getting worried

[snowsquirrel]

I would say that of the people I work with who have gone 'this gen', 20 have 360's and 3 have PS3's. I thought that might start to change with the ps3 price drop. But today after work, two of my buddies said they were going to Wal-Mart to buy either a Wii or a 360. They were undecided if they wanted a hard-core system or a fun cheap system. The PS3 wasn't even on the table. I mentioned some of the benefits of PS3, like free online, quieter, reliable, blu-ray, wireless. But the bottom line was that $549 is a long ways from $399 (Canadian prices).

I supposed this same thought process happens all the time. I really think Sony has to hit $399 now... yesterday if possible.

Just my $0.02.

~S

[The Mana Knight]

That's just how it is. To many people, the PS3 doesn't even exists. :-(

[willardhaven]

I'd love to just settle for a 360, but with Ratchet & Clank, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Devil May Cry, Persona and more sticking with the PS3, it's hard to think about Microsoft for me.

I'm going to play the waiting game this generation, since my backlog is huge I can pick up the Greatest Hits version of all these new PS3 games in a couple of years. The box art is so ugly as it is(see-the PS3 logo), the GH labeling on PS3 won't phase me.

The 360 is America's system... Joe gamer loves it no matter how many times he has to replace it or send it in to be repaired. Don't worry if you bought the PS3 to play the aforementioned series.

[Thomas96]

I would say that of the people I work with who have gone 'this gen', 20 have 360's and 3 have PS3's. I thought that might start to change with the ps3 price drop. But today after work, two of my buddies said they were going to Wal-Mart to buy either a Wii or a 360. They were undecided if they wanted a hard-core system or a fun cheap system. The PS3 wasn't even on the table. I mentioned some of the benefits of PS3, like free online, quieter, reliable, blu-ray, wireless. But the bottom line was that $549 is a long ways from $399 (Canadian prices).

I supposed this same thought process happens all the time. I really think Sony has to hit $399 now... yesterday if possible.

Just my $0.02.

~S



if the PS3 was 399 do you think this situation would have been any different.

I hate to always mention past events, but this reminds me so much of the PS1.. it went under people's radar for a while, and then it just got big. But PS1 had a lot of commercials... good funny commercials. That's what PS3 needs, good reoccurring commecials.. geico...

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

Yeah, but a 3 year warranty for hardware failures? That's unheard of. Hell, even Sony only offered repairs for free on their Disc Read Error prone PS2 for a LIMITED amount of time last gen and then you were SOL and either had to pay $45 to swap out your system for a refurb(some of which ended up with the SAME problem again or another one) or $75 for Sony to repair the system.

At least MS stepped up to the plate and said 'yeah, our stuff doesn't work right for everyone, but we wanna make amends'. So, I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay less for a system with a longer warranty and a company that will even pay for shipping it to them at THEIR expense rather than Sony's expensive machine.

And since when is the GAME CONSOLE wars about cramming as much useless shit into a system as the company possibly can?

if the PS3 was 399 do you think this situation would have been any different.

If it was $299 and provided me with full BC and gave me a choice if I wanted my games on Blu-Ray or just plain old dvd, it might be. But, the average consumer doesn't give a shit about high def gaming or at least they currently don't. People want the most value for the cheapest price available.

[Vinny]

At least MS stepped up to the plate and said 'yeah, our stuff doesn't work right for everyone, but we wanna make amends'.

My only problems with that are:
1. It took them a year to admit it.
2. They knew it was in issue and, rather than fix it, released the system to unsuspecting consumers.

I don't think it's fair to call the war just yet. Sony won't go down without a fight.

[whitedeath]

ok now i am gonan give my 2 cents and i will try to be equal

360 owners say the ps3 is too expensive. which is kinda true but yet false as well

the ps3 supports blu ray out of the box

360 you need to buy the hd player which is 179.99 if you chose to go the new technology in dvd format which as you can see i have chosen which way i am favoring :-)

so the 60 gig is 499.99 comes with blu ray player out of box as we all know

360 non elite is 349.99 this is without hd dvd player

360 with hd dvd player = 529.98

to me it seems like the same deal for people who say the ps3 is over priced.

that is of course my 2 cents if you wanna go with the new dvd formats

ps3 plays all ps1 and ps2 games and all imports out of box since i just recently learned it is region free

360 play some original xbox games but not all games yet.

the 360 library is bigger

so they way i see things

library-360

backward compatable and import- ps3

price - even bascally

so it looks like an even match to me.

but this is my 2 cents and feel free to debate me on any of these true facts but i will take on any decent debate

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

My only problems with that are:
1. It took them a year to admit it.
2. They knew it was in issue and, rather than fix it, released the system to unsuspecting consumers.

I don't think it's fair to call the war just yet. Sony won't go down without a fight.

True, but it's better than what Sony did for all the people who suffered through innumerable DREs last gen. And, even though they offered to fix the systems for free for a while, consumers still had to PAY to ship the systems to them. MS is at least taking care of the shipping for their customers.

And believe me, I've heard of many horror stories from the PS1 and PS2 eras with Sony's systems that make a one year lapse by MS seem like nothing. The PS1s were known to have bad lasers, as were the PS2s, so I hate to say it, but I'm waiting for the inevitable failures with the PS3's new version Blu-Ray drives.

[docvinh]

ok now i am gonan give my 2 cents and i will try to be equal

360 owners say the ps3 is too expensive. which is kinda true but yet false as well

the ps3 supports blu ray out of the box

360 you need to buy the hd player which is 179.99 if you chose to go the new technology in dvd format which as you can see i have chosen which way i am favoring :-)

so the 60 gig is 499.99 comes with blu ray player out of box as we all know

360 non elite is 349.99 this is without hd dvd player

360 with hd dvd player = 529.98

to me it seems like the same deal for people who say the ps3 is over priced.

that is of course my 2 cents if you wanna go with the new dvd formats

ps3 plays all ps1 and ps2 games and all imports out of box since i just recently learned it is region free

360 play some original xbox games but not all games yet.

the 360 library is bigger

so they way i see things

library-360

backward compatable and import- ps3

price - even bascally

so it looks like an even match to me.

but this is my 2 cents and feel free to debate me on any of these true facts but i will take on any decent debate
The blu-ray part is only as valuable as you make it. If you don't watch a lot of hi def movies or don't have a need for it, it really is of no value to you. Same with the built in wireless. I definitely think that this "console war" would have been much different if the ps3 had started out at 400 instead of 600. In most people's minds, 600 for what is predominantly thought of as a game system is too much.

[whitedeath]

But, the average consumer doesn't give a shit about high def gaming or at least they currently don't. People want the most value for the cheapest price available.

speak for your self i would rather have a crisp looking game. i don't care about costs if you want the newest tech. on the market you gotta pay for it.

regualr dvd to me is like buying a vhs tape at the flea market anymore once blu ray takes over you will see this. this is 2k7 soon to be 2k8 and people want hd to make there home theather rig look the sexiest at any cost

does having a 5k hs set up mnake you a better gamer nope. do it make you look better? in some peoples eyes it does. do you wanna play a game in 1080 i or 1080p? you bet your sweet ass you do.

like i stated before just my 2 cents

[nativetongue88]

ok now i am gonan give my 2 cents and i will try to be equal

360 owners say the ps3 is too expensive. which is kinda true but yet false as well

the ps3 supports blu ray out of the box

360 you need to buy the hd player which is 179.99 if you chose to go the new technology in dvd format which as you can see i have chosen which way i am favoring :-)

so the 60 gig is 499.99 comes with blu ray player out of box as we all know

360 non elite is 349.99 this is without hd dvd player

360 with hd dvd player = 529.98

to me it seems like the same deal for people who say the ps3 is over priced.

that is of course my 2 cents if you wanna go with the new dvd formats

ps3 plays all ps1 and ps2 games and all imports out of box since i just recently learned it is region free

360 play some original xbox games but not all games yet.

the 360 library is bigger

so they way i see things

library-360

backward compatable and import- ps3

price - even bascally

so it looks like an even match to me.

but this is my 2 cents and feel free to debate me on any of these true facts but i will take on any decent debate

not everyone cares about hd-dvd or blu-ray yet though. dvds are still by far the #1 disc. im 25 and most of my friends and people i come in contact with have absolutly no idea what hd-dvd and blu-ray are.

[VidgamesgivemeA_D_D]

Well the thing with me is I'm a video gamer. I don't need a system that wipes asses just one that plays video games. PS3s selling point is blu-ray MOVIES and they charge according and say it's well worth it because it's cheap for a blu-ray player and it plays games. But the problem is for me and many others that don't care that much about blu-ray is it's expensive for a video game machine. Sony is trying to shove blu-ray down our throats and don't care about the video game industry. Technically they did the same thing with PS2 and DVDs but it worked because it was sold at a decent price (started at $299 and kept dropping rapidly) I think if Sony gave a crap about us people that just want to play video games they'd release a non-bluray dvd player PS3 for $299 or $249. But there's no chance in hell they will do that. Don't get me wrong I watch movies just like everyone else but I'm happy with regular dvds and am still impressed with just a flat screen tv (I'm always behind in technology, I don't care) And it's even easier to avoid getting a PS3 when 360 keeps getting most of PS3s good games and now they're getting exclusives OVER PS3. I don't think Sony could of handled PS3 worse than they have, but like I said they could care less they want to win the high def DVD market they don't care about video games.

[whitedeath]

doc i agree 600 is too much but if you see the current costs of blu ray players it is out of site. *i was at best buy tonight and seen one for a nice price of 799* that make the ps3 look good if you are lookign for a hd player with a nice tv.

the region free thing for ps3 i think gives it an edge as most people who are rpg happy *sorry i dislike rpgs but to each his own* make them happy as not all rpgs come to america.

i would not say a console war.

i said if for the last gen and i will say it for this gen of systems you have to own all 3 to get the full effect of all good games coming out.

[nativetongue88]

But, the average consumer doesn't give a shit about high def gaming or at least they currently don't. People want the most value for the cheapest price available.

speak for your self i would rather have a crisp looking game. i don't care about costs if you want the newest tech. on the market you gotta pay for it.

regualr dvd to me is like buying a vhs tape at the flea market anymore once blu ray takes over you will see this. this is 2k7 soon to be 2k8 and people want hd to make there home theather rig look the sexiest at any cost

does having a 5k hs set up mnake you a better gamer nope. do it make you look better? in some peoples eyes it does. do you wanna play a game in 1080 i or 1080p? you bet your sweet ass you do.

like i stated before just my 2 cents


if i had to guess percentages id say 60-70% of people under 25 years old play video games on a semi-normal basis.

id say maybe 2-4% of households have a hd-dvd or a blue-ray player.


these numbers arnt facts but well thought out guestimates. haha. but honestly though a lot more people play video games then care/can afford/or are informed about hd-dvd/bluray.

[blackjaw]

not everyone cares about hd-dvd or blu-ray yet though. dvds are still by far the #1 disc. im 25 and most of my friends and people i come in contact with have absolutly no idea what hd-dvd and blu-ray are.

I own a PS3 and have no blu-ray DVDS. I even have an HDTV and still buy all of my movies on plain jane DVD...I really see no point in buying an "HD" version when the upconvert from the PS3 does such a great job and I can get the DVD version for $10-$20 cheaper.

I still want to get the re-release of the blu-ray Fifth Element and my woman is always bugging me for Planet Earth...but other than those I havent really jumped on the bandwagon.

[whitedeath]

native very true. i do agree selling a blu ray player to someone who is not up on current tech is a nightmare

vidgames - i can see your point about the blu ray thing but they physically can't make a ps3 without blu ray as some of the games come on blu ray discs.

to be honest i am not a ps3 fan boy....... ok. i sorta am leaning that way but what pisses me off to no end is how 360 gets the games and the ps3 of that game comes out a month or 2 later check stranglehold and you will see where i am going.

[Thomas96]

Marketing... PS3 needs to be marketed better, and hopefully at 399 it'll do better. But even at 399, the only people who are going to jump on it, are those who were already willing to buy PS3, but didn't want to or couldn't spend 499/599. You have to go out and get customers...

[blackjaw]

native very true. i do agree selling a blu ray player to someone who is not up on current tech is a nightmare

vidgames - i can see your point about the blu ray thing but they physically can't make a ps3 without blu ray as some of the games come on blu ray discs.

to be honest i am not a ps3 fan boy....... ok. i sorta am leaning that way but what pisses me off to no end is how 360 gets the games and the ps3 of that game comes out a month or 2 later check stranglehold and you will see where i am going.

Just give the system a while to catch on with the devs and to pick up some steam in Japan. It will all catch on eventually....even the PS2 had a slow start.

[nativetongue88]

as the price goes down and the library builds sales will come. sony is sony and you know they arnt going to give up on it. i currently own a 360 and a wii. i will end up getting a ps3 and some point id think. the problem for me isnt so much price, its just that there really isnt anything to play.

the system has been out a year and all that interests me is resistance and motorstorm. nothing i can think of other than those have even received positive reviews.

[whitedeath]

blackjaw i agree that regualr dvds do work. but like i said dvd is like vhs now it is getting old as when u go to buy a new tv 90% is hd so you see where the market is going with this and i think it was amazon or best buy that had a tv for i'd liek to say 1799 or something and it came with a 360 and i think halo 3 or some some discount on the package. this is what the market is stuff in our face. i know it sucks. but buying a tv is just like buying a car anymore in 2-3 years there will be some that trumps the old version or model.

i own 5 blu ray dvds. i paid full price for one.

my wife who works at blockbuster said alot of people are starting to rent the blu rays. you can notice the sizable difference in each sd and bd.

[whitedeath]

native no interest in heavenly sword?

[snowsquirrel]

if the PS3 was 399 do you think this situation would have been any different.

In the cases I am citing yes. If the PS3 and 360 had been the same price it may have been a split atleast.

Another quote from one of the guys was: the ps3 has no games. So I said what games are you picking up? The response was, mmm I don't know, madden.

The no games argument at this point is moot. The vast majority are multi-platform. Yeah the 360 has a system seller, and the ps3 does not, but that will likely all work out even.

I am not saying Sony is any better to consumers than MS. If MS had already won the cosole war by a longshot, I really doubt they would have fessed up to the RRoD. I just think that if one company has a monopoly, it is bad for everyone. If Sony doesn't do well, they could easily go tits up, as their gaming division was the only division making a lot of money lately. They need gaming. MS does not. They will keep on chugging regardless of how 360 turns out.

Many of the people with disposable incomes to drop on gaming systems do care about HD. I think the nobody cares about HD argument is over played. Having said that, it will only be another year before BD, and HD players will be cheap enough to negate this argument.

This thread was not posted to debate which console is better. But to debate what the landscape will look like if MS wipes the floor with Sony.

~S

[whitedeath]

snow you made this thread and if you see my first post i broke down all the important issues and rants/raves from each system. just since oif hearing the ps3 is too much or it has no games. i think both will do good and i am not toting ps3 anymore then 360 i am keeping it even keel even though i own a -s3 and use to own a 360. i am being fair not causing no major arguements just sounding off this is a great thread we should keep it rolling

[docvinh]

[QUOTE
This thread was not posted to debate which console is better. But to debate what the landscape will look like if MS wipes the floor with Sony.

~S[/QUOTE]
I'm a huge 360 fan, but I still like competition. If it wasn't for competition, we wouldn't be having the quality choices in systems that we have today. Sony isn't going away anytime soon, that's for sure.

[blackjaw]

In the cases I am citing yes. If the PS3 and 360 had been the same price it may have been a split atleast.

Another quote from one of the guys was: the ps3 has no games. So I said what games are you picking up? The response was, mmm I don't know, madden.

The no games argument at this point is moot. The vast majority are multi-platform. Yeah the 360 has a system seller, and the ps3 does not, but that will likely all work out even.

I am not saying Sony is any better to consumers than MS. If MS had already won the cosole war by a longshot, I really doubt they would have fessed up to the RRoD. I just think that if one company has a monopoly, it is bad for everyone. If Sony doesn't do well, they could easily go tits up, as their gaming division was the only division making a lot of money lately. They need gaming. MS does not. They will keep on chugging regardless of how 360 turns out.

Many of the people with disposable incomes to drop on gaming systems do care about HD. I think the nobody cares about HD argument is over played. Having said that, it will only be another year before BD, and HD players will be cheap enough to negate this argument.

This thread was not posted to debate which console is better. But to debate what the landscape will look like if MS wipes the floor with Sony.

~S

Kind of on that same note...a majority of my friends have bought a PS3 for Madden. They dont know about HD, and one of them yesterday didnt even know it had WIFI (kept trying to find the LAN port)....they only bought it because they had a PS2 and thats what they know (casual gamers).

Most of my friends do have disposable income though (single, decent job, etc), so the price tag doesnt really affect them as much as another casual PS2 owner. Once the casual PS2 owner gets enough $$$ I'm sure they will "upgrade" for whatever new game comes out...MGS, GTA, etc.

Like I said, I feel it will all come together soon and the PS3 and 360 will coexist in an equilibrium. :)

[whitedeath]

doc amen to that this is what makes america great we can debate becuase we are fan boys of one system over another. in the more distant future we will be getting along killing each other in some online game so this all washes in the end

[whitedeath]

not to get off topic here but i stated that you have to own all 3 systems to enjoy all the great games.

the wii - smash brothers brawl,mario galaxy

the ps3 - gt5,mgs4,dmc4

the 360 halo 3, fable 2

will we all be playing these games fore mentioned you bet your ass we will that is what i was getting at so there is really no system who takes precident over the others and the great games are broken down over all 3

[The Mana Knight]

Marketing... PS3 needs to be marketed better, and hopefully at 399 it'll do better. But even at 399, the only people who are going to jump on it, are those who were already willing to buy PS3, but didn't want to or couldn't spend 499/599. You have to go out and get customers...I think Sony doesn't market to save money on what they lose on each console made, to an extent.

[jkam]

I'd love to just settle for a 360, but with Ratchet & Clank, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Devil May Cry, Persona and more sticking with the PS3, it's hard to think about Microsoft for me.

I'm going to play the waiting game this generation, since my backlog is huge I can pick up the Greatest Hits version of all these new PS3 games in a couple of years. The box art is so ugly as it is(see-the PS3 logo), the GH labeling on PS3 won't phase me.

The 360 is America's system... Joe gamer loves it no matter how many times he has to replace it or send it in to be repaired. Don't worry if you bought the PS3 to play the aforementioned series.

Devil May Cry is not a PS3 exclusive. It's being released on the 360 as well.

http://search.ign.com/products?query=devil+may+cry+4

[jkam]

Devil May Cry is not a PS3 exclusive. It's being released on the 360 as well.

http://search.ign.com/products?query=devil+may+cry+4

[willardhaven]

I'm aware, I felt like including it anyway since I think it is being developed with the PS3 in mind? I'm not sure about that, but DMC is kind of a Playstation series.

[Jeoff]

Third post in this thread sums up exactly how I feel. In the end I think the PS3 inevitably will catch up and pass the 360 and nip on the heels of the Wii. That is when it drops to a price point that mommies and daddies can agree on ($300 or less). I believe all three systems will be successes this gen, unlike last gen where the xbox was bleh, the GC was so-so, and the PS2 was great success.

[Kayden]

I love how easily fact is confused with opinion on the internet.

[whitedeath]

I love how easily fact is confused with opinion on the internet.

who are you talking too?

if it is my post then state what you call opinion then?

[Kayden]

I'd have to be able to understand your gibber to converse with you. (U typin iz lews)

whoa re u refering too? my post if u see opinion then tell me and we can discuss

[whitedeath]

fixed :-)

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

Third post in this thread sums up exactly how I feel. In the end I think the PS3 inevitably will catch up and pass the 360 and nip on the heels of the Wii. That is when it drops to a price point that mommies and daddies can agree on ($300 or less). I believe all three systems will be successes this gen, unlike last gen where the xbox was bleh, the GC was so-so, and the PS2 was great success.

I had all three systems last gen, including unfortunately MULTIPLE PS2s. However, after having tested a theory, I probably could've had my year from launch PS2 and still been playing like crazy on it, since it was my ports on my tv that were screwed up and NOT the PS2. Although, I've also known MANY who have had the dreaded DRE appear when playing MULTIPLE formats of discs. They have had them occur on every type of PS2 disc, from the blue bottom(which causes most DREs) to the gold bottom DVD format, so the DRE is not isolated to just ONE format that causes it.

Quite frankly though, I don't believe Sony will catch up until a couple of years from now, when they can comfortably afford to properly price their PS3 and by then, the Wii and 360 will have their 2/3's of the market sewn up tight.

As for people with 'disposable' incomes, I never consider my income to be 'disposable', as I look to get the best value and the most functions I'll actually USE from those multimedia items I buy. And sadly, unless high speed stays low priced for me after my years contract is up with Verizon, I may dump it and go back to either surfing the net from the library or go back to dialup. To me, paying anything over $15-20 a month for internet is ridiculous, but that's another argument altogether. So, for me, the rush to online play and online ONLY games is futile, as I may never take part in ANY of them.

If something I buy doesn't have real value I can use without expending alot of extra money to get it working(ie having to pay fuckin $30 per movie for BR movies, I like my cheap $5-10 dvds, tyvm), it's worthless to me.

[dmaul1114]

if the PS3 was 399 do you think this situation would have been any different.


I'm on the fence about getting a 360, PS3 isn't even in the picture at it's price now.

At $399 I'd probably lean toward the PS3 because of the blu ray player.

[cochesecochese]

Come on 399 60 gig.

[reiji]

IMO, one of the biggest problems with the PS3 is how lazy American developers are, namely EA. I've played probably half of the PS3 games available right now and there's such a HUGE range of quality in PS3 games.

Ridge Racer 7 (launch title) was apparently made in just a few months before the system's launch, but it looks amazing and plays just as well. Just for shits and giggles I downloaded the NASCAR 08 demo on the PSN and WOW. What a giant piece of shit! It looks no better than a PS2 game and if I was really a hardcore NASCAR fan, I probably would buy a 360 just to play a better version of the game. You can clearly tell that EA developed the game for 360 and just tossed at the interns and gave them a week to port it.

Seriously, if multiplatform developers were to actaully take some time to make proper games for the PS3, it would be a whole different story. But instead we're stuck playing shitty 5-minute ports

[Thomas96]

I think Sony doesn't market to save money on what they lose on each console made, to an extent.


yeah, but they do want to sell to the masses... if they don't lose money on PS3 they won't earn money on games and other items.

[panasonic]

I would like to see 360 sales after halo 3 maybe a month later. I am guessing all the 9 million people who bought halo 2 first day are going to be rushing to get 360s to bridge the gap. So should be a huge spike up in sales but then go down, and then i would like to see how continous the sales are after halo. This is far from over i know a ton of people who want a ps3 but its too expensive for them.

[Corvin]

I would like to see 360 sales after halo 3 maybe a month later. I am guessing all the 9 million people who bought halo 2 first day are going to be rushing to get 360s to bridge the gap. So should be a huge spike up in sales but then go down, and then i would like to see how continous the sales are after halo. This is far from over i know a ton of people who want a ps3 but its too expensive for them.

About 5.5 million people bought Halo 2. Supposedly MS is shipping 4 million of Halo 3 in the first week. I think they are being optimistic.

I did see multiple people in line last night purchasing the system with Halo 3, so it will be interesting to see the spike in sales.

As for the PS3, Sony might catch up. It will definitely be a struggle, especially with gimped games compared to their 360 counterparts. If Sony managed to outsell the 360 2 to 1 they would still be behind.

by the (random example) numbers:
- if Sony sold 200,000 a month from here on out it would take 2 & 1/2 years to hit the 10 million mark which MS already passed
- if MS only pushed 100,000 each month in that same time frame, they would still have a 3 million lead
- the PS3 would have to start selling like the Wii to stand a chance, and I don't see them quadrupling their monthly sales anytime soon, unless they came out of nowhere and priced the PS3 under $300.
- as sales lag, so will developer support. Fewer exclusives and the norm will be rushed out ports
- the most powerful system in each generation has never "won."

The problem for MS is other markets. I don't think the US can carry them through to the end of this generation in the lead(over Sony). The only way they stand a chance is to erode the stigma that Sony is synonymous with gaming in America. They have to get to those people that have only known the Playstation brand and convince them otherwise.

[Thomas96]

About 5.5 million people bought Halo 2. Supposedly MS is shipping 4 million of Halo 3 in the first week. I think they are being optimistic.

I did see multiple people in line last night purchasing the system with Halo 3, so it will be interesting to see the spike in sales.

As for the PS3, Sony might catch up. It will definitely be a struggle, especially with gimped games compared to their 360 counterparts. If Sony managed to outsell the 360 2 to 1 they would still be behind.

by the (random example) numbers:
- if Sony sold 200,000 a month from here on out it would take 2 & 1/2 years to hit the 10 million mark which MS already passed
- if MS only pushed 100,000 each month in that same time frame, they would still have a 3 million lead
- the PS3 would have to start selling like the Wii to stand a chance, and I don't see them quadrupling their monthly sales anytime soon, unless they came out of nowhere and priced the PS3 under $300.
- as sales lag, so will developer support. Fewer exclusives and the norm will be rushed out ports
- the most powerful system in each generation has never "won."

The problem for MS is other markets. I don't think the US can carry them through to the end of this generation in the lead(over Sony). The only way they stand a chance is to erode the stigma that Sony is synonymous with gaming in America. They have to get to those people that have only known the Playstation brand and convince them otherwise.


200,000 per month... is that world wide or just in america.

The SNES was the most powerful console for sometime.. and it won

[The Mana Knight]

As for the PS3, Sony might catch up. It will definitely be a struggle, especially with gimped games compared to their 360 counterparts. If Sony managed to outsell the 360 2 to 1 they would still be behind.Actually, games on PS3 aren't exactly gimped anymore, unless you are talking about EA. Early on, developers were having problems with the PS3 hardware, which led to issues with multi-platform games. Now, games like Stuntman, GRAW2 (very close), etc. look just as good on PS3. A game like DiRT is actually better on PS3. The only problem is that EA still continues to do a bad port (all other publishers seem to be doing fine now, or almost as good).
yeah, but they do want to sell to the masses... if they don't lose money on PS3 they won't earn money on games and other items.But at the same time, they kind of feel the price may be too much for the masses. Although from what I believe, Sony's biggest issue with PS3 is that they aren't really sure how they should market it yet. I remember them having a successful campaign towards the beginning of the PSP lifecycle (which is why it did well), but then kind of struggled (so PSP lagged). But once they started the "Get Your Own" campaign, it has done a lot better (along with the lower price). Sony can't just market the PS3 as a games machine because that turn people off due to the higher price. If they market it too much for blu-ray, people may assume it's only a blu-ray player.

[Dr Mario Kart]

The SNES was the most powerful console for sometime.. and it won

How much did it cost?

[Thomas96]

If Madden 08 would have been up to par on PS3, it could have sold some PS3s... Sony needs to get the system cheap, and push strongly for a Holiday sales boost and then in 08 big games need to come out to keep that Holiday boost going.
Killzone....
FFXIII,
MGS4,
Gran Turismo 5,
Motorstorm,
Tekken 6,
White Knight Story,
God of War 3,

If sony can get these games out during 2008 they'll sell systems just fine. Point is, Everyone who wants HALO is going to get HALO 3 and 360 from now until the end of the year. So now its Sony's turn to get its big guns out on the market..

Wii is releasing most of its big guns this year as well.. and most people wanted one probably got one by now, or will have one by the end of the year.

So point is... ,2008 should be Sony's year, because its the year that their second generation of games will be released, people will see some games that set it further apart from the 360, and by 2008 the system will be cheaper than the astronomical 600 dollar price tag. and on a side note... hopefully HDTVs sell well this holiday season - which most likely they will.
Sony needs some more HDTV / PS3 packin deals...

[Thomas96]

How much did it cost?


I don't remember... was it 299 ... came with two controllers and Super Mario World... but remember back then things were generally cheaper...

how much was minimum wage the year snes came out?



edit - I'm asking you that, because I'm certain there's a higher ratio between the cost of PS3, and present minimal wage, than the ratio between minimum wage and cost of SNES [at launch].

edit - main point is that any system can win regardless of power if the price is right and the games are good. 2008, ps3 cheaper, and PS3 system selling games released. If the ps3 is still in this position this time next year, then I might be worried.

[The Mana Knight]

I don't remember... was it 299 ... came with two controllers and Super Mario World... but remember back then things were generally cheaper...

how much was minimum wage the year snes came out?It was $199.99 at launch. The Genesis with Sonic was cheaper though.
If Madden 08 would have been up to par on PS3, it could have sold some PS3s... Sony needs to get the system cheap, and push strongly for a Holiday sales boost and then in 08 big games need to come out to keep that Holiday boost going.
Killzone....
FFXIII,
MGS4,
Gran Turismo 5,
Motorstorm,
Tekken 6,
White Knight Story,
God of War 3,

If sony can get these games out during 2008 they'll sell systems just fine. Point is, Everyone who wants HALO is going to get HALO 3 and 360 from now until the end of the year. So now its Sony's turn to get its big guns out on the market..

Wii is releasing most of its big guns this year as well.. and most people wanted one probably got one by now, or will have one by the end of the year.

So point is... ,2008 should be Sony's year, because its the year that their second generation of games will be released, people will see some games that set it further apart from the 360, and by 2008 the system will be cheaper than the astronomical 600 dollar price tag. and on a side note... hopefully HDTVs sell well this holiday season - which most likely they will.
Sony needs some more HDTV / PS3 packin deals...What I said at PSU once was:

Okay, there's NO way Sony would want to release a game near Halo 3 (or anyone), because it could be the best thing in the world, but the Halo 3 hype will overtake it. Around November/December, people will be hyped for Super Mario Galaxy and SSB Brawl. There really isn't a game Sony can release that will make people forget Mario even exists. Once Halo 3 and two of Nintendo's biggest Wii guns are out of the way (they still have Wii Fit for next year), the next truly big thing to appear on another platform is GTA4 (DMC4 is big, but not as big as a Halo or Mario). Since GTA4 will launch simultaneously on PS3 (and most people associate GTA will PlayStation), and there's MGS4, LittleBigPlanet, GT5 Prologue (if we have to wait), Home, Dual Shock 3, and many other Sony first party games, the first half of 2008 should be huge. And if Sony can find a way to decrease the 80GB model to $400, and sell a 40GB model (if it comes) to $320 (I doubt it would get $100 cheaper), Sony could push serious PS3 sales (if they put together a marketing campaign).

As for next year, I don't see any 360 game (that MS publishes being any thread to Sony (unless Bungie can make Halo 4 quickly. Gears is popular, but no where near Halo level)) pushing 360 even more. On Wii, I do see Wii Fit and Mario Kart Wii being big, but that's it (unless a new Mario or Zelda is coming quickly). Personally, I think PS3 in 2008 will be exactly like PS1 in 1997 (the year PS1 finally exploded, with games like FFVII, Castlevania: SotN, PaRappa The Rapper, Ace Combat 2, etc.).

[snowsquirrel]

But even at 399, the only people who are going to jump on it, are those who were already willing to buy PS3, but didn't want to or couldn't spend 499/599. You have to go out and get customers...

I really disagree. PS3 is losing a lot of PS2 customers who want to go next gen, but find $550 offensive. Please, lets not debate value. Bottom line, is that gateway to ps3 gaming is $550 versus $399. The PS3 needs to get to $399 soon in order to stop losing ps2 customers. The more people that go 360, the more people they take with them.

People with multiple systems are the minority. Hell, I work in the games industry, and refuse to buy two machines that do the same thing (PS3/360, though I do have a wii as well as a ps3).

If the PS3 drops to $399 silently it will look like a desperation move. If they announce the $399 pricepoint with a massive advertising campaign, it will appear aggressive, not desperate, and will increase sales a ton. But if this price drop comes too late, it ill be ignored. It has to be done while a BD player is still expensive, and while BD is still outselling HD.

Also, another note on the massive amount MS is putting into marketing in north america: TSN, Canada's version of ESPN (in fact they might be owned by ESPN now), actually does reviews of of sports games on the 360, making it look like 360 is the only platform they are available for. They have MS advertising all over. The majority of my friends from University who have disposable incomes, and are not techical, and are very casual gamers (all ps2 last gen), would definitely be influenced by this, and maybe go 360 this round, especially when they see the price of entry. They definitely won't be buying two systems.

WRT Halo3, I really expect a huge boost in 360 sales, possibly even to christmas. As kids who see their buddy playing H3, will ask mom and dad for one. But I really expect 360 sales to flatten dramatically after christmas. If PS3 does not start gaining serious ground in the first half of 2008, they are in trouble.

~S

[The Mana Knight]

I really disagree. PS3 is losing a lot of PS2 customers who want to go next gen, but find $550 offensive. Please, lets not debate value. Bottom line, is that gateway to ps3 gaming is $550 versus $399. The PS3 needs to get to $399 soon in order to stop losing ps2 customers. The more people that go 360, the more people they take with them.

People with multiple systems are the minority. Hell, I work in the games industry, and refuse to buy two machines that do the same thing (PS3/360, though I do have a wii as well as a ps3).

If the PS3 drops to $399 silently it will look like a desperation move. If they announce the $399 pricepoint with a massive advertising campaign, it will appear aggressive, not desperate, and will increase sales a ton. But if this price drop comes too late, it ill be ignored. It has to be done while a BD player is still expensive, and while BD is still outselling HD.

Also, another note on the massive amount MS is putting into marketing in north america: TSN, Canada's version of ESPN (in fact they might be owned by ESPN now), actually does reviews of of sports games on the 360, making it look like 360 is the only platform they are available for. They have MS advertising all over. The majority of my friends from University who have disposable incomes, and are not techical, and are very casual gamers (all ps2 last gen), would definitely be influenced by this, and maybe go 360 this round, especially when they see the price of entry. They definitely won't be buying two systems.

WRT Halo3, I really expect a huge boost in 360 sales, possibly even to christmas. As kids who see their buddy playing H3, will ask mom and dad for one. But I really expect 360 sales to flatten dramatically after christmas. If PS3 does not start gaining serious ground in the first half of 2008, they are in trouble.

~SSony could release several AAA games this year, but even it wouldn't be able to compete against the Halo 3 hype, which is why it may be best to have them next year (which seems to be planned). There are still 120 million PS2 owners out there, and the number of 360 consoles out there is 10 times less than that. It's not like 360 sales will easily double between now and Christmas, so Sony still has time.

And some may seem to forget, at the $300 price tag, Sony sold just less than 30 million PS2 consoles worldwide (they also had no competition). The PS2 didn't start doing massive butt kicking until it hit the $200 mark. Other than the month of August, PS2 was outselling both PS3 and 360, which shows people just aren't upgrading to next gen yet.

Sony is already ahead of MS in Japan (by 3 times), so that makes me happy at least (meaning PS3 will get more Japanese games than 360).
Come on 399 60 gig.60GB will probably be gone by then.

[Thomas96]

I really disagree. PS3 is losing a lot of PS2 customers who want to go next gen, but find $550 offensive. Please, lets not debate value. Bottom line, is that gateway to ps3 gaming is $550 versus $399. The PS3 needs to get to $399 soon in order to stop losing ps2 customers. The more people that go 360, the more people they take with them.

People with multiple systems are the minority. Hell, I work in the games industry, and refuse to buy two machines that do the same thing (PS3/360, though I do have a wii as well as a ps3).

If the PS3 drops to $399 silently it will look like a desperation move. If they announce the $399 pricepoint with a massive advertising campaign, it will appear aggressive, not desperate, and will increase sales a ton. But if this price drop comes too late, it ill be ignored. It has to be done while a BD player is still expensive, and while BD is still outselling HD.

Also, another note on the massive amount MS is putting into marketing in north america: TSN, Canada's version of ESPN (in fact they might be owned by ESPN now), actually does reviews of of sports games on the 360, making it look like 360 is the only platform they are available for. They have MS advertising all over. The majority of my friends from University who have disposable incomes, and are not techical, and are very casual gamers (all ps2 last gen), would definitely be influenced by this, and maybe go 360 this round, especially when they see the price of entry. They definitely won't be buying two systems.

WRT Halo3, I really expect a huge boost in 360 sales, possibly even to christmas. As kids who see their buddy playing H3, will ask mom and dad for one. But I really expect 360 sales to flatten dramatically after christmas. If PS3 does not start gaining serious ground in the first half of 2008, they are in trouble.

~S


We definitely don't need to debate value, because at 599, even if there were 3 free games, people can't afford the package. Sounds to me that you feel 399 is a good price point for consumers and the PS3 can sell well off that price point. 399 is still expensive, to me.. 399/499 should have been the price at launch, and then whatever price drop occurs after 399/499 will imo be the price that sells the system to the masses. But the main thing is... marketing. The Wii is marketed better than the 360 and PS3. Wii commercials show people having fun with the system. PS3 shows some game, and then the system doing some magical stuff... show what the PS3 really can do... show a family watching a slide show, show a family watching blu ray, show 4 kids playing warhawk online.. make people say damn, I wish that was me having fun with the system.

[snowsquirrel]

Sony could release several AAA games this year, but even it wouldn't be able to compete against the Halo 3 hype

I would love to know what Halo 3's marketing budget was? $150 million? Sony should really spend the same marketing ratchet, killzone, and ff. But then again, maybe they are afraid to start a marketing war, as we know who has the deeper pockets.

~S

[The Mana Knight]

I would love to know what Halo 3's marketing budget was? $150 million? Sony should really spend the same marketing ratchet, killzone, and ff. But then again, maybe they are afraid to start a marketing war, as we know who has the deeper pockets.

~SEven if Sony did market those games, they still aren't as well known as Halo. I mean, go to college campuses, and all you hear students discuss is Halo multiplayer. It seems like students only play Halo. Sony could advertise Killzone 2 a lot and sell well, but regardless of how good it is (even if better than Halo 3), it would never have the same impact as Halo 3 (even if more advertising was spent on it). Halo is just huge, where I knew many 360 owners who bought a 360 at launch because they knew Halo 3 was eventually coming (playing Halo 2 on their 360 waiting for Halo 3).

I could say Ratchet & Clank over the years has had good advertising (even on PSP), but they aren't exactly a HUGE seller (well, more like a 1 million seller, but not much more). Platformers (unless its Mario) does not have the impact a FPS will have (especially Halo).

[CrimsonPaw]

IMO, the only game that could possible reach even close to the Halo hype is GTA IV, and since it's going to be available on both platforms Sony can't ride that waggon. Next up would possibly be MGS 4, but I don't think that game has as huge a following as Halo, probably because it's not as much a "pick up and play" game as Halo is.

The only other game, though unannounced, that could create this hype would be God of War III but Sony would need to pull out the stops to market the hype.

Yeah it sucks, but I can honestly say that I've had my PS3 for almost 3 months and only have picked up 3 games for it; I've picked up more PS2 games than PS3 games because there still isn't a game good enough to warrant the $60 price tag.

[Corvin]

200,000 per month... is that world wide or just in america.

The SNES was the most powerful console for sometime.. and it won

It was a theoretical number to get the point across.

I always thought the Genesis had the SNES beat in brute power, while the SNES had fancy tech like Mode 7 to get around it.

[robin2099]

I'd love to just settle for a 360, but with Ratchet & Clank, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Devil May Cry, Persona and more sticking with the PS3, it's hard to think about Microsoft for me.

I'm going to play the waiting game this generation, since my backlog is huge I can pick up the Greatest Hits version of all these new PS3 games in a couple of years. The box art is so ugly as it is(see-the PS3 logo), the GH labeling on PS3 won't phase me.

The 360 is America's system... Joe gamer loves it no matter how many times he has to replace it or send it in to be repaired. Don't worry if you bought the PS3 to play the aforementioned series. Devil May Cry is multi platform now and not a PS3 exclusive.

[The Mana Knight]

Devil May Cry is multi platform now and not a PS3 exclusive.Devil May Cry is MADE for PlayStation. ;)

[dmaul1114]

Will probably play identical on the 360, so who cares?

[looploop]

It was a theoretical number to get the point across.

I always thought the Genesis had the SNES beat in brute power, while the SNES had fancy tech like Mode 7 to get around it.
I'm pretty sure SNES was superior in near everything but clock speed. (as it should've been coming out a year or two later) Still, it seems a moot point since the Genesis had its share of beautiful games anyway. I never noticed a huge difference in power.

It seems incorrect to attribute the SNES victory to its graphical superiority as the Genesis was no slouch graphically. Since the Genesis was killed off by Sega before its time to promote the Sega Saturn, it wasn't hard for the SNES to outsell something that's stopped production/competing all together. Had Sega continued supporting the machine it's anybody's guess as to which would've won in the end. I don't think power had much to do with it though. It was more Sega shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly with poor business decisions.

on the topic at hand though, it's a pretty weird time to be a gamer. Several of my serious gamer friends that were ardent PS2 fans a few years ago have all jumped ship to 360. Now they try to tell me how Sony is 'doomed'. It's pretty annoying I have to say. These are the same people who berated me for choosing an Xbox before, and now they're 360 brown-nosers.:roll: very sad.

[Chacrana]

Why does this even matter?

[dmaul1114]

I'm pretty sure SNES was superior in near everything but clock speed. (as it should've been coming out a year or two later) Still, it seems a moot point since the Genesis had its share of beautiful games anyway. I never noticed a huge difference in power.

It seems incorrect to attribute the SNES victory to its graphical superiority as the Genesis was no slouch graphically. Since the Genesis was killed off by Sega before its time to promote the Sega Saturn, it wasn't hard for the SNES to outsell something that's stopped production/competing all together. Had Sega continued supporting the machine it's anybody's guess as to which would've won in the end. I don't think power had much to do with it though. It was more Sega shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly with poor business decisions.


The SNES won both because it had more great games over it's life time, and because sega made mistakes by putting out the 32x and the Sega CD. Those annoyed people much more than the saturn (which didn't kill the genesis early--pretty sure it was out for at least 5 years in the US before the saturn hit, just like the
SNES before the N64).



on the topic at hand though, it's a pretty weird time to be a gamer. Several of my serious gamer friends that were ardent PS2 fans a few years ago have all jumped ship to 360. Now they try to tell me how Sony is 'doomed'. It's pretty annoying I have to say. These are the same people who berated me for choosing an Xbox before, and now they're 360 brown-nosers.:roll: very sad.

Only sad part is that they berated you before--stupid fanboy behavior. Nothing sad about switching consoles. Gamers will go where the games are. Only fanboys stick with a console through and through regardless of whether the competion is offering something better.

[looploop]

The SNES won both because it had more great games over it's life time, and because sega made mistakes by putting out the 32x and the Sega CD. Those annoyed people much more than the saturn (which didn't kill the genesis early--pretty sure it was out for at least 5 years in the US before the saturn hit, just like the
SNES before the N64).
It was indeed out 5 years, but once the Saturn came then development support shifted from Genesis to Saturn. But did it have to be so? The Genesis was still popular and going toe-to-toe with the SNES. If Sega had kept to its 16-bit guns rather than forcing new platforms then I think the Genesis could've lasted longer than it did.

In any case, everything that you've stated are circumstances that led to the Genesis' loss. That's what I've been saying as well: that it was circumstances and poor decisions that led to its downfall. Not graphical capability. And so Thomas' SNES to PS3 comparison is not applicable.



Only sad part is that they berated you before--stupid fanboy behavior. Nothing sad about switching consoles. Gamers will go where the games are. Only fanboys stick with a console through and through regardless of whether the competion is offering something better.
It's sad that they continue the mindless "this console rocks, this console sucks" behavior. I think there's also a sad irony in that the objects of their veneration and disdain have performed a 180 yet they maintain the same senseless attitudes.

[dmaul1114]

It was indeed out 5 years, but once the Saturn came then development support shifted from Genesis to Saturn. But did it have to be so? The Genesis was still popular and going toe-to-toe with the SNES. If Sega had kept to its 16-bit guns rather than forcing new platforms then I think the Genesis could've lasted longer than it did.


So was the SNES. Launched in 1991, N64 in 1996, was still going pretty strong at the time. 5 years is just the standard for game consoles, with some deviations like the PS2 lasting 6 years (and still being supported even now) or the X-box only getting 4 years.

I don't think that had anything to do with Sega's demise. Manly just the 32x and Sega CD being terrble ideas, and the Saturn being rushed out and woefully underpowered and undersupported compared to the PS1 and N64.


It's sad that they continue the mindless "this console rocks, this console sucks" behavior. I think there's also a sad irony in that the objects of their veneration and disdain have performed a 180 yet they maintain the same senseless attitudes.

Yep, fanboys of every shape and color flat out suck. I just go where the games are. PS2 was my fave last gen, but I see very little chance of buying a PS3 this year due to price and the lack of exclusives that get me excited. But I never went around touting the PS2's superiority last gen as I owned and enjoyed all three consoles, and I don't go around bashing the PS3 this gen. I'm annoyed at the price and lack of games, but MS and Nintendo are putting out more than enough good games, so no skin off my nose. And some people love the PS3, and that's great.

[Vanigan]

You guys are assuming everything stays the same from this point forward. Sony has plenty of things in the works.

Despite what you may think, there's plenty of new games and features in development for release on 2008, on top of the good sized library coming toward the end of this year.

Keep in mind, FF13 will sell a lot of PS3. A distributor has basically confirmed the $400 model so that'll boost sales. Killzone 2 affirm's Sony's reentry into the FPS genre, which the PS2 neglected slightly due to hardware limits, so that'll get some of the FPS crowd in.

But forget sales numbers guys, the real question is the games. The PS3 does have less games right now than the 360, it's foolish to argue that. But it's also been on market for half the time. Don't let these notions of killer apps affect you too much. If you see a PS3 exclusive that interests you, and you notice a lot of other PS3 games that you also want to play, go ahead and buy a PS3. If you don't see anything now, don't be so immature as to disregard the system completely in the future, as above, just wait until you see something you want factoring in all the other games you want to try, and make an informed decision.

[dmaul1114]

It could well change, but I doubt it will get in the $299.99 range (max I'd ever pay for a console) soon enough into this generation to every warrant a purchase for me.

The big issue for me, is I don't really like a lot of the big exclusives. Not a fan of MGS, Killzone, Kingdom Hearts. Used to be into final fantasy, but really just don't have time for 40-50 hour games anymore. God of War was just so-so for me.

Ratchet and Clank are great games, and Sly Cooper is solid as well, but platformers are dime a dozen so that genre is never a system seller for me.

The PS2 mainly won me over just in terms of having the most variety and the best third party support, as opposed to first party exclusives. With the PS3 lagging in sales, it's just not likely to pan out that way this time.

And definitely hard to imagine it offering more variety than owning a Wii and 360 which one can buy for $50 more than the current PS3 price (or less if one goes with the core.

Loved the PS2 last gen. But Sony really screwed up by forcing in blu ray and pricing the console way out of the budgets of so many gamers like myself.

[CrimsonPaw]

Keep in mind, FF13 will sell a lot of PS3. A distributor has basically confirmed the $400 model so that'll boost sales. Killzone 2 affirm's Sony's reentry into the FPS genre ...
I disagree about FF13, IMO there hasn't been a FF game worthy of a system purchase since VII and I highly doubt that FFX made a ton of people run out and buy a PS2. There's a LOT of other options out there when it comes to RPGs and unless XIII can bring something amazingly new I doubt it will be a system seller.

Price, now THAT will be something to move the system. I believe that a $400 price point will see quite a few systems sold. Granted there still isn't near the library that we see on the 360, but the PS3 is at a point where better games will start to show their face.

I'm on the fence about Killzone; yeah it looks good, but what does it bring to the genre that hasn't been done before? I mean, Resistance is a good game, but at least that brought some interesting weapons to the mix and wasn't really enough to push the system (though the price drop could change that).

All I know is that in the gaming industry, the quality and price of titles makes a HUGE difference (hence why the PS2 has sold so effectively) and the 360 has many quality, good looking titles for a better price .... this is what happens when you let the competition get a 1 year lead.

[Thomas96]

It was a theoretical number to get the point across.

I always thought the Genesis had the SNES beat in brute power, while the SNES had fancy tech like Mode 7 to get around it.


I don't know which one was more powerful[officially].. but I was sold when they released Mortal Kombat on SNES and Genesis, the SNES version looked much better.. even though it didn't have any blood. after that game I always thought the SNES was more powerful. lol it's just so funny, I remember having SNES vs Genesis debates with my cousin.

[looploop]

So was the SNES. Launched in 1991, N64 in 1996, was still going pretty strong at the time. 5 years is just the standard for game consoles, with some deviations like the PS2 lasting 6 years (and still being supported even now) or the X-box only getting 4 years.

I don't think that had anything to do with Sega's demise. Manly just the 32x and Sega CD being terrble ideas, and the Saturn being rushed out and woefully underpowered and undersupported compared to the PS1 and N64.


I put this under poor decision making. Phasing out the Genesis while interest in 16-bit gaming was still dependable wasn't necessary, and likely served to disgruntle Sega fans even further since their only options were the soon aborted 32X/CD and the overpriced Saturn. A strong Genesis backing up the floundering Saturn could only have been a good thing. But hindsight is 20/20 I suppose.


Yep, fanboys of every shape and color flat out suck. I just go where the games are. PS2 was my fave last gen, but I see very little chance of buying a PS3 this year due to price and the lack of exclusives that get me excited. But I never went around touting the PS2's superiority last gen as I owned and enjoyed all three consoles, and I don't go around bashing the PS3 this gen. I'm annoyed at the price and lack of games, but MS and Nintendo are putting out more than enough good games, so no skin off my nose. And some people love the PS3, and that's great.

I'm looking forward to when I can get a PS3. The only thing that bothers me about it is the that the so many of the big name exclusives have 4s, 5s and 13s in their titles. I still haven't seen a unique exclusive game that makes me think 'must buy' yet. Last time, oddly enough, it was GUNVALKYRIE.

[dmaul1114]

I put this under poor decision making. Phasing out the Genesis while interest in 16-bit gaming was still dependable wasn't necessary, and likely served to disgruntle Sega fans even further since their only options were the soon aborted 32X/CD and the overpriced Saturn. A strong Genesis backing up the floundering Saturn could only have been a good thing. But hindsight is 20/20 I suppose.


I still don't see that though, as every new console in history comes out when it's predecessor was still selling a lot of games, and it hasn't killed most of them.

Sega just split their market too much with the add ons, and their exclusives just never reached quite the same level of mainstream popularity as Nintendo's SNES exclusives like Mario, Zelda, Street Fighter II (which was exclusive for a long time), Final Fantasy II and III, Donkey Kong Country, Mario Kart and on down the line. Seemed like mario fans always outnumbered the Sonic fans when I was growing up.


I'm looking forward to when I can get a PS3. The only thing that bothers me about it is the that the so many of the big name exclusives have 4s, 5s and 13s in their titles. I still haven't seen a unique exclusive game that makes me think 'must buy' yet. Last time, oddly enough, it was GUNVALKYRIE.

That's definitely true. Also very ture fo rthe Wii. I've bought three games thus far--Zelda, Metroid and Super Paper Mario--all sequels, and only plan on buying Mario Galaxy and Smash Bros the rest of 2007--again both sequels.

MS seems to be the only one getting good new series, what with Bioshock, Mass Effect, The Darkness etc. Not necessarily very orriginal games, but at least new franchises.

[snowsquirrel]

but platformers are dime a dozen

I had a xbox 180 last gen. I never did find a great platformer for it, and believe me I looked. I was always reading hoping for a good one for my son and I to enjoy. Blinx was as close as it came, and I would rate blinx a 6.5 or 7.

I really feel the whole SNES/Genesis debate has little relevance here. The internet changes everything. There is also way more mainstream media coverage of video gaming now.

JRPG's really only help Japan, and we know PS3 was going to do fine there anyway.

Making the PS3 a more reasonable price in AUS, and Europe would also help. Those guys are getting friggin hosed.

Several of my serious gamer friends that were ardent PS2 fans a few years ago have all jumped ship to 360. Now they try to tell me how Sony is 'doomed'. It's pretty annoying I have to say. These are the same people who berated me for choosing an Xbox before, and now they're 360 brown-nosers. very sad.

This is my situation too... but I am half starting to believe them.

The thing is, the power of the systems is almost equal this time around. (Last time around the Xbox was quite a bit more powerful.) So they have to be priced equally. Yeah, I know about BD, PSN, wireless, memory card reader, etc. But most people only care about cost of entry. BD is just not desirable enough for people to pay an extra $150 for. The desire to go from VHS to DVD was much more pronounced than peoples desire to go from DVD to BD. Therefore they aren't willing to spend an extra 33% for that feature. (the few who did think BD was worth $150 already have one).

I don't think $399 will get the masses buying it, but I do think $399 will get it to start selling as good as the 360.

~S

[Corvin]

You guys are assuming everything stays the same from this point forward. Sony has plenty of things in the works.

Despite what you may think, there's plenty of new games and features in development for release on 2008, on top of the good sized library coming toward the end of this year.

Keep in mind, FF13 will sell a lot of PS3. A distributor has basically confirmed the $400 model so that'll boost sales. Killzone 2 affirm's Sony's reentry into the FPS genre, which the PS2 neglected slightly due to hardware limits, so that'll get some of the FPS crowd in.

As does MS. It's not like any are standing still. Sony will put more features into their system that 360 owners had a year ago and MS will add new stuff that PS3 owners will see a year from then. ;) It's cyclical.

Everyone wants to play softball with Sony. Not me. They INTENDED to launch alongside the 360. So theoretically they had an extra year to perfect things and get features up and running. They squandered that year and instead put out games the caliber of the 360 lineup a year prior. Not to mention rushed out a motion controller with sloppy support. And where is Sony's Gears of War? That was one year in on the 360. We're at the doorstep of the PS3 birthday and nothing in sight other than MGS and the heavily shrouded FFXIII game which won't see the light of day for another 6-9 months or longer.

And what's with putting Killzone 2 on a pedestal? More like Killzone who? Did anyone ask for this sequel? That's up there with thinking a FFVII remake will be a savior to their platform.

[dmaul1114]

I had a xbox 180 last gen. I never did find a great platformer for it, and believe me I looked. I was always reading hoping for a good one for my son and I to enjoy. Blinx was as close as it came, and I would rate blinx a 6.5 or 7.


True. The X-box just had a pretty crappy game lineup in general, at least for my tastes.

I always have a Nintendo console, so that's why platformers are so prevalent for me. The DS and Wii will have enough that I can do without Ratchet or Sly Cooper.

[dmaul1114]

Everyone wants to play softball with Sony. Not me. They INTENDED to launch alongside the 360. So theoretically they had an extra year to perfect things and get features up and running. They squandered that year and instead put out games the caliber of the 360 lineup a year prior. Not to mention rushed out a motion controller with sloppy support. And where is Sony's Gears of War? That was one year in on the 360. We're at the doorstep of the PS3 birthday and nothing in sight other than MGS and the heavily shrouded FFXIII game which won't see the light of day for another 6-9 months or longer.


Exactly. I said repeatedly leading up to the PS3 launch/price announcment that Sony had the market in their hands and would have to do a collossal fuck up on par with Nintendo ditching Sony and going with carts for the N64.

They did just that with the ridiculous launch price, and the lackluster launch/first year game library.

All they had to do was launch at the same price as MS with at least one true killer app and they'd have stayed on top.

[furyk]

A true FFVII remake would give Sony a Halo like bump, but other then that you're right Corvin. The closest thing that Sony has to a Mario or a Halo at the moment is probably Gran Turismo and while we are getting that this year it's not the game that'll get gearheads to buy the system.

Sony is basically stuck between a rock and a hard place. MGS 4 was supposed to be Sony's big game this holiday season coupled with GTA 4, but neither of those happened. That leaves Sony with a few games that are great, but that aren't triple A. Uncharted could be the best game released all year, but it doesn't have the type of presence that Gears of War had and Ratchet and Clank while always great isn't the $500 game that Sony needs right now.

As it stands right now Sony can't compete with either the Wii or the 360 this holiday season when it comes to AAA name recognition titles which is what moves systems. Next year is a much different story, but short of taking a massive loss on each system by issuing a real price cut or something like Uncharted or Folklore hitting it off with the mainstream in an almost impossible way, Sony has already lost this holiday season.

[looploop]

I still don't see that though, as every new console in history comes out when it's predecessor was still selling a lot of games, and it hasn't killed most of them.

Sega just split their market too much with the add ons, and their exclusives just never reached quite the same level of mainstream popularity as Nintendo's SNES exclusives like Mario, Zelda, Street Fighter II (which was exclusive for a long time), Final Fantasy II and III, Donkey Kong Country, Mario Kart and on down the line. Seemed like mario fans always outnumbered the Sonic fans when I was growing up.

I haven't been pointing to the Genesis as the cause of Sega's demise though. I've simply been saying that they could have feasibly supported it longer, and that they would've been in a better position if they had.
Clearly it was the triple combo of poorly planned and managed 32X/CD/Saturn that put the nails in their coffin. However, it seems sensical to me that having at least 1 popular system in the US would be better for their bottomline than having none, which was their situation at the time.


That's definitely true. Also very ture fo rthe Wii. I've bought three games thus far--Zelda, Metroid and Super Paper Mario--all sequels, and only plan on buying Mario Galaxy and Smash Bros the rest of 2007--again both sequels.

MS seems to be the only one getting good new series, what with Bioshock, Mass Effect, The Darkness etc. Not necessarily very orriginal games, but at least new franchises.
It's odd that the Wii is so bereft of new franchises. It has the lowest development costs of all and so much potential, yet Nintendo themselves still haven't stepped outside their safe franchise box.

I had a xbox 180 last gen. I never did find a great platformer for it, and believe me I looked. I was always reading hoping for a good one for my son and I to enjoy. Blinx was as close as it came, and I would rate blinx a 6.5 or 7.
Not a psychonauts fan eh? Pity.

[dmaul1114]

I haven't been pointing to the Genesis as the cause of Sega's demise though. I've simply been saying that they could have feasibly supported it longer, and that they would've been in a better position if they had.
Clearly it was the triple combo of poorly planned and managed 32X/CD/Saturn that put the nails in their coffin. However, it seems sensical to me that having at least 1 popular system in the US would be better for their bottomline than having none, which was their situation at the time.


I get your point. I just disagree as every console has been abandoned for a new one after about 5 years, even though it was still selling strong, and only Sega has died. So I just don't see any causation there.

They just went poorly about putting out a successor. They already had ill will from the genesis add ons, and then the saturn was a complete piece of overpriced crap compared to the PS1 and N64.

Time wasn't the factor. People would have soon abandoned the genesis for the fancy 3D graphics on the PS1 and N64 anyway. The stupid add ons, and the worthless saturn hardware were the problem.

[dmaul1114]

....isn't the $500 game that Sony needs right now.


The other question this begs, is "is there such a thing as a $500 game."

Really $550 since the 20GB are gone, and really $600 as the 60GB will be gone soon.

For me their defiintely isn't . I don't think I'd pay near that for a console if it had the best game lineup in history. And I damn sure wouldn't shell out $500 mainly for one game.

They've priced the PS3 far away from being that kind of impulse buy.

[looploop]

I get your point. I just disagree as every console has been abandoned for a new one after about 5 years, even though it was still selling strong, and only Sega has died. So I just don't see any causation there.


There's something to disagree over? We're both saying sega died because of poorly handled succession. I'm just wistfully speculating on how they could've made things slightly less of a fiasco.:lol:


They just went poorly about putting out a successor. They already had ill will from the genesis add ons, and then the saturn was a complete piece of overpriced crap compared to the PS1 and N64.



Overpriced? That's for sure. Crap? Nah. I got my Saturn for a great price a few years back and I've enjoyed it as much as I did my PS, and much more than I ever did the N64.

[integralsmatic]

Why does this even matter?

i don t know. The board has seen this debate a gagillion times and no one budges.

Its simple....peoples wallets are light and PS3 too expensive. with cheaper alternatives..people will buy that instead. 250 for a wii which is only gaming is the cheapest next gen you could get. wait till people get better jobs and the ps3 will be attainable. Its only a want but if a person can get the same want cheaper..than they will go cheaper. its that plain simple...This is from a buisness aspect..not a gaming one because that topic has been beaten like a dead horse.

[furyk]

The other question this begs, is "is there such a thing as a $500 game."

Really $550 since the 20GB are gone, and really $600 as the 60GB will be gone soon.

For me their defiintely isn't . I don't think I'd pay near that for a console if it had the best game lineup in history. And I damn sure wouldn't shell out $500 mainly for one game.

They've priced the PS3 far away from being that kind of impulse buy.

There are several name your price games for a decent number of people. Kingdom Hearts, GTA, GT, Madden, Halo, and FFVII are all games that I think would sell a system of $600 on their own. Sadly for Sony, GT 5 is the only game that is guaranteed to remain a PS3 exclusive and exists.

[dallow]

Holy crap, this is such a stupid thread.
It's the same shit as like 3 other threads going on.

[dmaul1114]

There are several name your price games for a decent number of people. Kingdom Hearts, GTA, GT, Madden, Halo, and FFVII are all games that I think would sell a system of $600 on their own. Sadly for Sony, GT 5 is the only game that is guaranteed to remain a PS3 exclusive and exists.

I guess.

There's never been a name your price game for me. A system has to have at least a solid handful of games that I want to play to get me to jump on board.

One particular game might just be the final straw to push me over the edge (like Knights of the Old Republic on the X-box), but never enough to get me to buy a console just for it.

But, again, no amount of games will sell me at $600 console. $300-350 is the highest I could see going any time soon. And that's pushing it a bit.

[dmaul1114]

Holy crap, this is such a stupid thread.
It's the same shit as like 3 other threads going on.

Then don't read it, much less take time to post in it.

New to some of us, like myself, as I don't venture into the PS3 forum often.

[VidgamesgivemeA_D_D]

Metal Gear Solid 4 is almost a name your price game for me. It's practically the only PS3 game in the future I want and it also happens to be my most anticipated game on any system. I may buy a PS3 for that game alone and I think others may too.

[torifile]

Sony's screwed this gen.

For me, money is not an object (within reason). I had a PS3. I wanted to play some fun games. I waited and waited. I played some Resistance but it didn't compare to Gears of War. I played Oblivion, but there was a 360 version.

It's going to be too late for Sony to catch up. The 360 library is just insurmountable at this point. Even all the AAA titles exclusive to the PS3 won't do it. We're talking, what, 5 AAA exclusives in the foreseeable future? R&C, MGS, FF. I can't think of any more. Is DMC an exclusive? Ok, we can throw Killzone in there, though I don't believe that to be of the AAA, system-seller variety.

By the time the PS3 starts to get some traction, the next Xbox will be out and the PS3 will be old hat. Sony's lost this one.

Sony needs to fire their management and start over. They're a company with a great heritage, so long term, they're not going anywhere. But this battle's over.

[Thomas96]

HALO 3 has 16 players matches... Resistance, Warhawk, has 32. and I think Killzone has 32 as well. I think that if Sony gets their online together [where its easy to communicate with friends and get friends to join online.. then MS is screwed. 16 players vs 32.. that's a big damn difference... and I don't see anyone else pointing that discrepancy out. IGN says in their review of Resistance that its a 12-15 hour campaign. and 32 player max online matches vs. HALO 3's 9 hour, and 16 player online max matches. if you hide the names of the game it would sound like we're talking about two games from two different generations. lol yet Sony's screwed... okay.. let me know when it happens..

[VipFREAK]

Around the time of the Lepzig conference I thought Sony had the upper hand and it's future looked bright. Shortly after and now with Halo3 out that upper hand has evaporated really badly to the point where I even had thoughts of selling my PS3.

[torifile]

HALO 3 has 16 players matches... Resistance, Warhawk, has 32. and I think Killzone has 32 as well. I think that if Sony gets their online together [where its easy to communicate with friends and get friends to join online.. then MS is screwed. 16 players vs 32.. that's a big damn difference... and I don't see anyone else pointing that discrepancy out. IGN says in their review of Resistance that its a 12-15 hour campaign. and 32 player max online matches vs. HALO 3's 9 hour, and 16 player online max matches. if you hide the names of the game it would sound like we're talking about two games from two different generations. lol yet Sony's screwed... okay.. let me know when it happens..
I bought Calling All Cars. It was supposed to be a great online title for Sony.

The same week it was released, I had trouble finding a game because there 27 people on. Total. In the whole wide world.

In all my time playing Resistance online, I never found a match with more than 20 people. They could support 100 people per match for all I care. If there's no one playing, what's the point?

[dmaul1114]

HALO 3 has 16 players matches... Resistance, Warhawk, has 32. and I think Killzone has 32 as well. I think that if Sony gets their online together [where its easy to communicate with friends and get friends to join online.. then MS is screwed. 16 players vs 32.. that's a big damn difference... and I don't see anyone else pointing that discrepancy out. IGN says in their review of Resistance that its a 12-15 hour campaign. and 32 player max online matches vs. HALO 3's 9 hour, and 16 player online max matches. if you hide the names of the game it would sound like we're talking about two games from two different generations. lol yet Sony's screwed... okay.. let me know when it happens..


But the point is Halo 3 will sell like hot cakes. and sell a lot of 360s, and be super active online. Much more so than Resistance sold PS3s or build up a huge onlienh community.

Stuff like game length and numbers of players online doesn't always matter much in sales. Gears was short and was 4 on 4 online, and it sold more than Resistance and was a lot more fun to play IMO.

Even if sony is advancing things with more players supported etc., it doesn't mean it will have any impact on overcoming the slow sales caused by the abusrd price tag and lack of system seller titles.

[Thomas96]

I bought Calling All Cars. It was supposed to be a great online title for Sony.

The same week it was released, I had trouble finding a game because there 27 people on. Total. In the whole wide world.

In all my time playing Resistance online, I never found a match with more than 20 people. They could support 100 people per match for all I care. If there's no one playing, what's the point?


there's people playing Resistance all the time... so that point is garbage, and there's games with 16 vs 16... I've been in them. so that point is garbage. 16 vs 16 works well with Warhawk and Resistance..

checking to see how many people playing resistance... NOW... Downloading update.. well there are peopline online playing resistance now.. ranked and unranked. oh some of the rooms go up to 40 players online.. so there is "someone(s)" playing resistance... if you like I can send you an invite.

[Thomas96]

once again.. I'm digressing... just pointing out.. if you strip away the names of these games.. these Sony titles are not only are up to par with the competition, in some ways they surpass them. 40 players online vs 16 max on competiting system.. is that a hardware issue.

[seanr1221]

I have 3 favorite types of threads at CAG

1.) No wai! Duh PStripple has no games!

2.) Pwned! My three6tee broke!

3.) Wii iz da fadZ

[dmaul1114]

once again.. I'm digressing... just pointing out.. if you strip away the names of these games.. these Sony titles are not only are up to par with the competition, in some ways they surpass them. 40 players online vs 16 max on competiting system.. is that a hardware issue.

But this is a thread mainly about sales, and the names are what matter there.

Obviously 40 player online isn't a big enough selling point to overcome the $500-600 entry fee, at least not on it's own.

I'm not a fan of it anyway, gets too chaotic. I kind of like the more methodical matches you get with 4 on 4 in Gears.

[dmaul1114]

Well, this is timely.

Rumors of a 40GB PS3 coming soon for $399.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3163191

Would be a step in the right direction. Though my personal hope would be that if it comes out it leads to MS cuttign the Premium 360 to $299 as that's what I'm waiting for at the moment.

Though a PS3 wold be tempting at $399 for the blu ray player....but not so much with discs being so high. I like my $5-10 dvds, look great upconverted on my TV.

[Thomas96]

But this is a thread mainly about sales, and the names are what matter there.

Obviously 40 player online isn't a big enough selling point to overcome the $500-600 entry fee, at least not on it's own.

I'm not a fan of it anyway, gets too chaotic. I kind of like the more methodical matches you get with 4 on 4 in Gears.


the threat is about "getting worried" and if you got some products on the PS3 side that are have some advances over 360 something that set the PS3 games apart. To get sales, the first thing that I said was that the PS3 needs to be cheaper and some games that set it apart from the 360. The fact that a PS3 launch title can support 40 players online, vs a 360 second generation game that can only support 16 players max online, imo is a sign that perhaps the PS3 is more powerful than the 360. The least you can do is acknowledge the fact that Resistance and Warhawk both have this advantage over HALO 3. Plus if there's a discrepancy with the online feature, is it not likely that such a discrepancy could be expressed graphically as well. And if that happens then MS is fucked!

[dmaul1114]

Plus if there's a discrepancy with the online feature, is it not likely that such a discrepancy could be expressed graphically as well. And if that happens then MS is fucked!

Fair point. But I wouldn't say that would guarantee that MS is fucked.

They may be too far ahead by the time that happens, and the 360 will always be cheaper, as you can be sure MS will counter any PS3 price drops.

Also you're putting a lot of stock in graphics selling consoles. If graphics were that big of a factor, why does the Wii have the world wide sales lead and why is the DS kicking the piss out of the PSP in worldwide sales?

Now, advantages like that like that would help the PS3 to some extent for sure, but it's hard to see Sony doing anything to "fuck" MS this gen. They've just played all their cards wrong thus far.

The only reason Sony isn't totally fucked is both MS and Nintendo haven't been stellar either. MS has the failure rate and only cutting the price $20-50 on their skus nearly 2 years after launch. And Nintendo has few games (IMO), no HD, crappy online etc.

[Blackout]

Sony's screwed this gen.

For me, money is not an object (within reason). I had a PS3. I wanted to play some fun games. I waited and waited. I played some Resistance but it didn't compare to Gears of War. I played Oblivion, but there was a 360 version.

It's going to be too late for Sony to catch up. The 360 library is just insurmountable at this point. Even all the AAA titles exclusive to the PS3 won't do it. We're talking, what, 5 AAA exclusives in the foreseeable future? R&C, MGS, FF. I can't think of any more. Is DMC an exclusive? Ok, we can throw Killzone in there, though I don't believe that to be of the AAA, system-seller variety.

By the time the PS3 starts to get some traction, the next Xbox will be out and the PS3 will be old hat. Sony's lost this one.

Sony needs to fire their management and start over. They're a company with a great heritage, so long term, they're not going anywhere. But this battle's over.

:roll:

[docvinh]

You can say what you want about Halo, but the point is it sells systems. Resistance, which I have heard is a fine game and I will definitely play it when the ps3 price comes down a bit, did not sell systems. Just because you can have more players and a longer single player does not make it a better game. I mean, if we're going by length of game, Dragon Warrior 7 would be a much superior game to Final Fantasy (insert number here), now wouldn't it? Is Sony screwed? No. Is this the way they wanted it to turn out? Surely not. Sony seriously underestimated how well both the Wii and the 360 would do, just like nintendo seriously underestimated Sony when they first came out with the playstation. This stuff happens all the time.
HALO 3 has 16 players matches... Resistance, Warhawk, has 32. and I think Killzone has 32 as well. I think that if Sony gets their online together [where its easy to communicate with friends and get friends to join online.. then MS is screwed. 16 players vs 32.. that's a big damn difference... and I don't see anyone else pointing that discrepancy out. IGN says in their review of Resistance that its a 12-15 hour campaign. and 32 player max online matches vs. HALO 3's 9 hour, and 16 player online max matches. if you hide the names of the game it would sound like we're talking about two games from two different generations. lol yet Sony's screwed... okay.. let me know when it happens..

[Apossum]

Holy crap, this is such a stupid thread.
It's the same shit as like 3 other threads going on.



thread pwned by new evil Dallow :lol:

[dallow]

thread pwned by new evil Dallow :lol:I'm on a rampage! Grrr

/butters

[Vanigan]

Ugh, I can't believe I even posted in here earlier. Yep, stupid thread.

I'm trying to promote seeing things equally, MS got the lead early no doubt they're not resting on their laurals, but neither is Sony.

Instead of arguing over who is better, who is worse, we should be celibrating as gamers, non-aligned gamers who will be getting a plethora of high quality games come 2008 as the console wars heat up.

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

Honestly, people tout 'online, online, online' in almost every pro-Sony argument, yet what about those of us who don't give a shit to be social and play online against other people? Games like Warhawk and Calling All Cars hold NO interest to me and the sequels coming out of popular games from LAST gen are just that, more of the same crap I've seen xyz times before.

Let devs and pubs come out with something unique, something ORIGINAL, then we can talk.

[dallow]

Honestly, people tout 'online, online, online' in almost every pro-Sony argument, yet what about those of us who don't give a shit to be social and play online against other people? Games like Warhawk and Calling All Cars hold NO interest to me and the sequels coming out of popular games from LAST gen are just that, more of the same crap I've seen xyz times before.

Let devs and pubs come out with something unique, something ORIGINAL, then we can talk.Funny cause a game like Calling All Cars has a very original and quirky feel to it. Not that you'd know or anything.

Not to mention how pretty much everyone on these boards is in love with XBL and the grand social aspect it's bringing.

Keep on buying penny guides though.
Rock on!

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

Funny cause a game like Calling All Cars has a very original and quirky feel to it. Not that you'd know or anything.

Not to mention how pretty much everyone on these boards is in love with XBL and the grand social aspect it's bringing.

Keep on buying penny guides though.
Rock on!

LOL I guess I'm the only anti social person on these boards then, huh? I honestly couldn't care less if I ever play online against others, since I enjoy the face to face comraderie and gloating of owning my friends in person. Plus, none of my friends are even connected to ANY form of the internet, so I'd be SOL as far as connecting at their places and I don't have the room here, so again, I'm SOL.

I guess I'll always be an offline single/multiplayer type of game player and the day most/all games hit online only status, is the day I guess I start continuously playing my backlog and older games.

[dallow]

Are you anti 360 as well?
I'm curious.

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

Actually, I am anti ANY system thus far this gen, since the Wii has nothing I'll play, even Zelda, since it was never my kind of game before. The 360 has the hardware failures which are rampant and the PS3 has extra crap I don't want or need, which could drop the price to something more reasonable if they gutted all the garbage out of the system.

I still don't see why both the Wii and PS3 supposedly have browsers for the internet this gen, since I have my PC for my net surfing if I need or want to be on the net. If Sony dumped all the stuff I may never use(card readers, WiFi,Blu-Ray movie playback) and kept the Emotion Engine and the GPU for better BC, I might consider it.

Of course, it'd have to be MUCH cheaper at that point, possibly as low as $300-400, before I'd even consider it. And the extra peripherals would have to be the same price as last gen, since I don't find anything particularly innovative about motion sensing or even rumble to actually justify the $20 spike in price.

Maybe I'm too much of a cheapass, but isn't that what this site is really about?

I really can't see how many are willing to be forcefed the new systems with such steep price increases from 2 of the 3 developers, without alot saying 'we won't pay'.

So, to sum up, I'm against ALL of the current gen systems, since I don't think any of them have anything right now or will have anything in the near future that makes them worthy of a purchase to me.

[dallow]

So you're kinda like a twisted version of Dr. Mario Kart.
Or not as twisted.

[Blitz]

Honestly, people tout 'online, online, online' in almost every pro-Sony argument, yet what about those of us who don't give a shit to be social and play online against other people? Games like Warhawk and Calling All Cars hold NO interest to me and the sequels coming out of popular games from LAST gen are just that, more of the same crap I've seen xyz times before.

Let devs and pubs come out with something unique, something ORIGINAL, then we can talk.


Thank you. The only games I ever played online religiously were Diablo and Diablo 2. The only reason I played both D games so long was the fact that a BIG group of people I know played as well. Otherwise It would have been single player for me.

XBL is full of a bunch of 13 year old fucking morons. I see my friends play on it and all I can do is laugh.

I would have no problem getting a 360 if they brought out different games instead of the same shit they try to shovel off as new. At least with Sony I know I will be getting some RPG action going.

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

First of all, I don't keep track of other posters on here and I'm my own person.

I bought a PS2 at full price last gen and that was the ONLY damned time I'd ever done that. And, I had what I thought were video problems with the SYSTEM, but it turned out to be my TV. So, I gave Sony and their PS2 alot of grief for being a 'piece of shit', when it fact it was all of the plugging and unplugging of the system that caused my problems.

But still, I'm a more 'wait and see' kind of person, since right now there is NOTHING I really want to play and want to spend the money on a WII, 360 OR PS3 for. Maybe if the PS3 suddenly halved in price, I might CONSIDER it, but then again, I waited till used PS2s were $100 to buy another one after my supposed 'video problem' ones. So, if that gives you any idea how LONG I'm willing to wait to play any games from this gen, then SO BE IT.

I'm definitely NOT interested in the next: Metal Gear Solid, Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, GTA, etc,etc,etc,etc. All that these big sequels show me is that devs know how to milk their prized series to death by remaking and sequelling them into the ground. I also never liked the Final Fantasy series, so that is most certainly NOT a 'system seller' to me. And while I MAY eventually get a 360 or PS3, I doubt I'd pick up Halo either, since I think it's severely overrated.

I admit, I bought a PS2 last gen blindly after I saw GTA III on the shelves, as well as the update to Spy Hunter, which I still think is a great series that needs another GOOD incarnation. I'd played the GTA games on PC and on PS1, so I was curious as to how it translated into 3-D. I thought many of the characters were blocky messes after playing it for a while, but I WAS intrigued by it.

I loved Vice City and San Andreas, though Vice City more since I was a kid in the 80's and the whole atmosphere and all of the pop culture references got me going 'no shit, they put that in here too'.

And while I thought God Of War was a great 2 part series, I find myself disappointed that it is being done ONLY for PS3. That does mean that I have to wait innumerable years before I can play what is supposed to be the end of the story supposedly. To me $500 is NOT a splurge purchase, nor is $300-400 and the same with $250.

Now, if game systems were something I truly NEEDED and used more than 10-20% of the time, I might consider a next gen system. But, for now, I'm content to sit on the sidelines and hope both new dvd formats fail horribly, so I can keep buying my super cheap DVDs and not have 'high def' garbage thrown in my face at every turn, with people thinking 'I should buy it because it's zomg great'. And yes, this would leave Sony in the lurch, since I feel they only put Blu-Ray in the PS3 for THEIR benefit, though videophiles also love it. I do not happen to be one of them, however.

I commend everyone who has bought into this gen, but quite frankly, there must be alot more people out there with disposable income than I thought who don't have real bills to pay and can just go 'ill take the $500 game system and uhhh those 3 games there' and not flinch even a bit.

But, I digress....since I'm looking at this from afar, as a neutral party and going 'wtf', since I can't understand how SO MANY are willing to plunk down so much on a second or third place system or something that, as many say about it, is 'two Gamecubes strapped together'.

[MSUHitman]

Just give the system a while to catch on with the devs and to pick up some steam in Japan. It will all catch on eventually....even the PS2 had a slow start.
The thing is though the "slow start" was just in software. The system was selling like Wii's are now even with limited software available. The reason everybody wanted it was:

Japan- Cheapest DVD player available and the jump from VHS to DVD is more significant than the jump from DVD to Blu-Ray/HD-DVD for normal consumers. All PS1 franchises were going to PS2 as well.

US- Madden sold most of the original PS2's because of its great graphics and new engine. It was not available on any other system in that quality since EA stuck their nose out at Sega. Cheap DVD player also helped but the biggest thing was nearly full backwards compatibility with PS1 games, a first in the US market for consoles since the Atari years.

Now you have a $500-$600 machine the head honchos at Sony can't decide on how to market (1 week it's the home entertainment solution next it's a video game system.) Also instead of the Sony that openly courted developers and gave them what they wanted, they treat developers like second-fiddle now and those developers are either abandoning them or going multi-platform, eating into sales.

Sony is just now getting an official online network going while Microsoft has been doing it for over 5 years and even Nintendo got a headstart on them, at least with the DS.

While the Sony network is free, it's interface is more difficult to use than Microsoft's, gamers are awarded with a scoring system on all games to keep track of on Microsoft while nothing available yet for Sony, Microsoft has additional game content, small games, movies, and TV shows available for download while Sony can only do small games, game content, and movie trailers right now (also in fewer number than Microsoft.) All Microsoft games share the same friend list that can be accessed both in and out of game while Sony's does not work that way, universally, yet.

Sony supporters can bring up dedicated servers all they want, but when a beta (CoD 4) can keep track of all of my stats, including how many kills I get per gun, in real time, and a full online only game (Warhawk) that had a 3-month beta can't keep stat tracking accurate even after weeks of server patches and won't let people into the ranked games 50% of the time, the dedicated server argument loses IMO.

Let's not even discuss rumble :) Don't get me wrong; I got the 60GB PS3 after price drop so I would have guaranteed hardware backwards compatibility and I'll enjoy MGS 4, FF, and the Sony exclusive AAA's when they come out, but I'll always look at the PS3 as my secondary system.

The only third-party games I'm even thinking about getting on PS3 vs. 360 are Stranglehold CE (for the HD remake of Hard Boiled if it ever comes out) and possibly UT3 if the online is PS3/PC at the same time and the PC features being added for the PS3 version work as advertised.

[dallow]

You really are Dr. Mario Kart.
I'm surprised you don't know him, he's an imfamous member here, opposed to all next gen systems and online gaming.

Super passionate about it.
And a super cheapass gamer too!

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

Well, up till last gen, I had never bought ANY console at full price and after last gen, I never will again. To me, even $300 is too much to pay for a console, since I don't use the damned thing 24/7, even if I get immense pleasure from playing games on it.

And, I think I've seen Dr. Mario Kart around on the boards, but I'm not 100% sure. Either way, I do like the look of some of the games coming out, but with a couple publishers whoring out their top series with 3-5 different bullshit editions, I'm being swayed away from supporting those titles until I can find either cheap clearance copies eventually or super cheap used copies.

I mean, wtf is someone gonna do with a helmet replica from Halo 3? Ooooo, it looks so purdy next to my anal retentive ALL non-gh game collection. I buy games to play them, not look at the 'extras' or covers they came with.

But hey, to each their own...

[dallow]

I buy games to play as well.
But I can't wait for months like some of the patient cheapasses here.

Machines are worth these large amounts of cash to me since I'm pretty much going to have them the rest of my life.

I spend more on drinks in a weekend than I do on a new game.
I get to at least keep the game.
So it's very worthwhile for me.

[Dr Mario Kart]

hay guys, whuts goin on here? http://forums.penny-arcade.com/images/smilies/icon_rotate.gif

[dallow]

::hides::

NUTHIN'!!!

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

I buy games to play as well.
But I can't wait for months like some of the patient cheapasses here.

Machines are worth these large amounts of cash to me since I'm pretty much going to have them the rest of my life.

I spend more on drinks in a weekend than I do on a new game.
I get to at least keep the game.
So it's very worthwhile for me.

I don't drink, smoke or do any drugs, so gaming is my only remaining vice. But, it's a vice that I am a cheapass as far as buying stuff for goes. So, quite frankly, I have the most patience in the world as far as waiting for potential price drops on games and systems. But, traffic is a different story, specially if you cut me off in traffic. <shaking fist angrily>:bomb:

[cochesecochese]

hay guys, whuts goin on here? http://forums.penny-arcade.com/images/smilies/icon_rotate.gif

Come onnnnnnnn $399 60 gig PS3.

[Thomas96]

You can say what you want about Halo, but the point is it sells systems. Resistance, which I have heard is a fine game and I will definitely play it when the ps3 price comes down a bit, did not sell systems. Just because you can have more players and a longer single player does not make it a better game. I mean, if we're going by length of game, Dragon Warrior 7 would be a much superior game to Final Fantasy (insert number here), now wouldn't it? Is Sony screwed? No. Is this the way they wanted it to turn out? Surely not. Sony seriously underestimated how well both the Wii and the 360 would do, just like nintendo seriously underestimated Sony when they first came out with the playstation. This stuff happens all the time.

Look I'm not [not that I could if I wanted to] trying to take anything away from HALO 3, its a system seller, people are going to enjoy it. If HALO 3 had 40 player online matches, and Resistance had only 16, then that would be even more points off from resistance. All I want to do is give Resistance some credit, for besting HALO 3 in some important aspects of the game. HALO 3 may win FPS of the year, but is it because it was purely a better game, or because its kin to HALO 1 and 2?

[well Final Fantasy was almost twice as long as Dragon Warrior]

[torifile]

:roll:
What a witty and incisive response! There were some valid points made in my post and if all you can come up with is ":roll:" then there's really a problem.

[seanr1221]

hay guys, whuts goin on here? http://forums.penny-arcade.com/images/smilies/icon_rotate.gif

Ya Motha'

[Corvin]

The other question this begs, is "is there such a thing as a $500 game."


I would say yes based on the few people I saw at the midnight Halo 3 launch with game($130 version) and console($400 Halo ed.) in hand. Not to mention one guy in addition to that had the Halo wireless headset ($60), the two Halo controllers ($120) and the strategy guide($20). So to him Halo was worth about $775 after tax. I'm sure he isn't alone either.

Holy crap, this is such a stupid thread.
It's the same shit as like 3 other threads going on.

At least this one has a decent discussion going and hasn't devolved into fanboy territory like every other one. It's only a matter of time, but so far so good. :)

[Ender]

The 360/PS3 debates boil down to this:

The 360 offers all (almost) the games that the PS3 does, and the system is cheaper. Furthermore, it's been out longer, and has therefore gained more momentum. Finally, to the serious gamer, Achievement Points are often the deciding factor when a game is available for both systems.

Sony really has their work cut out for them. Once the big franchises start releasing the sequels, things will get a little better for the PS3. But they need new IPs as well.

I own all 3, and the 360 is just a superior machine in terms of what it can offer me.

[The Mana Knight]

Sony really has their work cut out for them. Once the big franchises start releasing the sequels, things will get a little better for the PS3. But they need new IPs as well.

I own all 3, and the 360 is just a superior machine in terms of what it can offer me.There are many new IPs coming to PS3 (especially by Sony themselves).

For me, the 360 is far from being a superior machine, but it is good. I'm no serious gamer, so I don't give a shit about achievement points.

[dallow]

So what basically people are saying here are that some like what the PS3 can offer them, and some don't.

[Blackout]

What a witty and incisive response! There were some valid points made in my post and if all you can come up with is ":roll:" then there's really a problem.

All you said is the typical Sony is doomed bullshit. The PS3 hasn't even been out a full year yet. Should MS have packed its' bags because 360 wasn't so hot in its first year? After all I remember people constantly bashing 360 because it "had no games", and that it cost too much for what you get (at the time). PS3 is going to be fine.

IMO, PS3 will be alright. I'm just going off past systems, but the Playstation brand created new series and games that were amazing. It went from Crash Bandicoot and Tomb Raider to Ratchet & Clank and God of War. If they do that again this gen there is no reason why PS3 won't even out.

There was talk about online earlier. I think it is an integral part of 360 and PS3. If you take away XBL, there are stil great games like Gears, Crackdown, Halo 3, etc, but that "it" factor is missing. If you take away online from PS3, the same thing happens, just not to the extent as XBL.

I admire all the CAGs who are sticking it out and waiting until these systems and games get cheaper. I honestly cannot wait that long. I think the systems are worth the price tag, because with anything it is an investment. I'll get my moneys worth with all the games I play.

[Chacrana]

i don t know. The board has seen this debate a gagillion times and no one budges.

Its simple....peoples wallets are light and PS3 too expensive. with cheaper alternatives..people will buy that instead. 250 for a wii which is only gaming is the cheapest next gen you could get. wait till people get better jobs and the ps3 will be attainable. Its only a want but if a person can get the same want cheaper..than they will go cheaper. its that plain simple...This is from a buisness aspect..not a gaming one because that topic has been beaten like a dead horse.

No, but why does it matter that the system isn't selling? They aren't going to pull the plug on the system in the next year or something like that. Just buy the shit you want and leave the doomsday scenarios to the analysts.

[VidgamesgivemeA_D_D]

IMO, PS3 will be alright. I'm just going off past systems, but the Playstation brand created new series and games that were amazing. It went from Crash Bandicoot and Tomb Raider to Ratchet & Clank and God of War. If they do that again this gen there is no reason why PS3 won't even out.


Not to nit pick but Tomb Raider 1 was on PC, Saturn and Playstation 1. So you can't really give Playstation any credit for it.

[Thomas96]

Not to nit pick but Tomb Raider 1 was on PC, Saturn and Playstation 1. So you can't really give Playstation any credit for it.


Tomb Raider got its start on PS1, did good on PS1 and then went to other platforms. Give PS some credit for helping to establish a brand name.

[dmaul1114]

LOL I guess I'm the only anti social person on these boards then, huh? I honestly couldn't care less if I ever play online against others, since I enjoy the face to face comraderie and gloating of owning my friends in person. Plus, none of my friends are even connected to ANY form of the internet, so I'd be SOL as far as connecting at their places and I don't have the room here, so again, I'm SOL.

I guess I'll always be an offline single/multiplayer type of game player and the day most/all games hit online only status, is the day I guess I start continuously playing my backlog and older games.

I'm the same. Very little interest in online gaming. But I'm not opposed to it like some dumbasses like Dr. Mario Kart, nor think it will ruin single player gaming like he does etc.

The vast majority of games have great single player modes and great online modes for those that like it (Gears, Halo, Resistance, etc.).

[Blackout]

Not to nit pick but Tomb Raider 1 was on PC, Saturn and Playstation 1. So you can't really give Playstation any credit for it.

I was just giving an example of a game that was pretty big on PS1. You could also say Tekken, Driver, Twisted Metal, RE, stuff like that.

[dmaul1114]

I would say yes based on the few people I saw at the midnight Halo 3 launch with game($130 version) and console($400 Halo ed.) in hand. Not to mention one guy in addition to that had the Halo wireless headset ($60), the two Halo controllers ($120) and the strategy guide($20). So to him Halo was worth about $775 after tax. I'm sure he isn't alone either.


I meant more in the lines of a $500 game that could get a system selling in mass quantities to help it catch up in the console war.

There will always be some hardcore people willing to pay insane amounts for whatever game their a huge fanboy of.


At least this one has a decent discussion going and hasn't devolved into fanboy territory like every other one. It's only a matter of time, but so far so good. :)

Indeed. Good discussion here, and little or no fanboy drivel through 7 pages. I'm impressed.

[mykevermin]

Sony's managed to sell 5 million PS3s so far.

What's to worry about again? We're a vocal minority here. Think of all the shit people here talk about the PSP. Well, it's now sold over 25 million units worldwide (which, although it's tough to compare with consoles, is barely greater than the overall number of next-gen consoles sold thus far, and additionally, greater than the worldwide sales of the Xbox 1 and Gamecube separately).

You're worried over something in your mind that is separate from reality. The PS3 ain't going to die. Now, had you bought a Jaguar, Nuon, or N-Gage, then you'd be spot on in your worries.

[dmaul1114]

No, but why does it matter that the system isn't selling? They aren't going to pull the plug on the system in the next year or something like that. Just buy the shit you want and leave the doomsday scenarios to the analysts.

I don't think it "matters", but I just like discussing the game industry, where it's going, what may happen etc. I don't give a shit who wins or losses as their just stupid game machines. But I'm interested in the business side of it for whatever reason.

As such, this had been a good, civil and entertaining thread IMO.

[Aegith]

Simple. I play RPG / sRPG almost exclusively. PS3 has no RPGs I'm interested in. 360 and wii do, I can buy both for less than PS3. Not to mention the fun of the wii remote.

[dallow]

Simple. I play RPG / sRPG almost exclusively. PS3 has no RPGs I'm interested in. 360 and wii do, I can buy both for less than PS3. Not to mention the fun of the wii remote.I like RPGS too!
There are like 4 on 360 in USA right?
And like 0 on Wii right?

I'm not saying PS3 has more (it doesn't) or is better.
Just making fun of you saying that they do.

[docvinh]

Well, I don't think that Halo 3 should win fps of the year if it's soley on the single player experience, I would think that right now Bioshock has that one locked down, although I'm sure some people would disagree.:) I do see your point however that Halo 3 is popular due to the previous two installments, but I think even if you judged it on it's own merits, it's an excellent game. It is definitely one of the best fps's on the console right now. Which final fantasy is twice as long as dragon warrior 7, I'm pretty sure I read that it takes at least 60-70 hours to beat that game. Hell, I played it for 20, and I was no where close to beating it.:)
Look I'm not [not that I could if I wanted to] trying to take anything away from HALO 3, its a system seller, people are going to enjoy it. If HALO 3 had 40 player online matches, and Resistance had only 16, then that would be even more points off from resistance. All I want to do is give Resistance some credit, for besting HALO 3 in some important aspects of the game. HALO 3 may win FPS of the year, but is it because it was purely a better game, or because its kin to HALO 1 and 2?

[well Final Fantasy was almost twice as long as Dragon Warrior]

[dmaul1114]

Yes, Dragon Warrior 7 (and 8, and most games in the series) have been a good deal longer than their contemporary final fantasy counterparts.

[VidgamesgivemeA_D_D]

Tomb Raider got its start on PS1, did good on PS1 and then went to other platforms. Give PS some credit for helping to establish a brand name.

Oh I forgot it was on PS1 first, been along time. Ok I give PS credit for Tomb Raider then.

[mykevermin]

Simple. I play RPG / sRPG almost exclusively. PS3 has no RPGs I'm interested in. 360 and wii do, I can buy both for less than PS3. Not to mention the fun of the wii remote.

Really? I have thought that this generation so far has been fairly anorexic in terms of RPGs (and I don't believe *any* strat RPGs exist on any of the three, though correct me if I'm wrong). Up until Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata hit, what was there outside of the dismal Enchanted Arms?

If I were strictly an RPG/sRPG player, I'd only own a DS and PSP at this point.

[dallow]

Really? I have thought that this generation so far has been fairly anorexic in terms of RPGs (and I don't believe *any* strat RPGs exist on any of the three, though correct me if I'm wrong). Up until Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata hit, what was there outside of the dismal Enchanted Arms?

If I were strictly an RPG/sRPG player, I'd only own a DS and PSP at this point.The 360 has a handful of strategy RPGs in Japan only from mostly NIS.

However, still, he can't be serious.

[VidgamesgivemeA_D_D]

Well if you consider what's coming in future PS3 gets Persona 4 and Final Fantasy 13. I'd say they'll be alright when it comes to rpgs.

[dmaul1114]

Really? I have thought that this generation so far has been fairly anorexic in terms of RPGs (and I don't believe *any* strat RPGs exist on any of the three, though correct me if I'm wrong). Up until Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata hit, what was there outside of the dismal Enchanted Arms?

If I were strictly an RPG/sRPG player, I'd only own a DS and PSP at this point.

Well, I guess if you count western style RPGs, you have Oblivion on the PS3 and 360 and Mass Effect coming soon to the 360.

But yes, it's been pretty crappy. I'd still have to imagine the PS3 will eventually be the place for J-RPGs though. The 360 is selling too poorly in Japan to get much support from the Japanese RPG makers (aside from the couple they paid to make exclusives--and Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata turned out mediocre from the looks of the reviews).

I guess the Wii could end up with a lot down the road given how well it's selling in Japan and worldwide.

[dallow]

Read my post above about RPGS on 360.
They have like 10 or so RPGs over there that'll never make it to America.

[Thomas96]

Simple. I play RPG / sRPG almost exclusively. PS3 has no RPGs I'm interested in. 360 and wii do, I can buy both for less than PS3. Not to mention the fun of the wii remote.


yeah you right...

[mykevermin]

Well, I guess if you count western style RPGs, you have Oblivion on the PS3 and 360 and Mass Effect coming soon to the 360.

But yes, it's been pretty crappy. I'd still have to imagine the PS3 will eventually be the place for J-RPGs though. The 360 is selling too poorly in Japan to get much support from the Japanese RPG makers (aside from the couple they paid to make exclusives--and Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata turned out mediocre from the looks of the reviews).

I guess the Wii could end up with a lot down the road given how well it's selling in Japan and worldwide.

It's entirely possible, but with Disgaea 3 in development for the PS3, it seems that developers seem to (if only for the moment) see what they can do with the high-powered systems. Of course, if the PS3 fails to keep pace with the Wii, they could move there in a heartbeat. Blue Dragon DS seems to suggest how fickle RPG developers can be with the market in Japan (same w/ DQIX, FFIVA, etc.). Frankly, I'd be amazed if Blue Dragon 2 ever made it to the 360.

[dmaul1114]

Read my post above about RPGS on 360.
They have like 10 or so RPGs over there that'll never make it to America.

Yeah, just saw that, you posted it while I was typing the above.

That really surprises me that they even have those give how few 360s have sold over there.

But moot point since they'll never make it over here. And moot for me as I seldom play RPGs anymore (no time for long games) and never liked strategy RPGs.

[dmaul1114]

It's entirely possible, but with Disgaea 3 in development for the PS3, it seems that developers seem to (if only for the moment) see what they can do with the high-powered systems. Of course, if the PS3 fails to keep pace with the Wii, they could move there in a heartbeat. Blue Dragon DS seems to suggest how fickle RPG developers can be with the market in Japan (same w/ DQIX, FFIVA, etc.). Frankly, I'd be amazed if Blue Dragon 2 ever made it to the 360.

True, I had that thought that some would want the next gen power.

But I put it aside when remembering that DQIX (the biggest RPG series over there) was going to the DS.

They clearly care about installed base to a great extent. And I don't see the PS3 ever catching up to the Wii. It's just a crazy phenomenon just like the DS, and it's much cheaper price tag makes it much more accessible.

Sony just needs to put all efforst on catching MS and battling for second place.

[dallow]

Sony just needs to put all efforst on catching MS and battling for second place.Because up till now they've enjoyed wading in the third place kiddy pool right?

Of course they're trying!
And not just for second place, they're trying to sell as much as possible.

[VidgamesgivemeA_D_D]

The only thing Sony's "trying" to do is to sell their blu-ray stuff. If not they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. They don't care about video games. They haven't had a profitable year off a video game system since PS1 if I recall and it doesn't matter to them. PS2 their real agenda was promoting DVD players, now on PS3 it's blu-ray. Microsoft's losing money too and who knows what they're agenda is maybe just to f with Sony?

[dmaul1114]

Because up till now they've enjoyed wading in the third place kiddy pool right?

Of course they're trying!
And not just for second place, they're trying to sell as much as possible.

For sure they should aim for that. They're just too far behind the Wii, and the Wii is still selling like hotcakes.

They have no chance of catching it this gen, and I don't think MS does either. Nintendo made the smart move of making a cheaper machine and going hard after casual gamer and non-gamers to expand their market.

But Sony and MS can still make a killing on the serious gamer crowd, as Nintendo isn't as strong there with their crappy online and relatively few serious, hardcore games out thus far.

Both will of course try to sell as many consoles as possible, but they're both best served to focus on trying to out do each other and not worry too much about Nintendo as the Wii's user market is a bit different--i.e. has a lot less overlap than the PS3 and 360 which are hitting up the same people/group for the most part.

If Sony wanted to continue to the rule the world, they should have kept doing what got them on top. Putting out reasonably priced gaming machines, and not tried to force Blu Ray on people through a $500-600 console.

If they'd launched at $299-399 like MS, they'd be on top right now in all likelihood, or at least keeping better pace with the Wii.

That's my take on it, and a reasonably unbiased oneas I'm far from a fanboy. I really don't like any of the three companies at the moment for various reasons.

[dallow]

Yeah, it has Blu-Ray, and it's the number one thing that makes it so much more costly.

It was their gamble, just like Nintendo's gamble with their controller.

Nintendo's bet has already paid off in spades.
Sony is still waiting on theirs, but if they get what they want, and BD becomes the new standard format for video, and computer discs around the world.

Well, I'd rather have a piece of that action.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, it has Blu-Ray, and it's the number one thing that makes it so much more costly.

It was their gamble, just like Nintendo's gamble with their controller.

Nintendo's bet has already paid off in spades.
Sony is still waiting on theirs, but if they get what they want, and BD becomes the new standard format for video, and computer discs around the world.

Well, I'd rather have a piece of that action.

They'd rather have a piece of that action. As a consumer, I could give a shit less, as regardless of whether BD catches on or fades out it's just a feature I don't really want that prices the console out of my budget.

I mean I have an HD tv, and love watching stuff in HD. But regular DVDs (which I buy all for $5-10 for the most part) look fantastic with my upconverting sony player that I bought for a $100. So I just don't feel much incentive to shell out for an HD DVD or BD player right now, and buy discs for $25-30 to get what to me is a pretty marginal picture upgrade. Marginal in the sense that, yeah it looks better, but not enough to justify the expense right now IMO. When players are $150 or so, and HD DVDS or BD movies can easily be found for $5-10 I'll take the plunge.

[dallow]

DVDs, upconverted look like crap to me.
Really, there is no comparison. I think people hype upscaling on DVDs and games too much.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=885362

Look at that link, it shows a scene from Hot Fuzz where he's riding down the horse in the town.
Upscaled DVD on the left, HD DVD on the right.

No contest.

As a consumer, I'm glad they added BD because I didn't have to buy a seperate BD player.
And I bet there will be quite a few people later on down the line that will enjoy that as well even if they didn't really want it right now.

We have different opinions.

[dmaul1114]

Oh there's definitely a difference.

But I'm not a videophile, and the difference just isn't worth the current prices of HD DVD/BD players or discs to me. I just like to play games and watch movies. Within in reason, I've never cared much about A/V quality. I'm more picky than joe six pack, but far from the audio/videophiles on sites like AVSForum.com etc.

Like you say, different strokes for different folks. I just want a next gen, HD gaming machine that's affordable--$300 or less--and don't like that the PS3 is automatically off the table because they added in a BD feature I don't care about right now.

[dallow]

I getcha, I getcha.

Well then, I would stop talking about Sony needing to do this and that and just be still until prices are low enough to your liking as they obviously have a larger scale plan of their own.

By then, there will be plenty of games for you to choose from, as well as a number of them in the clearance section.

Price is your main concern.
Just wait.

[dmaul1114]

I getcha, I getcha.

Well then, I would stop talking about Sony needing to do this and that and just be still until prices are low enough to your liking as they obviously have a larger scale plan of their own.

By then, there will be plenty of games for you to choose from, as well as a number of them in the clearance section.

Price is your main concern.
Just wait.


Well, we're talking also about what they need to do to get out of third place and compete with MS and Nintendo. Not just what they need to do for me.

I've pretty much given up on them. The 360 will be $300 well before the PS3, and already has enough games I want for me to jump at that price.

About the only chance Sony has of getting me on board is bringing back the 20 GB PS3 at $300 within the next 6 months, and I don't see that happening. Otherwise, MS will likely get my purchase well before the PS3 is in my price range and has enough exclusives I actually want to play. I won't buy both as there's too much overlap in the game library, and I don't have enough time to keep up with the AAA games on three systems this generation.

I'm just in this thread for the nice, civil discussion of the gaming business/console wars as I've always been interested in the market side of things.

[dallow]

Even I would tell you to buy a 360 before a PS3 as it simply has more to play at the moment.

I would never just own one console though.

[dmaul1114]

Even I would tell you to buy a 360 before a PS3 as it simply has more to play at the moment.

I would never just own one console though.

Me either, because I have to have the Nintendo first party games.

So it's the Wii and either the 360 or PS3 for me this gen.

Had planned on PS3 as the PS2 was my most played console last gen, and the X-box the least played console I ever bought (mainly bought for KOTOR, should have just upgraded the PC instead). But the tables have turned so far this gen with the 360 having a lot more out and announced that interests me.

Though honestly, I'm tempted to wait until early next year and see if third party support picks up on the Wii. If the Wii could put out 8-10 games a year that interested me, it and the DS would more than keep me occupied as I really don't game that much any more. 5-10 tops, and many weeks less than that since I'm super busy with work and grad school on top of gaming slipping a bit in terms of my favorite hobbies. Plus I generally play most of the big 360 games at my buddies anyway (and he comes over to play stuff like Metroid).

But I'm not very optimistic that the Wii will ever offer more than just the 2-4 good Nintendo games a year, and maybe 1 or 2 good third party games that we got on the N64 or GC since so much third party attention is focused on shovelware and crap for the casual gamers/non-gamers.

[VidgamesgivemeA_D_D]

Metal Gear Solid 4 is a pain in my ass. I want that game more than any other and it's on a system I don't want at all other than that game.

[dmaul1114]

Metal Gear Solid 4 is a pain in my ass. I want that game more than any other and it's on a system I don't want at all other than that game.

I'd just wait it out the. I'd be shocked if it doesn't get ported over to the 360 eventually. May be 6 months to a year after it hits the PS3, but it will come just like MGS2 did. Even more likely actually since the PS2 was well ahead of the x-box in sales then, and now the tables are turned.

Just not worth buying a $550 console to play just one game--assuming that's all you want (and sounds like it is from your post).

[Thomas96]

Metal Gear Solid 4 is a pain in my ass. I want that game more than any other and it's on a system I don't want at all other than that game.



good things come to those who wait.. it'll proabably be on 360, then you can enjoy it.

[blackjaw]

good things come to those who wait.. it'll proabably be on 360, then you can enjoy it.

I have my doubts...MGS3 didnt make it over to the xbox. Who knows in this day and age though...

[Thomas96]

I have my doubts...MGS3 didnt make it over to the xbox. Who knows in this day and age though...


I hope it stays on PS3... PS3 needs its exclusives.. MGS4 is going to do well, a good game can sell systems to push more units... if MGS4 can't get people to bite on PS3 within a year, then you might as well release it on another system. I'd love to get Lost planet, and a future gears of war on ps3.

[n8n8baby]

I am about as platform-neutral as a gamer can be, but let me bring up some facts:

1) PS2 came out at twice the price of the nearest competitor (Dreamcast) and had very few quality games in its first 18 months. It started slow, but they ended up selling over 100M of them.

2) XBox had a 4-year lifespan, and then game development pretty much came to a screeching halt. PS1 had 10 years. PS2 looks like it will have close to 10 years. PS3 was always stated to have a 10-year cycle, and as such, the entry cost at the beginning of the cycle will be high, and the games available will not be extremely plentiful during this time.

3) The XBox 360 is much easier to develop for at this point in time. The complex architecture of the PS3 is going to take some time to learn for developers, but conversely, it will have a much bigger increase in quality as the secrets are learned. Just look at the early PS2 games versus the latest ones.

4) I don't believe Sony ever cared to make PS3 "mass market" immediately. They are still selling tons of PS2 machines.

I have to agree that 360 is a much better gaming machine _right now_. I also think that you get what you pay for with the PS3, given the extra features that, while most people don't care about them now, will definitely care once they have an HD setup. But how many top notch games will be produced for the 360 three years from now, especially by non-American companies. I am guessing Microsoft will be shifting over to their new thing by then, whereas excellent PS3 games will still be coming out for a few years later.

FTR I play my 360 and Wii much more than my PS3 right now, but I play my DS, PS2, and even my Saturn more than either, even to this day.

Flame away,
n8

[torifile]

I'd love it if Sony pulled it out this gen. I'm no fan of Microsoft and I've had a soft spot in my heart for Sony since I was a kid but they're just stumbling and bumbling.

Someone upthread said "who cares if the PS3 doesn't win?" Developers care. No software, no sales. The lineup for the PS3 a year in is sparse, to say the least. One of its supposed AAA titles, Lair, is instead going to kill Factor 5 with its suckiness.

Get rumble, get some good games, lower the price and fix online and there's a chance for the PS3. 1 is done, 2 is on the way.

But who the fuck knows what's going on in Sony's head with pricing and the online stuff...

[Thomas96]

I am about as platform-neutral as a gamer can be, but let me bring up some facts:

1) PS2 came out at twice the price of the nearest competitor (Dreamcast) and had very few quality games in its first 18 months. It started slow, but they ended up selling over 100M of them.

2) XBox had a 4-year lifespan, and then game development pretty much came to a screeching halt. PS1 had 10 years. PS2 looks like it will have close to 10 years. PS3 was always stated to have a 10-year cycle, and as such, the entry cost at the beginning of the cycle will be high, and the games available will not be extremely plentiful during this time.

3) The XBox 360 is much easier to develop for at this point in time. The complex architecture of the PS3 is going to take some time to learn for developers, but conversely, it will have a much bigger increase in quality as the secrets are learned. Just look at the early PS2 games versus the latest ones.

4) I don't believe Sony ever cared to make PS3 "mass market" immediately. They are still selling tons of PS2 machines.

I have to agree that 360 is a much better gaming machine _right now_. I also think that you get what you pay for with the PS3, given the extra features that, while most people don't care about them now, will definitely care once they have an HD setup. But how many years top notch games will be produced for the 360, especially by non-American companies. I am guessing Microsoft will be shifting over to their new thing by then, whereas excellent PS3 games will still be coming out for a few years later.

FTR I play my 360 and Wii much more than my PS3 right now, but I play my DS, PS2, and even my Saturn more than either, even to this day.

Flame away,
n8


i agree with everything, especially #4 because Sony knew that at 600 dollars it wasn't going to have immediate market penetration.

I was wondering why would a company release an expensive system.. and I think its because you can offer your customers a better product. By starting off with an expensive system, using new technology, you start off expensive, however, technoglogy gets cheap fast, and then you can offer new technology cheaper. example, PS2, could have been much cheaper if they would have used a CD drive, however, starting off cheap would have given it a fast start [looking at Wii] but right now if the PS2 had a CD drive it would have been obsolete and would not have lasted this long. 4 or 5 years from now, DVD is not going to be the medium of choice for people. Especially with the age of HD, which requires lots of space.

[dmaul1114]

I am about as platform-neutral as a gamer can be, but let me bring up some facts:

1) PS2 came out at twice the price of the nearest competitor (Dreamcast) and had very few quality games in its first 18 months. It started slow, but they ended up selling over 100M of them.

2) XBox had a 4-year lifespan, and then game development pretty much came to a screeching halt. PS1 had 10 years. PS2 looks like it will have close to 10 years. PS3 was always stated to have a 10-year cycle, and as such, the entry cost at the beginning of the cycle will be high, and the games available will not be extremely plentiful during this time.

3) The XBox 360 is much easier to develop for at this point in time. The complex architecture of the PS3 is going to take some time to learn for developers, but conversely, it will have a much bigger increase in quality as the secrets are learned. Just look at the early PS2 games versus the latest ones.

4) I don't believe Sony ever cared to make PS3 "mass market" immediately. They are still selling tons of PS2 machines.

I have to agree that 360 is a much better gaming machine _right now_. I also think that you get what you pay for with the PS3, given the extra features that, while most people don't care about them now, will definitely care once they have an HD setup. But how many top notch games will be produced for the 360 three years from now, especially by non-American companies. I am guessing Microsoft will be shifting over to their new thing by then, whereas excellent PS3 games will still be coming out for a few years later.

FTR I play my 360 and Wii much more than my PS3 right now, but I play my DS, PS2, and even my Saturn more than either, even to this day.

Flame away,
n8

Good points, though I look at them a bit differently.

1. It was more than the DC, but the DC never had a big market share, and as soon as the the GC and X-box where out, the PS2 hit $199.99 pretty quickly since it then had real competion. Sega was dead in the water after the 32x, Sega CD and Saturn debacles. Sony didn't need to worry about them. Brand name alone was enough to sell more PS1s that DC despite the price diffence and the DC having a much better game lineup during the PS2s first year.

2. Fair point there. MS was new to the game, Sony had dominated 2 gens and built up huge user bases. Who knows if the PS3 will have that kind of longevity if it only ends up selling 20 million consoles (around what the X-box sold) rather than 100 million though?

3. Definitely fair there. But again, if sales don't pick up developers might not push to over come the barriers. They had incentive to deal with the PS2 being hard to develop for as it had a huge lead in sales. If the PS3 keeps lagging it may not be worth their effort.

4. They may have done it consciously, but it could be their downfall. How you start is crucial in the console race. Even with no games the first year, the PS2 was still hot item and hard to find for a lot longer than the PS3 was, and likely sold a lot more the first year. They may not be able to dig themselves out of this hole--at least not to challenge for first place if even second.

As for the extra features, I have an HD set up and still don't care. Like I said, Blu Ray isn't worth the buy in price for the PS3 or the current disc prices vs. $5-10 DVDs for someone that's not a videophile at all.

[dmaul1114]

4 or 5 years from now, DVD is not going to be the medium of choice for people. Especially with the age of HD, which requires lots of space.

Hard to say. CD is still the medium of choice, despite better technology there. Though one could argue that MP3's are taking over.

The same thing may well happen with movies, and digital downloads becoming dominant.

I don't see DVDs going anywhere anytime soon. HD DVD and Blu Ray are selling like crap. Total disc sales to date for every title on both formats can match the sales of the top DVD movies for just this year (i.e. the number 1 selling DVD this year has sold more than every title on Blu Ray and HD DVD combined from one write up I read a while back--probably could even go lower than the number 1 seller and find the same I'd imagine).

HD DVD and Blu Ray at best will stick around as as laserdisc type niche product for the videophiles, while DVDs rule sales and rentals--just like VHS did back in the day despite being vastly inferior to Laserdisc.

[dallow]

Hard to say. CD is still the medium of choice, despite better technology there. Though one could argue that MP3's are taking over.

The same thing may well happen with movies, and digital downloads becoming dominant.

I don't see DVDs going anywhere anytime soon. HD DVD and Blu Ray are selling like crap. Total disc sales to date for every title on both formats can match the sales of the top DVD movies for just this year (i.e. the number 1 selling DVD this year has sold more than every title on Blu Ray and HD DVD combined from one write up I read a while back--probably could even go lower than the number 1 seller and find the same I'd imagine).

HD DVD and Blu Ray at best will stick around as as laserdisc type niche product for the videophiles, while DVDs rule sales and rentals--just like VHS did back in the day despite being vastly inferior.LOL

Haha, these are NOT anything like laserdiscs.
Funny you compare these HD formats to laserdisc and not catching on.
Then you mention VHS and how OF COURSE it was beating DVD when it HAD JUST COME OUT, and yet DVDs are the standard for now.

[dmaul1114]

LOL

Haha, these are NOT anything like laserdiscs.
Funny you compare these HD formats to laserdisc and not catching on.
Then you mention VHS and how OF COURSE it was beating DVD when it HAD JUST COME OUT, and yet DVDs are the standard for now.


No, I was saying Laserdisc never competed remotely with VHS despite being the superior technology. Not VHS to DVD. I just worded it poorly, edited the post to make it clear.

Just like CDs haven't went anywhere despite stuff like SA-CDs and DVDa.

And DVDs aren't going anywhere either. Joe Six Pack truck driver doesn't give a shit about HD DVD or Blu Ray, he's going to keep buying DVDs out of the $3 bin in Wal-mart.

Laugh all you want, Blu Ray and HD DVDs are selling like absolute horseshit. DVDs took off much faster than this. They caught on because they offered a lot over VHS and were priced right and well marketed.

You had a new fancy disc format on the shelves that didn't have to be rewound, offered instant scene access, extra features, and looked and sounded better ON TVS PEOPLE ALREADY HAD. And they were priced to sell from day way when most VHS titles were still priced to rent (i.e. like $90 a pop) for several months before being reduced to retail prices.

Now you have HD DVD and Blu Ray which only offer better picture and sound quality and peole have to have a NEW TV to even get that.

It's great for those of us with HDTVs, and who care more than the average joe about HD picture quality. But most people don't give a shit. Fuck, most of the people I know that have HDTVs, especially those older than me, don't even subscribe to any HD programming.

It will be a niche market for the videophiles, nothing more. One or both formats will stick around, and there will be plenty of movies out for us to enjoy as time goes on. But neither will become the dominant format. DVD will continue to sell more just like CDs have. If something knocks it out it will be digital distribution, or some new format not invented yet that offers more than just better A/V quality.

[dallow]

I promise you that in 5 years, BD or HD DVD will take up more than half the shelf space of DVD in stores.

[dmaul1114]

I promise you that in 5 years, BD or HD DVD will take up more than half the shelfs space of DVD in stores.

It may grow. But DVD will still be the dominant format. Guaranteed.

HD is catching on too slow in the US. Look how many times the broadcast switch over has been pushed back. And even that won't have a huge impact as you can uust get a converter, not to mention that so few people just use antenna these days anyway--and cable and satellite isn't being forced to switch.

They launched these formats probably 5 years too soon, and having 2 formats complicates things even more by confusing consumers. It's hard to imagine them suddenly taking off when HD gets more foothold. Something new will come along by then and push them aside and possibly challenge DVD.

Likely that will be digital distribution given the example being set in the music industry, and the immense popularity of on demand cable programming.

I don't like it, as I like owning a disc, and as such I'd like to see Blu Ray or HD DVD really catch on. As I'll eventually buy one, and start buying new releases in that format (won't upgrade my DVD collection, other than maybe a select few, as I don't are enough about HD to spend the cash on that). But I just don't see it happening.

[dallow]

Cable and satellite don't need to switch because they are already digital...

[dmaul1114]

Cable and satellite don't need to switch because they are already digital...

Not all. A lot of cable stations are still analog on the basic channels. Mine was until recently, and Comcast in some other counties around me are still analog on the basic channels. I'd be willing to be that the majority of basic cable is still analog, as not many companies have been willing to shove it on customers to have to rent a cable box to get the digital channels on their old tvs.

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure the broadcast switch over requires it to be all digital AND broadcast in HDTV resolutions. Not just digital in 480i like the digital cable and satellite channels are.

[dallow]

No, it's only digital, not HD resolutions.

[dallow]

Rent a cable box?
Are you living 5 years ago?
Everything's been slowly converting for digital for the past 10 years, slowly but surely.
It's pretty much done in all mid to large cities.

Anytime you get cable now, you get a box.
They are all digital, and have analog to digital converters built in.

[Thomas96]

Texas instruments have as many commercials for their DLP [mirrors] technology as there's beer commericials during NFL football games. HD is coming and PS3 is prepared...

[Aegith]

360
Enchanted Arms
Overlord
Blue Dragon
Eternal Sonata
Lost Odyssey
Infinite Undiscovery
Fable 2
The Last Remnant
Far East of Eden: Ziria
Phantasy Star Universe

Wii
Twilight Princess
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
Dragon Quest: Swords
Tales of Symphonia: Knights of Ratatosk
Sword of Legendia
Oboro Muramasa Youtouden

PS3
The Last Remnant (Also 360)
.........? Nice lineup!

I like RPGS too!
There are like 4 on 360 in USA right?
And like 0 on Wii right?

I'm not saying PS3 has more (it doesn't) or is better.
Just making fun of you saying that they do.

[Calamityuponthee]

360
Enchanted Arms
Overlord
Blue Dragon
Eternal Sonata
Lost Odyssey
Infinite Undiscovery
Fable 2
The Last Remnant
Far East of Eden: Ziria
Phantasy Star Universe

Wii
Twilight Princess
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
Dragon Quest: Swords
Tales of Symphonia: Knights of Ratatosk
Sword of Legendia
Oboro Muramasa Youtouden

PS3
The Last Remnant (Also 360)
.........? Nice lineup!


You included Overlord as an rpg, but not Mass Effect? The fuck?

[elmyra]

Not all. A lot of cable stations are still analog on the basic channels. Mine was until recently, and Comcast in some other counties around me are still analog on the basic channels. I'd be willing to be that the majority of basic cable is still analog, as not many companies have been willing to shove it on customers to have to rent a cable box to get the digital channels on their old tvs.
It doesn't matter. The switch in 2009 only affects over-the-air broadcasts. Cable providers can stay analog forever if they want, nobody cares, they're using their own bandwidth. The whole point of the switch is that digital transmissions take up less of the available broadcast spectrum than analog transmissions, and the government wants to free up space for new technologies. Cable companies are trying to push customers to digital, however, for the same reason as the government mandate - digital saves bandwidth, and allows them to offer more content in the same space. My cable company allows current analog subscribers to continue receiving analog, but new accounts have to be digital.

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure the broadcast switch over requires it to be all digital AND broadcast in HDTV resolutions. Not just digital in 480i like the digital cable and satellite channels are.
Dallow is right, there is no HD mandate. From here (http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/hdtv_reference_guide.htm):

Although all broadcasts will be digital after the deadline, not all broadcasts are required to be HDTV, as part of the ATSC standard is 480p/i, which includes current satellite/digital cable transmissions. So even though there is a hard date for digital television, it will likely be much longer before all broadcasts will be in HDTV as there will be no hard date and will likely depend on consumer demand.

[mykevermin]

360
Enchanted Arms
Overlord
Blue Dragon
Eternal Sonata
Lost Odyssey
Infinite Undiscovery
Fable 2
The Last Remnant
Far East of Eden: Ziria
Phantasy Star Universe

Wii
Twilight Princess
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
Dragon Quest: Swords
Tales of Symphonia: Knights of Ratatosk
Sword of Legendia
Oboro Muramasa Youtouden

PS3
The Last Remnant (Also 360)
.........? Nice lineup!


Oh my, ain't you selective in what gets out? Forget Disgaea 3, the many iterations of Final Fantasy XIII (perhaps you're too effete and cool for FF, but it's a helluva lot more "RPG" than Zelda), or White Knight Chronicles? If you are "tr00 RPGer," you'd certainly not omit those titles, unless, of course, you're merely biased and aiming to troll in the PS3 forums. Which, given the RPGs available on the next-gen systems at this very moment, is a pretty good possibility, as you'd surely have plenty of time on your hands.

If you're so cool that you can list "Osuburendan katabare monogatari densetsu gaiden 3: enpitsu no jackass" as a fucking title, you're WELL AWARE of RPG titles in development for the PS3.

This is more evidence of one of my main gripes about those who claim the PS3 has "no games." Those people who make those claims simply aren't looking (or worse, being willfully dishonest about the existence of said games). Evidently, people want Sony to knock on their door and have a sit down chat about what games are available for the PS3 (like Jehovah's witnesses, but moderately more hip). If only websites and magazines covered the PS3. Maybe, just maybe, then things would change.

:lol:

[elmyra]

Oh my, ain't you selective in what gets out? Forget Disgaea 3, the many iterations of Final Fantasy XIII (perhaps you're too effete and cool for FF, but it's a helluva lot more "RPG" than Zelda), or White Knight Chronicles?
Didn't Persona 4 for the PS3 also get a mention at TGS? I thought I remembered reading that, anyway.

Edit: Oh yeah, and Steambot Chronicles 2 was announced, I forgot about that one.

[Thomas96]

Hard to say. CD is still the medium of choice, despite better technology there. Though one could argue that MP3's are taking over.

The same thing may well happen with movies, and digital downloads becoming dominant.

I don't see DVDs going anywhere anytime soon. HD DVD and Blu Ray are selling like crap. Total disc sales to date for every title on both formats can match the sales of the top DVD movies for just this year (i.e. the number 1 selling DVD this year has sold more than every title on Blu Ray and HD DVD combined from one write up I read a while back--probably could even go lower than the number 1 seller and find the same I'd imagine).

HD DVD and Blu Ray at best will stick around as as laserdisc type niche product for the videophiles, while DVDs rule sales and rentals--just like VHS did back in the day despite being vastly inferior to Laserdisc.

when I said DVD being a medium of choice, I meant for gaming purposes. I definitely agree that DVD is going to be around for a long time. Once HD DVD and Blu ray decide on which ONE format to push, I think that sales of a next gen disc will pick up. Of course, which ever one or two actually makes it... there's going have to be a reduction in price. IMO blu ray needs to reduce disc and player prices drastically - it might just help PS3 sales as well. with this next gen tech, its all about who can get down cheap to where the real consumers can choose if they want it or not.

[mykevermin]

Didn't Persona 4 for the PS3 also get a mention at TGS? I thought I remembered reading that, anyway.

Edit: Oh yeah, and Steambot Chronicles 2 was announced, I forgot about that one.

Indeed. I'm going off the top of my head. Anyone making an argument that the 360 is going to have more Japanese RPGs than the PS3 is a troll, a fool, or both. Keep in mind that the 360 sold *0* consoles in Japan two weeks back (maybe they moved up to 12 or 13 this past week?).

As I said earlier today (in this thread, perhaps), Mistwalker won't continue to slave for the 360 much longer.

Th' ol' troll also failed to mention that Enchanted Arms is already out on PS3, Eternal Sonata (an extended version of, even) is forthcoming for the PS3, and The Last Remnant and Infinite Undiscovery (another Square MMO? Maybe this can take all the excitement of FFXI and...oh, who am I kidding?)...all PS3 bound as well. It may also be too early to tell, but Battlefield of the Valkyrie looks like it may be an RPG (I could easily be wrong on that, though).

I'm tellin' ya, the handhelds right now are taking the consoles to SCHOOL in terms of RPG content.

[Chacrana]

360
Enchanted Arms
Overlord
Blue Dragon
Eternal Sonata
Lost Odyssey
Infinite Undiscovery
Fable 2
The Last Remnant
Far East of Eden: Ziria
Phantasy Star Universe

Wii
Twilight Princess
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
Dragon Quest: Swords
Tales of Symphonia: Knights of Ratatosk
Sword of Legendia
Oboro Muramasa Youtouden

PS3
The Last Remnant (Also 360)
.........? Nice lineup!


Yeah, that's not skewed.

[mykevermin]

...and don't forget the PS3 exclusive continuation of the Star Ocean series.

:lol:

But what does that matter? You can play the RPG classic Overlord!

[dallow]

Haha!!

Twilight Princess?
Dragon Quest Swords?

You best read up on those titles.

You may as well count Oblivion & Foklore on PS3 as well, it's untraditional enough to make it on your list.

Two FFXIII titles at that!

[mykevermin]

You may as well count Oblivion & Foklore on PS3 as well, it's untraditional enough to make it on your list.

So's Gran Turismo, gleaning the criteria he uses.

[dallow]

That's true, I tune up my car, have gain new party members, have my own garage.
RPGtastic!

[Aegith]

Understand my list was, in fact, a list of games that I wanted to play for the various systems, as this thread was about personal opinions towards the three systems.

You included Overlord as an rpg, but not Mass Effect? The fuck?

[furyk]

On a different note, is anyone else totally hot for Folklore? That has quickly become my most anticipated game for the holidays behind Smash Brothers and maybe Mass Effect.

[mykevermin]

I can wait for it, personally. I have a good backlog already, and with Guitar Hero III coming, and Eye of Judgment and other PS3 titles, I think I can hold off on it until it's $30 or so. I adore the Tim Burton-esque look of the game, but the actual gameplay seemed kinda tepid IMO.

[Kayden]

I had to DL a patch to play Gears of War. That means my game leveled up. That must make it an RPG TOO!

[furyk]

I'm kind of eh on Eye of Judgment (especially considering how poor the resolution on the recent Playstation Eye vs Eyetoy images have been) and Guitar Hero has done nothing for me ever. I can see how Folklore's bash the baddie system can and probably will get boring, but this is totally outweighed by the fact that I love the idea that I'm playing as grown up Harry Potter who has taken on a job as a Ghostbuster.
.
.
.
Am I the only one insane enough to make up my own stories for games as I'm playing them while ignoring the real story?

Oh and Tetris has "levels" so it's an RPG too, right?

[Corvin]

2) XBox had a 4-year lifespan, and then game development pretty much came to a screeching halt. PS1 had 10 years. PS2 looks like it will have close to 10 years. PS3 was always stated to have a 10-year cycle, and as such, the entry cost at the beginning of the cycle will be high, and the games available will not be extremely plentiful during this time.


that's a flawed argument though. The PS1 had a year headstart on the N64 and was on a cool new format, CD! The PS2 also had a year head start on Nintendo and MS. It didn't matter that there weren't games, they were riding the coattails of a 100 million selling system, had a year without competition and sold the PS2 on their name. They put out a competitively priced machine that also played DVDs, which is all they had to do with the PS3. Put out a reasonably priced GAMING machine. If they did that, we wouldn't be having these discussions because the Wii and PS3 would be duking it out at the top.

Those two generations Sony had the edge from day one. Not so with the PS3. they put out a machine that cost twice what the PS2 did at launch($200 more than the competition). Not only that, but they were the one's that were a year late to the party. They don't have the luxury of resting on their laurels waiting for games this time around. This will be two Christmases in a row that they don't have a AAA title. Meanwhile the competition had COD2 in '05, Gears in '06 and Halo/Bioshock in '07.

Comparing Sony's stance this gen isn't an apples to apples comparison with the PS1 or PS2 situations.

It's easy to repeat the mantra that "games are coming" for 18 months straight, but that doesn't do anything for a 17lb paperweight.

[dallow]

I dislike Final Fantasy. I dislike Nippon Ichi (Soul Nomad looks promising). My only interest on the PS3 is Star Ocean. Zelda can be considered a sub-RPG genre. Who cares, it's still my favorite game series of all time, that's why I listed it.
Well if you're only going to list games you personally like, and not be balanced and fair.... then you're a fanboy, congrats!

Get out.

[furyk]

My favorite game is Bubble Bobble therefore it's a life sim because that's my favorite genre.

[Kayden]

I dislike Final Fantasy. I dislike Nippon Ichi (Soul Nomad looks promising). My only interest on the PS3 is Star Ocean. Zelda can be considered a sub-RPG genre. Who cares, it's still my favorite game series of all time, that's why I listed it.

Is that so?

Hmmm....

360
Enchanted Arms
Overlord
Blue Dragon
Eternal Sonata
Lost Odyssey
Infinite Undiscovery
Fable 2
The Last Remnant
Far East of Eden: Ziria
Phantasy Star Universe

Wii
Twilight Princess
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
Dragon Quest: Swords
Tales of Symphonia: Knights of Ratatosk
Sword of Legendia
Oboro Muramasa Youtouden

PS3
The Last Remnant (Also 360)
.........? Nice lineup!


Gee... look at that... Your one title you're interested in and it didn't even make the list.

Go figure, you're a fucking moron.

[mykevermin]

So you're admitting that you're not listing RPGs that exist/are in development/in the planning stages for various consoles, but, rather, (and this is an important distinction) games you *want to play*?

Well, then, the question becomes this: so fuckin' what? If your argument is "360 has RPGs, Wii has RPGs, PS3 has no RPGs," then back it up with RPGs coming out, not what YOU want to play.

Let me guess: you currently own a 360 and a Wii, and have no immediate plans to buy a PS3? If so, all you're doing is engaging in "cognitive dissonance," babe. Actually, you're doing that no matter what consoles you own. I appreciate that you admit your list is bullshit and has ZERO bearing on what RPGs are coming out for what systems, and thus you've done NOTHING to substantiate your argument that the PS3 has no RPGs coming out for it.

That doesn't mean I like you or respect you, but unlike most trolls/biased types, at least you're forthcoming. That must mean something.

[dallow]

My favorite game is Bubble Bobble therefore it's a life sim because that's my favorite genre.I see what you did there.

Let me try.

My favorite game is Xenogears, it's a rhythm game cause that's my fave genre.

[mykevermin]

My favorite game is Final Fantasy X, because I like sports titles.

[furyk]

I see what you did there.

Let me try.

My favorite game is Xenogears, it's a rhythm game cause that's my fave genre.

My favorite game is Final Fantasy X, because I like sports titles.

*high fives all around*

[Kayden]

Gadzooks! That must make Chrono Trigger a hentai adventure game! :hot:

I see what you did there.

Let me try.

My favorite game is Xenogears, it's a rhythm game cause that's my fave genre.

[furyk]

Gadzooks! That must make Chrono Trigger a hentai adventure game! :hot:

4chan and google image search are not my friends.

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

Now now, no reason to get testy because someone failed to list a game they ended up mentioning. Personally, I'm kinda wanting the new GTA, but otherwise, I don't want any of the stuff coming out. I tried and disliked the MGS games, same with the DMC games, FF games and well, unless Duke Nukem gets a 3rd person incarnation on the 360 or PS3 or Spy Hunter gets another great incarnation, I can wait for MY price to buy either system.

And, forget about the Wii, I didn't even OPEN my GC I bought at a store closing sale, so why would I buy another Nintendo console, especially one whose controller sets cost $60 fuckin dollars.

[dallow]

We're getting wacky.
It's late.

And ^^^^, that isn't the reason.
See myke's post.

[mykevermin]

Now now, no reason to get testy because someone failed to list a game they ended up mentioning. Personally, I'm kinda wanting the new GTA, but otherwise, I don't want any of the stuff coming out. I tried and disliked the MGS games, same with the DMC games, FF games and well, unless Duke Nukem gets a 3rd person incarnation on the 360 or PS3 or Spy Hunter gets another great incarnation, I can wait for MY price to buy either system.

And, forget about the Wii, I didn't even OPEN my GC I bought at a store closing sale, so why would I buy another Nintendo console, especially one whose controller sets cost $60 fuckin dollars.

...

...

...

huh?

[furyk]

Oh we're not getting testy because he failed to mention one game. We're getting testy because he's a blithering idiot, and we're a bunch of assholes using the anonymity of the internet to protect ourselves from being called out on downright meanness.

Err I mean suck a cock!

[Furashu]

My favorite game is Final Fantasy X, because I like sports titles.

wth are you on crack, everyone who references to final fantasy games knows that they are world war 2 FPS games...


well i like madden 08 because its a RPG maker...8-)

[Kayden]

Yeah, he just as gifted as the other one.

...

...

...

huh?

[mykevermin]

...the one who sloppily compiles a biased and poorley weighted list of forthcoming RPGs, claiming to have done so (only after scrutiny) to list the games only HE is interested in, and is later found to have omitted titles for the PS3 that he claims to have interest in?

Or is that too broad for you?

EDIT: g'night.

[Kayden]

I was going to reply, but then I figured you'd just hammer out some more nonsensical bullshit and throw it on top of your already impressive mountain of effluence.

The one title I had completely forgotten.

Back to topic. This topic was related to the lack of success of the PS3 and opinions thereof. I stated the PS3 currently holds no RPGs that interest me. That is why the PS3 isn't even a consideration for me as of now. Who's the fanboy... The one who plays whichever system holds a library of games that interest him, or the one who blindly ridicules another for not sharing the same opinion as them?

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

Oh we're not getting testy because he failed to mention one game. We're getting testy because he's a blithering idiot, and we're a bunch of assholes using the anonymity of the internet to protect ourselves from being called out on downright meanness.

Err I mean suck a cock!

Hey now, this isn't Gamefaqs, we have RULES here you know. If yer gonna insult someone, do it gentlemanly, with yer pinkies raised.

And, my favorite game is GTA Vice City because I love RPGs.

[Aegith]

Hurray for idiots taking stuff out of context. Simple phrase stating why someone(me) currently holds no interest in the PS3. My personal opinion SHOULD be confined to what I WANT TO PLAY, not what other people might want to play. I'd all but forgotten Star Ocean until someone mentioned it. RPGamer has yet to list it under Releases for the PS3. You honestly think one game would persuade me to purchase a PS3? No. My posts held relevance to the OP's post, yours--and everyone else who replied to mine with animosity--were off-topic flames.

So you're admitting that you're not listing RPGs that exist/are in development/in the planning stages for various consoles, but, rather, (and this is an important distinction) games you *want to play*?

Well, then, the question becomes this: so fuckin' what? If your argument is "360 has RPGs, Wii has RPGs, PS3 has no RPGs," then back it up with RPGs coming out, not what YOU want to play.

Let me guess: you currently own a 360 and a Wii, and have no immediate plans to buy a PS3? If so, all you're doing is engaging in "cognitive dissonance," babe. Actually, you're doing that no matter what consoles you own. I appreciate that you admit your list is bullshit and has ZERO bearing on what RPGs are coming out for what systems, and thus you've done NOTHING to substantiate your argument that the PS3 has no RPGs coming out for it.

That doesn't mean I like you or respect you, but unlike most trolls/biased types, at least you're forthcoming. That must mean something.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I see mykes point about your methods. I think the easier to defend position is that games DONT MATTER until the hardware gets to certain price threshold, beyond which you are unable to make a value judgement for any number of games. Call it a personal mental block.

For instance: PS3 may have a great future lineup. However, its not worth it to me to pay more than X for it, under any circumstances.

Or I guess you could say that you buy your consoles on immediate lineup and not "potential"

My personal position is that I do not want industry trending towards any of the following: online multiplayer, hard drives in consoles, high definition, achievements, DLC and generally anything that raises dev costs unnecessarily (what I perceive to be unnecessary).

A gaming conservative, if you will.

[Aegith]

Valid arguments. My personal reasons are thus: There are only one or two games I would consider buying for the PS3. This is including every game announced up to this point. Tax on unbelievably huge price tag.

And, isn't the platform for SO4 yet to be announced? I'd like to see info for this.

[Vanigan]

Can we just close and lock this stupid thread now?

[snowsquirrel]

The only thing Sony's "trying" to do is to sell their blu-ray stuff. If not they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. They don't care about video games. They haven't had a profitable year off a video game system since PS1 if I recall and it doesn't matter to them. PS2 their real agenda was promoting DVD players, now on PS3 it's blu-ray. Microsoft's losing money too and who knows what they're agenda is maybe just to f with Sony?

Actually, prior to the ps3 release, Sony's gaming division is the ony division which was regularily profitable.

[mykevermin]

I see mykes point about your methods. I think the easier to defend position is that games DONT MATTER until the hardware gets to certain price threshold, beyond which you are unable to make a value judgement for any number of games. Call it a personal mental block.

For instance: PS3 may have a great future lineup. However, its not worth it to me to pay more than X for it, under any circumstances.

Or I guess you could say that you buy your consoles on immediate lineup and not "potential"

My personal position is that I do not want industry trending towards any of the following: online multiplayer, hard drives in consoles, high definition, achievements, DLC and generally anything that raises dev costs unnecessarily (what I perceive to be unnecessary).

A gaming conservative, if you will.

:rofl:

A regular Tip O'Neill, you!

Your argument about X,Y, or Z not mattering (to *you*) as long as the console is priced out of your range is totally valid. Pointing to issues as temporary barriers to your interest in a product is more than reasonable (*if* the PS3 was $400, I'd consider these games/*if* the 360 has eliminated their faulty hardware, I'll pick one up/etc.).

[Corvin]

Actually, prior to the ps3 release, Sony's gaming division is the ony division which was regularily profitable.

and would have continued if they put out a reasonably priced GAMING console.

[dallow]

:rofl:

A regular Tip O'Neill, you!

Your argument about X,Y, or Z not mattering (to *you*) as long as the console is priced out of your range is totally valid. Pointing to issues as temporary barriers to your interest in a product is more than reasonable (*if* the PS3 was $400, I'd consider these games/*if* the 360 has eliminated their faulty hardware, I'll pick one up/etc.).He stole that from me, I called him a gaming neo-con long ago. He once used it as his usertitle.

I liked it!

[dmaul1114]

Rent a cable box?
Are you living 5 years ago?
Everything's been slowly converting for digital for the past 10 years, slowly but surely.
It's pretty much done in all mid to large cities.

Anytime you get cable now, you get a box.
They are all digital, and have analog to digital converters built in.


Um nope. Even here in most of the counties around DC and Baltimore they still offer a couple of tiers of basic, analog cable which doesn't require a box. Usually the unadvertised "welfare pack" of 20 channels or so for $25 or so, and the normal basic cable pack of 98 channels for $50 or so.

Totaly digital conversion is even less common in smaller cities and rural areas. The digital transfer has been going damn slow.

[dmaul1114]

It doesn't matter. The switch in 2009 only affects over-the-air broadcasts. Cable providers can stay analog forever if they want, nobody cares, they're using their own bandwidth. The whole point of the switch is that digital transmissions take up less of the available broadcast spectrum than analog transmissions, and the government wants to free up space for new technologies. Cable companies are trying to push customers to digital, however, for the same reason as the government mandate - digital saves bandwidth, and allows them to offer more content in the same space. My cable company allows current analog subscribers to continue receiving analog, but new accounts have to be digital.


Dallow is right, there is no HD mandate. From here (http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/hdtv_reference_guide.htm):

Although all broadcasts will be digital after the deadline, not all broadcasts are required to be HDTV, as part of the ATSC standard is 480p/i, which includes current satellite/digital cable transmissions. So even though there is a hard date for digital television, it will likely be much longer before all broadcasts will be in HDTV as there will be no hard date and will likely depend on consumer demand.




My point on the first was just that the switchover won't help sell HDTVs, since not many people (even poor) use solely over the air. Most people have cable--even the super poor as most counties require the cable company to offer some super cheap package of 20 or so channels (it's around $15 where I live).

As for the latter, again, I was off but that just furthers that the switch will have little effect on HDTV sales.

Adoption is going slow. It's speeding up, but doesn't change the fact that HD DVD and BR launched way to soon to be successful in selling to anyone other than the videophile nerds.

[dmaul1114]

Those two generations Sony had the edge from day one. Not so with the PS3. they put out a machine that cost twice what the PS2 did at launch($200 more than the competition). Not only that, but they were the one's that were a year late to the party. They don't have the luxury of resting on their laurels waiting for games this time around. This will be two Christmases in a row that they don't have a AAA title. Meanwhile the competition had COD2 in '05, Gears in '06 and Halo/Bioshock in '07.


Exactly, they could afford slow starts then as they had no competition for a year. Now they gave MS a headstart, plus did everything possible to fuck up their chance of selling well with the absurd price tag. And to top it off Nintendo came out of nowhere to jump even MS, selling a console like hot cakes despite having shit software.

They're in a hell of a hole to climb out of, have another holiday season coming up, and yet again no big system seller Halo caliber title on the release slate to help them compete for X-mas sales.

[MadFlava]

if the PS3 was 399 do you think this situation would have been any different.

I hate to always mention past events, but this reminds me so much of the PS1.. it went under people's radar for a while, and then it just got big. But PS1 had a lot of commercials... good funny commercials. That's what PS3 needs, good reoccurring commecials.. geico...

True, the PS1 didn't really take off until Tomb Raider 2 and Final Fantasy 7 came out in 1997. I remember finally caving in and buying one in 1998, because of Gran Turismo.

[dmaul1114]

True, the PS1 didn't really take off until Tomb Raider 2 and Final Fantasy 7 came out in 1997. I remember finally caving in and buying one in 1998, because of Gran Turismo.


I bought one for FF7.

But again, the key here is that the PS1 was never in a big hole like this, and was the same priced more competitively with the N64. Factor in that Nintendo went with carts, alienated Square etc. and it's easy to see how the PS1 took off and won easily.

Totally different this time, with MS having a years head start, a solid game libarary and a lower price tag, and the Wii being one of the fastest selling consoles ever and having a much lower price tag and it's clear Sony will have a much harder time getting the PS3 back in the race.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I guess the format war is going to carry a little weight here, which is something that I dont keep track of. How does a $399 blu-ray player fare against the price points of current blu-ray players AND HD players?

[Brad Bishop]

My personal position is that I do not want industry trending towards any of the following: online multiplayer, hard drives in consoles, high definition, achievements, DLC and generally anything that raises dev costs unnecessarily (what I perceive to be unnecessary).


I like online gaming as an option, but not the core.

I'd normally be against hard drives in consoles but with the PS3, since it's user replaceable, I don't mind. I really don't like it when you've got hard drives locked in to a particular machine (XBox does this, I believe). Let me replace the drive with something off the shelf, the box can reformat it, and away I go.

To me the biggest problem with gaming is how stale the game ideas are.

Basically we've got:
* FPS
* racing
* sports
* mini-games (Wii dominates here)

It'd be nice to see a new / good title outside of these over-used genres.

Little Big Planet may be it.

This isn't a comment on PS3 - just the gaming industry in general.

[dmaul1114]

Personally, my problem with DMK's stance is he seems to think all these things he doesn't care about will ruin gaming for him.

It's just not true.

1. Online gaming. I hate, but the vast majority of big online console games have great single player modes as well--Halo, Gears, and on down the line.

2. Hard Drives. Not much negative here, can be used for faster loading (metroid prime 3 would benefit greatly from this), add ons etc. The threat of rushed games and patches hasn't really panned out to be much of a problem in consoles. Microtransactions can be annoying, but for the most part most DLC has either been useless, or full expansions like the Oblivion stuff that's worth the price and is great because it extends the game.

3. High Def. Stupid to hate this. HD TV is the future, and the games still play in SD, so best of both worlds. I want my games to look as good as possible personally.

4. Acheivements. Don't care about them, so I just ignore them. Not a negative in any way, shape or form.

5. DLC. Again, microtransactions can be annoying, but most are useless. Full on expansions like the oblivion stuff is great as it extends the game--and the game was super fucking long to begin with so not like they were selling stuff that should have been in the game to begin with. Great for music games as well, as more songs can extend them forever...just need better prices than what Guitar Hero has had thus far.


That said, I do get that DMK is an ultra cheap ass, and a lot of his concerns are that the above are behind the $400-600 prices the 360 and PS3 launched at and $60 games. And that's somewhat fair. But he's such an uber cheap ass that he should just stay in his cave and buy consoles and games a generation behind and quit all the bitching.

Not many people online get under my skin, but he earned a place on the ignore list by posting that shit repeatedly. I just know he's "that guy" that's in every gamestop. You know the one. The weird, socially awkward, annoying as all fuck guy that always seems to be their annoying everyone spouting off non-sense about gaming everytime you go in.

[VidgamesgivemeA_D_D]

There's a reason why games like Dragon Quest are going to handhelds. PS3 is selling like shit (worldwide) and Xbox 360 is selling like shit (Japan) and Wii may scare hardcore rpg gamers off with the controls.

[dmaul1114]

There's a reason why games like Dragon Quest are going to handhelds. PS3 is selling like shit (worldwide) and Xbox 360 is selling like shit (Japan) and Wii may scare hardcore rpg gamers off with the controls.

Definitely true. The DS will likely remain my most played console this generation.

[mykevermin]

I guess the format war is going to carry a little weight here, which is something that I dont keep track of. How does a $399 blu-ray player fare against the price points of current blu-ray players AND HD players?

That would make it around $100 cheaper than the cheapest standalone BR player, and about $100 more than the cheapest standalone HD DVD player.

[Brad Bishop]

I still think that many gamers would ignore the PS3's price if:
* there was some super gotta-have game - I've seen gamers basically say, "I don't care what the price is - I've gotta play that game!" (be it a buying a PC / upgrading or a console game)
* Sony's reps hadn't been so arrogant in the beginning with their attitude of, "Well, they'll buy it because we tell them to and it's us." That seems to be slowly fading away though with them (smartly) keeping their mouth shut.

I still think the PS3 is a compelling box in that there are a lot of nice things about it if you add it all up as many other's have already pointed out.

[dmaul1114]

I'm sure there are some but for many, the price is just too steep regardless of games.

Be it just to expensive on principle, or simply not affordable on their budget.

[Corvin]

That would make it around $100 cheaper than the cheapest standalone BR player, and about $100 more than the cheapest standalone HD DVD player.

The Toshiba A2 HD-DVD player is $237. so a $400 PS3 model would be $163 more than the cheapest HD-DVD player.


2. Hard Drives. Not much negative here, can be used for faster loading (metroid prime 3 would benefit greatly from this), add ons etc. The threat of rushed games and patches hasn't really panned out to be much of a problem in consoles. Microtransactions can be annoying, but for the most part most DLC has either been useless, or full expansions like the Oblivion stuff that's worth the price and is great because it extends the game.

I'm surprised at this one. I was a negative nancy when it came to idea of hard drives in consoles. I was on the "rushed games and patches" mindset. I'm of course glad to have been wrong on that one. The developers have kept patches to a minimum. The only real problem now is having content on the game disc you can't access without buying a key through the marketplace. That's bullshit.

[Brad Bishop]

I'm sure there are some but for many, the price is just too steep regardless of games.

Be it just to expensive on principle, or simply not affordable on their budget.

I'm not talking about the folks who look at the $100 PS/2 and it's a stretch for their budget. I'm talking about the gamers who, given the situation of the 'must play' game, will spend gobs of money to be able to play that game.

It used to happen more frequently on the PCs than consoles but I can't say it's happened recently anywhere. I just remember guys buying new PCs or upgrading their current ones (spending hundreds on a video card, for example) just so that they met the specs for some latest/hot game. I think those folks, given some 'must have' game, would spend the bucks. Maybe not the audience of cheap-ass gamer, but those hard-core types are pretty numerous. I think they've also been starving for a good / original game.

For the family of 4 working through their budget each month to make sure there's food on the table - the PS3 isn't for them.

[dmaul1114]

I'm not talking about the folks who look at the $100 PS/2 and it's a stretch for their budget. I'm talking about the gamers who, given the situation of the 'must play' game, will spend gobs of money to be able to play that game.

It used to happen more frequently on the PCs than consoles but I can't say it's happened recently anywhere. I just remember guys buying new PCs or upgrading their current ones (spending hundreds on a video card, for example) just so that they met the specs for some latest/hot game. I think those folks, given some 'must have' game, would spend the bucks. Maybe not the audience of cheap-ass gamer, but those hard-core types are pretty numerous. I think they've also been starving for a good / original game.

For the family of 4 working through their budget each month to make sure there's food on the table - the PS3 isn't for them.

True. So it's just for rich game nerds, single people etc.

That's EXACTLY why it's in distant third place and likely to stay there.

The PS1 and PS2 were raging successes as they were the consoles for casual gamers, families of 4 etc. Everyone had the damn things. Now they've priced it out of most of their core market, and are left selling to tech nerds and hard core gamers with no lives and large expendable incomes.

[dallow]

True. So it's just for rich game nerds, single people etc.

That's EXACTLY why it's in distant third place and likely to stay there.

The PS1 and PS2 were raging successes as they were the consoles for casual gamers, families of 4 etc. Everyone had the damn things. Now they've priced it out of most of their core market, and are left selling to tech nerds and hard core gamers with no lives and large expendable incomes.Ok.

Can this thread end now?

[dmaul1114]

Can you end now? Please?

[dallow]

I would make it end, if I could.

WE GET IT, THE PS3 IS EXPENSIVE AND YOU HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN IT.

We hear you loud and clear, loud and clear.

[dmaul1114]

If you're not interested in the discussion, stay out of thread. If you don't like what I have to say, put me on ignore. Showing me that I annoy you only encourages further posts from me, as half the fun of this site is annoying the fanboys.

My response was just befuddlement that someone was trying to argue that the PS3 is going to start selling well because there SO FUCKING MANY hardcore gamers out there with loads of cash to blow once some big games come out.

Sorry, but the hardcore gamers with loads of cash to blow represent the early adopters who've already bought the 5 million or so PS3's that have been sold. They've already got their consoles and are just waiting on games.

If the PS3 is going to make up any ground, and not stay hopelessly in third place they have to find a way to get the casual gamers that were there bread and butter with the PS1 and PS2 on board.

[dallow]

It's not a discussion, you've just been repeating the same crap ad nauseum.
I'm not annoyed by you per se (though I see now why people think you're a bit of a prick). I'm annoyed by this non-argument.
And the number of threads I see it in.

[mykevermin]

I think dallow's point is that you have had dozens of post that are reiterations of the same idea over and over again: the PS3 is expensive.

Like AC/DC songs, they appear uniquely written and different on the surface. Digging a little deeper, their paperthin differences give way to a single, isolated foundation on which they all stand.

Like your posts. You can't back up, at all, the idea that "hardcore" folks have only bought the PS3, and you can't back up your claim that folks are "waiting on games" (again with the "PS3 has no games" argument! Y'all are so predictable that someone should just script an anti-PS3 macro to do all the work for you). You can't back up the claim that the PS3 will remain in third place, and that casual gamers are not only not buying the system at all, but never will.

It's absurd on the surface of what you're saying. That's all.

You and "Iamthecheapestgamer" are much alike. Rambling, ranting, raving, and yet possessing so very little to say that you could shuffle any of your posts with any other posts of yours, and the context would only shift a little bit.

Yes, the PS3 has a high MSRP. Yes, the Wii and 360 are selling well compared to the PS3. But, given that the PS3 is on track to sell 11 million by March of 2008, given sales trends (which is 2-3 months earlier than the 360 did after its release), isn't it remarkably premature to revel in eulogizing, over and over and over and over, a system that *is* selling?

[pbates86]

I purchased a 360 at launch, then traded it in for a PS3 when it launched. My logic was that since I predominately play sports games, since PS3 is more powerful and the would look better, Ill get a PS3. I don't know if you remember but the 2 games that were for PS3 around launch were NBA 2k7 and Madden 07, both of which got slightly higher review scores than their 360 counterpart. Then the next year, suddenly everything FLIPS and the PS3 versions of almost every multi-platform game is the worst version. The reason I traded in the 360 for PS3 is the very reason I want a 360 again. I want to hold on to the PS3 but how much longer is it going to take developers to fully take advantage of PS3's hardware? And now with Halo 3 out and Mass Effect is coming soon, and my itch for a 360 grows. PS3 wise, the only games I see buying is Skate, Assassins Creed, and MAYBE Rachet & Clank (I've never played any of them). 2 of those games are also on 360. Skate has already gotten better reviews for 360, I'm curious to see if Assassin' Creed does also.

I love my PS3, but my patience it starting to run thin. Like the OP, I am getting worried that I picked the wrong "team". I did it before with the Sega Saturn. And Sega Dreamcast. I haven't even been played my PS3 in a while because I'm waiting for the Madden 08 that was ALREADY released on 360.

[dallow]

Ironically, Peter Moore (now in charge of sports at EA) publicly stated that starting now, all 360 and PS3 games will be identical.

[Thomas96]

I see mykes point about your methods. I think the easier to defend position is that games DONT MATTER until the hardware gets to certain price threshold, beyond which you are unable to make a value judgement for any number of games. Call it a personal mental block.

For instance: PS3 may have a great future lineup. However, its not worth it to me to pay more than X for it, under any circumstances.

Or I guess you could say that you buy your consoles on immediate lineup and not "potential"



My personal position is that I do not want industry trending towards any of the following: online multiplayer, hard drives in consoles, high definition, achievements, DLC and generally anything that raises dev costs unnecessarily (what I perceive to be unnecessary).

A gaming conservative, if you will.


how about controllers that require batteries [they constantly need change of batteries... AAA. AA. etc.] - [something that raises cost/spending for consumers] devs are going to make money, regardless of cost... consumers are going to lose money regardless.

[Thomas96]

I purchased a 360 at launch, then traded it in for a PS3 when it launched. My logic was that since I predominately play sports games, since PS3 is more powerful and the would look better, Ill get a PS3. I don't know if you remember but the 2 games that were for PS3 around launch were NBA 2k7 and Madden 07, both of which got slightly higher review scores than their 360 counterpart. Then the next year, suddenly everything FLIPS and the PS3 versions of almost every multi-platform game is the worst version. The reason I traded in the 360 for PS3 is the very reason I want a 360 again. I want to hold on to the PS3 but how much longer is it going to take developers to fully take advantage of PS3's hardware? And now with Halo 3 out and Mass Effect is coming soon, and my itch for a 360 grows. PS3 wise, the only games I see buying is Skate, Assassins Creed, and MAYBE Rachet & Clank (I've never played any of them). 2 of those games are also on 360. Skate has already gotten better reviews for 360, I'm curious to see if Assassin' Creed does also.

I love my PS3, but my patience it starting to run thin. Like the OP, I am getting worried that I picked the wrong "team". I did it before with the Sega Saturn. And Sega Dreamcast. I haven't even been played my PS3 in a while because I'm waiting for the Madden 08 that was ALREADY released on 360.



EA dropped the damn ball with their PS3 madden 08, and Nascar 08... but you see for NHL 08, FIFA 08, NBA live 08, they got it right... that's why no one's buying NBA live 08... EA hurt their own brand name with that mishap.

[Thomas96]

Ironically, Peter Moore (now in charge of sports at EA) publicly stated that starting now, all 360 and PS3 games will be identical.



EA regardless who's in charge of sports at EA, has to get the PS3 version up to par, because it hurts them as a whole if its not up to par. All it does is give 2k games some life... and reduces sells of their products on PS3. EA has always been credited with being a good developer always getting the most out of the PS2 hardware, now [in some circles] they look like a bunch of lazy ass devs. Madden 08 ps3's framerate wasn't even the problem... 30fps can play much better than that B.S. they released for PS3. - edit - both versions 360 and ps3 had glitches, so its more than just getting the PS3 and 360 versions identical, EA needs to get the wax and put the polish on these games. Instead of holding up "oh we'll do better next year" sign.

[n8n8baby]

True. So it's just for rich game nerds, single people etc.

That's EXACTLY why it's in distant third place and likely to stay there.

The PS1 and PS2 were raging successes as they were the consoles for casual gamers, families of 4 etc. Everyone had the damn things. Now they've priced it out of most of their core market, and are left selling to tech nerds and hard core gamers with no lives and large expendable incomes.

Everyone has the damn things because they got them like 2 years ago. It's so early in the cycle that, by definition, only the early adopters have them. If you ask me, 360 games pretty much appeal to the core gamer, and not to many others. After Halo 3's hype dies down a bit, I really do expect the 360's sales to start reaching a critical mass and pretty much petering out. Can you think of any big, _MASS MARKET_ games coming for 360 now that Halo is out? Neither can I.

I really don't care who "wins"...competition is very good for all of us gamers, in that the prices drop quicker and the games get better :)