getting worried

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sony is already ahead of MS in Japan (by 3 times), so that makes me happy at least (meaning PS3 will get more Japanese games than 360).
[quote name='cochesecochese']Come on 399 60 gig.[/QUOTE]60GB will probably be gone by then.
 
[quote name='snowsquirrel']I really disagree. PS3 is losing a lot of PS2 customers who want to go next gen, but find $550 offensive. Please, lets not debate value. Bottom line, is that gateway to ps3 gaming is $550 versus $399. The PS3 needs to get to $399 soon in order to stop losing ps2 customers. The more people that go 360, the more people they take with them.

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

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

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

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

~S[/QUOTE]


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

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

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

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

I could say Ratchet & Clank over the years has had good advertising (even on PSP), but they aren't exactly a HUGE seller (well, more like a 1 million seller, but not much more). Platformers (unless its Mario) does not have the impact a FPS will have (especially Halo).
 
IMO, the only game that could possible reach even close to the Halo hype is GTA IV, and since it's going to be available on both platforms Sony can't ride that waggon. Next up would possibly be MGS 4, but I don't think that game has as huge a following as Halo, probably because it's not as much a "pick up and play" game as Halo is.

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

Yeah it sucks, but I can honestly say that I've had my PS3 for almost 3 months and only have picked up 3 games for it; I've picked up more PS2 games than PS3 games because there still isn't a game good enough to warrant the $60 price tag.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']200,000 per month... is that world wide or just in america.

The SNES was the most powerful console for sometime.. and it won[/QUOTE]

It was a theoretical number to get the point across.

I always thought the Genesis had the SNES beat in brute power, while the SNES had fancy tech like Mode 7 to get around it.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I'd love to just settle for a 360, but with Ratchet & Clank, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Devil May Cry, Persona and more sticking with the PS3, it's hard to think about Microsoft for me.

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

The 360 is America's system... Joe gamer loves it no matter how many times he has to replace it or send it in to be repaired. Don't worry if you bought the PS3 to play the aforementioned series.[/quote] Devil May Cry is multi platform now and not a PS3 exclusive.
 
[quote name='Corvin']It was a theoretical number to get the point across.

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

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

on the topic at hand though, it's a pretty weird time to be a gamer. Several of my serious gamer friends that were ardent PS2 fans a few years ago have all jumped ship to 360. Now they try to tell me how Sony is 'doomed'. It's pretty annoying I have to say. These are the same people who berated me for choosing an Xbox before, and now they're 360 brown-nosers.:roll: very sad.
 
[quote name='looploop']I'm pretty sure SNES was superior in near everything but clock speed. (as it should've been coming out a year or two later) Still, it seems a moot point since the Genesis had its share of beautiful games anyway. I never noticed a huge difference in power.

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


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


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

Only sad part is that they berated you before--stupid fanboy behavior. Nothing sad about switching consoles. Gamers will go where the games are. Only fanboys stick with a console through and through regardless of whether the competion is offering something better.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The SNES won both because it had more great games over it's life time, and because sega made mistakes by putting out the 32x and the Sega CD. Those annoyed people much more than the saturn (which didn't kill the genesis early--pretty sure it was out for at least 5 years in the US before the saturn hit, just like the
SNES before the N64).[/quote]
It was indeed out 5 years, but once the Saturn came then development support shifted from Genesis to Saturn. But did it have to be so? The Genesis was still popular and going toe-to-toe with the SNES. If Sega had kept to its 16-bit guns rather than forcing new platforms then I think the Genesis could've lasted longer than it did.

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


Only sad part is that they berated you before--stupid fanboy behavior. Nothing sad about switching consoles. Gamers will go where the games are. Only fanboys stick with a console through and through regardless of whether the competion is offering something better.
Click to expand...
It's sad that they continue the mindless "this console rocks, this console sucks" behavior. I think there's also a sad irony in that the objects of their veneration and disdain have performed a 180 yet they maintain the same senseless attitudes.
 
[quote name='looploop']It was indeed out 5 years, but once the Saturn came then development support shifted from Genesis to Saturn. But did it have to be so? The Genesis was still popular and going toe-to-toe with the SNES. If Sega had kept to its 16-bit guns rather than forcing new platforms then I think the Genesis could've lasted longer than it did.
[/quote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

But forget sales numbers guys, the real question is the games. The PS3 does have less games right now than the 360, it's foolish to argue that. But it's also been on market for half the time. Don't let these notions of killer apps affect you too much. If you see a PS3 exclusive that interests you, and you notice a lot of other PS3 games that you also want to play, go ahead and buy a PS3. If you don't see anything now, don't be so immature as to disregard the system completely in the future, as above, just wait until you see something you want factoring in all the other games you want to try, and make an informed decision.
 
It could well change, but I doubt it will get in the $299.99 range (max I'd ever pay for a console) soon enough into this generation to every warrant a purchase for me.

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

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

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

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

Loved the PS2 last gen. But Sony really screwed up by forcing in blu ray and pricing the console way out of the budgets of so many gamers like myself.
 
[quote name='Vanigan']Keep in mind, FF13 will sell a lot of PS3. A distributor has basically confirmed the $400 model so that'll boost sales. Killzone 2 affirm's Sony's reentry into the FPS genre ...[/quote]
I disagree about FF13, IMO there hasn't been a FF game worthy of a system purchase since VII and I highly doubt that FFX made a ton of people run out and buy a PS2. There's a LOT of other options out there when it comes to RPGs and unless XIII can bring something amazingly new I doubt it will be a system seller.

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

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

All I know is that in the gaming industry, the quality and price of titles makes a HUGE difference (hence why the PS2 has sold so effectively) and the 360 has many quality, good looking titles for a better price .... this is what happens when you let the competition get a 1 year lead.
 
[quote name='Corvin']It was a theoretical number to get the point across.

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


I don't know which one was more powerful[officially].. but I was sold when they released Mortal Kombat on SNES and Genesis, the SNES version looked much better.. even though it didn't have any blood. after that game I always thought the SNES was more powerful. lol it's just so funny, I remember having SNES vs Genesis debates with my cousin.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']So was the SNES. Launched in 1991, N64 in 1996, was still going pretty strong at the time. 5 years is just the standard for game consoles, with some deviations like the PS2 lasting 6 years (and still being supported even now) or the X-box only getting 4 years.

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

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

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

I'm looking forward to when I can get a PS3. The only thing that bothers me about it is the that the so many of the big name exclusives have 4s, 5s and 13s in their titles. I still haven't seen a unique exclusive game that makes me think 'must buy' yet. Last time, oddly enough, it was GUNVALKYRIE.
 
[quote name='looploop']I put this under poor decision making. Phasing out the Genesis while interest in 16-bit gaming was still dependable wasn't necessary, and likely served to disgruntle Sega fans even further since their only options were the soon aborted 32X/CD and the overpriced Saturn. A strong Genesis backing up the floundering Saturn could only have been a good thing. But hindsight is 20/20 I suppose.
[/quote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~S
 
[quote name='Vanigan']You guys are assuming everything stays the same from this point forward. Sony has plenty of things in the works.

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

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

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

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

And what's with putting Killzone 2 on a pedestal? More like Killzone who? Did anyone ask for this sequel? That's up there with thinking a FFVII remake will be a savior to their platform.
 
[quote name='snowsquirrel']I had a xbox 180 last gen. I never did find a great platformer for it, and believe me I looked. I was always reading hoping for a good one for my son and I to enjoy. Blinx was as close as it came, and I would rate blinx a 6.5 or 7.
[/QUOTE]

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

I always have a Nintendo console, so that's why platformers are so prevalent for me. The DS and Wii will have enough that I can do without Ratchet or Sly Cooper.
 
[quote name='Corvin']
Everyone wants to play softball with Sony. Not me. They INTENDED to launch alongside the 360. So theoretically they had an extra year to perfect things and get features up and running. They squandered that year and instead put out games the caliber of the 360 lineup a year prior. Not to mention rushed out a motion controller with sloppy support. And where is Sony's Gears of War? That was one year in on the 360. We're at the doorstep of the PS3 birthday and nothing in sight other than MGS and the heavily shrouded FFXIII game which won't see the light of day for another 6-9 months or longer.
[/QUOTE]

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

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

All they had to do was launch at the same price as MS with at least one true killer app and they'd have stayed on top.
 
A true FFVII remake would give Sony a Halo like bump, but other then that you're right Corvin. The closest thing that Sony has to a Mario or a Halo at the moment is probably Gran Turismo and while we are getting that this year it's not the game that'll get gearheads to buy the system.

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

As it stands right now Sony can't compete with either the Wii or the 360 this holiday season when it comes to AAA name recognition titles which is what moves systems. Next year is a much different story, but short of taking a massive loss on each system by issuing a real price cut or something like Uncharted or Folklore hitting it off with the mainstream in an almost impossible way, Sony has already lost this holiday season.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I still don't see that though, as every new console in history comes out when it's predecessor was still selling a lot of games, and it hasn't killed most of them.

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

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

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

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

[quote name='snowsquirrel']I had a xbox 180 last gen. I never did find a great platformer for it, and believe me I looked. I was always reading hoping for a good one for my son and I to enjoy. Blinx was as close as it came, and I would rate blinx a 6.5 or 7.[/quote]
Not a psychonauts fan eh? Pity.
 
[quote name='looploop']I haven't been pointing to the Genesis as the cause of Sega's demise though. I've simply been saying that they could have feasibly supported it longer, and that they would've been in a better position if they had.
Clearly it was the triple combo of poorly planned and managed 32X/CD/Saturn that put the nails in their coffin. However, it seems sensical to me that having at least 1 popular system in the US would be better for their bottomline than having none, which was their situation at the time.
[/QUOTE]

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

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

Time wasn't the factor. People would have soon abandoned the genesis for the fancy 3D graphics on the PS1 and N64 anyway. The stupid add ons, and the worthless saturn hardware were the problem.
 
[quote name='furyk']....isn't the $500 game that Sony needs right now.
[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

They've priced the PS3 far away from being that kind of impulse buy.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I get your point. I just disagree as every console has been abandoned for a new one after about 5 years, even though it was still selling strong, and only Sega has died. So I just don't see any causation there.
[/quote]

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

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


Overpriced? That's for sure. Crap? Nah. I got my Saturn for a great price a few years back and I've enjoyed it as much as I did my PS, and much more than I ever did the N64.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']Why does this even matter?[/QUOTE]

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

Its simple....peoples wallets are light and PS3 too expensive. with cheaper alternatives..people will buy that instead. 250 for a wii which is only gaming is the cheapest next gen you could get. wait till people get better jobs and the ps3 will be attainable. Its only a want but if a person can get the same want cheaper..than they will go cheaper. its that plain simple...This is from a buisness aspect..not a gaming one because that topic has been beaten like a dead horse.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The other question this begs, is "is there such a thing as a $500 game."

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

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

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

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

I guess.

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

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

But, again, no amount of games will sell me at $600 console. $300-350 is the highest I could see going any time soon. And that's pushing it a bit.
 
[quote name='dallow']Holy crap, this is such a stupid thread.
It's the same shit as like 3 other threads going on.[/QUOTE]

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

New to some of us, like myself, as I don't venture into the PS3 forum often.
 
Metal Gear Solid 4 is almost a name your price game for me. It's practically the only PS3 game in the future I want and it also happens to be my most anticipated game on any system. I may buy a PS3 for that game alone and I think others may too.
 
Sony's screwed this gen.

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

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

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

Sony needs to fire their management and start over. They're a company with a great heritage, so long term, they're not going anywhere. But this battle's over.
 
HALO 3 has 16 players matches... Resistance, Warhawk, has 32. and I think Killzone has 32 as well. I think that if Sony gets their online together [where its easy to communicate with friends and get friends to join online.. then MS is screwed. 16 players vs 32.. that's a big damn difference... and I don't see anyone else pointing that discrepancy out. IGN says in their review of Resistance that its a 12-15 hour campaign. and 32 player max online matches vs. HALO 3's 9 hour, and 16 player online max matches. if you hide the names of the game it would sound like we're talking about two games from two different generations. lol yet Sony's screwed... okay.. let me know when it happens..
 
Around the time of the Lepzig conference I thought Sony had the upper hand and it's future looked bright. Shortly after and now with Halo3 out that upper hand has evaporated really badly to the point where I even had thoughts of selling my PS3.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']HALO 3 has 16 players matches... Resistance, Warhawk, has 32. and I think Killzone has 32 as well. I think that if Sony gets their online together [where its easy to communicate with friends and get friends to join online.. then MS is screwed. 16 players vs 32.. that's a big damn difference... and I don't see anyone else pointing that discrepancy out. IGN says in their review of Resistance that its a 12-15 hour campaign. and 32 player max online matches vs. HALO 3's 9 hour, and 16 player online max matches. if you hide the names of the game it would sound like we're talking about two games from two different generations. lol yet Sony's screwed... okay.. let me know when it happens..[/QUOTE]
I bought Calling All Cars. It was supposed to be a great online title for Sony.

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

In all my time playing Resistance online, I never found a match with more than 20 people. They could support 100 people per match for all I care. If there's no one playing, what's the point?
 
[quote name='Thomas96']HALO 3 has 16 players matches... Resistance, Warhawk, has 32. and I think Killzone has 32 as well. I think that if Sony gets their online together [where its easy to communicate with friends and get friends to join online.. then MS is screwed. 16 players vs 32.. that's a big damn difference... and I don't see anyone else pointing that discrepancy out. IGN says in their review of Resistance that its a 12-15 hour campaign. and 32 player max online matches vs. HALO 3's 9 hour, and 16 player online max matches. if you hide the names of the game it would sound like we're talking about two games from two different generations. lol yet Sony's screwed... okay.. let me know when it happens..[/QUOTE]


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

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

Even if sony is advancing things with more players supported etc., it doesn't mean it will have any impact on overcoming the slow sales caused by the abusrd price tag and lack of system seller titles.
 
[quote name='torifile']I bought Calling All Cars. It was supposed to be a great online title for Sony.

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

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


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

checking to see how many people playing resistance... NOW... Downloading update.. well there are peopline online playing resistance now.. ranked and unranked. oh some of the rooms go up to 40 players online.. so there is "someone(s)" playing resistance... if you like I can send you an invite.
 
once again.. I'm digressing... just pointing out.. if you strip away the names of these games.. these Sony titles are not only are up to par with the competition, in some ways they surpass them. 40 players online vs 16 max on competiting system.. is that a hardware issue.
 
I have 3 favorite types of threads at CAG

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

2.) Pwned! My three6tee broke!

3.) Wii iz da fadZ
 
[quote name='Thomas96']once again.. I'm digressing... just pointing out.. if you strip away the names of these games.. these Sony titles are not only are up to par with the competition, in some ways they surpass them. 40 players online vs 16 max on competiting system.. is that a hardware issue.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though a PS3 wold be tempting at $399 for the blu ray player....but not so much with discs being so high. I like my $5-10 dvds, look great upconverted on my TV.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But this is a thread mainly about sales, and the names are what matter there.

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

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


the threat is about "getting worried" and if you got some products on the PS3 side that are have some advances over 360 something that set the PS3 games apart. To get sales, the first thing that I said was that the PS3 needs to be cheaper and some games that set it apart from the 360. The fact that a PS3 launch title can support 40 players online, vs a 360 second generation game that can only support 16 players max online, imo is a sign that perhaps the PS3 is more powerful than the 360. The least you can do is acknowledge the fact that Resistance and Warhawk both have this advantage over HALO 3. Plus if there's a discrepancy with the online feature, is it not likely that such a discrepancy could be expressed graphically as well. And if that happens then MS is fucked!
 
[quote name='Thomas96'] Plus if there's a discrepancy with the online feature, is it not likely that such a discrepancy could be expressed graphically as well. And if that happens then MS is fucked![/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:roll:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Then don't read it, much less take time to post in it.

New to some of us, like myself, as I don't venture into the PS3 forum often.[/quote]The exact same conversation is going on in the "Sony is Finished says Microsoft..." thread in the general games board.

And we had just gotten through with more trash talk in the FFVII remake at TGS thread.

Here's another one.

Of course I read it, or just the first parts, because I thought it'd be a genuine PS3 concern, not more BS fanboy talk from both sides.

There's not enough PS3 info, so I look at every new thread created here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top