Sony In Trouble?

[quote name='jer7583']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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='jer7583']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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='Paco']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Oh you're sister said it?

Well now, that's completely different.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='jer7583']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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='jer7583']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='zewone']As much as I don't like the way Sony is handling the PS3, I've bought four of 'em[/QUOTE]

Why don't you go dig up a 4chan image symbolizing 'battered spouse syndrome' and post it here for yourself?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why don't you go dig up a 4chan image symbolizing 'battered spouse syndrome' and post it here for yourself?[/QUOTE]

srsly
 
shaqxg2.jpg

This picture is the only way I can possibly describe this thread.
 
[quote name='Spoon_si']mid-2009 PS3 does a dreamcast[/quote]
You're kidding, right? The PS3 still has a huge userbase and doesn't have rampant piracy.
 
[quote name='dcfox']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?[/quote]

[quote name='dcfox']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.[/quote]

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.
 
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?
 
[quote name='Spoon_si']

Predict:

mid-2009 PS3 does a dreamcast[/QUOTE]

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

[quote name='naes']You're kidding, right? The PS3 still has a huge userbase and doesn't have rampant piracy.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
[quote name='jer7583']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.[/quote]

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'.
 
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm amazed to see people clamor for market monopolization.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm amazed to see people clamor for market monopolization.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Would you like McDonald's or Burger King?
Bud or Miller?
Coke or Pepsi?
Another metaphor or another metaphor?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/quote]

Remember without choice, we have Superman 64. ET for Atari, Bio Freaks and any other shit sandwich that companies think we deserve.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/QUOTE]

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. ;)

[quote name='Paco']Remember without choice, we have Superman 64. ET for Atari, Bio Freaks and any other shit sandwich that companies think we deserve.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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'.
 
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.
 
[quote name='Paco']Remember without choice, we have Superman 64. ET for Atari, Bio Freaks and any other shit sandwich that companies think we deserve.[/QUOTE]

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.


[quote name='zewone']
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.


[quote name='mykevermin']
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/quote]

...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)
 
[quote name='Paco']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.[/QUOTE]


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.
 
bread's done
Back
Top