|
Home > Archive > Sony playstation2 > January 2007 > Can the PS3 be saved?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Can the PS3 be saved?
|
|
| TheGame 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/18/can-the-ps3-be-saved/
It doesn't take a Phoenix Wright wannabe to observe popular PS3
disdain, its launch mishaps, and concern with early system surpluses.
Some have gone as far to call the system a "total disaster" in need of
a "do over." In light of its lackluster start, GigaGamez offers a few
recommendations for improvement. In summary:
1. Off with their heads! Even though Kutaragi and other top executives
have made Sony a lot of money over the years, the company needs to cut
'em loose for a fresh start. Only then will its PR improve.
2. How about some games? The article wisely states: "No matter what
could have happened up to the point when the console launched, as soon
as the first really great game comes out, all is forgiven." True,
assuming its criticized high price reaches mass equilibrium.
3. Make the system easier to develop for. To ensure #2 happens, Sony
needs to focus on helping developers leverage the Cell processor. And
though we make fun of its over-hyped marketing, one Business 2.0 writer
believes the Cell can, in fact, do things the 360 is incapable of, if
only developers knew how to use it.
So is all lost for Sony and its flagship PlayStation brand? Of course
not. It takes more than just a single launch blunder to bring down the
largest name in console gaming today. But the article concludes with a
warning, "I'd say Sony has a year to do things differently before
things get really dire." Let's regroup in t-minus one year.
| |
|
| A failed product launch won't kill a system, even the Atari Jaguar and
3D0 systems held out a good nine to twelve months. Sony's predicted
failure in 2007 comes from a series of problems facing the company that
have stacked up, the PS3 production cost loss is the biggest factor.
TheGame wrote:
quote:
> http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/18/can-the-ps3-be-saved/
> It doesn't take a Phoenix Wright wannabe to observe popular PS3
> disdain, its launch mishaps, and concern with early system surpluses.
> Some have gone as far to call the system a "total disaster" in need of
> a "do over." In light of its lackluster start, GigaGamez offers a few
> recommendations for improvement. In summary:
>
> 1. Off with their heads! Even though Kutaragi and other top executives
> have made Sony a lot of money over the years, the company needs to cut
> 'em loose for a fresh start. Only then will its PR improve.
>
> 2. How about some games? The article wisely states: "No matter what
> could have happened up to the point when the console launched, as soon
> as the first really great game comes out, all is forgiven." True,
> assuming its criticized high price reaches mass equilibrium.
>
> 3. Make the system easier to develop for. To ensure #2 happens, Sony
> needs to focus on helping developers leverage the Cell processor. And
> though we make fun of its over-hyped marketing, one Business 2.0 writer
> believes the Cell can, in fact, do things the 360 is incapable of, if
> only developers knew how to use it.
>
> So is all lost for Sony and its flagship PlayStation brand? Of course
> not. It takes more than just a single launch blunder to bring down the
> largest name in console gaming today. But the article concludes with a
> warning, "I'd say Sony has a year to do things differently before
> things get really dire." Let's regroup in t-minus one year.
| |
| elrous0@pop.uky.edu 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| RMZ wrote:
quote:
> A failed product launch won't kill a system, even the Atari Jaguar and
> 3D0 systems held out a good nine to twelve months. Sony's predicted
> failure in 2007 comes from a series of problems facing the company that
> have stacked up, the PS3 production cost loss is the biggest factor.
2007 will really tell the tale. If Sony can't get it together by next
Christmas, they're in real trouble. The system itself isn't bad, but
they have two problems right now:
1) Price
2) Lack of quality exclusive games
Sony needs to start from there.
-Eric
| |
| Paul Russell 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| elrous0@pop.uky.edu wrote:
quote:
> RMZ wrote:
>
>
>
> 2007 will really tell the tale. If Sony can't get it together by next
> Christmas, they're in real trouble. The system itself isn't bad, but
> they have two problems right now:
>
> 1) Price
> 2) Lack of quality exclusive games
>
> Sony needs to start from there.
>
Yes, Sony need to get the price of the PS3 down by the xmas 2007 buying
season, and they will probably need to take a big financial hit to do
this, otherwise they risk losing the console battle to Microsoft.
They also need to invest a big wad of cash now to hire some talent that
they can send out to help games developers get a jump start on Cell. My
guess is tha most game developrs are still not up to speed on the
technology which is why the first PS3 games are both lame and late.
Paul
| |
| Tomcat 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| elrous0@pop.uky.edu wrote:
quote:
>
> 1) Price
> 2) Lack of quality exclusive games
>
> Sony needs to start from there.
>
But where do they start?
They really can't lower price, they are losing hundreds per console as
it is.
If they can't lower price they won't have much demand and if they don't
have demand they won't get many exclusive games developed for it after
the next round.
The only hope is that some of the highly anticipated games like
Motorstorm and Lair will be MAJOR console sellers.
| |
|
| Considering that the PS3 has out-sold the 360 in the same time period
last year even though it hasn't even launched in Europe yet, has
shipped over 2 million units, and ushered in the winner of the next-gen
optical media format war, we have to assume the topic means "Can the
PS3 be saved from chain-linking partisan rumor blogs?".
I believe this is mission impossible.
| |
|
|
Paul Russell wrote:
quote:
> elrous0@pop.uky.edu wrote:
>
> Yes, Sony need to get the price of the PS3 down by the xmas 2007 buying
> season, and they will probably need to take a big financial hit to do
> this, otherwise they risk losing the console battle to Microsoft.
>
The latest issue of Game Informer has an interview with Sony's top
boss. I got the issue in the mail yesterday, it's not on newsstands
here yet. In the interview he states that there will be no PS3 price
drop, he goes on to explain (as if we need it) why the PS3 price can't
be dropped. It comes down to what we already know, the cost to produce
these systems is over $300 above what they are selling them for
wholesale. The math is pretty simple, 1-million units shipped, 300
million lost. Sony claims 2-million units have shipped (that's as of
sometime early January), so that's 600 million lost.... There is no way
to fuge this. You can try to offset it with the profits off PS2
hardware, but Sony dropped the price of the PS2, they can't be making
more than $30-$40 profit off each PS2 sold and that's a high estimate.
PS2 sales helps a little, but not nearly enough... The need PS2 sales
to turn a profit, not help them dig a quarter way out of a hole. If
this seems insane to you, that unquestably is Only a moron would sell
out the company on a bet like this. Sony agreed which is why in late
2006 they took desperate measures and restructured the company, taking
the CEO out of power.
The bet was for quick adoption of BluRay and PS3. It was a long shot
bet on revenue streams from third-party BluRay and PS3 licenses and
royalties.
quote:
> They also need to invest a big wad of cash now to hire some talent that
> they can send out to help games developers get a jump start on Cell. My
> guess is tha most game developrs are still not up to speed on the
> technology which is why the first PS3 games are both lame and late.
>
You're right, but that can't happen, because Sony doesn't have the
money, they've already lost 500 million + on PS3 hardware production
(that's accounting for the offset of PS2 profits) and Game Publishers
are pretty selective about where they want to throw their money
training developers. There is a long line of cost involved in a
non-standard platform like the PS3 for game publishers. If the hardware
is a huge hit, they will gladley payout, but when you have a system as
successful as XBox 360 and the mega-hot Wii, both are not only
successful, they cost a lot less to develop for.
Why do you think people like the top developer and Value (Half Life,
Half Life 2 developer) is going on the record saying things like "Sony
should just pull the plug and start over, PS3 is a disaster". He says
that because it's a assertion he can safely make. Same goes with the
Atari founder, there's someone who went down a similar path with the
Atari 7800. These people have nothing against Sony personally, I don't
see any motive anyway... they just hate to see consumers get burned.
If you buy a PS3 now, you're going to get burned.
quote:
> Paul
| |
|
|
GUTB wrote:
quote:
> ushered in the winner of the next-gen
> optical media format war,
I *love* that this keeps coming up! Dual-media players make the "war"
a moot point. High-def is still not mass-market. The dual players are
coming to market just as the adoption of HD TVs is probably going to
start a major upswing.
Anyone who buys a PS3 for an HD player is essentially buying a crippled
high-def DVD player.
IMHO good games, and *nothing* else, are the PS3's only chance.
Kendt
| |
|
| This isn't true at all.... It's the Bluray that drives the cost of the
PS3 price. Sony is counting on recouping loss on PS3 hardware with
Bluray royalties.
You may believe it is a moot point at the consumer level it appears to
be, at the strategic business level it is extremely important and
dual-media is bad. Dual media players aren't the long term answer.
Ultimately one format will gain a majority market share, historically
Sony's formats are never winners.
KE wrote:
quote:
> GUTB wrote:
>
> I *love* that this keeps coming up! Dual-media players make the "war"
> a moot point. High-def is still not mass-market. The dual players are
> coming to market just as the adoption of HD TVs is probably going to
> start a major upswing.
> Anyone who buys a PS3 for an HD player is essentially buying a crippled
> high-def DVD player.
> IMHO good games, and *nothing* else, are the PS3's only chance.
>
> Kendt
| |
| Paul Russell 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| RMZ wrote:
quote:
>
>
> You're right, but that can't happen, because Sony doesn't have the
> money, they've already lost 500 million + on PS3 hardware production
> (that's accounting for the offset of PS2 profits) and Game Publishers
> are pretty selective about where they want to throw their money
> training developers. There is a long line of cost involved in a
> non-standard platform like the PS3 for game publishers. If the hardware
> is a huge hit, they will gladley payout, but when you have a system as
> successful as XBox 360 and the mega-hot Wii, both are not only
> successful, they cost a lot less to develop for.
>
> Why do you think people like the top developer and Value (Half Life,
> Half Life 2 developer) is going on the record saying things like "Sony
> should just pull the plug and start over, PS3 is a disaster". He says
> that because it's a assertion he can safely make. Same goes with the
> Atari founder, there's someone who went down a similar path with the
> Atari 7800. These people have nothing against Sony personally, I don't
> see any motive anyway... they just hate to see consumers get burned.
>
> If you buy a PS3 now, you're going to get burned.
>
Sadly I think you're right, but it seems like Sony have no real options
- they lose either way. They either risk burning up the company by
pushing PS3 sales even harder with price drops, advertising, developer
evangelism etc, or they cut their losses and abandon PS3 which
effectively means getting out of the console market altogether - there's
no way they can have a second shot at this.
The console world will be a much duller place when Microsoft is the only
game in town.
Paul
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Paul Russell <prussell@sonic.net> wrote:
quote:
> Yes, Sony need to get the price of the PS3 down by the xmas 2007 buying
> season, and they will probably need to take a big financial hit to do
> this, otherwise they risk losing the console battle to Microsoft.
quote:
> They also need to invest a big wad of cash now to hire some talent that
> they can send out to help games developers get a jump start on Cell. My
> guess is tha most game developrs are still not up to speed on the
> technology which is why the first PS3 games are both lame and late.
If there are games that are good enough - and enough of them - then the
price will become less of an issue. For instance, had the multi-platform
games looked significantly better on the PS3 vs. the 360, then the higher
price would at least be partially justified.
However, what I worry about is can the PS3 hold out until these
console-selling titles appear? I don't see a whole lot of titles
scheduled for the PS3 in the coming months (I checked EBGames.)
Traditionally, the first 6 to 9 months of a console's life seem to be when
there's the fewest titles released for it and things pick up quickly after
that. But this means that if there wasn't a reason to buy a PS3 based on
the launch titles, chances are, there's not going to be much more of a
reason to buy a PS3 for next 3 or 4 months? Even then, the only real big
potential seller for the PS3 I recognized was FFXIII. However, Square
hasn't exactly been known for sticking to its schedules.
Could this turn into another situation of too little, too late?
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 RMZ <Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> The latest issue of Game Informer has an interview with Sony's top
> boss. I got the issue in the mail yesterday, it's not on newsstands
> here yet. In the interview he states that there will be no PS3 price
> drop, he goes on to explain (as if we need it) why the PS3 price can't
> be dropped. It comes down to what we already know, the cost to produce
> these systems is over $300 above what they are selling them for
> wholesale. The math is pretty simple, 1-million units shipped, 300
> million lost. Sony claims 2-million units have shipped (that's as of
> sometime early January), so that's 600 million lost.... There is no way
> to fuge this. You can try to offset it with the profits off PS2
> hardware, but Sony dropped the price of the PS2, they can't be making
> more than $30-$40 profit off each PS2 sold and that's a high estimate.
> PS2 sales helps a little, but not nearly enough... The need PS2 sales
> to turn a profit, not help them dig a quarter way out of a hole. If
> this seems insane to you, that unquestably is Only a moron would sell
> out the company on a bet like this. Sony agreed which is why in late
> 2006 they took desperate measures and restructured the company, taking
> the CEO out of power.
Well, that shouldn't come as a surprise for anyone here. Makes me wonder
what Microsoft will do? Price drop to kick Sony while they're down? Drop
the core altogether, drop the 20GB premium pack to $350, and then
introduce a 360 with larger HDD for $400?
quote:
> The bet was for quick adoption of BluRay and PS3. It was a long shot
> bet on revenue streams from third-party BluRay and PS3 licenses and
> royalties.
I figured this had to be Sony's overriding strategy when they continually
played up the blu-ray player as an integral part of the PS3's success.
You have to admit, if it had worked, it would have been big. But as the
PS3's launch approached, and problems with Blu-Ray were hitting the news,
I have to wonder if Sony ever reconsidered. Especially since it was clear
that this format war was going to be pushed into the consumers' lap for
them to figure out. But at the same time, experts were pretty unanmious
with their views on the HD formats: They look nice, but WAIT. Maybe if
Blu-Ray had launched last year, it would have at least gained a little
momentum so that when the PS3 appeared, it would have the benefit of a
slightly more mature technology (even though the format war was still
going), better selection of movies, etc. Instead, consumers were pretty
much forced to consider two brand new, untried formats - one of which was
also compatible with a brand new and untried game console.
Of course, I fully expect there to be not one, but multiple hybrid players
on the market before Christmas of this year, which will make this whole
"war" a pointless affair as far as the consumers are concerned... And
it'll certainly neutralize the PS3's advantage of being a cheap blu-ray
player that also plays Playstation games. After that, the only thing the
PS3 will have going for it is its game library - which had better by
spectacular.
quote:
> You're right, but that can't happen, because Sony doesn't have the
> money, they've already lost 500 million + on PS3 hardware production
> (that's accounting for the offset of PS2 profits) and Game Publishers
> are pretty selective about where they want to throw their money
> training developers. There is a long line of cost involved in a
> non-standard platform like the PS3 for game publishers. If the hardware
> is a huge hit, they will gladley payout, but when you have a system as
> successful as XBox 360 and the mega-hot Wii, both are not only
> successful, they cost a lot less to develop for.
Compared to the huge risks Sony is already taking, I don't think another
few million or so to bring in a small team of developers is going to break
Sony. But even if Sony suddenly produced the perfect development kit
today, it would still be the better part of a year before the games come
out - and in the meantime - Sony has to work to convince the publishers
that developing for the PS3 will not be a waste of money.
quote:
> Why do you think people like the top developer and Value (Half Life,
> Half Life 2 developer) is going on the record saying things like "Sony
> should just pull the plug and start over, PS3 is a disaster". He says
> that because it's a assertion he can safely make. Same goes with the
> Atari founder, there's someone who went down a similar path with the
> Atari 7800. These people have nothing against Sony personally, I don't
> see any motive anyway... they just hate to see consumers get burned.
I don't know about that. Doeesn't Valve develop for the 360? And the PC
game market itself hasn't been doing well in comparison to how the console
markets have done. Even a total dog of a game for a gaming console
outsells most popular PC games. That's hard to compete with.
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 RMZ <Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> This isn't true at all.... It's the Bluray that drives the cost of the
> PS3 price. Sony is counting on recouping loss on PS3 hardware with
> Bluray royalties.
There aren't that many blu-ray movies out now. And again, why buy a
Blu-ray player at all?
quote:
> You may believe it is a moot point at the consumer level it appears to
> be, at the strategic business level it is extremely important and
> dual-media is bad. Dual media players aren't the long term answer.
> Ultimately one format will gain a majority market share, historically
> Sony's formats are never winners.
The whole point of pushing blu-ray and hd-dvd into the consumer's lap was
to make US choose which one will be the winner.
Hybrid players remove the consumer from that decision process. Studios
can choose to release films on one format or the other, but it won't
matter. People will buy the titles they want. They aren't going to buy a
blu-ray player and then ignore everything on HD-DVD.
However, I do agree that hybrid players are bad for the market as well, as
it then allows both formats to survive. As we saw with DVD-R and DVD+R,
supporting dual formats confuses consumers, causes problems with
compatibility (even now, my wife's laptop won't read DVD+R - and it's
supposed to be a bloody DVD burner!) and combo/hybrid drives are more
expensive. All in all, it slows adoption of the technology and format.
All in all, both consumers and the idiotic media companies would have been
a lot better off had the consortium locked themselves inside a room until
they could agree on ONE medium. That would have made things a lot easier
all around. No confusion about which movies you would be missing if you
chose one format or the other. No stupid bickering between the two
camps. No confusing names like Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD vs. DVDs in HD.
Players would drop in price a lot faster as more people would buy them.
Even the PS3 would benefit by being a competively priced HD movie player.
If hybrid players didn't show up for a year or two, then I'd agree with
you that one format would eventually win out over the other. But with
hybrid players nearly a reality, that's not going to happen. We're simply
going to see a repeat of DVD-R/+R - both formats will survive, and share
the market. With the hybrid player, the choice of which format to support
isn't that important anymore. If it weren't for hybrid players, I could
certainly see the two format camps trying to convince various studios to
support THEIR format for big titles. But now - who cares? I guess the
cosortiums could try to undercut each other by making their particular
license fees lower and lower - but consumers won't see this change in the
movie prices.
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
| |
|
|
quote:
> If hybrid players didn't show up for a year or two, then I'd agree with
> you that one format would eventually win out over the other. But with
> hybrid players nearly a reality, that's not going to happen. We're simply
> going to see a repeat of DVD-R/+R - both formats will survive, and share
> the market. With the hybrid player, the choice of which format to support
> isn't that important anymore. If it weren't for hybrid players, I could
> certainly see the two format camps trying to convince various studios to
> support THEIR format for big titles. But now - who cares? I guess the
> cosortiums could try to undercut each other by making their particular
> license fees lower and lower - but consumers won't see this change in the
> movie prices.
I'm still not convinced we're going to get a viable hybrid player in the
near future. With the fact it doesn't use HDi and therefore won't allow the
consumer to play menus or any extra content on a HD-DVD disk, and the fact
the DVD Forum is probably going to sue the pants off them for it, the LG
player is most certainly NOT a viable option. It might initially sell well
to consumers who see it in stores and are told by idiot salespeople that it
will play HD-DVD and Blu-Ray but those consumers are going to get the player
home, figure out it won't play the extras on the HD-DVD they just bought,
get very angry and return the player. I don't see it even doing well because
of advertising because they can't advertise that it'll even play HD-DVDs.
Really, the thing is only truly viable as a Blu-Ray player.
What indicates that either Sony or Microsoft is going to compromise enough
to allow hybrid players? Both companies have the clout within their
respective camps to find reasons to disallow a hybrid player based upon any
number of technical reasons they'd find. I particularly think Microsoft and
the DVD Forum are less likely to want to allow a hybrid player. Microsoft
doesn't have a history of compromise, why would they start now?
I think both camps will continue to try to draw out this format war to win
it rather than allow any compromise that will help the consumer not have to
make choices they don't want to make because they remember Beta vs. VHS.
Thus, by 2008 we'll probably still be sitting and talking about this format
war and how both formats are still not doing well because people still don't
want to choose.
| |
| Jordan 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
|
RMZ wrote:
quote:
> This isn't true at all.... It's the Bluray that drives the cost of the
> PS3 price. Sony is counting on recouping loss on PS3 hardware with
> Bluray royalties.
That's an interesting point... How much does Sony make on Blu-Ray
sales? We know they're losing $300 per console but IIRC Sony only gets
$1 per disc for the Blu-Ray royalty. PS3 users would have to buy 300
Blu-Ray discs for Sony to break even on the PS3 and that's not going to
happen. Hell, there aren't even 200 Blu-Ray movies available yet.
- Jordan
| |
|
|
Jordan wrote:
quote:
>
> RMZ wrote:
>
> That's an interesting point... How much does Sony make on Blu-Ray
> sales? We know they're losing $300 per console but IIRC Sony only gets
> $1 per disc for the Blu-Ray royalty. PS3 users would have to buy 300
> Blu-Ray discs for Sony to break even on the PS3 and that's not going to
> happen. Hell, there aren't even 200 Blu-Ray movies available yet.
Well, there'd be value in promoting bluray, having it reach critical
mass, and then reaping the benefits of it being the triumphant format.
The same goes for the PS3 as a videogame format. But Sony also probably
earns a larger royalty on that front (I recall a sudden rush of cheap
PSX games a few years ago being explained by Sony dropping their royalty
to something like a dollar per copy; presumably that climate hasn't
changed and their royalty on PS3 games is significantly more than a dollar).
And over time Sony presumably expects to lose less on hardware, front
loading their biggest losses as an investment in a bid for dominance.
Other bluray hardware is sold for a profit last I heard; another place
for PS3 losses to get justified as advertising.
| |
| Quiet Desperation 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| I was sort of indifferent on the whole issue. I have an X360, and was
planning on a Wii and PS3. I figured PS3 would pick up as good games
started coming along.
But this latest news about the slowness of the Blue-Ray drive causing
problems for developers... that might be the last straw for me.
I'm also second thinking the Wii. Other than Zelda, I'm seeing a lot of
reviews where people are not happy with the new control system. When
it's done right it's magical- the problem seems to be managing to do
doing it right.
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
|
"RMZ" <Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169230885.006122.130300@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Paul Russell wrote:
>
> The latest issue of Game Informer has an interview with Sony's top
> boss. I got the issue in the mail yesterday, it's not on newsstands
> here yet. In the interview he states that there will be no PS3 price
> drop, he goes on to explain (as if we need it) why the PS3 price can't
> be dropped. It comes down to what we already know, the cost to produce
> these systems is over $300 above what they are selling them for
> wholesale.
<SNIP some other stuff>
At $300, how do they ever plan on making up ANY ground? The people that buy
the damned thing would have to buy about ten games at full price to make up
the difference (assuming $30 back to sony off a $60 game), which is highly
unlikely or just will take a couple years. Even if people buy peripherals,
most people will just buy a second controller. I think their best bet is to
promote a PS3 sale with a sale of a Sony TV of some sort since hi-def is
really required to take advantage of the thing. Absorb the price hit in the
TV, as I am sure their markups are fairly significant. Granted that may only
help 10% of PS3 sales, but at least it is something. But if I could get a
quality 42" Sony Plasma or LCD HDTV and only pay $300 or $400 more to get a
PS3, why not? I don't know what else they can really do except pour tons
more money into vide game development to make ten kick-XXX titles that will
make people NEED the PS3 for their game whoring needs.
| |
|
|
"RMZ" <Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169231267.519698.156600@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> This isn't true at all.... It's the Bluray that drives the cost of the
> PS3 price. Sony is counting on recouping loss on PS3 hardware with
> Bluray royalties.
>
> You may believe it is a moot point at the consumer level it appears to
> be, at the strategic business level it is extremely important and
> dual-media is bad. Dual media players aren't the long term answer.
> Ultimately one format will gain a majority market share, historically
> Sony's formats are never winners.
That's because they are stupid twats always trying to corner a market for
themselves rather than accepting a smaller percentage of spoils from a
larger global pot.
I'm still pissed with them over MicroMV.
| |
|
|
"Quiet Desperation" <x@x.com> wrote in message
news:x-5AF6E4.23435719012007@news.giganews.com...
quote:
>I was sort of indifferent on the whole issue. I have an X360, and was
> planning on a Wii and PS3. I figured PS3 would pick up as good games
> started coming along.
>
> But this latest news about the slowness of the Blue-Ray drive causing
> problems for developers... that might be the last straw for me.
>
> I'm also second thinking the Wii. Other than Zelda, I'm seeing a lot of
> reviews where people are not happy with the new control system. When
> it's done right it's magical- the problem seems to be managing to do
> doing it right.
Sad isn't it ?
Wii looks cool but has limited games.
PS3 looks cool but has limited games.
Xbox 360 looks less than cool - but has a shitload of games, a great online
service and so much other stuff going for it - i.e. serious MS IPTV support.
Looks like Xbox360 will win the war to me.
| |
| Bill Cable 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| adm wrote:
quote:
> Sad isn't it ?
>
> Wii looks cool but has limited games.
>
> PS3 looks cool but has limited games.
>
> Xbox 360 looks less than cool - but has a shitload of games, a great online
> service and so much other stuff going for it - i.e. serious MS IPTV support.
>
> Looks like Xbox360 will win the war to me.
Except... ya know... the PS3 won't have limited games forever.
It's funny how many people are ready to pronounce the PS3 dead just two
months after it launched. I remember a lot of people doing the same
exact thing with the PS2... "The Dreamcast has better games and better
graphics. It's already won this generation."
I think it'd be wise to wait until at least next Christmas before
making any predictions.
--
Bill Cable - Steelers Fan & Star Wars Collector
http://CreatureCantina.com <----- funny!
cable@creaturecantina.com
| |
| Hank the Rapper 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| Bill Cable wrote:
quote:
> Except... ya know... the PS3 won't have limited games forever.
>
> It's funny how many people are ready to pronounce the PS3 dead just
> two months after it launched. I remember a lot of people doing the
> same exact thing with the PS2...
I remember when you were doing the same thing with the 360 just before
launch and just after launch. G4TV should make you and Jonah be roommates
for a month for a TV show. You two would be Usenet's original odd couple
that are exactly alike!
| |
|
| Bill Cable wrote:
quote:
> It's funny how many people are ready to pronounce the PS3 dead just two
> months after it launched.
I agree, it's way too early to say that the PS3 is in its death throes
two months after it's launched. Everybody knows the best time to
declare something as DOA is *before* it has launched! Like this guy
here... on or about the end of 2005:
http://tinyurl.com/244dvq
"They're going to integrate HD-DVD support with their new OS, and give
incentives to PC manufacturers to include HD-DVD drives in their PCs.
WHY???!! Why try to influence a battle whose outcome has already been
decided?"
====
Or this guy here:
http://tinyurl.com/2gvgno
"I have concrete evidence to support my position. Stuff like the
amount of industry support both formats have, the strengths and
weaknesses of each format, and the expected market penetration that
inclusion with
the PS3 will provide. I could also site numerous articles which have
been written on the subject, many declaring the war over."
====
Or how about what this fellow said here:
http://tinyurl.com/2xg22q
"I haven't heard ANY consumers who are excited about the prospects of
HD-DVD. I don't read messages from
anyone extolling the virtues of HD-DVDs smaller capacity and more
limited feature set. It seems like pirates are solidly behind HD-DVD,
but that's really the only group who is."
====
And finally, some bold moves by this guy here:
http://tinyurl.com/2focp2
"I'm talking about this:
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,2634.html
And this:
http://news.designtechnica.com/featured_article35.html
And the litany of other articles which conclude HD-DVD doesn't have a
chance. You should really do some research before making a fool of
yourself in public like that."
=====
quote:
> I think it'd be wise to wait until at least next Christmas before
> making any predictions.
If by next Christmas, you actually mean LAST Christmas... well, then I
guess you have a point. I'm sorry to bust your chops... but, remember
that through the magic of Google Groups, anything you say can and will
be used to haunt you. (And if you choose to use it to make me eat my
words -- and believe me, I've got a few doozies -- feel free.)
| |
| Bill Cable 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| That's too funny, man. :-)
And you can't argue that HD-DVD wasn't dead in the water before
Microsoft propped them up. I still hold to my prediction that Blu-ray
will end out on top, despite some manufacturing hiccups that delayed
and took the sheen off its launch.
--
Bill Cable - Steelers Fan & Star Wars Collector
http://CreatureCantina.com <----- funny!
cable@creaturecantina.com
| |
| TheGame 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| Wow, you are the true sony fanboy. I bet you expected Mini Disc to be
successful. Did you think PSP was going to dominate in portable gaming?
Bill Cable wrote:
quote:
> I still hold to my prediction that Blu-ray
> will end out on top, despite some manufacturing hiccups that delayed
> and took the sheen off its launch.
| |
| TheGame 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| Bill Cable wrote:
quote:
> It's funny how many people are ready to pronounce the PS3 dead just two
> months after it launched.
Its funny how Sony fanboys exaggerate others words. I don't recall many
saying "PS3 is dead". But what they are saying is PS3 may not win the
war. I guess to a sony fanboy if PS3 does not dominate sales, it is
"dead"??
quote:
> I remember a lot of people doing the same
> exact thing with the PS2... "The Dreamcast has better games and better
> graphics. It's already won this generation."
Its also funny how sony fanboys try to compare this generation to last
generation. This generation is totally different. Nintendo appears to
have learned from the mistakes of its past with the Wii. M$ has the
ca$h and strong support from nearly every game developer. Both Wii and
360 are cheaper than PS3. Both Wii and 360 have sold strong during and
after PS3 launch.
quote:
> I think it'd be wise to wait until at least next Christmas before
> making any predictions.
More excuses by sony fanboys. Go to ign or other site and compare the
game releases planned for this year for the consoles. Wii has the games
that will greatly appeal to nintendo fans and casual gamers. 360 has a
better lineup of games than PS3, with Halo 3, Bioshock, Forza 2, Lost
Planet, Mass Effect, Crackdown, etc, as exclusives.
| |
| Luke Curtis 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| On 19 Jan 2007 09:13:56 -0800, "Tomcat" <tom_dallas31@yahoo.com>
wrote:
quote:
>elrous0@pop.uky.edu wrote:
>But where do they start?
>
>They really can't lower price, they are losing hundreds per console as
>it is.
>
>If they can't lower price they won't have much demand and if they don't
>have demand they won't get many exclusive games developed for it after
>the next round.
>
>The only hope is that some of the highly anticipated games like
>Motorstorm and Lair will be MAJOR console sellers.
Motorstorm looked decidedly average to me in the Gamer TV special -
they were orgasmic about who this was "proof" that the PS3 was going
to be to winner of the next gen was but it looked nothing special to
me, it looked no better than PGR3 which was released over a year ago
and is now old news. Add to that the complaints on the show of it
being difficult to impossible to control and it looks nothing like the
killer app that the PS3/Blu-Ray desperately needs.
| |
| DBSnappa 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| GUTB wrote:
quote:
> Considering that the PS3 has out-sold the 360 in the same time period
> last year even though it hasn't even launched in Europe yet, has
> shipped over 2 million units, and ushered in the winner of the next-gen
> optical media format war, we have to assume the topic means "Can the
> PS3 be saved from chain-linking partisan rumor blogs?".
Seeing as the only fact in your statement was the title of Sony's latest
machine, it would appear not.
quote:
>
> I believe this is mission impossible.
>
Then why are you bothering?
| |
| DBSnappa 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| Tomcat wrote:
quote:
> elrous0@pop.uky.edu wrote:
> But where do they start?
>
> They really can't lower price, they are losing hundreds per console as
> it is.
>
> If they can't lower price they won't have much demand and if they don't
> have demand they won't get many exclusive games developed for it after
> the next round.
>
> The only hope is that some of the highly anticipated games like
> Motorstorm and Lair will be MAJOR console sellers.
>
True on one of those, but if the machine sells in enough quantities as a
cheap blu-ray machine and they consequently sell enough movies they
will survive - eventually they will have enough of an installed base to
drop the price, get decent exclusives and game sales. It's a bit of a
risk though, as it looks like HD-DVD is winning at the moment.
| |
| Tomcat 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| DBSnappa wrote:
quote:
>
> True on one of those, but if the machine sells in enough quantities as a
> cheap blu-ray machine and they consequently sell enough movies they
> will survive - eventually they will have enough of an installed base to
> drop the price, get decent exclusives and game sales.
Yeah, that's how it all should work in theory but the blu-ray advantage
is not going to be the saving grace anymore (in the long term) with the
arrival of multi-format players. Actually I think right now as we
speak is the PS3's time to shine as a blu-ray player. Multi-format
players still haven't hit the market and stand alone blu-ray players
are still very expensive. If the PS3 was going to sell based on its
blu-ray capabilities it needs to be doing it right NOW. This is its
time to shine. I don't see that happening though, so I think the PS3's
window of opportunity in this area is slipping away.
| |
| DBSnappa 2007-01-30, 7:59 pm |
| Tomcat wrote:
quote:
> DBSnappa wrote:
>
> Yeah, that's how it all should work in theory but the blu-ray advantage
> is not going to be the saving grace anymore (in the long term) with the
> arrival of multi-format players. Actually I think right now as we
> speak is the PS3's time to shine as a blu-ray player. Multi-format
> players still haven't hit the market and stand alone blu-ray players
> are still very expensive. If the PS3 was going to sell based on its
> blu-ray capabilities it needs to be doing it right NOW. This is its
> time to shine. I don't see that happening though, so I think the PS3's
> window of opportunity in this area is slipping away.
>
No-one can tell for certain how this will play out. It certainly doesn't
look good, that's for sure.
Short of wanting a cheap BR player (IMO the market is too small to
justify the loss they're making on this machine), I can't see /any/
reason for wanting one.
| |
| Luke Curtis 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| On 18 Jan 2007 19:55:12 -0800, "TheGame" <n0n0n0n0n0@excite.com>
wrote:
quote:
>http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/18/can-the-ps3-be-saved/
>It doesn't take a Phoenix Wright wannabe to observe popular PS3
>disdain, its launch mishaps, and concern with early system surpluses.
>Some have gone as far to call the system a "total disaster" in need of
>a "do over." In light of its lackluster start, GigaGamez offers a few
>recommendations for improvement. In summary:
>
>1. Off with their heads! Even though Kutaragi and other top executives
>have made Sony a lot of money over the years, the company needs to cut
>'em loose for a fresh start. Only then will its PR improve.
>
>2. How about some games? The article wisely states: "No matter what
>could have happened up to the point when the console launched, as soon
>as the first really great game comes out, all is forgiven." True,
>assuming its criticized high price reaches mass equilibrium.
>
>3. Make the system easier to develop for. To ensure #2 happens, Sony
>needs to focus on helping developers leverage the Cell processor. And
>though we make fun of its over-hyped marketing, one Business 2.0 writer
>believes the Cell can, in fact, do things the 360 is incapable of, if
>only developers knew how to use it.
>
>So is all lost for Sony and its flagship PlayStation brand? Of course
>not. It takes more than just a single launch blunder to bring down the
>largest name in console gaming today. But the article concludes with a
>warning, "I'd say Sony has a year to do things differently before
>things get really dire." Let's regroup in t-minus one year.
All these "predictions" are guesswork pure and simple.
here are some prize quotes from the late 2000/early 2001:
quote:
>My official prediction: PS2 systems closeout priced in January, '02.
>By August '02 the system will be gone and the games will be collecting
>dust. Christmas '02 retailers will be begging customers to take their
>PS2 games.
quote:
> The Dreamcast is going to be the eventual winner because the
> playstation 2 will be exactly like the 1st 1 except this time u can
> play DVDs . The Dreamcast is still going to release better games like
> World Dream Soccer
quote:
>With EA supporting the PS2 killer, Xb0x, *more* than the PS2 itself,
>there is really no need to get a PS2. With poor supplies of PS2
>this year and early next, many potential PS2 owners will get either
>the Dreamcast or Xb0x next year. R.I.P. PS2...we hardly knew ye...
quote:
>The silly thing is that EA is ignoring the fact that the Dreamcast,
>with seven million systems sold worldwide and growing rapidly (the
>majority of them in the North American and European markets that EA
>concentrates on), is a huge success and they're missing out on that entire
>market. Is Daily Radar correct when they speculate that nothing but pride
>is keeping EA from supporting the DC?
quote:
>Dreamcast is hot. With the free keyboard deal at Best Buy and the giftcard.
>The Toys R US deal for $50 off, and the N64 deal at $20 off. Great systems
>for the price. The PS2 has no chance at all. Wait for the Cube and Xbox.
| |
|
| "Paul Russell" <prussell@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:51cl2vF1jn610U1@mid.individual.net...
quote:
> RMZ wrote:
>
> The console world will be a much duller place when Microsoft is the only
> game in town.
Nintendo is not only the sole "full blown" console mfg still left, they are
cranking out wild profits that MS and Sony can only dream of. Trust me,
they will be around for quite some time. I'd put money on them still being
in the gamemaking business by the time XBox 1 shows up in museum exhibits.
| |
|
| "GUTB" <GUTB@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169229035.904003.97920@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Considering that the PS3 has out-sold the 360 in the same time period
> last year even though it hasn't even launched in Europe yet, has
This is a 100% meaningless stat. ;)
See, there is this thing called "momentum", which affects not only
downstream sales, but publisher interest in the system... look at all the
games that were supposed to be PS3-exclusive, but are no longer. And we're
not talking "Barbie's Donkey Show", these are HUGE, system selling titles
like Assassin's Creed, Virtua Fighter 5, Dead Rising 2, and of course GTA 4.
And I'm sure I'm missing a handful.
Personally, the fanboy ruse is getting old from both "sides". It's clear to
me, as a lifelong gamer who buys every system that comes out, that the PS3
is a dud. Speaking as someone to whom "Twisted Metal Black" and "Jet Set
Radio Future" were system sellers of the last generation (i.e. it doesn't
take much for me to spring for new hardware), I see -0- on Sony's release
list that will get me to buy their console this year. It would be the first
system I didn't buy in the first year of launch since the Saturn.
They need 1. A price drop, and 2. Much better games. I don't give a rat's
XXX how much Sony is losing on each system; they made the decision to use
Blu Ray in their system, they made their bed and can lie in it. If they
don't cut their price, they might as well cut their throats.
| |
|
| "Bill Cable" <billcable@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169332041.649918.17950@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> It's funny how many people are ready to pronounce the PS3 dead just two
> months after it launched. I remember a lot of people doing the same
> exact thing with the PS2... "The Dreamcast has better games and better
> graphics. It's already won this generation."
>
> I think it'd be wise to wait until at least next Christmas before
> making any predictions.
The key difference this time around is that the 360 has identical publisher
support that the PS3 has, AND the PS3 is *double* the price of the PS2! The
"war" this time around is going to be far different than last time, though
I'll stop short of actually saying what I think is going to happen.
| |
| Pete099 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| wat is wrong with u all the xbox 360 is ok and the wii looks ok but i
am a sony fan and i belive that ps3 will soon sell more than xbox and
the ps3 looks ace . the ps2 was a big hit when it was first out and
every one bought it then the xbox came and took over and now they are
trying agen to beat the ps3 but no i wont let them beat ps3
..
| |
| elrous0@pop.uky.edu 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| CJ wrote:
quote:
> I'm still not convinced we're going to get a viable hybrid player in the
> near future. With the fact it doesn't use HDi and therefore won't allow the
> consumer to play menus or any extra content on a HD-DVD disk, and the fact
> the DVD Forum is probably going to sue the pants off them for it, the LG
> player is most certainly NOT a viable option.
Not to mention the PRICE. For the $1200 the LG player will cost, you
could buy a PS3 *and* 360 with HD-DVD add-on (and you would get the
added bonus of two great gaming systems and a *REAL* HD-DVD player).
-Eric
| |
|
|
"Rich" <rich@nospam.com> wrote in message news:4x3th.5$qv4.4@newsfe02.lga...
quote:
> "GUTB" <GUTB@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169229035.904003.97920@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> This is a 100% meaningless stat. ;)
<snipped>
Agreed, but firstly, the PS3 did outsell the 360 considering each launch
times for both the PS3 and the 360, ending in "06" and "05" respectively.
What GUTB doesn't post, is the fact that you can walk into just about any
electronic retailer (Best Buy, GameStop, EbGames, Circuit City, etc), and
pick up a PS3 readily. I was just at the mall Saturday, walked into a
Gamstop, and asked if there are any PS3s in stock, the employee said he had
13 of them (he didn't specify what type between 60 and 20gig units). I asked
if they are selling at all, and he stated they hadn't sold one since Jan. 5!
Of course, not one Wii to be found anywhere.
Now, consider the same time frame for the 360, and you couldn't find one.
The first time I found one was in mid April of '06' at EbGames, none at BB
for another month or so. The PS3 will have little hope, unless they get some
games out by mid-summer, and I mean quality games and quite a few. Otherwise
the holiday season of '07' will mean little when the 360 will have way more
quality titles, exclusives, Halo3, and former exclusives porting over to the
360 from being PS exclusive (Assassin's Creed, GTA4, Virtua Fighter 5, to
name just a few). The real killer would be MGS4 porting over!
| |
| Tomcat 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
|
Tom wrote:
quote:
> Agreed, but firstly, the PS3 did outsell the 360 considering each launch
> times for both the PS3 and the 360, ending in "06" and "05" respectively.
> What GUTB doesn't post, is the fact that you can walk into just about any
> electronic retailer (Best Buy, GameStop, EbGames, Circuit City, etc), and
> pick up a PS3 readily.
The PS3 is indeed outselling the 360 for the same comparable period
but it I think it is also outshipping the 360 given the same launch
timeframe. So really, the figures we should be looking at are what is
the average inventory turn-around (or average shelf time) for the PS3
compared to the 360. From what you and I are seeing at retailers this
could be a scary figure for Sony.
| |
| Andre Matuch 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| Pete099 wrote:
quote:
> wat is wrong with u all the xbox 360 is ok and the wii looks ok but i
> am a sony fan and i belive that ps3 will soon sell more than xbox and
> the ps3 looks ace . the ps2 was a big hit when it was first out and
> every one bought it then the xbox came and took over and now they are
> trying agen to beat the ps3 but no i wont let them beat ps3
> .
>
Are you retarded?
Andre
| |
|
| "Tom" <noway@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:ZumdnS1GV5DBUynYnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@insightbb.com...
quote:
> Now, consider the same time frame for the 360, and you couldn't find one.
> The first time I found one was in mid April of '06' at EbGames, none at BB
> for another month or so. The PS3 will have little hope, unless they get
> some
Good post, thanks!
I do remember the first time I saw a 360 "in the wild" after launch. It was
mid-March, and I walked into Best Buy and saw a guy clutching a core with
both arms like he had found the Holy Grail. His SO was pawing through the
games, and they were chattering back and forth in Spanish so fast I thought
their heads were going to blow up. That was the last time I actually saw
one in a store until well into April.
Personally, I scored one in December '05, at the cost of spending a day off
standing around Circuit City waiting for them to unpack their shipment (a
whopping two premiums). It was well worth it, though. I remember playing
through Condemned, with the great SFX and visuals, and thinking that this is
going to be a completely mind-blowing generation of games. A year later
with such games as Dead Rising and Gears under my belt, that assertion
stands. What surprises me more than anything is the non-core game stuff
I've been buying, like the HD-DVD drive, wireless headset, and those crappy
little arcade titles.
| |
|
|
"Tomcat" <tom_dallas31@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169478022.541735.65890@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Tom wrote:
>
> The PS3 is indeed outselling the 360 for the same comparable period
> but it I think it is also outshipping the 360 given the same launch
> So really, the figures we should be looking at are what is
> the average inventory turn-around (or average shelf time) for the PS3
> compared to the 360. From what you and I are seeing at retailers this
> could be a scary figure for Sony.
>
Well, you could get the gist of those averages from my last post when I made
the remark about the unavailability of the 360 for months after its release;
it was selling as soon as they made it to the shelves, the PS3 isn't moving
like that at all. Let's consider this too, what would the 360 had sold had
they not had the production issues and was able to ship 2 million by January
"06"?
Also, the 360 outsold the PS3 from the PS3's launch in November until now,
by a wide margin, even though PS3s are readily available for immediate sale.
I still see 360s selling from a few places where the PS3 isn't. If you go to
nexgenwars.com, and consider the revision to what MS said they sold to that
of NPD, on which January 7, nexgenwars revised the 360 sales from 10.4
million to 9.8 million+. If you go there now, they have the 360s @
10,325,250 units sold; that's around 500k in from Jan 7 until today. At the
same site, I don't think the PS3 has increased 100k yet, in that same time
frame. I think the PS3 had 1,090,000+ sold on Jan 7, now it shows 1,158,754.
| |
| Luke Curtis 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:27:39 -0500, Andre Matuch
<XXXXyou@spammers.com> wrote:
quote:
>Pete099 wrote:
>
>Are you retarded?
>
>Andre
no, he's just a 5 year old who sneaked on to daddy's computer.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 elrous0@pop.uky.edu wrote:
quote:
> CJ wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Not to mention the PRICE. For the $1200 the LG player will cost, you
> could buy a PS3 *and* 360 with HD-DVD add-on (and you would get the
> added bonus of two great gaming systems and a *REAL* HD-DVD player).
First off, the whole point of a hybrid player is that you don't have 2
separate devices taking up your space in the entertainment center.
Furthermore, while a PS3 + 360 + HD-DVD drive is $1200, the 360 lacks the
HDMI port that makes this a true future-proof solution. In 2010 or so,
you'll have to at least replace that HD-DVD drive with one that supports
HDMI, or else you won't be able to watch any of the newer HD-DVD movies.
Personally, I don't like the idea of having to buy new drives every few
years...
No, LG's first player isn't a true hybrid as it can't handle HDi. It's
not clear to me whether this is something they could fix with a firmware
upgrade later, or if early adopters would just be out in the cold.
However, it proves that it IS possible and economicaly feasiable to
produce a single drive that is capable of reading both formats.
Lawsuits against LG will probably be bad publicity. After all, once the
consumer figures out that LG is being sued for making consumers' lives
eaiser, it's going to look really bad for the HD-DVD crowd. After all,
consumers don't want a repeat of VHS vs Betamax, or DVD-R vs DVD+R.
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Bill Cable <billcable@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> Except... ya know... the PS3 won't have limited games forever.
No, no it won't.
But I have to wonder what will happen in the meantime?
First, let's assume once the PS3's library has gained "critical mass",
it'll be fine. Critical mass is the number of games you, or Joe Consumer,
wants to play so much that you/him would make the initial investment in the
PS3 hardware. Note that these must be actual released titles.
I'd say the PS3's critical mass would be around 6 games.
Right now, I'd say there might be 2 games I'd buy - R:FOM, of course, and
maybe Genji if I could get it for $20.
Based on current predictions of what games will be released this year,
there's probably another 2 or 3 games in there. That dragon fighting
game, and there's 2 Final Fantasy titles (let's be generous and assume
both actually ship this December.) That'd still mean the PS3 would be
below critical mass going into 2008, but hitting critical mass by
February. That's my prediction.
When do you think the PS3 will hit critical mass - and more importantly -
will 3rd party developers have the paitence and faith to keep developing
for the PS3 in the meantime? If developers start losing faith, they may
make previously announced PS3 exclusive games multi-platform (GTA?) or drop
the project altogether. Unless the PS3 can illustrate that there's an
advantage to buying multi-platform games for it, instead of the 360, the
only thing the PS3 will have left is it library of exclusives. If
developers won't even commit to exclusivity for the PS3 - or worse -
release exclusively for the 360, then things will be grim indeed.
If previously announced exclusive titles switch to multi-platform, and
don't offer any real differences in graphics, feature, or gameplay between
the PS3 and 360, they'll no longer be counted towards attaining critical
mass for the PS3. What I fear is that the longer it takes for critical
mass to form, the more developers may switch to multi-platform or even
360-exclusivity - neither of which will do the PS3 any good.
In the case of the Dreamcast, by the time critical mass was reached, Sega
killed the console. Hopefully the same doesn't happen to the PS3.
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 HockeyTownUSA <magma@comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
> At $300, how do they ever plan on making up ANY ground? The people that buy
> the damned thing would have to buy about ten games at full price to make up
> the difference (assuming $30 back to sony off a $60 game), which is highly
> unlikely or just will take a couple years. Even if people buy peripherals,
> most people will just buy a second controller. I think their best bet is to
> promote a PS3 sale with a sale of a Sony TV of some sort since hi-def is
> really required to take advantage of the thing. Absorb the price hit in the
> TV, as I am sure their markups are fairly significant. Granted that may only
> help 10% of PS3 sales, but at least it is something. But if I could get a
> quality 42" Sony Plasma or LCD HDTV and only pay $300 or $400 more to get a
> PS3, why not? I don't know what else they can really do except pour tons
> more money into vide game development to make ten kick-XXX titles that will
> make people NEED the PS3 for their game whoring needs.
That's what I don't understand either. Just how many games would someone
have to buy in order for Sony to break even on just that console? 10?
20? 30? Buying about 10 games a year for a single platform seems like a
reasonable amount for a "gamer".
As for your combo idea - I doubt any of the TV makers make any great
profits on their consumer TVs. The competition is just too great. The
idea of throwing in a PS3 for $300-400 over the price of the TV would
basically mean Sony makes nothing on that TV - maybe even takes a loss.
However, it could be an incentive to buy a Sony TV...at least until the
stores wake up and start doing things like offering a $50 or $100 gift
certificate if you buy both a HDTV and 360 together. I'm sort of
surprised they haven't started doing that, actually. I'd have to assume
buying a new game console is going to result in the sale of maybe 2-3
titles over the next month or so. The gift certificate would pay for
itself at that rate.
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Tomcat <tom_dallas31@yahoo.com> wrote:
quote:
> Yeah, that's how it all should work in theory but the blu-ray advantage
> is not going to be the saving grace anymore (in the long term) with the
> arrival of multi-format players. Actually I think right now as we
> speak is the PS3's time to shine as a blu-ray player. Multi-format
> players still haven't hit the market and stand alone blu-ray players
> are still very expensive. If the PS3 was going to sell based on its
> blu-ray capabilities it needs to be doing it right NOW. This is its
> time to shine. I don't see that happening though, so I think the PS3's
> window of opportunity in this area is slipping away.
This is what I've been saying as well.
I think Sony's plan was to launch the PS3 as a cheap blu-ray player first,
then as the game library built up, the PS3 would then be primarily a game
machine that also played blu-ray movies. Sort of PS2 part 2 ;)
What got Sony in trouble is that most folks just aren't interested in
blu-ray, or HD-DVD for that matter. In the meantime, there aren't enough
games to really justify buying a PS3 for that purpose either and the
looming eventuality of hybrid players even makes the PS3 a poor choice for
the long range.
I really don't think Sony thought hybrid drives would be created so
quickly.
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Pete099 <oconnell099@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> wat is wrong with u all the xbox 360 is ok and the wii looks ok but i
> am a sony fan and i belive that ps3 will soon sell more than xbox and
> the ps3 looks ace . the ps2 was a big hit when it was first out and
> every one bought it then the xbox came and took over and now they are
> trying agen to beat the ps3 but no i wont let them beat ps3.
I must have missed the point where the Xbox 'took over' the PS2.
It may have had better graphics capabilities than the PS2, but at no point
did the Xbox outsell the PS2. The PS2 also launched a year after the
first competitor (Dreamcast) emerged as well.
How do you personally expect to prevent the 360 and/or Wii from beating
the PS3 this time around? Going to buy millions of PS3 games or something?
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
| |
| Li'l Slugger 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
|
"Rich" <rich@nospam.com> wrote in message news:LD3th.6$qv4.1@newsfe02.lga...
quote:
> "Bill Cable" <billcable@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169332041.649918.17950@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
Maybe the FACT that stores can't sell any. My local Best Buy has mor PoS3s
piled up then floor tiles.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> The key difference this time around is that the 360 has identical
publisher
quote:
> support that the PS3 has, AND the PS3 is *double* the price of the PS2!
Correction: The $600 PoS3 is *quintuple* the price of the $120 PoS2.
| |
| Electric Frog 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
|
"Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1169260635.576056.103050@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> RMZ wrote:
>
> That's an interesting point... How much does Sony make on Blu-Ray
> sales? We know they're losing $300 per console but IIRC Sony only gets
> $1 per disc for the Blu-Ray royalty. PS3 users would have to buy 300
> Blu-Ray discs for Sony to break even on the PS3 and that's not going to
> happen. Hell, there aren't even 200 Blu-Ray movies available yet.
>
> - Jordan
One thing that can save BlueRay is Fox. If they release StarWars HD (and the
films do exist as they've been on the Move Channels) exclusively on Blue Ray
for the 2007 anniversary then many fans will buy a PS3 at the same time as
they're buying the film (well I would)
| |
| Electric Frog 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
|
"Tom" <noway@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:ZumdnS1GV5DBUynYnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@insightbb.com...
quote:
>
> "Rich" <rich@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:4x3th.5$qv4.4@newsfe02.lga...
>
> <snipped>
>
> Agreed, but firstly, the PS3 did outsell the 360 considering each launch
> times for both the PS3 and the 360, ending in "06" and "05" respectively.
> What GUTB doesn't post, is the fact that you can walk into just about any
> electronic retailer (Best Buy, GameStop, EbGames, Circuit City, etc), and
> pick up a PS3 readily. I was just at the mall Saturday, walked into a
> Gamstop, and asked if there are any PS3s in stock, the employee said he
> had 13 of them (he didn't specify what type between 60 and 20gig units). I
> asked if they are selling at all, and he stated they hadn't sold one since
> Jan. 5! Of course, not one Wii to be found anywhere.
>
> Now, consider the same time frame for the 360, and you couldn't find one.
> The first time I found one was in mid April of '06' at EbGames, none at BB
> for another month or so. The PS3 will have little hope, unless they get
> some games out by mid-summer, and I mean quality games and quite a few.
> Otherwise the holiday season of '07' will mean little when the 360 will
> have way more quality titles, exclusives, Halo3, and former exclusives
> porting over to the 360 from being PS exclusive (Assassin's Creed, GTA4,
> Virtua Fighter 5, to name just a few). The real killer would be MGS4
> porting over!
I was surprised to see PS3's in Walmart on Xmas Eve, admittedly they were
20Gb units, but someone in my apartment had a poster trying to sell one for
$800
I think a lot of people who bought PS3's in the hope of selling them at
huge markup's on Ebay were sorely disapointed :-)
| |
|
| "CJ" <cjmartin04@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ufcth.3373$QE6.89@trnddc02...
quote:
> FWIW, EGM reports that some of the PS3 exclusives expected to ship this
> year are going to be pushed to 2008 or made multiplatform because either
> developers are bailing on the PS3 or they want to wait a little longer to
> figure out if they're going to bail or not. Unfortunately, no game titles
They specifically mentioned two seperate PS3 Final Fantasy games pushed out
to 2008 elsewhere in that issue.
| |
|
| "Li'l Slugger" <Maromi@paranoiaagent.com> wrote in message
news:cZkth.447651$Fi1.168156@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
quote:
> publisher
>
> Correction: The $600 PoS3 is *quintuple* the price of the $120 PoS2.
I meant to say "double the price of the PS2 at their respective launches".
Sorry about that.
My point was that regardless what Sony thinks, the value of the dollar did
not double in the last 5 years. $600 is just a stupid amount of money to
pay for a game console, regardless of the bells and whistles.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Rich <rich@nospam.com> wrote:
quote:
> "CJ" <cjmartin04@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ufcth.3373$QE6.89@trnddc02...
[vbcol=seagreen]
> They specifically mentioned two seperate PS3 Final Fantasy games pushed out
> to 2008 elsewhere in that issue.
Well, that shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone considering that
the previous FFs had also slipped their US release dates.
Still, that just shows that critical mass won't really occur for the PS3
until 2008. This also means that Sony will have a 2nd dissappointing
Christmas at the hands of the 360 and the Wii. By the time the PS3 hits
critical mass, how many 360s and Wii's will already have been sold? Can
the PS3 make a comeback against the 360 with, say, a 20+mil lead in sales?
And how much of a slippery slope is this? The 2008 prediction is based on
current estimates of what games will come out between now and then. If
other developers get tired of waiting for the PS3 to pick up, we could see
more titles get delayed, declared multi-platform, or drop the PS3
altogether - any of which is going to affect that critical mass
calculation and could cause MORE developers to rethink their PS3 plans.
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 CJ <cjmartin04@verizon.net> wrote:
quote:
> FWIW, EGM reports that some of the PS3 exclusives expected to ship this year
> are going to be pushed to 2008 or made multiplatform because either
> developers are bailing on the PS3 or they want to wait a little longer to
> figure out if they're going to bail or not. Unfortunately, no game titles
> were mentioned so I don't know how reliable that info is or if those titles
> are "system sellers" like Warhawk.
Rumor has it Warhawk is going to be a (free?) download game consisting of
only 4 levels. It might have been a system seller based on the video
demo, but not if this is the case.
quote:
> I agree with your critical mass theory. Since I don't play FF, the only
> "system seller" I see for the PS3 that's been announced is possibly Warhawk.
> There's no doubt IMO that FF will sell some PS3 consoles as will MGS4,
> particularly in Japan. But since I'm not interested in FF and the camera
> angles in the last MGS probably would make this one a rental for me just to
> see if I like it, and Mercenaries 2 is multiplatform, what's there to make
> me pick up the PS3 in 2007 or early 08? A few years ago I would have foamed
> at the mouth to get my hands on a copy of the new SOCOM, but that series has
> jumped the shark so badly I wasn't even interested in the last one released
> in November enough to keep my PS2. Unless they actually have a good single
> player story in the next one, I'm not going to bother caring whenever it
> does come out. Letting GTA go multiplatform was a really very stupid
> business decision by Sony. They should have done what it took to make it
> exclusive to the PS3. That may be the one game out there that's a true
> "system seller" in the US even if the rest of the exclusive lineup is junk.
> I'm not sure FF can make enough American consumers go as nuts as GTA.
As you point out, the set of "titles I want to play" will vary from person
to person. But it seems clearer and clearer that the PS3 won't gain
widespread critical mass until sometime during 2008.
Based on this, can the PS3 survive? Especially since it means they could
see a 2nd dissapointing Christmas dominated by the 360 and Wii. Will more
developers get cold feet about the PS3, delaying titles, going
multi-platform, or dropping the PS3 altogether?
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Rich <rich@nospam.com> wrote:
quote:
> My point was that regardless what Sony thinks, the value of the dollar did
> not double in the last 5 years. $600 is just a stupid amount of money to
> pay for a game console, regardless of the bells and whistles.
I think Sony would have benefitted from waiting another year. If they had
launched Nov. 2007, chances are, they could have squeezed the price down
to $400/$500 (instead of $500/$600) which, while still expensive, would
be more competitive. It would also give developers more time to crank out
really good games which would go a long way towards negating the higher
price. Yes, I realize that this would have given Microsoft and Nintendo
even more time to build up an imposing lead, but as they say, you only get
one chance to make a first impression - and the PS3's first impressions
haven't been all that stellar.
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
| |
| Tomcat 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| Doug Jacobs wrote:
quote:
> Will more developers get cold feet about the PS3, delaying titles, going
> multi-platform, or dropping the PS3 altogether?
>
I would be tempted to disagree that developers will be abandoning the
PS3, given the fact that historically developers have embraced consoles
that are brand new to market so in theory the PS3 simply being a slow
starter shouldn't be enough for developers to close up shop on it any
time soon.
However, the difference in this console race compared to previous ones
is that the current market has 3 strong competitors, and 2 of the
competitors are competing in an HDTV market that is more or less a
niche market, where currently less than 50 percent of households in the
US have HDTV's and even less in Europe and Japan. So not only is the
pie being divided, but the whole pie itself is smaller. Combine that
with very high development costs for next-gen games and I can see a
definite danger of developers backing away from the PS3 unless it can
quickly start proving that it can match the 360 in sales before 2008.
| |
| Tomcat 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| Doug Jacobs wrote:
quote:
>
> I think Sony would have benefitted from waiting another year.
I think so too. The HDTV consumer market needs to mature and grow
before it's ready for 2 next-gen consoles. Right now it's a niche
market. I think the 360 has already pretty much saturated much of the
current HDTV-owning gamer market and the rest is slowly becoming
available.
Sony should have just rode the PS2 until it was dead and then come out
with a PS3.5 that was cheaper and a little more powerful than the
current one to give it a noticable edge over the 360.
| |
|
|
"Tomcat" <tom_dallas31@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169583971.233456.288000@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Combine that with very high development costs for next-gen games and I can
see a
quote:
> definite danger of developers backing away from the PS3 unless it can
> quickly start proving that it can match the 360 in sales before 2008.
>
Because of high development costs of games, if the PS3 does indeed fail, or
at least perform MASSIVELY under Sony's expectations, could that actually
cause the market to collapse on itself? Didn't the failure of the Dreamcast
or the Jaguar cause a collapse in the 90s?
Admittedly this is different with the 360 and the Wii in the picture, but
the failure of a high profile console like the PS3 can't be good for the
overall health of the game industry.
| |
|
|
CJ wrote:
snip
Didn't the failure of the Dreamcast
quote:
> or the Jaguar cause a collapse in the 90s?
snip
So, what you're saying is, you have no idea what you're talking about
and we should discount anything you say accordingly.
There was a crash in the 1980s when publishers produced endless
shovelware for the 2600; then the NES came out and the crash was soon
over. There was no crash in the '90s; the failure of the Jaguar was soon
followed by the PSX. The Dreamcast was the fastest selling console in
the US until the PS2 came out and wasn't written off until after the
'90s were over. There has yet to be a crash in the '00s.
| |
| Jordan 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| On Jan 23, 8:54 am, "Electric Frog" <BounceDave2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
quote:
> One thing that can save BlueRay is Fox. If they release StarWars HD (and the
> films do exist as they've been on the Move Channels) exclusively on Blue Ray
> for the 2007 anniversary then many fans will buy a PS3 at the same time as
> they're buying the film (well I would)
This is true. I bought a laser disc player to watch the $300 ultimate
set. Hmm... $550 + $300 = $850. Suddenly a PS3 wouldn't seem like such
a bad deal. :^)
- Jordan
| |
| Jordan 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| On Jan 23, 12:01 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
quote:
> If they had launched Nov. 2007, chances are, they could have squeezed the
> price down to $400/$500 (instead of $500/$600) which, while still expensive,
> would be more competitive.
I think the '07/'08 numbers would have shown the gap to be about the
same. 360 at $200/$300 vs. PS3 at $400/$500.
- Jordan
| |
| Jordan 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| On Jan 23, 4:42 pm, Ted <nospamfor...@nospam.com> wrote:
quote:
> There was a crash in the 1980s when publishers produced endless
> shovelware for the 2600; then the NES came out and the crash was soon
> over.
I disagree on the whole origin of the crash. I feel that gaming moved
to the Apple II/Commodore 64 and that's what killed the consoles.
Most folks forget that the Commodore 64 sold console level numbers and
actually out-sold every other model of computer.
- Jordan
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2007-01-30, 8:00 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation3 CJ <cjmartin04@verizon.net> wrote:
quote:
> Because of high development costs of games, if the PS3 does indeed fail, or
> at least perform MASSIVELY under Sony's expectations, could that actually
> cause the market to collapse on itself? Didn't the failure of the Dreamcast
> or the Jaguar cause a collapse in the 90s?
Er, I think you're thinking of the crash during the 80s, and no, the
Dreamcast didn't cause it. The Dreamcast got clobbered by the PS2, which
was far from a disaster for the console market overall.
Many publishers are citing increasing development costs as a reason for
making more games cross-platform so they can cash in on as many sales as
possible. However I think this was with the assumption that the fight
between the 3 consoles would be much closer this time than what it was
last generation, where the PS2 was by far the clear dominating console,
while the Xbox and Gamecube battled for a distant #2.
Exclusive games are what really sell a console. After all, one of the
biggest weaknesses of the Xbox was that many of its games were ported from
the PS2 that many people alrady owned. At least the Xbox could boast it
had better graphics, and that was enough for some people to buy their
multi-platform games for the Xbox.
This time, the battle between the PS3 and 360 is shaping up a lot
differently. While we're already seeing a lot of multi-platform games for
the 360/PS3, unlike last generation, there's no real difference in the
graphics between them. The 360 usually gets the nod from reviewers since
its online component is better, and occasionally the PS3 versions have
framerate issues - just as many early 360 games did.
Without a strong library of exclusive games, it's going to be very hard to
justify buying a PS3. It's more expensive, its online service isn't as
good, it doesn't have a lot of exclusive games, multiplatform games look
just as good on the 360...
Now throw in the Wii. I don't think there was any doubt that the Wii
would do fine on its own - carving out the same niche the Gamecube and N64
occupied before it. What has taken people by surprise is that the Wii
seems to be growing beyond that niche. It's outselling the PS3 right now,
and even Microsoft acknowledges Nintendo - not Sony - as its nearest
competitor.
If the past few months are any indication, the 360 will be in first place,
with the Wii nipping close behind, and the PS3 way back in 3rd. If you
were a game publisher, would this be enough to convince you to start doing
multi-platform releases for the 360 and Wii despite the technical
difficulties? Would you bother with the PS3 at all?
quote:
> Admittedly this is different with the 360 and the Wii in the picture, but
> the failure of a high profile console like the PS3 can't be good for the
> overall health of the game industry.
Well, worst case scenario for the PS3 would be that it causes Sony to pull
out of the console market altogether, or at least just be a software
player like SEGA. That would basically mean that Microsoft would be able
to rule the videogame market - maybe allowing Nintendo to survive in its
little niche to avoid allegations of "monopoly". Competition is good. I
doubt Microsoft would have pushed so hard to make the 360 what it is if it
weren't for Sony.
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
| |
| Ethan Hammond 2007-01-30, 8:01 pm |
| "Electric Frog" <BounceDave2702@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:51msu7F1l15osU1@mid.individual.net...
quote:
>
> "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1169260635.576056.103050@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> One thing that can save BlueRay is Fox. If they release StarWars HD (and
> the films do exist as they've been on the Move Channels) exclusively on
> Blue Ray for the 2007 anniversary then many fans will buy a PS3 at the
> same time as they're buying the film (well I would)
Yay Star Wars again! Buying movies 20 times rules!
Although I do love ESB, but still, STILL!
--
All Purpose Culture Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
| |
| Ethan Hammond 2007-01-30, 8:01 pm |
| "Bill Cable" <billcable@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169332041.649918.17950@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> It's funny how many people are ready to pronounce the PS3 dead just two
> months after it launched. I remember a lot of people doing the same
> exact thing with the PS2... "The Dreamcast has better games and better
> graphics. It's already won this generation."
>
> I think it'd be wise to wait until at least next Christmas before
> making any predictions.
Stores were trying to get rid of there entire stock of Dreamcast's
at super discounted prices the second the PS2 came out. The
second the PS2 came out the DC was dead and forgotten. The
PS3 has come out and the 360 is fine, actually the 360 is getting
better because it is getting all the games that were planned for it,
plus most of the games that were orginally planned only for the PS3.
The PS2 launch did not help the DC it killed it, the PS3 launch has
helped the 360.
--
All Purpose Culture Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
| |
| Ethan Hammond 2007-01-30, 8:01 pm |
| "TheGame" <n0n0n0n0n0@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1169357008.784028.110810@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Wow, you are the true sony fanboy. I bet you expected Mini Disc to be
> successful. Did you think PSP was going to dominate in portable gaming?
Man, you have got to try out this Beta player, forget about that
VHS junk.
--
All Purpose Culture Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
| |
| Ethan Hammond 2007-01-30, 8:01 pm |
| "CJ" <cjmartin04@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ufcth.3373$QE6.89@trnddc02...
quote:
>
> I agree with your critical mass theory. Since I don't play FF, the only
> "system seller" I see for the PS3 that's been announced is possibly
> Warhawk. There's no doubt IMO that FF will sell some PS3 consoles as will
> MGS4, particularly in Japan.
The biggest Squeenix series in Japan is Dragon Quest which is coming out
for the DS, THE DS!
--
All Purpose Culture Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
|
| |
|
|