Slashdot Mirror
Why the PS3's February Sales May Be Misleading
1up's Luke Smith takes a look at February's NPD numbers, and has an observation to make about what they might mean for Sony. Though the company is almost certainly not selling as many PS3s as they'd like, the console still sold more units between November and February than a supply-constrained Xbox 360 did last year ... and despite a $200 more expensive pricetag. Though the console is certainly getting off to a slow start (and really needs great software, fast), it's still keeping pace with Microsoft's console from a year ago. "What does this mean for Sony? Considering the system's higher price point, if the platform can keep pace with the Xbox 360 through the first year (while the software matures), regardless of the installed base, the system has to be considered semi-successful. A concerning statistic between the two platforms' first January and February months is the drop-off in sales for those two months. From January 2006 to February 2006 the Xbox 360 sales trailed off 36% (250K units down to 161k units). At the same point in its lifespan, Sony's PlayStation 3 experienced a drop-off of 48% (244K units down to 127K units). That drop in sales, considering the units are available at retail, is cause for concern. Yet, despite trailing off by 25% more than its supply-constrained predecessor, the system does still cost $200 more."
I want to give my take on the issue. Analysts pull numbers out of their ass, I can do that too. I will say up front that I am heavily biased against the evil ones... er, I mean, Sony.
Sony sold a whisker more units of the PS3 than Microsoft did of the Xbox 360 during the same timeframe. But they arguably should have sold piles more of them. The size of the gaming market is increasing, after all.
I personally believe what happened is that the long wait ate up a lot of Sony customers. While people were waiting for the Playstation 3, the Xbox 360 was eating up some of those people. Less of them will therefore be buying a PS3. I think the price factor might even be less significant than this issue, except in the UK, where the cost of the system is truly ludicrous.
I believe the long wait also ate up Sony exclusives. Developers were seeing that Sony was going to be last to the party and market share was going to decline as a result. Making an exclusive makes sense when you're making it for the most popular platform in the generation. It doesn't when you aren't. The battle for this generation is still very much up in the air, of course, and Sony is simply not a sure thing in this round.
Gamers follow the games. If the Final Fantasy franchise becomes nonexclusive (only niche final fantasy titles are available on other platforms) then Sony might as well bend over and kiss their ass goodbye.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If anything can be shown from past console releases... once a single company has momentum(Atari, NES, SNES, PSX, GBA, PS2, DS) they typically own that generation. I think it was the Sega Genesis that somewhat challenged the SNES, but for the most part... everyone owned a SNES.
With Nintendo on its way to passing the Xbox 360 and with the DS trouncing the PSP... does keeping pace with the XBox360 really mean a success. At the end of the day... they have still lost money. Keeping pace is nothing but par and hoping that the current leader(m$) makes a mistake. And forget about the supposed 10 year life cycle of the PS3. Think about the graphics cards from 5 years ago(just look at the ps2). 10 years is a long time.
From January 2006 to February 2006 the Xbox 360 sales trailed off 36% (250K units down to 161k units). At the same point in its lifespan, Sony's PlayStation 3 experienced a drop-off of 48% (244K units down to 127K units).
250,000 is bigger than 244,000.
161,000 is bigger than 127,000.
PS3 sold LESS units than the "supply-constrained Xbox360", and the PS3 isn't - as Sony so frequently tries to say - "supply-constrained."
It's just a waste of money, and the sales figures are the proof.
Can we stop saying "price point" please? If we were discussing whether to see the PS3 at $500 or $600 we would be talking price points. If we had a graph of actual demand at different prices, we would probably be talking price points.
Comparing the current prices of the xbox and playstation is not economic theory, it is discussing the actual prices (or in some cases suggested prices) of the goods. But they do not represent price points.
Using jargon like "Price point" does not make you sound smarter... having a good argument to back up your claim makes you sound smarter.
Besides, the existence of multiple big-named companies trying to fight for our dollars in the same market means more price cuts for us, better games vying for our attention and more options!
Yes, the PS3 was not as supply-contstrained in December, the key selling month, and so it is slightly ahead overall for the first four months.
So what? The first four months of the 360 were disasterous due to supply. Microsoft haters delighted in pointing out that it was wayyy behind the first four Dreamcast months. As it happens, the PS3 is also well behind the first four months of the Dreamcast. (And it should be noted that it's behind in both hardware and software, whereas 360 was only behind on hardware).
Yah, I'm still clueless why everyone wants Sony to loose. I wans Sony, MS and Nintendo to go 3- way tie for 33.3% of the market share. Do you all really want microsoft to get ahold of another electronics/computers division and then churn out the same boring crap for 3 iterations? Having competition like that would make each company push very very hard to get your business.
<Beavis>
heh.... 3-way
</Beavis>
I find it very difficult to believe that the PS3 will match or surpass the PS2's performance.
Simply put, the PS2 had a fantastic first full holiday season in 2001. Sure, it was competing against the Gamecube and the Xbox, but between those they had only two then-available killer apps: Halo and Super Smash Bros. Melee. The PS2 had a great library of titles: Final Fantasy X, Metal Gear Solid 2, Devil May Cry and (depending on your market) Grand Theft Auto 3 and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 or Gran Turismo 2 and Onimusha. And these were just the ones that sold over a million worldwide by year's end 2001. At the time, all but one of those (THPS3) were exclusive to Sony's machine.
Fast-forward to holiday season 2007. Final Fantasy XIII won't be here or in Europe in time for the holidays (remember, there's an 8-11 month lag after the initial Japanese release). Metal Gear Solid 4 will be here, but not in Europe (assuming standard delays). Devil May Cry isn't exclusive anymore and Grand Theft Auto IV comes out on multiple platforms at once. I'll be amazed if we get Gran Turismo before 2008's holiday season.
Meanwhile, the Wii may continue dominating in the untested non-gamer/casual market demographics, and the 360 will have a strong library of games, not to mention the new Halo title.
This does not mean doom for the PS3. They still have interesting titles. They still have Blu-Ray which with the release of Casino Royale is turning from an unnecessary add-on to something at least worth investigating further. This year, Sony has something they've never had before: real competition. The PS3 won't dominate the way the PS2 did in its second year. There will be a PS4. But they've burned a lot of marketshare as a result of their hubris, and their previous victory won't be repeated to the same extent this time.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
I thought that NPD's numbers were incomplete as they don't record sales from a number of stores, such as Walmart. Speaking of which, does Walmart even CARRY the PS3? At $600, it'd probably be one of the most expensive items in the store, wouldn't it?
Crappiest != least powerful. The PS2 was plagued by laser failures, faulty parts, poor case housing, and many other issues until well into its life as a console. At the time of its release, it was arguably considered less powerful than the Dreamcast (though that debate died quickly with GTA3), and its controller was (and still is) little more than a black, modified DualShock. Mind you, the DualShock was, IMO, one of the better controller designs of the time, but that doesn't make up for the initial issues with units dying, faulty lasers, having to tilt the system up onto its side to read properly, and so on. The PS2 also sold for astronomical amounts, and at a loss, despite faulty, low-quality hardware. Case in point: My father's early-gen PS2 is dying; Laser's gone. My Dreamcast, for example, still plays everything without a hitch, and was purchased in 2001 (with a lot of usage since then, including non-standard, supposedly-destructive homebrew usage (Dreamcast GD-ROM's store data inversely to CD's; Data starts from the outside in. CD-R's, while compatible, are burnt from the inside out, causing the laser head to move more often from its default position, which logically leads to premature burnout)).
Compare with today, the Wii has decent (~X-Box Classic-alike, which aren't bad) graphics, a very slim form factor, high resilience to pain (hello, wii-mote! =D Meet LCD TV), one of the best overall first-parties behind it, an innovative, if a little mundane-looking controller, an installed user base, a broadening user base, and an extremely low price tag.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
The PS2 was (and still is) less powerful than the Dreamcast, however it was a far better system because of games and 3rd party support.
This sig intentionally left blank.
I don't think comparing the two consoles's launch periods is really a good indication regarding how they compare to each other. This is due to the fact the 360 had no competition at the time and the games sucked! well up until GRAW 1 they were terrible.
So now, the PS3 is suffering the same fate, TERRIBLE software. But whats different this time around is the fact the old exclusive titles are coming out on both the PS3 and the 360, so based on cost and other titles available a consumer may lean towards the 360 instead of the ps3.
Its still way to early to predict the success of either console, I personally have both and am hoping the PS3 finds its market and they regain some of their exclusive titles back because so far the PS3 is just a 360 in disguise with respect to gaming.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Being North American, I never got to play Shenmue 2, except very briefly on an X-Box. I would say it'd be impossible to find a Dreamcast version nowadays... Shenmue 1 is difficult enough as it is!
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
I can say the same thing as others. I have a first run (second shipment to the store) ps2 and it has worked fine for god, 7 years now. However I can't say that about xbox. Ever try using any of the Xboxes that have the Thompson drive?
Although the xbox may be more powerful I would defiantly say that ps2 was the best console of its generation. Good controllers, good developer support, complete backwards compatibility, number 2 in graphics (over game cube), and it made more then 3 games I really felt like playing (something I can't say about game cube of Xbox)
Honestly I didn't think anyone didn't could still believe that the ps2 didn't win the previous console war. As for the next one, the ps3 has a lot of ground to cover (somewhere around 7 mill to sell) but neither the wii of the xbox360 have the numbers to be considered a true leader yet (neither have sold over 10 mill worldwide as of yet).
I'm no sony fanboy, I just go where the good games are. I haven't purchased any of the next gen consoles yet because so far none of them offer 3 titles I really want to play.
Some people had good luck, others didn't. I guess that's all there really is to that one.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
IMO, the flagship games still really sell a console. E.g. Wii and Zelda. The PS3 has suffered because the most reknown [originally Nintendo but now] PS series, Final Fantasy, hasn't released their next incarnation yet. From the feedback I've read over numerous forums and comments from blogs, had Sony released the PS3 at the same time as FF they would've been onto something good. Now with that hanging in the balance they're treading on thin ice despite the 'home theatre' features.
I live in Australia so instantly you should realise that I am really annoyed at Sony. They claim that we'll be satisfied with the $1000 price tag because of the "fantastic graphics". WAKE UP SONY! The graphics aren't the end-all and be-all of games (they should've realised this, looking at the Wii). They probably think we're all a bunch of red neck techno-phobes with lots of money and the IQ of a gnats left testicle. Combined. The graphics are the same as the US/Jap versions so HOW does that justify costing so much more? It doesn't cost AU$250 per unit to ship them out here. Sony's trying to recoup it's losses on the rest of the world plain and simple. They really don't give a toss about 'the rest of the world' it seems. Several friends of mine are dedicated Sony fans (they wont go near the Wii or XBox360) and have well worn PS2s. Because of this debacle they're not touching the PS3 until Sony get their act together and frankly I don't blame them.
Although the xbox may be more powerful I would defiantly say that ps2 was the best console of its generation. Good controllers, good developer support, complete backwards compatibility, number 2 in graphics (over game cube)
Personally, I absolutely hate the dualshock, and the psp controller for that matter (sony had to chance to make a great controller without backward-compatibility worries when they made the psp -- and they completely dropped the ball). The general painfulness of sony controllers is the number one reason why I'm reluctant to pick up a psp or ps3. I'll probably eventually buy either a ps3 or xbox360 (hopefully after prices drop), and I don't particularly want to support microsoft, but they've clearly put a lot more thought and effort into many details than sony has.
As for graphics, are you on crack? The gamecube stomped all over the ps2 in terms of graphics; despite sony's well-publicized hype about how powerful the ps2 was, in actual games its weak points are all too obvious, and even very recent ps2 games tend to look a bit nasty compared to its competitors.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Sorry, we forgot to tell you, they're already part of the RIAA.
I'm only going to compare the higher-end models, since that is what the article in question focuses on. As the article points out...the PS3 is $200 more. But the question is why? And what do you get for your $200? The answer is, quite a few things. I'm also going to assume that people who are griping about the PS3's price aren't going to upgrade the feature-set of their 360 to match it.
40GB more hard disk, BluRay Disc, built-in WiFi, built-in card-reader, standard USB peripheral interface, free Internet multiplayer gaming, and interesting extras...like the new Folding@Home...or the upcoming PS3 Home.
To purchase Microsoft's WiFi adapter and their HD-DVD drive...that sets you back $300 more...so now your Xbox360 didn't just cost $400. To reach up to what you get with your $600 PS3 purchase...you have to pay at least $700 on the Xbox360. And you haven't added your Xbox Live Gold ongoing subscription costs if you are into multiplayer online or other online content.
There are poor games and brilliant games on both side of the 360 vs. PS3 'war'. Neither console had a lot of games out initially either. So, both of those are not really talking points. But the generalization that the Xbox360 is just flat out cheaper...well...that depends on what you want out of your system. If you don't want HD movies, free online play, built-in WiFi, or any of the other extras or untapped future potential of the PS3...then sure, the Xbox360 has some brilliant games out. But I know there are a lot of players like myself that want the extras that PS3 already provides, and we can pass up "Gears of War".
Circumcision is child abuse.
The small, minor, tiny little problem Sony has is that no matter how well they're doing compared to the Xbox 360 last year, they started a year later. The PS3 has to sell as many units as the Xbox 360 did last year at this time plus as many units as the Xbox 360 is selling now. And if they do that for the rest of the year, then they will be merely tied with the Xbox 360 in November. Both will be far behind the Wii, if current sell-through rates continue.
Unfortunately for Sony, they are only barely meeting last year's extremely supply-constrained Xbox 360 sales. And by failing to meet Xbox 360 sell-through figures, they are losing ground at a ridiculous pace.
Sony doesn't get to hop into a time machine and pretend the last year's Xbox 360 sales didn't happen.
Sony is 4 million units behind Microsoft, and that gap is growing every month.
1. The author implies that by matching sales roughly by the XBox 360 at the same point in it's lifecycle, even though at the same point the 360 was "supply-constrained" and the PS3 is not, the console can be considered "semi-successful" because it is $200 more. First, I don't want to throw in with the "semi-successful" brand when dropping a couple hundred on a new system. Second, that's great for Sony's bottom line, but poison for third-party support. They don't care how much more Sony makes per unit shifted. They're only concerned about their own sales volume. The author implies that because consumers are willing to drop $200 more on the PS3 that the "supply-constrained" sales figures of the 360 at the same point, the "supply-constrained" aspect is somehow nullified. That's reaching, but ultimately none of this matters. If the PS3 can't achieve an installed user base greater than the 360, developers aren't going to focus on the PS3 platform since it won't make as much money.
2. Sony's figures represent units sold to retail, not sold through to consumers. So, included in their figures are all the PS3's that are sitting on store shelves, not installed units. Other platforms quote actual sale-through figures and represent installed units.
Hubris. Telling us that we should want to work longer to buy their overpriced console didn't help. Nor did trashing the 360's emulation-mode compatibility and then releasing the European PS3 with emulated PS2 compatibility. Nor did lying about why vibration wasn't in the controller.
Having actually used one for several hours, I can say The PS3 is a pretty damned nice console. It's decently quiet (though not as quiet as many say,it's still quieter than the 360), has a cool UI with some nice features (decent browser, keyboard/mouse support), runs Linux (and Folding@Home), has good graphics, plays Blu-Ray movies, and (in the US/Japan) has virtually 100% PS2 compatibility.
The PS3 could have been a home run for Sony. It's a damn fine console. But $500 is too expensive for a mass-market device. There's nothing in the $500 PS3 that's not in the $400 XBOX - except for a Blu-Ray drive. With the format war and high-priced content, most of us aren't all that interested in Blu-Ray - at least not yet.
The 360 has plenty of awesome titles, HD TV episode downloads (including South Park and Star Trek: TOS, which, to my knowledge, have never been broadcast or released in HD elsewhere), music streaming (Windows Media Connect) - even while you are playing a game, Live Arcade (flow is cool, but so is Lumines, Hexic, Small Arms, and lots of other titles on Live), Media Center Extender (in HD), and a lot more.
The PS3 can't just be "as good as the 360". Linux, a web browser, and keyboard/mouse support are cool features, but they aren't what most people buy a console for. The people who want such features probably ALREADY have a PC hooked up to their TV.
It's not that the PS3 is bad. But it's late, overpriced, and Sony has been pissing everyone off. Slashdot doesn't like hubris.
(FYI - I own none of the three "next-gen" consoles)
I must admit (I already have a 360 and a Wii) even a week ago I wouldn't have believed I'd be out on a cold UK night queuing up for one, and I am a total, complete and utter hypocrite (I have been less than enamoured of the PS£ previously on these very pages), but... After realising I could pony up most the cost by trading in a PS2 with 30 well played games (and keeping the good ones for back-compat), I could not resist its shiny allure - and god it is a shiny behemoth of a thing - and I think seriously well futureproofed. Previous posters have commented on the base cost of the 360 and I agree that the out of the box extras the PS3 has do outweigh the extra cost over the 360. Motorstorm is sublime, and having the 60 Gig HD out of the box to download game demos is great. Also, I never played online on the 360 simply because of the fee. Within half an hour I was playing other people on Motorstorm and I know everyone goes on about the XBOX live experience, seriously the PS3 network isn't like it's terrible. In fact I found it quite easy and pleasant to use - apart from the text input but all the systems suffer that. No the launch line up isn't great but I'm really looking forwards to littlebig planet and of course the titles will get better over the next year. There don't seem to be so many exclusives round so far this gen - the result? I seriously think I might can the 360 to recoup some more of my cash (finished Gears, but will miss Crackdown, great game). I'm not a Sony shill, far from it, but I'm trying to add some balance to the argument. As for the Wii? Well, that is in a class of its own. Zelda as usual is great, if only my wife and mother in law would stop kicking my ass at bowling...
I would agree. Looking at the recent "Top 25 games" article for the PS2 (I think it was on IGN) made me cry inside. This is the most successfull console of the last generation, yet there are maybe 5 or 6 really, truly great games on it. Most of the other stuff is annual sports updates, cheap movie licenses, FPS (mostly WW2) and some random EA shovelware. Even the Cube's "Top 25 games" list was a lot more interesting, with more diverse and better games.
I have no idea what the DC could have done had Sega not killed it. I would guess that a good developer could get a lot more out of the PS2 than out of the DC. But nobody really did. Looking at the top games, I think the DC can easily compete with the PS2 even years after its death.
Come on now. PS2 controller the best last-gen controller? PS2 beats the Cube in graphics? Only three games on the Cube or Xbox that "make you feel like playing"?
Are you kidding me?
You make some good arguments, but some of your claims smell of fanboyism. Have you actually ever played a Cube? Have you seen Resident Evil 4 or Metroid Prime?
Personally I'm hoping more for a 50-50 split between Nintendo and MS with Sony being a mere fringe presence. Mostly because that means I can get all of the games without having to drop 600€ on a PS3. Also I'd be horrified if a 600€ console with no defining features (other than the stuff they stole from the competition) and a lack of games could do just as well as the other two consoles because it'd tell console makers that they can safely fuck up badly without being thrown out of the market.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
wikipedia has more info about it.
That's fine that it costs more, but sony is also LOSING more on each PS3 sold.
If sony wants to retain it's console crown, they need to do something, and fast. The 360 has a very large number of titles coming out that have me (and many others) extremely excited...the PS3 only has couple titles that could have me (and many others)saying the same thing.
Living With a Nerd
But the point is that the PS3 competing with the 360 / Wii / PS2 of today is doing just as well as the 360 did competing with the PS2 / Gamcube / Xbox of last year. Doesn't seem to bad to me the PS3 certainly has much stiffer competition.
It's pointless to argue with an ignorant fanboy. Most of them eventually resort to the cliche arguments and juvenile name calling.
Yes, Yes, and Yes.
His statements are accurate. I own a GameCube, I have 2 games for it. There's a couple of games I might like to try, but I'm too busy playing some truly great games on my PS2 to go looking for the few games for the GameCube that don't suck.
It's quite possible to not like Resident Evil or Metroid. I have no desire to play either game.
The PS2 controller is, in my opinion, far superior to both the GameCube controller and the Xbox controller.
And the PS2 can definitely outperform the Cube. There's one game that looks better on the Cube than it does on the PS2, and dozens of games on the PS2 that look better than anything I've ever seen on a GameCube.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Dude, check out IGN's top 25 PS2 games article. Then check out IGN's top 25 Cube article. Now tell me the games on the PS2 list are better. Tell me that, and I'll show you a liar.
It's quite possible to not like Resident Evil or Metroid. I have no desire to play either game.I think you're missing the point. I listed these two games since the graphics are obviously superior to anything on the PS2. But thanks for pointing out your ignorance. Why would you even buy a Cube if you only buy two games for it and have no desire to check out some of the greates games the console has to offer? Frankly, I doubt you own a Cube.
The PS2 controller is, in my opinion, far superior to both the GameCube controller and the Xbox controller.Well, that's an opinion. Maybe you have some kind of freakishly-shaped alien hands. I could see how you would then prefer the PS2 controller. But there's no other reason I could imagine for such a preference, frankly. The PS2 controller is tiny, cramped, and most games force the user to hold his left thumb in a really unnatural way.
And the PS2 can definitely outperform the Cube. There's one game that looks better on the Cube than it does on the PS2, and dozens of games on the PS2 that look better than anything I've ever seen on a GameCube.And since you ownly own two freaking games for your cube, your argument has no value at all.
Look, there's simply no game on the PS2 that looks like Resident Evil 4 or Metroid Prime. That's not exactly surprising, either. The PS2 is a year older than the Cube and quite simply has weaker hardware.
People only like the dual-shock because they've been using it for so long. Hand someone who isn't a gamer *any* other controller and they'll prefer it. I *despise* the dualshock, it hurts the hell out of my hands after an extended play session, and the only thing it's better at than the more comfortable cube controller is fighters(but that's offset by the load times imo). The wavebird also kicked the crap out of all of the other wireless controllers of last generation.
The dualshock is just an SNES controller with extended grips which had dual-analog literally tacked on in the only place to put it. Nintendo's "classic controller" has similar failings as the dualshock does, but fortunately most of the content available for it atm doesn't require extensive use of the analogs.
And only 3 cube games? See, this is why I hate Sony, because the consumers of their products are freakin' troglodytes. Here's a few traditional cube games: Metroid Prime 1/2, Resident Evil 4, Eternal Darkness, Soul Calibur 2, Viewtiful Joe, F-Zero GX, Tales of Symphonia, Prince of Persia series, etc. SC2 being the only one that arguably suffers for being on the cube, due to the controller, but it makes up for that with lower load times(almost non-existant) and the best exclusive character. Other cross-platform titles are better on the cube than the PS2.
And yes, I own both. Yes, I own more games for the PS2, but the Cube had a respectable library of quality titles that was far greater than 3. The only genre it was really lacking in was JRPGs, and the genre it excelled at was in-person multiplayer(Smash, Warioware, Mario Kart/Golf/Party/etc., etc.).
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
Correct, but the same cannot be said in reverse. For example the $400 X-box has twice the system ram of the $500 PS3. It also has a hardware scaler built in.
Ok lets put a little perspective on my comments. I enjoy RPGs, fighting games, turn based strategy games, adventure games, and unique games on the console.
For this the ps2 dualshock controller is great. Both the xbox controllers and the game cube controllers have downright atrocious d pads and for many fighting games the dpad is the only way to get the response time you need (try doing a hadoken with the analog stick). Analog sticks are unnecessary and many time cumbersome for RPGs and turn based strategy games. Then with the two analog sticks having them in the same position relative to your hand is very comfortable for me.
I hate the x box controller where the two anolog sticks are at different angles relative to you hand making one thumb be pointing forward and the other pointing sideways. Then the game cube controller is even worse having the two analog sticks different shapes and oh my god are those triggers annoying, no counter tension whatsoever and a fricking shift key (the z button). The game cube controller was designed for Mario and Mario like games only.
This puts the ps2 controller above all other game controllers for me.
As far as graphics even though the game cube could put out some impressive graphics it didn't the vast majority of the time. Yes Resident Evil 4 or Metroid Prime were pretty but what about Super Monkey Ball, Animal Crossing, and Pikmin. These games looked like they could have been done on half the hardware available to them, graphically they were just not that pleasing to look at and there were way more games like them then there were Resident Evil 4 or Metroid Prime. Sure the ps2 may have muddy textures compared to the other two but at least the developers for the ps2 know how to use textures and pushed the hardware they had. Metal Gear Solid 3, Shadow of the Colossus, Final Fantasy X and Gran Turismo 4, those games looked pretty good to me, and there were a bunch more games like them.
Game cube games I enjoy eternal darkness, paper Mario looked interesting, but that's about it (I played and did not enjoy Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime, or wind waker) for the xbox I very much enjoyed jade empire and kotor and I played fable for a little while but it wasn't worth buying and that's about it there too(I hate halo, well all console fps really) Beyond Good and Evil, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Soulcalibur 2, Killer 7, and Viewtiful Joe are very good games, I have them for my ps2.
>> And only 3 cube games? See, this is why I hate Sony, because the consumers of their products are freakin' troglodytes. Here's a few traditional cube games: Metroid Prime 1/2, Resident Evil 4, Eternal Darkness, Soul Calibur 2, Viewtiful Joe, F-Zero GX, Tales of Symphonia, Prince of Persia series, etc. SC2 being the only one that arguably suffers for being on the cube, due to the controller, but it makes up for that with lower load times(almost non-existant) and the best exclusive character. Other cross-platform titles are better on the cube than the PS2. of which Resident Evil 4, Soul Caliber 2, Viewtiful Joe, Tales of Symphonia, Prince of Persia series, etc were also available on other systems. I prefered Prince of Persia on the PS2 to the GC. I used to own a gamecube, but traded it in. My girlfriend owns a wii. I own a ps2, xbox, and dreamcast (Used to own a 360..might get one again in a few months). I've been looking at gamecube games to play on her wii, but I just can't find any worth buying. (I've beaten eternal darkness, but I consider that worth buying and playing again but I can't find a copy locally). I can't think of more than a half dozen games that I'd want to play on the Gamecube, but I can think of two dozen that are available for the PS2. Xbox had a few good exclusives, but not that many (I modded mine and used it to play videos for a long time..I only play Ninja Gaiden on it now) I consider the ps2 to have a superior number of good games to the Gamecube, but the ps2 also had tons more games than the gamecube. Of course if people would consider me a fanboy of anything, it would be either PC gaming (which I rarely do these days) or Dreamcast. I had a dreamcast when it first game out and it also suffered from a lack of good games then. But it's gotten a lot more since then (some of which have been ported, like Ikaruga)
Yes, agreed. If you use the d-pad, the PS2 controller (while not great) is definitely the best "standard" controller of the last gen. I dislike the d-pad on Sony's consoles, I prefer "cross" d-pads, but the d-pads on the Cube controller and on the Xbox were simply atrocious.
And yes, most Cube games don't look that great. That doesn't mean that the hardware wasn't technically better than the PS2's, though - it just means devs didn't optimize for graphics. Personally, I think Super Monkey Ball looks pretty good, but that's probably more of a question of the graphics style than the quality of the graphics. Animal Crossing has very poor graphics, though.
Resident Evil 4 on the PS2 is a POS, and it still made the PS2 list. Beyond Good and Evil should have made the list on the PS2 - instead you got uninspired sequels like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 on the list. There are two versions of GTA on the list, for heaven's sake! You complain about two Resident Evils on the Cube list? Well, at least they were two totally different games, while the GTAs are pretty much the same game.
Have you even actually played the Twin Snakes? It's not a rerelease, dude. It's a remake. It's basically a new game.
And yes, if I had a Nintendo dildo, I would definitely fuck myself with it. Unfortunately, I have to do with this Helly Kitty dildo here.
The reason this is meaningless is right there in the article summary. It's outselling what the X-Box sold last year while experiencing shortages.
/disclaimer: I own none of the three new game consoles. I currently intend to skip this generation of consoles entirely. Two high-def platforms for playing sequels of the same-old same-old, and one low-def platform for waving your arms around like an idiot. No thanks.
In other words, it's not that more people wanted to buy a PS3 now than wanted to buy an X-Box 360 then.
It's that only slightly more people wanted to buy a PS3 now than the few that were able to buy a 360 then, while many more people were waiting on availability.
To suggest that this is an indicator of high demand for the PS3 is simply laughable.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.