..games which run an average of $5-$10 a pop to play. at that price point, it's practically an impulse buy, like a cellphone game.
This is a MUCH different scenario than say, choosing between the full price version of Madden NFL 07 on 360 or Ps3 vs. the full price retail version on the Wii which unfortunately still looks like a gamecube game.
Besides, noone buys a console because it has EA games although I'm sure many wouldn't buy a console exactly because it didn't have any mainstream, EA games.
In case you forgot, EA has the ENTIRE NFL and NCAA football licenses locked up tight as a drum for the next 5 years or so. Madden is also one of the top 5 selling franchises of all time, and had sold millions of copies a year, every year (except one) for over a decade. Not having EA support your console would be the Kiss of Death. Just ask the Dreamcast.
I just hope after they fail Sony pulls up like Nintendo after the N64, instead of sinking like Sega..
It's worth noting that the gamecube, successor to the N64 sold about 10 million LESS than it's predecessor. Nintendo has been bleeding market share in the console arena since they launched the SNES.
call anything you want, I'm only speaking what makes sense. Tekken 3 and Vagrant Story were great games too back in the day and looked AMAZING. today? Not so much.
Much as demand for what was "great" by Ps1 and N64 standards died off as the Ps2 and Dreamcast ramped up and surpassed them, its VERY unlikely gamers will simply settle for what was good by Gamecube standards when The Ps3, 360, and PC are breaking new ground.
Photorealism has happened in games, just they are encoded video files and not rendered. When it comes to rendered work, I still have yet to see anything pass the "uncanny vally" for humans, so I highly doubt anything in this generation of consoles will.
I think photorealism is the wrong objective, as it's too focused on still images. I think realism (not just photo-) is becoming less about what we've come to think of as "graphics power" (which is largely just fill rate), and more about physics and animation.
I thought I'd reply to you both in one shot. I COMPLETELY agree that just going for pure photorealism is the wrong way to go with games, but considering the gap between where the rendering power of your typical gaming system is NOW, and what a typical NTSC (and NOT highdef) Television is capable of displaying, its clear there is still a LOT of room for improvement. Saying that the Ps3, 360, and Wii games will look exactly the same because we've hit the limits of what's possible on NTSC is just dead wrong. Is the "next" generation capable of photorealism? No, and the one after likely won't be, either. But that doesn't mean everyone should stop pushing the envelope.
as for physics and animation, we're in complete agreement. "more power" in CPU's and GPU's isn't just for pretty graphics, but will add an entirely new dimension in how our games behave and animate, and I'm looking forward to seeing what the next generation will be able to do.
This argument is asinine. What's the difference between the NES and SNES? The Master System and the Genesis? The Psx or the Ps2? in ALL of these cases it boils down to more power and a few extra buttons. It's not the hardware alone that makes a great system, but what developers can do with it. There have been some amazing games put out on all of these platforms, and if they've hit the limits of current gen technology, I have no problem at all with a "simple" power upgrade.
I'm referring to gamers who are fans of games with cutting edge graphics, or that make extensive use of physics (think, HL2) that the Xbox360, the Ps3, and the PC will excel at, but the Wii will not. Not saying that nintendo's new system isn't an improvement over the gamecube, but Microsoft's and Sony's new offerings are substantially more powerful.
I don't know, I could see a virtua fighter like game. The Wii graphics on non-hd screens are going to be damn near equal the other consoles. And it'd be really cool if your fighter punched by moving the wiimote forward for left hand and the nunchaku for right. Maybe holding the trigger would be a kick instead of a punch? Jerking it up at an angle could be a jump. I think the controller would work just fine.
the problem with this setup is that this is EXTREMELY clumsy for something that demands twitch reflexes as fast as fighters do. Not to mention that one's arms would get very, very tired jerking the controller back and forth to simulate a punch or to make one's character jump or duck 40 to 50 times per round, not to mention significantly more complex maneuvers i.e. shoryukens and whatnot. The wiimote simply isn't well suited to this type of game.
also worth noting is the assertion that somehow the wii is going to look "just as good" on a non highdef screen. I have to call BS on this- Photorealism is MOST CERTAINLY achievable on an NTSC Television (we've been watching it for decades after all) and games are still nowhere close to this point. Even at 480i, the 360 and Ps3 are going to be able to pull off effects and realism the Wii can't come close to. We may not see this at launch, but it's definitely coming.
I simply refuse to play any sort of FPS on a console. I need my keyboard and mouse. And so many other games that I like to play just don't translate at all to consoles. Can you imagine Civ IV on an Xbox?
as the Xbox360 is perfectly capable of using any USB mouse or keyboard, sure. But that's beside the point. The games you enjoy (FPS and RTS) work so well with the mouse and keyboard because those particular genres were DESIGNED AROUND that setup and require it to play well. in fact, they are almost the only genres left on PC that haven't disappeared entirely and fled to consoles because of this. (MMORPGs are next, as all the next gen consoles are online enabled by default, something only the PC has been able to make a claim to so far.)
The mouse and keyboard is quite frankly terrible at things designed around the controller, such as platformers, racers, and fighters that made their debut or enjoy their highest popularity on consoles.
I think the strength of Nintendo, is that while the PS and XBox have continued along their paths of getting better machinery to make games faster and look more realistic, Nintendo have veered to the left slightly and concentrated on making the gaming experience better.
The issue with this assertion is that "better" is HIGHLY subjective. To fans of hyper detailed, high physics games that do NOT lend themselves well to using the wii remote as a controller, (say, for instance, something like the next iteration of virtua fighter) what Nintendo is doing may not be making their gaming experience better at all.
What nintendo IS doing is using the wii controller to try to exploit an untapped demographic- the much older, much younger, or simply has less time casual gamer that has already decided they don't enjoy "traditional" videogames, but might be drawn in (or in some cases BACK in) by the different approach the Wii uses, much like what has happened with the Nintendo DS.
you're missing the point. It wasn't supposed to launch "in the spring" in any territory but Japan. It was ALWAYS expected to launch during the holiday season in the states, and Europe was an unknown. so FOR THOSE TERRITORIES (the US and the UK) The Ps3 isn't late at all. In fact, since the UK typically has a later launch than the US or Japan, it could be argued it's actually arriving EARLIER than expected there.
actually, piracy could be said to have HELPED windows. It could be argued that the largest share of sales for office and windows is from corporate licensing- massive piracy of windows on the consumer end only helped to drive up marketshare so that companies had almost no choice but to go with windows and office as it was "what everyone was using."
It doesn't make sense to crack down on every joe and jane who makes a copy of windows to use at home, but there's BIG money in pursuing licenses from corporate clients who can be licensing literally thousands of copies at a time. Thus, most of the copies used by big business or educational institutions are paid for and very profitable for microsoft.
the cartridge is actually what _helped_ Nintendo, not hurt it. They are damn near copy proof (within reason), have no load times, have no moving parts which lower failure, raise battery life in portables, lower power consumption in consoles, and make them very sturdy and tough.
er, no. The cartridge model was extremely developer unfriendly. Carts are MANY, MANY times more expensive to manufacture than CDs, could only be manufactured by nintendo itself (this is not the case for CD based media) and had to be paid for up front- if a game failed to sell, the developer would be stuck with a lot of very expensive unsellable bricks. Make no mistake, Devs LOVE the CD model.
They wanted to capitalize on the work they had already done and make a quick buck as a big FU to Nintendo. It was successful to some degree. They tried so hard to manufacture a mascot like Mario or Sonic, and it never worked.
Successful to some degree? Sony was a first time entrant to the market and the Ps1 ended up doubling the sales of both the SNES and the Genesis, and exceeded the sales of the previous all time seller (the NES) by a good 25 million. It also drew in older gamers in a way that Nintendo, Sega, and Atari never had. It's successor was ALSO a blockbuster success and outsold it, based largely on favorable impressions of the Ps1. make no mistake, Sony's first console was a VERY big deal. As for "trying so hard to manufacture a mascot like mario or sonic..." This is a fallacy. never happened. All of the "mascots" that people associate with the Ps1 (crash, lara croft, klonoa, solid snake...etc) were made by third parties. Sony never made the attempt to market their console this way.
Not to sound overly pro Nintendo, but they have been consistently the only true innovator in console gaming for over 20 years now. They are not simply "cashing-in" but creating a market and then selling to it. Sure, they are not some benevolent company either, but their intentions and products are as close to it as you will find...
Blatant fanboysim at its very finest. When nintendo was market leader it's monopolistic tactics in the console market matched or exceeded microsoft's behavior in the desktop market. For instance, if you wanted to make a game for the NES, not only could you not port the game to any other system, third parties couldnt make ANY games for ANY competitor or be blacklisted. Nintendo is a company out to make money any way it can, make no mistake.
Sega should know better, since the decision to rush the saturn to market BEFORE the PS1 (surprising retailers and with almost no software for months) is one of the things that killed it.
Sony has never been first to market in any generation. People just tend not to remember the failures that came before.
Clearly I spend too much time on a competing site.
on
Romero's New Gig
·
· Score: 1
I instantly equated "Romero" with a mustachioed news reporters.
1) There will be major price slashing when the PS3 comes out of B-R players to be competitive, lowering the price in the HD-DVD range.
2) At 500$-600$, Sony is either losing a TON of money because the B-R costs them a lot to include, or the B-R player inside the PS3 is of so poor quality that it renders it useless to watch movies on an HD TV set (which is the point anyway, people who will buy Blu-Ray movies are going to expect quality since they have an HD-set capable of playing them at native-res)
OR, more likely:
1.) Prices between the two won't budge much at all, since high end, standalone drives (like the pioneer elite) are aimed at deep pocketed early adopters who want something aesthetically pleasing (i.e. looks nice with the rest of their expensive AV equipment) that won't have to be used with a Ps3 controller- to these consumers Form and Ease of use mean a LOT and IS worth paying for. The Ps3 as a blu-ray player is aimed at a totally different market- When the Ps2 made it's debut at $299, it didn't really affect the sales of high end DVD players at all. You can still find DVD players in the $500 range if you look hard enough, and prices for DVD players have been in the $50 range for years now.
2.) Sony is more than likely breaking even, or coming very close to it. Yes, the Ps3 is $500 (and $600 for the premium), but don't forget those who buy the system WILL buy things like additional cables, memory cards, online content (think horse armor) and extra controllers (up to 7!) in addition to sony generating revenue from EVERY Game and Blu-Ray movie sold- the up front cost of the unit is (comparatively) low, but they're making a lot of money on the back end. Other manufacturers need to recoup their costs and make all their profit up front, thus the higher unit price.
Sony also going to sell a truckload of these, giving them the luxury of making a smaller profit margin per unit but selling a LOT of machines. The initial allocation of Ps3's is something around 6 million over the first 6 months, and these WILL sell out quickly. Samsung and Pioneer would be lucky to move a fraction of this, so again, profit per unit needs to be higher.
The Halo games are credited with single-handedly selling millions of systems. It took the PS2 about 3 years to beat the Dreamcast and that was with almost no competition from Nintendo and Microsoft. That doesn't speak of confidence.
I think you need a bit of a history lesson. The Dreamcast failed after one year on the market with only approximately 10 million Sold. The Ps2 doubled this in it's first 18 months of release, and the Xbox and Gamecube made their debut (and the Xbox had Halo at launch!) only one year into the system's lifespan. Halo may have been credited with selling millions of systems, but after 5 years on the market (the Xbox released in NA November 15, 2001), Microsoft has yet to sell as many systems as Sony did in it's first year and a half. Just putting things into perspective for you.
Actually there weren't that many PS1 + PS2 hit exclusives. Sure there was the Final Fantasy games and the occasional gems, Disgaea, God of War,.hack series, but compared to Nintendo's anything with Mario, Metroid, Zelda and Super Smash Bros games, Sony doesn't have much. (Squaresoft/SquareEnix never 100% supported Sony either, remember Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicals and the Dragon Quest Slime games? Konami made Castlevania games for the GBA and DS, Capcom ports games to every system they can and Namco keeps flip-flopping on PS2 support.)
Again, there's FAR more hit Playstation exclusive titles than you think. All of these titles are High Selling and/or highly rated on PS2 ALONE, exclusive to the system:
Amplitude. Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter. Dragon Quest VIII. Disgaea. Digital Devil Saga 1/2. Devil May Cry 1, 2, and 3. Final Fantasy X, X-2, and XII (Perfect Score from Famitsu) Gran Turismo 3 and 4. Tekken Tag, 4, and 5. Ratchet and Clank 1, 2, 3, and Deadlocked. The Getaway. God of War. Hot Shots Golf 3 and "Fore." ICO. Jak and Daxter 1, 2, and 3. Killzone. Katamari Damacy. Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2. Metal Gear Solid 3/Subsistence. Guitar Hero. Shadow Hearts 1, 2, and 3. Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne. Silent Hill 3. Shadow of the Colossus. Suikoden III and V. (I intentionally omitted the terrible 4th installment) Red Faction. R-Type Final. Sly Cooper 1 and 2. Socom 1, 2, and 3. (note: there are more people online playing SOCOM than on ALL of Xbox Live.) Star Ocean: Till the End of Time. Soul Calibur 3. Virtua Fighter 4/Evolution.
That list barely scratches the surface..I didn't count any titles that were eventually ported to other systems, like Metal Gear Solid: Substance, Silent Hill 2, or any of the nigh endless sports titles. There are more A-AAA titles on the Ps2 alone than on the GC, Xbox, and Dreamcast Combined. Nintendo makes excellent titles but they simply havent been able to produce them in enough quantity. As the inability of the N64 and Gamecube to succeed have proven, 1 or 2 AAA titles per year just isn't enough.
Holy crap, how much did Sony pay you to write this? The PS1 and PS2 are NOT the 'most successful consoles in history'. The NES used to control about 95% of the marketshare and the SNES vs Genesis war is practically a textbook moment in the history of electronic economics. A LARGE number of franchises have already shown signs of leaving Sony and others have NEVER truely been exclusive to Sony. (Remember Soul Caliber 2?) Mario, Halo, Gameboy, 360 and Nintendo are household words too. What's your point? Nintendo has never lost marketshare since the SNES and Microsoft controls roughly 20% of the video game console industry marketshare and practically 90% of its online activities with Xbox Live. (Nintendo has barely entered with the DS and Sony doesn't seem to care about the PS2 Online system.) As far as an serious analyst is concerned, Sony is the ONLY one setup to fall/decline in any way shape or form. Microsoft has REPEATEDLY stated that they'll keep burning money if they have to, Nintendo continues to dominate with handhelds and its exclusives and Sony has pra
It's instructive here to note that those two games are the 4th and 5th in their respective series. One is not really known as a multiplayer game, and the other is a fighting game, a genre that's been slowly dying since the mid-'90s. This is not how you make the PS3's Halo.
Of course, I say this knowing that the easiest way to kill off the PS3 would be for Bungie to release Halo 3 the same day the PS3 launches, although I'm not sure if it'll happen or not.
Could it be that they're the 4th and 5th in their respective series because millions of people buy and enjoy both series, guaranteeing a solid install base on launch? I can't see how that could POSSIBLY benefit Sony at all, no sir.
Bungie releasing Halo 3 the same day as the Ps3 launch will have Zero effect on Ps3 sales. Neither Halo showed up on the Ps2 and it still broke records while Microsoft struggled to match the Gamecube in sales. What's more likely to still be on store shelves two weeks after launch? Ps3's? or copies of Halo? anyone seriously considering both will pick up the Ps3 first, and Halo second.
You've missed the biggest selling point. Every title/developer that made the Ps1 and Ps2 the most successful consoles of all time is still on board for the Ps3...nobody's jumped ship and there are more exclusives than you think. If you enjoyed FF, Gran turismo, Metal Gear, Shin Megami Tensei, Shadow of the Colossus, etc...guess which system you have to buy to keep playing the games you enjoy? for a LOT of people (especially if those people are in japan) there IS no alternative to the Ps3, since certain franchises and genres just won't show up on the 360 or the Wii.
The target audience for a consumer device costing 600$ is very distinct from one costing about 200-300. Instead of the young players market, you'd have to target hardcore gamers and people who can and will spend 600 without too much effort. And most of all, the PS3 will need its "Halo": A killer game, a 'must have', a signature title that makes you WANT to buy that PS3.
Prices come down over time. The Ps3 is being launched aiming squarely at the early adopters and hardcore fans that were paying $600 and $700 for a system on ebay, only many, many more of them as sony's install base is substantially larger. As price drops occur, more casual fans will come on board. This is the way console launches ALWAYS go.
also, the Ps3 doesn't NEED a "halo." Microsoft had TWO and they were still utterly, totally crushed last round. The titles they DO have (or are expected to have) are more than sufficient.
BluRay is cute, but useless as a selling point. First of all, the format war is far from being decided. And, let's be honest folks, how many of you got the PS2 as a cheap replacement for a DVD player? I know nobody who has a PS2 and no other means to play DVDs, more importantly, better (especially considering sound quality) alternatives?
BluRay is hardly useless to those like myself for whom DVD is insufficient on our television sets. for me and other early adopters I'm curious to see what it can do. As for the Ps2, I was in retail at the time it launched stateside in 2000 and there were a LOT of people who used the Ps2 as their primary (or only) DVD player. As player prices came down out of the stratosphere and into the $99 and $50 range, this became less common. Plenty of houses have 2 or 3 DVD players including consoles.
Blu-Ray won't go exactly the same way as it's in a different stage of its lifecycle than DVD was when it launched, but even those who have never heard of it but might want a Ps3 will more than likely buy or rent a disc just to see what the fuss is about if they have access to an HDTV. The Ps3 exists just as much to push the Blu Ray format as vice versa.
Without the 'must have' game, people will stick with the PS2 'til the PS3 is cheap, if they already have PS2 games. If they don't, they might turn for Nintendo (if they don't want to spend much money) or the X360 (if they do). Price is definitly no selling argument for the PS3, and the X360 is already out. If someone didn't have PS2 games and wanted a top level console, they already bought a X360.
Price isn't usually an issue for early adopters ESPECIALLY during holiday season, as the buying frenzies on ebay for the Ps2 and 360 prove. Those machines were going for easily double MSRP. And if someone enjoyed the games the Ps2 had to offer and wanted a "top level" console, they sure as hell wouldnt just "buy a 360" as the franchises they like aren't likely to appear there. (especially, once again, if said gamers happen to live in japan)
The 'geek factor' does also not play in favor of Sony. Too often the news about Sony are not really geek friendly, their MD-Recorders (that couldn't export the recorded sounds sensibly), rootkits in audio-
you're almost correct here- the famicom disk system wasn't a battery backed, it was a rewritable medium like a 3.5 inch floppy. Since the FDS wasn't produced in the states we saw horrendously long passwords until the battery-backed cart save system was introduced.
I'll tell you what changed games - Saving
Lets face it, nobody would have ever finished the original Zelda if you had to start from the beginning everytime. Saving is what made games evolve from 3-6 hours of maximum gameplay to the massive sprawling indepth masterpieces we know today...
I think you've forgotten about the much loathed predecessor to the battery backed save..The massively overly complex password based continue system (context sensitive, using upper and lowercase letters in addition to numerals) that plagued such games as Metroid, The Guardian Legend, and POSSIBLY the battle of olympus. While these games didn't truly allow you to save your progress they came "close enough" though more than one game was "lost" due to a mixup between O's and 0's, l's and 1s....
actually, we're talking about Samsung. Sony's player was delayed until later this year- Price TBD. Sony bashing is in and all, I know- but at least get the manufacturer right.
The writer DID mention the Wii at the end of the article, but while the 360 and Ps3 are direct competitors with similar specifications going after the same audience, Nintendo is targeting a completely different market with the Wii and intends it to be complementary to the other two consoles, and not a direct competitor. Thus, any "360 vs. Ps3 vs. Wii comparisons" wouldnt really be appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
..games which run an average of $5-$10 a pop to play. at that price point, it's practically an impulse buy, like a cellphone game.
This is a MUCH different scenario than say, choosing between the full price version of Madden NFL 07 on 360 or Ps3 vs. the full price retail version on the Wii which unfortunately still looks like a gamecube game.
call anything you want, I'm only speaking what makes sense. Tekken 3 and Vagrant Story were great games too back in the day and looked AMAZING. today? Not so much.
Much as demand for what was "great" by Ps1 and N64 standards died off as the Ps2 and Dreamcast ramped up and surpassed them, its VERY unlikely gamers will simply settle for what was good by Gamecube standards when The Ps3, 360, and PC are breaking new ground.
I thought I'd reply to you both in one shot. I COMPLETELY agree that just going for pure photorealism is the wrong way to go with games, but considering the gap between where the rendering power of your typical gaming system is NOW, and what a typical NTSC (and NOT highdef) Television is capable of displaying, its clear there is still a LOT of room for improvement. Saying that the Ps3, 360, and Wii games will look exactly the same because we've hit the limits of what's possible on NTSC is just dead wrong. Is the "next" generation capable of photorealism? No, and the one after likely won't be, either. But that doesn't mean everyone should stop pushing the envelope.
as for physics and animation, we're in complete agreement. "more power" in CPU's and GPU's isn't just for pretty graphics, but will add an entirely new dimension in how our games behave and animate, and I'm looking forward to seeing what the next generation will be able to do.
This argument is asinine. What's the difference between the NES and SNES? The Master System and the Genesis? The Psx or the Ps2? in ALL of these cases it boils down to more power and a few extra buttons. It's not the hardware alone that makes a great system, but what developers can do with it. There have been some amazing games put out on all of these platforms, and if they've hit the limits of current gen technology, I have no problem at all with a "simple" power upgrade.
I'm referring to gamers who are fans of games with cutting edge graphics, or that make extensive use of physics (think, HL2) that the Xbox360, the Ps3, and the PC will excel at, but the Wii will not. Not saying that nintendo's new system isn't an improvement over the gamecube, but Microsoft's and Sony's new offerings are substantially more powerful.
the problem with this setup is that this is EXTREMELY clumsy for something that demands twitch reflexes as fast as fighters do. Not to mention that one's arms would get very, very tired jerking the controller back and forth to simulate a punch or to make one's character jump or duck 40 to 50 times per round, not to mention significantly more complex maneuvers i.e. shoryukens and whatnot. The wiimote simply isn't well suited to this type of game.
also worth noting is the assertion that somehow the wii is going to look "just as good" on a non highdef screen. I have to call BS on this- Photorealism is MOST CERTAINLY achievable on an NTSC Television (we've been watching it for decades after all) and games are still nowhere close to this point. Even at 480i, the 360 and Ps3 are going to be able to pull off effects and realism the Wii can't come close to. We may not see this at launch, but it's definitely coming.
as the Xbox360 is perfectly capable of using any USB mouse or keyboard, sure. But that's beside the point. The games you enjoy (FPS and RTS) work so well with the mouse and keyboard because those particular genres were DESIGNED AROUND that setup and require it to play well. in fact, they are almost the only genres left on PC that haven't disappeared entirely and fled to consoles because of this. (MMORPGs are next, as all the next gen consoles are online enabled by default, something only the PC has been able to make a claim to so far.)
The mouse and keyboard is quite frankly terrible at things designed around the controller, such as platformers, racers, and fighters that made their debut or enjoy their highest popularity on consoles.
The issue with this assertion is that "better" is HIGHLY subjective. To fans of hyper detailed, high physics games that do NOT lend themselves well to using the wii remote as a controller, (say, for instance, something like the next iteration of virtua fighter) what Nintendo is doing may not be making their gaming experience better at all.
What nintendo IS doing is using the wii controller to try to exploit an untapped demographic- the much older, much younger, or simply has less time casual gamer that has already decided they don't enjoy "traditional" videogames, but might be drawn in (or in some cases BACK in) by the different approach the Wii uses, much like what has happened with the Nintendo DS.
the PS2 does indeed have an "off" switch-not the standby button- on the back of the console.
you're missing the point. It wasn't supposed to launch "in the spring" in any territory but Japan. It was ALWAYS expected to launch during the holiday season in the states, and Europe was an unknown. so FOR THOSE TERRITORIES (the US and the UK) The Ps3 isn't late at all. In fact, since the UK typically has a later launch than the US or Japan, it could be argued it's actually arriving EARLIER than expected there.
actually, piracy could be said to have HELPED windows. It could be argued that the largest share of sales for office and windows is from corporate licensing- massive piracy of windows on the consumer end only helped to drive up marketshare so that companies had almost no choice but to go with windows and office as it was "what everyone was using."
It doesn't make sense to crack down on every joe and jane who makes a copy of windows to use at home, but there's BIG money in pursuing licenses from corporate clients who can be licensing literally thousands of copies at a time. Thus, most of the copies used by big business or educational institutions are paid for and very profitable for microsoft.
er, no. The cartridge model was extremely developer unfriendly. Carts are MANY, MANY times more expensive to manufacture than CDs, could only be manufactured by nintendo itself (this is not the case for CD based media) and had to be paid for up front- if a game failed to sell, the developer would be stuck with a lot of very expensive unsellable bricks. Make no mistake, Devs LOVE the CD model.
Successful to some degree? Sony was a first time entrant to the market and the Ps1 ended up doubling the sales of both the SNES and the Genesis, and exceeded the sales of the previous all time seller (the NES) by a good 25 million. It also drew in older gamers in a way that Nintendo, Sega, and Atari never had. It's successor was ALSO a blockbuster success and outsold it, based largely on favorable impressions of the Ps1. make no mistake, Sony's first console was a VERY big deal. As for "trying so hard to manufacture a mascot like mario or sonic..." This is a fallacy. never happened. All of the "mascots" that people associate with the Ps1 (crash, lara croft, klonoa, solid snake...etc) were made by third parties. Sony never made the attempt to market their console this way.
Blatant fanboysim at its very finest. When nintendo was market leader it's monopolistic tactics in the console market matched or exceeded microsoft's behavior in the desktop market. For instance, if you wanted to make a game for the NES, not only could you not port the game to any other system, third parties couldnt make ANY games for ANY competitor or be blacklisted. Nintendo is a company out to make money any way it can, make no mistake.
Sega should know better, since the decision to rush the saturn to market BEFORE the PS1 (surprising retailers and with almost no software for months) is one of the things that killed it. Sony has never been first to market in any generation. People just tend not to remember the failures that came before.
I instantly equated "Romero" with a mustachioed news reporters.
I think he was trying for "sheds a tear." Good guess though!
1.) Prices between the two won't budge much at all, since high end, standalone drives (like the pioneer elite) are aimed at deep pocketed early adopters who want something aesthetically pleasing (i.e. looks nice with the rest of their expensive AV equipment) that won't have to be used with a Ps3 controller- to these consumers Form and Ease of use mean a LOT and IS worth paying for. The Ps3 as a blu-ray player is aimed at a totally different market- When the Ps2 made it's debut at $299, it didn't really affect the sales of high end DVD players at all. You can still find DVD players in the $500 range if you look hard enough, and prices for DVD players have been in the $50 range for years now.
2.) Sony is more than likely breaking even, or coming very close to it. Yes, the Ps3 is $500 (and $600 for the premium), but don't forget those who buy the system WILL buy things like additional cables, memory cards, online content (think horse armor) and extra controllers (up to 7!) in addition to sony generating revenue from EVERY Game and Blu-Ray movie sold- the up front cost of the unit is (comparatively) low, but they're making a lot of money on the back end. Other manufacturers need to recoup their costs and make all their profit up front, thus the higher unit price.
Sony also going to sell a truckload of these, giving them the luxury of making a smaller profit margin per unit but selling a LOT of machines. The initial allocation of Ps3's is something around 6 million over the first 6 months, and these WILL sell out quickly. Samsung and Pioneer would be lucky to move a fraction of this, so again, profit per unit needs to be higher.
I think you need a bit of a history lesson. The Dreamcast failed after one year on the market with only approximately 10 million Sold. The Ps2 doubled this in it's first 18 months of release, and the Xbox and Gamecube made their debut (and the Xbox had Halo at launch!) only one year into the system's lifespan. Halo may have been credited with selling millions of systems, but after 5 years on the market (the Xbox released in NA November 15, 2001), Microsoft has yet to sell as many systems as Sony did in it's first year and a half. Just putting things into perspective for you.
Again, there's FAR more hit Playstation exclusive titles than you think. All of these titles are High Selling and/or highly rated on PS2 ALONE, exclusive to the system:
Amplitude. Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter. Dragon Quest VIII. Disgaea. Digital Devil Saga 1/2. Devil May Cry 1, 2, and 3. Final Fantasy X, X-2, and XII (Perfect Score from Famitsu) Gran Turismo 3 and 4. Tekken Tag, 4, and 5. Ratchet and Clank 1, 2, 3, and Deadlocked. The Getaway. God of War. Hot Shots Golf 3 and "Fore." ICO. Jak and Daxter 1, 2, and 3. Killzone. Katamari Damacy. Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2. Metal Gear Solid 3/Subsistence. Guitar Hero. Shadow Hearts 1, 2, and 3. Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne. Silent Hill 3. Shadow of the Colossus. Suikoden III and V. (I intentionally omitted the terrible 4th installment) Red Faction. R-Type Final. Sly Cooper 1 and 2. Socom 1, 2, and 3. (note: there are more people online playing SOCOM than on ALL of Xbox Live.) Star Ocean: Till the End of Time. Soul Calibur 3. Virtua Fighter 4/Evolution.
That list barely scratches the surface..I didn't count any titles that were eventually ported to other systems, like Metal Gear Solid: Substance, Silent Hill 2, or any of the nigh endless sports titles. There are more A-AAA titles on the Ps2 alone than on the GC, Xbox, and Dreamcast Combined. Nintendo makes excellent titles but they simply havent been able to produce them in enough quantity. As the inability of the N64 and Gamecube to succeed have proven, 1 or 2 AAA titles per year just isn't enough.
Could it be that they're the 4th and 5th in their respective series because millions of people buy and enjoy both series, guaranteeing a solid install base on launch? I can't see how that could POSSIBLY benefit Sony at all, no sir.
Bungie releasing Halo 3 the same day as the Ps3 launch will have Zero effect on Ps3 sales. Neither Halo showed up on the Ps2 and it still broke records while Microsoft struggled to match the Gamecube in sales. What's more likely to still be on store shelves two weeks after launch? Ps3's? or copies of Halo? anyone seriously considering both will pick up the Ps3 first, and Halo second.
You've missed the biggest selling point. Every title/developer that made the Ps1 and Ps2 the most successful consoles of all time is still on board for the Ps3...nobody's jumped ship and there are more exclusives than you think. If you enjoyed FF, Gran turismo, Metal Gear, Shin Megami Tensei, Shadow of the Colossus, etc...guess which system you have to buy to keep playing the games you enjoy? for a LOT of people (especially if those people are in japan) there IS no alternative to the Ps3, since certain franchises and genres just won't show up on the 360 or the Wii.
Prices come down over time. The Ps3 is being launched aiming squarely at the early adopters and hardcore fans that were paying $600 and $700 for a system on ebay, only many, many more of them as sony's install base is substantially larger. As price drops occur, more casual fans will come on board. This is the way console launches ALWAYS go.
also, the Ps3 doesn't NEED a "halo." Microsoft had TWO and they were still utterly, totally crushed last round. The titles they DO have (or are expected to have) are more than sufficient.
BluRay is hardly useless to those like myself for whom DVD is insufficient on our television sets. for me and other early adopters I'm curious to see what it can do. As for the Ps2, I was in retail at the time it launched stateside in 2000 and there were a LOT of people who used the Ps2 as their primary (or only) DVD player. As player prices came down out of the stratosphere and into the $99 and $50 range, this became less common. Plenty of houses have 2 or 3 DVD players including consoles.
Blu-Ray won't go exactly the same way as it's in a different stage of its lifecycle than DVD was when it launched, but even those who have never heard of it but might want a Ps3 will more than likely buy or rent a disc just to see what the fuss is about if they have access to an HDTV. The Ps3 exists just as much to push the Blu Ray format as vice versa.
Price isn't usually an issue for early adopters ESPECIALLY during holiday season, as the buying frenzies on ebay for the Ps2 and 360 prove. Those machines were going for easily double MSRP. And if someone enjoyed the games the Ps2 had to offer and wanted a "top level" console, they sure as hell wouldnt just "buy a 360" as the franchises they like aren't likely to appear there. (especially, once again, if said gamers happen to live in japan)
you're almost correct here- the famicom disk system wasn't a battery backed, it was a rewritable medium like a 3.5 inch floppy. Since the FDS wasn't produced in the states we saw horrendously long passwords until the battery-backed cart save system was introduced.
actually, we're talking about Samsung. Sony's player was delayed until later this year- Price TBD. Sony bashing is in and all, I know- but at least get the manufacturer right.
The writer DID mention the Wii at the end of the article, but while the 360 and Ps3 are direct competitors with similar specifications going after the same audience, Nintendo is targeting a completely different market with the Wii and intends it to be complementary to the other two consoles, and not a direct competitor. Thus, any "360 vs. Ps3 vs. Wii comparisons" wouldnt really be appropriate.