Sony In Trouble? [Mobile/Archive]

Temporaryscars

12-29-2008, 08:47 PM

We know you're not sad Temp, based on various OTT posts I've read. First off, this is Kotaku who decides to bring up more crap just to get hits again. We all remember the time they posted an article from a CAG Blog.

Sony even stated themselves the PS3 pricetag is really only going for hardcore gamers right now. While they'd love to reach the casual crowd, they understand they cannot do that right now because they cannot lower the price. MS on the other hand is VERY eager to go after the casual market which is why they catered their E3 that way along with trying to reduce the price of the 360.

Being last place is NOT a problem for Sony. Let's just say MS was 2nd place, and they were losing tons of money (where MS decides to price 360 crazy low just to make more people buy it), while Sony was in 3rd place but not losing money. Last gen, while GC was third overall, Nintendo was actually making more money on GC than MS was on Xbox. Being the top isn't everything, it's all about profiting. If you can be at the top and profit, awesome. If you are better off being last place and profiting, then do so.

Sony is NOT leaving video games, anytime soon. They are losing LESS money each year and are looking to finall turn profit in their video game sector, or least be closer to breaking even.

And btw, why do people think there's no hope when PS3 was leading 360 in sales this year in NA for 10 months, until MS really cut the price? PS3 has been doing very well in Europe also. PS3 has been ahead of 360 in Japan too.

While Kotaku tries to claim Sony is on a 10 million target, that's actually wrong. Their goal was to actually meet 18 million - 19 million consoles by fiscal year in March 2009. According to Howard Stringer and others, Sony has actually been ahead of that target for a while, at its current price point. Last year they weren't on target, which is why they wouldn't cut the price.

Are you implying that I have a bias against Sony? :cry:

mtxbass1

12-29-2008, 08:47 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGE0AE8Gfb8c&refer=home

Sony came out this morning with their cost of the PS3 being $448.73. They used to have the cost at $690.23. Needless to say, they are losing a lot less money per console.

Sony is the number 2 consumer electronics manufacturer in the world. They aren't going anywhere any time soon.

Edit: What the fuck are you talking about with "does this mean Sony went bankrupt?" Nothing in the article even remotely implies that.

Temporaryscars

12-29-2008, 08:50 PM

Come on mtxbass, SeanR already confirmed that they caused the recession. How could they NOT go bankrupt?

Dumbass!

QiG

12-29-2008, 08:50 PM

Yeah thats what I just did. I traded in my 360 and waiting for a Jasper to show up at my gamestop.

I love my PS3... and my Bravia TV, and my Bravia receiver, and my Sony Card...

Err... did you edit your post a split second before I quoted it?

Temporaryscars

12-29-2008, 08:56 PM

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/blog.php?b=5277

I remember that.

That would be a PS3 bias, not a Sony bias.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v309/temporaryscars/DSCF0079.jpg

mtxbass1

12-29-2008, 08:57 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v309/temporaryscars/DSCF0079.jpg

:rofl:

TheRock88

12-29-2008, 09:00 PM

:rofl:

Temporaryscars

12-29-2008, 09:04 PM

False alarm everyone! False alarm. I did some research, and it turns out Sony is ok. In fact, they're in first! Put this in your pipe and smoke it, Sony-haters!

http://www.sonydefenseforce.com/

Paco

12-29-2008, 09:05 PM

Holy Shit Someone Call Johnny Turbo!

dmaul1114

12-29-2008, 09:09 PM

There stuck in 3rd this generation for 100% sure. But they can do better next gen. They can launch cheaper since Blu Ray will be cheaper (can at least be the same price as the next Xbox), and that will help a great deal.

They have to find some exclusives though. The third party exclusives like GTA3, Final Fantasy etc. are pretty much gone. They have some good first party games, but nothing with the power of Halo or Gears of War.

I'd love to see them just partner up with MS and get all the good HD franchises in one place, but it will never happen. There's really no need for two consoles that are so similar power wise IMO. Would be great to just haved a Sony/MS machine and a Nintendo machine.

ninja dog

12-29-2008, 09:10 PM

We know you're not sad Temp, based on various OTT posts I've read. First off, this is Kotaku who decides to bring up more crap just to get hits again. We all remember the time they posted an article from a CAG Blog.

Sony even stated themselves the PS3 pricetag is really only going for hardcore gamers right now. While they'd love to reach the casual crowd, they understand they cannot do that right now because they cannot lower the price. MS on the other hand is VERY eager to go after the casual market which is why they catered their E3 that way along with trying to reduce the price of the 360.

Being last place is NOT a problem for Sony. Let's just say MS was 2nd place, and they were losing tons of money (where MS decides to price 360 crazy low just to make more people buy it), while Sony was in 3rd place but not losing money. Last gen, while GC was third overall, Nintendo was actually making more money on GC than MS was on Xbox. Being the top isn't everything, it's all about profiting. If you can be at the top and profit, awesome. If you are better off being last place and profiting, then do so.

Sony is NOT leaving video games, anytime soon. They are losing LESS money each year and are looking to finall turn profit in their video game sector, or least be closer to breaking even.

And btw, why do people think there's no hope when PS3 was leading 360 in sales this year in NA for 10 months, until MS really cut the price? PS3 has been doing very well in Europe also. PS3 has been ahead of 360 in Japan too.

While Kotaku tries to claim Sony is on a 10 million target, that's actually wrong. Their goal was to actually meet 18 million - 19 million consoles by fiscal year in March 2009. According to Howard Stringer and others, Sony has actually been ahead of that target for a while, at its current price point. Last year they weren't on target, which is why they wouldn't cut the price.

I wonder how much of these posts are really just his hopes and expectations for Sony vs. reality.

QiG

12-29-2008, 09:29 PM

Just look at Factor 5 and Free Radical, two high profile developers that are going under within weeks of each other. It's no coincidence that they're also responsible for two PS3 exclusives.

Let us not forget that Lair and Haze were not only PS3 exclusives, but also absolutely horrible failures because the gameplay was a horrible failure. That's like saying Konami and Media Molecule would be going under because their PS3 exclusives.

Ecofreak

12-29-2008, 09:36 PM

Seems like a new one of these threads pops up every week.

1) It's funny that people who try to provide counter-points to the main argument are labeled "Sony Defense Force." Guess we should just all become sheep, go :whee:, and dig a grave for Sony.

2) Every article that says Sony is in trouble must be discussed, in length, and no one makes any ground. Wouldn't it make more sense to just combine these all into one thread? That is, of course, everyone spending time typing the same thing ad nauseum.

Let us not forget that Lair and Haze were not only PS3 exclusives, but also absolutely horrible failures because the gameplay was a horrible failure. That's like saying Konami and Media Molecule would be going under because their PS3 exclusives.

QFT.

Lest we forget what Factor 5 was really shooting for w/ Lair...
http://penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20070518.jpg

ninja dog

12-29-2008, 09:37 PM

The Mana Knight

12-29-2008, 09:41 PM

Let us not forget that Lair and Haze were not only PS3 exclusives, but also absolutely horrible failures because the gameplay was a horrible failure. That's like saying Konami and Media Molecule would be going under because their PS3 exclusives.Pretty much. Free Radical was already in trouble because Timesplitters 3 sold below expectations and Second Sight (or whatever their other game was called was a huge bomb). Due to those games not performing well, along with them struggling to find publishers now (since most big publishers no longer want to work with them now), that's why they are in trouble now.

With LAIR, Sony themselves are the ones who made most of the investment on the game, and since it bombed, Factor 5 didn't exactly make money to be able to fund another project. What hurt Factor 5 more was Brash going under (they were making Superman for them), which kind of had their financial problems fall on Factor 5.

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/brash-entertainment-collaborating-with-factor-5/?biz=1

http://news.bigdownload.com/2008/11/14/rumor-brash-entertainment-done/

What it really comes down to right now is, unless you have a big publisher backing your next game before development starts (I'm talking about an HD console retail game here) or your previous games weren't bombs, you'll have a VERY hard time lasting through this recession. Banks aren't giving many people loans these days (some of the companies might still owe money to the bank) unless your credit is superb. That is why many smaller developers (such as Evolution Studios, Bizarre Creations, etc.) have been absorbed into larger publishers.

Temporaryscars

12-29-2008, 09:44 PM

I'm just kidding about the dick eating part, TMK. I <3 you. :)

cochesecochese

12-29-2008, 09:48 PM

This is scary. Someone hold me.

Dr Mario Kart

12-29-2008, 09:51 PM

Temporaryscars

12-29-2008, 09:52 PM

People with awful, blurry avatars of white plastic are not allowed to comment on such things.

lokizz

12-29-2008, 10:10 PM

first off its a kotaku article that in itself should warrant some serious skepticism. i think on both ends of the coin microsoft and sony are losing on their respective consoles for one reason or another with nintendo making the only profit. that said both microsoft and sony have a pretty deep well to drink from since theyre not solely console makers its just one branch of many they have.

i think exclusives from other developers will probably fall off for the next few years since why pay extra to keep a game off a rival console when it inevitably ends up on it years later. you may see something like they did with gta4( with system eclusive dlc) but each company will always have those flagship titles created in their own company that will always be exclusives like halo , sly coper god of war or ratchet and clank ( sorry i dont know of too many xbox exclusives.

Wolve11

12-29-2008, 10:18 PM

That would be a PS3 bias, not a Sony bias.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v309/temporaryscars/DSCF0079.jpg

reported for use of the D word.......j/k

Temporaryscars

12-29-2008, 10:19 PM

It's acceptable if it's aimed at TMK. ;)

mykevermin

12-29-2008, 10:35 PM

Wait, we're blaming the recession? Would someone in that group reconcile the recession blame with the fact that sales and revenue are at record highs? Certainly long term credit and costs are a legitimate issue, but that has more to do with the business model being unsustainable, good times or not.

Is it unreasonable to argue that people are willing to spend money during a recession, but not a fuckton of it? The price gap b/w Wii/360/PS3 was always an issue with the lot of you before, n'cest pas? So why would it suddenly *cease* to matter after the 360 has dropped its price such that the Wii/360 price gap is negligible, and also we're knee deep in a giant depression (let's not fool ourselves, it'll be one before all is said and done)?

dcfox

12-29-2008, 11:00 PM

Let us not forget that Lair and Haze were not only PS3 exclusives, but also absolutely horrible failures because the gameplay was a horrible failure. That's like saying Konami and Media Molecule would be going under because their PS3 exclusives.
Maybe not Konami but it wouldn't be a stretch to think Media Molecule might end up having to tighten up their belts a little. I could be wrong but I don't think Little Big Planet has been lighting up the sales charts.

Dr Mario Kart

12-29-2008, 11:05 PM

That was mainly regarding TMK's statement of the developer cost/credit side. Software sales are quite robust. While the downturn is certainly going to have an impact, I think its catching a lot of the blame that should belong to the business model as far as development is concerned.

Regarding hardware - while people's wallets are certainly tighter, I think the bigger issue is what people value. Consumers largely see the two HD consoles to be interchangeable. They dont necessarily mind spending $400, some of them may have spent that much on a Wii less than a year ago. Many have purchased HDTVs and standalone blu-ray players this season. The divisions within Sony that handle those high end products are doing fine. But $400 is a bad value for a PS3 when the 360 satisfies most people's needs starting at half the entry price.

The Wii is blowing away the 360 with the popular arcade unit being cheaper, just as the PS2 held at $300 and stomped the competition even with the Gamecube launching at $200.

SCE is acting like they are the market leader in that they are keeping a higher price than their competitors. However, they have no choice. They cant drop it. I assume they also know that price drops have never changed the fortunes of a system. Better to be 3rd and only losing 3 billion rather than 5.

manthing

12-29-2008, 11:59 PM

Sony needs to bring back PS2 BC, or work on software BC

lilboo

12-30-2008, 12:00 AM

I knowww!!!!
I never had a PS2, and I don't want to buy one. However, I would gladly pick up some PS2 games and play them on my PS3.

But No0o0o0o0o0o0o0o!

lilboo

12-30-2008, 12:09 AM

Yes yes they got rid of it to cut costs. That's great, but it still should NEVER have been taken out. The thing is still mad expensive so why even bother??

BC is a MUST these days, IMO.
The 360 does a somewhat decent job, and for once the Wii exceeds at something (yes, the Wii IS a GCN :lol:).

ninja dog

12-30-2008, 12:14 AM

They ARE working on it.

http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2008/01/17/curious-job-listing-found-on-the-scei-website/

I don't think I need to make my lengthy post again about why it was removed, and what their plans are.

1/17/08...that was back when there was hope that this might be a good year for Sony.

lilboo

12-30-2008, 12:24 AM

But Mana, there are certain things that costs SHOULDN'T matter. Having BC is important. It eventually would have gotten cheaper (like most parts) so that is one thing that should have stayed, regardless. A loss is a loss. I understand that it was a lot larger at first, but they are STILL losing money now.

Take ME for example. I never had a PS2. So, if they kept PS2 playback in the PS3.. I would ACTUALLY buy PS2 games. This means they would get more money from me, because they still produce PS2 titles.

I am sure there's more people like that.

The other stuff that they took out (like 4->2 USB) is whatever. Things like that are no big deal since you can always use a hub.

manthing

12-30-2008, 12:26 AM

*highfive* @ lilboo.

I want a PS3, but only with PS2 BC. I already have a few games for my inevitable PS3(Lair, Singstar, and Full Auto).

I've been picking up a bunch of PS2 games due to the recent Hollywood/BB sales.

I would like to play them on my HDTV, but even with OFFICIAL SONY component cables, all of the PS2 games I own look terrible on it(save God of War 2), to the point I don't want to play them on my HDTV.

I want a PS3 for upscaled PS2 games and :br:, and to make Singstar videos for Youtube :oops:

dcfox

12-30-2008, 12:35 AM

I have to admit the only reason I jumpd on the PS3 so early was to make sure I got a unit that had some b/c. I saw the writing on the wall when they started to phase out the hardware b/c.

ninja dog

12-30-2008, 12:35 AM

Appossum, Sony was LEADING 360 for 10 months THIS year in NA UNTIL MS CUT it's price heavily to get back ahead. PS3 STILL continues to outsell 360 in Japan. PS3 is STILL doing pretty well in most European countries.

Then they lost the lead completely. Sony is dying. Kutaragi's ghost is having the last laugh. they will be bought out by MS pretty soon or go 3rd party. It's over. Sony is finished.

manthing

12-30-2008, 12:51 AM

TMK, you are officially out of your mind.

Where have you seen FACTS that state Sony makes $ on the PS3?

Last thing I saw showed that it costs Sony >$400 to make each PS3.

And no, it isn't hard to get a PS2. But the PS2 looks TERRIBLE on HDTVs.

lilboo

12-30-2008, 12:53 AM

What? It was more expensive (FOR THE CUSTOMER) back then. This isn't a "FAVOR", this is a product.

You don't have to sell me on the PS3; I have one. I love it. Believe me. But it's NOT perfect. There's no reason why it came WITH BC, then left it out. It's either one way or the other. I don't care how many quotes from early 2008/2007 you can pull up, it doesn't matter. You are not apart of the marketing team; you are a customer. I am a customer. This is what I want; it's what we all (MINUS YOU) want.

mitch079

12-30-2008, 01:01 AM

Mana, Sony is still losing $45/per each PS3 sold, far less than what they were originally losing, but still a loss. http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/4340.html

And you said this "If someone were to buy a PS3, to ONLY buy PS2 games, that actually hurt Sony quite a bit. Sony still makes a small profit off of every PS3 they sell (like $30)."

The Mana Knight

12-30-2008, 01:11 AM

Mana, Sony is still losing $45/per each PS3 sold, far less than what they were originally losing, but still a loss. http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/4340.htmlI know that already. What I was trying to say what that when Sony included the PS2 BC (which DOES bump the PS3 price to around $500 and above), they'd have to sell the console for around $500, or take an even bigger loss. They felt it was better to bring the price down and remove the PS2 BC, so that's what they did.

Last gen, the fat PS2 actually used some PS1 components for BC in the PS2 (although it was 50% hardware, 50% software). Sony was able to continue to do this because their loses on PS2 weren't anywhere near as big, and PS2 was selling very well. They completely removed all PS1 components in the slim PS2 model (which was 100% emulation for PS1 games). Sony was actually planning on doing the EXACT same thing with PS3 (I want to find the article where I heard that, they mentioned how a PS3 console revision may see a 100% emulator). However, due to PS3 sales not being where they wanted to be and continuing to take a massive loss, they HAD to make a change. The change was reduce the PS3 costs greatly, even remove features, just to bring the price down. They knew some weren't going to be happy, but they had to do what it takes to soften their loses a bit along with bring its price to be a bit more competitive at the time (which it was).

I will say this over and over again, if Sony never removed the PS2 BC, PS3 still STILL be $500 right now. I can tell price means everything because outside the initial day of the 80GB MGS4 bundle, people wanted to save $100 and get the 40GB PS3 over the 80GB with MGS4.

I do understand how some like lilboo would love to play PS2 games, but it really came down to costs. BC is pretty much on its way out anyway because:
-DSi does not play GBA games.
-new PS3 SKUs don't play PS2 games.
-Xbox 360 hasn't had am Xbox BC update for like a year, maybe longer
-Although the Wii can play GC games, does Nintendo sell GC memory cards or GC controllers now so you can use the GC BC? Nope (especially in the U.S., you can't even find GC controllers new anymore).

I don't want to argue with lilboo since I <3 lilboo. ;)

Chacrana

12-30-2008, 01:14 AM

Regardless of whether or not Nintendo sells controllers or memory cards for the Cube is irrelevant - Gamecube games still work on the Wii.

Point is, Nintendoes what Sony don't.

whoknows

12-30-2008, 01:20 AM

I like applesauce.

The kind with the red things in it.

Chacrana

12-30-2008, 01:21 AM

Something tells me that's not applesauce...

whoknows

12-30-2008, 01:23 AM

But...it tastes like applesauce.

I think

Chacrana

12-30-2008, 01:24 AM

Well, whatever.

I do think it's amusing to see two TMK flamebait threads in such a short span, though.

akimukwa

12-30-2008, 01:24 AM

Sony isn't in trouble, they're a multi billion dollar corporation. They have Sony Pictures, BMG, walkman, cyber-shot cameras, camcorders, DVD/BluRay players, receivers, HDTV's & SDTV's, Vaio laptops & pcs, broadcast and professional use audio/video/monitors and other professional-use equipment, optical pickups, batteries, audio/video/data recording media, and data recording systems. The PS3 is only one of the products that Sony makes. Only a fool would believe that one product could bring down an entire company.

That's only what I could think of off the top of my head but I'm sure there's a ton more.

whoknows

12-30-2008, 01:27 AM

Well, whatever.

I do think it's amusing to see two TMK flamebait threads in such a short span, though.

Flamebait is so stupid. I mean, I set the bait on fire when I'm fishing, but as soon as it hits the water the fire goes out.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 01:28 AM

This is happening to the PS3 because the ps3 is the worst system on the market.

Tired of sugarcoating it so the Sony defense force doesn't get upset.

The system is in 3rd. It's staying there. It's over. Go play uncharted again and leave the rest of us alone.

OR

Wall Street Journal is TEH BIAS.

manthing

12-30-2008, 01:29 AM

I never said Sony makes money on PS3. I said they make money on PS2. Get your eyes checked and read the thread more carefully.

Am I the unemployed fellow who blogs about my need for eyeglasses?

:-s

Wait, that's you!

:applause:

Sony still makes a small profit off of every PS3 they sell (like $30).

Here is where you said Sony profits on PS3s

:booty:

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5306583&postcount=55

The Mana Knight

12-30-2008, 01:35 AM

Here is where you said Sony profits on PS3s

:booty:

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5306583&postcount=55That was an error. PS2 still profits at $30. THAT I do know for sure. It's dark in the room and I'm tired, so very easy to make a mistake. ;)

manthing

12-30-2008, 01:36 AM

Especially when YOU need to get your eyes checked and get glasses prescribed

Chacrana

12-30-2008, 01:37 AM

You're a walking advertisement regardless of lighting conditions.

Paco

12-30-2008, 01:38 AM

If I was Sony, I would be RAPING Microsoft for the 360 and all of it's deficiencies. I would show scratched discs, broken drives, red ring consoles, state how they're in class action lawsuits, talk that only POOR people have 360s, only low class LOWLIVES have the 360, that the 360 is for idiots. Hell I'd even say that the 360 makes your penis shrink and that it gives you THE GAYS. How many consoles give you the opporunity to completely rag on its total lack of hardware quality and not get a lawsuit simply because it's true and if they did, they'd be forced to show their failure numbers.

It's time to use the Sega Advertising of the early 90s where they just shot whatever they could at the nes/snes. And we need a fat mascot too. One with the awesomeness of sonic, the fat of mario and the overall offensiveness of Gabe Newell. KRAZY KEN. Your time is up. HAIL TO THE NEW HERO!

The Mana Knight

12-30-2008, 01:40 AM

Especially when YOU need to get your eyes checked and get glasses prescribedI was still able to pass the vision test at the BMV license branch when I took the driving test (although technically you don't need perfect vision there). ;)

After reading Apossum's aka Ninja Dog's comment, are people seriously just trying to get me all upset and crazy after I made my PS3 blog post (or maybe trying to hope I do something crazy to myself over all that bashing and stuff)?

But like I said before, it's best to just drop the arguing, so I'm just going to unsubscribe from this topic and act like it didn't exist. ;)

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 01:42 AM

Wall Street Journal is TEH BIAS.

PS3 aside, Michael Pachter *IS* a dismally shitty analyst.

whoknows

12-30-2008, 01:43 AM

I love you.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 01:45 AM

No, it's just entertaining to see someone be so wrong so consistently.

10 years from now when apple is selling 5 million consoles a month while Sony published games on it, mana will be talking about it being a stopgap measure for the revival of Sony.

Everyone loves an insane person who refuses to be wrong.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 01:46 AM

Pachter does a better job getting paid for it than you or I do, you gotta admit.

Paco

12-30-2008, 01:47 AM

heavyd853

12-30-2008, 01:49 AM

Goading them is pretty low though

Chacrana

12-30-2008, 01:50 AM

Was it Pachter who claimed the industry was recession proof just a few weeks ago, or someone else?

whoknows

12-30-2008, 01:53 AM

I thought it was you.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 02:00 AM

It mostly has been.

Sony's failures this gen just made them more vulnerable then nintendo and microsoft.

They also have affordable systems with games people want. So that's pretty important.

lokizz

12-30-2008, 02:00 AM

aside from all that remember betamax didnt destroy sony then and the ps3 wont destroy it now. and since they won the format war ( as is evident by how many people go coocoo for blurays) theyre going to be in a sweet spot for a while ( until movies and gmes begin to go fully dl).i can see why people have the loyalty they do to their fav brands and why wiitards and xbox nuts alike want to bring up all the ills of the ps3. it is expensive and now the new ones dont have bc but as the demand for bluray movies grows alot of people will proably look to the system to get the most for their money and even when they dont they will buy bluray players.

there is no console war anymore. nintendo is winning in a halfassed way and sony and microsoft will continue foward doing what theyre doing. the gamers will game and the fad lovers will contine to play wii games.

also we have yet to see the best the ps3 has to offer. its still a system programmers are tryign to get the hang of much like with the ps2 some of the best games didnt come out till later in its lifespan. the system is doing some good things right now and it will be interesting to see what it can do when someone who can tap into its full potential does.

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 02:02 AM

Pachter does a better job getting paid for it than you or I do, you gotta admit.

Pay me sufficient to put 60 a week into it, provide me access to the data, and I'll make Pachter look like the thumb-up-his-ass-for-59-hours-a-week dude that he is.

His analysis have been so frequent that there doesn't appear to be a single plausible outcome, short of all consoles being in first place simultaneously, that he hasn't yet claimed would be the case.

whoknows

12-30-2008, 02:09 AM

I just checked the internet and it said the PS3 is selling the best.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 02:11 AM

To tell the truth, pachter probably consults for many businesses and probably does it better than we know. You don't make money as a consultant by publishing all your info.

He probably throws out some scraps to the media from time to time to buoy his noteriety.

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 02:13 AM

My point is that he has covered all possible scenarios with the info he *does* publish.

If I said "Fidel Castro will die in 2009" and also "Fidel Castro may not die in 2009," would you hire me as an analyst?

And, for the record, would you trust ANY financial analyst at the moment? *Especially* one who's been employed for the past several years?

jer7583

12-30-2008, 02:16 AM

The problems aren't so simple. Say EA comes to pachter asking what studios need layoffs. And which need funding.

He may well affect the way many publishers spend their money in these tight times?

Just trying to see his usefulness.

Blackout

12-30-2008, 02:31 AM

I think if PS3 was the same exact price as 360 it would be destroying it in sales. The systems are so similar that Blu Ray, free online, etc would put the PS3 over the edge. There is hardly any difference between the two consoles. It's not that the PS3 sucks. It's just that it costs too damn much.

zewone

12-30-2008, 02:33 AM

jer7583

12-30-2008, 02:47 AM

Your persona has his vadge showing, Zew.

Sony did bad this gen. Nintendo did good. Microsoft did okay. End of story.

Blackout

12-30-2008, 03:07 AM

Your persona has his vadge showing, Zew.

Sony did bad this gen. Nintendo did good. Microsoft did okay. End of story.

Profit wise yeah. At the end of the day that's all that matters. Nintendo IMO has done God awful. I'll get flamed for saying it but whatever.

zewone

12-30-2008, 03:11 AM

Yeah, I wish it wasn't about the money.

As much as I don't like the way Sony is handling the PS3, I've bought four of 'em, but I'll never buy a Wii.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 03:12 AM

I'm happy with the direction Nintendo took. They are doing well, I play the Wii less than 360, but more than I did my PS3 when I had it.

This thread needs more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb9kZEgWT3E

jer7583

12-30-2008, 03:14 AM

Paco

12-30-2008, 03:15 AM

In my honest opinion Sony is jacking each exec off. The people who handle their commercials don't know shit and for that should be slapped with dildos. I haven't even seen one fucking game commercial that resembled a game commercial. Resistance 2 could have been big but the commercial left me confused. I will admit that the Gears of War commercial was memorable simply because of that song and showcasing the graphics. Resistance 2 on the other hand was not. I would be showing how you're swamped with tons of shit trying to kill you and tout the multiplayer.

LittlebigPlanet was the closest thing to a game commercial and even that one licked ass.

The One with the shirts has no value to anyone except people who already have a PS3. Show the games. Hell Pain is one of those games that's so stupid that you could easily make a commercial of that. Show them hurting THE HOFF and having him punched in the nuts or something stupid. The game sells itself as it's infinitely more fun to watch then to actually play it.

Show FAT PRINCESS. Raise some awareness and stop doing this shit that nobody does.

And I'm sorry Zewone I already have another crown. I'm the dancing frosty on Home that hangs on the first bowling alley doing the Salsa and Cabbage Patch bringing smiles to all.

Sarang01

12-30-2008, 03:18 AM

Frankly I want Nintendo to cut the shit and give us "Sadness". I don't own a Wii yet and would buy Sadness day one. PERIOD! No what if's here. We need a game like that to fucking challenge video game developers right now since Sega's gone for all intents and purposes.
As for Sony I agree with Paco for the most part. Blitz the air with ad's on MS and the rrod, scratched discs and all. If Sony had some actual nerve they'd do it but lately they've been fucking up all over the place. They had the next MARIO in Sackboy. Yes you heard me fucking say it. Sackboy is Mario! Sony didn't do a fucking thing to really capitalize on him, blitzing the airwaves with info about LBP and putting him front and center.
If you ask why I'm being so hard on Sony it's because I don't have a fucking choice. Between the 360 and the PS3 it's the only one not going all red ring of death all the time comparatively. Also the Blu-ray included allows for a more truly next gen. experience, the space affording games PCM which is Lossless sound. Also better textures can be gained, see 1080p or 720p native which most 360 games just don't have the space for. Instead it's upconverted. Let us also not forget Sony charging for what should be free, P2P online. I'm sorry but paying $50 a year for glorified matchmaking and P2P MP is ridiculous. I'd rather go retro and have MS make it like Netplay. Yup. Take that whole framework down and I'll connect directly with my friend without your matchmaking. I'd rather just take the time to add person by person to my friends list. It also prevents me getting into a match with the many, though not all, racist douchebags that frequent XBL and aren't banned asap.
edit: Oh and Sony seems to be fucking up again with Home. Apparently "Gay", "Bixsexual" and "Lesbian" are censored words for one. I can understand gay and it being used in a negative context but not the latter two. Also it seems groups of these individuals are being prevented from creating these types of groups on Home. In fact one person was prevented from setting up a GSA on Home. That's Gay Straight Alliance for those who don't know. I got this info from Sirius OutQ News by the way.

Blackout

12-30-2008, 03:26 AM

Well okay it comes down to the money because that's the only real hard data you have.

Everything else is just opinion and conjecture. I do think that more "core" gamers have bought a Wii this generation than a PS3, though. You can draw a pretty good comparison to the Wii's casual market with the PS3's blu-ray player market. Both probably buy the same amount of games, it's just the casual market is making Nintendo money, while the Blu-Ray market is just keeping PS3 barely afloat.

People buy both systems for non-traditional reasons.

I do think PS3 gets waaaayyy too much shit though. Nintendo is making buckets of money and that's great, but why should we care? Shouldn't we care more about the quality of the system, games, etc? I think all 3 systems have been a let down, but it seems PS3 gets the brunt of it.

And yeah, Sony does not know how to advertise their games. It's all hipster bullshit that doesn't really show what the system does.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 03:27 AM

Sarang01

12-30-2008, 03:29 AM

I mean his image you idiot.

whoknows

12-30-2008, 03:29 AM

I can see how you'd have trouble with the controls in LBP...if you were half retarded and weren't looking at the TV while playing.

Paco

12-30-2008, 03:34 AM

Mario controls well. Sackboy does not.

Your post needs more writing skills and less fuck

The problems with Sony go beyond not marketing and whatever other problems they have. The real issue is that they seem to have no idea how to stop making these mistakes and finally, 3 years into the generation, start giving people what they want instead of continuing to force blu-ray down their throats and home as a giant advertising space.

I'm glad Sony isn't top this generation because I prefer everything about the way 360 and Xbox Live handles games, custom soundtracks, online play, achievements, DLC, Arcade, and friends. I want things to be the way MS does them. This is a personal preference. This is a greedy reason to want Sony to stay 3rd, but that's how I feel. The more games I can play with 360's interface for online, the better.

Microsoft's online is pure shit to be honest. And paying for DLC? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. 50 mil for GTA4 DLC and we still haven't see that. And games running on P2P? That's fine with people who have great connections, but it also gives host advantage which is 100% BULL These games especially FPS NEED dedicated servers or at least a lock where people with shitty connections can't host.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 03:35 AM

Well his image can be hunky dory but when the game plays like LBP does, it's not going anywhere.

To add some non-factual, opinionated evidence, I played Little Big Planet with my sister at a demo kiosk today. She liked how the sackboys looked and expressed at first. But when we started actually playing she said she didn't like how the game played.

Even non hardcore gamers can feel what's wrong with how LBP plays. It's just another PS3 exclusive that's disappointing people.

whoknows

12-30-2008, 03:37 AM

Oh you're sister said it?

Well now, that's completely different.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 03:40 AM

Microsoft's online is pure shit to be honest. And paying for DLC? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. 50 mil for GTA4 DLC and we still haven't see that. And games running on P2P? That's fine with people who have great connections, but it also gives host advantage which is 100% BULL These games especially FPS NEED dedicated servers or at least a lock where people with shitty connections can't host.

I'm going to indulge your insanity since I'm up late and can't sleep.

I love Xbox Live. I have a great group of friends that plays TF2 and Left 4 Dead regularly on there.

You pay for DLC on PSN as well. Probably more, with the expensive Sackboy costumes and HOME clubs/shirts/couches/etc.

I didn't pay 50Mil for GTA4 DLC (and I probably won't pay what they're charging for it either) so I don't see the problem.

I've never had a problem. I don't bitch about host advantage or get upset when I lose. I mostly just play online FPS games either with friends, or with podcasts on casually.

Dedicated servers might be nice while the game is running, but MGS3S is a good example of why they're also trouble. I can still play Counter-Strike on Xbox Live because of that terrible P2P service, and also old favorites like Phantom Dust, FEAR, and some others that you might not like, and there might be better versions of, but the option is there. More importantly, the community is there to support those old games.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 03:44 AM

Oh you're sister said it?

Well now, that's completely different.

Not saying it's definitive, but saying even someone coming in cold to the experience, enjoying the character can be turned off by those controls.

Mario is fun to move around the screen. Sackboy feels like a struggle to get him where you want. Might be because you're forced to use the analog stick, but it's more likely the physics involved.

Paco

12-30-2008, 03:47 AM

I'm going to indulge your insanity since I'm up late and can't sleep.

I love Xbox Live. I have a great group of friends that plays TF2 and Left 4 Dead regularly on there.

You pay for DLC on PSN as well. Probably more, with the expensive Sackboy costumes and HOME clubs/shirts/couches/etc.

I didn't pay 50Mil for GTA4 DLC (and I probably won't pay what they're charging for it either) so I don't see the problem.

I've never had a problem. I don't bitch about host advantage or get upset when I lose. I mostly just play online FPS games either with friends, or with podcasts on casually.

Dedicated servers might be nice while the game is running, but MGS3S is a good example of why they're also trouble. I can still play Counter-Strike on Xbox Live because of that terrible P2P service, and also old favorites like Phantom Dust, FEAR, and some others that you might not like, and there might be better versions of, but the option is there. More importantly, the community is there to support those old games.

MADNESS? MADNESS?! But seriously I see what you're getting at and I can understand the good points of P2P, but I also understand that for Shooting games and for 2d fighters it's not the best solution as there is going to be lag and in worst cases like Gears of War, there's always going to be Host Advantage.

You found a good group to hang with on Live that's cool, but a lot of them are also socially retarded monkeys and foul mouthed idiots that are also biggoted. And I found that a lot more on live then I did on PSN mainly because the PSN people are too cheap to get a mic or only talk to friends.

That's one advantage of Unreal Tournament 3. There's public servers still out there with great ping and you can make private servers and password lock em though it sucks if you have a crap connection. But if you have a great connection then it's all good.

Just pointing out that all P2P isn't optimal.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 03:54 AM

carpwrist

12-30-2008, 03:55 AM

no more bru-ray? :oops:

jer7583

12-30-2008, 04:00 AM

Early 2009 Sony will announce they have replaced every Playstation 3 BRU-RAY unit with a Playstation 3 equipped with WEREHOG.

Mid 2009 Sony takes first place in lifetime sales for any system ever released.

Calling it.

Paco

12-30-2008, 04:06 AM

Yeah that really worked out well on Super Turbo. The XBL version runs much better than the PSN version, from all accounts.

I realize most of my points are preference, but they're my preference, and they're not being changed by Sony integrating a sterilized Second Life with ads into their service. It's not what I want. It's not what anybody else wants either. Being able to log onto xbox.com and check my friends and send them messages and view the marketplace while not at my system is nice, too. That's year number 3 of being behind XBL on that one.

All anything isn't optimal. I appreciate the reasoned response, paco.

Umm Super Turbo isn't dedicated servers. It's all P2P if I remember correctly. Yes your points are preferences and it's cool that you found what fits you, but I am also stating that most people aren't lucky enough to find a cool group on live. And I like Home. I get to troll as a Frosty with a business suit. Obviously people like home otherwise the damn thing wouldn't be crowded all the time.

Sarang01

12-30-2008, 04:09 AM

Are the game rooms up yet? Preferably one for Folklore? :D

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 07:40 AM

As much as I don't like the way Sony is handling the PS3, I've bought four of 'em

Why don't you go dig up a 4chan image symbolizing 'battered spouse syndrome' and post it here for yourself?

zewone

12-30-2008, 07:50 AM

Why don't you go dig up a 4chan image symbolizing 'battered spouse syndrome' and post it here for yourself?

srsly

naes

12-30-2008, 09:04 AM

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/4499/shaqxg2.jpg
This picture is the only way I can possibly describe this thread.

Spoon_si

12-30-2008, 09:11 AM

thank god.. blu-ray won the format war... or i'll have a $600 brick in my living room.

Predict:

mid-2009 PS3 does a dreamcast

naes

12-30-2008, 09:15 AM

mid-2009 PS3 does a dreamcast
You're kidding, right? The PS3 still has a huge userbase and doesn't have rampant piracy.

UjnHunter

12-30-2008, 10:56 AM

Sony smells like cheese! ;) I like cheese!

Malik112099

12-30-2008, 11:31 AM

Shouldn't have released those PS9 commercials so soon......

hiccupleftovers

12-30-2008, 11:42 AM

Being in last place may not be a problem for Sony but it is a problem for Sony exclusive developers. Just look at Factor 5 and Free Radical, two high profile developers that are going under within weeks of each other. It's no coincidence that they're also responsible for two PS3 exclusives. It might be a different story if the install base were higher. Just how long is Sony going to wait before all exclusive development dries up?

I have to admit the only reason I jumpd on the PS3 so early was to make sure I got a unit that had some b/c. I saw the writing on the wall when they started to phase out the hardware b/c.

Two great posts that I totally agree with, especially the latter. That is one reason I ran out and got a 60GB. Otherwise, I would still not have a PS3 to this day. And to be honest with you, my PS3 is mostly a dust collector. My upscaling DVD players do a better job than it, they fucked me up on my CC and Tekken 5 DR (best game for the system), and in general there isn't a lot I do with it. I did folding for awhile, but the thing sucks power better than prostitute on you know....Shit, I just threw on an old laptop with folding and let it do its business, but I've stopped that due to money/economy. I just wish the real games would have come out for the PS3. It's just such a barren system.

crzyboy88

12-30-2008, 11:43 AM

Shouldn't have released those PS9 commercials so soon......

I'm still waiting for 2072...

lionheart4life

12-30-2008, 01:11 PM

They really just need more games coming out badly. I've had my PS3 since that MGS4 bundle launched and still only have two games, one of which is Assassins Creed which I could have just got for 360 if I wanted. I bought tons of games for their last two systems, probably close to 100 for each. Where is Final Fantasy, the REAL Gran Turismo 5, Twisted Metal, or ANY rpg's? How about a new Castlevania or God of War?

ninja dog

12-30-2008, 01:13 PM

Predict:

mid-2009 PS3 does a dreamcast

there's no way they're going to pull in a shitload of awesome capcom exclusives and rare shmups.

Maklershed

12-30-2008, 01:26 PM

That's the reason I have a PS3 right now too. I wanted to get the 60gb (and hardware emulation) before it disappeared. I don't regret my decision one bit.

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 01:37 PM

Saw a link to this CNET article on google news. Very applicable as many have said the same things in this thread. The main problem with the PS3 has always been it's higher price, but they're fucked as they can't afford to drop it.

Why Sony needs to (but can't) drop the price of the PS3

In a report that could send shock waves through the video game industry, market research firm iSuppli has detailed the real cost and new savings found in Sony's second-generation Playstation 3.

iSuppli's report, issued Monday, says that the current PS3 model contains 2,820 individual parts, including Nvidia's Reality Synthesizer, IBM's Cell Broadband Engine, and Toshiba's I/O controller, which are now made using 65-nanometer process technology, compared to 90-nanometer technology formally employed in the previous iteration. That has drastically reduced the PS3's power supply cost by 30 percent from $30.75 to $21.50.
Playstation 3

The costly PS3
(Credit: Sony)

Kionix's three-axis accelerometer in the PS3 controller has replaced the Hokuriku Electronic Industry Co. part, saving Sony an estimated $1.45 per unit.

But perhaps the most important cost savings is in the console's vaunted Cell processor from IBM. According to iSuppli, the latest PS3 includes a new version of IBM's Cell Broadband Engine, which is priced at $46.46 -- 28 percent lower than its original cost in the first-generation hardware. A new version of Nvidia's Reality Synthesizer, the console's GPU, at $58.01 per unit is now priced 30 percent lower than it was in the first generation.

Altogether, Sony's second-generation PS3 features a 35 percent total cost reduction from the first-generation model. In dollars and cents, today's PS3 costs Sony about $448.73 to produce, compared to the old model's $690.23 price tag. That said, the lower cost doesn't include software, box contents, and royalty expenses.

Realizing that, and considering the PS3's current price tag of $399, iSuppli has found that Sony is still losing money with each sale of its console. But Andrew Rassweiler, director and principal analyst at iSuppli, believes Sony may be able to break even in 2009.

"With its new-generation PS3, Sony has come closer to breaking even, although it probably hasn't quite reached that mark yet," Rassweiler said in a statement. "With iSuppli's estimated PS3 cost at $448.73, the product retailing in the United States at around $399 and taking into account other expenses, the PS3 may be able to break even in 2009 with further hardware revisions."

Great, but is that enough time? With Microsoft and Nintendo outselling Sony's console each month with ease, Sony's window of opportunity is almost closed.

According to NPD, sales of the PS3 fell 19 percent in November from a year earlier, and according to a report in The Wall Street Journal, analysts are expecting "flat or lower PS3 sales" again in December. Compare that to the Wii's incredible sales numbers and the Xbox 360's jump of 8 percent over last year, and it's apparent that things aren't going so well in the Sony camp right now.

Paying a penalty on pricing
As I look for an answer to why this is happening, I don't see how it can come down to anything else but price. All in all, Sony's hardware and library of games are viable, and Blu-ray is an added bonus for some. But when it comes to price, the average consumer who wants to buy a console will balk at picking up a PS3 because it's so expensive when compared to Microsoft's Xbox Arcade and Pro models or Nintendo's Wii.

There's no secret that Sony's console is priced too high. And although Sony zealots try to pretend that it offers more value and is the "Cadillac" of the video game industry, it's abundantly clear that what consumers want -- an affordable console -- isn't something they find in the PS3. Value or not, consumers want to save money.

Sony knows this and although it's unwilling to admit it, the company seems to want to compete on price too. But with financial troubles unlike anything it has ever seen, Sony is trying to turn a profit and limit losses to keep shareholders happy.

In essence, Sony finds itself in a dangerous position: it needs to make money, so it wants to keep its prices high, but by doing so, it's not selling as many units and its goal of becoming profitable byway of the "value" argument simply isn't working. And as the recession deepens and consumers are looking to save money wherever possible, Sony is quickly finding out that it's not a good time to be the "value leader" instead of the "cost leader."

I truly believe Sony's gaming division wants to drop the price of the PS3 and knows all too well that price is the single factor holding it back. But when a console that has been available for over two years still costs $448.73 to produce and the parent company is in financial trouble, dropping the price to a more suitable level -- $299 -- is almost out of the question.

You're kidding, right? The PS3 still has a huge userbase and doesn't have rampant piracy.

Yeah, it's going no where. The only way Sony pulls a Sega is if the PS4 does as bad or worse. And only time will tell.

They should pull a Sega as it would be much better for them, MS and gamers if MS and Sony partnered up. With so few worthwhile exclusives these days with third parties largely going multiplatform there's really no benefit to having two machines with similar power that have generally similar types of games. It would be better for us to just have to buy one of those along with a Nintendo console for those who did those types of games. And better for them as they can split costs on hardware and both start making profits sooner.

People still have this notion that we need multiple consoles for competition to have good games. That's not the case anymore, especially with HD games. Development costs are high and games have to sell a lot to make profit. There's tremendous pressure to make good games if they have a big budget and thus plenty of competition between developers to make games that stand out and sell millions irrespective of how many consoles are on the market.

Monsta Mack

12-30-2008, 01:45 PM

ISupply is full of shit. They said that Nintendo was only making somewhere around $5-$10 off current Wii's sold, when Nintendo has made profits on the system since the start. They have to be making ATLEAST $50 after all costs involved, maybe more.

Sony will be dropping the price by April, even if it's just $50.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 01:57 PM

And that's why Sony's fucked for 2009. They can sell consoles all they want, but unless software takes off (It hasn't yet, for the most part) to patch that bleeding/sinking ship of the PS3, they're going to continue to lose money either way.

That's probably why they price the 160GB bundle at $500. If the $400 model costs $450 to produce(Before licensing fees, so probably closer to $475) then that extra HDD space isn't costing them much of anything, and Uncharted only costs a few dollars to put in the package, so they probably actually break even on the 160GB Uncharted bundles at $500.

But I think people realize that the HDD and Uncharted aren't worth $100. Sony better hope retailers don't start dropping uncharted in price either. Keeping that game at a $60 value is probably part of their plan for that $500 bundle to seem like a "value".

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 02:07 PM

And that's why Sony's fucked for 2009. They can sell consoles all they want, but unless software takes off (It hasn't yet, for the most part) to patch that bleeding/sinking ship of the PS3, they're going to continue to lose money either way.

If you want to have an opinion, have an informed one. Sony's game division was mildly profitable in Q1 of 2008. Can't find info on Q2 or Q3, to be honest. They're a big enough company such that overall earnings in the negative aren't necessarily an indictment of the games division on the whole. In fact, their only (IIRC) profitable division during much of the PS2's success was the games division. So they were in the shit elsewhere, and financially buoyed by their games.

But, yes, Sony's going to go bankrupt tomorrow and we'll never see a PS4. lol.

That's probably why they price the 160GB bundle at $500. If the $400 model costs $450 to produce(Before licensing fees, so probably closer to $475) then that extra HDD space isn't costing them much of anything, and Uncharted only costs a few dollars to put in the package, so they probably actually break even on the 160GB Uncharted bundles at $500.

But I think people realize that the HDD and Uncharted aren't worth $100. Sony better hope retailers don't start dropping uncharted in price either. Keeping that game at a $60 value is probably part of their plan for that $500 bundle to seem like a "value".

I won't argue that Uncharted needs to go GH three months ago. The $500 bundles get under my skin, too. But I find it laughable that you spend more time bitching about the $400 price tag of the 80GB model. Since that was, y'know, how much the 360 was when you bought it. And still is, should you want the Elite model. ;) Just sayin'.

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 02:14 PM

Yeah, I wasn't happy with the 360 or PS3 prices at all. Had never paid more than $200 for a console before. I didn't get a 360 until fall 2007 with the frys.com bundle deal for a 20GB 360 with Marvel: UA, Forza 2, The Orange Box, Bioshock and Two Worlds (which I flipped for Halo 3 at Wal-mart) for $400.

But $400 is not a bad price if you want a game machine and Blu Ray player for sure (though annoying that you need an adapter for regular remotes). But I'm more than happy with dropping $400 on a 360 and some games I wanted, and $150 for a standalone Blu Ray player (Sony S350) this black friday as the PS3 exclusives just don't do anything for me. A few I'd kind of like to play, but no personal must play games.

But people like Jer are overly dramatic. Sony is only "fucked" in the sense that they have no chance to get out of third place this generation and will have a hard time doing so next generation unless Nintendo or MS fuck something up. But they're not going bankrupt or pulling a Sega anytime soon, unfortuantely. Again, it's just silly to have to console so similar on the market with the death of third party exclusives. There just aren't enough exlusives to justify owning both for the majority of people anymore.

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 02:26 PM

I'm amazed to see people clamor for market monopolization.

zewone

12-30-2008, 02:32 PM

As long as there are two consoles on the market, what's the need for a third?

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 02:36 PM

Would you like McDonald's or Burger King?
Bud or Miller?
Coke or Pepsi?
Another metaphor or another metaphor?

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 02:37 PM

I'm amazed to see people clamor for market monopolization.

It would still be Nintendo and another major competitor--just like it was in the 8 bit and 16 bit eras with Nintendo and Sega and the 32 bit with Sony and Nintendo. I'm sure some other random stuff would come out like the Jaguar, 3D0 etc. did.

Gaming's just a weird industry. Think of DVDs, VCRs, Blu Rays etc. Tons of Software, but it will play on any hardware. It's annoying to have to buy multiple game consoles to play all the games. Especially when the games are largely identical in graphics, controls etc. as they are on the PS3 and 360.

I don't care that much personally as I like very, very few Japanese games so Sony's exclusives don't do much for me and I don't care much about missing out on them.

I just don't see anything to be lost by Sony and MS partnering up--or even going to a one console future somewhere far down the road where multiple companies can make machines that play the same games.

zewone

12-30-2008, 02:37 PM

You're right.

There should be hundreds of consoles to choose from, because it isn't already annoying enough to have to buy three consoles to play all the games you're interested in.

seanr1221

12-30-2008, 02:38 PM

I'm amazed to see people clamor for market monopolization.

I wouldn't mind if Sony and MS merged. The two choices would be Sony/MS or Nintendo. Could you imagine God of War and Gears on the same console?

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 02:39 PM

Would you like McDonald's or Burger King?
Bud or Miller?
Coke or Pepsi?
Another metaphor or another metaphor?

That's just silly. With video games the variety comes in software, not hardware. Just like movies with DVD Players, Blu Rays etc.

It doesn't matter how many consoles are out, the competion is between devs/publishers trying to make money on their games. The hardware loses money anyway, for the most part.

Paco

12-30-2008, 02:57 PM

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 03:00 PM

That's just silly. With video games the variety comes in software, not hardware. Just like movies with DVD Players, Blu Rays etc.

It doesn't matter how many consoles are out, the competion is between devs/publishers trying to make money on their games. The hardware loses money anyway, for the most part.

And all that totally overlooks market monopolization, which is particularly prescient given DLC/digital delivery of games. In the absence of competition, there's no incentive to *not* charge you solely for episodic content, or to not dictate the cost of entry for publishers (as Nintendo did through the history of their consoles up to and including the N64).

Yes, Prince of Persia competes with Mirror's Edge as much as Sony competes with Nintendo who competes with Microsoft. But when you get the choice to buy it on this console or not at all, you'll see how much more limited your choice becomes.

Perhaps I'm more afraid of market monopolization as we come upon the threat of episodic/incomplete delivery on disc, digital content with no redistribution rights, etc. Currently we have many layers of competition: you can buy Bioshock on your 360 for $23 versus $40 for PS3 (new), or $10 versus $30 (used), or from Amazon versus eBay, and so on. But when you have one console that you can only acquire content from via the PSN/XBLN/Shop Channel, therein lies the largest problem with monopolization.

Then again, you seem to imply a right to play whatever game you want, which isn't true (your purchasing decisions reflect your willingness to make it the case, so good on ya there). Nor is your DVD comparison an accurate analogy. A DVD plays in a DVD player like a PS3 game plays in a PS3. Of course it does. But then you have regions, releases, and even competing formats (Blu Ray mostly, and digital content to a much lesser degree, if only for the moment).

A single console future is wishful thinking, but shortsighted, instant gratification thinking. You'd be willing to hand over your purchasing power as a consumer to one entity? That's frightening. Not "end of the world" frightening, but "It'd be okay if there were no stores other than Wal-Mart" frightening.

It's Weber's iron cage of rationality, baby. Should taken a soc course or two. ;)

Remember without choice, we have Superman 64. ET for Atari, Bio Freaks and any other shit sandwich that companies think we deserve.

Yee....no. We had choice then. We'll always have shit games and good games as well; but I'll go back to what I originally said: I'm amazed that anyone would argue for market monopolization. Give *more* power to Nintendo/Sony/MS. Yeah. Great fuckin' idea.

zewone

12-30-2008, 03:08 PM

DVDs must scare the shit out of you.

A one console future will probably never happen, but you're fear of it is a little overboard.

It's not as if video games are a necessity to our lives. The prices would have to be reasonable for whoever is selling the console/games because we don't need them, they need us. They need our money.

If the Wii was the only console, do you think they would jack up the price of the system to $1,000 just because they are the only fish in the pond? No, because who the hell would pay that much?

jer7583

12-30-2008, 03:14 PM

note the use of the word fucked.

Meaning Sony is in a tight position - They won't sell many more machines per month at their current price, but they haven't even broken even in costs yet. Meaning either they lose money and marketshare at the current price, or drop the price and lose even more money but maintain some marketshare.

Nobody was predicting the death of Sony, it's just a tough reality they have to face for 2009.

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 03:19 PM

Just because I'm elaborate doesn't mean I'm petrified of it.

And you'll forgive me if I look around the world we live in, financially, at the moment, and have a laugh at your attempt to bring some 090-level Adam Smith economics into the discussion. Let Walter Williams write that "nobody's going to buy an apple for a million dollars!!!" tripe.

In the meantime, you could think about having the option to buy Bioshock new for $24, used for $10. Right now. Or you could consider only having the option to pay $60 for it download only.

"Now that's absurd," you might say. "Look at Steam!"

Indeed. But look at what consoles have done with content pricing. The PS3 has had the most sales, but they are brief and remarkably infrequent. XBLM has dropped price on fewer than 10 arcade games. The Wii overcharged from the start and hasn't changed a bit since the beginning.

It doesn't bode well for the future. Horse Armor is still $2.50, darlin'.

zewone

12-30-2008, 03:22 PM

You're talking about downloadable games/content, that's very much different.

A download only future does scare me.

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 03:29 PM

Somewhat. Nintendo's history of monopolizing third parties and creating costs to entry so high (~$33 per N64 cart w/ a minimum 100K order was the rumor 13 years ago) that even with physical media it was prohibitive to dropping prices the way, say, Ubisoft has done for so long that only the feeble-minded buy an Ubi product at launch.

Could Sony do that with Blu-Ray if that's what's used? Can gamers sustain another DVD console generation? Should a company go proprietary with a disc-based format, given how well it's worked for the DC and PSP?

Disc-based doesn't mean we're out of the clear. Market monopolization is not something I want to see, as the problems that stem from consolidating market power are far greater than the benefits of being able to play Gears of War, Mario Whatever and Uncharted on the same system.

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 03:29 PM

Remember without choice, we have Superman 64. ET for Atari, Bio Freaks and any other shit sandwich that companies think we deserve.

That was just a rush of shovelware that killed the Atari. Not a lack of competition. That wouldn't be repeated. The video game industry is well established, and not going anywhere. Again, developers compete with each other and have to make good games to make their money back. Shovelware will always be around, but so will plenty of good games regardless of the number of consoles on the market.

It's not as if video games are a necessity to our lives. The prices would have to be reasonable for whoever is selling the console/games because we don't need them, they need us. They need our money.

Exactly. Games are where the money are. Devs/publishers are going to make good games and the competition between them will keep prices at a level people are willing to pay.

In the meantime, you could think about having the option to buy Bioshock new for $24, used for $10. Right now. Or you could consider only having the option to pay $60 for it download only.

You're mixing up two things here. Digital Distribution will be the norm sometime down the line, regardless of how many consoles there are.

It's too beneficial to publishers. Publishers don't have to worry about used games sucking sales away from them, piracy is easier to deal with etc.

As with my other comments, I think competition between games/developers will keep prices at a reasonable rate irrespective of how many consoles are out there.

How many consoles exist will have no impact on going digital, episodic content, nickel and diming. The only thing that will impact that is how well certain types of content sells, and how publishers put out and market their stuff to make themselves competitive.

But I just don't take any of this stuff very seriously. I like gaming, but I 100% can take it or leave. I'll always only (at most) own one console per generation from here on out regardless of how many are out there. And given I don't give a shit about most Japenese games, I don't miss much by not buying Sony and Nintendo machines. Digital download worries me, as I resell most games and get most games on Goozex, so I'd just have to wait and see what prices are and decide if I want to bother with gaming anymore at that point.

But in the end of the day, I'd rather have all games in one place, as I think the benefits of that would outweigh any costs. Especially given the absurd launch prices of consoles these days. Most of the potential negatives I see coming will happen regardless of how many consoles are out there.

Paco

12-30-2008, 03:30 PM

And all that totally overlooks market monopolization, which is particularly prescient given DLC/digital delivery of games. In the absence of competition, there's no incentive to *not* charge you solely for episodic content, or to not dictate the cost of entry for publishers (as Nintendo did through the history of their consoles up to and including the N64).

Yes, Prince of Persia competes with Mirror's Edge as much as Sony competes with Nintendo who competes with Microsoft. But when you get the choice to buy it on this console or not at all, you'll see how much more limited your choice becomes.

Perhaps I'm more afraid of market monopolization as we come upon the threat of episodic/incomplete delivery on disc, digital content with no redistribution rights, etc. Currently we have many layers of competition: you can buy Bioshock on your 360 for $23 versus $40 for PS3 (new), or $10 versus $30 (used), or from Amazon versus eBay, and so on. But when you have one console that you can only acquire content from via the PSN/XBLN/Shop Channel, therein lies the largest problem with monopolization.

Then again, you seem to imply a right to play whatever game you want, which isn't true (your purchasing decisions reflect your willingness to make it the case, so good on ya there). Nor is your DVD comparison an accurate analogy. A DVD plays in a DVD player like a PS3 game plays in a PS3. Of course it does. But then you have regions, releases, and even competing formats (Blu Ray mostly, and digital content to a much lesser degree, if only for the moment).

A single console future is wishful thinking, but shortsighted, instant gratification thinking. You'd be willing to hand over your purchasing power as a consumer to one entity? That's frightening. Not "end of the world" frightening, but "It'd be okay if there were no stores other than Wal-Mart" frightening.

It's Weber's iron cage of rationality, baby. Should taken a soc course or two. ;)

Yee....no. We had choice then. We'll always have shit games and good games as well; but I'll go back to what I originally said: I'm amazed that anyone would argue for market monopolization. Give *more* power to Nintendo/Sony/MS. Yeah. Great fuckin' idea.

Yes we always had shit games, but when one company is basically an iron fist, you can't honestly tell me that there isn't more of em. Remember when Atari was the dominator? At least 80% of the stuff released on the console was shit.

Without competition it's just so much easier to release shit and hope that people will buy it.

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 03:34 PM

How many consoles exist will have no impact on going digital, episodic content, nickel and diming. The only thing that will impact that is how well certain types of content sells, and how publishers put out and market their stuff to make themselves competitive.

...unless the console makers themselves dictate or limit price drops and variation. Or, like Nintendo, create large barriers that make price reductions unlikely.

"You can pay us a $25 royalty for every copy sold."
"Fuck you, that's crazy talk!"
"Alright, then. Go publish your title for the other consoles that don't exist."

None of this gets into how bad market monopolization is for publishers themselves (around zero negotiating power) and how this would be *abysmally* bad for developers themselves. Holy fuck, how bad can you imagine it getting with that degree of competition?

But, hey, you can play MGS4 now! woo-hoo!

But I just don't take any of this stuff very seriously. I like gaming, but I 100% can take it or leave. I'll always only (at most) own one console per generation from here on out regardless of how many are out there. And given I don't give a shit about most Japenese games, I don't miss much by not buying Sony and Nintendo machines. Digital download worries me, as I resell most games and get most games on Goozex, so I'd just have to wait and see what prices are and decide if I want to bother with gaming anymore at that point.

Ah, the good ol' dmaul "I don't like games" rerun post. ;)

Good on ya. Be happy with what you have, and don't dwell on what you don't. You'll make a fine husband for someone one day. heh.

But in the end of the day, I'd rather have all games in one place, as I think the benefits of that would outweigh any costs. Especially given the absurd launch prices of consoles these days. Most of the potential negatives I see coming will happen regardless of how many consoles are out there.

The launch price of a console is a non sequitur. And I can't think of any benefits outside of a cleaner-looking entertainment center for me. Which is nice and satisfies my clean freak-ness. But market consolidation is totally, entirely, and undoubtedly a bad thing. What *are* the benefits to market consolidation to you? Other than simply a one-size-fits-all console, that is. Or is that the only benefit? If so, elaborate on what the secondary benefits may be. I just don't see 'em.

(in the end, none of this is even gonna come close to happening anyway, but let's keep the pipe dream going)

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 03:39 PM

Yes we always had shit games, but when one company is basically an iron fist, you can't honestly tell me that there isn't more of em. Remember when Atari was the dominator? At least 80% of the stuff released on the console was shit.

Without competition it's just so much easier to release shit and hope that people will buy it.

Again, things were different back then. Gaming was new.

Now its established and competition between developers would keep a solid supply of AAA games regardless of how many consoles are out there.

Games cost a lot to make, and there are a ton of great games that come out every year. Thus their is intense pressure to make AAA games that stand out and will sell enough to make a profit.

Shovelware will always be around and its easier to make a profit on a cheap to make game, but it will never be the only thing out and kill the industry like it did with Atari in the 80s again.

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 03:49 PM

...unless the console makers themselves dictate or limit price drops and variation. Or, like Nintendo, create large barriers that make price reductions unlikely.

"You can pay us a $25 royalty for every copy sold."
"Fuck you, that's crazy talk!"
"Alright, then. Go publish your title for the other consoles that don't exist."

In the ideal one console world, you'd have multiple companies making the machines ala DVD Players etc....but that will never happen.

But besides the point, there's only so much they can do with pricing. People are used to paying a certain amount for games ($50-60 new for a decade or two) so it's not like they can ramp costs up over night by shafting publishers on licensing fees.

Ah, the good ol' dmaul "I don't like games" rerun post. ;)

I like games. But jesus christ, people here talk about them like their actually some important part of life and take them and the industry way too seriously IMO. They're fun little time wasters, and either worth the time and money to pay or not. Not worth all the heated arguments, concerns of monopolies etc. IMO.

Good on ya. Be happy with what you have, and don't dwell on what you don't. You'll make a fine husband for someone one day. heh.

Again, it's gaming man. Essentially toys. A silly little hobby. No need to worry about it or dwell on anything. Just play games you have fun with and keep buying them and playing them as long as it's worth the time and money. They definitely are for me. If someday they aren't, I have plenty of other hobbies, an active social life and a busy career so I'll get by just fine without them.

The launch price of a console is a non sequitur. And I can't think of any benefits outside of a cleaner-looking entertainment center for me. Which is nice and satisfies my clean freak-ness. But market consolidation is totally, entirely, and undoubtedly a bad thing. What *are* the benefits to market consolidation to you? Other than simply a one-size-fits-all console, that is. Or is that the only benefit? If so, elaborate on what the secondary benefits may be. I just don't see 'em.

1. Price. It's damn expensive to own all 3 consoles, and too expensive IMO to own the Xbox 360 and PS3 which play largely the same games with a handful of worthwhile exclusives. I never paid more than $199.99 for a consoel before this generation. So buying two $300+ consoles is absolutely out of the fucking question for me.

2. Neatness. Even my 360 is on the floor beside my TV stand as I only have 3 shelves and they are taken by my receiver, cable box and Blu ray player.

3. Standardization. Developers can focus on one version of the game, no lowest common denominator crap from porting to multiple machines. That was more of a problem last gen with games being made for the PS2 and ported to the Xbox/GC and not looking as good as Xbox exclusives.

Also, keep in mind we're not saying total market consolidation. But just going back to 2 consoles. Nintendo and Someone else. Just like it was in the 8 bit, 16 bit and 32 bit eras. That worked out fine from a competition/good games standpoint.

There's just no need for 3 major consoles, especially when 2 offer pretty much identical gaming experiences in terms of graphics, online play, genres etc.

(in the end, none of this is even gonna come close to happening anyway, but let's keep the pipe dream going)[/QUOTE]

Paco

12-30-2008, 04:02 PM

Again, things were different back then. Gaming was new.

Now its established and competition between developers would keep a solid supply of AAA games regardless of how many consoles are out there.

Games cost a lot to make, and there are a ton of great games that come out every year. Thus their is intense pressure to make AAA games that stand out and will sell enough to make a profit.

Shovelware will always be around and its easier to make a profit on a cheap to make game, but it will never be the only thing out and kill the industry like it did with Atari in the 80s again.

There isn't as much pressure to make games as great as you think there is. Why else would THQ still be in business or sega making more money now then they did in the past despite Sonic 06, Ironman, Hulk and the phelora of crap that doesn't even come close to the Genesis/Saturn/DC Era of their games. The fact that amazes me is that Sega is making more money NOW then they did in their so called golden years when the DC was their flagship and that kind of saddens me.

I could also go on about Ubisoft being shovelware and that they abuse the hell out of franchises. How many freaking Rainbow Six style games have they given us? Splinter Cell, Rainbow 6, Vegas, Endwar when does it end? Though I'm not a fan of those games so I can't really call it shovelware as there has to be some group who enjoys this stuff to make it a yearly visit.

There is less crap nowadays yes, but there is still a huge heaping mound of shit that is everywhere and if there was a monopoly it would sell a lot better. If you think only AAA stuff sells, then how do you explain Valkyria Chronicles only selling 33k while any piece of shit by THQ does gangbusters?

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 04:04 PM

In the ideal one console world, you'd have multiple companies making the machines ala DVD Players etc....but that will never happen.

I was hoping you wouldn't go there. The minute you have one console multiple manufacturers, you have a PC. Or, at the very least, the compatibility issues inherent in a PC. If you don't, it's moot, because the consistency in manufacturing necessitates very little, if no, price variation in each console.

But besides the point, there's only so much they can do with pricing. People are used to paying a certain amount for games ($50-60 new for a decade or two) so it's not like they can ramp costs up over night by shafting publishers on licensing fees.

No. $60 new, with few exceptions before that (thinking of the anomalies like Street Fighter II Turbo on SNES, or Phantasy Star IV on Genesis), since the Xbox 360. Not to mention all the CE/LE knuckleheads have shown the activisions and eas that they're willing to spend $70-80 on a single game. It can go up easily. It can also go up indirectly via DLC. Sell a title for $60, put 2/3 of it on the disc. Sell them the other 1/3 for $10-20.

I like games. But jesus christ, people here talk about them like their actually some important part of life and take them and the industry way to seriously IMO. Their fun little time wasters, and either worth the time and money to pay or not. Not worth all the heated arguments, concerns of monopolies etc. IMO.

And I like to argue. Get over yourself and your assumptions about the games industry. I have several hobbies, but I can't argue like a complete bastard professionally, just like you can't. It's fun to have heated arguments without the typical pretentious niceties of academia. You know that, darlin', even if you disagree with how fun it is.

Why do you think I spend so much time posting in the vs forums or in anti-Sony threads? I don't love Sony. They don't love me back. But I sure am goddamned jolly well drawn to contentious discussions, aren't i?

Be sporting.

Again, it's gaming man. Essentially toys. A silly little hobby. No need to worry about it or dwell on anything. Just play games you have fun with and keep buying them and playing them as long as it's worth the time and money. They definitely are for me. If someday they aren't, I have plenty of other hobbies, an active social life and a busy career so I'll get by just fine without them.

Right. Who are you justifying this to? Me? We're all nerdin' it up in here today. So let's not get all "I spend 4 hours today debating video games, now I have to attack everyone else's actions as irrational." It's like watchin' a woman bitch at those TV shows where Joan Rivers makes fun of the way women dress.

1. Price. It's damn expensive to own all 3 consoles, and too expensive IMO to own the Xbox 360 and PS3 which play largely the same games with a handful of worthwhile exclusives.

I suppose. That's such a "me me me" thing, though. If games aren't important to you, don't worry about what isn't available to you, then.

2. Neatness. Even my 360 is on the floor beside my TV stand as I only have 3 shelves and they are taken by my receiver, cable box and Blu ray player.

Agree, but beyond trivial.

3. Standardization. Developers can focus on one version of the game, no lowest common denominator crap from porting to multiple machines. That was more of a problem last gen with games being made for the PS2 and ported to the Xbox/GC and not looking as good as Xbox exclusives.

I suppose I'll agree to a degree here. But this is not the case, necessarily, in your "Nintendo and some hybrid of MS/Sony" future. Just sayin'. See below.

Also, keep in mind we're not saying total market consolidation. But just going back to 2 consoles. Nintendo and Someone else. Just like it was in the 8 bit, 16 bit and 32 bit eras. That worked out fine from a competition/good games standpoint.

I think that's rosy-eyed hindsight for you, and ignores so much of the complexity that has enveloped the games industry in 20 years that makes this over-idealized historical gaming past impossible to rekindle. Like trying to bring back milk trucks and milk men.

There's just no need for 3 major consoles, especially when 2 offer pretty much identical gaming experiences in terms of graphics, online play, genres etc.

That's assuming there can't be three unique experiences. Or 4. Or 5. Or that, had we 2, they wouldn't offer similar styles of gaming. Like in the Genesis/SNES days. ;)

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 04:27 PM

I was hoping you wouldn't go there. The minute you have one console multiple manufacturers, you have a PC. Or, at the very least, the compatibility issues inherent in a PC. If you don't, it's moot, because the consistency in manufacturing necessitates very little, if no, price variation in each console.

Not really. There just has to be a standard. Yes they will all cost the same probably (most DVD/Blu Ray players cost about the same for comparable models from different companies and being standardized these woud all be comparable unless some wanted to add extra features like Tivo etc.). The benefit is only having to buy one console. Cheaper than multiple consoles, and neater in the home theater.

No. $60 new, with few exceptions before that (thinking of the anomalies like Street Fighter II Turbo on SNES, or Phantasy Star IV on Genesis), since the Xbox 360. Not to mention all the CE/LE knuckleheads have shown the activisions and eas that they're willing to spend $70-80 on a single game. It can go up easily. It can also go up indirectly via DLC. Sell a title for $60, put 2/3 of it on the disc. Sell them the other 1/3 for $10-20.

Pricing is still pretty standard. $50 new the past few generations (with some SNES/Genesis etc. games being more), $60 this generation (with some stupid LEs etc. costing more since they have knick knacks etc. included). Download prices have stayed stable.

But again, the prices will be set by what people are willing to pay and what is selling. The number of consoles out there will have little impact on that as prices are pretty much the same across the board anyway on download stuff and games (with Wii games being $10 cheaper of course).

And I like to argue. Get over yourself and your assumptions about the games industry. I have several hobbies, but I can't argue like a complete bastard professionally, just like you can't. It's fun to have heated arguments without the typical pretentious niceties of academia. You know that, darlin', even if you disagree with how fun it is.

I'm with you there. I was more referring to the fanboys that take the stuff personally with that comment. Though I don't personally worry about monopolies, sales etc. with the industry as I just don't care. I just want to play games I like and for this topic I'd like to have all the good HD games on one console.

Right. Who are you justifying this to? Me? We're all nerdin' it up in here today. So let's not get all "I spend 4 hours today debating video games, now I have to attack everyone else's actions as irrational."

Again, referring to those that take it personally (fanboys etc.) not those of us that just like to procrastinate in the office by bitching on internet forums. :D I'm talking the people who do it so much, and take it so seriously, that you wonder if they ever even play any games since they're on here bitching morning, day and night. Most all of us like to put of work and waste tome time discussing the industry. Most all of us don't take it personally and get pissed off over it though (you included).

I suppose. That's such a "me me me" thing, though. If games aren't important to you, don't worry about what isn't available to you, then.

It's just cost benefit thing. For every hobby people have so much money they are willing to spend on it. I'd like to have the option to play every game that interests me, but I'm not willing to own multiple consoles at current prices. A couple years into last generation you could own all three for $600. It still costs $700 for a 360 with HDD and a PS3.

And I'm definitely a "me me me" person, especially with hobbies. My only concern with hobbies is my own enjoyment of them, and enjoying them at a reasonable cost. I don't care about others experiences with them as long as I'm having fun. Why should I? Hobbies are a personal thing.

Agree, but beyond trivial.

Trivial, but huge advantage for me as neat freak.

I suppose I'll agree to a degree here. But this is not the case, necessarily, in your "Nintendo and some hybrid of MS/Sony" future. Just sayin'. See below.

I see what you're alluding to there, but I don't think it will happen. What Nintendo is doing is too different from what developers focusing on the PS3/360 want to do. You're not going to see a game like Call of Duty 7 developed for the less powerful Nintendo console and ported over to the Sony/MS machine regardless of the size of the Nintendo user base. Infinity Ward likes to push the graphics envelop and online gaming.

Point being I think you'd see relatively little overlap in games between a Sony/MS machine and a Nintendo machine. Just like there's tons of multiplatform games on the 360 and PS3 now that don't get Wii ports. The Nintendo console can't do the graphics and online stuff, and those types of games just don't sell to the kids, Nintendo fans and casual gamers that make up a huge chunk of the Wii user base.

It was a problem with the PS2 as it had a huge user base and the gap in power was as huge as this generation where you have the 360/PS3 and the non-HD Wii which is basically a gamecube with waggle. So developers could port games more easily than they can from/to the Wii this generation. And I expect the same will hold true in the future as I don't see Nintendo ever putting out something nearly as powerful as the competition in any future generation. They've found their money making niche with cheap hardware than makes a profit early on selling games to kids and casual gamers who don't care about having the best graphics, online play etc.

I think that's rosy-eyed hindsight for you, and ignores so much of the complexity that has enveloped the games industry in 20 years that makes this over-idealized historical gaming past impossible to rekindle. Like trying to bring back milk trucks and milk men.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm just saying that with 100% certainty there will never be a shortage of AAA games, nor the indusrty die in shovelware as Atari did, regardless of whether we have 1, 2 or 3 (or more) consoles out there. Competition is among software sells, not hardware (which loses money).

Also, I'm enjoying the 360 the most of any console since the SNES, so I think those rosy days have been rekindled. At least for me anyway.

That's assuming there can't be three unique experiences. Or 4. Or 5. Or that, had we 2, they wouldn't offer similar styles of gaming. Like in the Genesis/SNES days. ;)

My gripes would go away if you had 3 machines that offered something different for sure. And I agree on the Genesis/SNES dig. There was no need to own both of those either (I only had a SNES) and I was annoyed at needing a N64 and PS1 and all three consoles last generation.

It's just a waste of money and space IMO. If you have something like the Wii and the PS3/360 that are very different, then I see more need/justification for having multiple hardware out there.

But there's no benefit IMO to having multiple machines playing more or less the same games/types of games. Just a kick in the wallet and clutter in the home theater.

leveskikesko

12-30-2008, 04:30 PM

Sony in Trouble?

...ok

*Plays a few sessions of Little Big Planet on BC60 GB ps3*

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 04:49 PM

Not really. There just has to be a standard.[truncation!]..Download prices have stayed stable.

I totally disagree, but that's just going to stay right there. Suffice it to say, I lived through "third party manufactured Macintosh clones." ;)

But again, the prices will be set by what people are willing to pay and what is selling. The number of consoles out there will have little impact on that as prices are pretty much the same across the board anyway on download stuff and games (with Wii games being $10 cheaper of course).

Right, but half the story. If development costs go up (and they will), and market consolidation renders publisher negotiation power moot (and it might), there's a much greater chance that you wouldn't be able to pick up any given Ubisoft title for $20 off MSRP within a damned month of the title launching.

Hell, there's an argument FOR market diversity in consoles. Keep dropping those prices like flies, monkeys!

I'm with you there. [truncated!] I'm talking the people who do it so much, and take it so seriously, that you wonder if they ever even play any games since they're on here bitching morning, day and night.

word. kisses and all that. ;)

Most all of us like to put of work and waste tome time discussing the industry. Most all of us don't take it personally and get pissed off over it though (you included).

Yeah, and me included in the not-spending-enough-time-revising-that-goddamned-manuscript category. ;)

It's just cost benefit thing.

Dammit, dmaul, you KNOW how I feel about rational choice. You did that on purpose! :lol:

And I'm definitely a "me me me" person, especially with hobbies. My only concern with hobbies is my own enjoyment of them, and enjoying them at a reasonable cost. I don't care about others experiences with them as long as I'm having fun. Why should I? Hobbies are a personal thing.

hobbies are a *social* thing. Even those dudes what build ham radios and battleships in glass bottles.

I see what you're alluding to there, but I don't think it will happen. What Nintendo is doing is too different from what developers focusing on the PS3/360 want to do. You're not going to see a game like Call of Duty 7 developed for the less powerful Nintendo console and ported over to the Sony/MS machine regardless of the size of the Nintendo user base. Infinity Ward likes to push the graphics envelop and online gaming.

Depends on what happens the next go-round. Nintendo has *no* reason not to change their approach currently, so you may be right.

There was no need to own both of those either (I only had a SNES) and I was annoyed at needing a N64 and PS1 and all three consoles last generation.

What was it about the Genesis that made it feel like there were such enormous differences in how their sports games played? I seem to recall the Madden and NHL '9X franchises playing like shit on the SNES. They couldn't have been *that* different.

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 04:51 PM

There isn't as much pressure to make games as great as you think there is. Why else would THQ still be in business or sega making more money now then they did in the past despite Sonic 06, Ironman, Hulk and the phelora of crap that doesn't even come close to the Genesis/Saturn/DC Era of their games. The fact that amazes me is that Sega is making more money NOW then they did in their so called golden years when the DC was their flagship and that kind of saddens me.

I could also go on about Ubisoft being shovelware and that they abuse the hell out of franchises. How many freaking Rainbow Six style games have they given us? Splinter Cell, Rainbow 6, Vegas, Endwar when does it end? Though I'm not a fan of those games so I can't really call it shovelware as there has to be some group who enjoys this stuff to make it a yearly visit.

There is less crap nowadays yes, but there is still a huge heaping mound of shit that is everywhere and if there was a monopoly it would sell a lot better. If you think only AAA stuff sells, then how do you explain Valkyria Chronicles only selling 33k while any piece of shit by THQ does gangbusters?

You're putting extra words in my mouth. I'm just saying there will always be plenty of good games to play, regardless of how many consoles are out there, and that we'll never see shovelware kill the industry gain.

I'm not saying there isn't a lot of shit out there, or that shit doesn't sell, or that all good games sell.

I'm just saying there will always be enough good games to keep us all satisfied regardless of how much shovelware is out there. Some genres like SRPGs may die off as they're so niche and just don't sell. But that has nothing to do with shovelware, and is just that the genre doesn't have mainstream appeal.

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 04:59 PM

I totally disagree, but that's just going to stay right there. Suffice it to say, I lived through "third party manufactured Macintosh clones." ;)

It could be done if there were standards required. There are plenty of brands making good dvd players, blu ray players, cd players etc. No reason they couldn't do the same with a console that was required to meet standards. Some would be better than others just like with dvd players etc. of course. But nothing wrong with that. But that's a pipe dream. Best I can hope for is getting back a two console world.

Right, but half the story. If development costs go up (and they will), and market consolidation renders publisher negotiation power moot (and it might), there's a much greater chance that you wouldn't be able to pick up any given Ubisoft title for $20 off MSRP within a damned month of the title launching.

That's a moot point. Digital download will kill that off either way. Prices will drop much slower I'm sure--just look at PSN, XBLA and Wii VC for examples. I don't think the number of consoles out there will impact that. With digital download they have the ball entirely in their court since there's no second hand market driving down prices.

Yeah, and me included in the not-spending-enough-time-revising-that-goddamned-manuscript category. ;)

Oy, same here. Procrastinating revising some surveys for my research project, getting some materials ready to train undergrads who'll be doing the post-intervention surveys and need to get busy finishing up my dissertation now that I defended the prospectus.

hobbies are a *social* thing. Even those dudes what build ham radios and battleships in glass bottles.

Depends on the hobby. Single player games are social. And even for social hobbies it more comes down to whether you enjoy it or not and what your willing to pay to do it. I don't care if all my friends hate Oblivion or think the 360 costs to much. I've had a fucking blast dumping 54 hours into it the past couple of months and plan to keep dumping a lot more time into it! :D

Depends on what happens the next go-round. Nintendo has *no* reason not to change their approach currently, so you may be right.

Yep, no reason at all. They got their ass kicked the past 2 generation trying to compete with Sony and then Sony/MS and are printing money with their new direction. No chance they change next go around. Now if the Wii 2 doesn't sell as well, and sells of games like Wii Fit etc. slow down, they may have to do something different 2 or 3 generations down the road. But that remains to be seen. And I think they'd likely quit before they went back to trying to compete for core gamers with top graphics etc.

What was it about the Genesis that made it feel like there were such enormous differences in how their sports games played? I seem to recall the Madden and NHL '9X franchises playing like shit on the SNES. They couldn't have been *that* different.

IDK. I didn't really play sports games back then. I recall them looking much better on the Genesis. Maybe something in the processor on the genesis could handle more players on the screen than the SNES?

zewone

12-30-2008, 05:34 PM

Sony in Trouble?

...ok

*Plays a few sessions of Little Big Planet on BC60 GB ps3*

Nice, you saved them.

Temporaryscars

12-30-2008, 06:15 PM

This is still going?

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 06:34 PM

In some shape or form. Shut up and go buy a PS3 already. Before Sony goes out of business and stops makin' 'em, I mean.

zewone

12-30-2008, 06:36 PM

Well, I really just need it as a Blu-Ray player and to try out Valkryia Chronicles.

I may just have to suck it up and save $300 and just get a stand alone player.

seanr1221

12-30-2008, 06:38 PM

You COULD have had mine, but NOOOOOO [-(

zewone

12-30-2008, 06:39 PM

You should have told me earlier you wanted to get rid of your PS3. I still want it....for $200.

Temporaryscars

12-30-2008, 06:42 PM

Sean is trying to sell his PS3 for a profit.

seanr1221

12-30-2008, 06:43 PM

You offered me 300 less than a month ago! >:[

Temporaryscars

12-30-2008, 06:44 PM

The economy was better a month ago.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 06:50 PM

To simplify this arguement, there's no reason someone who just wants to play HD games would ever buy a $400 PS3 over a $300 360.

The arguement gets stickier with blu-ray and other non-gaming factors involved, but as a games machine, there's nothing you can say that is an advantage on PS3, except when factoring in your personal opinion.

360 has more games, it costs less, and the games both systems play, play better on 360 the majority of the time. Everything else is just Sony Defense Force noise. This is what matters to people.

At the baseline of the argument, Sony loses.

Now if you're such a huge fan of Valkryrias and MGS4 that seeing them made your Naruto headband pop right off your head and you choked on your imported pocky, then the decision sways the other way more.

It can be looked at as you're losing out on a lot more opportunities by going with PS3 than you are losing out on by going with 360.

naes

12-30-2008, 06:57 PM

zewone

12-30-2008, 07:03 PM

The initial cost of ownership on the 360 may be cheaper, but after a year of ownership the PS3 definitely becomes the cheaper system.

It's funny how you are clearly attacking Sony fanboys, seeing as you are a blatant fanboy yourself.

Fact: You have to have a Live subscription to play a game on your Xbox 360.

Fact: You have to pay $50 a year for Xbox Live.

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 07:09 PM

I may just have to suck it up and save $300 and just get a stand alone player.

You don't need to save quite that much. Just watch for sales. The Sony S350 was $150 on SonyStyle on Black Friday and $180 a couple other places. And it and a few other good players (Pioneer BD35 etc.) have been $225-250 since.

To simplify this arguement, there's no reason someone who just wants to play HD games would ever buy a $400 PS3 over a $300 360.

The arguement gets stickier with blu-ray and other non-gaming factors involved, but as a games machine...

True, but at $400 it's still a good value for someone who does want a game machine AND a blu ray player (and doesn't mind using a seperate remote or buying an adapter for their universal remote).

And I say that as someone who will never buy a PS3 since I have a standalone player and don't have time to justfiy owning a second console.

zewone

12-30-2008, 07:12 PM

Oh, I know.

I just bought the Samsung BDP1500 (w/ 8 Blu-Rays) for $150 from Amazon.

I meant saving $300 over buying a PS3 for $450.

Temporaryscars

12-30-2008, 07:14 PM

I wish I had gotten in on that deal.

Blackout

12-30-2008, 07:17 PM

It can be looked at as you're losing out on a lot more opportunities by going with PS3 than you are losing out on by going with 360.

Maybe a year and a half ago. I don't see how though. Both systems are virtually the same.

naes

12-30-2008, 07:19 PM

Fact: You have to have a Live subscription to play a game on your Xbox 360.

Fact: You have to pay $50 a year for Xbox Live.
Hardware failures, paying for P2P services, no built in WiFi, companies being forced to charge DLC...

The 360 may be cheaper for the initial cost, but overall the PS3 is cheaper.

I don't care. I have an enjoy both.

zewone

12-30-2008, 07:23 PM

FACT: DLC is free on PSN.

FACT: You can only connect to the internet using wi-fi.

FACT: All 360s break.
----------------------------

Why did Starmask go on his X-Files rant in the quote from your sig? :lol:

jer7583

12-30-2008, 07:33 PM

FACT: P2P networking will disconnect you from the match 90% of the time, everytime.

FACT: 360's D-Pad will remove your thumbs upon contact.

FACT: Xbox 360s are only for poor people.

FACT: $200/300 is more expensive than $400/500.

FACT: Xbox publishers actually don't put their games on discs. They only contain programing that sniffs out and finds your credit card number, charges another $60 worth of Microsoft points, and spends them on unlock keys for your game.

FACT: Xbox Live subscriptions are only available through microsoft and always cost $50. The full amount of that $50 is funneled directly into Bill Gates' Infant Torturing centers.

naes

12-30-2008, 07:38 PM

I give up. I'm clearly posting in a troll thread.

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 07:39 PM

Maybe a year and a half ago. I don't see how though. Both systems are virtually the same.

It all comes down to what exclusives you like more an if you need a blu ray player and want the PS3 as one.

For me I love Mass Effect, Gears of War, Halo etc. and the PS3 exclusives don't excite me enough. And I prefer a stand alone Blu Ray player for movie purposes (looks better in the home theater, universal remote works without adapter and can turn the player on etc.).

But their are plenty of good games on both systems. Just personal tastes dictate which has more exclusives that you like.

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 07:41 PM

I give up. I'm clearly posting in a troll thread.

I think the problem is you're also overstating things. Most people don't need WiFi and can't just run a cable pretty easily--and it's more stable for online gaming. Live is only $35 online and many think it's well worth it for the added features, cross game invites, Netflix etc.

Both are good systems, they both have their quirks. But there's no right or wrong answer to which one is "better." That's subjective and comes down to each person and what they want out of their game console, what type of games they like etc.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 07:41 PM

I give up. I'm clearly posting in a troll thread.

No, just stop posting nonsense arguements. Nothing you've posted in this thread makes sense. They're just statements without anything to make them true. That's what we're pointing out.

Maul there's no right or wrong answer, but given that someone wanted to get into the HD era of gaming and just wanted to play games, which should be the baseline for this discussion, since these are essentially gaming machines, I think the 360 wins that every time. From there other mitigating factors are involved, but at it's base, the 360 is a better choice as a games machine.

Could anyone reasonably recommend the PS3? I think a lot of Sony fanbois would, but weighing the facts, the majority of people will go with 360 for games.

Temporaryscars

12-30-2008, 07:44 PM

FACT: Taquitos are awesome

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 07:44 PM

Fact: $400 was a great price for a console when it's called the "Xbox 360," but it's vastly overpriced when it's called the "Playstation 3."

Fact: You can't be a fanboy if you spend more time during the day bashing the PS3 than you do playing the fucking consoles you own and adore.

Fact: Blu-Ray players for $200-300 are reasonable; a full game console for $400 is just too goddamned much.

Fact: The playstation doesn't have any games.

Fact: Online games on XBL are flawless and always work.

Fact: The PS3 version of The Orange Box has sharp knees.

Fact: 30FPS Madden '08 versus 60FPS Madden '08 *is* a life or death matter.

Fact: The 360 gives great hugs.

Fact: So does the PS3; but unlike the 360, shows fingerprints. UNACCEPTABLE.

Fiction: this is fuckin' annoying.

EDIT: Fact: Temporaryscars' culinary claims are empirically valid.

naes

12-30-2008, 07:45 PM

No, just stop posting nonsense arguements. Nothing you've posted in this thread makes sense. They're just statements without anything to make them true. That's what we're pointing out.
So, using paying for P2P is a bad argument? Hardware failures? No built in WiFi? Microsoft forcing companies to charge for DLC? Those are all bad arguments? You're simply twisting the arguments.

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 07:45 PM

Maul there's no right or wrong answer, but given that someone wanted to get into the HD era of gaming and just wanted to play games..

Could anyone reasonably recommend the PS3? I think a lot of Sony fanbois would, but weighing the facts, the majority of people will go with 360 for games.

If you like the Sony exclusives more, then sure. Someone may like Uncharted, Motorstorm, MGS4, LBP, Ratchet & Clank, Valkryia Chronicles, Gran Tourismo etc. better than Gears, Halo, Mass Effect et al.

Most good games are on both, so it just comes down to those few exclusives, Blu ray, Xbox live, the controllers and the price difference.

zewone

12-30-2008, 07:45 PM

Whoever paid $400 for an Xbox 360 is a chump.

But, that's still better than wasting $400 on a PS3.

Temporaryscars

12-30-2008, 07:47 PM

:(

I paid $400 for mine, but I got it at launch, so THAR SHE BLOWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSS

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 07:48 PM

So, using paying for P2P is a bad argument? Hardware failures? No built in WiFi? Microsoft forcing companies to charge for DLC? Those are all bad arguments? You're simply twisting the arguments.

Their valid points. Just not 100% objective negatives (other than RROD). I don't need WiFi, my cable modem and router are at my TV. Xbox live is worth it, especially with Netflix functionality now.

Again, they both have their pros and cons--but it's largely 100% subjective and depends on what someone wants and what they're bothered by. Not some objective fact as fanboys and haters try to make them out to be.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 07:50 PM

Temporaryscars

12-30-2008, 07:50 PM

"Their" valid points?

naes

12-30-2008, 07:51 PM

Their valid points. Just not 100% objective negatives (other than RROD). I don't need WiFi, my cable modem and router are at my TV. Xbox live is worth it, especially with Netflix functionality now.

Again, they both have their pros and cons--but it's largely 100% subjective and depends on what someone wants and what they're bothered by. Not some objective fact as fanboys and haters try to make them out to be.
I completely understand why some people don't need WiFi (I personally don't like WiFi, I used a wired connection, however, who knows, I may need WiFi one day).

And XBL is probably worth it, but it still is a bit strange that you have to pay for a P2P service.

Like I said before, I don't really care, I own and enjoy both consoles.

PSN charges for DLC the same as Xbox Live.
That's not my point. Microsoft forces the companies to charge for DLC that was intended to be free.

jer7583

12-30-2008, 07:55 PM

maybe, but i still dont need to buy it.

dmaul1114

12-30-2008, 08:05 PM

"Their" valid points?

Do you feel special now? Pointing out a homophone typo. :D

They're valid points. Feel better now? I know how to use them, I just type super fast and tend to fuck up they're, there, their, too, to etc. and not catch it since I seldom proof read posts. Guess I type faster than I think. :D

Temporaryscars

12-30-2008, 08:11 PM

No need to explain yourself to me, pardner.

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 08:25 PM

Because the Playstation 3 cost $400 in 2005 as well, it's fully valid to compare the two. And to be fair, I don't have my 360 with me at the moment, and my Game Boy Micro's battery died. (I left the charger at home, oops) Myke always loves to take things to the extremes, as long as it makes him look right.

I do like to make points to be right. That is indeed true.

But you've been aping the "ZOMG PS3 IS LIKE A TRILLION DOLLARZ" for the *entire* pants-shitting two year existence of the console and then some. Even, might I add, when the PS3 was available for $400 and the 360 for $350. And you're accusing someone else of making arguments based upon convenience?

I've been very tempted to put you on ignore for a good bit now. But I have to admit, you're like an undervalued Mana Knight; always willing to overargue your absurd positions for hours on end, thriving on nothing resembling informed conversation and everything resembling gut feelings combined with an emotional affinity for one console over another. All the while in denial of being way too emotionally tied to your viewpoints.

That's why I can't put you on ignore; it's a waste of time and typing, sure. But, dammit, it's fun. I can damn near smell your blood pressure rising when you think of the PS3.

Paying for P2P is a bad arguement because there's advantages to both P2P and dedicated online play. Hardware failures is a beaten horse and has been mostly resolved by Microsoft for about a year now. No built in WiFi goes either way. I wouldn't use WiFi for online games anyway since wired is more stable. PSN charges for DLC the same as Xbox Live.

More individual-based confirmatory bias from our good boy jer. I don't use the memory card readers in my PS3, so I sold the piece of shit system.

zewone

12-30-2008, 08:27 PM

myke, I like how you think you're somehow above all of this when you're TMK without Assburger's.

I do this just to piss people off, what's your excuse?

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 08:29 PM

sorry, zew. you're no longer #1 in my heart. jer is.

zewone

12-30-2008, 08:30 PM

Damnit. :cry:

lukisha

12-30-2008, 08:32 PM

the ps3 is in no trouble. it is a far superior product to the 360. my 360 broke down twice, i had my system hacked into and after all this i had to get rid of it. i have had no issues with my ps3. i finally realized what this compares to. it is like the american auto industry which consistenly puts out crap to try and make as much money as possible in a short amount of time (ie microsoft with the 360 which has a unhealthy malfunction record) and the japanese auto makers which makes far superior products that people can use for a long time without worry about it breaking down (ie the ps3). the ps3 costs a little more, but what is the cost of my 360 breaking down twice and me not being able to use it for 2 months?? just like the american auto maker this negligence will come back to haunt microsoft. if i could do it all over again i would gladly spend a hundred more dollars for a far superior product and not buy the 360 at all. as far as games are concerned the ps3 exclusives are just as strong if not stronger than the 360's (resistance, mgs 4, motorstorm, little big planet, socom, ratchet.. etc.)
the 360 has fable, left 4 dead, and halo....

heavyd853

12-30-2008, 08:33 PM

zewone

12-30-2008, 08:33 PM

the ps3 is in no trouble. it is a far superior product to the 360. my 360 broke down twice, i had my system hacked into and after all this i had to get rid of it.

Yep. That sounds about right.

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 08:36 PM

Damnit. :cry:

Them's the breaks. Given the choice between someone who's clearly doing it to piss people off and someone who seems to have their gag reflex activated by the mere thought of the Playstation 3, and it's not really a choice at all.

We were never meant to be.

Guerrilla

12-30-2008, 08:40 PM

If Sony still made BC PS3s, I probably would have bought one when I decided to get a next-gen system. With that out of the picture, I picked 360 over PS3 for a better overall game library. I'm not ruling getting one in the future, but they need killer exclusives and a real price drop if they're not bringing back BC.

Blackout

12-30-2008, 08:43 PM

Maul there's no right or wrong answer, but given that someone wanted to get into the HD era of gaming and just wanted to play games, which should be the baseline for this discussion, since these are essentially gaming machines, I think the 360 wins that every time. From there other mitigating factors are involved, but at it's base, the 360 is a better choice as a games machine.

Could anyone reasonably recommend the PS3? I think a lot of Sony fanbois would, but weighing the facts, the majority of people will go with 360 for games.

Like I said, if this was early 2007, then yeah, 360 all the way. At this point, there is little difference between the two systems. How are 360 games that much better than the PS3's? Do they give me a blowjob when I'm playing or something? There are so few exclusives on each system that I really can't say that either one destroys the other in that category. Online is not much different at this point either. I'm still amazed there are chumps out there that think XBL is worth the full 50 bucks, when PS3 does the same exact thing for free. I felt ripped off paying 8 bucks for a month subcription.

I would recommend a 360 over a PS3, simply because of the price. There's really no other reason besides that. Sony and Microsoft have both failed to make their system different from the other. Instead of people bitching that Sony is finished, people should be bitching about that.

mykevermin

12-30-2008, 08:45 PM

How are 360 games that much better than the PS3's? Do they give me a blowjob when I'm playing or something?

You PM me the minute that title comes out. If it doesn't support trophies on the PS3, I'm there.

Paco

12-30-2008, 08:51 PM

I understand that Microsoft has resolved the issues behind their hardware failures, but there's still faulty hardware out there (I know it warrantied).

My brother's 360 red ringed last week or the week before, so even though it's a resolved issue, that doesn't mean its not affecting anyone.

Then you may be appalled to hear that there are still issues with the systems and that is not going to go away All the systems didn't have that piece of rubber to minimize scratches. So even with the red ring gone, you still have unprotected discs, horrible dvd drives, and a system that offends the sensibilities of style.

I still find it rather hilarious that people who have went through 2.3.4. or 20 of the 360s still stick buy it like they will one day find the console that doesn't mess up. I also guarantee that the sales spike is from people selling their old 360s or their refurbished 360s and buying a new arcade and just putting the hard drive in there.

zewone

12-30-2008, 08:54 PM

I still find it rather hilarious that people who have went through 2.3.4. or 20 of the 360s still stick buy it like they will one day find the console that doesn't mess up. I also guarantee that the sales spike is from people selling their old 360s or their refurbished 360s and buying a new arcade and just putting the hard drive in there.

Ok...

You do realize that those people who bought the refurbs were still buying a 360 right? That's another 360 sold anyways, so it's a moot point.

Sarang01

12-30-2008, 09:17 PM

Myke and I disagree on some things but he doesn't have his head up his ass on Digital Distribution. We ALL lose in the process. More halfassed games for a slightly lower or possibly the same price. So far most of what I see on PSN/XBLA I would NOT count as full fledged games except I suspect Bionic Commando Rearmed and perhaps that 1941 remake. Oh and Megaman 9. Never mind the fact there are NEVER comparatively good sales, at least on the console models.
I'm sorry but I think companies like Best Buy, Gamestop and others will have something to say if Nintendo and the rest try a digital distribution model. The point is they just won't stock the consoles and tell consumers why and may even come up with their own console, giving consumers a disc based solution to those games they want that are download only. Let us not forget that some don't even have Broadband.
Consider if you will what will be left of those stores if it goes Digital Distribution only for media. There's NO DVD section, no video game section or PC game section. So now all that's left are the stores trying to sell computers, speaker systems and washers and dryers as well as TV's. Yeah that shits NOT going to float period. Sales of DVD's and other things, little as their profit may be, do power them in day to day sales. By contrast when do you see those other things, with the exception of appliances sell? Oh yeah, around Thanksgiving and Christmas so no.
edit: I hate to break it to everyone but a 3rd console will always be around. Oh it may stay temporarily 2 consoles at one point but another will ALWAYS pop in. I think the royalty temptation is just too much. I really don't understand why Konami and other 3rd parties just don't form their own console and shoulder the costs and losses between each other and create a lower cost licensing and royalty model.

Temporaryscars

12-30-2008, 10:22 PM

By the way, my 360 has never RRed. 8-)

Still, the difference is, you Sony fanboys will defend your company to the death and you take insults directed at Sony and the PS3 as a personal attack. I love the 360, but we're not above admitting that MS sucks dick and the 360 is made with clay and bat shit.

Still, in the end, it has better games, more games and is cheaper.

Monsta Mack

12-31-2008, 12:03 AM

It's over. Sony is finished.

limelight022

12-31-2008, 12:03 AM

Its cheaper to build new technology now, (blue-ray, and no, not for movies, for larger storage) because prices always go up as years pass. By the time the 360 and Wii fade, the ps3 will still be a sound next gen machine along with a lower price, tons of games, and a high install base already implemented.

whoknows

12-31-2008, 12:35 AM

It's over. Sony is finished.

Damn.

What am I supposed to do with my PS3 now?

Paco

12-31-2008, 01:02 AM

Damn.

What am I supposed to do with my PS3 now?

Play it when the 360 has to be sent back to microsoft for the ___ time?

zewone

12-31-2008, 01:17 AM

Senior LULZ

whoknows

12-31-2008, 01:54 AM

I like how you always show up when someone insults the 360.

Paco

12-31-2008, 02:30 AM

I like how you always show up when someone insults the 360.

Of course he does. Don't you know who he is? He's Johnny Turbo's brother.

http://pressthebuttons.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/johnnyturbo.jpg

jer7583

12-31-2008, 02:36 AM

Paco, I love that avatar, but I hate everything you post.

You're like a version of Mana Knight that doesn't know how to write.

whoknows

12-31-2008, 02:39 AM

Mana is a very good writer.

Maybe he should become and English teacher.

12-31-2008, 02:49 AM

Nice to see Shane Bettenhausen thinking about his future after Ziff.

http://www.sonydefenseforce.com/

jer7583

12-31-2008, 02:49 AM

your rite he shold

Myke has me all wrong. I'm a calm, reasonable sort of person.

I don't regret ditching the PS3, and it isn't for "emotional" reasons. By the time I realized I wanted to sell it, I had two blu ray games left and only played Motorstorm because it was easy to play while listening to a podcast. Otherwise the machine sat dormant unless I was playing a PS2 game or watching the 1up show.

Didn't live up to the hype, is not a $400 value. My reasons are based on experience and disappointment. I have a preference. Hate me.

Paco

12-31-2008, 02:58 AM

Paco, I love that avatar, but I hate everything you post.

You're like a version of Mana Knight that doesn't know how to write.

I find that detestable. Calling me a Mana Knight. How dare you. You should apologize for your flippant accusations and say you're sorry. Though in all fairness, I'm not going to write a long editorial about a video game console. I'm not going to pull out facts and explain why this is better then this. I'm in it for fun and possibly a form of tomfoolery.

jer7583

12-31-2008, 03:02 AM

Your gimmick is not funny.

Mana's is.

Paco

12-31-2008, 03:10 AM

Your gimmick is not funny.

Mana's is.

I never said I was a gimmick and I never promoted myself as one. But in all honesty Mana is a nice person and he's very passionate about what he likes. When did that honestly become a bad trait? I'll agree that Mana is fun to read. However I never promoted myself as fun to read or out to amuse everyone.

jer7583

12-31-2008, 03:19 AM

Well that's just sad then, really.

Why would you go about typing such absurd and ridiculously biased things, if not to entertain and mock?

Sarang01

12-31-2008, 03:20 AM

your rite he shold

Great writing! :roll:

Paco

12-31-2008, 03:28 AM

Well that's just sad then, really.

Why would you go about typing such absurd and ridiculously biased things, if not to entertain and mock?

Because it's true for the most part. A 360 breaks down as fast as an American car from the 70s. And the fact that Microsoft gave a three month warranty from 2005 to a good amount of 2006 on these shit burgers is even more offensive. Then blaming customers for it breaking and charging 250 for a repair? That's also another reason. Oh how about the disc scratching which could have been avoided with 50 cents of rubber?

There's a lot to hate about their product as they just ignored any warnings about it messing up on the assembly line and screwed customers to save fifty cents on rubber to pad the thing so it wouldn't lacerate your discs.

THAT is what pisses me off because otherwise they did a lot of things right.

cochesecochese

12-31-2008, 03:40 AM

Great writing! :roll:
I'm taking this all in from the bleachers and even I heard that one whoosh over your head.

jetlag16

12-31-2008, 03:45 AM

Pc Ftw.

Paco

12-31-2008, 03:47 AM

Pc Ftw.

But what about the peasants that can't afford the godly pc required for Crysis?

jer7583

12-31-2008, 03:55 AM

Because it's true for the most part. A 360 breaks down as fast as an American car from the 70s. And the fact that Microsoft gave a three month warranty from 2005 to a good amount of 2006 on these shit burgers is even more offensive. Then blaming customers for it breaking and charging 250 for a repair? That's also another reason. Oh how about the disc scratching which could have been avoided with 50 cents of rubber?

There's a lot to hate about their product as they just ignored any warnings about it messing up on the assembly line and screwed customers to save fifty cents on rubber to pad the thing so it wouldn't lacerate your discs.

THAT is what pisses me off because otherwise they did a lot of things right.

I know, It makes me sad too. I feel so guilty when I play Super Turbo, just thinking about all those poor souls who lost their lives because of Microsoft's incompetence.

DAMN YOU BILL

DAMN YOU TO HELL

carpwrist

12-31-2008, 03:57 AM

But what about the peasants that can't afford the godly pc required for Crysis?

To be fair, a PC is kind of a big investment, monetarily-speaking.
A good Crysis running-rig will run you about $1k. Then add on a monitor, speakers, etc.,
However PCs are investments. I personally believe no home should be w/o a computer. If not for word processing, then at least for free porn. Even peasants deserve their free porn. You can only rewind those VHS copies of Bridge Over the River KY, Bedman And Throbbin, and Sleeping with Seattle so many times...

Paco

12-31-2008, 04:10 AM

To be fair, a PC is kind of a big investment, monetarily-speaking.
A good Crysis running-rig will run you about $1k. Then add on a monitor, speakers, etc.,
However PCs are investments. I personally believe no home should be w/o a computer. If not for word processing, then at least for free porn. Even peasants deserve their free porn. You can only rewind those VHS copies of Bridge Over the River KY, Bedman And Throbbin, and Sleeping with Seattle so many times...

You'd be surprised at how many people still don't have PCs. And the people that do get one tend to get the cheapest thing out there. I do agree it's an investment, but if you only intend to surf the internets and write stuff then that 1000+ dollar PC is unneeded.

I have a cheap 400 dollar laptop, but I'm happy with it as it runs Team Fortress 2 and can watch video and surf the internet.

Though I'm conflicted on free porn. Man cannot live on Mpeg porn. WE need to move to the HD Era of porn and have in your face vagina on that 50 inch tv.

jetlag16

12-31-2008, 04:10 AM

But what about the peasants that can't afford the godly pc required for Crysis?

Wait until you can afford it? Its not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Paco

12-31-2008, 04:47 AM

Wait until you can afford it? Its not that hard of a concept to grasp.

You're familiar with the PC game aren't you? By the time some people get the money to get a great Crysis pc, the Crysis engine is now old and worthless and a new engine with even more power hungry requirements comes out. I honestly used to be in the PC game space from 1995-2003 and I just grew tired of the expensive upgrades. In the long run if you just want to play some casual games, the Console is definitely cheaper. But if you have big needs like photoshop editing, video editing and so forth you'll already have a great gig to play these games anyways.

zewone

12-31-2008, 04:50 AM

I go where the PS3 fanboys are, whoknows. I'm subscribed to every thread you post in.

heavyd853

12-31-2008, 05:12 AM

You'd be surprised at how many people still don't have PCs. And the people that do get one tend to get the cheapest thing out there. I do agree it's an investment, but if you only intend to surf the internets and write stuff then that 1000+ dollar PC is unneeded.

I have a cheap 400 dollar laptop, but I'm happy with it as it runs Team Fortress 2 and can watch video and surf the internet.

Though I'm conflicted on free porn. Man cannot live on Mpeg porn. WE need to move to the HD Era of porn and have in your face vagina on that 50 inch tv.

Ew, 50 inch vagina?

Malik112099

12-31-2008, 12:04 PM

To be fair, a PC is kind of a big investment, monetarily-speaking.

I do agree it's an investment, but if you only intend to surf the internets and write stuff then that 1000+ dollar PC is unneeded.

A pc is the exact opposite of an investment which means it is a shitty investment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/investment

the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.

mykevermin

12-31-2008, 12:35 PM

your rite he shold

Myke has me all wrong. I'm a calm, reasonable sort of person.

We'll be the ones who decide that.

Didn't live up to the hype, is not a $400 value. My reasons are based on experience and disappointment. I have a preference. Hate me.

Do you argue facts, or do you simply have a preference? You've tried to make both claims. They're separate arguments. You've tried to establish the "factuality" of the PS3's inferiority to the 360, and when called on it, suddenly change your position to say it's your "opinion."

That's cheap, it's pisspoor form, and if you want to continue to argue like that and then think of yourself as something other than a mirror image of TMK in terms of emotional affinity to an electronic device, power to the people. But you aren't. Just because nobody (and I mean NOBODY) has the passionate fervor of TMK to write novellas documenting why his opinion is right and yours is not, that doesn't mean that nobody else has an irrational fixation to their consoles.

Me? I have preferences.

My Wii doesn't get turned on for shit. Should sell it, but I have way too much stuff to sell off in the meantime.

I also (and this is my actual opinion, and not a piss-take) prefer the PS3 to the 360. I like the Bluray player, I like the XMB (I did prefer blades, but I can't fuckin' stand the NXE save for disc-game installs), I like that it's region free, I like $6 PSX games like Suikoden (and the PS3 folks know my legendary perpetual bitching about the lack of PSX game support on the PSN), and I like its hardware reliability. Fuck me sideways, I even like trophies.

But I also like my 360. I like the consistency of XBL integration in games, I and my wife love streaming Netflix, I like the constant stream of content added to their marketplace, I like being able to install games on the HDD, avoiding using the disc drive and dropping load times, I like being able to play most of my Xbox 1 titles on the console, and I like that MS has just as many Xbox Classics for purchase in the XBLM in 1 year as there are PSOne games for sale in the US PSN Store. They're showing Sony who's dragging some serious fucking ass there.

The only issue for me comes with multiplatform games. I will, by default, buy them on the PS3 unless the 360 version has DLC that (1) I want, and (2) is unavailable elsewhere. That's it. And that's simply a byproduct of going through 3 (on my 4th) 360 consoles. No more, no less. I don't plan on writing death threats to MS for the 360's architecture. But I do somewhat resent that I feel I can't put so many hours into the system for fear of breaking it. As a result, I buy my multiplatform titles on the PS3, by and large (probably 4-6 PS3 multiplatform PS3 titles for every 1 360).

Exclusives? That's one area where I don't give a flying fuck. Gears of War? Uncharted? Where's Mass Effect going to go? Couldn't fucking care less. I have all 3, so I'll go where they go.

dmaul1114

12-31-2008, 01:17 PM

Still, the difference is, you Sony fanboys will defend your company to the death and you take insults directed at Sony and the PS3 as a personal attack. I love the 360, but we're not above admitting that MS sucks dick and the 360 is made with clay and bat shit.

Still, in the end, it has better games, more games and is cheaper.

Definitely true, but there are fanboys for all 3 who can't admit the flaws and take criticisms personally.

I love the games on the 360, Xbox Live, the controller, Netflix streaming etc. But I hate Microsoft. I don't like any of the 3 companies much as they've all done shitty things that annoyed me over the years. So I have no loyalty to any of them. From here on out it's one console per generation at most for me and I'll go where the games I want to play are.

It's not a sure thing MS will get my business next generation. They definitely have a leg up with Xbox live and having exlusives I really like in Gears of War and Halo, but I don't buy consoles at launch so it's possible that by the time I'm ready to buy a next gen console the Sony or Nintendo machine could have more games I want to play.

I'll just never understand why people don't just buy the console(s) that have the games they want, play the games and shut the fuck up with all this fanboy nonsense and loyalty to giant corporations. I mean I understand it in kids who only have the 1 console their parents bought them, feel jealous of not having the others, and have nothing better to do than bitch about the others on the internet. But most of the people here are Adults, I mean fuck TMK is 26 or 27 or something. It's absurd.

As for PC gaming, I've always hated. Don't like keyboard mouse controls (and if I use a gamepad I might as well play a console). But mainly, I spend so much time on a PC in the office and working at home that I just can't stomach using one for gaming. On top of the upgrading etc. etc. Just not my cup of tea.

kube00

12-31-2008, 01:21 PM

First system that lets me watch high def porn for free has my vote.

Who would think that you could use the Wii to browse porn on your tv? What would Nintendo think about that?

/rant

Serpentor

12-31-2008, 01:30 PM

Calm down people, t's New Year eve for goodness sake. And picking on TMK is not cool, eating dick is so gay (why you want your manhood to be eaten is beyond me). Sorry, i've issues with TMK's love for Sony too, but i hate to see everybody picking on him.

Be civilized for a sec, what the OP said? Sony is in trouble? Give me a break, it's not like they are in the real estate market, banking field, Ponzi scheme or hell, making cars. Look, if Sony is really in trouble, hell, it will be the beginning of the end. Economy this, recession that, Sony is just one of the many corps in the world suffering from the global financial melt down. As to why Nintendo is not? Well, it doesn't make anything else besides the Wii and DS, duh! MS? No comments... I don't want to go there, i've nothing to say to a company refused a couple of cents to a disc bumper part that prevents scratches to discs... Again, i don't have scratched disc issues, but it's just sad to learn that they did what they did on top of the RRoD stuffs.

Temporaryscars

12-31-2008, 01:33 PM

Be civilized for a sec, what the OP said? Sony is in trouble? Give me a break, it's not like they are in the real estate market, banking field, Ponzi scheme or hell, making cars.

http://www.hjo3.net/orly/gal2/orly_luigi.jpg

whoknows

12-31-2008, 02:44 PM

I go where the PS3 fanboys are, whoknows. I'm subscribed to every thread you post in.

Thanks, love you too ;)

leveskikesko

12-31-2008, 03:00 PM

Not to derail this thread or anything (like that would be possible, lol), but am I the only one a bit disgusted at the fact that these console war threads are generally more popular than threads about games?

These threads feel pointless to me, same tune played again and again....except it's no enjoyable tune. If someone wants your console, they'll go get it. In the meantime you should be satisfied enough with knowing that you're getting enjoyment from your console(s). I'd think people would be convinced to get that particular console if they see genuine enjoyment, rather than elitist views on why their tastes suck.

Interstella 5555

12-31-2008, 03:15 PM

manthing

12-31-2008, 03:23 PM

Who wants to play games when there are console war threads to post in?

dmaul1114

12-31-2008, 04:25 PM

Not to derail this thread or anything (like that would be possible, lol), but am I the only one a bit disgusted at the fact that these console war threads are generally more popular than threads about games?

I don't mind them a lot because i like to argue and discuss the industry stuff--great time waster at work.

But I would like to see more discussion of games. But there is a good bit of that in the console specific forums. This general gaming forum is really pretty pointless as it just lends itself to these types of discussions as all the game talk is in the console threads.

A site really needs just one general forum (like NeoGAF) or just a bunch of console forums without a general. I think I'd prefer the latter as there'd probably be less fanboy nonsense as long as the mods allowed no mention of other consoles in the console specific areas.

leveskikesko

12-31-2008, 04:43 PM

I don't mind them a lot because i like to argue and discuss the industry stuff--great time waster at work.

But I would like to see more discussion of games. But there is a good bit of that in the console specific forums. This general gaming forum is really pretty pointless as it just lends itself to these types of discussions as all the game talk is in the console threads.

A site really needs just one general forum (like NeoGAF) or just a bunch of console forums without a general. I think I'd prefer the latter as there'd probably be less fanboy nonsense as long as the mods allowed no mention of other consoles in the console specific areas.

I can kind of agree with that. As great as this community is, it's almost too organized. This place would benefit from less forums. I could see the appeal of a lot of forums, but there simply aren't enough people to make it as enjoyable as they should be. Sure, fanboy stuff would arise more often, but on the other hand it might be more interesting to get the gamers mixed up. I personally don't have the time to dissect the community, so I mainly stick with this forum. Maybe it wouldn't work out, but it would be a nice experiment at least.

dmaul1114

12-31-2008, 04:55 PM

I like the console specific forums personally. I don't read NeoGAF just because it's too much crap in one place. I only have a 360 and DS and really only play the 360 most of the time so I have no interest in sifting through a bunch of Sony and Nintendo threads to find the few that interest me. And little patience for all the fanboy nonsense (other than arguing with them to watch them get all pissed off over video games which is entertaining on a slow day at work :D ).

leveskikesko

12-31-2008, 05:04 PM

Yeah I like it too, but I also see the positives in less forums. I think some potentially interesting topics aren't created due to so many forums. I guess I don't know what I want, lol.

What I do know is that I want less of these threads please.

dmaul1114

12-31-2008, 05:16 PM

mykevermin

12-31-2008, 05:24 PM

I like "Console Battle Royale" thread, myself.

leveskikesko

12-31-2008, 05:40 PM

It's easy enough to just not click on the threads. But I do admit there are too many of these Sony threads lately.

This thread, the "PS3 in danger of dying" the PSP dying thread and the Xbox 360 vs. PS3 sales thread from week or two ago are a bit much and really should have been merged into one thread discussing Sony's sales.

Yes, it's not that I think these threads shouldn't exist completely. It's just I feel too much attention is given to them, and as a result other neat threads drift into the abyss.

jer7583

12-31-2008, 06:14 PM

I'm not going to quote Myke's wall of text, but just going to say that was a strong and well reasoned response.

This is a thread about Sony not doing well this generation. What else are we going to discuss? I think you've missed the several times I've admitted that non-gaming factors could contribute to someone wanting a PS3 over 360. There are a few things that were nice about PS3. Free online gaming would be nice if my community was there. Wipeout HD was cool. The D-Pad is slightly better. The system is more reliable. I still don't think RROD should be a deciding factor anymore - It's drug out in these arguments by people like Paco in the same way the DRE error was brought out with PS2 last gen - Not because of genuine concern, but just because it's a talking point against the competition.

Exclusives for me matter, because I've never enjoyed a Ratchet and Clank game much, Uncharted was good, but not great, and Resistance was a dull CoD2/Half-Life mix to me. I've documented my disappointment in LBP as well. I did enjoy Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Motorstorm, and parts of MGS4.

360 is where the games I want to play are and where the friends I play games with are. That's what matters to me. Not some "emotional attachment" that you're looking for.

Also my attempt at making the argument factual was just giving both systems an equal starting point - an HD gaming machine. From that standpoint, 360 is a better system. PS3 may specialize better and offer features a minority of the market may want - but as the sales show, 360 does the bread and butter gaming applications better. Just like the Wii does it's casual gaming focus better than the other two.

If that's not as important to you as having a blu ray drive or being able to say your system runs linux or HOME or something, then the PS3 becomes a better choice.

dmaul1114

12-31-2008, 06:21 PM

If that's not as important to you as having a blu ray drive or being able to say your system runs linux or HOME or something, then the PS3 becomes a better choice.

Or if you like the PS3 exclusives more. Some people love Ratchet, MGS4, LBP etc. and don't care for Halo, Gears of War etc.

I'm 360 all the way as well, but you go to far. The PS3 has some damn good games, they just happened to not be your (or my) cup of tea.

jer7583

12-31-2008, 06:51 PM

Well even taking the games they have in common, they run better or the same on 360 99% of the time, and the system costs less. Even removing exclusives from the argument, it doesn't help PS3.

mykevermin

12-31-2008, 07:05 PM

Well even taking the games they have in common, they run better or the same on 360 99% of the time, and the system costs less.

That's true. Resident Evil 5 has more dust particles. And smoke. Holy fucking shit.
I still don't think RROD should be a deciding factor anymore - It's drug out in these arguments by people like Paco in the same way the DRE error was brought out with PS2 last gen - Not because of genuine concern, but just because it's a talking point against the competition.

I think it's absurd to compare it to the DRE on the PS2. We'll never know what the approximate % likelihood of a console DRE/RROD'ing was - but if you think that it's even *remotely* close, you're wholly lying to yourself.

I'm not yet convinced it's a thing of the past. That's why I buy few multiplatform titles on the 360. Not out of some semblance of protest. That's foolish. But because I don't feel like my 360 is a reliable console. It's like that crazy girl you dated in high school: yeah, you keep going back out of the fun you had. But you knew she was going to try to roundhouse kick your sideview mirrors off of your car again at some point. So you had to be careful.

Also my attempt at making the argument factual was just giving both systems an equal starting point - an HD gaming machine. From that standpoint, 360 is a better system. PS3 may specialize better and offer features a minority of the market may want - but as the sales show, 360 does the bread and butter gaming applications better. Just like the Wii does it's casual gaming focus better than the other two.

What does any of this mean? "bread and butter"? By using sales to show how gaming is "done better," you're using the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

If that's not as important to you as having a blu ray drive or being able to say your system runs linux or HOME or something, then the PS3 becomes a better choice.

Home is a trillion kinds of awful so far. I've been on the beta since very, very early on. I tried to warn them. They wouldn't listen. Now they know: they got excited for a program that's like Second Life meets an AOL Chat Room. Fools. I've got no faith in it at all. Thankfully it's optional.

Blu-Ray is quite important to me. I've never owned a set-top DVD player; always used consoles. The options/upscaling for DVD video is also noticeably better on my PS3 than 360. Not a huge thing, but one I notice and like to use.

But that's all a big bunch of whatever.