Good idea: Offer players new and exciting content to download through online services, allowing your video games to generate extra revenue without having to develop an entirely new game that will vanish off the $60 shelves and into the $30 bargains in three weeks.
Bad idea: Gut half of your $60 game and redistribute it claiming that your customers will want to pay extra for what they originally got for free.
When I interact with a company I want to feel as though we are mutually benefitting each other. I give them my hard earned money, and they give me a product born of their own sweat and toil. I don't want to feel like I'm some resource they're trying to find new and more fiendish ways to exploit.
I think it's wrong to say the vast majority of gamers don't care. I know a number that don't pay attention to the industry who lobbied me to boycott EA after they found out on their own about EA spouse and later the microtransaction fiasco. The vast majority of gamers are uninformed or ignorant.
If they don't care, that would indicate they were aware the EA was making and selling piss poor products but had accepted that as okay.
Semantics I know, but it's an important distinction I think. I doubt that if you made your uninformed friends aware of what EA's been doing they'd say, "That's cool."
That works great for games which involve desks, t-shirts etc. However, there are two points to be made.
1) Not all games are in a setting condusive to ads (See WoW, Final Fantasy, Supreme Commander). A lot of gamers are afraid companies will start shoehorning ads into games like these.
2) Even games that work very well as a platform for these ads can benefit from not having them. I always enjoyed parody ads in games myself.
I don't begrudge the idea of soda cans on a desk in an office as I'm hunting down terrorists holding people hostage. What bothers me is the potential for advertisers and game companies to want more than just that. It may be a baseless fear, but then again I can recall some people claiming popups on the internet would never become ubiquitous because of how annoying they were.
I'm going to disagree with you over a semantic technicality.
The best way to make a successful game involves being a gamer. That is important but not the be all and end all, as evidenced by your own follow up. If all there was to making a good game was being a gamer making a game, we wouldn't see half the crap we do that pours onto shelves, then into bargain bins.
Cars: Check Guns: Check Soda Machines: Check Stores: Check Signs: Check Billboards: Check Radio: Check Outrage at the Needless Violence and Gratuitous Sexual Overtones: Check Brands: Negative
You can have a game with things that could potentially be branded without real brands. A lot of games, GTA for instance, take these objects as an opportunity for parody and satire. While advertising in games has been done for a while in cases where it would appear in real life (sports games dating back before the PS1 even), the issue is more advertising where it doesn't belong. Sprite has no place in Middle Earth, Cheeze-its no home on a Protoss Carrier and Toyotas no niche in Final Fantasy.
Golden Axe makes me all warm inside. I can't wait for the sequels to become availible. Even more importantly, Toejam and Earl is listed on the official Virtual Console website but hasn't been released yet! Give me my precious childhood memories! I demand nostalgia!
Of course, people still look at me funny when I tell them I can play Genesis games on my Wii.
I'm going to do this backwards, because I find it entertaining to do so.
In short, your list is idiotic. Rumors and irrelevance. And you used "limited availability" twice (first and last items!). Compared to bricked consoles these are hardly bad. None of them mean the console you brought home is useless or limited---which both bricked consoles and limited accessories (both controllers and cables) do.
Your reponses are equally idiotic, but I will address those in a minute. The reason why I listed supply twice because that is the largest problem we face in enjoying our PS3s, getting one. Less than 1% of Wiis are "bricked" by the online update, while there is a supply gap between the Wii and the PS3 that is far greater than 1%. While returning home with a bricked system is a bummer, it is hardly comparable (especially when it is quickly replaced by Nintendo) to not being able to get one at all.
"finally the rumors that the 400k launch systems were really on the order of 150k": Ah yes rumors.
Yes, rumors. Rumors that Sony could at any time squash. They could easily have said what their real numbers sold were, but by simply saying that they sold out they only server to fan the flames. That these rumors (and only so because they are not substanciated by Sony) were started by market analysts rather than rabid fanboys is rather important.
The sacrifice for of motion techology: What? So you'd rather have vibration than motion sensing? Or you'd rather Sony bow to silly patents? Oh I forgot, it's Sony on Tuesday, so silly patents are OK.
I'd rather have both actually. The problem is that Sony claims that A) The controller is a new innovation and B) that it excludes have rumble. That is Sony's official position on the subject when rumble and motion are present in a controller for the PS1 from 10 years ago. That the true story may be a "silly patent" doesn't serve to further Sony's image.
Lack of rumble: Wow. Name 2 games besides Gran Turismo and Metal Gear Solid titles that actually use this significantly well. See if you can bring that list to 10. When you can't, realize that a feature less than 10 out of 1500+ games use is not really a big loss. Would it be nice? Yeah. Is it a big loss? No.
The above covers much of the problem with this, but I'd like to address a different issue. There's a large difference between "use" and "use well". One I could look up a list almost as long as the list of PS2 games for, the other is subjective and relative to the person playing. As a feature it was heavily used on all three past generation consoles. That and the dubious circumstances of its loss are what make it surprising.
"the arrogant statements by the people in charge of Sony": Yeah because that affects the console. And Sony obviously has a monopoly on arrogance; Microsoft and Nintendo are so cuddly and humble.
It does actually. It's called marketing and PR. You'd be surprised what these do for any product, or how much they can hinder one.
Also, Nintendo and Microsoft have not told people directly that they should get a second job to buy a system that they'll buy even if it had no games. Unless you're willing to dig up statements by Microsoft or Nitendo on an equivalent level of "Screw you" to gamers, I don't think you can argue this point.
"the thefts, the shootings, the riots, the huge ebay prices, the hiring of homeless people to stand in line for scalpers": All orchestrated by Sony, clearly!
They don't have to be orchestrated by Sony for the launch to be a mess. Some of the problems in a launch can be the fault of others (see the overbooking of preorders for the Xbox 360) but still contribute to making the launch a mess. Riots, thefts and shootings do not cast a good light on Sony and the Playstation 3 especially considering there were
There also haven't been Godzilla attacks (a la Tokyo), but joking aside...
There's the lack of a supply, the broken demo units, the broken global launch promise, the small number of launch titles, their Live-like network mess, the backwards compatability problems, the thefts, the shootings, the riots, the huge ebay prices, the hiring of homeless people to stand in line for scalpers, the arrogant statements by the people in charge of Sony (You'll but it without games, lol), the loss of rumble for "innovative" motion technology that was around at the time of the PS1, the really weird and freaky marketing campaign and finally the rumors that the 400k launch systems were really on the order of 150k.
In contrast the only stated problems with the Wii are as you have listed. One of which can be largely attributed to user error (we don't blame baseballs for broken windows), one of which is rather unprecedented in the history of consoles (I can't think of a console launch where controllers were one of the sold out items) and another of which has had an overwhelming postive resposne from Nintendo (quick replacement for your bricked Wii, not to mention rather isolated incidents).
So while you can probably come up with similar justifications for most of the reasons I listed for the PS3 launch being a mess, the point remains that Sony has easily bested the 360 and the Wii combined with twice as many easily remembered issues with their launch.
I won't even touch listing positive aspects of the launches. I don't think we need to continue this episode of "World's most one sided launch fights".
1) Integration of Internet Explorer. Microsoft claims that IE and Windows are inextricably linked together, and at least for Windows 2000 and newer this seems to be true. For instance, if you type a URL into the address bar of the Windows Explorer, it will show you web pages. IMHO a stupid design, the web browser should be an application, not a fixed part of the GUI.
The reason for potentially dates back to Microsoft's battles with anti-trust. One of the major points where they were nailed was on Internet Explorer as a program being foisted upon people in order to eliminate Netscape. It was a program, but there were unnecessary restrictions placed on removing it from your system in order to keep it in the mindshare of the user verses Netscape. These restrictions were judged monopolistic.
However, if Internet Explorer is an integral part of the OS as opposed to a seperate application such a judgement can not be made as the restrictions would then make sense.
Basically, the integration of Internet Explorer could possibly be a legacy effect of finding loop holes in the anti-trust case judgement.
Igyou look at their history Blizzard was very well known for delays long before WoW. That the expansion has only been delayed once actually bucks the trend a bit.
A lot of people were mad that Lord of the Clans got canned, and that Ghost got delayed indefinitely (some say canned). Ultimately these examples bolster the idea that Blizzard not only cares about their games, but cares about the worlds they craft as well. It can be hard to believe sometimes (Draenei retcon for instance), but I believe it is the case.
Ultimately what happens with WoW, SC:G and whatever other secret projects (Diablo 3?) will prove me right or wrong.
Firstly, given the numbers that we were provided with Nintendo manages to sell more units without the option of PCs, PS3s or Xboxs.
Secondly, the key advantage in being a first-party developer/publisher is that you get better margins on the software than if you were a third party. Grossly simplified example: Sales - Production/Marketing as opposed to Sales - (Production/Marketing + Publisher's cut). Porting also incurs additional development costs to consider, while a team focused on jsut one system/architecture can be skilled and focused on said system without the need to either learn the tricks of the trade for the other systems or hire seperate teams for porting/developing the other platforms.
Now, you first have to have a system to be a first party developer. That's the major downside that offsets the massive advantages. It's extremely difficult to have a successful console.
My comment was not directed at you as much as the many "concerns" I have seen directed at Metroid Prime 3 in the past (including in the article, hence "complaints like his"). I have watched videos of different people reacting to the game, and the "1337 gamer" stereotype reacted much as he (again, referring to the reviewer) did.
I was not calling you a 1337 gamer, but was referring to 1337 gamers and their concerns as it seemed relevant.
However, Metroid Prime is not an adventure game. The days of a game fitting purely into any one genre are over, and have been for some time. Metroid Prime is a FPS/Adventure game. 1337 gamers would be talking about Metroid Prime because of the FPS portion.
I arrived at the Gamestop near my work 4 minutes after they opened and got 7th in line for preorders. It made Saturday night much more relaxing I assure you.
I'm not terribly concerned about Metroid. I've heard complaints like his before, and they've always been from people used to their 1337 skills in console FPSs like Halo. The new control scheme makes them feel like a newbie. Instead of reveling in a completely new experience and exploring its depths they keep thinking about how if they were playing Halo with two sticks they'd be owning things.
The end result is rants like this. They are a 1337 gamer and so they can't be at fault. It must be the controls (gee, how often have I heard that one).
I have several major concerns about the technology.
1) The 1up article mentioned a base unit at the player's feet. I don't know about anyone else, but in games that encourage me to move physically the last place I would want to place a valuable component is at the player's feet.
2) Additionally, does each player have to have one of said base units? How close does each player need to be to said base unit? Does said base unit require batteries?
3) The idea of appropriating controls built for the Wii on this is neat, but are the controllers built in fundamentally the same ways? If the signals are significantly different it may not be as easy as it looks.
4) Unless this third party takes off for the other systems it's ultimately pointless to think the Wii is in danger. How many games use the DDR Pad or the Guitar Hero controller? That's right, just DDR and Guitar Hero. Unless all 7 million Xbox 360 owners get up and buy this there won't be mainstream support.
5) There's also the question of cost. At this point you'll already have dropped $400 into an Xbox, $600 into a PS3, or even more for a PC. Even if the wholem Gametrak shebang was only $50, you're paying a minimum of $200 more for something Nintendo does right out of the box. On top of that, Nintendo's setup is extremely easy to put together. Sensor Bar, power, plug into TV, turn on and bing you're on your way. Anything significantly more complicated will slight the blue market Nintendo is targetting.
Overall, this third party has a lot more to overcome than even Nintendo. This peripheral may simply sit in the same category as those controllers with 25 Atari games. It's nifty, it's fun, but ultimately those don't change the fundamental dynamics of the three main consoles.
You must A) tell it the proper position of the sensor bar (which should be as close to immediately below the TV, or directly on top of it, as possible, with on top being HIGHLY reccomended by nintendo)
I actually found on my 46" HDTV that placing the bar on the bottom was more accurate. Then the bar was on top the pointer was about a half screen height lower than where I was pointing (the Wii settings reflected the position of the sensor bar). When I moved the bar to the base of the TV (along with the settings) the position because much more accurate.
I have an HDTV, an Xbox 360 and a Wii. I don't have a component cable for the Wii (yet) but honestly the difference isn't "weak". It is a noticable difference to be sure, but the Wii's graphics are excellent even though they are not as good as the 360 or the PS3.
It reminds me of the difference between the PS2 and the Xbox/GC's graphics. There was a noticable difference, but it didn't stop the PS2 from having a greater market share.
I'd assume that the difference is even less noticable if you had an SDTV.
If there's one thing I've learned from ebay and later the AH in WoW, it's that flooding a market depreciates value like nothing else. You could drag the Wii behind a manure truck and someone would pay full price if it was the only one on there, but when there are 20k availible there just isn't any sense that "If I don't buy this here and now I won't be able to get one".
Too many people saw the profits that were made on the 360 and got greedy. The result is obviously not worth quitting a job over.
Not exactly straight, there's no statement to the effect of the rate in which these PS3s will be received, where or when.
What he did was take the 6 weeks left in the year and assume we'd get the 600k PS3s evenly across those weeks. While possible, this isn't a stated fact.
Assuming they all come stateside and ignoring reports that were were actually less than 400k PS3s at launch:
400k units at launch + 200k units (100k/week * 2 weeks) = 600k units
That's not really close to 1 million by December 1st.
If we assume that both Nintendo and Sony meet their goals this year, the whole argument is moot anyway. Sony will have 2 million systems distributed across NA and Japan, while Nintendo will have 4 million across the world. The only reason any of this is important is the potential for Sony or Nintendo (though perhaps the former is more likely than the latter) to fall behind in production.
Slashdot Mirror
Good idea: Offer players new and exciting content to download through online services, allowing your video games to generate extra revenue without having to develop an entirely new game that will vanish off the $60 shelves and into the $30 bargains in three weeks.
Bad idea: Gut half of your $60 game and redistribute it claiming that your customers will want to pay extra for what they originally got for free.
When I interact with a company I want to feel as though we are mutually benefitting each other. I give them my hard earned money, and they give me a product born of their own sweat and toil. I don't want to feel like I'm some resource they're trying to find new and more fiendish ways to exploit.
I think it's wrong to say the vast majority of gamers don't care. I know a number that don't pay attention to the industry who lobbied me to boycott EA after they found out on their own about EA spouse and later the microtransaction fiasco. The vast majority of gamers are uninformed or ignorant.
If they don't care, that would indicate they were aware the EA was making and selling piss poor products but had accepted that as okay.
Semantics I know, but it's an important distinction I think. I doubt that if you made your uninformed friends aware of what EA's been doing they'd say, "That's cool."
That works great for games which involve desks, t-shirts etc. However, there are two points to be made.
1) Not all games are in a setting condusive to ads (See WoW, Final Fantasy, Supreme Commander). A lot of gamers are afraid companies will start shoehorning ads into games like these.
2) Even games that work very well as a platform for these ads can benefit from not having them. I always enjoyed parody ads in games myself.
I don't begrudge the idea of soda cans on a desk in an office as I'm hunting down terrorists holding people hostage. What bothers me is the potential for advertisers and game companies to want more than just that. It may be a baseless fear, but then again I can recall some people claiming popups on the internet would never become ubiquitous because of how annoying they were.
I'm going to disagree with you over a semantic technicality.
The best way to make a successful game involves being a gamer. That is important but not the be all and end all, as evidenced by your own follow up. If all there was to making a good game was being a gamer making a game, we wouldn't see half the crap we do that pours onto shelves, then into bargain bins.
Cars: Check
Guns: Check
Soda Machines: Check
Stores: Check
Signs: Check
Billboards: Check
Radio: Check
Outrage at the Needless Violence and Gratuitous Sexual Overtones: Check
Brands: Negative
You can have a game with things that could potentially be branded without real brands. A lot of games, GTA for instance, take these objects as an opportunity for parody and satire. While advertising in games has been done for a while in cases where it would appear in real life (sports games dating back before the PS1 even), the issue is more advertising where it doesn't belong. Sprite has no place in Middle Earth, Cheeze-its no home on a Protoss Carrier and Toyotas no niche in Final Fantasy.
Golden Axe makes me all warm inside. I can't wait for the sequels to become availible. Even more importantly, Toejam and Earl is listed on the official Virtual Console website but hasn't been released yet! Give me my precious childhood memories! I demand nostalgia!
Of course, people still look at me funny when I tell them I can play Genesis games on my Wii.
... the other 8 are hopelessly addicted.
Your reponses are equally idiotic, but I will address those in a minute. The reason why I listed supply twice because that is the largest problem we face in enjoying our PS3s, getting one. Less than 1% of Wiis are "bricked" by the online update, while there is a supply gap between the Wii and the PS3 that is far greater than 1%. While returning home with a bricked system is a bummer, it is hardly comparable (especially when it is quickly replaced by Nintendo) to not being able to get one at all.
Yes, rumors. Rumors that Sony could at any time squash. They could easily have said what their real numbers sold were, but by simply saying that they sold out they only server to fan the flames. That these rumors (and only so because they are not substanciated by Sony) were started by market analysts rather than rabid fanboys is rather important.
I'd rather have both actually. The problem is that Sony claims that A) The controller is a new innovation and B) that it excludes have rumble. That is Sony's official position on the subject when rumble and motion are present in a controller for the PS1 from 10 years ago. That the true story may be a "silly patent" doesn't serve to further Sony's image.
The above covers much of the problem with this, but I'd like to address a different issue. There's a large difference between "use" and "use well". One I could look up a list almost as long as the list of PS2 games for, the other is subjective and relative to the person playing. As a feature it was heavily used on all three past generation consoles. That and the dubious circumstances of its loss are what make it surprising.
It does actually. It's called marketing and PR. You'd be surprised what these do for any product, or how much they can hinder one.
Also, Nintendo and Microsoft have not told people directly that they should get a second job to buy a system that they'll buy even if it had no games. Unless you're willing to dig up statements by Microsoft or Nitendo on an equivalent level of "Screw you" to gamers, I don't think you can argue this point.
They don't have to be orchestrated by Sony for the launch to be a mess. Some of the problems in a launch can be the fault of others (see the overbooking of preorders for the Xbox 360) but still contribute to making the launch a mess. Riots, thefts and shootings do not cast a good light on Sony and the Playstation 3 especially considering there were
There also haven't been Godzilla attacks (a la Tokyo), but joking aside...
There's the lack of a supply, the broken demo units, the broken global launch promise, the small number of launch titles, their Live-like network mess, the backwards compatability problems, the thefts, the shootings, the riots, the huge ebay prices, the hiring of homeless people to stand in line for scalpers, the arrogant statements by the people in charge of Sony (You'll but it without games, lol), the loss of rumble for "innovative" motion technology that was around at the time of the PS1, the really weird and freaky marketing campaign and finally the rumors that the 400k launch systems were really on the order of 150k.
In contrast the only stated problems with the Wii are as you have listed. One of which can be largely attributed to user error (we don't blame baseballs for broken windows), one of which is rather unprecedented in the history of consoles (I can't think of a console launch where controllers were one of the sold out items) and another of which has had an overwhelming postive resposne from Nintendo (quick replacement for your bricked Wii, not to mention rather isolated incidents).
So while you can probably come up with similar justifications for most of the reasons I listed for the PS3 launch being a mess, the point remains that Sony has easily bested the 360 and the Wii combined with twice as many easily remembered issues with their launch.
I won't even touch listing positive aspects of the launches. I don't think we need to continue this episode of "World's most one sided launch fights".
He could still complain about paying money to upgrade to something he already has.
The reason for potentially dates back to Microsoft's battles with anti-trust. One of the major points where they were nailed was on Internet Explorer as a program being foisted upon people in order to eliminate Netscape. It was a program, but there were unnecessary restrictions placed on removing it from your system in order to keep it in the mindshare of the user verses Netscape. These restrictions were judged monopolistic.
However, if Internet Explorer is an integral part of the OS as opposed to a seperate application such a judgement can not be made as the restrictions would then make sense.
Basically, the integration of Internet Explorer could possibly be a legacy effect of finding loop holes in the anti-trust case judgement.
Igyou look at their history Blizzard was very well known for delays long before WoW. That the expansion has only been delayed once actually bucks the trend a bit.
A lot of people were mad that Lord of the Clans got canned, and that Ghost got delayed indefinitely (some say canned). Ultimately these examples bolster the idea that Blizzard not only cares about their games, but cares about the worlds they craft as well. It can be hard to believe sometimes (Draenei retcon for instance), but I believe it is the case.
Ultimately what happens with WoW, SC:G and whatever other secret projects (Diablo 3?) will prove me right or wrong.
Firstly, given the numbers that we were provided with Nintendo manages to sell more units without the option of PCs, PS3s or Xboxs.
Secondly, the key advantage in being a first-party developer/publisher is that you get better margins on the software than if you were a third party. Grossly simplified example: Sales - Production/Marketing as opposed to Sales - (Production/Marketing + Publisher's cut). Porting also incurs additional development costs to consider, while a team focused on jsut one system/architecture can be skilled and focused on said system without the need to either learn the tricks of the trade for the other systems or hire seperate teams for porting/developing the other platforms.
Now, you first have to have a system to be a first party developer. That's the major downside that offsets the massive advantages. It's extremely difficult to have a successful console.
You misunderstand.
My comment was not directed at you as much as the many "concerns" I have seen directed at Metroid Prime 3 in the past (including in the article, hence "complaints like his "). I have watched videos of different people reacting to the game, and the "1337 gamer" stereotype reacted much as he (again, referring to the reviewer) did.
I was not calling you a 1337 gamer, but was referring to 1337 gamers and their concerns as it seemed relevant.
However, Metroid Prime is not an adventure game. The days of a game fitting purely into any one genre are over, and have been for some time. Metroid Prime is a FPS/Adventure game. 1337 gamers would be talking about Metroid Prime because of the FPS portion.
There is no need to flip out.
I arrived at the Gamestop near my work 4 minutes after they opened and got 7th in line for preorders. It made Saturday night much more relaxing I assure you.
In short, this is a new spin on the old classic excuse of blaming the controller.
I'm not terribly concerned about Metroid. I've heard complaints like his before, and they've always been from people used to their 1337 skills in console FPSs like Halo. The new control scheme makes them feel like a newbie. Instead of reveling in a completely new experience and exploring its depths they keep thinking about how if they were playing Halo with two sticks they'd be owning things.
The end result is rants like this. They are a 1337 gamer and so they can't be at fault. It must be the controls (gee, how often have I heard that one).
Apparently this guy didn't get the memo.
The Westfield mall setups are not closed-door demos.
I have several major concerns about the technology.
1) The 1up article mentioned a base unit at the player's feet. I don't know about anyone else, but in games that encourage me to move physically the last place I would want to place a valuable component is at the player's feet.
2) Additionally, does each player have to have one of said base units? How close does each player need to be to said base unit? Does said base unit require batteries?
3) The idea of appropriating controls built for the Wii on this is neat, but are the controllers built in fundamentally the same ways? If the signals are significantly different it may not be as easy as it looks.
4) Unless this third party takes off for the other systems it's ultimately pointless to think the Wii is in danger. How many games use the DDR Pad or the Guitar Hero controller? That's right, just DDR and Guitar Hero. Unless all 7 million Xbox 360 owners get up and buy this there won't be mainstream support.
5) There's also the question of cost. At this point you'll already have dropped $400 into an Xbox, $600 into a PS3, or even more for a PC. Even if the wholem Gametrak shebang was only $50, you're paying a minimum of $200 more for something Nintendo does right out of the box. On top of that, Nintendo's setup is extremely easy to put together. Sensor Bar, power, plug into TV, turn on and bing you're on your way. Anything significantly more complicated will slight the blue market Nintendo is targetting.
Overall, this third party has a lot more to overcome than even Nintendo. This peripheral may simply sit in the same category as those controllers with 25 Atari games. It's nifty, it's fun, but ultimately those don't change the fundamental dynamics of the three main consoles.
I actually found on my 46" HDTV that placing the bar on the bottom was more accurate. Then the bar was on top the pointer was about a half screen height lower than where I was pointing (the Wii settings reflected the position of the sensor bar). When I moved the bar to the base of the TV (along with the settings) the position because much more accurate.
I have an HDTV, an Xbox 360 and a Wii. I don't have a component cable for the Wii (yet) but honestly the difference isn't "weak". It is a noticable difference to be sure, but the Wii's graphics are excellent even though they are not as good as the 360 or the PS3.
It reminds me of the difference between the PS2 and the Xbox/GC's graphics. There was a noticable difference, but it didn't stop the PS2 from having a greater market share.
I'd assume that the difference is even less noticable if you had an SDTV.
If there's one thing I've learned from ebay and later the AH in WoW, it's that flooding a market depreciates value like nothing else. You could drag the Wii behind a manure truck and someone would pay full price if it was the only one on there, but when there are 20k availible there just isn't any sense that "If I don't buy this here and now I won't be able to get one".
Too many people saw the profits that were made on the 360 and got greedy. The result is obviously not worth quitting a job over.
Facts usually are.
Not exactly straight, there's no statement to the effect of the rate in which these PS3s will be received, where or when.
What he did was take the 6 weeks left in the year and assume we'd get the 600k PS3s evenly across those weeks. While possible, this isn't a stated fact.
Assuming they all come stateside and ignoring reports that were were actually less than 400k PS3s at launch:
400k units at launch + 200k units (100k/week * 2 weeks) = 600k units
That's not really close to 1 million by December 1st.
If we assume that both Nintendo and Sony meet their goals this year, the whole argument is moot anyway. Sony will have 2 million systems distributed across NA and Japan, while Nintendo will have 4 million across the world. The only reason any of this is important is the potential for Sony or Nintendo (though perhaps the former is more likely than the latter) to fall behind in production.