Slashdot Mirror
Why Sony Won't Lose The Next-Gen War
GamesDaily has up an opinion piece, talking about why author James Brightman sees Sony walking away with the next-gen crown, again. From the article: "Sony is well aware of the power of its brand and it will do everything it can to leverage the PlayStation name. Providing backwards compatibility with both the PS1 and PS2, as well as offering full PS1 titles for download through the PS3, can only help to reinforce that brand and remind gamers of the PlayStation games they hold so dear. Selling over 100 million units, twice, has its advantages. In fact, there are a number of people who have probably owned nothing but PlayStation consoles, and those consumers are likely to stick with a brand they know and trust. Before they've even learned anything about Sony's new console, many consumers have already made up their minds that they want the next PlayStation no matter what. A strong brand should not be underestimated." Relatedly, the company released a few more details on its online plan via its Japanese office. That article touches on AV chat, a puzzle games service, and downloadable games.
Leaning on the Playstation name? That'll be fine... at first. Even the almost unplayayble Atari 5200 did well off its name for a while. After that, it had to survive on its own merits and did poorly. I don't think the name alone will make the PS3 a success.
Like Ford? Or an IBM Branded PC?
The window for Sony to win, however, is extremely small. the 360 and Wii are both well positioned tot ake advantage of that short window. If the PS3 doesn't get sold in large enough numbers to justify the large development costs for it, it could very well end up on the outside looking in. Hardware is only the first part of the equation. Games are the second, and more important part of the equation. No games, no system.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Before they've even learned anything about Sony's new console, many consumers have already made up their minds that they want the next PlayStation no matter what
That's not a very compelling reason why they won't lose the war. For every 1 person who has to have it, there will be 100 who won't pay $500 for a console.
...And he's entitled to his opinion. And so am I entitled to mine. Whether either opinion is valuable is totally and completely up to the individual (you).
That said, I think there's more than enough room in the console market that nobody truly loses this round.
But I also think that no matter how you slice it, Microsoft has cut, and cut deep, in the what would have been much greater profits for Sony from the PS3. Everybody who thought their opinion mattered said when the xBox first came out that Microsoft could never compete with Sony and the Playstation line. But, as Microsoft has shown time and time again, Microsoft is capable of assimilating a successful business strategy and making their own version viable and profitable. Sure, Microsoft has failed, don't get me wrong. Just not most of the times, or even really a substantial percentage of the times, that they've done so. Witness the Zune. I am prepared to predict that the Zune doesn't really steal the market from the iPod, much in the same way the xBox didn't from the Playstation. But the Zune will be profitable. That is my prediction.
Oh and one other thing. I am not an owner of a single game console, from any year. So I don't think I am biased towards any particular one. I prefer the PC.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
You can play PS2 and PS1 games on your PS2 still, why go out and buy a 600 dollar system that does the same thing.
Sony isn't going to win this round on name recognition, they COULD have, if it was a 400 dollar console, and would have at 300, but going to 600 dollars makes it less likely.
Sony needs to win this round, and they might pull it off if Microsoft still can't break Japanese markets after Christmas next year (give them time). If Blue Dragon doesn't make a huge in-road for the 360, Sony will not have to worry.
However sony is already running scared, dropping the price of the 20 gig model in Japan, low numbers (now saying they might not make 2 million consoles by the end of the year), a almost constant hype session, at least one a day. And all for one reason. The 360 is already here, and already getting better and better.
Will the 360 be perfect? no. But the PS3 is looking worse as the launch window comes up, they'll sell out, but the 360 has 6 MILLION consoles out there. The PS3 has 2 million at the end of the year if they are lucky. Developers know this, and know the score.
Which will win though? Who knows, it all rests on Japan right now, and even there people arn't thrilled with Sony.
"And why won't you be buying a PS3?"
"Because it's 600 f*cking dollars..."
A year ago, if you would have asked any analyst or gamer if Sony was going to lose the next-gen console war, you would have been laughed at. It was preposterous to think that the house that Sony built was going to crumble any time soon.
It's been almost a complete 180. Now you have analysts trying to prove why Sony won't lose the next-gen war, and a lot of people doubting them.
I'm no Sony fanboi (or anyone's fanboi for that matter, I'm console agnostic), but I don't think Sony is going to lose the next-gen war either, despite all of the company's goof-ups and mistakes. However, it's still amazing to note how far Sony has fallen, and much Nintendo's and MS's stock has risen over the course of only a year.
-- jchenx
That's like saying, just because someone bought a NES and a SNES that they would buy N64 or I bought a Genesis and loved it, so I'll buy a Saturn.
:)
Empires do fall, and when you get a new console coming in at over $700 (you want a game with that PS3 right? so add $60 + tax), people will start to think, do I really need to spend that much or am I better spending that money on something a little better...
My guess is this generation might do as well as a whole, with games coming in at $60 each and hardware $400-$600, the same amount of money one spent last gen will only get you 1/2 of what you get this gen, I think a lot more people may wait. A lot of people that picked up a 360 by now as well may get a PS3 at some point (if it really took off) but that would still hold off sales for a year or two.
The technology right now is just too much $ for what it is, industry needs some time for costs to come down and catch up
How about apologizing to all of us for subjecting us to such a lame, sophomoric post?
Check out my foes list to see who is so retarded that they can't use the signature line!!!
I have a feeling that "Playstation" will mean something else after this generation.
How do you define success? Don't they lose money on each system sold? Does anyone know how much they lose vs. MS vs. Nintendo's profit? My guess is the Nintendo will reach the most homes, although I'm guessing it will be close to the 360, perhaps slightly behind. I think Sony will reach the least: It looks nice, I'm sure it will perform very well and last a long time, but at that price, or even a little cheaper when it comes down, I can't see it selling nearly as well as the two competitors, which will also be coming down from their already (relative) cheap prices. In terms of money... I'm thinking Nintendo will come out way ahead of the pack, followed by MS and Sony being pretty far behind. All of the above are based on the opinion of someone with relatively little knowledge... and a little common sense. In the scheme of things, I think all three will get systems into homes and do well. They each have their place. As for the article... I'm guessing /.ers purposely pick terrible articles on Sony's side... A name being the reason it will succeed? Lame.
Vikings:
Boycott, boycott, boycott, boycott
Boycott, boycott, boycott, boycott
Boycott, boycott, boycott, boycott
Boycott, boycott, boycott, boycott
Lovely boycott! Lovely boycott!
Sony: "I DON'T LIKE BOYCOTTS!"
(With apologies to Deadguy2322.)
(Good thing he's dead.)
(Otherwise he might care!)
How does one know who wins a console war? Everybody I know, and his grandmother, assures me Sony won the last one... but neither Sony or MS did a cent with their consoles! What's the criteria? What numbers should we compare to define who wins this round???
Any product whose logo is a subliminal picture of two men staring at a pair of breasts is bound to win overall.
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
Historically, it took some major screw up on Nintendo's part (N64) and a briliant system (PSX) for market leader to exchange, so yes it is pretty safe to bet the guy who conclusively won the last round will probably win again. One might say Sony is in a worse position this round than the last, but they got quite a bit of room to work with coming off as the undisputed winner of last two rounds. They can give up quite a bit of market share before even losing the majority (50%+) status. Now if PS3 end up with 50% while Wii and XBox360 end up with 25% each, I'd think Nintendo and Microsoft will be very pleased while Sony will not be, but Sony would have still *won* the next generation if winning is determined by market share. If Sony's goal is to achieve the same dominance as PSX or PS2, then it seems almost certain the battle has already been lost. But achieve a better marketshare or even a majority of the market? That's certainly possible.
That would be like asking Commander Taco to apologize for Slashdot. ;)
The brand name doesn't mean much. Probably the only people who buy a console on brand are the early adopters. People who get a console at release with no real way of knowing whether or not it's going to flop.
Unlike other industries though these people don't give any kind of indication of whether or not things will go well. Most of the great games that will really sell consoles are halfway into development by the time release comes out and they'll be released even if the initial sales are bad. If those games are good enough the second wave will show up and make or break the console. It's always been this way and it always will be. The only thing questionable this time is whether or not good games can overcome the huge price barrier of the PS3.
Honestly, the "Playstation Brand" has been the only real justification for predicting any kind of Playstation3 success ever since Sony had their lackluster E3 2006 press briefing.
Now, this is just personal experience speaking, but myself and three other close friends have all purchased Xbox360s over the last five months, ever since Sony's premium price was announced. These were all people (including myself) who had a strong interest in the Playstation brand but were immediately turned off by the pricing vs. features, lack of an online plan, and general corporate behavior. And while my personal experience by no means constitutes a trend, I have no doubt that others feel the same way. I think that Sony's in bad shape.
There's no doubt that Blu-Ray may appeal to a subset of consumers. I wonder if those same consumers will enjoy paying 30 dollars or more for the Blu-Ray titles - a 50 percent premium over DVDs. This is something that no one talks about and I don't see why not. Until the price of the disks come down you, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will be a no-go no matter how you slice it. You could put a Blu-Ray player in every home and it still wouldn't sell because the media is simply too expensive for cost vs. performance. So, at this point Sony is essentially selling a media playing format at a loss - and no one will want to pay the premium to get that media, because they either a) don't want to spend the money, or b) literally don't have the equipment to properly display high-def signal (look at the fury over Dead Rising). That's a losing proposition to me.
I think this is probably the most interesting generation of console releases ever, and I've seen them all. What is interesting to me is that Nintendo is poised to walk away in second place (worst case scenario) or even get to first place if they manage to cross that mystical boundry that seperates "gamers" from the game-playing public. A few games have managed to do this; The Sims and Myst being the two most notable examples. If you can make a fun, easy-to-use system with a TRUE wide variety of appeal then you will become the king of the living room. But even if you can't get the casuals, Nintendo's low price and unique controller basically guarantees that it will become the second console of choice to the hardcore gamer crowd who wants either a different kind of game or something more tactile and accessible to rope in their casual friends. I also think that pro-Wii Nintendo fans, who will buy the console for Nintendo's franchises, have not yet realized the impact of buying a slightly-upgraded Gamecube down the line. In two or three years, when a game is released for Xbox360 or PS3 that really blows away the public (and it will happen, as it has happened in every generation) Wii owners are going to want to get in on that. At that point, their console's anemic power might be a liability. A port might not be technically feasible, in which case, they will then have to make a choice: Xbox360 or PS3? Which leaves us with the distinct possibility that Nintendo might get a Wii into the majority of gamer's homes (and at a profit, too!) and also appeal to the casual audience.
Microsoft and Sony are not so lucky. By pricing their consoles expensively and having similiar technical specs, Microsoft and Sony have turned their segment into an "all or nothing" proposition. They will either take first place or die.
There are, of course, other factors, but they rely on games, mindshare, game franchises, and online play...not console branding. Final Fantasy and Metal Gear may move units, but niether game will appeal to anyone beyond it's already hardcore fan groups. What's hilarious is that a simple look back through the history of consoles shows that console-branding means jack squat. Atari was king, but bad games let the crown slip to Nintendo. Nintendo built an almost insurmountable lead with the NES, was chipped away at by the Genesis (and how was that accomplished? GAMES! The product was inferior technically), crushed by the Playstation (also an inferi
Having an advantage is no guarantee of victory, no matter what the author of this article may think. If you shoot yourself in the foot often enough, you won't be able to walk, even if you started out with really big feet.
Ceci n'est pas une sig
Sony isn't going to win this round on name recognition, they COULD have, if it was a 400 dollar console, and would have at 300, but going to 600 dollars makes it less likely.
The cheapest PS3 is $500, not $600. And people seem quite happy paying $400 for a premium 360 with a fee for Live so a slightly more expensive PS3 with free online service should sell equally well - at least for the first six million units or so. And then they have sold enough to build momentum.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Even with $60 for a game, you are looking at $570 for a PS3 - not $700. And online match play is free.
If your theory were correct Microsoft would not have sold six million 360's, many of them premium bundles almost as expensive (after costs for Live) as a base PS3.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Redundant? Parent isn't redundant. THIS is redundant!
Sony: "Well, what've you got?"
Customers: "Well, there's egg and boycott; egg bacon and boycott; egg bacon sausage and boycott; boycott bacon sausage and boycott; boycott egg boycott boycott bacon and boycott; boycott sausage boycott boycott bacon boycott tomato and boycott;"
Vikings:
Boycott, boycott, boycott, boycott
Boycott, boycott, boycott, boycott
Boycott, boycott, boycott, boycott
Boycott, boycott, boycott, boycott
Lovely boycott! Lovely boycott!
Sony: "Have you got anything without a boycott?"
Customers: "Well, there's boycott egg sausage and boycott, that's not got much boycotting in it."
Sony: "I don't want ANY boycotts!"
Customers: "Why can't you have egg bacon boycott and sausage?"
Sony: "THAT'S got boycotting in it!"
Customers: Hasn't got as much boycotting in it as boycott egg sausage and boycott, has it?
Vikings:
Boycott, boycott, boycott, boycott
Boycott, boycott, boycott, boycott
Boycott, boycott, boycott, boycott
Boycott, boycott, boycott, boycott
Lovely boycott! Lovely boycott!
Sony: "I DON'T LIKE BOYCOTTS!"
(With apologies to Monty Python.)
I'm not saying he's wrong, it's opinion. Opinions can be wildly inaccurate, stupid, and silly but they aren't wrong unless they're attempted to dispute know facts. I.E It's my opinion Abraham Lincoln was the First President.
That said, his opinion is highly contestable.
The Brand
I would have thought that his comparing the ubiquitous association of Sony's brand now to Nintendo's ubiquitous association then would have given him reason to say why Sony won't repeat Nintendo's failure. He failed to account for it at all.
Nintendo had a greater than 60% market share with the SNES, with the rest divided between the Turbo Grafix 16 and the Sega Genesis. The next generation they barely managed 20%. They had as much if not more brand at the time than Sony, a console that was cheaper than the others, and innovations to boot. They were destroyed rather thoroughly.
Microsoft (somewhat) Squandered its Lead
Microsoft did squander their lead a bit. With more volume at launch they'd probably be further ahead. The point he makes is that Microsoft's Xbox 360 has had a somewhat "Meh" reception. However, that reception is as likely caused by a general "Meh" at HD stuff in general that will burn Sony as much as Microsoft as it is a pure Microsoft bias. Only time will tell.
Japan is Ripe for the Taking
That it is. He makes a good argument for why Japan is anyone's game. Unfortunately I can't really find much worth in his arguments as to how the PS3 is going to take Japan. While there will surely be more than the 100k initial launch shipments as time passes, that's hardly enough to secure a lead in Japan. This is downplayed by the author, nothing some very desireable games that the Japanese will want. The possibility that Japanese and other gamers may be at all discouraged by the difficulty in getting PS3s isn't even addressed.
There's a token paragraph for the Wii, and I call it token rightly. To assume this a largely Xbox vs PS3 a article does not seem far off, or perhaps Xbox vs anyone else. It may be that the Wii just isn't worth commenting on because no one has any doubts as to how well it will do, while Sony breeds skepticism with each new press release. It's hard to tell.
Regardless, there is no mention of the vastly greater Wii supplies, the far cheaper price, or the general thrashing the PSP got at the DS's twin screens. This leads into a statement that skirts the possible competition between the two Japanese companies. If you're going to write an article about why Sony isn't going to lose to Microsoft, specify that in your title. Otherwise, glossing over Nintendo seems fishy.
Blue-ray Will Matter
A good point to be made here is that if Blue-ray takes off, it's likely to make the manufacturing of PS3s cheaper. With more people working to make Blue Lasers, they'll be understandably cheaper. The opposite being true if the format fails as a movie format.
Bringing up the current and forecasted adoption rates for HDTV probably wouldn't have aided the article any, but again Nintendo seems glossed over in favor of Microsoft vs Sony. I realize Nintendo has intentionally put themselves out of direct competition for HD gamers, but that doesn't mean they aren't competing this generation.
Free Online
Good, minus no mention (good or bad) of Nintendo's online services. Again, if this is about Microsoft vs Sony specifically, the title should have reflected that.
Final Thoughts
Firstly no one said winning three in a row was "impossible". The issue is historically, no one's lasted more than two generations without other A) completely destroying the industry or B) Dropping from near Monopoly to near Obscurity and Ridicule. There appears to be a red button labeled "Retarded" which gets pressed sometime before Launch #3.
If Sony manages to dominate again, good for them. They'll have earned it through games and services that make us happy, possibly reearning the trust they've burned these p
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
My point is the war isn't won at launch. Its won when the system has lots of GOOD games for it, and they become cheap. When production becomes cheap so the manufacturer makes a profit off it. When the console becomes cheap enough to be able to buy another one, just as a backup. When developers are able to program for the blasted thing, without spending a billion dollars over 3 years.
We've got years of this to come. I don't think I can stand any more of the speculation. I just wanna play some games!
The article explains how the PS3 might have an opportunity to outsell the 360...but where does it say anything about the Wii? There's a couple mentions but no "this is why PS3 will outsell Wii".
It's like:
I proclaim that Wendy's Spicy Chicken Sandwich is the best food in the world because it's better than the peanut butter and jelly I had for lunch!
Pretty much. I agree. Now, let's update that with current information.
Historically, it took some major screw up on Sony's part (PS3)and a briliant system (Wii) for market leader to exchange.
Given the numbers Sony has an uphill battle. Day 1, the Wii will be the next gen market leader in Japan*, where much of the game development is.
*To Date Microsoft hasn't sold 100,000 X-box 360's in Japan. Sony will only Launch with 100,000 units in Japan. Considering the DS Lite sells 125,000-150,000 units a week in Japan I see no shortage of Demand for the Wii, and Nintendo hasn't had the manufacturing issues that Sony is having.
Nintendo:
NES: market leader.
SNES: market leader.
N64: market loser.
Sony:
PS1: market leader.
PS2: market leader.
PS3: ???
Granted the PS2 market share is bigger for it's generation than what the SNES had, but to be so bold as to say it will win on name alone? Nintendo sure would've liked that back in the N64's days.
I also have always doubted the way they calculate the market shares. It is common knowledge that Sony systems have statistically been more prone to hardware failures than Nintendo systems (for exemple). Yet they count the people who bought multiple PS2 (for exemple) as different customers.
Shouldn't they revise the market share percentage by the estimated defective rate?
I'd be really curious to see if the PS2 is really in the lead that much from it's competition if you removed the estimated number of defective PS2 from the total?
Just food for thoughts.
I have not yet seen responses that were more than your garden variety off the cuff Sony hatred that so permeates Slashdot nowadays. After actually reading through the article I though it made two great points:
"certain PS3 launch games (e.g. Resistance: Fall of Man) already look as good as the best Xbox 360 has to offer. In one to two years, we think the combination of the Blu-ray medium and the Cell processor will lead to a noticeable difference between the visuals of the PS3 and the Xbox 360, as developers begin to really harness the technology in the PS3. And by that time the PS3 won't be retailing for $500 or $600 anymore. Nintendo may not care about hi-def graphics, but in the ultra-tech battle between Microsoft and Sony, it's beginning to look like Sony has the edge."
People have said you can always just use multiple DVD's on the 360, but really that is way more clunky and drastically reduces profits for manufacturers. The extra storage space will be useful to PS3 developers, as it is even at launch. I'm not sure why people discount this as an advantage for Sony, given that the game developers have expressed displeasure with the 360's anemic storage and we can see right before our eyes that it is being used.
Another point was about the online service:
"With the inclusion of free online play, publishers know that anybody in the PS3's install base can go online. Not only does that automatically encourage developers to make use of online functionality, but it also could have important ramifications with regards to in-game ads that are streamed online. All of a sudden the potential audience for these ads is that much bigger, while on the 360 publishers of online titles with streamed in-game ads will still be limited to the number of Xbox Live Gold subscribers. Ultimately, we think that Microsoft will have no choice but to go free as well (perhaps with some ad-supported scheme with the help of MS-owned Massive Inc.), even if it's not for another couple years."
Free online play is a big draw for us computer gamers who were leery of a recurring fee to play online. It makes buying console versions of games more acceptable rather than just waiting for a PC version of some things.
But fundamentally the point here is that making it so that every console owner can easily be online means that game makers may well focus even more on the quality of online play, just as including a hard drive in every console gives freedom to game developers in use of system resources. The PS3 has a more expansive list of things the developer can assume exist for every player:
*) Hard drive
*) Match service/online play
*) Large storage capacity
*) Motion detection
Any one of those items alone does not guarantee a great game. But each one of them opens up new avenues for developers and can enable them to make a great game they might not have been able to make otherwise.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I personally bought 3 psone systems and 3 PStwo systems. I will not buy a PS3 because -=I don't trust them to stay functional!=-. If I do buy one at 4-500 dollars down the road, and it breaks out of warranty, I'm not going to buy another, for half a grand. So yeah, they sold 100 million of each, but I bet they only have 40-50 million customers, many of which got burned, and spending 600 bucks on something that might break is a great deal scarier than dropping 250-300.
The next generation battle hasn't even started yet. At the start people thought N64 sounded like a good idea and it turned out it was a very bad idea. Certainly no one thought Nintendo could screw up with the N64, but they did. So why would you expect anyone to be able to predict the future with any accuracy? No one will say that PS3 is off to a great start, but one as bad as N64? Historically a screw up of that magnitude has happened only once. It could happen again, but that's not where I'd start betting on.
DS and Wii are two completely different markets. Nintendo has always dominated the handheld system and this hasn't change in 10 years. It is also clear that succees in one doesn't translate in the other. N64/Gamecube is a minority in console but GBA/DS has been the market leader. Likewise Sony's success in PS/PS2 did not translate to PSP. Using handheld numbers is simply meaningless because they're inherently different markets.
Every single comment I see you post in the games section, you consistently bash Sony. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Nintendo/Microsoft is not going to love and cherish you with their console (neither is Sony but let me get to my point), none of these companies care about you: all they want is your money. Why do you feel it necessary to advertise for them? Don't be an idiot; equal console love is the way to go, and you're only going to get held back in the gaming world by your narrow world view.
"PS3" is still winning over "Wii" though...
http://www.google.com/trends?q=ps3%2C+wii
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Not so long ago (I'm not sure, but let's say 1 1/2 year ago), a headline like this would have been laughed at. "PS3? Loose the war? Are you crazy?" Remember, nearly everyone, including fanboys were saying "Nintendo is clearly aiming for a 3rd, but profitable place" (Because of the released specs being so underpowered compared to the other 2.
And now, today, what we have? An article trying to prove why "Sony won't lose the war?". Maybe it won't "lose the war", but it has cleary lost *something*.
perception is reality
It doesn't matter if a 3rd party releases a Wii-mote type device for PS3 or 360. Developers won't use it unless it ships with either the system, or bundled with their game. I doubt they could be made cheaply enough to be bundled with games.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
The point is: it's not just pasty-faced geeks on websites bitching about Sony any more - anti-Sony sentiment has gone mainstream. Sony are in meltdown and they're betting the farm on a console that ordinary, non-techie people are displaying a visceral aversion to. The general perception of Sony producing quality products is gone. And the beauty of it is they've given pretty much everyone in every one of their markets reason to suspect and reject their goods.
Sony's unlikely to fail in the long-term due to Japanese business practises - shareholders holding onto stock well past the point westerners would cut their losses and corporations shoring each other up - but in the short- and medium-term they're looking pretty damned screwed.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
How many thousands of times did we hear how the Xbox could not sell in Japan due to its girth?
Now we have the PS3 which is even larger in all three dimensions and all of a sudden this is a moot issue?
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
...but it isn't as much of a deciding factor as some might think.
Past success didn't help Nintendo much with the N64, and I would say that alot more people have fond memories with "Nintendo" than with "Playstation", even today.
The N64 wasn't the huge cartridge-hardware mistake many people believe it to be (most games wouldn't have had a problem with the more limited space). It even looked as if Nintendo was winning in the early days of the system.
TFA is a bit strange though. What is he basing it on? Because he can't imagine Sony losing? Most of his arguements have been discussed to great extent, so he's basically just saying "yeah, but Sony will win anyway".
I think your comment, regarding performance, is exactly what Sony wants you to think. It's the same game they played with the PS2, in order to sink the Dreamcast. In reality, though, the PS3 is NOT 3-4x a 360. It's not even twice as powerful. It's marginally more powerful, probably on the scale the Xbox was over the PS2.
The PS3 launch titles are no longer secret. If you take a look at the videos, and compare them to similar 360 titles (although many of them are 2nd generation games now), you'll see that they're pretty similar. That's with both multiplatform games and the exclusive launch titles. Now, as developers get better with the PS3 hardware, I'm sure the games will look better. But that's the same with 360 games as well. As a lot of folks suspected, the hardware is on a fairly even level.
Granted, some PS3 games may look better than 360 titles, but that's honestly to be expected. After all, the console did come out a year later, and costs a lot more. But 3X as powerful? Not even twice, not even close. (And of course, graphics do not make a good game
In the end, it's just going to come down to the games
It ain't about the hardware anymore, folks.
-- jchenx
Only kidding, they are making them in NK for $3 a pop.
:)
One major point here.
The economy is due for a massive slow down, that will last along time during 07-09 due to rising inflation and oil prices and possible
full scale wars and massive climate change reducing food supplies causing more price rises in staples. Add to that rising interest costs
and dropping house prices killing peoples equity. www.financialsense.com - all the info you need.
So... peoples debts go up, prices rise, they have less to spend on stuff. Sure there will be lots of rich people still able
to afford ps3s, like IT profs, and people with little debt, or people with rich ass parents that are 250k manager, or people
in lazy govt jobs that pay well for 34hrs a week.
But out of millions and millions, many man many more will only barely be able to scrape through to buy a Wii, its small
, not power hungry, kids will love it too, and hardcore gamers should be happy with it too (unless they have a 42" lcd hdtv)
Being smaller, nintendo can ship more units per shipping container and truck or train or back of a bicycle in china, oh and
more chineese can afford it too.
Sure, maybe in 2 years sony can make 1million a month, but not today, and if nintendo can push out 20m in 12months, then they
have a leg up.
If you can only put five ps3s in a shop per week, thats not a success, even if you have a queue of 200 people wanting to buy, if half
of them get bored and watch a Wii in the shop, and go.... hmm it looks ok, ahh its only 250, ill get it and decide on the ps3 in 2-3 months time
if I get bored, then its a snow ball effect of lost sales, or a fire ball of batteries effect?
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
No console maker has ever dominated three consecutive platform generations. Seems they have forgotten Nintendo's winning streak. Gameboy, GBA, Nintendo DS.
"They said we drink horse urine and sleep with our own kin. You say it's comedy, but how can someone laugh at that?"
The GC disappeared? Really? Wow, when did that happen? Because, you know, I could've sworn I had reserved a copy of Twilight Princess for the, uh, you know...GameCube.
Remember, a small and still-growing library of games is not the same thing as a dead and stagnant one. For that matter, the Dreamcast isn't really dead either--only from a commercial perspective--because of the homebrew scene.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
Nah. I'd say a fairer comparison is between the $400 360 and the $500 PS3. Both of them are roughly equivalent at playing games
Not in terms of storage, to play games of the same size you'll either be swapping DVD's on the 360 or have more highly compressed (or removed) textures. I do agree that basically the $400 and $500 consoles are more comparible, but don't forget those Live fees! They'll add up over the years you own the console.
Basically, if you want a Blu-ray player, the PS3 is a good deal. If you want a HD-DVD player, the 360 and a HD-DVD drive is a good deal. If you don't want either, a 360 is a great deal.
If you don't want either you still derive substantial benefit from the PS3 having a larger storage medium for games - which is also what the article says.
We're not even talking about Killzone which looked pretty bogus to me, but Fall Of Man which looks to be pretty spectacular - kind of a cross between Batlefiield and Halo.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If every single MS employee bought a ps3, and got their purchase reimbursed by MS, then kept the PS3 at home but not buy any games, just
have it sit there and use it as a cheap blueray player, and nothing more with perhaps playing cheap ps2 games. Then it would
make a bigger dent for Sony as the systems would be GONE fast, but then no games would be being sold and the real fanbois would be
screaming as there would be even less ps3s available.
100k ps3s = 60000000 dollars, barely a dent for MS, in japan
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
No 360 sold today includes an HDMI output, both PS3 models will (a late change made because people like you thought you needed HDMI for HD output).
The 360 will be able to do 1080p with a patch over component, which works really well - but many displays are sadly moving to HDMI.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Finally an article that doesn't submit an apocalyptic view of life without Sony. Sony won't bomb this generation. It's going to do fine. They're no idiots, as much as people might be screaming otherwise. It's a multi-billion dollar corporation that knows what the f*ck it's doing. They'll sell all their release consoles, and though they might not meet their goals, they'll do damn well. At this point, the only thing hindering them is the media. And people saying it's too expensive, well, the basic PS3 will cost $500 dollars, which is a mere $100 more than the full X360 pack. And let's face it, the "Core System" kinda sucked - a lot - while the PS3 basic system seems like it will be a perfectly amazing console, not some half-assed imitation of the "real PS3". So if people would just step back and place some trust in Sony, things would go a lot smoother.
That would be anti-competitive behaviour and would be litigated against by Sony's trigger happy lawyers. They'd probably win, too, even against Microsoft.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
That's right, I believe the market is so huge, and videogames are so mainstream commercial, that all three consoles can prosper. Hollywood movies generally suck, television's viewing audience is shriveling up and pc games don't have the advantage of better graphics or online capability anymore. So what's left to entertain (I can only imagine the replies to this question) but three cutting edge gaming systems.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
Stated reasons for Sony's continued dominance, and others who have held said reasons.
...Free like Playstation 2 online. Or like how PC games have free online.
The Brand:
The Playstation is synonymous with gaming... Just like "Playing Nintendo" or "Playing Atari."
Microsoft (somewhat) Squandered its Lead
Microsoft has had a year of the market to themselves, and hasn't produced any killer titles. Except Dead Rising. And Geometry Wars. You can probably count Oblivion in there too. And people seem to be playing a lot of Uno for some reason. But overall MS has had an OK but not shocking first year out... Like Sega did with the Genesis and Nintendo did with the NES and Game Boy. Let's not forget Sony's lackluster first years with the Playstation 1 and 2.
Japan is Ripe for the Taking
The Xbox line is largely a failure in Japan. Someone could swoop right in and take a huge chunk of that... Like NEC did with the PC Engine, or Sega did with the Sega CD and Saturn. Or, quite simply, the Nintendo DS appears to be doing, especially with weeks when the top 10 selling games in Japan were all on the DS.
Blu-ray Will Matter
Having more storage space is always good. We've been bumping up against storage limitations on DVD disks for years now. Having a bigger storage area will really help improve the quality of games available for the system... Like NEC's Turbo Graphx CD add-on, or the extra roomy cartridges on the Neo Geo. Or, for that matter, how Nintendo got trounced by the Playstation 1.
Free Online
Everyone likes free, right? And on the PS3, online features will be free! All of the online features that, umm, any developer may happen to want to design, code up, and financially support. And the developers have all the freedom they want! Trust us, it will be xboxishtastic maybe. Nobody wanted to code up any achievements system in the first generation of titles, but, you know, Free!
Note: I don't think that Sony is doomed, or MS is great, or Nintendo is innovative. Necessarily. But I do think the best tactic is to wait for a few months after all three systems are on the table to commit to one.
The ______ Agenda
...but it won't be because of name recognition alone. That is just one part of many. Xbox was one of the biggest money losers in the history of gaming and 360 is headed down the same path. The PS3 has superior hardware going for them as well as the proof of two generations that they will support their consoles for a long period of time. There are plenty of gamers who will stick with PS2 until they can afford a PS3. As far as games, Sony will make sure there are plenty. They have great first and third party support and it will only increase. Microsoft has thrown their chips in the pot on the basis of how unique Xbox live is. Unfortunately they only thing that will be unique is that they charge you for it. Sony also has true 1080p(1.3) and Bluray. I personally own all three consoles from the last generation and have loved games on all of them. I have no bias for either company but think by at least the beginning of 2008 it will be clear that Sony has won yet again. I really could care less at this point though. I have nothing to lose. I haven't bought a 360 and will be grabbing a Wii on the 19th. I will wait until next year before I worry about one of the other two. Unless something unforseen happens though I'm sure my other console will be a PS3.
Every 1080p tv on the market ALSO has a VGA connection.
Microsoft is moving toward using the VGA connector as an answer to HDMI.
Also, the DRM (I am not an expert on these things, I am only giving anecdotal evidence here) that becomes part of 1080p over HDMI is not in place when using VGA.
Yes some TV's (not all) come with VGA inputs. However remember all the screaming about how video resolution could be downgraded on some movies without the HDMI connector? Well that applies equally to the non-encrypted VGA solution the 360 is going with. It's going to hamstring the HD-DVD player if they ever enable the ICT flag in HD media.
So- how do you get 1080p without DRM and HDMI?
Component cables easily handle 1080p at 30 frames a second - all new HD TV's also come with component inputs. Furthermore component runs can be much longer without dropping quality, VGA or HDMI runs beyond a sudden length have a drastic dropoff in quality when the signal becomes too weak to properly assemble enough of the incoming digital data. I would have preferred a non-HDMI optio for the PS3.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
except almost NO TVs that are even reasonably price supports "true" 1080p over HDMI, because you need 2 HDMI-ins.
I cannot believe a site like Slashdot, populated by the most technologically advanced people on the planet, cannot understand something as simple as HDMI!!!
HDMI is just a wrapper around an encrypted VGA-like digital connection and also audio data. What makes you think you need two HDMI inputs to do 1080p? The whole freaking POINT of HDMI is to support the digital bandwidth to handle 1080p (at 60 frames per second and with increased color depth no less!!!!!!!!!!!)
!!!!!
PS3 might have HDMI, but the 50 inch tv my family got last year doesn't have it, so what? are we supposed to run out and buy another?
That's when you use the component cables which can easily do up to 1080i and even 1080p at 30 frames a second (fine for movies which are at 24 FPS). There is no need for another TV, even to gain the advantages of resolution.
The tv they owned before this one was 5-10 years old and always worked, making us buy new TVs ever couple years isn't a win for the consumer it's a win for the seller.
No kidding. I still have a TV that I got about fifteen years ago. I totally agree on this point, making us buy new TV's with any greater freqency than 10 years does not make you a friend in my book... that's why I'm sticking with my older video equipment, some of which also supports 1080i input (even if not a true 1080i display in terms of resolution).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wow, sounds like a deal! Instead of paying 35 cents for an extra DVD-R, for a grand total of 70 cents, you can burn your game to a BD-R for $15.99 a pop!
Some of us can afford to buy games. I guess being able to pirate for much less is a FANTASTIC reason to buy a console.
Good luck figurng out the whole morality thing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
For that matter, the Dreamcast isn't really dead either--only from a commercial perspective--because of the homebrew scene.
In the same way, the XBox will probably not die for a long while either. The absolutely fantastic XBMC and the various homebrew apps available in tandem with it will ensure the XBox stays alive. I'm actually looking to get a second XBox (used), slap XBMC on it, and put it in the living room to stream ripped DVDs (DIVX/XVID) and play music (OGG). They will probably stay in place for years to come. I'm still stunned that Microsoft doesn't create an app like XBMC for the 360 and release it on Live Marketplace for 30 or 40 bucks. Properly licensing codecs? Pressure from media companies to integrate DRM? Stupidly clinging to the whole Media Center thing? If Microsoft released a real software app that duplicated all the functions of XBMC for the 360, I would likely buy the console tomorrow and pass on a PS3.
With the subjectively important exception of "real" HD, Microsoft's Media Center Extender is like a crippled dog compared to XBMC. WMV/MPEG only and no DIVX? I can't add more codecs? XP Media Center Edition only? You fail it, Microsoft. Try again, but don't take too long. Even with all the bad press, if the PS3 will play all my media through a Samba or NFS share, I probably won't get your console.
Unfortunately, reality will probably be that everyone screws it up, and we'll need to rely on the mod community and homebrew devs to deliver something better.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
You've all heard or taken part of the great counsel vs. PC flame war and how the PC is all but dead. Well I beg to differ. Not only is the PC far from dead it's about to smack counsel gaming in the back of the head with a 2x4.
Multiple Independent online game/music/movie/TV delivery systems, 1Tb hard drives, Dx10 video, quad SLI & Crossfire, 1x PCIX video cards, multi-sound device support (USB devices/sound cards) , multi quad core CPU's, PPU's, and Vista. These are all things that we already have or soon will.
Vista is the wild card, though I've noticed every generation of windows has only improved the gamer's experience. If they can pull another repeat of the past the jump forward should be quite big. The PC phobic and neophyte should find PC gaming much more friendly, than in the past.
A big improvement in hardware has already occurred; though I doubt most understand what it is truly capable of. Everyone keeps looking at SLI and Crossfire as a high performance way of upping the frame rate of one game on one monitor. What the gaming public does not realize is that it is an even better way of running 2-8 individual monitors with video and graphic acceleration on each one. Also the new player in town is the 1x PCIX video card. Once we dump PCI slot once and for all that should make room to support even more monitors than before at a very reasonable price.
Currently the NVidia 7900GT can support two monitors with accelleration on both. So watching video while playing a game, or running two games (in window mode) is already possible.
Ah you say "So what, who cares. I could run a counsel and a TV."
"So very true" I respond "But can you add in 4 wireless USB controllers, 4 widescreen monitors, and 4 wireless USB headsets so that each player gets his own screen and sound? No you can't?" I don't know of any counsels that can do that, but the capability is now there on PC's. All of you were wondering what all those 2, 4, and 8 core CPU's were going to be for, now you know. After enjoying games that way, going back to playing in split screen just seems so very quaint.
You shoot back "But wait you say, I can run a bunch of counsels together over a network and do the same thing."
And there lies the rub and where PC gaming pulls out a big ol battle axe and takes the head of the counsel market.
The only advantages counsels had over the PC were price and ease of use. They've given up both those advantages with the big push towards PC like hardware, HD TV's, and continuing to force players towards static expensive anemic proprietary components. It's no longer cheaper to game on a counsel nor is it necessarily any easier or more convenient to do so.
And just like that the Next Generation War is over and the counsels are scratching their heads wondering what the hell just happened.
Take the DS out of my example. The Wii will sell more than 100,000 units during the first week of launch in Japan. Let's not even go into why MS has failed to break that number in a year, or Sony's manufacturing issues. Nintendo will have more systems sold from the start than either of their competitors in that region. They will be the Next gen market leader in Japan.
The PS3 has made many N64 calibur missteps already. One of the biggest is the price for performance. If the 1st gen PS3 games don't look above and beyond pretty over their 360 counter part, then what justifies the premium spent?
You also have an online system that is unproven with spotty information at best, only that Sony claims 'It'll be like Live, only BETTER and FREE'. Their launch also lacks compelling exclusive content, infact the 2 games most touted for the system are a late 2007 release. The N64 only had 2 games at launch. Big mistake. How many exclusive PS3 games do you see?
The ps2 was expensive when it came out. They have DVD manufactuing problems, so the first games that came out were on CDROM. They weren't really that great either. It took many years for the gamecube and the dreamcast to just dissappear.
My point is the war isn't won at launch. Its won when the system has lots of GOOD games for it, and they become cheap. When production becomes cheap so the manufacturer makes a profit off it. When the console becomes cheap enough to be able to buy another one, just as a backup. When developers are able to program for the blasted thing, without spending a billion dollars over 3 years.
We've got years of this to come. I don't think I can stand any more of the speculation. I just wanna play some games!
You're correct in saying that the PS2 was expensive, it was $300 which was $100 more than the Dreamcast and the same price as the XBox; and it sold well to a lot of people because DVD was already being adopted at an amazing rate and a cheap DVD player cost the same as the PS2. The PS3 is $500 or $600, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are being adopted at a slower than expected rate, and a cheap HD-DVD player is less than the PS3.
A videogame system "wins" very early on in its life (say 18 to 24 months into it) when they have sold enough to pressure third party developers to focus on their system rather than the competition. If you have a 5 Million unit lead in all three regions it is pretty easy to encourage developers that they should make games exclusively for you.
Also, modern Development Costs have very little to do with programming because you're programming team (including all scripters) is probably about 15% of the size of your entire development team; the real costs in game development are in the texture artists, modelers and animators and they will probably have to do more work as the generation progresses. What people don't get is that most of these fancy new material effects require data (normal maps, BDRF, etc) to be applied to the model as a texture which requires extra man hours; also things like facial animation (and animation in general) requires far more tweeking as you aproach more realistic avatars in order to make it look good (being slightly off on a very real looking person makes them look really creepy; being slightly off on mario isn't such a big deal).
MS made it a modular choice that you can opt into if you want it, (Like the PS2 Network adapter) but you don't have to buy it if you don't want it. Sony gives us "Free Online", but forces Blue-Ray on at an added up front cost to the consumer. Personally if I wanted Blue-ray, I'll buy a stand alone player. My PS2 is a shitty DVD player, and I expect the PS3 will be similar. I get a much better (hickup free) experiance from either my Panasonic, or Sony brand DVD players.
With Sony announcing that the distribution will be 80/20 favoring the higher end model, It's safe to say a PS3 is $600.
This is a myth. Yes, they didn't sell as many N64s as Sony did Playstations. But you know what? They sold plenty of them and where just about the only ones making A grade games for the console (besides Rare). Almost the same situation for the Gamecube. What that means is, Nintendo is virtually guaranteed to sell at least one copy of any game they release for each console they've sold. If there are 10 million N64s out there, that gives Nintendo 10 million sales. And the weak competition for top tear games means those 10 million sales can be done at $50-$40 dollars, instead of the $20 for Greatest Hit titles. Sega of America tried to do this back in the days of the Saturn by discouraging third parties from bringing over popular japanese titles (They blew off Working Designs and wouldn't let Tecmo publish Dead or Alive), but it back fired because Sega couldn't keep up a steady stream of A+ titles on their own (Sonic 3D Blast anyone?). Nintendo's living Sega's dream. They've got total control of the market, and can basically skip market research because they know that if you've got an N64 or GC, chances are you're going to buy the next Mario/Zelda/Pokemon.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The ps2 was expensive when it came out.
The PS2 was $300 when it launched in the US. Not counting inflation, that's the same price as the original Playstation when it debuted. Though, I guess something being expensive can be relative.
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
At least - finally - an article put launch woes into context. The PS2 had a TERRIBLE launch. It was so ridiculed that SEGA's Dreamcast advertising took aim at it with the "tongue" series of ads (a kid sticking out his tongue) - 3 months after the ad ran - the Dreamcast was cast off.
Launch means nothing to Japanese companies, and the history books. They will stick it out until they dominate. The fact that the PS2 sales STILL dominate makes that point clear as well as the 100 plus million units sold.
It'll be fun to watch - and play.
I mean for anything? Yeah my dad will only buy GM vehicles, my uncle only ford, but to think that anybody would always choose one brand of blender over another is ridiculous. That's why wal-mart is so successful, low price is king. Sony itself DOESN'T have a good reputation for hardware anymore and the playstation has no stronger of a rep than nintendo had in 95. Perhaps it's too early to celebrate the death of the "brand" but it's certainly less important now than it ever has been.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
I think that people consistently fail to recognize that Blu-ray may become a long-term impediment for the PS3. The market simply has not yet spoken on HD DVD vs Blu-ray. If HD DVD turns out to be the winner, then the PS3 is lumbered with an expensive device that is an also-ran in the movie department.
It's not like Sony has a great track record in picking winners in the movie format wars.
Issues which might affect people looking to purchase a PS3:
1. Controllers - you will have to buy new ones as they are now USB and not usable with the older systems. One of the good things about upgrading to the PS2 was its ability to use previous controllers.
2. Memory cards (from the PS1/2) - they won't work; you will have to purchase an additional accessory in order to use them. Considering that the PS3 is to be backwards compatible (games-wise), the fact that saved games can't be loaded from older memory cards might frustrate people who've owned the previous systems.
So far everyone almost everyone that's used it (including those who felt it was flimsy due to lack of weight) have easily gotten used to it. Game designers and players seemed to like the implementation of the tilt in many games like dragonflight in lair.
Will I miss rumble, will i miss the weight? To a degree yes, I will... However I welcome a lighter and wireless controller as it would help greatly with the tilt. I can imagine tilting the old controller in the air and the tiredness one would feel. I don't think it's an accident that caused it to be so light.
The ps3 is quite appealing to me and i'd love to buy it....(once it reaches the $349 price point on the lower end unit).
Hmmm... Pie...
The playstation had already come out and had a very decent library by the time the n64 came out. What was worse is that there was basically one game at launch (super mario 64) and another a month later. While super mario was a nice game that was still a weak launch by any measure.
The psx had many crappy games and no one disputes that. But a lot of it was still quite entertaining. There were a lot of new ideas and games on the psx (console wise). Parappa the Rapper, Crash Bandicoot, 3d racing, and 3d fighting (not completely new but oh well). I actually had fun playing a lot of non AAA title early psx games. They gave this overwhelmingly refreshing feeling. The 3dness of the psx seemed so different then every console before it.
The N64 was only moderately refreshing. 3D was no longer brand new and Super Mario 64 was only moderately appealing. A large number of gamers had gotten older and there was an overwhelming feeling that Nintendo was a kid's console. This has gotten weaker since but the idea still persists for many. Piracy also sold a lot of psx, the mod community was thriving.
Hmmm... Pie...
Disc production costs are the same for Blu-Ray and DVD. The factories are more expensive, but games are going to be produced at such volumes those one-time costs do not matter.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You are one of the ones buying the $500 model, or willing to wait for one.
Using your logic (only considering the cost of the most easily availiabel system cost) the PS3 would be around $800, or whatever price was current on eBay. Illogical and foolish.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
With MMORPG's, the point of a server is quite different because you are paying them to hold game state, and everone understands that, With Halo You have a few user attributes stored on Live, but not a whole persistant world.
With MMORPGs, the situation is reversed and people are leery of paying an entry fee when they know they'll have to pay a recurring fee to play.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You forgot that gamers don't want HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.
Lets see. If you want a PS3 you had to wait in a line for at least 2 hours in advance at EB or you had to wait a 36 hours in advance at TrU to get a pre-order.
PS3 pre-orders are selling for over $1,400.00 on Ebay.
Sony just confirmed that they are on target to get 6 million units out by March.
Nintendo's launch partner is Toys R Us, and just today (Sunday Oct 29th 2006), most Toys R Us announced that they will only be taking 20 or so Wii pre-orders. GameStop and EB games actually took around the same number of Wii pre-orders as PS3's. So it looks like Nintendo "may" be having some manufacturing issues. If they were not having any issues, companies like Toys R Us should have around 50 to 100 pre-orders of Wii's.
So what is the largest issue that prevents most people from wanting a PS3. The price, and Sony has shown that they will lower that when needed (Japan PS3 price is ~$430). It isn't inconceivable that Sony won't offer some "Gold" pack with a game in the summer of 2007 for the same price as the current PS3's now and then lower the price by next Christmas for a basic console.
Now there is the whole BlueRay, HD-DVD thing. There isn't even 50k units of HD-DVD players out on the market and it looks like the manufacturing of BluRay will be helped out considerably by 6 million units being produced, not to mention that there will be 6 million BlueRay players out there. If you were a content provider which one would you produce for? It is also not a mistake that Sony is going to include a BlueRay movie with the first 500k PS3's. They want people to try it as a movie player.
I would say the future looks very bright for the PS3 and Sony. There are obviously a bunch of people willing to pay $1,400.00+ now on Ebay, and it appears that there are at least 6 million people in the world that will pay the list price to get one, and after that Sony can decide if they need to lower the price or not. I would say Nintendo fans need to worry a little bit about their launch numbers this year, but with Mario and such the own the 10 and under crowd, and it will do around the same as the gamecube. Not to slam the Wii, but to a lot of people see the Wii as just a gamecube 1.5 with a new controller. Now the real company that will be hurt is Microsoft. They haven't hit 5 million 360 units out yet, and the PS2 still out sells it month after month. That isn't good news for them and they are one price drop away from being all but shut down in new sales. It appears that it was a HUGE mistake for them to not include HD-DVD in the system and setting 720P as their "preferred" resolution. The way I see it, Microsoft could lower the price of the 360 to $100 by next Christmas and it probably wouldn't change their fate. It sucks to be in the "middle" of the console wars. The Nintendo (10 and under) fans will buy a Wii and the 11 and older crowd will want a PS3. I fully expect a Xbox 3 within 3 years, or I expect Microsoft to get out of the gaming world. They have a lot of battles going on, and they only have so many resources...
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
There are some improvements I don't want to miss anymore.
DOOM 1 was a milestone in 3D gaming, but compared to Duke Nukem the resolution of only 320x200 pixels sucked. So did the fact that you could not look up or down. Which was necessary due to some shortcuts ID software took in programming, so the game could run on a 80386 with acceptable framerate.
Then HalfLife 1 set the bar even higher. While I found the difference not as profound as from DOOM 1 to Duke Nukem, "equivalent to HalfLife 1" is what I now expect as minimum from a game's graphics cababilities.
Of course, everybody has a different opinion of what is "good enough". But for most purposes, the technology of the year 2000 allows a reasonable quality level (and by the way, the regular DVD became available in the late 1990s which is close enough).
C - the footgun of programming languages
Everything I've ever read about the power of the 360 versus the PS3 says they are essentially equally powered. Yes, the PS3 might have a slight advantage with the Cell processor, but the 360 evens the score with a slightly more powerful graphics chip. In the end, a wash. And that certainly is reflected in the games as side by side there will be absolutely no difference between the same game running on a 360 or on a PS3.
Xbox360: Ooohh, Shiny. Gamers System Little pricey (before announced ps3 price) Tiered System, Tiered Live. 2nd place.
PS3: Late in the game, Behind Xbox360 in sales. Low Volume. Tiered price. Lots of titles at launch. Waaay overpriced. Unneeded BluRay. (Why not tier it BluRay and DVD) 3rd place.
Wii: Fun, Cute, Innovative, Inexpensive, lots of launch titles. High Volume at launch. Must have. 1st place
These results are for 2006 only. PS3 will not even have enough units to match xbox360 sales thus far this year. Wii is the new tickle me elmo and will sell like mad. 2007 PS3 may take 2nd spot. Expect price wars in March to June. 2008 may even move PS3 up to 1st. (Linux platform of choice?)
My kids want a Wii. My kids are getting a Wii. My mother wants a Wii. My nieces and nephews want a Wii. My wife wants a Wii.
MS did what they had to do to get the numbers to beat Sony this year. Nintendo did what they had to do to get profits and hype up this year. Sony has done damn near everything wrong that you could imagine (Almost as if they hired old Sega execs).
Either way, a fine generation.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
All this talk about which consoles will "win" is a total waste of time at this current time. I had many friend boycott the PS2 when it first game out. Crap customer service, only X units in the store made them look like elitists.. etc. They went xbox, and eventually they even went nintendo for the game cube. 2 years later they all had ps2's with more games on that one console than they other 2 combined.
The point i'm trying to make is that even after the systems come out... say.. around new years and in jan 2007, there will be MORE slash dot posts saying "SEE! 360 for the win! Nintendo wins! Sony didn't sell as much!" ... Except that they don't NEED to at the beginning. They have a rather large backing by some very well known game makers, and from what all reports claim.. and if the specs are really as good as they claim... then the system is a solid system.
It doesn't come down to the system. It comes down to the games that go with the system. That is the key to remember. If you only want to get an xbox because you dislike sony.... Yet, you like RPG's and dislike sports games... That's like buying a mac for games because you don't like or don't want to support windows. Sure it has games, but probably not many of the types you are going to actually want to play.
Yep, you and I agree on that one. Now with two consoles having significantly more processing power and far better graphics than the Wii, which one do you think will be better?
I'll jump in on that one. In particular The Wii version of Madden looks to be Hella fun, and from a gameplay perspective alot better than the other versions. Though the 360 version is prettier, it is missing many modes still found in the PS2, X-box or GameCube version. The Wii version retained all of them, is prettier than the xbox version and the control scheme sounds great. More power =! better games. Sony won the last 2 generations with the weakest console on the market*. Clearly it isn't all about processing power.
*Ok, the order for weakest to strongest this generation was "Dreamcast->PS2->GameCube->Xbox", but I discount the Dreamcast since it never made it to the end of the generation.