On a standard set, a PS3 is a $600 PS2, and a 360 is a $400 Xbox. So only Nintendo games look better than their last-gen counterparts?
Also, wrt Live, Home, etc: do you really think gamers are so eager to install stores under our TVs? After having downloaded a fully-featured Worms game for $8, and a fully-featured Tekken game for $20, I can say 100% that they at least should be.
I find it curious that you neglected to mention that Nintendo operates a service that does the exact same thing, though. In fact, Nintendo's online service is almost EXCLUSIVELY for buying things - at least Sony and Microsoft have online gaming.
Instead of being outraged by a nipple on TV, we (the collective we, as a nation) can rise against something that is worth it. Haha! Oh, defy god, you're so naive.
No, it's not an "if". They've been producing both FFXIII and FF Versus XIII for the PS3 for quite a while now. They'd be shooting themselves in the head if they decided to change consoles now.
They MIGHT go cross-platform after it's released if sales figures aren't impressive, but I wouldn't count on that.
Actually, only one thing IS killing the PS3, and you said it as your first example:
no games.
Up until VERY recently, there was NOTHING besides Resistance that really made the console an attractive purchase. It's a slick machine, full of great tech and lots of potential, but until anything is USING that tech, there's no reason to buy it.
The games are starting to come out, though - fl0w, Motorstorm, Tekken, VF5... These should give the sales a little spurt, but once the end of the year hits with its huge array of titles (from GTA to MGS to Home), it'll finally give people a reason to buy the thing.
People are willing to pay good money for good entertainment. Until the content is there, though, sales aren't going to be great.
There's an emulator coming out soon - the PS3's backwards compatibilty. And I expect it to be better than any other emulator out since, well, Sony knows the PS2 better than anyone.
What the OP was asking, though, is without the hardware, what do we do with games that don't work on the emulators?
This is completely true, though they're finally starting to release some worthwhile stuff. fl0w was just released (and is completely amazing), Virtua Fighter 5 (I hear) is excellent, and Motorstorm comes out next week. These games should likely give the sales a boost, although I doubt the big jump will come until FFXIII/GTA4/MGS4.
I wouldn't say hardly anyone. All the gamers I know either have one or are looking for one, and HDTVs were one of the hottest selling items this hoilday season. Prices are dropping a LOT, and 32" 720p LCD HDTVs can regularly be found for $500. The prices will only drop, and the install base will only rise in the future.
Why are so many people so shortsighted? HDTV is the future.
The Wii could quite possibly end up being the best local-multiplayer console of all time. TONS of fun has been had at my place playing Wii Sports, Rayman, and Warioware. At the same time, though, I've found single-player to be somewhat lacking, partially because when I'm playing games alone I just want to sit down and relax, not be flailing around. It's going to be hard to find Wii games that don't force you to use the motion-sensing, though, since that's the only "special" thing about the console.
That pretty much relegates the Wii to party-console for me. Not that I have a problem with that, I suppose. The PS3 looks like it will be (and has been) able to handle my single-player needs fine. Each console has its place.
Problems to solve, in order of priority for the company:
I'd say that NONE of those matter. There is one, and only one, thing that is making the PS3 sales so low - the games. The only must-have game out right now is Resistance, and not everyone likes FPS games. Once they start getting some more games out, the sales will follow, regardless of price, regardless of online experience (which isn't bad considering it's free), etc.
I know you're being sarcastic, but I wonder if the Wii is a fad. I have one and haven't played anything else since I got it.
As a counterpoint, I only play mine when I have friends over. It's AMAZINGLY fun for multi-player, but I haven't been able to get into single-player ANYTHING on it. That's been firm PS2/3 territory lately.
1) The web page is publicly accessible for free to begin with. That complicates things quite a bit. 2) The ruling from the court doesn't say Google needs to stop caching, it just says that Google has to provide an opt-out. That option already exists.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it curious that you neglected to mention that Nintendo operates a service that does the exact same thing, though. In fact, Nintendo's online service is almost EXCLUSIVELY for buying things - at least Sony and Microsoft have online gaming.
The next UT game is going to have KB/Mouse support on the PS3.
Wait, what? I played at 1600x1200 and the game looked gorgeous, very crisp.
Also, I actually REALLY liked using a PS2ish controller to play it, and was disappointed when I got into WoW and found that I couldn't use one.
"Changing the world" does not necessarily mean the "Changing the real world".
No, it's not an "if". They've been producing both FFXIII and FF Versus XIII for the PS3 for quite a while now. They'd be shooting themselves in the head if they decided to change consoles now.
They MIGHT go cross-platform after it's released if sales figures aren't impressive, but I wouldn't count on that.
Wait until FFXIII is released. You'll probably see a surge of a couple million PS3s sold there.
Actually, only one thing IS killing the PS3, and you said it as your first example:
no games.
Up until VERY recently, there was NOTHING besides Resistance that really made the console an attractive purchase. It's a slick machine, full of great tech and lots of potential, but until anything is USING that tech, there's no reason to buy it.
The games are starting to come out, though - fl0w, Motorstorm, Tekken, VF5... These should give the sales a little spurt, but once the end of the year hits with its huge array of titles (from GTA to MGS to Home), it'll finally give people a reason to buy the thing.
People are willing to pay good money for good entertainment. Until the content is there, though, sales aren't going to be great.
Unfortunately, from a business perspective, yes.
Okay, let's see:
XBox Live: $50/yr. (Actually, I got my card for $38 during an Amazon sale...)
PS3 Online: Free.
Both services allow you to set up games with people you know.
I'm not trying to bash PC gaming here, your statements just aren't accurate.
There's an emulator coming out soon - the PS3's backwards compatibilty. And I expect it to be better than any other emulator out since, well, Sony knows the PS2 better than anyone.
What the OP was asking, though, is without the hardware, what do we do with games that don't work on the emulators?
This is completely true, though they're finally starting to release some worthwhile stuff. fl0w was just released (and is completely amazing), Virtua Fighter 5 (I hear) is excellent, and Motorstorm comes out next week. These games should likely give the sales a boost, although I doubt the big jump will come until FFXIII/GTA4/MGS4.
Wait, what? I guarantee you that just about everyone and every company, no matter what, is afraid of losing a lawsuit.
There are no compelling games for the PS3 yet, so it is not selling. End of story.
And, as someone else said previously in this thrad, 250,000 console sales for a $500 console with one good game out isn't exactly shabby.
I wouldn't say hardly anyone. All the gamers I know either have one or are looking for one, and HDTVs were one of the hottest selling items this hoilday season. Prices are dropping a LOT, and 32" 720p LCD HDTVs can regularly be found for $500. The prices will only drop, and the install base will only rise in the future.
Why are so many people so shortsighted? HDTV is the future.
The Wii could quite possibly end up being the best local-multiplayer console of all time. TONS of fun has been had at my place playing Wii Sports, Rayman, and Warioware. At the same time, though, I've found single-player to be somewhat lacking, partially because when I'm playing games alone I just want to sit down and relax, not be flailing around. It's going to be hard to find Wii games that don't force you to use the motion-sensing, though, since that's the only "special" thing about the console.
That pretty much relegates the Wii to party-console for me. Not that I have a problem with that, I suppose. The PS3 looks like it will be (and has been) able to handle my single-player needs fine. Each console has its place.
Problems to solve, in order of priority for the company:
I'd say that NONE of those matter. There is one, and only one, thing that is making the PS3 sales so low - the games. The only must-have game out right now is Resistance, and not everyone likes FPS games. Once they start getting some more games out, the sales will follow, regardless of price, regardless of online experience (which isn't bad considering it's free), etc.
I know you're being sarcastic, but I wonder if the Wii is a fad. I have one and haven't played anything else since I got it.
As a counterpoint, I only play mine when I have friends over. It's AMAZINGLY fun for multi-player, but I haven't been able to get into single-player ANYTHING on it. That's been firm PS2/3 territory lately.
you gotta be up to your ass in trans-dimensional monster guts first to prove you earned it!
Knee deep in the dead, perhaps?
Just in time for Valentine's Day, too. How thoughtful, Microsoft!
find me a find... catch me a catch...
From what I understand, 25,000 per day is the retroactive fine. Going forward, it's the lower figure.
Here's the rub, though:
1) The web page is publicly accessible for free to begin with. That complicates things quite a bit.
2) The ruling from the court doesn't say Google needs to stop caching, it just says that Google has to provide an opt-out. That option already exists.
If they don't like it, they can very easily "opt out" by using Robots.txt to disallow Googlebot. I fail to see where the problem is here.