Howard Stringer: "You're Paying for Potential [with the PS3]"

[fitbabits]

Next Generation (http://www.next-gen.biz) is reporting that Sony CEO Sir Howard Stringer has once again come out in defense of PlayStation3's price.

You can read what he has to say here (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3305&Itemid=2).

Sony CEO Howard Stringer is continuing his company's effort to justify the PlayStation 3's high price, implying its competitors only offer "transitional" products.

Regarding the $500 and $600 PS3 price points, Stringer told a Tokyo press conference, "The price of the PS3 is high, but you're paying for potential."

He added, "Obviously, it's a higher-risk strategy--as all new inventions are--but if the PS3 lives up to its total potential, then I don't think anyone will be worried about Nintendo or Xbox's cheaper price."

"Do you go for a cheaper transitional [product]," Stringer inquired, "Or do you take a chance on future-proof, higher technology which will keep you going for many, many years?"
Sony have obviously underestimated the reaction to their PS3 pricing. Whether that's because of arrogance or poor market research is obviously debateable, but it's certainly a thorn in Sony's side.

[TrackZero]

Paying for potential eh? I think I'm better off just investing in gold if that's the case.

[Norse]

That's ok. I'll just wait until it's potential is fulfilled (and for a lower price) before buying it. Then again it may never fulfill the potential Sony says it has.

[Kelegacy]

Hopefully they get scared and end up dropping the price. BR in a PS3 is meant to further the media along, so make it CHEAP...MUCH cheaper for the trojan horse player. That way everyone wins.

[TrackZero]

That's ok. I'll just wait until it's potential is fulfilled (and for a lower price) before buying it. Then again it may never fulfill the potential Sony says it has.

Bang on. I'll see how it's priced in 2010. Then maybe I'll pick one up (and a downpriced back catalogue).

[Abednigo]

I have never bought anything based on it's potential. I'm not about to start now. Especially not at $500-600.

[Wyrm]

I think the 360 is paying for potential. See, I think 400 bucks is also too expensive, but at least the 360 is already here and readily available. When I finally decide I want to damage my bank account, it's there for me to do so. At least in that sense, there are also a few games I'd be willing to pay the 60 dollar premium for.

Good luck Sony. Could have killed the other two this generation with a game console, but your feeble attempt to make a jack-of-all trades device will be your undoing.

[Lunar Blue]

"You guys are going to be so sorry when our PS3's ascend to self-consciousness and make us billions of dollars by trading stocks!"

[YoungAlCapone]

How do you take a chance on something future proof?

Isn't that the whole idea behind future proof? You don't have to worry about it in th....fuck it.

I am not willing to shell out $400 for the 360, so I am not close to willing to shell out $500 on the PS3 that isn't even the nicest one available and cannot upgrade to being as nice as the nicest one.

[Dag-Sabot]

Sounds like Stringer is trying to calm panicky investors, not assuage gamers' worst fears.
His argument is akin to hyundai, in 1984 enticing us to go with the pony, because in 10 years they would be in the position to produce an amazingly reliable vehicle.

[dimsumx]

Here's the thing for me...when people say that something has 'potential', the blunt meaning of that is that right now as it stands, it's not complete. Why would anyone want to 'pay for potential' when they could probably get it cheaper in the future with a better realized system?

[Deathbane27]

"Do you go for a cheaper transitional [product]," Stringer inquired, "Or do you take a chance on future-proof, higher technology which will keep you going for many, many years?"

A $400 safe bet or a $600 gamble? What a stupid question.

By the time the PS3 reaches its "potential" it'll be down to $200, whether that's by normal price cuts or pure desperation.

[EGO]

There was a lot of rhetoric about another "next generation jack of all trades" back in 1994, called the 3D0.

As for "more power" Sony has yet to display this power in any form other than playback of pre-rendered movies. As nice as Heavenly Sword looks, it's not an order better than anything out or coming out on the 360. I say it's Sony's arrogance, just like Sega, Nintendo and even Commodore before them. They think they're invincible. This will be their downfall and as sad as it is, it makes me laugh.

Now, before you Sony fanboys get your panties in a bunch, I DON'T CARE WHO WINS "THE WAR", since none of these companies directly pay my bills. And to all the fanboys fighting SO FEVERISHLY for any particular console; unless you're a 1st party software developer, GET OVER IT! They don't pay your bills either and the only thing they care about is getting your money. They don't give two shits about your supposed "loyalty", unless it means they can't bleed you for more money. Evil Microsoft, Juggernaught Sony and yes... even Innovation/Kiddie Nintendo only care about one thing; $$$$$.

[Reanimated]

Yeah, I think I'll wait until I actually start seeing that potential reflected in the games... AND the premium pack is 400 dollars or less. Preferably less.

[NonSoft]

A $400 safe bet or a $600 gamble? What a stupid question.

By the time the PS3 reaches its "potential" it'll be down to $200, whether that's by normal price cuts or pure desperation.

How is the 360 a safe bet? They are both a gamble because we have no idea how long either console will last. More than likely they will both be successful, but for all we know the PS3 could be DoA, or the 360 could all but die out in a year from not being able to compete with the PS3.

MicroSoft definitely has the better price point, but Sony has a better record of supporting consoles for a longer period of time. Obviously that could change this generation too.

Anything is possible, and there are no "safe bets".

[The Letter 3]

Sounds like Stringer is trying to calm panicky investors, not assuage gamers' worst fears.
His argument is akin to hyundai, in 1984 enticing us to go with the pony, because in 10 years they would be in the position to produce an amazingly reliable vehicle.
And that is why his argument fails. Sony is producing a machine that will be sold in more or less its current state for 5 to 6 years. If this singular product turns out to be a junk heap, then Sony and investors are stuck with a junk heap for 5 to 6 years. With automobiles, a CEO can always play the "there's always the next model year" card.

In addition, reputations are the name of the game in the, well, game industry. Not that automotive reps don't matter, but Hyundai managed to turn theirs around by producing successively better vehicles. If Sony makes a sub-par console that has few memorable games, that's going to hurt them far worse because of the long shelf life of game systems.

[Reanimated]

How is the 360 a safe bet? They are both a gamble because we have no idea how long either console will last. More than likely they will both be successful, but for all we know the PS3 could be DoA, or the 360 could all but die out in a year from not being able to compete with the PS3.

MicroSoft definitely has the better price point, but Sony has a better record of supporting consoles for a longer period of time. Obviously that could change this generation too.

Anything is possible, and there are no "safe bets".




The lineup of first party titles for 360 like Halo 3, Fable 2, Forza 2, Mass Effect, Too Human, and Gears of War makes it a pretty safe bet, wouldn't you say? If that's not good enough, then the fact that most third parties are heavily behind the 360 with games like RE5, GTA4, Lost Planet, Rainbow 6 Vegas, Splinter Cell, and many others would seem to solidify that safe position, don't you think? Combine all of this with Microsoft's already solid and rapidly expanding online system, their much lower price point, and the backing of a company with tens of billions in cash reserves and this bet is looking pretty damn safe.

[Goronmon]

The PS3 is too expensive...blah, blah, bah...Sony will fail...blah, blah...

Seriously, I'm getting sick of this Sony news thats completely unrelated to any games coming out for the system. I think we've covered all there is to cover concerning the price, technology or whatever. The games are all I'm interested in hearing about now, though I wish I could hear about it without the usual anti-Sony zealots and their clipboards full of Sony hate.

Wake me when its November.

[Syrinx]

Even he's saying IF it reaches it's potential, not WHEN.

[Kamalot]

That's ok. I'll just wait until it's potential is fulfilled (and for a lower price) before buying it. Then again it may never fulfill the potential Sony says it has.
Quoted for truth.

What good is all that power if developers can't harness it? Even worse, if the console costs so much that it does not have a massive install base, developers won't invest the time to learn how to ever harness the potential, cause they can make games for Wii60 faster/cheaper.

I buy products, not potential and promises.

We all know how good Sony's promises are too...

[Reanimated]

The PS3 is too expensive...blah, blah, bah...Sony will fail...blah, blah...

Seriously, I'm getting sick of this Sony news thats completely unrelated to any games coming out for the system. I think we've covered all there is to cover concerning the price, technology or whatever. The games are all I'm interested in hearing about now, though I wish I could hear about it without the usual anti-Sony zealots and their clipboards full of Sony hate.

Wake me when its November.



Do you own a 360?

[cppcrusader]

Sounds like Stringer is trying to calm panicky investors, not assuage gamers' worst fears.
His argument is akin to hyundai, in 1984 enticing us to go with the pony, because in 10 years they would be in the position to produce an amazingly reliable vehicle.

I'd have to agree with you there. The majority of investors know little to nothing of the industry. If investors did any real research this comment on paying for the potential would probably scare them off even more. After all, the PS2's full potential wasn't realized until this past year.

[Kamalot]

If you like buying things on potential, go pick up a PSP. I hear one day it will have a killer lineup of awesome portable games.

[Reanimated]

Quoted for truth.

What good is all that power if developers can't harness it? Even worse, if the console costs so much that it does not have a massive install base, developers won't invest the time to learn how to ever harness the potential, cause they can make games for Wii60 faster/cheaper.

I buy products, not potential and promises.

We all know how good Sony's promises are too...



I wasn't going to bring this up, but I AM still waiting to "jack into the matrix" with my PS2.

[Goronmon]

Do you own a 360?Yup

Black text of DOOOOOM!!!

[Reanimated]

Yup

Black text of DOOOOOM!!!




Why? Just out of curiosity...

[jspeak32]

Next Generation (http://www.next-gen.biz) is reporting that Sony CEO Sir Howard Stringer has once again come out in defense of PlayStation3's price.

You can read what he has to say here (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3305&Itemid=2).


Sony have obviously underestimated the reaction to their PS3 pricing. Whether that's because of arrogance or poor market research is obviously debateable, but it's certainly a thorn in Sony's side.

The dreamcast had much potential, but was killed off before it could be fully realized...
Needless to say, potential means utter crap if the product does not use it.

[Goronmon]

Why? Just out of curiosity...PGR3, Kameo, CoD2, Oblivion and GRAW mainly, and I wanted a reason to buy a HDTV.

[gzsfrk]

"You guys are going to be so sorry when our PS3's ascend to self-consciousness and make us billions of dollars by trading stocks!"

Well, I know I'd be self-conscious if I were a yet-to-be-released piece of high-electronics that cost $200 more than a competitor that's already on the market and can do practically everything I could. Hell, I'd likely have a whole HOST of emotional issues to work through.

[direwolf]

The 360 is a safe bet (as safe as you can get in terms of consoles anyway). The only reason it had such a short lifecycle last time was because it joined the game late that generation, and was forced to join the game early this generation to pull out the upset and get higher market share before Sony joins the fray.

You know what DVD is capable of, and you know it'll be around even 10 years from now. You can't say the same about Blu-Ray. Ask the people who bought into BetaMax which they will go for, the "potential" of a new format, or a proven format until the potential is realized.

Sony has burned people before on selling "potential" and never following through. I have a Sony camcorder using a MicroMV tape that had great potential, but they stopped supporting it in any way/shape/form when it didn't take off and now I'm stuck with a $1k video camera that I can barely find tapes for, and when I do have tapes, I can't find any video editing software that even recognizes the format.

So yeah, I'll pass on "potential" and wait to see how things play out. If Blu-Ray ends up becoming the new standard then I'll be able to avoid risk AND get it for much cheaper assuming they have any games worth buying a PS3 for.

[Kamalot]

PGR3, Kameo, CoD2, Oblivion and GRAW mainly, and I wanted a reason to buy a HDTV.
Those are all good reasons. No argument here. I still play Oblivion.

[Goronmon]

Those are all good reasons. No argument here. I still play Oblivion.I would still be playing it too if it wasn't for Guitar Hero. I hate that fucking game.

[Zanzibar]

Other failed Sony items with mass-market potential:

Betamax
UMD
PSP
...next!!

[Siraris]

The lineup of first party titles for 360 like Halo 3, Fable 2, Forza 2, Mass Effect, Too Human, and Gears of War makes it a pretty safe bet, wouldn't you say? If that's not good enough, then the fact that most third parties are heavily behind the 360 with games like RE5, GTA4, Lost Planet, Rainbow 6 Vegas, Splinter Cell, and many others would seem to solidify that safe position, don't you think? Combine all of this with Microsoft's already solid and rapidly expanding online system, their much lower price point, and the backing of a company with tens of billions in cash reserves and this bet is looking pretty damn safe.

I wouldn't call any of those safe bets. Halo 2 was crap, Fable 1 was a huge dissapointment, Forza 1 was crap, so that doesn't bode well for the sequels. You have no clue what Mass Effect, Too Human or GoW will be like until you actually play them. RE5, GTA4, R6 and Splinter Cell are all cross platform.

There are dozens of games that are coming out for the PS3 that match or beat the 360's offerings. I don't think many people would argue that Sony has the best first party support between the two, and they also have the majority of major Japanese developers in their court.

[Reanimated]

Other failed Sony items with mass-market potential:

Betamax
UMD
PSP
...next!!



Mini-disc, memory stick... I'm sure there are more.

[Heretic Machine]

I'm really hoping that Sony gets it's ass kicked this generation... They need to be sent back home to take another look at their business strategy and development philosophy. Essentially what happend to Nintendo after the N64. The problem there is that Sony (like Microsoft) is not a game company. They're a megacorp, essentially. While Nintendo went home and rethought the we they were thinking, Sony could just end up scrapping the Playstation brand if it fails, or just continue scooting along holding out hope for a new cash cow.

[Goronmon]

There are dozens of games that are coming out for the PS3 that match or beat the 360's offerings.I'm sorry, but your argument sucks. In one breath you dismiss future 360 games out of hand, and in the other you praise the upcoming games for the PS3, which we have even less information about.

[Johan]

Hey Sony...I've spent $40,000 on my master's and doctoral education in the past eight years, and I've got lots of potential as I take my final courses; how about buying in to my potential? I'll take any denomination in dollars, yen...I don't even care, as long as it's real money.

[Mike Jones]

I have never bought anything based on it's potential. I'm not about to start now. Especially not at $500-600.

Really? Any console you buy is based on it's potential so apparently you have never owned any gaming consoles.

[Mike Jones]

The lineup of first party titles for 360 like Halo 3, Fable 2, Forza 2, Mass Effect, Too Human, and Gears of War makes it a pretty safe bet, wouldn't you say? If that's not good enough, then the fact that most third parties are heavily behind the 360 with games like RE5, GTA4, Lost Planet, Rainbow 6 Vegas, Splinter Cell, and many others would seem to solidify that safe position, don't you think? Combine all of this with Microsoft's already solid and rapidly expanding online system, their much lower price point, and the backing of a company with tens of billions in cash reserves and this bet is looking pretty damn safe.


Talk when it starts outselling the the PS2. It hasn't even outsold the Xbox 1 in the same time frame since it's been out. Rather sad if you ask me :D

[Dr Quincy]

Hopefully they get scared and end up dropping the price.

Not a possibility. They'll be losing money on each console as it is.

[Siraris]

Talk when it starts outselling the the PS2. It hasn't even outsold the Xbox 1 in the same time frame since it's been out. Rather sad if you ask me :D

The X-Box 1 had 38 games that sold over a million copies, the PS2 had 180+. But that's obviously because the PS2 had that year jump start. I'm sure if the X-Box came out a year before, it would have far surpassed PS2.

Oh, and of those 38, only 8 were X-Box exclusives, and 3 of those were available on PC.

[jacktion]

It's true that the PS3 has potential. But that is just another way of saying it's risky. A lot of things have potential, but few live up to it. I don't think purchasing a toy based on the "potential" to have fun is a good idea. I want to buy a toy that is a sure thing. I want a thing that many people already are having fun with and that I can see is fun.
If someone marketed a wooden stick as a new toy with a lot of "potential" to be fun that isn't good enough. I want a stick attached to a robotic monkey. That is not "potentially" fun. It clearly IS fun. And that's how a console should be. Like a wooden stick attached to a robotic monkey.
If that hasn't confused you than I don't know what.

[Mike Jones]

The X-Box 1 had 38 games that sold over a million copies, the PS2 had 180+. But that's obviously because the PS2 had that year jump start. I'm sure if the X-Box came out a year before, it would have far surpassed PS2.

Oh, and of those 38, only 8 were X-Box exclusives, and 3 of those were available on PC.

What does that have to do with the 360 selling slower than Xbox 1 did? You would think the second time around they would do better,no?

[Kamalot]

Really? Any console you buy is based on it's potential so apparently you have never owned any gaming consoles.
Not if the games he wants are already available. For example, if someone wanted to play Oblivion, GRAW, Project Gotham and Table Tennis, then the 360 would be a good choice based on reality, not potential.

[Kamalot]

Talk when it starts outselling the the PS2. It hasn't even outsold the Xbox 1 in the same time frame since it's been out. Rather sad if you ask me :D
It is sad that the 360 hasn't outsold the original Xbox in the same time frame. Didn't they have a lot of production problems early on? According to Sony's number of PS3s that will be released, there will be even fewer PS3s available than there were 360s.

Be careful if you judge the quality of a system by how quickly it sells. PSP initially sold well but hasn't lived up to its potential while the PS3 is poised to dissapoint with overal sales figures.

[gzsfrk]

I wouldn't call any of those safe bets.

Based on what? The huge sales numbers for each? Yes, that certainly shakes the foundations of my confidence in MS' outlook this gen.

Halo 2 was crap (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/562116.asp?q=halo%202), Fable 1 was a huge dissapointment (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/516688.asp?q=fable), Forza 1 was crap (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/920720.asp?q=forza), so that doesn't bode well for the sequels.

Yes--the word that comes immediately to mind for each of those would be "crap". Albeit I would generally precede it with the word "Holy" and follow with an apostraphe.

Now granted, Fable was a big disappointment to me, and Halo 2 needed a solid ending. But "crap"? Of course, one needn't read any further than your aspersion of Forza to know that the rest of your comment should be discarded altogether, having destroyed any potential credibility you might have held with the reader at the beginning of your post.

But subjective analysis of game quality aside, you're missing the point. These games' contributions to the success of the 360 will reside not so much in their quality as in their ability to sell systems and game purchases. The quality (or lack thereof) in each game will certainly be a contributing factor, but the end result of sales or no sales is what ultimately matters most. And all these games have solid sales records, with all indications that their sequels will likewise be solid sellers, if not outright blockbusters.

You have no clue what Mass Effect, Too Human or GoW will be like until you actually play them.

Actually, yes (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/gearsofwar/preview_6150222.html), we DO (http://xbox.gamespy.com/xbox-360/bioware-rpg-unnanounced/707726p1.html) have some (http://www.ugo.com/e3/Content/ProductViewer.aspx?ProductID=32) clues. Several in fact. Certainly no guarantees, but clues we have in abundance.

Google and Gamerankings.com are your friends.

RE5, GTA4, R6 and Splinter Cell are all cross platform.

That hardly changes the fact that they are hit franchises that are due to be released on the 360. Exactly what point were you trying to make here?

There are dozens of games that are coming out for the PS3 that match or beat the 360's offerings.

Really? Dozens, you say? Then I offer you this simple challenge--list 2 dozen (since that's the minimum required to meet the label "dozens") PS3 exclusive titles for which we have the slightest indication as to their projected quality compared to current and coming-soon 360 releases.

I don't think many people would argue that Sony has the best first party support between the two, and they also have the majority of major Japanese developers in their court.

In the current generation, that's absolutely been the case. However, whether or not that remains so into the next-gen remains to be seen. We've already seen GTA jump the Sony-exclusivity/temporary-exclusivity ship, with hints that Squeenix and other such PS staples may well do the same.

Methinks things are not quite as rosy as your loyalty might lead you to believe.

[Jack B]

Halo 2 was crap, Fable 1 was a huge dissapointment, Forza 1 was crap, so that doesn't bode well for the sequels.

Siraris,

I disagree. You are a Sony fanboy. Try to be more objective. These type of comments are inflammatory, because they are so one sided.

If this were your 1st post, maybe I'd buy it was your honest objective opinion, but you've made many similar anti-Microsoft posts.

I would rather not do the work to expose your fanboyism, but I'd also rather not allow you to spew your garbage without facts. Here are the facts.

Forza Mortorsport 93% consensus ranking - 86 reviews - Click here to verify (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/920720.asp)

Halo 2 95% consensus ranking - 108 reviews - Click Here to verify (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/562116.asp?q=halo%202)

Fable 85% consensus ranking - 110 reviews - Click here to verify (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/516688.asp?q=fable)

Halo 2 and Forza 1 were not crap.

Fable disappointing? I'd agree to a poijnt. They wanted a 90+ smash hit (extremely difficult to obtain), but the Fable franchise sold over 2 million copies (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/apr06/04-06LionheadPR.mspx) and 80%+ is still considered "Great" by Gamespot as example of how good 85% is...

In fact Gamespot gave it an 8.6 and 11,923 Gamespot voters gave it an 8.8 (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/rpg/fable/index.html?q=fable).

You can reply, that this is 'your opinion', but that's my whole point. All 'your opinions' are completely skewed to Sony. You need to be more objective.

Siraris, You are to me like EB Farnum is to Seth Bullock... I'm waiting to see you become more objective. I believe it will happen. I'm just not sure when.

[Citizen Philip]

I agree that future proofing is a good point if you are looking at pricey hardware. Such as buying original HD TVs that did or did not have variable framing (ie 4:3, 16:9 with stretch and zoom abilities) or fixed resolution.

On the other hand, HD and BR are nothing but anti-piracy scams by big business to screw customers over: the only carrot they offer is higher resolution.

I haven't seen enough fact about PS3 to warrant calling it a future proof purchase. Let me know in a year

[Evil Avnovice]

Um, Mr. Stringer? What is this "paying for potential" that you speak of? :confused:

If it's all the same to you sir, I'll wait for this (as-of-yet-to-be-paid-for) potential to lower in price, grant me the esteemed privilege of getting a hands-on feel for the system and software, and only then can we discuss what the system's capable of in future talks.

[Kamalot]

Hopefully they get scared and end up dropping the price.
PSP hasn't been doing too well at reaching its potential, yet take a look at the price drops it has undergone (few).

Couple the history of infrequent and meager price drops along with the statements that Sony is no longer interested in market share and one can easily predict that there will not be a PS3 price drop for a long time. When the PS3 DOES drop in price, it won't be much.

[IRONGUSTAV]

Other failed Sony items with mass-market potential:

Betamax
UMD
PSP
...next!!


yeah,taking a big chunk of the portable monopoly on is first try its a failure XD

then,what its xbox or gamecube? a catastrophe of biblical proportions?

[Roc Ingersol]

"If you think you hate it now, just wait till ya drive it"

[NonSoft]

The lineup of first party titles for 360 like Halo 3, Fable 2, Forza 2, Mass Effect, Too Human, and Gears of War makes it a pretty safe bet, wouldn't you say? If that's not good enough, then the fact that most third parties are heavily behind the 360 with games like RE5, GTA4, Lost Planet, Rainbow 6 Vegas, Splinter Cell, and many others would seem to solidify that safe position, don't you think? Combine all of this with Microsoft's already solid and rapidly expanding online system, their much lower price point, and the backing of a company with tens of billions in cash reserves and this bet is looking pretty damn safe.

No and no.

You can't predicate the entire success of a console on games and promises that have yet to see the light of day. If that were the case the PS3 would win by a longshot as Sony has compiled a rather lofty list of outrageous claims.

I'm not going to go through that list of games one by one but some of the games in those series didn't even do very well (sales and/or critically) and some are new IPs (which is definitely a good thing, but risky). The biggest question mark of all though, is the same as any other game, when will they be released? Timing is everything and if they miss their spot, or have too many delays all the hype in the world doesn't amount to a success. Ofcourse this applies to any game, any console, but my point is that nothing is a safe bet.

Wasn't there an article with figures stating that the 360 has only outsold the PS2 in one out of the 7 or 8 months the 360 has been around for? When a nextgen console can't outsell a console that has been around for 5 or 6 years that doesn't exactly scream safe bet to me.

Personally I'll be waiting until the PS3 and Wii are available and we know more about all three console's software library. There isn't enough information about any of the console's libraries that would make me feel safe investing in any of them at this point in time.

[tombofsoldier]

IIIIITS KRAZY KEN to the rescue! Can someone tell Sony to please stop spouting BS and try to give their overly dedicated fans some sort of value for their $600 purchase?

[Jack B]

You can't predicate the entire success of a console on games and promises that have yet to see the light of day.

I'd agree.

Wasn't there an article with figures stating that the 360 has only outsold the PS2 in one out of the 7 or 8 months the 360 has been around for? When a nextgen console can't outsell a console that has been around for 5 or 6 years that doesn't exactly scream safe bet to me.

Yes, it's been very close in unit share, but the 360 is actually dominating the PS2 in revenue share as it's roughly 3 times the price of the PS2.

I work for a Business Intellligence manufacturer. It's my real life job to try and interpret numbers.

I see this a lot. There are 2 major types of market share rankings. Unit sales and revenue.

Comparing a product 3x or more in price by unit sales is not typically a fair comparision. Revenue is more often the metric with more importance. There are exceptions, but more often revenue is king, second only to profit (ie with all the typical exceptions and caveats).

[Evil Avnovice]

IIIIITS KRAZY KEN to the rescue! Can someone tell Sony to please stop spouting BS and try to give their overly dedicated fans some sort of value for their $600 purchase?

Actually, I'd like to hear more of it. If anything, it makes for some humorous LOL moments, wouldn't you agree? :)

[dimsumx]

Siraris, You are to me like EB Farnum is to Seth Bullock... I'm waiting to see you become more objective. I believe it will happen. Not sure when however.

Hey, that's almost article related! That must be be what buying into potential means. :)

It's so ridiculous at this point that Sony keeps digging deeper and deeper into a PR nightmare. Equally ridiculous is how each time they get themselves deeper, it just fuels the Pro-Sony group even more to justify their upcoming $600 purchase (which with a game and extra controller will probably be an initial investment of $800 minimum, and that's being generous).

[Kamalot]

Wasn't there an article with figures stating that the 360 has only outsold the PS2 in one out of the 7 or 8 months the 360 has been around for? When a nextgen console can't outsell a console that has been around for 5 or 6 years that doesn't exactly scream safe bet to me.

Personally I'll be waiting until the PS3 and Wii are available and we know more about all three console's software library. There isn't enough information about any of the console's libraries that would make me feel safe investing in any of them at this point in time.
Waiting until all consoles are out is the safest bet of all.

I believe the problem with the 360 being unable to outsell the PS2 had to do with hardware shortages. Sony has announced similar problems with the PS3 already and, if I am not mistaken, has ever fewer units to go around.

I did read in EGM that the majority of the best-selling games for the past month were Xbox 360 games. This means that, even with fewer units in the field, the people who buy games have a 360.

[NonSoft]

I'd agree.



Yes, it's been very close in unit share, but the 360 is actually dominating the PS2 in revenue share as it's roughly 3 times the price of the PS2.

I work for a Business Intellligence manufacturer. It's my real life job to try and interpret numbers.

I see this a lot. There are 2 major types of market share rankings. Unit sales and revenue.

Comparing a product 3x or more in price by unit sales is not typically a fair comparision. Revenue is more often the metric with more importance. There are exceptions, but more often revenue is king, second only to profit (ie with all the typical exceptions and caveats).

I understand that, but in the console industry wouldn't market share be the most important aspect? Game sales are what brings in the most amount of money, so larger market share (console sales) should equate to more games sales which in turn would bring in the most profit.

This may not be how it works, but that was my basis for the comment.

[dimsumx]

I understand that, but in the console industry wouldn't market share be the most important aspect? Game sales are what brings in the most amount of money, so larger market share (console sales) should equate to more games sales which in turn would bring in the most profit.

This may not be how it works, but that was my basis for the comment.

May 2006 NPD Charts:

Top 10 Games (by Revenue)
1. NDS New Super Mario Bros. - 275,692
2. PS2 Kingdom Hearts II - 168,944
3. 360 Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - 90,204
4. 360 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter - 84,431
5. PS2 Guitar Hero - 67,871
6. 360 Fight Night Round 3 - 58,000
7. PS2 MLB '06: The Show
8. 360 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat - 51,000
9. 360 Major League Baseball 2K6 - 48,000
10. 360 X-Men: The Official Game - 47,000

As you can see, the 360 software is doing quite well profit-wise, securing 6 of the top 10 spots.

[Kamalot]

I understand that, but in the console industry wouldn't market share be the most important aspect?one would think that.

Sony seems to indicate that market share is not important.

http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13476

Read it and come back here to follow up. It is a strange perspective to take, especially coming from the market leader.

[Kamalot]

May 2006 NPD Charts:

Top 10 Games (by Revenue)
1. NDS New Super Mario Bros. - 275,692
2. PS2 Kingdom Hearts II - 168,944
3. 360 Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - 90,204
4. 360 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter - 84,431
5. PS2 Guitar Hero - 67,871
6. 360 Fight Night Round 3 - 58,000
7. PS2 MLB '06: The Show
8. 360 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat - 51,000
9. 360 Major League Baseball 2K6 - 48,000
10. 360 X-Men: The Official Game - 47,000

As you can see, the 360 software is doing quite well profit-wise, securing 6 of the top 10 spots.Thanks. I knew I saw the numbers somewhere.

Developers look at these numbers when deciding what console(s) for which they should develop.

[AniAko]

"Do you go for a cheaper transitional [product]," Stringer inquired, "Or do you take a chance on future-proof, higher technology which will keep you going for many, many years?"

Right Howey, I'm sure Sony plans on the PS3 to carry longer than the 4-5 year console life-span. This sounds more like you're trying to release the PS4, and masquerade it as the PS3.

[dimsumx]

Thanks. I knew I saw the numbers somewhere.

Developers look at these numbers when deciding what console(s) for which they should develop.

EDIT: This list is of Bestbuy.com top games, not NPD, so not as accurate in terms of overall sales. Whoops!

Gamespot has the most updated list for week of 6/4-6/10 here (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/callofduty2/news.html?sid=6152695&mode=top)


1 Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories
Publisher: Rockstar Games Developer: Rockstar Leeds
Platform: PS2 Category: Action Adventure
Release Date: Jun 6, 2006
2 New Super Mario Bros.
Publisher: Nintendo | Platform: DS | Category: Platformers release:
May 15, 2006
3 Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day
Publisher: Nintendo | Platform: DS | Category: Miscellaneous release:
Apr 17, 2006
4 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Publisher: Ubisoft | Platform: X360 | Category: Tactical Shooters release:
Mar 9, 2006
5 NBA 2K6
Publisher: 2K Sports | Platform: X360 | Category: Basketball release:
Nov 16, 2005
6 Hitman: Blood Money
Publisher: Eidos Interactive | Platform: X360 | Category: Adventure Games release:
May 30, 2006
7 Call of Duty 2: Game of the Year Edition
Publisher: Activision | Platform: X360 | Category: First-Person Shooters release:
Nov 17, 2005
8 Hitman: Blood Money
Publisher: Eidos Interactive | Platform: PS2 | Category: Action Adventure release:
May 30, 2006
9 Project Gotham Racing 3
Publisher: Microsoft Game Studios | Platform: X360 | Category: Racing release:
Nov 16, 2005
10 The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Collector's Edition
Publisher: 2K Games | Platform: X360 | Category: Role-Playing


Of note...GTA still sells like crazy. And Sony says it's not an issue that the 360 will be getting it on the first day ... :rolleyes:

[Jack B]

I understand that, but in the console industry wouldn't market share be the most important aspect? Game sales are what brings in the most amount of money, so larger market share (console sales) should equate to more games sales which in turn would bring in the most profit.

This may not be how it works, but that was my basis for the comment.

Yes, that was what my "typically" and "caveat" comments were all about. It gets very complex and changes over time.

I don't know enough about the profitability models for Sony and Microsoft on the PS2 and PS3's well enough to be sure. I know money is made on software, but I don't know the exact numbers.

It may be in their SEC filings, but often companies don't devulge some of the more interesting details.

I would imagine, that comparing the PS3 unit sales to the 360's will be a more fair comparision, but even in that case it's normally assumed the lower price product will have the advantage all things being equal. In this area Microsoft has the edge.

Microsoft will likely have a lead of between 6-10 million units by Sony's launch. Sony may need to outsell Microsoft by about nearly 500,000 to 1 million units a month in their first 12 months to go into Xmas 2007 tied for unit sales.

I believe the last projections I saw from Sony were 6 million units shipped by March. That would be only 1 million units a month for the 1st 6 months. Microsoft will likely sell quite a few units themselves during that time, so they may have to do much of their catching up in the 7 months from April to October of 2007.

I'm going to predict:

2006 year end unit sales

360's 10 million
PS3's 3 million

End of March 2007

360's 13 million
PS3's 6 million

End of October 2007

360's 20 million
PS3's 13 million

These could be way off, but I'm looking at 1 million PS3's per month thru October of 2007. It could be far less if Sony has problems with manufacturing with Blu-Ray drives or the other problems that often plague launches. Or... if Microsoft gets too far ahead on software or either company has some killer app(s) by March.

I do believe Microsoft will drop prices as needed to stay ahead. From April on, we'll really start to see things shake out if the PS3 and 360 are both in quantity on store shelves.

[Mike Jones]

Thanks. I knew I saw the numbers somewhere.

Developers look at these numbers when deciding what console(s) for which they should develop.


How do they determine profit. Multiplying game price X amount of games sold?

[Kamalot]

Gamespot has the most updated list for week of 6/4-6/10 here (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/callofduty2/news.html?sid=6152695&mode=top)


1 Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories
Publisher: Rockstar Games Developer: Rockstar Leeds
Platform: PS2 Category: Action Adventure
Release Date: Jun 6, 2006
2 New Super Mario Bros.
Publisher: Nintendo | Platform: DS | Category: Platformers release:
May 15, 2006
3 Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day
Publisher: Nintendo | Platform: DS | Category: Miscellaneous release:
Apr 17, 2006
4 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Publisher: Ubisoft | Platform: X360 | Category: Tactical Shooters release:
Mar 9, 2006
5 NBA 2K6
Publisher: 2K Sports | Platform: X360 | Category: Basketball release:
Nov 16, 2005
6 Hitman: Blood Money
Publisher: Eidos Interactive | Platform: X360 | Category: Adventure Games release:
May 30, 2006
7 Call of Duty 2: Game of the Year Edition
Publisher: Activision | Platform: X360 | Category: First-Person Shooters release:
Nov 17, 2005
8 Hitman: Blood Money
Publisher: Eidos Interactive | Platform: PS2 | Category: Action Adventure release:
May 30, 2006
9 Project Gotham Racing 3
Publisher: Microsoft Game Studios | Platform: X360 | Category: Racing release:
Nov 16, 2005
10 The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Collector's Edition
Publisher: 2K Games | Platform: X360 | Category: Role-Playing
Thanks!

The 360 is doing much better than I had expected. I bet Microsoft is making a lot of money off of the game sales as well.

[Reanimated]

This is the perfect opportunity for Sony to lift Nintendo's old mantra of "Now You're playing with power!"

Sony's new marketing slogan could be: "Now you're paying for potential!"

[Kamalot]

How do they determine profit. Multiplying game price X amount of games sold?
Well, a developer can tell a lot about a platform and the demographics of the people that buy games by looking at this data. Imagine you were going to sell a racing game. You could look at how racing games sell on different consoles over time. You may decide to develop your racing game for a console on which racing games typically sell well.

That example only scratches the surface since there is tons of analysis you can do with this kind of data. I don't see many PSP games on the sales chart. Perhaps there aren't a lot of games for the PSP in the chart's time frame, perhaps PSP users buy fewer games, perhaps PSP users traded in their system for a DS lite. As a developer though, I would be putting my efforts into making games for a system for which people buy games.

[Evil Avnovice]

This is the perfect opportunity for Sony to lift Nintendo's old mantra of "Now You're playing with power!"

Sony's new marketing slogan could be: "Now you're paying for potential!"


Nice! :D *Gives two thumbs up*

[fitbabits]

Nice! :D *Gives two thumbs up*
Please, don't encourage him! :rolleyes:

[Mike Jones]

Well, a developer can tell a lot about a platform and the demographics of the people that buy games by looking at this data. Imagine you were going to sell a racing game. You could look at how racing games sell on different consoles over time. You may decide to develop your racing game for a console on which racing games typically sell well.

That example only scratches the surface since there is tons of analysis you can do with this kind of data. I don't see many PSP games on the sales chart. Perhaps there aren't a lot of games for the PSP in the chart's time frame, perhaps PSP users buy fewer games, perhaps PSP users traded in their system for a DS lite. As a developer though, I would be putting my efforts into making games for a system for which people buy games.

What i'm getting at if those charts are based on profit you can't compare $60 dollar game to $50 dollar game or better yet the tons of PS2 greatest hits that sell for $10-$20. That's why I think units sold is a better indicator although i'm sure the 360 was selling tons of games.

[Reanimated]

Nice! :D *Gives two thumbs up*


Thanks, I think it works well. :D

They could even use that dipstick kid from their E3 video. You know, the one who's gonna make it hurt... because... I dunno. Seriously, that's a winning ad campaign. Blows those stupid PSP squirrels out of the water.

[Siraris]

Based on what? The huge sales numbers for each? Yes, that certainly shakes the foundations of my confidence in MS' outlook this gen.


Yes--the word that comes immediately to mind for each of those would be "crap". Albeit I would generally precede it with the word "Holy" and follow with an apostraphe.

Now granted, Fable was a big disappointment to me, and Halo 2 needed a solid ending. But "crap"? Of course, one needn't read any further than your aspersion of Forza to know that the rest of your comment should be discarded altogether, having destroyed any potential credibility you might have held with the reader at the beginning of your post.

But subjective analysis of game quality aside, you're missing the point. These games' contributions to the success of the 360 will reside not so much in their quality as in their ability to sell systems and game purchases. The quality (or lack thereof) in each game will certainly be a contributing factor, but the end result of sales or no sales is what ultimately matters most. And all these games have solid sales records, with all indications that their sequels will likewise be solid sellers, if not outright blockbusters.

Halo 2 was crap. Halo 1 was a great game and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Bungie had quite a substantial IP on their hands, and they blew it with the sequal. Isn't it a bit strange that the creator of Halo, Alex Seropian, left Bungie to start his own company? The game wasn't even started until the E3 before it was released. I'm sorry, but it really shows. The single player was clunky and boring and unbalanced, and the ending was awful. The multi-player was a rehash of 1, but made worse by the giant maps that you were forced to navigate. Perhaps Halo 3 will be better, but screwing the pooch on the second game doesn't bode well for it.

Forza was a boring and unimpressive racing game. I only played it a few times, and I was unimpressed. It has nothing to do with it being a Microsoft game, I loved PGR, but Forza was nothing exciting at all. It barely sold 1 million copies to boot, which says something for a game that got such glowing reviews.

Don't even get me started on Fable. I was oozing over this game, and it was a huge letdown. Combat was boring, the AI was laughable, the quests were tedious and broken. I'm glad that Peter Molyneux has such high expectations for his games, unfortunately they don't follow through. Black and White, Black and White 2, Fable and The Movies are just a few that come to mind. Fable was nothing like it was hyped to be, and I'm not going to hold my breath for a sequal to a shitty game.

Halo 1 and 2 did sell well, but why wouldn't they? Halo 1 was a great game, and Halo 2 was one of the most hyped games in history. X-Box fans were desperate for a game to justify their purchase, and Halo gave it to them. Fable was also incredibly hyped and sold well only off of this. Forza sold 1.1 million copies worldwide, I dont' consider that a huge success. Maybe if it did 2, but when you get outsold by Scooby Doo and Yugioh, and you're hoping to start a new franchise on a major console, you've got some problems on your hands.

Actually, yes (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/gearsofwar/preview_6150222.html), we DO (http://xbox.gamespy.com/xbox-360/bioware-rpg-unnanounced/707726p1.html) have some (http://www.ugo.com/e3/Content/ProductViewer.aspx?ProductID=32) clues. Several in fact. Certainly no guarantees, but clues we have in abundance.

Google and Gamerankings.com are your friends.


That hardly changes the fact that they are hit franchises that are due to be released on the 360. Exactly what point were you trying to make here?

I never said that these games would be bad, I really have no clue. You obviously have been playing games for a long time, and I know you have observed the numerous games that had every promise in the world and fell apart at the seams. I have a lot of faith in Bioware as well as Epic, and I'm sure that they will sell well. I'm just not floored by any of these games, and with a poor track record with its first console, and being heavily outsold by the PS2 this generation already, I am not going to sing the praise of the giant glowing X until it gives me something to get excited about.

In the current generation, that's absolutely been the case. However, whether or not that remains so into the next-gen remains to be seen. We've already seen GTA jump the Sony-exclusivity/temporary-exclusivity ship, with hints that Squeenix and other such PS staples may well do the same.


I'd be surprised by the GTA license exclusivity deal if Take-Two wasn't leaking money and didn't have a giant bullseye on its back by the US goverment. Perhaps Sony feels that GTA is losing its luster, perhaps Rockstar and Take-Two think that they need to release on multiple-systems, I don't know, but I don't see them jumping ship from Sony and going to Microsoft. I don't think this is a forecast for very much at all. I think companies are doing what is best for themselves. I think that Square annoucing all of their major franchises for either Playstation or Nintendo is the only sign I see right now, and I think the sign that I don't see many other Japanese developers putting support behind the 360 as a sign as well. Maybe it's the fact that the 360 can't be given away in the Japan?

The proof is in the pudding, and I aint seen nothing to impress me by anything that Microsoft has to offer on the gaming front so far in either of these generations. If you compare the sales of the X-Box and the PS2, it's astonishing how much the PS2 outsold the X-Box. As I stated in my previous post, Sony has over 180 games for the PS2 alone that have sold over 1.5 million copies, the 360 has 38, that's 6 times as many games that sold over 1.5 million units.

People can make the arguments all they want that they "Don't buy things for their potential" but it doesn't hold up. Companies evaluate products for their potential every day, and if you look at the numbers, the Playstation brand is the one to back. I think that Nintendo is making a huge push with their portable game sales, and this could really fuel their console sales, but I don't see Microsoft doing much of anything to impress. When your console is selling 3,000 units a week at most in Japan, and a handful over 200,000 in the US per month, and it's being outsold by a console that is supposed to be on its last leg, and when you only have 2 of the top 10 selling games on your system, you can't really praise your successes, can you?

[chowweekly]

If people buy the most powerful system like Sony says how do they explain PS2's sales compared to the more powerful Xbox and Gamecube?

[NonSoft]

This is the perfect opportunity for Sony to lift Nintendo's old mantra of "Now You're playing with power!"

Sony's new marketing slogan could be: "Now you're paying for potential!"

Clever.

:rolleyes:

Microsoft will likely have a lead of between 6-10 million units by Sony's launch. Sony may need to outsell Microsoft by about nearly 500,000 to 1 million units a month in their first 12 months to go into Xmas 2007 tied for unit sales.

I believe the last projections I saw from Sony were 6 million units shipped by March. That would be only 1 million units a month for the 1st 6 months. Microsoft will likely sell quite a few units themselves during that time, so they may have to do much of their catching up in the 7 months from April to October of 2007.

I'm going to predict:

2006 year end unit sales

360's 10 million
PS3's 3 million

End of March 2007

360's 13 million
PS3's 6 million

End of October 2007

360's 20 million
PS3's 13 million

These could be way off, but I'm looking at 1 million PS3's per month thru October of 2007. It could be far less if Sony has problems with manufacturing with Blu-Ray drives or the other problems that often plague launches. Or... if Microsoft gets too far ahead on software or either company has some killer app(s) by March.

I do believe Microsoft will drop prices as needed to stay ahead. From April on, we'll really start to see things shake out if the PS3 and 360 are both in quantity on store shelves.

It will certainly be interesting to see how things turn out. Everything is so up in the air at the moment, there is no way I could comfortably make a decision on which console I think will "win" the console war or even which consoles will be left standing at the end.

[NonSoft]

Halo 2 was crap. Halo 1 was a great game and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Bungie had quite a substantial IP on their hands, and they blew it with the sequal. Isn't it a bit strange that the creator of Halo, Alex Seropian, left Bungie to start his own company? The game wasn't even started until the E3 before it was released. I'm sorry, but it really shows. The single player was clunky and boring and unbalanced, and the ending was awful. The multi-player was a rehash of 1, but made worse by the giant maps that you were forced to navigate. Perhaps Halo 3 will be better, but screwing the pooch on the second game doesn't bode well for it.

I don't care for the Halo series either. In all fairness though I'm not the biggest FPS fan, especially a console FPS. However, whether or not you like the game is pretty much meaningless. The series has been a huge seller, and there is no reason to believe that a 3rd installment won't be as well.


Forza was a boring and unimpressive racing game. I only played it a few times, and I was unimpressed. It has nothing to do with it being a Microsoft game, I loved PGR, but Forza was nothing exciting at all. It barely sold 1 million copies to boot, which says something for a game that got such glowing reviews.


1 million copies is still quite a few, especially for a new IP racing game.


Don't even get me started on Fable. I was oozing over this game, and it was a huge letdown. Combat was boring, the AI was laughable, the quests were tedious and broken. I'm glad that Peter Molyneux has such high expectations for his games, unfortunately they don't follow through. Black and White, Black and White 2, Fable and The Movies are just a few that come to mind. Fable was nothing like it was hyped to be, and I'm not going to hold my breath for a sequal to a shitty game.


I wasn't even looking forward to Fable and even I found it to be dissapointing. I really don't see Fable 2 as being a console mover at all, maybe I'm completely out of touch with the gaming world though. I know he is a gaming legend and all, but I wouldn't declare anything that Peter Molyneux is involved with as a "safe bet" title.


The proof is in the pudding


I hate that phrase, but it's meaning holds true. In my opinion so far none of the companies have produced anything that makes me feel the need to buy their console. To be fair though the PS3 and Wii obviously aren't out yet so it would be a bit unfair to compare them directly to the 360. I am however surprised that MS has essentially wasted their headstart by failing to put out a huge exclusive title before the other consoles launch.

[bean19]

That's ok. I'll just wait until it's potential is fulfilled (and for a lower price) before buying it. Then again it may never fulfill the potential Sony says it has.

Well, it's "potential" for Sony is to make them billions on Blu-Ray movie sales. . . It may fulfill that potential, but that sucks for those of us who would rather purchase a videogame console and not a vehicle for Sony to make money.

[BlackPete]

Going back to the article... this quote in particular irks me:

"Do you go for a cheaper transitional [product]," Stringer inquired, "Or do you take a chance on future-proof, higher technology which will keep you going for many, many years?"

The thing is, I don't want a console that'll last me for many, many years! I'd rather buy a new console every 5 years (which has always been the case) rather than take out a mortgage to buy a console that throws in the kitchen sink which'll be made obsolete in 5 years anyway...

Not to sound like a fanboy, but this is exactly why Nintendo downplays technology so much: Go with current technology, make fun games, and when the next generation rolls around, make a better machine, repeat, rinse, lather; or whatever order you'd prefer. :)

Just sell me a console without zillions of useless bits hanging out of it (and patched together in god-knows-what ways beneath the hood), and we'll talk again in 5 years, mmmkay?

[Siraris]

Going back to the article... this quote in particular irks me:

"Do you go for a cheaper transitional [product]," Stringer inquired, "Or do you take a chance on future-proof, higher technology which will keep you going for many, many years?"

The thing is, I don't want a console that'll last me for many, many years! I'd rather buy a new console every 5 years (which has always been the case) rather than take out a mortgage to buy a console that throws in the kitchen sink which'll be made obsolete in 5 years anyway...

Not to sound like a fanboy, but this is exactly why Nintendo downplays technology so much: Go with current technology, make fun games, and when the next generation rolls around, make a better machine, repeat, rinse, lather; or whatever order you'd prefer. :)

Just sell me a console without zillions of useless bits hanging out of it (and patched together in god-knows-what ways beneath the hood), and we'll talk again in 5 years, mmmkay?

You'd rather spend $250-300 on a console, and then whatever else on accessories every 5 years instead of paying $500-$600 for a console every 10 years? The PS2 will be in its 7th year soon, and it still has many great games on the way. If the PS2 wanted to, it could last for another 5 years, as long as developers supported it with good games.

Logic seems a bit silly to me.

[Kamalot]

You'd rather spend $250-300 on a console, and then whatever else on accessories every 5 years instead of paying $500-$600 for a console every 10 years? The PS2 will be in its 7th year soon, and it still has many great games on the way. If the PS2 wanted to, it could last for another 5 years, as long as developers supported it with good games.

Logic seems a bit silly to me.
Yours seems silly to me. Why would you want to play on your PS2 until 2010?

[bean19]

You'd rather spend $250-300 on a console, and then whatever else on accessories every 5 years instead of paying $500-$600 for a console every 10 years? The PS2 will be in its 7th year soon, and it still has many great games on the way. If the PS2 wanted to, it could last for another 5 years, as long as developers supported it with good games.

Logic seems a bit silly to me.

lol. Such bullshit.

[Reanimated]

So there are no accessories being sold for the PS3?

[Kamalot]

So there are no accessories being sold for the PS3?
No need. It comes with automatic accessory switching. :D

[NonSoft]

Yours seems silly to me. Why would you want to play on your PS2 until 2010?

If it still had good games, why wouldn't you want to?

[Kamalot]

If it still had good games, why wouldn't you want to?
Because there are better games and new ways to play.

Why would someone upgrade their graphics card if you can still play Yahoo games on it?

Why don't you show us how it is done. Enjoy all those PS2 games for the next 4 years without buying a new console.

I'm sure you got 10 years out of the PS1 as well, right? I mean, EVERYONE kept buying PS1 games after the PS2 came out, right?

[BlackPete]

You'd rather spend $250-300 on a console, and then whatever else on accessories every 5 years instead of paying $500-$600 for a console every 10 years? The PS2 will be in its 7th year soon, and it still has many great games on the way. If the PS2 wanted to, it could last for another 5 years, as long as developers supported it with good games.

Logic seems a bit silly to me.

Wow, where to begin...

1) You made a fatal assumption that I buy accessories. Or to look at it another way: Would you care to argue that the PS2 hasn't had *cough*eyetoy*cough* accessories? Or that the PS3 won't? I guess I don't understand your point here.

2) $250-300 on a console every 5 years or $500-$600 for a console every 10 years, and you say my logic is silly? Think about it... those are the same numbers! Actually... that does lead me to #3:

3) 10 years from now, you'll be playing games on 10-year old technology. I'll be playing games on 5-year old technology. Yet we've paid the same price. Now who's future-proof?

4) I have a wider range of choice. I could either save $250 now and just get a Wii, or get a XBox360 and a Wii for the price of a PS3 and enjoy both worlds. You've locked yourself into a single platform.

I could go on but meh. I guess I just don't understand how your logic makes so much more sense than mine.

[oldjadedgamer]

Wasn't there an article with figures stating that the 360 has only outsold the PS2 in one out of the 7 or 8 months the 360 has been around for? When a nextgen console can't outsell a console that has been around for 5 or 6 years that doesn't exactly scream safe bet to me.

Going off this logic, the PSP is pretty much doomed since most months the GBA outsells it

[Soap]

You'd rather spend $250-300 on a console, and then whatever else on accessories every 5 years instead of paying $500-$600 for a console every 10 years? The PS2 will be in its 7th year soon, and it still has many great games on the way. If the PS2 wanted to, it could last for another 5 years, as long as developers supported it with good games.

Logic seems a bit silly to me.

Shit, I typed out a response to your "logic" but BlackPete basically posted the same thing.

[Soap]

Wow, where to begin...

1) You made a fatal assumption that I buy accessories. Or to look at it another way: Would you care to argue that the PS2 hasn't had *cough*eyetoy*cough* accessories? Or that the PS3 won't? I guess I don't understand your point here.

2) $250-300 on a console every 5 years or $500-$600 for a console every 10 years, and you say my logic is silly? Think about it... those are the same numbers! Actually... that does lead me to #3:

3) 10 years from now, you'll be playing games on 10-year old technology. I'll be playing games on 5-year old technology. Yet we've paid the same price. Now who's future-proof?

4) I have a wider range of choice. I could either save $250 now and just get a Wii, or get a XBox360 and a Wii for the price of a PS3 and enjoy both worlds. You've locked yourself into a single platform.

I could go on but meh. I guess I just don't understand how your logic makes so much more sense than mine.

Dammit Blackpete, you stole my response!

[Reanimated]

Wow, where to begin...

1) You made a fatal assumption that I buy accessories. Or to look at it another way: Would you care to argue that the PS2 hasn't had *cough*eyetoy*cough* accessories? Or that the PS3 won't? I guess I don't understand your point here.

2) $250-300 on a console every 5 years or $500-$600 for a console every 10 years, and you say my logic is silly? Think about it... those are the same numbers! Actually... that does lead me to #3:

3) 10 years from now, you'll be playing games on 10-year old technology. I'll be playing games on 5-year old technology. Yet we've paid the same price. Now who's future-proof?

4) I have a wider range of choice. I could either save $250 now and just get a Wii, or get a XBox360 and a Wii for the price of a PS3 and enjoy both worlds. You've locked yourself into a single platform.

I could go on but meh. I guess I just don't understand how your logic makes so much more sense than mine.



Wii + 360 really does unlock a TON of gaming goodness for 600 bucks.

[BlackPete]

Dammit Blackpete, you stole my response!

Sorry. I only "borrowed" it though; you can have it back now ;)

The OCD in me couldn't resist after seeing so much straw scattered everywhere...

[Kamalot]

Going off this logic, the PSP is pretty much doomed since most months the GBA outsells it
I'm willing to bet, at the $500+ price point, the PS3 won't sell as quickly as the original PS2 did. You will probably see an overlap where many more PS2s are sold than PS3s due to availability.

This will be interesting to watch as all the people who look for some kind of metric indicating the 360 is a failure will have the same metrics thrown back at them about the PS3. :eek:

[Citizen Philip]

I do agree that sequels mean less and less with each reinteration: GTA, Halo. Old Horses are not something to live by.

As far as the comment about PS2 being viable for 5 more years: Perhaps extreme number of years, yes: but if the focus was on gameplay, as Ninento does, then there is no reason why it would not work. Nintendo has already demonstrated that gameplay trumps tech: which is nice.

As far as quoting best selling lists: Any prudent developer or publisher is going to do their best to sit on the fence until the consumers decide which console they like: unless a developer/publisher has a specific claim to making new titles for unproven consoles. As I like saying, come back next year (Assuming a timely release of the PS3) when two competeing products exist: not one and hyperbole about another.

[BlackPete]

Wii + 360 really does unlock a TON of gaming goodness for 600 bucks.

No kidding. I'm still not even sure if I fully grasp how huge that library will be. Off the top of my head:

Wii + Gamecube + N64 + SNES + NES + Genesis + TurboGrafx16
Xbox360 + Xbox + XArcade (Geometry Wars, etc.)

I don't know if that covers everything... which scares and delights me at the same time.

[NonSoft]

Going off this logic, the PSP is pretty much doomed since most months the GBA outsells it

You got it right, the PSP is most likely doomed. I don't think that is news to anybody.

[NonSoft]

Because there are better games and new ways to play.


Better graphics alone does not equate to a better game. Sorry.
New ways to play? In what way? What is the 360 capable of in terms of "ways to play" that the PS2 isn't? It certainly has a better online gaming system, but that isn't a hardware fault. Obviously the 360 is far superior in terms of power, but I fail to see how it is capable of playing games in ways that the PS2 is not.


Why would someone upgrade their graphics card if you can still play Yahoo games on it?


That comparison is so silly that I can't even justify writing a serious response.


Why don't you show us how it is done. Enjoy all those PS2 games for the next 4 years without buying a new console.


Again, a completely ridiculous statement. If they were going to make great games that have filled the PS2 library for the past 6 years for the next 4 I would think about it. I like good looking games as much as the next guy, but I am perfectly happy playing PS2 or xbox quality (graphics) for the next few years if they are great games.


I'm sure you got 10 years out of the PS1 as well, right? I mean, EVERYONE kept buying PS1 games after the PS2 came out, right?

Actually yeah. I bought quite a few new games after the PS2 came out, because there were a number of great PS1 games released at that time. Just because the newest system is out doesn't mean people stop buying the old systems games, especially when that system supports backwards compatibility. Let's see how God of War 2 sells in 2007 a few months after the PS3 is released.

[vivafletcher]

This is good for gamers. The more I read, the more I'm convinced that the PS4 will be an excellent system with an attractive price produced by a company that really listens to what its customers want.

We just have to wait for the PS3 to run its course and let Sony reap what they sow.

[Siraris]

Wow, where to begin...

1) You made a fatal assumption that I buy accessories. Or to look at it another way: Would you care to argue that the PS2 hasn't had *cough*eyetoy*cough* accessories? Or that the PS3 won't? I guess I don't understand your point here.

2) $250-300 on a console every 5 years or $500-$600 for a console every 10 years, and you say my logic is silly? Think about it... those are the same numbers! Actually... that does lead me to #3:

3) 10 years from now, you'll be playing games on 10-year old technology. I'll be playing games on 5-year old technology. Yet we've paid the same price. Now who's future-proof?

4) I have a wider range of choice. I could either save $250 now and just get a Wii, or get a XBox360 and a Wii for the price of a PS3 and enjoy both worlds. You've locked yourself into a single platform.

I could go on but meh. I guess I just don't understand how your logic makes so much more sense than mine.

1). Um... the point is that you'll be paying money for accessories, which will raise the amount of money you spend on your console above 250-300.

2). I was pointing out the obvious to you. The cost of a console for 10 years is the same as two every 5 years.

3). And 15 years from now you'll be playing on 10 year old, and 20 years on 15. When does the cycle end? If Sony can put out a console that can keep up with the latest technology out there for $5-600 today, why shouldn't I take advantage of it?

4). You can get a Wii if you want, you can get a Wii and a 360, or a 360 alone or whatever you want, that is your choice. As long as you have a great time with your console and get the most out of your purchase, that's all that matters.

[Tolkoto]

Wait, does anyone really expect the PS3 to have a 10 year life span? I mean... come on.

[Kamalot]

If Sony can put out a console that can keep up with the latest technology out there for $5-600 today, why shouldn't I take advantage of it?
Cause you can get a console that can keep up with the latest gaming technology out there for $299-$399. :rolleyes:

[bone_matrix]

1). Um... the point is that you'll be paying money for accessories, which will raise the amount of money you spend on your console above 250-300.

1). I don't believe that a controller, with a lot of use, will last 10 years. So, you and him will get a controller with the system. Then, when he has to buy a new console for $300, he gets a controller with it, while you will need to add another $40 or so to your $600 investment. Accessories don't last forever. To say he has to buy extra accessories in 5 years for the new system, and yours will last perfectly for 10 is dumb.

[BlackPete]

1). Um... the point is that you'll be paying money for accessories, which will raise the amount of money you spend on your console above 250-300.

There you go again with that assumption. Once again, I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

2). I was pointing out the obvious to you. The cost of a console for 10 years is the same as two every 5 years.

.... So? You're the one who made this an issue, not me. Yes, I was lampooning the kitchen sink stuff -- but you probably failed to realize it wasn't the price I was mocking, it was the unneeded extras like Blu-ray, etc. I'm not shelling out cash for stuff I don't need.

3). And 15 years from now you'll be playing on 10 year old, and 20 years on 15. When does the cycle end? If Sony can put out a console that can keep up with the latest technology out there for $5-600 today, why shouldn't I take advantage of it?

Finally we get to the real meat of the matter. You're saying you'd rather buy 1 platform every 10 years. I'm saying I'd rather buy 1 platform every 5 years.

Myself, I prefer my technology to stay current and not be made obsolete by unexpected turns in the market. See: PS2 hard drive. I'm also not buying Sony's promises that the PS3 will be _that_ powerful, and it most certainly won't stay powerful after 5 years, much less 10. I also am not going to buy something that I can't use today, but think I might need someday.

If you're sure that the Sony technology will stand up after 10 years, then bully for you -- go for it. Just don't be surprised to see a PS4 in 5 years.

4). You can get a Wii if you want, you can get a Wii and a 360, or a 360 alone or whatever you want, that is your choice. As long as you have a great time with your console and get the most out of your purchase, that's all that matters.

Something we can agree on!

[Kamalot]

Again, a completely ridiculous statement. If they were going to make great games that have filled the PS2 library for the past 6 years for the next 4 I would think about it. I like good looking games as much as the next guy, but I am perfectly happy playing PS2 or xbox quality (graphics) for the next few years if they are great games.Well enjoy playing your PS2 games on your PS2 since it has a 10-year lifespan. I wonder what games will be coming out for it in 2009-2010.

Andrew House, executive vice president of Sony Computer Entertainment of America, said in his keynote address at the Game Developers Conference in San Jose, California that the PS2 is expected to have a ten year lifespan, similar to the still chugging PS One. This suggests that Sony is not pursuing development of the PlayStation3 platform as aggresively as earlier speculated. An early PSP game, "Death Jr." was also demonstrated (in emulated form on a PC) for the attendees.

Source (http://news.gamewinners.com/index.php/news/8/)

[NonSoft]

Well enjoy playing your PS2 games on your PS2 since it has a 10-year lifespan. I wonder what games will be coming out for it in 2009-2010.



Source (http://news.gamewinners.com/index.php/news/8/)

Well that sure is an up-to-date source, only a bit over 2 years old.

Either you are completely missing my point, or just trying to be an ass. Obviously there won't exactly be an overwhelming amount of titles released for the PS2 after the next year or so, or even enough to keep one busy. So, it is doubtful that I will be using a PS2 as my main gaming console, not because it isn't capable of producing good games anymore, but because developers (for the most part) will have moved on to next-gen consoles. If you can't understand that, I'm am truly sorry.

[Siraris]

Well that sure is an up-to-date source, only a bit over 2 years old.

Either you are completely missing my point, or just trying to be an ass. Obviously there won't exactly be an overwhelming amount of titles released for the PS2 after the next year or so, or even enough to keep one busy. So, it is doubtful that I will be using a PS2 as my main gaming console, not because it isn't capable of producing good games anymore, but because developers (for the most part) will have moved on to next-gen consoles. If you can't understand that, I'm am truly sorry.

He's just being a troll, don't pay attention to him. There are over 200 PS2 titles still in development, and I know I'm looking forward to quite a few. Considering two of the most impressive games I've seen on any console (GoW and Okami) came out in the past year, I'd say the PS2 has quite a bit of life still in it. I don't know why they feel that we need to go out and buy a whole new console when the games that are coming out now are still giving me my moneys worth. They bitch and bitch about the price of the PS3, and then complain that they don't want to own one console for 10 years.

The whole point of what I was trying to say, which some people are too thick headed to understand, is that if you are paying for 1 console for 10 years, or 2 for 10 years, whats the difference? Just becuase you are getting newer hardware doesn't mean you are getting better games. Does the 3DO, the Jaguar, or the Neo-Geo ring a bell? I've been playing my DS a lot lately, and I'm having a ball. Hell, I'm not even playing a DS game on it right now, I'm playing a GBA game.

[Spudcula]

Cause you can get a console that can keep up with the latest gaming technology out there for $299-$399. :rolleyes:


QED.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

[BlackPete]

3). And 15 years from now you'll be playing on 10 year old, and 20 years on 15. When does the cycle end? If Sony can put out a console that can keep up with the latest technology out there for $5-600 today, why shouldn't I take advantage of it?

That got me to thinking about the past 10 years and what happened since then... so I decided to do a google search to see what happened back in 1996 (http://www.computerhope.com/history/19902000.htm):

(1996) Intel releases the 200MHz P6.
(1996) Google is first developed
(1996) Microsoft introduces DirectX
(1996) Microsoft introduces the wheelmouse
(1997) Pentium II 233MHz released
(1999) NVIDIA introduces the GPU
(2000) ATI introduces Radeon
(2001) XBox released (using the zippy Pentium 3)

And look at what we have now compared to back then... dual cores, clock speeds running over 3-4GHz, etc. Hell 3dfx was founded 12 years ago... so we haven't even had consumer level hardware accelerated 3D graphics for "that" long!

If you truly believe that you can develop a console that will realistically "keep up" with 10 years worth of technology, then you are a true visionary indeed.

Or put another way: This was before Duke Nukem Forever was announced ;) (barely)

[Siraris]

That got me to thinking about the past 10 years and what happened since then... so I decided to do a google search to see what happened back in 1996 (http://www.computerhope.com/history/19902000.htm):

(1996) Intel releases the 200MHz P6.
(1996) Google is first developed
(1996) Microsoft introduces DirectX
(1996) Microsoft introduces the wheelmouse
(1997) Pentium II 233MHz released
(1999) NVIDIA introduces the GPU
(2000) ATI introduces Radeon
(2001) XBox released (using the zippy Pentium 3)

And look at what we have now compared to back then... dual cores, clock speeds running over 3-4GHz, etc. Hell 3dfx was founded 12 years ago... so we haven't even had consumer level hardware accelerated 3D graphics for "that" long!

If you truly believe that you can develop a console that will realistically "keep up" with 10 years worth of technology, then you are a true visionary indeed.

Or put another way: This was before Duke Nukem Forever was announced ;) (barely)

I'm glad you are able to make sweeping statements about the market, but it doesn't hold up. Just because something is 3 ghz, doesn't mean it's that much better. A lot more goes into the power of a processor than clock speed. The PS2 was clocked at 300 mhz, and it is still very visually impressive almost 7 years after launch and going on around 9 years since it's design stage. When you see games like Okami, if you haven't already, you'll realize that there is quite a bit that the PS2 can still do.

Just because there is better technology, doesn't mean that there will be software to take advantage of it. I am able to play any game on the market today with a Radeon X700 that I got for $100. I don't need to spend $500 on a top of the line graphics card. I can play Oblivion and Prey and they both look fantastic.

I don't know what your chart is supposed to signify. Is it supposed to show me that the XBox came out 2 years after the P3, used a very powerful processor at the time as its processor and it still was beaten by a "less powerful" system?

We may have dual cores now, and quad cores, and 5 ghz machines, but what really takes advantage of this power? Very very very very very few applications are multi-threaded, very few applications need more than 1 or 2 ghz to run. The PS3 is orders of magnitude more powerful than the PS2, and I'm still very impressed with what the PS2 has to offer, so why would I think that the PS3 wouldn't last at least 8-10 years?

[Evil Avnovice]

Please, don't encourage him! :rolleyes:

Oopsie. :o Couldn't resist. :)

[Kamalot]

Well that sure is an up-to-date source, only a bit over 2 years old.

Either you are completely missing my point, or just trying to be an ass. Obviously there won't exactly be an overwhelming amount of titles released for the PS2 after the next year or so, or even enough to keep one busy. So, it is doubtful that I will be using a PS2 as my main gaming console, not because it isn't capable of producing good games anymore, but because developers (for the most part) will have moved on to next-gen consoles. If you can't understand that, I'm am truly sorry.You amuse me.

What does it matter if the news source is old? If Sony commits to a 10 year lifespan, it is a 10-year lifespan. They said that about the PS2. They said the same thing about the PS3.

If you are truly using the 'PS3 will have a 10-year lifespan' as some form of justification, just look at what they are doing with the PS2. That's their idea of a 10-year lifespan.

When you say, "it is doubtful that I will be using a PS2 as my main gaming console, not because it isn't capable of producing good games anymore, but because developers (for the most part) will have moved on to next-gen consoles" you make my point for me. There isn't so much a problem with the hardware but the rest of the world moves on. Sure, you can use your PS2 until 2010, but you will be very lonely and bored.

Don't go expecting your PS3 to keep your gaming needs satisfied until 2016. It isn't going to happen. In 2011 Microsoft and Nintendo will launch new consoles. Sony probably will too, maybe even sooner to put the debacle of the PS3 behind them quickly, the same way Microsoft launched the 360 only 4 years after the original Xbox to put the financial disaster behind them.

If you use the PS2 as your only game system for 10 years, you are a sad, strange little gamer.

[Kamalot]

Here's another interesting factoid.

Bethesda Softworks in 1996:
http://www.bethsoft.com/images/games/gamescrn_daggerfall_02-B.jpg

Bethesda Softworks 2006:
http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/558/558955/the-elder-scrolls-iv-oblivion-20041021063820658.jpg
Image too big to embed...

A lot can change in 10 years. Do you realistically think any piece of technology is good for 10 years?

[Kelegacy]

Here's another interesting factoid.

Bethesda Softworks in 1996:


Bethesda Softworks 2006:

Image too big to embed...

A lot can change in 10 years. Do you realistically think any piece of technology is good for 10 years?
What's your definition of "good"? You of all people should know better than to tout a graphical update as "good". In many ways The Elder Scrolls has regressed, barring eye candy improvments, so it's not a great example. I love the series, but the biggest things that have changed are graphics-related, not content.

A console that lasts 10 years has to be good for everyone, wouldn't you agree? Then the focus is clearly on fun and games.

[BlackPete]

I'm glad you are able to make sweeping statements about the market, but it doesn't hold up. Just because something is 3 ghz, doesn't mean it's that much better.

Right! Now you're getting closer to seeing what I mean...

A lot more goes into the power of a processor than clock speed... snip... you'll realize that there is quite a bit that the PS2 can still do.

Agreed. Getting closer!

I am able to play any game on the market today with a Radeon X700 that I got for $100. I don't need to spend $500 on a top of the line graphics card. I can play Oblivion and Prey and they both look fantastic.

/boggle

You balk at buying a $500 graphics card, but have no problems buying a $600 PS3? OK now you're trying to steer AWAY from the point here while actually steering closer. A bit ironic, that.

I don't know what your chart is supposed to signify. Is it supposed to show me that the XBox came out 2 years after the P3, used a very powerful processor at the time as its processor and it still was beaten by a "less powerful" system?

Er... you've just made my point for me without even realizing it. Now if you'd take off your Sony glasses for a sec, and look at it from this way:


Console A is cheaper and "weaker"
Console B is more expensive and more "powerful"


By your very own arguments, being more "powerful" does NOT necessarily mean that it is the superior machine. XBox certainly proved that.

You yourself said that you'd get a $100 video card because you don't need the $500 video card as Oblivion and Prey still looks fantastic (wait... is Prey out yet? n/m) This contradicts your assertion that you'd prefer to buy the most expensive console for "future proofing" when you don't even know what's coming out in 5-10 years from now.

And that is why I prefer to buy the cheaper console. Even if it means buying one every 5 years instead of 10.

We may have dual cores now, and quad cores, and 5 ghz machines, but what really takes advantage of this power? Very very very very very few applications are multi-threaded, very few applications need more than 1 or 2 ghz to run. The PS3 is orders of magnitude more powerful than the PS2, and I'm still very impressed with what the PS2 has to offer, so why would I think that the PS3 wouldn't last at least 8-10 years?

I still see amazing things done by people using ASCII art. That doesn't mean I want to stick with ASCII-based platforms when everyone else has moved on.

[NonSoft]

When you say, "it is doubtful that I will be using a PS2 as my main gaming console, not because it isn't capable of producing good games anymore, but because developers (for the most part) will have moved on to next-gen consoles" you make my point for me. There isn't so much a problem with the hardware but the rest of the world moves on.


Actually, that was my point. You said that there are "better games" now because of the next-gen consoles. My only point was that yes, companies will move on and make more powerful consoles, but that doesn't mean that they are better than the previous generation's games.


Don't go expecting your PS3 to keep your gaming needs satisfied until 2016. It isn't going to happen. In 2011 Microsoft and Nintendo will launch new consoles. Sony probably will too, maybe even sooner to put the debacle of the PS3 behind them quickly, the same way Microsoft launched the 360 only 4 years after the original Xbox to put the financial disaster behind them.


Quite possibly, and only time will tell. Why is it "my PS3" ? I have no intentions of getting as PS3 (as of now anyway). Unlike you, I haven't made up my mind prior to receiving proper information about all of the consoles.



If you use the PS2 as your only game system for 10 years, you are a sad, strange little gamer.

Do you even read other people's posts? Seriously.
I said quite clearly, I have no plans of using my PS2 for 10 years, infact you quoted it. Really, if you are going to reply to posts you should actually take the time to read them first. It might save you from looking so ridiculous.

[Siraris]

Right! Now you're getting closer to seeing what I mean...

...

You yourself said that you'd get a $100 video card because you don't need the $500 video card as Oblivion and Prey still looks fantastic (wait... is Prey out yet? n/m) This contradicts your assertion that you'd prefer to buy the most expensive console for "future proofing" when you don't even know what's coming out in 5-10 years from now.

And that is why I prefer to buy the cheaper console. Even if it means buying one every 5 years instead of 10.

I still see amazing things done by people using ASCII art. That doesn't mean I want to stick with ASCII-based platforms when everyone else has moved on.

The PS3 IS more powerful than the 360, everyone knows this. It may not be leaps and bounds more powerful, like being able to cure cancer, solve the mysteries of the universe, but it is a very powerful machine that very few people have been able to use and utilize and become familiar with. I'll tell you that I would pay $600 for a 360 in its current form if it had the direction and any good games that I am interested in. The 360 has very few exclusive good games for it, and I don't believe in the direction they are taking, therefore I wouldn't spend $599 let alone $399 on it. I feel that the Xbox and the 360 are both pretty lackluster consoles, and Microsoft doesn't really know what they want from it.

I wouldn't pay $500 for a video card, because that is ONE component in my computer. With the PS3, I could get a Cell processor, a NVIDIA 7800 GTX (Modified), a Blu-Ray player, and a back catalogue of every PS1 and PS2 game, as well as a free internet service, a DVR and who knows what else. For a $500 video card I get a VIDEO CARD and that's it. That doesn't include CPU, RAM, CPU, PSU, Case, Motherboard, HDD, DVD-ROM. I don't see how it is that hard to understand the difference between the two. I wasn't even comparing the price of a video card and a PC, I was using my graphics card as an example of not needing a reall powerful GPU right now. I have every intention of upgrading to a better card in the next year or so, and I will probably do it again a couple years after that. With the PS3, I get the high-end card that will be more than enough 5-10 years down the line, and is overkill right now.

You seem to think that there will be this magical jump in hardware over the next 10 years, but there probably won't be. A lot of boundaries in graphics have been met, such as normal mapping. You don't need to worry about putting lifelike looking characters into games if you have normal mapping, because a character with millions of polygons can be mapped down to tens of thousands. I'm sure there will be improvements over the next 10 years, I would be insane not to think so, but we're not going to be processing real-time caustics in the near future, and even if a solution is developed over the next decade, I think I can wait for it in 2016.

It's incredible to me the hate and seething rage that people on this board and elsewhere have towards the PS3. You are all raging over a console that had its final development kits ship a few WEEKS ago. I bet most of you would be pissed at the Wright brothers because their plane wasn't able to cross the atlantic on its test flight. Give developers a break, give Sony a break, wait until the flipping console is launched before you tear it to pieces. Does it give you some sort of pleasure to lambaste this console before you've even touched the machine? It's like the past 10 years of Playstation has been wiped out of history, and Sony is launching the Phantom here. Sony has given some of the most incredible gaming experiences of our generation, and you're all treating it like it killed your puppy. If it comes out this fall and it sucks and its not worth your money, go ahead and bitch about it. Until then, give it a rest, it's really getting old.

And if you want to slap my wrists because I am not a fan of the 360, go ahead. I am able to goto the store and try the 360 and form an opinion of it, you're all forming your opinions on pure conjecture, early developmental screenshots and a price tag.

[Kamalot]

Yeah. I quoted a number of things from you like this one below.

If they were going to make great games that have filled the PS2 library for the past 6 years for the next 4 I would think about it.

I have to apologize if I didn't catch everything. Lots of your posts don't seem to make a lot of sense. Try reading that out loud to see what I mean.

As for Daggerfall / Oblivion: I played Daggerfall for about a hundred hours. I still have the original CD around here. There are some things it did better than Oblivion, but there are many things Oblivion does better, including managing the physical nature of objects in the world and handling quests. I can also state that I have never had as much fun with a BethSoft game as I have had with Oblivion, and Fun is what it all comes down to. If the team leaves out some technical features but ends up making the game more fun, more power to them.

[BlackPete]

The PS3 IS more powerful than the 360, everyone knows this. It may not be leaps and bounds more powerful, like being able to cure cancer, solve the mysteries of the universe, but it is a very powerful machine that very few people have been able to use and utilize and become familiar with.

Were you under the impression that I was disputing that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360? I really couldn't care less either way -- if it's got good games, I'll buy it*. Right now the 360 has NO games that I'd buy one for. Yet. This might come as a shock to you but I can't justify a 360 at its current price either. Once more games come out for it, we'll see. Or at least after the price drop "that's not gonna happen" this year.

I just happen to feel exactly the same way about the PS3. I'm not going to buy it because it's "ooh la la it's UBER POWERFUL AND WILL PWNZER J00!!11!!". I'm not going to buy it because it promises so much "potential" that it'll last 1000 years. I'll buy it if it has good games*.

*(See caveat below).

You seem to think that there will be this magical jump in hardware over the next 10 years, but there probably won't be. A lot of boundaries in graphics have been met, such as normal mapping.

I'm curious as to what you would've thought about computer graphics before you even heard of a GPU? For a while there, it was beginning to look like we were stuck at 640x480 resolution for a while there, ya know. And that's just talking about graphics. We haven't even touched on physics, AI development, etc. Or even, say, a Wii-mote. You're basing your prediction on today's technology. I'm avoiding making any such predictions.

The hell of it is, we pay the same price in the end. If I'm wrong, then we end up with equivalent consoles and I haven't lost anything. If I'm right, then I'll have a console that'll allow me to play far better games than the PS3 could ever allow 10 years from now.

It's incredible to me the hate and seething rage that people on this board and elsewhere have towards the PS3. You are all raging over a console that had its final development kits ship a few WEEKS ago. I bet most of you would be pissed at the Wright brothers because their plane wasn't able to cross the atlantic on its test flight. Give developers a break, give Sony a break, wait until the flipping console is launched before you tear it to pieces.

At what point did I deliberately bash on the PS3? All I did was say I'd rather buy one console every 5 years. I think you're stuck in some kind of Sony Fanboyism mode here where you see everything as an attack on Sony.

Everything I've said applies equally to all platforms. Hell, even the arguments you've made about the PS2 continuing to impress you is applicable to all platforms too. After all, the "kiddie" console got the best looking game I've ever seen on a console to date (RE4 for GC).

It's like the past 10 years of Playstation has been wiped out of history, and Sony is launching the Phantom here.

OK it feels like you're trolling here but I'll oblige...

Sony has only themselves to blame for this one. They're making all the mistakes Nintendo did with the N64 and having a cranky old coot of a CEO didn't help. Remember how everyone winced every time Yamauchi opened his fat mouth? Remember how everyone wished he'd just quit/be fired for Nintendo's sake? Nintendo got too big for their own good so they got a much-deserved time-out. Now the same thing is happening with Krazy Ken. Now it's Sony's turn to get a time-out.

I said before that I'd buy a PS3 if it has good games. However... you just don't overpromise, underdeliver, practically call gamers ignorant fools, then act all shocked SHOCKED when they turn on you. The way Sony has been behaving themselves lately is frankly disgusting. I used to be pro-PS3 before the E3 but now it's not even on my x-mas wish list (not for hardware reasons, but for purely political reasons, mind you).

I don't want Sony to die. I do want them to be humbled and to regain their perspective that it's all about the games.

[Siraris]

Were you under the impression that I was disputing that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360? I really couldn't care less either way Everything I've said applies equally to all platforms. Hell, even the arguments you've made about the PS2 continuing to impress you is applicable to all platforms too. After all, the "kiddie" console got the best looking game I've ever seen on a console to date (RE4 for GC).

OK it feels like you're trolling here but I'll oblige...

Sony has only themselves to blame for this one. They're making all the mistakes Nintendo did with the N64 and having a cranky old coot of a CEO didn't help. Remember how everyone winced every time Yamauchi opened his fat mouth? Remember how everyone wished he'd just quit/be fired for Nintendo's sake? Nintendo got too big for their own good so they got a much-deserved time-out. Now the same thing is happening with Krazy Ken. Now it's Sony's turn to get a time-out.

I said before that I'd buy a PS3 if it has good games. However... you just don't overpromise, underdeliver, practically call gamers ignorant fools, then act all shocked SHOCKED when they turn on you. The way Sony has been behaving themselves lately is frankly disgusting. I used to be pro-PS3 before the E3 but now it's not even on my x-mas wish list (not for hardware reasons, but for purely political reasons, mind you).

I don't want Sony to die. I do want them to be humbled and to regain their perspective that it's all about the games.

First of all, I quoted you in this post, but not everything was directed towards you. You never said anything bad about about the PS3, nor did I mean to insuate that you did.

I am basing my opinions on todays technology because that's all I have to work with. I am no expert, but I have a pretty good grasp on todays technology graphics technology, and I don't see it making huge leaps that would require something like nvidias new dual core GPU for every game in order to make it look good. The RSX is taking a top of the line graphics card and making it better, and then putting in a system that every developer knows for a fact that its in there. A friend of mine is working on Brothers in Arms and told me that the demo is going to require a 6800, but the final will require a 6600 minimum. When developing a game for PC, you have to develop for the low-end cards as well as the high-end, so you can't really go as balls out as most developers would like. On the PS3 and the 360, you know everyone has the best card on the market, so you can code like that. The only thing stopping you is your ability to utilize the hardware.

I look at a game that came out on PS2 at launch, say Summoner. I am probably one of the few people out there who really liked Summoner, and I thought it was a pretty game for its time. I look at Okami, which is coming out this fall, and I'm floored. This game is gorgeous, stunning, amazing, and here we are 6 years after launch looking at what the PS2 can really do. I look at God of War 2, and I'm floored at how amazing it looks, and when I think about it, I say to myself, "I could survive for another 2 years with these kind of graphics".

I don't know how I am being a troll by pointing out the irrational behavior that most people are showing on messageboards lately. All I stated was that people seem to be forgetting Sonys track record of great games for both the PS1 and PS2.

It's funny you bring up the N64. I used to be a h u g e Nintendo Fanboy. HUGE. When I heard about the N64, I almost had a breakdown. I spent the 6 months after the announcement gobbling up all the information that I could about the N64. I talked in chatrooms, I posted on boards, I did everything I could to immerse myself in everything Nintendo 64. When it finally launched, I was crushed. I returned it a week after buying it, and didn't look back for a long time.

I would disagree that Sony is doing the same thing Nintendo did for a couple reasons. I believe it's a very different market than it was when the N64 came out. Sega was on its last leg and Sony had just released the PSX. Gaming was also not as big and mainstream as it is now. Sony also has an very strong showing of not only first party but also third party developers. If you count the estimated release dates for PS3 games compared to 360 games (which gives you a rough idea of how many games are announced for both systems) the 360 barely edges out the PS3, and it's been out for 8 months now. The N64 did not have the support behind its system that the PS3 does. I know a few developers out there who are developing console games, (as I'm sure many people on this board do as well) and not one of them has ever said "Oh god the PS3 is DOOMED". The surprising thing they have said is that the PS3 is VERY powerful. I remember talking to people early in the PS2 development and they wanted to kill themselves, it's a very different situation.

I remember Yamauchi, and what a raving lunatic he was, but he also was a very smart man, just like Ken is. Ken is a brilliant engineer, but not a great PR person. They can't just kick out the man who is behind arguably the #1 console in history. He is most likely being phased out, but I also believe that he is not the one making every decision. I have seen a couple interviews with Stringer and I've read some stuff about him, and I believe he's got the right vision that Sony needs right now. I also think Phil Harrison is a very smart guy and really understands the industry. If something was really wrong here, someone would step in. Sony cannot afford to have the PS3 sink (which it won't), but if it really was going to, someone would yell halt on the production lines. It wouldn't get this far in the development process without a red flag going up.

I also don't really get your whole argument about being all pro-PS3 and now being completely turned off. How is their behavior disgusting? Ken Kutaragi may have said somethings that were not appropriate (or mistranslated/misinterpreted), but does he speak for the entirety of Sony? Have you ever heard of being cocky? It's not always a bad thing. If they deliver this generation, thats 3 back to back hits on their hands, they're outselling the 360 in hardware and software, things are good. Its not like they have commited genocide, or gone on a campaign of killing puppies, they are just playing the press game. I don't know why people have to take it so personally. If the PS3 comes out this fall and it gives you a great gaming experience, who cares what Ken says?

In the end its a waiting game. I have yet to hear anything to turn me away from the PS3, only things to excite me. I have no problem with the price, that is probably why I'm only seeing the positives. As time goes on, we'll start to see more of the games and what they have to offer, and I think they are going to really impress people. Sony also says they have a very big announcement before launch, which could be a very pleasant surprise. It's been a little over a month since E3, and a few weeks since final PS3 kits shipped. I don't know if people remember E3 of 2000, but there was barely anything to show on the PS2, and everything turned out just fine in that case, why can't it go well this time?

[bean19]

The PS3 IS more powerful than the 360, everyone knows this.

Um. . . no. It is theoretically more powerful if all of the SPUs can somehow be engaged. . . but most people won't use them, or they will under use them by only giving them specific tasks.

For instance, imagine that you have a team of 7 guys making pizza. They are all good at their jobs - but it is difficult to train them to change jobs and get them to work together, so while you are making pizzas, you are only using the pizza maker and the expediter, and then you move on to use the register. Only on rare occassions would you use them all simultaneously - though a thoughtful manager might be able to train them to do this and acheive cool stuff.

Or you could have 3 employees that are all better employees than the 7 other ones, but they are much easier to train to do work together because there are 3 of them, and instead of setting them aside for certain jobs that aren't called upon all that often, you teach them to work each job and move between them as needed.

The REALITY is that in many practical cases the 360 is the more powerful system and that the PS3 is theoretically the more powerful system if the code is balanced perfectly to leverage all 7 SPUs at the same time.

The other reality is that the games for both systems look very close to the same. It is not nearly as dramatic as the difference between Xbox graphics and PS2 graphics. Without any foreknowledge about which games are being made for each system, I would not be able to tell which system games are being made for at E3.

Individual games for both systems will be excellent stand-outs. . . but your run-of-the-mill games will look incredibly similar on either system. . . for multi-platform games, I wouldn't be surprised to see them being designed primarily for the X360 as it is an easier system to design around and then just being ported to the PS3 without fully leveraging the SPUs. This could lead to games that look ugier on the PS3.

[Siraris]

Um. . . no. It is theoretically more powerful if all of the SPUs can somehow be engaged. . . but most people won't use them, or they will under use them by only giving them specific tasks.

For instance, imagine that you have a team of 7 guys making pizza. They are all good at their jobs - but it is difficult to train them to change jobs and get them to work together, so while you are making pizzas, you are only using the pizza maker and the expediter, and then you move on to use the register. Only on rare occassions would you use them all simultaneously - though a thoughtful manager might be able to train them to do this and acheive cool stuff.

Or you could have 3 employees that are all better employees than the 7 other ones, but they are much easier to train to do work together because there are 3 of them, and instead of setting them aside for certain jobs that aren't called upon all that often, you teach them to work each job and move between them as needed.

The REALITY is that in many practical cases the 360 is the more powerful system and that the PS3 is theoretically the more powerful system if the code is balanced perfectly to leverage all 7 SPUs at the same time.

The other reality is that the games for both systems look very close to the same. It is not nearly as dramatic as the difference between Xbox graphics and PS2 graphics. Without any foreknowledge about which games are being made for each system, I would not be able to tell which system games are being made for at E3.

Individual games for both systems will be excellent stand-outs. . . but your run-of-the-mill games will look incredibly similar on either system. . . for multi-platform games, I wouldn't be surprised to see them being designed primarily for the X360 as it is an easier system to design around and then just being ported to the PS3 without fully leveraging the SPUs. This could lead to games that look ugier on the PS3.

That's funny, I didn't see the huge difference between PS2 and XBox. The only real difference I noticed was load times. Take Burnout 3 for example, in some areas it looked better on PS2. I think games like Shadow of Colossus, God of War, MGS3 looked better than almost every offering on the Xbox.

The Xbox was supposed to be much easier to program for, yet most games were initially designed for PS2 and then ported to the XBox. The PS3 is substantially easier to develop for than the PS2, and once (if there hasn't already) a decent compiler is available to optomize code on the SPE's, utilizing the power of Cell should be a lot easier.

[BlackPete]

I remember Yamauchi, and what a raving lunatic he was, but he also was a very smart man, just like Ken is. Ken is a brilliant engineer, but not a great PR person. They can't just kick out the man who is behind arguably the #1 console in history. He is most likely being phased out, but I also believe that he is not the one making every decision. I have seen a couple interviews with Stringer and I've read some stuff about him, and I believe he's got the right vision that Sony needs right now. I also think Phil Harrison is a very smart guy and really understands the industry. If something was really wrong here, someone would step in. Sony cannot afford to have the PS3 sink (which it won't), but if it really was going to, someone would yell halt on the production lines. It wouldn't get this far in the development process without a red flag going up.

Alright well... it looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Personally I think only a qualifed PR guy should handle PR issues, and if anyone is seen as a raving lunatic handling PR stuff, that guy should be moved elsewhere "safe". Maybe that's just me...


I also don't really get your whole argument about being all pro-PS3 and now being completely turned off. How is their behavior disgusting? Ken Kutaragi may have said somethings that were not appropriate (or mistranslated/misinterpreted), but does he speak for the entirety of Sony? Have you ever heard of being cocky? It's not always a bad thing.

Cockiness is a dangerous game. You can get away with it as long as you can back up everything you say, and even then, you may still end up pissing off some people anyway. And it can backfire in a big way (as John Romero can tell you).

What's wrong with friendly customer service? Is that really so hard to do?

It's been a little over a month since E3, and a few weeks since final PS3 kits shipped. I don't know if people remember E3 of 2000, but there was barely anything to show on the PS2, and everything turned out just fine in that case, why can't it go well this time?

I remember how that went. It was basically chaos (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/05/11/DD82050.DTL).

Sony basically promised the moon, the universe, and everything. And people bought it. Toy story graphics, emotion engine can "think", greatest entertainment center of all time, blah blah blah. Of course reality turned out to be pretty different... that's why the hype machine isn't working quite as well this time: Sony's making the exact same pitches. People still remember the PS2 raves all too well and are taking it with a healthy amount of skepticism.

/EDIT: Grammar fixes

[Siraris]

Alright well... it looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Personally I think only a qualifed PR guy should handle PR issues, and if anyone is seen as a raving lunatic handling PR stuff, that guy should be moved elsewhere "safe". Maybe that's just me...

Sony basically promised the moon, the universe, and everything. And people bought it. Toy story graphics, emotion engine can "think", greatest entertainment center of all time, blah blah blah. Of course reality turned out to be pretty different... that's why the hype machine isn't working quite as well this time: Sony's making the exact same pitches. People still remember the PS2 raves all too well and are taking it with a healthy amount of skepticism.

/EDIT: Grammar fixes


I agree that Ken should not be doing PR, I agreed with you. I'm just saying that he's a very smart man as an engineer and should be left out of the PR business.

Customer service has nothing to do with showing strength before your console ships. I don't know what school of thought says that executives at companys trying to make people believe in their product has anything to do with customer service.

Every system promises the moon and the sun. You can dig up stuff from every console ever made that says it will let you actually BE the character, and it will be x times better than such and such, and it will be better than real life. It's called hype, it's part of PR in this day and age. It would scare me if Sony wasn't doing it.

And just for the record (because whoever originally started this needs to be shot):

"One of the basic premises of the Xbox is to put the power in the hands of the artist," Blackley said, which is why Xbox developers "are achieving a level of visual detail you really get in 'Toy Story.'" (http://netscape.com.com/Microsoft+got+game+Xbox+unveiled/2100-1040_3-250632.html)

[EvoG]

**Small Disclaimer**

I own practically every console in existence since the 2600, so I hold no favoritism but only to those developers (hardware or software) that work hard at making quality product. I'm not an Xbox, Sony or Nintendo fanboy...I'm a gaming fanboy.

I lauded Sony's exclusivity(GTA, GoW, Sly Cooper, Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Shadow of the Colosus), Xbox's power and Live!, and GC's first party games and of course the glorious RE4, Metroid and Wind Waker (and a rather comfortable controller though I'm sure I'm in minority). The Wii right now has made the most significant "next-gen" impression on me and the 360 is holding steady as a very satisfying gaming experience, especially on Live! with GRAW and PGR3.



That's funny, I didn't see the huge difference between PS2 and XBox.

Yea, you're either being sensational, haven't played many or any Xbox games (even if just in comparison alone) or you're lying. I dont mean to antagonize you, but that comment is very hard to take seriously.


The only real difference I noticed was load times.

My PS2 seems to have to load games all the same, and none quicker....hmmmm?

Take Burnout 3 for example, in some areas it looked better on PS2.

Oh? Same exact assets, only higher poly-count meshes, higher resolution textures and shaders on the Xbox...and the PS2 managed to look "better"? M'kay...

I think games like Shadow of Colossus, God of War, MGS3 looked better than almost every offering on the Xbox.

Outstanding looking games, absolutely, stunning even (especially GoW 2), but they say more about the developers than the PS2. Its no secret the Xbox and GC were superior hardware, so you really can't fudge-the-numbers here to strengthen your already subjective arguments.

The Xbox was supposed to be much easier to program for, yet most games were initially designed for PS2 and then ported to the XBox.

Oh, again? Please QFT for the benefit of something substantive than a mere opinion. I'll simply start by mentioning that the Xbox systems are based on the Windows platform and DirectX, so you already have a massive body of experience in the community, available documentation and tool refinement, so if a PS2 developer really did this, I'd highly argue it was not by choice.

The PS3 is substantially easier to develop for than the PS2, and once (if there hasn't already) a decent compiler is available to optomize code on the SPE's, utilizing the power of Cell should be a lot easier.

Yea um, you couldnt' be FURTHER from the truth on that one brother. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060225-6265.html)

I'm going to state openly that I think someone like John Carmack knows a lot more about any of this than most anyone, including myself and anyone here, and HE expresses the difficulty in coding for the PS3...and he REALLY knows what he's doing. Repeated as much at the E3 while in a half-assed interview(curse G4 and Keighley for its terrible E3 coverage...cutting off Carmack like that!).




Siraris, I can appreciate your loyalty, but lack of any objectivity is kind of scary dont you think? Several times now in the past 13 pages, you've managed to dodge and weave from some very compelling rebutals (such as additional costs of accessories to how 'more power' does not equate to 'better experience), offered a lot of opinion as fact (such as how HIT Xbox games are crap :rolleyes: ) and simultaneously stated how you actively sought a cheaper videocard to play Oblivion and Prey [is this game even out? n/m] yet see PS3's greater cost as indicative of the superior experience you 'expect' to have(or at least a cost thats justified and of no real issue for you), so you've clearly and effortlessly graduated to 'fanboy'. Take that how you will, but seeing the PS3 the way you do is as if the E3 Sony conference never took place and that you are privy to information NO ONE else is. Forgeting cost for just a moment, as a gamer there wasn't a single fucking thing to get excited about the PS3 except MGS4. I mean for god's sake, Resistance of Man? Looks like a competent enough shooter, but Insomiac and Naughty Dog (Ratchet/Clank, Jak/Daxter) were the two "exclusive" dev's I mentioned above as loving the PS2 for, and what the fuck do they do?! They make two brand new bullshit IP's that might as well look like any other POS 1st/3rd person cookie cutter action games. GAH!!!

I wanted Sony to kick my ass; MS did...Nintendo did. I wanted a real-time demonstration of Killzone 2 and wanted to believe that the prerender in 2005 was REAL. We need Sony to do well for the sake of us gamers(competition), but Sony also needs a reality check, and need to take it in the gut a bit, so they realise their arrogance is distasteful and their CONSTANT attempt at licensing a fucking medium(blu-ray) is getting ridiculous. The haters, as you'd call them, don't hate Sony arbitrarily as equally as you love Sony, but feel that seeing Sony fail a bit will get them back on the right path.


Cheers

[NonSoft]

I have to apologize if I didn't catch everything. Lots of your posts don't seem to make a lot of sense. Try reading that out loud to see what I mean.


No problem, I wasn't aware of the fact that you completely lack reading comprehension skills.
My mistake.

[bean19]

That's funny, I didn't see the huge difference between PS2 and XBox. The only real difference I noticed was load times. Take Burnout 3 for example, in some areas it looked better on PS2. I think games like Shadow of Colossus, God of War, MGS3 looked better than almost every offering on the Xbox.

The Xbox was supposed to be much easier to program for, yet most games were initially designed for PS2 and then ported to the XBox. The PS3 is substantially easier to develop for than the PS2, and once (if there hasn't already) a decent compiler is available to optomize code on the SPE's, utilizing the power of Cell should be a lot easier.

You realize that EvAv readers are totally going to find you irrelevant because of your loose grasp on reality or obvious trolling now right?

[dimsumx]

What i'm getting at if those charts are based on profit you can't compare $60 dollar game to $50 dollar game or better yet the tons of PS2 greatest hits that sell for $10-$20. That's why I think units sold is a better indicator although i'm sure the 360 was selling tons of games.

In the same sense, I guess you really can't compare $129 console sales to a $399 console either, which people on this board keeps bringing up. :rolleyes:

[Siraris]

**Small Disclaimer**

...


This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Why do people need to put DISCLAIMERS before their posts about them not being fanboys? "HEY EVERYONE I'M UNBIASED AND LEVEL HEADED JUST SO YOU KNOW, K?". I think criminals should start doing this; wearing a sign around their neck saying "HEY EVERYONE I'M NOT A CRIMINAL OK? I'M NOT GOING TO ROB YOUR STORE SO BE CALM."

With that said, I applaud you, it must have taken a lot of time and money to amass that collection. I can associate a bit since I have owned almost every game system since the 2600 as well... wait, does that mean I'm not a fanboy too?!

Yea, you're either being sensational
...


So because I feel that PS2 games are more impressive than XBox games I'm now sensational or a liar? I guess since I think Monet is a better artist than Renoit, I just have no clue do I?


My PS2 seems to have to load games all the same, and none quicker....hmmmm?

huh? WHAT? I don't understand what that means...

Oh? Same exact assets, only higher poly-count meshes, higher resolution textures and shaders on the Xbox...and the PS2 managed to look "better"? M'kay...

Really, care to give me the source of this information? Because that's a pretty sweeping statement for every single game on the PS2 and XBox. Maybe you have some sample textures and shaders available from both systems you could use as evidence? I know you posted your article by Hannibal, so maybe you should try reading this one (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/ee.ars/1) as well which states what a beast the PS2 is, but how hard it was to develop for. This became apparent as time went on, and we started to see developers understand the PS2 better. I think that God of War comes close if not matches the level of detail of Ninja Gaiden, which I believe to be the prettiest game on the XBox. Gran Turismo 4 as well matches anything the XBox has to offer. Somehow developers were able to squeeze all this power out of this inferior system and match the more powerful system. Interesting.

Outstanding looking games, absolutely, stunning even (especially GoW 2), but they say more about the developers than the PS2. Its no secret the Xbox and GC were superior hardware, so you really can't [I]fudge-the-numbers here to strengthen your already subjective arguments.

I agree that XBox and GC had newer hardware that was easier to program for. You can't really prove that it was more powerful. You can't even compare the EE with the P3 in the Xbox as the EE is a RISC Processor and the P3 is a CISC Processor. Furthermore, the EE was built to depend very much on the other hardware (GS, VU0 and 1) for its power. If you take a look at Hannibals article he elaborates more than I am able to.

Oh, again? Please QFT for the benefit of something substantive than a mere opinion...

I'm a bit confused by what you said. Are you saying that I'm lying that there were cross platform games that were initially developed for the PS2 and then ported to the XBox? Because off the top of my head I can name State of Emergency, Grand Theft Auto, Metal Gear Solid, Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance, and many many other games. You can even read this (http://www.gamasutra.com/gdc2003/features/20030307/dobson_01.htm) article on the caveats of porting State of Emergency from PS2 to XBox.

Yea um, you couldnt' be FURTHER from the truth on that one brother. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060225-6265.html)

I'm going to state openly that I think someone like John Carmack knows a lot [QUOTE]

I read that article too, it was a good one no? What does it have to do with the PS3 being easier to develop for than the PS2, and where does it mention John Carmack? Every developer is saying how much easier it is to develop for the PS3 than the PS2, I've never seen John Carmack say that it wasn't the case. He said that the PS3 was difficult to program for, and that he preferred the 360. Last I checked, John Carmack had been programming on the PC for his entire life, so he most likely feels very at home with a system that is very close to a PC (The 360).

As for the article, all it did was reaffirm what I said initially; the Cell needs a compiler that will be able to harness its power so that developers have an easier time coding for it. I guess I DO know what I'm talking about, don't I? (It also points out that developers are lazy, as shown by a need for Tier IV).

Siraris, I can appreciate your loyalty, but lack of any objectivity is kind of scary dont you think? Several times now in the past 13 pages, you've managed to dodge and weave from some very compelling rebutals (such as additional costs of accessories to how 'more power' does not equate to 'better experience), offered a lot of opinion as fact (such as how HIT Xbox games are crap :rolleyes: ) and simultaneously stated how you actively sought a cheaper videocard to play Oblivion and Prey [is this game even out? n/m] ....

..

Cheers

I didn't dodge and weave arguments, I replied to every single one that was directed towards me, and some that weren't. People like yourself feel the need to twist what I say and try to make it seem like I mean one thing when I don't. Take the "Yeah you couldn't be further than the truth" link that you used to confirm my point. I also never stated that I went out and looked for a cheap graphics card to play games right now, all I said was I can play games now on a cheap graphics card; I don't see the issue with that? My original point was that you do not need an expensive video card to play the games that are currently available, and so it would make sense that you wouldn't need a brand new console 5 years down the line to play games that were put out 10 years from now, especially when it takes many consoles 5 years to reach their true potential.

You go on to say that I must be insane to be a fan of the PS3 because there was nothing exciting at E3. I think your foundation is beginning to crack here. Do I sense some bias in your voice? What about the disclaimer man, the DISCLAIMER!. I was very impressed with what Sony had to show at E3. I have gone into why many times before, so I'm not going to write a whole huge post about it again, but if you look at this years E3 compared with E3 2000, the PS3 is substantially farther along than the PS2 was before it launched.

As for the privy information part, perhaps I am privy to information that you are not, have you considered this? No matter what you say on the internet, people will question you, pick you apart and look at you in disbelief if you make claims that are unsubstantionable, especially if they have an opposing view. With that being said, I thought Resistance looked fantastic and was far from cookie cutter (you don't even know what the final game is about) and I believe that Killzone 2 as well as Naughty Dogs untitled game will continue to impress in the months to come.

So you feel that MS and Nintendo kicked ass, I feel that Sony and Nintendo kicked ass. Does that make me a fanboy? If it does, aren't you as much of a fanboy as me? How about we look at fanboy for a second. Who invented this assinine word, can we get a check on this? I think anyone who uses the word fanboy needs to have their head examined. Do you realize that EVERYONE is a fanboy? Do you know how utterly ridiculous it is to sit on the fense like you "claim" to do? "Hey, I'm not a republican or a democrat, I'm just kind of here". "I'm a huge football fan, but I don't like any team in particular, I like them all!". It's such utter BULL that every time I see the word it makes me want to vomit. EVERYONE has bias, EVERYONE likes something more than something else, EVERYONE has preference, EVERYONE has something they dislike. Anyone who sits on the fence on everything needs to grow a backbone and take a stance on something, or we'll all have to preface every sentence with DISCLAIMER.

I am the minority, I am a fan of Sony's gaming division. I am also a fan of Nintendo. I am also a huge fan of Microsoft, just not their XBox division so far. Every single post you see on gaming sites relating to Sony are filled with hate and seething rage. People seem to see Sony as if they are out to get them; "Oh god Sony why did you let me down at E3, I hate you! I HATE YOU!". You know what, it's getting old. It's ironic because of all the seething hatred for "***" and their Windows operating system. I think the gaming community is one of the only places on the internet where Microsoft survives fairly unscathed.

You can try and project this unbiased middle of the road nature, but it's a crock man, and you're lying to yourself. You spend your entire post picking apart my arguments (which may as well be you picking apart Sony), and you finish off by slamming Sony for letting you down and "forcing" you to buy Blu-Ray. Nevermind the fact that there are dozens of companys behind Blu-Ray who probably had a hand in putting it in the PS3. Oh and nevermind the fact that Microsoft is trying to lock you into HD-DVD, it just wasn't ready in time to be put standard into the 360. Oh yes, the 360 is offering the HD-DVD Add-on which is still forcing HD-DVD down your throat, because if you only buy a 360 you have to buy HD-DVD to watch hi-def movies. And don't even try and tell me that had Microsoft launched this later, they wouldn't have put a HD-DVD drive in every single 360. Hell, Itagaki would be doing headstands if they had.

If I dodged and weaved any of your points, please let me know, and I'll be happy to respond in turn.

[Goronmon]

Siraris. You are a frickin' lunatic, lol.

[Kamalot]

Siraris. You are a frickin' lunatic, lol.
But it keeps things interesting.

[Jack B]

EvoG,

Welcome to my world... It sucks. I exploded on him once. Now I try to respond in a very reserved manner, but it's not easy sometimes.

Siraris posts to following.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siraris
The PS3 is substantially easier to develop for than the PS2, and once (if there hasn't already) a decent compiler is available to optomize code on the SPE's, utilizing the power of Cell should be a lot easier.

You post a URL to a very good article below, showing it's a long long way out for a decent compiler and even when it's out, it will still be extremely difficult to program for the Cell.

In fact the article mentions a 'decade' of effort... That "something" just isn't at all likely to rise to the full potential of what the Cell could be capable of with another decade of industry-wide effort on heterogeneous multiprocessing systems.

Yea um, you couldnt' be FURTHER from the truth on that one brother. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060225-6265.html)

And Siraris then replies below that this "confirms" his point... Ack! He does this so many times, it's like Chinese Water Torture... It "confirms" his point... That is so annoying.

Posted by Siraris -
Take the "Yeah you couldn't be further than the truth" link that you used to confirm my point.


Like I said. Welcome to my world. I'm worn out trying to converse with him. Good luck.

Siraris is to me as EB Farnum is to Seth Bullock.

[Siraris]

Siraris. You are a frickin' lunatic, lol.

Maybe I should make that my DISCLAIMER? :D

[Siraris]

EvoG,

Welcome to my world... It sucks. I exploded on him once. Now I try to respond in a very reserved manner, but it's not easy sometimes.

Siraris posts to following.

You post a URL to a very good article below, showing it's a long long way out for a decent compiler and even when it's out, it will still be extremely difficult to program for the Cell.

In fact the article mentions a 'decade' of effort...

And Siraris then replies below that this "confirms" his point... Ack! He does this so many times, it's like Chinese Water Torture... It "confirms" his point... That is so annoying.

Like I said. Welcome to my world. I'm worn out trying to converse with him. Good luck.

Siraris is to me as EB Farnum is to Seth Bullock.


I promised myself that I would not respond to any more of your posts unless they demanded responding to, and there is one of them.

I'll try and go slow here so you can follow...

I (as in me) said that the PS3 (PlayStation 3, it's a machine you play games on) is easier to program for than the PS2 and that the only thing holding it back is a decent compiler (a program that takes ones high-level code and translates it into machine code that is then interpreted by the processor).

EVOG posted a link to an article on Arstechnica about the Octopiler (which is a compiler) in development for use with the cell processor which happens to be in the PlayStation 3 which states that IBM is developing a compiler that will allow developers to better harness the Cell by properly taking advantage of its unique architecture.

HOW does that not prove my point? I said that the Cell needs a better compiler, the article states that the Cell NEEDS A BETTER COMPILER.

And it will not take 10 years to write a decent compiler for the Cell, that was just a number Hannibal threw out there. He doesn't work for IBM or Sony or Toshiba, he's just making a very educated guess based on a tech paper that IBM released, that was also published 6 months ago. 6 months is a very long time, so you have no idea what advancements they have made since then.

[EvoG]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Why do people need to put DISCLAIMERS before their posts about them not being fanboys? ...

Well despite your rather 'loud' incredulity, you now understand completely that I'm not AGAINST Sony arbitrarily, as I have no REASON to, as, by my "ridiculous" disclaimer and the main body of my post, you'd also understand that my only M.O. is great games, platform be damned, not the downfall of Sony. You decided to become defensive...you don't find that telling in the least?



So because I feel that PS2 games are more impressive than XBox games I'm now sensational or a liar? I guess since I think Monet is a better artist than Renoit, I just have no clue do I?

Well there you go again with subjective terms; I "feel". So you've conveniently leveraged your "opinion" as fact(PS2's superiority) again by bringing up classic artists. The PS2 MUST be superior in quality because you feel it.




huh? WHAT? I don't understand what that means...

In other words...the PS2 loads games just as Xbox does, and I dont see the Xbox being significantly SLOWER at loading, making your "loading" comment a non-issue.


Really, care to give me the source of this information? Because that's a pretty sweeping statement for every single game on the PS2 and XBox. Maybe you have some sample textures and shaders available from both systems you could use as evidence?

Um...how about BURNOUT 3, the game YOU mentioned, as the source of my 'information'. Nevermind that assets I create for Xbox games are created at higher resolutions, and downsized for the PS2. But you're right, this is the internet and I could be lying about that as well so... *shrugs*



Somehow developers were able to squeeze all this power out of this inferior system and match the more powerful system. Interesting.

Not really that interesting, and here's why. Assume for a second the PS2 is as powerful as a P3 (at the time of the article; 2000), which I won't dispute, the biggest pain in the ass was the lack of memory. Regardless of performance, you STILL only are able to do SO much with available RAM. This is covered in programming 101 courses. A car can have 1100 HP at the rear wheel, but without transmission strong enough to deliver the torque or wheels sticky enough to transfer that energy to the road, you're spinning your wheels. So I could concede the PS2 was more powerful, then I'll just note that not a SINGLE developer reached its fullest potential...or is it the PS2 didn't allow them to?



I agree that XBox and GC had newer hardware that was easier to program for. You can't really prove that it was more powerful.

I dont really care to to be honest. The great memory in the Xbox allowed for a higher visual fidelity, period. Pick any game, including your Burnout 3, that was on both systems and compare. Go get RE4 and compare the two (PS2 and GC). If not, go to an article reviewing multiplatform games and read time and again how the Xbox version was more crisp and higher resolution, all around better looking. Read the review of RE4 on how it looks marvelous on the PS2, but its clear they had to reduce the assets from the GC version to get it to fit. But again, ultimately I don't care, as I enjoy all the machines all the same. My discussing this at all is to understand how it is you see the Sony machines as completely superior in every way despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


I'm a bit confused by what you said. Are you saying that I'm lying that there were cross platform games that were initially developed for the PS2 and then ported to the XBox? ...snip...article on the caveats of porting State of Emergency from PS2 to XBox.

Lying? No not at all, just asked that you give some examples. GTA was created on PC's using Renderware, which is already middleware, meant to be multiplatform from the get go. The MGS series has been Sony centric since PSone, no surprise. Baldurs Gate? Released simultaneously so um...what about it? That article though, for State of Emergency is as I've been saying; the developers had no choice, as that was their development path. You stated flat out:

The Xbox was supposed to be much easier to program for, yet most games were initially designed for PS2 and then ported to the XBox.

Most games? Huh? MOST games? As evidenced by your link(SoE), who would WANT to go that route intentionally? If you're trying to be clever and saying that MOST Sony exclusives that got ported to Xbox later were developed first on the PS2, well no shit.


I didn't dodge and weave arguments, I replied to every single one that was directed towards me, and some that weren't.

No, you actually did a bit. You used the argument for example that the 360 is just LADEN with extra accessories that you'll have to purchase above the $400 intial investment, padding the cost to be similar to the PS3:

Black Pete's reply to your intial comments (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=323019&postcount=88)

and your rather empty responses (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=323221&postcount=100)

Um, as Black Pete asked, won't the PS3 have these "accessories" the 360 will have, thus increasing the price of both proportionally? Your statements have implied that the 360 is somehow incomplete at 400 bucks, and the PS3 is fully complete, accessory free, for 600 bucks.

He goes on to note that you'll be playing the same console for 10 years at 600 bucks while he'll be playing TWO consoles in 10 years for 600 bucks. Its rather certain the second console after year 5 will be a substantial upgrade, but all you did was agree without addressing that rather significant point, and just assume the PS3 will be COMPETITIVE during the last 5 years of its lifecycle. Thats some precognitive ability you got there chief.


snip

You mock my use of a disclaimer(ad hominem perhaps? tsk, tsk), attempt to subtly change my alledged unbias to bias and then claim I cried foul at the poor Sony showing. You're fucking kidding me right? I'm SAD that Sony let me down? No, as I'm not the Sony fanboy...I'm baffled. Anyone, ANYONE, that can't see what a joke the Sony conference was, is TRULY diehard.

Resistance Fall of Man wasn't extraordinary on ANY level. You're free to tell us why YOU think it was. 15 mins of GT4 at 1080p!?! Stunning. :rolleyes: . How about that whack job having a conniption fit flying Warhawk to 'over-demonstrate' the revolutionary *cough* PS3 controller? No end to the massive damage and realtime weapon change jokes eh? You think people just pulled those out of their asses out of some hate for Sony?? No because it was HANDED to us on a platter by a rather ridiculous conference. Heavenly Sword was probably the best looking thing there, but nothing that had the impact like Gears of War did at the begining of the MS conference. Sony didn't have the charm and enthusiasm of Miyamoto conducting a toon orchestra.

As for the blu-ray being shoved down our throats? Yea think about it...what the fuck do you think increases the cost of the PS3? I'll give you a hint: it starts with blu-ray and ends in blu-ray. I now HAVE to buy into a format I could give two shits about just to play Sony games that I know I'll eventually want to play, so how am I not being forced? What choice do I have short of denying myself those games? Exactly.

Full circle back to the ONE thing you are overzealously mocking, my disclaimer, was to point out that as a FAN OF GAMES, including being a FAN of Sony's games, I'm dumbstruck that how ludicrous the whole thing is. When I sat down to the conference, I was excited, mind reeling at the possibilities of seeing next-gen Jak, Killzone 2 in realtime, playable MGS4, fantastic sweeping vistas and something that makes me go "damn, this IS better than the 360". After the initial disappointment, I was hoping for at least 360 level stuff. At the end of it all, I was left with "thats it?". I'd be THRILLED if the PS3 ended up being twice as powerful as the 360 for the graphics whore in me, but seeing now that simply isn't the case, perhaps not even in the 'future-proof' sense, what am I getting exactly for 600 bucks? I'll tell you...I'm paying for the billions in CELL R&D, Sony's absolute NEED to have a hit medium to fill their license coffers and a borked controller takes away more than it actually gives, as I'm playing the Wii for full motion sensing gameplay. Gameplay is going to be the most unique experience this year on Nintendos machine and ANYTHING that the PS3 is offering is already on the 360, so how does one HONESTLY justify the 200 extra dollars?

[EvoG]

EvoG,

Welcome to my world... It sucks. I exploded on him once. Now I try to respond in a very reserved manner, but it's not easy sometimes.


:D

I think I fooled myself into thinking I could appeal objectively, but seeing his responses, his firm hold on mocking my use of a disclaimer(that apparently failed to offer perspective apparently) and yes, the constant 'confirmations' of his points despite the contrary...*shrugs* hehe, I just don't know man.

Cheers

[Johan]

This thread has been a good read...back and forth!

I wish we could all just fast-forward to holiday '07 and see how things shake out. I'm very interested to find out a number of things, looking backwards from Christmas of '07...lots of promise in the following, but only time will tell:

1. Will the 360 have amassed a legitimately enticing collection of well-regarded first-party exclusive titles?

2. Will PS3 games show the graphical edge (primarily over the 360, as the Wii is already underpowered in this regard) some believe is possible with Cell?

3. Will the Wii, Wiimote, VC and Nintendo first-party exclusives draw enough gamers to match, or even concievably outsell, the PS3 and/or 360?

4. Will anyone in Japan ever buy a console from a company that is not Japanese? AND, does it really matter, as Europe and NA are larger markets?

5. Will the PS3 online service be able to match the positive aspects of Live? And, if it's free, will there be fees from individual developers/publishers to play online?

6. Will the seven-month-old I am holding ever stop crying? Am I doomed to a life of tinitus? ;)

[Siraris]

..........

I must be speaking a different language because most of the things you claim I said, I never actually said.

Take the "I feel" comment. I said I FEEL, I, ME, that PS2 games were better than XBox games. The PS2 was a powerful system hampered by an over-zealous design and poor support from its creator. The bottleneck caused by lack of RAM crippled the system from ever achieving its true potential. The XBox was a powerful machine and easy to program for, but it did not have the game support necessary to really propel it into a dominating position. I never said that the XBox was less powerful than the PS2, YOU said I said that. I clearly even said that the XBox had "better" hardware than the PS2, even though it wasn't necessarily better, just better implemented and supported.

If you think that PS2 and XBox games have the same load time, you're kidding yourself. I said that the biggest difference for me between the PS2 and the XBox were the LOAD TIMES, which were slower on the PS2.

I'm very happy that the assets you creat for the XBox are downsized for the PS2, I have known that for years now, it doesn't stop the fact that most games had their engines INITIALLY developed for the PS2. Just because they are released at the same time, or because you have to downgrade the textures for the PS2, doesn't mean that the game wasn't initially developed for the PS2.

A revolutionary game that combines fast-paced action and adventure in the popular world of Baldur's Gate. With an epic tale of intrigue, fierce alliances, explosive spell effects and highly detailed creatures and environments Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance is a benchmark of technology and gameplay.

KEY FEATURES

A new, totally original action/adventure game that takes place in the popular city of Baldur's Gate

Initially developed exclusively to harness the power of the PlayStation®2 computer entertainment system, displaying explosive spell effects, stunning environments
:eek:

If a single developer didn't bring the PS2 to its full potential than the fault lays fully on Sony and the lack of support. It doesn't detract from the power of the system.

You don't care that the Gamecube and XBox had superior hardware, then why did you bring it up in the first place?

LOL I NEVER said the 360 was laden with accessories, I said every console is laden with accessories. Way to pick apart every little thing. My only point was (and the accessories thing was totally minor in the point) that if you buy a console today for $300 and in 5 years for $300 or you buy a console for $600 today that lasts for 10 years, its the SAME deal, as long as the $600 console performs as well as the second $300. If you want to get specific, the 360 does force you to buy accessories that would make it more expensive over the long run. If you buy the core console you have to buy a HDD if you want to play some games/download movies/demos/etc, you have to buy a HD-DVD add-on if you want hi-def movies, you have to buy a memory card to save your games, that alone will run you an extra $200. If you buy a $500 PS3, you don't HAVE to buy anything. The only thing you'd have to buy is extra controllers if you want them, which the same goes for the 360.

As for the future proofing of the console, I've seen how long it takes consoles to really reach their potential, and it's always been over 5 years. If the games are still fantastic after 10 years, I don't care if theres a better console out there. The 360 is a BETTER console than my PS2, yet I don't want one because there aren't any games I want for it, and I'm looking forward to at least half a dozen games still coming out for the PS2 between now and 2007. So 10 years down the line, I'd have one console and all my games and be anticipating a new console, while Black Pete would be getting ready to buy his third. I also don't feel that with the current trend in technology, that there will be any huge advancements over the next 5 years that will warrant a new system. I feel that the PS3/Wii/360 are at a plateau right now, and it will take some time to really break through to the next side.

I know you think that all I care about is Sonys hardware, and I've stated numerous times its Sony in general (their first party direction, their online direction, their hardware and third party support) which is why I'm a Sony fan. I also clearly stated that I would buy a 360 TODAY for $600 (if there was a version available for that price) if it had games I wanted, a direction I appreciated and support. I own 5 of the "current gen" consoles, 2 of which are NINTENDO, I don't even own a PSP! If I am such a Sony fanboy, why would I own more Nintendo consoles than Sony? Where is the logic here?

I've been gaming for 2 decades of my life, and I'm a fan of games. I don't care what fucking system I have to play it on, I care about the GAME. I happen to appreciate what Sony has done for gaming over the past 10 years, what it has brought to the table, and the experiences it has given me. I can appreciate that Sony is going through a HUGE transition, overcoming its proud heritage of old Japanese men who have been grandfathered in since the inception of the walkman, and I feel that they will deliver this generation as they have in the past. If I look at games side by side offered for the PS3 and 360, I see that there are almost the same number of titles for both systems. If the PS3 was all doom and gloom, would there be over 100 titles announced for it? Yet every single thread on every single forum or site I read related to Sony is seething hatred. I don't feel seething hatred for Sony, and it happens to be the console I am most looking forward to, so I feel like sticking up for it. I don't need to do that with the 360 as there aren't nearly as many trolls lurking in 360 threads. And the Wii, well the internet is known for its love for everything Nintendo.

As for your severe dissapointment with E3, I don't know what to tell you. I was impressed with what I saw, such as Eye of Judgement, 8 Days, Resistance, Warhawk, MGS4. I thought the GT4 demo was stupid and never should have been showed off, but I believe it was shown because 1. It's Gran Turismo, and 2. It shows that Polyphony was able to get a working demo of Gran Turismo running in 1080p up and running in a matter of a few WEEKS. They had been in crunch for Tourist Trophy up until right before E3, and the fact that they got that demo working so quick was VERY impressive. And goes to show that PS3 development can't be THAT difficult.

The thing about E3 is, gamers think its a show for them, and that is only half true. At the end of the day, it's just a trade show. Companys come to show off their wares to other developers and publishers, they don't come to show working final products to the public as a big advertising stage. How many people in the US know what E3 is? Maybe 5%? MAYBE 10? How many of them watched the conferences?

As much as we're having a row here, you seem like a smart guy, and I respect that. If the final PS3 dev kits shipped in June, why would you assume that there would be spanning vistas and games that made your jaw drop? How many games at PS2 launch made your jaw drop? I think the only one for me was SSX. Give it some time, let the developers put some polish on and get the bugs fixed. As I've said over and over, if the games this fall look like shit, throw some complaints then. You will get a mind blowing Jak and Daxter, a Ratchet and Clank, even a jaw dropping Killzone 2, it just takes time. I can't think of any occasions where a AAA title has launched with a system, except maybe Mario 64, so why would you expect something now?


And lastly, I ask the question of you that I have many others; if Blu-Ray was only used for games, no movies, nothing else, Sony only had a vested interest in using Blu-Ray for the PlayStation ONLY, would you be complaining? Did you complain that the SNES used carts, which caused games to cost $80, and were unuseable on anything except the SNES? It's not like proprietary formats are anything new. As long as it gives you great games, who cares? (And developers love it too, hell Itagaki is pissed at MS for not including HD-DVD).

[Jack B]

This thread has been a good read...back and forth!

I wish we could all just fast-forward to holiday '07 and see how things shake out. I'm very interested to find out a number of things, looking backwards from Christmas of '07...lots of promise in the following, but only time will tell:

Ditto here.

1. Will the 360 have amassed a legitimately enticing collection of well-regarded first-party exclusive titles?

Legitimate is a subjective term, but I think so. With the Xbox launch Microsoft had Halo and that was basically it for solid 1st party. This time around they still have Halo and have added what look to be some very impressive titles in addition to Halo 3.

2. Will PS3 games show the graphical edge (primarily over the 360, as the Wii is already underpowered in this regard) some believe is possible with Cell?

I think the PS3 will have a few titles in this generation, that will be better than what the 360 has to offer due to potential use of Blu-Ray for content and someone finally unlocking a bit of extra power from the Cell. I believe that it will be only a very small percentage of games. Maybe a handful for the entire generation and we likely won't see them until Xmas 2007 at the earliest.

3. Will the Wii, Wiimote, VC and Nintendo first-party exclusives draw enough gamers to match, or even concievably outsell, the PS3 and/or 360?

I think that's a very real possibility. Some polls I've seen on Evil Avatar and other places show some amazing interest in purchasing a Wii. IF and I do believe that's a big IF, the Wii controllers work for longer sessions of gaming, the Wii could win the unit share war this generation. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

The Wii's problem may be in 2008, 2009, 2010 as the Wii graphics start looking so much worse on new TV's compared to the 360/PS3, but for now we're used to that quality of graphic and it's OK. Break out your PS 1 and it's kind of amazing how bad the graphics were, but at the time, we didn't really think about it. I think that will be a problem for the Wii in years 2-5 of this generation, but not this Xmas.

4. Will anyone in Japan ever buy a console from a company that is not Japanese? AND, does it really matter, as Europe and NA are larger markets?

I think so. They buy a lot of non Japanese products. It's just that Sony and Nintendo have done a much better job matching the needs of the Japanese gamer. Still this gen Microsoft hasn't delivered enough content for the Japanese audience. Maybe that will change. I don't think the Japanese are not buying 360's because it's an American company. It's just not compelling to them at this point.

5. Will the PS3 online service be able to match the positive aspects of Live? And, if it's free, will there be fees from individual developers/publishers to play online?

I don't think it will. Microsoft has gone through 4 years of upgrading and that will be difficult to match. Sony is trying to offer something that is similar on paper, but the devil will be in the details.

Publishers for the PS3 will have lots of freedom to price as they'd like. Since Sony isn't paying for a lot of the Online activities that Microsoft does, publishers will have to decide if they pass that along to the consumer. Some will, some won't.

Microsoft puts a lot of pressure on every 360 certification to include Live functionality. Sony will have fewer restrictions and some titles may not bother to include any online functionality.

6. Will the seven-month-old I am holding ever stop crying? Am I doomed to a life of tinitus? ;)

It gets better... however after raising a couple, I'd say... "kids are overrated... " :eek:

Just kidding. Take lot's of pictures. They grow up fast. :)

[EvoG]

Johan, the only answer I have for you is "no"...




...no, at 7 mos., that baby is never ever going to stop crying, not until the formative teenage years, and then you'll be doing all the crying. :D


...but seriously...

Whichever side of the fence you're on, this answer is obviously malleable, so I'll add that personally the library for the 360 is pretty tight though thin. GRAW, Fight Night 3, PGR 3 and Condemned are highlights, GRAW being the first truly next-gen game IMHO. Otherwise, I anticipate Gears of War, R6 Vegas and Spinter Cell ushering in the 2nd wave of truly next-gen games...so if your'e giving it until Christmas of 07, I'd have to believe that all THREE systems will have done that (assuming Sony gets out its heavier hitters and unannounced games by then. Exclusivity, at least initially, is really key here though mainly because nothing has separated the PS3 from the 360 in terms of performance; not that it wont be more powerful down the road, but by '07 , not terribly confident.

The Wii on the other hand is going to mirror the DS, where detractors scream "gimmick", and it will end up being terribly fun, despite underperforming visually. The price is very right and the newness is too compelling for gamers. Regardless of the fact that Nintendo is aiming to include the casual market, people who simply love videogames are going to be clamouring to try that thing out...so its Wiin Wiin.

Jack B addressed you more specifically all around, so I'll leave it at that. :D

Cheers

[oneway23]

Granted, I have not read every post in this thread, but in assessing various comments posted here and at other boards, the one thing that I have not seen anyone point out thus far is the potentially destructive effect the PS3 will have on the consumer electronics market, if, in fact, it does succeed (Let's be honest, as this is an extremely plausible situation, considering the install base).

Despite all of the fanboy bluster on both sides, there is a genuine possibility that, in the end, this astronomical price point will do absolutely nothing to hinder sales of the PS3...Teenagers will somehow find a means of either snaking mommy out of the money(Granted, it'll be a more difficult task than it used to be) or working after school...College-aged folks will be content to subsist on Raman noodles for the semester, the older crowd will somehow, someway, continue to perpetuate the American dream of massive credit debt, and finally, those with the affluence to afford it without the slightest of financial dents will pat themselves on the back for not impulsively jumping at a $1000 Blu-ray player, but rather, the bargain of the new Playstation and bleeding-edge technology for $600. All this in the name of acquiring Sony's latest and greatest....This is precisely what Sony is banking on, even if the percent of penetration is down a slight bit. Don't stop reading here.

Inevitable shortages aside, let's say that all of the above comes to pass. Now, what Sony has done is change the entire landscape...Their behemoth has suddenly solidified this price point as viable...Everything that follows has been afforded the coveted blank check...If Sony bursts open the floodgates here, well then, no price is too high, because consumers exist solely to consume, and companies prey on people mistaking want for need.

[fitbabits]

Granted, I have not read every post in this thread, but in assessing various comments posted here and at other boards, the one thing that I have not seen anyone point out thus far is the potentially destructive effect the PS3 will have on the consumer electronics market, if, in fact, it does succeed (Let's be honest, as this is an extremely plausible situation, considering the install base).
Bloody hell, did Sony pull a SEGA and release the PS3 without telling anyone? :rolleyes: :D

[bean19]

oneway23 - Dude. . . maybe the hardcore would do that, but I think you are majorly over-estimating the interest and brand loyalty of people who are only videogame dabblers.

There are a growing number of us who do this as our adult hobby, but most of us will buy every system. The trick is going to be getting parents to buy their home's ONE system (or second system in some cases - when the price is low enough).

Maybe it is just because I'm from the Midwest and though I have a lot of friends who are into gaming, I have an equal number who are among the most casual of gamers or who are not interested in games at all, but I am honestly worried about the PS3 doing well enough to survive.

[Siraris]

One thing I don't think anyone has pointed out, is that a GEForce 7900 goes for $499 right now. Since the RSX is equivelant to a modified 7900, you are getting an entire console (Cell, RAM, Blu-Ray player, HDD, etc.) for the same price as ONE high-end PC graphics card, and for $100 more, you're getting Wifi, HDMI 1.3 and a bigger HDD.

So oneway, I can see your point about Sony giving carte blanche from now on, but people will only pay for what they think something is worth. If they don't think the PS3 is worth it, they won't buy it, and the blank check won't work. Hell, the Neo-Geo was $600 and that didn't raise prices at all.

[oneway23]

Siraris, that's a fair point about the Neo-Geo, but that system did not have 2 prior generations of millions of users, lacked a level of comparable developer support, and was not backed by a brand with market penetration on a level with the likes of Sony...People will clamor for it and pay the money, simply due to prior association....Why do games like Madden sell in the millions every year? People will pay in the case of the PS3, regardless of what the machine can or can't do, or whether or not it's "worth it."

Sony is playing a game of consumer chicken, and as usual, the public will buckle. it was $6 to see a movie a few years ago, now it's $9-10...Were people outraged and compelled to boycott? No, they sucked it up and took it up the ass with a smile...

[Siraris]

Siraris, that's a fair point about the Neo-Geo, but that system did not have 2 prior generations of millions of users, lacked a level of comparable developer support, and was not backed by a brand with market penetration on a level with the likes of Sony...People will clamor for it and pay the money, simply due to prior association....Why do games like Madden sell in the millions every year? People will pay in the case of the PS3, regardless of what the machine can or can't do, or whether or not it's "worth it."

Sony is playing a game of consumer chicken, and as usual, the public will buckle. it was $6 to see a movie a few years ago, now it's $9-10...Were people outraged and compelled to boycott? No, they sucked it up and took it up the ass with a smile...

And when my parents were my age it was a nickel, but no one is standing outside protesting that either. I guess you can chalk it up to the fact that people are lazy, except when it comes to things like wars and abortion. If consumers don't want a product they won't pay for it. There are numerous instances of that, hell, look at Sonys music store; it was a total bust. I can understand where increasing the price of a console as substantially as Sony has done can be seen as breaking open the flood gates, but look at IPods. Apple charges $400 for an MP3 player, a 60 gig one at that. I have an IPod, I also have something like 6000 MP3's, I have maybe 8 gigs of music on my IPod, yet Apple offers a product that stores over 7 times that for quite a hefty price. All Sony is doing is offering a device some consumers may not fully take advantage of for a hefty price. I mean, look at my previous example, there are many people out there who pay $500+ for a VIDEO CARD! It's outrageous, especially when you can get a very nice card for $200, but there still is a demand for $500+ cards.

The interesting thing to me is if the PS3 is adopted, how will it change consumers. I was going to say the IPod is a good example, but its not, since people were listening to music on the go for decades before the IPod came out. It still will be fascinating if the PS3 catches on, and people start saying "Give me DVR, give me streaming media and Hi-Def!".

It's going to be a wild couple of years.

[Kamalot]

Sony is playing a game of consumer chicken, and as usual, the public will buckle. it was $6 to see a movie a few years ago, now it's $9-10...Were people outraged and compelled to boycott? No, they sucked it up and took it up the ass with a smile...
You make a good point about movie prices. I think you will also have to take into consideration that movie prices rose gradually AND that fewer people go to movies today than just a few years ago.

With the PS3, Sony is doubling the price of the original PS2 at launch and increasing the cost from the now reduced PS2 by 4x. The PS3 is $200 more than the Xbox 360. This isn’t the same as a gradual change from $6 to $9; this is a colossal jump.

My prediction is that the PS3 will end up like the Sega Saturn. A few hardcore will buy it but the console will be too expensive for most and have too few games overall. Developers won’t like writing for it due to the extra complexity. There will be a handful of great classic games that end up with a niche crowd, much like the fans of Panzer Dragoon, Radiant Silvergun and Twinkle Star Sprites.

Like a Saturn, I’ll pick one up years later at a garage sale for $15, thereby saving myself $584.

The Saturn boasted an amazing amount of processors including it’s dual Hitachi CPU processors. However, this caused problems in game development. Apparently the two CPU’s did not run in tandem, and could not access memory at the same time. The complexity either caused developers to shy away from the Saturn, or develop games in a manner that didn’t fully utilize the systems capabilities (3rd Party developers initially designed games only using a single processor). Eventually developers found away around Saturn’s complexity, but not soon enough.
Source (http://darkwatcher.psxfanatics.com/console/saturn.htm)

[oneway23]

You both make great points...Nice to see an actual discussion of sorts.