Sony: From First to Worst? [Archive]

Johan

06-30-2006, 09:58 PM

With the PS3, could Sony squander its market dominance and fall to the bottom of the console food chain? DFC Intelligence, in its analysis, has serious questions (http://www.dfcint.com/game_article/june06article.html) for Sony and the PS3.

Regarding the incredible success Sony has had through the most recent console generation, DFC Intelligence says:

It now appears all that wasn’t good enough for Sony. With the PlayStation 3 the company is going after the high-end power user. It is almost as if Coca-Cola not only decided to go with a new formula, but also decided to exit the low brow soft drink business to go into high-end wines. Of course, there is a market for high-end products but it is 1) a very different consumer type and 2) not nearly as big as the blue collar mass market. Wal-mart sells more toys than FAO Schwartz and McDonald’s sells more beef than Ruth’s Chris Steak House...

Our concern is that 1) Sony’s hands may be tied in regard to price cuts and 2) Sony drastically underestimated the competition...

Can Sony afford to lose its position in the video game marketplace for a generation of game systems? That is becoming a crucial question. If Sony took a $200 loss on every system to become more price competitive and maintain market share that works out to $2 billion for every 10 million units. Will Sony investors swallow that type of loss?
Sony investors are an important part of the puzzle, as Sony shares have lost nearly 50% in the past five years (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060622/japan_sony.html?.v=3) (as I previously reported here (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14191))

There is a distinct element of speculation at this point, of couse, but this is certainly part of any analysis of future events. The upcoming console generation certainly should be an interesting one; we could be in for some surprises.

Nintendo Revolution

06-30-2006, 10:39 PM

Let it fall!

fitbabits

06-30-2006, 10:43 PM

The hell with analysts. They get paid to predict shit that mostly never happens.

SuperMonkeyFighter2

06-30-2006, 10:47 PM

The hell with analysts. They get paid to predict shit that mostly never happens.

That sound you hear? That's the nail being hit on the head

aileron

06-30-2006, 10:54 PM

I've long dreamed of a day when we'd be back to two main console contenders... I just never thought the second would be MS...

Feltoar

06-30-2006, 10:55 PM

That sound you hear? That's the nail being hit on the head

Yea, as much as Im enjoying the anti-Sony articles on EvAv lately I thought this was a bit much. I kind of agree with what these analysists are saying, problem is theyre analysists and they tend to be completely off the mark.

Heretic Machine

06-30-2006, 10:56 PM

Sony investors are an important part of the puzzle, as Sony shares have lost nearly 50% in the past five years (as I previously reported here)

My question is: If the stocks were that trashed after their overt winning of the last generation, what will they look like in this (much more competitive) generation?

Sl1pstream

06-30-2006, 10:57 PM

What the hell is a David Cole?

Either way, this anti-Sony stuff is getting out of hand. They've been idiots and they deserve everything they're getting now, so I agree that some of it should be considered news but analysts? We ignored them when they said Nintendo was doomed, why can't we ignore them now?

destoo

06-30-2006, 11:05 PM

The hell with analysts. They get paid to predict shit that mostly never happens.

And it seems they also get paid for bad analogies. Comparing a PS3 with a can of cola is like.. A river.... with frogs and things jumping. On the highway. Yeah. So they must be right. Or wrong. You know how a car can swerve, but hit a bump and then something happens. Like that. Just like that the PS3 will NOT fail.

GoblinToe

06-30-2006, 11:10 PM

I, for one, hope Sony fails miserably with the PS3 just as they did with Everquest 2. When it comes to entertainment they have no soul. They couldn't give a rat's ass what the consumer actually wants.

So let the marketplace bodyslam them into next week.

To this day I love to check out the http://www.mmogchart.com/ for EQ2 and see how its subscriber numbers never even got close to EQ1's. Man, you know heads rolled big time somewhere at Sony for that blunder. Sony had no clue that what they had turned the original Everquest into after years of nerfing was only popular because there was no competition.

Then Blizzard showed them how to make a game.

So let them learn another lesson with the PS3. It's hilarious, I say!

BlackPete

06-30-2006, 11:14 PM

My only thought on the whole article was a resounding heart-felt "meh". There's nothing in that article that we haven't already heard before from zillions of other "analysts". Nothing to see here...

Rafer

06-30-2006, 11:26 PM

Way too early to say, I've read the 360 is selling at the same rate the xbox did when it was launched (and it doesn't have any next gen competition unlike the xbox which was up against the ps2 and gamecube) so it's doing okay, not spectacular.

I, for one, hope Sony fails miserably with the PS3 just as they did with Everquest 2. When it comes to entertainment they have no soul. They couldn't give a rat's ass what the consumer actually wants.

I wouldn't say Sony has no soul, like they released ICO, and even though it didn't sell greatly they still had Shadow of the Colossus made. I bet Microsoft would have dumped ICO faster than Psychonauts.

Also Sony has been more willing to bring out edgy adult content (God of War, and getting a Grand Theft Auto 3 exclusive after Microsoft passed on it as it was too violent).

Khash

06-30-2006, 11:28 PM

Are these the same analysts that said the PSP was going to retail for $500?

Zeal

06-30-2006, 11:35 PM

1. Microsoft
2. Nintendo
3. Sony

It is finished.

Draft

06-30-2006, 11:39 PM

My question is: If the stocks were that trashed after their overt winning of the last generation, what will they look like in this (much more competitive) generation?
PS2 was the only thing making Sony money for like, a while.

TrackZero

06-30-2006, 11:40 PM

Are these the same analysts that said the PSP was going to retail for $500?

Well, when you included buying a real memory card for it, a hardcase, an actual game for the system...... I know when I bought mine, I ended up shelling out about $580 Canadian total.

Chang3

07-01-2006, 12:04 AM

wow, I thought MS was going to loose

fushi

07-01-2006, 12:06 AM

Everything will change once the ad campaigns are launched.

Heretic Machine

07-01-2006, 12:09 AM

PS2 was the only thing making Sony money for like, a while.

Has that changed? Is there any indication that they are more financially stable this time around that would justify them taking such huge gambles with their money-maker?

Siraris

07-01-2006, 12:10 AM

Whatever these analysts say, it's usually BS. It's such a clusterfuck of ideas. I think they covered the gamut for the guesstimate of the PS3 price from like $300-$1000. You'd think analysts of all people would have better idea then the general public.

In my opinion, as my own personal analyst, and as I've said before, I think Sony was rushed to releasing the PS3. Obviously they were not ready, or they would have shipped in the Spring. Final Dev kits wouldn't have gone out in early June. I think Sony had a strategy, and a plan, but they hoped to execute it in 2007 and not 06. They could have rode the PS2 into 2007 quite easily, and then released the console with all the bugs kinked out of the hardware, more time for developers to get familiar with the hardware, and more time to refine and lower the cost of manufacturing. Microsoft unfortunately jumped the gun, and they encountered all their manufacturing problems, and now are juggling slow game support as well as what to do with HD-DVD and LIVE. At the same time, they are forcing Sony and Nintendos hand. It's kind of depressing.

I know there is a lot of dislike for Sony right now, and I bet a lower price would really take a lot of the sting away from it. $600 is a lot of money for most people to stomach, but its what Sony has to charge in order to bring the console out to consumers who want it this fall. It's not like they are charging $600 to rip people off, they are losing money on every console, so I think Sony wants a lower price more than everyone else (regardless of what Ken says).

I don't think the PS3 will fail, and I think everyone is pretty positive it will sell out for the first 6 months or so. I'm guessing there is going to have to be a big price drop by next fall. I think Sony knows this as well.

jeffool

07-01-2006, 12:22 AM

Yeah, analysts often are insane. I mean, I may not like what Sony's doing with it, but I'm not crazy enough to think that gamers like 'us' actually matter that much.I know when I bought mine, I ended up shelling out about $580 Canadian total.Dude, no way. The thing cost more than $35 US. ;)

Mozgus

07-01-2006, 12:22 AM

It would probably never happen, but at least if Sony did ever get pushed out of gaming, then all the Japanese developers would be forced to switch to the Wii, because there is no way the majority of them would hop to an American piece of hardware. Maybe a few would get ballsy, but most just frown upon our stuff.

tombofsoldier

07-01-2006, 12:37 AM

Siraris

07-01-2006, 12:58 AM

Hear is how this "next ganeration" breaks down so far by category:
Graphics: PS3: Tie 360: Tie Wii: Last
Games: 360: 1st Wii: 2nd PS3: Last
Online: 360: 1st Wii: 2nd PS3: Last
Price: Wii: 1st 360: 2nd PS3: Last

Reasons:
Graphics: So far, the PS3 has failed to show any improvement over the 360. From comments made by Nintendo, it appears the Wii won't be up to the 360s standard.
Games: So far the 360 has the most games, the Wii seems to offer original gameplay via its controller, the PS3 seems to have nothing besides the same old tired games from the last generation.
Online: So far, the 360 has the best online service by far. Nintendo actually has a working online service that is already free, which leaves the PS3 with Sony's notoriously empty promises.
Price: Obvious, Wii will have the cheapest system price and apparently the cheapest games. The 360 comes next, and at $500-$600 with Kaz Hirais speculation that the games will cost more than $60 the PS3 comes in dead last in the category.

Graphics: Final dev kits for PS3 went out a few weeks ago. You cannot compare the graphics of a machine that developers have had their hands on for a couple months to a machine that developers have had their hands on for over a year and a half. The Wii is graphically inferior, it won't take away too much from its fun value.

Games: The 360 has the most gams because its OUT. So far the PS3 and the Wii have no games, so you can't compare the two.

Online: Microsoft has the best online service because its the only one thats OUT. Nintendo has no online service for the Wii yet because the system isn't OUT yet. It will be free, but not much else is known about it. The PS3 has announced numerous online features, and has shown videos of these functions as well. Since the PS3 is not out yet, you can't compare the online service.

Price: The Wii is the cheapest, the 360 is the second, and the PS3 is the most expensive. Since Kaz Hirai never said that the price of the PS3 games would be over $60, it is in line with the price of 360 games. Since it has been stated numerous times online that it would be expensive to develop for both PS3 and 360, it would make sense that the games will be priced very similarly. There has been no discussion whatsoever on the Wii's game prices.

Twigz'N'Berries

07-01-2006, 12:59 AM

Is anyone tired of the Sony is doomed crap? As much as I am not a Sony fan, they said the PSP was doomed too. They (analysts) said the PS1 would never beat Nintendo and they didn't give the Genesis a chance when NES was around.

The PS2 had sold more than 100 million systems...100 MILLION. That means that they obviously knew, on some level, what to give the consumer. I'll bet the PS3 has the majority of the next gen marketshare a year after its launch. There are too many fanboys to have that system flop. I haven't heard the 360 sales numbers, but it seems to be doing just ok.

Point is that all this talk about Sony being doomed is just so much smoke up your a--. Wait until the thing launches and within 6 months, we should know which direction the system is headed in. However, I will say this. If Sony is supposed to be launching the PS3 by X-mas of this year, they are already behind schedule if they are not producing them now. Its July. That gives them 5.5 months to get the manufacturing facilities up, tested and production on the 2 million units they promised to have ready in 5.5 months. Doable, yes. Difficult, oh yeah!

sTubbs

07-01-2006, 01:02 AM

What this entire argument comes down to, in my opinion, is whether or not the PS3 worth the asking price.

So, to everyone ready and waiting to pay the full price for this thing, why is it worth 200 dollars more to you over the 360 and 400 dollars over the Wii? What particular features and games make that extra money, in your mind, well spent?

Siraris

07-01-2006, 01:08 AM

Point is that all this talk about Sony being doomed is just so much smoke up your a--. Wait until the thing launches and within 6 months, we should know which direction the system is headed in. However, I will say this. If Sony is supposed to be launching the PS3 by X-mas of this year, they are already behind schedule if they are not producing them now. Its July. That gives them 5.5 months to get the manufacturing facilities up, tested and production on the 2 million units they promised to have ready in 5.5 months. Doable, yes. Difficult, oh yeah!

FYI they have manufacturing facilities up, and they are also having third parties produce the hardware at a loss for the first 2 years (I believe Asus is one of these companies). Last I heard, Cell yields were a lot better than expected (I can't find the article, it was posted on Joystiq I believe) which is a good sign for production.

I talked to someone close to me about this same issue a month ago, and he said that if Sony does what it is doing (licensing out the manufacturing) they can easily make 2 million systems by this fall.

Zeal

07-01-2006, 01:37 AM

tombofsoldier

07-01-2006, 01:57 AM

Graphics: Final dev kits for PS3 went out a few weeks ago. You cannot compare the graphics of a machine that developers have had their hands on for a couple months to a machine that developers have had their hands on for over a year and a half. The Wii is graphically inferior, it won't take away too much from its fun value.

Games: The 360 has the most gams because its OUT. So far the PS3 and the Wii have no games, so you can't compare the two.

Online: Microsoft has the best online service because its the only one thats OUT. Nintendo has no online service for the Wii yet because the system isn't OUT yet. It will be free, but not much else is known about it. The PS3 has announced numerous online features, and has shown videos of these functions as well. Since the PS3 is not out yet, you can't compare the online service.

Price: The Wii is the cheapest, the 360 is the second, and the PS3 is the most expensive. Since Kaz Hirai never said that the price of the PS3 games would be over $60, it is in line with the price of 360 games. Since it has been stated numerous times online that it would be expensive to develop for both PS3 and 360, it would make sense that the games will be priced very similarly. There has been no discussion whatsoever on the Wii's game prices.

While you do make no interesting points, you assume that nothing can be judged based off of information you alread have. Might I submit that Nintendos new controller may indeed provide new ways to play game, thus their second place in games. For first place, so far Microsoft has the most major exclusive titles announced, and guess what, it doesn't matter if the PS3 is out yet, because even when it comes out the 360 will still have more games on release and for quite a while to come.

As for price, and my whole post, I am merely pointing out the obvious. Are you angry that you can't argue over which consoles will be cheaper? As for online services, guess what? The Nintendo DS already has an online service, which according to Nintendo is what the Wii's will be like. Microsoft already has an online service as well, and it works great. What does Sony have, but a bunch of ideas and promises?

As for graphics, all 3 of the systems will have better graphics over time, not just the PS3. I'm pretty sure that MGS 4 isn't going to look any better than it did at E3, and guess what? Splinter Cell Double Agent on the 360 looks just as good!

Please try to make a rational argument next time you see a rational post, thank you.

Bargash

07-01-2006, 02:22 AM

Japan:
#1 Wii
#2 PS3
#3 360

USA
#1 360
#2 Wii
#3 PS3

Europe
I have no idea what Europeans will do.

ElectricMonk

07-01-2006, 02:30 AM

you know, all this press about ps3 can only help. it's only july and there are 3 news posts per day about sony and how they could either a) rule the world or b) fail utterly. the whole sony fanboi machine is almost self-fullfilling even in it's demise. even if the system fails hype is going to be 100x higher than the 360 when it hits the market this fall.

I personally officially don't care about the ps3 anymore. it's too much information too soon and i've had enough speculation. i'm probably in the minority though.

KidCactus

07-01-2006, 03:18 AM

I don't care what anyone says, only a very small group of people are willing to pay $600+ for a toy.
How about a whole world of PC gamers?

Lunar Blue

07-01-2006, 04:13 AM

Europe
I have no idea what Europeans will do.

#1 PS3
#2 360
#3 Wii

We take it in the ass like always.

IRONGUSTAV

07-01-2006, 04:59 AM

Way too early to say, I've read the 360 is selling at the same rate the xbox did when it was launched (and it doesn't have any next gen competition unlike the xbox which was up against the ps2 and gamecube) so it's doing okay, not spectacular.

I wouldn't say Sony has no soul, like they released ICO, and even though it didn't sell greatly they still had Shadow of the Colossus made. I bet Microsoft would have dumped ICO faster than Psychonauts.

Also Sony has been more willing to bring out edgy adult content (God of War, and getting a Grand Theft Auto 3 exclusive after Microsoft passed on it as it was too violent).

there is more examples,amplitude from harmonix and heavenly sword,sony funded games against all odds,what have done ms? dump psychonauts for blinx o vodoo vince and get rid off of a lot of dev studios,yeah,the ones who shit money dont invest a damn shit on new studios,they only bet on safe numbers like another halo,rare shit and gears of war

Karmakin

07-01-2006, 05:08 AM

If you actually read the article (I did yesterday), it actually makes quite a bit of sense. The argument is that the PS2 didn't really win based any individual exclusive AAA titles. (GTA is given as an example, only hit about 20% of the installed base), it was more of a case of having the largest library.

If the PS3 falters out of the gate due to price and manafacturing difficulty, it's going to be difficult for publishers to justify publishing for that format...especially considering the fact that you're competing a whole lot more with the AAA titles, so you're expected to match their graphics and effects and amount of content. It's just not reasonable for a lot of companies.

And if the 3rd party software dries up, on the basis of relying on big-name exclusives alone, it'll be hard for Sony to maintain its position.

Actually, when it comes down to it, the real race is between Sony and MS. Nintendo is really racing against themselves. Will they be able to refine gameplay control enough to create a revolution? (ha). That's the question.

bapenguin

07-01-2006, 05:44 AM

Sony will be fine. You heard it here first.

King Chaos

07-01-2006, 05:58 AM

...and from what I've heard... when the Penguin in Chief says something, it's gospel... even on the Internet :D

Kamalot

07-01-2006, 06:33 AM

Are these the same analysts that said the PSP was going to retail for $500?
No, they are the same analysts that said the PSP would uterrly crush Nintendo in the handheld market. :rolleyes:

antoniogaud

07-01-2006, 06:34 AM

Way too early to say, I've read the 360 is selling at the same rate the xbox did when it was launched (and it doesn't have any next gen competition unlike the xbox which was up against the ps2 and gamecube) so it's doing okay, not spectacular.

I think this is because of a few reasons...

1) PRICE - 360's aint cheap! I know because I bought 2! (1 was gift)
2) COMPETITION - many people (myself included) still play and want PS2 and Xbox games - so the old generation is certainly not dead... yet.
3) MUST OWN GAMES - 360 has had some great games, but still not a GTA 'everyone must own' title
4) HD ADOPTION - 360's dont really look so different from old-gen on normal TVs. They really require HD to showcase the next-gen differences, which most people don't have.

PS3 will have the same problems, only more so because it is more expensive and doesnt offer any easily discernible differences from 360. Anybody who has seen BluRay movies at the stores will agree.

Kamalot

07-01-2006, 06:38 AM

antoniogaud

07-01-2006, 06:39 AM

Last I heard, Cell yields were a lot better than expected (I can't find the article, it was posted on Joystiq I believe) which is a good sign for production.

I talked to someone close to me about this same issue a month ago, and he said that if Sony does what it is doing (licensing out the manufacturing) they can easily make 2 million systems by this fall.

I haven't heard any of this. Do you have the links?

Kamalot

07-01-2006, 06:45 AM

I talked to someone close to me about this same issue a month ago, and he said that if Sony does what it is doing (licensing out the manufacturing) they can easily make 2 million systems by this fall.I love your logic here.

"I talked to someone close to me..."
So, they were in-person, like standing right next to you? Or do you mean, 'emotionally close'? Either way, this person isn't an industry insider. They could have been someone you happened to stand too close to at GameStop. Invading personal space?

Cell yields were a lot better than expected (I can't find the article, it was posted on Joystiq I believe) which is a good sign for production.

Funny, when I type "cell processor yeilds" into our good friend Google, here is what I get back:
Google Results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=Nqz&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=cell+processor+yields&spell=1)
Digg Story (http://digg.com/hardware/Sony_s_Cell_Processor_Yields_Horrible_,_Sources_Cl aim_)

I tell you Siraris, your posts are better than Saturday morning cartoons! :D

Morangie

07-01-2006, 07:07 AM

Also, BAPenguin posted an opinion in this thread. Where are the defenders of the internet this time saying he can't do that and mods need to be be more responsible? Oh right, this time it was in favour of Sony...

Tohoya

07-01-2006, 07:44 AM

My personal opinion about the price is that Sony finally decided to adjust their prices for supply and demand. They noticed the skyrocketing prices on ebay last generation and they said, "hmmm, why can't we get in on that?" Enter a 600 dollar price tag. Once supply catches up to demand and ebay isn't the only place you can get a PS3 anymore, expect a 100$ plus price reduction on the machine.

dimsumx

07-01-2006, 08:24 AM

Sony will be fine. You heard it here first.

You're a mod. You know better than to say something like that...uninformed people might believe you and actually shell out $600 on launch day.

Happy now, Morangie? :D

NonSoft

07-01-2006, 08:31 AM

I've long dreamed of a day when we'd be back to two main console contenders... I just never thought the second would be MS...

Why? How does that benefit us as consumers?

I, for one, hope Sony fails miserably with the PS3 just as they did with Everquest 2. When it comes to entertainment they have no soul. They couldn't give a rat's ass what the consumer actually wants.

Right, they don't care but Nintendo and Microsoft do. MS and Nintendo are our friends and they only care about whether or not we are having fun, profit is secondary.

Or maybe you were referring to the fact that Sony is out of touch with what the consumer wants? That must be why they have sold over 100 million PS2s and 824 million games as of March of last year. Clearly they have no idea what the consumer is looking for.

Reasons:
Graphics: So far, the PS3 has failed to show any improvement over the 360. From comments made by Nintendo, it appears the Wii won't be up to the 360s standard.
Games: So far the 360 has the most games, the Wii seems to offer original gameplay via its controller, the PS3 seems to have nothing besides the same old tired games from the last generation.
Online: So far, the 360 has the best online service by far. Nintendo actually has a working online service that is already free, which leaves the PS3 with Sony's notoriously empty promises.
Price: Obvious, Wii will have the cheapest system price and apparently the cheapest games. The 360 comes next, and at $500-$600 with Kaz Hirais speculation that the games will cost more than $60 the PS3 comes in dead last in the category.

What? Are you serious? You are judging two consoles against one that is already out, and not even accounting for the fact that they haven't been released yet. What reason do you have to believe that the PS3's games will be "tired" & "last generation"? The PS2 easily had the most diverse library of it's generation. Forget whether whether you liked the games or not, or which console had the best games. I don't see how anyone could say the PS2 didn't have the most diverse library, it isn't even close.

I don't care what anyone says, only a very small group of people are willing to pay $600+ for a toy. That's essentially what a videogame system is, afterall, a toy. Sony can dress it up with all the sophisticated definitions they like, it's still no different than the consoles before it.

Sony may indeed lose the console war, infact that is how things are shaping up. However, I would be extremely surprised if they didn't sell out the initial allotment of PS3s with ease. I would also be surprised if there wasn't a shortage for quite some time due to them selling so quickly. In other words, there will be a lot of interest in much more than a "very small group of people".

Kamalot

07-01-2006, 08:57 AM

Why? How does that benefit us as consumers?
Having 2 console contenders means consumers don't have to buy 3 different machines to play all the best games. Consumers win.

Or maybe you were referring to the fact that Sony is out of touch with what the consumer wants? That must be why they have sold over 100 million PS2s and 824 million games as of March of last year. Clearly they have no idea what the consumer is looking for.
Exactly. Sony knew that with the PS2 and even the PS1 they needed a mass market to be successful. Somewhere between launching the PS2 and today, Sony seems to have forgotten that simple fact. (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3150&Itemid=2)

What? Are you serious? You are judging two consoles against one that is already out, and not even accounting for the fact that they haven't been released yet. What reason do you have to believe that the PS3's games will be "tired" & "last generation"?
So far, the games that have been shown are 'shiny' versions of existing franchises. If Sony had any compelling, non-gimmicky new ways to play, they should have made them the highlight of E3. Instead, we got 20 min of Gran Turismo running in HD, giant enemy crabs, real-time weapon change, and Riiiiidge Raaaaacer! Overall, IF the PS3 has any new ways to play, they feel like a complete afterthought, especially compared to the amount of energy Sony spends touting the HD movie playback capabilities.

The PS2 easily had the most diverse library of it's generation. Forget whether whether you liked the games or not, or which console had the best games. I don't see how anyone could say the PS2 didn't have the most diverse library, it isn't even close.
Having a diverse library indeed, breeds success. The PS2 got its diverse library by having a large number of 3rd parties develop for the console. If you read the news, including the article this story references, you will see that many developers think the PS3 is too expensive and confusing to become a mass-market device, therefore it makes more sense to develop for another platform that will be more widely adopted. When developers look for greener pastures, the large library of diverse games will go with them. This has happened before. See: Nintendo 64, Sega Saturn, Sega Dreamcast.

Sony may indeed lose the console war, infact that is how things are shaping up. However, I would be extremely surprised if they didn't sell out the initial allotment of PS3s with ease. I would also be surprised if there wasn't a shortage for quite some time due to them selling so quickly. In other words, there will be a lot of interest in much more than a "very small group of people".
I agree with you. Sony may indeed lose the console war. I will also agree that the PS3 will sell out of ALL of the initial shipments. Placed into context though, the initial sales numbers are a very small piece of the overall picture. If Sony meets its dubious sales forecast for the first fiscal year, that would mean that a very small percentage of PS2 owners have upgraded, around 6%. Yes, that can be considered very small.

Blue

07-01-2006, 09:14 AM

I freaking hate this thread. Stop repeating the same washed out topics day after day. It's Halo 2 all over again.

Johan

07-01-2006, 09:14 AM

I think the analysis in the article is dead on in DFC's belief that the key will be the holiday period of '07. No one can seriously dispute the idea that the PS3 and Wii will sell out for many months initially; of course they will, due to many factors, most especially due to limited supply. When things will be REALLY interesting for all three consoles will be Nov.-Dec. of '07. I for one am incredibly curious to see how it all shakes out at that point; and DFC may be right in their analysis that a $600 price point in Nov-Dec '07 may just not be tolerable to the mass market consumer, but a price cut may be more than Sony shareholders will tolerate/bear.

I freaking hate this thread. Stop repeating the same washed out topics day after day. It's Halo 2 all over again.

A bit cranky today (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=329515#post329515), Blue? ;)

NonSoft

07-01-2006, 09:24 AM

Having 2 console contenders means consumers don't have to buy 3 different machines to play all the best games. Consumers win.

It also means one less company to compete with. Which would most likely lead to less price drops. Consumers don't win when there is less competition.

Exactly. Sony knew that with the PS2 and even the PS1 they needed a mass market to be successful. Somewhere between launching the PS2 and today, Sony seems to have forgotten that simple fact. (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3150&Itemid=2)

I love that interview, I've never been able to make much sense of it. If they want to directly influence the growth of the industry, wouldn't selling as many units as possible be the best way? How else could they be successful and be a major influence for the industry's growth?

Crazy Sony.

So far, the games that have been shown are 'shiny' versions of existing franchises. If Sony had any compelling, non-gimmicky new ways to play, they should have made them the highlight of E3. Instead, we got 20 min of Gran Turismo running in HD, giant enemy crabs, real-time weapon change, and Riiiiidge Raaaaacer! Overall, IF the PS3 has any new ways to play, they feel like a complete afterthought, especially compared to the amount of energy Sony spends touting the HD movie playback capabilities.

I guess you mean they were all shiny versions of exsisting games aside from Heavenly Sword, Assassin's Creed, and Resistance for completely new franchises. This is in addition to existing franchises like MGS4 and Final Fantasy XIII. These games were the real highlights of the show for the PS3, not GT in HD. Seems rather odd to leave those out of the list. Could you clarify what exactly having "new ways to play" means? It's a bit vague. For example, did the 360 show off any new ways to play at E3 that the PS3 isn't capable of?

Having a diverse library indeed, breeds success. The PS2 got its diverse library by having a large number of 3rd parties develop for the console. If you read the news, including the article this story references, you will see that many developers think the PS3 is too expensive and confusing to become a mass-market device, therefore it makes more sense to develop for another platform that will be more widely adopted. When developers look for greener pastures, the large library of diverse games will go with them. This has happened before. See: Nintendo 64, Sega Saturn, Sega Dreamcast.

Definitely true, but from what I've seen so far only one developer has actually said they are halting development for the PS3, and it was an unknown game. I do recall many developers saying that it would be too time consuming to produce games for the PS2 due to the complexity of the development process. The PS2 seems to have made it through that mess, so until we start to see developers actually leave the console I don't see any reason to believe the PS3 won't have a diverse library as well.

I agree with you. Sony may indeed lose the console war. I will also agree that the PS3 will sell out of ALL of the initial shipments. Placed into context though, the initial sales numbers are a very small piece of the overall picture. If Sony meets its dubious sales forecast for the first fiscal year, that would mean that a very small percentage of PS2 owners have upgraded, around 6%. Yes, that can be considered very small.

Well sure, if you compare the amount of sales from the initial shipment of PS3s to the number of PS2s sold over the course of 6 or so years, yes that is a rather small percentage... it is also a completely ridiculous comparison.

Chalex

07-01-2006, 09:43 AM

Funny, when I type "cell processor yeilds" into our good friend Google, here is what I get back:
Google Results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=Nqz&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=cell+processor+yields&spell=1)
Digg Story (http://digg.com/hardware/Sony_s_Cell_Processor_Yields_Horrible_,_Sources_Cl aim_)
I thought we had a no quoting the inquirer policy in place here?

Either way, when I typed cell processor yields into google I got this:

The process of bringing manufacturing of the Cell microprocessor up to speed has been an enormous success so far, according to a senior IBM executive, who said that the new chip's yields are improving faster than any other device the firm has worked on.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/news.php?aid=14679

Wonka

07-01-2006, 09:58 AM

The PS3 may be little more than a 360 with a blueray drive for $600, but its still gonna sell out (at least initially).

Sony will lose some marketshare, especially in the largest market (North America).

It does not take a genius to guess this. Sony has nowhere to go but down in terms of marketshare.

But they are not going to go away.

AspectVoid

07-01-2006, 10:04 AM

So far, the games that have been shown are 'shiny' versions of existing franchises. If Sony had any compelling, non-gimmicky new ways to play, they should have made them the highlight of E3.

You mean unlinke how all of X-Box 360 games out right now are new franchises such as Ghost Recon, Madden, Dead or Alive, The Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Burnout Revenge, Fight Night Round 3, MotoGP 06, Hitman, Top Spin, Far Cry, Tomb Raider.

Oh, wait, all of those are X360 games that are 'shiny' versions of existing franchises too! Wow, I never in my life would have realized that if you hadn't made me look at the list of what I thought were brand new franchises for the x360!

And yes, I am trolling you Kamalot. Your statement was really dumb.

thecrazyd

07-01-2006, 10:08 AM

Depending on how they advertise it, I can see it doing just fine. I can definately see this coming out on top in America. You guys love getting caught up in the $600 price, but for most consumers, the $500 one is more then sufficient. It is still a lot of money, but then again, so is the 360.

Nadreck

07-01-2006, 10:41 AM

Going back to a comment from the first page, the comparison between Coca Cola and Sony is actually a good one. On a macro-economic scale, similarities between pre-'New Coke' era Coca Cola and the current Sony are remarkable, in terms of market share et al. Coca Cola decided they wanted to appeal to a different market, due to pressures from other cola manufacturers (like Pepsi, whose market share was steadily growing), so they created the "New" Coke... which bombed miserably, much in the same way that analysts, consumers, and developers alike are concerned will happen with the PS3. Coca Cola backpedaled and brought back the original formula fairly quickly, and ended up GAINING marketshare through the fiasco (even bad attention is still attention). The lesson Coca Cola (and other companies from the sidelines) learned is that when you've got a good thing going, even if it slips a few points in market share, it's better to DIVERSIFY rather than CHANGE what you already have.

Sony apparently is ignoring this by changing the "taste" of the Playstation line. Both the price and the marketspeak released by Sony indicates a strong shift towards a non-mass-market appeal to the machine, which is a definite divergence from the PS1 and PS2. This could (and in my opinion will) bite them in the ass. The question is whether or not they'll be able to leverage this into an even larger market share with a "PS3.5" or wait until the PS4 5-10 years down the line, like Coca Cola managed to?

Siraris

07-01-2006, 10:52 AM

I love your logic here.

"I talked to someone close to me..."
So, they were in-person, like standing right next to you? Or do you mean, 'emotionally close'? Either way, this person isn't an industry insider. They could have been someone you happened to stand too close to at GameStop. Invading personal space?

Funny, when I type "cell processor yeilds" into our good friend Google, here is what I get back:
Google Results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=Nqz&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=cell+processor+yields&spell=1)
Digg Story (http://digg.com/hardware/Sony_s_Cell_Processor_Yields_Horrible_,_Sources_Cl aim_)

I tell you Siraris, your posts are better than Saturday morning cartoons! :D

Lol, my logic? I talk to someone close to me, who has been in manufacturing for the past 25 years who says that Sony should be able to produce 2 million systems by November and this is logic? It was my father, ok? Does that make it any different?

And I'm glad you can link to articles that all refer to the inquirer, see I can link to articles like this one (http://www.ps3land.com/article-243.php) which proves my point.

Johan

07-01-2006, 10:56 AM

Sony apparently is ignoring this by changing the "taste" of the Playstation line. Both the price and the marketspeak released by Sony indicates a strong shift towards a non-mass-market appeal to the machine, which is a definite divergence from the PS1 and PS2. This could (and in my opinion will) bite them in the ass. The question is whether or not they'll be able to leverage this into an even larger market share with a "PS3.5" or wait until the PS4 5-10 years down the line, like Coca Cola managed to?

I agree with your points, and that's part of why I picked out that particular part of the article to quote; I felt it was a pretty good analogy, considering the risks Sony is taking in shifting their focus away from the mass market.

Blue

07-01-2006, 11:13 AM

A bit cranky today (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=329515#post329515), Blue? ;)

Yes, come to think of it. We have two kids licking one another a few posts over and we have this same regurgitative crap popping up under News every day, sometimes multiple times a day. You people need to stop hitting the repeat button. We get it already. Half of the posts in here could easily be copy/paste jobs from the other dozen posts about the exact same thing. It's old and it's tired and it's just now July.

Kamalot

07-01-2006, 11:25 AM

It also means one less company to compete with. Which would most likely lead to less price drops. Consumers don't win when there is less competition.
This is super-hysterical considering Sony's PS3 is the biggest price in crease we've seen in home consoles. Please tell me how they will help keep prices down.

I guess you mean they were all shiny versions of exsisting games aside from Heavenly Sword, Assassin's Creed, and Resistance for completely new franchises.
New franchises do not mean new ways of playing.

I do recall many developers saying that it would be too time consuming to produce games for the PS2 due to the complexity of the development process.
I too, remember that. Something strange happened though. PS2 sold more than the Dreamcast, the only other next generation platform around. Then every developer KNEW they HAD to develop for the PS2. There simply wasn't a choice. This generation, there is little reason for a developer to make a game for the PS3. It is late to the party and its ONLY feature is the ability to store more junk on the disc.

Well sure, if you compare the amount of sales from the initial shipment of PS3s to the number of PS2s sold over the course of 6 or so years, yes that is a rather small percentage... it is also a completely ridiculous comparison.
Not at all. In the grand scheme of things, saying the PS3 will be purchased by a small number of people is entirely true, which is what I was discussing. Would you rather compare the number of PS3s sold to the entire population of the Earth?

Kamalot

07-01-2006, 11:27 AM

You mean unlinke how all of X-Box 360 games out right now are new franchises such as Ghost Recon, Madden, Dead or Alive, The Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Burnout Revenge, Fight Night Round 3, MotoGP 06, Hitman, Top Spin, Far Cry, Tomb Raider.

Oh, wait, all of those are X360 games that are 'shiny' versions of existing franchises too! Wow, I never in my life would have realized that if you hadn't made me look at the list of what I thought were brand new franchises for the x360!

And yes, I am trolling you Kamalot. Your statement was really dumb.
Please indicate to me where I stated the 360's games were new and innovative. Oh, I didn't? Well, then there is no argument here. Why are you looking for one?

Kamalot

07-01-2006, 11:28 AM

Lol, my logic? I talk to someone close to me, who has been in manufacturing for the past 25 years who says that Sony should be able to produce 2 million systems by November and this is logic? It was my father, ok? Does that make it any different?

And I'm glad you can link to articles that all refer to the inquirer, see I can link to articles like this one (http://www.ps3land.com/article-243.php) which proves my point.
I talked to my dad too. He's a business analyst. He thinks your dad is full of crap. ;)

Kamalot

07-01-2006, 11:29 AM

I thought we had a no quoting the inquirer policy in place here?

Either way, when I typed cell processor yields into google I got this:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/news.php?aid=14679Cool! Thanks for the link. I just pulled up the Digg article I found on Google without realizing it linked to the Inquirer. Sorry about that.

BGSS

07-01-2006, 11:47 AM

I wouldn't say Sony has no soul, like they released ICO, and even though it didn't sell greatly they still had Shadow of the Colossus made. I bet Microsoft would have dumped ICO faster than Psychonauts.

SONY didn't release ICO or Shadow. A third party made the game, and third party took the risk. Just because Sony approved their game concept, that doesn't mean they were being true to the games or whatever point you were tying to make. All they did was sign a piece of paper that allowed them to put the game out. No credit should go to sony for this, any company would have done the same for those games.

Also, the big difference this time around is that Microsoft actually paid attention to what people were saying, what the gamers said was missing from the old Xbox. With the 360, Microsoft is grabbing and making exclusives that they wouldn't have before with the old Xbox. They now realize that people want more odd games and RPGs. As it stands now, microsoft has a more impressive exclusive lineup than Sony does (Gears of War, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Alan Wake, Lost Planet, Dead Rising, Cry-on to name a few) while all sony has left to show right now is FFXIII and MGS 4. And after MGS 4, there is no more MGS, so it's not an exclusive after that point.

BlackPete

07-01-2006, 11:50 AM

This is super-hysterical considering Sony's PS3 is the biggest price in crease we've seen in home consoles. Please tell me how they will help keep prices down.

Sorry, I'll have to disagree with you on that one. Consider the current situation:

Wii: $200-$250
360: $400
PS3: $600

Looking at those numbers, the PS3 is immediately made irrelevant in my mind, and I'd have a hard time justifying even the 360. It's too early to tell but supposing the Wii is a blockbuster of a console and there's a mad rush to buy one, which leaves 360 and PS3 sales running in the special olympics. They're forced to drop their prices. Good for the consumers.

Now if you took the Wii out of the equation:

360: $400
PS3: $600

With those numbers, you won't be seeing a price drop for ages, and people won't be able to say $400 is toooo expensive for a console without having a cheaper one to point at for an example.

Competition is always good as it forces a price war at some point.. and price wars are always good :) In fact, I can't help but imagine that Sony would've made it $800 or more if not for the Wii and 360...

Kamalot

07-01-2006, 11:55 AM

I thought we had a no quoting the inquirer policy in place here?

Either way, when I typed cell processor yields into google I got this:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/news.php?aid=14679
Your article has two interesting things to note.

1st, IBM claims to be improving yields faster than any other chip. Perhaps they were able to bring a 25% yield up to a 50% yeild. The article does not say. What could a vast improvement could still be worse than other chips that are more common and have been in production for years.

2nd, was this interesting quote...
The severe shortages of the Xbox 360 at launch are thought to have been caused more by the firm's over-ambitious target of launching worldwide within a two week window than by any extraordinary manufacturing difficulties - which goes to show that while IBM may be keeping its side of the deal, Sony still has much ground to cover to ensure steady supply of the PS3 at launch. There is much that can go wrong in such a complicated machine (http://ps3people.com/content/view/15/2/).

BGSS

07-01-2006, 11:55 AM

Sorry, I'll have to disagree with you on that one. Consider the current situation:

Wii: $200-$250
360: $400
PS3: $600

Looking at those numbers, the PS3 is immediately made irrelevant in my mind, and I'd have a hard time justifying even the 360. It's too early to tell but supposing the Wii is a blockbuster of a console and there's a mad rush to buy one, which leaves 360 and PS3 sales running in the special olympics. They're forced to drop their prices. Good for the consumers.

Now if you took the Wii out of the equation:

360: $400
PS3: $600

With those numbers, you won't be seeing a price drop for ages, and people won't be able to say $400 is toooo expensive for a console without having a cheaper one to point at for an example.

Competition is always good as it forces a price war at some point.. and price wars are always good :) In fact, I can't help but imagine that Sony would've made it $800 or more if not for the Wii and 360...

I could see the 360 dropping in price (or including more in the package for the same price) withing a very reasonable amount of time. I don't care what the marketing reps at microsoft said, it WILL happen in the next yearish whereas the Ps3 won't be dropping for a LONG time.

Kamalot

07-01-2006, 11:58 AM

Sorry, I'll have to disagree with you on that one.
:confused:

Sorry, I'm a little befuddled. I was asking why Sony was good for consumers by keeping prices low. I don't think having Sony in the console race is helping keep console prices affordable at all, at least in this generation. The evidence you presented seems to back that up, unless I am missing something.

Siraris

07-01-2006, 11:59 AM

I talked to my dad too. He's a business analyst. He thinks your dad is full of crap. ;)

Once a troll always a troll. Who now resorts to personal insults.

fitbabits

07-01-2006, 12:03 PM

Once a troll always a troll. Who now resorts to personal insults.
Even I could see that Kamalot was joking. Easy pot shots are too boring.

I suggest we all move on and away from these petty attacks. It really is lowering the tone of Evil Avatar in a way that's unbecoming of such a wonderful community.

BGSS

07-01-2006, 12:14 PM

The PS2 had sold more than 100 million systems...100 MILLION. That means that they obviously knew, on some level, what to give the consumer. I'll bet the PS3 has the majority of the next gen marketshare a year after its launch. There are too many fanboys to have that system flop. I haven't heard the 360 sales numbers, but it seems to be doing just ok.

Well it was because Sega went under so the only credible game companies were Nintendo and Sony at the time, sony came out with a more powerful product and everyone thought it was amazing and stuck to it. Microsoft entered the game late and had no rep in the gaming industry so people were skeptical. Xbox picked up quite a bit, but not enough to catch on worldwide. Mainly because Sony had already established a name and Microsoft hadn't. The lack of RPG and similar genres was it's weak spot for quite some time, but microsoft pulled around in the last couple years of the Xbox and finally started delivering. Now this generation microsoft is credible and have a great lineup of games. It won't be so easy for Sony to dominate as it was last time.

Besides, many of those 100 million were people having to rebuy the ps2 after theirs started with disc read errors, and many sold because people wanted the quieter fan and progressive scan in the + model (released october 2003 I beleive) and then even more people re-bought it with the redesign slim model.

Not even close to 100 million individual people wanted the system. Many many purchased it more than once, or even a few times for some people I've met.

Nadreck

07-01-2006, 12:35 PM

Earlier in the thread, the topic was broached of each system's respective online capability, and a remark was made that nothing is known about the online systems for the PS3 or the Wii. This is patently untrue. Sony was releasing dockets, screenshots, and features for their Playstation network as far back as GDC (there is quite a bit of coverage of the keynote where this is all discussed -- I would encourage haters and fans alike to do a little reading about it all). While Nintendo has been quite a bit more tight-lipped about their implementation, facts have begun to surface, such as full featured web browsing capability (via Opera... the announcement wasn't just for a DS version of Opera, which is something I think a lot of people missed... needless to say, it's plastered on the Opera website now). If you allow for some speculation and conjecture based on certain activities on the part of the company (such as surveys inquiring about what users would like to see done differently with the online service), a fairly robust picture can be painted.

All that said, I honestly don't think online implementations are going to play as significant a role in determining market share this time around, purely for the fact that all three now have what are purported to be at least halfway decent implementations, and it's a somewhat moot argument for comparison.

fitbabits

07-01-2006, 12:37 PM

Khash

07-01-2006, 12:53 PM

SONY didn't release ICO or Shadow. A third party made the game, and third party took the risk. Just because Sony approved their game concept, that doesn't mean they were being true to the games or whatever point you were tying to make. All they did was sign a piece of paper that allowed them to put the game out. No credit should go to sony for this, any company would have done the same for those games.
And, of course, you'd be wrong. Both Ico and Shadow are first party games developed by Sony Japan. But I guess it's more fun to just make stuff up, eh?

fitbabits

07-01-2006, 12:56 PM

And, of course, you'd be wrong. Both Ico and Shadow are first party games developed by Sony Japan. But I guess it's more fun to just make stuff up, eh?
Correct on both counts, Khash.

Shadow of the Colossus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_of_the_colossus).

Ico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ico).

Siraris

07-01-2006, 12:56 PM

But the difference is that Xbox Live is proven and it works very well. Think about Sony's online escapades so far - they've been hideously lacking.

Sonys online service has been lacking because they didn't feel it was a priority. Very few people would have thought of playing a game online ony our PS2 when it first launched. Microsoft did start LIVE and kick started online gaming, but with something like 1 million live subscriptions until the 360 came out, it wasn't exactly a big money making endeavour.

Bill Gates was interviewed on Donny Deutsch a couple weeks ago, and he was asked about the whole MS search engine and google etc. He said that Microsoft moves into markets when they feel the market is ready. Maybe that's just a cop out and they just didn't think of it first, but the fact is that although this can be applied to Sony, there is no arguing that there was just no market for a big online service when the PS2 launched.

It's still a bit odd that they sold the network adapter seperately. I guess they felt that it wasn't necessary to build a big infastructure, but if it became a potential business revenue, they could offer it.

This is all just pure speculation.

fitbabits

07-01-2006, 01:01 PM

Sonys online service has been lacking because they didn't feel it was a priority. Very few people would have thought of playing a game online ony our PS2 when it first launched. Microsoft did start LIVE and kick started online gaming, but with something like 1 million live subscriptions until the 360 came out, it wasn't exactly a big money making endeavour.

Bill Gates was interviewed on Donny Deutsch a couple weeks ago, and he was asked about the whole MS search engine and google etc. He said that Microsoft moves into markets when they feel the market is ready. Maybe that's just a cop out and they just didn't think of it first, but the fact is that although this can be applied to Sony, there is no arguing that there was just no market for a big online service when the PS2 launched.

It's still a bit odd that they sold the network adapter seperately. I guess they felt that it wasn't necessary to build a big infastructure, but if it became a potential business revenue, they could offer it.

This is all just pure speculation.
All you've done here is state in a roundabout way that Sony lacked the long-term vision to incorporate online capabilities to the PS2 out the box. Games were being played online way before the PS2 or Xbox came along (PC, Dreamcast). The fact that Microsoft recognized that and made Live an integral part of their Xbox vision is indicative of how well Microsoft did their homework.

Khash

07-01-2006, 01:07 PM

fitbabits

07-01-2006, 01:12 PM

I think we all agree Sony still has to prove itself with online gaming. I remain cautiously optimistic. I think they took a look at Live, said, "we need that!", and are gonna pretty much make a Live clone(which is what it needs to be).
Ding ding ding. See, here's where Sony need to step up. They don't need a Live clone, the don't need a motion-sensing controller - what they DO need is a Live KILLER and a controller that encompasses the best of the Dual Analog (with rumble) plus some other functionality. In short, Sony need to innovate, not duplicate.

Khash

07-01-2006, 01:19 PM

Siraris

07-01-2006, 01:23 PM

I don't know why Sony doesn't push that EyeToy more. I mean they've had it around forever and it's plenty innovative. They just need to get it into gamers hands. Screw that tilt controller crap, ship an EyeToy with every PS3. Then maybe we'd actually see some awsome games that use it.

Wel the reason why with the PS2 is because the PS2 wasn't powerful enough to use the eyetoy in most games. The Eyetoy will be used a lot more this generation.

Khash

07-01-2006, 01:27 PM

Wel the reason why with the PS2 is because the PS2 wasn't powerful enough to use the eyetoy in most games. The Eyetoy will be used a lot more this generation.
People aren't gonna buy it because there are no games for it and no games will be made for it because no one will buy it. They need to get it out to gamers by just making it standards with PS3. Christ, we're already paying enough for the thing as it is. It's the least they could do.

Siraris

07-01-2006, 01:30 PM

People aren't gonna buy it because there are no games for it and no games will be made for it because no one will buy it. They need to get it out to gamers by just making it standards with PS3. Christ, we're already paying enough for the thing as it is. It's the least they could do.

There are no games for it because the PS2 was not powerful enough to use it effectively. It would choke every other CPU cycle.

There are rumors that Sony is going to include Eyetoy with the PS3 this fall. There is also rumors that they have this new technology from an Israeli company that will really revolutionize the Eyetoy. We'll have to wait and see. Supposedly there is a Playstation conference soon, so maybe we'll find out then, or at TGS.

Johan

07-01-2006, 01:55 PM

I think we all agree Sony still has to prove itself with online gaming. I remain cautiously optimistic. I think they took a look at Live, said, "we need that!", and are gonna pretty much make a Live clone(which is what it needs to be).

It will be far from a Live clone...which I believe is unfortunate, because, as DFC Intelligence analysts believe (see the third article from the top at this link) (http://www.dfcint.com/gamearticles.html)

"In our view what Sony has announced so far for the PlayStation 3 and online connectivity looks a lot like the PlayStation 2 with an online store and some inexpensive community features added on. Once again, with the PlayStation 3, Sony is emphasizing the open Internet idea. In our view this translates into: “we are not spending a lot on online services, but we will let others build it if they want to.” Clearly this is not what Sony is actually saying, but like the PlayStation 2 the main point is that online game play is free right out of the box. If third-parties desire to build their own services and charge for them then they are welcome to do so. Sony is spending a great deal of money to build the basic system that makes the PlayStation 3 the raw horsepower leader. Right now they probably don’t need the added expense and headache of a full-fledged online service, especially if there is no evidence it will get them to their goal of selling more hardware systems."

Until it's up, running, AND verifiably comparable to Live (or better than it, as fitbabits suggested), then Live is the only console with such a well-developed, centralized, online service. Knowing what happened with Sony's PS2 online plans, I am severely skeptical anything comparable to Live will come about.

oldjadedgamer

07-01-2006, 02:18 PM

There are no games for it because the PS2 was not powerful enough to use it effectively. It would choke every other CPU cycle.

If this is true, then Sony's R&D isn't very good and they wasted a ton of money on it bringing a product to market a device that the machine can't handle.

51|RandoM

07-01-2006, 02:31 PM

My question is: If the stocks were that trashed after their overt winning of the last generation, what will they look like in this (much more competitive) generation?

Just fine, assuming there isn't another massive readjustment for people to ignore when reporting silly 5 year statistics.

51|RandoM

07-01-2006, 02:32 PM

PS2 was the only thing making Sony money for like, a while.

They have an insurance division in Japan that has been making cash the entire time. They were trying to sell it, though. :-)

51|RandoM

07-01-2006, 02:38 PM

I don't care what anyone says, only a very small group of people are willing to pay $600+ for a toy. That's essentially what a videogame system is, afterall, a toy. Sony can dress it up with all the sophisticated definitions they like, it's still no different than the consoles before it.

You're wrong.

If there are people who'll pay $400 for a 60gig ipod, there are plenty of people who'll pay $600 for PS3. Think about it.

Most of the people who are worried about the price are the people who are ignoring what you get for that price, mainly because they hope to remain in a world where a console is just a console. Industry is going in completely the opposite direction, though.

It is far too early to start calling gloom and doom. It is like deciding the world series while we're still in spring training.

Khash

07-01-2006, 02:38 PM

They have an insurance division in Japan that has been making cash the entire time. They were trying to sell it, though. :-)
And Sony Pictures. Some of the highest grossing movies of all time are Sony Pictures(Spider-man, Da Vinci Code ect.) But even then Sony just barely breaks even.

51|RandoM

07-01-2006, 02:40 PM

And Sony Pictures. Some of the highest grossing movies of all time are Sony Pictures(Spider-man, Da Vinci Code ect.)

Yeah, but Sony Pictures has been bleeding money on their other films. They really needed Da Vinci Code to come through for them. Did it? I've not been keeping track.

Siraris

07-01-2006, 02:42 PM

You're wrong.

If there are people who'll pay $400 for a 60gig ipod, there are plenty of people who'll pay $600 for PS3. Think about it.

Most of the people who are worried about the price are the people who are ignoring what you get for that price, mainly because they hope to remain in a world where a console is just a console. Industry is going in completely the opposite direction, though.

It is far too early to start calling gloom and doom. It is like deciding the world series while we're still in spring training.

QFT. I've been saying this all along; if someone can pay that much for a device that plays music and tiny videos, they'll pay $100-$200 more for what the PS3 has to offer.

http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/90/2790/boxoffice/

Da Vinci did 209 million in the US alone. I read somewhere it outsold Passion of the Christ, but I can't find where.

Khash

07-01-2006, 02:44 PM

Yeah, but Sony Pictures has been bleeding money on their other films. They really needed Da Vinci Code to come through for them. Did it? I've not been keeping track.
Yea, it didn't quite well despite being a crapfest.

Total US Gross $208,142,832
Worldwide Gross $708,142,832

Johan

07-01-2006, 02:49 PM

Yea, it didn't quite well despite being a crapfest.

Total US Gross $208,142,832
Worldwide Gross $708,142,832

Every review I read and person I heard agreed with you that it was a "crapfest." I think all the religious opposition (Catholic church opposing it publicly) actually saved the film from death by a thousand cuts...the free publicity and controversy probably swelled the audience by a bunch.

I wonder how Sony's film division has done overall; no stats, no url, no idea here...

Jack B

07-01-2006, 02:51 PM

It will be far from a Live clone...which I believe is unfortunate, because, as DFC Intelligence analysts believe (see the third article from the top at this link) (http://www.dfcint.com/gamearticles.html)

Until it's up, running, AND verifiably comparable to Live (or better than it, as fitbabits suggested), then Live is the only console with such a well-developed, centralized, online service. Knowing what happened with Sony's PS2 online plans, I am severely skeptical anything comparable to Live will come about.

Johan123, I'd agree.

I spent 1 hour trying to setup Final Fantasy on Live for the 360 and it hung. I gave up. I've heard it took two hours to successfully set it up. I envision more of that type of experience if each manufacturer has more control. I know some will be better than that and some worse (actually, I'm not sure it could be worse), but generally I'd expect a less consistent centralized experience.

I'm looking for a unified, centralized service like XBL and I'm happy to pay $4 a month to keep Microsoft adding improvements.

Leaving a lot of the online service up to each individual manufacturer doesn't sound like the centralized service I'm looking for... We'll see later this fall how it shakes out, but I'm skeptical on Sony's Live service.

I heard the free is better argument, but for me free isn't better.

Siraris

07-01-2006, 03:05 PM

Johan123, I'd agree.

I spent 1 hour trying to setup Final Fantasy on Live for the 360 and it hung. I gave up. I've heard it took two hours to successfully set it up. I envision more of that type of experience if each manufacturer has more control. I know some will be better than that and some worse (actually, I'm not sure it could be worse), but generally I'd expect a less consistent centralized experience.

I'm looking for a unified, centralized service like XBL and I'm happy to pay $4 a month to keep Microsoft adding improvements.

Leaving a lot of the online service up to each individual manufacturer doesn't sound like the centralized service I'm looking for... We'll see later this fall how it shakes out, but I'm skeptical on Sony's Live service.

I heard the free is better argument, but for me free isn't better.

Jack - I tried telling you this before, but it probably got caught up in our bickering. Sony will have a unified service, all of their games, their network, it will all be one giant beast. The only difference is, Sony will give more control to developers for their specific games, where Microsoft forces all developers to put their games on LIVE.

I think this is very exciting, because there will bet his overall structure to the network, but each individual "game hub" (I just made that up), will have its own special touch from the developer. I envision it like, you live in a neighborhood and you have to follow the rules. Every home is connected by roads, there is a mail service, a milkman, whatever, but each house is controlled by who lives there, and not the overall "neighborhood".

Jack B

07-01-2006, 03:10 PM

Jack - I tried telling you this before, but it probably got caught up in our bickering. Sony will have a unified service, all of their games, their network, it will all be one giant beast. The only difference is, Sony will give more control to developers for their specific games, where Microsoft forces all developers to put their games on LIVE.

I think this is very exciting, because there will bet his overall structure to the network, but each individual "game hub" (I just made that up), will have its own special touch from the developer. I envision it like, you live in a neighborhood and you have to follow the rules. Every home is connected by roads, there is a mail service, a milkman, whatever, but each house is controlled by who lives there, and not the overall "neighborhood".

I won't even get into this with you. You have your opinion. I have mine.

We can revisit this issue in December 2006.

Sl1pstream

07-01-2006, 03:13 PM

Zanzibar

07-01-2006, 03:24 PM

I thought we had a no quoting the inquirer policy in place here?

Either way, when I typed cell processor yields into google I got this:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/news.php?aid=14679

One pro-Cell yield article based on a quote from an IBM lackey in February. (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/news.php?aid=14679)

One anti-Cell yield article based on an unnamed source from April. (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=31443)

I don't know about you, but I tend to trust the unnamed sources more than the lackeys, simply because the lackeys' jobs are to keep the investors happy.

Oh, and somebody mentioned a PS3land article that somehow was from July 11th, 2006 (http://www.ps3land.com/article-243.php). Did they somehow send the article back in time for you?

AspectVoid

07-01-2006, 03:43 PM

Please indicate to me where I stated the 360's games were new and innovative. Oh, I didn't? Well, then there is no argument here. Why are you looking for one?

No, you bitched about how Sony's games were all shiney rehashes like it was something against the system. I was pointing out that your so called arguement in that paragraph was idiotic because Microsoft is doing the same thing. I could have made the same point going through the Gamecube with Mario (and all its subgames such as Mariokart) Zelda, Metroid, etc. I didn't, though, since Microsoft is the only company with a Next Gen system out.

People like you who attack a single brand for the same shit that other companies do, but don't comment on the same problems with those other companies, annoy the hell out of me.

Look, I don't really have much of a problem with the rest of your posts (except that you tend to sound self rightous to me but that could just be a problem with how text doesn't show emotion) but that paragraph was just plain stupid.

Zechs01

07-01-2006, 04:51 PM

I, for one, hope Sony fails miserably with the PS3 just as they did with Everquest 2. When it comes to entertainment they have no soul. They couldn't give a rat's ass what the consumer actually wants.
Noone cares what the consumer wants all any of the companies care about is selling their product and making money that includes Blizzard, Microsoft, and pretty much every other company.

Khash

07-01-2006, 05:10 PM

Noone cares what the consumer wants all any of the companies care about is selling their product and making money that includes Blizzard, Microsoft, and pretty much every other company.
Truth, my brother. Speak it!

Honestly people, you're fooling yourselves if you don't think Nintendo doesn't want your money just as much as Microsoft or Sony or EA.

fitbabits

07-01-2006, 05:16 PM

Truth, my brother. Speak it!

Honestly people, you're fooling yourselves if you don't think Nintendo doesn't want your money just as much as Microsoft or Sony or EA.
I don't think anyone here is of the opinion that Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Blizzard, etc. are doing what they're doing for shits-n-giggles.

Jack B

07-01-2006, 05:19 PM

Analysts: Limited PS3 Yields Expected - Sony to experience same issues as Microsoft. (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151891)

"This is now the most complex box that's ever been built in this industry ... While Sony has certain manufacturing advantages at the end of the day, this is a very complex process, and they're going to be limited to the yields that they can come up with."

I've seen a lot of focus on the Cell yields in this thread. The bigger picture for me is the PS3 as a whole and all the parts needed to keep the assembly line humming.

I'm not really concerned with Cell yields. The Cell has been out for quite some time. I don't know how many parts the PS3 has, but the Xbox 360 had about 1,700 parts from a couple hundred suppliers. That's the bigger issue. The Cell is just one component. True, it's impossible to replace and a reasonable percentage of the other parts have multiple suppliers, but when you have 1,300 parts, it's very easy for a few suppliers/parts to stop or slow down the assembly lines.

Launches of many electronic products have assembly line issues. Blu-Ray has already been pushed back as has the PS3 launch as one example.

I believe Sony will make the launch date(s), but I'd say there is a very reasonable chance they'll have issues with supply.

BlackPete

07-01-2006, 06:05 PM

:confused:

Sorry, I'm a little befuddled. I was asking why Sony was good for consumers by keeping prices low. I don't think having Sony in the console race is helping keep console prices affordable at all, at least in this generation. The evidence you presented seems to back that up, unless I am missing something.

Ah well, I was under the impression that you were saying 2 consoles is better for the market than 3 so that's what I was disagreeing on. If I was mistaken, my bad! ;)

BlackPete

07-01-2006, 06:10 PM

I could see the 360 dropping in price (or including more in the package for the same price) withing a very reasonable amount of time. I don't care what the marketing reps at microsoft said, it WILL happen in the next yearish whereas the Ps3 won't be dropping for a LONG time.

Oh definitely -- I fully expect Microsoft to price-drop the 360 just to screw up Sony when the PS3 launches. However, what I was saying is that with fewer consoles, you'd have less reasons to be competitive.

As it stands, when compared to the PS3, the 360 really doesn't have a reason to drop their prices except to widen the price gap. However, compared to the Wii, the 360 looks expensive. But anyway I know I'm just preaching to the choir here ;)

NonSoft

07-01-2006, 06:26 PM

New franchises do not mean new ways of playing.

No, I don't believe they do, nor did I ever suggest that I did. Infact, I asked you to clarify what exactly a "new way to play" entailed, and while you quoted much of my entire post, you managed to leave that part out. Again I will ask, what is the 360 capable of in regards to "new ways to play" that the PS3 isn't?

I too, remember that. Something strange happened though. PS2 sold more than the Dreamcast, the only other next generation platform around. Then every developer KNEW they HAD to develop for the PS2. There simply wasn't a choice. This generation, there is little reason for a developer to make a game for the PS3. It is late to the party and its ONLY feature is the ability to store more junk on the disc.

Uh...I guess the other developers were not aware of the xbox and Gamecube? There were certainly games being developed for these consoles by the time the Dreamcast was dead. There was definitely a choice in the matter.

Not at all. In the grand scheme of things, saying the PS3 will be purchased by a small number of people is entirely true, which is what I was discussing. Would you rather compare the number of PS3s sold to the entire population of the Earth?

No, I would rather compare it to a number that actually makes sense. Like the number of PS3s sold in the first 6 months to the number of PS2s sold in the first 6 months or 360s in the first 6 months. Comparing the initial sales of a console to the overall sales (6 years) of another console doesn't make sense... at all.

Kelegacy

07-01-2006, 06:40 PM

I freaking hate this thread. Stop repeating the same washed out topics day after day. It's Halo 2 all over again.
I love you. Don't the same people argue about the same thing EVERY FREAKING DAY?

My predictions for the next Sony newspost:

1. Someone will post a story they scraped off the bottom of an analyst's shoe or an opinion/prediction piece passed off as "news" on a gaming news site.
2. There will be lengthy italiced commentary saying something negative about Sony and totally disrupting the thread discussion before it even starts, or there will be short italiced commentary that takes a quick snarky jab at Sony, hiding in the guise of a joke.
3. Kamalot will come in and say how gaming is about fun and Sony isn't about fun, blah blah, and...
4. ...people will pick apart his comments and...
5. ...Kamalot will quote people and pick apart theirs and...
6. ...someone hits RINSE cycle and the thread devolves into arguements for days, even after many days when the topic is no longer relevant, and if you were unfortunate enough to subscribe to the thread you'll be getting continuous updates about the idiot arguements.

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!

NonSoft

07-01-2006, 06:57 PM

I love you. Don't the same people argue about the same thing EVERY FREAKING DAY?

My predictions for the next Sony newspost:

1. Someone will post a story they scraped off the bottom of an analyst's shoe or an opinion/prediction piece passed off as "news" on a gaming news site.
2. There will be lengthy italiced commentary saying something negative about Sony and totally disrupting the thread discussion before it even starts, or there will be short italiced commentary that takes a quick snarky jab at Sony, hiding in the guise of a joke.
3. Kamalot will come in and say how gaming is about fun and Sony isn't about fun, blah blah, and...
4. ...people will pick apart his comments and...
5. ...Kamalot will quote people and pick apart theirs and...
6. ...someone hits RINSE cycle and the thread devolves into arguements for days, even after many days when the topic is no longer relevant, and if you were unfortunate enough to subscribe to the thread you'll be getting continuous updates about the idiot arguements.

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!

It never gets old.
:D

drakkarim

07-01-2006, 08:20 PM

personally, i don't see anything "next-gen" about this new crop of consoles. A high end PC will still outperform it (granted, at a higher cost, but you can use the pc for more then one thing), I'll care about the consoles when they can outperform the pc. maybe NEXT generation....

maikeru

07-01-2006, 08:31 PM

#1 PS3
#2 360
#3 Wii

We take it in the ass like always.

yes we do, but not that roughly

no one is going to buy a PS3 when it came out
people already thought 360's price was utterly ridiculous when it came out

I can see two possibilities:

1. PC
2. Wii
3. Xbox
4. Ps3

OR

Europeans just lose interest in video games. or at least stick to computers

whichever system has war games and the sims has an advantage.

if PS3 does sell in europe, it will be after the price drop

fitbabits

07-01-2006, 08:33 PM

yes we do, but not that roughly

no one is going to buy a PS3 when it came out
people already thought 360's price was utterly ridiculous when it came out

I can see two possibilities:

1. PC
2. Wii
3. Xbox
4. Ps3

OR

Europeans just lose interest in video games. or at least stick to computers

whichever system has war games and the sims has an advantage.

if PS3 does sell in europe, it will be after the price drop
Okay, saying as how we're making lists now:

1. DVDs
2. HD-DVDs
3. Blu-Ray
4. VHS

Mr.Condescension

07-01-2006, 09:52 PM

What particular features and games make that extra money, in your mind, well spent?

Just the games, for me, and the ability to output 1080p out of the box (for those games that support it). The PS3 is going to have alot of exlusives that I want to play: Tekken 6, MGS4, FFXIII, Assassin's Creed (maybe exclusive), Whatever team ICO, Sony Santa Monica, and Insomniac come up with. I'm also really excited about Heavenly Sword. On top of that, I'm the type of person that enjoys good graphics and Japanese titles. The PS3 will be the only system to offer the graphics I want to see with the game styles I like out of Japan. I do plan to get (or have my roommate get) a 360 for their exclusives as well. It's all about the games.

Mr.Condescension

07-01-2006, 09:59 PM

MGS 4 isn't going to look any better than it did at E3, and guess what? Splinter Cell Double Agent on the 360 looks just as good!

That's crazy talk! Compare the screenshots, please. MGS's models are higher poly, better textured, and better animated (so far...no gameplay yet to compare, though). The faces in Splinter cell look pretty shoddy on the in-game models. I already posted in the splinter cell thread that I hope they iron out the graphics before release.

I in no way believe this is an indication of system power or anything of the sort. I'm a stealth action freak, so I really want Splinter Cell to be good. At this point Splinter Cell is not even looking as good as GRAW graphically.

theguido

07-02-2006, 12:31 AM

Many of the same analysts predicting this kind of stuff are the same ones who never thought MS was going to get a foothold in the videogame market.

Those of you yelling "Truth" need to learn a few lessons in wishful thinking.

theguido

07-02-2006, 12:47 AM

And as much as I don't really want to wade through the bull in this thread, some things should be made clear

1. The $499 PS3 is a viable system, way more so than the Core

2. Not everybody cares about online (like, 80% of the people who come into my store) and those who do don't necessarily care enough about the feature of XBL if they have a free alternative.

3. The PS3 will sell out its' initial run. Wishing really, really hard and trolling internet forums isn't going to change that.

4. The 360 is dead in Japan. Fork. Done. Thus, for MS to win they will have to MURDER Sony everywhere else.

End.

Rafer

07-02-2006, 12:47 AM

I believe Sony will make the launch date(s), but I'd say there is a very reasonable chance they'll have issues with supply.

But how can the PS3 be both overpriced and under supplied? Personally, at $600 I don't think Sony is going to have too much trouble meeting demand.

Johan

07-02-2006, 06:37 AM

1. The $499 PS3 is a viable system, way more so than the Core

2. Not everybody cares about online (like, 80% of the people who come into my store) and those who do don't necessarily care enough about the feature of XBL if they have a free alternative.

3. The PS3 will sell out its' initial run. Wishing really, really hard and trolling internet forums isn't going to change that.

4. The 360 is dead in Japan. Fork. Done. Thus, for MS to win they will have to MURDER Sony everywhere else.

End.

#1. Yes to the first part, but "way more so" is really opinion. The missing features are not upgradeable to become the full-version, as can be done with the core (tard) pack.

#2. QFT

#3. QFT

#4. Sad to say, QFT...they just won't buy it. I think if FF and MGS were ONLY on the 360...they STILL wouldn't buy the 360 :eek:

Good points.

Jack B

07-02-2006, 09:20 AM

But how can the PS3 be both overpriced and under supplied? Personally, at $600 I don't think Sony is going to have too much trouble meeting demand.

You may be right. We'll know more in early January 2007.

RMan

07-02-2006, 10:51 AM

#1. Yes to the first part, but "way more so" is really opinion. The missing features are not upgradeable to become the full-version, as can be done with the core (tard) pack.
I always see this brought up but I fail to see the significance of the upgradeability. Sure, it’s nice, but how does it change the relative features. Why do some feel it automatically negates the impact of the missing features just because you can pay for them later? The plain and simple truth is that the low end PS3 is equivalent to the high end 360, and the impact of the missing features between the two versions is FAR more significant on the 360. The fact that people can choose later to pay for the Premium 360 doesn’t change those things in any way.

Sl1pstream

07-02-2006, 11:00 AM

and the impact of the missing features between the two versions is FAR more significant on the 360.

How is that? Say that, in 5 years, I buy a tv that can handle 1080p. I can't upgrade the "cheap" PS3 because I didn't think I'd ever need HDMI. I can, however, upgrade my 360 to the full version. It's not cheap, but at least it's possible.

If what Microsoft said is true, there's supposed to be a HDMI cable coming some day so my 360 can play 1080p movies, should HD-DVD survive.

The plain and simple truth is that the low end PS3 is equivalent to the high end 360

If Blu-Ray becomes the next movie format, yes. If it doesn't, it's overpriced compared to the 360. On the other hand, if you can't play 1080p movies, why switch to Blu-Ray in the first place?

The Letter 3

07-02-2006, 11:06 AM

I bet Microsoft would have dumped ICO faster than Psychonauts.
Er, Microsoft didn't dump Psychonauts.

RMan

07-02-2006, 11:34 AM

How is that? Say that, in 5 years, I buy a tv that can handle 1080p. I can't upgrade the "cheap" PS3 because I didn't think I'd ever need HDMI. I can, however, upgrade my 360 to the full version. It's not cheap, but at least it's possible.
Oh please. In 5 years you can buy the premium PS3 for under $200, and lets not pretend that at any time you’re going to find you ‘need’ HDMI. Are you suggesting that the need for HDMI is equivalent to the need for a HD and the 360’s marketplace? Again, it’s nice that 360 Core owners can upgrade for a hefty price when they discover how much they got screwed, but low end PS3 owners are not going to be similarly screwed even under the rare condition they buy a HDMI capable TV. This is because the features we’re talking about are in different leagues in terms of relevance. You can propose unlikely hypothetical circumstances under which low end PS3 owners may feel screwed, but as I said, it still doesn’t impact the relevance of the features we’re talking about.
If Blu-Ray becomes the next movie format, yes. If it doesn't, it's overpriced compared to the 360.
I agree it is overpriced, but that’s a different subject and also doesn’t affect relative features.
On the other hand, if you can't play 1080p movies, why switch to Blu-Ray in the first place?
Well, I’d imagine that the people who are demanding top of the line video will opt for the $600 version. Those that are uninterested or otherwise aren’t buying the machine for high end video purposes will opt for the $500 version, which is why it compares well to the $400 360 since it also doesn’t offer the high end video features. As to why you’d switch to BR without 1080p, it’s for the same reason many switch to something new, because they’re getting it anyway or it’s the popular format. As is painfully obvious, people buying the $500 PS3 have little interest in 1080p movies, if they did they’d throw down the extra $100. IOW, they’re not switching to BR, they’re just getting it as a feature they may, or may not care about.

Sl1pstream

07-02-2006, 11:58 AM

As to why you’d switch to BR without 1080p, it’s for the same reason many switch to something new, because they’re getting it anyway or it’s the popular format.

How is it new if it gives the exact, same image. If there was any difference in image there would be a reason but without HDMI you're going to get the same image that you get with dvd. The only thing new about it is the price.

Kamalot

07-02-2006, 12:01 PM

the ability to output 1080p out of the box (for those games that support it).
Do you honestly and seriously think any number of quality games will play in 1080p? Do you honestly think the difference between 1080p and other forms of HD will improve the experience that much?

Kamalot

07-02-2006, 12:01 PM

Siraris

07-02-2006, 12:10 PM

Do you honestly and seriously think any number of quality games will play in 1080p? Do you honestly think the difference between 1080p and other forms of HD will improve the experience that much?

I'll bite. Have you ever watched HDTV? Have you ever tried to go back to watch SDTV? It's like night and day. Granted, 720p looks nice, but 1080p has twice the resolution of 1080i, and I'm going to bet that if you have a game that has textures at a max of 1280x720 and compare it to a game that has textures at a max of 1920x1080, you'll notice a difference.

RMan

07-02-2006, 12:36 PM

How is it new if it gives the exact, same image. If there was any difference in image there would be a reason but without HDMI you're going to get the same image that you get with dvd. The only thing new about it is the price.
Umm, it's a new format regardless of the image quality.
Quoted for truth. Sane people aren't ready to spend so much on getting so little.
Agreed, which is precisely why THEY ARE NOT! Again, BR is a feature of the PS3, it’s not why every consumer will buy it. Just because Sony wants everyone to have a BR player doesn’t mean everyone buying the PS3 wants a BR player, much less demands the best BR playing experience possible. Heck, why don’t we assume everyone’s buying the PS3 for the motion sensing controller, as long as we’re conveniently seeing all consumers as single feature driven drones? I’d bet the many of you people arguing this point would, in another thread, argue that the BR player is useless and nobody cares, now all of the sudden it’s so crucial to PS3 owners that they must have the maximum possible resolution on them? It's just silly.

Look, if you want to bash the system, just use the comparable system, it’s still more expensive by $100 (and more so considering the almost assured shortages they’ll have). It’s still $100 for essentially a movie player that will take a long time to be relevant. Just hearing people try to argue that the $600 PS3 is comparable to the $400 360 for the sole purpose of making it sound overly expensive just sounds stupid. The system is overpriced even without the illogical comparison, just work with that.

NonSoft

07-02-2006, 12:46 PM

Er, Microsoft didn't dump Psychonauts.

Actually ...

“Microsoft Game Studios has made the decision to end its publishing agreement with [developer] Double Fine for the upcoming Xbox game Psychonauts."

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/psychonauts/news.html?page=1&sid=6092548

NonSoft

07-02-2006, 12:52 PM

How is it new if it gives the exact, same image. If there was any difference in image there would be a reason but without HDMI you're going to get the same image that you get with dvd. The only thing new about it is the price.

That isn't true at all. Component is capable of 1080i which is a higher resolution than DVDs (without up-conversion) are displayed at. So no, it isn't even close to the exact same image.

Siraris

07-02-2006, 01:00 PM

That isn't true at all. Component is capable of 1080i which is a higher resolution than DVDs (without up-conversion) are displayed at. So no, it isn't even close to the exact same image.

Actually Component can do 1080p. The only thing that would stop it is the broadcast flag. The only thing that HDMI does is transfer the data digitally, and has more bandwith for higher quality sound (Dolby TrueHD) and with HDMI 1.3, a higher color depth.

BlackPete

07-02-2006, 02:18 PM

I'll bite. Have you ever watched HDTV? Have you ever tried to go back to watch SDTV? It's like night and day. Granted, 720p looks nice, but 1080p has twice the resolution of 1080i, and I'm going to bet that if you have a game that has textures at a max of 1280x720 and compare it to a game that has textures at a max of 1920x1080, you'll notice a difference.

Funny story about that -- I just got back home from Future Shop where I noticed a bunch of people standing in front of one of the TVs. I took a look, and didn't see anything special -- it was playing a series of clips from The Manchurian Candidate, Chicken Little, and a couple others.

Then someone pointed out that it was playing a Samsung Blu-ray player on a Samsung 1080p television... I had to take another good hard look to really see the improvements in quality -- Chicken Little was the easiest one to see the extra crispness, but Manchurian looked just the same as DVD -- artifacting, blurriness during pans, etc. Honestly, I just wasn't impressed -- if the player was maybe $100-200 then I may be more interested but for $1250? Heh, no thanks I'll pass.

PatrickRes9

07-02-2006, 03:09 PM

The reasoning I have with the PS3 having trouble, is because theyre banking in part on blu-ray technology driving the sales. We all know what HDTVs are. We know what 480i is compaired to 1080p. A LOT of people dont. A lot more then those who do know. You say "High Def" to someone, and sure, they know it implies better quality, but they dont really understand the difference.

I have a big group of friends who I game with fairly often. Most of them have Xbox 360s, and none of them aside from me have an HDTV. I told them theres a huge difference. I couldnt believe the difference myself, when I innitialy picked up my xbox360, and I actually dragged my 32inch HDTV to the dorms to show them. I plugged in my 360 and I popped in my 8 games one by one, to show them the differences.

Their response? "Well it looks better, but its not a drastic enough change to go spend $700 on an HDTV. I dont even know how it looks better. It just seems a little less blurry"

Do you honestly think Joe the Pot man, sitting in his college dorm, smoking a jib, and playing Madden is going to really plunk down $700 on a new HDTV, on top of porking out $600+ to play his PS3? HDTVs have been out for a while, and theyre still not as used as they should be. Blu-ray technology will be even more of an extreme. I cant picture a soccer mom, or even the casual gamer for that matter, knowing what the benefits of blu-ray equate to in picture, and thus be willing to spend all the extra money for it.

"oh, shit, I can still play madden '07 on the 360, for less money. And hey, to me, it looks the same"

The End

TrackZero

07-02-2006, 04:55 PM

NonSoft

07-02-2006, 05:05 PM

That's the logic that if I've played computer games at twice the rez, I can't go back. Yet I do, all the frigging time and it doesn't bother me.

The point was that there is a noticable difference, not whether you could go back to a lower resolution without it bothering you.

TrackZero

07-02-2006, 05:10 PM

The point was that there is a noticable difference, not whether you could go back to a lower resolution without it bothering you.

Read what I was quoting from him. That was his point. So maybe you should be discussing this with him.

Siraris

07-02-2006, 05:37 PM

Read what I was quoting from him. That was his point. So maybe you should be discussing this with him.

I read the quote, hell I wrote it, I never said that you can't go back down, but it's a noticeable difference. That's all.

TrackZero

07-02-2006, 05:49 PM

I read the quote, hell I wrote it, I never said that you can't go back down, but it's a noticeable difference. That's all.

No, you said "Have you ever tried to go back to watch SDTV? It's like night and day.". But sure, if you want to change what that means now and back out, by all means, have at it. This thread is just full of defensive Sony lovers at this point anyways, they'll all back you up. ;)

NonSoft

07-02-2006, 05:58 PM

Read what I was quoting from him. That was his point. So maybe you should be discussing this with him.

No, I think I was just reading his quote for what it was, not what I wanted it to be.

oldjadedgamer

07-02-2006, 06:18 PM

Actually Component can do 1080p.

Do Sony themselves even make a TV that carries a 1080p signal over component?

(btw, the answer is "no")

TrackZero

07-02-2006, 06:49 PM

No, I think I was just reading his quote for what it was, not what I wanted it to be.

Nice try. It's very implied what he meant. And my point stands.

Mr.Condescension

07-02-2006, 06:52 PM

Do you honestly and seriously think any number of quality games will play in 1080p? Do you honestly think the difference between 1080p and other forms of HD will improve the experience that much?

Yes, and yes. Yes, I believe non-twitch style games will be able to output 1080p, and yes I can definitely tell the difference between 1080p, 720p, and 480p. If you can't....*shrug*.

Mr.Condescension

07-02-2006, 06:56 PM

Do Sony themselves even make a TV that carries a 1080p signal over component?

(btw, the answer is "no")

OldJadedGamer, meet the Sony SXRD microdisplay. Sony SXRD microdisplay, meet OldJadedGamer. Carry on!

NonSoft

07-02-2006, 07:26 PM

Nice try. It's very implied what he meant. And my point stands.

What point was that?

How to twist someone's words to serve your own purpose? If not, then I'm afraid that I missed it.

Do you honestly and seriously think any number of quality games will play in 1080p? Do you honestly think the difference between 1080p and other forms of HD will improve the experience that much?

Your first question is certainly valid. I would be surprised if we saw quality games in 1080p. It may be possible later in the PS3's life, and even that would surprise me to some extent.

To answer the second question: without a doubt, yes.

Siraris

07-02-2006, 08:39 PM

Do Sony themselves even make a TV that carries a 1080p signal over component?

(btw, the answer is "no")

Yes, they do. Any of their TV's that support 1080p and have a component input support 1080p. The NueNeo DVD player outputs 1080p over component. Just plug it into your Sony Grand Wega (http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?CategoryName=tv_hdtv_50to80TVs&ProductSKU=KDSR60XBR1&TabName=specs&var2=) and you're ready to go.

TrackZero

07-02-2006, 10:12 PM

What point was that?

How to twist someone's words to serve your own purpose? If not, then I'm afraid that I missed it.

Hey troll, go die in a fucking ditch. If you can't bother to read a whole post back in a thread, you shouldn't bother replying.

"That's the logic that if I've played computer games at twice the rez, I can't go back. Yet I do, all the frigging time and it doesn't bother me."

That was my point. Now go bother the kids in the Gamespot system wars forum where your kind breed.

Edit: Sorry if this is coming across as harsh. I honestly wish this thread would just drop dead. It's not enjoyable having a discussion nitpicking with multiple people over a simple difference of opinion.

Kamalot

07-03-2006, 07:29 AM

Yes, they do. Any of their TV's that support 1080p and have a component input support 1080p. The NueNeo DVD player outputs 1080p over component. Just plug it into your Sony Grand Wega (http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?CategoryName=tv_hdtv_50to80TVs&ProductSKU=KDSR60XBR1&TabName=specs&var2=) and you're ready to go.
Most 1080p sets don't fully display a 1080p signal but rather turn that signal into a 1080i display.

Finally, most 1080p HDTV sets presently available on the market do not offer a 1080p connection. Though the HDMI standard does support 1080p HDTV, yet the majority of today's 1080p HDTV sets do not offer a 1080p interface on their HDMI port.

To a certain extent, this is explained by the lack of true 1080p HDTV gear with which these sets can interconnect. In fact, what 1080p sets do is to up-convert 1080i material to 1080p HDTV to combine the benefits of a superior resolution of the 1080i format with the image smoothness and motion sharpness of progressive-scanning. Source (http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/oct05/articles/phtg/1080p.htm)

Here is another interesting thing to note about 1080p; experts can't tell the difference in picture quality until the screen gets larger than 50 inches.

Obviously, the quality of the source material you're viewing is very important, but so are screen size and how far you're sitting from your TV. Indeed, our resident video guru, Senior Editor David Katzmaier, reports that the extra sharpness afforded by the 1080p televisions he's seen is noticeable only when watching 1080i sources on a larger screen. Comparing a 50-inch 1080p DLP set to a 50-inch 720p DLP set, for example, he says you'll be hard-pressed to notice more detail with 1080i sources, especially from farther than 8 feet away. Even if you can see the difference, it will be much less obvious than, say, the difference between DVD and 720p HDTV. Of course, performance will vary from set to set, and we'll know more when we have a chance to thoroughly test more 1080p televisions. Source (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6361600-1.html)

The same article also mentions that most 1080p TVs only de-interlace 1080i signals instead of displaying true 1080p content.

Finally--and this may sound weird--but many 1080p televisions don't accept 1080p sources at all. In our experience, only the aforementioned HP can handle 1080p via its HDMI inputs--all other current 1080p HDTVs cannot. Instead, they upconvert 720p and 1080i sources to 1080p.

This is a market that we should all sit out of for a year or two in order for sets to become standardized and for prices to drop. A lot of people out there are spending gobs of money on 1080p sets that actually don't display 1080p signals, and that is bad for consumers as well as the industry.

Jack B

07-03-2006, 10:15 AM

Most 1080p sets don't fully display a 1080p signal but rather turn that signal into a 1080i display.

Source (http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/oct05/articles/phtg/1080p.htm)

Here is another interesting thing to note about 1080p; experts can't tell the difference in picture quality until the screen gets larger than 50 inches.

Source (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6361600-1.html)

The same article also mentions that most 1080p TVs only de-interlace 1080i signals instead of displaying true 1080p content.

This is a market that we should all sit out of for a year or two in order for sets to become standardized and for prices to drop. A lot of people out there are spending gobs of money on 1080p sets that actually don't display 1080p signals, and that is bad for consumers as well as the industry.

Nice research. I've been seeing more and more of the "you can't tell the difference" posts from people walking into TV stores and looking the 1080p TV's next to the 720p/1080i's. This does a decent job explaining why.

It's unfortunate, that you have to read so much fine print in an electronics manuals/spec sheets to actually understand what you are buying.

I think we reach a point with many technologies where each upgrade starts to become incremental. I think we got there with sound a few years ago. And for image quality, the big jump between 480i and 720p/1080i was the last big one. From here on out it will likely be somewhat incremental improvements. Video/TV images be better in 20 years from now than they are today, but it won't be as dramatic a difference as some of the changes in the last 20 years to image quality.

I think for 3d video games luckily (or unluckiy depending on how you look at it) we still have quite a ways to go in frame rate, image quality (polygons etc), AI, number of assets in a scene/game etc. Currently, those things are traded off, because it's not practical yet to have 60 frames a second with Shrek quality graphics and lot's of 3d assets on the screen for example.

Some day, when Shrek quality graphics can be rendered on the fly and/or procedurally, we'll then only see incremental improvements in that area as well, but we're quite a ways off still.

NonSoft

07-03-2006, 11:15 AM

Here is another interesting thing to note about 1080p; experts can't tell the difference in picture quality until the screen gets larger than 50 inches.

You should note that in your quote they are comparing a 1080i source on a 720p and 1080p television. They are not comparing a 1080p source.

Comparing a 50-inch 1080p DLP set to a 50-inch 720p DLP set, for example, he says you'll be hard-pressed to notice more detail with 1080i sources, especially from farther than 8 feet away.

Mr.Condescension

07-03-2006, 11:37 AM

Most 1080p sets don't fully display a 1080p signal but rather turn that signal into a 1080i display.

[Another] article also mentions that most 1080p TVs only de-interlace 1080i signals instead of displaying true 1080p content.

October 2005 called and it wants its articles back. Things have changed in a major way since then. Now pretty much all 1080p displays accept 1080p signals over HDMI and component natively.

oldjadedgamer

07-03-2006, 11:49 AM

Kamalot

07-03-2006, 12:14 PM

October 2005 called and it wants its articles back. Things have changed in a major way since then. Now pretty much all 1080p displays accept 1080p signals over HDMI and component natively.
Bill Whalen, Senior Product Manager at Hitachi, who explains that while lots of TVs can take in 1080p, by the time that video is displayed it’s down-rezzed to either 720p or 768p. Whelan says 1080p LCD panels are still too expensive to produce and might be more practical in 2007 or 2008. He adds that it’s important to consider how you’ll be using such resolution:

“If you watch TV in a distance that is less than three times the screen height of your TV, then 1080p is worth the wait. If the distance is greater than three times the screen height, then today’s [720p/768p] HDTVs, such as 42” units, offer an incredible value.”

Source (http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/1080p-may-not-be-what-it-seems-179395.php)
Date: 2006 - June 8

Mr.Condescension

07-03-2006, 12:52 PM

Bill Whalen, Senior Product Manager at Hitachi, who explains that while lots of TVs can take in 1080p, by the time that video is displayed it’s down-rezzed to either 720p or 768p. Whelan says 1080p LCD panels are still too expensive to produce and might be more practical in 2007 or 2008.

This, of course, refers to LCDs and Plasmas with 720 or 768 vertical lines attempting to play 1080p material, not 1080p televisions playing 1080p material. 1080p sets now accept 1080p natively and do not scale the image whatsoever.

As for 1080p LCDs, Westinghouse recently launched two. Other manufacturers will follow suit soon enough.

Mr.Condescension

07-03-2006, 01:01 PM

They do not have true 1080p over component TV on the market.

You're right, sony doesn't for some reason. But Samsung does.

Have a look:

http://samsung.com/Products/TV/DLPTV/files/hls6188_final.pdf

1080p natively over component.

Kamalot

07-03-2006, 01:33 PM

This, of course, refers to LCDs and Plasmas with 720 or 768 vertical lines attempting to play 1080p material, not 1080p televisions playing 1080p material. 1080p sets now accept 1080p natively and do not scale the image whatsoever.

As for 1080p LCDs, Westinghouse recently launched two. Other manufacturers will follow suit soon enough.The point is, the TVs in question are being branded and sold as 1080p TVs. Consumers are being duped every day into thinking they are buying 1080p TVs when they are really only buying TVs that can downsample a 1080p signal.

Your statement that “2005 called and wants its articles back” does not mean anything since there are still a large number of 1080p sets being sold in stores today that can not display a 1080p signal in the summer of 2006.

In fact, I am willing to bet, MOST TVs in stores listed as 1080p can’t display a true 1080p signal.

Kamalot

07-03-2006, 01:38 PM

This would make a fun little chart:

What percentage of TVs available can actually display a true 1080p signal?
What portion of them can accept a 1080p signal over component?
What percentage of TVs available are sold as 1080p sets even though they can't actually display a 1080p signal?

Mr.Condescension

07-03-2006, 01:42 PM

In fact, I am willing to bet, MOST TVs in stores listed as 1080p can’t display a true 1080p signal.

That may be true, but that's a factor of the store lying to its customers, not the televisions being labeled incorrectly by the manufacturer. When I was in my local Best Buy and Circuit City the other day to look at HDTVs there wasn't a single mis-labeled television. The 720p sets were labeled 720p. The ones labeled 1080p were the westinghouse LCD and the DLPs and SXRDs. If you look at the fine print you can find text that says "accepts 1080p input" or the like, but nothing that claims the television itself is a 1080p television.

Last year the televisions were being mislabeled, since there wasn't a 1080p television on the market that could natively accept and display a 1080p signal. That is no longer the case.

Kamalot

07-03-2006, 01:47 PM

The ones labeled 1080p were the westinghouse LCD and the DLPs and SXRDs. If you look at the fine print you can find text that says "accepts 1080p input" or the like, but nothing that claims the television itself is a 1080p television.
So the ones labeled 1080p were not 1080p sets because of the fine print?

Why were they labeled 1080p?

This is very confusing for consumers without the vast and deep understanding of HDTVs that you have. Why is confusing the customer good for the industry?

Something that is labeled as 1080p but can't display 1080p is wrong, plain and simple.

Jack B

07-03-2006, 01:51 PM

So the ones labeled 1080p were not 1080p sets because of the fine print?

Why were they labeled 1080p?

This is very confusing for consumers without the vast and deep understanding of HDTVs that you have. Why is confusing the customer good for the industry?

Something that is labeled as 1080p but can't display 1080p is wrong, plain and simple.

I have a co-worker/friend who's not very technical, but he bought a 1080p DLP HDTV around September of last year and was reasonably happy about "Oh, but this is 1080p!". We laughed a bit at how cool that was... I didn't say anything, but it looked about the same as mine. It's tough to tell for mere mortals unless they are side by side, I suppose (I've yet to see a side by side comparision).

Now, that I have read a bunch of these posts, I'm guessing he doesn't have what he thinks he has...

I wonder if I should tell him... Or maybe just get the model number and see.

Mr.Condescension

07-03-2006, 01:56 PM

So the ones labeled 1080p were not 1080p sets because of the fine print? Why were they labeled 1080p?

No, the ones labeled 720p had fine print that said they could accept 1080p input. Every TV labeled 1080p had 1920x1080 resolution and could accept a native 1080p signal.

Something that is labeled as 1080p but can't display 1080p is wrong, plain and simple.

Definitely, and that used to be the case, but no longer is. Now 1080p sets actually work as advertised. They didn't used to, hence the confusion. That's why it is important to note that your articles are out of date. Manufacturers didn't label their televisions correctly last year, but now they do.

If a store labels their 720p LCD as a 1080p LCD that is the store being dishonest to its customers, not the manufacturer.

Mr.Condescension

07-03-2006, 02:06 PM

I have a co-worker/friend who's not very technical, but he bought a 1080p DLP HDTV around September of last year and was reasonably happy about "Oh, but this is 1080p!". We laughed a bit at how cool that was... I didn't say anything, but it looked about the same as mine. It's tough to tell for mere mortals unless they are side by side, I suppose (I've yet to see a side by side comparision).

Now, that I have read a bunch of these posts, I'm guessing he doesn't have what he thinks he has...

I wonder if I should tell him... Or maybe just get the model number and see.

He probably doesn't have what he thinks he has, sadly. If he'd bought it last month he would.

As for telling him or not....which one would make you a better friend? He'll probably never know unless you tell him, so is knowing better, or is not knowing better? Up to you.