oasisboy
Banned
A really good article to read.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/15/AR2008121500870.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/15/AR2008121500870.html
Is Sony's PS3 Really a Sinking Ship?
- Thread starter oasisboy
- Start date
- Status
Even if it is a sinking ship, I'll continue to buy games and have fun with them until an official announcement that its going the way of the Dreamcast. My PS3 isn't an investment, its just a nice little distraction from everyday life and one brick in my home entertainment system.
From a gamer's perspective, it's the GameCube of this gen. Last place sales but still a nice piece of hardware and a moderate success, with enough great exclusives to make a purchase worthwhile. From Sony's perspective, ouch. I can only imagine how much it's hurting their bottom line. I hope lessons are learned and the PS4 gets back on track.
It doesn't bring me any joy to write that, you know... I'm a big Sony fan and was rooting for the PS3 to succeed on the same scale as the PS2. I'll still buy one eventually-- I think the PS3 is the better machine overall, and I prefer Sony's exclusives to Microsoft's. But all the missed opportunities really sting. The ridiculous price, the yanking of features I wanted, lack of anything noteworthy going on with PSP integration, the nonentity that is Home-- Sony really bungled this thing, and at this point I'm really getting tired of hearing about the "potential." It's been two years, we should have more to talk about by now than potential.
It doesn't bring me any joy to write that, you know... I'm a big Sony fan and was rooting for the PS3 to succeed on the same scale as the PS2. I'll still buy one eventually-- I think the PS3 is the better machine overall, and I prefer Sony's exclusives to Microsoft's. But all the missed opportunities really sting. The ridiculous price, the yanking of features I wanted, lack of anything noteworthy going on with PSP integration, the nonentity that is Home-- Sony really bungled this thing, and at this point I'm really getting tired of hearing about the "potential." It's been two years, we should have more to talk about by now than potential.
The PS3 is here to stay. Why? Because Sony won the format war and Blu Ray reigns supreme. Considering how good the graphics look on the damn thing, I wouldnt be surprised if Sony doesn't release a PS4 by the time an Xbox 720 comes out. Disk space is larger on PS3 disks and the graphics engine has yet to reach its maximum potential.
Now if HDDVD would have won, I would definatly believe that the PS3 is a sinking ship, but that did not happen and HDDVD lost out to Blu Ray.
Now if HDDVD would have won, I would definatly believe that the PS3 is a sinking ship, but that did not happen and HDDVD lost out to Blu Ray.
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
Uh no. This thread should be locked before it gets worse. The thing is while PS3 has not had its strongest sales in NA, it still has the lead in Japan and the PAL land. if you compare TOTAL 360 and PS3 sales this year. They are actually not that far off from each other, and PS3 didn't even cut its price (they most likely will next year, after the fiscal year is over). And some seem to forget, Sony IS on target to meet their PS3 sales expectations. They could careless if the other consoles sell it 20X. They just want to sell the amount of consoles they plan to (breaking even on the hardware or close, since Sony already lost quite a bit in their gaming division and Howard Stringer wants to see profit only) and hopefully have a profitable fiscal year overall.
Anyway, let me tell you that CNN basically took an article written by Eric Krangel. If you read many of Eric's articles, he is VERY anti Sony/PS3 and here's why:
CNN just grabbed an article by one of the most Anti-Sony people on the net. Tons of other sites start posting it (but his other articles didn't get around). I already got back at the guy leaving him a REALLY nasty blog comment.
Oh yeah, this is how the total sales are this year:
Anyway, let me tell you that CNN basically took an article written by Eric Krangel. If you read many of Eric's articles, he is VERY anti Sony/PS3 and here's why:
http://www.alleyinsider.com/Sony
CNN just grabbed an article by one of the most Anti-Sony people on the net. Tons of other sites start posting it (but his other articles didn't get around). I already got back at the guy leaving him a REALLY nasty blog comment.
Oh yeah, this is how the total sales are this year:
At the end of June 2008, PS3 did lead by just under 300k consoles. To say it's dead is very short sighted.
B
Blackout
Guest
In terms of making money or being "#1" this gen, yeah. I dunno it PS3 is going to take the top spot this late in the game. I do like the PS3 exclusives over the 360 ones but Sony made a lot of mistakes this time around. It's not a terrible system, but it's been plagued with problems.
I didn't read the article, but commenting on what Ryuukishi had to say. I don't think Sony will ever be able to reclaim the success they had with PS2 on any other console. Nintendo did it because they innovated with the Wii, basically opening the market to every Joe Plumber and Grandma Nina in the world. I don't think gaming can evolve much at all. Graphics, physics, and sound will get better but I think we've reached a plateau at this generation when it comes to gameplay. I just hope for the sake of gaming in general with Microsoft or Sony will do something really inovated that will impove the games of next gen. I wouldn't mind keeping my PS3 only for another 10 years as long as theres the solid 6-10 titles a year I want to play as there is now.
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='Blackout']In terms of making money or being "#1" this gen, yeah. I dunno it PS3 is going to take the top spot this late in the game. I do like the PS3 exclusives over the 360 ones but Sony made a lot of mistakes this time around. It's not a terrible system, but it's been plagued with problems.[/QUOTE]The thing is, Sony no longer really cares about being number 1. They just want to break even on hardware, and get some profit from games + accessories. That's their goal this gen, not do deep pricecuts just to be number 1.
I mean last gen, while GC was last, Nintendo was actually doing very well financially, where they were making money on GC. While Xbox got 2nd place, MS lost a lot of money on Xbox. So while GC wasn't as popular or didn't sell as much, Nintendo was kind of the winner because they made money. Sony rather be profitable than sell lots of consoles and lose money (MS is willing to do it, no doubt). If you sell the most and make a profit (like Nintendo is doing), that's excellent news.
I don't care if PS3 is number 1. I enjoy the Sony first party games and I like playing third party games best on my PS3 (because of controller, quiet/reliable console, free online, etc.). I'm sticking to PS3 no matter what.
The majority of mistakes Sony made with PS3 come down to the Cell + RSX (the main reason PS3 is costly to produce, especially the cell) and it's difficult to develop on it (Blu-ray was expensive early on, but its costs have reduced to a point it's not that much more than DVD to use).
[quote name='Jest']I didn't read the article, but commenting on what Ryuukishi had to say. I don't think Sony will ever be able to reclaim the success they had with PS2 on any other console. Nintendo did it because they innovated with the Wii, basically opening the market to every Joe Plumber and Grandma Nina in the world. I don't think gaming can evolve much at all. Graphics, physics, and sound will get better but I think we've reached a plateau at this generation when it comes to gameplay. I just hope for the sake of gaming in general with Microsoft or Sony will do something really inovated that will impove the games of next gen. I wouldn't mind keeping my PS3 only for another 10 years as long as theres the solid 6-10 titles a year I want to play as there is now.[/QUOTE]Almost no one will get the success again. While Wii has done well, I doubt it will be PS2 successful in the end.
Some seem to be forgetting what made PS3 so successful was going a time period with no competition. Many ignored the Dreamcast (despite its awesome launch) because too many were weary of buying Sega again (after the 32X, Saturn, and CD being killed off early), and everyone knew PS2 was coming (and PS2 was announced when the PS1 momentum was continuing to get stronger and stronger). Since Sega killed off Dreamcast a few months after PS2 came out, PS2's biggest competitor was the PS1. Nintendo killed off N64 pretty much after Christmas 2000. There was no Xbox. If anyone wanted a game console, PS2 was basically the only option if you wanted many new games in the future (it played PS1 games for those wanting a PS1). PS2 already had a very big lead and a wide selection of games out by the time GC and Xbox came out. GC had some shortages early (where stores only got two shipments after launch), while Xbox was still mostly a new brand to people (didn't really catch on fully until its first price drop). Sony had it very easy and PS2 was selling like hotcakes. However, the PS2 momentum in a way started to drop in late 2003 and 2004 especially, because I remember NPD showing that in 2004, Xbox actually outsold PS2 that year in NA (while PS2 had a crazy lead in Europe and Japan). While PS2 won last gen, its smallest marketshare was in NA and PS2 sales continued to drop year after year (I remember because Sony had very high expectations for PS2, and they weren't meeting them). By the time Sony released PS3, the PS brand was on a downward trend (compared to upward when releasing PS2. Where PS1 sales were still getting better each year). So it was kind of expected, regardless of pricing, PS3 wouldn't have as much impact in NA compared to PS2 (since PS2 started out as mass market popular, then kind of dropped).
[quote name='Ryuukishi']
It doesn't bring me any joy to write that, you know... I'm a big Sony fan and was rooting for the PS3 to succeed on the same scale as the PS2. I'll still buy one eventually-- I think the PS3 is the better machine overall, and I prefer Sony's exclusives to Microsoft's. But all the missed opportunities really sting. The ridiculous price, the yanking of features I wanted, lack of anything noteworthy going on with PSP integration, the nonentity that is Home-- Sony really bungled this thing, and at this point I'm really getting tired of hearing about the "potential." It's been two years, we should have more to talk about by now than potential.[/QUOTE]The PSP integration is fantastic IMO, especially being able to stream PS1 games from the PS3 console onto the PSP screen.
Also, Home is actually pretty good to me; however, please understand that it's NOT intended for the hardcore gamers like those who post in most forums. It's a way to bring people together, socialize and finding others with similar interests in certain games, which is kind of does (worked for me). People who spend lots of time on forums (such as you) already know what's going on.
And like I told many people before, I understand why PS2 BC was yanked. It was a costly feature to implement. If people want it, we wouldn't be seeing a $400 PS3 right now (more so $450-$500). Once Sony figures out how to make a 100% PS2 software emulator (which may or may not happen. The struggle is emulating the GS is difficult since the RSX doesn't have as high of a fill rate as the GS), PS3 consoles will play PS2 games. Last gen Sony went to a partial software emulator, then full software emulator for the slim PS2. They were able to do that last gen since PS2 was doing very well for them and people were okay with the price. But since Sony wasn't meeting their original projections and needed to get the price down to at least $400, PS2 BC had to go. For hardcore gamers it may be a missed feature, but for most people out there it isn't an issue (they played PS2 games and are done with them. Since I got a PS3, I never want to play PS2 games again since they look so terrible on the HDTV. You gotta see it yourself).
I mean last gen, while GC was last, Nintendo was actually doing very well financially, where they were making money on GC. While Xbox got 2nd place, MS lost a lot of money on Xbox. So while GC wasn't as popular or didn't sell as much, Nintendo was kind of the winner because they made money. Sony rather be profitable than sell lots of consoles and lose money (MS is willing to do it, no doubt). If you sell the most and make a profit (like Nintendo is doing), that's excellent news.
I don't care if PS3 is number 1. I enjoy the Sony first party games and I like playing third party games best on my PS3 (because of controller, quiet/reliable console, free online, etc.). I'm sticking to PS3 no matter what.
The majority of mistakes Sony made with PS3 come down to the Cell + RSX (the main reason PS3 is costly to produce, especially the cell) and it's difficult to develop on it (Blu-ray was expensive early on, but its costs have reduced to a point it's not that much more than DVD to use).
[quote name='Jest']I didn't read the article, but commenting on what Ryuukishi had to say. I don't think Sony will ever be able to reclaim the success they had with PS2 on any other console. Nintendo did it because they innovated with the Wii, basically opening the market to every Joe Plumber and Grandma Nina in the world. I don't think gaming can evolve much at all. Graphics, physics, and sound will get better but I think we've reached a plateau at this generation when it comes to gameplay. I just hope for the sake of gaming in general with Microsoft or Sony will do something really inovated that will impove the games of next gen. I wouldn't mind keeping my PS3 only for another 10 years as long as theres the solid 6-10 titles a year I want to play as there is now.[/QUOTE]Almost no one will get the success again. While Wii has done well, I doubt it will be PS2 successful in the end.
Some seem to be forgetting what made PS3 so successful was going a time period with no competition. Many ignored the Dreamcast (despite its awesome launch) because too many were weary of buying Sega again (after the 32X, Saturn, and CD being killed off early), and everyone knew PS2 was coming (and PS2 was announced when the PS1 momentum was continuing to get stronger and stronger). Since Sega killed off Dreamcast a few months after PS2 came out, PS2's biggest competitor was the PS1. Nintendo killed off N64 pretty much after Christmas 2000. There was no Xbox. If anyone wanted a game console, PS2 was basically the only option if you wanted many new games in the future (it played PS1 games for those wanting a PS1). PS2 already had a very big lead and a wide selection of games out by the time GC and Xbox came out. GC had some shortages early (where stores only got two shipments after launch), while Xbox was still mostly a new brand to people (didn't really catch on fully until its first price drop). Sony had it very easy and PS2 was selling like hotcakes. However, the PS2 momentum in a way started to drop in late 2003 and 2004 especially, because I remember NPD showing that in 2004, Xbox actually outsold PS2 that year in NA (while PS2 had a crazy lead in Europe and Japan). While PS2 won last gen, its smallest marketshare was in NA and PS2 sales continued to drop year after year (I remember because Sony had very high expectations for PS2, and they weren't meeting them). By the time Sony released PS3, the PS brand was on a downward trend (compared to upward when releasing PS2. Where PS1 sales were still getting better each year). So it was kind of expected, regardless of pricing, PS3 wouldn't have as much impact in NA compared to PS2 (since PS2 started out as mass market popular, then kind of dropped).
[quote name='Ryuukishi']
It doesn't bring me any joy to write that, you know... I'm a big Sony fan and was rooting for the PS3 to succeed on the same scale as the PS2. I'll still buy one eventually-- I think the PS3 is the better machine overall, and I prefer Sony's exclusives to Microsoft's. But all the missed opportunities really sting. The ridiculous price, the yanking of features I wanted, lack of anything noteworthy going on with PSP integration, the nonentity that is Home-- Sony really bungled this thing, and at this point I'm really getting tired of hearing about the "potential." It's been two years, we should have more to talk about by now than potential.[/QUOTE]The PSP integration is fantastic IMO, especially being able to stream PS1 games from the PS3 console onto the PSP screen.
Also, Home is actually pretty good to me; however, please understand that it's NOT intended for the hardcore gamers like those who post in most forums. It's a way to bring people together, socialize and finding others with similar interests in certain games, which is kind of does (worked for me). People who spend lots of time on forums (such as you) already know what's going on.
And like I told many people before, I understand why PS2 BC was yanked. It was a costly feature to implement. If people want it, we wouldn't be seeing a $400 PS3 right now (more so $450-$500). Once Sony figures out how to make a 100% PS2 software emulator (which may or may not happen. The struggle is emulating the GS is difficult since the RSX doesn't have as high of a fill rate as the GS), PS3 consoles will play PS2 games. Last gen Sony went to a partial software emulator, then full software emulator for the slim PS2. They were able to do that last gen since PS2 was doing very well for them and people were okay with the price. But since Sony wasn't meeting their original projections and needed to get the price down to at least $400, PS2 BC had to go. For hardcore gamers it may be a missed feature, but for most people out there it isn't an issue (they played PS2 games and are done with them. Since I got a PS3, I never want to play PS2 games again since they look so terrible on the HDTV. You gotta see it yourself).
Last edited by a moderator:
B
Blackout
Guest
[quote name='The Mana Knight']The thing is, Sony no longer really cares about being number 1. They just want to break even on hardware, and get some profit from games + accessories. That's their goal this gen, not do deep pricecuts just to be number 1.
I mean last gen, while GC was last, Nintendo was actually doing very well financially, where they were making money on GC. While Xbox got 2nd place, MS lost a lot of money on Xbox. So while GC wasn't as popular or didn't sell as much, Nintendo was kind of the winner because they made money. Sony rather be profitable than sell lots of consoles and lose money (MS is willing to do it, no doubt). If you sell the most and make a profit (like Nintendo is doing), that's excellent news.
I don't care if PS3 is number 1. I enjoy the Sony first party games and I like playing third party games best on my PS3 (because of controller, quiet/reliable console, free online, etc.). I'm sticking to PS3 no matter what.
The majority of mistakes Sony made with PS3 come down to the Cell + RSX (the main reason PS3 is costly to produce, especially the cell) and it's difficult to develop on it (Blu-ray was expensive early on, but its costs have reduced to a point it's not that much more than DVD to use).[/quote]
I do like the PS3 better because of what you said...controller, free online, and all my close friends got the PS3 over the 360 so we game all the time on it. The thing is, PS3 didn't get "good" until 2.5, and is just now getting to a better point, with trophies, more social aspects, fixing online gaming, etc. Before that man just way too much crap went wrong. That price isn't helping them, but they really can't do anything about that. The buzzword for this generation is "potential". PS3 has a lot of it, but the way I feel we won't fully see it manifest until PS4. All the mistakes and things they're doing now will make for a great next gen system. Right now though it's just growing pains that I don't think is going to do much for them this time around.
Still, I'll take Resistance, Ratchet, Uncharted etc over any of the other consoles games. But man, how the mighty have fallen.
I mean last gen, while GC was last, Nintendo was actually doing very well financially, where they were making money on GC. While Xbox got 2nd place, MS lost a lot of money on Xbox. So while GC wasn't as popular or didn't sell as much, Nintendo was kind of the winner because they made money. Sony rather be profitable than sell lots of consoles and lose money (MS is willing to do it, no doubt). If you sell the most and make a profit (like Nintendo is doing), that's excellent news.
I don't care if PS3 is number 1. I enjoy the Sony first party games and I like playing third party games best on my PS3 (because of controller, quiet/reliable console, free online, etc.). I'm sticking to PS3 no matter what.
The majority of mistakes Sony made with PS3 come down to the Cell + RSX (the main reason PS3 is costly to produce, especially the cell) and it's difficult to develop on it (Blu-ray was expensive early on, but its costs have reduced to a point it's not that much more than DVD to use).[/quote]
I do like the PS3 better because of what you said...controller, free online, and all my close friends got the PS3 over the 360 so we game all the time on it. The thing is, PS3 didn't get "good" until 2.5, and is just now getting to a better point, with trophies, more social aspects, fixing online gaming, etc. Before that man just way too much crap went wrong. That price isn't helping them, but they really can't do anything about that. The buzzword for this generation is "potential". PS3 has a lot of it, but the way I feel we won't fully see it manifest until PS4. All the mistakes and things they're doing now will make for a great next gen system. Right now though it's just growing pains that I don't think is going to do much for them this time around.
Still, I'll take Resistance, Ratchet, Uncharted etc over any of the other consoles games. But man, how the mighty have fallen.
bordjon
CAGiversary!
I'm mostly a casual gamer - I may get semi-hardcore now and then - but for the most part it's casual. Lately when I "crave" turning on a gaming system to play a game - now this is just talking sorta about an abstract craving if that makes any sense - I crave the ps3. I have all the current gen systems and they have all lost their newness to me. I choose all my third party titles for ps3. Wii has sorta seemed to be a gimmick that has worn off for me. Not at all like the Nintendo DS - which isn't gimmicky to me and I think is the best system since the original NES. Xbox 360 is great and I honestly can't explain why I choose the ps3 over it. I have friends on both systems. From my experience xbox has the better online gaming network because of the quality of voice chat - and I'm not a very chatty gamer either. Ps3 has the better dashboard I think - even with the nxe - I still prefer the xmb. The familiarity I get with watching blu-ray once or twice a week could play a large part in my interest in the ps3. I do wish sony could get netflix streaming like nxe has now.
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='Blackout']
Still, I'll take Resistance, Ratchet, Uncharted etc over any of the other consoles games. But man, how the mighty have fallen.[/QUOTE]If people were to say this was ONLY happening to Sony during PS3, they are kind of wrong. Ever since the original Xbox launched, especially in the year 2003 - 2005, it was cutting into the PS2 marketshare. Like I said before, Xbox actually outsold PS2 in 2004, in NA. I'm trying to talk about the downward trend that already happened. If Sony was continuing to dominate in NA for an example last gen, they wouldn't have been outsold in 2004 and would have maintained around the same lead every year, but it kept shrinking. In ways it seemed like I knew more Xbox owners than PS2 owners in 2005. The Xbox brand was gaining momentum, and MS released the 360 as the momentum was going up (just like how Sony released PS2 when PS1 was gaining momentum). Nintendo right now is kind of doing what Sony did in 1995 with PS1. Sony did well with PS1 because they targeted an older age group of people and more mass market, compared to Nintendo and Sega who mostly targeted kids or a very, very hardcore group of gamers). Sony having its appeal to a wider audience brought many new people into gaming. Nintendo has done the same thing with the Wii bringing in an older audience, young women, young girls, and many others who never played games before (and that leads to the Wii being very successful).
In Europe and Japan, PS2 was doing crazy well and the PS Brand was popular. While Wii is number 1 in those two regions, PS3 is number 2. Overall, I just say the PS Brand hasn't been as popular as it use to in just NA, but still has a strong marketshare in Europe and Japan (regardless of all the Japanese games MS tries to get, PS3 is still above it).
Still, I'll take Resistance, Ratchet, Uncharted etc over any of the other consoles games. But man, how the mighty have fallen.[/QUOTE]If people were to say this was ONLY happening to Sony during PS3, they are kind of wrong. Ever since the original Xbox launched, especially in the year 2003 - 2005, it was cutting into the PS2 marketshare. Like I said before, Xbox actually outsold PS2 in 2004, in NA. I'm trying to talk about the downward trend that already happened. If Sony was continuing to dominate in NA for an example last gen, they wouldn't have been outsold in 2004 and would have maintained around the same lead every year, but it kept shrinking. In ways it seemed like I knew more Xbox owners than PS2 owners in 2005. The Xbox brand was gaining momentum, and MS released the 360 as the momentum was going up (just like how Sony released PS2 when PS1 was gaining momentum). Nintendo right now is kind of doing what Sony did in 1995 with PS1. Sony did well with PS1 because they targeted an older age group of people and more mass market, compared to Nintendo and Sega who mostly targeted kids or a very, very hardcore group of gamers). Sony having its appeal to a wider audience brought many new people into gaming. Nintendo has done the same thing with the Wii bringing in an older audience, young women, young girls, and many others who never played games before (and that leads to the Wii being very successful).
In Europe and Japan, PS2 was doing crazy well and the PS Brand was popular. While Wii is number 1 in those two regions, PS3 is number 2. Overall, I just say the PS Brand hasn't been as popular as it use to in just NA, but still has a strong marketshare in Europe and Japan (regardless of all the Japanese games MS tries to get, PS3 is still above it).
B
Blackout
Guest
[quote name='The Mana Knight']If people were to say this was ONLY happening to Sony during PS3, they are kind of wrong. Ever since the original Xbox launched, especially in the year 2003 - 2005, it was cutting into the PS2 marketshare. Like I said before, Xbox actually outsold PS2 in 2004, in NA. I'm trying to talk about the downward trend that already happened. If Sony was continuing to dominate in NA for an example last gen, they wouldn't have been outsold in 2004 and would have maintained around the same lead every year, but it kept shrinking. In ways it seemed like I knew more Xbox owners than PS2 owners in 2005. The Xbox brand was gaining momentum, and MS released the 360 as the momentum was going up (just like how Sony released PS2 when PS1 was gaining momentum). Nintendo right now is kind of doing what Sony did in 1995 with PS1. Sony did well with PS1 because they targeted an older age group of people and more mass market, compared to Nintendo and Sega who mostly targeted kids or a very, very hardcore group of gamers). Sony having its appeal to a wider audience brought many new people into gaming. Nintendo has done the same thing with the Wii bringing in an older audience, young women, young girls, and many others who never played games before (and that leads to the Wii being very successful).
In Europe and Japan, PS2 was doing crazy well and the PS Brand was popular. While Wii is number 1 in those two regions, PS3 is number 2. Overall, I just say the PS Brand hasn't been as popular as it use to in just NA, but still has a strong marketshare in Europe and Japan (regardless of all the Japanese games MS tries to get, PS3 is still above it).[/quote]
I'm not into the whole following console sales week by week, month by month stuff that so many people seem to be fascinated with. I'm just talking about the overall system and vibe from it. PS2 killed Xbox. It was like a 400 pound guy beating up a scrawny 90 pound kid. Xbox had very few games. The only thing it had going for it was Xbox Live, but game wise there was hardly anything there. If you would have told me back than that the next Xbox would be so huge I would have laughed. PS2 just dominated everything for me. I stand by what I say, PS4 or whatever they decide to call it is going to be great because they get to use all the screw ups and stuff to improve on next gen. Home, online, social aspect, etc etc and all the other stuff they're trying to do will reach fruition in the next round. PS3 is just a huge ass growing pain.
In Europe and Japan, PS2 was doing crazy well and the PS Brand was popular. While Wii is number 1 in those two regions, PS3 is number 2. Overall, I just say the PS Brand hasn't been as popular as it use to in just NA, but still has a strong marketshare in Europe and Japan (regardless of all the Japanese games MS tries to get, PS3 is still above it).[/quote]
I'm not into the whole following console sales week by week, month by month stuff that so many people seem to be fascinated with. I'm just talking about the overall system and vibe from it. PS2 killed Xbox. It was like a 400 pound guy beating up a scrawny 90 pound kid. Xbox had very few games. The only thing it had going for it was Xbox Live, but game wise there was hardly anything there. If you would have told me back than that the next Xbox would be so huge I would have laughed. PS2 just dominated everything for me. I stand by what I say, PS4 or whatever they decide to call it is going to be great because they get to use all the screw ups and stuff to improve on next gen. Home, online, social aspect, etc etc and all the other stuff they're trying to do will reach fruition in the next round. PS3 is just a huge ass growing pain.
HeadRusch
CAGiversary!
[quote name='The Mana Knight']They just want to sell the amount of consoles they plan to (breaking even on the hardware or close, since Sony already lost quite a bit in their gaming division and Howard Stringer wants to see profit only) and hopefully have a profitable fiscal year overall.[/QUOTE]
Its great to see Sony Fanboys doing this complete 180 reversal. 2 years ago "THE 360 IS THE SUXXORZ! PS3 DESTROYS IT WITH EIGHT PROCESSORS!". A couple of ho-hum super-hyped releases and about 30 downloadable patches later and we see the PS3 is basically a 360, only one that is about 8 times as hard to get the power out of...and we wind up...with posts like the above.
"Hey we never wanted to be #1...we uhhh....we just want to make a buck! AND REMEMBER WE ARE IN IT FOR THE LONG HAUL! Sony WILL dominate...in 2014 the PS3 will be ROCKIN!" and so on and so on.
Sony dominated with the Ps1 and dominated with the Ps2. The Ps3 is a sinking ship in the sense that its barely surviving, its not dominating.
There are twice as many people in North America as there are in Japan, and that says something to game makers.
The 360 has sold xxx million units in North America, it has a great software attach rate, AND its been sold primarily as a game system, meaning people will buy game software for it. The system is profitable to Microsoft. Microsoft continues to be a strong company.
The PS3 has significantly less sales than the 360. It has been marketed as both a game machine AND a blu ray media player. This means that many PS3's have been sold to people who simply will not buy a PS3 game (I know 2 people like this personally, with estimates as high as 30-40% of PS3's sold will be to people who don't buy games). The PS3 is also no longer the cheapest BD player, as it was the past 2 years. This will impact sales. The PS3 is not yet profitable for Sony to produce and sell. Sony as a company is struggling with layoffs and brand recognition issues.
The Ps3 isn't a sinking ship, but its hardly the followup to the PS1 and Ps2 that Sony and its legions of fans were hoping for.
Killzone 2 and GT5 and probably God of War III may wind up being great, epic, stellar games...the fact remains that it takes more than 2 or 3 titles spread out over 2 or 3 years to really sell a system. Sonys exclusives are few and far between,a nd more often than not the games are lacking and rarely live up to expectation.
LAIR: laugh
Ratchet and Clank: Again, this isn't the kind of game that gets systems flying off shelves
Metal Gear: The closest the PS3 has come to a bona-fide hit, moved systems off the shelf....
LBP: The great hype....that arrived dead on the vine. "wow this game kicks ASS!". no...back to sleep.
SOCOM: embarassing whats happened to this franchise. Multi-only, no SP, limited maps...yawn.
WIPEOUT: became a copy of a 3 year old PSP game, only in HD. Another wasted franchise.
God of War III? Will be released "Someday"
GT5? Date slips more than Pamela Andersons nipples.....may be out in 2010, maybe 2011...hopefully by then it has a damage model thats more like 2008 than 1998, which is has now.
Its pretty clear to see that Sony has undoubtedly lost the edge...
Its great to see Sony Fanboys doing this complete 180 reversal. 2 years ago "THE 360 IS THE SUXXORZ! PS3 DESTROYS IT WITH EIGHT PROCESSORS!". A couple of ho-hum super-hyped releases and about 30 downloadable patches later and we see the PS3 is basically a 360, only one that is about 8 times as hard to get the power out of...and we wind up...with posts like the above.
"Hey we never wanted to be #1...we uhhh....we just want to make a buck! AND REMEMBER WE ARE IN IT FOR THE LONG HAUL! Sony WILL dominate...in 2014 the PS3 will be ROCKIN!" and so on and so on.
Sony dominated with the Ps1 and dominated with the Ps2. The Ps3 is a sinking ship in the sense that its barely surviving, its not dominating.
There are twice as many people in North America as there are in Japan, and that says something to game makers.
The 360 has sold xxx million units in North America, it has a great software attach rate, AND its been sold primarily as a game system, meaning people will buy game software for it. The system is profitable to Microsoft. Microsoft continues to be a strong company.
The PS3 has significantly less sales than the 360. It has been marketed as both a game machine AND a blu ray media player. This means that many PS3's have been sold to people who simply will not buy a PS3 game (I know 2 people like this personally, with estimates as high as 30-40% of PS3's sold will be to people who don't buy games). The PS3 is also no longer the cheapest BD player, as it was the past 2 years. This will impact sales. The PS3 is not yet profitable for Sony to produce and sell. Sony as a company is struggling with layoffs and brand recognition issues.
The Ps3 isn't a sinking ship, but its hardly the followup to the PS1 and Ps2 that Sony and its legions of fans were hoping for.
Killzone 2 and GT5 and probably God of War III may wind up being great, epic, stellar games...the fact remains that it takes more than 2 or 3 titles spread out over 2 or 3 years to really sell a system. Sonys exclusives are few and far between,a nd more often than not the games are lacking and rarely live up to expectation.
LAIR: laugh
Ratchet and Clank: Again, this isn't the kind of game that gets systems flying off shelves
Metal Gear: The closest the PS3 has come to a bona-fide hit, moved systems off the shelf....
LBP: The great hype....that arrived dead on the vine. "wow this game kicks ASS!". no...back to sleep.
SOCOM: embarassing whats happened to this franchise. Multi-only, no SP, limited maps...yawn.
WIPEOUT: became a copy of a 3 year old PSP game, only in HD. Another wasted franchise.
God of War III? Will be released "Someday"
GT5? Date slips more than Pamela Andersons nipples.....may be out in 2010, maybe 2011...hopefully by then it has a damage model thats more like 2008 than 1998, which is has now.
Its pretty clear to see that Sony has undoubtedly lost the edge...
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='Blackout']I'm not into the whole following console sales week by week, month by month stuff that so many people seem to be fascinated with. I'm just talking about the overall system and vibe from it. PS2 killed Xbox. It was like a 400 pound guy beating up a scrawny 90 pound kid. Xbox had very few games. The only thing it had going for it was Xbox Live, but game wise there was hardly anything there. If you would have told me back than that the next Xbox would be so huge I would have laughed. PS2 just dominated everything for me. I stand by what I say, PS4 or whatever they decide to call it is going to be great because they get to use all the screw ups and stuff to improve on next gen. Home, online, social aspect, etc etc and all the other stuff they're trying to do will reach fruition in the next round. PS3 is just a huge ass growing pain.[/QUOTE]The FPS, Western RPGs (like KOTOR, Fable, etc.), and racers (to some extent) is what made the original Xbox popular (I wouldn't deny it had better FPS and Western RPGs compared to PS2), along with its online. While it lacked variety in areas, it did start to build up a pretty strong fanbase and I definitely figured it would be a bigger threat this generation (however, I never predicted Nintendo to do well).
Well, I am excited about PS4. Because the thing is Sony kind of already has a few foundations they've been setting with PS3:
-PlayStation Network is now up and running. They can carry over many firmware features to PS4, along with making sure the PS4 is designed around being able to handle other features they are struggling to implement on PS3 due to OS footprint being too small. They will also be able to standardize certain online features (one reason MS wanted to go to 360 was to standardize things, since it couldn't be done on Xbox). They'll probably have fantastic PSN intergration with PlayStation.com from the get go.
-Home will be more refined and they may be able to make the transitions much more seamless (and won't need to go through many betas on PS3).
-They will probably use a slightly more powerful Cell. The high R&D plus Cell development made PS3 expensive. Since the cell is out, improving it won't be expensive and will probably cost much less at PS4 launch compared to PS3 launch.
-If they use a disc, Blu-ray drives will probably be the same as DVD now in price. They'll probably be able to use an 8X or higher blu-ray drive, making loading faster.
-They will have a GPU in place that will work better with the Cell. The RSX was thrown in at the last minute due to scrapping the Cell GPU. While the RSX works, it wasn't made to work with the Cell as well as the last GPU.
-They'll probably refine the console + the way accessories are used, such as maybe making it where a headset can plug into a controller. They'll probably make it where accessories can ALL support bluetooth (so guitars, and other accessories won't need a dongle).
-HDDs will continue to get cheaper (I see them sticking to a 2.5" one).
-Making the console Software BC from the get go will be easier. If they re-use the Cell, it will probably make it easy for PS3 games to work on it. They'll probably design the PS4 architecture where it can efficiently run a PS2 emulator.
MS was able to do a lot of trial and error with Xbox, that really helped make 360 better. The same will probably happen with PS4.
[quote name='HeadRusch']
LAIR: laugh[/quote]
Factor 5 wanted to make a game for PS3 and Sony went ahead and published it. Sony didn't even mention it at E3 2007 because they knew it didn't turn out good. Why do you think Sony has completely cut Factor 5 from making any more games for PS3? it's because they didn't do Lair right. If you want to talk about bombs, let me bring up MS publishing Fuzion Frenzy 2, Vampire Rain stateside, Azurik, Nightcaster, and many others.
Most SOCOM fans would say it's the best SOCOM since SOCOM 1/2 on PS2.
As for GT5, designing a car on PS3 takes a few months to do. They aren't just designing the outside, but the inside too. If you played GT5P, the cars look beyond fantastic, inside and out. When you are trying to design several hundred cars, it will take a while. GT for PSP was canceled just so they could bring more development to GT5. While the developers have gotten the okay from some manufacturers to do damage modeling, there's no guarantee it will be there at launch based on how long it already takes to make a car. Most racing games just slap a car together in a few days and not try to accurately model it, unlike GT.
Sony also has many other great first party games, like Uncharted, Hot Shots Golf, makes the best baseball game around, Resistance series, Buzz! is fun, SingStar is great, MotorStorm: PR is one of the best racers all year, and several great PSN games. Killzone 2, inFAMOUS, White Knight Chronicles, etc. look great for next year.
Well, I am excited about PS4. Because the thing is Sony kind of already has a few foundations they've been setting with PS3:
-PlayStation Network is now up and running. They can carry over many firmware features to PS4, along with making sure the PS4 is designed around being able to handle other features they are struggling to implement on PS3 due to OS footprint being too small. They will also be able to standardize certain online features (one reason MS wanted to go to 360 was to standardize things, since it couldn't be done on Xbox). They'll probably have fantastic PSN intergration with PlayStation.com from the get go.
-Home will be more refined and they may be able to make the transitions much more seamless (and won't need to go through many betas on PS3).
-They will probably use a slightly more powerful Cell. The high R&D plus Cell development made PS3 expensive. Since the cell is out, improving it won't be expensive and will probably cost much less at PS4 launch compared to PS3 launch.
-If they use a disc, Blu-ray drives will probably be the same as DVD now in price. They'll probably be able to use an 8X or higher blu-ray drive, making loading faster.
-They will have a GPU in place that will work better with the Cell. The RSX was thrown in at the last minute due to scrapping the Cell GPU. While the RSX works, it wasn't made to work with the Cell as well as the last GPU.
-They'll probably refine the console + the way accessories are used, such as maybe making it where a headset can plug into a controller. They'll probably make it where accessories can ALL support bluetooth (so guitars, and other accessories won't need a dongle).
-HDDs will continue to get cheaper (I see them sticking to a 2.5" one).
-Making the console Software BC from the get go will be easier. If they re-use the Cell, it will probably make it easy for PS3 games to work on it. They'll probably design the PS4 architecture where it can efficiently run a PS2 emulator.
MS was able to do a lot of trial and error with Xbox, that really helped make 360 better. The same will probably happen with PS4.
[quote name='HeadRusch']
LAIR: laugh[/quote]
Factor 5 wanted to make a game for PS3 and Sony went ahead and published it. Sony didn't even mention it at E3 2007 because they knew it didn't turn out good. Why do you think Sony has completely cut Factor 5 from making any more games for PS3? it's because they didn't do Lair right. If you want to talk about bombs, let me bring up MS publishing Fuzion Frenzy 2, Vampire Rain stateside, Azurik, Nightcaster, and many others.
Best platformer this gen. And guess what, it has sold 1 million copies worldwide.
It's the best game this generation. Awesome storyline.
The game averages 95% at Gamerankings, higher than any other game this year on next gen consoles. Media Molecule won the best developer of 2008 award on Spike. The game is fantastic.
First off, the developers changed to Slant 6, a developer of mostly PSP games. Zipper Interactive is making MAG on PS3, which looks sweet (they preferred to no longer work with SOCOM). SCEA only had a SOCOM sequel made to please JUST the SOCOM fans. The SOCOM fans wanted a game more so like the 1st/2nd, and that's how Confrontation is. The game dropped the single player since most everyone said the single player in SOCOM was boring and only played online. SOCOM Confrontation was NOT intended to be one of their big budget, main games. It was intended to be a PS3 SOCOM to please its fanbase, that's all.
Most SOCOM fans would say it's the best SOCOM since SOCOM 1/2 on PS2.
Wipeout HD is a fantastic game. How dare you say bad things about it. The team at Sony Liverpool was focused on making Wipeout Pulse, then moved to Wipeout HD. They made it to boosts the amount of downloadable games. It has been rumored that they plan on a full blown retail game in the future, but Wipeout HD was made to please fans, kind of like SOCOM.
God of War 1 launched in 2005. God of War II launched in 2005. Since the development team has to start from scratch designing an engine on PS3 hardware (not making a sequel to an engine already there), it's going to take a bit longer than 2 years. Right now it is slated for the end of 2009, which is a reasonable time frame. If God of War II never came out, then it would probably be out by now.
Want to know why GT5 keeps slipping? On PS1, the developers stated it only took 1 day to design a car. That's why they were able to release a sequel to GT1 in only a year. On PS2, designing a car took a week or two. That's why it took longer to release GT4 after GT3. The developer is also a perfectionist when it comes to car design, and by the time you add several cars, it takes a while to release it. Due to so much resources going to car design, that explains why GT4 didn't get online. No damage was there because some car manufacturers do not want to see damage to their cars, and making a realistic damage model was going to delay the game even further.GT5? Date slips more than Pamela Andersons nipples.....may be out in 2010, maybe 2011...hopefully by then it has a damage model thats more like 2008 than 1998, which is has now.
As for GT5, designing a car on PS3 takes a few months to do. They aren't just designing the outside, but the inside too. If you played GT5P, the cars look beyond fantastic, inside and out. When you are trying to design several hundred cars, it will take a while. GT for PSP was canceled just so they could bring more development to GT5. While the developers have gotten the okay from some manufacturers to do damage modeling, there's no guarantee it will be there at launch based on how long it already takes to make a car. Most racing games just slap a car together in a few days and not try to accurately model it, unlike GT.
Sony also has many other great first party games, like Uncharted, Hot Shots Golf, makes the best baseball game around, Resistance series, Buzz! is fun, SingStar is great, MotorStorm: PR is one of the best racers all year, and several great PSN games. Killzone 2, inFAMOUS, White Knight Chronicles, etc. look great for next year.
Last edited by a moderator:
surak
CAGiversary!
I don't see the PS3 as the GameCube of this generation. Truthfully, it's because I really wasn't impressed with the GC at all during its lifespan. Its library was pretty pathetically first-party biased, with most buying it mainly for its Nth iteration of franchise games. The Wii's game selection hasn't shown any signs of bettering that. It was not geared towards mature gamers and it's functionality beyond playing games was close to nil (remember that at the time, many people easily justified paying more for a PS2 to play DVDs than paying for the GC, the cheapest of the 3 consoles). The only difference this time around is that Nintendo expanded its definition of games to include "stuff any easily impressed idiot can do just by waggling a controller around" and got a huge new audience that probably hadn't paid attention to a video game since Pong.
Sales-wise, it's too early in the life-cycle to say whether the PS3 will completely sink. Unfortunately publicignoranceperception is a powerful thing and just people believing the PS3 is a failure will have a severely negative effect on its marketshare. The PS3 seems more similar to the original Xbox. Hardcore gamers want it, but it has more power than the mainstream thinks they need/want to pay for. Though I doubt Sony kills it as quickly and prematurely as MS.
Sales-wise, it's too early in the life-cycle to say whether the PS3 will completely sink. Unfortunately public
I've got to give major kudos to Microsoft this generation, despite their abysmal quality control when it comes to hardware. They've really done their homework, building on the original Xbox's strong points while focusing a lot of effort at shoring up the original Xbox's major weakness, the total lack of Japanese developer support. Scoring the Grand Theft Auto and Final Fantasy series really hit Sony where it hurts, and even smaller acquisitions like the Katamari series have helped to dispel Microsoft's "frat boys only/all FPS and sports" image.
Meanwhile Sony's entire plan seems to have been, "They will buy anything that says PlayStation on it." And when the flaws in that brilliant plan started to become exposed, they responded by axing one of their biggest selling points, backwards compatibility with the most important (and still growing) game library in existence. Plus pouring years and who knows how much money into developing what turns out to be a glorified chat room. Don't worry though, "it has potential, it's going to awesome, just wait until next year!" Which seems to be the universal PS3 refrain.
Meanwhile Sony's entire plan seems to have been, "They will buy anything that says PlayStation on it." And when the flaws in that brilliant plan started to become exposed, they responded by axing one of their biggest selling points, backwards compatibility with the most important (and still growing) game library in existence. Plus pouring years and who knows how much money into developing what turns out to be a glorified chat room. Don't worry though, "it has potential, it's going to awesome, just wait until next year!" Which seems to be the universal PS3 refrain.
First of all im not reading the CNN article not because of the first poster(thanks for posting) but its gonna seem like its going to bash the ps3 in many ways. And all I have to say is this:
The ps3 is better in hardware, sucks at exclusive games, is behind as far as features.
Does that mean its going to sink? No, ps3 still has time to warm up and get to where the 360 is and I think they will. I own all three systems and they all have there ups and downs even though i love my 360 the most. But I don't think ps3 is sinking.
Blu Ray you say? Well its for the HD guru's and I have a 1080I set and I can tell the difference. If i really really want something to look extremly good ill grab it on blu ray. PS3 has alot going for it and it will be around for awhile before they ditch it.
But IMO i think the biggest thing to help the ps3 would be just to release a bunch of exclusive games. I don't know why they are so low on exclusives like well known ones.
The ps3 is better in hardware, sucks at exclusive games, is behind as far as features.
Does that mean its going to sink? No, ps3 still has time to warm up and get to where the 360 is and I think they will. I own all three systems and they all have there ups and downs even though i love my 360 the most. But I don't think ps3 is sinking.
Blu Ray you say? Well its for the HD guru's and I have a 1080I set and I can tell the difference. If i really really want something to look extremly good ill grab it on blu ray. PS3 has alot going for it and it will be around for awhile before they ditch it.
But IMO i think the biggest thing to help the ps3 would be just to release a bunch of exclusive games. I don't know why they are so low on exclusives like well known ones.
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='Ryuukishi']Meanwhile Sony's entire plan seems to have been, "They will buy anything that says PlayStation on it." And when the flaws in that brilliant plan started to become exposed, they responded by axing one of their biggest selling points, backwards compatibility with the most important (and still growing) game library in existence. Plus pouring years and who knows how much money into developing what turns out to be a glorified chat room. Don't worry though, "it has potential, it's going to awesome, just wait until next year!" Which seems to be the universal PS3 refrain.[/QUOTE]The thing is, while you continue talking about PS3, you don't actually own one. Not trying to be mean here, but PS3 is actually a lot better than what non-owners would think. I'm being quite serious, because I was a bit unsure about buying a PS3 myself, but once I got one and explored many of its features and played games over time on it, I absolutely love it. Just going by what you hear in the media/forums/etc. is NOT the same thing.
But like I said, I actually SUPPORT the decision to remove PS2 BC. If you were in Sony's position of needing to lower the pricetag to the $400 range, and removing PS2 BC was able to shave off $60-$100, I bet you would have done the same thing (It was kind of like they took a PS2 console and merged it into a PS3. Due to more power being dissipated by the PS3, components that could withstand higher wattage had to be used). I will say this over and over again, even if PS3 was NOT using Blu-ray, the price could STILL not be $400 including PS2 BC (the Cell + RSX are more than half of the PS3 manufacturing costs).
The 2nd reason why PS2 BC was removed was because Sony still takes a loss (although no where near as big as PS3 at launch) on every console sold. If someone buys a PS3 to ONLY play PS2 games (like buying used ones and such), Sony is technically losing money on that person. If someone buys a PS3 for PS3 games mostly (buying 2-3 PS3 games, especially a first party game), Sony gains. The PS2 still makes Sony a profit, so why not continue to have those people who want to play PS2 games stick to PS2 (because they make money on every PS2 console sold). Regardless, early on people will want PS2 BC because the number of games on a console is low. Right now, there are so many PS3 games I want to play, I stopped playing my PS2 and could careless about PS2 BC. I never use it and plan to buy a non-BC PS3 when I get a job.
Also, Home just isn't a chat room. It's also used to meet with friends, then together go into online games as a party. While it only has one game supporting it, throughout 2009, more games will support it. Home is technically in a beta phase, not final (where features are still being added and they are still working with the network). At the moment it may be more of a chatroom, but down the road it will most likely evolve into more. Just compare the XMB from launch until now.
There's actually a pretty good number of PS3 exclusives (MrCapcom) IMO. I made a post about what I felt about various games on another forum. They might not all appeal to you, but this is what I like:
But like I said, I actually SUPPORT the decision to remove PS2 BC. If you were in Sony's position of needing to lower the pricetag to the $400 range, and removing PS2 BC was able to shave off $60-$100, I bet you would have done the same thing (It was kind of like they took a PS2 console and merged it into a PS3. Due to more power being dissipated by the PS3, components that could withstand higher wattage had to be used). I will say this over and over again, even if PS3 was NOT using Blu-ray, the price could STILL not be $400 including PS2 BC (the Cell + RSX are more than half of the PS3 manufacturing costs).
The 2nd reason why PS2 BC was removed was because Sony still takes a loss (although no where near as big as PS3 at launch) on every console sold. If someone buys a PS3 to ONLY play PS2 games (like buying used ones and such), Sony is technically losing money on that person. If someone buys a PS3 for PS3 games mostly (buying 2-3 PS3 games, especially a first party game), Sony gains. The PS2 still makes Sony a profit, so why not continue to have those people who want to play PS2 games stick to PS2 (because they make money on every PS2 console sold). Regardless, early on people will want PS2 BC because the number of games on a console is low. Right now, there are so many PS3 games I want to play, I stopped playing my PS2 and could careless about PS2 BC. I never use it and plan to buy a non-BC PS3 when I get a job.
Also, Home just isn't a chat room. It's also used to meet with friends, then together go into online games as a party. While it only has one game supporting it, throughout 2009, more games will support it. Home is technically in a beta phase, not final (where features are still being added and they are still working with the network). At the moment it may be more of a chatroom, but down the road it will most likely evolve into more. Just compare the XMB from launch until now.
There's actually a pretty good number of PS3 exclusives (MrCapcom) IMO. I made a post about what I felt about various games on another forum. They might not all appeal to you, but this is what I like:
[quote name='The Mana Knight']
There's actually a pretty good number of PS3 exclusives (MrCapcom) IMO. I made a post about what I felt about various games on another forum. They might not all appeal to you, but this is what I like:[/quote]
You make a point but it just seemed like when I first got my ps3 all I kept seeing was LBP and MGS4. Although I knew those other games you barely hear about them.
Oh and the ps3 network speed is garbage it makes me fear multiplayer.
There's actually a pretty good number of PS3 exclusives (MrCapcom) IMO. I made a post about what I felt about various games on another forum. They might not all appeal to you, but this is what I like:[/quote]
You make a point but it just seemed like when I first got my ps3 all I kept seeing was LBP and MGS4. Although I knew those other games you barely hear about them.
Oh and the ps3 network speed is garbage it makes me fear multiplayer.
B
Blackout
Guest
[quote name='The Mana Knight']
But like I said, I actually SUPPORT the decision to remove PS2 BC. If you were in Sony's position of needing to lower the pricetag to the $400 range, and removing PS2 BC was able to shave off $60-$100, I bet you would have done the same thing (It was kind of like they took a PS2 console and merged it into a PS3. Due to more power being dissipated by the PS3, components that could withstand higher wattage had to be used). I will say this over and over again, even if PS3 was NOT using Blu-ray, the price could STILL not be $400 including PS2 BC (the Cell + RSX are more than half of the PS3 manufacturing costs).
The 2nd reason why PS2 BC was removed was because Sony still takes a loss (although no where near as big as PS3 at launch) on every console sold. If someone buys a PS3 to ONLY play PS2 games (like buying used ones and such), Sony is technically losing money on that person. If someone buys a PS3 for PS3 games mostly (buying 2-3 PS3 games, especially a first party game), Sony gains. The PS2 still makes Sony a profit, so why not continue to have those people who want to play PS2 games stick to PS2 (because they make money on every PS2 console sold). Regardless, early on people will want PS2 BC because the number of games on a console is low. Right now, there are so many PS3 games I want to play, I stopped playing my PS2 and could careless about PS2 BC. I never use it and plan to buy a non-BC PS3 when I get a job.
[/quote]
I used to be with you there Mana but I did a complete 360. The PS3 needs BC. That is such a strong point for them, that they have all these PS1/PS2/ AND PS3 games that could be played. That is huge IMO. I used to not give a rats ass about PS2 games anymore, but I have a huge PS2 collection. My PS2 which I bought in 2001 somehow got a 2nd DRE problem (had sent in to Sony 4-5 years ago and they fixed it). So I sold it on Craigslist on the cheap. Now I can't play most of the games because I don't have a PS2. What am I supposed to do? Bend over for Sony some more and buy another system? No way. I can't play the games that do work because there is no memory card slot and I don't have the memory card adapater. Plus for example, games like Yakuza 1 (which I never beat) I can't play on PS3 because it just stops working after a certain chapter. If there's a new PS2 game I want or an old one I missed I guess I'm out of luck. I mean really, are they losing THAT much money they had to take it out? As far as I'm concerned I'm pretty much screwed, and will have to buy another PS2 system somewhere down the line, which is basically like flushing money down the toilet.
But like I said, I actually SUPPORT the decision to remove PS2 BC. If you were in Sony's position of needing to lower the pricetag to the $400 range, and removing PS2 BC was able to shave off $60-$100, I bet you would have done the same thing (It was kind of like they took a PS2 console and merged it into a PS3. Due to more power being dissipated by the PS3, components that could withstand higher wattage had to be used). I will say this over and over again, even if PS3 was NOT using Blu-ray, the price could STILL not be $400 including PS2 BC (the Cell + RSX are more than half of the PS3 manufacturing costs).
The 2nd reason why PS2 BC was removed was because Sony still takes a loss (although no where near as big as PS3 at launch) on every console sold. If someone buys a PS3 to ONLY play PS2 games (like buying used ones and such), Sony is technically losing money on that person. If someone buys a PS3 for PS3 games mostly (buying 2-3 PS3 games, especially a first party game), Sony gains. The PS2 still makes Sony a profit, so why not continue to have those people who want to play PS2 games stick to PS2 (because they make money on every PS2 console sold). Regardless, early on people will want PS2 BC because the number of games on a console is low. Right now, there are so many PS3 games I want to play, I stopped playing my PS2 and could careless about PS2 BC. I never use it and plan to buy a non-BC PS3 when I get a job.
[/quote]
I used to be with you there Mana but I did a complete 360. The PS3 needs BC. That is such a strong point for them, that they have all these PS1/PS2/ AND PS3 games that could be played. That is huge IMO. I used to not give a rats ass about PS2 games anymore, but I have a huge PS2 collection. My PS2 which I bought in 2001 somehow got a 2nd DRE problem (had sent in to Sony 4-5 years ago and they fixed it). So I sold it on Craigslist on the cheap. Now I can't play most of the games because I don't have a PS2. What am I supposed to do? Bend over for Sony some more and buy another system? No way. I can't play the games that do work because there is no memory card slot and I don't have the memory card adapater. Plus for example, games like Yakuza 1 (which I never beat) I can't play on PS3 because it just stops working after a certain chapter. If there's a new PS2 game I want or an old one I missed I guess I'm out of luck. I mean really, are they losing THAT much money they had to take it out? As far as I'm concerned I'm pretty much screwed, and will have to buy another PS2 system somewhere down the line, which is basically like flushing money down the toilet.
[quote name='The Mana Knight']The thing is, while you continue talking about PS3, you don't actually own one. Not trying to be mean here, but PS3 is actually a lot better than what non-owners would think.[/quote]
Yeah, that's the thing, despite my disappointment with Sony, I remain a PlayStation fan. I still think the DualShock is the best controller ever, and games like MGS4, FFvsXIII, and Valkyria Chronicles are still must-play exclusives for me. I'll pick up a PS3 eventually and I'm sure I'll have a ton of fun with it. I just feel like it could have been a lot more than it is, if Sony had made some less boneheaded choices. And I completely understand why so many other gamers have jumped ship to Microsoft instead.
Yeah, that's the thing, despite my disappointment with Sony, I remain a PlayStation fan. I still think the DualShock is the best controller ever, and games like MGS4, FFvsXIII, and Valkyria Chronicles are still must-play exclusives for me. I'll pick up a PS3 eventually and I'm sure I'll have a ton of fun with it. I just feel like it could have been a lot more than it is, if Sony had made some less boneheaded choices. And I completely understand why so many other gamers have jumped ship to Microsoft instead.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
It's only a sinking ship if you are looking for Xbox 360 or Wii exclusives.
Financially, it's not a breadwinner for Sony directly. Blu-Ray dominance is Sony's reward for the costly PS3.
In the coming years HDTVs will continue to fall in price and new TV owners and families will want Blu-Ray players. What's this? a $199 or $299 Blu-Ray player that plays video games for the kids? Perfect.
Sony made a good business move at the expense of a robust current-generation platform. They've set the stage for a profitable future.
The PS3's real enemy was HD-DVD, not Wii or the 360.
I don't currently own a PS3 but I plan to once I finish my PS2 games and the PS3 is $249 or lower.
Financially, it's not a breadwinner for Sony directly. Blu-Ray dominance is Sony's reward for the costly PS3.
In the coming years HDTVs will continue to fall in price and new TV owners and families will want Blu-Ray players. What's this? a $199 or $299 Blu-Ray player that plays video games for the kids? Perfect.
Sony made a good business move at the expense of a robust current-generation platform. They've set the stage for a profitable future.
The PS3's real enemy was HD-DVD, not Wii or the 360.
I don't currently own a PS3 but I plan to once I finish my PS2 games and the PS3 is $249 or lower.
This is what it's like every day at GameStop:
Customer wants PS3. Goes with 360 because it is cheaper. Another customer wants a PS3. Finds out it won't play their PS2 games, proceeds to throw shit fit and leave.
It's also weird, once I explain it won't play PS2 games, they ask "does it still have Blu-ray?" So the Blu-ray player is in fact a purchase point, though I'm sure they'll go home and talk about how amazing it looks on their 26 inch SDTV.
I'd hate to say it, but Sony is totally wrong on the PS2 BC. They really should've kept it as the $500 SKU. They're also getting
ed on the price, a majority of the consumers at GameStop now are the families looking for a new game system. They had a PS2, and want a PS3, but once they see the price they go with the Arcade. We actually sold out of our stock of 160GB because of the $50 giftcard deal this weekend, so it's obvious that the demand is there.
It also doesn't help that there isn't a Crash game, because a lot of people still associate him with PS, and it definitely makes them regret their purchase if his game isn't available.
It's amazing that MS is bragging about the 360 outselling the PS3 3-1 on Black Friday. At our store it had to be atleast 12 to 1. I'd be worried if their system, with all its BF deals, couldn't outsell the PS3 atleast 6-1.
Customer wants PS3. Goes with 360 because it is cheaper. Another customer wants a PS3. Finds out it won't play their PS2 games, proceeds to throw shit fit and leave.
It's also weird, once I explain it won't play PS2 games, they ask "does it still have Blu-ray?" So the Blu-ray player is in fact a purchase point, though I'm sure they'll go home and talk about how amazing it looks on their 26 inch SDTV.
I'd hate to say it, but Sony is totally wrong on the PS2 BC. They really should've kept it as the $500 SKU. They're also getting
ed on the price, a majority of the consumers at GameStop now are the families looking for a new game system. They had a PS2, and want a PS3, but once they see the price they go with the Arcade. We actually sold out of our stock of 160GB because of the $50 giftcard deal this weekend, so it's obvious that the demand is there.It also doesn't help that there isn't a Crash game, because a lot of people still associate him with PS, and it definitely makes them regret their purchase if his game isn't available.
It's amazing that MS is bragging about the 360 outselling the PS3 3-1 on Black Friday. At our store it had to be atleast 12 to 1. I'd be worried if their system, with all its BF deals, couldn't outsell the PS3 atleast 6-1.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
When the new Xbox launches, Sony will unveil a fully backward compatible PS3 for $199. I'm not an expert, this is just my shot/hope in the dark.
I would get an Xbox, however I want the Sony exclusives not Microsoft's.
I would get an Xbox, however I want the Sony exclusives not Microsoft's.
The PS1 was too expensive when it came to the market.. much like the PS3. It took a while for it to catch on. I didnt want a PS1 until about it had been about for almost 2 years, it was totally off my radar. Also, it was too much money for me to even consider making the purchase. Some products have quick market penetration and some other products are a bit slower to reach mass market appeal. I think that it'll happen in time. Will PS3 surpass the 360... or Wii.. maybe not.. but the point is that the PS3 will start to churn a profit for Sony. Also, PS3 has already put Sony in a position where they should see years of profits from the fact that PS3 helped put blu ray on the map.
Also, look at what the 360 has done to entice customers during the holidays, Sony has done nothing, no holiday packages, hardly any deals, no freebies, no 10/20 free blu rays. On Black Friday people want to get a good deal. No one wants to pay the same price for a product on Blk Friday, as it was the week before. I don't worry about Sony because from what I can see, there's no sense of urgency, no worries, the marketing is lackluster.
Also, look at what the 360 has done to entice customers during the holidays, Sony has done nothing, no holiday packages, hardly any deals, no freebies, no 10/20 free blu rays. On Black Friday people want to get a good deal. No one wants to pay the same price for a product on Blk Friday, as it was the week before. I don't worry about Sony because from what I can see, there's no sense of urgency, no worries, the marketing is lackluster.
Dr. Strangepork
CAGiversary!
I waited to get a PS3 until it came with three things bundled together:
1) A controller with rumble (DS3)
2) A triple A pack in game (MGS4)
3) Backwards compatibility -
So I got the MGS4 bundle. Six month later I couldn't care less about BC.
I only had a few PS2 games but desperately wanted to play Gran Turismo 4 and Guitar Hero II on my new PS3. Unfortunately, GT4 runs like crap on a PS3 with software BC and last I heard there were no guitars that would work with a PS3 and GHII. (I'm on to Rock Band 2 now).
Otherwise, I am very satisfied. Beyond satisfied really. It is a great system with great games and serves as my media hub to boot.
I was one of those guys that had/has an original Xbox and I remember how sad I was when MS basically abandoned it early to get the 360 out early (at the expense of quality). I just hope I don't end up on the short end again with the PS3.
But for now, I'm having too much fun playing great games to worry about it.
1) A controller with rumble (DS3)
2) A triple A pack in game (MGS4)
3) Backwards compatibility -
So I got the MGS4 bundle. Six month later I couldn't care less about BC.
I only had a few PS2 games but desperately wanted to play Gran Turismo 4 and Guitar Hero II on my new PS3. Unfortunately, GT4 runs like crap on a PS3 with software BC and last I heard there were no guitars that would work with a PS3 and GHII. (I'm on to Rock Band 2 now).
Otherwise, I am very satisfied. Beyond satisfied really. It is a great system with great games and serves as my media hub to boot.
I was one of those guys that had/has an original Xbox and I remember how sad I was when MS basically abandoned it early to get the 360 out early (at the expense of quality). I just hope I don't end up on the short end again with the PS3.
But for now, I'm having too much fun playing great games to worry about it.
Wow, there are a lot of Sony fanboys in this thread. Sony is laying off 18,000 employees, and is looking at ways to save $1.1 billion before January 31, 2009 and a further $3 billion by their year end in March. The PS3 is not doing well, its Year on Year World Wide sales are down, and the last game that gave it a kick start was MGS4. Mentioning games that sold one million copies, but were expected to sell millions and move consoles is not a success story. Resistance 2 was outsold by Left 4 Dead and sold less than 400,000 copies, and Little Big Planet did not out sell anything. These are all triple "A" titles on the PS3. Every year the exclusive big titles fail to sell consoles (except MGS4). It is time to face facts, Sony is going to come in third this generation.
And guess what: I will still enjoy all the great exclusive games that come out for the PS3 and I am am thankful that it is easy to port Xbox 360 games over to the PS3, because that means that the PS3 will continue to get a good number of releases. Nothing wrong with coming in third. It happened to Nintendo and look what happened this generation. Hopefully Sony has learned their lesson and plans on launching a much cheaper console next generation.
And yes I own a Xbox 360. I also own a PS3 and have purchased over the past year: Resistance 1; Ratchet & Clank; Uncharted; GTA IV; MGS4; SOCOM; Far Cry 2; Little Big Planet; Resistance 2; and Fallout 3. Plus too many Blu-ray movies to count. I own it and I can criticize it.
And guess what: I will still enjoy all the great exclusive games that come out for the PS3 and I am am thankful that it is easy to port Xbox 360 games over to the PS3, because that means that the PS3 will continue to get a good number of releases. Nothing wrong with coming in third. It happened to Nintendo and look what happened this generation. Hopefully Sony has learned their lesson and plans on launching a much cheaper console next generation.
And yes I own a Xbox 360. I also own a PS3 and have purchased over the past year: Resistance 1; Ratchet & Clank; Uncharted; GTA IV; MGS4; SOCOM; Far Cry 2; Little Big Planet; Resistance 2; and Fallout 3. Plus too many Blu-ray movies to count. I own it and I can criticize it.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Well it depends, I think they're staying in third unless MS launches a new console and Sony releases a budget PS3.
MS might have learned from the PS2 however, and they might just keep dropping/pushing the 360.
I don't get why it matters so much to some people that their console "wins".
Personally the PS3 has the most exclusive games I want, with the Wii in second and the 360 in third.
Console wars don't matter if you have your own mind.
MS might have learned from the PS2 however, and they might just keep dropping/pushing the 360.
I don't get why it matters so much to some people that their console "wins".
Personally the PS3 has the most exclusive games I want, with the Wii in second and the 360 in third.
Console wars don't matter if you have your own mind.
I bought a 60gig last summer when they first decided to get rid of the SKU and haven't regretted it. It allowed me to get rid of my PS2 and still play catch up with my backlog and play amazing games like Persona 3 and Persona 4.
I had a buddy NOT buy a PS3 becuase he couldnt find one in the stores that would play his PS2 collection...he just didn't understand (not that saavy of a gamer). All the rest of my friends (except two) bought a 360 becuase of the price point (these are all mid-late 20's gamers with jobs and HDTVs).
I love my PS3, but I have to admit they screwed themselves with the price point and PS2 backwards compatibility if my experiences tell me anything.
I had a buddy NOT buy a PS3 becuase he couldnt find one in the stores that would play his PS2 collection...he just didn't understand (not that saavy of a gamer). All the rest of my friends (except two) bought a 360 becuase of the price point (these are all mid-late 20's gamers with jobs and HDTVs).
I love my PS3, but I have to admit they screwed themselves with the price point and PS2 backwards compatibility if my experiences tell me anything.
I'm confident that Sony is well positioned for the 2009. If the total yearly sales that ManaKinght as produced are true, then there is no reason for anyone to worry about the system. The price point is certainly hurting Sony in this recession economy but I honestly believe that sales will continue to pick up as the price decreases.
Besides, the base model of the 360 is $200. Each subsequent price drop, I believe, will bring in fewer people since those who wanted one will have bought one already.
And the PS3 has the benefit of acting as a (or at the very least the perception of being) a complete media center.
Sony needs to up their advertisement and PR outreach to show how much value the system has over the 360. I'm surprised they didn't release something harping on the 360's reliability issues.
Besides, the base model of the 360 is $200. Each subsequent price drop, I believe, will bring in fewer people since those who wanted one will have bought one already.
And the PS3 has the benefit of acting as a (or at the very least the perception of being) a complete media center.
Sony needs to up their advertisement and PR outreach to show how much value the system has over the 360. I'm surprised they didn't release something harping on the 360's reliability issues.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I bought a PS3 as soon as Bluray won, but I've been regretting it ever since. The only PS3 game I have played is Uncharted. It hasn't been turned on since August and has a thick layer of dust on it. I'm considering selling it.
I don't think anyone will ever know just how bad Sony was hedging everything on Bluray. They literally bet the future of the whole company on it. They bled out gobs and gobs of "incentive" money to get Blu-ray to win, and they won't really recover from that any time soon.
When the PS3 came out Sony bragged that it would be their console for possibly 10 years. They didn't say this because they thought it was so much better than the competition, they said it because they spent over a billion on R&D for that cell processor and they can't afford another system launch any time soon.
It's becoming clear now that there is nothing super special about the cell processor or the PS3 architecture. Anyone, at this point, that still thinks we'll see games that clearly can't be touched by the 360 is fooling themselves.
The next generation is going to be super interesting. Microsoft is going to come out with a new console in the next 2 years. Sony has to hope to god they can make their PS3 last longer than that, because I really don't think they can afford to release another console so soon after the financial titanic PS3 and blu-ray has been for them.
In fact, I think Sony will fall far behind if they can't get either PS3 or Blu-ray to take off like PS2 or DVD.
I don't think anyone will ever know just how bad Sony was hedging everything on Bluray. They literally bet the future of the whole company on it. They bled out gobs and gobs of "incentive" money to get Blu-ray to win, and they won't really recover from that any time soon.
When the PS3 came out Sony bragged that it would be their console for possibly 10 years. They didn't say this because they thought it was so much better than the competition, they said it because they spent over a billion on R&D for that cell processor and they can't afford another system launch any time soon.
It's becoming clear now that there is nothing super special about the cell processor or the PS3 architecture. Anyone, at this point, that still thinks we'll see games that clearly can't be touched by the 360 is fooling themselves.
The next generation is going to be super interesting. Microsoft is going to come out with a new console in the next 2 years. Sony has to hope to god they can make their PS3 last longer than that, because I really don't think they can afford to release another console so soon after the financial titanic PS3 and blu-ray has been for them.
In fact, I think Sony will fall far behind if they can't get either PS3 or Blu-ray to take off like PS2 or DVD.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I bought a PS3 as soon as Bluray won, but I've been regretting it ever since. The only PS3 game I have played is Uncharted. It hasn't been turned on since August and has a thick layer of dust on it. I'm considering selling it. [/QUOTE]
So there are no games at all that interest you in the next couple of months? Just curious, what games are coming down the pipeline for the 360 that pique your curiosity?
While it's certainly irrefutable that blu-ray isn't moving as fast as the DVD format, it is starting to gain some ground; as is evident by The Dark Knight's blu-ray version selling 25% of all copies sold during the release week. (Nearly 3 million copies of the movie were sold on Tuesday, with 600,000 units being sold on Blu-ray.)
Iron Man was also a big success. Now will such trends continue on films that do not really "require" absolute high-def (like date movies) remains to be seen. I personally am skeptical, but I'm starting to see $12 blu-rays in Costco. Sure, they're older movies but I expect prices to continue in price as time goes by.
Any to think that the PS3 will single-handedly destroy PS3 is absurd. You do realize that Sony makes laptops, TVs, movies, music, and more? The company is hurting across the board because of the worldwide recession, and not because of the PS3.
Well, Sony has been supporting the PS2 since it's launch in 2000 which makes it nearly a 10-year life-cycle system. I don't see why the PS3 would be any different and in fact, would expect the system to go out further due to diminishing returns of processing power and what people can actually discern.
The architecture certainly is an unweildy mistress, but hopefully architecture tools will come out to make it easier.
Remember how hard the PS2 was to program for, but everyone made do a couple years into its life cycle? It's definitely in Sony's best interest to help the development community and such commitment is beginning to bear fruit I believe.
Tech companies around the world are starting to use Cell technology in their new products.
For example[/rul], Toshiba is considering producing HDTVs using Cell. They have already presented a system to decode 48 standard definition MPEG-2 streams simultaneously on a 1920×1080 screen. This can enable a viewer to choose a channel based on dozens of thumbnail videos displayed simultaneously on the screen.
It's also being used in next generation computer servers and supercomputing from IBM.
I love how people are always so doom and gloom about the PS3. It's always been positioned as a long-term player whose value will gradually be realized as time goes by. Does everyone forget that the PS3 was outselling the 360 for several months earlier in the summer? We have numerous posts of people looking for PS3s but couldn't find one in stores since they had sold out.
Does the PS3 have significant hurdles in the future? You betcha, especially if Sony is unable to effectively communicate the system's value and economy remains tight.
Will it be the #1 console this generation? Extremely unlikely.
Will it turn a profit for Sony? With a fair amount of certainty, assuming a long enough life-cycle.
Will games come out for the system that I will enjoy playing? Without a doubt & Most definitely.
I personally urge patience. Let the dust settle from this holiday season and at least one quarter afterwards before anyone starts digging anyone a grave.
Personally, I'd much rather support the PS3 than the 360, which I believe will be run out by the 720 in the next two years. I have little faith that MS will actually support this system for more than 6 years before they come out with their own Wii.
And Thrustbucket: We're definitely all entitled to our own opinions. But seriously, do some research before you start spouting out such claims like "clear now that there is nothing super special about the cell processor" or "They literally bet the future of the whole company on it." It does nothing to benefit the discussion if you have nothing to back it up besides your "hunch."
So there are no games at all that interest you in the next couple of months? Just curious, what games are coming down the pipeline for the 360 that pique your curiosity?
While it's certainly irrefutable that blu-ray isn't moving as fast as the DVD format, it is starting to gain some ground; as is evident by The Dark Knight's blu-ray version selling 25% of all copies sold during the release week. (Nearly 3 million copies of the movie were sold on Tuesday, with 600,000 units being sold on Blu-ray.)
Iron Man was also a big success. Now will such trends continue on films that do not really "require" absolute high-def (like date movies) remains to be seen. I personally am skeptical, but I'm starting to see $12 blu-rays in Costco. Sure, they're older movies but I expect prices to continue in price as time goes by.
Any to think that the PS3 will single-handedly destroy PS3 is absurd. You do realize that Sony makes laptops, TVs, movies, music, and more? The company is hurting across the board because of the worldwide recession, and not because of the PS3.
Well, Sony has been supporting the PS2 since it's launch in 2000 which makes it nearly a 10-year life-cycle system. I don't see why the PS3 would be any different and in fact, would expect the system to go out further due to diminishing returns of processing power and what people can actually discern.
The architecture certainly is an unweildy mistress, but hopefully architecture tools will come out to make it easier.
Remember how hard the PS2 was to program for, but everyone made do a couple years into its life cycle? It's definitely in Sony's best interest to help the development community and such commitment is beginning to bear fruit I believe.
Tech companies around the world are starting to use Cell technology in their new products.
For example[/rul], Toshiba is considering producing HDTVs using Cell. They have already presented a system to decode 48 standard definition MPEG-2 streams simultaneously on a 1920×1080 screen. This can enable a viewer to choose a channel based on dozens of thumbnail videos displayed simultaneously on the screen.
It's also being used in next generation computer servers and supercomputing from IBM.
I love how people are always so doom and gloom about the PS3. It's always been positioned as a long-term player whose value will gradually be realized as time goes by. Does everyone forget that the PS3 was outselling the 360 for several months earlier in the summer? We have numerous posts of people looking for PS3s but couldn't find one in stores since they had sold out.
Does the PS3 have significant hurdles in the future? You betcha, especially if Sony is unable to effectively communicate the system's value and economy remains tight.
Will it be the #1 console this generation? Extremely unlikely.
Will it turn a profit for Sony? With a fair amount of certainty, assuming a long enough life-cycle.
Will games come out for the system that I will enjoy playing? Without a doubt & Most definitely.
I personally urge patience. Let the dust settle from this holiday season and at least one quarter afterwards before anyone starts digging anyone a grave.
Personally, I'd much rather support the PS3 than the 360, which I believe will be run out by the 720 in the next two years. I have little faith that MS will actually support this system for more than 6 years before they come out with their own Wii.
And Thrustbucket: We're definitely all entitled to our own opinions. But seriously, do some research before you start spouting out such claims like "clear now that there is nothing super special about the cell processor" or "They literally bet the future of the whole company on it." It does nothing to benefit the discussion if you have nothing to back it up besides your "hunch."
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Strangepork
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Zyzomys']Wow, there are a lot of Sony fanboys in this thread. [/quote]
Well, this is a PS3 forum. Are you really surprised?
Well, this is a PS3 forum. Are you really surprised?
Teh Nitwit
CAGiversary!
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't think anyone will ever know just how bad Sony was hedging everything on Bluray. They literally bet the future of the whole company on it. They bled out gobs and gobs of "incentive" money to get Blu-ray to win, and they won't really recover from that any time soon.[/quote]
Your baseless claims of Sony spending gobs of "incentive" money to make bluray win makes you sound like a jaded hddvd fanboy. You imply that PS3 doesn't have (m)any good games. You dont' have a PSN in your profile.
I call a bluff. You don't really have a PS3 and you're here to troll.
Your baseless claims of Sony spending gobs of "incentive" money to make bluray win makes you sound like a jaded hddvd fanboy. You imply that PS3 doesn't have (m)any good games. You dont' have a PSN in your profile.
I call a bluff. You don't really have a PS3 and you're here to troll.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
McCarthyism?
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Ecofreak']So there are no games at all that interest you in the next couple of months? Just curious, what games are coming down the pipeline for the 360 that pique your curiosity?[/quote]
Really nothing of interest for me that's exclusive for either platform that's coming out. But I had a lot more invested into the 360 by the time I bought a PS3 for a movie player. All my friends and family have 360 and are on my friends list, so that weighs a lot heavier than God of War 3 (the only exclusive I might be interested in).
You have to remember, Sony invested something like 2 billion in Cell research alone. Then they spent nearly 1 billion in fluffy incentives to studios to get Blu-Ray to win. No company, no matter the size, can afford to put that many eggs in two baskets without depending on them a great deal for overall company success.
The PS2 was a runaway success that will likely never be repeated, that's an important point to accept. The PS3 has cost Sony so much money, and they still lose so much money on the hardware, that they releasing another console in the next two years would be near suicide.
They will have no choice but to try and convince people that buying a PS3 is a better idea than Microsoft's next console for at least 2 years of the "720's" life.
I am certainly not arguing that Cell architecture isn't awesome and can and will be used in many devices in the future. Nor would I argue it has awesome potential.
But I always have, and still do, question Sony's faith in Cell for games. There is still no reason that they have yet provided that it was a good investment for games, especially using version 1.0 of any architecture. It's clear they simply wanted to use Cell because they had invested so much in it already.
Those months in the summer = MGS4: The PS3's single biggest exclusive gun in it's arsenal, which has now already been fired.
Not to mention insane sales at the time.
I bought my PS3 first of June because of a Best Buy $100 gift card deal they had, so I guess I contributed to those statistics.
I was a MASSIVE Sony fanboy with PS1 and PS2. I hated Xbox, even though I was the Xbox QA lead for my company at it's apex. I hated the idea of the 360 even more. But 9 months after 360's launch, after seeing what it could do, and witnessing a mudslide of Sony lies and shitty tactics across many technologies, I decided to buy a 360 and haven't looked back.
Um ok. The Sony fanboy's, for the first year of the PS3's existence, excused it's same-as-360 graphics on the technology being so new, as I'm sure you know. So how much more time needs to pass before the "time" excuse runs dry? Even Sony published titles with gaggles of money behind them haven't shown the "true power" of the PS3. Seriously? You still believe two years from now we'll see something earth shattering that "truly proves the PS3 is far beyond 360"? Seriously?
Yes, my discourse on Sony betting the farm on Blu-ray is a hunch, but not just my own. Many published analysits have been saying the same thing for a year now. It's still a hunch though.
My Cell/PS3 power "hunches" are based on facts. Based on games released and in everyones hands. Your assumptions it's true power is yet unlocked are based on faith and hope.
Really nothing of interest for me that's exclusive for either platform that's coming out. But I had a lot more invested into the 360 by the time I bought a PS3 for a movie player. All my friends and family have 360 and are on my friends list, so that weighs a lot heavier than God of War 3 (the only exclusive I might be interested in).
I still don't think Blu-ray will ever replace DVD's popularity. And I do think Sony was betting it would (using PS2/DVD logic).
Of course I realize that. I do not think that the PS3 alone can sink Sony even if it was a dismal failure (it isn't). But I do think both the PS3 and Blu-ray together, are so depended on by Sony that a dismal failure of both (hypothetically) could mortally wound Sony.
You have to remember, Sony invested something like 2 billion in Cell research alone. Then they spent nearly 1 billion in fluffy incentives to studios to get Blu-Ray to win. No company, no matter the size, can afford to put that many eggs in two baskets without depending on them a great deal for overall company success.
The PS2 was a runaway success that will likely never be repeated, that's an important point to accept. The PS3 has cost Sony so much money, and they still lose so much money on the hardware, that they releasing another console in the next two years would be near suicide.
They will have no choice but to try and convince people that buying a PS3 is a better idea than Microsoft's next console for at least 2 years of the "720's" life.
There was also 25 million PS2's in homes at that time, which was one hell of an incentive for a developer to focus resources on squeezing it's lemons.
I am certainly not arguing that Cell architecture isn't awesome and can and will be used in many devices in the future. Nor would I argue it has awesome potential.
But I always have, and still do, question Sony's faith in Cell for games. There is still no reason that they have yet provided that it was a good investment for games, especially using version 1.0 of any architecture. It's clear they simply wanted to use Cell because they had invested so much in it already.
Those months in the summer = MGS4: The PS3's single biggest exclusive gun in it's arsenal, which has now already been fired.
Not to mention insane sales at the time.
I bought my PS3 first of June because of a Best Buy $100 gift card deal they had, so I guess I contributed to those statistics.
I really don't think the PS3 will ever be a failure. It's already sold too much for that, and Blu Ray will ensure it isn't. But it will certainly not come close to repeating the PS2's success story.
I was a MASSIVE Sony fanboy with PS1 and PS2. I hated Xbox, even though I was the Xbox QA lead for my company at it's apex. I hated the idea of the 360 even more. But 9 months after 360's launch, after seeing what it could do, and witnessing a mudslide of Sony lies and shitty tactics across many technologies, I decided to buy a 360 and haven't looked back.
Um ok. The Sony fanboy's, for the first year of the PS3's existence, excused it's same-as-360 graphics on the technology being so new, as I'm sure you know. So how much more time needs to pass before the "time" excuse runs dry? Even Sony published titles with gaggles of money behind them haven't shown the "true power" of the PS3. Seriously? You still believe two years from now we'll see something earth shattering that "truly proves the PS3 is far beyond 360"? Seriously?
Yes, my discourse on Sony betting the farm on Blu-ray is a hunch, but not just my own. Many published analysits have been saying the same thing for a year now. It's still a hunch though.
My Cell/PS3 power "hunches" are based on facts. Based on games released and in everyones hands. Your assumptions it's true power is yet unlocked are based on faith and hope.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']Your baseless claims of Sony spending gobs of "incentive" money to make bluray win makes you sound like a jaded hddvd fanboy. You imply that PS3 doesn't have (m)any good games. You dont' have a PSN in your profile.
I call a bluff. You don't really have a PS3 and you're here to troll.[/QUOTE]
I never said the PS3 has no good games. Where did I say that? I borrowed, played, and enjoyed Uncharted. Plus MGS 4 and Wipeout look pretty cool.
It's a well known fact that Sony coughed up around 500 million dollars to Warner brothers to end the war (Who was planning to go HD DVD exclusive). Before that, they did similar things to Disney and Fox. Big deal, they had the money to do it, they make a fortune off of all printed Blu Ray titles, so what? That's business.
If I was an HD DVD fanboy, why did I buy a PS3 for blu-ray and own many blu-ray's?
My PSN is Thrustbucket, shockingly enough. Look it up. It should still be there, unless it gets deleted for inactivity.
I call a bluff. You don't really have a PS3 and you're here to troll.[/QUOTE]
I never said the PS3 has no good games. Where did I say that? I borrowed, played, and enjoyed Uncharted. Plus MGS 4 and Wipeout look pretty cool.
It's a well known fact that Sony coughed up around 500 million dollars to Warner brothers to end the war (Who was planning to go HD DVD exclusive). Before that, they did similar things to Disney and Fox. Big deal, they had the money to do it, they make a fortune off of all printed Blu Ray titles, so what? That's business.
If I was an HD DVD fanboy, why did I buy a PS3 for blu-ray and own many blu-ray's?
My PSN is Thrustbucket, shockingly enough. Look it up. It should still be there, unless it gets deleted for inactivity.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Blu-Ray will really take off when they start to offer entire television series on a couple of discs.
Teh Nitwit
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Dr. Strangepork']Well, this is a PS3 forum. Are you really surprised?[/quote]
So anyone that doesn't believe that PS3 is a failure is a Sony fanboy? Count me in then. I believe that PS3's userbase will eventually outgrow xbox2's. I also believe that Wii is popular because it's popular and that eventually people will get bored of it.
So anyone that doesn't believe that PS3 is a failure is a Sony fanboy? Count me in then. I believe that PS3's userbase will eventually outgrow xbox2's. I also believe that Wii is popular because it's popular and that eventually people will get bored of it.
If the PS3 comes out this generation to be in third place, I don't think that they failed, they still put out a great console. PS3 still has a lot of years left before its not the lead Sony platform on the market. The ps3 is being outsold by the 360 and everything's looking good for the 360. I don't think that its totally impossible for Sony to perhaps come out second during this generation. As gamers, we want to see Sony react quickly and drop prices ( I know I do) but Sony is piloting their own ship, they have their own plan, and it seems like they're sticking to it. The Ps3 is going to be a very different product in the next year or two... especially when they release the DVR component, and especially if they can get all PS3 to be BC via software emulation. I'd love to see a PSN store w/ the entire PS2 collection up for sale. A PS3 for 199 w/ voucher for free PSN PS2 games can really turn the tide in a future holiday season. The market changes, so I don't think anyone should be claiming a winner especially between the 360 and PS3 at this time. Its not like the numbers are that far apart either.
Teh Nitwit
CAGiversary!
[quote name='thrustbucket']I never said the PS3 has no good games. Where did I say that? I borrowed, played, and enjoyed Uncharted. Plus MGS 4 and Wipeout look pretty cool.
It's a well known fact that Sony coughed up around 500 million dollars to Warner brothers to end the war (Who was planning to go HD DVD exclusive). Before that, they did similar things to Disney and Fox. Big deal, they had the money to do it, they make a fortune off of all printed Blu Ray titles, so what? That's business.
My PSN is Thrustbucket, shockingly enough. Look it up. It should still be there, unless it gets deleted for inactivity.[/quote]
You never said it, but you implied it. Plus, the things you say about Sony paying off all the studios are all lies, spread by the hddvd fanboys. Fox went bluray because bluray was supposed to be harder to crack. Warner didn't get a dime from Sony to go bluray. You believing this bullshit doesn't add to your credibility.
It's a well known fact that Sony coughed up around 500 million dollars to Warner brothers to end the war (Who was planning to go HD DVD exclusive). Before that, they did similar things to Disney and Fox. Big deal, they had the money to do it, they make a fortune off of all printed Blu Ray titles, so what? That's business.
My PSN is Thrustbucket, shockingly enough. Look it up. It should still be there, unless it gets deleted for inactivity.[/quote]
You never said it, but you implied it. Plus, the things you say about Sony paying off all the studios are all lies, spread by the hddvd fanboys. Fox went bluray because bluray was supposed to be harder to crack. Warner didn't get a dime from Sony to go bluray. You believing this bullshit doesn't add to your credibility.
Predator21281
CAGiversary!
As long as God of War 3 comes out, I will continue to support Sony.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I never said the PS3 has no good games. Where did I say that? I borrowed, played, and enjoyed Uncharted. Plus MGS 4 and Wipeout look pretty cool.
It's a well known fact that Sony coughed up around 500 million dollars to Warner brothers to end the war (Who was planning to go HD DVD exclusive). Before that, they did similar things to Disney and Fox. Big deal, they had the money to do it, they make a fortune off of all printed Blu Ray titles, so what? That's business.
If I was an HD DVD fanboy, why did I buy a PS3 for blu-ray and own many blu-ray's?
My PSN is Thrustbucket, shockingly enough. Look it up. It should still be there, unless it gets deleted for inactivity.[/QUOTE]
Why don't you use your PS3?
It's a well known fact that Sony coughed up around 500 million dollars to Warner brothers to end the war (Who was planning to go HD DVD exclusive). Before that, they did similar things to Disney and Fox. Big deal, they had the money to do it, they make a fortune off of all printed Blu Ray titles, so what? That's business.
If I was an HD DVD fanboy, why did I buy a PS3 for blu-ray and own many blu-ray's?
My PSN is Thrustbucket, shockingly enough. Look it up. It should still be there, unless it gets deleted for inactivity.[/QUOTE]
Why don't you use your PS3?
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Thomas96']If the PS3 comes out this generation to be in third place, I don't think that they failed, they still put out a great console. [/QUOTE]
QFT
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']You never said it, but you implied it. Plus, the things you say about Sony paying off all the studios are all lies, spread by the hddvd fanboys. Fox went bluray because bluray was supposed to be harder to crack. Warner didn't get a dime from Sony to go bluray. You believing this bullshit doesn't add to your credibility.[/QUOTE]
You really have no clue do you.
Actually, yes, you are right about Fox, initially. They chose Blu-Ray for copy protection.
You clearly were not in the thick of it pre CES last January when all the shit hit the fan. Toshiba, HD DVD group, AND Warner Bros had a huge two hour event/party planned. 12 hours before this event, Warner announced Blu-Ray exclusivity and the event was canceled.
In the week that followed in the aftermath, multiple insiders from many company's came out of the woodwork and all corroborated the following:
Dirty tactics all around. All of which is well known now in the nerd-AVSforum hatchery. Deny what you will and call me what you will, if it helps you sleep at night.
QFT
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']You never said it, but you implied it. Plus, the things you say about Sony paying off all the studios are all lies, spread by the hddvd fanboys. Fox went bluray because bluray was supposed to be harder to crack. Warner didn't get a dime from Sony to go bluray. You believing this bullshit doesn't add to your credibility.[/QUOTE]
You really have no clue do you.
Actually, yes, you are right about Fox, initially. They chose Blu-Ray for copy protection.
You clearly were not in the thick of it pre CES last January when all the shit hit the fan. Toshiba, HD DVD group, AND Warner Bros had a huge two hour event/party planned. 12 hours before this event, Warner announced Blu-Ray exclusivity and the event was canceled.
In the week that followed in the aftermath, multiple insiders from many company's came out of the woodwork and all corroborated the following:
- Warner Bros had been bribed enough by Toshiba to go exclusive for X amount of time (not permanently).
- Fox had actually been courted the same way, although Fox told Toshiba/HD DVD that they would only go exclusive if Warner did. This was going to be announced at the big event as well.
- At some point Sony caught wind of this and made a counter offer to Warner that they couldn't refuse. The details of the offer are a closely guarded secret, although those on the other side, knowing what their offer was, said it had to be worth around 500 million. (This is not just in cash handed to them, it's mostly in publishing/distribution incentives)
- The biggest proof of all of this is the fact that most of the big announcement party with Warner Bros was canceled only 12 hours before the show, since Warner no longer had anything to announce for HD DVD.
Dirty tactics all around. All of which is well known now in the nerd-AVSforum hatchery. Deny what you will and call me what you will, if it helps you sleep at night.
- Status
bread's done