Why do so many gamers hate Sony?

[Strell]

I can't give that guy any respect, he can't even program on PS3.

Well you can't either.

But then again, you don't command any respect around here either.

So I guess it's equal.

[jer7583]

I'm done tiptoeing around the fact that I hate the PS3 and they're virtually irrelevant this generation. If that's not okay with you, grow the fuck up. Call be biased, call me misinformed, call me stupid, but don't say I'm afraid to express my own opinion.

[mykevermin]

Well, as long as we're coming clean, I believe man lived alongside dinosaurs.

[Thomas96]

I believe he simply looked at it as a cost to benefit ratio.

The cost of porting code (that easily worked between the PC -> Xbox 360) exceeded what they would make on the PS3 sales of the game. That, or it was a time cost to benefit ratio. His dev teams would have to focus their efforts on the port rather than some other project. He didn't think it was worth it -- talent had nothing to do with the PS3 Orange Box, money did.

The guy doesn't like the PS3. He doesn't HAVE to develop for it. He thinks it sucks... (for some easily supportable reasons, actually...), and someone with that kind of artistic direction thinking it sucks matters a great deal more than what you or I think, because HIS opinions determine the GAMES they make for the PS3.

Apparently, he'd rather let EA do it... and from several economic angles, that is very smart business.


How do we know he CAN develop for the PS3. Until he develops a game on PS3, I'm not going to assume that he can actually do it. I guess in actuality he can program on PS3 just fine.

Does Valve not lose money, hiring EA to port Orange Box to the PS3, and knowing that its not as good as the original make of the game? I don't think they're going to make enough PS3 Orange Box sales, to recoup the money that they spend to port [to ps3], prep, and ship for retail

[zewone]

I don't think they're going to make enough PS3 Orange Box sales, to recoup the money that they spend to port [to ps3], prep, and ship for retail
:lol: That has nothing to do with how well they port it.

[Thomas96]

Well you can't either.

But then again, you don't command any respect around here either.

So I guess it's equal.


Well if I had a game that needed to be ported to PS3, I wouldn't let it be done poorly. I'd take a little pride in my product and make sure that its high quality regardless of the platform its on. When did stuff like this become acceptable? When did it become okay, for sloppy ports to be brougth to retail. Valve, EA, definitely not getting my money, when they can't provide a quality product.

[Thomas96]

:lol: That has nothing to do with how well they port it.

lol true, but you could lose less, or you could lose MORE..

[BattleChicken]

How do we know he CAN develop for the PS3. Until he develops a game on PS3, I'm not going to assume that he can actually do it. I guess in actuality he can program on PS3 just fine.



...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

[BattleChicken]

Well if I had a game that needed to be ported to PS3, I wouldn't let it be done poorly. I'd take a little pride in my product and make sure that its high quality regardless of the platform its on. When did stuff like this become acceptable? When did it become okay, for sloppy ports to be brougth to retail. Valve, EA, definitely not getting my money, when they can't provide a quality product.
...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

[Strell]

Well if I had a game that needed to be ported to PS3, I wouldn't let it be done poorly. I'd take a little pride in my product and make sure that its high quality regardless of the platform its on. When did stuff like this become acceptable? When did it become okay, for sloppy ports to be brougth to retail. Valve, EA, definitely not getting my money, when they can't provide a quality product.

Wait a minute - when did it become acceptable?

....Since always?

Developers like to spread their games around as much as they can to get as much money as they can, and they want to do the minimal amount of effort to pull that off. That's always been.

I'll even be fair and place part of the blame on the developers, but part of the blame falls onto whether or not they have access to good tools to help them do porting to begin with. And if your system has a bunch of cores that have to work in unison to get around the bottlenecks inherent in the architecture, then it's up to you to deliver that.

You're complaining about something that has been fundamentally a Nintendo problem forever, and pretty much still is. Which is kind of funny when you think about it.

[Thomas96]

:lol: That has nothing to do with how well they port it.


that's not true.. A good port of Orange Box could at least make it at the top 10 gaming sales for the month (December, or January) but with a bad port they probably won't even make it that far. Orange Box isn't a budget title.. its full price, so to me it should be complete and high quality product that runs well.

[Thomas96]

Wait a minute - when did it become acceptable?

....Since always?

Developers like to spread their games around as much as they can to get as much money as they can, and they want to do the minimal amount of effort to pull that off. That's always been.

I'll even be fair and place part of the blame on the developers, but part of the blame falls onto whether or not they have access to good tools to help them do porting to begin with. And if your system has a bunch of cores that have to work in unison to get around the bottlenecks inherent in the architecture, then it's up to you to deliver that.

You're complaining about something that has been fundamentally a Nintendo problem forever, and pretty much still is. Which is kind of funny when you think about it.


I remember Mortal Kombat on SNES and Genesis, I don't know which one was the port, but they both were good. Both played good, both had decent graphics for their system. [Nintendo didn't like blood back then... lol] I guess now its not helping developers that Sony purposely designed their system so that it would be difficult to port games to it. [I read that article before the PS3 launched, doubt I'll ever find it again]

[mykevermin]

I remember Mortal Kombat on SNES and Genesis, I don't know which one was the port, but they both were good. Both played good, both had decent graphics for their system. [Nintendo didn't like blood back then... lol] I guess now its not helping developers that Sony purposely designed their system so that it would be difficult to port games to it. [I read that article before the PS3 launched, doubt I'll ever find it again]

Neither were ports of the other. People seem to fondly recall MK Genesis, but the fact of the matter is that it was an awful game that completely lost the feel of the arcade title. The hit recognition was totally different, lack of stereo sound gave it no "oomph" at all (were there even sound effects for the uppercut?), and was a piece of trash.

Nintendo basically handed Acclaim/Sega all their sales on a silver platter by insisting on their "Championship Edition" version. It looked like the arcade game, played like the arcade game, sounded like the arcade game...but also took out the very thing (perhaps the only thing) gamers wanted in the cart.

MK1 is a great example of hardware differences (and perhaps developer differences over time as well). The titles were quite different from the ground up due to hardware differences. There was no mistaking one for the other. "Inferior" hardware on the Genesis side of things exposed itself in this cartridge. Despite these massive differences, though, people greatly preferred the Genesis version of the game (for the obvious reasons, yes - but they also gladly overlooked the massive gameplay differences/flaws in the Genesis version).

These days, however, we have people acting as if it were a mortal sin against God himself that Madden 08 runs at 30 FPS on the PS3.

[PhoenixT]

How many DVD's is it on? I can't imagine playing UT3 on a console and having to change discs.

Besides, you install it on a PC, you aren't actually playing it off the disc, so that argument is irrelevant.

The game is on One DVD on the PC version (sorry if this is a duplicate answer I just saw this while skimming the thread and thought I'd contribute)

[dmaul1114]

I don't hate Sony. I had a PS1 and PS2 and played the shit out of them. I have a Sony HDTV, a sony surround receiver and speakers, a Sony upconverting DVD player, put a Sony CD player in my old car, own a Sony Discman, etc. etc.

I just hate what theyd did with the PS3. Launching at $500-600 was just absurd, as I'd never pay anywhere near that for a game console. Most I've paid was $350 for a 360, and I wasn't happy about that. $200 is the sweet spot for me.

And it really rubbed me the wrong way that the reason it cost so much was that they wanted to force Blu Ray, a product I couldn't give a shit less about right now (much less last year) into homes to win that format war.

Combine that with their stupid and arrogant statements along they way, and they've lost my business--at least for this generation.

I don't hate them, I loved the PS1 and PS2, and I'm very happy with the other products of theirs that I own, but I don't like what they did with the PS3 at all, and won't support it. There really aren't many exclusives out or announced that are must plays for me anyway since most big 3rd party games are going to the 360 as well, and I've tired of nearly all their 1st and 3rd party exclusives (pretty well played out on Ratchet, Sly Cooper, Jak and Daxter, Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy, MGS etc.).

No hate for Sony overall, but the PS3 has done everything wrong in terms of what I wanted in a game console, and thus the Wii60 is my gaming setup this generation.

If they put out the PS4 at $400 or under, start winning back some exclusives that can woo me over from the competition next gen, then they will have a good chance at winning my business back.

[DarkNessBear]

I'm done tiptoeing around the fact that I hate the PS3 and they're virtually irrelevant this generation. If that's not okay with you, grow the fuck up. Call be biased, call me misinformed, call me stupid, but don't say I'm afraid to express my own opinion.

If they are so "Irrelevant" why are you here voicing your opinion? Wouldn't that make your opinion irrelevant?

[zewone]

If they are so "Irrelevant" why are you here voicing your opinion? Wouldn't that make your opinion irrelevant?
Do you just want this forum to be a bunch of Sony fan's sucking each other off?

[BattleChicken]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jer7583 http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/disturbed/misc/backlink.gif (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162437&page=6#post3708670)
I'm done tiptoeing around the fact that I hate the PS3 and they're virtually irrelevant this generation. If that's not okay with you, grow the fuck up. Call be biased, call me misinformed, call me stupid, but don't say I'm afraid to express my own opinion.


If they are so "Irrelevant" why are you here voicing your opinion? Wouldn't that make your opinion irrelevant?
The thread title is "Why do so many gamers hate Sony?" - he says why. So, his post is more in line with the very purpose of the thread than anyone else at this point.

Additionally, your post is a:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

[Paco]

Neither were ports of the other. People seem to fondly recall MK Genesis, but the fact of the matter is that it was an awful game that completely lost the feel of the arcade title. The hit recognition was totally different, lack of stereo sound gave it no "oomph" at all (were there even sound effects for the uppercut?), and was a piece of trash.

Nintendo basically handed Acclaim/Sega all their sales on a silver platter by insisting on their "Championship Edition" version. It looked like the arcade game, played like the arcade game, sounded like the arcade game...but also took out the very thing (perhaps the only thing) gamers wanted in the cart.

MK1 is a great example of hardware differences (and perhaps developer differences over time as well). The titles were quite different from the ground up due to hardware differences. There was no mistaking one for the other. "Inferior" hardware on the Genesis side of things exposed itself in this cartridge. Despite these massive differences, though, people greatly preferred the Genesis version of the game (for the obvious reasons, yes - but they also gladly overlooked the massive gameplay differences/flaws in the Genesis version).

These days, however, we have people acting as if it were a mortal sin against God himself that Madden 08 runs at 30 FPS on the PS3.

Actually the snes version wasn't anywhere near arcade perfect either. Though it looked more like the arcade one, it moved nowhere near as fast. Also some of the combos "what little there were" were also taken out, or am I thinking of Mortal Kombat 2? But the snes one wasn't anywhere near arcade perfect. It looked the part, but that's about it. The speed was inferior to the genesis one which moved almost at the arcade clip, but still wasn't 100%. The snes was also missing some voices and animation. But you are right on the fact that taking away the blood just made the sega version winner by default. Though to be fair, the sega cd version of Mortal Kombat was probably the closest representation of the original arcade version.

The mortal sin part just cracked me the hell up. Like anyone is going to really notice that extra split reaction time when the game doesn't even move fast enough to make true use of it.

[mykevermin]

Well, that's pretty much my point. People blow that up, and as evidence to prove the PS3 version's inferiority, would bring up a 1Up video (or was it gametrailers?) that played the two side by side, and you would only notice the lack of frames when the game was slowed down a substantial percent, and then also focus on the individual movements of a single player, instead of the gameplay at large.

Is it a difference? Yep. Is it a real difference worth noting? Nope.

Orange Box is up for debate, and I'll reserve judgment on that until I get it from GF. But, again, with only a small number of multiplatform titles performing "poorly" on the PS3, and the majority running identically, it's a false conclusion to blame Sony or the console's architecture. Some folks got it working just fine.

Ah, and you are right, I believe, about SNES Mortal Kombat's speed. The Genesis did have a faster processor, I believe, and that somehow correlated with the EA sports titles playing better on the Genesis (I seem to recall Madden being sluggish on the SNES).

[Thomas96]

Neither were ports of the other. People seem to fondly recall MK Genesis, but the fact of the matter is that it was an awful game that completely lost the feel of the arcade title. The hit recognition was totally different, lack of stereo sound gave it no "oomph" at all (were there even sound effects for the uppercut?), and was a piece of trash.

Nintendo basically handed Acclaim/Sega all their sales on a silver platter by insisting on their "Championship Edition" version. It looked like the arcade game, played like the arcade game, sounded like the arcade game...but also took out the very thing (perhaps the only thing) gamers wanted in the cart.

MK1 is a great example of hardware differences (and perhaps developer differences over time as well). The titles were quite different from the ground up due to hardware differences. There was no mistaking one for the other. "Inferior" hardware on the Genesis side of things exposed itself in this cartridge. Despite these massive differences, though, people greatly preferred the Genesis version of the game (for the obvious reasons, yes - but they also gladly overlooked the massive gameplay differences/flaws in the Genesis version).

These days, however, we have people acting as if it were a mortal sin against God himself that Madden 08 runs at 30 FPS on the PS3.



WHen I got MK in my hands, I was just glad to have it in my hands. [on either snes or genesis] At least the genesis version had something good about it to look forward to. But in the case of Madden 08 (ps3) 30fps is not the problem with that game. 30fps, can still run smoothly, as it does on the ps2 version. The gameplay itself is choppy and sluggish, the animations are poor as well. Even the 360 version had some glitches. All pro football did a good job with their game despite not having NFL teams, and being at 30fps

[mykevermin]

As usual, you've missed the entire point.

[Rozz]

Even the 360 version had some glitches. All pro

Can we please source these claims?

[Paco]

Well, that's pretty much my point. People blow that up, and as evidence to prove the PS3 version's inferiority, would bring up a 1Up video (or was it gametrailers?) that played the two side by side, and you would only notice the lack of frames when the game was slowed down a substantial percent, and then also focus on the individual movements of a single player, instead of the gameplay at large.

Is it a difference? Yep. Is it a real difference worth noting? Nope.

Orange Box is up for debate, and I'll reserve judgment on that until I get it from GF. But, again, with only a small number of multiplatform titles performing "poorly" on the PS3, and the majority running identically, it's a false conclusion to blame Sony or the console's architecture. Some folks got it working just fine.

Ah, and you are right, I believe, about SNES Mortal Kombat's speed. The Genesis did have a faster processor, I believe, and that somehow correlated with the EA sports titles playing better on the Genesis (I seem to recall Madden being sluggish on the SNES).

One thing that I also wonder about the 60/30 fps arguement is if they cut a few frames or recycled them to make that speed since they almost do look identacle if you aren't paying attention. Plus the FPS for a sports game at this point isn't noteworthy because when the tackle animation happens and connects with the body itself, you can't really react to it, unlike the first person shooter genre where FPS really is essential from the 30 fps to 60 fps jump.

How about Fight Night Round 3? It looks better on the PS3 overall as a whole, let's call that the superiority of the PS3, the 360 is shit! It doesn't treat the sweat as realistically as the PS3 version! Let us bring down the shit storm and make shenanigans on this example alone where effort determined the graphical abilities, not lazy developers who love to complain.

On the genesis vs snes processor you're correct. The snes had a 3.26 mhz processor while the genesis had a 7 mhz processor. The closest port to the arcade was on the sega cd. Though using essentially the genesis graphics of MK, it had arcade speed, more frames added, full music and voice, and the fatailities were redone from the ground up to look better. But to be fair, when they were combined the Sega CD with Genesis had a combined CPU speed of 20 mhz which is far above what the snes could do. It's all a matter of putting in the time to make it. Though I really do think the sega cd could have held the genesis up if they didn't abandon it so quickly. They abandoned it just as it was getting great games like Popful Mail, Eternal Champions: Challenge from the darkside, Earthworm Jim Special edition and Lunar 2 eternal blue.

And yes, madden was sluggish on the snes. It looked a bit better graphically, but moved a lot slower. That wasn't just for madden though, it was fightng games as a whole that run smoother despite looking worse on the genesis.

[BattleChicken]

...with only a small number of multiplatform titles performing "poorly" on the PS3, and the majority running identically, it's a false conclusion to blame Sony or the console's architecture.

Some folks got it working just fine.
As odd as it feels to disagree with you, your conclusion is the one that is false.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html

Just because the quality of some ports are equal does NOT mean that the architecture isn't difficult to work with, and that seems to be what you are asserting. This argument then ignores the common cause for ALL quality titles -- the work of the development team.

From a gamer's perspective, good games = good platform, however using the games as an indication of the quality of the platform in terms of DEVELOPMENT just doesn't work.

If a dev has to put, lets say 10%, more effort into the PS3 version of a title to make it equal to the PC or Xbox 360 version, then the platform HAS a detrimental impact on the quality, as money, time, and efforts are a tangible, finite resouce. The delays for many of the PS3 version of cross platform titles lends evidence to the idea that that platform IS more difficult to work with. Using that criteria, it could then be said that the PS3 is inferior to comparible platforms from a development perspective.

If platform A and platform B can generate quality Q in X time (time equating to effort, money, and human resources), and platform C requires some substancial (not near zero) value greater than X to equal Q in quality, then logically A or B would be more desirable than C. This is without factoring in market share or potential gains, which would be additionally detrimental to C currently.

The additional time and effort that a developer determined to deliver a quality product pours into the development cycle shouldn't be ignored. Saying "if they only worked harder...' misses the point. Just because some developers are willing to put in the extra effort to have equal quality multi platform titles does not mean that ALL are willing to. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html.

edit: edited to fix my second link.

[zerolens]

Do you just want this forum to be a bunch of Sony fan's sucking each other off?

If the PS3 was truly irrelevant to him he wouldn't be reading the PS3 board at all. Caring about PS3 news or opinions makes that console relevant to him.

And this coming from some gangster wannabe (or whatever it is you're trying to be) when you keep saying the "triple". Everyone else here can type PS3. What do you call the 360, the "circle"?

[zewone]

If the PS3 was truly irrelevant to him he wouldn't be reading the PS3 board at all. Caring about PS3 news or opinions makes that console relevant to him.

And this coming from some gangster wannabe (or whatever it is you're trying to be) when you keep saying the "triple". Everyone else here can type PS3. What do you call the 360, the "circle"?
That Triple, dumbass.

And, why wouldn't jer be in a thread titled "Why do so many gamers hate Sony?" when he in fact does.

If the OP wants to know why, then who better to ask then someone who does then some Sony fanboy. People do call the 360, That Circle. Not me, I think that sounds stupid.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=25LceCPO1ys

[DarkNessBear]

Do you just want this forum to be a bunch of Sony fan's sucking each other off?

No, I love the constant arguements and comments like those.

:roll:

[Rozz]

that's not true.. A good port of Orange Box could at least make it at the top 10 gaming sales for the month (December, or January) but with a bad port they probably won't even make it that far. Orange Box isn't a budget title.. its full price, so to me it should be complete and high quality product that runs well.

The PS3's killer app, Ratchet and Clank, debuted at number 19 on the sales charts. Fifa 08 (PS2, 360) and Drawn to Life (DS) both outsold it, so what makes you so positive the Orange Box would do so well?

[zerolens]

And, why wouldn't jer be in a thread titled "Why do so many gamers hate Sony?" when he in fact does.



You had to click on the board to even see it. Apparently he cares what's going on with the PS3, same with you. It has relevance when people are clicking on the board and checking up on news and opinions about it.

[zewone]

You had to click on the board to even see it. Apparently he cares what's going on with the PS3, same with you. It has relevance when people are clicking on the board and checking up on news and opinions about it.
I have a That Triple, why wouldn't I be trying to see what's up?

[mykevermin]

As odd as it feels to disagree with you, your conclusion is the one that is false.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html

Just because the quality of some ports are equal does NOT mean that the architecture isn't difficult to work with, and that seems to be what you are asserting. This argument then ignores the common cause for ALL quality titles -- the work of the development team.

From a gamer's perspective, good games = good platform, however using the games as an indication of the quality of the platform in terms of DEVELOPMENT just doesn't work.

If a dev has to put, lets say 10%, more effort into the PS3 version of a title to make it equal to the PC or Xbox 360 version, then the platform HAS a detrimental impact on the quality, as money, time, and efforts are a tangible, finite resouce. The delays for many of the PS3 version of cross platform titles lends evidence to the idea that that platform IS more difficult to work with. Using that criteria, it could then be said that the PS3 is inferior to comparible platforms from a development perspective.

If platform A and platform B can generate quality Q in X time (time equating to effort, money, and human resources), and platform C requires some substancial (not near zero) value greater than X to equal Q in quality, then logically A or B would be more desirable than C. This is without factoring in market share or potential gains, which would be additionally detrimental to C currently.

The additional time and effort that a developer determined to deliver a quality product pours into the development cycle shouldn't be ignored. Saying "if they only worked harder...' misses the point. Just because some developers are willing to put in the extra effort to have equal quality multi platform titles does not mean that ALL are willing to. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html.

edit: edited to fix my second link.

:lol: Been reading up on your logical fallacies today, eh?

There are two things being argued here (here being this thread, not your post exclusively):
1) The PS3 is an inferior console
2) The PS3 is more difficult to take advantage of in terms of development

I wholly disagree with #1, and can see some evidence of #2 (given the delays of, at least, Stranglehold and Orange Box - are there others as well that are at least 4 weeks separated?).

Nevertheless, the "unwillingness," as you speculate it, of programmers to optimize code may very well exist. Newell did not mince words with his disdain for the PS3 as a console to develop for. Now the problem becomes one of a self-fulfilling prophecy. His treatment of the PS3 Orange Box as a bastard child makes me uncertain about its quality - irrespective of the reviews - and wonder if I'd want to play it/buy it. So, if people don't buy it because they're skeptical of it, and the 360 version outsells it tenfold, the PS3's shortcomings become, at least in part, a developer-created reality.

But that's neither here nor there, I suppose.

What I will say is that, to the best of my knowledge, developers have had their hands on 360 development tools for far longer than PS3 development tools. We also know that the PS3 is a far more complex system to develop for. So your hypothetical 10% is not cut-and-dry as you think (just like "development costs" for a multiplatform title can rarely be understood or partitioned into claims of "this version cost this much"). If that 10% now makes next year's model (and let's be honest, as gamers we're going in the direction that games are almost like automobiles at this point :lol:) far easier to develop, then it's worth it, no?

Going to Madden again, if they could have optimized the code this year, then making Madden 09 will likely require fewer manhours. And we all know the improvements to Madden from year to year can't be *that* bloody involved. ;)

And you're quite right about developers not being willing to. That's what makes me sick - moreso quality developers halfassing very good games than shitty developers halfassing shovelware. I can at least spot the latter when it's still on the shelf at the store.

[Strell]

Nevertheless, the "unwillingness," as you speculate it, of programmers to optimize code may very well exist. Newell did not mince words with his disdain for the PS3 as a console to develop for. Now the problem becomes one of a self-fulfilling prophecy. His treatment of the PS3 Orange Box as a bastard child makes me uncertain about its quality - irrespective of the reviews - and wonder if I'd want to play it/buy it. So, if people don't buy it because they're skeptical of it, and the 360 version outsells it tenfold, the PS3's shortcomings become, at least in part, a developer-created reality.

...

And you're quite right about developers not being willing to. That's what makes me sick - moreso quality developers halfassing very good games than shitty developers halfassing shovelware. I can at least spot the latter when it's still on the shelf at the store.

Self-fulfilling prophecy? Not entirely, because that implies Newell is full of shit and shooting from the hip behind unkempt greasy hair.

Multi-core processors are a bitch. I'm not so sure everyone understands what the beef some developers have with them is. Imagine playing Pacman with 8 Pacmen on the screen, simultaneously. All you have is the standard joystick and a switch button. You can switch between the Pacmen, but you have no control over which one you get when you hit the button. Also, if any of them die, you lose the entire game. Plus, it cost twenty bucks just to play it once. And even if you COULD determine which Pacman you want to switch to, you had to plan that WAY in advance - under non-normal gaming conditions - so that once you get into the game and have a set plan at your disposal, you might find that it sucks because switching to Pacman #3 ends up being disastrous because the ghost went after him instead of #5, which is not what you expected.

That's kind of what it's like, and Newell's point wasn't so much "that sucks" as it was "If you're going to make a game for the PS3, you've got to completely re-write the code from scratch to do so, so you have to plan on essentially making the game over again." Now, his opinion of that circumstance was most certainly "that sucks," but that was him expressing that the system is going to be hard to get even simple code to run, to say nothing of these mythical proportions that Sony keeps insisting will occur down the line. (Which, by the way, I'm not 100% convinced of, because that requires a programmer to want to be patient enough to wring the power out of the system like it was liquid gold.) Point being that a commitment to the PS3 is a commitment, not just a port, since that implies the ability to easily change code over to that environment.

So that's kind of why a developer is "unwilling," as you put it. Which is the same method of thinking re: shovelware on the Wii. Those shitty eighteenth-string teams giving us Chicken Shoot are operating under the same conditions and mentalities that even the "awesome" devs are when they try to port something to/from the PS3 - trying to get it done ASAP to keep their ass in bidness.

It's kind of like how you imply Wii owners have nothing to be mad about when it comes to third party support, because "well it's not my fault that you guys are buying Carnival Games, which gives more impetus for copycat efforts, which is why you don't get Assassin's Creed." Yes and no. Yes because yes. No because that's bullshit devs taking the easy way out.

I imagine this generation that "a shitty port on the PS3" and "nothing but mini-games on the Wii" will be equivalent to the shitty ports the 'Cube got last time around, actually, and that developers will be citing roughly the same nonsense excuses of "well, our shitty port of (Sports Game Here) didn't sell well on the 'Cube, so we scrapped it/removed features/did things to intentionally make it a shitty port."

Oh, count on it. This isn't going to be the only instance of a bad port or a carnal game feast.

[jer7583]

The PS3 is the gamecube of this gen. Get used to it. I don't understand people trying to compare the PS3 and 360 when they're clearly not equal. Or that there's some magical surge of titles thats going to make sales blow up and bring them past 360 or Wii, because it's never going to happen.

[whoknows]

The PS3 is the gamecube of this gen. Get used to it.
Nah, PS3 actually has decent 3rd party support.

[jer7583]

Gamecube did for its first few years too. Despite getting the crappier ports..

[Paco]

The PS3 is the gamecube of this gen. Get used to it. I don't understand people trying to compare the PS3 and 360 when they're clearly not equal. Or that there's some magical surge of titles thats going to make sales blow up and bring them past 360 or Wii, because it's never going to happen.

You're forgetting that the 360 is only selling well in north america. In Japan the 360 is SHIT. In Europe the 360 is SHIT. This is more akin to the Genesis VS Snes war. And where do all the GOOD games that people love to jack off to come from? take a wild guess. It is NOT America son. If people think that a console can live only on American games, take a look at the Genesis, suceeded at least for a whie in the US, was barely alive in Japan.

The 360 is only a PS2 in respects of how shitty the hardware actually is. And the never going to surpass the 360? That happened in Japan for the ENTIRE lifespan of the PS3 barring a few weeks here and there for big releases.

[zewone]

And where do all the GOOD games that people love to jack off to come from? take a wild guess. It is NOT America son. If people think that a console can live only on American games, take a look at the Genesis, suceeded at least for a whie in the US, was barely alive in Japan.
This would have been correct if it was 1992.

Get with the times before you make asinine statements.

Anyways, the 360 is getting more Japanese support than the That Triple.

[mykevermin]

It's kind of like how you imply Wii owners have nothing to be mad about when it comes to third party support, because "well it's not my fault that you guys are buying Carnival Games, which gives more impetus for copycat efforts, which is why you don't get Assassin's Creed." Yes and no. Yes because yes. No because that's bullshit devs taking the easy way out.

I don't see how what you say early on doesn't make it a self-fulfilling prophecy; particularly in the case of OB, where (IIRC), Valve worked on it early on, then pawned it off on an EA studio to finish the job.

Perhaps, if your assertions are correct, it's a question of direction - that porting a game to the PS3 is more difficult than starting it there and moving it to the 360. There are but a few examples of that (UTIII comes to mind, and that won't be on the 360 for a bit yet), so it's tough to really tease that out.

I quoted the part above because I don't believe I implied (and if I did, certainly did not intend to do so) that Wii owners have nothing to complain about/themselves to blame for the quality of 3rd party software. Feel free to point me to that post. As a Wii owner, I look forward to good software - I may not buy GHIII or Madden, or whatever on it - but I did buy RE4, MLB Powerpros, and somethin' else - Trauma Center, I think. I will buy quality software that can't be replicated on other consoles. That's why I bought a Wii. If I were to assign blame for the deluge of shovelware, I would bemoan Nintendo and their approval process far sooner than I would point the finger at consumers.

[Paco]

This would have been correct if it was 1992.

Get with the times before you make asinine statements.

Anyways, the 360 is getting more Japanese support than the That Triple.
That was also essentially the case for the original Xbox also. We know how well THAT console did. What did Halo have besides multi platform games that were graphically superior, two halo games and a few sega games? Absolutely NOTHING.

the 360 is getting more support in Japan then the PS3? And what are you going to use to back that up, Blue Dragon? Enchanted Arms? The very few loose rpgs that the system has gotten so far compared to what it got in the past?

Well at least in respects to the previous xbox which basically got nothing but ports, the 360 at least has some original content from Japan this time around.

The 360 is distinctly a American system. Very few actual Asian people own the system. I'm not saying it'll bomb in America, but overall the 360 overtaking the entire world console wise is quite out there.

[zewone]

Okay...

If Xbox did so bad then why did they sell more consoles (their very 1st try in videogames) than the Gamecube?

Either way, there are plenty of American, European, and yes, even Japanese devs devoting resources to make games for the 360.

It's a whole different ball game.

[whoknows]

Gamecube did for its first few years too. Despite getting the crappier ports..
Maybe first year, but the PS3 is pretty getting just as much 3rd party support as the 360, so that argument fails.

[mykevermin]

Zew's right; last generation, Square wouldn't even touch the Xbox; thus far they've not been very kind to it (FFXI and Sylpheed?), but if the rumors of an exclusive Front Mission game pan out, that (along with the 360-exclusive titles from Mistwalker) shows how times have changed, and show you that Japanese developers are indeed looking outside of their country when determining what console to support.

And it serves the goddamned Japanese right for making Before Crisis and that FFIV sequel cellphone only. :lol:

EDIT: What th'hell y'all doin' respondin' to jer? He's entitled to his opinion, but if someone has an opinion along the lines of "when I shit in my hands it makes my hands warm," there's no real need to respond to it. CUT IT OUT, y'all.

[Paco]

Okay...

If Xbox did so bad then why did they sell more consoles (their very 1st try in videogames) than the Gamecube?

Either way, there are plenty of American, European, and yes, even Japanese devs devoting resources to make games for the 360.

It's a whole different ball game.

The gamecube was basically a disaster from the start. No real mario game, nintendo was still in their arrogant we can make any media we want and rip off the developer stage and so forth.

Who really can tell the future, but people saying the 360 already won is a little bit short sighted. Sony also declaring they won and that their system was the TRUE next gen was also hilarity incarnate and thanks to that, they have a lot of people that want to see them fall just because.

Or maybe Sony really WILL fall just like NEC who ALSO bombed on their third console. Who really knows? I'm just tired of people saying that the PS3 is instafail simply because of the programming difficulties involved in it. Or the fact that the ATI chipset is slightly superior graphically this time around in some aspects that are used in current games rather then future games.

[Strell]

The gamecube was basically a disaster from the start. No real mario game, nintendo was still in their arrogant we can make any media we want and rip off the developer stage and so forth.


I'm wondering what cereal you eat, and just how old the box is, since you're apparently taking all your facts from them.

[h3llbring3r]

In Europe the 360 is SHIT.

Really, the non-US/Japan numbers from VG charts beg to differ.
Since non-US/Japan (Others per VGC) sales are 90% EU then I would say you are full of "SHIT."
I realize the price cut allowed the PS3 to slip past 360 sales 10-15% in Europe but overall the PS3 market penetration there is "SHIT."

Let's keep fanboyism down to a minimum. I can say as a PS3 owner that I think it is extremely disappointing as a game system- but not because of it's build quality (which I think is excellent) but because it's game selection and online community is incredibly weak, even taking into account it's only been out a year.
360 still has nearly a 2:1 market share outside US and Japan.
http://www.vgchartz.com/images/ng_sales.png
http://vgchartz.com/

[whoknows]

EDIT: What th'hell y'all doin' respondin' to jer? He's entitled to his opinion, but if someone has an opinion along the lines of "when I shit in my hands it makes my hands warm," there's no real need to respond to it. CUT IT OUT, y'all.
Sorry :-#

[Paco]

Really, the non-US/Japan numbers from VG charts beg to differ.
Since non-US/Japan (Others per VGC) sales are 90% EU then I would say you are full of "SHIT."
I realize the price cut allowed the PS3 to slip past 360 sales 10-15% in Europe but overall the PS3 market penetration there is "SHIT."

Let's keep fanboyism down to a minimum. I can say as a PS3 owner that I think it is extremely disappointing as a game system- but not because of it's build quality (which I think is excellent) but because it's game selection and online community is incredibly weak, even taking into account it's only been out a year.
360 still has nearly a 2:1 market share outside US and Japan.
http://www.vgchartz.com/images/ng_sales.png
http://vgchartz.com/

Damn, I shouldn't have listened to the obvious habadashery then. But still half a million 360s in two years? I think even the Game.com sold better then that in America. The US numbers are quite good, but the others number is about equal to the PS3 if given the same amount of time.

One thing that is noticeable is now that the PS3 hit 399, there is a hell of a lot less hate now then there used to be even just a few months ago. The war is going to be interesting the next 1-2 years.

[mykevermin]

The gamecube was basically a disaster from the start. No real mario game, nintendo was still in their arrogant we can make any media we want and rip off the developer stage and so forth.

Now, while Nintendo did this in the past, it's a peculiar point to bring up when defending a Blu-Ray equipped console. ;)

And I say that as someone who owns a whole load of BD movies, so I'm quite interested in seeing them succeed. It appears that they will, which makes for an interesting scenario - unless you believe that DVD will be sufficient to last not only through this console generation, but also the next, then you have to discover that, after this generation, Nintendo, MS, and whomever else is in the market at that point in time will all either need to develop their own proprietary storage format (which is not unthinkable, but nevertheless costly), focus solely on digital distribution, or go with BD technology. The latter, of course, will make Sony money for every console and title sold, irrespective of whether it's for their system or the competition. And let's not fool ourselves - between being the #1 console and increasing their profits, Sony could give a fuck about how much goodwill they have.

[BattleChicken]

:lol: Been reading up on your logical fallacies today, eh? My job is boring in December. I try and find ways to keep my mind occupied. Some of darknessbear's posts made my brain hurt, so I decided to determine why -- rediscovered my love of logic.

There are two things being argued here (here being this thread, not your post exclusively):
1) The PS3 is an inferior console
2) The PS3 is more difficult to take advantage of in terms of development

I wholly disagree with #1, and can see some evidence of #2 (given the delays of, at least, Stranglehold and Orange Box - are there others as well that are at least 4 weeks separated?).
All I assert that two will inexorably will lead to one unless the benefits of overcoming the difficulty exceed the cost of 'taking advantage of the potential'. The sole way I can see for that to become true is a larger user base with a high attach rate -- which, IMO, happened with the PS2 because of the DVD movie playback.

The PS2 was comparitivly a bitch to program for, just like it's little brother. Sony is looking for history to repeat itself with the hardware adoption, but that isn't happening... probobly because of their flawed business model.

Nevertheless, the "unwillingness," as you speculate it, of programmers to optimize code may very well exist. Newell did not mince words with his disdain for the PS3 as a console to develop for. Now the problem becomes one of a self-fulfilling prophecy. His treatment of the PS3 Orange Box as a bastard child makes me uncertain about its quality - irrespective of the reviews - and wonder if I'd want to play it/buy it. So, if people don't buy it because they're skeptical of it, and the 360 version outsells it tenfold, the PS3's shortcomings become, at least in part, a developer-created reality.

The only reality is the developer created reality. If they don't build it, we won't come. This is the sole reason I'm waiting on a PS3, which makes it a slow downward spiral. I'm not willing to 'help Sony out' by buying for potential. I won't buy until there are reasons in front of me to do it.


But that's neither here nor there, I suppose.

What I will say is that, to the best of my knowledge, developers have had their hands on 360 development tools for far longer than PS3 development tools. We also know that the PS3 is a far more complex system to develop for. So your hypothetical 10% is not cut-and-dry as you think (just like "development costs" for a multiplatform title can rarely be understood or partitioned into claims of "this version cost this much"). If that 10% now makes next year's model (and let's be honest, as gamers we're going in the direction that games are almost like automobiles at this point :lol:) far easier to develop, then it's worth it, no?

I believe my 10% is very generous, and the number would be much, much higher in terms of actual costs if we are ensuring identical quality between A, B, and C.

Now, it might be MUCH less than 10% if you let the quality slip 'just a little bit' (like framerate issues, or load times.. like in Orange Box) -- but then we aren't talking A = B = C then are we? Incremental development doesn't just apply to the PS3, so that benefit would exist for competing platforms as well -- perhaps to a larger degree, initially, for the PS3, as there is no 'wheel' -- but then we get back to what I said above. There has to be a reason to expend the effort other than 'gee that'd be nice for the 100k people are gonna get the game for the PS3'.

Going to Madden again, if they could have optimized the code this year, then making Madden 09 will likely require fewer manhours. And we all know the improvements to Madden from year to year can't be *that* bloody involved. ;)
Madden is shovelware, it isn't the best example in terms of quality code. BEING shovelware, however makes it a perfect example of what I illustrated above. who needs 60 FPS, when 30 FPS is easier. It isn't THAT much of a reduction in quality, and it takes WAY less time than doing it right.

And you're quite right about developers not being willing to. That's what makes me sick - moreso quality developers halfassing very good games than shitty developers halfassing shovelware. I can at least spot the latter when it's still on the shelf at the store.

Using your definition of quality developer is (whatever that may be)...

IF a quality developer makes better games for A and B, while the games for C are of lesser quality, wouldn't it then be logical to question the quality of C?

Just to clarify, boredom is driving my arguments in hopes of an interesting conversation, until I can leave for the day.

[The Crotch]

Nobody answered this, so I'll bite.Okay...

If Xbox did so bad then why did they sell more consoles (their very 1st try in videogames) than the Gamecube?First, it didn't, really. And if it did, not by much. While it butchered the GC here in the west, that was more-or-less balanced out in Japan.

Second, their marketing was about a hundred million billion times better. Times fifty. Sometimes, I wonder why Nintendo didn't go out of business back when they were making playing cards.

[Thomas96]

Can we please source these claims?


look up Madden 08 glitches 360 on you tube, guys running throuh endzone walls... the one video that was so funny, is when the guy was playing w/ greenbay and farve stars walking off the field during a play and no one can tackle him.

[Thomas96]

As usual, you've missed the entire point.


no... I understand your point and I agree with you. But since you used Madden as an example, I was compelled to mention that the differences of ps3 and 360 versions of that particular game were not a non issue. But in regards to other games [that I've bought] The Darkness, NBA 2k8[if there was any difference], All pro Football, Stranglehold, the differences [if any] weren't really worth noting.

[Thomas96]

When we talk about Development costs on the PS3 being high, this is something that's not set in stone right? I mean, I'm thinking that as people become more experienced with the hardware the costs of developing on PS3 should go down. Also, the cost should go down some, since Sony dropped the price of the dev kits. [assuming that devs can purchase more].

[Mechafenris]

When we talk about Development costs on the PS3 being high, this is something that's not set in stone right? I mean, I'm thinking that as people become more experienced with the hardware the costs of developing on PS3 should go down. Also, the cost should go down some, since Sony dropped the price of the dev kits. [assuming that devs can purchase more].

I agree the development costs of the PS3 (at least early on) were not so much the kits from Sony as they were the costs of learning the new architecture. As developers get comfortable with the subtleties of the PS3, we'll see less of an emphasis on how "hard" it is to program for and such. (Though some development houses seem to perpetuate the continued barrier of entry, and I think that's simply a sign of laziness.)

There are developers that even early on were questioning the difficulty statements made by other devs... so the "difficult" aspect of making a PS3 game is mostly subjective anyway. With games like R&C, Heavenly Sword, and even ports that are just as good as the 360's (some better in terms of tweaking) the idea that the PS3 gets table-scraps because it's just too hard to develop for is going to become more of a whiny excuse than an actual problem.

Simply because EA won't (at least not yet) devote more resources to making at least acceptably equal ports of some of their titles shows a bias and lack of desire to make a good product. They simply want to cash-in. No problem with making money or desiring to make money, but simply shoveling crap out on a platform and claiming they 'just can't do it' is pure greed. Would they have done the same if the sales situation had been reversed between the consoles? Of course their new honcho seemed less likely to want to give the PS3 sloppy seconds, and expressed more of a commitment to improving the quality of their PS3 releases. That remains to be seen, however. Regardless of the PS3/360 issues that exist at EA, we can see how corporate culture can ruin the art of games quicker than a difficult development environment ever could. (Even Eidos and their Kane and Lynch game is an example of stock-induced release schedules...) I realize that it costs oodles of money to develop a game these days (gone are the garage-built one-man shows of the early days) but strip out the stupid licensing of movies and whatnot, get some decent non-superstar voice talent, and perhaps make games and environments that aren't multi-million dollar spectacles, and we'd see that cost go south quickly. I don't think too many people would balk at truly original environments and such if the game was fun. *shrug*

[Strell]

When we talk about Development costs on the PS3 being high, this is something that's not set in stone right? I mean, I'm thinking that as people become more experienced with the hardware the costs of developing on PS3 should go down. Also, the cost should go down some, since Sony dropped the price of the dev kits. [assuming that devs can purchase more].

You couldn't be more wrong.

Wait, I think I need to repeat myself.

You couldn't be more wrong.

[Paco]

Strell is correct. The 20k cost for each development kit was essentially nothing when you compare the millions it cost just to learn everything. It was like the saturn with it's multiple processors.

[Ryukahn]

The only thing I hate about Sony is that they discountinued the 60 GB model. I was going to pick one up around the time FFXIII came out so I could play it along with any PS2 games I wanted, but now I won't be able to do that (no sense getting one now as there isnt any exclusives I'd play besides R&C, which will probably be cheaper when FFXIII comes out).

[help1]

Argh, my sole purpose in life is to hate Sony. Argh.

[Furashu]

wait i just realized are you talking about the brand?

i bet u some 360 owners have a sony brand tv!
owned, this discussion is over.

well have to resort to game consoles made by panasonic now.

[zewone]

wait i just realized are you talking about the brand?

i bet u some 360 owners have a sony brand tv!
owned, this discussion is over.

well have to resort to game consoles made by panasonic now.
How old are you?

[jer7583]

Hey, I loved the GameCube and Saturn, but not until they were far trailing in 3rd and were incredibly cheap. 3rd place is not an insult, it's a fact. Unfortunately it also means reduced 3rd party support and less games. History doesn't lie, folks.

And before myke gets his fingers ready for another personally degrading response that has nothing to do with my point, let's hear something contradicting my statement, thanks.

And Japan doesn't matter anymore. Like zewone said, quit living in the past. The game industry there is Wii/DS. It's long been the trend away from more serious games in Japan and neither the PS3 or 360 have been successes over there. There's plenty more talented western developers that we don't need to rely on broken conventions of the east these days. Even MGS4 is borrowing heavily from western shooter design, for the better. Not to mention Capcom and Namco's increased focus on the west in their libraries.

[Furashu]

How old are you?

old enough
its sarcasm .

[Mechafenris]

Hey, I loved the GameCube and Saturn, but not until they were far trailing in 3rd and were incredibly cheap. 3rd place is not an insult, it's a fact. Unfortunately it also means reduced 3rd party support and less games. History doesn't lie, folks.

And before myke gets his fingers ready for another personally degrading response that has nothing to do with my point, let's hear something contradicting my statement, thanks.


Well, in this generation I submit that there is no "third", because the Wii is not competing against the other two consoles, in spite of the hype and sales figures. It, all by itself, is moving the gaming genre out of its narrow focus and into the mainstream with casual games that do not need hardcore commitments or skills to play and enjoy. What we will see in the future, as the PS3 continues to sell is a return to the ping-pong port/first developed games that we are seeing now albeit thus far, the 360 is getting most of the first stabs at the games. And lets not forget the reliability issues of the 360... they are not going unnoticed by the mainstream press now. It was even mentioned on a CNN holiday buying guide.. so you know if that is being mentioned there, the problem isn't merely isolated to the cheapass forums and the dungeons of gamers' homes. :)

The Gamecube was a continuation of Nintendo's lack of 3rd party favorability that started even before the GC was released. I wouldn't have expected it to get much 3rd party support because Nintendo was still "re-learning" how to court developers to their console, which was hyped with only the Big-N's games. The Wii is having some third party issues that will start creeping in later in its lifespan because Japanese developers are seeing that the Wii is financially benefitting Nintendo, but the 3rd parties aren't getting as much of the pie as the installed base would otherwise have contributed. Will it translate into a GC-like library? Who knows? But you can bet Grandma and Grandpa won't care while playing Wii-Bowling on Sunday afternoon.

Microsoft's stable of developers are moving on from their exclusivity ( some, not all), and we're seeing things return to a "Sony isn't screwing up so much anymore" mentality.... with the notable exception of forum posters and morons at Gamestop.

The future's bright for both consoles, and the Wii will continue to move the umbrella of gaming farther and farther out, so in the end, we'll see yet more titles and more products that embrace more than simply the FPS mavens and JRPG nuts.

In general:

Sony's in this for the long haul, and Microsoft is willing to throw money at this segment of the market for decades to come (how long the shareholders will let them is another post entirely)... so we're not seeing the "last gasps" of any game division by a long shot.

And most importantly:

My love of the PS3 console does not translate into love for Sony Corp.... and my love for my 360 does not translate into a warm-fuzzy feeling for Ballmer & co. They're all big boys... and they're used to this battling now. ;) I prefer to enjoy the games.... I'm off to waste time playing Conan. ;)

[Thomas96]

You couldn't be more wrong.

Wait, I think I need to repeat myself.

You couldn't be more wrong.


could you explain why I'm wrong... it makes a better point than saying the same thing twice.

[The Crotch]

Well, in this generation I submit that there is no "third", because the Wii is not competing against the other two consoles, in spite of the hype and sales figures. It, all by itself, is moving the gaming genre out of its narrow focus and into the mainstream with casual games that do not need hardcore commitments or skills to play and enjoy.Fuck, fuck, fuck.

Here comes the Strell Train...

[seanr1221]

Yup, lack of third party support is a bitch


(Goes back to playing Unreal III)

See what I did THAR?

[mykevermin]

And before myke gets his fingers ready for another personally degrading response that has nothing to do with my point, let's hear something contradicting my statement, thanks.

Personally degrading? I merely said that your posts weren't responding to, as they are simply trolling. It's fine if you hate Sony, as you said (though, ironically, I enjoyed your backtracking about "third place is not an insult" in your last post) - but I don't encourage people to respond to useless posts. "I hate Sony" is not worth responding to. Calling the PS3 a "piece of junk" is not worth responding to. You actually try to make points in this one, though. That's some progress.

And Japan doesn't matter anymore.

I imagine you mean "Japan doesn't matter as much as it used to," because it's just as foolish to claim they don't matter "anymore" (which suggests that they don't matter at all) as it is foolish to act as if Western developers and publishers don't matter, and Japanese support does.

My love of the PS3 console does not translate into love for Sony Corp.... and my love for my 360 does not translate into a warm-fuzzy feeling for Ballmer & co. They're all big boys... and they're used to this battling now. ;) I prefer to enjoy the games.... I'm off to waste time playing Conan. ;)

I thought this redundant, but it is, apparently, something that does need to be said. Appreciation for a company is not a dichotomy, or even internally consistent. There are good things and bad things all of the companies have done, there's no denying that. The attitude that gets under my skin is when people either only focus solely on the negative things a company does, focus solely on the positive things a company does, or worst of all, try to interpret and rationalize everything presented about said company in their predetermined view of them as inherently good or evil.

[BattleChicken]

Well, in this generation I submit that there is no "third", because the Wii is not competing against the other two consoles, in spite of the hype and sales figures. It is patently absurd to say that Nintendo isn't competing against the other two consoles -- Nintendo is playing its own game with it's market strategy, but they are CERTAINLY taking sales from MS and Sony. You would have to be blind to ignore the fact that the vast majority of people on the planet have a limited amount of money to spend on goods and services.

Nintendo did NOT trade the hardcore gamer for the casual gamer -- The Wii draws both.

Nintendo still has a draw to the hardcore gamer with Mario, Metroid, Smash Brothers, Zelda... Nintendo didn't give up their hardcore crowd with their Wii angle -- the proof of that is ALL over CAG.

The Wii isn't competing against the other consoles... Hah... What a silly thing to say.

[Paco]

It is patently absurd to say that Nintendo isn't competing against the other two consoles -- Nintendo is playing its own game with it's market strategy, but they are CERTAINLY taking sales from MS and Sony. You would have to be blind to ignore the fact that the vast majority of people on the planet have a limited amount of money to spend on goods and services.

Nintendo did NOT trade the hardcore gamer for the casual gamer -- The Wii draws both.

Nintendo still has a draw to the hardcore gamer with Mario, Metroid, Smash Brothers, Zelda... Nintendo didn't give up their hardcore crowd with their Wii angle -- the proof of that is ALL over CAG.

The Wii isn't competing against the other consoles... Hah... What a silly thing to say.

The wii isn't competing in the traditional sense of swinging around highly powered graphics cards or three core cpus or SPU's. They're competing, just not graphically. They're using innovative controls, hardcore games, and drawing in a new market. But to be fair, a 250 dollar product is easier to swallow then a 379 dollar product or even a 500 dollar product no matter how good that product is. And for the 360 sales, I wonder if those include people replacing thier 360s by buying second ones or if each repair counts as a 2nd unit. I know that if Sony's Playstation 2 was more reliable it would NEVER EVER EVER sell over 100 million units. Most people I knew were on second, third and even FOURTH units of that console.

Man, I need Unreal Tournament 3.

[Thomas96]

It is patently absurd to say that Nintendo isn't competing against the other two consoles -- Nintendo is playing its own game with it's market strategy, but they are CERTAINLY taking sales from MS and Sony. You would have to be blind to ignore the fact that the vast majority of people on the planet have a limited amount of money to spend on goods and services.

Nintendo did NOT trade the hardcore gamer for the casual gamer -- The Wii draws both.

Nintendo still has a draw to the hardcore gamer with Mario, Metroid, Smash Brothers, Zelda... Nintendo didn't give up their hardcore crowd with their Wii angle -- the proof of that is ALL over CAG.

The Wii isn't competing against the other consoles... Hah... What a silly thing to say.


Nintendo were the ones who initially (and absurdly) indicated that they weren't competing against the other two companies.

Hardcore, Casual, the only thing that I can point out is that Casual gamers have gotten all the really NEW IPs, and new products as it relates to Wii. Whereas, the "hardcore" simply gets the old traditional games that they're used to. Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Smash, [the same ones you mentioned].

[Dr Mario Kart]

Is that a useful point? If they're a new target demographic, they didnt HAVE IPs before. Nintendo hasnt ever been big on new IPs anyway.

They are competing, but not directly as they have been in the past. Either that or demand is so high in the U.S. that the price drops from competitors only appear to have no effect.

They are competing for the core base but no casuals walk into a store looking for a Wii for themselves and end up getting a 360/PS3 instead.

[BattleChicken]

The wii isn't competing in the traditional sense of swinging around highly powered graphics cards or three core cpus or SPU's. They're competing, just not graphically.

You know whats funny... if you look at the historical 'winner' of most (all?) hardware generations, the winner isn't the highest powered console.

Go ahead, look it up.

Also, look up the 3d0 and Jaguar.

[mykevermin]

Either that or demand is so high in the U.S. that the price drops from competitors only appear to have no effect.

Indeed. Seeing how the PS3 has reached the launch price of the 360, as well as the *ahem* "budget" console (not my term, but one people use for the Wii) selling for beyond that price on eBay, it's clear that the price of a console, and its relative value derived from its MSRP, is pretty much numerically irrelevant. It's more a matter of perspective at this point.

I can see arguments for those saying the Wii is and is not competing. It is, because...well, it fucking is, frankly. It remains to be seen if, as the #1 console of this generation, it gets more multiplatform games (why does it appear to me that the Wii, the #1 console, didn't get CoD4 - yet the DS did?). And, in addition to those games (the CoD, Assassin's Creed, etc.), they begin selling in substantial numbers relative to their marketshare. The inconsistency (i.e., GHIII selling quite well, while Madden 08 sold more copies on the PS3 even) will be quite interesting to watch, and see if it levels out at some point.

[Strell]

could you explain why I'm wrong... it makes a better point than saying the same thing twice.

Because coding a game isn't copying and pasting previous code bits from previous projects.

Sure, you'll get a little better at making a game, and that'll lower costs, but it will be pretty minimal. Halo 3 might be really similar to 2 and 1, but it still took a hell of a lot of time to code, test, code some more, patch, fix bad code, test again, code code code, and then code a few more times. To say nothing of having to create all of the new art, establish a new story and environments, design levels, etc etc.

I don't know why gamers these days have come to think that they can have what they want immediately. It doesn't make any sense. The best chance you had of that situation happening was long ago when games were all 2D, and a few guys in a basement or garage could pump them out every 6 months or so, largely because the art was so minimal and the coding was easier than a multi-core setup.

Even if Sony wanted to have, say, Uncharted 2 out by next year, they'd have to cut a lot of corners and recycle tons of media into the game. That's barely enough time to think up a new scenario, write all the scripts to have said scenario play out, and test out. And even if they DID do that, everyone would complain about how it's essentially the same game.

So it's a no-win situation all around.

There's a limit to how proficient you can get with something, and that depends on how well you know the tools. But even if you had guys working around the clock 24 hours a day for a year, that's not going to let you push out a game any faster. And since you can't have that perfect situation, dev costs are always going to be big, and most likely will rise with each iteration of a game and system.

Crotch, I'm not going to argue with a point I've already laboriously made, especially when it's not going to change someone's mind anyway.

[Furashu]

Fuck, fuck, fuck.

Here comes the Strell Train...

lol hes gonna post a 21893910380 hour post that points out everything.
strell did u consider becoming a lawyer!?

[Mechafenris]

It is patently absurd to say that Nintendo isn't competing against the other two consoles -- Nintendo is playing its own game with it's market strategy, but they are CERTAINLY taking sales from MS and Sony. You would have to be blind to ignore the fact that the vast majority of people on the planet have a limited amount of money to spend on goods and services.

Nintendo did NOT trade the hardcore gamer for the casual gamer -- The Wii draws both.

Nintendo still has a draw to the hardcore gamer with Mario, Metroid, Smash Brothers, Zelda... Nintendo didn't give up their hardcore crowd with their Wii angle -- the proof of that is ALL over CAG.

The Wii isn't competing against the other consoles... Hah... What a silly thing to say.

Right, there are sooo many CAGs here who have simply a Wii... they don't own a 360 or PS3 as well... and this is their first console to boot. The market that Nintendo is collecting is traditionally a market that wouldn't even give a 360 or PS3 a second look... and that's a demonstrated market fact, not the cross-section of CAG or whatnot...

You seriously think a hardcore gamer is going to choose the Wii over the other two? (let's define that as someone who has been playing console games for more than a week, most likely loves games like halo and/or involved games like Oblivion or JRPGS, and does know their way around a controller) If anything the hardcore gamer is augmenting their collection with a 360/Ps3 _and_ a Wii... not or.

I don't know how you frame the argument, but if you have a different definition of 'hardcore' and 'casual', your take could actually be correct.. but I am not sure that'll hold water in the grand scheme of things. The Wii isn't cannibalizing sales of the PS3 or 360... unless you count Grandma Edna as a potential PS3 owner.

[Thomas96]

This time next year we should know who'll win the console war. I don't see how the Wii is going to compete that much next year. PS3 has the best lineup out of the Wii and 360. PS3 should be 300 dollars, or close. If they can't at least outsell the 360, then I guess they'll be stuck at 3.

[Strell]

Right, there are sooo many CAGs here who have simply a Wii... they don't own a 360 or PS3 as well... and this is their first console to boot. The market that Nintendo is collecting is traditionally a market that wouldn't even give a 360 or PS3 a second look... and that's a demonstrated market fact, not the cross-section of CAG or whatnot...

You seriously think a hardcore gamer is going to choose the Wii over the other two? (let's define that as someone who has been playing console games for more than a week, most likely loves games like halo and/or involved games like Oblivion or JRPGS, and does know their way around a controller) If anything the hardcore gamer is augmenting their collection with a 360/Ps3 _and_ a Wii... not or.

I don't know how you frame the argument, but if you have a different definition of 'hardcore' and 'casual', your take could actually be correct.. but I am not sure that'll hold water in the grand scheme of things. The Wii isn't cannibalizing sales of the PS3 or 360... unless you count Grandma Edna as a potential PS3 owner.

The problem with posts like these is that it's really difficult for you to get any kind of hard facts saying as much, and have to go on a lot of extrapolations and "here's what I think" anecdotal implications.

Likewise, it's hard to argue against them.

Point being that the best you can do with your theory is tout it around like it's a new puppy and hope people think it's cute as well.

For example, I know of at least one person at this time who is completely satisfied with a Wii and doesn't want a 360 or a PS3. And no, that person is not me.

Likewise, I know someone who started with a Wii and ultimately bought a 360.

And I know someone who bought a 360 first and then got a Wii.

So it's really hard to sit back and say things like this and completely own up to them.

[Dr Mario Kart]

This time next year? Alright, lets do it.

FF13 might not be out by this time next year, so there may be one final "wait for _____" to go yet.

[Paco]

Sony needs to take a look at Sega's glory days and take a cue from that advertisement style. Remember SEGA DOES WHAT NINTENDON'T? Sony needs something like that. Though Sony needs to quit packing in movies and start packing in a game.

[BattleChicken]

The problem with posts like these is that it's really difficult for you to get any kind of hard facts saying as much, and have to go on a lot of extrapolations and "here's what I think" anecdotal implications.

Likewise, it's hard to argue against them. Let me try.

You seriously think a hardcore gamer is going to choose the Wii over the other two? (let's define that as someone who has been playing console games for more than a week, most likely loves games like halo and/or involved games like Oblivion or JRPGS, and does know their way around a controller) If anything the hardcore gamer is augmenting their collection with a 360/Ps3 _and_ a Wii... not or.

I don't know how you frame the argument, but if you have a different definition of 'hardcore' and 'casual', your take could actually be correct.. but I am not sure that'll hold water in the grand scheme of things. The Wii isn't cannibalizing sales of the PS3 or 360... unless you count Grandma Edna as a potential PS3 owner.
The 'hardcore' don't JUST own the Wii, therefore the Wii doesn't appeal to the hardcore? Thats even more absurd than what you said last time.

First off, being a later player in this gen, it would follow that the hardcore gamer, which is FAR more likely to be an early console adopter, would own a Xbox 360 PRIOR to their Wii purchase. The same would be said for the PS3 being a 'second' console. So 'hardcore gamers don't just have the Wii' is kind of a 'duh' statement.

Secondly, you presented no evidence other than your opinion, (which isn't evidence), to say 'no hardcore gamers just own a Wii'. There is a class of gamers.. some would call them cheap ass gamers... that constantly live a generation behind, in order to get more for their money. THOSE gamers may not own a Xbox 360 or PS3 yet, but the cost of entry for the Wii is within their gaming budget. Are you saying 'hardcore' means you have multiple current gen consoles? That isn't in your definition of hardcore.

Finally, The hardcore gamer has historically owned multiple current gen consoles each generation. Why should a strong historical correlation be ignored just because the Wii is involved? There isn't one you say..? Well try harder next time them.

In summary, your definition of hardcore is arbitrary, and based on your particular likes and dislikes, as evidenced by JRPGs and Halo. Just because YOU think it, doesn't make it true.

Lets define a hardcore gamer as any gamer who spends more than 33% of their entertainment budget on games and game related equipment, and has a tendancy to spend the majority of their allocated entertainment time playing, talking, or thinking about games. I like that more than your bad definition.

Note: Fuckin' work paging and waking me up at 3:00 am.

[Gourd]

... Weird. By Battlechicken's definition I'm a hardcore gamer.

I don't really consider myself one. I just tend to HATE television and movies.

When I think Hard Core gamer, I think Ninja Gaiden drones. Could just be me though.

[mykevermin]

FF13 might not be out by this time next year, so there may be one final "wait for _____" to go yet.

So what is the "wait for _____" console this gen? Alternately, which console is #1 in the US this gen? Your "wait for _____" comment reminded me that it's not quite clear this generation. Despite the Wii selling the way it is, people aren't buying software to support it, with very, very few exceptions. If it has a Nintendo IP, it's selling modestly (Metroid 3) or rather well (Wario Ware, Zelda). If it doesn't have a Nintendo IP, it is not selling well (with two exceptions: RE4, and the launch titles, like Red Steel, that suckers bought).

So, despite being the #1 in sales and marketshare, the software sales that you so frequently insist are the de facto result of aforementioned marketshare have yet to make themselves known. So, which console truly is the "wait for _____" console? ;)

[Thomas96]

I think what people get confused is that, people may say that the Wii isn't a "hardcore" gaming machine. In my opinion, I don't think its main appeal is for hardcore gamers. However, it doesn't mean that hardcore gamers won't pick it up and play it anyway. It doesn't mean that a hardcore gamer can' be totally satisfied with the set of games offered on the Wii. But imo the primary focus of the Wii is the casual gamer, thus making it a console for casual gamers, moreso than hardcore gamers.

Like mykevermin pointed out... the Wii didn't get Call of Duty 4, and imo thats a big let down for Wii fans who are strictly gaming on a Wii console.
Wii fans didn't get an assassins creed, no stranglehold, no UT3(ever). It would have been nice for Wii to get some of those games with the online component being intact.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I'm up for talking about 3rd parties. Unfortunately I only have half the data I need, so bear with me.

Exhibit A: Top 10 Japanese Third Party sales (first week).

Through 53 weeks, the top 10 third-party first weeks on Wii. As says Famitsu.

Dragon Quest Swords: 302,066
RE Umbrella Chronicles: 104,960
One Piece UA: 54,192
RE4 Wii edition: 46,813
Power Pro Baseball Wii: 46,280
Gundam MS Front 0079: 43,659
DBZ BT2: 42,501
Naruto SGNTEX: 34,783
DBZ BT3: 34,783
Hajime no Ippo Revolution: 25,480

Through 53 weeks, the top 10 third-party first weeks on PS3. As says Famitsu.

Dynasty Warriors 6: 176,180
Dynasty Warriors Gundam: 171,032
Bladestorm: 62,921
Virtua Fighter 5: 52,432
Ninja Gaiden Sigma: 40,886
Armored Core 4: 36,446
Ridge Racer 7: 30,318
MSG Target in Sight: 30,051
ESIV Oblivion: 22,988
Imabikisou: 20,419

Through 53 weeks, the top 10 third-party first weeks on X360. As says Famitsu.

Dead or Alive 4: 62,603
Dead or Alive Xtreme 2: 45,065
Ridge Racer 6: 29,891
Dead Rising: 22,240
Culdcept Saga: 19,984
Rumble Roses XX: 16,944
Enchanted Arms: 12,858
FFXI All-pack 2006: 8,561
Chrome Hounds: 7,075
Sylpheed Project: 6,542

Through 53 weeks, the top 10 third-party first weeks on PS2. As says Famitsu.

Onimusha: 517,078
Gekikuukan Pro Baseball: 293,608
Ridge Racer V: 233,391
Tekken Tag Tournament: 214,753
Mobile Suit Gundam: 165,885
Dynasty Warriors 2: 164,427
The Bouncer: 158,727
Dead or Alive 2: 158,506
Armored Core 2: 148,348
Power Pro Baseball 7: 142,152

Through 53 weeks, the top 10 third-party first weeks on DS. As says Famitsu.

Tamagotchi Connection: 107,499
Naruto SND3: 66,897
PW Ace Attorney: 50,469
SD Gundam G Generation: 44,257
DQ Rocket Slime: 43,995
Yu-Gi-Oh! NT: 39,016
Naruto RPG 2: 31,451
Egg Monster Hero: 29,464
Pac-Pix: 27,903
Harvest Moon DS: 22,026

Through 53 weeks, the top 10 third-party first weeks on PSP. As says Famitsu.

Monster Hunter Freedom: 118,317
World Soccer Winning Eleven 9: 87,935
Tales of Eternia: 74,630
Ridge Racers: 60,163
Dynasty Warriors: 56,425
Nou Ryoku Trainer Portable: 45,857
Gundam Battle Tactics: 35,447
Kidou Senshi Gundam: 32,465
Techu Time of the Assassins: 28,100
Metal Gear Acid: 24,149

Take a moment to browse to get a feel for general distribution, I didnt think it was necessary to make a chart.

Now, and heres where I have to stretch things a bit.

Exhibit B (missing). Development/Marketing costs.

Open Inquiry: Where did 3rd parties actually make more money?

Aside: Wow, the DS had the worst 1st year 3rd party showing of everything in that list except 360 :shock:

[mykevermin]

1) You're going to give me data on Japanese 360 software? :rofl:
2) You're going to give me first week sales, a mere snapshot of overall sales figures (though, in cases like Metroid 3, it does account for 80%+ of the sales - in the US, which you've not included here)? Pshaw. If we're going by one-week figures, lemme go get those weeks from November when the PS3 outsold the Wii to demonstrate, by your criteria, how well the PS3 is dominating in Japan. :roll:
3) Moreover, I was talking about the US, where you can bet that the sales, first week or longitudinal, of software are far greater on the 360 than on the Wii and PS3. After all, most all studies of software attach rate for the latter two show they are near identical, with both having between 2-3.5 titles sold for every console. In the case of the 360 in the US, it's approaching 7 (6.8).

So, let me ask, again...in the United States (so you don't follow up with unreliable and invalid data), which console truly is "#1," and based on software sales, does it naturally follow your tried and true maxim of "marketshare in consoles = marketshare in software" is being significantly challenged? Or shall I just "wait for ____" (in this case, "_____" being the deluge of third-party software sales for the Wii).

EDIT: Your data are either incorrect or outdated, as I know that Blue Dragon should be not only on the 360 list, but at the top as well. Hmm. Though that was an MS Published Title, perhaps.

[Dr Mario Kart]

360 is ahead in the U.S. by something like 20% or so in hardware marketshare. We all know that they have a super healthy of number of software moved per unit hardware.

The Wii would certainly have to surpass it by significantly more than even to be able to match it in the U.S. Theres no dispute there.

I think I really need to explain the whole "wait for ____" thing, and why I keep bringing it up.

"Wait for ____" is the historical motto of the base of people whose console is behind in hardware marketshare.

The reason I keep bringing it up, is because it has basically never worked to turn around the fortune of HARDWARE marketshare.

I think you might be thinking that I'm trying to say something else, or perhaps something deeper. Its really more of a running gag.

Also, as an aside, my personal bias involves predominantly caring about Japanese developers. I think I own only 2 or 3 western developed games.

[mykevermin]

:lol: Man, you sure like to change the argument, and diffuse your own claims. You have always maintained that hardware marketshare is, on the whole, directly proportional to the software sales - but now you're mildly conceding that the Wii would have to more than outsell the 360 to see its software sales hit parity.

So, then, what happened to standing firmly behind your old maxim as unflappable truth?

As for a "historical motto," how far back are we talking? Coleco/Atari? Apple II/IBM? Or Gamecube/Xbox/PS2? ;)

[Dr Mario Kart]

I dont think I've ever claimed anything as bold as a 1:1 relationship between marketshare and software sales. Hell, I'm not even completely sure I've even made any claims about the matter. You're welcome to check though, I could be wrong.

What I like to say over and over again is this:

Marketshare is the most important factor to getting developer support.

I dont see any inconsistency or backtracking in acknowledging the 360's robust software per capita performance. You mistake just what my claims are.

[oldboy]

i hate this thread with an undying passion.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Myke and I are just having a nice, friendly sit-down. I'm even sipping tea here.

I'd wildly speculate that the 360 can maintain a lead in overall software units moved (regardless of party) over the Wii as long as it can maintain an 8:10 ratio with Wii hardware sales. The Wii base will always have the disadvantage of not being as strongly rallied or unified. They cant even talk to each other over the damn box.

What I'm pushing for is such a dramatic lead in hardware moved that those disadvantages are overcome . Development costs might also help to tempt those developers as well, which is another factor I'm always bringing up.

[leveskikesko]

So many gamers hate Sony because they are tools.

It's the simple answer, and I'll stand by it.

I hate microsoft for knowingly selling broken consoles though.

[mykevermin]

Myke and I are just having a nice, friendly sit-down. I'm even sipping tea here.

What kind? Sugar or milk?

I'd wildly speculate that the 360 can maintain a lead in overall software units moved (regardless of party) over the Wii as long as it can maintain an 8:10 ratio with Wii hardware sales. The Wii base will always have the disadvantage of not being as strongly rallied or unified. They cant even talk to each other over the damn box.

What I'm pushing for is such a dramatic lead in hardware moved that those disadvantages are overcome . Development costs might also help to tempt those developers as well, which is another factor I'm always bringing up.

I don't think you'll see that dramatic lead this generation. It's going to be far closer than the last time around; moreover, the regional dichotomy (360 dominating in the US, being only moderately above the PS3 in EU, and being far behind in Japan) is going to ensure that neither of those two consoles is ever lacking for multiplatform support. The Wii, however, even being in first place, has to show that multiplatform games are worth buying on its console - they need to figure out why, even though they are almost at parity with the 360, their third party games aren't selling in the same ratios. I refuse to think that graphics alone are the largest contributing factor.

[BattleChicken]

I'd wildly speculate that the 360 can maintain a lead in overall software units moved (regardless of party) over the Wii as long as it can maintain an 8:10 ratio with Wii hardware sales. The Wii base will always have the disadvantage of not being as strongly rallied or unified. They cant even talk to each other over the damn box.

What I'm pushing for is such a dramatic lead in hardware moved that those disadvantages are overcome . Development costs might also help to tempt those developers as well, which is another factor I'm always bringing up.
The Wii sales are hamstrung by a lack of supply -- that aught to be factored in. Demand for the Wii is much, much higher than any other console, and if Nintendo can get it's act together, the Wii:other console sales will increase greatly.


... Weird. By Battlechicken's definition I'm a hardcore gamer.

I don't really consider myself one. I just tend to HATE television and movies.

When I think Hard Core gamer, I think Ninja Gaiden drones. Could just be me though.

By being here, posting, you are harder in core than a large percentage of the population. Thats kinda my point. Hardcore doesn't matter in terms of genre, it matters in terms of where the interest lies, and how much they know about their hobby.

Just by being here... posting in a Sony thread on CAG, discussing the definition of hardcore... you show that even in your non game playing time, you talk about games. My definition of hardcore doesn't equate to being obsessed with games, I think that might be the disconnect.

[zewone]

lol @ DMK trying to use Japanese 360 software sales like it's relevant.

[Mechafenris]

The problem with posts like these is that it's really difficult for you to get any kind of hard facts saying as much, and have to go on a lot of extrapolations and "here's what I think" anecdotal implications.

Likewise, it's hard to argue against them.

Point being that the best you can do with your theory is tout it around like it's a new puppy and hope people think it's cute as well.

For example, I know of at least one person at this time who is completely satisfied with a Wii and doesn't want a 360 or a PS3. And no, that person is not me.

Likewise, I know someone who started with a Wii and ultimately bought a 360.

And I know someone who bought a 360 first and then got a Wii.

So it's really hard to sit back and say things like this and completely own up to them.

That's why it's a discussion... it's a matter of opinion. You've got yours and I've got mine, but I don't call yours a cute puppy and dismiss it with abandon as if it were told by a 4 year old. Granted, unpopular opinions are just that, unpopular... but consider that unless we're talking statistical demographics, market breakdowns, game sale curves and demand distributions, this is _all_ opinion and theory.

Everyone I know who has a Wii (and it's quite a few) have 360's or PS3's as well... so we stand at an impasse. But I think we can let Nintendo say it best when they were quoted as saying:

"We're not competing with Sony or Microsoft".... (or words to that effect.)

That isn't a validation, that's simply supports the idea that Nintendo's strategy is not to go after either other company directly, but to expand the market into new territories, which is something the PS3 and 360 do not do... If they said it as a smug thumbing of their corporate noses at the other companies, more power to them... otherwise we can take it at face value and see where the Wii is really taking gaming... and it's not to the doorstep of Sony or Microsoft... but to the doorstep of those who wouldn't care if Sony made a VR machine that let you _in_ the game.

I'm not trying to be pedantic... it's just an interesting twist on the situation, and I wonder if time will prove it true...

[BattleChicken]

That's why it's a discussion... it's a matter of opinion. You've got yours and I've got mine, but I don't call yours a cute puppy and dismiss it with abandon as if it were told by a 4 year old. Granted, unpopular opinions are just that, unpopular... but consider that unless we're talking statistical demographics, market breakdowns, game sale curves and demand distributions, this is _all_ opinion and theory.
It isn't, as I was able to refute your position usinig facts.

As you see fit to ignore it, I declare myself the winner of the internet. All hail!

[Dr Mario Kart]

The Wii, however, even being in first place, has to show that multiplatform games are worth buying on its console - they need to figure out why, even though they are almost at parity with the 360, their third party games aren't selling in the same ratios.
I dont think multiplatform is going to, or even able to be a factor this time around. Its nearly already a non-option if you are using the high end 360/PS3/PC specs. You cant expect the multiplatform companies to have a game on the Wii and have it done well, which is always a problem with multiplatform games in some sense, but the Wii has it a little worse because of the power disparity.

Its going to have to be about 3rd party exclusives.

The 3rd party sales arent a mystery, they have some hardcore 1st/2nd party sales. Even in the days when they had dominant marketshare and so many developers on board that they could afford to be dicks to them, that was the still case. I dont think they're going to change that. They want to be the primary drivers for their platform. Ideally, they'd like to do what they did for the DS:

The platform struggled early on, and then a year out, they got the ball rolling with the likes of Mario Kart and Nintendogs, and then they kinda stepped back a bit and let the 3rd parties take over for the most part.

Get marketshare to a point where things like Draqon Quest 9 become possible. The likes of Brain Age and the marketshare it created is directly responsible for things like DQ9.

This is what the first party drivers like Wii Fit and Mario are supposed to do, even if no 3rd party sales are ever going to touch it.

I'm still waiting to see where the independent small RPG devs are going to go. They have never been multiplatform, and for the most part, cannot afford to in the future either.

The first NIS and Idea Factory games on PS3 are going to be critical. The niche genres have always depended on raw marketshare to get their sales. The winners of all the generations going back as far as NES have more RPG games, and other niche games.

I'm very open to the possibility that the DS could suck up so much developer share in Japan that the Wii is left in a very bad position overall. Historically I would say that its impossible to keep dominant marketshare without widespread 3rd party support, but maybe that old adage is being thrown out the window as well.

The crux of the Blue Ocean Strategy is that it makes the competition irrelevant. If thats the case, maybe for the first time ever we will see dominant marketshare with fewer games. Even saying such a thing makes me cringe though. Its like the world is upside down.

Nintendo needs to be much more aggressive in funding and advertising for 3rd parties. They've been absolutely miserable so far. The company is too conservative on many fronts.

I'm as long winded as you are!

[Strell]

"We're not competing with Sony or Microsoft".... (or words to that effect.)

That isn't a validation, that's simply supports the idea that Nintendo's strategy is not to go after either other company directly, but to expand the market into new territories, which is something the PS3 and 360 do not do... If they said it as a smug thumbing of their corporate noses at the other companies, more power to them... otherwise we can take it at face value and see where the Wii is really taking gaming... and it's not to the doorstep of Sony or Microsoft... but to the doorstep of those who wouldn't care if Sony made a VR machine that let you _in_ the game.


Well first, I'd argue MS did expand into new territories, because a lot of fucking frat boy shitheads started with Halo and will die with Halo and respawn with Halo. I don't think it was as big of an audience as Nintendo portends to capture, but it was still a new audience.

And Sony definitely shot gaming in the arm and sent it into the mainstream stratosphere, since the PS1 and PS2 are the highest selling consoles of all time respectively. So they definitely expanded the market.

Which is why I'm getting tired of people being so condescending about Nintendo doing the same thing. The difference is that Sony and MS are given a pass because it's a "more of the same" audience instead of Ninendo's murky, mysterious new markets.

Also, I think the comment about direct competition is funny. Taking away Monster Hunter 3 from the PS3 is direct competition. Getting support from Namco and Tecmo and other third parties that traditionally have shunned Nintendo for two generations is competition. Having a bigger userbase in a year is competition.

The point I'm making is that the comment in question came before the Wii ever hit the shelves. And while Nintendo will trumpet this "Blue Ocean/For everyone" thing like it's cake, everyone misinterprets it as nothing more than "We want mini games and lots of them," especially by the "hardcore" gamer crowd, since they have always traditionally misread, misheard, and then mis-retold just about everything Nintendo has ever fucking said.

Examples:
"We think games should be more concise and concentrated, which would make them shorter" comes out as "WE WANT TINY SHORT GAMES."

"We make games for everyone" translates to "WE LIKE KIDDY GAMES."

Typically, it's Iwata or Miyamoto who get purple-monkey-dishwasher'd the most, since they tend to carry the most sway as public figureheads.

In other words, everyone in the gaming sector sits there and condescends about Nintendo's strategies, always sitting back and acting like they suddenly no longer want to have games like Metroid, Zelda, Mario, Fire Emblem, Star Fox, F-Zero, Kirby, Smash Bros, etc. Anything that is decidedly "not casual." Which is nonsense, because we've seen almost all of those titles within a year from launch, which absolutely destroys the release patterns of any Nintendo console previously, and that most likely includes portable systems.

Another reason I think people are so latched onto this casual idea is that Nintendo's approval process sits just slightly higher than "The No Homers Club," and is letting crap like Chicken Shoot, Balls of Shit, and whatever the hell else that is so bad onto the system. And while I agree that's a double-sided problem, it's not Nintendo's fault that the Wii is selling so well that people are rushing to port their shovelware crap. And since I didn't hear anyone complaining about that with the PS2 or PS1, it makes me wonder why everyone has such a big problem with it now. Likewise, because this has happened, everyone assumes Nintendo themselves only want casual games, and points to WiiFit as the solid proof.

And I'm not convinced just yet either way. Who knows - they might abandon all those core franchises. But I'm willing to bet that they won't. And since I think everyone is always confusing who is saying what, it's difficult for me to accept a carte blanche statement like "Nintendo only likes casual games" when everyone who says that doesn't bother to play the bigger franchise titles, ignores them, or flat-out actively dismisses them, and then complains none of them are there, "So why would I want a Wii?"

Point being is - Don't lie to yourself and act like there's nothing meaty on the system. There's definitely a good library to satisfy the core gamer, and telling me there isn't is crap. Now, you might not subjectively like the games that are offered - i.e., you want a big multiplayer FPS like Halo instead of something built on atmosphere like Metroid - but the point is that the game is there, it's executed very well, and contains an experience a core gamer ought to be thirsty for.

I said this last year, and I have to say it again - but a year from now, we'll have a much better idea of what is truly going on. I contend that third parties shunned the system from the get-go, and only now want a piece of the pie. So there may or may not be big things going on in the background. But a year will be a good testament to see what happens.

I mean, shit. One day I read "360 to finish in last place," and the next I see "PS3 to be finished at the end of this generation." And the next is "Expect Wii to die in 2009." So I don't think anyone has a clear idea of what is going to happen.

[Thomas96]

What kind? Sugar or milk?



I don't think you'll see that dramatic lead this generation. It's going to be far closer than the last time around; moreover, the regional dichotomy (360 dominating in the US, being only moderately above the PS3 in EU, and being far behind in Japan) is going to ensure that neither of those two consoles is ever lacking for multiplatform support.

The Wii, however, even being in first place, has to show that multiplatform games are worth buying on its console - they need to figure out why, even though they are almost at parity with the 360, their third party games aren't selling in the same ratios. I refuse to think that graphics alone are the largest contributing factor.


Oh I just had to follow up on the second point that you're making regarding the Wii and multiplatform game. I was listening to the 1up podcast, and they were talking about tomb raider anniversary, and how its a basic 3d action adventure game, but its controls [using the nunchuck, and wiimote] made the game worse on the Wii than it was on any other console, even the psp [according to the 1up podcast group] This is one of the reasons why third party games aren't selling on Wii. The Wii is geared for games make use of its primary controller, nunchuck and wiimote. By having that as your primary controller, you kinda alienate yourself from the rest of the industry; which in one way is paying off high divends, but for 3rd parties devs, not only do multiplatform games look inferior, they are going to control inferior as well. There are some games, where you just need to analog sticks. Not everyone is going to go back out and buy the traditional controller, especially when the allure to get people to the system was the nunchuck and wiimote.

I don't see how the Wii can be considered a system for hardcore gamers, when it can't hardly get 3rd party games to sell.

Most of the Wii's games are poorly rated... just look at metacritic, and see. There's maybe about 5 games with a avg rating of 79 and above.

[Thomas96]

Well first, I'd argue MS did expand into new territories, because a lot of fucking frat boy shitheads started with Halo and will die with Halo and respawn with Halo. I don't think it was as big of an audience as Nintendo portends to capture, but it was still a new audience.

And Sony definitely shot gaming in the arm and sent it into the mainstream stratosphere, since the PS1 and PS2 are the highest selling consoles of all time respectively. So they definitely expanded the market.

Which is why I'm getting tired of people being so condescending about Nintendo doing the same thing. The difference is that Sony and MS are given a pass because it's a "more of the same" audience instead of Ninendo's murky, mysterious new markets.



The problem with the Wii is that it focuses too heavily on casual games, on PS2 there were plenty of casual games. Which imo is what's keeping the system going [along with price] but there was also an abundance of quality 3rd party and "hardcore" games for the gamers.



Also, I think the comment about direct competition is funny. Taking away Monster Hunter 3 from the PS3 is direct competition. Getting support from Namco and Tecmo and other third parties that traditionally have shunned Nintendo for two generations is competition. Having a bigger userbase in a year is competition.

The point I'm making is that the comment in question came before the Wii ever hit the shelves. And while Nintendo will trumpet this "Blue Ocean/For everyone" thing like it's cake, everyone misinterprets it as nothing more than "We want mini games and lots of them," especially by the "hardcore" gamer crowd, since they have always traditionally misread, misheard, and then mis-retold just about everything Nintendo has ever fucking said.

Examples:
"We think games should be more concise and concentrated, which would make them shorter" comes out as "WE WANT TINY SHORT GAMES."

"We make games for everyone" translates to "WE LIKE KIDDY GAMES."

Typically, it's Iwata or Miyamoto who get purple-monkey-dishwasher'd the most, since they tend to carry the most sway as public figureheads.

In other words, everyone in the gaming sector sits there and condescends about Nintendo's strategies, always sitting back and acting like they suddenly no longer want to have games like Metroid, Zelda, Mario, Fire Emblem, Star Fox, F-Zero, Kirby, Smash Bros, etc. Anything that is decidedly "not casual." Which is nonsense, because we've seen almost all of those titles within a year from launch, which absolutely destroys the release patterns of any Nintendo console previously, and that most likely includes portable systems.


Everyone wants the basic games from Nintendo too, but people want new IPs and all the NEW IPs are for casual gamers. Nintendo is spending a tremendous amount of money in their efforts to cater to the casual gaming market - those who don't regularly play games, or haven't played in hears. The whole system, and controller was made for casual gamers.


Another reason I think people are so latched onto this casual idea is that Nintendo's approval process sits just slightly higher than "The No Homers Club," and is letting crap like Chicken Shoot, Balls of Shit, and whatever the hell else that is so bad onto the system. And while I agree that's a double-sided problem, it's not Nintendo's fault that the Wii is selling so well that people are rushing to port their shovelware crap. And since I didn't hear anyone complaining about that with the PS2 or PS1, it makes me wonder why everyone has such a big problem with it now. Likewise, because this has happened, everyone assumes Nintendo themselves only want casual games, and points to WiiFit as the solid proof.

And I'm not convinced just yet either way. Who knows - they might abandon all those core franchises. But I'm willing to bet that they won't. And since I think everyone is always confusing who is saying what, it's difficult for me to accept a carte blanche statement like "Nintendo only likes casual games" when everyone who says that doesn't bother to play the bigger franchise titles, ignores them, or flat-out actively dismisses them, and then complains none of them are there, "So why would I want a Wii?"

Even though the PS2 has a full line of crap games, they also had an even larger line of great games. The Wii is flooded with only ps2 ports, and the "shovelware crap" as you so nicely described. The PSP had the same problem... ps2 ports, and some crappy games. PSP was worse, cause it wasn't like they had a great 1st party developer to ensure the system had some great hits, or some sure fire system sellers.
[/QUOTE]


People say "Nintendo only likes casual games" because the biggest NEW IP for them next year is Wii Fit... On the "Hardcore" Nintendo system that everyone wants, it would have been Kid Icarus, or some brand new IP to add to the Nintendo Universe of characters. Instead, its Wii Fit, a game and periphreal that's probably not going to get much support from 3rd party devs, and a game that most hardcore and casual will play for about a week. [The powerpad had aerobics training, and World Class track meet - I wonder how much more support will the Wii Fit periphreal receive]


Point being is - Don't lie to yourself and act like there's nothing meaty on the system. There's definitely a good library to satisfy the core gamer, and telling me there isn't is crap. Now, you might not subjectively like the games that are offered - i.e., you want a big multiplayer FPS like Halo instead of something built on atmosphere like Metroid - but the point is that the game is there, it's executed very well, and contains an experience a core gamer ought to be thirsty for.


Wii has the second best game of all time Super Mario Galaxy Problem is, Nintendo has the best games on the system, so good that it makes it seem like the only good games are only 1st party games.


I said this last year, and I have to say it again - but a year from now, we'll have a much better idea of what is truly going on. I contend that third parties shunned the system from the get-go, and only now want a piece of the pie. So there may or may not be big things going on in the background. But a year will be a good testament to see what happens.


I definitely agree, this time next year.. what will be.. will be.


I mean, shit. One day I read "360 to finish in last place," and the next I see "PS3 to be finished at the end of this generation." And the next is "Expect Wii to die in 2009." So I don't think [I]anyone has a clear idea of what is going to happen.

Only time will tell... There's enough room in this market for 3 winners, who comes in 3rd is meaningless, cause there's enough money to go around.

[mykevermin]

I dont think multiplatform is going to, or even able to be a factor this time around. Its nearly already a non-option if you are using the high end 360/PS3/PC specs. You cant expect the multiplatform companies to have a game on the Wii and have it done well, which is always a problem with multiplatform games in some sense, but the Wii has it a little worse because of the power disparity.

It's interesting, that's for certain. Last time around, multiplatform exclusives are what people point to (FF, MGS, GTA) when considering a bulk of the success of the PS2. Likewise, people point to companies moving away from exclusivity as part of the reason for the 360's success. Nevertheless, each console obviously has third party exclusives - it remains to be seen if this generation is going to be predicted by FF, MGS, and GTA - or if new properties, such as Bioshock, will matter more.

Its going to have to be about 3rd party exclusives.

The 3rd party sales arent a mystery, they have some hardcore 1st/2nd party sales. Even in the days when they had dominant marketshare and so many developers on board that they could afford to be dicks to them, that was the still case. I dont think they're going to change that. They want to be the primary drivers for their platform. Ideally, they'd like to do what they did for the DS:

The platform struggled early on, and then a year out, they got the ball rolling with the likes of Mario Kart and Nintendogs, and then they kinda stepped back a bit and let the 3rd parties take over for the most part.

It is about third party exclusives - but what *is* that? Guitar Hero is obviously as close to its 360/PS3 brethren as possible, while EA Sports titles don't try to be identical (to show how unique the Wii is, I've never much cared for golf games, but can't fucking BELIEVE that nobody has released a "must play" golf title for the Wii - even Tiger Woods is a letdown, and I'm desperate for a solid golf title for the console).

What differs with the Wii and DS are two things I can see:
1) Nintendo has put a lot of time and effort (much of it at the expense of the late GC, I'd argue) to ensure the Wii had a solid and consistent run of first-party titles in the first year. The DS had a drought early on IIRC, and it took some time for people to warm up to it
2) Through the DS' success, they've shown themselves to take gaming and business seriously in spite of the big gambles they have taken with both systems. The DS was a huge leap of faith by them, but by succeeding, consumer confidence in the Wii surely started higher than it would have otherwise.

Get marketshare to a point where things like Draqon Quest 9 become possible. The likes of Brain Age and the marketshare it created is directly responsible for things like DQ9.

Saying things like this are why I initially turned "wait for _____" back onto you. Because the Wii, despite selling like it has, has somehow not been able to capitalize on its own success. Sounds strange, I know, but somehow sales reflect either a lack of confidence in what third parties offer, that the people buying Wiis (the "casual gamer" demo) are only interested in WiiSports), that people are buying the Wii as a second/supplementary console, or something else.

This is what the first party drivers like Wii Fit and Mario are supposed to do, even if no 3rd party sales are ever going to touch it.


That's Nintendo's struggle; some third-party titles are selling (GHIII), and others aren't. It should be their job to identify why this is the case, and try to increase their software attach rate.

I'm still waiting to see where the independent small RPG devs are going to go. They have never been multiplatform, and for the most part, cannot afford to in the future either.

The first NIS and Idea Factory games on PS3 are going to be critical. The niche genres have always depended on raw marketshare to get their sales. The winners of all the generations going back as far as NES have more RPG games, and other niche games.

In Japan or the US (or both)? It will be fun to observe, but I doubt many people think the DS is going to handle all the RPGs this gen (not that you're saying that, but...). At the same time, I don't think the Wii could handle the Lost Odyssey (Blue Dragon perhaps), or FFXIII. But, at the end of the day, it could handle FFXII with ease, and that was a fantastic and beautiful game. Moreover, taking a look at Disgaea 3, even being on the PS3 wasn't an incentive enough to go with hidef sprites. Opin Sphere looks amazing compared to a PS3 game!

I'm very open to the possibility that the DS could suck up so much developer share in Japan that the Wii is left in a very bad position overall. Historically I would say that its impossible to keep dominant marketshare without widespread 3rd party support, but maybe that old adage is being thrown out the window as well.

There's more disparity this gen across markets, so that may be what ultimately fucks everything up. The 360 can't be discounted due to its dominance in the US and lead in Europe, but its failure in Japan puts the Wii and PS3 in a situation where they'll never be lacking for support.

The crux of the Blue Ocean Strategy is that it makes the competition irrelevant.

Huh?

Nintendo needs to be much more aggressive in funding and advertising for 3rd parties. They've been absolutely miserable so far. The company is too conservative on many fronts.

First, though, they need to figure out why people aren't buying some games (whether multiplatform, or exclusives), and buying others.

I'm as long winded as you are!

Merry Christmas everyone!

[Mechafenris]

Well first, I'd argue MS did expand into new territories, because a lot of fucking frat boy shitheads started with Halo and will die with Halo and respawn with Halo. I don't think it was as big of an audience as Nintendo portends to capture, but it was still a new audience.

And Sony definitely shot gaming in the arm and sent it into the mainstream stratosphere, since the PS1 and PS2 are the highest selling consoles of all time respectively. So they definitely expanded the market.

Which is why I'm getting tired of people being so condescending about Nintendo doing the same thing. The difference is that Sony and MS are given a pass because it's a "more of the same" audience instead of Ninendo's murky, mysterious new markets.


MS went from nowhere to top of the heap in two tries. That's a pretty good shot, but like you said, Sony did it their first time out... so that is still a better record... but both are new(er) to the game industry than Nintendo. Nintendo's been dead last a few times... been proclaimed the savior of the industry a time or two, and has had notable flops that are colossally higher than what we've seen recently. (I don't consider the GC a "failure" so much as Nintendo's refusal to play nice with third parties holdover from their previous console outings.) It's no secret that Nintendo doesn't really have a great track record with third party support here lately.... and if the Japanese press has any credence, it's happening again... with 3rd party development moving away from the Wii long-term because what's good for Nintendo isn't always good for those playing in their sandbox.

I'm not being condescending... some people may be, but I'm speaking literally and dispassionately about the markets that Nintendo is opening up (Nursing homes? It's still baffling). And it's no secret that as they open these markets, there isn't a huge demand for Metroid 4 among the meat and pureed peas crowd. You can't very well say that everyone at Shady Grove Retirement Villa had a PS2 and an Xbox last gen and are simply moving on to the Nintendo... Because if not, I'd call those new markets. And they're not murky... just because I didn't list them doesn't mean they're coming from outer space or something. The Wii fit was a big deal at their presentation... a really big deal, and that's traditionally not something the "frat morons" would even consider tearing away from their Halo game for.

Whatever anyone else has said about the Wii doesn't apply here, because I'm indifferent to Nintendo, and I haven't been critical or condescending of their efforts (I do believe they could do more with the supply problem... because they do fine on the DS and only had a shortage early on...) This year's supply problem can be laid at the logistics dept. of big N. But that's really all I've ever been critical about.. And yes, those are my opinions.. they have a bit of tinfoil hat to them, but I state unequivocally that they are my opinions... I do not pretend to mask them as facts.

And misinterpreting Nintendo's comments isn't really new... you just have to delve a bit more deeply into the press coverage to get the more correct translations. (As you already have.) When they stated they weren't competing against Sony or MS, they meant not to... if Monster Hunter is taken to the Wii as a "coup", why is so much else going to the PS3 from Capcom? (They didn't abandon the Ps3 in favor of the Wii, is really my point.) Sure, that game is huge in Japan (but lots of people on this thread have been dismissing Japan as a non-starter in terms of this generation...) Capcom had to "clarify" its position after the press latched onto the MH thing...

No one is saying (and I'm certainly not) that we can predict the future of the market, or who is going to lose or who is going to win... this started as an exercise about the negative image Sony got this generation, and as we've all been gaming long enough to see.. it's only a shuffle of the deck to determine who will be next round's evil people. Next group might be Nintendo for all we know... or Microsoft... or heck, even Sony again... but for every "darling" corporation in any particular generation, the others seem to come out mostly negative, and one surely coming out as a dastardly villain who puts innocent gamers on railroad tracks.

[Thomas96]

If the PS3 was 300 dollars on release day... could Sony have recouped their losses? and would the PS3 have sold as quickly as the Wii sold?

[Ruined]

Hasn't Sony's been very good to gamers? They invested huge amounts of money into the gaming industry and helped advance its technology. They provided the competition, which drove quality up and prices down.

Surely their business practices are no worse then those of Microsoft! Both Microsoft and Nintendo shafted their customers with their last gen consoles (forcing them to upgrade). Nintendo took out component from Gamecube to make Wii have "next-gen" graphics and then not allowed Wii's component cable to work on Gamecube...

Sony has some quality products out there and they invest heavily into gaming. Why is it so popular to hate them?

Two words: Blu-Ray.

[RelentlessRolento]

I think we'll see even viewpoints after 2008 due to PS3 big titles being out and a possible coming price drop again (yeah right).

[mykevermin]

Two words: Blu-Ray.

:lol:

Your format of choice is not dead yet - on life support, sure - but not dead. It's a bit too early for the sour grapes.

Besides, 50GB storage capacity will be quite nice for all console makers to use next generation, won't it?

EDIT: Rolento, don't count out another price drop, since two $100 drops in one year were surely unexpected (one, sure; two, no). I also think the "games" argument is so slanted by perception that it won't really make a difference - look at what people, including myself, say about the Wii - whereas in reality, you could have survived the entire year on Nintendo's first party offerings and had a ton of time invested into the machine. Many folks who have disdain for the PS3 active seek reasons to dislike or write off what it's offered so far, and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.

[Ruined]

:lol:

Your format of choice is not dead yet - on life support, sure - but not dead. It's a bit too early for the sour grapes.

Besides, 50GB storage capacity will be quite nice for all console makers to use next generation, won't it?

I'm the one with sour grapes? I'm not one of those who dropped $500+ on a console whose promises have not been fulfilled by the company that made it - the game selection is poor compared to the competition, the PS3 multiplatform games run worse than on 360 with PS3 having slowdowns abound (there are 1 or 2 exceptions), and the big BD movie format Sony spent big bucks making alliances and having bombastic ad campaigns in an attempt to defeat the competition has failed to do so while similarly failing to deliver superior video quality as advertised as well. So yeah, if anyone has sour grapes I don't think it would be me - I wasn't let down time and time again like many PS3 owners.

The hidef disc war is far from over, and at this point it does not look like Blu-Ray can win despite its fans wishes to do so; claiming BD victory has become a joke now in the hidef arena, as we have had the BDA claim victory at least 5-10 times throughout 2007 yet BD cannot clearly defeat HD DVD. In fact, the only studio shift we saw in 2007 was Paramount dumping BD and going HD DVD exclusive (conspiracy theories abound here, of course). The momentum BD had early in the year has been cut down and both formats are approaching equal footing again. We are probably stuck with both formats now.

My gripe with Blu-Ray is the intrusive BD+ copy protection. I don't want to give studios the ability to run executable code on my machine. Sony's creation of yet another format war instead of going with the DVD Forum's open standard made me decide to pass on upgrading my PS2 and its 50+ games to a PS3. My second console will probably be a Wii this generation.

[whoknows]

I'm the one with sour grapes? I'm not one of those who dropped $500+ on a console whose promises have not been fulfilled by the company that made it - the game selection is poor compared to the competition, the PS3 multiplatform games run worse than on 360 with PS3 having slowdowns abound (there are 1 or 2 exceptions), and the big BD movie format Sony spent big bucks making alliances and having bombastic ad campaigns in an attempt to defeat the competition has failed to do so while similarly failing to deliver superior video quality as advertised as well. So yeah, if anyone has sour grapes I don't think it would be me - I wasn't let down time and time again like many PS3 owners.
So tell me, between Fall and Winter, what worthwhile games has the 360 gotten that the PS3 hasn't besides Halo 3 and Mass Effect? I can't think of any. Alternatively, PS3 has gotten Heavenly Sword, Ratchet and Clank, Time Crisis 4, Unreal Tournament 3, and next month it will have Haze which was canceled on the 360. I'd say the PS3 is doing pretty good game-wise.

[Ruined]

So tell me, between Fall and Winter, what worthwhile games has the 360 gotten that the PS3 hasn't besides Halo 3 and Mass Effect? I can't think of any. Alternatively, PS3 has gotten Heavenly Sword, Ratchet and Clank, Time Crisis 4, Unreal Tournament 3, and next month it will have Haze which was canceled on the 360. I'd say the PS3 is doing pretty good game-wise.

In addition to Halo 3 and Mass Effect (which by themselves are huge), it appears you missed:

Ace Combat 6
Beautiful Katamari
Bioshock (Game of the year on many sites, btw)
Blue Dragon
DDR Universe 2
Eternal Sonata
Project Gotham Racing 4

Plus PS3's port of "The Orange Box" is a slowdown-filled mess compared to the 360 version. And UT3 will be out on 360 next year. All of this on top of the 360's already established comparatively massive library of games that cannot be found on PS3. So I believe my point stands.

[Paco]

In addition to Halo 3 and Mass Effect (which by themselves are huge), it appears you missed:

Ace Combat 6
Beautiful Katamari
Bioshock (Game of the year on many sites, btw)
Blue Dragon
DDR Universe 2
Eternal Sonata
Project Gotham Racing 4

Plus PS3's port of "The Orange Box" is a slowdown-filled mess compared to the 360 version. And UT3 will be out on 360 next year. All of this on top of the 360's already established comparatively massive library of games that cannot be found on PS3. So I believe my point stands.

I can do that list.

Ace Combat 6 isn't huge in America as it is in Japan. Though I don't really play plane games. Beautiful Katamari.. Download only game. Bioshock is also coming to PS3 in the spring. Blue Dragon was nowhere near as good as promised, DDR games come to EVERYTHING, Eternal Sonota is also coming to PS3. Project Gotham Racing, alright I'll hand em this one though GT5 Prologue will give it a collosal bitchslap.

Orange box wasn't as bad as everything said it is on the PS3. It's not the stutterfest that everyone claims it is. Wasn't that stuttering already confirmed to be the fault of it quicksaving and when the quicksaving was over, it went back to normal?

The 360 owners seem to be forgetting that in the first year of its existance it literally had a whole lot of nothing with their top title being Dead or Alive 4.

[Ruined]

I can do that list.

Ace Combat 6 isn't huge in America as it is in Japan. Though I don't really play plane games. Beautiful Katamari.. Download only game. Bioshock is also coming to PS3 in the spring. Blue Dragon was nowhere near as good as promised, DDR games come to EVERYTHING, Eternal Sonota is also coming to PS3. Project Gotham Racing, alright I'll hand em this one though GT5 Prologue will give it a collosal bitchslap.

I thought we were comparing games in mid to late 2007, not games "sometime in the future?" Your opinions on the games aside, many of these games in reviews all scored in the same as the PS3 exclusives listed, with the exception of Time Crisis 4 that scored much lower than any of the above games (low 60s in reviews).

As for GT5 vs. PGR, they are different subgenre games and hence have different fans. GT5 makes more sense to be compared to the Forza series; Forza 2 was released in early 2007 exclusively for XBOX 360, but I did not list that above as the poster was inquiring about mid-late 2007 360 exclusives. And according to Gamerankings, the original Forza scored higher in reviews than GT4 - so I would not be so confident that GT5 will be significantly better than Forza 2 (or maybe even Forza 3 considering how long its taking the full version of GT5 to come out).


Orange box wasn't as bad as everything said it is on the PS3. It's not the stutterfest that everyone claims it is. Wasn't that stuttering already confirmed to be the fault of it quicksaving and when the quicksaving was over, it went back to normal?

The XBOX 360 version of The Orange Box scored 96% at GameRankings.

The PS3 version of the The Orange Box scored 78% at GameRankings.

Clearly something is very wrong with the PS3 version to get so much worse of a score composite.


The 360 owners seem to be forgetting that in the first year of its existance it literally had a whole lot of nothing with their top title being Dead or Alive 4.

What's the difference? What's available now is what counts. We are not game historians, we are gamers - hence what is important are the games available to play and not the history of game releases. Will PS3 get more games in the future? Sure, but that doesn't mean much in terms of playing games now nor does it erase the truckload of 360 exclusives that have been released over the past 2 years - because just as PS3 will get more games, so will 360. And hence it is likely 360's library will remain larger than PS3's for some time to come.

[mykevermin]

The hidef disc war is far from over, and at this point it does not look like Blu-Ray can win despite its fans wishes to do so

:lol: Sure, and the PS3 still has a chance at being this generation's #1 console.

:lol:

Don't you dare tell me I'm the one with sour grapes - I'm not the one who lays claim to "hating" a corporate entity (though, to be fair, I have general disdain for multinational corporations, but that's evenly distributed amongst what we're discussing here - and the reasons for feeling such are better discussed in the VS forum).

:lol:

[jer7583]

I think apathy is a better word for the PS3. I've been getting my podcasts this week automatically from the PSP's RSS features which just makes me love that little system even more. No matter how good the PSP gets, you just can't play phoenix wright on it, though.

[Strell]

Myke are those sprites from some NES game?

If it's the one I'm thinking of, then a short story is in order. Long ago I went to a family friend's house. Their kids had an NES with whatever game that is. They were wrestling fans, so they had decided to have a tournament, and they all picked their favorite character. I was stuck with the Honky Tonk Man, who I didn't know if he was any good or not, as I didn't follow the sport and had never played the game before.

I proceeded to kick all their asses, one by one by one.

I'm fairly sure I was about 8 at the time, and the other people ranged in age from 7 - 12 or so.

/will reply in detail to this thread a little later, at least most likely

[Ruined]

:lol: Sure, and the PS3 still has a chance at being this generation's #1 console.

Little bit of a different situation there. With HD DVD/BD's sales combined, they are still only a tiny fraction of DVD sales. This is different than the current console race as the next-gen consoles have virtually wiped the last generation of consoles off the map in sales. While Sony's PR would have you believe that the HD disc war is in the bag, looking at the big picture its very clear that there is still a long way to go. Sony makes a big deal about a title on BD selling 160,000 vs. 100,000 on HD DVD, meanwhile the standard DVD sells like 3,000,000 in the same time period; obviously the masses have not come even close to making a decision yet, and until that happens (if it ever does happen), the HD disc war will remain very much up in the air.

The sales for the past week, which should be released this Friday, should give us an interesting baseline on how close the two competitors are right now as it has been the most balanced week in terms of big releases (BD had a TON the week before that will carry over vs. Bourne) and BOGOs (both HD DVD and BD had BOGOs this week). Most previous weeks had either been big releases on the BD side or BOGOs only on the BD side to counteract HD DVD releases. Still, from what I can see in the Amazon rankings both sides are still doing piss poor compared to standard DVD - meaning that whatever the outcome its still anyone's game.

Don't you dare tell me I'm the one with sour grapes

Thou dost protest too much :)

[mykevermin]

They're from WWF Wrestlemania - a severe disappointment to those who have played the awesometastic WWF WrestleFest arcade game.

I swiped the sig from some cat over at a Smackdown vs. Raw 2008 CAW forum.

Mmmm...wrestlefest. Some folks clamor for it to be released on VC/PSN/XBLA, but due to copyrights (old wrestlers and the fact that they can't even *say* WWF anymore, let alone use the logo), the only version that will ever show up, if at all, is one with an updated roster. That reminds me, a certain gaming magazine rumor columnist will receive a severe throat-cutting if they lied about WWF No Mercy coming to WiiWare with an updated roster.

...err, yes, back to bashing everything that moves. I hates me some N-Gage.

EDIT: it's "The lady doth protest too much." God dammit. I'll tell you one thing I hate: people misquoting shakespeare. You can paraphrase "thou" from "the lady" to apply to me (though, to be fair, it would be far more invective if you left it as is), but doth-doth-doth. Criminy.

[Ruined]

EDIT: it's "The lady doth protest too much." God dammit. I'll tell you one thing I hate: people misquoting shakespeare. You can paraphrase "thou" from "the lady" to apply to me (though, to be fair, it would be far more invective if you left it as is), but doth-doth-doth. Criminy.

I was assuming you were male so I did not want to heap an insult on top of a witty retort ;)

[Strell]

EDIT: it's "The lady doth protest too much." God dammit. I'll tell you one thing I hate: people misquoting shakespeare. You can paraphrase "thou" from "the lady" to apply to me (though, to be fair, it would be far more invective if you left it as is), but doth-doth-doth. Criminy.

2B R NOT 2B
THAT SI TEH ?

[mykevermin]

Strell, so help me, if this leads into a "LOL-Shakespeare" craze, I'm gonna rollerskate down to Tejas and hunt you down.

I was assuming you were male so I did not want to heap an insult on top of a witty retort ;)

Then you could have heaped an insult on top of what you originally said

[Strell]

GET THE TEA TO A MUMMY

[Thomas96]

In addition to Halo 3 and Mass Effect (which by themselves are huge), it appears you missed:

Ace Combat 6
Beautiful Katamari
Bioshock (Game of the year on many sites, btw)
Blue Dragon
DDR Universe 2
Eternal Sonata
Project Gotham Racing 4

Plus PS3's port of "The Orange Box" is a slowdown-filled mess compared to the 360 version. And UT3 will be out on 360 next year. All of this on top of the 360's already established comparatively massive library of games that cannot be found on PS3. So I believe my point stands.


Ace combat 6 - FLOP
Beautifu Katamari - FLOP (might as well get the ps2 versions)
Bioshock - Success
Blue Dragon - FLOP
DDR Universe 2 - Decent
Eternal Sonata - FLOP
Project Gotham Racing 4 - Decent

and Orangebox (ps3) got decent reviews as well.



Most of those games you named weren't that great, they were nice to have on the system, but not really significant titles for the 360. Not like Halo, and Bioshock, and Mass Effect of course.

[lanzarlaluna]

Strell, so help me, if this leads into a "LOL-Shakespeare" craze, I'm gonna rollerskate down to Tejas and hunt you down.Don't you mean lollerskate? turnab00tz r teh farepleyz

[whoknows]

I think apathy is a better word for the PS3. I've been getting my podcasts this week automatically from the PSP's RSS features which just makes me love that little system even more. No matter how good the PSP gets, you just can't play phoenix wright on it, though.
I think technically you could. The Phoenix Wright games were originally GBA games in Japan right? If your PSP has custom firmware you can put a GBA emulator on it and play that way. Sure it would be in Japanese, but the fact remains that you COULD play it, you just couldn't enjoy it unless you know Japanese :-P

[jer7583]

why did you just make a point even though you knew it wasn't a valid one and said that yourself in your post?

[whoknows]

What's not valid? You said Phoenix Wright can't be played on the PSP and I showed it can. Whether one knows Japanese and is able to enjoy it depends on the person, but it can be played. That was the point. Get it?

[-Never4ever-]

Ace combat 6 - FLOP
Beautifu Katamari - FLOP (might as well get the ps2 versions)
Bioshock - Success
Blue Dragon - FLOP
DDR Universe 2 - Decent
Eternal Sonata - FLOP
Project Gotham Racing 4 - Decent

and Orangebox (ps3) got decent reviews as well.



Most of those games you named weren't that great, they were nice to have on the system, but not really significant titles for the 360. Not like Halo, and Bioshock, and Mass Effect of course.

Are we going by sales, gamerankings.com or your opinion? The first two have actual merit, the third is a complete non-factor.

[Thomas96]

Are we going by sales, gamerankings.com or your opinion? The first two have actual merit, the third is a complete non-factor.


all of the above.

[Dr Mario Kart]

What's not valid?

I'm going to go with legality of the methods.

[mykevermin]

Also, in a radical reversal - like you might see in a wrestling match - the Playstation 3 version is clearly the better of the two. Clearly. People can talk about the contrast of the comparative images all night, if they would like, slight texture differences and so forth. Both look excellent. The 360 version quite simply doesn't have it in the performance department. It runs, and well, but once you've played it on the PS3 you start to notice performance dips and lost frames that used to just fade into the background. Also, this is the rare case where the 360's consistent UI is actually a hindrance to a cohesive experience: PS3 owners pull up an entirely in-game menu to select friends to play with. 360 owners get the same experience up until the end, when you leave the game UI altogether while this huge blade thing sweeps in and obscures the game. Typically, joining and invites occur outside the actual game experience. It's only jarring here because the distinction between single player and multiplayer is so liquid. Still, I thought it was interesting, particularly if that becomes a trend.

OMG the 360 is done for!

:roll:

This is, of course, one person's take (it was a quote from one of the Penny Arcade guys) - but it just provides more evidence that any attempt to broadly paint all (or even the majority) of PS3 versions of games as inferior to the 360 version is foolish and mistaken. Ultimately, the actual release of the game will matter more than a demo, but let's not act as if this discrepancy is so constant.

What were the games that were, as Ruined claims, "the PS3 multiplatform games run worse than on 360 with PS3 having slowdowns abound (there are 1 or 2 exceptions)"? Orange Box...and?

[jer7583]

all of the above.

Actually, PGR4 flopped worse than any of the above on that list. But they're all awesome games that I either have bought or look forward to buying through next year. It's nice to have a backlog of interesting games to look forward to on your system as they get cheap.

[FriskyTanuki]

The XBOX 360 version of The Orange Box scored 96% at GameRankings.

The PS3 version of the The Orange Box scored 78% at GameRankings.

Clearly something is very wrong with the PS3 version to get so much worse of a score composite.
You missed the fact that there are only three reviews on GR, and only five on Metacritic at 83%. ;)

There's also the fact that the review and retail code's different, as 1up posted about the other day. Unless you know for a fact that they reviewed the retail version of the game, the reviews are a bit questionable.

[Thomas96]

This whole console war is about to change... there's a game on the horizon that made the PS2 in its 7th year the top selling console in the US.

God of War III....

All the true Playstation system sellers will be released in 2008. I just don't see how the 360 and Wii will be able to hold up agains the game scheduled for release on ps3 in 2008. [of course... assuming that the game actually come out, and they actually doesn't get pushed back]. In the US right now, there's no next gen RPG market. There's not many RPGs right now for these next gen system, and it seems that Sony might be able to establish a good set of next gen RPGs; that's going to be important for 2008. At least it breaks up some of the FPS, and action title monotony we've endured since the launch of the 360.

[Thomas96]

You missed the fact that there are only three reviews on GR, and only five on Metacritic at 83%. ;)

There's also the fact that the review and retail code's different, as 1up posted about the other day. Unless you know for a fact that they reviewed the retail version of the game, the reviews are a bit questionable.


these review sites need to hurry and re review the actually retail version of the game.
People who I know have the game say that its pretty good and enjoyable.

[Dr Mario Kart]

You see, Myke? ^ This is the classical "Wait for ____" attitude.

Any one game wouldve been a miniscule dent in the PS2's overall 7th year performance. The 7th year performance is more of a factor of each of the preceding years:

A combined historical momentum created out of all that has come before, games included. Total hardware install base included.

The singular variable of marketshare changes ALL variables. Price drops have completely different effects depending on your market position. Price drops by those that are trailing accomplish but a temporary boost. Ones by the market leader further solidify their lead.

Game sales volumes are flipped on their heads. Game series that sold robustly along with lots of AFFORDABLE hardware units that had dominant marketshare and a cheap price point - Those games CANNOT be expected to have the same effect when nearly every other variable is different.

Selling a $200 console from the top position is radically different than selling a $400 one from the bottom.

[mykevermin]

But...but...*dude*, that's Thomas96. It's like the PS3 forums having its very own Scrubking.

[Thomas96]

Just wait one minute... mykevermin...and Mario Kart....

My post about God of War III is correct.. what's the problem. Is it not true that God of War II gave PS2 a big boost in sales... and is it not true that the PS3 could use and will receive a similar boost in sales, when God of War III is released on PS3.

Dr. Mario Kart... all thoughout the PS3 lifespan its been the PS3 has no games, then PS3 got games, and its no system selling games argument that came out. PS3 outsold the Wii in Japan which I think that surge was stimulated by Gran Turismo Prologue. So you're dead wrong in your assumption that a single game can't create a surge in PS3 sales, or any other system.


It funny how you two sit around thinking everything you say is right and everything I say doesn't have merit...

oh well.

[Dr Mario Kart]

You're just begging for a chart, maybe when I get back.

PS3 outsold Wii in Japan for 2 and exactly 2 weeks following the price drop.

Let me repeat myself on the stance of system selling games.

Single games absolutely can move a lot of systems.

However, it doesnt move enough to make a system successful. There are a lot more variables creating a more complex situation than that.

It wouldnt even matter if the games were the best games of all time (see: Soul Calibur, Ocarina of Time, and Mario 64).

[mykevermin]

The problem is you did not say "GOWIII will sell a lot of consoles." Of course it will.

You said "This whole console war is about to change," which is unprovable until after the fact. You also said "All the true Playstation system sellers will be released in 2008," which significantly diminishes the very damned good games I've played on my PS3 this year, and ignores the fact that the perception of the PS3 as lacking games does more to affect hardcore gamer sentiment than the reality of this many or that many wonderful titles.

All the consoles have *enough* games worth playing right now, IMO (to be fair, some more than others, and I won't claim that the PS3 is the one with the most - that's silly). So it's silly to act as if the PS3 lacked in the games department this year - you're playing right into the hands of those who don't like the PS3, and their silly post-hoc claims about there being nothing to play for it.

[Midnite]

Just wait one minute... mykevermin...and Mario Kart....

My post about God of War III is correct.. what's the problem. Is it not true that God of War II gave PS2 a big boost in sales... and is it not true that the PS3 could use and will receive a similar boost in sales, when God of War III is released on PS3.

Dr. Mario Kart... all thoughout the PS3 lifespan its been the PS3 has no games, then PS3 got games, and its no system selling games argument that came out. PS3 outsold the Wii in Japan which I think that surge was stimulated by Gran Turismo Prologue. So you're dead wrong in your assumption that a single game can't create a surge in PS3 sales, or any other system.


I don't think the boost will be that big for GoW3. PS2 is only $130 and GoW2 is around $40 compared to $400/$500 (or $300/$400 if another price drops happens) and $60 for GoW3.

Wasn't there a Gundam game or something that helped the PS3 those weeks that it outsold the Wii. The PS3 will do that in Japan, for Gundam, Final Fantasy, Dynasty Warriors, Gran Turismo, and other BIG Japanese franchises will sell systems for Sony. Just look what Core Crisis did for the PSP.

A lot of people were predicting Sony to come out on top for the month of November and they still fell short in the States. Though the 285% (or whatever it was) increase in sales was nice but can they keep that momentum going. I think most consumers are waiting for another price drop to either at or below 360 prices for them to start overtaking the 360 in the month to month sales.

Also with BLU-Ray players now being below PS3 prices that could hurt Sony as people who are jumping into the High Def craze buy a $300 BLU-Ray player instead of the $400 PS3.

[-Never4ever-]

It funny how you two sit around thinking everything you say is right and everything I say doesn't have merit...


Because it doesn't. You're far too biased to the PS3.

[Thomas96]

The problem is you did not say "GOWIII will sell a lot of consoles." Of course it will.

You said "This whole console war is about to change," which is unprovable until after the fact. You also said "All the true Playstation system sellers will be released in 2008," which significantly diminishes the very damned good games I've played on my PS3 this year, and ignores the fact that the perception of the PS3 as lacking games does more to affect hardcore gamer sentiment than the reality of this many or that many wonderful titles.

All the consoles have *enough* games worth playing right now, IMO (to be fair, some more than others, and I won't claim that the PS3 is the one with the most - that's silly). So it's silly to act as if the PS3 lacked in the games department this year - you're playing right into the hands of those who don't like the PS3, and their silly post-hoc claims about there being nothing to play for it.


okay, my point isn't just "oh wait for _____" My poin is that God of War III will sell a lot of consoles, and there's a lot of good follow and some system seller titles scheduled for release to follow up the release of God of War III [whenever that is]. I mentioned RPGs because Sony has most of the Final Fantasy games coming to their consoles, PSP, and PS3, which will establish a genre that will perhaps make the PS3 have the robust library of games [next gen].


All true Playstation system sellers, refers to games like Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, GTA[which isn't exclusive anymore] which are the classic Playstation titles that push PS systems. If you check the sales of these games, they're probably in or close to the top 10 highest selling franchises. 360 would have been in a much better position if they could have gotten Halo 3 out during its first year. - where they had NO opposition. Its like the PS3 didn't get its "Halo 3" during the first year. But I'm not trying to discredit all the great games that were released.

[mykevermin]

I think you're missing the point. DMK seems to be arguing that it is the library overall, including high profile games, that push people to a machine. One game alone (save perhaps Halo) will push people to buy a system - God of War will sell systems, but by the time it's released (it's not even been formally announced yet, fer cryin' out loud), the PS3's library will be even more robust.

I, OTOH, am agreeing with DMK, but also adding that the perception some folks have of the PS3 (and you can see those people posting in this thread) will not permit them to admit any worthwhile games exist on the PS3. Go ahead; try and get Ruined or jer5783 to admit there's something strictly on the Ps3 they'd like to play. You'd have more fun having your teeth extracted without anesthetic.

God of War won't change all that. It will result in a spike in console sales, but it won't, as you say, change the console war.

EDIT: C'mon, I'm a devil's advocate PS3 fan as much as anyone else, but let's avoid delusion, shall we?

[Thomas96]

I think you're missing the point. DMK seems to be arguing that it is the library overall, including high profile games, that push people to a machine. One game alone (save perhaps Halo) will push people to buy a system - God of War will sell systems, but by the time it's released (it's not even been formally announced yet, fer cryin' out loud), the PS3's library will be even more robust.

I, OTOH, am agreeing with DMK, but also adding that the perception some folks have of the PS3 (and you can see those people posting in this thread) will not permit them to admit any worthwhile games exist on the PS3. Go ahead; try and get Ruined or jer5783 to admit there's something strictly on the Ps3 they'd like to play. You'd have more fun having your teeth extracted without anesthetic.

God of War won't change all that. It will result in a spike in console sales, but it won't, as you say, change the console war.

EDIT: C'mon, I'm a devil's advocate PS3 fan as much as anyone else, but let's avoid delusion, shall we?


God of War won't do it alone... I definitely agree with that. That's why I mentioned the release of RPGs, and other big titles that will either cause surges in system sells, or be good follow up titles - [good titles that increase the quality of the overall library]. This year, the PS3 didn't get their Halo 3, but they got a bunch of decent "follow up" titles that may end up selling pretty well later on down the line. A 400 dollar PS3 would be good with Ratchet and Uncharted bundled in. [and a throw in of a high anticipated blu ray movie]
I was listening to 1up podcast and they made a good point, that Gran Turismo was released in Japan, and it missed the chrismas market here in the US. Gran Turismo could have gotten some systems sold this chrismas.


edit - I want to point out that every console has had a specific advantage to help it. Wii - 249 cheap price, 360 - was on the market for a year unopposed. PS3 - none so far, hopefully they can get all their big releases to see the light of day in 2008.

[mykevermin]

Gran Turismo Prologue would matter if it weren't digital distribution only - because at that point you're only appealing to people who are paying attention to the PSN's offerings, only a small portion of which aren't already PS3 owners.

DLC = Preaching to the choir, IMO.

[Limegreen]

Ps3 was weak but tides are changing, one thing that has always pissed me off is how games play in 720p finally gran turismo will play in 1080p, and divx support is great.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I'm going to lay out a hair splitting defintion.

Savior game(s) - A system seller (or small group of system sellers within a short time span) that reverses the hardware sales trend to be permanently above a competitor that was consistently beating you for a significant amount of time prior.

That is to say, the difference between a savior system is one of timing and position. You have to be behind consistently for some time in order to need saving.

Example 1: Wii Sports is not a Savior Game. It is a system seller in the highest order, but the Wii was not really in an unfavorable position due to being consistently behind. There was no trend reversal, because it SET the trend.

Example 2: Halo 1. Not a Savior Game. Yes, it probably saved the xbox1 from being beaten by the Gamecube, but it was a launch game, and once again, there was no trend reversal.

Now. Have any Savior Games ever really existed?

That is to say, in our young industry that is gaming, has a permanent trend reversal occured where one was getting consistently beat prior?

I'm going to argue that this has only happened ONCE, with the SNES/Genesis Battle.

There are a lot of different accounts of it, being as hotly contested as it was, so you'll have to excuse me if my understanding of it conflicts with yours.

Genesis launched in 1989, competing first with a late generation NES.

SNES came on the scene in Fall 1991 and stayed even(ish) with the Genesis for quite some time in the U.S. My understanding of Europe was that it was Genesis land, but I dont know how accurate that really is.

Fall 1992 - Nintendo leads off with the likes of an arcade port of Street Fighter 2 (which Genesis got a year later) and Super Mario Kart http://forums.penny-arcade.com/images/smilies/icon_heartbeat.gif

Between 1992-1994, Sega was put on a trend that lost their lead, but I dont think it was games alone. The whole SegaCD/32x business fragmented both the dev pool and the consumer base, and it seems like they were having various internal problems anyway.

__________________________________

This is the only significant example post-NES of a REAL and permanent trend reversal occuring well beyond launch. And arguably it wasn't entirely that it was Nintendo's fight to win, but Sega's to lose. Pre-NES lore really isnt my thing.
__________________________________

This brings up to where we are now. We are basically in what Thomas and I can both agree is the most critical year and the last chance that Sony has to pull a major upset.

What they're asking for is quite a historical event indeed, unless 360 or Nintendo do something nightmarishly bad on their end.

[zewone]

I did buy a SNES because of SF2.

[-Never4ever-]

This brings up to where we are now. We are basically in what Thomas and I can both agree is the most critical year and the last chance that Sony has to pull a major upset.

What they're asking for is quite a historical event indeed, unless 360 or Nintendo do something nightmarishly bad on their end.

Excellent points all around.

The only truths are very clear:

a) Sony is not winning the console war now (in any territory).

b) Sony needs 2008 to be a strong year if they ever hope to come out on top.

Anything else is subjective.

Personally, if there's no MGS4 360 port and the price drops again, I'll probably wind up back on the ole PS3 bandwagon (third times the charm amirite?). Then again, that's just me.

[Dr Mario Kart]

MGS4/FF13/God of War 3 is definitely one of the hardest hitting combos I can think of, this side of a Dragon Quest game.

If there was any combination to do it, that would be it. I just think its one hell of an uphill battle.

[-Never4ever-]

MGS4/FF13/God of War 3 is definitely one of the hardest hitting combos I can think of, this side of a Dragon Quest game.

If there was any combination to do it, that would be it. I just think its one hell of an uphill battle.

If they all come out together in the same year, sure. But MGS4 comes in late 08 / early 09, FF13 won't make it's way to the rest of the world until early 2010, and GoW3 might actually get released before 2011 :razz:

That's a great release schedule if they want to secure top spot, but horrible if they're trying to claw out of the ditch Sony dug itself.

[whoknows]

Since when is MGS4 late 08/early 09? Last I checked it was 2nd quarter 2008.

[Rozz]

MGS4 has been delayed to late 2011/early 2012.

[zewone]

Since when is MGS4 late 08/early 09? Last I checked it was 2nd quarter 2008.
Just like it was supposed to be released in '06, then '07, then 1st quarter '08, now 2nd quarter '08.

I'll believe a release date when the game is in my hands.

[whoknows]

It was supposed to be released in 06? I don't remember that.

[Thomas96]

Because it doesn't. You're far too biased to the PS3.



Well maybe I seem biased.. but my money isn't... 360 - owner, Ps3 owner, Wii - trying, psp, owner, ds - owner. This time I put my money where your mouth is. (or keyboad)


I'm too old to be biased... I appreciate all games. Notice, my whole argument has nothing to do with the success or failure of Sony's competitors, only with them getting better PS3 sales.

[Thomas96]

I did buy a SNES because of SF2.


oh crap me too! Before I got my SNES, I used to read EGM and study all the combos from the little combo books they'd include with the issues.

[Thomas96]

I'm going to lay out a hair splitting defintion.

Savior game(s) - A system seller (or small group of system sellers within a short time span) that reverses the hardware sales trend to be permanently above a competitor that was consistently beating you for a significant amount of time prior.

That is to say, the difference between a savior system is one of timing and position. You have to be behind consistently for some time in order to need saving.

Example 1: Wii Sports is not a Savior Game. It is a system seller in the highest order, but the Wii was not really in an unfavorable position due to being consistently behind. There was no trend reversal, because it SET the trend.

Example 2: Halo 1. Not a Savior Game. Yes, it probably saved the xbox1 from being beaten by the Gamecube, but it was a launch game, and once again, there was no trend reversal.

Now. Have any Savior Games ever really existed?

That is to say, in our young industry that is gaming, has a permanent trend reversal occured where one was getting consistently beat prior?

I'm going to argue that this has only happened ONCE, with the SNES/Genesis Battle.

There are a lot of different accounts of it, being as hotly contested as it was, so you'll have to excuse me if my understanding of it conflicts with yours.

Genesis launched in 1989, competing first with a late generation NES.

SNES came on the scene in Fall 1991 and stayed even(ish) with the Genesis for quite some time in the U.S. My understanding of Europe was that it was Genesis land, but I dont know how accurate that really is.

Fall 1992 - Nintendo leads off with the likes of an arcade port of Street Fighter 2 (which Genesis got a year later) and Super Mario Kart http://forums.penny-arcade.com/images/smilies/icon_heartbeat.gif

Between 1992-1994, Sega was put on a trend that lost their lead, but I dont think it was games alone. The whole SegaCD/32x business fragmented both the dev pool and the consumer base, and it seems like they were having various internal problems anyway.

__________________________________

This is the only significant example post-NES of a REAL and permanent trend reversal occuring well beyond launch. And arguably it wasn't entirely that it was Nintendo's fight to win, but Sega's to lose. Pre-NES lore really isnt my thing.
__________________________________

This brings up to where we are now. We are basically in what Thomas and I can both agree is the most critical year and the last chance that Sony has to pull a major upset.

What they're asking for is quite a historical event indeed, unless 360 or Nintendo do something nightmarishly bad on their end.



That's true, 2008 is a critical year and if Sony wants to do well, they need to turn the tide.. If they can get out their major games, Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, and a good version of Madden 09, they should do well.


Savior game for a console, is highly unlikely, but for a company, it could be. Assassin's Creed - from what I hear (read) that game basically kept that company from possibly being bought up by EA.

The first Madden(forgot the year) for PS2 at launch isn't a savior by definition, but it definitely took the tide and pushed in one general direction. I still feel like not having that Madden on the Dreamcast was a significant downfall for the Dreamcast.

Little Big Planet has a shot of being a savior game. They'd also make good PS3 mascots, and it has appeal that can be marketed for the mainstream. Its a long shot, but imagine a 300 dollar PS3 marketed to children with Little Big Planet on the box, and Little big planet charaters all over TV. - {I'm probably starting to sound far fetched - because there's no way Sony could actually handle something 100 percent correctly!}

[PapiChullo]

That's true, 2008 is a critical year and if Sony wants to do well, they need to turn the tide.. If they can get out their major games, Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, and a good version of Madden 09, they should do well.

I think a good Madden will probably the biggest influence for the PS3 success this upcoming year. Madden is always one of the top selling games out there, and I think there are a lot of PS2 owners out there that are dying to convert as long as the price of the console is right and the game is quality. I was apart of that crowd myself for a little bit, but bit this year for NCAA, which was a little disappointing. But if Madden on PS3 is good, we should see a good amount of those PS2 gamers left w/o a PS3 make the jump.

We'll see though.

[Thomas96]

I think a good Madden will probably the biggest influence for the PS3 success this upcoming year. Madden is always one of the top selling games out there, and I think there are a lot of PS2 owners out there that are dying to convert as long as the price of the console is right and the game is quality. I was apart of that crowd myself for a little bit, but bit this year for NCAA, which was a little disappointing. But if Madden on PS3 is good, we should see a good amount of those PS2 gamers left w/o a PS3 make the jump.

We'll see though.


Well I know Sony talked with EA about having Madden being developed on PS3 as the lead console. Burnout was developed as the lead on PS3 and results were very good imo. So I'm hoping that Burnout paradise is a sign that any PS3 development issues should be over. If the Ps3 has an inch of power more than the 360, I'd love to see it expressed in a Madden game.

[THECLAW92]

I dont own one i got a 360 instead due to the fact of waiting a whole year longer and bam hearing it was 600 for the good one with chrome.

Now at 400 i will be getting it not for BLU RAY i have HD DVD but for PS3 is awesome i had PS1 PS2 PSSP XBOX 360

[Aleman]

I bought a PS3 in August thinking I'd be playing GTA IV, Killzone 2, MGS4, Little Big Planet, and messing around with Home about now. While I love the system for games like Warhawk and Uncharted, I'm getting kind of pissed at all the delays. Seems like it's Sony's fault for making a complicated system.

Blu-ray is great (Planet Earth!) but I want to play more games on this thing. So far this generation I'd say 90% of my gaming time has been on the 360 but I expect that to reverse starting next year if all of Sony's big games can come out. I'm especially looking forward to Infamous and Team ICO's next game.

[Thomas96]

I bought a PS3 in August thinking I'd be playing GTA IV, Killzone 2, MGS4, Little Big Planet, and messing around with Home about now. While I love the system for games like Warhawk and Uncharted, I'm getting kind of pissed at all the delays. Seems like it's Sony's fault for making a complicated system.

Blu-ray is great (Planet Earth!) but I want to play more games on this thing.


Come play some UT 3 w/ us.

[Aleman]

Come play some UT 3 w/ us.

Can't, I'm currently addicted to Call of Duty 4 on 360. I think the next PS3 game I get will be Burnout Paradise.

[Thomas96]

Can't, I'm currently addicted to Call of Duty 4 on 360. I think the next PS3 game I get will be Burnout Paradise.


Call of Duty 4 should have allowed for cross console online play. have a real console war!

[zerolens]

From what I understand the PS3 is holding its own fine in Europe. I remember the PS3 launch in France and how Sony was said to be doomed yet the PS3 seems to be doing solid and may even pass the 360 one day in France. This probably applies to a lot of places in Europe. And of course the PS3 easily outsells the 360 in Japan.

The numbers way be too great in NA for the PS3 to get to 2nd worldwide but fortunately they seem to be holding their own well enough to justify games for it. Most of the good games for the PS2 IMO came 3-4 years later. The first year of games is good if you consider its the first year and don't compare to other systems that have been out longer like 360, PS2, DS, or PSP. PS3 lineup is easily better than the Wii's IMO at least.

[Serpentor]

Call of Duty 4 should have allowed for cross console online play. have a real console war!

wow, i never thought of that... that would be truely awesome if they allow it!

[Ruined]

wow, i never thought of that... that would be truely awesome if they allow it!

Heh, even allow 360 vs. PS3 matches.

But, in reality it would likely be a licensing nightmare between MS and Sony.

[Strell]

This reply is a long time coming, and I'm just going to paraphase points rather that include entire quotes to try and keep it as short as possible.

NEW IPs are for casual gamers. Nintendo is spending a tremendous amount of money in their efforts to cater to the casual gaming market - those who don't regularly play games, or haven't played in hears. The whole system, and controller was made for casual gamers.

If I only need one example to refute this, I win. Example: Disaster - Day of Crisis


Even though the PS2 has a full line of crap games, they also had an even larger line of great games. "Same with PSP."


That took time. You know, since everyone kept saying "Wait until MGS2" with the PS2. It followed the same route of the PS1, where it took 1-2 years before some of the best games on it appeared. You can't do this with the Wii, though, because you're comparing it to the rose-colored armchair quarterback past, and even if the two systems are following the same path, that's not good enough for you. You act like the PS2 launched with GoW, Ico, MGS3, DMC, Zone of the Enders, SoTC, FFX, etc. It didn't, so stop acting like it did.

As for the PSP, again - it took time, but now the system has some good games. For a lot of people, it definitely has enough to warrant purchase. But that took time.


Bitching about Wii Fit - it's the only new IP and it's casual and no one likes it and no one will support it.

Too bad you can't prove any of this, since you don't work at Nintendo and can't foretell the future, and instead are just jumping to conclusions as quick as you can.

You know, the more you talk, if CAG had been around when the PS2 launched and you had been a Dreamcast guy, you'd be making the same exact arguments against it. Think about that.

Wii has the second best game of all time Super Mario Galaxy [I hear Zelda ocriana of time was the highest rated.] Problem is, Nintendo has the best games on the system, so good that it makes it seem like the only good games are only 1st party games.

Yeah, and that's always been one of the big problems with Nintendo - their games are good.

Sarcasm aside, there's a million factors worth discussing here, but I don't have the patience to do it again.

Only time will tell... There's enough room in this market for 3 winners, who comes in 3rd is meaningless, cause there's enough money to go around.

That's funny, because even though the Gamecube was profitable, everyone calls it a failure. The same will happen here if current trends continue, only the PS3 will be considered the loser. But it doesn't matter at the moment because the market it too early to tell.


3rd party development moving away from the Wii long-term because what's good for Nintendo isn't always good for those playing in their sandbox.


This isn't a Wii-specific-problem though, and again, there's a million factors at play here, and I'm not going to discuss them again. This is by far the biggest problem with Nintendo, but there's foul play going on from every angle imaginable here.


The Wii fit was a big deal at their presentation... a really big deal, and that's traditionally not something the "frat morons" would even consider tearing away from their Halo game for.


The frat morons aren't going to let anything take them away from Halo. Grand Theft Auto might, but even that is doubtful. If they are set in stone with teabagging, what's going to change that? Acting like Wii Fit isn't the answer is normal, because there's no answer in the short fun.

And again, I don't know how many times I have to say this - just because Wii Fit was featured at a trade show...well, the point is that gamers are crying about it for a variety of reasons, and maybe two of them are valid, and the rest is just a lot of moaning.


(Stuff about Capcom)


Alright. But it's like you said - Japan seems to be increasingly becoming disinterested in console gaming. I really have no damn idea what to expect out of that country beyond that they will buy anything with "Samurai Warriors" in the title.


but for every "darling" corporation in any particular generation, the others seem to come out mostly negative, and one surely coming out as a dastardly villain who puts innocent gamers on railroad tracks.


Interesting quote, actually.

[mykevermin]

If we are to believe all these prattling twats who claim that their dislike, hatred, or whatever other semantic word you want to use, for Sony is spurned on by their arrogance...then is Activision the next developer to feel the burn of the gamers' collective ire?

C'mon, these motherfuckers outright told the Boston Globe "We believe we should be compensated for the use of our technology" in response to questions about their blocking Harmonix/EA's PS3 patch for Rock Band to allow compatibility with the Les Paul. Unabashed bribery for someone else's work.

Of course, the gamers' disdain for arrogance is selective and often short-lived. We forget how much we protested that Guitar Hero DLC was too expensive - and now salivate at the prospect of paying $6.25 for 3 songs (perhaps 1-2 of which we like), and now $2.50 for individual songs! Oh, worse yet, we worship the ground they piss on when the benevolent souls give us "FREE" DLC in the form of three tracks that were on the fucking game disc already!

So, again, I really don't buy all this "Sony is teh arrogant and we won't buy their stuff" argument. If that really held true, Activision would suffer a similar fate right now, EA would have suffered a similar fate after killing off the beloved and budget NFL 2K series, and Sony would have...well, they have, but on the PC side of things with whatever the hell it was they did with Star Wars Galaxies.

Look, if you dislike arrogance, that's well and good. I encourage that (ironically, I suppose, given my own self-perception). But let's either apply it equally, or look where it has a greater impact - what was *inhibiting* to you, as a gamer, about Sony's arrogance with the PS3? I can point to Activision and say "well, if I wanna have a Rock Band party, I gotta find a motherfucker who owns Rock Band, because the Les Paul is useless thanks to backstage bribery by these bastards." I can point to EA and say "You helped make All Pro Football happen, fuckers." But did Sony deliberately interfere with my ability to play a game? I'm curious to see who thinks so.

[liquidcross]

Well said, sir. Pokes gaping holes in many an Xbot's argument.

[Snake2715]

Myke,

there was a internet fanboy boycott of EA after the 2K series issue, and beyond that one comment on a single game what else has Activision done arrogantly?

Sony continuously acts as if their forever the End all Be all to video games, electronics, Televisions etc. It can become annoying after a while. I haven't been in this thread but when you compare one game across 2 systems, to the virtual king of Video games last generation, Sony will get more attention for spouting off at the mouth. Its that simple.

When MGS4 or some other app drops half these people will jump on the bandwagon anyhow. I think the PS3 is already picking up a ton of steam.

[Thomas96]

Myke,

there was a internet fanboy boycott of EA after the 2K series issue, and beyond that one comment on a single game what else has Activision done arrogantly?

Sony continuously acts as if their forever the End all Be all to video games, electronics, Televisions etc. It can become annoying after a while. I haven't been in this thread but when you compare one game across 2 systems, to the virtual king of Video games last generation, Sony will get more attention for spouting off at the mouth. Its that simple.

When MGS4 or some other app drops half these people will jump on the bandwagon anyhow. I think the PS3 is already picking up a ton of steam.


can you at least give an example of what Sony did to be considered Arrogant - this year.

[Strell]

can you at least give an example of what Sony did to be considered Arrogant - this year.

Oh my god, I knew it.

Thomas96 is Jack Tretton.

[richbastard]

Well like 95% of the people around here are nintendo fanboys or xbox fanboys and even some sega fanboys so you are never going to win an argument here specially since most of them spend alot of time here in the Sony forums just looking at ways to troll and say how much they hate Sony. i hate nintendo and i hate xbox, you know how many times i been to their forums? none beacuase i hate them so much i dont care for them one bit just dont buy their products tell family and friends how much x360 sucks and wii is the biggest POS since the game cube and done deal.

[jer7583]

Guitar Hero is for stupids.

Just spend your time learning the damn instrument. It's not THAT hard, and it's damn near getting close to being cheaper than that overpriced fisher price play along shit.

[Puffa469]

Ive never played one note of a Guitar Hero game, or Rockband, and thats by design.

Ya know that SouthPark ep about GH? Thats exactly how I feel about the game.

More power to you if you like pretending to make music with plastic instruments, but its not for me. And even if I did play those games, no way would I pay that kinda money for song downloads.

[Thomas96]

Oh my god, I knew it.

Thomas96 is Jack Tretton.


LOLLOL

[Nephlabobo]

Well said Myke.

If anything, Sony have brought me new and more interesting games to play.

You'd never get a game like Folklore on 360 or the Wii.

I can't believe this thread is still going.

[mykevermin]

_________ is for stupids.

Just spend your time _____________. It's not THAT hard, and it's damn near getting close to being cheaper than that overpriced fisher price play along shit.

Fill in the blanks with your choice of game and substitute activity, and you have every parent's anti-video game argument ever.

It's completely immaterial to the argument I was making, of course - but you excel at those sorts of things.

[zewone]

Isn't Folklore just Pokemon, but not as fun?

[Nephlabobo]

Isn't Folklore just Pokemon, but not as fun?
I've heard that argument, but I've never played Pokemon, so I can't comment.

I don't think it's quite the same, from what I know of both of them, though.

[coolz481]

Isn't Folklore just Pokemon, but not as fun?


I've never played Pokemon, but Folklore is more of an action/adventure game rather than RPG. Even though there are hit points for your character, it's sort of immaterial since the way you upgrade is by meeting certain conditions for your folks (i.e., defeat 15 of x with y or capture 10 of z). I think it's worth it just for the whole atmosphere of the game. I'm definitely feeling a bit of seller's remorse on this one - I'll pick it up again when it hits $20 or $30 somewhere.

[jer7583]

I don't think that arguement works, myke.. Along with sports games, guitar hero/etc. aren't fulfilling unrealistic activities. Being able to drive a car 200mph or jump 30 feet in the air, or win world war 2 by yourself are far more outlandish experiences.

If you wanted to play the songs in guitar hero, spend 6 months learning guitar, and there you go. If you want to play football, get a ball and throw it around outside.

[Gentlegamer]

Ya know that SouthPark ep about GH? Thats exactly how I feel about the game.I can play Guitar Hero acoustically.

[geko29]

This whole console war is about to change... there's a game on the horizon that made the PS2 in its 7th year the top selling console in the US.

God of War III.... :roll:God of War has sold 2 million copies in the US as of three weeks ago. The sequel has sold roughly half that. Good numbers no doubt, but the ultimate system seller? Hardly. The three GTA games on the PS2 sold 12, 12, and 15 million copies. Gran Turismo 3 sold 15 million. 4 sold 9.5 million. Metal Gear Solid 2 sold 7 million.

All told, God of War is the 28th best selling game on the console. God of War II BARELY cracks the top 100. Great games and blockbuster sellers, but they certainly can't be credited with singlehandedly making the PS2 a success.

[Thomas96]

:roll:God of War has sold 2 million copies in the US as of three weeks ago. The sequel has sold roughly half that. Good numbers no doubt, but the ultimate system seller? Hardly. The three GTA games on the PS2 sold 12, 12, and 15 million copies. Gran Turismo 3 sold 15 million. 4 sold 9.5 million. Metal Gear Solid 2 sold 7 million.

All told, God of War is the 28th best selling game on the console. God of War II BARELY cracks the top 100. Great games and blockbuster sellers, but they certainly can't be credited with singlehandedly making the PS2 a success.

oh my bad.. when god of war II was released in the US, it helped the ps2 to become the top selling console of march 2007, [out of all consoles ] God of War III is definitely going to be one of those games that's going to be in the top 10 of ps3 game sales. Presently, there's no next gen - beat em up type games out. DMC 4 is coming, Heavenly Sword... oh yeah, Conan, but that should have been released at about 14.99.

[mykevermin]

I don't think that arguement works, myke.. Along with sports games, guitar hero/etc. aren't fulfilling unrealistic activities. Being able to drive a car 200mph or jump 30 feet in the air, or win world war 2 by yourself are far more outlandish experiences.

If you wanted to play the songs in guitar hero, spend 6 months learning guitar, and there you go. If you want to play football, get a ball and throw it around outside.

It's still completely immaterial to the argument I made initially (about Activision's arrogance, not the reality/fantasy of games).

Why can't someone do both? Play Rock Band and learn an instrument? (6 months? Ha. Only if you're a bassist.) Play football and Madden?

Ultimately, you are avoiding an argument, again, in favor of injecting your opinion on the matter as if to say "well, that's that." Why don't you go back and address Activision's business practices and PR statements with regard to Guitar Hero (and, if it helps, just think of the game as "Frank Hero" so as to stave off your knee-jerk diversionary arguments).

[Strell]

Well that's the reason I don't play Halo. I run around in high powered body armor sniping people left and right.

I don't know what excuse you other people have.

[Thomas96]

I don't think that arguement works, myke.. Along with sports games, guitar hero/etc. aren't fulfilling unrealistic activities. Being able to drive a car 200mph or jump 30 feet in the air, or win world war 2 by yourself are far more outlandish experiences.

If you wanted to play the songs in guitar hero, spend 6 months learning guitar, and there you go. If you want to play football, get a ball and throw it around outside.


Sports games/ and guitar hero (as you specified) do provide some access to activities that people may not generally engage, or generally care to engage in. When it comes to "experiences" its always to each his own.

[depascal22]

I don't hate any of the companies but I wish Sony would've made the system cheaper right off the bat. They knew the public didn't want to pay $500/600 for a system but they still released it. Then they got pissed when people compared it to the 360's price.

It just seems like Sony promises to make a super duper system every time and then when it comes out, it's a little short of the initial promises. Anyone remember the dual-HDMI promise? How about all the other ports that were supposed to be on the system? How about some of the promises for the graphics on the PS2.

That being said, the PS3 is looking better and better for every 360 that craps out. I thought the 360 couldn't be beat until mine crapped out with moderate use. I'm with most of the other people in this thread. I have 2 of the 3 systems and I'll get a Wii sometime next year when I don't have to deal with greedy-ass craigslist scalpers.

I guess my whole thing is why can't people say something bad about a system without people saying that you're a fanboy? richbastard claims that everyone here is a ms or nintendo fanboy. Why aren't we allowed to just like the games we like? Why can't Sony supporters realize that many people love Xbox Live more than they hate the 360's reliability problems? Why can't Sony supporters realize that Nintendo fans love playing easy games that get people involved? Chicks dig Wii games. If you can go buy a system that will get college girls in your dorm room, why wouldn't you buy it? Do you guys like to be hardcore loners that never get laid? I love Virtua Fighter as much as the next guy but I never got any play by asking a girl to come to my dorm room to play Virtua Fighter 2. They loved playing Mario 64 though. Does that make me a Nintendo fanboy? No, it made me a guy that liked to get laid every once in a while. I don't have a problem with people bashing games as long as they have actually played them and they actually use proper english to convey their opinion.

[BattleChicken]

This thread is just mass virtual masterbation at this point.. its come and gone full circle a half a dozen times, and nobody is getting anywhere. Nobodys minds have been changed, Nobody is listening, Nothing positive has been gained.

Have fun with it, I guess... I'm out.