"Later on, when the price comes down, they will have a hard time whining about what the cost used to be."
Instead, they'll get to complain about the price after it drops. While the prices for both the Wii and Xbox 360 at the launch of the PS3 are uncertain, taking the highest of their current prices (or rumored prices) leaves a $100-$150 gap between the lowest launch price of a PS3. In order for there to be no complaining, Sony would have to drop the price by more than the common $50 as well as pray that neither of their competitors also drop prices.
The issue here isn't even the ability to afford a PS3. I just graduated college, have loans to repay etc. and could buy one. There wouldn't even be an issue if Microsoft was already charging equivalent prices. The problem is that even Microsoft's more expensive package is cheaper than their 'cheap' version by a full $100. I've worked in toys stores before, and it's incredible how even a $10 difference on a toy, game or piece of electronics can sway a parent or teenager. Some people will still buy the higher priced item, but far, far more of the cheaper ones get sold.
The PS3 will sell well at Christmas to be sure, but buyers are likely to settle for the Xbox 360 and the Wii because of both the price of PS3 and the potential supply issues.
"Also, if Sony gets 70% retention of the PS2 installation base, PS3 will be an awesome success. I just don't see that not happening."
At $500-$600 (or more), it certainly isn't happening right away. That's not even mentioning supply. There won't be tens of millions of PS3s waiting in stores on release day, certainly not enough for 70% of people who already have PS2s.
If you were to ask back in the NES and SNES days as to whether Nintendo might not retain their already installed player base, someone might say "I just don't see that happening." To an extent, it's understandable. Nintendo not only revived the industry but dominated it for two generations. Similary, Sony ushered in the new era for the industry and dominated it for two generations. However, in an analogous position to where Sony is now, Nintendo lost it's near monopoly on market share. There is little preventing Sony from duplicating Nintendo's failure.
It's not that it isn't possible or especially unlikely that Sony can retain PS2 users, it's that it isn't guaranteed. If the best reason for why many current PS2 users will buy Sony's system now or later is that you "just don't see that not happening", I suggest you consider that most of the major blunders in history resulted from similar reasoning. Custer at his last stand probably couldn't see the possibility of defeat, nor could the northern generals in charge of the Union forces in the first battle of the Civil War. Just because it seems unlikely in your eyes doesn't make it impossible, and there are many of us who read Sony's next-gen strategy as "continue riding the Playstation wave assuming nothing can go wrong" as foolhardy and likely to fail.
Consider both the possibility that you are right, and that you are wrong.
1) Learn - When someone plays any game these days with AI, it's only a matter of time before the weaknesses are found and exploited. Whether it's Super Smash Bros, Unreal, or WarCraft you always have a good idea what the AI is going to do, and how you can hurt it for doing that.
2) Vary - Super Smash Bros Melee had a major flaw, excellent as it was, in that every single character played the same way. Some were faster, some were slower, but they all acted exactly alike. Give us options like we had in Perfect Dark, simple as those were.
3) Suck - Computers should not be able to do with supreme accuracy anything a skilled player can't. The number of people who could accurately reflect, super block, and meteor smash recover in SSB:M was very small, but every level 9 computer AI in the game could constantly do those moves. Don't be that precise, it's annoying.
It's a little early into E3 to start prophesizing the downfall of Sony, the revival or Nintendo, or the evil dominion of Microsoft. We've seen a pre-E3 press conference for Sony. This is about equivalent to the first segment of the pre-game show. However bad or good the pre-show conferences are, there'll be plenty within the conferences themselves to sway things one way or another.
That said, the impression I've gotten from Sony's press conference is not a good one. The two reasons are as follows.
1) "Innovation" - Sony's best bet for hurting Nintendo was to give their idea no credence. They wouldn't look bad for writing off Nintendo's ideas as gimmicky. Microsoft already ignored Nintendo, Sony simply had to follow suit. Instead, they've copied Nintendo and called it "Innovation". Now when people go to shop for a next gen console, they won't be able to write Nintendo off as a gimmick. Even if Sony did just as good a job as Nintendo, they're $300-$400 more expensive. While the move covers their bases of Nintendo takes off, they're still the copycats and that hurts them.
2) "At What Cost" - $499 hurts. Because that hurts, Microsoft was kind enough to have a core package that was cheaper, lacked features, but didn't hurt so much unless you intended on using live a lot. Sony has another package too, costing $599. That there is good one two punch to the wallet. To top it off, the difference is a 20gb harddrive versus a 60gb harddrive. Last I checked, the price difference between those sizes was not $100. Is there something I failed to garner from the coverage?
Overall, Sony hasn't started off well, meaning they'll need to work doubletime to impress me this E3. However, it's entirely possible they'll succeed. With Nintendo and Microsoft still to come, there's no telling what will happen.
I think there's a common failure of even technologically inclined individuals, including system administrators, to understand exactly what is required of the servers that allow us (usually) to play World of Warcraft. For every player connected to the server, the server has to recieve a packet explaining what the player's current attempted actions are, and send back relevant information regarding the actions of every other player and object in the immediate area. This is a constant process for each and every player!
The common system that is administered in a corporate environment does not have thousands of users connected at once all requiring huge amounts of bandwidth and processing time 24/7. That is not to say that systems with large wear and tear don't exist, or that systems with such huge numbers of users don't exist, or even both. What I am saying is that Blizzard has to administer two or more dozen server clusters being continually accessed 24/7 by resource intensive users (save for a usually brief repose on Tuesdays). Unless you work for Google (and even then) there's no comparison.
This isn't to say that we shouldn't raise our eyebrows at the pervasiveness of the problems WoW has. However, I keep seeing the same arguments thrown around about how Blizzard gets $15 x 6million every month (not entirely true because A) there are less pricey payment options and B) something around 1/3 of those players play in China on Asian servers whos subscription plans would hardly be purchasable were they $15 a month), how at 'my company' things work this way, etc. etc.
Blizzard should be called on to answer for why their servers haven't been made right as rain after a year or more after release, but it should be in the context of legitimate complaint and not any of this throwing around of overused and hardly consequential arguments.
Actually, you didn't have to die to save! If you pressed start on your first controller, you could do something with the second controller to bring up the save menu. I think it was pressing Up and A at the same time.
You missed my joke and the point. The prediction was to "gain ground", not overtake. For overtaking, 5 years isn't bad (although not exactly wonderful either). But to spend 5 years just to "gain ground" is pretty bad, especially considering how little of a gap there is between the PSP and DS in North America.
The reason being that the only game for the Xbox 360 that any Japanese gamer would ever be interested in is DOA4, which didn't launch with the console.
How about Earthbound 64? In that we had the sequel to what was probably the most unique RPG for the SNES, and one of the greatest cult classics of our times. E64 was 2/3 complete when it was canned. There was a game that should have made the list.
The unmentionable gruesome torture in all it's grotesque hideousness!
"So help me God Jack Thompson I will addict you to Nintendogs and you will be unable to say another damned lie again because you will be too worried about your puppies!"
Claiming that the Japanese are more aware of the Xbox 360 than they were of the Xbox is akin to claiming to be the tallest midget in the world. It may be true, but what does it accomplish really?
Honestly, I think it's perfectly fine. It will keep unoriginal developers who have no business even trying to do something new (read EA) from making games that will be posterchildren for Revolution controller naysayers.
It's just like how the number of bits a console had was a huge deal in the days before and shortly after the SNES. However, after the playstation and n64, no one really cared about them anymore because they were obviously not really that important.
The same thing will happen after this generation, as people will realize the CPU/GPU are not all there is to a console, important as they may be.
For every computer nerd that fits the stereotypical looks, I know one or two who are reasonably attractive (they just don't go out of their way to develope melon sized muscles) and enjoy exposing themselves to sunshine, as well as playing sports.
Most of them, including me, are still single and clueless about women.
The biggest issue as I see it for any MMOFPS is to avoid boredom. FPSs generally cater to people who want action, lots of it, and all the time. The word "active" best describes the state of the player. In the small maps of Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, CounterStrike, Unreal Tournament and Halo, whether you are moving or stationary there's always that chance that you'll suddenly need to blast the crap out of someone.
In a large world, that becomes more difficult. If you happen to be in the middle of nowhere, it's hard to be on edge. If you know the frontline of a huge battle is miles and miles away from the base you are defending, are you really going to say, "I'm sure glad I paid $X a month to sit here and rot."
As long as the game mechanic throws the players into the action consistantly, it can work incredibly well. It would be tricky, but doable.
It seems entirely possible it wasn't even bias on the part of the developers, but instead could have just been that the Japanese developers didn't like the way Microsoft did business.
You're right that if Nintendo released the Xbox 360 here, it would probably do well. But saying "simply" because of the name neglects the finer points of why the names Sony and Nintendo sell consoles.
The reason why Sony and Nintendo as brands sell consoles is because they have a history of making good ones. The NES and SNES were killer, and while the N64 did not fare as well as its predecessors one need only peek into the windows of university clubrooms to see groups of people huddled around TVs playing Goldeneye, Smash Bros, and Mario Tennis. The Gamecube also had similar games which were just plain fun to play with your friends.
The Playstation and Playstation 2 offered the plethora of RPGs that Japanese gamers crave, in addition to being incredible machines themselves.
Because of the history these companies have, Japanese gamers trust them.
It isn't impossible to touch the hearts of the Japanese. Disney has a strong hold on the Japanese, and that is another iconic American company.
So long as you establish a history of good products, the Japanese will devote themselves to you and be very forgiving of even large mistakes. However, if you from the get go screw up royally, they won't look at you twice.
When an American company reknowned for its monopolistic practices, buggy operating systems, and lack of connecting with their consumers attempts to squeeze into the market, and botches it, they have completely blacklisted themselves.
The Japanese accept the possibility that American companies, or any foreign company for that matter, can make a competitive or even better product. The problem is that we haven't done so.
You can argue the Xbox was a good system and I'd agree with you, for Americans. It was powerful, had all the nice sports games, racing games, and FPSs you could want. However, it was really the antithesis of what a Japanese gamer would want. The Japanese taste in games was rather unfulfilled in the Xbox. Live was not a big deal because most Japanese are entirely capable of assembling their friends together and having at it in person. And given that the Japanese typically live in small apartments (the number of people with houses of significant size is very small), something as large as an Xbox is rather difficult to find a place for (you know those new, smaller Monopoly boardgame boxes? I know Japanese who have trouble finding space for those).
The problem for the Xbox 360 is that the Japanese consumers have already been turned off. Even if it is more powerful than the PS3, the past history of Microsoft in Japan coupled with the fact that the Japanese care less about power in comparison to fun and space efficiency have set the stage for a very large uphill battle for Microsoft.
I'm a foreign student with nine days left of my overseas stay in Japan, and I can tell you things aren't much different up here in Sapporo.
Up until about a month ago, none of the major game stores had any advertisements or information about the Xbox 360. Even now, only a few days before the console's release here, the Dreamcast, Super Famicom, Famicom and even the original Gameboy each have a display bigger than what the Xbox 360 has. Single DS and PS2 games get more space and advertisments.
Quite simply, there isn't much reason to think that the Japanese even know, let alone care, about the Xbox 360.
I have been wondering though, are they region encoded? It might be worthwhile to pick one up, bring it home, and ebay it.
2) If an intelligent Christian was in the news, stupid people would get upset because they would actually have to think about their beliefs, as opposed to just being able to write the Christian off as stupid.
The exception to #2 is when sound bites are used to turn a Christian from #2 into a Christian from #1.
Slashdot Mirror
"Later on, when the price comes down, they will have a hard time whining about what the cost used to be."
Instead, they'll get to complain about the price after it drops. While the prices for both the Wii and Xbox 360 at the launch of the PS3 are uncertain, taking the highest of their current prices (or rumored prices) leaves a $100-$150 gap between the lowest launch price of a PS3. In order for there to be no complaining, Sony would have to drop the price by more than the common $50 as well as pray that neither of their competitors also drop prices.
The issue here isn't even the ability to afford a PS3. I just graduated college, have loans to repay etc. and could buy one. There wouldn't even be an issue if Microsoft was already charging equivalent prices. The problem is that even Microsoft's more expensive package is cheaper than their 'cheap' version by a full $100. I've worked in toys stores before, and it's incredible how even a $10 difference on a toy, game or piece of electronics can sway a parent or teenager. Some people will still buy the higher priced item, but far, far more of the cheaper ones get sold.
The PS3 will sell well at Christmas to be sure, but buyers are likely to settle for the Xbox 360 and the Wii because of both the price of PS3 and the potential supply issues.
"Also, if Sony gets 70% retention of the PS2 installation base, PS3 will be an awesome success. I just don't see that not happening."
At $500-$600 (or more), it certainly isn't happening right away. That's not even mentioning supply. There won't be tens of millions of PS3s waiting in stores on release day, certainly not enough for 70% of people who already have PS2s.
If you were to ask back in the NES and SNES days as to whether Nintendo might not retain their already installed player base, someone might say "I just don't see that happening." To an extent, it's understandable. Nintendo not only revived the industry but dominated it for two generations. Similary, Sony ushered in the new era for the industry and dominated it for two generations. However, in an analogous position to where Sony is now, Nintendo lost it's near monopoly on market share. There is little preventing Sony from duplicating Nintendo's failure.
It's not that it isn't possible or especially unlikely that Sony can retain PS2 users, it's that it isn't guaranteed. If the best reason for why many current PS2 users will buy Sony's system now or later is that you "just don't see that not happening", I suggest you consider that most of the major blunders in history resulted from similar reasoning. Custer at his last stand probably couldn't see the possibility of defeat, nor could the northern generals in charge of the Union forces in the first battle of the Civil War. Just because it seems unlikely in your eyes doesn't make it impossible, and there are many of us who read Sony's next-gen strategy as "continue riding the Playstation wave assuming nothing can go wrong" as foolhardy and likely to fail.
Consider both the possibility that you are right, and that you are wrong.
1) Learn - When someone plays any game these days with AI, it's only a matter of time before the weaknesses are found and exploited. Whether it's Super Smash Bros, Unreal, or WarCraft you always have a good idea what the AI is going to do, and how you can hurt it for doing that.
2) Vary - Super Smash Bros Melee had a major flaw, excellent as it was, in that every single character played the same way. Some were faster, some were slower, but they all acted exactly alike. Give us options like we had in Perfect Dark, simple as those were.
3) Suck - Computers should not be able to do with supreme accuracy anything a skilled player can't. The number of people who could accurately reflect, super block, and meteor smash recover in SSB:M was very small, but every level 9 computer AI in the game could constantly do those moves. Don't be that precise, it's annoying.
It's a little early into E3 to start prophesizing the downfall of Sony, the revival or Nintendo, or the evil dominion of Microsoft. We've seen a pre-E3 press conference for Sony. This is about equivalent to the first segment of the pre-game show. However bad or good the pre-show conferences are, there'll be plenty within the conferences themselves to sway things one way or another.
That said, the impression I've gotten from Sony's press conference is not a good one. The two reasons are as follows.
1) "Innovation" - Sony's best bet for hurting Nintendo was to give their idea no credence. They wouldn't look bad for writing off Nintendo's ideas as gimmicky. Microsoft already ignored Nintendo, Sony simply had to follow suit. Instead, they've copied Nintendo and called it "Innovation". Now when people go to shop for a next gen console, they won't be able to write Nintendo off as a gimmick. Even if Sony did just as good a job as Nintendo, they're $300-$400 more expensive. While the move covers their bases of Nintendo takes off, they're still the copycats and that hurts them.
2) "At What Cost" - $499 hurts. Because that hurts, Microsoft was kind enough to have a core package that was cheaper, lacked features, but didn't hurt so much unless you intended on using live a lot. Sony has another package too, costing $599. That there is good one two punch to the wallet. To top it off, the difference is a 20gb harddrive versus a 60gb harddrive. Last I checked, the price difference between those sizes was not $100. Is there something I failed to garner from the coverage?
Overall, Sony hasn't started off well, meaning they'll need to work doubletime to impress me this E3. However, it's entirely possible they'll succeed. With Nintendo and Microsoft still to come, there's no telling what will happen.
I think there's a common failure of even technologically inclined individuals, including system administrators, to understand exactly what is required of the servers that allow us (usually) to play World of Warcraft. For every player connected to the server, the server has to recieve a packet explaining what the player's current attempted actions are, and send back relevant information regarding the actions of every other player and object in the immediate area. This is a constant process for each and every player!
The common system that is administered in a corporate environment does not have thousands of users connected at once all requiring huge amounts of bandwidth and processing time 24/7. That is not to say that systems with large wear and tear don't exist, or that systems with such huge numbers of users don't exist, or even both. What I am saying is that Blizzard has to administer two or more dozen server clusters being continually accessed 24/7 by resource intensive users (save for a usually brief repose on Tuesdays). Unless you work for Google (and even then) there's no comparison.
This isn't to say that we shouldn't raise our eyebrows at the pervasiveness of the problems WoW has. However, I keep seeing the same arguments thrown around about how Blizzard gets $15 x 6million every month (not entirely true because A) there are less pricey payment options and B) something around 1/3 of those players play in China on Asian servers whos subscription plans would hardly be purchasable were they $15 a month), how at 'my company' things work this way, etc. etc.
Blizzard should be called on to answer for why their servers haven't been made right as rain after a year or more after release, but it should be in the context of legitimate complaint and not any of this throwing around of overused and hardly consequential arguments.
I think the whole point of this is to change the fact that gamers are less prone to vote, contribute, and be active in the political arena in general.
Actually, you didn't have to die to save! If you pressed start on your first controller, you could do something with the second controller to bring up the save menu. I think it was pressing Up and A at the same time.
You missed my joke and the point. The prediction was to "gain ground", not overtake. For overtaking, 5 years isn't bad (although not exactly wonderful either). But to spend 5 years just to "gain ground" is pretty bad, especially considering how little of a gap there is between the PSP and DS in North America.
The reason being that the only game for the Xbox 360 that any Japanese gamer would ever be interested in is DOA4, which didn't launch with the console.
It strikes me that this is a pretty pathetic forecast for the PSP, if it takes them the course of five years to gain ground on the DS.
How about Earthbound 64? In that we had the sequel to what was probably the most unique RPG for the SNES, and one of the greatest cult classics of our times. E64 was 2/3 complete when it was canned. There was a game that should have made the list.
The winners of the Blizzcon Movie contest can be found in the following link.
o ntest.html
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_blizzcon_videoc
Not the same contest, but we'll probably see some of the same participants or similar entries.
This was posted purely to get the Japanese excited about the Xbox 360 because even at $150 they won't touch it.
Or maybe Zonk's just lonely.
The article notes that this in an of itself is only a step in the long march towards all those crazy things people have done with the original Xbox.
An important step, but only a step.
Don't get too excited, it will be a few months yet before any underworld homebrew applications are running.
The unmentionable gruesome torture in all it's grotesque hideousness!
"So help me God Jack Thompson I will addict you to Nintendogs and you will be unable to say another damned lie again because you will be too worried about your puppies!"
Claiming that the Japanese are more aware of the Xbox 360 than they were of the Xbox is akin to claiming to be the tallest midget in the world. It may be true, but what does it accomplish really?
Honestly, I think it's perfectly fine. It will keep unoriginal developers who have no business even trying to do something new (read EA) from making games that will be posterchildren for Revolution controller naysayers.
Answer: CPU/GPU specs sounds more impressive.
It's just like how the number of bits a console had was a huge deal in the days before and shortly after the SNES. However, after the playstation and n64, no one really cared about them anymore because they were obviously not really that important.
The same thing will happen after this generation, as people will realize the CPU/GPU are not all there is to a console, important as they may be.
Reasonably proportioned, single male seeking reasonably proportioned, single female.
Location: Computer Terminal.
Interests: Defying stereotypes.
For every computer nerd that fits the stereotypical looks, I know one or two who are reasonably attractive (they just don't go out of their way to develope melon sized muscles) and enjoy exposing themselves to sunshine, as well as playing sports.
Most of them, including me, are still single and clueless about women.
The biggest issue as I see it for any MMOFPS is to avoid boredom. FPSs generally cater to people who want action, lots of it, and all the time. The word "active" best describes the state of the player. In the small maps of Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, CounterStrike, Unreal Tournament and Halo, whether you are moving or stationary there's always that chance that you'll suddenly need to blast the crap out of someone.
In a large world, that becomes more difficult. If you happen to be in the middle of nowhere, it's hard to be on edge. If you know the frontline of a huge battle is miles and miles away from the base you are defending, are you really going to say, "I'm sure glad I paid $X a month to sit here and rot."
As long as the game mechanic throws the players into the action consistantly, it can work incredibly well. It would be tricky, but doable.
It seems entirely possible it wasn't even bias on the part of the developers, but instead could have just been that the Japanese developers didn't like the way Microsoft did business.
You're right that if Nintendo released the Xbox 360 here, it would probably do well. But saying "simply" because of the name neglects the finer points of why the names Sony and Nintendo sell consoles.
The reason why Sony and Nintendo as brands sell consoles is because they have a history of making good ones. The NES and SNES were killer, and while the N64 did not fare as well as its predecessors one need only peek into the windows of university clubrooms to see groups of people huddled around TVs playing Goldeneye, Smash Bros, and Mario Tennis. The Gamecube also had similar games which were just plain fun to play with your friends.
The Playstation and Playstation 2 offered the plethora of RPGs that Japanese gamers crave, in addition to being incredible machines themselves.
Because of the history these companies have, Japanese gamers trust them.
It isn't impossible to touch the hearts of the Japanese. Disney has a strong hold on the Japanese, and that is another iconic American company.
So long as you establish a history of good products, the Japanese will devote themselves to you and be very forgiving of even large mistakes. However, if you from the get go screw up royally, they won't look at you twice.
When an American company reknowned for its monopolistic practices, buggy operating systems, and lack of connecting with their consumers attempts to squeeze into the market, and botches it, they have completely blacklisted themselves.
The Japanese accept the possibility that American companies, or any foreign company for that matter, can make a competitive or even better product. The problem is that we haven't done so.
You can argue the Xbox was a good system and I'd agree with you, for Americans. It was powerful, had all the nice sports games, racing games, and FPSs you could want. However, it was really the antithesis of what a Japanese gamer would want. The Japanese taste in games was rather unfulfilled in the Xbox. Live was not a big deal because most Japanese are entirely capable of assembling their friends together and having at it in person. And given that the Japanese typically live in small apartments (the number of people with houses of significant size is very small), something as large as an Xbox is rather difficult to find a place for (you know those new, smaller Monopoly boardgame boxes? I know Japanese who have trouble finding space for those).
The problem for the Xbox 360 is that the Japanese consumers have already been turned off. Even if it is more powerful than the PS3, the past history of Microsoft in Japan coupled with the fact that the Japanese care less about power in comparison to fun and space efficiency have set the stage for a very large uphill battle for Microsoft.
I don't think these people want to set their tatami mats on fire. Those things aren't cheap.
I'm a foreign student with nine days left of my overseas stay in Japan, and I can tell you things aren't much different up here in Sapporo.
Up until about a month ago, none of the major game stores had any advertisements or information about the Xbox 360. Even now, only a few days before the console's release here, the Dreamcast, Super Famicom, Famicom and even the original Gameboy each have a display bigger than what the Xbox 360 has. Single DS and PS2 games get more space and advertisments.
Quite simply, there isn't much reason to think that the Japanese even know, let alone care, about the Xbox 360.
I have been wondering though, are they region encoded? It might be worthwhile to pick one up, bring it home, and ebay it.
For two reasons.
1) Extremists are more entertaining.
2) If an intelligent Christian was in the news, stupid people would get upset because they would actually have to think about their beliefs, as opposed to just being able to write the Christian off as stupid.
The exception to #2 is when sound bites are used to turn a Christian from #2 into a Christian from #1.