Recent PS3 Price Rumors False [Archive]

View Full Version : Recent PS3 Price Rumors False

fitbabits

11-23-2005, 08:40 AM

According to this article (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1706&Itemid=2) over at Next Generation (http://www.next-gen.biz), the hullabaloo over the recent news on a potential price for the PS3 was in vain as the rumor is nonsense.

Stories claiming that Sony boss Sir Howard Stringer has confirmed the PS3 will be sold for less than $400 appear to be false. They are based on an interview in Fortune, which, unfortunately for the errant scribblers, says nothing of the sort.
It's totally going to be priced at $500, because it's fun to make stuff up. :rolleyes:

Dabombpizza

11-23-2005, 08:51 AM

I actually read in Weekly World News that it only costs a pinky and a blood pact with a demon who installs DRM on your soul...and a blowjob...from your mom.

Roc Ingersol

11-23-2005, 09:08 AM

one meeelion dollars!

Borys

11-23-2005, 09:13 AM

Guess who was right?

That's right, me.

Borys™ - Your ultimate Evil Avatar® source of all things Playstation®.

Beelzebud

11-23-2005, 09:18 AM

400 500 600. I don't care.

I won't be getting this or an xbox 360.

I'm about upgrade my PC.

JazGalaxy

11-23-2005, 09:31 AM

I feel bad for whatever nutty sony fan decided that had to "do his part" to combat the 360s launch day by creating a price rumor.

I swear. I understand loyalty to Nintendo and their continued quality and innovation in their first party titles. And I myself am a bit of a Microsoft fan, so I can understand being a fan of Microsofts take on getting gaming to be communal, and connecting gamers with gamers but... really... what's there to be a fan of with Sony? They haven't DONE anything...

TheEpicOfTyler

11-23-2005, 09:33 AM

UnderHero5

11-23-2005, 09:34 AM

Fetus flying hamster babies run rampant on my scrotum while juggling monkey flavored donkey beetles!!!

CaptStu

11-23-2005, 09:36 AM

I sure as hell know they haven't given me two great systems that have been overflowing with amazing games the past 10 years! :rolleyes:

Nope. Not buying that one.

Borys

11-23-2005, 09:40 AM

JazGalaxy

11-23-2005, 09:42 AM

I sure as hell know they haven't given me two great systems that have been overflowing with amazing games the past 10 years! :rolleyes:

Almost none of which are first party titles. Again... Sony didn't DO anything. They're just there and developers make games for the platform becaue it has the most penetration.

The PS2 is the exact same as the PS1 with slightly better graphics. I was a PS1 owner and was satisfied enough with it to buy a PS2, but as soon as I dropped money on Tekken Tag Tournament and realized it was exactly like Tekken 3 but with less texture warping and less clipping, and then I realized that every other game on the system (At the time) could be run on PS1 or N64 (Summoner, Evergrace, Smugglers Run, etc) I realized that Sony had brought absolutely nothing to the table. Not even four controller ports.

A lot of PS2 owners who see it's library as being it's big draw are goign to be dissapointed with that number is almost halved between ps3 and 360. Then all the stuff the 360 brings to the table will seem a lot more attractive.

Kamalot

11-23-2005, 09:43 AM

Does not matter if it is true or not.

The simple fact that it was reported as news means that many who could not get an Xbox 360 are going to wait for the PS3. Sony has done a wonderful job of manipulating the media again.

Masterful driving of the Hype Engine there Sony. Hats off to you.

Kelegacy

11-23-2005, 09:50 AM

abso

11-23-2005, 09:52 AM

I hear they are giving it away for free to anyone that purchased a DRM crippled cd.

UnderHero5

11-23-2005, 09:52 AM

Almost none of which are first party titles. Again... Sony didn't DO anything. They're just there and developers make games for the platform becaue it has the most penetration.

The PS2 is the exact same as the PS1 with slightly better graphics. I was a PS1 owner and was satisfied enough with it to buy a PS2, but as soon as I dropped money on Tekken Tag Tournament and realized it was exactly like Tekken 3 but with less texture warping and less clipping, and then I realized that every other game on the system (At the time) could be run on PS1 or N64 (Summoner, Evergrace, Smugglers Run, etc) I realized that Sony had brought absolutely nothing to the table. Not even four controller ports.

A lot of PS2 owners who see it's library as being it's big draw are goign to be dissapointed with that number is almost halved between ps3 and 360. Then all the stuff the 360 brings to the table will seem a lot more attractive.

I'm not saying you're wrong when you say PS1 could do most of which the PS2 can. But that can be said with pretty much anything, if it's dumbed down enough.
Look at the 360 for example... CoD2 could be done on an Xbox, just with lesser graphics. As could Kameo, PD0, Madden, PGR3... etc etc etc....
What's your point man??

Hell, most of the games on the 360 HAVE been done on the Xbox... Tony Hawk? Madden? CoD (had 2 Xbox versions), any of the sports games, PGR 1 and 2... hell, PGR is just an upgraded Metropolis Street Racer, and that was on Dreamcast!

The large library IS the big draw on the PS1 and PS2. Just because Sony doesn't MAKE most of the games doesn't make them any worse. And you point out Tekken Tag... that's not even a Sony game....
Take a look at the new DOA on 360.... oh, but I'm sure that's completely different eh?

My point is, go where the games are. If you like games that are on a certain console, but that console, who fucking cares if Sony "did" anything. It's about the games!!! What the hell did MS do? I certainly didn't buy my Xbox for Live. I bought it for the GAMES. Same goes with every console I've ever owned.

The only console that will actually be doing anything different is the Revolution, and we can't even say for sure that it'll be THAT different. It's at least an attempt though. That said, that doesn't mean the rest of the consoles aren't worth owning. If the games are fun, play them. Period.

Wait... what was this topic about?
Fetus babies or something....

jeffool

11-23-2005, 09:53 AM

Ya gotta be fair JazGalaxy. Nintendo brough gaming back to life in America. Sony brought hardcore gaming to the masses (well, Square did, (with FFVII) actually. Sony was their medium of choice.) Microsoft brought lan parties.

The larger problem with this is that people feel as if they're a part of these console manufacturers. If gaming ever needed a standard....

Reanimated

11-23-2005, 10:19 AM

I'm betting on 500 with no HDD.

Worldcrafter

11-23-2005, 10:21 AM

The PS2 is the exact same as the PS1 with slightly better graphics. I was a PS1 owner and was satisfied enough with it to buy a PS2, but as soon as I dropped money on Tekken Tag Tournament and realized it was exactly like Tekken 3 but with less texture warping and less clipping, and then I realized that every other game on the system (At the time) could be run on PS1 or N64 (Summoner, Evergrace, Smugglers Run, etc) I realized that Sony had brought absolutely nothing to the table. Not even four controller ports.

So what you are saying is you're pissed at Sony because the first round of PS2 games weren't a huge leap forward from the PS1 games? JazGalaxy, meet launch title, launch title, meet JazGalaxy; apparently you two haven't met.

Major Scud

11-23-2005, 10:28 AM

I am definately getting a revolution, but if its true that ps3 is about the same power as a 360 and their only 2 aces in the hole are disgaea 2 and metal gear 4...then I'm gonna play the waiting game on that one.

AniAko

11-23-2005, 10:30 AM

I'm gonna say $500 for the unit, without a power cable ($20), without A/V connectors ($15-$40), without controllers($50 a pop), and without the Blue-Ray drive ($200??)

emperordahc

11-23-2005, 10:32 AM

One milllllliiooeennnn dollars! *Pinky to corner of mouth*

Kelegacy

11-23-2005, 10:32 AM

I'm gonna say $500 for the unit, without a power cable ($20), without A/V connectors ($15-$40), without controllers($50 a pop), and without the Blue-Ray drive ($200??)
500 bucks without a BR drive? Not possible.

I sure hope they don't do any dual SKU bullcrap. Honestly.

Achilles

11-23-2005, 11:14 AM

500 bucks without a BR drive? Not possible.

I sure hope they don't do any dual SKU bullcrap. Honestly.I don’t think you’ll have to worry about dual skus. They aren’t particularly interested in online and they’re not going to be interested in using the harddrive for gaming. So I doubt they’re going to offer anything but the one sku which will be one wireless controller and one machine. I don’t think they’ll ship it for more than $400 even if they have to cut out features simply because nobody would buy it.

CrysDark

11-23-2005, 11:35 AM

I don’t think you’ll have to worry about dual skus. They aren’t particularly interested in online and they’re not going to be interested in using the harddrive for gaming. So I doubt they’re going to offer anything but the one sku which will be one wireless controller and one machine. I don’t think they’ll ship it for more than $400 even if they have to cut out features simply because nobody would buy it.

I was under the impression that a hardrive was standard on the ps3, correct me if I am wrong.

fitbabits

11-23-2005, 11:41 AM

I was under the impression that a hardrive was standard on the ps3, correct me if I am wrong.
Not much of note has been completely confirmed nor denied by Sony, which is why there are so many darn rumors floating around.

So it may or may not include the following:

A hard drive
The infamous 'boomerang' controller
Media capabilities

It is supposed to include the following:

Blu-Ray drive
512 Megs of emory
Cell processor

jeffool

11-23-2005, 11:46 AM

Dear sir, you are wrong. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051105-5530.html

CrysDark

11-23-2005, 11:55 AM

Dear sir, you are wrong. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051105-5530.html

This article lends more evidence to the fact they are including an Hardrive, unless of course you were not refering to me.

This is what I think Sony is going to do. They will announce that they will launch as 399, then MS cuts back with a price cut on the premium system to 299. Sony finishes with revising thier launch price at 299. Or

Stratagey 2: They announce that they will launch at 500, and just before the system goes on shelves drop to the 399 of the xbox360.

Fyd

11-23-2005, 11:57 AM

Im getting nintendo "revo" :)

Achilles

11-23-2005, 12:03 PM

Dear sir, you are wrong. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051105-5530.htmlArstechnica is inferring from their distribution plans that they are going to have a hard drive. Sony has said that they won’t.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000833046205/
Kutaragi says that no matter how big the hard drive they ship with it is that it won’t be enough so they’re making it optional. I believe Kutaragi has also said that the hard drive in the PS3 won't be for use with games, but I can't find a supporting article for that at the moment.

jeffool

11-23-2005, 12:12 PM

The ArsTechnica article says that an addon HDD exists, and that there are 'rumors' of the HDD being bundled with the PS3.

When CrysDark said that the harddrive was 'standard'. I took standard to mean that every PS3 would have one. Kinda like how the hard drive was standard on the Xbox.

My bad on the confusion.

CrysDark

11-23-2005, 02:04 PM

Arstechnica is inferring from their distribution plans that they are going to have a hard drive. Sony has said that they won’t.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000833046205/
Kutaragi says that no matter how big the hard drive they ship with it is that it won’t be enough so they’re making it optional. I believe Kutaragi has also said that the hard drive in the PS3 won't be for use with games, but I can't find a supporting article for that at the moment.

That article has statments from Kutaragi, who we know can change his tune at the drop of a hat. I guess we really will not know untill the console ships in Japan.

I am still on the fence with the whole thing, I know I will definitley be getting a revolution, but I am not sure which of the other I will get.

Player 1

11-23-2005, 02:42 PM

Almost none of which are first party titles. Again... Sony didn't DO anything. They're just there and developers make games for the platform becaue it has the most penetration.

I'm guessing that you've never played (or heard of) Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Fantavision, Flippul, SOCOM, Formula One, Wipeout, Eye Toy, Ape Escape, The Getaway, Wild Arms or Gran Tourismo then?

Oh, yeah, and Sony sure as hell didn't create the whole rhythm music genre with Parappa The Rappa before Konami's bemani arcade games or Nintendo's shameless copy with Donkey Konga (just add IP, licenced music tracks and, SHOCK HORROR! gimmicky controller).

:rolleyes:

Achilles

11-23-2005, 03:17 PM

I'm guessing that you've never played (or heard of) Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Fantavision, Flippul, SOCOM, Formula One, Wipeout, Eye Toy, Ape Escape, The Getaway, Wild Arms or Gran Tourismo then?Jak and Daxter series, Ratchet and Clank series, Twisted Metal, Everquest, and Killzone as well. I really respect Sony's first party (and which 2nd party games they choose to publish), they have a good variety of games from conventional to experimental.

Kelegacy

11-23-2005, 03:29 PM

JazGalaxy=pwned!

I have never used the "word" pwned before, so I needed to try it out.

Achilles

11-23-2005, 04:34 PM

TrackZero

11-23-2005, 05:24 PM

This article lends more evidence to the fact they are including an Hardrive, unless of course you were not refering to me.

This is what I think Sony is going to do. They will announce that they will launch as 399, then MS cuts back with a price cut on the premium system to 299. Sony finishes with revising thier launch price at 299. Or

Stratagey 2: They announce that they will launch at 500, and just before the system goes on shelves drop to the 399 of the xbox360.

Wow. You're assuming the PS3 will price match the 360 at launch? LMFAO, dream on.

CrysDark

11-23-2005, 07:56 PM

Wow. You're assuming the PS3 will price match the 360 at launch? LMFAO, dream on.

I don't see how they can't match.

They are already down because they will launch second, and little timmy's mom is going to think next Christmass,
"we already bought little Timmy a new game console."

They are going to need some stratagey to win, and not just the Playstation name.

Like I said before I am on the fence because I use to follow Square, but now Sakaguchi is developing for the xbox That tips the scales in favor of the box. I am waiting for a game I actually want to play before I open my wallet.

Player 1

11-24-2005, 12:35 AM

I'd be very surprised if Sony were to announce a price and then swiftly cut it to compete with another product. It would give the impression of a lack of confidence in the product they're selling!

I'm sure there's plenty of people who may have a lack of confidence in a Sony product regardless of price-point but you can't really expect Sony to act that way about their own products.

Did it look good when Microsoft cut the price of Xbox only weeks after it launched?

JazGalaxy

11-24-2005, 09:15 AM

Jak and Daxter series, Ratchet and Clank series, Twisted Metal, Everquest, and Killzone as well. I really respect Sony's first party (and which 2nd party games they choose to publish), they have a good variety of games from conventional to experimental.

I sincerely think you guys need to go back and look at the Videogames 101 Dictionary for the definition of first party.

With few exceptions, all those titles you list are as exclusive to PS2 as Crash Bandicoot was to PS1.

Player 1

11-24-2005, 09:33 AM

Since when were 'first party' and 'exclusive' mutually exclusive terms? Try checking out a Pokemon game sometime.

Additionally, it would be too easy to extend the list further by including all those EXCLUSIVE and FIRST PARTY PS1 games - which would only serve to shatter your dismissal of Sony's development efforts even further.

With the possible exception of the microgame from the Wario Ware franchise (and I'm being pretty forgiving there), Sony platforms are responsible for the only two entirely new genres of game since consoles went 3D - the GTA style city/sandbox game and the rhythm action game (Parappa / Vib Ribbon). Sony first party were responsible for Parappa and, frankly, if The Getaway had got release prior to GTA most would probably attribute that genre's birth towards that Sony developed game rather than the Rockstar developed one. It was certainly showcased around a year before GTA3.

So, playing host to two entirely new genres of game and being directly responsible for the creation of one of those two still isn't anything worthwhile in your book? (Which, I beleive was your original criticism).

I'm sure you can split hairs between PS1 and PS2, Sony First Party or Sony Studios, exclusive and non-exclusive, developing and publishing until you feel you've proved your point.

At the end of the day I still think you've been far to eager to dismiss something based on your own prejudices rather than the proven facts.

JazGalaxy

11-24-2005, 11:10 AM

Ummm... First Party means created by a company for it's own console. I said nothing about exclusivity. And what Pokemon game has been on anything but a nintendo console? Do you even know what you're talking about?

What did Sony have to do with the creation of "sandbox" style games? Are we totally discounting games like Ultima 7 on the PC which are 10 times more "sandbox" than GTA dreams of being?

And you're completely dodging the fact that Sony did nothing to inspire these games to be released except sit there and allow people to make games for their system. Excuse me if that fails to wow me.

Now that microsoft has the lead with the 360 and will have a larger user base than the ps3 a LOT of those games you talk about will be made for Xbox. There is no sony loyalty, only loyalty to the percentage of market penetration it has.

I didn't feel like typing this all up, but your snarky idiocy is provoking me.

The PS1 as I'm sure you know what orignially created to be the Super NES CD just like Sega it's Sega CD. At the last second Nintendo decided not to go with a CD based system leaving Sony to hold the bag in terms of hardware development. They decided to put out their own system instead of simply letting all their development go to waste.

The PS1 basically a Super Nintendo with a CD Rom. I'm going to give you the quick hits because, again, I don't feel like typing this all up. A CD Rom drive was not at all a big deal for the market when the PS was released. The PC Engine, Jaguar, and Genesis all had CD ROms at the time. As you know the Sega Saturn was already being developed as a purely disc based system. The ONLY CONTRIBUTION the PS brought to the equation was two extra shoulder buttons on the top of it's SNES RIPOFF controller. That's it. There were NO Sony launch games (that I remember) at the launch of the console! They didn't even make their own games! Fortunately they managed to secure Namco as a partner, and managed to get Ridge Racer Ace Combat and Cybersled. That along with the colorful Toshinden was enough to capture some people's imaginations even though every one of those games is concidered to be trash by today. (as opposed to say, the super nes launch libary which was full of nothing but classic games that they still sell today in gameboy form.)

The Sega Saturn outsold the PS1 in Japan on a 4 TO 1 SCALE. Nobody really even liked Playstation in Japan. All major releases such as Resident Evil were made on BOTH consoles. Sega's first party titles and arcade translations wowed Japanese gamers. But, then, Sega made it's infamous launch mistake in the US where it pissed of retailers by only shipping to a few stores at launch and where it sold it's console for 100 too much. THE FIRST THING SONY DID RIGHT WAS SELL FOR 100 LESS. I give them credit for that. But, again, that has nothing to do with games or gaming, just economic strategy. Sony overextended themselves and began to hemmorage money while the PS, becuase it was simply the only other console, began to take up the slack. Soon the N64 debuted and the switch to 3D graphics put a nail in Sega's Saturn which was good for 2d and 3d but excelled in niether.

Nintendo shot themselves in the foot by being worried about piracy and refusing to adopt a CD based system. This caused them to charge almost 30 dollars more for the same games that were released on PS do to cartidge manufacturing fees. Again, this sn't something sony did RIGHT so much as something Nintendo did WRONG. Even selling games at 70-80 dollars, Nintendo still was exteremely successful here in america and mildy successful abroad. During it's 64 bit run it invented the analog stick, invented rumble feedback, proliferated mass multiplayer gaming with it's 4 controller ports, and created amazing 3d games the likes of which no other console saw.

The PS2 entered the scene being nothing but a suped up PS1. The whole thing was exactly the same except now it played DVD movies. It was first out of the gate and therefore could not be beaten by other systems which could not muster up a large enough user base.

Someone here said that Call of Duty is the same as the Xbox 1 version and DOA is the same as the Xbox version, etc. This is untrue. The Xbox brought to it's stable Xbox Live and the concept of a dedicated hard drive. These featuers allow the console to do things that the other consoles and previous generations could NOT do. Metropolis Street racer does not have online multiplayer broadband gaming, nor does it have Gotham TV or advanced physics. Gotham 3 does. DOA1 does not have the online lobbies, or any of the advanced system featueres that DOA 4 does. The XBox 360 itself in it's OS has more features than all of the PS1 and PS2 have combined.

Nintendo's revolution controller is going to bring back the concept of actual "game playing" as opposed to "virtual movie watching". That's somethign to be excited about.

Sony has... nothing. It's more of the same, again.

I don't need to sit here and agrue with you, the proof is in the pudding. There is a good reason Sony hasn't showed anything to the public except fantasy movies. They are afraid to show gameplay because it's just more of the same.

If Sony introduces a new aspect, Im completely open to changing my opinion, but from what they've shown, they have nothing. No hand whatsoever. And the thing is... they're so arrogant they don't KNOW that they have no hand. They really do think they did something, and that's why they keep repeating the same joke. People keep laughing and so they think they're just going to keep sayingi t until it stops being funny. The thing is, though, it's not going to slowly die down, it's just going to stop. People are going to go where teh people are actually funny, and Sony is just going to be standing there wondering what happened.

The diea that sony "brought back hardcore gaming" is laughable. Metal Gear Solid, and Final Fantasy 7 are about the LEAST hardcore games ever created. Everybody adn their mother has played both of those games. Why? Because they're the videogame equivalent of television. You sit back and watch stuff happen. There's is a distrubing trend in making "Hardcore gamer" synonomous with "obsessive nerd". Kind of like anime Otaku, obsessive nerds are the ones who are about gaming as a lifestyle. That has nothing to do with how "hardcore" they are about gaming. Hardcore gamers are the ones who know about games like the aformentioned Ico or Katamari Damaci. Not one of the 1,000,000,000,000 people who sat down and watched Metal Gear. And for every Ico or KD, the Nintendo DS has, like, 5 of those kinds of innovative and fun games.

So... yeah. Sony isn't at all a master of the game. They're just lucky. I mean, I didn't even go into how they started the life of the PS in the US DENYING developers the right to make RPGs for the US system. RPGS! Their bread and butter now was under moritorium for years. Yeah, let's all praise them for their genius...

Player 1

11-24-2005, 11:29 AM

Ummm... First Party means created by a company for it's own console. I said nothing about exclusivity. And what Pokemon game has been on anything but a nintendo console? Do you even know what you're talking about?

Hell yes. You see, I actually have experience of working in this field - not just pretending I know about it.

What did Sony have to do with the creation of "sandbox" style games? Are we totally discounting games like Ultima 7 on the PC which are 10 times more "sandbox" than GTA dreams of being?

Well you're suggesting there's no intrinsic difference between GTA and Ultima 7 in terms of what the player can do. I really don't feel the need to respond to logic like that.

And you're completely dodging the fact that Sony did nothing to inspire these games to be released except sit there and allow people to make games for their system. Excuse me if that fails to wow me.

Oh? And you KNOW this how, exactly? You sat at Sony HQ and saw them sitting around doing nothing at all? Drop the prejudice and stick to the facts.

Now that microsoft has the lead with the 360 and will have a larger user base than the ps3 a LOT of those games you talk about will be made for Xbox.

Your doing the "I'll just assume my speculation is fact and run with it" thing. Please don't do that.

I didn't feel like typing this all up, but your snarky idiocy is provoking me.

Man, you are one HELL of a motivational speaker! You really know how to get people interested in what you have to say.

The PS1 basically a Super Nintendo with a CD Rom.

Oh god. Not this again. You know, speaking as someone who's handled projects for both those platforms I can confirm that you are utterly incorrect.

I shall now stop reading the rest of your prejudiced, incorrect and poorly constructed argument and hum quietly to myself.

Cheerio.

JazGalaxy

11-24-2005, 01:20 PM

lol

again, you don't actually respond to any of my facts, you simply say stupid things like "oh ho ho... but I think I am smarter than you so your facts don't work against my unfounded opinions!"

Answer my point about first party games. What Pokemon game has appeared on a non nintendo console? Why did you even bring that up? DO you even know what you are takling about?

What intrinsic difference is there between what you can do in GTA and what you can do in Ultima 7? Kill random innocent people? check in both games. steal vehicles? check in both games. Get attacked by the authorities for commiting crimes? check in both games. Day night cycles? Check in both games. Missions? Check in both games. Or are you suggesting that GTA is worlds beyond ultima simiply because it's an acion game as opposed to an RPG? Sorry but there are action games on every console, mate.

Your sony bias is completely unfounded and you can't even back it up. What, do they write you a monthly check or something? You're the biggest joke on the forums.

Kelegacy

11-24-2005, 01:46 PM

Now that microsoft has the lead with the 360 and will have a larger user base than the ps3 a LOT of those games you talk about will be made for Xbox. There is no sony loyalty, only loyalty to the percentage of market penetration it has.

I hope you're kidding. MS has the lead? I still think the PS2 has the lead, at least until MS can start actually producing quantities of their product. Even then, first doesnt = lead. There was always this kid on my baseball team that during practice, on our warmup jog, he's be the first out of the gate and take off like a bullet. We'd always catch up to him in a few minutes, breathing heavily and clutching his side, and he'd usual end up bringing up the tail end of the troupe.

The PS1 basically a Super Nintendo with a CD Rom. I'm going to give you the quick hits because, again, I don't feel like typing this all up. A CD Rom drive was not at all a big deal for the market when the PS was released. The PC Engine, Jaguar, and Genesis all had CD ROms at the time. As you know the Sega Saturn was already being developed as a purely disc based system. The ONLY CONTRIBUTION the PS brought to the equation was two extra shoulder buttons on the top of it's SNES RIPOFF controller. That's it. There were NO Sony launch games (that I remember) at the launch of the console! They didn't even make their own games! Fortunately they managed to secure Namco as a partner, and managed to get Ridge Racer Ace Combat and Cybersled. That along with the colorful Toshinden was enough to capture some people's imaginations even though every one of those games is concidered to be trash by today. (as opposed to say, the super nes launch libary which was full of nothing but classic games that they still sell today in gameboy form.)

Hmm. I went from a SNES to a PS1 and it didn't feel like a SNES 2.0. And this is coming from a guy who thinks the SNES was one of the greatest consoles ever. I know the history behind Sony and Nintendo...but you're still nuts.

The PS2 entered the scene being nothing but a suped up PS1. The whole thing was exactly the same except now it played DVD movies. It was first out of the gate and therefore could not be beaten by other systems which could not muster up a large enough user base.

And the 360 isn't a suped up Xbox? Take the blinders off, buddy. The Sony and MS systems are not focused on being innovative. They ARE suped up versions of their previous systems.

Sony has... nothing. It's more of the same, again.

Sigh. Why do I even bother?

Achilles

11-24-2005, 03:47 PM

And you're completely dodging the fact that Sony did nothing to inspire these games to be released except sit there and allow people to make games for their system. Excuse me if that fails to wow meBeen too busy playing geometry wars to read this thread lately but I don’t know what you think Sony would have to do with those games other than funding them and being solely responsible for the fact that they were created. First party is developers owned by the company, second party is developers published by the company. I sincerely think you guys need to go back and look at the Videogames 101 Dictionary for the definition of first party.

With few exceptions, all those titles you list are as exclusive to PS2 as Crash Bandicoot was to PS1.So let’s give a run-down.
Champions of Norrath: Realms of Everquest = 1st party
Champions Return to Arms = 1st party
EverQuest Online Adventures = 1st party
EverQuest Online Adventures: Frontiers = 1st party
SOCOM = 2nd Party (published by Sony)
SOCOM 2 = 2nd Party
SOCOM 3 = 2nd Party
24: The Game = 1st Party
ATV Offroad Fury = 2nd Party
ATV 2 = 2nd Party
ATV 3 = 2nd Party
Amplitude = 2nd Party
Arc the Lad = 2nd Party
Athens 2004 = 2nd Party
Bakufufu Slash! = 1st Party
Bleach: Erabareshi Tamashii = 1st Party
Bleach: Hanatareshi Yabou = 1st Party
--After this point I started cropping out some of the lesser known titles because the list (http://games.ign.com/objects/025/025653.html) would be too damn long.—
Dark Cloud 1, 2, and 3 = 2nd Party
Drakan: The Ancients Gates = 2nd Party
God of War = 1st Party
Gran Turismo = 2nd Party (not sure if polyphony is owned by Sony or not)
Genji Dawn of the Samurai = 2nd Party
Hot Shots Golf 3, 4, Online = 2nd Party
ICO = 1st party
Jak and Daxter, 1, 2, 3, Combat Racing = 2nd Party
Killzone = 1st Party
Primal = 2nd Party
Ratchet and Clank 1, 2, 3 = 2nd Party
Rise of Kasai = 2nd Party
Shadow of the Colossus = 1st Party
Sly Cooper 1, 2, 3 = 2nd Party
Syphon Folter: The Omega Strain = 1st Party
The Getaway = 1st Party
Twisted Metal Black = 1st Party
The Mark of Kri = 1st Party
Wild Arms 3 = 2nd Party

And that’s only the list of their PS2 games! In summary, just because you don’t know Sony made it doesn’t make it any less made by Sony.

Edit: Oh yeah, and they made the Eye Toy and all the games that came out for that.

Achilles

11-24-2005, 03:54 PM

And the 360 isn't a suped up Xbox? Take the blinders off, buddy. The Sony and MS systems are not focused on being innovative. They ARE suped up versions of their previous systems.I don't think that's true. The 360 has a ton of inovative stuff in it. Like being able to instantly buy and play games, download movie trailers, customize your desktop essentially. etc. There's a lot of new stuff there, so much so that I only spend about 50% of the time playing disc based games, whereas on the Xbox I spent 100% of the time playing disc based games.

For Sony's part, on the PS2 you could play movies, which changed the idea of what a console is from a game system that can sometimes act as a CD player to an all-round media device that can replace your CD player and DVD player. It's not Nintendovation(tm) (funky controller/accessory) but it is innovative for the console market.

bobbler

11-24-2005, 04:03 PM

stuff

You're a stupid person.

Kelegacy

11-24-2005, 04:39 PM

I don't think that's true. The 360 has a ton of inovative stuff in it. Like being able to instantly buy and play games, download movie trailers, customize your desktop essentially. etc.

So it's a PC?

Achilles

11-24-2005, 04:41 PM

So it's a PC?It's like a hybrid of PC and console.

JazGalaxy

11-24-2005, 04:42 PM

WHen I say the lead, I mean lead time, which is what is the meat of the conversation here. Not that it has the most consoles in peoples houses, but that it has a stretch of open field in front of them before the competition even gets out of the gate.

It's a simple fact that in the new console race, Microsoft has the lead. They do, if you disagree you're an idiot. It has nothing to do with how great microsoft is, and everything to do with... well... where can you buy a PS3? NOwhere. Who has a PS3 in their living room right now? Nobody. How many people have 360s this very second? Several thousand people.

Microsoft has the lead. They will also, unless Sony manages to sell several million units on it's first day out, KEEP the lead for a very long time. That's what a head start means.

From a design standpoint, and no small minded ones I'm not talking about the actual case of the system, the SNES and PS1 are nearly identical. The fact that the ARE so similar is why you saw games like Final Fantasy forgo the 64 i n favor of the playstation.

But here... instead of me trying to explain this to you, how about we reverse the roles for a second.

Forgoing the appallingly ridiculous argumetn of "Sony has a lot of games on it and therefore it's better!" because as I've said that is completely subject to change, as was evidenced by everyone moving from Nintnedo's camp to Sony's camp, somebody explain to me why Sony IS a good company? What have they done?

Second Party titles do not count as an asset to a company because they are tenuous and have nothing to do with the company whatsoever. Just like Crash Bandicoot. If you bought a PS2 because you liked how "Sony's Crash Bandicoot series" you would look like a bit of a fool, woudln't you? I bought a gamecube because I was really interested in getting "Nintendo's Kameo Elements of Power". Funny how that works out, yeah? At least I can look forward to getting Nintendo's "Eternal Darkness 2" on the Revolution, right? Oh wait...

Depending on second party developers is like hiring mercenaries to fight your war...

JazGalaxy

11-24-2005, 04:43 PM

So it's a PC?

It really doesn't matter. What it is is different, and different is good. If you are only buying what you just bought then... why?

Achilles

11-24-2005, 04:55 PM

From a design standpoint, and no small minded ones I'm not talking about the actual case of the system, the SNES and PS1 are nearly identical. The fact that the ARE so similar is why you saw games like Final Fantasy forgo the 64 i n favor of the playstation..Final Fantasy switched systems because they wanted to do a vast game with tons of FMV to drive the story and the 64 was cart-based. It didn't have anything to do with how the console looked. But that's a very unique argument you make there.Depending on second party developers is like hiring mercenaries to fight your war...You do realize that when you publish your game the publsiher owns the IP for the most part (different deals for different companies). If Polyphony decided to disband Sony could hire another studio to make Gran Tourismo or make it internally. If 2nd party wasn't a big deal EA wouldn't be where it is (Maxis anyone?). 2nd party may not matter to you, but you're not the industry.

But leaving 2nd party behind for a moment. How about all the 1st party games that Sony made for their system. God of War for example, which is probably going to end up being its biggest game for the year. And Killzone is basically the most anticipated game for the PS3 and is what they sold it with at E3 (FMV as it is, still got people excited), and that's Sony 1st party as well. Or Shadow of the Colossus, which was also 1st party, I'm sure that didn't do anything for the rep of the system having an artistic game like that on there.

JazGalaxy

11-24-2005, 08:30 PM

I'm not at all sure how I can write a sentence and put in it, specifically for people like you, "no I'm not talking about the actual case of the system" and still have you make a comment that I'm talking about the physical case of the system. Maybe I'm not being clear, but at least TRY to understand what I'm saying.

You make a point about hiring other people to make franchises, but do you want to know how well that works? Let's look at Sony's first second party team, Singletrac. They made Twisted Metal, JetMoto (my favorite game in the universe), and Warhawk. They also made Twisted Metal 2, and Jet Moto 2. But, then, the company CEASED WORKING FOR SONY. (this is that mercenary thing) Sony did just what you said they would do and got 989 Studios (AKA the Crapmongers) To make Twisted Metal 3 and 4 as well as Jet Moto 3. The games were horrible. Needless to say, few people even know what Jet Moto is these days regardless of the fact that the first two games scored 9s and above.

SO yeah, second party matters to everyone, but no moreso than 3rd party and certainly not as much as first party.

The point being, depending on second party developers is like hiring mercenaries to fight your war...

Sony even OWNS a portion of Squaresoft and look what game is the cornerstone of the Xbox360 campaign in Japan? Final Fantasy 11.

Achilles

11-24-2005, 08:45 PM

JazGalaxy

11-24-2005, 09:52 PM

The Nintendo 64 was a step in a different direction, incorporating several different play mechanics into one controller. The controller could be held, what, five different ways? (incorporating the two controller system used in games like Star Wars Pod Racer) It was an attempt to bring something new to the table over what the super nintendo offered. The N64 also, as you mentioned, did primarily nothing but 3d graphics. We know that was a flaw now, but at least it was challenging and different.

The PS1 brings nothing new to the table that the SNES was not already doing. From Super Metroid taking on Symphony of the Night, and Star Fox taking on the likes of Warhawk, the PS1 didn't even really eclipse the SNES until it's later days. If the SNES had had a CD rom, I'm convinced it could have even, maybe, run Final Fantasy 7. (Prerendered backgrounds were nothing new to those of us who played Donkey Kong Country or Mario RPG, and the cutscenes were just FMV videos spooled off the CD Rom like Sewer Shark on the Genesis CD Rom.)

Ironically, the PS1's greatest asset was it's abillity to pretend to have better graphics than it actually did. I can't tell you the amount of times I had to explain to people that the PS1 wasn't actually more powerful than the 64, but that it's games (resident evil, final fantasy, fear effect, etc) were just displaying still pictures of better graphics rendered on super computers.

Player 1

11-25-2005, 12:30 AM

[stops humming]

Did I miss anything?

Kelegacy

11-25-2005, 04:28 AM

[stops humming]

Did I miss anything?

Some crazy guy stopped by, spouting indeciperable gibberish.

JazGalaxy

11-25-2005, 08:45 AM

[stops humming]

Did I miss anything?

I swear. You have absolutely no arguemnt. You won't even try. What are you, like ten?

JazGalaxy

11-25-2005, 08:46 AM

Some crazy guy stopped by, spouting indeciperable gibberish.

I suppose I could dumb it down a shade if that helps you keep up...

Murmillo

11-25-2005, 08:58 AM

Some crazy guy stopped by, spouting indeciperable gibberish. Make that two crazy guys stopped by... arguing by spouting indeciperable gibberish.

Achilles

11-25-2005, 01:23 PM

The point being, depending on second party developers is like hiring mercenaries to fight your war...

Sony even OWNS a portion of Squaresoft and look what game is the cornerstone of the Xbox360 campaign in Japan? Final Fantasy 11.What you said about the company not being able to replace the team that originally created the game is mostly true. But that still makes the franchise an exclusive as much as any 1st party, ignoring quality. Not all first party franchises go strong and keep the same team their entire lives either, take for example Resident Evil.

Also Pokemon isn’t 1st party as far as I can tell. It’s made by Game Freak, it’s 2nd party, which is probably why they haven’t made a full pokemon game for the console, Nintendo has just been using the IP to make arena games and picture games. Does Pokemon (one of your previous examples of a great 1st party game) not matter any more than a 3rd party to the GB platform?Hal Laboratories is also 2nd party, the guys that made the biggest selling game for the game cube and the most anticipated game for the Revolution: Super Smash Brothers. As well as Kirby. I'd say those two games matter a lot to Nintendo, and it matters a lot that they're 2nd party and not 3rd party.

Oh, and I own portion of Disney, they don't have to do what I say. Right now you could go out and buy part of Squeenix but unless you own controlling interest or at least a huge chunk as Sony did before Square merged with Enix, than it doesn't make any difference for exclusives.

AniAko

11-25-2005, 02:48 PM

Check this out (http://www.pokemon.com)

All web contents copyright (C)2005 Pokemon (C) 1995-2005 Nintendo/Creatures Inc. /GAME FREAK Inc.
Pokemon properties are trademarks of Nintendo. Pokemon.com is managed by Pokemon USA,Inc.

This information is at the bottom of the front page.

"Pokemon properties are trademarks of Nintendo."

Check out this link (http://gameboy.ign.com/objects/015/015402.html) (I know it's IGN, but I was able to find it fast)

It claims the game was co-developed by Nintendo, AND Game Freak. Later games are solely developed by Game Freak.

I don't know how much development Nintendo was involved in, but there was first party support at the very least in the beginning.

Sorry the research is not more in depth, No sleep and carrying bags all day tires one out.

Serapth

11-25-2005, 03:06 PM

Oh, and I own portion of Disney, they don't have to do what I say. Right now you could go out and buy part of Squeenix but unless you own controlling interest or at least a huge chunk as Sony did before Square merged with Enix, than it doesn't make any difference for exclusives.

You've just put into words, something ive wondered for a long time. The Square Enix merger seemed to be a little lopsided ( Square seemed to sorta get the short end of the stick on that one ). I am wondering if part of the motivation for the merger was to get out from under Sonys thumb.

bobbler

11-25-2005, 03:56 PM

You've just put into words, something ive wondered for a long time. The Square Enix merger seemed to be a little lopsided ( Square seemed to sorta get the short end of the stick on that one ). I am wondering if part of the motivation for the merger was to get out from under Sonys thumb.

The merger wasn't technically a merger -- if you look at the stock prices and volumes before hand of each company Enix had a substantial amount higher than Square did (so it definately wasn't an equal merger). If anything Enix bought Square and merged the names (because the Square name is a lot more powerful than Enix alone). I don't think Square was doing too hot financially then either.

As far as I've heard, the only reason Sony owned a lot of Square was because Square was in trouble and Sony wanted to help them financially without purchasing them. Of course nothing Sony does is good, so Square must have wanted to get away from the evil Sony by jumping into the clutches of Enix!

Serapth

11-25-2005, 04:01 PM

The merger wasn't technically a merger -- if you look at the stock prices and volumes before hand of each company Enix had a substantial amount higher than Square did (so it definately wasn't an equal merger). If anything Enix bought Square and merged the names (because the Square name is a lot more powerful than Enix alone). I don't think Square was doing too hot financially then either.

As far as I've heard, the only reason Sony owned a lot of Square was because Square was in trouble and Sony wanted to help them financially without purchasing them. Of course nothing Sony does is good, so Square must have wanted to get away from the evil Sony by jumping into the clutches of Enix!

Your reading my comment as an anti Sony thing, which isnt he case. I think most 2nd/3rd party dev houses want to stay independant, so replace MS for Sony and I would wonder the same thing. Much like the recent move Bioware did, and lately bioware has been doing more and more MS related stuff.

Kelegacy

11-25-2005, 04:06 PM

The merger wasn't technically a merger -- if you look at the stock prices and volumes before hand of each company Enix had a substantial amount higher than Square did (so it definately wasn't an equal merger). If anything Enix bought Square and merged the names (because the Square name is a lot more powerful than Enix alone). I don't think Square was doing too hot financially then either.

As far as I've heard, the only reason Sony owned a lot of Square was because Square was in trouble and Sony wanted to help them financially without purchasing them. Of course nothing Sony does is good, so Square must have wanted to get away from the evil Sony by jumping into the clutches of Enix!

If Sony HAD purchased Square, they'd have another 1st party weapon to wield against Microsoft. Hell, MS would have bought them...look what they did with Bungie. And Bungie is the biggest reason the Xbox succeeded.

What do you think the reason for not purchasing them was? National respect, perhaps?

Serapth

11-25-2005, 04:09 PM

Well, you have to keep in mind, that a developer getting purchased that doesnt want to be purchased, well, your not getting much.

Unless you sign key talent to long term deals, if you buy a dev house and most of the important people jump ship, you arent really buying much. Unless Square retains ownership of all their IP.

JazGalaxy

11-25-2005, 06:55 PM

Right. For instance a lot of the key people behind Halo 1 left when Bungie was aquired by Microsoft.

You're right about Sony bailing out Square. They had lost so much money on the Final Fantasy movie, as well as a few risky (and really good) titles, that they needed a financial injection. It was not Sony "doing a good deed", however. It was just a business decision. Square is the biggest reason the Playstation had the success it did. They weren't about to let Square go under... or worse yet, go back and beg for forgiveness from Nintendo. (Who at the time was no letting Square develop games for them due to bruised ego over not having FFVII)

Achilles

11-26-2005, 06:18 AM

It claims the game was co-developed by Nintendo, AND Game Freak. Later games are solely developed by Game Freak.[/i]I think what that shows is that Nintendo owns the Pokemon IP (the copyright). Either way about the first games being co-developed; they're a 2nd party now and that's really important for Nintendo.

Another huge Nintendo 2nd party franchise is Mario Party.

About FF abandoning Nintendo systems because their new design was too different; all Final Fantasy needs is an A and a B button, and the N64 had that. I'm willing to bet it was simply a cart space issue, or cart space combined with a better support and manufacturing cost deal that Sony gave them.

The PS2 is significantly different than the SNES in terms of power. It can do 3d and it was a huge jump in 2d. Its biggest advantage was storage capacity which offered the developer a LOT more space to put in great looking 2d art, pre-rendered or otherwise and for much lower fabrication costs which meant they had more money to spend on making the game good.

The 64 was more powerful but only at doing 3d and 3d wasn’t to a point yet where it looked more compelling than 2d, and the PS1 could fake better 3d by integrating FMV than the 64 could ever hope to, and the 64 was barred from doing that itself because of cart space. You've just put into words, something ive wondered for a long time. The Square Enix merger seemed to be a little lopsided ( Square seemed to sorta get the short end of the stick on that one ). I am wondering if part of the motivation for the merger was to get out from under Sonys thumb.I wonder that too but there’s no way to know without being in on that whole thing. I do know that the FF movie gutted Square. They used to turn out almost 20 games a year and it fell to 2 around the time FFX came out. I doubt they would have made a game for anything else anyway because of the overwhelming PS2 install base in Japan. I suspect that Sony had a little bit of say just because they were funding the movie and did help them out, but they clearly don’t anymore with Squeenix being easily the most important developer in Japan and making FFXI for the 360 and presently deciding if they’re going to make games for the 360.

The guys at Squeenix are visionaries. They have it in their heads the kind of games they want to make and they’ll go to the system that’ll get those kinds of games into as many hands as possible, I think. They don’t hold on to some dumb idea of system loyalty.

Nintendo can hold a grudge all day long but that didn’t do anything to help their system and eventually they came back to Square on Square’s terms. Squeenix is the Japanese EA, it’s the 3rd party which makes or breaks a console.

JazGalaxy

11-26-2005, 05:23 PM

Nintendo can hold a grudge all day long but that didn’t do anything to help their system and eventually they came back to Square on Square’s terms. Squeenix is the Japanese EA, it’s the 3rd party which makes or breaks a console.

That's not true at all.

Arakawa was FURIOUS at Square for taking Final Fantasy 7 to Sony, and when Square wanted to make games for Nintendo again, Arakawa said "I don't think the time is quite right for Square to work with Nintendo again."

See, Arakawa knew that as soon as the GBA was announced Square was going to jump at releasing their entie back catalog of Final Fantasy games on GBA. That would have been, especially in Japan, a MASSIVE cash injection. Enough to relieve square of it's money problems, potentially. That was, of course, not at all what Arakawa had on his mind, and he wanted Square to sweat it out, possibly knowing that htey would have to be bought, or merger. That's the way things are done in Japan. Don't forget that Nintendo at this point needs no one. For every Nintendogs or Pokemon they make, they buy themselves another decade of autonomy. They are beholden to no one.

Finally Arakawa's terms for putting Final Fantasy on the Gameboy Advance was that they had to make a full fledged Final Fatnasy game for gamecube, adn that it had to use connectivity. Christal Chronicles was made, and Final Fantasy 1 and 2 were released for GBA soon after. Final Fantasy 4 is due to be released soon.

So... yeah. You have it entirely backwards that Nintendo went to Square on Squares terms. Square basically begged for forgiveness from Nintendo.

You're right about what you say about the only reason Square went to PSX was because of the cd rom space, though. Hironobu Sakuguchi basically solely decided that he wanted CD space, and that was it. It wasn't a company decision.

Achilles

11-26-2005, 05:43 PM

Finally Arakawa's terms for putting Final Fantasy on the Gameboy Advance was that they had to make a full fledged Final Fatnasy game for gamecube, adn that it had to use connectivity. Christal Chronicles was made, and Final Fantasy 1 and 2 were released for GBA soon after. Final Fantasy 4 is due to be released soon.

So... yeah. You have it entirely backwards that Nintendo went to Square on Squares terms. Square basically begged for forgiveness from Nintendo.

Hironobu Sakuguchi basically solely decided that he wanted CD space, and that was it. It wasn't a company decision. At this point Nintendo needs a lot. Maybe they don't think they do but their market share in the console space sucks.

Nintendo funded the construction of the B list studio that made Crystal Chronicles because they were failing miserably in Japan and they needed Square desperately on the Cube. This is as I hear it from Square insiders. They were lucky to get FF:CC from Square. Why do you think it's a whole different studio making games for the Cube and GBA?

Arakawa can say Square groveled all he wants, I won't believe him till I hear that from Square because it's not like they can say anything to refute it, as a company that actually has some class (scolding another company and forcing them to come back and grovel to them, which is the picture you paint of Nintendo is the kind of dumbass business decision fit for a playground bully). If Square had really come back to Nintendo on Nintendo's terms you'd see FFXII on there instead of some FF spin-off that shares nothing in common with the series.

Edit: In Arakawa's defense "I don't think the time is quite right for Square to work with Nintendo again." could mean anything, it could mean that Square didn't want to come back yet.

JazGalaxy

11-26-2005, 10:37 PM

Twigz'N'Berries

11-27-2005, 12:42 AM

You're underestimating Nintendo. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are not wildly successfull. They have BILLIONS of dollars of reserves left, which are always mentioned whenever someone says "why doesn't Nintendo go software only?" They dominated an entire decade, the likes of which Sony hasn't even come close to achieving yet. The DS outsells the PSP in Japan in a 4 to 1 ratio, and the Gameboy Micro is another smash hit. Nintendogs is a veritable phenomenon. The gamecube was not a success, but that means very little. In Japan the Revolution will be an unprecedented success. Nobody really doubts that. It's almost the essense of Japan in hardware form. In America? Who knows. But either way, they're not out of the game yet and won't be for a very long while.
They have billions, I didn't know that. I know that their profits are showing a year on year decline, starting with the N64. But, I do know that they are making money and not losing it like MS. If the Revolution fails, it will be Nintendo's third 'lackluster/failed' console. That will greatly diminsh consumer confidence.

Achilles

11-27-2005, 04:30 AM

It was public knowledge at the time that square wanted to work with Nintendo again, and Nintendo's response was Arakawa's quote. It's not like he just said it out of the blue. This was all quite well covered by the gaming press at the time. Final Fantasy Chronicles was produced in the way I prevously stated. It's not me speculating or anything.

You're underestimating Nintendo. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are not wildly successfull. They have BILLIONS of dollars of reserves left, which are always mentioned whenever someone says "why doesn't Nintendo go software only?" They dominated an entire decade, the likes of which Sony hasn't even come close to achieving yet. The DS outsells the PSP in Japan in a 4 to 1 ratio, and the Gameboy Micro is another smash hit. Nintendogs is a veritable phenomenon. The gamecube was not a success, but that means very little. In Japan the Revolution will be an unprecedented success. Nobody really doubts that. It's almost the essense of Japan in hardware form. In America? Who knows. But either way, they're not out of the game yet and won't be for a very long while.Okay then, why is it that Nintendo published FF Tactics and Crystal Chronicles, in other words, paid for their production? They’re listed as the publisher on both games. And “Game Designer’s Studio” is the developer of CC, which is a square spin-off. The spin off was funded by Hiroshi Yamauchi’s Q Fund, which is a Nintendo cash pool that funds games created with connectivity in mind.

In Short, Nintendo paid for Crystal Chronicles, and they paid for FF Tactics. Nintendo is also publishing FFIV on GBA. Square didn’t grovel, Nintendo paid them to come back when their 3rd party support began to disintegrate. And Nintendo isn’t some kind of yakuza gang that takes a finger if you want to come back into the club. That’s what I think anyway.

Maybe Nintendo used to be like that (you’ve got some disturbing stories there) but they’ve had to eat humble pie in the console space for the last two generations, and that’ll change a man.

You’ve got a very propagandistic list of Nintendo achievements. I’d only argue with a couple of them. Sony has dominated for a decade. They’ve been two time champion with nobody even coming close for 2 generations, which is as long as Nintendo was able to hold onto that belt, though Sega and Nintendo had a much more even marketshare split than Sony and its competitors.

I don’t know where you’re getting the 4:1 number from with the PSP vs the DS in Japan. Even when Nintendogs was selling there wasn’t such a lopsided ratio. Year to date in Japan there have been 2,081,000 DS units sold in Japan, and there have been 1,568,000 PSP units sold in Japan. They’re routinely right next to eachother on the sales charts. Kinda like they were last week: http://www.the-magicbox.com/topten.htm

I also wouldn’t call the micro a smash hit. It’s doing well but has significantly lower sales for the year than even the SP much less the Next-gen handheld systems. For example it sold 1/8th what the DS did. Now it hasn’t been out as long, but it’s still below the DS, SP, PSP and PS2.

The Game Cube not being a success means very little? That’s a huge deal, it’s not easy to break back into the console market. They’re giving it a shot with the Revolution, and if you were making up the numbers I’m sure it would do amazing in Japan, probably outsell the PS3 by 4:1, but realistically I don’t think it’ll do that well. My guess would be that it gets slightly higher than Game Cube numbers.

JazGalaxy

11-27-2005, 12:49 PM

I'm getting my DS sales numbers from last months EDGE Magazine.

Again, though, you're underestimating Sony. Sure Sony won the console race in the late 90's but that is far from dominating a decade like Nintendo did. When I say dominating a decade, I mean dominating a decade. Toy's R Us used to have half the store configured to say "World of Nintendo", and it was filled with nothing but Nintendo games. It wasn't at all uncommon for kids to have nintendo lunch boxes, sleeping bags, backpacks... etc. They had nintendo cereal, with half the box being "super mario brothers" and the other half being "zelda". Kids, like me, couldn't wait to get home to watch the Super Mario Brothers Super Show. McDonalds had a nintendo happy meal, like, every other week. And that's before we even start talking about GAMES. That's domination. when you think about how much money nintendo has, you can't forget to think about just how many kids went to school draped head to toe in pokemon gear.

Achilles

11-27-2005, 02:52 PM

Again, though, you're underestimating Sony. Sure Sony won the console race in the late 90's but that is far from dominating a decade like Nintendo did. When I say dominating a decade, I mean dominating a decade. Toy's R Us used to have half the store configured to say "World of Nintendo", and it was filled with nothing but Nintendo games. It wasn't at all uncommon for kids to have nintendo lunch boxes, sleeping bags, backpacks... etc. They had nintendo cereal, with half the box being "super mario brothers" and the other half being "zelda". Kids, like me, couldn't wait to get home to watch the Super Mario Brothers Super Show. McDonalds had a nintendo happy meal, like, every other week. And that's before we even start talking about GAMES. That's domination. when you think about how much money nintendo has, you can't forget to think about just how many kids went to school draped head to toe in pokemon gear.Like my mum always used to say; get em when they're young and the possibilities are endless. It’s the case that Sony hasn’t made their own class of card carrying fanboys. But as a kid who liked his Genesis more than his Super Nintendo I guess I just missed out on all that. Toys R Us had an equally sized Sega section, at least the one I went to, if not larger because there were a lot more games out for the Genesis. I was just talking about how long the dominating systems have been out, and Nintendo only has one year on Sony. From 84 to 95 when the PS1 came out, which puts the PS1 and PS2 having exactly a decade of Sony-ness.

Edit: Come to think of it I do remember all of that stuff. Nintendo sure knew how to push their product back then. Back when Howard was in charge of NoA. I do believe the marketshare was more evenly split between Sega and Nintendo though, Nintendo was just more visible.

JazGalaxy

11-27-2005, 05:22 PM

Nintendo did give up some of their market share to Sega, but it's total domination was of the 8 bit era. This is when Sega had it's Master System out, and nobody even cared to know what it was. Sega really didn't become a presense until Sonic the Hedgehog came out for Genesis many many years later.

You are right that getting gamers when they're young is very important. It hink that is where current system manufacturers are making big mistakes. There is a saying out there that "The majority of video game players are in their early twenties and thirties" and it is a lie. The majority of game players are children. the majority of game PURCHASERS, though, are in their twenties and thirties because they are the ones with the money and time to play the games. But, because manufacturers are more concerned with money than anything else (it is a business after all) they're fighting hard for the older gamers dollars instead of trying to create new gamers. With this strategy they will fight and claw for a few bucks, and when the gamers are too old for games, the market will dry up, and no new gamers will be taking their place.

Evil Avatar already reported on the subject with an arcticle about how kids are less interested in games than they were just a decade ago.