How the PS3 Is Really Doing

Well, we get Japanese sales numbers every week on the gaming blogs. It's generally the Wii selling 2-4 as many as the PS3, and the PS3 selling about 5 times as many as the 360. (That means that the Wii is outselling the 360 in Japan by a factor of about 20 to 1).

Here's the most recent one.
 
[quote name='torifile']I've had both the 360 and the PS3. IMHO, the PS3 will be around for several years longer than the 360. It's got all sorts of cutting edge technology. Say what you will about Sony, they didn't skimp on the PS3 which is going to give it legs in the long run.[/QUOTE]

If technology determines the life span of a console/handheld, then wouldn't the PSP trump the DS? I can't imagine anyone believing that development of DS games would end before the PSP.
 
[quote name='anonymouswhoami']If technology determines the life span of a console/handheld, then wouldn't the PSP trump the DS? I can't imagine anyone believing that development of DS games would end before the PSP.[/quote] Here's the thing about the DS/PSP (or the Wii/everyone else): The Nintendo products are *different*. They compete on innovation and win handily. Dollars to donuts the Wii sells more consoles than both the 360 and PS3 combined.

The 360 and PS3, however, are competing in the power realm. There, the PS3 wins. Easily. There's absolutely nothing that recommends the 360 outside of the software (e.g., games) and we know that is going to change as the year progresses.
 
[quote name='anonymouswhoami']If technology determines the life span of a console/handheld, then wouldn't the PSP trump the DS? I can't imagine anyone believing that development of DS games would end before the PSP.[/quote]

PSP>all :D:D:D
 
[quote name='botticus']:lol: I was worried I was missing some reference to a hypothetical comparison or something in your post. But yeah, needless to say, there will be no console with 70% marketshare this generation. Even with a year's head start, the 360 only has 56%.[/QUOTE]

I hope you're right: Competition is good, as EA and 2K Sports showed us. Companies fighting for shelfspace on all platforms will make me, and everyone else, a happy lad. Moreover, it will prove who has the greatest and/or most "necessary" first-party titles.

I hope you're wrong: I'm sick to death of debating the inherent superiority/inferiority of any fucking console. Except the Lynx. Man that thing sucked.
 
[quote name='anonymouswhoami']If technology determines the life span of a console/handheld, then wouldn't the PSP trump the DS? I can't imagine anyone believing that development of DS games would end before the PSP.[/QUOTE]I'm beginning to doubt the DS as a gaming platform. It seems more like a living necessity (atleast in Japan).
 
[quote name='torifile']There, the PS3 wins. Easily. There's absolutely nothing that recommends the 360 outside of the software (e.g., games) and we know that is going to change as the year progresses.[/quote]

Oh man, this post is bad. The two systems are very comparible in terms of raw horsepower... we have heard that time and time again from developers. The PS3 may have a lead in CPU but the 360's GPU is better (etc etc). So by saying the PS3 wins "easily" in the power department is just plain wrong.

Also, software is EVERYTHING. I could have Deep Blue in my house, but it isn't going to compete with the PS3 or 360 in terms of games.

"Nothing that recommends the 360 outside of the software (e.g., games)." Too bad good games are the single most important aspect of any videogame platform.

Also, since when has more power = better? There are several examples of inferior hardware doing just fine against (or in some cases, destroying) the "more powerful" competition.

PS1>N64
PS2>Gamecube
PS2>Xbox
Genesis>SNES
Gameboy>Game Gear
DS>PSP
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']I think that this generation every console will fail.

And gaming will end.

This generation will be the end of gaming. Soon we will be called, Cheap Ass Movie Watchers or Book Readers.

GAMING will not exist in 5 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

Beat you to cheap ass movie watchers. I go to the dollar theater but books i don't buy used so i guess i should start
 
[quote name='help1']Hoarders drive up sales. I know 3 guys who bought ps3, and they bought them just to hoard them.[/quote]

Yeah, and now they are selling them at a loss on craigslist and ebay. OUCH.
 
One thing brought up by this discussion is- How much is 360 dominating PS3 in NA for those 4 month numbers to be so even. We know the 360 sales are practically nil in Japan, but the PS3 sells quite well there. I want to see North American numbers compared.

Edit: My previous opinion stands. Comparable sales with Sony is a step up for them, and a precarious position they should be doing everything they can to hold onto. Unfortunately, the lack of price drops and the overpriced Elite package are not going to help that.
 
[quote name='jer7583']One thing brought up by this discussion is- How much is 360 dominating PS3 in NA for those 4 month numbers to be so even. We know the 360 sales are practically nil in Japan, but the PS3 sells quite well there. I want to see North American numbers compared.[/QUOTE]
Those numbers were for North America.
 
[quote name='Grave_Addiction']I think to get a true outlook on the way things are going is to see a breakdown of sales per region.

We all know the 360 doesn't sell very well in Japan. That's a given, and most people don't even really associate the 360 as being a major player in the console business over there.

I mean, the PS3 could be selling like gangbusters in Japan but only selling a few hundred thousand in NA and Europe (I know this isn't the case), and that could skew the worldwide sales numbers a bit.

So, in my opinion, it would be better to see what the numbers look like in Japan, North America and Europe. Then, I think you'd get a more accurate picture at how well the PS3 is doing compared to its competition.[/quote]

Actually, never mind about you being right.
Those numbers were for the NA region only. How did I not spot that?

Which means it beat out 360 in America, and of course Japan. And Europe it seems.
 
Remember when we waited years rather than days after the consoles' full launch to figure out who "won"?

Good times.
 
[quote name='daroga']Remember when we waited years rather than days after the consoles' full launch to figure out who "won"?

Good times.[/QUOTE]

But it becomes obvious after 5 months, right?
 
[quote name='daroga']Remember when we waited years rather than days after the consoles' full launch to figure out who "won"?

Good times.[/quote]

Good old pre-internet days.
 
Well, who "won" is a different question than who is "winning"
 
[quote name='daroga']Remember when we waited years rather than days after the consoles' full launch to figure out who "won"?

Good times.[/QUOTE]
Remember when no one cared and it was about playing games and having fun.
 
Actually, I seem to recall the Nintendo/Sega rivalry being a pretty big deal back then as well. It's just that we didn't get the deluge of news that we have now (if you were lucky you had a monthly magazine to get your info from), and random people couldn't post their opinions for the world to see. It was more limited to playgrounds and lunchrooms.
 
What about the game factor?

360 had a few games and a handful of BC games. PS3 can play every PS1 and PS2 game out of the box. I can't count the number of people that have come in to buy GOW2 only to play it on their PS3.
 
[quote name='icruise']Actually, I seem to recall the Nintendo/Sega rivalry being a pretty big deal back then as well. It's just that we didn't get the deluge of news that we have now (if you were lucky you had a monthly magazine to get your info from), and random people couldn't post their opinions for the world to see. It was more limited to playgrounds and lunchrooms.[/quote]Even then, at least most of us were too young to really care that much (whereas now we should be too old to care that much :D). My cousins had a Genesis, whereas I had an SNES, and I'd be bummed they didn't have an SNES when I'd visit them a few times a year, but thought Sonic was fun, and that was it.
 
[quote name='Scorch']What about the game factor?

360 had a few games and a handful of BC games. PS3 can play every PS1 and PS2 game out of the box. I can't count the number of people that have come in to buy GOW2 only to play it on their PS3.[/QUOTE]
That really is a huge huge plus and I did the same thing with GoW2.

Still...one complaint I have is while one is able to transfer their saves from a PS2/PS1 memory card adapter I dislike how you can't transfer saves from the PS3 to a PS1/PS2 memory card...not a huge deal, but I find it kinda annoying. I hope this gets fixed in the near future.
 
(The post to which I'm replying is all over the place, so I've had to organize it a bit before responding.)
[quote name='captmurphy']Oh man, this post is bad. The two systems are very comparible in terms of raw horsepower...
we have heard that time and time again from developers.
[/quote] Links, please.
The PS3 may have a lead in CPU but the 360's GPU is better (etc etc). So by saying the PS3 wins "easily" in the power department is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...
Do you have any proof that the GPU in the 360 makes up for the vastly inferior CPU?

I don't think anyone can reasonably claim, with a straight face, that the PS3 and 360 are equally as powerful as one another.
"Nothing that recommends the 360 outside of the software (e.g., games)." Too bad good games are the single most important aspect of any videogame platform.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true. They also happen to be the most easily "fixed" part of a platform's problem.

Also, software is EVERYTHING. I could have Deep Blue in my house, but it isn't going to compete with the PS3 or 360 in terms of games.
Click to expand...
I disagree that [game] software is EVERYTHING. Deep Blue isn't made to play games. You don't have the hardware necessary to play them. And games are just one part of the software equation. There's also the underlying OS.
Also, since when has more power = better? There are several examples of inferior hardware doing just fine against (or in some cases, destroying) the "more powerful" competition.

PS1>N64
PS2>Gamecube
PS2>Xbox
Genesis>SNES
Gameboy>Game Gear
DS>PSP
Click to expand...
So is it that the PS3 and 360 are comparable in horsepower or not? Or is it that the 360's library is superior? You may be making a good argument, but it's hard to tell what you're actually arguing.

First, we all know that the PS3 is a much more powerful machine. One look at the folding@home stats proves that. The storage format is also higher capacity.

Gameplay-wise, they're the same or the PS3 is better. The controllers are essentially identical but the PS3 also has tilt support.

I have no idea who will win this generation's battle and I'm not sure anyone "needs to" win it for all of us to have years of fun with our systems. The Wii and PS3 are at least trying to push the envelope. The 360 is the same old MS MO. Just good enough.

And that may be good enough.

edit: Many of you may have read this article but if not, you should. Granted, it was put out by an Insomniac dev, but it makes several interesting points.
 
[quote name='chdstreak2005']how many of those PS3s were bought to sell on ebay though....I bet about 50% of those[/QUOTE]

That argument is irrelevant. Its not like those systems were not then purchased by someone that actually wanted it.
 
[quote name='chdstreak2005']how many of those PS3s were bought to sell on ebay though....I bet about 50% of those[/quote] Yeah. 500,000 PS3s were sold on eBay. :roll:
 
[quote name='chdstreak2005']how many of those PS3s were bought to sell on ebay though....I bet about 50% of those[/quote]

there's always a winner in the end, even if they did pay with an arm and their first born child.
 
I think that this gen console war is different from last. The cost of game development is so high that we're going to see less 3rd party exclusives, which always played a part in how a console sold. Both M$ and $ony are trying to promote their systems as Media Hubs not just a game console.
I'm curious as to the life of the 360. Will they just keep upgrading the 360 and expect us to buy a new one every year, or will they actually make a new console? The original xbox lasted what 4 years? And then they just killed it. The PS2 seems to be alive and kicking even though the PS3 is out. I think we can all agree that's because the PS2 still gives you the most bang for you buck. $ony says they are expecting a 10 year life cycle out of the PS3, which when you look at the PS2 you could believe.
The wii is the one that really makes me wonder. I know a few people who have one and don't play it at all. They tell me the same thing "it was fun for a while". Is the wii a fad that will fade away in a few months?
I don't think $ony is going anywhere, and in the long haul I think the PS3 will have sold more than the 360 and wii. It might be 5 or 6 years from now but I believe it will happen.
 
[quote name='gunm']Except there weren't as many 360 consoles available after four months. How can you sell more when you don't have as much to sell?[/QUOTE]

Beat me to the punch. MS had a very hard time getting up to speed. MS selling 1.02m units was because they only were able to push out 1.02m units up until that point. Compare that to all the PS3s that can be easily found, the PlayStation story isn't looking quite as cheery.

While Sony selling well is good, and being able to meet demand is good, in less than 6 months it can hardly be said that they are up to full capacity. It's not like Sony will be pushing out 12+ million units a year at their current manufacturing rate, yet they've more than satiated the market at this point.
 
[quote name='alongx']Beat me to the punch. MS had a very hard time getting up to speed. MS selling 1.02m units was because they only were able to push out 1.02m units up until that point. Compare that to all the PS3s that can be easily found, the PlayStation story isn't looking quite as cheery.[/quote]

I'm not sure that washes either. You can't look back and really say the demand for them was really that high, even with the lack of units. I don't remember a lot of sold out signs and long lines outside of stores with people hoping to get a system. What you're saying is that if Microsoft had the systems out there, people would be buying them up instead of a situation sort of like we have with the PS3 now.

People see the power of PS3 system but are waiting for that big game to push their need to buy one just a bit higher. I'd argue that the same thing was happening with the XB250 and regardless of how many systems were out, that the numbers wouldn't have been that much different.
 
[quote name='torifile']
Do you have any proof that the GPU in the 360 makes up for the vastly inferior CPU?

I don't think anyone can reasonably claim, with a straight face, that the PS3 and 360 are equally as powerful as one another.[/quote]
Here is some information comparing the 360 to the PS3 hardware wise -

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-348-1.htm
http://www.itvidya.com/playstation_3_vs_xbox_360
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=1
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=758390
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8

(First two are somewhat biased, but the last three are pretty swell).

[quote name='torifile']
Absolutely true (videogame software is the most important aspect of any gaming platform). They (videogame software) also happen to be the most easily "fixed" part of a platform's problem.

I disagree that [game] software is EVERYTHING. Deep Blue isn't made to play games. [/quote]
Wha? You say games are and aren't the most important things for a platform in consecutive paragraphs.

[quote name='torifile']
So is it that the PS3 and 360 are comparable in horsepower or not? Or is it that the 360's library is superior? You may be making a good argument, but it's hard to tell what you're actually arguing.

First, we all know that the PS3 is a much more powerful machine. One look at the folding@home stats proves that. The storage format is also higher capacity.

Gameplay-wise, they're the same or the PS3 is better. The controllers are essentially identical but the PS3 also has tilt support.

I have no idea who will win this generation's battle and I'm not sure anyone "needs to" win it for all of us to have years of fun with our systems. The Wii and PS3 are at least trying to push the envelope. The 360 is the same old MS MO. Just good enough. [/quote]

Usually I don't think it is worth the effort to argue over the internet, but your points are so biased I feel the need to do so anyways.

Consensus - The Cell is a more powerful CPU, but it is extremely difficult to program for. The 360's Xenon architecture, while not able to crunch numbers quite as fast, is designed to be easy to develop for and very efficient. It will take a long time for the Cell to be fully utilized.

The GPU of the 360 is more efficient that the RSX. All of the above articles give it the edge. Also, the 360's unified memory architecture allows developers more freedom in allocating system resources.

So, basiclly, your arguement fails on two levels - the 360 and the PS3 are very comparible in terms of horsepower, and even if the PS3 won that battle "easily" as you seem to believe, history has shown that more power =/= "better."

Oh, and what "plays better" on the PS3 than on the 360? With the exception of Oblivion, I cannot think of ONE multiplatform game that even LOOKS better on the PS3 than the 360, let alone plays. Don't get me wrong... I will be buying a PS3 soon for games like Lair and Ratchet and Clank, but it really seems like you are totally lapping up all of this "next-next generation" BS Sony keeps feeding us.
 
[quote name='mwynn']Remember when no one cared and it was about playing games and having fun.[/quote]

Yeah, that was when we were playing the Atari 2600. Once Sega and Nintendo unleashed the 8-bit systems, kids chose sides and the fighting commenced. It's always been like that, and frankly, I loved it because it was always fun to argue over which system was best and why.
 
I've got news for you: It was the same way when the 2600 was out. There were kids who had to defend the crappy Odyssey 2, and kids who felt superior because they had the "better" Intellivision (but secretly everyone envied the 2600 kids with their arcade conversions). And there were even fewer kids then who had multiple systems. (I was fortunate enough to have one of each--except the terrible Odyssey 2. Never wanted one of those...)
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']I've got news for you: It was the same way when the 2600 was out. There were kids who had to defend the crappy Odyssey 2, and kids who felt superior because they had the "better" Intellivision (but secretly everyone envied the 2600 kids with their arcade conversions). And there were even fewer kids then who had multiple systems. (I was fortunate enough to have one of each--except the terrible Odyssey 2. Never wanted one of those...)[/quote]

You forgot Colecovision (which had such a pretty version of Donkey Kong compared to my 2600), the Atari 5200 (which was merely an Atari 800 sans keyboard...oversimplifying, I know), and the ill-fated Coleco Telstar and RCA Studio II before them... The Odyssey was awful. I played Gorf on one of them and was so disappointed it didn't talk like the arcades... ;)

But the real debate occurred among the 2600, Coleco, and Intellivision camps when I was a youngster. :) The key to that is "when I was a youngster". I stopped defending my platform of choice after the death of the Amiga... :)
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']I've got news for you: It was the same way when the 2600 was out. There were kids who had to defend the crappy Odyssey 2, and kids who felt superior because they had the "better" Intellivision (but secretly everyone envied the 2600 kids with their arcade conversions). And there were even fewer kids then who had multiple systems. (I was fortunate enough to have one of each--except the terrible Odyssey 2. Never wanted one of those...)[/QUOTE]

Yep. The difference is, we didn't have internet back then to bring all of these poeple together. Fanboys have always been there, they just never had a medium to express themselves.
 
[quote name='jer7583']With Sony's brand name and incredible dominance last generation, I don't think it can be anything but a huge victory for Microsoft to see that their console(which was limited in stock much more than PS3 during its first four months) sold so comparably to the PS3.

It's a good thing for Microsoft, and a sobering thing for Sony, not necessarily bad, but they will have a much more realistic competitor chomping at their heels this generation.

All these numbers show is how close things are. Sony really should have blown them away out of the gate with the Sony loyal PS2 fanbase behind them, but they are making the transition from PS2 to PS3 much more difficult than it should be, not to mention lacking good, unique software to motivate purchases. $130 to suddenly $600? That's going to happen very slowly, and it gives MS even more time to snatch away those PS2 owners that will define the current generation's top seller.[/QUOTE]

Once the pricing of the PS3 was announced I think most people already knew all of the PS2 buyers weren't going to get a PS3. 100 million PS3's most likely isn't going to happen. Of course most PS2 buyers didn't buy at launch, so we can't expect the same at PS3 launch. Too early to say what's going to happen.

Sony was willing to lose some of that 100 million in exchange for improved chances with blu-ray. Blu-ray can make them a lot of money, probably more than PS3 games I would guess. HD-DVD has the price advantage over blu-ray players, if blu-ray software sales remained worse than hd-dvd (putting blu-ray in PS3 can only help blu-ray movie sales) then you could possibly see Fox, Lionsgate, Disney, or whoever jump ship to hd-dvd or at the least become neutral. Blu-ray has a huge advantage in software, they can't afford to lose that. Sony may be willing to sacrifice PS3 3rd party exclusives (MGS4 or whatever) in exchange to winning on the blu-ray front.

How much that higher price would make them lose is a different story. I think considering the price and software selection they are doing solid, but if they don't get it together in Japan they could possibly lose lots of exclusives to the Wii over time or going into the next generation. Other than the exclusive sony published games, Japanese games is what gives you the reason to want one. Wii still has to prove itself and steal away these games though.

I think niche games like Suikoden will tell the story. IMO this series isn't big enough to justify a port to multiple consoles. 360 has failed horribly in Japan so that's pretty much out (the series needs Japan sales). If PS3 can hang on to games like that then they're in good shape IMO, if Wii steals them away then PS3 can be in trouble. FF13 going multi-platform would be very bad as well. Square would almost single-handily split the JRPG fanbase between PS3 and 360 in Europe and NA. JRPG makers then would have to decide about spending big bucks on PS3 and either porting to 360 or lose some money on not doing a port, or take the easy route and make a cheaper Wii version which has great sales in Japan. Major problem for PS3 in the long run IMO. PS3 needs FF13 exclusive much more than DMC4 or MGS4 IMO.

One note about 360 snatching up PS2 buyers. It's a year and half later and instead of a price drop (which is reasonable to expect at this point) they not only kept the price the same but created a new $500 version. This only helps sony and nintendo and buys them both some time. A $200 core would hold up great against a $250 Wii. A $300 360 premium looks like a great deal compared to a $600 PS3 ($500 PS3 seems very rare at this point).
 
It's epic how this thread came back to the Atari 2600.

"Under 50 bucks!"

*turntable scratches*
 
[quote name='zerolens']I think niche games like Suikoden will tell the story.[/QUOTE]

A very interesting argument, and the complete opposite of what everyone else is saying (that MGS4 moving to the 360 will be the death-knell of the PS3, or other high profile titles).
 
niche games don't sell hardware though.

but i think they could use better advertising. the currents ones aren't great. they need like a Gears of War style ad, with the music and the style. that commercial and a 360 sale during the ps3 launch convinced me to buy it.

well... first they need a good game to advertise.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']A very interesting argument, and the complete opposite of what everyone else is saying (that MGS4 moving to the 360 will be the death-knell of the PS3, or other high profile titles).[/QUOTE]

Xbox and Gamecube did at least get a Metal Gear game. For some people MGS4 going to 360 is all it takes to ignore the PS3 the rest of this gen, but IMO it's not the nail in the coffin for PS3.

FF13 going to 360 would hurt them much worse. I'm actually looking forward to MGS4 more than FF13, but FF13 is crucial to Sony. If Square keeps it exclusive then the PS3 is selling well enough to sustain more RPG's from Square. Square isn't really known for porting games around. That translates into quite a few JRPG's down the line. I think Wii will see some too but FF13 and FF13 Versus exclusive is a great start and JRPG fans will more likely stick to the PS3.

Why make a game like DQ10 or KH3 for PS3 and 360 when you can make it specifically for the Wii cheaper and on a platform that's doing great in all regions? FF13 ported to 360 splits the userbase up and makes it a no-brainer choice for Konami to put Suikoden on Wii, or Atlus to put Shin Megami Tensei on Wii.

So IMO yes those smaller titles as a whole is more important than MGS4 going multi. FF13 going multi would be more of a domino effect. I can't see Square wanting to make PS3 games and porting to 360 a habit. They'll go straight to the Wii and get the same sales. Holding their ground on FF13 exclusive brings the Square fans and fans of JRPG's in general to the PS3. Japanese gaming fans could still count on PS3 to deliver a solid library of titles. If you lose Square the smaller companies will follow Square to where DQ10, KH3, FF14, and where others show up. Porting to 360 makes it that much harder to figure out where the fans are IMO. I can't see MGS4 causing that same domino effect.
 
[quote name='amicus']niche games don't sell hardware though.

[/QUOTE]

True, but if everything is ported to 360 or those niche games go to Wii what's the point of the PS3? If the PS3 alone can't make a profit for these niche games then companies will abandon it. Seeing Shadow Hearts, Suikoden, SMT and other Atlus games show up in waves on the Wii will kill the playstation name. Wii will have those games and 360 will have PS3 games + some exclusive PC games for a lower price. Exclusive niche games compliment the games like Heavenly Sword and Uncharted, one niche game doesn't move hardware but several together exclusive to one console does.
 
I really think that the Wii could be the destination for RPGs and niche titles. Low development cost and a higher install base than japan will at least make the Wii very attractive.

Niche publishers/developers who put out software that doesn't have a wide range of appeal won't want to have to invest in HD, 360/PS3 level graphics as readily, since their titles don't sell as widely, especially so early in the console race. Wii games can be developed for less cost and faster, without much (if any) sacrifice to their intended game designs for RPGs and such.
 
marketing for niche games doesnt quite work in the same way. A lot of marketing is flashy and graphically driven, and a lot of those games simply lack that.

I bought a PSP at launch solely on the promise of an original NIS development, and they failed to deliver on that.
 
[quote name='jer7583']I really think that the Wii could be the destination for RPGs and niche titles. Low development cost and a higher install base than japan will at least make the Wii very attractive.

Niche publishers/developers who put out software that doesn't have a wide range of appeal won't want to have to invest in HD, 360/PS3 level graphics as readily, since their titles don't sell as widely, especially so early in the console race. Wii games can be developed for less cost and faster, without much (if any) sacrifice to their intended game designs for RPGs and such.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I'm not convinced that moving to HD would entail much extra cost for these niche game developers, because the games aren't in 3D to begin with. All it would mean would be bumping up the resolution that they use for their art. Spectral Force for the 360 (only available in Japan) is a good example of this. It's an SRPG similar to Disgaea, but in HD.
 
An analyst quoted in Bloomburg had suggested that Wii titles can cost $2-5 million versus $20-30M on competitor's systems. I cant say how true that is or how much cost is actually negated as a matter of "simply drawing higher res sprites", but there shouldnt be a reason to leave PS2 anytime soon.

With comparable marketshare, the decision should be easy to make. I would ask NIS if they would be happy with Spectral Force grade unit sales.
 
$20-$30M is more along the lines of Killzone and FF13 I think though. If you do a google search Killzone is around $21 million supposedly, that's considered really high. Obviously Sony wouldn't put that much into a game like Untold Legends, same with Konami not putting a MGS4 budget into something like Suikoden.

I'm sure Wii is still cheaper though (how much I don't know). I think Nippon Ichi ought to test the waters on both consoles though and see how it goes. They could also look at Fire Emblem sales on the Wii to get a rough idea. Wii Fire Emblem did 75k it's first week, beyond that I don't know. Not fantastic but not horrible either IMO, but I'm not sure if Fire Emblem would have an advantage over a Nippon ichi game though since it's made by Nintendo.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']Colecovision was round two, against the Atari 5200...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's what I thought. If kids were still comparing the 2600 to the Colecovision that was like comparing the original Xbox to the PS3, sort of.

Anyway, I do remember looking at those glossy Intellivision brochures and pining for one of those as I only had the lowly Atari (no 2600 back then - it was just Atari, wasn't it?). But I was the only kid I knew who had ANY system so I never even saw an Intellivision in person :lol:.

Then I got a Colecovision. My next console after that was a Gamecube. (Had, and still have, an NES from college, but I played it no more than 20 hours total).

But, yeah, on topic. I'll get a PS3 when it gets some good games that are available cheaply. That's what I'm currently doing with the 360 too. So maybe in a year or so I'll get a PS3. Then I'll have 5 game consoles hooked up (GC, PS2, Wii, 360, PS3 in that order) - unreal... Good thing I have a big ol' Pelican system switcher!
 
[quote name='jer7583']I really think that the Wii could be the destination for RPGs and niche titles. Low development cost and a higher install base than japan will at least make the Wii very attractive.

Niche publishers/developers who put out software that doesn't have a wide range of appeal won't want to have to invest in HD, 360/PS3 level graphics as readily, since their titles don't sell as widely, especially so early in the console race. Wii games can be developed for less cost and faster, without much (if any) sacrifice to their intended game designs for RPGs and such.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and weren't many of these niche games really not top of line in terms of graphics on the PS2 anyway? I'm thinking of Atelier Iris/Disgaea/etc. Many of those were PS1+ in terms of technology. Certainly those could go to the Wii and still be improved quite a bit graphically.

zerolens - Excellent points. You have my motivations nailed down, anyway. I got the PS2 for exactly the reasons you state and am waiting a bit on the PS3 to see how it shakes out. I'm not the least bit interested in MGS and a lot of the other Sony-affiliiated stuff. I enjoy things like Jak and R&C but they aren't system sellers for me. Since I'm getting a 360 I can use that for the few big multiplatform games I'm interested in (Oblivion, Burnout, etc). Still, I will have a craving for HD RPG's (even if the Wii gets many niche titles), and it will be interesting to see how that shakes out PS3 vs 360.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top