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?
...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
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
That would be like asking Commander Taco to apologize for Slashdot. ;)
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
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!
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
They've got a number of screw-ups this round - they cost significantly more than the competition, production problems are going to hurt the footing they could have gained during the holiday season, they're going to miss the 2006 season entirely in Europe, and so forth.
It's really too early to know how the market will take it. Gaming news sites really don't have their finger on the pulse of the market, in my opinion.
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)
But taking the console up to the checkout and paying $600 vs $400 vs $300 are completely different things. I paid $400 for my 360, and have definitely put about $200 into it (games, live, accessories) . . . but having that $500 or $600 upfront is a completely different animal.
There's also been a few articles saying that the majority of PS3s being produced are the $600 model. There might be no choice between the $500 model and the $600 model. Something tells me that unlike the 360, the less expensive model will be the more popular. If, after launch, the $600 model is being snatched up at a higher rate than the $500 model, there's going to be a lot of people (me included) that are going to be eating their own words.
We know the fanboys, early adapters, and people with simply too much money will buy it. We'll see about everyone else when it's released.
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
Both PS3's have full hdmi 1.3 output. Neither 360 does. The budget Ps3 has the same size hard drive as the premium xbox. As far as the lack of memory card slots go, I don't think anyone knows whether or not an external reader will be released, but if there is demand, i'm sure it's something that they could hook up through one of those USB ports. The premium system has 60 gb more hd, wifi, and the reader. The "nerfed" system is for people who don't want those features. Calling the 360 comparable to either system is a joke. The crummy ps3 is "comparable" to the premium 360 with HD-DVD drive. The comparison you should be making is that the "nerfed" PS3 has the same features as the "premium" 360, and also comes with wifi, a wireless controller, a high def media drive, a card reader, and free network gaming. Whether that is worth 200 dollars to you or not probably depends on whether or not you have an HDTV and wireless internet in your house, but if the cheaper PS3 is nerfed, then both xbox 360's are super duper nerfed.
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
My post had nothing to do with piracy. Those prices are real costs of those media. It clearly costs much more -- assuming manufacturer's bulk rates stay somewhat proportional, about 22 times more -- to produce a game on a blueray disc than on two DVDs.