Slashdot Mirror
PlayStation 3 Launches in EU/AU
stpk4 wrote to mention some articles discussing the launch of the PlayStation 3 in Europe; London saw Phil Harrison handing out HD sets, while Microsoft's party barge and lackluster crowds marked the Parisian launch. The Australian launch went well but also saw disappointing crowds, with media, security, and store officials outnumbering the customers for much of the event. Eurogamer has a comprehensive list of launch titles, for those of you in the new territories thinking of picking up a console.
(crickets)
why the hell do the euros get free hdtvs with their ps3s?! C'mon! where's my free 42in hdtv? i bought a ps3 and all that crap, so uh.. sony? make with the tv.
sheesh.
But not this desparate...
Coinciding with the EU and AU release was the new firmware, including the PS3 Folding@home client. This has caused the project to explode, with PS3's putting up more than 20x the performance of a Windows PC
God Fucking Damnit
we sold about 26 machines at our midnight launch this morning. That was only about a third of our pre-orders, and Sony got us 120 machines for day one. I know everyone's heralding the death of Sony's gaming division these days, but they've done a fantastic job with getting stock out there to stores (admittedly they've had months to put this in motion). I won't be buying one myself but I think Sony are starting to turn their fortunes around.
Just as long as they don't let any of their execs do anymore interviews.
Well, now having a Xbox 360 and Wii, and a lot of playing time on thePS3, I'd have to say the PS3 gets a worse rap than it deserves. Well, at least it doesn't deserve the ire it is shown. They could have been more competetive by making the Blu-Ray optional (which there is little use for as of yet). As far as the interface goes, the PS3 is a bit more versatile than the 360, but the 360 is much easier. Combined with a PSP, it can do some pretty sweet stuff. I hear you can do some sweet stuff on the 360 if you have a Windows Media Center PC as well, but I don't know and won't find out.
The PS3 is quieter than the Xbox, and has a much better hard drive setup. However, for all it's much advertised power, I certainly haven't noticed it. It could be the games, but nothing I have seen would lead me to believe it is more powerful. Which, I guess, brings up games. So far PS3 is far behind the 360 in games. And that's saying alot with the 360 not having a super line-up yet.
But, I'm still waiting for my Xbox back from MS after the dvd drive crapped out. Just like the original xbox, the DVD drives seem to be good for about a year, while my original PS2 drive is still working.
Anyway, for the money, I'd take a 360 and a Wii over the PS3 anyday. The 360 for playing alone & online, and the Wii for when friends are over.
Intelligence says that some German retailer had a crazy stunt: Bring your Xbox360, smash it in front of the audience and get a PS3 for free! Limited to the first fifty people...
And what exactly is the 'overall' power of a system?
Performance always has a context (despite what some marketers will have you believe) and in this context, yes, the Cell in the PS3 really is that much more powerful than an x86 chip.
FUNK!
Sure it does. In fact it already has about half the install base of the 360 and more than twice that of the PS3. Remember that if the 'most powerful machine' wins the race, Sony would never have been a contender. People seemed pretty content with their PS1/PS2's despite there being more powerful systems competing with them.
How many Wii owners would identify themselves as part of the "gaming population"? Moreover, how many Wii-owning gamers are still satisfied with the console now that the hysteria over it is starting to wear off? The sales of the Wii don't really say much about gamers' tastes, especially since they're a mere fraction of the sales of the PS2, or even of the XBox and GameCube.
As for your argument concerning the PS2's processing power, I would submit that the PS2 wasn't nearly as weak as the Wii is by comparison. Though the PS2 was clearly less capable graphically than the other two systems, this was accepted as a natural consequence of coming out a year earlier, and most people considered it to be a minor problem and an easy tradeoff in exchange for a better game lineup. The Wii has none of these excuses to fall back on.
Rob
Look I love my Wii, but the PS2-GameCube gab is a lot smaller than the PS3-Wii gap, graphics wise. It may not matter now, but can we say the same thing in 2 or 3 years? And limited processing power doesn't just effect graphics. You're also looking at weaker AI, less enemies, less physics, etc.
I think Wii will do well, and it was worth the $250, but I'm doubtful of its staying power.
i wanna ps3. now. gimme gimme gimme.
*sob*
The Wii is fun, but It can't pull off a game like Oblivion, where half the experience is the visual world and characters around you drawing you into the game. It also doesn't have the power for an very immersive environment for an FPS. Although it is possible for a game to have weak graphics and still be more fun, thats up to the game developers. I'd rather have a syatem where they can have the potential to do both well, rather than one that can only do one of them.
So by this logic games like Ninja Gaiden Black, Halo, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil 4, or Zelda (IE: any game from any system prior to the current) could not provide an immersive environment and draw you in?
Although it is possible for a game to have weak graphics and still be more fun, thats up to the game developers.
Like Rockstar with Grand Theft Auto? How about World of Warcraft?
The gap narrows considerably when using composite cables (480i) like 83% of the USA (and the US has the best rate of HD adoption). Gears of War looks great in 720p. I'm sure Lair will wow in 1080p. If you plug these into an SDTV they still will look nice, but not that much nicer than say, Ninja Gaiden Black.
HD is the future, but it isn't the present. It will still take years until the % of households with at least 1 HDTV will be greater than 50%.
By that time, it's time for the next round of consoles...
It also doesn't have the power for an very immersive environment for an FPS.
Depends on your definition. I found Metroid Prime back on the Gamecube plenty immersive.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
The gap narrows considerably when using composite cables (480i) like 83% of the USA
That rate is shrinking rapidly, and most of the people who don't have HDTVs also are not in the market for new game consoles. In a couple of years most gamers will have HDTVs and use them with their PS3s and/or 360s. Nintendo simply isn't looking long-term, and that is a big mistake.
Rob
Lesson #1: Rampant Microsoft fanboyism is best left to the fanboys, not Microsoft.
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
That rate is shrinking rapidly, and most of the people who don't have HDTVs also are not in the market for new game consoles. In a couple of years most gamers will have HDTVs and use them with their PS3s and/or 360s. Nintendo simply isn't looking long-term, and that is a big mistake.
IMHO, Nintendo is looking long term, It's Sony and MS that are looking short term on their systems (being the early adopters). In 4-6 years you will see the Wii HD (or whatever they call it) complete with the gameplay mechanic and software that brought new people in at a time when most (50% +1) households have at least 1 HDTV.
In 4-6 years you will see the Wii HD
Four to six years? You mean long after the other two consoles have already left it in the dust? Furthermore, this "gameplay mechanic" you speak of has already been partially implemented in the PS3, and if it's successful at all will surely be a part of the PS4 and probably the next XBox as well. Sony's been copying Nintendo's innovations and making them more viable for the past decade, and that's not going to change in the future.
Rob
I had the day off today due to the dryer at home deciding to stop working. This took me on a tour of Comet, Curry's, Woolworths and Big W.
All stores had huge signs outside saying "PS3 stock available inside". This was from 12 oclock through till 2pm. Everywhere had huge stands and what looked like large amounts of stock, I also only saw one person show interest.
Later this afternoon I decided to take a trip into Cardiff (S.Wales vally boy just so you know). Gamestation, Virgin, Game, HMV and more all had signs saying "stock available".
I think at this point that I should note that in all stores the Wii was totally sold out. Supply chain problems,lack of interest whatever. I think it speaks for itself that at £425 just for a base unit console the numbers are going to suck. People want value not extra's and to put a long story short, if you really do need that PS3 get to Newport and Cardiff in S.Wales.
Pete
Actually Nintendo is looking long term, their strategy is dead on, consoles are commodities, and hence they have to be cheap (have you read the interview where they wanted to get the price below 100$) you do not need an uber machine doing everything, the pc already does that way better than any console can do it, and a pc can be found in every house. HDTV does not make sense yet because the market saturation is not good enough, so what can you do, build a machine which is cheap and a no brainer to pick up, and get the controls right so that also beginners can jump on it, while also serving the old fan base.
It is not too hard, to get a HDTV enabled wii out of the door, if the demand is there, currently it is not, and Nintendo is dead right on this. In about a three years time it is time to rethink the strategy, but do not expect nintendo to move fast into this area, they seem to feel quite cozy in their little toy corner and watch Microsoft and Sony kill each other in the console business.
The current situation must be very comforting to them, they again are out of the visual target range of Microsoft which still tries to sink Sony, Sony is shooting itself into the food with its own arrogance, and Nintendo slowly but surely reaches numbers which third parties cannot avoid to develop for anymore, in between they seem to have reached the new gamer and non gamer audience via excellent coverage in non gamer media.
And currently not being able to run on pure hdtv does not mean you cannot do it, look at PC gaming, HDTV resolutions have been a commodity there for almost a decade, games simply scale down or up, and often simply replace textures. So I do not see the current non hdtv as a real issue here. They dropped out of the race because there is nothing to gain or to win there.
Most of those games were cutting-edge when they came out. Time has passed, technology has gotten better, people's expectations have risen. That's the way it always is.
If those games were to come out today looking exactly the same, you better believe they'd get mocked for their graphics and people would question the notion of spending top dollar for them.
What makes you think most people without HDTV aren't in the market for new consoles? Most of the people I know who've bought consoles recently don't have HD. Hell, one is currently using a trash-picked 19".
...have been quite positive around here, but it's like:
Pro: It's a great $1000 package
Con: It's a $1000 package
(after 25% VAT)
Basicly, if you're going to use it as a HDTV movie box, buy it. If you're going to use it as a game console, get the 360 instead. The Wii was barely mentioned, for the PS3 target market they clearly saw it as PS3 vs 360. While the Blu-Ray drive is very competative to stand-alones, basicly if you're not going to use it then the prices will drop fairly quickly in a year or two, there's no point buying one today to save for later. That was the essence I read out of it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I'm still waiting for it to come out here in Kenya.
Le français vous intéresse?
EU = European Union. OK, the PS3 was released here.
AU = African Union (a more or less powerless international organisation) != Australia If one really need to shorten "Australia", you can simply write "Oz".
"most of the people who don't have HDTVs also are not in the market for new game consoles."
WTF? Who plays games? Kids, students and young adults. Only one of those groups even has any income, let alone much spare cash for a fancy TV - and HDTVs are damn expensive. The majority of gamers I know use crappy 10 year old sets they inherited from their parents.
Sorry, I should've been more clear. Beyond the fact that most people who don't have HDTVs aren't gamers at all, by "new game consoles" I meant consoles that are actually new, as opposed to the Wii which is just a gussied-up GameCube with a new controller. Most people who were willing to pay $600 for a PS3 either already have an HDTV or will be getting one very soon. As for the 360, I'd say the vast majority of owners will get an HDTV to play it on in a couple of years at most. Remember that not only are HDTV prices going down quickly, but that you don't have to get a big expensive one to see the significant improvements in graphical quality.
Rob
consoles are commodities
Says who? Consoles have never been commodities, and the fact that Nintendo is differentiating its console from the other two with controller gimmickry proves that it doesn't really believe that consoles are commodities either. In fact, it's farther from the commodity concept than the other two fairly generic consoles are.
If you simply meant that consoles should be really cheap, well, I would like for the current consoles to be really cheap, but cheapness is far from being a part of a console's identity.
you do not need an uber machine doing everything, the pc
already does that way better than any console can do it, and a pc can be found in every house.
Fortunately for both Sony and Microsoft, however, both of their consoles can still play games a lot better than most PCs can despite their desire to create ueber-machines.
Nintendo slowly but surely reaches numbers which third parties cannot avoid to develop for anymore
Here's something I've learned over the past twenty years of watching the gaming industry: Just because developers have to make something for a system doesn't mean that they'll make something good for it. The Wiimote just makes it more likely that most of the big developers will make a bunch of shallow cash-in games and substandard ports for the Wii while leaving their more serious efforts on the other consoles. Some would argue that we're already seeing this happen.
look at PC gaming, HDTV resolutions have been a commodity there for almost a decade, games simply scale down or up, and often simply replace textures.
Which is quite obviously different from designing a game to be HD from the beginning, which is what we've seen on both the 360 and the PS3. Even if Nintendo decides to put HD games on the Wii in the manner you describe, the Wii doesn't have nearly the processing power to compete. If you think that that's good long-term thinking, I don't want to know what you think bad long-term thinking is.
Rob
Beyond the fact that most people who don't have HDTVs aren't gamers at all.
There's only about 20 million households that own HDTVs. There were about 77 million consoles sold last generation. Are you saying that 57 million non-gamers bought consoles or that every gamer bought almost four consoles (and at least two PS2s)?
by "new game consoles" I meant consoles that are actually new, as opposed to the Wii which is just a gussied-up GameCube with a new controller.
Ah, redefining terms in your favour. Gotcha.
Most people who were willing to pay $600 for a PS3 either already have an HDTV or will be getting one very soon.
Neither of the people I personally know who have a PS3 has or plans on getting an HDTV any time soon. Anecdote isn't data, of course, but then neither is bald conjecture and speculation.
Remember that not only are HDTV prices going down quickly, but that you don't have to get a big expensive one to see the significant improvements in graphical quality.
Trends in sales are still showing more large SD sets than HD sets. People want bigger televisions regardless of picture quality (explains projection screens).
Actually the PS1 and PS2 became successes at a time when when they reached commodity pricepoints. Bascially every console there is which was successful was rather cheapish, the ones failed always were the expensive ones, sorry, but consoles are commodities and have to be cheaper than a PC.
As for the long term plan. HDTV will have a significant market saturation by 2010, 2011. For sony it made sense to integrate HDTV they wanted to use it as a vehicle to push blue ray into the market, for Microsoft it made sense, because Sony was doing it, for Nintendo it did not make sense. Not their market currently. I still think their aim was dead on find your own nieche, drop out of the race for a while. The problem is, that the nieche nintendo has found is about 10 times bigger than the one Sony and Microsoft are targetting.
Ah I forgot, about the cheap cash in games, the console which sells the most gets the biggest push, from what I personally expect is that if the wii stays on top until 2009 (it will be surpassed I am sure, but it has very good years ahead until HDTV really becomes an issue, and even then the numbers should keep it alive) I wont get quick cash in ports, it will be more along the lines that the efforts will be reduced for the XBOX and PS3 in that time and those will get quick ports with higher resolution textures but no work on anything else whatsoever! Pretty much what happend on the PC the last years, the PC was able to handle real high res content and has been for a long time, but there was a serious drop in quality from 2002 onward, the reason was it mostly was fed with quickly ported console games, which resultet in problematic controls, and a serious drop in graphics quality.
"How many Wii owners would identify themselves as part of the "gaming population"? Moreover, how many Wii-owning gamers are still satisfied with the console now that the hysteria over it is starting to wear off? The sales of the Wii don't really say much about gamers' tastes, especially since they're a mere fraction of the sales of the PS2, or even of the XBox and GameCube."
Wii is currently outselling the PS2 at a similiar time frame. When you consider that the PS2 had no competition (Xbox and Gamecube would be released a year later) while the Wii has two very strong competitors (including the PS2) and that the Wii is severely undersupplied in all markets, the Wii sales snowball is at the very beginning.
"As for your argument concerning the PS2's processing power, I would submit that the PS2 wasn't nearly as weak as the Wii is by comparison. Though the PS2 was clearly less capable graphically than the other two systems, this was accepted as a natural consequence of coming out a year earlier, and most people considered it to be a minor problem and an easy tradeoff in exchange for a better game lineup. The Wii has none of these excuses to fall back on."
The gulf between Wii and PS3 is the same as the DS and PSP.
Everyone is forgetting about the NES. The gaming platforms when the NES came out were game centric computers who were 16 bit. Let's look at the similarities:
NES: Family focused.
WII: Family focused.
NES: New controller (D-pad) that replaced the joystick.
WII: New controller (motion sensing) that is replacing dual sticks.
NES: 8-bit while game centric computers were 16-bit.
WII: Not HD while game centric computers pursued it.
NES: Awesome retro-gaming experience with ports of arcade classics (former Atari gamers' favorite titles) from Pac-Man, Xevious, Donkey Kong, and all the rest. A Virtual Arcade.
WII: Awesome retro-gaming experience with the NES, SNES, Genesis, Turbografix-16, and N64 games available (many former gamers' favorites). A Virtual Console.
NES: Gimmick mini-games like Duck Hunt and World Track Meet.
WII: Gimmick mini-games like Wii Play and Wii Music.
NES: Focused on making gaming easier and more accessible than its game-centric computer competitors.
WII: Focused on making gaming easier and more accessible than its game-centric computer competitors.
NES: Was a huge hit with young kids. Was also played by adults.
WII: Was a huge hit with young kids. Was also played by adults.
NES: Competitors believed gaming would forever evolve into a more computer orientated platform. A machine should do everything and shouldn't just play games. Machines costed $300-600.
WII: Competitors believed game-only consoles were dead and they would further evolve into a platform for everything digital. These machines costed $300-600.
NES: Never sold 'tons' at once. Consistently sold out in Japan and America due to a growing market.
WII: Never sold 'tons' at once. Consistently sold out everywhere due to a growing market.
NES: Excite Bike an early NES title that became a cult hit.
WII: Excite Truck an early WII title that became a cult hit.
NES: Early games, unused to the new controller, had some control issues.
WII: Early games, unused to the new controller, have some control issues.
NES: Preceded by a very popular two screened handheld 'game and watch'.
WII: Preceded by a very popular two screened handheld 'DS'.
NES: The game industry thought NES would fail. When it didn't, they thought it would collapse and everyone would return to the game centric computers (Electronic Arts and Trip Hawkins thought this)
WII: The game industry thought Nintendo would fail. When it didn't, they are now thinking the Wii sales will collapse (i.e. novelty will 'fade') and everyone will return to the game centric computers of PS3 and Xbox 360.
There are so many similarities with the NES and WII that one can go on and on forever.
No, he means "just in time with most people moving to HDTVs." There's really no reason to think that the Wii would not still be a success in four year's time. Two letters: DS.
That would mean that they are replacable, and that the brand doesn't matter. I'd argue the opposite: Brand matters, because of exclusive games. The Wii still comes out ahead: While the PS3 and 360 are kind of commodities in relation to each other (eventually, there will be almost no exclusive games on either console), the Wii isn't. It's unique. This is - in my opinion - the reason why the PS3 is failing: It costs a lot more than the 360, but doesn't really offer anything to justify the price.
One other argument: Consoles are toys. If you're buying a new gaming PC, you can easily justify the price: You need the faster computer for Vista, or maybe for the new Office, or for some other reason. But paying 900 bucks for a gaming rig (if you take into account additional controllers and one or two games)? Well... That's harder to justify.
Personally, I think the PS3 is a neat toy. I'm tempted. I could afford one. But it's still a huge amount of money just so I can play a bunch of games for a few hours every week! I could go to the movies every day for half a year for that kind of money.
So, that's how you avoid cognitive dissonance now :-)
Looks like it's time to start facing facts, now that the PS3 has failed in Europe as well.
Most people who were willing to pay $600 for a PS3 either already have an HDTV or will be getting one very soonSo you're saying that the target audience of the PS3 is really small, which makes the PS3 a success because it has successfully targeted that small audience?
As for the 360, I'd say the vast majority of owners will get an HDTV to play it on in a couple of years at most...which will be a good time for Nintendo to introduce Wii2, still at 250 US$, but with graphic capabilities rivalling the 360.
### HD is the future, but it isn't the present.
Do you have a computer monitor? If so then you have a HD-TV capable device. One doesn't need a 42" Plasma TV for thousands of dollar to make use of HD output, VGA cable for XBox360 will just do the same. Beside even without HD you still profit from a clear picture due to anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering and plain and simple more detailed and better looking scenery and models. Now little old granny playing some Wii Sport tennis might not care about the difference, but gamers *do* care. One could of course argue that the 'classic' gamers are not in Nintendos target audience...
True, but you don't buy a Wii if you consider yourself a "serious gamer" and intend to use it as your primary gaming platform. I own a Wii because it provides an experience that I don't get with my PC. Namely, the ability to stand in the middle of my living room and swing a controller at virtual baseballs as a big-headed avatar hurls them at me. I'm not going to pretend that the system is any good at immersive first-person shooters or graphically-intensive adventure games. Those are reserved for my PC.
Besides, anyone who thinks you can play a FPS on a control pad is kidding themselves. All the processing power in the universe (or in the PS3) isn't going to change that.
I set up the PS3 with the Panasonic PT-AX100E beamer and the Sony HT-SS1000 Home Theatre System using HDMI cabling.
The beamer projects 1080p on a 270 cm wide screen (an old painting, re-painted with Vogel's Mighty Brighty paint).
I can tell you it is just awesome, but also tiring to play race games at this resolution, width, speed & with the amp.
The Blu Ray movies compared to DVD are such a change that you will just want to buy Blue Ray ever after. My wife (Art Director) said: "I didn't expect is was such a difference, this is amazing!", when I show her the same frame from Ice Age 2 on DVD and 1080p. You can see such more depth in the picture, the DVD just looked pale. But as ever content is king, we need more game, more type of games and good cinema films. A re-mastered Lord of the Rings would be awesome at this resolution. And we need less remotes with Sony, We have 5 remotes now, and that needs to change.
I wouldn't consider the VC a 'Higher Priced alternative' to XBLA. Every VC game goes from $5-$10. XBLA starts at $5 and can go up to $30 (if you want the full game and modes of Luminies Live for example.)
One thing that has me baffled (as a Wii60 owner myself) is that XBLA has many more 'Casual friendly' games than Nintendo's VC. The Wii as a system is much more 'casual friendly' than the 360 but where are the games for them? On the X-box I can play networked Uno, Texas hold 'em, Bejewled 2... Hell Even Mrs. PacMan... Nintendo? where are the casual VC games?
the reason why the PS3 is failing: It costs a lot more than the 360, but doesn't really offer anything to justify the price.
Well, the fact that the 360 costs $50/year for online play (meaning it'll end up being even more expensive than the PS3) was enough to justify it to me.
That's a good point. I don't play online games, though, especially not those where you have to, you know... communicate. So I just forgot about that. OTOH, the 50 bucks a year actually get you a mature, well implemented online gaming service. It's unclear how the PS3 online gaming stuff will work out.
I probably didn't state it precisely enough... I meant that the VC is charging a bit more for "retro" than is XLBA... that I can see from the outside... Maybe it all works out, but the concept still is more "retro" for VC than XBLA (even though XBLA has quite a few retro titles...)
;) Then I could be a Wii60 owner too.
Are prices are always towards the $10 range for later consoles on the VC, correct? Funny thing is, the mini "retro" titles for the XBLA are not always welcomed (at least in the forums I've read) like Paperboy and the like... Root Beer Tapper was kinda baffling too... Those and equivalent games are 400 pts, and the pricer content runs 800 (have there been any that cost more? I haven't kept up that well...)
I am also baffled that XBLA (which I don't consider to be more or less useful than the VC) has bigger "retro" titles so far... I mean, the very concept of the VC game setup is retro fun.... The XBLA just seems to have them for filler and convenience.
If I could ever find a Wii... I might like to buy one.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Actually no. The VC priging goes like this:
Nes games = $5
TurboGraphix 16 = $6 (to be fair 1 game is $8, but they combined 2 games into one)
SNES/Genesis = $8
N64 = $10
The Selection also favors the cheaper titles, simply by availability. There are far fewer N64 titles than NES, or Turbo16 ones...
XBLA has most of their games fall in the range of 400 - 800 points ($5 - $10), but there are $15 ones and if you got fleeced by Luminies (as I did) it starts at $15 and can go all the way up to $30 if you buy all the modes you thought should have been in the $15 version.
I am also baffled that XBLA (which I don't consider to be more or less useful than the VC) has bigger "retro" titles so far... I mean, the very concept of the VC game setup is retro fun.... The XBLA just seems to have them for filler and convenience.
I agree that the VC was more of a focus for Nintendo than XBLA was for MS, but I guess it depends on what you mean by 'Bigger retro titles'. I'm personally happy with the selection of VC titles so far... I only wish there were more games for 'casual gamers' who have their first console ever and are not finding an ample selection of games. Stuff like Bejeweled, or online Texas hold em (such as on XBLA) would be nice. A Suduku, or tetris... Something!
If I could ever find a Wii... I might like to buy one. ;) Then I could be a Wii60 owner too.
I wish you luck with the Wii. They are still difficult, but not impossible to get. It will take some patience, but it's worth it.