Why do so many gamers hate Sony?

[quote name='mykevermin']EDIT: What th'hell y'all doin' respondin' to jer? He's entitled to his opinion, but if someone has an opinion along the lines of "when I shit in my hands it makes my hands warm," there's no real need to respond to it. CUT IT OUT, y'all.[/QUOTE]
Sorry :whistle2:#
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']Really, the non-US/Japan numbers from VG charts beg to differ.
Since non-US/Japan (Others per VGC) sales are 90% EU then I would say you are full of "SHIT."
I realize the price cut allowed the PS3 to slip past 360 sales 10-15% in Europe but overall the PS3 market penetration there is "SHIT."

Let's keep fanboyism down to a minimum. I can say as a PS3 owner that I think it is extremely disappointing as a game system- but not because of it's build quality (which I think is excellent) but because it's game selection and online community is incredibly weak, even taking into account it's only been out a year.
360 still has nearly a 2:1 market share outside US and Japan.
ng_sales.png

http://vgchartz.com/[/quote]

Damn, I shouldn't have listened to the obvious habadashery then. But still half a million 360s in two years? I think even the Game.com sold better then that in America. The US numbers are quite good, but the others number is about equal to the PS3 if given the same amount of time.

One thing that is noticeable is now that the PS3 hit 399, there is a hell of a lot less hate now then there used to be even just a few months ago. The war is going to be interesting the next 1-2 years.
 
[quote name='Paco']The gamecube was basically a disaster from the start. No real mario game, nintendo was still in their arrogant we can make any media we want and rip off the developer stage and so forth.[/QUOTE]

Now, while Nintendo did this in the past, it's a peculiar point to bring up when defending a Blu-Ray equipped console. ;)

And I say that as someone who owns a whole load of BD movies, so I'm quite interested in seeing them succeed. It appears that they will, which makes for an interesting scenario - unless you believe that DVD will be sufficient to last not only through this console generation, but also the next, then you have to discover that, after this generation, Nintendo, MS, and whomever else is in the market at that point in time will all either need to develop their own proprietary storage format (which is not unthinkable, but nevertheless costly), focus solely on digital distribution, or go with BD technology. The latter, of course, will make Sony money for every console and title sold, irrespective of whether it's for their system or the competition. And let's not fool ourselves - between being the #1 console and increasing their profits, Sony could give a fuck about how much goodwill they have.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:lol: Been reading up on your logical fallacies today, eh? [/quote] My job is boring in December. I try and find ways to keep my mind occupied. Some of darknessbear's posts made my brain hurt, so I decided to determine why -- rediscovered my love of logic.

There are two things being argued here (here being this thread, not your post exclusively):
1) The PS3 is an inferior console
2) The PS3 is more difficult to take advantage of in terms of development

I wholly disagree with #1, and can see some evidence of #2 (given the delays of, at least, Stranglehold and Orange Box - are there others as well that are at least 4 weeks separated?).
Click to expand...
All I assert that two will inexorably will lead to one unless the benefits of overcoming the difficulty exceed the cost of 'taking advantage of the potential'. The sole way I can see for that to become true is a larger user base with a high attach rate -- which, IMO, happened with the PS2 because of the DVD movie playback.

The PS2 was comparitivly a bitch to program for, just like it's little brother. Sony is looking for history to repeat itself with the hardware adoption, but that isn't happening... probobly because of their flawed business model.

Nevertheless, the "unwillingness," as you speculate it, of programmers to optimize code may very well exist. Newell did not mince words with his disdain for the PS3 as a console to develop for. Now the problem becomes one of a self-fulfilling prophecy. His treatment of the PS3 Orange Box as a bastard child makes me uncertain about its quality - irrespective of the reviews - and wonder if I'd want to play it/buy it. So, if people don't buy it because they're skeptical of it, and the 360 version outsells it tenfold, the PS3's shortcomings become, at least in part, a developer-created reality.
Click to expand...

The only reality is the developer created reality. If they don't build it, we won't come. This is the sole reason I'm waiting on a PS3, which makes it a slow downward spiral. I'm not willing to 'help Sony out' by buying for potential. I won't buy until there are reasons in front of me to do it.

But that's neither here nor there, I suppose.

What I will say is that, to the best of my knowledge, developers have had their hands on 360 development tools for far longer than PS3 development tools. We also know that the PS3 is a far more complex system to develop for. So your hypothetical 10% is not cut-and-dry as you think (just like "development costs" for a multiplatform title can rarely be understood or partitioned into claims of "this version cost this much"). If that 10% now makes next year's model (and let's be honest, as gamers we're going in the direction that games are almost like automobiles at this point :lol:) far easier to develop, then it's worth it, no?
Click to expand...

I believe my 10% is very generous, and the number would be much, much higher in terms of actual costs if we are ensuring identical quality between A, B, and C.

Now, it might be MUCH less than 10% if you let the quality slip 'just a little bit' (like framerate issues, or load times.. like in Orange Box) -- but then we aren't talking A = B = C then are we? Incremental development doesn't just apply to the PS3, so that benefit would exist for competing platforms as well -- perhaps to a larger degree, initially, for the PS3, as there is no 'wheel' -- but then we get back to what I said above. There has to be a reason to expend the effort other than 'gee that'd be nice for the 100k people are gonna get the game for the PS3'.

Going to Madden again, if they could have optimized the code this year, then making Madden 09 will likely require fewer manhours. And we all know the improvements to Madden from year to year can't be *that* bloody involved. ;)
Click to expand...
Madden is shovelware, it isn't the best example in terms of quality code. BEING shovelware, however makes it a perfect example of what I illustrated above. who needs 60 FPS, when 30 FPS is easier. It isn't THAT much of a reduction in quality, and it takes WAY less time than doing it right.

And you're quite right about developers not being willing to. That's what makes me sick - moreso quality developers halfassing very good games than shitty developers halfassing shovelware. I can at least spot the latter when it's still on the shelf at the store.
Click to expand...

Using your definition of quality developer is (whatever that may be)...

IF a quality developer makes better games for A and B, while the games for C are of lesser quality, wouldn't it then be logical to question the quality of C?

Just to clarify, boredom is driving my arguments in hopes of an interesting conversation, until I can leave for the day.
 
Nobody answered this, so I'll bite.[quote name='zewone']Okay...

If Xbox did so bad then why did they sell more consoles (their very 1st try in videogames) than the Gamecube?[/quote]First, it didn't, really. And if it did, not by much. While it butchered the GC here in the west, that was more-or-less balanced out in Japan.

Second, their marketing was about a hundred million billion times better. Times fifty. Sometimes, I wonder why Nintendo didn't go out of business back when they were making playing cards.
 
[quote name='Rozz']Can we please source these claims?[/QUOTE]


look up Madden 08 glitches 360 on you tube, guys running throuh endzone walls... the one video that was so funny, is when the guy was playing w/ greenbay and farve stars walking off the field during a play and no one can tackle him.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']As usual, you've missed the entire point.[/QUOTE]


no... I understand your point and I agree with you. But since you used Madden as an example, I was compelled to mention that the differences of ps3 and 360 versions of that particular game were not a non issue. But in regards to other games [that I've bought] The Darkness, NBA 2k8[if there was any difference], All pro Football, Stranglehold, the differences [if any] weren't really worth noting.
 
When we talk about Development costs on the PS3 being high, this is something that's not set in stone right? I mean, I'm thinking that as people become more experienced with the hardware the costs of developing on PS3 should go down. Also, the cost should go down some, since Sony dropped the price of the dev kits. [assuming that devs can purchase more].
 
[quote name='Thomas96']When we talk about Development costs on the PS3 being high, this is something that's not set in stone right? I mean, I'm thinking that as people become more experienced with the hardware the costs of developing on PS3 should go down. Also, the cost should go down some, since Sony dropped the price of the dev kits. [assuming that devs can purchase more].[/QUOTE]

I agree the development costs of the PS3 (at least early on) were not so much the kits from Sony as they were the costs of learning the new architecture. As developers get comfortable with the subtleties of the PS3, we'll see less of an emphasis on how "hard" it is to program for and such. (Though some development houses seem to perpetuate the continued barrier of entry, and I think that's simply a sign of laziness.)

There are developers that even early on were questioning the difficulty statements made by other devs... so the "difficult" aspect of making a PS3 game is mostly subjective anyway. With games like R&C, Heavenly Sword, and even ports that are just as good as the 360's (some better in terms of tweaking) the idea that the PS3 gets table-scraps because it's just too hard to develop for is going to become more of a whiny excuse than an actual problem.

Simply because EA won't (at least not yet) devote more resources to making at least acceptably equal ports of some of their titles shows a bias and lack of desire to make a good product. They simply want to cash-in. No problem with making money or desiring to make money, but simply shoveling crap out on a platform and claiming they 'just can't do it' is pure greed. Would they have done the same if the sales situation had been reversed between the consoles? Of course their new honcho seemed less likely to want to give the PS3 sloppy seconds, and expressed more of a commitment to improving the quality of their PS3 releases. That remains to be seen, however. Regardless of the PS3/360 issues that exist at EA, we can see how corporate culture can ruin the art of games quicker than a difficult development environment ever could. (Even Eidos and their Kane and Lynch game is an example of stock-induced release schedules...) I realize that it costs oodles of money to develop a game these days (gone are the garage-built one-man shows of the early days) but strip out the stupid licensing of movies and whatnot, get some decent non-superstar voice talent, and perhaps make games and environments that aren't multi-million dollar spectacles, and we'd see that cost go south quickly. I don't think too many people would balk at truly original environments and such if the game was fun. *shrug*
 
[quote name='Thomas96']When we talk about Development costs on the PS3 being high, this is something that's not set in stone right? I mean, I'm thinking that as people become more experienced with the hardware the costs of developing on PS3 should go down. Also, the cost should go down some, since Sony dropped the price of the dev kits. [assuming that devs can purchase more].[/QUOTE]

You couldn't be more wrong.

Wait, I think I need to repeat myself.

You couldn't be more wrong.
 
Strell is correct. The 20k cost for each development kit was essentially nothing when you compare the millions it cost just to learn everything. It was like the saturn with it's multiple processors.
 
The only thing I hate about Sony is that they discountinued the 60 GB model. I was going to pick one up around the time FFXIII came out so I could play it along with any PS2 games I wanted, but now I won't be able to do that (no sense getting one now as there isnt any exclusives I'd play besides R&C, which will probably be cheaper when FFXIII comes out).
 
wait i just realized are you talking about the brand?

i bet u some 360 owners have a sony brand tv!
owned, this discussion is over.

well have to resort to game consoles made by panasonic now.
 
[quote name='Furashu']wait i just realized are you talking about the brand?

i bet u some 360 owners have a sony brand tv!
owned, this discussion is over.

well have to resort to game consoles made by panasonic now.[/QUOTE]
How old are you?
 
Hey, I loved the GameCube and Saturn, but not until they were far trailing in 3rd and were incredibly cheap. 3rd place is not an insult, it's a fact. Unfortunately it also means reduced 3rd party support and less games. History doesn't lie, folks.

And before myke gets his fingers ready for another personally degrading response that has nothing to do with my point, let's hear something contradicting my statement, thanks.

And Japan doesn't matter anymore. Like zewone said, quit living in the past. The game industry there is Wii/DS. It's long been the trend away from more serious games in Japan and neither the PS3 or 360 have been successes over there. There's plenty more talented western developers that we don't need to rely on broken conventions of the east these days. Even MGS4 is borrowing heavily from western shooter design, for the better. Not to mention Capcom and Namco's increased focus on the west in their libraries.
 
[quote name='jer7583']Hey, I loved the GameCube and Saturn, but not until they were far trailing in 3rd and were incredibly cheap. 3rd place is not an insult, it's a fact. Unfortunately it also means reduced 3rd party support and less games. History doesn't lie, folks.

And before myke gets his fingers ready for another personally degrading response that has nothing to do with my point, let's hear something contradicting my statement, thanks.
[/QUOTE]

Well, in this generation I submit that there is no "third", because the Wii is not competing against the other two consoles, in spite of the hype and sales figures. It, all by itself, is moving the gaming genre out of its narrow focus and into the mainstream with casual games that do not need hardcore commitments or skills to play and enjoy. What we will see in the future, as the PS3 continues to sell is a return to the ping-pong port/first developed games that we are seeing now albeit thus far, the 360 is getting most of the first stabs at the games. And lets not forget the reliability issues of the 360... they are not going unnoticed by the mainstream press now. It was even mentioned on a CNN holiday buying guide.. so you know if that is being mentioned there, the problem isn't merely isolated to the cheapass forums and the dungeons of gamers' homes. :)

The Gamecube was a continuation of Nintendo's lack of 3rd party favorability that started even before the GC was released. I wouldn't have expected it to get much 3rd party support because Nintendo was still "re-learning" how to court developers to their console, which was hyped with only the Big-N's games. The Wii is having some third party issues that will start creeping in later in its lifespan because Japanese developers are seeing that the Wii is financially benefitting Nintendo, but the 3rd parties aren't getting as much of the pie as the installed base would otherwise have contributed. Will it translate into a GC-like library? Who knows? But you can bet Grandma and Grandpa won't care while playing Wii-Bowling on Sunday afternoon.

Microsoft's stable of developers are moving on from their exclusivity ( some, not all), and we're seeing things return to a "Sony isn't screwing up so much anymore" mentality.... with the notable exception of forum posters and morons at Gamestop.

The future's bright for both consoles, and the Wii will continue to move the umbrella of gaming farther and farther out, so in the end, we'll see yet more titles and more products that embrace more than simply the FPS mavens and JRPG nuts.

In general:

Sony's in this for the long haul, and Microsoft is willing to throw money at this segment of the market for decades to come (how long the shareholders will let them is another post entirely)... so we're not seeing the "last gasps" of any game division by a long shot.

And most importantly:

My love of the PS3 console does not translate into love for Sony Corp.... and my love for my 360 does not translate into a warm-fuzzy feeling for Ballmer & co. They're all big boys... and they're used to this battling now. ;) I prefer to enjoy the games.... I'm off to waste time playing Conan. ;)
 
[quote name='Strell']You couldn't be more wrong.

Wait, I think I need to repeat myself.

You couldn't be more wrong.[/QUOTE]


could you explain why I'm wrong... it makes a better point than saying the same thing twice.
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']Well, in this generation I submit that there is no "third", because the Wii is not competing against the other two consoles, in spite of the hype and sales figures. It, all by itself, is moving the gaming genre out of its narrow focus and into the mainstream with casual games that do not need hardcore commitments or skills to play and enjoy.[/quote]fuck, fuck, fuck.

Here comes the Strell Train...
 
[quote name='jer7583']And before myke gets his fingers ready for another personally degrading response that has nothing to do with my point, let's hear something contradicting my statement, thanks.[/quote]

Personally degrading? I merely said that your posts weren't responding to, as they are simply trolling. It's fine if you hate Sony, as you said (though, ironically, I enjoyed your backtracking about "third place is not an insult" in your last post) - but I don't encourage people to respond to useless posts. "I hate Sony" is not worth responding to. Calling the PS3 a "piece of junk" is not worth responding to. You actually try to make points in this one, though. That's some progress.

And Japan doesn't matter anymore.
Click to expand...

I imagine you mean "Japan doesn't matter as much as it used to," because it's just as foolish to claim they don't matter "anymore" (which suggests that they don't matter at all) as it is foolish to act as if Western developers and publishers don't matter, and Japanese support does.

[quote name='Mechafenris']My love of the PS3 console does not translate into love for Sony Corp.... and my love for my 360 does not translate into a warm-fuzzy feeling for Ballmer & co. They're all big boys... and they're used to this battling now. ;) I prefer to enjoy the games.... I'm off to waste time playing Conan. ;)[/QUOTE]

I thought this redundant, but it is, apparently, something that does need to be said. Appreciation for a company is not a dichotomy, or even internally consistent. There are good things and bad things all of the companies have done, there's no denying that. The attitude that gets under my skin is when people either only focus solely on the negative things a company does, focus solely on the positive things a company does, or worst of all, try to interpret and rationalize everything presented about said company in their predetermined view of them as inherently good or evil.
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']Well, in this generation I submit that there is no "third", because the Wii is not competing against the other two consoles, in spite of the hype and sales figures.[/quote] It is patently absurd to say that Nintendo isn't competing against the other two consoles -- Nintendo is playing its own game with it's market strategy, but they are CERTAINLY taking sales from MS and Sony. You would have to be blind to ignore the fact that the vast majority of people on the planet have a limited amount of money to spend on goods and services.

Nintendo did NOT trade the hardcore gamer for the casual gamer -- The Wii draws both.

Nintendo still has a draw to the hardcore gamer with Mario, Metroid, Smash Brothers, Zelda... Nintendo didn't give up their hardcore crowd with their Wii angle -- the proof of that is ALL over CAG.

The Wii isn't competing against the other consoles... Hah... What a silly thing to say.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']It is patently absurd to say that Nintendo isn't competing against the other two consoles -- Nintendo is playing its own game with it's market strategy, but they are CERTAINLY taking sales from MS and Sony. You would have to be blind to ignore the fact that the vast majority of people on the planet have a limited amount of money to spend on goods and services.

Nintendo did NOT trade the hardcore gamer for the casual gamer -- The Wii draws both.

Nintendo still has a draw to the hardcore gamer with Mario, Metroid, Smash Brothers, Zelda... Nintendo didn't give up their hardcore crowd with their Wii angle -- the proof of that is ALL over CAG.

The Wii isn't competing against the other consoles... Hah... What a silly thing to say.[/quote]

The wii isn't competing in the traditional sense of swinging around highly powered graphics cards or three core cpus or SPU's. They're competing, just not graphically. They're using innovative controls, hardcore games, and drawing in a new market. But to be fair, a 250 dollar product is easier to swallow then a 379 dollar product or even a 500 dollar product no matter how good that product is. And for the 360 sales, I wonder if those include people replacing thier 360s by buying second ones or if each repair counts as a 2nd unit. I know that if Sony's Playstation 2 was more reliable it would NEVER EVER EVER sell over 100 million units. Most people I knew were on second, third and even FOURTH units of that console.

Man, I need Unreal Tournament 3.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']It is patently absurd to say that Nintendo isn't competing against the other two consoles -- Nintendo is playing its own game with it's market strategy, but they are CERTAINLY taking sales from MS and Sony. You would have to be blind to ignore the fact that the vast majority of people on the planet have a limited amount of money to spend on goods and services.

Nintendo did NOT trade the hardcore gamer for the casual gamer -- The Wii draws both.

Nintendo still has a draw to the hardcore gamer with Mario, Metroid, Smash Brothers, Zelda... Nintendo didn't give up their hardcore crowd with their Wii angle -- the proof of that is ALL over CAG.

The Wii isn't competing against the other consoles... Hah... What a silly thing to say.[/QUOTE]


Nintendo were the ones who initially (and absurdly) indicated that they weren't competing against the other two companies.

Hardcore, Casual, the only thing that I can point out is that Casual gamers have gotten all the really NEW IPs, and new products as it relates to Wii. Whereas, the "hardcore" simply gets the old traditional games that they're used to. Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Smash, [the same ones you mentioned].
 
Is that a useful point? If they're a new target demographic, they didnt HAVE IPs before. Nintendo hasnt ever been big on new IPs anyway.

They are competing, but not directly as they have been in the past. Either that or demand is so high in the U.S. that the price drops from competitors only appear to have no effect.

They are competing for the core base but no casuals walk into a store looking for a Wii for themselves and end up getting a 360/PS3 instead.
 
[quote name='Paco']The wii isn't competing in the traditional sense of swinging around highly powered graphics cards or three core cpus or SPU's. They're competing, just not graphically.[/quote]

You know whats funny... if you look at the historical 'winner' of most (all?) hardware generations, the winner isn't the highest powered console.

Go ahead, look it up.

Also, look up the 3d0 and Jaguar.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Either that or demand is so high in the U.S. that the price drops from competitors only appear to have no effect.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. Seeing how the PS3 has reached the launch price of the 360, as well as the *ahem* "budget" console (not my term, but one people use for the Wii) selling for beyond that price on eBay, it's clear that the price of a console, and its relative value derived from its MSRP, is pretty much numerically irrelevant. It's more a matter of perspective at this point.

I can see arguments for those saying the Wii is and is not competing. It is, because...well, it fucking is, frankly. It remains to be seen if, as the #1 console of this generation, it gets more multiplatform games (why does it appear to me that the Wii, the #1 console, didn't get CoD4 - yet the DS did?). And, in addition to those games (the CoD, Assassin's Creed, etc.), they begin selling in substantial numbers relative to their marketshare. The inconsistency (i.e., GHIII selling quite well, while Madden 08 sold more copies on the PS3 even) will be quite interesting to watch, and see if it levels out at some point.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']could you explain why I'm wrong... it makes a better point than saying the same thing twice.[/QUOTE]

Because coding a game isn't copying and pasting previous code bits from previous projects.

Sure, you'll get a little better at making a game, and that'll lower costs, but it will be pretty minimal. Halo 3 might be really similar to 2 and 1, but it still took a hell of a lot of time to code, test, code some more, patch, fix bad code, test again, code code code, and then code a few more times. To say nothing of having to create all of the new art, establish a new story and environments, design levels, etc etc.

I don't know why gamers these days have come to think that they can have what they want immediately. It doesn't make any sense. The best chance you had of that situation happening was long ago when games were all 2D, and a few guys in a basement or garage could pump them out every 6 months or so, largely because the art was so minimal and the coding was easier than a multi-core setup.

Even if Sony wanted to have, say, Uncharted 2 out by next year, they'd have to cut a lot of corners and recycle tons of media into the game. That's barely enough time to think up a new scenario, write all the scripts to have said scenario play out, and test out. And even if they DID do that, everyone would complain about how it's essentially the same game.

So it's a no-win situation all around.

There's a limit to how proficient you can get with something, and that depends on how well you know the tools. But even if you had guys working around the clock 24 hours a day for a year, that's not going to let you push out a game any faster. And since you can't have that perfect situation, dev costs are always going to be big, and most likely will rise with each iteration of a game and system.

Crotch, I'm not going to argue with a point I've already laboriously made, especially when it's not going to change someone's mind anyway.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']fuck, fuck, fuck.

Here comes the Strell Train...[/quote]

lol hes gonna post a 21893910380 hour post that points out everything.
strell did u consider becoming a lawyer!?
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']It is patently absurd to say that Nintendo isn't competing against the other two consoles -- Nintendo is playing its own game with it's market strategy, but they are CERTAINLY taking sales from MS and Sony. You would have to be blind to ignore the fact that the vast majority of people on the planet have a limited amount of money to spend on goods and services.

Nintendo did NOT trade the hardcore gamer for the casual gamer -- The Wii draws both.

Nintendo still has a draw to the hardcore gamer with Mario, Metroid, Smash Brothers, Zelda... Nintendo didn't give up their hardcore crowd with their Wii angle -- the proof of that is ALL over CAG.

The Wii isn't competing against the other consoles... Hah... What a silly thing to say.[/QUOTE]

Right, there are sooo many CAGs here who have simply a Wii... they don't own a 360 or PS3 as well... and this is their first console to boot. The market that Nintendo is collecting is traditionally a market that wouldn't even give a 360 or PS3 a second look... and that's a demonstrated market fact, not the cross-section of CAG or whatnot...

You seriously think a hardcore gamer is going to choose the Wii over the other two? (let's define that as someone who has been playing console games for more than a week, most likely loves games like halo and/or involved games like Oblivion or JRPGS, and does know their way around a controller) If anything the hardcore gamer is augmenting their collection with a 360/Ps3 _and_ a Wii... not or.

I don't know how you frame the argument, but if you have a different definition of 'hardcore' and 'casual', your take could actually be correct.. but I am not sure that'll hold water in the grand scheme of things. The Wii isn't cannibalizing sales of the PS3 or 360... unless you count Grandma Edna as a potential PS3 owner.
 
This time next year we should know who'll win the console war. I don't see how the Wii is going to compete that much next year. PS3 has the best lineup out of the Wii and 360. PS3 should be 300 dollars, or close. If they can't at least outsell the 360, then I guess they'll be stuck at 3.
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']Right, there are sooo many CAGs here who have simply a Wii... they don't own a 360 or PS3 as well... and this is their first console to boot. The market that Nintendo is collecting is traditionally a market that wouldn't even give a 360 or PS3 a second look... and that's a demonstrated market fact, not the cross-section of CAG or whatnot...

You seriously think a hardcore gamer is going to choose the Wii over the other two? (let's define that as someone who has been playing console games for more than a week, most likely loves games like halo and/or involved games like Oblivion or JRPGS, and does know their way around a controller) If anything the hardcore gamer is augmenting their collection with a 360/Ps3 _and_ a Wii... not or.

I don't know how you frame the argument, but if you have a different definition of 'hardcore' and 'casual', your take could actually be correct.. but I am not sure that'll hold water in the grand scheme of things. The Wii isn't cannibalizing sales of the PS3 or 360... unless you count Grandma Edna as a potential PS3 owner.[/QUOTE]

The problem with posts like these is that it's really difficult for you to get any kind of hard facts saying as much, and have to go on a lot of extrapolations and "here's what I think" anecdotal implications.

Likewise, it's hard to argue against them.

Point being that the best you can do with your theory is tout it around like it's a new puppy and hope people think it's cute as well.

For example, I know of at least one person at this time who is completely satisfied with a Wii and doesn't want a 360 or a PS3. And no, that person is not me.

Likewise, I know someone who started with a Wii and ultimately bought a 360.

And I know someone who bought a 360 first and then got a Wii.

So it's really hard to sit back and say things like this and completely own up to them.
 
Sony needs to take a look at Sega's glory days and take a cue from that advertisement style. Remember SEGA DOES WHAT NINTENDON'T? Sony needs something like that. Though Sony needs to quit packing in movies and start packing in a game.
 
[quote name='Strell'] The problem with posts like these is that it's really difficult for you to get any kind of hard facts saying as much, and have to go on a lot of extrapolations and "here's what I think" anecdotal implications.

Likewise, it's hard to argue against them. [/quote] Let me try.

[quote name='Mechafenris']You seriously think a hardcore gamer is going to choose the Wii over the other two? (let's define that as someone who has been playing console games for more than a week, most likely loves games like halo and/or involved games like Oblivion or JRPGS, and does know their way around a controller) If anything the hardcore gamer is augmenting their collection with a 360/Ps3 _and_ a Wii... not or.

I don't know how you frame the argument, but if you have a different definition of 'hardcore' and 'casual', your take could actually be correct.. but I am not sure that'll hold water in the grand scheme of things. The Wii isn't cannibalizing sales of the PS3 or 360... unless you count Grandma Edna as a potential PS3 owner.[/quote]
The 'hardcore' don't JUST own the Wii, therefore the Wii doesn't appeal to the hardcore? Thats even more absurd than what you said last time.

First off, being a later player in this gen, it would follow that the hardcore gamer, which is FAR more likely to be an early console adopter, would own a Xbox 360 PRIOR to their Wii purchase. The same would be said for the PS3 being a 'second' console. So 'hardcore gamers don't just have the Wii' is kind of a 'duh' statement.

Secondly, you presented no evidence other than your opinion, (which isn't evidence), to say 'no hardcore gamers just own a Wii'. There is a class of gamers.. some would call them cheap ass gamers... that constantly live a generation behind, in order to get more for their money. THOSE gamers may not own a Xbox 360 or PS3 yet, but the cost of entry for the Wii is within their gaming budget. Are you saying 'hardcore' means you have multiple current gen consoles? That isn't in your definition of hardcore.

Finally, The hardcore gamer has historically owned multiple current gen consoles each generation. Why should a strong historical correlation be ignored just because the Wii is involved? There isn't one you say..? Well try harder next time them.

In summary, your definition of hardcore is arbitrary, and based on your particular likes and dislikes, as evidenced by JRPGs and Halo. Just because YOU think it, doesn't make it true.

Lets define a hardcore gamer as any gamer who spends more than 33% of their entertainment budget on games and game related equipment, and has a tendancy to spend the majority of their allocated entertainment time playing, talking, or thinking about games. I like that more than your bad definition.

Note: fuckin' work paging and waking me up at 3:00 am.
 
... Weird. By Battlechicken's definition I'm a hardcore gamer.

I don't really consider myself one. I just tend to HATE television and movies.

When I think Hard Core gamer, I think Ninja Gaiden drones. Could just be me though.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']FF13 might not be out by this time next year, so there may be one final "wait for _____" to go yet.[/QUOTE]

So what is the "wait for _____" console this gen? Alternately, which console is #1 in the US this gen? Your "wait for _____" comment reminded me that it's not quite clear this generation. Despite the Wii selling the way it is, people aren't buying software to support it, with very, very few exceptions. If it has a Nintendo IP, it's selling modestly (Metroid 3) or rather well (Wario Ware, Zelda). If it doesn't have a Nintendo IP, it is not selling well (with two exceptions: RE4, and the launch titles, like Red Steel, that suckers bought).

So, despite being the #1 in sales and marketshare, the software sales that you so frequently insist are the de facto result of aforementioned marketshare have yet to make themselves known. So, which console truly is the "wait for _____" console? ;)
 
I think what people get confused is that, people may say that the Wii isn't a "hardcore" gaming machine. In my opinion, I don't think its main appeal is for hardcore gamers. However, it doesn't mean that hardcore gamers won't pick it up and play it anyway. It doesn't mean that a hardcore gamer can' be totally satisfied with the set of games offered on the Wii. But imo the primary focus of the Wii is the casual gamer, thus making it a console for casual gamers, moreso than hardcore gamers.

Like mykevermin pointed out... the Wii didn't get Call of Duty 4, and imo thats a big let down for Wii fans who are strictly gaming on a Wii console.
Wii fans didn't get an assassins creed, no stranglehold, no UT3(ever). It would have been nice for Wii to get some of those games with the online component being intact.
 
I'm up for talking about 3rd parties. Unfortunately I only have half the data I need, so bear with me.

Exhibit A: Top 10 Japanese Third Party sales (first week).

Through 53 weeks, the top 10 third-party first weeks on Wii. As says Famitsu.

Dragon Quest Swords: 302,066
RE Umbrella Chronicles: 104,960
One Piece UA: 54,192
RE4 Wii edition: 46,813
Power Pro Baseball Wii: 46,280
Gundam MS Front 0079: 43,659
DBZ BT2: 42,501
Naruto SGNTEX: 34,783
DBZ BT3: 34,783
Hajime no Ippo Revolution: 25,480

Through 53 weeks, the top 10 third-party first weeks on PS3. As says Famitsu.

Dynasty Warriors 6: 176,180
Dynasty Warriors Gundam: 171,032
Bladestorm: 62,921
Virtua Fighter 5: 52,432
Ninja Gaiden Sigma: 40,886
Armored Core 4: 36,446
Ridge Racer 7: 30,318
MSG Target in Sight: 30,051
ESIV Oblivion: 22,988
Imabikisou: 20,419

Through 53 weeks, the top 10 third-party first weeks on X360. As says Famitsu.

Dead or Alive 4: 62,603
Dead or Alive Xtreme 2: 45,065
Ridge Racer 6: 29,891
Dead Rising: 22,240
Culdcept Saga: 19,984
Rumble Roses XX: 16,944
Enchanted Arms: 12,858
FFXI All-pack 2006: 8,561
Chrome Hounds: 7,075
Sylpheed Project: 6,542

Through 53 weeks, the top 10 third-party first weeks on PS2. As says Famitsu.

Onimusha: 517,078
Gekikuukan Pro Baseball: 293,608
Ridge Racer V: 233,391
Tekken Tag Tournament: 214,753
Mobile Suit Gundam: 165,885
Dynasty Warriors 2: 164,427
The Bouncer: 158,727
Dead or Alive 2: 158,506
Armored Core 2: 148,348
Power Pro Baseball 7: 142,152

Through 53 weeks, the top 10 third-party first weeks on DS. As says Famitsu.

Tamagotchi Connection: 107,499
Naruto SND3: 66,897
PW Ace Attorney: 50,469
SD Gundam G Generation: 44,257
DQ Rocket Slime: 43,995
Yu-Gi-Oh! NT: 39,016
Naruto RPG 2: 31,451
Egg Monster Hero: 29,464
Pac-Pix: 27,903
Harvest Moon DS: 22,026

Through 53 weeks, the top 10 third-party first weeks on PSP. As says Famitsu.

Monster Hunter Freedom: 118,317
World Soccer Winning Eleven 9: 87,935
Tales of Eternia: 74,630
Ridge Racers: 60,163
Dynasty Warriors: 56,425
Nou Ryoku Trainer Portable: 45,857
Gundam Battle Tactics: 35,447
Kidou Senshi Gundam: 32,465
Techu Time of the Assassins: 28,100
Metal Gear Acid: 24,149

Take a moment to browse to get a feel for general distribution, I didnt think it was necessary to make a chart.

Now, and heres where I have to stretch things a bit.

Exhibit B (missing). Development/Marketing costs.

Open Inquiry: Where did 3rd parties actually make more money?

Aside: Wow, the DS had the worst 1st year 3rd party showing of everything in that list except 360 :shock:
 
1) You're going to give me data on Japanese 360 software? :rofl:
2) You're going to give me first week sales, a mere snapshot of overall sales figures (though, in cases like Metroid 3, it does account for 80%+ of the sales - in the US, which you've not included here)? Pshaw. If we're going by one-week figures, lemme go get those weeks from November when the PS3 outsold the Wii to demonstrate, by your criteria, how well the PS3 is dominating in Japan. :roll:
3) Moreover, I was talking about the US, where you can bet that the sales, first week or longitudinal, of software are far greater on the 360 than on the Wii and PS3. After all, most all studies of software attach rate for the latter two show they are near identical, with both having between 2-3.5 titles sold for every console. In the case of the 360 in the US, it's approaching 7 (6.8).

So, let me ask, again...in the United States (so you don't follow up with unreliable and invalid data), which console truly is "#1," and based on software sales, does it naturally follow your tried and true maxim of "marketshare in consoles = marketshare in software" is being significantly challenged? Or shall I just "wait for ____" (in this case, "_____" being the deluge of third-party software sales for the Wii).

EDIT: Your data are either incorrect or outdated, as I know that Blue Dragon should be not only on the 360 list, but at the top as well. Hmm. Though that was an MS Published Title, perhaps.
 
360 is ahead in the U.S. by something like 20% or so in hardware marketshare. We all know that they have a super healthy of number of software moved per unit hardware.

The Wii would certainly have to surpass it by significantly more than even to be able to match it in the U.S. Theres no dispute there.

I think I really need to explain the whole "wait for ____" thing, and why I keep bringing it up.

"Wait for ____" is the historical motto of the base of people whose console is behind in hardware marketshare.

The reason I keep bringing it up, is because it has basically never worked to turn around the fortune of HARDWARE marketshare.

I think you might be thinking that I'm trying to say something else, or perhaps something deeper. Its really more of a running gag.

Also, as an aside, my personal bias involves predominantly caring about Japanese developers. I think I own only 2 or 3 western developed games.
 
:lol: Man, you sure like to change the argument, and diffuse your own claims. You have always maintained that hardware marketshare is, on the whole, directly proportional to the software sales - but now you're mildly conceding that the Wii would have to more than outsell the 360 to see its software sales hit parity.

So, then, what happened to standing firmly behind your old maxim as unflappable truth?

As for a "historical motto," how far back are we talking? Coleco/Atari? Apple II/IBM? Or Gamecube/Xbox/PS2? ;)
 
I dont think I've ever claimed anything as bold as a 1:1 relationship between marketshare and software sales. Hell, I'm not even completely sure I've even made any claims about the matter. You're welcome to check though, I could be wrong.

What I like to say over and over again is this:

Marketshare is the most important factor to getting developer support.

I dont see any inconsistency or backtracking in acknowledging the 360's robust software per capita performance. You mistake just what my claims are.
 
Myke and I are just having a nice, friendly sit-down. I'm even sipping tea here.

I'd wildly speculate that the 360 can maintain a lead in overall software units moved (regardless of party) over the Wii as long as it can maintain an 8:10 ratio with Wii hardware sales. The Wii base will always have the disadvantage of not being as strongly rallied or unified. They cant even talk to each other over the damn box.

What I'm pushing for is such a dramatic lead in hardware moved that those disadvantages are overcome . Development costs might also help to tempt those developers as well, which is another factor I'm always bringing up.
 
So many gamers hate Sony because they are tools.

It's the simple answer, and I'll stand by it.

I hate microsoft for knowingly selling broken consoles though.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Myke and I are just having a nice, friendly sit-down. I'm even sipping tea here.[/quote]

What kind? Sugar or milk?

I'd wildly speculate that the 360 can maintain a lead in overall software units moved (regardless of party) over the Wii as long as it can maintain an 8:10 ratio with Wii hardware sales. The Wii base will always have the disadvantage of not being as strongly rallied or unified. They cant even talk to each other over the damn box.

What I'm pushing for is such a dramatic lead in hardware moved that those disadvantages are overcome . Development costs might also help to tempt those developers as well, which is another factor I'm always bringing up.
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll see that dramatic lead this generation. It's going to be far closer than the last time around; moreover, the regional dichotomy (360 dominating in the US, being only moderately above the PS3 in EU, and being far behind in Japan) is going to ensure that neither of those two consoles is ever lacking for multiplatform support. The Wii, however, even being in first place, has to show that multiplatform games are worth buying on its console - they need to figure out why, even though they are almost at parity with the 360, their third party games aren't selling in the same ratios. I refuse to think that graphics alone are the largest contributing factor.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I'd wildly speculate that the 360 can maintain a lead in overall software units moved (regardless of party) over the Wii as long as it can maintain an 8:10 ratio with Wii hardware sales. The Wii base will always have the disadvantage of not being as strongly rallied or unified. They cant even talk to each other over the damn box.

What I'm pushing for is such a dramatic lead in hardware moved that those disadvantages are overcome . Development costs might also help to tempt those developers as well, which is another factor I'm always bringing up.[/quote]
The Wii sales are hamstrung by a lack of supply -- that aught to be factored in. Demand for the Wii is much, much higher than any other console, and if Nintendo can get it's act together, the Wii:eek:ther console sales will increase greatly.

[quote name='gourd']
... Weird. By Battlechicken's definition I'm a hardcore gamer.

I don't really consider myself one. I just tend to HATE television and movies.

When I think Hard Core gamer, I think Ninja Gaiden drones. Could just be me though.[/quote]

By being here, posting, you are harder in core than a large percentage of the population. Thats kinda my point. Hardcore doesn't matter in terms of genre, it matters in terms of where the interest lies, and how much they know about their hobby.

Just by being here... posting in a Sony thread on CAG, discussing the definition of hardcore... you show that even in your non game playing time, you talk about games. My definition of hardcore doesn't equate to being obsessed with games, I think that might be the disconnect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top