Boy and 2 years of DS along with hugely popular first-party games made them more money than Microsoft could ever lose on an Xbox iteration
Because even though the sales were not quite high they still made a benefit out of the N64 and GC hardware sales alone
Because since third-party weren't interrested in the N64 and GC games, only Nintendo games were released, and only Nintendo games were bought, and pretty much everyone would buy the new Nintendo game, and Nintendo would get millions of sales for every single game.
Because it's never dug in the hoard of cash it made from the NES and SNES days either.
Don't worry about them, even if they come dead last worldwide with 10 million sales (which I highly doubt), they'll still be perfectly fine.
Oh, their stock would take a dive, no question about that.
But they'd still be perfectly fine.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
You missspelt "$69.99"
And these are the cheap ones, seems like some games might reach $90...
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Surprisingly, this is NOT the biggest PS3 news today. The biggest news is that they drastically cut their expected numbers at launch in Japan and North America. And I mean drastically.
Japan: 100,000 units
North America: 400,000 units
To put that in perspective, the Nintendo DS handheld system is selling at an average of 125,000 units per week in Japan right now. If the numbers keep up, the PS3 will not even be top hardware seller on its launch week.
I can't think of a single thing Sony has done right in this launch.
Which Sony?
Sony-BMG brought us the rootkit. They haven't done anything useful in awhile.
SCEA is responsible for the Playstation line. They are wildly successful, although they have taken risks in the design of the PS3.
Sony Electronics has taken a hit lately but are still highly regarded; the Bravia TVs are much sought-after. The Pro video line has never been anything but incredibly successful (DigiBeta, Betacam SP, etc). The laptop battery issue is their fault, but the press seems to pin this one on Apple or Dell.
Sony Pictures makes tons of money (Spiderman, etc).
No idea how their financial services division does.
My point is - Sony is much more than just SCEA.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
You try fitting Final Fantasy XXX on a small rom image. All posts like yours assume everyone wants to play DS style games only. Developers for consoles and PC have a market that wants -- ney needs -- FMV and the latest graphics. If you don't believe that you never left the 80s arcade era. Don't forget every generation moves the bar up in one way or another, and this generation is still pushing graphics. People want nice graphics, AI, etc and a STORYLINE... there is more to life than feel the magic. We don't just use sprites anymore.
Thus far the only legit use I've heard of for that extra space is HD cutscenes. Ok that's maybe got some nifty factor to it, but that's just a movie. I'm not getting a game to watch a movie, I'm getting it to play. So, really, what games are going to need more than 9GB of assets? You have to remember, there are two real limits to the amount of assets you can put in a game:
1) Time to make them. Nice as it would be to make a virtually unlimited environment, you simply can't afford to do it. You have to stick to a budget and that means making decisions on how big and detailed you make your world.
2) Memory. The PS3 has 256MB of graphics memory. So, no matter what, all your scene data, models and textures, has to fit in that. That means you can't just create massively detailed textures for everything. You've got to keep it in your memory budget.
So what games need this kind of space? I mean I remember then Sturm und Drang about Oblivion not being able to to fit on a DVD... Ya, about that, it takes 4.1GB on disc. Not even a full SL DVD. Game has some damn good graphics too.
You have to remember that the PS3 isn't coming on to the scene with some totally unprecedented graphics hardware. It is around the power you get with the nVidia 7900 series (it's an nVidia design) and it's memory limitation are the same as mid-high end cards. We already have a taste of what it's going to be capable of. There's just only so much you can pack in to 256MB of RAM, and thus only so much you need to pack on disc. All the whiz-bang features of the Cell are irrelevant, the ultimate determining factor of max assets on the screen is the video memory, and that combined with budget restrictions then determines how much space you may ultimately need.
At this point, I'm just not seeing it. I'm just not seeing the need for a ton more space. Right now we have games out that fill up a 256MB video card, and they weigh in under 5GB (Oblivion is the largest I've yet found, most are much smaller). So I'm just not seeing the need for a ton more space, unless it's for cutscenes. Now if that's all you care about ok, fair enough, but ask yourself how much prerendered cutscenes really do for the game. Isn't it maybe better to just to that kind of thing in the game engine itself (like Warcraft 3 does for example)?
It's amazing, isn't it? How you, as a "game developer" are more concerned about disk space than about gameplay?
In a discussion about format size, an observation about format size is simply an on topic discussion. It has nothing to do with priorities and nor does it imply priority.
It's kind of like saying, in a discussion about dogs getting loose, "The thought of getting bitten is a real concern for me." and having someone leap forward with, "How can you worry about being bitten when babies are dying in Africa!"
I work for a games company too. I think more capacity, more power, more everything is a good thing. If you pay attention, you'll note I didn't say add "at the expense of gameplay" or "more so than gameplay." Gameplay remains a primary concern but it doesn't stop capacity from still being a good thing as an additional way to push the genre forward.
How many CDs did Pac Man fill?
And, given that Pacman is still released semi regularly for the Gameboy, as part of "classic" collections for the PS2/Xbox, etc., how much do people still play it?
Yeah, it was a great game for its time. Yeah, for its time it sucked in far more of our time than most modern games do. But, standing against modern games like say Oblivion with its wealth of content, it captures maybe half an hour of a modern gamer's interest. Now compare it to World Of Warcraft. Even in its heyday, did its median player play for anywhere near the amount of time the median player of a modern classic plays for?
At the end of the day, whilst gameplay is core, there's a reason why most gamers, exposed to what a whole DVD full of content can be like, play older games and quickly get bored, realizing PacMan is nothing more than repetition of the same concept, requiring four or five core strategies, repeated for 255 levels.
Were you frustrated when you scratched the disk of your Super Mario Brothers 3 cartridge?
No, we were frustrated when dust got in to it and no amount of blowing would get it to work again.
Gameplay has stagnated in the past 10 years - since the Playstation era. There have been no new innovations in gameplay in that time, only improved graphics.
To name the first few the immediately come to mind...
Tomb Raider (and its clones) - a genre of gaming that didn't exist before the PS1.
Massively Multiplayer online worlds with human to human interaction on a level of accessibility that text based systems never had.
Sandbox games like the Grand Theft Auto series (that, curiously, only become possible with enough depth of content that relies on the large storage you disdain).
The only games which come to mind with innovative gameplay are games like Guitar Hero with its specialty hardware.
Unlike the classic arcade games of yore. None of which required trackballs instead of joysticks, afterburner cabinets that turned upside down, VR headsets or lightguns.
Of course, Wii is looking to change all that.
The Wii is, by definition, specialty hardware. It introduces a new class of, admittedly more reusable than many, peripheral.
If you're determined to look at a single aspect of any given argument, you can confirm your beliefs. If one only looks at numbers of children killed, guns are bad. If one only looks at numbers of crimes stopped, guns are good. Neither is that impressive of an argument to more open minded people.
Similarly, you saw a game dev comment on storage with no mention of gameplay either way and saw it simply as a confirmation of your beliefs that tech is more important to him than gameplay - despite absolutely no supporting evidence. You complain about how easy modern discs may be to scratch, ignoring how easy cartridges were to get dust in to (I for one have had far less frustration with scratched discs than I ever had with 5.25" floppies that got fingerprints on them or 16K ram packs that fell out of the back of ZX81s everytime I typed hard). You lament