# PS3 600 dollars? Sony is on crack



## Vigilance (Jul 10, 2006)

All the reviewers I read are whitewashing this but I think Sony is making a HUGE mistake. A PS3 for 600 dollars, when the X-box 360 sells for 400 (and when even Sony only claims the graphics will be 5% better) is like saying "hey Microsoft, want some marketshare? you do? thanks!"

And you have to love their excuse that well, Blue Ray DVD players are expensive. So I hate Blue Ray anyway, since their goal seems to be another Betamax-VHS war and a way to sell me my entire DVD collection AGAIN, then they pile on with a 600 dollar PS3 and are saying the games "won't be 100 dollars".

Aww really, thanks Sony! You guys are tooooo nice.

They will, reportedly, be about 80 though. Oh and the reason? Blue Ray technology is more expensive than the DVD based tech they use now.

http://www.gamepro.com/community/ask_pros.cfm?action=view&question_id=3521

http://www.gamepro.com/community/ask_pros.cfm?action=view&question_id=5621


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 10, 2006)

The thing is, you are comparing the $600 model to the $400 360. 

When the $500 PS3 has everything the $400 360 has (20 gig Hard drive, wireless controllers, etc). So that's what you should be comparing it to.  And when you consider you get basically the same the 360 has, plus the Blu Ray player, it's not that bad.

The $600 model has a bigger hard drive, plus Wi-Fi (which you'd have to pay another $100 for if you want in the 360). 

And in both cases, AFAIK, you will be able to hook it up to the PC without shelling out $150 for the Media Center version of XP.  (Assuming it will work the same way the PSP can hook up to the PC)

Also, if the rumors are true that the PS3 will run Linux, then that is huge. You will be able to get all sorts of homebrew apps and such.  (Just rumors at this point, though).


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 10, 2006)

Except that the last thing I want is a Blue Ray DVD player (or HD DVD for that matter).

Saying that it has a Blue Ray player makes it a bargain is like the Mafia telling me "sure we broke your arm and you're paying us 50 bucks a week but at least your store didn't burn down".

Blue Ray is just a scam as far as I've seen. They want the upgrade dough and they want more DRM. Yay, just what I need, another DRM scam. 

And when you compare the two models, if the 500 dollar PS2 is just as good as the 400 dollar X-Box, that still doesn't wow me, especially when developers are worrying (in one of the links I provided) about the fact that these games might need to be 60-80 bucks to be profitable.

Just... blech.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 10, 2006)

I dunno. I don't have a HD-TV myself, so right now Blu Ray is useless to me as well. But in a couple years when I do get one, I can imagine using that feature.  I mean, I thougt DVDs were kinda pointless when I had a perfectly good VCR. Until I saw movies on my PS2.

And plus, I really do think developers might use the added storage. There were a number of double DVD games for the PS2.  Considering the higher resolutions of the PS3, they'd have to come on 4-5 DVDs.  

And in some cases, companies wanted to leave in both English and Japanese speech, but had to leave one out due to space restrictions (Or so Sega said about their recent Yakuza game).  Given the region free nature of the PS3 (for games anyway), that could be important.

I personally have faith that crackers will be able to bypass the DRM in both HD and BR quickly enough, and it will be interesting to see just what resolutions of video the PS3 will be able to play back from its hard drive.  (Part of what has hurt UMD Sales for the PSP is that it's easy to simply rip a DVD to video and put it on the PSP's memory card and play that back. The same will probably be true of the PS3...)

I imagine games will be the same price as the 360 (which is what your link said, the higher prices were for collector's editions, which also exist on the 360. And even other consoles, like the $80 Arc the Lad collection for the PSX). But I remember the SNES/Genesis days - some games sold for $100-$120 for those (RPGs mostly).

Anyway, I do think the price tag is hurting Sony PR wise (not to mention they keep putting their foot in their mouths. And their ad agencies have some serious problems), but in the long run, they are basing their plans on what they learned from the PSP launch and the 360 launch.

With the PSP in the US they tried out an overpriced lauch - selling them for $250, when the price in Japan was more around $170.  For that most part that worked - they didn't sell out, but it sold well enough that it didn't hurt them.

Similarly, thanks mostly to a lack of hardware (presumably), the 360 sold less units in the first 6 months than the Gamecube. See

http://www.videogamecharts.com/page3.html

In the first 6 months, the 360 sold 1.50 million units in the US, while in its first 6 months, the Gamecube sold 1.56 million. (By contrast, the original Xbox sold 2.1 and PS2 sold 2.4 in their first 6 months in the US)

I'm sure Sony is thinking "Since we won't be able to meet the demand for a while, we might as well be the ones making the money off of it, not people on ebay". Which does make sense.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 10, 2006)

I tend to agree with trancejeremy on his last point.  In some aspects, I can see this being a reactionary move to eBay selling when the PS2 came out.  Of course, they could do something silly like try and, you know, meet demand?   

That said, the whole price point issue has sparked many controversies, and right now I'm of the opinion that they'll only be resolved once the PS3 launches and we, as consumers, can see what actually happens.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 10, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> That said, the whole price point issue has sparked many controversies, and right now I'm of the opinion that they'll only be resolved once the PS3 launches and we, as consumers, can see what actually happens.




I don't think we'll really have a good idea of what will happen until the PS3 is available in volume, which I don't expect to before next summer (and probably not until next fall). But I'm a  serious PS3 skeptic; I think that Sony will end up delaying the launch again, backing off a global launch, or availability so low that the 360 availbility launch looks good.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 10, 2006)

Whoa... confused for a second. Had to look at the post date, since this is old news. Are people still complaining about this?




			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> A PS3 for 600 dollars, when the X-box 360 sells for 400



500, not 600. For a proper comparison.


----------



## Mercule (Jul 10, 2006)

Personally, I'm stunned that anyone would pay more than $200 for a gaming console.

Wanting me to shell out $600 is like asking me to pay $100 for the Complete Psion.


----------



## Bobitron (Jul 10, 2006)

I'm buying one eventually. It will probably take the new Gran Turismo to get me to bite, but I'm in. I'm looking forward to hi-def DVD. A new format doesn't mean replacing all your movies, Chuck. Just buy your new movies in the new format and enjoy the ones you already have in the normal format.

I'll buy one of your products next time I shop to help you save up for one yourself.


----------



## Bront (Jul 10, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I dunno. I don't have a HD-TV myself, so right now Blu Ray is useless to me as well. But in a couple years when I do get one, I can imagine using that feature.  I mean, I thougt DVDs were kinda pointless when I had a perfectly good VCR. Until I saw movies on my PS2.
> 
> And plus, I really do think developers might use the added storage. There were a number of double DVD games for the PS2.  Considering the higher resolutions of the PS3, they'd have to come on 4-5 DVDs.
> 
> I'm sure Sony is thinking "Since we won't be able to meet the demand for a while, we might as well be the ones making the money off of it, not people on ebay". Which does make sense.



Here's the problem with your first point.  In a couple of years, the tech in the PS3 will be obsolite enough that there will probably be another generation of consols out there.

Now, your second point has some validity.  Extra storage will eliminate multi-disk games, and potentialy allow for add-ons and bonus material to be included (Heck, think Movie game and the movie on one disk).  However, with Highres graphics, everything else will be bigger as well, so you may get less use out of the storage than you think.  And that leads you back to point A.

Personaly, I like Nintendo's thinking on the Wii.  "Let's ignore what the hardcore gaming comunity wants, because we want to reach out to all audiences."  So, launcing at $200-250, the new Wii will have 480P, so will look pretty good even on the new TVs, but you won't be loosing much on an older one, and you're not paying for the high end expensive gear you need to make things look pretty one one.  Then, design a controler that will interest the general public, and hopefully make some games more intuitive and engulphing experience.  Finaly, let's offer our old library of games to be played on this consol as well.

I think Nintendo is going to rock the market, and Sony is only hurting itself.  With the price, and the way people need to stretch their entertainment dollar, I think the Wii is in a position to make a potential killing.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 10, 2006)

Bront said:
			
		

> Personaly, I like Nintendo's thinking on the Wii.  "Let's ignore what the hardcore gaming comunity wants, because we want to reach out to all audiences."  So, launcing at $200-250, the new Wii will have 480P, so will look pretty good even on the new TVs, but you won't be loosing much on an older one, and you're not paying for the high end expensive gear you need to make things look pretty one one.  Then, design a controler that will interest the general public, and hopefully make some games more intuitive and engulphing experience.  Finaly, let's offer our old library of games to be played on this consol as well.




I like Nintendo's thinking far more than I like Sony's (Microsoft's plans are also flawed, but probably the most solid of the three in my book) but there's still a serious problem with it. The odds are pretty good that as soon as Sony gets any kind of decent PS3 availability, MS will do a major price cut on the 360. And I can't see many people picking up a $200 Wii over a $200 360.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 10, 2006)

Bront said:
			
		

> Here's the problem with your first point.  In a couple of years, the tech in the PS3 will be obsolite enough that there will probably be another generation of consols out there.




Yeah, but I won't be buying those right away either. Even if MS decides to launch the 360 2 in 2009 (4 years after the 360, like the 360 was 4 years after the Xbox. Which I doubt, since short life cycles tend to turn off poeple. Hurt Sega in the long run, anyway). 

Sony takes a more long view of their consoles. Generally 6 years. So we won't be seeing the PS4 until 2012.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 10, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I like Nintendo's thinking far more than I like Sony's (Microsoft's plans are also flawed, but probably the most solid of the three in my book) but there's still a serious problem with it. The odds are pretty good that as soon as Sony gets any kind of decent PS3 availability, MS will do a major price cut on the 360. And I can't see many people picking up a $200 Wii over a $200 360.




I dunno.  I'm sure it will sell, but it will offer completely different sorts of games than the 360 or PS3.  You won't be able to play serious games with that controller and frankly, mock sword fighting games or whatever have zero interest in me (and a lot of other adults, I imagine).


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 10, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I dunno.  I'm sure it will sell, but it will offer completely different sorts of games than the 360 or PS3.  You won't be able to play serious games with that controller and frankly, mock sword fighting games or whatever have zero interest in me (and a lot of other adults, I imagine).



 Serious games like what? FPS are supposed to be easier with that controller.


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 10, 2006)

Bront said:
			
		

> I think Nintendo is going to rock the market, and Sony is only hurting itself.  With the price, and the way people need to stretch their entertainment dollar, I think the Wii is in a position to make a potential killing.



I'm certainly not a hardcore console gamer, and so I have ZERO interest in the PS3, and the biggest factors in that are a price I am not remotely interested in paying even half of, and grand new features that I am not interested in having (and I agree that push for Blue Ray is the waste of Betamax all over again). So, when they are easily available, I'm planning on picking up a Wii, but mostly because I'm finding fewer and fewer games for my current Gamecube.

One long term drawback to Sony's strategy is the potential that people like me might be a significant portion of the market. You see, not only am I going to make a single purchase of a Wii instead of a PS3, but I am a dad with kids who are now getting really into video games. Although my wife and I originally started with a Playstation, for the next generation we bought a Gamecube, and with this next wave, we're going with a Wii. Both of those decisions have been largely due to price, because like a lot of families, we have to thrifty with things like that.

Therefore, my young little consumers are being raised strictly on Nintendo consoles, not Sony or Microsoft, and the price and lack of unnecessary (to us) feature bloats are the biggest factors in this. So, I don't doubt that Sony and Microsoft will keep capturing the current hardcore console gamers, but Nintendo is gearing itself up much more for wider appeal and with that, families and the the young consumers who will be buying their own consoles in 10-15 years.

There's nothing wrong with Sony's move towards targetting a smaller and smaller niche of hardcore console gamers with deeper and deeper pockets, after all, that's the best way to get the most cutting edge technology developed. I just wonder if that's really a sustainable business model in the long run, especially when they are trying to push a new Betamax.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 10, 2006)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Serious games like what? FPS are supposed to be easier with that controller.



 AND you'll still be able to use the older style controllers just fine. Both a more classic NES looking one when you turn the 'remote'  on its side, AND Gamecube controllers can be hooked up to the system.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 10, 2006)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Serious games like what? FPS are supposed to be easier with that controller.



That's still up in the air. Once the fanboy bleating had got out of the way after E3, more 'level-headed' commentators have noted there are serious issues with the Wii's control and gameplay.

"Zelda Wii controls like ass" was one of the more amusing quotes.

It's definitely a wait and see (or, more accurately, "wait and try") for the Wii. It may be only able to handle certain types of games - though hopefully FPSs are one of them.



			
				kenmarable said:
			
		

> Therefore, my young little consumers are being raised strictly on Nintendo consoles, not Sony or Microsoft, and the price and lack of unnecessary (to us) feature bloats are the biggest factors in this. So, I don't doubt that Sony and Microsoft will keep capturing the current hardcore console gamers, but Nintendo is gearing itself up much more for wider appeal and with that, families and the the young consumers who will be buying their own consoles in 10-15 years.



And might end up to be hardcore console gamers.

Really, I'm not sure the above means anything. I played Nintendo almost exclusively in the early years - and then dumped them wholesale when they no longer met my needs (*cough*N64*cough*). "Being raised" on a certain console will likely net zero results in game system preferences.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 10, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> AND you'll still be able to use the older style controllers just fine. Both a more classic NES looking one when you turn the 'remote'  on its side, AND Gamecube controllers can be hooked up to the system.



 I had the impression the SNES controllers would work too, but I'm not sure.

Oh, haven't seen you post in a while. How's the art?


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 10, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> That's still up in the air. Once the fanboy bleating had got out of the way after E3, more 'level-headed' commentators have noted there are serious issues with the Wii's control and gameplay.



Well, the articles I read were by non-Nintendo-fanboys (some who claimed to only like PS, for example), who actually _tried_ the controllers in FPS situations.

Regardless, the claim that one can't play serious games with that controller certainly does not have a solid basis.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 10, 2006)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Well, the articles I read were by non-Nintendo-fanboys (some who claimed to only like PS, for example), who actually _tried_ the controllers in FPS situations.



Yep, same here (except some _were_ Nintendo 'fans').



> Regardless, the claim that one can't play serious games with that controller certainly does not have a solid basis.



Of course it has a solid _basis_ (as per some articles that are out there). Whether that will be the final result, though, is unknown.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 10, 2006)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Well, the articles I read were by non-Nintendo-fanboys (some who claimed to only like PS, for example), who actually _tried_ the controllers in FPS situations.
> 
> Regardless, the claim that one can't play serious games with that controller certainly does not have a solid basis.





I disagree - try a simple experiment - pick up your mouse and move it around like you would normally use it (but keep it up in the air). How long can you do that before your arm gets tired? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? 

This is not even a fitness issue. It's hard to keep your arm up for more than 10 minutes or so.

There is a reason that game controllers have evolved to a certain design (the PS3 & 360 controllers will be very very similar with each company copying the good bits from each other). Not only are they easy to use, they allow prolong game play without too much trouble because you can still using them while resting it on your lap (or whatever).


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 10, 2006)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> I had the impression the SNES controllers would work too, but I'm not sure.




Would doubt that...considering how old the SNES is and the fact that the GCN controller can pretty much be used for SNES games just fine.

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Nintendo release an SNES style controller for the Wii.



> Oh, haven't seen you post in a while. How's the art?




I've been around...mostly lurking lately. Art is insane at the moment. Working with a friend to get a webcomic started by the end of the year. Will revive my art thread when my scanner starts working again, too.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 10, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I disagree - try a simple experiment - pick up your mouse and move it around like you would normally use it (but keep it up in the air). How long can you do that before your arm gets tired? 5 minutes? 10 minutes?



Remember that I can use an armrest, still. I don't have to hold my arm out, it can be at rest (or on my lap or whatever).


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 10, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Would doubt that...considering how old the SNES is and the fact that the GCN controller can pretty much be used for SNES games just fine.
> 
> Of course, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Nintendo release an SNES style controller for the Wii.



I remember articles saying that the Wii is backwards-compatible for controllers, but they didn't specify Gamecube controllers. Since the Gamecube controllers were met with some friction, I wouldn't be surprised to see SNES-controller compatibility.


			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I've been around...mostly lurking lately. Art is insane at the moment. Working with a friend to get a webcomic started by the end of the year. Will revive my art thread when my scanner starts working again, too.



Hey, and don't forget to link us to the webcomic when it goes up. There was a thread looking for Jedi art, and we didn't have our resident SW artist around.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 10, 2006)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> I remember articles saying that the Wii is backwards-compatible for controllers, but they didn't specify Gamecube controllers. Since the Gamecube controllers were met with some friction, I wouldn't be surprised to see SNES-controller compatibility.



At E3, Nintendo showed off their 3 controllers:

- the Wii-mote + nunchuk
- the lightgun controller (attaches to the Wii-mote), called the "zapper"
- a "retro" controller (looks like a cross between the GCN controller and a SNES controller, complete with dual-analog sticks)

Also: the GCN controller is indeed compatible (and specified by Nintendo on their "Wii Fact Sheet" at E3).


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 11, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Except that the last thing I want is a Blue Ray DVD player (or HD DVD for that matter).



That means that the system, at the moment, is not for you.  Do you have a setup that can take a HD signal?  If not then of course you couldn't care less about this feature.  To offer a counterpoint, I am already budgeting for a 1080p TV sometime in the next 2 years even though my current 720p/1080i model will still make the 360/PS3 graphics pop off the screen, which they will and are are doing currently.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Saying that it has a Blue Ray player makes it a bargain is like the Mafia telling me "sure we broke your arm and you're paying us 50 bucks a week but at least your store didn't burn down".



No, it like someone saying they need a new car, living on a $0,000 salary and walking around the BMW lot and saying the cars are a rip off.  Duh, of course they are.  They don't need one.  Not right now.  You just need a car and you can afford a good one, but you don't need the BMW, which is what the PS3 is right now - especially with no confirmed launch games that are "must have."



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Blue Ray is just a scam as far as I've seen. They want the upgrade dough and they want more DRM. Yay, just what I need, another DRM scam.



Check yourself, mang.  Better lump HD-DVD in there as well.  The companies backing both formats are basically even.  BR may have a slight edge at the moment but it changes so much that I've given up on following it.  



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> And when you compare the two models, if the 500 dollar PS2 is just as good as the 400 dollar X-Box, that still doesn't wow me, especially when developers are worrying (in one of the links I provided) about the fact that these games might need to be 60-80 bucks to be profitable.
> 
> Just... blech.



Bah,I say.  Some games will be $60 a pop, just like the 360.  Others will be $50.  Probably 1st party games, just like the MS stuff.  What are you worried about?  The high price?  It won't stay there forever.  By the time that the library is big enough to really matter to the general population you'll be able to get one(maybe not the true HD version) for about $400 which is more than reasonable for the tech.  And still, the bottom line is that it is all about the games.  If they are good, the system will sell.  If they stink, it won't.

I think Sony is pure genius for this move, as I've said before.  The initial launch will sell out easily, especially in Japan even if the launch titles stink (which will probably be the case). Sony doesn't need to sell the first batch of PS3s at a cheap price, people will scoop them up.  Then after they have a few good games floating around (8-14 months after launch) then they drop the price by $100 for each system and there will be tons of BR titles out there and even more households with HDTVs (they are selling *very* well and the intall base is growing like wildfire).  So, Blu-Ray *does* matter.  People who can get the quality out of the higher capacity discs will enjoy a superior picture and sound.  They will pay through the nose to get it but the option is there.  Developers will make games that take advantage of it.

Good times, all around I forsee.  All the Wii has to do is release 6-10 really good games a year like Sony & Microsoft will and people will get their games at the price point they are comfy with.  I'm more concerned with Nintendo holding up their end of the bargain.  With the exception of a few games per year outside their first party games, the last two Nintendo systems have stunk.  2-3 first rate games per year like the GC & N64 won't cut it this time just like the last 2 gens.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 11, 2006)

kenmarable said:
			
		

> I'm certainly not a hardcore console gamer, and so I have ZERO interest in the PS3, and the biggest factors in that are a price I am not remotely interested in paying even half of, and grand new features that I am not interested in having (and I agree that push for Blue Ray is the waste of Betamax all over again). So, when they are easily available, I'm planning on picking up a Wii, but mostly because I'm finding fewer and fewer games for my current Gamecube.



You and the rest of us.



			
				kenmarable said:
			
		

> One long term drawback to Sony's strategy is the potential that people like me might be a significant portion of the market.



Wait a sec, you are not a target for their launch.  You are not a hardcore gamer, there it is.  There are 6 million people they are aiming at for the launch.  It's the crazies that will blow the $600 on the system, like me (maybe - there has to be at least one game that I want from the launch).  They spent WAY more than the $300 tag on the PS2.  The shortage lasted nearly 7 months.  And that was with games that were, by comparison, sub-par.



			
				kenmarable said:
			
		

> You see, not only am I going to make a single purchase of a Wii instead of a PS3, but I am a dad with kids who are now getting really into video games. Although my wife and I originally started with a Playstation, for the next generation we bought a Gamecube, and with this next wave, we're going with a Wii. Both of those decisions have been largely due to price, because like a lot of families, we have to thrifty with things like that.



Systems don't matter.  Games do.



			
				kenmarable said:
			
		

> Therefore, my young little consumers are being raised strictly on Nintendo consoles, not Sony or Microsoft, and the price and lack of unnecessary (to us) feature bloats are the biggest factors in this. So, I don't doubt that Sony and Microsoft will keep capturing the current hardcore console gamers, but Nintendo is gearing itself up much more for wider appeal and with that, families and the the young consumers who will be buying their own consoles in 10-15 years.



Bah again.  I was raised on Atari, Nintendo & Sega.  There is one remaining still making consoles and they are easily the weakest in terms of games selection from the current generation of consoles.  Loyalty to a console/company is silly if you are looking to play the best games.  You are painting yourself into a corner.  People go where the games are.  Look back a few years and imagine that GTA3 & Final Fantasy VII came out on a Nintendo console (or just pick any other blockbuster/groundbreaking title that came out on the PS2).  Sony would be considered a player but not compared to Nintendo.

I would never knock Nintendo's first party stuff.  Unless the Wii blows the doors off the industry I wish they will just concentrate on making good games and not on crappy consoles.



			
				kenmarable said:
			
		

> There's nothing wrong with Sony's move towards targetting a smaller and smaller niche of hardcore console gamers with deeper and deeper pockets, after all, that's the best way to get the most cutting edge technology developed. I just wonder if that's really a sustainable business model in the long run, especially when they are trying to push a new Betamax.



The Betamax comparison is flat-out silly.  Sony is not the only major player in the market supporting BR.  Check the facts for both formats (one will win, I hope):

http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#hddvd

http://www.cd-writer.com/blu_ray_faq.html

http://www.digital-digest.com/highdefdvd/faq.html#faq400

Saying that BR is the next Betamax and not bashing HD-DVD is essentially saying that HD-DVD has already won the format war.  Yeah the players are cheaper, but still $500.  You'll be able to watch BR flicks and play games for a little more than that price this fall, plus all the PS1/2 games.  That's if yoy are planning on doing the HD thing.

This is a different age and people who want to know what to buy and what the tech is will do just that.  Honestly, I think that dual-players will probably be the next thing and that in 5 years DVDs will start to be an afterthought except for those who are the very last to adopt.  The first DVD players were really expensive (~ $500) so the early adopters have to pay to play.  Big time.

Don't let Sony's aggressiveness fool you.  If you want the best selectoin of games you'll own a PS3 somewhere down the line (and/or a 360).  Maybe you'll even play a few movies on it to view on your new HDTV that the kids will be clammoring for.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 11, 2006)

I wouldn't buy a Sony product due to their unethical behavior as a compnay, and spending 500-600 bucks on a console is insane.  I'm going to pick a Wii up.  It will be my first console since the Sega Genesis.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 12, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> All the reviewers I read are whitewashing this but I think Sony is making a HUGE mistake. A PS3 for 600 dollars, when the X-box 360 sells for 400 (and when even Sony only claims the graphics will be 5% better) is like saying "hey Microsoft, want some marketshare? you do? thanks!"
> 
> And you have to love their excuse that well, Blue Ray DVD players are expensive. So I hate Blue Ray anyway, since their goal seems to be another Betamax-VHS war and a way to sell me my entire DVD collection AGAIN, then they pile on with a 600 dollar PS3 and are saying the games "won't be 100 dollars".
> 
> ...



Meh. Still cheaper than a gaming PC.

And let's face it, we're due for a 2nd-gen DVD format. While the 1st-gen didn't have a format war like the old videocassette, eventually it's gonna happen. And Sony wants to be a front-runner. They're gonna be exposing their Blu-Ray format to as many customers as they can through their products.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jul 12, 2006)

So what do you guys think of the news coming out about Sony's 2000 patent regarding making it where the PS3 won't be able to play rented, borrowed, or preowned games?


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 12, 2006)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> So what do you guys think of the news coming out about Sony's 2000 patent regarding making it where the PS3 won't be able to play rented, borrowed, or preowned games?




How are they going to do that? Identify a rented or borrowed game as different from one you bought?


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 12, 2006)

Those rumors have popped up every so often since 2000. And every time Sony has denied they are going to restrict used games sales.

But obviously, that's something all software companies want to do eventually.  Like Microsoft for instance - AFAIK, they are doing exactly that with the games and content sold via Xbox Live - if you buy something of it, you can't sell it to someone else, can you? (Even if you sell the game).  

And it happens with PC games - the whole Steam thing, and like in Galactic Civilizations 2, where you have to pay $20 for a new serial number if you buy the game used.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 12, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> How are they going to do that? Identify a rented or borrowed game as different from one you bought?





Here's an article on it

http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-sony10jul10,1,4309266.story?coll=la-headlines-technology

Sounds like they just give each console an id, and then have that piece of software only work with that console.  Which in practice would only work if the thing in question is hooked up to the internet (so basically like internet activation), or if it had some sort of writeable drive.  

Since it was patented in Japan, I suspect it's in Japanse and probably not even online (unlike US patents) so a lot if just speculation.  (Edit, actually I guess it is also in the US, but Sony has 30,000 patents since 1976, and I can't find it)

But it sounds to me like it's exactly what Microsoft is already doing with Xbox Live Arcade, and Nintendo will for the Wii's Virtual Console...


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 12, 2006)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> So what do you guys think of the news coming out about Sony's 2000 patent regarding making it where the PS3 won't be able to play rented, borrowed, or preowned games?



So, we should admonish Sony but let the other companies off the hook for the same thing? Or did we vote Sony to serve as our first example of customer's dissatisfaction, because personally I'd rather start at home ... with Microsoft.


----------



## Bront (Jul 12, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I dunno.  I'm sure it will sell, but it will offer completely different sorts of games than the 360 or PS3.  You won't be able to play serious games with that controller and frankly, mock sword fighting games or whatever have zero interest in me (and a lot of other adults, I imagine).



So, Madden 2007 isn't a serious title?  Metroid Prime III isn't a serious title?

You can do a lot more than you think, and if need be, with the nunchuk adapter, it should work like a regular controler.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 12, 2006)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> So what do you guys think of the news coming out about Sony's 2000 patent regarding making it where the PS3 won't be able to play rented, borrowed, or preowned games?



"Coming out"? As others have said, that's old news. Sony denies they'll use it for the PS3 (whatever those denials are worth).



			
				trancejeremy said:
			
		

> But obviously, that's something all software companies want to do eventually. Like Microsoft for instance - AFAIK, they are doing exactly that with the games and content sold via Xbox Live - if you buy something of it, you can't sell it to someone else, can you? (Even if you sell the game).
> 
> And it happens with PC games - the whole Steam thing, and like in Galactic Civilizations 2, where you have to pay $20 for a new serial number if you buy the game used.



Bingo.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 12, 2006)

Personally, I get a kick out of watching Sony drive the nails into its own coffin. They hammer like mad men while Microsoft happily hands them the nails.
I've never seen a company more out of touch with its customers...and reality.


Sony will do ok in Japan, but they are going to take a beating in the US.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 12, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Like Microsoft for instance - AFAIK, they are doing exactly that with the games and content sold via Xbox Live - if you buy something of it, you can't sell it to someone else, can you? (Even if you sell the game).




If I buy something off of Live, the content is tied to my account. I can then set up my account on anyone's hard drive and download the content onto it for them, at no extra charge. Once you download it, you can download it as much as you want, for free.

That may no be exactly legal, but it can be done with no modifications to the hardware.


----------



## doktorziplok (Jul 13, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I wouldn't buy a Sony product due to their unethical behavior as a compnay, and spending 500-600 bucks on a console is insane.  I'm going to pick a Wii up.  It will be my first console since the Sega Genesis.



qtf

exactly. someone brought up the notion earlier that the ps3 may run on linux thereby allowing homebrew. do you really think sony would allow ANYTHING but sony-licensed software to be run on the ps3? not bloody likely. look to the psp, if sony had a clue on how to pwn the market they would open it up, but instead they lock it down. 

it also appears that sony has shot itself in the foot with yet another failed propriety media. apparently target and (possibly) walmart have pulled umd movies from their shelves. i can't find the link, but i believe i read it on slashdot or digg.


here's a link to the anti-rental doohicky:  http://games.slashdot.org/games/06/07/12/193225.shtml


sony for teh win!!11!!!


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 13, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Sony will do ok in Japan, but they are going to take a beating in the US.



Maybe it's the US that is out of touch.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 13, 2006)

Since everyone's out of touch, I suggest we all start touching immediately!

...

What?


----------



## frandelgearslip (Jul 13, 2006)

can't figure out how to delete consider deleted


----------



## Bront (Jul 13, 2006)

doktorziplok said:
			
		

> qtf
> 
> exactly. someone brought up the notion earlier that the ps3 may run on linux thereby allowing homebrew. do you really think sony would allow ANYTHING but sony-licensed software to be run on the ps3? not bloody likely. look to the psp, if sony had a clue on how to pwn the market they would open it up, but instead they lock it down.
> 
> ...



Actualy, The PSP is perfectly capable of running a 3rd party internet browser, and there is one out there I believe.  It took like 2 weeks to happen too.  It's not supported by Sony of course, but still, you can write things for it.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 13, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Personally, I get a kick out of watching Sony drive the nails into its own coffin. They hammer like mad men while Microsoft happily hands them the nails.
> I've never seen a company more out of touch with its customers...and reality.



Really?  So the PS3 isn't catering to the next gen crowd while keep the PS2 (most popular system in the world) supported with new games?  I think you don't understand their strategy.  You may not like the company but they aren't stupid.  They know how to make money and have had some misfires over the years.  Just like every other company out there.



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Sony will do ok in Japan, but they are going to take a beating in the US.



How so?  What kind of beating?  Will the 360 be king?  Them and what lineup of games?  Sure, there are a few coming out that will sell big time.  But they lack the criticial 3rd party support that Sony has right now.  No Metal Gear, no Final Fantasy, no GT.  MS has their must haves and will be a big player (thank goodness) but to think that the PS3 will bomb in the US is madness.  It's the games that will make all the difference and at the moment, the 360 is sitting on store shelves not being purchased.  The next gen folks are waiting for games to play on their 360 and will be getting the PS3 first thing.  Then we'll have an idea of what is to come.  Until then, it's all just conjecture.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 13, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Since everyone's out of touch, I suggest we all start touching immediately!
> 
> ...
> 
> What?



* offers to play pattycake with LP *


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 13, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> * offers to play pattycake with LP *




That's okay, some guy last night decided to play pattycake with my face.  I've had enough of touching for now.   :\ 

On an actual on-topic note, like I said before, I don't think we'll actually know if Sony's strategy will work until the launch happens.  It is an interesting study of... um, that economic term that describes price versus demand.  It's been a good eight years since economics.    

Personally, I'm not convinced that there will be enough "hardcore" gamers out there to balance the casual gamer crowd lost, but that's just me.  And by hardcore in quotes, I mean gamers who have jobs, specifically excluding parents who buy their children game systems.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 13, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> It is an interesting study of... um, that economic term that describes price versus demand.  It's been a good eight years since economics.



"Price elasticity", my good man!



> Personally, I'm not convinced that there will be enough "hardcore" gamers out there to balance the casual gamer crowd lost, but that's just me.  And by hardcore in quotes, I mean gamers who have jobs, specifically excluding parents who buy their children game systems.



I am. "Casual gamers" are a very new thing, and should still be considered a "bonus" consumer. Their market 'clout' is _far_ overrated (though valuable for _expanding_ that theoretical pie of a market base). In any case, the "causal gamer" won't likely buy _any_ system for more than $200.

Yay! Three cheers for conjecture!


----------



## drothgery (Jul 13, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> How so?  What kind of beating?  Will the 360 be king?  Them and what lineup of games?  Sure, there are a few coming out that will sell big time.  But they lack the criticial 3rd party support that Sony has right now.  No Metal Gear, no Final Fantasy, no GT.  MS has their must haves and will be a big player (thank goodness) but to think that the PS3 will bomb in the US is madness.  It's the games that will make all the difference and at the moment, the 360 is sitting on store shelves not being purchased.




The PS3 might very well bomb (at least by PS1/PS2 standards; I think worst case is an N64/GameCube-esque solid 3rd position) in North America (and Europe); if Sony can't get high availability and a mass-market price soon enough (fall 2007 is about the absolute latest), then they'll be up against competitors with a much larger installed base, multiplatform games that have spent three years with the 360 as the primary target, HD-DVD as the dominant HD movie format, and maybe another year -- if they're lucky -- before they have to deal with Xbox 3 hype.


----------



## Mercule (Jul 13, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> In any case, the "causal gamer" won't likely buy _any_ system for more than $200.




Interesting.  I've considered myself a "casual gamer" since the early 1990s.  I play games more than most people I know (besides a couple of "hardcore" gamers) and am pretty good at them.  Still, I'm not sure if the amount I've spent on games in the last decade would add up to $600.  It'd be close.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by drothgery
> The PS3 might very well bomb (at least by PS1/PS2 standards; I think worst case is an N64/GameCube-esque solid 3rd position) in North America (and Europe); if Sony can't get high availability and a mass-market price soon enough (fall 2007 is about the absolute latest), then they'll be up against competitors with a much larger installed base, multiplatform games that have spent three years with the 360 as the primary target, HD-DVD as the dominant HD movie format, and maybe another year -- if they're lucky -- before they have to deal with Xbox 3 hype.





Exactly.
Another thing to consider is that some people bought the X-Box over the PS2 because it was the more powerful system, with fancier graphics. The PS3 will not have that advantage over the 360.



> Originally Posted by John Crichton
> Will the 360 be king? Them and what lineup of games? Sure, there are a few coming out that will sell big time. But they lack the criticial 3rd party support that Sony has right now.




Ghost Recon
Oblivion
Prey
Condemned
Chromehounds
Project Gotham Racing
Burnout
Fight Night Round 3
Dead or Alive
Hitman
Kameo
Call of Duty
Quake 4
Tomb Raider (I havn't played it yet, but I hear it's great.)
Various sports games I haven't played, but hear they are good.
..all very high quality games you can go buy right now.

Dead Rising
Gears of War
Halo 3
Alan Wake
Mass Effect
Lost Planet
GTA
Jade Empire 2
Ninja Gaiden 2
Resident Evil 5
Knights of the Old Republic 3
...all games that look to be A+ quality, and will be out soon.



> No Metal Gear, no Final Fantasy, no GT.




And? Just three? There is Assassin's Creed, but that is also coming to the 360. I guess you could say God of War will eventually show up. Resident Evil will also be on the PS3, as will GTA, but the 360 gets it first.



> It's the games that will make all the difference




Yep. By the time the PS3 is released, you'll have a few dozen great games on the 360 vs the PS3's half dozen or so. I fail to see how the PS3 will win here.



> ...and at the moment, the 360 is sitting on store shelves not being purchased.




Really? Got any data to back that up? Last I heard, the 360 was selling just fine.



> The next gen folks are waiting for games to play on their 360 and will be getting the PS3 first thing.




Waiting? For what? I've been playing great games since I got my 360 on release day. Oblivion is the best RPG I've ever played. Period.. Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter is the best in the GR series so far. Fight Night and PGR3 are both amazing, and I've never even liked boxing or racing games. Prey is pretty mindblowing, and Burnout is fun for days, even if it is a original X-Box port. And that's not even considering the backwards compatible games, or the Live Arcade, which is pretty awesome by itself.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 13, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Various sports games I haven't played, but hear they are good.




Just to be a bit nitpicky, one of the early knocks on the 360 launch titles was that some of the '2006' sports games (most notably Madden) had a lot of features missing relative to the PS2 and Xbox versions. This has been remedied (and pretty much reversed) in the '2007' games.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 13, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Just to be a bit nitpicky, one of the early knocks on the 360 launch titles was that some of the '2006' sports games (most notably Madden) had a lot of features missing relative to the PS2 and Xbox versions. This has been remedied (and pretty much reversed) in the '2007' games.




You're probably right. I wouldn't know. I don't play sports games, well, except Fight Night.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 13, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> Another thing to consider is that some people bought the X-Box over the PS2 because it was the more powerful system, with fancier graphics. The PS3 will not have that advantage over the 360.
> 
> Ghost Recon
> ...




I personally wouldn't want to play any of those (except Oblivion, which I have on my PC and frankly, was probably the worst entry in the Elder Scrolls series, other than graphics).  And of that list, only that, GRAW and COD are widely considered as good games and good Xbox 360 ports - most of the others are either bad games or bad ports (Quake 4, various sports games)




			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Dead Rising
> Gears of War
> Halo 3
> Alan Wake
> ...




Soon? Of that that list, I think only Gears of War will be out this year (maybe also Mass Effect). Many of those haven't even been announced

And don't get me started on the Xbox Arcade scam.  They ruined backwards compatibility of older titles so they could charge people $5 each for Galaga and Pac-man.  No thanks.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 13, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I personally wouldn't want to play any of those (except Oblivion, which I have on my PC and frankly, was probably the worst entry in the Elder Scrolls series, other than graphics).  And of that list, only that, GRAW and COD are widely considered as good games and good Xbox 360 ports - most of the others are either bad games or bad ports (Quake 4, various sports games)




Are you serious dude? Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they are bad games, or don't sell. Nearly every game on that list has sold very well, and has gotten wonderful reviews. You may not care for them, but they certainly count toward the 360's list of great games. Oblivion for example is reviewed with a 94.1% average, and is one of the highest selling RPGs of all time. To each his own and all that, but you are in the minority.

EDIT - And I forgot Too Human, the new Rainbow Six, and Splinter Cell: Double Agent, which is a sure fire A+ title.



> Soon? Of that that list, I think only Gears of War will be out this year (maybe also Mass Effect). Many of those haven't even been announced.




Which ones havn't been anounced? And, as I understand it, we should see Dead Rising, Gears of War, Rainbow Six, Mass Effect, & Splinter Cell out this year. Even then, in the video game industry, a game coming out a year from now is "comng soon".



> And don't get me started on the Xbox Arcade scam.



 It's doing pretty well for a "scam". In fact, it seems they're "scamming" people out of millions...and I for one am loving being "scammed".



> They ruined backwards compatibility of older titles so they could charge people $5 each for Galaga and Pac-man.  No thanks.



 And how did this "ruin backwards compatibility" exactly?


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 13, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Another thing to consider is that some people bought the X-Box over the PS2 because it was the more powerful system, with fancier graphics. The PS3 will not have that advantage over the 360.



That's still debatable, of course.

The game list is also questionable, and maybe the best examples weren't chosen...

Ghost Recon - multiplatform franchise
Oblivion - PC (ie. been there, done that)
Prey - PC
Condemned
Chromehounds - bad game, reviewed poorly. Bad example.
Project Gotham Racing
Burnout - multiplatform/port
Fight Night Round 3 - multiplatform franchise
Dead or Alive
Hitman - multiplatform franchise
Kameo
Call of Duty - PC
Quake 4 - PC
Tomb Raider (I havn't played it yet, but I hear it's great.) - multiplatform franchise



> ...all games that look to be A+ quality, and will be out soon.



No - almost none of that list will be out "soon". Even Gears of War has no specific date confirmed (and has a history of being constantly pushed back). I'm not holding my breath for 2006. Further, some of those games are PC games.

Really - the 360 games are hardly astounding, and are still suffering from lack of exclusivity; and this has been widely reported.



> Which ones havn't been anounced? And, as I understand it, we should see Dead Rising, Gears of War, Alan Wake, Mass Effect, & Lost Planet out this year. Even then, in the video game industry, a game coming out a year from now is "comng soon".



Nonsense - that's quite a stretch. In any case, you understand incorrectly: at least Jade Empire 2 and KotOR 3 are unannounced. Many of the others don't even have release dates. Of the ones you mention right above, only Dead Rising has an actual release date (August). Two others are "TBA 2006" (uh-oh), and the rest are 2007 and beyond.



> And? Just three?



No, those are just quick and easy examples. Simply look at all the PS1/PS2 franchises for more examples.



> Yep. By the time the PS3 is released, you'll have a few dozen great games on the 360 vs the PS3's half dozen or so. I fail to see how the PS3 will win here.



It's best to consider the situation over time, of course. Nothing is "won" on release date. We'll see in a couple of years, once all the franchises and games are in full swing.


It's all well and good to "like" the 360, but one mustn't get carried away. In any case, 2007 looks to be a great year for the 360, when the good exclusive games will actually start coming out (as opposed to a bare-bones selection and a bunch of ports). The PS3 may have a tough time then. I'm looking forward to 2007, and near the end of that year will (finally!) be a good time to consider a 360.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 13, 2006)

Metal Gear - Release Date: Q4 2007
Final Fantasy XIII - Release Date: TBA 2007
Gran Turismo - Release Date: Q2 2007

Ouch. I was thinking at least Metal Gear would be a launch title. That's really going to hurt if none of the PS3's flagship franchises see light until after Halo 3 and all those other games I listed are released.

I really don't think Warhawk is going to move that many systems, and I don't see any other big titles on their projected launch list. At least, none that won't also be on the 360.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 13, 2006)

The Blu-Ray is more expensive argument is the excuse Sony has been waiting for to hike the cost of games.  There is absolutely, positively, no reason every game should be that expensive.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with releasing games on cheap DVDs, and nothing stopping any company from doing it.  In fact, you can bet most launch and early titles will probably be DVD.  There have only been a handful of console games in the last generation that required more than 1 DVD.  The medium is not beyond it's capacity except for the companies that cram their games with FMV or just don't know what they're doing.

If Oblivion can fit on a DVD, almost anything can.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 13, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> That's still debatable, of course.




Multiplatform release is a non-issue for this discussion. As long as there are sales on the 360, it is good for the 360. It doesn't matter if there are also sales on the PC, or the Commador 64. Yes, some of those will also be on the PS3, but you can get them on the 360 long before you can get them on the PS3, and that means a lot.



> No - almost none of that list will be out "soon". Even Gears of War has no specific date confirmed (and has a history of being constantly pushed back).




The developers claim that Dead Rising, Gears of War, Rainbow Six, Mass Effect, & Splinter Cell will all be out this year. Are they sometimes wrong? Sure. But they all look very likely.



> Nonsense - that's quite a stretch. In any case, you understand incorrectly: at least Jade Empire 2 and KotOR 3 are unannounced.




Confirmed by developers in both cases.



> No, those are just quick and easy examples. Simply look at all the PS1/PS2 franchises for more examples.




So when I mention 360 franchises, I hear "not announced yet", but I'm told to look at existing PS2 franchises to behold the glory of the future PS3?



> It's best to consider the situation over time, of course. Nothing is "won" on release date. We'll see in a couple of years, once all the franchises and games are in full swing.




Not exactly. Release day means a lot (to stock holders), and if a console can't survive while hemorrhaging money, it won't last a "couple of years". Just ask Sega...


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 13, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> The Blu-Ray is more expensive argument is the excuse Sony has been waiting for to hike the cost of games.  There is absolutely, positively, no reason every game should be that expensive.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with releasing games on cheap DVDs, and nothing stopping any company from doing it.  In fact, you can bet most launch and early titles will probably be DVD.  There have only been a handful of console games in the last generation that required more than 1 DVD.  The medium is not beyond it's capacity except for the companies that cram their games with FMV or just don't know what they're doing.
> 
> If Oblivion can fit on a DVD, almost anything can.




I wonder... what happens if Sony's Blu-Ray goes the way of the Sony Betamax and Sony UMD? If it does, does this mean that the price of PS3's will increase? Sony can afford to produce them for the PS3 relatively cheap because they are being produced in bulk. If the blu-ray market crashes, that "bulk" will decrease substantially. Does that drive the price up on the lasers? Does that drive the price up on the PS3?


----------



## reanjr (Jul 13, 2006)

I can only recall one instance of a console war not won by the first released.  I don't expect PS3 to do well for many more reasons than the price of the system.

1. Price of system
2. Price of games
3. No added value (almost no one cares about blu-ray) over competition - developers have stated that there is not that much of a noticable difference in power between PS3 and 360
4. Me too - not a single innovative thing on this system has been announced
5. Momentum; 360's got it, especially with Halo 3 coming, and an expected price drop
6. Few major exclusive franchises; the only non-Sony one that hasn't done much cross-platform in Square Enix, and it's looking like that won't be for long
7. Laissez-faire online system is going to pale in comparison to Live's in terms of quality service


----------



## reanjr (Jul 13, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> I wonder... what happens if Sony's Blu-Ray goes the way of the Sony Betamax and Sony UMD?




By the time we have an affirmative answer as to whether or not Blu-ray failed, fab costs will have dropped dramatically just due to the advancement of technology.  I wouldn't expect this to cause a price hike for PS3 at any point, though it might cause a delay in a price drop (something many analysts suspect is the only way PS3 can compete).


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 13, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> By the time we have an affirmative answer as to whether or not Blu-ray failed, fab costs will have dropped dramatically just due to the advancement of technology.  I wouldn't expect this to cause a price hike for PS3 at any point, though it might cause a delay in a price drop (something many analysts suspect is the only way PS3 can compete).




Maybe. I don't know though. UMD died pretty fast.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 13, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> I can only recall one instance of a console war not won by the first released.




Eh. There are lots, actually.

Anything pre-NES predates my memory, so...

The Sega Master System and NES came out and around the same time (I think the SMS was first), though the NES was much more widely available in the NES, and the Atari 7800 might be worth noting. That era was won decisively by the NES.

The TurboGrafX-16 and Sega Genesis were out well before the SNES. The SNES probably won that era in the end (though the Genesis definitely made a run).

The Saturn launched before the PlayStation (and the N64 was the last of that generation), though only by a few months (and the PlayStation had better availability).

The DreamCast was easily the first of its generation (and the Xbox was the last, though the GameCube and Xbox launched at about the same time in North America). This era was won handily by the PS2, with Sega leaving the hardware business in its wake.

And this generation the Xbox 360 launched first, the Wii will be the second (roughly a year after the 360), and the PS3 will be the last (a month or so after the Wii, if there are no further delays).


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 14, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> That's still debatable, of course....
> 
> >snipped<
> 
> ...



Holy crap!

Your post saved me a ton of typing.  I've thought this before but it's almost like I'm posting with a different username from time to time with your responses in this sub-forum.  I completely agree with every single point in this post/response.

Okay, sorry for derailing for a bit but I wanted to post more than a QFT in this instance.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 14, 2006)

I just want to start by saying that your stated bias against Sony is really showing at this point.  Me?  I don't care who has the best games on their console as long as they are available for me to play.  There is no need to hate, mang.  It's all about the games.



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Multiplatform release is a non-issue for this discussion. As long as there are sales on the 360, it is good for the 360. It doesn't matter if there are also sales on the PC, or the Commador 64. Yes, some of those will also be on the PS3, but you can get them on the 360 long before you can get them on the PS3, and that means a lot.



It matters a great bit.  You cannot discount games that are not exclusive to a console.  It makes all the difference and the only difference.  The people who already own a console will buy games for it - bottom line.  However, many people need a reason to own a console and exclusive games are that singular defining difference.  So saying multiplatform release is a non-issue is a terrible arguement when we are essentially talking about the popularity of one system versus another.



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> The developers claim that Dead Rising, Gears of War, Rainbow Six, Mass Effect, & Splinter Cell will all be out this year. Are they sometimes wrong? Sure. But they all look very likely.





			
				Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Nonsense - that's quite a stretch. In any case, you understand incorrectly: at least Jade Empire 2 and KotOR 3 are unannounced.





			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Confirmed by developers in both cases.



Neither are confirmed at all, although I wish they were as both franchises deserve to be continued.  Bottom line is that Bioware is fully concentrating on Mass Effect (woot!) so unless Obsidian is already developing one of them we won't have the pleasure for at least 3 years.  


			
				Arnwyn said:
			
		

> No, those are just quick and easy examples. Simply look at all the PS1/PS2 franchises for more examples.





			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> So when I mention 360 franchises, I hear "not announced yet", but I'm told to look at existing PS2 franchises to behold the glory of the future PS3?



You can see it that way, if you like.  I can not speak for *Arnwyn* but the Xbox doesn't have the history of the Playstation in terms of established popular franchises.  We can assume all we want that we will get a JE2& KotOR3, and I hope we do, they are not coming anytime soon or even in development as opposed to other franchises (Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, etc).

The point remains that Sony has more 3rd party games announced that are in development, especially from Japanese devs.  MS has some awesome 3rd party titles as well, but in lower quantity - and I'm talking about the proven quality titles, not the chaff.



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Not exactly. Release day means a lot (to stock holders), and if a console can't survive while hemorrhaging money, it won't last a "couple of years". Just ask Sega...



Stock holders don't matter and don't compare Sega to Sony.  Sega just came off a dismall period of failures with their consoles and were already in the hole.  Sony is nowhere close to being in that position.

Sony will have to seriously undersell to be a large concern to the money interests of the company.  Their videogame division will still be pulling in money from the PSP & PS2.  The PS2 has more games coming out this year that are appealing to me than the 360 (GoW2 & FFXII).  And I'm not in the minority there.  The point is that unless you are a FPS or maybe driving game fan there is no reason to get a 360.  A system needs to suck in the entire gaming population if it wants to rule supreme.  Quality game selection is lacking in the 360, which I believe will happen withe PS3 as well in their comparitive launch period.  The one exception is that the PS3 will play all the PS1/2 games & HD movies (with the BR player) while the 360 has a considerably smaller selection if we are just talking about the first year of a console's life.

And, if the PS3 bombs, it bombs.  That is bad news for gamers!  Competition is vital to any industry, especially a huge one like the gaming industry.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 14, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> Another thing to consider is that some people bought the X-Box over the PS2 because it was the more powerful system, with fancier graphics. The PS3 will not have that advantage over the 360.



How do we know that?  Have you played any of the games on the PS3?  I haven't, so I have no clue either way.  This is simply conjecture.



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> And? Just three? There is Assassin's Creed, but that is also coming to the 360. I guess you could say God of War will eventually show up. Resident Evil will also be on the PS3, as will GTA, but the 360 gets it first.



GTA4 will be released on both consoles at the same time.  The announcement at the MS E3 press conference was false.



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Really? Got any data to back that up? Last I heard, the 360 was selling just fine.



Nope, and neither do you.  Link me some Q2 2006 stats.  

MS needs to put out a non-FPS shooter to start getting new blood to buy the system.  Their big gun right now is Prey (which is a non-exclusive) and will cater to people that already own a 360 because of it's heavy FPS lineup.  The system needs a couple EXCLUSIVE action/adventure and/or RPG titles to move some units.  That or Halo 3.    I own a 360 but if I didn't I would certainly get one when that game or Mass Effect comes out.  Those are system sellers.



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Waiting? For what? I've been playing great games since I got my 360 on release day. Oblivion is the best RPG I've ever played. Period.. Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter is the best in the GR series so far. Fight Night and PGR3 are both amazing, and I've never even liked boxing or racing games. Prey is pretty mindblowing, and Burnout is fun for days, even if it is a original X-Box port. And that's not even considering the backwards compatible games, or the Live Arcade, which is pretty awesome by itself.



I loooove XBL.  It's like crack from time to time.  

Problem is that the gaming community that aren't into FPS-type games are not buying the 360.  And the FPS folks are split between the PC & 360.  Exclusivity is the name of the game. Why?  Because 3rd party devs will put their games on systems that are in the most homes (which we already know).


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 14, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Maybe. I don't know though. UMD died pretty fast.



And was doomed to fail, especially at the prices they were charging.  Sony needed to underprice DVDs which they didn't do.  And the UMDs were only watchable on the PSP.  They needed to make the movies playable on a TV with a cable to be worth it.  I could get a new release for $12 and the UMD would cost me $20.  Totally not worth it.  

I chalk it up to another Sony try that simply was foolish.  This one just happened in the video game division which had been relatively immune to the proprietary silliness that Sony does with all their products.

But seriously, did anyone think that UMD movies were going to be a big deal?  Especially considering that you can rip a movie for free to a 1gb Memory Stick?  Bad move.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 14, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> How do we know that?  Have you played any of the games on the PS3?  I haven't, so I have no clue either way.  This is simply conjecture.




Okay, based on publicly announced specs, there's no indication that the PS3 has a significantly more capable CPU or GPU than the Xbox 360, and is arguably inferior on both counts.

When you looked at previous-generation specs, it was mind-bogglingly obvious to everyone that the Xbox was the most powerful machine, and the the GameCube and PS2 were about a wash (the Cube was easier to code for and had more memory, which offset the more theoretically powerful PS2 CPU/GPU). And multi-platform games reflected this almost without fail.

With the 360 and the PS3, the only real advantage Sony has is the Blu-Ray drive. And that just means more FMV without spanning discs, not any improvement in actual gameplay.



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> GTA4 will be released on both consoles at the same time.  The announcement at the MS E3 press conference was false.




Isn't the launch of GTA4 supposed to be before the PS3 launch, which would mean it's on the 360 first by default?


----------



## KenM (Jul 14, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Isn't the launch of GTA4 supposed to be before the PS3 launch, which would mean it's on the 360 first by default?






  The big GTA4 news from the Microsoft press conference was that it would be coming out on the Xbox 360 and the PS3 on the same day. Oct. 2007 sometime.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 14, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> I don't expect PS3 to do well for many more reasons than the price of the system.
> 
> 1. Price of system



Says people without HD setups.

And don't discount the impact of HD TV sets getting seriously cheaper all the time.  Gone are the days of the $5000 40' flat screen.  Projectors & LCD screens are dropping in price all the time.  And people want them.  Sales have been on the rise for longer than most realize.  Check out any TV section of any electronics store like Best Buy or Circuit City.  Not having a widescreen HD capable TV will be the norm before we know it.  HD programming is on the rise (but not in the majority) as we type.



			
				reanjr said:
			
		

> 2. Price of games



Link me to the price of the PS3 launch title games.  If it's $70+ for every game, I'll freak  a bit (although I did pay at least that for Phantasy Star II back in the Genesis days when I was making less than that per week).  If not, no big.



			
				reanjr said:
			
		

> 3. No added value (almost no one cares about blu-ray) over competition - developers have stated that there is not that much of a noticable difference in power between PS3 and 360



For now.  BR disc space & dev time can make a difference.  DVD games better last the 360 for at least 4 more years.  I will not be buying another MS console before 2010 (and I love new tech).  The PS3 won't have that problem.

And don't discount that the PS2 was like a fine wine - it got better with age and when the good titles started they didn't stop (took about a year).  More devs were able to produce games that looked and played better and better as they went along.  The best example is God of War.  I never thought the PS2 was able to produce in-game graphics like that.



			
				reanjr said:
			
		

> 4. Me too - not a single innovative thing on this system has been announced



Except Blu-Ray and back catalogue of titles from the last 10 years.



			
				reanjr said:
			
		

> 5. Momentum; 360's got it, especially with Halo 3 coming, and an expected price drop



You are calling a game coming out a year from now momentum?  It will take more than one to kill the Playstation.  The new Metal Gear & 2 Final Fantasy games trump Halo 3.  MS needs another killer game.



			
				reanjr said:
			
		

> 6. Few major exclusive franchises; the only non-Sony one that hasn't done much cross-platform in Square Enix, and it's looking like that won't be for long



Name a major franchise besides Rockstar that has jumped the Sony ship to cross-platform.  And it also matters that GTA is cross-platform, which hurts Sony a bit and helps MS a bit but it's not a win for MS, like FF was for Sony.  Console gamers will buy the version on the console they own or the one with the best graphics/controller/whatever if they own both.



			
				reanjr said:
			
		

> 7. Laissez-faire online system is going to pale in comparison to Live's in terms of quality service



This matters.  But until we see the PS3 system in action we have no idea what it will be like.  We only have XBL for comparison.  I expect MS to be stronger in this area for the next couple years because of sucessful experience with XBL but Sony will catch up.  It's bound to happen.  Then again, online play doesn't apply to all genres and it doesn't make or break a console's success.  Not yet.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 14, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Okay, based on publicly announced specs, there's no indication that the PS3 has a significantly more capable CPU or GPU than the Xbox 360, and is arguably inferior on both counts.



Let's see the games first.  That could be right or wrong.  I don't care either way.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> When you looked at previous-generation specs, it was mind-bogglingly obvious to everyone that the Xbox was the most powerful machine, and the the GameCube and PS2 were about a wash (the Cube was easier to code for and had more memory, which offset the more theoretically powerful PS2 CPU/GPU). And multi-platform games reflected this almost without fail.



Makes sense to me.  But the better comparison is to release time.  Older tech means less sophisticated hardware.  The Xbox/GC looked better because the tech was newer.  It's like buying the newest videocard right now for $500 vs the one on July 13, 2007.  The newer card is gonna give you prettier graphics and be more powerful overall.

You look at stats, I look at history and logic.  Although I do wish I understood more of the tech like you do.  



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> With the 360 and the PS3, the only real advantage Sony has is the Blu-Ray drive. And that just means more FMV without spanning discs, not any improvement in actual gameplay.



We don't know that at all.  More space never hurts.  Disc-read speed also matters.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> Isn't the launch of GTA4 supposed to be before the PS3 launch, which would mean it's on the 360 first by default?



10/17/07 is the currect launch date for both.  The PS3 is coming out later this year.

Microsoft is still using Sony as a meauring stick for success.  A simulateous launch date is considered a success (and it is).  But that doesn't mean they will topple them in this console cycle.  The next one will be their shot.  They still need to get the non-US markets on board.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 14, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Maybe. I don't know though. UMD died pretty fast.




Yes, but UMD was PSP only.  Blu-ray will be available as a standalone player as well as game system.  In addition, consoles tend to have better market penetration than handhelds (gameboy being the major exception).


----------



## reanjr (Jul 14, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Eh. There are lots, actually.
> 
> Anything pre-NES predates my memory, so...




I was only speaking of major players competing head-on with similar generation technology.  If a second-comer has significantly advanced the technology, it's not really competing in the same way.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 14, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Says people without HD setups.
> 
> And don't discount the impact of HD TV sets getting seriously cheaper all the time.  Gone are the days of the $5000 40' flat screen.  Projectors & LCD screens are dropping in price all the time.  And people want them.  Sales have been on the rise for longer than most realize.  Check out any TV section of any electronics store like Best Buy or Circuit City.  Not having a widescreen HD capable TV will be the norm before we know it.  HD programming is on the rise (but not in the majority) as we type.




Yes, and 360 will have an HD-DVD drive that with the system, will still cost less than PS3.  Blu-ray has no advantage over HD-DVD, is more expensive, and doesn't actually exist.  If there is going to be a new disc format, it's going to be HD-DVD unless the PS3 sells enough units (ignoring Blu-ray as a selling point, because it isn't compared to HD-DVD).



> Link me to the price of the PS3 launch title games.  If it's $70+ for every game, I'll freak  a bit (although I did pay at least that for Phantasy Star II back in the Genesis days when I was making less than that per week).  If not, no big.




Sony is saying 60-80.  My guess is that DVD games will be 60, Sony's games 70, third party 70-80, depending on disc format.



> For now.  BR disc space & dev time can make a difference.  DVD games better last the 360 for at least 4 more years.  I will not be buying another MS console before 2010 (and I love new tech).  The PS3 won't have that problem.




There is absolutely nothing wrong with changing discs half-way through a game.  It will be a very long time (or due to horrible development teams) before games require enough data that switching DVDs will become a problem.  Especially with the cost of developing games going up.  A huge amount of that cost is artists.  To offset this, it is expected that many more companies will begin to use algorithms to generate art rather than having it done by hand in many cases.  This will reduce the need to store huge amounts of textures.



> And don't discount that the PS2 was like a fine wine - it got better with age and when the good titles started they didn't stop (took about a year).  More devs were able to produce games that looked and played better and better as they went along.  The best example is God of War.  I never thought the PS2 was able to produce in-game graphics like that.




That's not special.  ALL consoles have the same thing happen.  Look at Super Mario Bros. vs. Castlevania III, Super Mario 64 vs. Resident Evil 2, FFVII vs. Parasite Eve, Ghost Recon vs. Splinter Cell.  By the time PS3 comes out, 360s performance may even outshine it due to developer experience.  Add to that the fact that most dev studios only have experience writing single-process games and that creates an even larger hurdle for PS3 devs (which are dealing with Cell's ~10 processors).



> Except Blu-Ray and back catalogue of titles from the last 10 years.




That's not innovative.  All the consoles are supporting backwards compatibility.  And PS3's back catalogue will be dwarfed to the point of not registering on radar compared to Wii's, which has 20+ years of back catalogue on more than half a dozen systems.



> You are calling a game coming out a year from now momentum?  It will take more than one to kill the Playstation.  The new Metal Gear & 2 Final Fantasy games trump Halo 3.  MS needs another killer game.




Sorry, poor wording, I wasn't indicating that Halo 3 adds momentum, just indicating that it will be a significant factor in PS3 sales.  Final Fantasy is a big deal, but MGS games have become cross platform.  All but one are or will be available for non-Sony systems.



> Name a major franchise besides Rockstar that has jumped the Sony ship to cross-platform.




MGS for one.  Name another deal-breaking 3rd party franchise besides MGS and FF.



> This matters.  But until we see the PS3 system in action we have no idea what it will be like.  We only have XBL for comparison.  I expect MS to be stronger in this area for the next couple years because of sucessful experience with XBL but Sony will catch up.  It's bound to happen.  Then again, online play doesn't apply to all genres and it doesn't make or break a console's success.  Not yet.




It's pretty much a guarantee MS's service will be better.  Sony has already said their online gaming service will basically consist of what has been available in the form of GameSpy on PC for a decade.  They are not going to be regulating things like MS is.  The regulation is what makes XBL great.  Online didn't make or break last gen, but this gen, I expect things to be quite different.  Even Nintendo's in on it, though they have a different focus that will beat out MS and Sony in many ways.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 14, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Makes sense to me.  But the better comparison is to release time.  Older tech means less sophisticated hardware.  The Xbox/GC looked better because the tech was newer.  It's like buying the newest videocard right now for $500 vs the one on July 13, 2007.  The newer card is gonna give you prettier graphics and be more powerful overall.




There are two problems with this analogy.

The first is that Sony's not launching a system that they intended to launch in late 2006. They're launching a system they intended to launch in late 2005, or at least early 2006, and was put together in a hurry after they realized that MS really was planning on launching their next-gen console in 2005. The exotic elements of the PS3's design (the Cell CPU and Blu-Ray drive) ran into delays, and so delayed the whole project.

And the second is that one year old tech quite often is close enough to match newer tech given more developer experience with the platform and greater ease of programming; PS2 games didn't consistently surpass the graphical quality of Dreamcast games (and the 2nd-gen Dreamcast games of the time made the PS2 launch titles look awful) until well after Sega discontinued  the Dreamcast, but the PS2 was always able to stay at par with the GC. Also see PlayStation vs. N64 or Genesis vs. SNES. Xbox vs. PS2 was different because it was closer to a two year gap than a one-year gap between the Japanese PS2 launch and the US Xbox launch, and because the Xbox cost considerably more to make; the GameCube, with a much lower price and cost target, was pretty much equal to the PS2 (maybe a little better, but not decisively).


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 14, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> But seriously, did anyone think that UMD movies were going to be a big deal?  Especially considering that you can rip a movie for free to a 1gb Memory Stick?  Bad move.



Meh. You can practically get a portable DVD player for less than the price of PSP, which can double as a CD player. They're better off using UMD for their gaming format until they have the gray matter to sell UMD recording devices.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 14, 2006)

Low Cell, Blu-ray laser yields could spell trouble for Sony in the short-term

7/12/2006 1:40:50 PM, by Ken Fisher
Sling Box

The Sony PlayStation 3 is a showcase for brand-spankin' new technology, and two of the stars of that show will be Blu-ray and the Cell processor. As we draw nearer to the planned worldwide November launch of the new console, there are signs, rumors, and premonitions that the PlayStation 3 may be in short supply for the first several months of its life.

The much vaunted Cell processor, for instance, appears to be a low-yield wonder. Tom Reeves, VP of semiconductor and technology services at IBM, openly admitted that only one of every five Cell CPUs rolling out of their fabs is fully functional with regards to all eight Synergistic Processing Elements. In an interview with Electronics News, Reeves said "With a chip like the Cell processor, you’re lucky to get 10 or 20 percent [yield]. If you put logic redundancy on it, you can double that." His comments suggest that Sony's effective yield should be closer to 20 to 40 percent, since the PlayStation 3 only requires 7 functional SPEs (6 for the heavy lifting, one for the system). The low yields did prompt an interesting question as to whether or not Sony would consider re-engineering to use Cells with fewer functional cores, to which Reeves said, "It could [be done], but I don’t think Sony has thought about offering that."

On the Blu-ray front, China's Commercial Times newspaper is reporting that Sony has not been able to meet demand for producing the special diode required for Blu-ray's blue laser. Reportedly the problems affects both Sony and Nichia Corp., who together will supply the majority of diodes to all Blu-ray device manufacturers. The report, which was summarized in English by IMDB, suggests that the manufacturing problems could cause problems for the PS3 as well as Blu-ray players in general.

That said, yields on new technologies are typically low, and both the Cell and the Blu-ray laser are comprised of cutting edge technologies that few expected would see instant yields north of 80 percent come launch time.

The Cell is a large processor (235mm2) and expensive to manufacture, and Sony has known this since day one. As time goes by and IBM gets better at making the Cell, prices will drop and yields will improve. In the meantime, however, all signs point to "Sold Out!" being the PS3's holiday slogan, as the mad rush for the latest and greatest from Sony will likely hit a supply drought if production does not improve soon.

Ars Technica story


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 14, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Holy crap!
> 
> Your post saved me a ton of typing.  I've thought this before but it's almost like I'm posting with a different username from time to time with your responses in this sub-forum.  I completely agree with every single point in this post/response.



 Heh... creepy - your posts seem that way to me, as well. 



			
				reanjr said:
			
		

> Sony is saying 60-80. My guess is that DVD games will be 60, Sony's games 70, third party 70-80, depending on disc format.



Sony has said nothing of the sort. You've read the interview with Hirai as much as I have, I'm sure, and this was never said at all. The 360 has already set the standard for higher game prices. Sony will follow lock-step.



> That's not innovative. All the consoles are supporting backwards compatibility. And PS3's back catalogue will be dwarfed to the point of not registering on radar compared to Wii's, which has 20+ years of back catalogue on more than half a dozen systems.



Well, you didn't even bother to _define_ "innovative", so your arguments aren't going to get you very far here.

And needless to say, the Wii's "Virtual Console" is hardly better than the PS3's back catalogue. Maybe comparible, if you like purchasing games that you already own again (or have never heard of - yes, illegal, but still existing - ROMs). The Virtual Console won't be a factor when considering backwards compatibility. It's a 'nice touch'.

And the 360 supporting backwards compatibility (compared to the others)? Funny. There have only been complaints about that "support". _Barbie Horse Adventures_, here we come!



> but MGS games have become cross platform. All but one are or will be available for non-Sony systems.
> 
> MGS for one.



Incorrect. Konami tried twice (an old port of MGS2 for the Xbox, and then an attempt with another developer with MGS1 on the GCN), and failed on both accounts. They quit trying that with MGS3. MGS4 will be exclusive to the PS3, and it's been reported that Kojima will be sticking with the PS3 for the forseeable future.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 14, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> How do we know that?  Have you played any of the games on the PS3?  I haven't, so I have no clue either way.  This is simply conjecture.




Conjecture on the part of Sony itself, as well as multiple developers working on both systems. I think it's safe to assume they know what they are talking about...



> Nope, and neither do you.  Link me some Q2 2006 stats.




November 2005     326,000
December 2005     281,441
January 2006     249,000
February 2006     161,000
March 2006     192,000
April 2006     295,381
May 2006     220,877

They are still suffering shortages in some areas, but the 360 is on track for Microsoft's projected sales...



> MS needs to put out a non-FPS shooter to start getting new blood to buy the system.  Their big gun right now is Prey (which is a non-exclusive) and will cater to people that already own a 360 because of it's heavy FPS lineup.  The system needs a couple EXCLUSIVE action/adventure and/or RPG titles to move some units.  That or Halo 3.    I own a 360 but if I didn't I would certainly get one when that game or Mass Effect comes out.  Those are system sellers.




Non-FPS games that got great reviews: (Non necessarily exclusive, but you can buy them today)
PGR
Dead or Alive
Oblivion (It has a optional 1st person perspective, but it is hardly an FPS)
Kameo
Burnout
Fight Night
Tony Hawk
LotR: Battle For Middle Earth
Tomb Raider

Right now, these non-exclusive games are still moving 360 systems because A: The PS3 doesn't exist, and B: A lot of people don't want to buy a $1000+ PC to play these games. Games always sell better on consoles than on PCs.



> Problem is that the gaming community that aren't into FPS-type games are not buying the 360.  And the FPS folks are split between the PC & 360.  Exclusivity is the name of the game. Why?  Because 3rd party devs will put their games on systems that are in the most homes (which we already know).




Personally, I play a lot of non-FPS games on my 360, and the fact that you can buy them on PC doesn't mean jack to me because I'm not going to upgrade my PC to be able to run them. You can get a 360 for the price of a good video card...

People with a high-end gaming machine, and a 360, are the extreme minority. And the PS3 hasn't been released. Therefore, these games being non-exclusive really doesn't seem as critical as you guys are making it out to be.

After the PS3 comes out, it will be a much bigger deal. But if the 360 has already dominated the market, it'll be a up hill battle for the PS3 all the way. Exclusives or not.

Also, I keep hearing that Sony has all these great exclusive franchises that will bury the 360, but oddly enough, I can't think of many.

FF & Metal Gear? Sure. They've also got God of War and Devil May Cry.... but then what?


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 14, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> And the 360 supporting backwards compatibility (compared to the others)? Funny. There have only been complaints about that "support". _Barbie Horse Adventures_, here we come!






> On April 24, 2006 the website GamesIndustry.biz reported that Sony Computer Entertainment Europe in the UK were working on the Playstation 3 emulation which is being performed purely in software.
> 
> Sony revealed that the PlayStation 3 will display legacy recoded PlayStation titles in high-definition resolutions. However, backwards capability will be limited to only games that have passed Sony's TRC (Technical Requirements Criteria). Estimates by game developers put the number of PS and PS2 titles that have passed the TRC to be around 50-85%. The PS3 will not be backward-compatible with some of the hardware peripherals of the PS2. For example, memory cards for the PlayStation and PlayStation 2 will not work on the PlayStation 3 hardware.[4] Instead it was announced that the PS3 will only use the Sony Memory Stick to save games. The Memory Stick will be able to store saved games for both PS1 and PS2 games, unlike the PS2's memory card. However, with the announcement of a standard 20-60 GB HDD with the PS3, a hard drive game saving system is very likely.




So... Sounds like the PS3's backwards compatibility may not be much more than what we see from the 360. And on top of that, the 360 allows for games to be made BC in the future, where the PS3 doesn't look like it will have that option.

Regarding _Barbie Horse Adventures_....*sigh*... I get tired of explaining this...

Often times when a game is made BC, the requirments to do so also happen to match the requirments for other games. So while fixing a game like say.... Spinter Cell, they accidently make a game like Barbie backwards compatible. Since it is then BC, it is added to the list like the others. Contrary to what you may believe, MS did not waste thousands of man hours and millions of dollors to focus on the BC of _Barbie Horse Adventures_...


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 14, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Also, I keep hearing that Sony has all these great exclusive franchises that will bury the 360, but oddly enough, I can't think of many.
> 
> FF & Metal Gear? Sure. They've also got God of War and Devil May Cry.... but then what?



C'mon. Are you kidding me? Maybe it is some weird objectivity problem some people have, but just off the top of my head in the second I'm typing this: in addition to those above - Star Ocean, Dragon Quest, Tales, Ace Combat, Suikoden. If we'll see more games in the Chrono Trigger and Xenogears/Saga series, it'll also be on the PS3.

But really - FF, MG, and DQ is enough (compared to what's out there in exclusives for the 360 so far). Like *John Crichton* says - MS is going to need some more, and a respectible variation of game types.

And as mentioned before, 2007 will be better for the 360 in terms of exclusive possible-franchise games: Halo 3, Mass Effect, Gears of War (maybe 2006!), Blue Dragon (maybe 2006!), Lost Odyssey... these are system seller games, no question.

As JC clearly points out, though - what is out there right now _are not_. It's the lack of competition that's doing anything good for the 360. That'll change in 2007, where we'll see some real competiton between all the systems. Good times!


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 14, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> So... Sounds like the PS3's backwards compatibility may not be much more than what we see from the 360. And on top of that, the 360 allows for games to be made BC in the future, where the PS3 doesn't look like it will have that option.



"Estimates", hmmm? Again - we'll see when it comes out.



> Regarding _Barbie Horse Adventures_....*sigh*... I get tired of explaining this...
> 
> Contrary to what you may believe, MS did not waste thousands of man hours and millions of dollors to focus on the BC of _Barbie Horse Adventures_...



Oh, I "believe" that, do I?


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 14, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> C'mon. Are you kidding me? Maybe it is some weird objectivity problem some people have, but just off the top of my head in the second I'm typing this: in addition to those above - Star Ocean, Dragon Quest, Tales, Ace Combat. If we'll see more games in the Chrono Trigger and Xenogears/Saga series, it'll also be on the PS3.




But see, here's the problem. I've been a hardcore gamer for as long as I can remember. Out of the games you mentioned, Xenogears, Chronotrigger, and Dragon Quest are the only ones I've even heard of. They may be popular among some folks, but they aren't system sellers.

Mario
Zelda
Metroid
Halo
Metal Gear
Final Fantasy

These are the exclusive system sellers. And yes, the 360 currently only has one. But, you can see how imortant they are by the fact that Nintendo has three, and suffered terribly compared to Sony and Microsoft last gen.



> "Estimates", hmmm? Again - we'll see when it comes out.




I thought we were debating with the info we have now. Saying "we'll see when it comes out" isn't doing much to convince me Sony will hold their own in the US this generation.



> Oh, I "believe" that, do I?



Clearly, I was being sarcastic. But then why did you bring it up if your point wasn't that 360 BC had messed up priorities?


----------



## drothgery (Jul 14, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> C'mon. Are you kidding me? Maybe it is some weird objectivity problem some people have, but just off the top of my head in the second I'm typing this: in addition to those above - Star Ocean, Dragon Quest, Tales, Ace Combat. If we'll see more games in the Chrono Trigger and Xenogears/Saga series, it'll also be on the PS3.




Just as an FYI - Xenosaga III is supposed to be the end of the series, and it's a PS2 game (the last days of PS2 being pretty good to RPG fans, with FF XII as the biggest name). And if Tales in the next-gen is like the current-gen, you'll see a game or two on Wii.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 14, 2006)

Is Final Fantasy still that good? I fealt it started going down hill after 7, and lost touch with the series not long after.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 14, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Is Final Fantasy still that good? I fealt it started going down hill after 7, and lost touch with the series not long after.



 ...started going downhill at VI....

EDIT: However, it still sells insanely well from what I've seen.


----------



## Mercule (Jul 14, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Is Final Fantasy still that good? I fealt it started going down hill after 7, and lost touch with the series not long after.




I only started with 7.

I got some enjoyment out of 8, 9, and 10, though.  FF isn't really my favored schtick, but it's always provided enough entertainment value for the money -- especially considering I usually wait until the games are marked at $20.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 14, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Is Final Fantasy still that good? I fealt it started going down hill after 7, and lost touch with the series not long after.




8 had awful magic mechanics (which was a shame, because the plot wasn't all that bad, and it was pretty visually impressive for its time). 9 put the fun back in FF (and is often considered the apology for FF8). People are divided on the plot for 10, but it was one of the first PS2 games that really looked good, and basically kept the PS2 from going down in flames (for many of the same reasons that we think the PS3 might). 10-2 was kind of cheesy (so I never played it), and 11's a multiplatform MMO (I've never played it; available on PS2, PC, and Xbox 360). 12 is a more conventional RPG, in the FF Tactics universe, but the English language version isn't out yet, and I don't trust Japanese reviewers (who loved the game, apparently) to be objective when it comes to FF.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 14, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Sony has said nothing of the sort. You've read the interview with Hirai as much as I have, I'm sure, and this was never said at all. The 360 has already set the standard for higher game prices. Sony will follow lock-step.




Sorry, you are correct.  I got the info from bundles that are being presold at that price.



> Well, you didn't even bother to _define_ "innovative", so your arguments aren't going to get you very far here.




A feature (not a tech spec) that no one else has.



> And needless to say, the Wii's "Virtual Console" is hardly better than the PS3's back catalogue. Maybe comparible, if you like purchasing games that you already own again (or have never heard of - yes, illegal, but still existing - ROMs). The Virtual Console won't be a factor when considering backwards compatibility. It's a 'nice touch'.
> 
> And the 360 supporting backwards compatibility (compared to the others)? Funny. There have only been complaints about that "support". _Barbie Horse Adventures_, here we come!




Perhaps you are not familiar with the technical aspect of backwards compatibility. The reason PS2 could play all PS1 games is because they included a PS1 processor in the system.  And some games ran slower on PS2 than PS1 anyway.  Sony has strongly hinted that a PS2 processor will not be included in the PS3, so they're going to be playing the same game MS is.  I have not heard Sony say that they will have 100% back catalogue on launch, so I don't expect them to.

The Barbie Adventure thing is due to the fact that MS emulates instructions, not games.  When all of the instructions necessary for a game have been emulated, the game is emulated.  Barbie likely does nothing fancy and so is automatically emulated when other games were.  MS's catalogues of converted games is getting bigger all the time, each update providing more games than the previous. Who knows, by the time PS3 comes out, 360 might have full XBox support.



> Incorrect. Konami tried twice (an old port of MGS2 for the Xbox, and then an attempt with another developer with MGS1 on the GCN), and failed on both accounts. They quit trying that with MGS3. MGS4 will be exclusive to the PS3, and it's been reported that Kojima will be sticking with the PS3 for the forseeable future.




Not quite sure of what failed in these ports.  I know people who own both of them.  GameSpot rates MGS1 for GCN an 8.2, MGS2 for XB and 8.7.  In both cases, their only complaint is it's only slightly better than the PSx versions and that Konami is not too experienced developing for XBox.  I have not heard Konami indicate that it WILL NOT come out on XBox. MGS3: Subsistance just came out in March, so I wouldn't discount an XBox version out of hand. If you have a link indicating that it is NOT coming, I'd like to read it.

As to exclusivity, nowadays that rarely means exclusivity in perpetuity.  Just that the game will launch on one platform and can come to others later.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 14, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Is Final Fantasy still that good? I fealt it started going down hill after 7, and lost touch with the series not long after.




Many feel the same way, but plenty still feel they must play FF because part VI was good.  Also, FFXIII has the advantage that it's being done by a different set of people than most of the post-CD gaming era.

Nonetheless, I don't think FF is as much of a system seller as it was, but it's still very important.  On the other hand, Square Enix is developing non-FF games for all the systems now, so it'shard to say how their involvement with Sony will pan out.


----------



## Grog (Jul 14, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Many feel the same way, but plenty still feel they must play FF because part VI was good.




Oh, come on. That's ridiculous. No game is going to sell on the strength of an entry 4-6 games ago in the series. The idea that there are people out there saying, "Well, even though every FF game after VI has sucked, I have to keep buying every new game in the series because VI was good" is completely ludicrous. Yes, the FF name carries weight, in part because of its history from the NES-SNES days, but the games still sell because they are damn good console RPGs, at least in the opinions of a lot of console gamers.

Myself, I thought that FF7, 8, and 9 were all very good games, although I felt that some other games that Square released during the PSX era were much better (Chrono Cross, Vagrant Story, and Final Fantasy Tactics, to name three). And I also thought FFX was excellent, far and away the best PS2 RPG. I didn't bother picking up FFX-2 since it didn't interest me much, and I know almost nothing about FFXII since I don't have a PS2 anymore (I do most of my gaming on the PC these days). So that's a pretty damn good track record after FFVI, in my opinion.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 14, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> But see, here's the problem. I've been a hardcore gamer for as long as I can remember. Out of the games you mentioned, Xenogears, Chronotrigger, and Dragon Quest are the only ones I've even heard of. They may be popular among some folks, but they aren't system sellers.
> 
> Mario
> Zelda
> ...



Looks the the PS2 franchises I listed _are_ system sellers. People didn't buy the PS2 "just because". They bought it because it played the games/franchises people like... and a lot of them. (I agree with your single-game system seller list - less so for Metroid, though, which hasn't done very well recently - but what I listed where system-seller franchises. People will buy the system that wil have the games/game-types that they want to play - like the Suikoden series, DQ series, AC series, etc.)



> I thought we were debating with the info we have now. Saying "we'll see when it comes out" isn't doing much to convince me Sony will hold their own in the US this generation.



Based on your posts, I suspect very little will convince you re: Sony. In any case, I'm not actually trying to convince you of anything.

I'm just pointing out (poorly I admit, in the above instance) that there are a lot of debatable/refutable statements being made in this thread. For example, contrary to what reanjr and yourself have posted, I have seen reported (on IGN, among other places) that the emulation for the PS3 will be very robust. *shrug* When we get conflicting reports (sometimes saying the _exact opposite_, all we can do is wait.



> Clearly, I was being sarcastic. But then why did you bring it up if your point wasn't that 360 BC had messed up priorities?



Not clearly. But I mentioned it for a dash of humor, only (simply because IGN makes fun of it all the time when discussing 360 compatibility).



			
				reanjr said:
			
		

> Not quite sure of what failed in these ports. I know people who own both of them. GameSpot rates MGS1 for GCN an 8.2, MGS2 for XB and 8.7. In both cases, their only complaint is it's only slightly better than the PSx versions and that Konami is not too experienced developing for XBox. I have not heard Konami indicate that it WILL NOT come out on XBox. MGS3: Subsistance just came out in March, so I wouldn't discount an XBox version out of hand. If you have a link indicating that it is NOT coming, I'd like to read it.



They didn't sell a lick, is what failed. IGN was filled with tales of woe a little while after those games came out. With the 360 dead in Japan (and the 180 dead everywhere) and the Wii going in a different direction for games in general, MGS won't be multiplatform.

As for MGS on other systems - IGN's your place.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> Just as an FYI - Xenosaga III is supposed to be the end of the series, and it's a PS2 game (the last days of PS2 being pretty good to RPG fans, with FF XII as the biggest name). And if Tales in the next-gen is like the current-gen, you'll see a game or two on Wii.



Oh, I know. But I'm sure you're quite aware how franchises tend to 'live on' (direct sequels or otherwise - though I hate hate hate when there are direct sequels on different generation systems. That sucks hard). And a Tales game for Wii would be great.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 14, 2006)

http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/06/sony-under-fire-for-racist-advertising/

BWAHAHAHA!!! Gotta love the brains behind their marketing department.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 14, 2006)

Yeah, I mentioned that on the first page. (Though IMHO, only by ignoring half the images, where the black woman was "winning" could you see racism in those ads. Still weird, but IMHO, more kinky than anything else)

And in other news, the PS2 continues to outsell the 360 in June

http://www.videogamecharts.com/page3.html

312,000 units to 277,000

Though the 360 has gone from having a worse launch than the Gamecube (in 6 months) to a somewhat better one (in 8 months, by about 100,000 units)

Also interesting, the PSP and the DS were pretty much neck & neck in the US (with the PSP having a slight lead), but the launch of the DS Lite has changed that. Perhaps MS needs to try launching a 360 Lite?


----------



## reanjr (Jul 14, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> Oh, come on. That's ridiculous. No game is going to sell on the strength of an entry 4-6 games ago in the series.




I didn't mean to imply that people only like FF because of VI, just that a great number of those who don't like FF still play because of IV and VI.

I'm a huge fan of Tactics and X and I really liked that battle system in VIII (I know I'm in the minority there).


----------



## drothgery (Jul 14, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Oh, I know. But I'm sure you're quite aware how franchises tend to 'live on' (direct sequels or otherwise - though I hate hate hate when there are direct sequels on different generation systems. That sucks hard).




Apparently the Xenosaga series hasn't sold all that well, which was why they're wrapping in up in three games (instead of five); it'll be a while before we see anything there again (if ever).


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 14, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Apparently the Xenosaga series hasn't sold all that well, which was why they're wrapping in up in three games (instead of five); it'll be a while before we see anything there again (if ever).




That's an example of what I was talking about. Just because a game is good, doesn't mean it is a system selling franchise. However, Nintendo has the largest number of "system selling franchises", and it was still creamed last gen.

I think it will kick butt this gen though, but it really kinda has it's own market. I'm glad they decided not to compete with Sony and Microsoft. They, and we, will be better off for it.


----------



## Grog (Jul 14, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to imply that people only like FF because of VI, just that a great number of those who don't like FF still play because of IV and VI.




I still think that notion is ridiculous. Why would people play through three or four games they don't like just because 10+ years ago there was a game in the series they did like?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 15, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Perhaps MS needs to try launching a 360 Lite?



Perhaps, it depends on the success of the Origami.

But you would think that MS Game Studio be rolling out game software titles for WinCE.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 15, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Conjecture on the part of Sony itself, as well as multiple developers working on both systems. I think it's safe to assume they know what they are talking about...



I don’t assume anything except taking history and logic into account.  The public has no clue when it comes to real news in unreleased gaming consoles.  Myself included.



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> November 2005     326,000
> December 2005     281,441
> January 2006     249,000
> February 2006     161,000
> ...



That’s an impressive set of numbers.  Link me, is what I said.  A source and MS projections is what I should have said.



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> They are still suffering shortages in some areas, but the 360 is on track for Microsoft's projected sales...



Where are the numbers and links to support this.  Considering the lack of games, I highly doubt they are hitting the projections they want.  But, I could be wrong.



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Non-FPS games that got great reviews: (Non necessarily exclusive, but you can buy them today)
> PGR
> Dead or Alive
> Oblivion (It has a optional 1st person perspective, but it is hardly an FPS)
> ...



As ‘Beyond Good & Evil” proved, good reviews mean nothing.  And that game wasn’t a system seller.  I can see why it didn’t do well.  That tangent aside, the titles you mentioned are not system sellers.  Why?  Because they are not exclusive.  Exclusives sell systems.  And the ones that are exclusives aren’t good enough to make every game run out and buy the system.  The only game on that list with any real buzz and influence is Oblivion.  Tomb Raider is nice, but most folks with a PS2, PC or Xbox will pick it up for that system rather than drop $300-400 on a new console that will make the game look better.  That’s what makes exclusives so powerful.  They give us no choice but to plunk down the big dollars to play a must-have game.



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Right now, these non-exclusive games are still moving 360 systems because A: The PS3 doesn't exist, and B: A lot of people don't want to buy a $1000+ PC to play these games. Games always sell better on consoles than on PCs.
> 
> Personally, I play a lot of non-FPS games on my 360, and the fact that you can buy them on PC doesn't mean jack to me because I'm not going to upgrade my PC to be able to run them. You can get a 360 for the price of a good video card...



I move that this point be stricken from the record as it assumes these games are making people buy consoles without any proof at all.  If they were all exclusives, then there would be an argument.



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> People with a high-end gaming machine, and a 360, are the extreme minority. And the PS3 hasn't been released. Therefore, these games being non-exclusive really doesn't seem as critical as you guys are making it out to be.



I don’t agree at all.  Only the people with money to burn or early adopters will buy a new system just to play a game they already can on a system they already own.  I’m talking about the PS2 here and the PC next.  The PS2 is the system to beat right now and that is what the 360 is competing again, and losing.  It annoys me because I want more 360 games and can’t friggin wait for next year when the good stuff gets here!  



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> After the PS3 comes out, it will be a much bigger deal. But if the 360 has already dominated the market, it'll be a up hill battle for the PS3 all the way. Exclusives or not.



It’s a big deal right now.  See above post.



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Also, I keep hearing that Sony has all these great exclusive franchises that will bury the 360, but oddly enough, I can't think of many.
> 
> FF & Metal Gear? Sure. They've also got God of War and Devil May Cry.... but then what?



Then what?  Okay, you’ve thrown down the gauntlet, *Arwyn* has given a few titles that have a hardcore following, which is basically the fanatical RPG market (a huge market!) but I shall toss out a few more (some may be cross-platform but people tend to remember a game’s roots):  Gran Turismo, SOCOM, Guitar Hero, Jak & Daxter, Sly Cooper, Katamari Damacy & Onimusha.  Huge sellers and lots of ‘em is what Sony has, as well as a reputation for getting the boss games.  MS is going to have to produce more quality titles and a variety that matches the PS2 to be the top dog this generation.  I think they are going the right direction, myself.  It’s great that there are choices and awesome exclusives on 3 consoles.  

Great time to be a gamer, to me.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 15, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> Oh, come on. That's ridiculous. No game is going to sell on the strength of an entry 4-6 games ago in the series. The idea that there are people out there saying, "Well, even though every FF game after VI has sucked, I have to keep buying every new game in the series because VI was good" is completely ludicrous. Yes, the FF name carries weight, in part because of its history from the NES-SNES days, but the games still sell because they are damn good console RPGs, at least in the opinions of a lot of console gamers.




Right... you know, like say... RPG books.  Nobody ever complains about having to buy new books, just because they like the Core Rules....


----------



## Grog (Jul 15, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Right... you know, like say... RPG books.  Nobody ever complains about having to buy new books, just because they like the Core Rules....




There is a world of difference between sequels to a video game and supplemental books for a tabletop RPG system.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 15, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> There is a world of difference between sequels to a video game and supplemental books for a tabletop RPG system.




No, I really don't think there is.

People have complained often on this forum and others about both the quality and price of WotC's supplements, indignant because they have to buy it.  

It's exactly the same with video games.  You can go on GameFAQs or IGN or what have you and find rants about how everything has gone downhill since FF6, and yet they'll insist on continuing to play FF games.

Another prime example - Robert Jordan.  How many people complain about his books, but continue to buy them?  The answer is a lot, and the Usenet group and threads on this board show that.


----------



## Grog (Jul 15, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> People have complained often on this forum and others about both the quality and price of WotC's supplements, indignant because they have to buy it.




So? People don't _have_ to buy anything. And like I said, there is a world of difference between a D&D supplement that adds content to the game system you're currently using, and a sequel to a video game that has nothing to do with any of the previous entries in the series.



			
				LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> It's exactly the same with video games.  You can go on GameFAQs or IGN or what have you and find rants about how everything has gone downhill since FF6, and yet they'll insist on continuing to play FF games.




This is the internet. You can find rants about _anything_. If you want to seriously argue the point that a significant portion of the sales of each new FF game (remember, we're talking _millions_ of sales here) are actually to people who hate the games but buy them anyway because FFVI was good, you're going to need a lot more to back you up than "A few people at GameFAQs complain about the new FF games."



			
				LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Another prime example - Robert Jordan.  How many people complain about his books, but continue to buy them?  The answer is a lot, and the Usenet group and threads on this board show that.




Again, this is an invalid comparassion. The Robert Jordan books are all part of the same continuing story. People who dislike the later books may continue to buy them because they want to find out how that story ends. The FF games are not part of a continuing story - each new game in the series has nothing to do with any of the previous ones (the sole exception being FFX and FFX-2). Apples and oranges.


----------



## DethStryke (Jul 20, 2006)

> _Originally Posted by Captain Tagon_
> So what do you guys think of the news coming out about Sony's 2000 patent regarding making it where the PS3 won't be able to play rented, borrowed, or preowned games?




I think the retail video game & rental market players will force them to sink that idea, assuming that this is not just a rumor/misinformation anyway. Places like Game Crazy or EB would be looking at a huge hit to their current business strategy that promotes used games... half or more of their entire store are used games!


----------



## Welverin (Jul 20, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Just to be a bit nitpicky, one of the early knocks on the 360 launch titles was that some of the '2006' sports games (most notably Madden) had a lot of features missing relative to the PS2 and Xbox versions. This has been remedied (and pretty much reversed) in the '2007' games.




SOP, this seems to happen with each new generation, they cut back on feature apparently in an effort to beef up the graphics. Plus it allows them to slowly add them back in over time, thus allowing them to cut down on inovation.

It's kind of like a new edition of an rpg, release the new corebooks, release splats over the years, run out of splats to publish, make new edition.



			
				reanjr said:
			
		

> The Blu-Ray is more expensive argument is the excuse Sony has been waiting for to hike the cost of games.  There is absolutely, positively, no reason every game should be that expensive.




There most assuredly is, the more technicologically advance the hardware gets the more complex the programming needs to take advantage of it and the harder and more expensive it is to develop a game.

The cost f the media itself is relatively insignificant to the cost of all the work on the game itself. It takes a lot of work by a lot of people to make a game, and *that* is what you're really paying for. Well that and the licensing fee that is what really makes the console maker money.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> The TurboGrafX-16 and Sega Genesis were out well before the SNES. The SNES probably won that era in the end (though the Genesis definitely made a run).




Um, no. The Genesis trounced the TurboGrafix-16, the SNES caught up to it and things were pretty much even from then on. The SNES stuck around longer because it came out later and it took Nintendo forever to release the N64.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 21, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> ...and at the moment, the 360 is sitting on store shelves not being purchased.






			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Really? Got any data to back that up? Last I heard, the 360 was selling just fine.






			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> Nope, and neither do you.  Link me some Q2 2006 stats.






			
				GameDaily.biz said:
			
		

> MS Sells "Approximately" 5 Million Xbox 360s; Annual Revenue Grows 11%
> 
> Microsoft today revealed its fiscal results for Q4 and the full year. Annual profit was slightly better than flat while revenue grew in large part thanks to the success of the Xbox 360. The company said that about 5 million units were sold during the fiscal year. More within...
> 
> ...




So can we put this particular argument to rest now?


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 22, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> So can we put this particular argument to rest now?



Heheh, took a while for them to release the numbers, which is what I meant by "neither do you."  

As for putting it to rest, it's interesting to see that MS is hitting their projections.  Their are a bunch of numbers there, but they are "soft" numbers in spots.  They said they wanted to sell between 4.5-5.5 million units in the fiscal year and said they sold about 5.  What does that mean?  It also says 1.8 were *shipped* in the Q4, which was April-June.  They didn't say sold, which tells us nothing concrete.  Articles like that released by the company are mostly propaganda for stockholders and a pulbic showing that things are going to plan and going well, to a point.  Sony (and all other big companies) do the same thing.

So, does this put to rest how well the 360 is selling after the shortages were over?  Absolutely not, because there are no solid numbers there.

I made an overstatement that "the 360 is sitting on the shelves" as it is highlighted in articles (not just the one you posted) as still being "in demand."  But what does that mean?  What is considered demand?  And how many are they actually selling?  Did they sell more than a million consoles after March?  That would speak more to me about how popular the system is, considering how big the gaming market is now.

My original post was refuting your claim that "Sony will do ok in Japan, but they are going to take a beating in the US."  The 360 will need to get a much bigger lead than they have right now if they want to do that, which is beat Sony in the US.  And the must-have titles will need to start pumping out soon.  MS will have to have a large library of games that you can't get anywhere else before the PS3 hits to beat Sony.  They need to get all genres out there and in force as well.  That is the secret to owning any generation of consoles.

To me, the 2 biggest wins for MS in the 360/PS3 era are launching first and getting a simultaneous release of GTA4.  Those are big deals that should pull them closer to Sony.  And there are few others as well that are a big deal like simultaneous release of other franchises such as Resident Evil, but then again Sony hasn't gotten the first of that franchise for a full generation, but it still matters for comparison purposes.

Actually, it's really a race to see who gets out a few killer titles first rather than when the PS3 launches vs MS's lead time.  It will probably take at least 8 months before Sony starts releasing games that will make PS3 owners happy which gives the 360 a little more lead time to get their game library beefed up before all the Sony exclusives start pumping out and even if they don't get any more dwarf what MS will be offering, especially in terms of variety of genres.

Okay, I've rambled like hell now and I'm sick of me.    The bottom line is that gamers are getting 2 consoles that will be pumping out HD games and trying to one-up each other which means lower prices over time, promotions and all that.  Plus, there is another console that will be something different and have the classic Nintendo games on it.

I just have a problem with anyone wanting it differently. Competition is good.  These are huge companies that we shouldn't be caring about as they all have their warts.  As long as we get the great games, it doesn't matter.  I have no routing interest at all except for the developers to support all 3 consoles as much as possible and make it worth my while to plunk down the initial $400+.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 22, 2006)

According to the NPD, which releases numbers every month, the 360 has only sold about 2 million units in the US in the 8 months since it's launch, which is worse than the original Xbox, the PS2, and only slightly better than the gamecube.

You can see all the numbers here

http://videogamecharts.com/page3.html

MS might be saying it's shipped 5 million, but that's likely worldwide, and units shipped to stores


----------



## Orius (Jul 23, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Actually, it's really a race to see who gets out a few killer titles first rather than when the PS3 launches vs MS's lead time.




I also think the quality of the games released on the respective consoles could very well make a difference too.  There are times when games released to mutliple consoles have differences in all sorts of things, graphics, sounds, gameplay, etc.  If the versions of games for one of the consoles ends up being consistantly better than the versions for the other console, that will almost certainly make a difference.  If the competeing versions are more or less similar for the most part though, it probably won't matter.


----------



## Orius (Jul 23, 2006)

And as for all the rumors surrounding Sony's patent making disc media unplayable in multiple devices: they would be extremly stupid to do this.  Preventing rentals would give both MS and  Nintendo an advantage.  I've read that they may have patented it not out of greed, but to prevent competitors from developing and using the technology.  Still, given some of the stupid and arrogant things Sony has done to consumers, it wouldn't shock me.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 28, 2006)

Report: Developers are Steering Away from PS3

There's never been a company that has dominated the video game business for three straight console generations. Can Sony pull it off? It's not looking good as the high price seems to be putting off not only prospective consumers but also developers, and that could be a vicious circle.

Is Sony's PlayStation 3 in trouble before it even launches? Sony has been the undisputed champion of the last two console generations, towering over the competition, but now it seems like every analyst, developer and industry pundit is placing a laser sight directly on Sony's forehead.

The biggest problem would appear to be the pricing for the system. Even the lower priced $500 SKU is expensive, and $600 seems ridiculous to most. Ever since Sony revealed this pricing strategy at this year's E3, the company has been put on the defensive, arguing that it's a "computer" and that with the inclusion of a high-def Blu-ray player it's really a "bargain."

Sony CEO Sir Howard Stringer himself has admitted that the console is expensive and that consumers are paying for its "potential." In the PS3's native Japan, the reaction has been less than pleasant, with more than 90 percent of developers in a recent survey stating that the price of the console is just too high. And indeed it seems that this high price is affecting whether or not certain developers decide to develop for the PS3. Sony's PlayStation business has always been backed by incredibly strong third-party support, but now for the first time that could be in jeopardy.

According to a BusinessWeek Online report, some developers are actually steering resources away from the PS3 in favor of the more affordable Wii from Nintendo and even the Xbox 360. Hirokazu Hamamura, president of publisher and game industry researcher Enterbrain, believes that Sony's next-gen console might not be a smash hit the way previous PlayStation systems have been. "Many developers think the console's initial high price will lead to slow sales and are holding off on creating games for Sony," Hamamura explained.

"At its autumn games preview on July 13, for instance, traditional Sony ally Electronic Arts spent far more time showing off innovative Nintendo games than it did titles for the PS3," emphasized BusinessWeek. "EA announced six Nintendo Wii launch titles and showed long working demos for two of those. But it offered only a short clip of a car-racing game for PS3. EA says it's still testing the potential of the PS3."

Ultimately, developers and analysts agree that in order for the PS3 to be a success in the long run, Sony will have no choice but to bring the cost of the system down as fast as possible. "It's likely Sony will have to discount more...and faster" than planned, commented JP Morgan analyst Hiroshi Takada.



by James Brightman

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13291


----------



## Orius (Jul 30, 2006)

Oh yeah, that's great news to a Sony-hater like me.     If the Japanese developers balk at making games for the PS3 because they think there's not enough units sold for them to make a profit, that's going to hurt Sony, since pretty much all of their big games are 3rd party.


----------



## takyris (Jul 30, 2006)

Not to snark, but was Brightman trying to fill space on a slow news day? That article takes a fundamental "duh" premise, packs in a couple of sound bites, and stretches for a conclusion that is properly doomsaying.

(Not that I think it was bad of Flexor to post it here, mind you. It's on topic and conversation-provoking. I just disagree with it.)

Speaking as somebody who heard his wife say the sexiest words ever a few weeks ago ("Honey, I think we should get a PS2") and who picked up said PS2 last week specifically so that his wife could beat his butt at Guitar Hero, I've got no plans to get a PS3 soon. But I'm not a curve-leader. I'm a curve-follower. I'm barely able to see the curve from where I'm standing. I just got an Xbox last year. Not an Xbox 360 -- an Xbox.

But there are so many geeks with so much money that, well, I don't think the PS3 is going to be hurting. It'll do what the 360 did -- sell high at first, then slump until games that take advantage of its technology come out.

BioWare's _Mass Effect_ is planned as an Xbox 360 exclusive (I'm not saying that it's a sysem-seller, although I've heard a few people mention it as a reason for them to get the 360), but if you go to BioWare's site and check their menu, they have "Dragon Age," "Mass Effect," the MMO, and "New Next-Gen Game." I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the next-gen game was possibly being developed for more than one platform, or if one of those platforms happened to be the PS3.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 31, 2006)

How many controllers do the PS3, XBox 360, and the Wii come with? What's the price of extra controllers (well, of the previous gen controllers, since the next gen isn't quite out yet)?


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 1, 2006)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> How many controllers do the PS3, XBox 360, and the Wii come with? What's the price of extra controllers (well, of the previous gen controllers, since the next gen isn't quite out yet)?



 It's the usual for all, same as last gen.  One controller per system and no games.  I imagine the controllers will be somewhere between $40-50 for both the PS3 & Wii.  Extras like controllers are where companies really cash in.


----------



## KenM (Aug 1, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> It's the usual for all, same as last gen.  One controller per system and no games.  I imagine the controllers will be somewhere between $40-50 for both the PS3 & Wii.  Extras like controllers are where companies really cash in.




  I remember when the Atari 2600 system came out. It came with two joysticks. 2 paddle controlers and a game. IIRC, it cost $150.00.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 1, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> But there are so many geeks with so much money that, well, I don't think the PS3 is going to be hurting. It'll do what the 360 did -- sell high at first, then slump until games that take advantage of its technology come out.




That's what I keep hearing and the initial response to my OP was people going "no 600 bucks is fine, PS3 will be fine".

I'm still skeptical. I *am* Sony's target audience for the PS3. I got a PS2 at launch and there are two PS2's and 4 computers in my house right now. 

But $600 bucks for something that does NOTHING ELSE but play games, plus 80 bucks a pop for the games themselves is simply out of my games budget. Sony can tell me its a computer all they freaking want. That doesn't change the fact that Im not going to use it for work, Im going to use it for gaming.

A video card for my current puter and more gaming there seems to make more sense until the price comes down to 300 bucks or less. 

And since I know someone will say it, I'll answer it now: if the price never goes below 300 bucks, I just will do without.

From a dedicated gamer like me, these should be words Sony doesn't want to hear. Their response that "it's not a toy, it's a PS3 and it's the ONLY PS3" just makes me laugh. They clearly think people will buy it at ANY price.

Some will. I have a feeling many won't.

Chuck


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 1, 2006)

FYI Squaresoft has already hinted that the next series of Final Fantasy's will not be exclusive to the playstation 3. After 12 its everyman for itself. Square tested the waters when it released FFXI for the XBOX.

Also, Konomi has not agreed ot an agreement to launch Metal Gear exclusively on the PS2 either. Rockstar has already said they will be releasing the next GTA on both systems.

I do believe that the days of exclusive third party titles is over . And I"M a big sony fan so its kinda disapponting to hear that news, but the reasoning makes complete sense. The company's were loosing money by not doing simultaneious releases. 

Also, titles like Dragonquest and Xenosaga may not be as big as a gta in america, but they are HUGE in Japan and thats the important market. You can redo pong and please the American gamers (IE tabletennis) but you have to have solid RPG hits to please the Asian gamer, thus the reason why MIcrosoft tanked. 

Microsoft has also said that they are willing to seriously open up the pocket books if they can get a really good exclusive title (though asp reviously stated this is very unlikely). 

As for the origiinal dollar. Of course we'll pay 600 bucks. IF you do the inflation math, the Atari came out at ..what 200 300 dollars which would be well over 600 bucks in today's dollar. We'll buy it, smile and then have a thread about how angry we are that we paid so much.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 1, 2006)

KenM said:
			
		

> I remember when the Atari 2600 system came out. It came with two joysticks. 2 paddle controlers and a game. IIRC, it cost $150.00.




Inflation from 1977 to 2006 puts that as about the equivalent of $450 - $500, depending on how you calculate things, though I think the indexes overstate things for consumer electronics.

But the real issue is subsitutes. If people think a 360 is a good enough substitute for a PS3 (and it's certainly equally capable as a gaming machine, so differentiation will be on pricing, availability, marketing, and the rare exclusive games), then paying half again more for a PS3 is silly, and few after the initial fanboy rush will do it.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 1, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Inflation from 1977 to 2006 puts that as about the equivalent of $450 - $500, depending on how you calculate things, though I think the indexes overstate things for consumer electronics.



Thing is people said the same thing, heck people pay 2,000+ bucks just to play the latest pc game. We gamers pay 1500 + dollars to havea  sweet projector setup in our game room.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 1, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Thing is people said the same thing, heck people pay 2,000+ bucks just to play the latest pc game.




... but rational people don't, because the best value sweet spot for PC hardware is a lot lower. Twenty years ago, a $1500 PC was a crippled toy. Ten years ago, a $1500 PC was a bargain basement box. Five years ago it was a solidly midrange machine. Now it's definitely high-end.


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 1, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Apparently the Xenosaga series hasn't sold all that well, which was why they're wrapping in up in three games (instead of five); it'll be a while before we see anything there again (if ever).



This is yet another example of where we have conflicting information.

Apparently Xenosaga sold reasonably well (and very well in Japan), enough so that it spawned two sequels during the same console lifecycle.

The "five games" was simply an early estimate during the early planning and design stages.



			
				James Brightman said:
			
		

> According to a BusinessWeek Online report, some developers are actually steering resources away from the PS3 in favor of the more affordable Wii from Nintendo and even the Xbox 360.



Yeah, that's _exactly_ what the Japanese developers are going to do - they'll develop for the 200,000 owners of the Xbox 360 in Japan. (Moving to the Wii is more plausible.)

I don't think Sony has much to fear on the Japanese front. I'm questioning this guy's critical thinking skills.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 1, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> This is yet another example of where we have conflicting information.
> 
> Apparently Xenosaga sold reasonably well (and very well in Japan), enough so that it spawned two sequels during the same console lifecycle.
> 
> ...



This is my info as well drough. Xenosaga sold extremely well in Japan and pretty mooderatly here. the problem was that they couldn't develop the titles fast enough (tallying in translation) so their wrapping it up after 3. This same thing happened with Xenogears which was also suppose to go to 6 games (not 5). 

I'm very interested to see what the next generation final fantasy are going to be like . XII looks great and the focus back on partying. The demo played pretty cool. 

Isn't sony's new ps3 suppose to have equiopped tivo too? I know they were marketing for a home entertainment center.


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 1, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Isn't sony's new ps3 suppose to have equiopped tivo too? I know they were marketing for a home entertainment center.



I've heard rumors of some sort of PVR functionality, but they're only (wild) rumors. I'm highly skeptical something like that would be included right out of the box.

Though I'm highly skeptical it'll appear ever. Heck - I'm still waiting for my PS2 to _launch missiles_!


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 1, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> As for the origiinal dollar. Of course we'll pay 600 bucks. IF you do the inflation math, the Atari came out at ..what 200 300 dollars which would be well over 600 bucks in today's dollar. We'll buy it, smile and then have a thread about how angry we are that we paid so much.




Sony is banking on that, and they're going to be wrong.

Look, you guys can tell me 500 bucks isnt that much money all you want.

But it's 25% more than the competing next-gen console, and the graphics previews don't look that different.

In fact the previews Ive seen, the X-box 360 looked better. 

And it's 25% less.

I don't doubt there will be people who have to have it just cause. But I also know that people aren't stupid consumers and that pricing yourself 25% higher than your competition is just BEGGING them to suck away your market share advantage. 

The fact that someone like me, who never even THOUGHT about owning a x-box, is now looking seriously at my alternatives, should worry Sony because I doubt Im the only one.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Aug 1, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Look, you guys can tell me 500 bucks isnt that much money all you want.
> 
> But it's 25% more than the competing next-gen console, and the graphics previews don't look that different.
> 
> ...



20% less. That's just how the math works.  Doesn't affect your point, I'm just nitpicking, sorry.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 1, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Sony is banking on that, and they're going to be wrong.
> 
> Look, you guys can tell me 500 bucks isnt that much money all you want.
> 
> ...



But selling is part product part brand loyalty. Most people will buy the ps3 simply because they have the ps2. The super nintendo came out 50 bucks more than the genesis and it still won that console series. Dreamcast dropped their price to 50 bucks below the ps and it still lost. Nintendo cost 150 bucks for the full thing, wheraes a full sega master system was 89 bucks yet Nintendo still won. 

We havn't really seen what it can do yet, but its a far more powerful system than the xbox 360 and in this case, the price is actually higher to indicate that. Whereas you say its a dumb business move, marketing it at 25 percent higher than the competitor is actually a smart move, and one typical of Sony. Sony electronics routinely are prices 10 to 25 percent higher than their competitors.. from tvs to computers. You might even say that its their way of establishing their brand as a more superior brand. 

From what I've read, Sony is not going to market the ps3 as a sole game machine. Their betting the next gen dvd console wars on the ps3 and their gunning it to be more of apart of your home entertainment system than just a video game machine. The Tivo enhancement is probabl y75 percent a reality, considering how inexpensive the boxes and services are getting. A good many blue ray dvds will have a release around the time of the ps3 as well. 

For those of us whom spend money on our home entertainment system, 500 bucks is a drop in the pan. Heck, my equilizer costs that much. 

Of course, waht we've seen so far is previews and its probably the main reason why E3 has bit the dust.  
The real stuff from the ps3 hasn't been finished yet so its not fair to compete it with rushed stuff.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Aug 1, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> It's the usual for all, same as last gen.  One controller per system and no games.  I imagine the controllers will be somewhere between $40-50 for both the PS3 & Wii.  Extras like controllers are where companies really cash in.



 I thought I read the Wii comes with four controllers.


----------



## takyris (Aug 1, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> But selling is part product part brand loyalty. Most people will buy the ps3 simply because they have the ps2.




No argument there. There's been a lot of outcry, but I think that most PS2 owners who were planning to get a PS3 won't be turned away because of price.



> We havn't really seen what it can do yet, but its a far more powerful system than the xbox 360 and in this case, the price is actually higher to indicate that.




I think it would be more accurate to say that the PS3 is *supposed[* to be more powerful than the 360. As you say below, we haven't seen a real one in action. Any assumptions we make right now, good or bad, don't mean much. It could very well blow the doors off the 360, or it could be buggy as all heck. It might be safe to assume that it's going to be roughly on a par with the 360 -- better in some performance areas, worse in others -- at least in terms of playing console games.



> From what I've read, Sony is not going to market the ps3 as a sole game machine. Their betting the next gen dvd console wars on the ps3 and their gunning it to be more of apart of your home entertainment system than just a video game machine.




I don't disagree with what you're saying -- that goes with what I've read -- but I'm skeptical that it's going to turn out to be that helpful for them. When you price a console game at $500, you're pricing it for geeks -- specifically, geeks with a fair chunk of disposal income. (At least, that's how I see it. Feel free to disagree.) The number of geeks who are going to be interested in getting the PS3 who don't already have a decent PVR and/or DVD player is, in my completely nonscientific estimation, pretty low. When I got my xbox, I didn't get it thinking, "Hey, and I can watch DVDs, too!" The DVD feature was a non-seller for me, especially given that the DVD player I already had was better, with more features than the xbox's DVD-playing features.

So I don't think the "it's an entertainment center" line is going to sell them that many more units. They're making a console gaming system. I don't believe (and again, feel free to disagree) that many people are going to get the PS3 and supplant their existing digital recorders with what the PS3 offers.

So, short version, Tacky thinks:

- Some people will buy the PS3 because they have a whole lotta free income.
- Some people will buy the PS3 because they are strict Sony fans (which includes liking games that are only available on Sony systems)
- Very few people will buy the PS3 because of the non-console features it offers


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 1, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> I think it would be more accurate to say that the PS3 is *supposed[* to be more powerful than the 360. As you say below, we haven't seen a real one in action. Any assumptions we make right now, good or bad, don't mean much. It could very well blow the doors off the 360, or it could be buggy as all heck. It might be safe to assume that it's going to be roughly on a par with the 360 -- better in some performance areas, worse in others -- at least in terms of playing console games.




Right, except what Im hearing, from Sony no less, is that the PS3 is supposed to be 5% more powerful than the X-box 360.

I have also heard developers, like EA, say that 5% better isnt worth the money for them to do an upgraded design.

In other words, the developers will be porting the exact same graphics from console to console. 

Chuck


----------



## drothgery (Aug 1, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> We havn't really seen what it can do yet, but its a far more powerful system than the xbox 360




I hate to sound repetitive here, but this just isn't so, and the specs that lay this out have been public for a long time.

The Cell (PS3 CPU) and Xenon (Xbox 360 CPU) are very, very similar in terms of capabilities. This shouldn't surprise anyone. Their CPUs are made by the same company (IBM), on the same process (IBM Microelctronics' 90nm), and all three of the Xenon's cores are almost identical to the main core in the Cell (Xenon has more cache and a few extra features; Cell has 7 sub-cores that are less powerful/more specialized).

They both have the same amount of memory (the 360 has 512 MB of unified RAM; the PS3 has 256 MB of main memory and 256 MB of video memory). They both have 2005-esque GPUs from leading PC video card makers (the Xenos GPU for the Xbox 360 is actually a more forward-looking design than the RSX, which is pretty much a GeForce 7800).

They both have a hard drive (the PS3's is larger, but this isn't really important for a game). They've got pretty much the same style of controller.

The only thing the PS3 really has to differentiate itself from the 360 is the Blu-Ray drive, and that's just not a big deal for games; if something's actually long enough that it doesn't fit on a DVD, spanning multiple DVDs works just fine.

Leading game developers say if you really, really work at it, the PS3 has a slight edge in CPU, the 360 has a slight edge in GPU (and most modern games are GPU-limitted), and the 360 is easier to code for. But at the end of the day, one system won't have better-looking games than the other (at least, once developers really figure the PS3 out; for the next year or so, you'll have 2nd-gen 360 games against 1st-gen PS3 games, and the 360 games are going to look better).


----------



## takyris (Aug 1, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Right, except what Im hearing, from Sony no less, is that the PS3 is supposed to be 5% more powerful than the X-box 360.




Chuck, I'm not sure why you chose to write "except" there when what I said that the PS3 is going to be "roughly on par" with the 360.

I don't see what you wrote as a disagreement with what I wrote, unless 5% is a major difference for you. My argument was that we should assume that they're about equal as gaming systems... which appears to be your argument as well.

Could you clarify?


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 2, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I hate to sound repetitive here, but this just isn't so, and the specs that lay this out have been public for a long time.
> 
> The Cell (PS3 CPU) and Xenon (Xbox 360 CPU) are very, very similar in terms of capabilities. This shouldn't surprise anyone. Their CPUs are made by the same company (IBM), on the same process (IBM Microelctronics' 90nm), and all three of the Xenon's cores are almost identical to the main core in the Cell (Xenon has more cache and a few extra features; Cell has 7 sub-cores that are less powerful/more specialized).
> 
> ...



I guess thats where we but heads. IF you're only looking at cpu speed you're kinda putting it into the same basket as a lot of processer. The thing that makes the cell predictions so much more positive is the architecture of the cpu and its functionality with higher end graphics processors. For programmers, that 5 percent is going to make the difference in realism and control. 

As for only being 5 percent better, 5 percent is a lot in the normal consumers mind. Most consumers only care about better ,no matter how much it is. The cell cpus are just more capable than the 360 and even if its only 5 or , 10 percent, its enough of a marketing push to increase sales. 

Plus we're talking about home entertainement machine. Whom better for the consumer to trust with home entertainment than sony, whom has decades of experience at creating home entertainment compoenents.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 2, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Isn't sony's new ps3 suppose to have equiopped tivo too? I know they were marketing for a home entertainment center.



If a TiVo-like ability was part of their plan then it would have been mentioned at E3 as a selling point.  And with only a 100gb Hard Drive it would be a mistake as that wouldn't record much HiDef content.  And HD is where Sony will make their money on the PS3 until a price drop, which will happen just as soon as BR becomes cheaper to make.  It wouldn't surprise me to have the PS3 be in the $250 range by the end of it's 6-7 year life (if history is any indicator).


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 2, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> Chuck, I'm not sure why you chose to write "except" there when what I said that the PS3 is going to be "roughly on par" with the 360.
> 
> I don't see what you wrote as a disagreement with what I wrote, unless 5% is a major difference for you. My argument was that we should assume that they're about equal as gaming systems... which appears to be your argument as well.
> 
> Could you clarify?





I think he meant to quote DonTadow's "far more powerful". 5% isn't "far" to most folks.

The real thing is, will the user be able to tell the difference from a casual glance.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 2, 2006)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> I thought I read the Wii comes with four controllers.



Link it up, bro.    You may be thinking that it will have 4 controller ports rather than actual controllers in the box - but I could be wrong.

That would be a mistake by Nintendo, BTW.  Controllers are easy money for console manufacturers.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 2, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Sony is banking on that, and they're going to be wrong.
> 
> Look, you guys can tell me 500 bucks isnt that much money all you want.



It's butt-load, actually.  But not if you want the latest and best games.  The bottom line is that the initial price for the PS3 is aimed at the overspending HD market.  If you don't already have a HD video setup + a digital audio setup there is no reason to get a PS3 at launch.  Those in that camp would be silly to pay that much for a launch system.

But down the line when the price drops and the games are must-have, then it's time to plunk down whatever they are selling the thing for.  It's all about game selection.  Even if Sony drops a bit in terms of exclusives compared to the last 2 gens it will still be a must-have system - just like owning a 360 will be (I hope) down the line.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 2, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> So I don't think the "it's an entertainment center" line is going to sell them that many more units. They're making a console gaming system. I don't believe (and again, feel free to disagree) that many people are going to get the PS3 and supplant their existing digital recorders with what the PS3 offers.



For the entertainment center point, I agree completely (as I do with the rest of your post).  However, you can't discount...


			
				takyris said:
			
		

> So, short version, Tacky thinks:
> 
> - Some people will buy the PS3 because they have a whole lotta free income.
> - Some people will buy the PS3 because they are strict Sony fans (which includes liking games that are only available on Sony systems)
> - Very few people will buy the PS3 because of the non-console features it offers



... the Blu-Ray player.  It won't be like the DVD player on the PS2, which for much of the Japanese market is what sold-out the system for over a year because it was cheaper.  But since BR & HD-DVD players are so scare (and selling-out all over the place) geeks will be much more willing to plunk down the dollars on a $600 player that also plays the newest games.  For me, that is a huge selling point and may push me to get one at launch if there are a few games that interest me.  I haven't gotten a system at launch since the Gamecube (oops).

Bottom line- new HD tech sells like crazy and companies can afford to charge high prices for it.  Check out the $250 HD recievers that do nothing but make your TV able to get a HD signal.  People have been paying those prices for years.

I'll say it again - this is a genius move by Sony.  The PS3 will sell-out at $500-600 and then they can start dropping the price before the holidays in 2007 which is probably when we'll start getting consistantly good PS3 games (I'm not expecting much from the launch).


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 2, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Plus we're talking about home entertainement machine. Whom better for the consumer to trust with home entertainment than sony, whom has decades of experience at creating home entertainment compoenents.



I think you can drop the TiVo-in-PS3 arguement, man.  Even if it does happen, it will be an inferior product.  If you want to talk about non-gaming extras look at what is confirmed and on board: Blu-Ray player.  Seriously, that's a much bigger deal because it's newer tech and makes a set-up look even better because of the increased picture quality.  HDTV owners aren't looking to watch SD TV shows on their HD set.  We want the good stuff.


----------



## Grog (Aug 2, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> But $600 bucks for something that does NOTHING ELSE but play games, plus 80 bucks a pop for the games themselves is simply out of my games budget.




$80 PS3 games is nothing more than a wild, unsourced rumor. Please don't talk about it like it's confirmed fact.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 2, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> $80 PS3 games is nothing more than a wild, unsourced rumor. Please don't talk about it like it's confirmed fact.



 Good point.  If they are more than $65-70, that would be a mistake.  Unless it's a SE.  I don't think Sony is that dumb.  I'm expecting 360 prices.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 2, 2006)

Grog said:
			
		

> $80 PS3 games is nothing more than a wild, unsourced rumor. Please don't talk about it like it's confirmed fact.




Well as a subscriber to PSM magazine, there's articles in there with industry insiders saying they thing $80 dollars is likely, and Sony executives responding by saying "well they won't cost 100 bucks".

I stand by my statement. If I am wrong I will be PLEASANTLY surprised, but I will be surprised. 

Chuck


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 2, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well as a subscriber to PSM magazine, there's articles in there with industry insiders saying they thing $80 dollars is likely, and Sony executives responding by saying "well they won't cost 100 bucks".
> 
> I stand by my statement. If I am wrong I will be PLEASANTLY surprised, but I will be surprised.



It's okay to stand by a statement based on pure rumor but look at it logically: why would the games be that much?  The BR movies aren't costing an extra $20 compared to DVDs.  Actually, the prices are pretty close to DVD prices (under $25-30).  Plus, the buy-in rate from consumers goes WAY down at the prices for individual products go up.  There is no way people will stand for a $80 version of Madden vs the 360's $60 version.  It just doesn't make any sense.  Sony would be killing themselves.

To assume these rumors are correct is making a huge leap and expecting the pure worst.  PSM rumors are one thing and Sony staying mum is another.  It certainly doesn't equal games that won't sell at that price.  I certainly won't be buying $80 games.  The price premium is ALWAYS on hardware, not what you stick in the machine.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 2, 2006)

Well the Electronic Arts executive who said he thought $80 dollars wasnt unreasonable was saying they DID cost more to make for the PS3.

I know everyone would like to just assume Im pulling this stuff out of my ***.

Feel free.

When I read an EA exec say "80 bucks" and a Sony executive respond "well they won't be 100 bucks I can tell you that", that doesnt seem to me that they're that far off.

Im going by what SONY IS SAYING. 

Sorry if you guys dont like it.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 2, 2006)

This is Sony:



> I don't think consumers expect software pricing to suddenly double," he continued. "So, the quick answer is that we want to make it as affordable as possible, knowing that there is a set consumer expectation for what software has cost for the past twelve years. That's kind of the best answer I can give you. So, if it becomes a bit higher than $59, don't ding me, but, again, I don't expect it to be $100."




http://news.spong.com/article/10311?cb=627


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 2, 2006)

> "At its autumn games preview on July 13, for instance, traditional Sony ally Electronic Arts spent far more time showing off innovative Nintendo games than it did titles for the PS3," emphasized BusinessWeek. "EA announced six Nintendo Wii launch titles and showed long working demos for two of those. But it offered only a short clip of a car-racing game for PS3. EA says it's still testing the potential of the PS3."




http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13291


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 2, 2006)

So according to your quote (and proof), a bit over $60 is $80?  I read that as maybe some games being $65, possibly $70 with SE's.  A bit, to me, doesn't mean 30% more than what the market is currently.  A bit is 10%, or less which may mean the games could be $5 more.  Not $20.

And for the record, I never said you were pulling these rumors out of your hind parts.  I said that you are basing opinion off rumors and nothing more.  Which basically accounts to nothing solid and all is speculation at this point.  As usual, the "something" is trumping the resounding nothing we are hearing about the pricing of PS3 games.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 2, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13291



 Old news.  Doesn't mean diddly.  We all know the good stuff won't hit until at least 8 months after the PS3 launches.

This is only news if EA won't be supporting the PS3 at all.


----------



## takyris (Aug 2, 2006)

Chuck: Clarification on your quote of me?

John: I don't discount the Blu-Ray stuff, but I'm cautious. Maybe I've only just heard the bad press that suggests that they still haven't gotten it working. If it comes out and it's beautiful and it works, then that will definitely drive some people to the PS3.

One easy explanation for the difference in pricing would be that EA and other companies are working with Sony's stuff and taking a good hard look at the price-to-improvement ratio. It might be (and I have NO INFORMATION on this, this is all me making this stuff up) that:

EA can take a racing game for the 360, port it over to the PS3 without really taking advantage of the PS3's strong points, and have a decent-but-not-exceptional port... and make a profit by selling the game at $60.

OR

EA can take a racing game for the 360, port it over to the PS3 with a bunch of code-rewriting to take advantage of the PS3's strong points, and have a port that shows off everything the PS3 can do that the 360 can't... but it's only profitable if they sell it for $80.

If I were EA, and I had data along those lines, I'd be looking really hard at that data, and then at my focus testing, and then back at the data some more. How much better does it look, and how much more are people willing to pay? Do we go all-out on a couple of games to show how awesome the PS3 can be, sell that game at a loss to bring more people into the PS3 fold, and then do simple cheap ports on a bunch of other games to make a big profit in the long run? Do we do almost all our games as full-advantage ports and sell them all at high prices while blitzing the airwaves with a "Clearly Better" quality ad campaign that, yeah, will have some backlash, but will also hit home the fact that, more expensive or not, PS3 stuff DOES look better? What makes us the most money in the long run?

When they say that they're exploring possibilities, that's likely some of what they mean, along with a bunch of other money matters that are way over my head. There are a lot of people who are going to decide how much these games cost.


----------



## reanjr (Aug 2, 2006)

I've always heard that for major titles (and how many of EA's games are NOT major titles) the advertisement costs dwarf the development costs.  Add to that the ability to use all the same design and artwork, and you're left with a cheap port even if you do update it for PS3.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 2, 2006)

Taky:  I like your second OR.  

I *would* pay a premium for a higher quality version of a game.  However, that typically hasn't been the industry's or EA's standard if we are talking historically.  I would love to have better versions of the same game on the new consoles instead of the usual ports - which are typically easy to figure out based on controller configs.

But, I don't think EA is that savvy.  I hope I'm wrong and your second point comes to be truth, or at least close to it.


----------



## reanjr (Aug 2, 2006)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> 20% less. That's just how the math works.  Doesn't affect your point, I'm just nitpicking, sorry.




You have never been in marketing...


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 2, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> So according to your quote (and proof), a bit over $60 is $80?  I read that as maybe some games being $65, possibly $70 with SE's.  A bit, to me, doesn't mean 30% more than what the market is currently.  A bit is 10%, or less which may mean the games could be $5 more.  Not $20.
> 
> And for the record, I never said you were pulling these rumors out of your hind parts.  I said that you are basing opinion off rumors and nothing more.  Which basically accounts to nothing solid and all is speculation at this point.  As usual, the "something" is trumping the resounding nothing we are hearing about the pricing of PS3 games.




Again, in the PSM article I was quoting, they had that Sony quote alongside and EA exec saying 80.

When you have 1 exec saying 80 and the other one saying "it wont be 100", I read that as saying "80".

And again, I hope Im wrong.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 2, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Again, in the PSM article I was quoting, they had that Sony quote alongside and EA exec saying 80.
> 
> When you have 1 exec saying 80 and the other one saying "it wont be 100", I read that as saying "80".
> 
> And again, I hope Im wrong.



 Dude - PSM?  Seriously.  No name attached?  When has a no-name quote ever meant anything?  PSM (and all like mags/sites) are trying to bring up a little controversy, that's all.  There is no proof there of anything.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 2, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> Chuck: Clarification on your quote of me?
> 
> John: I don't discount the Blu-Ray stuff, but I'm cautious. Maybe I've only just heard the bad press that suggests that they still haven't gotten it working. If it comes out and it's beautiful and it works, then that will definitely drive some people to the PS3.
> 
> ...




I think both of these are pretty good possibilities taky. I do remember from that same article an exec saying the PS3 games looked better but they werent sure it was worth the expense to MAKE THEM look as good as they could. 

Which goes right in hand with what you're surmising above.


----------



## Grog (Aug 2, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> One easy explanation for the difference in pricing would be that EA and other companies are working with Sony's stuff and taking a good hard look at the price-to-improvement ratio. It might be (and I have NO INFORMATION on this, this is all me making this stuff up) that:
> 
> EA can take a racing game for the 360, port it over to the PS3 without really taking advantage of the PS3's strong points, and have a decent-but-not-exceptional port... and make a profit by selling the game at $60.
> 
> ...




The problem with this analysis is that game costs aren't based on development costs. They're based on market forces - what consumers are willing and able to pay for them. Don't you think that if EA could get away with selling games for $80, they would, regardless of how much they cost to develop?

The reason game companies aren't selling games for $80 (and won't be selling games for $80) is that they'd lose too many sales, resulting in lower profits. An increase from $60 to $80 would be a one-third increase in price, which would give compaines a one-third increase in profit per game. However, if they hiked the prices to $80, their sales would drop by more than one-third, meaning they would lose money. And the game companies know this - they spend millions of dollars on market research to find these things out.

I'm quite certain that Final Fantasy X cost Square a LOT more money to develop than The Bouncer did. Yet they didn't sell FFX for a higher price than The Bouncer. They sold for the same price, because that was the ideal price point for video games.

This is why games with high development costs are such a big risk for companies - because they *can't* recoup the cost by selling the game for a higher price. They have to hope that the game will sell lots of copies, thereby generating enough revenue to pay the development costs and turn a profit.

And this is why we won't see $80 PS3 games - because the market won't support a price point that high, and Sony and their developers know this.


----------



## Grog (Aug 2, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Dude - PSM?  Seriously.  No name attached?  When has a no-name quote ever meant anything?




Exactly. It's an unsourced rumor. It has just as much credibility as if I'd heard it from the guy behind the counter at my local Quick Stop - i.e., none.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Aug 2, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Link it up, bro.    You may be thinking that it will have 4 controller ports rather than actual controllers in the box - but I could be wrong.



I can't find anything mentioning it at all, now. I know it has 4 'classic gamecube ports' (the wireless controllers don't need ports), but for some reason I was under the impression that there'd be more than one controller. Which made me think, "... Which makes the pricetag of $250 even more amazing..."

But, I'm probably wrong. I remember my SNES coming with two controllers. 


			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> That would be a mistake by Nintendo, BTW.  Controllers are easy money for console manufacturers.



 Though, that I can use Gamecube controllers with the Wii means spending less on extra controllers, anyway.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Aug 2, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> You have never been in marketing...



 They dont' use math in marketing?


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 2, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I haven't gotten a system at launch since the Gamecube (oops).



[Nelson] Ha Ha! [/Nelson]


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 2, 2006)

For those of us whom remember the Nintendo. Nintendo used to routinely have game cartridges that cost 60 to 90 dollars, especially if you were addicted to RPGs like I was. Final Fantasy 3 cost me 90 dollars. I sold my school's first homecoming tickets, faked strep throat to my girlfriend and stayed home all week to play it. ...sure half of the tickets weren't mine to sell but thats a whole nother story


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 2, 2006)

I remember somebody stole my $80 Chrono Trigger. And, I went out and bought another one!

But, that was Chrono Trigger.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Aug 2, 2006)

You got ripped off DonTadow... Final Fantasy 3 cost $50-$60, tops. And I remember that being extraordinarily high at the time. Most games went for around $40.

EDIT: And, FF3 and Chrono Trigger were the same price (and, arguably, the two best RPGs ever).


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 2, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> For those of us whom remember the Nintendo. Nintendo used to routinely have game cartridges that cost 60 to 90 dollars, especially if you were addicted to RPGs like I was. Final Fantasy 3 cost me 90 dollars. I sold my school's first homecoming tickets, faked strep throat to my girlfriend and stayed home all week to play it. ...sure half of the tickets weren't mine to sell but thats a whole nother story



Ah, the good 'ol days!  

I wouldn't say "routinely" is accurate, but it's close.  The big RPGs for the SNES & Genesis were easily more than $60 in my area.  Why?  Because the local EB would only get in a few copies, most which were probably purchased by employees at cost/discount leaving only 1-2 copies for the public.  I had a deal with the owner to pre-buy but I do recall FF3 costing me $75.  Chrono wasn't that much for me because I didn't get it at launch, I bought it at at out-of-business Nobody Beats the Wiz for like $40.

... good times.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 2, 2006)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> You got ripped off DonTadow... Final Fantasy 3 cost $50-$60, tops. And I remember that being extraordinarily high at the time. Most games went for around $40.
> 
> EDIT: And, FF3 and Chrono Trigger were the same price (and, arguably, the two best RPGs ever).



Yeah, the MSRP was between $50-60 but as I said in my previous post there were parts of the states where normal gamers got ripped off due to stores setting their own prices because they could.  I know Don and myself aren't the only ones.  Most of the people in New England faced similar problems with game shortages & rip-off prices.  Then again, carts did cost a bit more overall near the end of that era.

For me, it was FF3 & Phantasy Star II that were the killers.  PSII cost me $80 - at a Toys R Us of all places!


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 2, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I remember somebody stole my $80 Chrono Trigger. And, I went out and bought another one!
> 
> But, that was Chrono Trigger.



Same thing happened to me and Final Fantasy II (75$), except the person who stole it was my locker mate/best friend. I was going to trade him ff for madden and we kept the games in our locker. He set his cousin to go into our locker take both games and claim they were stolen. How he remained my best friend for four years after that is beyond me. 

Of course, back to subject. I remembered paying (actually my mom saying she paid) 80 bucks for the first Ultima. I believe the high cost of the RPGs they claimed was because of the battery needed to save the games. 

Regardless, that was the early 90s and people were willing to pay that much for games then, and we were all kids then. 

PLus, before cds games did cost anywhere between 55 to 65 bucks (none rpgs). CDs and DVDs drove down the costs. But we were still willing to pay higher costs for those games. Now that the average gamer is in his late 20s we can afford it even more without begging mom.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 9, 2006)

So is anyone but me seeing the PS3 as a good way to double their money?  Pre-order it as soon as stores start taking pre-orders, and then Ebay it for $1200 when it comes ou and their are shortages going into December?  I figure the $1200 is conservative since the Xbox 360 sold for that on Ebay and the PS3's base cost is so much higher to begin with.

Is anyone but me considering this or would it be foolish?  Bearing in mind that I want to buy one for myself somewhere down the line so getting stuck with it wouldn't be the end of the world either.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 9, 2006)

Shalimar said:
			
		

> So is anyone but me seeing the PS3 as a good way to double their money?  Pre-order it as soon as stores start taking pre-orders, and then Ebay it for $1200 when it comes ou and their are shortages going into December?  I figure the $1200 is conservative since the Xbox 360 sold for that on Ebay and the PS3's base cost is so much higher to begin with.
> 
> Is anyone but me considering this or would it be foolish?  Bearing in mind that I want to buy one for myself somewhere down the line so getting stuck with it wouldn't be the end of the world either.




Buy two, sell one for double. Then you have a free PS3...

Really, I wouldn't even worry about being "stuck" with it, I'm sure you'll get your money back during the initial rush, it's just the profit that's "open". The real problem being pre-sells being shall we say "less than reliable", you don't want to get it way too late and no one's buying. Plus the package deals they do sometimes.


----------



## reanjr (Aug 12, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> For those of us whom remember the Nintendo. Nintendo used to routinely have game cartridges that cost 60 to 90 dollars, especially if you were addicted to RPGs like I was. Final Fantasy 3 cost me 90 dollars. I sold my school's first homecoming tickets, faked strep throat to my girlfriend and stayed home all week to play it. ...sure half of the tickets weren't mine to sell but thats a whole nother story




You must shop at the wrong stores.  Alot of times if a game sells out right away, specialty shops will sell a game for much more because they can.  GameStop is known for this.  When Mario 64 came out, they were selling it for $90 just because they could.

I can almost assure you no standard cartridge for a Nintendo system ever MSRPd above $60.  I don't even think they got that high.  I think $50 was about max.


----------



## reanjr (Aug 12, 2006)

Shalimar said:
			
		

> Is anyone but me considering this or would it be foolish?  Bearing in mind that I want to buy one for myself somewhere down the line so getting stuck with it wouldn't be the end of the world either.




Hard to say.  Sony has assured the media that they will have a much larger number of units than 360 did at launch and before Christmas.  Also, the higher price tag and the fact that it is not that impressive compared to existing options (360) might keep it in stores.

Even if there are enough to go around, you might find regional shortages that could make EBaying it profitable, but I certainly wouldn't be willing to invest that kind of money in a market plenty of people are already thinking of investing in after they saw the profits people got off of 360s.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 25, 2006)

*Industry Analyst DFC says Sony could become third largest console distributor*

News from an industry analysis firm:



> DFC begins by saying that Sony is currently the "king of the video game market," but with the PlayStation 3, it is clear that Sony is "handing its competitors a golden opportunity." The firm believes that the premium PS3's $600 price tag will put off potential consumers, hurting the overall gaming market and possibly putting Sony dead last in terms of installed user base.
> 
> It's not just the launch price that DFC believes could hurt Sony. Sony CEO Ken Kutaragi has gone on record as saying that the PS3 is more like a computer than just a gaming console, and, according to DFC, could see upgrades such as a writable Blu-ray drive or improvement to the system's memory.
> 
> ...




Original here: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6154256.html


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 25, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> News from an industry analysis firm:
> 
> 
> 
> Original here: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6154256.html



 That article is laughable, really.

There is so much assumption going on based on side-quotes that it actually crosses the line into pure speculation and not news.  Upgradable hardware?  The Wii being the best selling console?  That and its huge lineup of games.  In short, it's just like every other "news" article about the new consoles and the "winners and losers".  

Useless.

But fun.


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 25, 2006)

Yeah, that article is silly. That comment by the Sony guy was referring to being able to upgrade the hard drive (it's a standard laptop SATA hard drive).  Which will be useful if you want to turn it into a media center (presuming it has the video/audio/picture abilities of the PSP).

MS's the one with upgrades - having the HD-DVD drive optional for $200 and having models of the 360 with and w/o the hard drive.  

The Wii has the hype behind it, but so far, the graphics of the games I've seen look pretty bad. The best look about original Xbox quality (which admittedly can be very good), the worse, well, look worse than the DS.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 25, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> That article is laughable, really.
> 
> There is so much assumption going on based on side-quotes that it actually crosses the line into pure speculation and not news.  Upgradable hardware?  The Wii being the best selling console?  That and its huge lineup of games.  In short, it's just like every other "news" article about the new consoles and the "winners and losers".
> 
> ...




Except that the article is based on statements the president of Sony made at E3.

Chuck


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 25, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Yeah, that article is silly. That comment by the Sony guy was referring to being able to upgrade the hard drive (it's a standard laptop SATA hard drive).  Which will be useful if you want to turn it into a media center (presuming it has the video/audio/picture abilities of the PSP).
> 
> MS's the one with upgrades - having the HD-DVD drive optional for $200 and having models of the 360 with and w/o the hard drive.
> 
> The Wii has the hype behind it, but so far, the graphics of the games I've seen look pretty bad. The best look about original Xbox quality (which admittedly can be very good), the worse, well, look worse than the DS.




Wii has "hype" because, wait for this, its games ACTUALLY IMPRESSED PEOPLE WHO PLAYED THEM AT E3.

Sony's did not and the Sony people made one arrogant comment after another.

But hey, what is the word of industry analysts who have PLAYED GAMES for these consoles and the executives of Sony when compared with you guys and your conventional wisdom.



> Sony is handing its competitors a golden opportunity" with its high-priced PlayStation 3.




Here's something else he says, which is basically what I have been saying all along. When you price your product 100 and several hundred dollars more than your competitors, you better deliver something to justify that price.

PS3 hasn't, and I'm not sure why everyone acts like I'm dumb for saying so. 

Chuck


----------



## drothgery (Aug 25, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Here's something else he says, which is basically what I have been saying all along. When you price your product 100 and several hundred dollars more than your competitors, you better deliver something to justify that price.
> 
> PS3 hasn't, and I'm not sure why everyone acts like I'm dumb for saying so.




I don't know, either. But I don't see why so many people are convinced the PS3 must be a significantly better game machine than the 360, either; there's absolutely no technical justification for that argument.

But I think the console industry seems to replaying several software industries, where other companies by a combination of arrogance and stupidity, handed their market to Microsoft, mostly because the guys in Redmond avoided fatal mistakes.

In other news, a major financial analyst firm casts major doubts on how many PS3s Sony will be able to ship...
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060824-7588.html

One commenter noted that if their estimate, rather than Sony's is correct, MS will hit 20 million 360s before Sony hits 5 million PS3s, and that would effectively end this generation of the console wars except perhaps in Japan.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 25, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Except that the article is based on statements the president of Sony made at E3.
> 
> Chuck



 Sure, but there were no real specifics mentioned with his comments about upgrades for the PS3 it and it was a throw away comment not something that deserves a headline or even real attention.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 26, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Sure, but there were no real specifics mentioned with his comments about upgrades for the PS3 it and it was a throw away comment not something that deserves a headline or even real attention.




The reason it's worth attention because, as the article states, the competition is too good for the PS3 to stay priced significantly above it's competition, so a year after it's launch, the price for the PS3 needs to come WAY down. 

If the console is being upgraded regularly, then the price won't drop. 

Again, the point is, if you're priced significantly higher than your competition, you need to deliver a MUCH better product (which the PS3 doesn't seem to do).

Sony is basically taking what was always a product for the masses (blue collar folks like me) and turning it into a high-end item. 

With a 100 dollar price difference, that's like getting a couple of free games with the X-box. 

Now if what the analysts are saying is true, the the PS3's games are going to be more expensive than X-box's, and the price of the hardware won't come down, how could they not be poised to lose a big market share?

Because they're Sony? And consoles stay on top forever? That isn't what's happened in the industry during my lifetime. Remember when Sega was king?

I'm really not against Sony. I bought the PS and the PS2 at launch and think they're fine products. But I'm not consumed with blind loyalty either and I don't think many people are.

For me to buy a PS3 at these prices, it would have to have to sweetest selection of EXCLUSIVE (not on the X-box) launch games in history or significantly better graphics. 

It doesn't seem poised to have either one.

Chuck


----------



## TwistedBishop (Aug 26, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Wii has "hype" because, wait for this, its games ACTUALLY IMPRESSED PEOPLE WHO PLAYED THEM AT E3.





I got the exact opposite impression from the various E3 related podcasts.  People were keen on the hardware but the software always garnered a tepid response.  Zelda, Metroid, Red Steel, Wii Sports and the orchestra game -- all were griped about either due to poor controls or bad game design.  Were there other games getting lots of praise?


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 26, 2006)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> I got the exact opposite impression from the various E3 related podcasts.  People were keen on the hardware but the software always garnered a tepid response.  Zelda, Metroid, Red Steel, Wii Sports and the orchestra game -- all were griped about either due to poor controls or bad game design.  Were there other games getting lots of praise?




I know the guys at gamespot gave Wii high marks at E-3 and are very impressed by X-box marketplace. The only comments I hear about or from Sony are arrogant as hell.

The Wii actually has me intrigued, despite not caring about the weird controller and despite it having the worst name ever. 

I actually like party games and a new Zelda is a nice prospect.

Here's a column that's pretty representative of what I've read about the Wii so far:



> Legend of Zelda looks very good. Link is grown up and has all his classic toys. The game is quite Wiimote intensive but not quite to the extent some might be hoping. Actions such as aiming the bow and arrow (and other tools, including the boomerang) and fishing are all controlled by the Wiimote. Sword fighting, however, is a bit more traditional. Whipping the nunchuck controller around can unleash special moves such as Link's spin attack or a shield-bashing finishing move, but generally his sword swings are controlled by the push of a button. In the end, this isn't such a bad thing; considering how often Link uses his sword, I'd be developing carpal tunnel syndrome before I completed the second dungeon. Legend of Zelda looks like it's shaping up to be a great game, but you won't be swinging Link's sword yourself.
> 
> Red Steel is a different story. The game completely relies on the Wiimote. Guns are aimed and swords are swung with the Wiimote, and even actions such as opening doors require a gentle shake of the nunchuck. The controls are a bit sensitive, but once I got used to them, I was gunning down Yakuza and cutting down kendo trainers with style. The game definitely proves that FPS games can work well on a console; the Wiimote-nunchuck configuration is the first console control scheme I've seen that comes anywhere near the control of a keyboard and mouse.
> 
> The Wii has a lot of potential, and I can definitely see the Wiimote taking off. It has a definite learning curve--traditional gamers can look forward to adjusting to the distinctly different control setup--but waving around the nunchucks gives a real sense of action in Wii games and adds a whole new dimension of control. It's not quite to the point of virtual reality, but it's an immersive system that will let gamers feel even closer to the games they play.




http://reviews.cnet.com/4331-12331-6524584.html

And another:



> Nintendo: Look, I think Nintendo had a spectacular show, and I had a lot of fun trying out the Wii. That doesn't mean the system's perfect, though. The company had a golden opportunity to pull the rug out from under Sony by announcing a much lower price point, but it lost it. The system, while enjoyable, had some faults. It says something that every Wii kiosk was manned by a Nintendo rep that had to painstakingly explain how to control their respective game. This control method's supposed to be simple? As enjoyable as The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess was, I couldn't help but think, "Man, this would be a lot more fun on the GameCube." Kudos to the company for putting on a good show with the DS Lite, though. Its first-party wares completely outshined the rather meager PSP offerings.




http://reviews.cnet.com/4331-12331_7-6526962.html?tag=blog

Chuck


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 29, 2006)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> I got the exact opposite impression from the various E3 related podcasts.  People were keen on the hardware but the software always garnered a tepid response.  Zelda, Metroid, Red Steel, Wii Sports and the orchestra game -- all were griped about either due to poor controls or bad game design.  Were there other games getting lots of praise?



Exactly so. Once the bleating Nintendoy "fanboys" were removed, the multiple comments coming out of E3 regarding the Wii can be summed up by at least one reporter's statement:

"Zelda Wii controls like ass."

Too many reports came out that cast serious concerns on the Wii's control issues.

As far as that "upgradeable" PS3 nonsense, all I heard from E3 reports was Katuragi's comment regarding the hard drive. The rest sounds like the those DFC folks "extrapolating".



			
				article said:
			
		

> and, according to DFC,



Sure guys. Whatever.

Nothing has been proven about such nonsensical ideas as "higher" PS3 game prices (which, actually, already exists for the 360 - we've already _long_ since covered that much earlier in this thread), instant death due to poor "launch" games (disproven on many console launches - and what's "launch" defined as, anyways? Day 1 games? Yeah, whatever. Talk to us in 6 months), and other such doom and gloom "news". And in any case, historically video game industry analysts have turned out to have a failing record in their predictions.



> PS3 hasn't, and I'm not sure why everyone acts like I'm dumb for saying so.



Everyone hasn't played it, nor seen the game lineup 6 months past Nov. 17, 2006.


----------



## takyris (Aug 29, 2006)

I had an interesting meeting today, where the higher-ups, in talking about what the company's long-term plans were, suggested that the PS3 wasn't necessarily as high a development priority for the company. The reason given was that upon release, Sony's new platforms are generally regarded as much more difficult to develop for, due to the lack of support resources (and the fact that a lot of the good dev information is in Japanese).

This isn't intended to be a broad sweeping categorical statement. If other people at game companies have information to the contrary, I'd of course love to hear it. But for company higher-ups to suggest that developing a game for the PS3 is a big ol' pain in the butt even when compared to developing a game for the 360 (which isn't a picnic) says some interesting stuff.

(And the higher-ups very specifically DIDN'T say anything about NOT EVER developing for the PS3. They just said that they were going to wait for the support to get stronger -- let a few other people go up that ladder first.)

Food for thought.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 29, 2006)

I just messed around with the Wii controller the other day, and I'm pretty damn impressed. I strongly suspect that Wii games are going to be a little bit like D&D's prestige classes -- the first couple will be sloppy, and then they're going to get pretty cool as people figure out what they can do with the tools available. The 'nunchaku' control has a ton of potential, but not everyone will seize it when trying to port games.

The Wii will reportedly retail at $170-something, less than $200. Nintendo's strategy looks to be that people will own both the Wii and either an x-Box or Sony.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 29, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> The Wii will reportedly retail at $170-something, less than $200. Nintendo's strategy looks to be that people will own both the Wii and either an x-Box or Sony.



I think you'll also get plenty of folks that buy a Wii on the idea of getting the 360 or PS3 later, given the pricing.

Who knows though, even this time next year, we won't have a clear idea.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 30, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I just messed around with the Wii controller the other day, and I'm pretty damn impressed. I strongly suspect that Wii games are going to be a little bit like D&D's prestige classes -- the first couple will be sloppy, and then they're going to get pretty cool as people figure out what they can do with the tools available. The 'nunchaku' control has a ton of potential, but not everyone will seize it when trying to port games.
> 
> The Wii will reportedly retail at $170-something, less than $200. Nintendo's strategy looks to be that people will own both the Wii and either an x-Box or Sony.



 I hope that some non-first party games are worth getting for it.  I'm not worried about the Marios, Zeldas, Metroids and such.  It's most of the other stuff that has been lacking for 2 generations of Nintendo consoles.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 30, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> I had an interesting meeting today, where the higher-ups, in talking about what the company's long-term plans were, suggested that the PS3 wasn't necessarily as high a development priority for the company. The reason given was that upon release, Sony's new platforms are generally regarded as much more difficult to develop for, due to the lack of support resources (and the fact that a lot of the good dev information is in Japanese).
> 
> This isn't intended to be a broad sweeping categorical statement. If other people at game companies have information to the contrary, I'd of course love to hear it. But for company higher-ups to suggest that developing a game for the PS3 is a big ol' pain in the butt even when compared to developing a game for the 360 (which isn't a picnic) says some interesting stuff.
> 
> ...



 That doesn't surprise me from Bioware.  They are PC-ish folks and the Xboxes are the closest thing.  And yeah, the Sony systems typically take longer to master but I think have more potential overall.  The later Xbox games didn't look too different compared to the stuff from the launch.  PS2 had a stunning difference as it got older with some games, even though it still struggled to look as good as any Xbox game.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 30, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Exactly so. Once the bleating Nintendoy "fanboys" were removed, the multiple comments coming out of E3 regarding the Wii can be summed up by at least one reporter's statement:
> 
> "Zelda Wii controls like ass."
> 
> Too many reports came out that cast serious concerns on the Wii's control issues.




And yet you have one. So all the positive reports are "bleating Nintendo fanboys" and the one "it controls like ass" is apparently the height of moderation. 

Im going by the comments by the entire GameSpot editorial staff, who all used the Wii controller and (for the most part) liked it, and are most certainly NOT bleating fanboys from what I've heard for Nintendo or anyone else. They had a lot of reservations about the controller.

Also, the fact that EA is talking about making a Madden edition (the best selling RPG of last year) *specifically* to take advantage of the Wii controller, and that Square Enix is working on a shooter called Red Steel for it, hoping for that game to be a Wii launch game, says that developers are at least a little intrigued by the controller's possibilities.

But please, continue to give us your fair and balanced accounts of how it "sucks ass".

Chuck


----------



## takyris (Aug 30, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> That doesn't surprise me from Bioware.  They are PC-ish folks and the Xboxes are the closest thing.  And yeah, the Sony systems typically take longer to master but I think have more potential overall.  The later Xbox games didn't look too different compared to the stuff from the launch.  PS2 had a stunning difference as it got older with some games, even though it still struggled to look as good as any Xbox game.




Actually, the quote in question came from our sister company, Pandemic, not from BioWare.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 30, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> Actually, the quote in question came from our sister company, Pandemic, not from BioWare.



 Ah, but they are all pretty much influenced by Bioware, right?  Could be my mistaken impressions.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 30, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I hope that some non-first party games are worth getting for it.  I'm not worried about the Marios, Zeldas, Metroids and such.  It's most of the other stuff that has been lacking for 2 generations of Nintendo consoles.




Square Enix is working on a shooter for it, Red Steel, and EA is doing a Madden port for it.

Chuck


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 30, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Im going by the comments by the entire GameSpot editorial staff, who all used the Wii controller and (for the most part) liked it, and are most certainly NOT bleating fanboys from what I've heard for Nintendo or anyone else. They had a lot of reservations about the controller.



I, too, tend to trust the Gamespot gents as they seem to be a pretty fair bunch.  It's promising that there is positive buzz for the system.  



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Also, the fact that EA is talking about making a Madden edition (the best selling RPG of last year) *specifically* to take advantage of the Wii controller, and that Square Enix is working on a shooter called Red Steel for it, hoping for that game to be a Wii launch game, says that developers are at least a little intrigued by the controller's possibilities.



I am not psyched (nor should anyone at this point) by anything with Square's name on it that that doesn't have to do with RPGs.  However, the custom Madden could be a huge deal if it delivers an experience that the other consoles can't.  I hope it delivers.

Devs would be fools to not try and make some cool games for the Wii.  But, if the install base is low, we won't see that innovation at all.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 30, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Square Enix is working on a shooter for it, Red Steel, and EA is doing a Madden port for it.
> 
> Chuck



 I've shared thoughts on each in my above thread but 2 games by major companies doesn't scream at me that the system is getting wide-spread support.  The fact is the both Sony and Microsoft have lists of games on tap that are certainly going to be very good.  And I'm not even looking at the names of the games.

The point is that both companies have healthy lists of games coming out and historically there is a good comparison between amount of games released and success of the system.  Sure, there are stinkers all over the place for the big consoles of each generation but that just further proves the point.

The Wii has some games on their list for sure but both competitor's lists are much longer and, without looking, Sony's list is probably still the longest but the 360 has games that are must haves,too.  So the whole - Wii + [360 or PS3] only theory is nice and maybe what the Big N shooting for but they better have the games.  Affordable is great but that doesn't sell systems.

Prices will drop far enough on both Microsoft's and Sony's systems to please people.  And it is a mistake to discount the HD crowd, which is growing all the time as the equipment becomes cheaper and cheaper.

Dang, it's a great time to be a gamer!  I loves me some options.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 30, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I've shared thoughts on each in my above thread but 2 games by major companies doesn't scream at me that the system is getting wide-spread support.  The fact is the both Sony and Microsoft have lists of games on tap that are certainly going to be very good.  And I'm not even looking at the names of the games.
> 
> The point is that both companies have healthy lists of games coming out and historically there is a good comparison between amount of games released and success of the system.  Sure, there are stinkers all over the place for the big consoles of each generation but that just further proves the point.
> 
> ...





Well, I don't think the Wii is in competition to the X-box or PS3. Totally different price structure and business model.

Nintendo has always kind of done its own thing, and been VERY profitable doing it. I know last year in one quarter that reportedly made something stupid like 980 million dollars. They are often more profitable than either X-box or PS 3 because they don't worry about being on the BLEEDING EDGE console wise, which means they actually make money on hardware AND software.

Sony and MS tend to sell the consoles at a loss and make it up in software.

Also about developers... I think nabbing EA and Square is pretty good. Both are highly respected developers and the Square Red Steel game looks interesting to me. 

Chuck


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 30, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well, I don't think the Wii is in competition to the X-box or PS3. Totally different price structure and business model.



For the most part, I agree.  However, it is a videogame console which makes it subject to the Golden Rule: if it has good games it is worth owning.  And being in the same industry does make people make a buying choice.  For me, if the Wii shows me nothing interesting at launch, I will get a PS3 instead.  I probably don't represent the majority but there is some competition when games are involved.  I won't be getting both at launch.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Nintendo has always kind of done its own thing, and been VERY profitable doing it.



 Yes, that's true but it's not because of anything to do with their consoles over the last 5 years.  The Gameboy and Pokemon is what supports Nintendo these days.  Without those, there would be no new Nintendo consoles.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> I know last year in one quarter that reportedly made something stupid like 980 million dollars. They are often more profitable than either X-box or PS 3 because they don't worry about being on the BLEEDING EDGE console wise, which means they actually make money on hardware AND software.



It also means a cummy selection of games with a few shining lights in comparison to its competition over the last 2 console cycles.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Also about developers... I think nabbing EA and Square is pretty good. Both are highly respected developers and the Square Red Steel game looks interesting to me.



No one "nabs" EA.  They are the biggest maker of videogames in the known universe and are bound to take a few stabs at Nintendo's new game machine.

As for Red Steel, it's not an RPG.  You can get hyped about the game it but history speaks differently about non-RPG games produced by Square.  A big deal would be to have FFXII or FFXIII exclusive to the Wii.  Squeenix has already released a game on a non-handheld Nintendo console recently and that game wasn't so hot.  It's safe to say the Sqeenix does two things and does them well:  numbered Final Fantasy games & Dragon Quest games.

But hey, I'll buy Red Steel if it's good.  I'm just not holding my breath.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 30, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Yes, that's true but it's not because of anything to do with their consoles over the last 5 years.  The Gameboy and Pokemon is what supports Nintendo these days.  Without those, there would be no new Nintendo consoles.




This is a common misconception I think. Yes the Game Boy is a monster, especially the Pokemon franchise, which was the #2 selling game of 2005, second to Madden 2005. But the Gamecube was soldily profitable and is still being modestly supported with some good games.

Again since it's not TEH SHINY it tends to get disregarded as the flashier systems do battle but the Gamecube has been successful enough on its own to merit the Wii.

Nintendo is not a huge corporation on the scale of MS or Sony (and please don't tell me they're big, I know this, just not on the same scale as MS or Sony). They can't afford to lose money on consoles. I don't think they would be against abandoning consoles for hand-held gaming if they weren't achieving their goals in the console market.

And again, I run into people, like you, all the time who miss what they're doing. I own a Gamecube, not for me, but for the kids. It's a cheap system, so if it were to get killed by Kool Aid I wouldn't need to lose my mind, it's durable as hell, so the 9yr old and her squaking brood can play party games and beat it like it stole something and it still works just fine.

It's a nice, solid economical system that's affordable and reliable, in part because it DOES NOT rush to the edge of what's possible.

I look for the Wii to step into that same niche as a nice upgrade to the GC, while still being affordable and durable.

Not every TV needs to be a 60 inch plasma to be successful and not every game system needs to be a flashy 600 dollar PS3 to be worth my money. 



> No one "nabs" EA.  They are the biggest maker of videogames in the known universe and are bound to take a few stabs at Nintendo's new game machine.




Right, but what you're missing is that this is a new port of the game. Madden has been on the Gamecube all along, with each year's game doing solid business there. It's my understanding that the Wii will still support the GC controller.

This means EA could have done a straight port using the standard interface for the GC controller. The fact that they are intrigued enough by the Wii wand controller to change the interface to take advantage of it says a lot to me about that controller being a GOOD controller. 



> As for Red Steel, it's not an RPG.  You can get hyped about the game it but history speaks differently about non-RPG games produced by Square.  A big deal would be to have FFXII or FFXIII exclusive to the Wii.  Squeenix has already released a game on a non-handheld Nintendo console recently and that game wasn't so hot.  It's safe to say the Sqeenix does two things and does them well:  numbered Final Fantasy games & Dragon Quest games.
> 
> But hey, I'll buy Red Steel if it's good.  I'm just not holding my breath.




Oh I'm aware of what it is, I call it a shooter above I think. But Square is still a solid company and the idea of the game, which sounds like it's a bit on the gritty side about a modern samurai who fights with gun and katana sounds very interesting to me.

Also, I believe Square is serving mostly as a distributor for Red Steel. It looks like from what I'm reading that Ubisoft (a company basically built around FPS design) is actually doing the game, just with some support from Square.

Chuck


----------



## takyris (Aug 30, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Ah, but they are all pretty much influenced by Bioware, right?  Could be my mistaken impressions.




What? No. Pandemic did Mercenaries and Star Wars Battlefront and Kill All Humans and, well, a lot of other stuff. They did all that stuff before the two companies merged (and it was a merger, not one buying the other).

And as the guys who did a bunch of cross-platform development, they're the ones saying, "We're probably pushing back our PS3 roll-outs. Not cancelling them, but pushing them back to wait for more support, after realizing what a pain in the butt the PS3 is to develop for."

I'm not saying it's the only viewpoint, and I'm not saying that they're never doing any PS3 stuff ever. But they're guys who make popular video games for a living, and that's what they're saying.

I'm trying to say this without exaggerating it into "No one will develop for the PS3", so please stop trying to turn it into "BioWare, which doesn't do the Playstation, won't do the Playstation 3, which isn't realy news." I did think that information relating to actual video game developers with a cross-platform development history including Sony platforms might be apropos.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 30, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> What? No. Pandemic did Mercenaries and Star Wars Battlefront and Kill All Humans and, well, a lot of other stuff. They did all that stuff before the two companies merged (and it was a merger, not one buying the other).
> 
> And as the guys who did a bunch of cross-platform development, they're the ones saying, "We're probably pushing back our PS3 roll-outs. Not cancelling them, but pushing them back to wait for more support, after realizing what a pain in the butt the PS3 is to develop for."
> 
> ...




Taky, could you tell if you know anything about how expensive it is to produce for PS3? What I'm hearing is that it will pretty signficantly expensive compared to other consoles. 

Chuck


----------



## takyris (Aug 30, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Taky, could you tell if you know anything about how expensive it is to produce for PS3? What I'm hearing is that it will pretty signficantly expensive compared to other consoles.
> 
> Chuck




That, I can confidently answer with, "Not a clue."  I'm a designer. They don't let me near the money.

My extrapolation is that if it's not supported as well as the 360, it takes more man-hours to get it done right, and more man-hours means more cost to the company. It *might* also be the case that developing for the 360 is closer to developing for the PC, which means that if you're developing for the 360 and the PC at the same time, you can use, well, not the same code, exactly, but some of the same methodologies. And with the PS3, you can't use as many, because it is, to use writing-ness, more-different-er. Which again means more man-hours, and thus more cost. Sort of like if you know Italian, it's easier to pick up Spanish than, say, Japanese. Except that it's not you trying to pick up a language -- it's a company telling you that the epic poem you wrote in Italian needs to be in haiku format by Friday. 

As a contrast to the stuff in posts previous, though, which is based on, well, statements by people in a position and with the credits to know what they're talking about, everything I wrote in the above paragraph is supposition. I'm not a good enough programmer to say that with any certainty *at all*.

I just write heartbreaking scenes of truth and beauty to fill up time between the fights.

EDIT: My project is currently only in very early production. If I can talk later about how things are going for my project on various platforms, if we end up going that way, I will definitely do so. Right now, both project and platforms-to-be-developed-for are undisclosed. (Which, I will note, makes it a *pain* to brag to your friends.)


----------



## ohGr (Aug 30, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> What? No. Pandemic did Mercenaries and Star Wars Battlefront and Kill All Humans and, well, a lot of other stuff. They did all that stuff before the two companies merged (and it was a merger, not one buying the other).
> 
> And as the guys who did a bunch of cross-platform development, they're the ones saying, "We're probably pushing back our PS3 roll-outs. Not cancelling them, but pushing them back to wait for more support, after realizing what a pain in the butt the PS3 is to develop for."
> 
> ...



This i find interesting; everything i've seen of Mercenaries 2 on various sites note that it's coming out for the PS3 but there has, thus far, been no indication of a 360 version that i'm aware of (admittedly, though, i haven't much kept up with news lately).  Given Pandemic's inveterate cross-platform develepmont, pretty much everyone believes a 360 version to be inevitable eventuality, however.  So i find this "pushing back PS3 development" thing, and it's ramifications on the development of Mercenaries 2, very interesting.


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 30, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> And yet you have one. So all the positive reports are "bleating Nintendo fanboys" and the one "it controls like ass" is apparently the height of moderation.



No, I have many, from multiple sources - though I did choose the most 'quotable' (read: funny) of the bunch. Certainly more than the postive statements by commentators with already known biases.

I have little fear of being 'extreme' - some people just simply don't like what they hear.



> Also, the fact that EA is talking about making a Madden edition (the best selling RPG of last year)



What? EA? Madden? RPG?



> and that Square Enix is working on a shooter called Red Steel for it,



You've said this multiple times, and I don't know what you're talking about. Ubisoft is working on Red Steel. The only thing Square Enix is doing for the Wii is some Dragon Quest spin-off (I'm really looking forward to seeing what it'll be).



> says that developers are at least a little intrigued by the controller's possibilities.



Absolutely - I should certainly hope so. No doubt the controller has some very intriguing possibilities, indeed. I, also, have no doubt that Nintendo will iron out any bugs before the launch date - they have a history of fixing and improving things in a very short amount of time. We'll see about the 3rd parties, however.



> But please, continue to give us your fair and balanced accounts



No problem. I shall continue to do so.



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> after realizing what a pain in the butt the PS3 is to develop for.



Do you know if there is any difference between now and what developers said about the PS2 in its early/pre-release days?


----------



## takyris (Aug 30, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Do you know if there is any difference between now and what developers said about the PS2 in its early/pre-release days?




I don't. The impression from what they said was that it wasn't totally unexpected -- that yeah, it was pretty much as bad as the PS2 had been. (Which means that they'll eventually suck it up and develop for it, but may wait for other people to blaze a trail first.) In the long run, that means that eventually people will develop stuff that hits all the strong points of the PS3, but that it might take a few years -- as, I understand, was the case with the PS2. With the PS3 being more expensive, a delay of a few years before you see really big improvements might be bad for Sony. Or it might just mean that the 360 is big for the next two to three years, and then the PS3 is big after that, with the two companies kind of taking turns being the guys with the best combination of cutting-edge and product selection. I dunno.

But that was the understanding of a non-programmer, so take that for what it's worth.

ohGr, I don't know what the specific plan is for Mercs 2 -- if they've already sunk enough time into it that they're moving ahead, or if they've gotten frustrated enough to change the plan. They didn't go into that much detail, and I'd probably be in for a polite butt-chewing-out if they DID, and I leaked that information.


----------



## Michael Morris (Aug 30, 2006)

$ony is making a critical mistake with the $600 pricetag. If they stay at that price tag Microsoft will hand them their butt - but not with the Xbox 360 -- rather it will be Windows Vista.  By the time the P$3 debuts entry level Vista machines will be running at the $600 (it will take them awhile to drop because Vista is a resource greedy little gremlin of an OS).

The problem with a $600 console in a $600 PC world (Hell, $500 PC world) is justification of the expense. It's far easier to justify the expense of the PC than the game machine.  Another problem is that if I'm going to commit $600 to a game machine why not $900? $1200?  PC's only start at that plateau, they as we all know go up from there.

Consoles are kiddie toys.  Yeah, they have adult games on them, but they still have the stigma of 'toy' attached.  You do not make your toy more expensive than the tools on the market.

Also, if the $100 / game price tag is true the PC will certainly kill the P$3.

(Note, I use $ instead of S for $ony in reference to the rootkit fiasco of last year. $ony was crimilnalliy negligent in this matter, owes the world an apology for deliberately attacking computer owners with the worst of viruses -- a rootkit -- and until such time as they do apologize I cannot and I will not endorse or purchase any product they make).


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 30, 2006)

Spoony Bard said:
			
		

> $ony ... Microsoft



What? No "$" for Microsoft? Heh. The irony.



> Consoles are kiddie toys.  Yeah, they have adult games on them, but they still have the stigma of 'toy' attached.  You do not make your toy more expensive than the tools on the market.



Even though the demographic and significant majority of users are all over 18 (and closer to 30)? The statistics don't agree with the supposed "stigma".



> Also, if the $100 / game price tag is true the PC will certainly kill the P$3.



It's not. Why are people still referring to this? It doesn't help the already heavy amount of misinformation in this thread. _Stop it_.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 30, 2006)

> Quote
> Also, if the $100 / game price tag is true the PC will certainly kill the P$3.
> 
> It's not. Why are people still referring to this? It doesn't help the already heavy amount of misinformation in this thread. Stop it.




But it does seem clear that PS3 games will be more expensive than X-Box 360 games for the same reason the console will be more expensive does it not? 

So it seems clear to me that the PS3 will be 100 dollars more expensive than a comparable X-Box 360 and that their games will be more expensive, probably 10-20 dollars. And there's no wiggle room on software. Manufacturers lose money on these cutting edge consoles, so the game MUST be priced to be profitable items. 

But even if the games are the exact same price, the console will be 100 dollars more, assuming MS does nothing (they could drop the price).  

If you are 100 dollars more expensive than your competition, then you had better be a MUCH better product or have a LOT of exclusive games. 

This is the point I started this thread with, and for all the blind PS loyalty people have thrown at me, no one has explained why this isn't so. 

People have this conventional wisdom pair of goggles on about this issue. The PS has always won so it will just keep on truckin. Sort of like Sega and the Dreamcast I guess.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 30, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Do you know if there is any difference between now and what developers said about the PS2 in its early/pre-release days?




The much-easier-to-code-for console that's been out for a year already is made by Microsoft (with about $40 billion in cash on hand), not Sega (which was nearly bankrupt), and there are no questions about whether or not Nintendo's going to make a current-gen non-portable console (there were a couple of years ago, but not anymore).



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> Or it might just mean that the 360 is big for the next two to three years, and then the PS3 is big after that, with the two companies kind of taking turns being the guys with the best combination of cutting-edge and product selection. I dunno.




The problem with this is timing. If the 360 owns the next 2-3 years, then the PS3 is just dead, period, because 3-4 years from now (3 if MS keeps up with the 4 year life cycle trend they started with Xbox->Xbox 360; 4 if they go with the more conventional 5 years) we'll see the third-generation Xbox, and Sony, which always tries to get at least 6 years out of a console before launching a successor, will have another 2 years (at least) before PS4.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 30, 2006)

Spoony Bard said:
			
		

> $ony is making a critical mistake with the $600 pricetag. If they stay at that price tag Microsoft will hand them their butt - but not with the Xbox 360 -- rather it will be Windows Vista.  By the time the P$3 debuts entry level Vista machines will be running at the $600 (it will take them awhile to drop because Vista is a resource greedy little gremlin of an OS).
> 
> The problem with a $600 console in a $600 PC world (Hell, $500 PC world) is justification of the expense. It's far easier to justify the expense of the PC than the game machine.  Another problem is that if I'm going to commit $600 to a game machine why not $900? $1200?  PC's only start at that plateau, they as we all know go up from there.
> 
> ...



Arnwyn already used up all my points relating to the particulars of your post, so I'll just say: Dude, it's all about the games.  All companies are jerks.  It's all about the games.  If their are good games on the PS3, it is worth having.  Bottom line.

Also, it's a PC world, but not a PC gaming world.  It's all about consoles and handhelds.  The PC is the domain of the MMORPG, FPS and RTS.  The rest of the genres are more or less absent.  The PC will always have its niche and that's a good thing.  But to compare Windows Vista to the PS3 is silly.  If history is any indicator, the PS3 will have a very strong selection of all kinds of games which can't be said about the PC.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 31, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> But it does seem clear that PS3 games will be more expensive than X-Box 360 games for the same reason the console will be more expensive does it not?



No, it doesn't.  If you are basing your opinion of this on internet articles, comments that contain no details from Sony folks and unnamed Devs, try this whopper out (first post, let it load):

http://www.hdtvarcade.com/hdtvforum/index.php?showtopic=6547&st=0



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> So it seems clear to me that the PS3 will be 100 dollars more expensive than a comparable X-Box 360 and that their games will be more expensive, probably 10-20 dollars. And there's no wiggle room on software. Manufacturers lose money on these cutting edge consoles, so the game MUST be priced to be profitable items.



Yup.  That's what has been going on for the last 2 consoles from both of the big companies.  That's not an indicator of game price increases.  History shows this to be true.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> But even if the games are the exact same price, the console will be 100 dollars more, assuming MS does nothing (they could drop the price).



 Not that big of an obsticle as you may think.  Would you like to place a wager right now on the PS3 selling out at launch or not followed by a shortage of systems that jacks eBay prices through the roof?

All that despite not having a single must-have exclusive.  Sounds like the PS2 & 360 to me.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> If you are 100 dollars more expensive than your competition, then you had better be a MUCH better product or have a LOT of exclusive games.



Exclusive games!  There you go.  Sony has that covered, historically speaking and even now.  Japanese devs will go to the PS3 first and that alone gives the PS3 games that will be exclusives.  



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> This is the point I started this thread with, and for all the blind PS loyalty people have thrown at me, no one has explained why this isn't so.



It's because your theory has holes in it.  Because a console costs more doesn't mean that the games will have to cost more.  There is no history for this happening.  If anything, game prices have gone down and only now with special editions and the 360 are the prices rising above the $50 price tag.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> People have this conventional wisdom pair of goggles on about this issue. The PS has always won so it will just keep on truckin. Sort of like Sega and the Dreamcast I guess.



Did you just compare a dead system to the most popular videogame system in the world, the PS2?  Sega owned that title for like a year during the Genesis days.  The only appropriate comparison is Nintendo's fall from the top.  When the N64/Gamecube stopped getting (or never had) a heathly selection of games in all genres that's when it lost market share.  The fact that Sony could wait until after the 360 came out to release the PS3 (even though they are releasing it early) is a huge benefit for them.  The PS2 is still the best selling console out there and it still has two must have exclusives coming out this year: FFXII & God of War II.  So, please don't try and use the Dreamcast's demise to predict the PS3's.  There is no comparison.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 31, 2006)

> No, it doesn't. If you are basing your opinion of this on internet articles, comments that contain no details from Sony folks and unnamed Devs, try this whopper out (first post, let it load):




Well, I was basing it on things Id read about the Blue Ray technology being more expensive. I'm happy to be proven wrong about this. 

For me, the fact that both consoles' games wont even look good on a non HD-TV means it's the PC and the Wii for me. I might splurge and get a HD-TV this Christmas, but that's clearly the next step.

Chuck


----------



## drothgery (Aug 31, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> The fact that Sony could wait until after the 360 came out to release the PS3 (even though they are releasing it early) is a huge benefit for them.




No, it's not. First to market doesn't always win, but it never hurts. And first to ten million (which will be the 360 this generation unless something crazy happens) _does_ always win. This may be the first exception, but I wouldn't bet on it.



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> The PS2 is still the best selling console out there and it still has two must have exclusives coming out this year: FFXII & God of War II.  So, please don't try and use the Dreamcast's demise to predict the PS3's.  There is no comparison.




There's not really a good analogy. I think the closest model is Nintendo going from SNES->N64, but that's a bit strained (where they were coming from market leadership, but their next-gen console was late, over-promised, and under-delivered, and so dropped from market leadership to a major niche player).

Nobody's been coming from a previous-gen position as strong as Sony's coming from since Nintendo in the NES days. And nobody's done as much to shoot themselves in the foot since Nintendo and Sega in the SNES/Genesis->N64/Saturn/PS1 transition. No major console maker has been in such bad shape financially since Sega around the Dreamcast launch (though Sega was in worse shape).


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 31, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> No, it's not. First to market doesn't always win, but it never hurts. And first to ten million (which will be the 360 this generation unless something crazy happens) _does_ always win. This may be the first exception, but I wouldn't bet on it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have to say, it's refreshing to see SOMEONE on this board agrees with me. When I read what analysts and tech writers for the newspapers are saying, they say a lot of the things I say but disagree with others.

On this board however, absolutely everyone has been acting like Im sort of a dummy for not falling right in line with Sony. 

Like they never make mistakes. Betamax anyone? 8-track tapes? Rootkits? 

Chuck


----------



## drothgery (Aug 31, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> On this board however, absolutely everyone has been acting like Im sort of a dummy for not falling right in line with Sony.




What I'd guess is going on here is that a lot of people are thinking "didn't most of the tech press and hardware geek types say the same thing about the PS2?" And there are definite parallels. Most of the tech press panned the hard-to-code-for PS2, and loved the clean, straightforward, gaming-focused Dreamcast, which had better games for years. And Sony destroyed Sega's hardware division with pure marketing muscle.

But the thing is that they aren't sitting on a PS1-led mountain of profits this time, and didn't spot a year to a nearly-bankrupt Sega with questions as to whether Nintendo was staying in the non-portable console game; they spotted a year to Microsoft with nearly $40 billion in the bank, and a Nintendo that's definitely in the non-portable console game business is launching at the same time. And the PS2 wasn't debuting at $600.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 31, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> No, it's not. First to market doesn't always win, but it never hurts. And first to ten million (which will be the 360 this generation unless something crazy happens) _does_ always win. This may be the first exception, but I wouldn't bet on it.



It is a huge monetary benefit and a direct result of the console having the best 3rd party support and a long successful life.  And the 10 million units is a fine benchmark but that company needs the full support of the gaming development community which Microsoft doesn't have as of yet.  



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> Nobody's been coming from a previous-gen position as strong as Sony's coming from since Nintendo in the NES days. And nobody's done as much to shoot themselves in the foot since Nintendo and Sega in the SNES/Genesis->N64/Saturn/PS1 transition. No major console maker has been in such bad shape financially since Sega around the Dreamcast launch (though Sega was in worse shape).



How does this effect the games we'll be getting for the PS3?  Sony has shot themselves in the foot?  The console isn't out yet so that statement is premature.

Perhaps I'm missing the point here but what is the big deal with all the Sony hate?  Did your PS2 launch a bottle rocket at your head?  The rumor mill is so huge because the console is a big deal.  It will be tops in Japan and at the very least have a slight edge over the 360 after both systems have their killer titles hit the stores.

So, the thing is $600?  Don't have HD and don't care?  $500.  That price is genius for Sony.  It won't stay there for longer than a year and if it does the system could be in trouble.  I've been waiting for these companies to wise up to the launch market tactics and release a major system at prices that people are paying for on ebay anyway.

And if it is still selling well they don't have to lower the price.  The only way the PS3 will go the way of the DC is if the 360 has a superior selection of games which is unlikely for this console cycle.  I do like that Microsoft has been aggressive in the console market.  Just think where we would be if we just had the Wii & PS3 for this time around.  Ick.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 31, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I have to say, it's refreshing to see SOMEONE on this board agrees with me. When I read what analysts and tech writers for the newspapers are saying, they say a lot of the things I say but disagree with others.
> 
> On this board however, absolutely everyone has been acting like Im sort of a dummy for not falling right in line with Sony.



Perhaps it is your stance?  Your posts are essentially Sony hate and the title "Sony is on crack" doesn't exactly say that you are an objective party.  Yes, you hate the price point, we get it.  Posting about how hard it is to develop for, linking to rag gaming magazine articles that are the equivelent of The National Inquierer and assuming that the prices of the games will be up to $20 more than what is out there now without any solid evidence is like screaming the sky is falling.

And I'll say this again and for the last time: you are not the target audience for the PS3 launch.  You don't care about HD.  It's cool.  They'll try and get you on board later with price drops and big selection of games.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Like they never make mistakes. Betamax anyone? 8-track tapes? Rootkits?



BR is the media (which you hate on principle unseen), not the games themselves.  It'll work out better anyway because the PS3 launch lineup doesn't look all that hot.  

It's well known that companies like Sony have huge failures and especially a company as visible as they are.  The 3 companies are all out for your dollar and nothing else: one company is videogame royalty, the other has unlimited resources and the other is the current leader with the most overall support from the people who make games.  The only thing that matters is what their respective output is in actual entertainment.  A $600 next-gen HD console doesn't mean the sky is falling.  It just means that you won't be in line on launch day.  I can respect that.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 31, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> How does this effect the games we'll be getting for the PS3?




If nobody has a PS3 (because the thing's late, overpriced, and volumes will be extremely limitted for at least six months after launch), and it's hard to program for (which it is), you'll see a lot of PS3 games being delayed (which we've seen a lot of), and PS3 versions of multiplatform games being cancelled (which we've seen some of).



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> Sony has shot themselves in the foot?  The console isn't out yet so that statement is premature.




One of the ways they've shot themselves in the foot is that the console hasn't come out yet. Another is that they built another PS2-esque difficult-to-program highly customized box; I remain convinced that there's some idiot running Sony's engineering department who thinks that since it worked last time, they should do it again, not realizing that the PS2's success last time had nothing to do with technical merit. The specs keep getting revised down (most recently they cut GPU and video memory clockspeeds). The third is the pricing -- no console that launched at over $400 has ever succeeded even in gaining a niche market.



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm missing the point here but what is the big deal with all the Sony hate?




Other than a certain iritation as a programmer with a passing interest in hardware design that they managed to get away with the kludge that was the PS2, and they seem intent on essentially doing the same thing again, except more so, there's not much.

I guess I just don't understand the kind of bizzaro-logic that says that having a console be late and expensive is good for Sony.


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 31, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> What I'd guess is going on here is that a lot of people are thinking ...



Nah. What's going on here is that a lot of people are thinking it's a little premature to start screaming 'the sky is falling'.

Start screaming a year from November when Sony screws the pooch with an overly expensive, hard to program for system with fewer exclusives than in the PS2 generation - because it'll be legitimate then.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 31, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is your stance?  Your posts are essentially Sony hate and the title "Sony is on crack" doesn't exactly say that you are an objective party.  Yes, you hate the price point, we get it.  Posting about how hard it is to develop for, linking to rag gaming magazine articles that are the equivelent of The National Inquierer and assuming that the prices of the games will be up to $20 more than what is out there now without any solid evidence is like screaming the sky is falling.




All the articles I've quoted came from Gamespot more or less, which I find to be a fairly neutral source. They're pro-gaming, but not specifically pro-PS or pro-MS or pro-Nintendo. 

And besides a rather provocative title, I don't think I have been that extreme in my opinions. I'm reporting what I'm reading. Everything I read says that Blue Ray is more expensive than HD-DVD, whether it's for movies or games. HD-DVD can use existing DVD manufacturing, but Blue Ray cannot. So it's my understanding that this alone will make them more expensive, and I still think that's the case.

I will be HAPPY to be proven wrong. 

See this is what you continue to miss about me. Because of the thread title maybe, or maybe just defensiveness cause I disagree with you, you have decided that I "hate Sony". 

So you ask "what is with the Sony hate". 

I bought a Playstation and a PS2 AT LAUNCH. 

How the hell is that hate? 

I *want* this to be a successful console because the more successful consoles there are out there, the more games there will be. But I also will not sit by and say nothing when I see Sony making mistakes.

And I think charging 100 dollars more for what is essentially the same product, IS a mistake. 

You think I like Microsoft? Not particularly. But if the console is less expensive for a comparable product, I'll buy it. I never considered buying an X-box. Customers like me, who have been pushed to consider the competition by Sony's current strategy, are a loss to the company. 



> And I'll say this again and for the last time: you are not the target audience for the PS3 launch.  You don't care about HD.  It's cool.  They'll try and get you on board later with price drops and big selection of games.




Good for them. That big price drop had better bring it in line with X-box or I will be buying an X-box. 

See how that works? I'm going to SHOP AROUND, LOOK AT COMPETING PRODUCTS and then DECIDE.

I'm not sure how using my head as a consumer means that I "hate Sony" as you allege. 



> BR is the media (which you hate on principle unseen), not the games themselves.  It'll work out better anyway because the PS3 launch lineup doesn't look all that hot.




So you finally admit that their launch lineup doesn't look that good. Why do you "hate Sony" so much John? 

And think about WHY their launch lineup might not be as good this time around. Could it be that they have made a mistake or two by overpricing the console?

And yeah I hate Blue Ray "sight unseen" because it is just another copy protection scheme and another grab to get everyone to upgrade to the new thing and ditch their DVDs. I know a company flexing its muscle when I see it. Again, I shop, I read, call me funny that way. 

I'm a geek. It's pretty easy to talk me out of my money with the new shiny. I'm currently counting the days till Marvel Ultimate Alliance and FF XII come out. 



> It's well known that companies like Sony have huge failures and especially a company as visible as they are.  The 3 companies are all out for your dollar and nothing else: one company is videogame royalty, the other has unlimited resources and the other is the current leader with the most overall support from the people who make games.  The only thing that matters is what their respective output is in actual entertainment.  A $600 next-gen HD console doesn't mean the sky is falling.  It just means that you won't be in line on launch day.  I can respect that.




And I'm fairly certain I have never claimed the sky *IS* falling. 

I have much bigger problems with MS business practices than Sony and was a launch customer for the PS2 and the PS. The fact that I am so annoyed with what's going on right now should be a concern to them, but maybe I'm in the minority and maybe people WILL pay 100 dollars more for what is essentially the same console on the strength of the PS brand. 

Chuck


----------



## Michael Morris (Aug 31, 2006)

Sony lost a LOT of goodwill from the game manufacturers with the PS2.  A couple of manufacturers pressed more copies of their game than Sony got consoles on the market - leaving a lot of them with a bad taste in their mouth.  The only lines that are staying PS exclusive are those contractually bound to - terms that haven't been renewed and run out about the same time this box launches.

Will the PS3 do well in Japan? Of course - the Japanese remain highly nationalistic in their purchasing habits so Microsoft is really kidding themselves if they think they'll ever get a foothold there. The Wii is the only console with a chance against the PS3, and it's a snowballs chance in a rather warm place.

The US market isn't the only one.  Atari lingered as long as they did because the 7800 did well in Europe where Nintendo got to the market afterward.  Globally I expect the PS3 to win Japan with the Xbox 360 winning out here and in Europe.

Besides, who gives a crap - the chipsets are getting so standardized porting is far less of an issue than it was in earlier generations.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 1, 2006)

Spoony Bard said:
			
		

> The Wii is the only console with a chance against the PS3, and it's a snowballs chance in a rather warm place.





If the DS vs. PSP sales are any indication, it's the PS3 that may be in trouble in the motherland.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Sep 3, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Sony and MS tend to sell the consoles at a loss and make it up in software.



In theory, though MS never made up for the loss in hardware. MS has consistently posted losses.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 3, 2006)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> In theory, though MS never made up for the loss in hardware. MS has consistently posted losses.




And historically, Sony never lost much on hardware, and was making a profit on PS2 hardware within a year or two. No one's ever made money selling consoles at a loss long-term; only Microsoft has ever managed to build marketshare that way, and that's because they have far more ability to eat losses than any other company that's ever played in the console space before.

MS has had one profitable quarter from the Xbox division (when Halo 2 launched), but I suspect it will start consistently showing a profit within a year. Their losses on hardware are more akin to Sony's in the PS2 era than to theirs with the original Xbox (or Sony's expected losses with the PS3), and I suspect once the Xenon gets a die shrink, they'll start showing a small profit on hardware (depending on the pace of price cuts). And there are a lot of big titles that MS is publishing over the next year (most notably Halo 3), as well as Xbox Live subscriptions.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 3, 2006)

Spoony Bard said:
			
		

> Will the PS3 do well in Japan? Of course - the Japanese remain highly nationalistic in their purchasing habits so Microsoft is really kidding themselves if they think they'll ever get a foothold there. The Wii is the only console with a chance against the PS3, and it's a snowballs chance in a rather warm place.




Well, MS has sold through their initial run of 800,000 X-Box 360's in Japan, so that's um, a toe hold anyway 

The Japanese are very ambivalent toward MS though. I do agree that the Wii is the console with the best chance to challenge the PS3, because it seems firmly targeted at kids, people with lives and people with no pathological need to be on the bleeding edge. Whereas the PS3 has essentially moved itself toward being a more luxury item.

Anytime I can get a desktop PC for less than a console gaming system, that gaming system is in trouble and I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way. And no, I don't define "trouble" as the sky falling and corporate executives flinging themselves to their deaths. But I do define it as leaving behind the mass market that the PS and PS2 were both able to appeal to so well. 

EA Sports and some hunting and fishing games also have done well with this mass market crowd by continuing to support older consoles. Madden was still coming out for the Playstation ONE in 2004 and is still coming out for the gamecube. 

Chuck


----------



## LightPhoenix (Sep 3, 2006)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> If the DS vs. PSP sales are any indication, it's the PS3 that may be in trouble in the motherland.




Except that's a bad analogy to the point, since Nintendo and Sony are both Japanese companies.  Also, because the handheld and console markets are considerably different.

Now, if Microsoft had a handheld and was kicking butt in Japan, that would be a good analogy.  But it will never happen.


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 4, 2006)

Spoony Bard said:
			
		

> the Japanese remain highly nationalistic in their purchasing habits so Microsoft is really kidding themselves if they think they'll ever get a foothold there. The Wii is the only console with a chance against the PS3, and it's a snowballs chance in a rather warm place.




Nationalisim is highly overated when it comes to the failure of the X-Box in japan. Microsoft succeeded in exterminating the indigenous PC98 series of machines/os from NEC that ruled the market over there as recently as 12-15 yrs ago. 

RPGs one of the most popular categories of games in Japan (ever notice how most PS2 rpgs are ports of japanese games) were almost unknown on the orignal x-box. 

The massive size of the console, also told against it, a lot of people live in apartments that are tiny by american standards. 

Microsoft was in general notably tone deaf in their approach to the japanese market period. If you don't understand the market you are selling to and fail to attract support then you aren't going to succeed period.

The remarkable thing about the X-box and to a somewhat larger extent the 360 is the extent to which they have succeeded. Microsoft historically has failed horribly with at least the first two versions of a product, if not well beyond that. (There are VERY GOOD reasons nobody remembers a version of windows prior to 3.11) To have run even a distant second with their first itteration of a product is a mind boggling success by their standards.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 4, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> The remarkable thing about the X-box and to a somewhat larger extent the 360 is the extent to which they have succeeded. Microsoft historically has failed horribly with at least the first two versions of a product, if not well beyond that. (There are VERY GOOD reasons nobody remembers a version of windows prior to 3.11) To have run even a distant second with their first itteration of a product is a mind boggling success by their standards.




Well... I dunno... what they did with the X-box wasn't a startling departure for them product wise. Microsoft had made PC games before, like Age of Empires that sold pretty well... so they basically made a dedicated PC to run games and more games. 

Doesn't seem like something a company with MS resources SHOULD have a hard time pulling off.

Chuck


----------



## LightPhoenix (Sep 4, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well... I dunno... what they did with the X-box wasn't a startling departure for them product wise. Microsoft had made PC games before, like Age of Empires that sold pretty well... so they basically made a dedicated PC to run games and more games.
> 
> Doesn't seem like something a company with MS resources SHOULD have a hard time pulling off.




I apologize for being nit-picky, but you hit one of my pet peeves.  Microsoft did not make AoE, they only published it.  Ensemble Studios developed it.


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 4, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well... I dunno... what they did with the X-box wasn't a startling departure for them product wise. Microsoft had made PC games before, like Age of Empires that sold pretty well... so they basically made a dedicated PC to run games and more games.
> 
> Doesn't seem like something a company with MS resources SHOULD have a hard time pulling off.
> 
> Chuck




You have to remember that Microsoft is in many respect a fundamentally incompetent company. At least half their success is due to the even greater incompetence of their opposition. Most of whom have done more damage to themselves than MS ever managed. If MS hadn't bought Bungie to get their hands on Halo, there's a good chance that they wouldn't have done nearly as well as they did do with the X-Box.

There's a terrific book by Robert X. Cringely called "Accidental Empires" which is a first rate history of Silicon Valley and how it came to be (at least up to the mid-late 90's). The chapter on Microsoft is very enlightening. I can not recomend this book highly enough. It is well written and entertaining enough that the most knowledgeable techy will enjoy it as much as the most technophobic luddite.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 4, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Except that's a bad analogy to the point, since Nintendo and Sony are both Japanese companies.  Also, because the handheld and console markets are considerably different.



I believe the analogy was to the Wii vs PS3.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 4, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> The massive size of the console, also told against it, a lot of people live in apartments that are tiny by american standards.




While I don't disagree really, it is funny that size of the console means something, but one of the points of the PS3 is to use with HDTV's. Can't have the big 360, but hook up the (also large size) PS3 to your bigscreen.


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 4, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> While I don't disagree really, it is funny that size of the console means something, but one of the points of the PS3 is to use with HDTV's. Can't have the big 360, but hook up the (also large size) PS3 to your bigscreen.




Well it is unavoidable that a large TV is going to occupy a large amount of space so it's an unavoidable price to pay if you want that large screen. However the advent of plasma and LCD tvs has considerably reduced the amount of space even a large TV will take up. By contrast there was really no need for the xbox to be as big as it was, especially when compared to the slimline psOne or PStwo. But it is likely that the average size of tvs in Japan is going to be smaller than in the US.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 4, 2006)

Yeah, the X-Box is a big ole brick of a system... and the 360 is worse... that thing is a weapon. It could kill someone lol.

Chuck


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 4, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Yeah, the X-Box is a big ole brick of a system... and the 360 is worse... that thing is a weapon. It could kill someone lol.
> 
> Chuck





Then Japan better beware, since the PS3 is bigger...

http://www.gamesradar.com/us/xbox36...?articleId=2006081195220737049&sectionId=1006

Looks like more Wii Points then, eh?


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 4, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Then Japan better beware, since the PS3 is bigger...
> 
> http://www.gamesradar.com/us/xbox36...?articleId=2006081195220737049&sectionId=1006
> 
> Looks like more Wii Points then, eh?




Wow... I had no idea. I didn't think anything was going to be more clunky than that damn X-box 360 "power brick" *ever*. 

But yeah, despite the heat I have taken in this thread for not being a Sony clone and chanting that they will continue to dominate like an automaton, I am a Sony customer. And while I understand some of SONY'S reasons for the strategy they're pursuing, I just want good games, and the Wii games have so far appealed to me more.

When you factor in that I will probably be able to buy a Wii and like 8 games for the price of a PS3 and one controller... it sort of becomes a no brainer to me (again assuming the games are good, and a whole host of Wii games look NICE). 

Chuck


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 4, 2006)

*John Romero rates the PS3 last*

Well it looks like I'm not TOTALLY alone 

John Romero, co-creator of Doom, rates the Wii first because of the controller and the ease of designing for the system, then the X-box because of the X-box live online environment and the ability to deliver games directly to consumers, followed by the PS 3.

The podcast is here (the transcript is not the whole interview and the comments about the different next gen platforms are only in the audio):

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6156985/index.html?tag=topslot;action;1


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 4, 2006)

The hits just keep on comin' from Sony.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/03/high-end-ps3-shipping-without-hdmi-cable/


----------



## Kaodi (Sep 4, 2006)

*Maybe I Am The One On Crack*

I keep telling myself that I will probably get a Wii fairly early on in this cycle, and maybe a PS3 mid-way through or later. I have only ever had Nintendo products (NES, SNES, GameBoy, GameBoy Advance and GameCube), but I profess to be at least partially a great fan of RPGs. When I decided to get a GameCube over a PS2, it was part loyalty, part the fact that at that time, StarCraft: Ghost was to come out on GameCube, and I really wanted that game (so much VapourWare... at least StarCraft II may finally be coming!). I love Metroid Prime 1 & 2, and Metroid Prime 3 is a prime motivating factor for me really wanting a Wii, especially with the new controller. HOWEVER... when I go to the store, and see all the love PS2 gets from RPGs and SquareEnix, it hurts, it really, really hurts. And I don't even play FF games at all! A lot of the gimmicks for the few decent RPGs for GameCube have thrown me off, like a card based combat system, or 2d plane combat with movement in only one direction (which I might not mind if I tried it out first, but I don't rent games). What it really comes down for for me, is whether Wii is really going to come through in the games department... I don't want to have to choose between a couple RPG titles (Tales of Symphonia, FF: Crystal Chronicles, Baten Kaitos), or any other geek genre for that matter. I want at least a dozen quality choices. To loosely quote a certain protagonist from a certain iteration of a certain giant robot series... " Neither innovation alone, nor software alone. "


----------



## drothgery (Sep 4, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Nationalisim is highly overated when it comes to the failure of the X-Box in japan. Microsoft succeeded in exterminating the indigenous PC98 series of machines/os from NEC that ruled the market over there as recently as 12-15 yrs ago.
> 
> RPGs one of the most popular categories of games in Japan (ever notice how most PS2 rpgs are ports of japanese games) were almost unknown on the orignal x-box.




Err... the lack of Japanese RPGs on the original Xbox is almost entirely due to nationalism. Microsoft certainly offered more for Square than Sony did (when they bought 20% of the company) or than Enix did (when they merged later), and if Square had allowed Microsoft to buy the company, then they'd have all the Japanese RPGs they needed. Moreover, KotOR is one of the all-time great RPGs.



			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> The massive size of the console, also told against it, a lot of people live in apartments that are tiny by american standards.




This is bunk. An Xbox is smaller than an average old-school VCR, only maybe a third bigger than a PS2, and since it's going to be sitting under a TV that takes up considerably more space, it's pretty meaningless. 



			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> The remarkable thing about the X-box and to a somewhat larger extent the 360 is the extent to which they have succeeded. Microsoft historically has failed horribly with at least the first two versions of a product, if not well beyond that. (There are VERY GOOD reasons nobody remembers a version of windows prior to 3.11) To have run even a distant second with their first itteration of a product is a mind boggling success by their standards.




Of course, everyone remembers Excel right from 1.0, .NET took off right from 1.0, the BASIC interpreters (later compilers, and still later Visual Basic) that Microsoft got started with were decent from the get-go, and there are a few more counterexamples to toss their way. MS hasn't always gotten things right on the first try, but most of what's now the core of MS (NT-based Windows, Office [or rather the initial components for the Mac], their development tools, and SQL Server) has been pretty respectable right from the initial release.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 4, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> But yeah, despite the heat I have taken in this thread for not being a Sony clone and chanting that they will continue to dominate like an automaton, I am a Sony customer. And while I understand some of SONY'S reasons for the strategy they're pursuing, I just want good games, and the Wii games have so far appealed to me more.




It's funny really, but the design ideas behind the marketing and such really do help pinpoint things. They once said XBox focused on the "male 25-40" demographic... well that's me! Nintendo focused more on younger gamers, and their games felt too "kiddie" for me.

This time around, I already have a 360. I think the Wii has good potential since Nintendo seems to be focusing more on the games, rather than focusing on hype, but then they have to get all oddball with controller and such. Oddball can be good, or bad, we'll see.

From my perception, I like XBoxery, since the franchises are in general newer. They don't carry a lot of baggage. A lot of the PS games I've seen owe more to nostalgia IMO than to good gameplay. Throw in the Japanese Style games which are often hit or miss, and the titles just don't appeal to me much. The Wii has a similar problem in dredging so often to the nostalgia well that it doesn't draw me in.


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 5, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Err... the lack of Japanese RPGs on the original Xbox is almost entirely due to nationalism. Microsoft certainly offered more for Square than Sony did (when they bought 20% of the company) or than Enix did (when they merged later), and if Square had allowed Microsoft to buy the company, then they'd have all the Japanese RPGs they needed. Moreover, KotOR is one of the all-time great RPGs.




I suspect a lot of Microsofts problems with Japanese developers come back to their generally tone deaf approch to the japanese market or it could simply be a justified waryness at dealing with a company that has ripped off and nuked a number of their "partners" in the past. However, Sony doesn't seem like it is doing too much better on that score of late. I've noted with interest that Bandai has announced a number of Mobile Suit Gundam games for the 360, which the previous playstations got the lion's share of.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> This is bunk. An Xbox is smaller than an average old-school VCR, only maybe a third bigger than a PS2, and since it's going to be sitting under a TV that takes up considerably more space, it's pretty meaningless.




So, you've lived in Japan for several years like I have and have been in a number of Japanese homes? And spent a significant amount of time poking around Akihabara looking at what they sell there?

How big vcrs were 25 years ago, isn't really important to products that started being sold only about 6 yrs ago. And I can tell you that even when I was there 15 yrs ago most of the vcrs were a LOT smaller than the xbox is. Hell even the vcr my college roomates had 18 yrs ago was a lot smaller than the xbox is.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> Of course, everyone remembers Excel right from 1.0, .NET took off right from 1.0, the BASIC interpreters (later compilers, and still later Visual Basic) that Microsoft got started with were decent from the get-go, and there are a few more counterexamples to toss their way. MS hasn't always gotten things right on the first try, but most of what's now the core of MS (NT-based Windows, Office [or rather the initial components for the Mac], their development tools, and SQL Server) has been pretty respectable right from the initial release.




Basic was of course their original product, but considering that their original basic was something that had to be entered in assembler into the MITS Altair and wasn't a language created by them, there was limited scope to produce a truly awful product. Excel was essentially at least a version 2.0 product given that they'd already created multiplan (a very forgetable spreadsheet, I had a copy). They also had Lotus 1-2-3 to crib off of. Word and Excel didn't really reach it's stranglehold until they started bundling it as Microsoft Office v 4.2 IIRC. 

Windows NT was a bad joke until version 4 (actually the 2nd/2.5 version of the product). I remember them trumpeting how it had recieved some government security rating, which sounded impressive until you looked at the small print and noticed that it only recieved that rating if it was completely isolated from all other computers and equipment. Rather a drawback for a "networked" OS. And arguably didn't fully hit it's stride until it morphed into windows 2000. Which is the first version of windows to really be regarded well in terms of stability and performance.

SQL server from Microsoft was version 7 before it started being really well regarded. And was again not a product they originally created. 

.Net, was originally going to be a do everything, tie everything together, product of unclear purpose, function and scope. It has since been relegated to being a nearly forgotten piece of plumbing for the operating system. Not my definition of a runaway success.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 5, 2006)

I think the best thing Microsoft has done from a product standpoint has been Direct X. I have heard several developers say that PC gaming wouldn't really exist as we know it if not for Direct X.

So as someone who works on his computer, MS scores pretty well with me and as someone who games on his puter, they score well with me. 

Never owned an X-box, though when/if I get a HD tv I will probably go to the 360 for my "next gen" console. 

This is all assuming there isn't already some OTHER new console out by then 

Chuck


----------



## Arnwyn (Sep 5, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> But yeah, despite the heat I have taken in this thread for not being a Sony clone and chanting that they will continue to dominate like an automaton,



That's obviously not why you (might have) taken any "heat".


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 6, 2006)

Gang, please tone down the quantity of snark in this thread. No need to get testy with one another.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 6, 2006)

For if your snark be a boojum,
You shall softly, and silently,
Vanish away....

The Auld Grump, in the mood for a Carrol...


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 6, 2006)

There are a lot of little marketing reasons why no matter how powerful computers are (come on now they've always been more powerful than consoles) is the image factor. The average american is far more comfortable playing video games with a controller and tv than on their computer, even if you had a controller and tv hooked up to them. 

The cost of the sony is justified by making it apart of a home entertainment center and not just avideo game system. I dont think they'll sell as many ps3s as they did ps2s but i'd say they'd still control a large portion of the 22+ market.


----------



## John Crichton (Sep 6, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> All the articles I've quoted came from Gamespot more or less, which I find to be a fairly neutral source. They're pro-gaming, but not specifically pro-PS or pro-MS or pro-Nintendo.



This is not true.  I will not labor this point.  Pro-SystemX doesn't matter.  There is conjecture all over the place in the links provided.  Go back and read them. Have the people quoted meant anything to you before?  Have you heard of all of them?

Perhaps you have.  Perhaps not.  That is not for me to decide.  



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Everything I read says that Blue Ray is more expensive than HD-DVD, whether it's for movies or games. HD-DVD can use existing DVD manufacturing, but Blue Ray cannot. So it's my understanding that this alone will make them more expensive, and I still think that's the case.



Well and good...



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> I will be HAPPY to be proven wrong.



You are in good hands.  The games will be at 360 prices.  Worry not.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> See this is what you continue to miss about me. Because of the thread title maybe, or maybe just defensiveness cause I disagree with you, you have decided that I "hate Sony".
> 
> So you ask "what is with the Sony hate".
> 
> ...



Because of your posts.  Until recently, your stance is clearly against everything that Sony is currently doing (and still hasn't changed expect to say that you are expecting the worst and hoping for better).  If your intensions of impartiality were true there would be posts to counter-articles and arguements both ways.  Look at your opinions of the prices of the games- they are decided already and you are assuming the worst with no confirmation.  Hence my provocative statement that people with similar opinions believe that the "sky is falling."  Your Sony support in the past encourages my statement as you believe the company you have been supporting has abandoned you.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> I *want* this to be a successful console because the more successful consoles there are out there, the more games there will be. But I also will not sit by and say nothing when I see Sony making mistakes.



Assumed mistakes are one thing.  Killing Sony for every mistep, real or not, is another.  I only ask for objectivity and to respect history a bit.   Doesn't mean that the same thing that happened last gen will happen this time around but then again, don't we all want more selection on all the consoles?

A challenger to Sony is a good thing.  Who is on top doesn't matter.  It does matter that the company is still fully behind the PS3 and that games are on tap for it in a big way.  Many different companies are producing games for it, hard to program for or not.  It's an expensive machine at launch.  Imagine that it were $100 cheaper and then think of the games.  It's a different view.  An extra $100 investment isn't really that much these days for the dedicated gamer.  It's 2 games.  Or one game and a controller.  A price the HD folks are more than willing to pay at launch.




			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> And I think charging 100 dollars more for what is essentially the same product, IS a mistake.



It's only a mistake if the price stays there for more than a year and the system doesn't sell.  Otherwise, that's just an opinion.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> You think I like Microsoft? Not particularly. But if the console is less expensive for a comparable product, I'll buy it. I never considered buying an X-box. Customers like me, who have been pushed to consider the competition by Sony's current strategy, are a loss to the company.



So be it.  Buy the games you like.  Vote with your dollar.  That's really the only way.  I've already given my $400 to MS.  The same will happen with the PS3.  Maybe not at launch but eventually.  It will have games that I want.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Good for them. That big price drop had better bring it in line with X-box or I will be buying an X-box.
> 
> See how that works? I'm going to SHOP AROUND, LOOK AT COMPETING PRODUCTS and then DECIDE.



No need to shout.  I assume that everyone does the same thing.  If the 360 is what appeals to you most than you most certainly should get one before the PS3. To do otherwise would be wrong.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how using my head as a consumer means that I "hate Sony" as you allege.



As for the "hate":  It was hate towards Sony, not that anyone hated Sony.  Please don't take it personally.  It's just the tone of your posts that is contradictory.  You seem intent on being core audience for a price point and feature set that doesn't apply to you for a launch system with games that aren't must haves.  I'm just saying to chill, wait for a better price and good games to play and then decide.  Forget the "industry experts" and "guys from company X" who say this and that.  You seem like a reasonable dude who will decide on what's out there.  But the majority of your posts speak otherwise.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> So you finally admit that their launch lineup doesn't look that good. Why do you "hate Sony" so much John?



It's no secret that the PS3 launch lineup has no killer titles.  If I have said otherwise somewhere then quote me up and call me wrong.  Launch games are typically not that good.  It's why I usually hold off.  I may make exception for a cheap BR player on the PS3 but that's just the tech-geek talking, not the gamer.




			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> And think about WHY their launch lineup might not be as good this time around. Could it be that they have made a mistake or two by overpricing the console?



I have and it doesn't matter.  There hasn't been a must have launch game for any system since the Dreamcast.  There have been good ones for genre fans (for example, FPS on the 360) but no must haves.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> And yeah I hate Blue Ray "sight unseen" because it is just another copy protection scheme and another grab to get everyone to upgrade to the new thing and ditch their DVDs. I know a company flexing its muscle when I see it. Again, I shop, I read, call me funny that way.



You're funny that way.  And you're right.  BR *&* HD-DVD have nothing to do with higher quality video that is able to be displayed on the right output source that is becoming more and more popular and affordable every year.

EDIT:  Apologies to mods for the snark there.  But as as someone who pays attention to these things, ignorance of trends and what tech actually does bugs me a bit.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> I have much bigger problems with MS business practices than Sony and was a launch customer for the PS2 and the PS. The fact that I am so annoyed with what's going on right now should be a concern to them, but maybe I'm in the minority and maybe people WILL pay 100 dollars more for what is essentially the same console on the strength of the PS brand.



Dang, man!  The people buying the PS3 at launch are simply the early adopters and tech-freaks who want/need the latest and greatest.  It would be silly for the gamer who isn't into HD to get one at launch.  The price is too high and none of the games seem worth it, just like everything from the 360 this gen and all the systems from last gen (except the DC which had a respectable lineup and the 360 if you are a FPS fan).  Price drops need to happen and they will.  Unless people keep buying it at the premium price.  Which no one sees happening.

No need to prognosticate $90 game prices and the like until you see 'em.  Just watch the bleh launch games pass by and wait for the good stuff in 6-10 months.  Like every new system these days.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 6, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> It's no secret that the PS3 launch lineup has no killer titles.  If I have said otherwise somewhere then quote me up and call me wrong.  Launch games are typically not that good.  It's why I usually hold off.  I may make exception for a cheap BR player on the PS3 but that's just the tech-geek talking, not the gamer.




As to the games, maybe I'm becoming a grognard, but the launch games for the Wii have interested me the most.

The one game that has really wowed me so far on the 360 and PS3 has been Assassin's Creed. If I wasn't intrigued by about 5 Wii games, that one might get me on board with a X-box 360. 

And yes, right now I probably would go with a 360 over a PS3 because of X-Box Live arcade.  I have been playing a lot of old titles like Joust and Time Patrol on Gametap, and being able to do that on my TV would be preferable. 

Of course, it looks like Wii will also have some online type stuff where I can get old Nintendo games (and something tells me ports from other systems might follow). 

So right now, Id be looking at paying about 1500 bucks to play Assassin's Creed lol. 

Not tempting enough. Notice I didnt say not tempting at all 

Chuck


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 6, 2006)

So this is what it sounds like....when doves cry.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/06/north-american-japanese-ps3-launch-limited-to-500-000-units/

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/06/european-launch-of-playstation-3-delayed-until-march-2007/


----------



## drothgery (Sep 6, 2006)

(PS3 "woldwide" launch scaled back to US, Canada, and Japan; other regions delayed until March 2007; launch volume projections cut in half.)



			
				TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/06/north-american-japanese-ps3-launch-limited-to-500-000-units/
> 
> http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/06/european-launch-of-playstation-3-delayed-until-march-2007/




Well, that (or something similar) had to be expected. There were way too many reports of PS3 manufacturing issues for them all to be bogus.

FWIW, I think console games are pretty much stuck at $50, unless demand is really high for a specific game. Attempts to break past that price point have never been sustainable.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Sep 14, 2006)

I'm not sure what their source is but apparently Nintendo announced their pricing scheme:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060914/tc_nm/nintendo_us_dc_5

EDIT: 
Ah, the source
http://www.nintendo.com/newsarticle?articleid=aT85VZmuLFtGkO9m1HSsJ2PdSlh7Sc0b&page=

Released date is Nov 19


----------



## Kaodi (Sep 15, 2006)

*The Real Battle Looms*

Just two months to go, and then the real war begins, and we get to see whos predictions come true.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 16, 2006)

Well, since I'm not sure I've made a prediction yet, I'll make some then 

I think the PS3 will sell out really fast, all 400,000 copies will be gone. It will get a lot of free publicity from the lines, the scarcity and the exorbitant prices on e-bay.

Meanwhile, Nintendo seems much more focused on getting the Wii to people. They're launching worldwide with 4,000,000 units, the majority of which will be here. Not sure what that means exactly. 2-3 million?

I think these will also move pretty quick, especially with the modest price and a launch on Nov 19, when the shopping season is heating up.

I think the reliance on known technology will make the production problems that plagued the X-box 360, and seem to be plaguing the PS3 not as much of a problem. 

So I think Nintendo will move more units than the PS3 and 360 combined as they keep filling store shelves and as people who come LOOKING for a high end console (and cant find one) see Wiis on the shelves. 

I really think both the PS3 and 360 would benefit from a single configuration. Even when people DO find the 360, it's often the "core" model when they're looking for the high end model (I imagine the reverse is sometimes true as well). 

This isnt to say that the PS3 or 360 will fail. I just think Nintendo will move more units because they have a more mass market product. 

Chuck


----------



## trancejeremy (Sep 16, 2006)

IMHO, when it came to the 360, the 2 packages was a bad deal for the consumer's point of view, but was brilliant in terms of marketing.  It lets MS say that the 360 is only $300, even though with the $300 model, you can't save games - you need a $50 memory card for that.  There is just no reason to buy the cheap version.

Conversely, for Sony, the two models are decent for the consumer, but from a PR point of view, it was stupid.  Even though the $500 PS3 is the equivalent of the $400 360 (plus the Blu Ray drive), people compare the cheap model of the 360 to the expensive PS3.

So the perception is that Sony is trying to rip people off, even though the $600 PS3 is a better value than the 360.  To get equivalent 360 stuff, you'd need the $400 version, plus the $200 HD add-on, plus $100 for Wifi.  Plus more $ for a bigger hard drive (whenver that comes out).  Plus $ for Xbox Live.  Plus $150 for a media version of Windows XP ($250 for Vista Ultimate?) to connect your PC to the 360.

Anyway, I think the 360 will probably come close to even with the PS3 in the US.  But in Japan, it will do about as well as the original Xbox (which is not very good).  And probably a little better in Europe than the original Xbox.


The Wii is something of a wild card.   Rather than having good graphics, it relies mostly a gimmicky controller.   That worked wonderfully for them with the DS, but flopped with the virtual boy. The Wii is more like the DS than VB, so it seems to have an edge there, but it's not nearly as casual as the DS (you'll need a lot of room to play games), and the casual gamer has really driven DS sales.

I really don't think people who want a PS3 or even 360 will buy a Wii. I think the Wii will mostly be for Nintendo fans. However, Nintendo does seem to be much better gameplan wise for the Wii than they were for the Gamecube.


----------



## reanjr (Sep 16, 2006)

I have to agree Wii is going to outsell both competitors this holiday season, probably staying near sold-out throughout the season.  That will also give it alot of mindshare during Q1 2k7, and continue to boost its sales.  They will probably be able to maintain fairly steady sales throughout 2k7 as gamers who already bought a PS3 and/or 360 get enough money to purchase another system.  They will see sales boosts twice in 2k7 around the release dates of Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3.

Sony is launching with so few units that MS won't even bother worrying about them until Q1-2 2k7 (Sony will likely still be shorthanded through Q1 due to the imminent worldwide release).  At that point, they will drop the price of the 360, not only undercutting some of Sony's market, but giving a significant boost to their sales throughout the year.

Sometime in Q2-3 2k7, Sony will manage to drop the price.  Not significantly, but enough to be noticed and soon after units start being readily available.  Their sales will start taking off a bit after this, but won't match MS anytime during 2k7.

Post 2k7 is a bit harder to guess at, but one of two things will happen on the PS3 front.  Scenario 1 is that Sony-exclusive software publishers are going to accept low sales (compared to what they are used to) for the next year as PS3 ownership takes time to ramp up. This will leave them a bit cash-dry for a while and will hurt Sony's overall exclusive library.  This will keep Sony fairly neck-and-neck with MS throughout the next few years, with one (likely Sony) pulling ahead near end-of-life.  The second scenario is that Sony's exclusive publishers will abandon that model and drive MS into a stable (but not overbearing) first place.

Sony's strategy of poorly duplicating Nintendo's motion sensitivity may pan out well for them or might be very bad.  On the one hand, they are trying to ride Nintendo's coattails by getting publishers who would have made Wii-exclusive titles also available on PS3 (but more importantly, not 360).  This may dumb down the control scheme so that games can work on PS3's inferior controller and hurt Nintendo sales.  On the other hand, it may lead to publishers creating games that are significantly more fun to play on the Wii than the PS3, hurting their image a bit.  This might cause Nintendo to receive many extra sales over a few years and reinforce the popular idea that it is far more worth it to own a 360/Wii than a PS3 (and only $50 more expensive).

If Sony somehow ramps up production sooner than expected, Blu-Ray might actually be a success, but given their current and (for the near future) estimated production, Blu-Ray will be yet another format failure in a long list of Sony format failures.  Perhaps they will learn from that and go back to being an electronics company rather than a format company, but it is doubtful.  It is my hope that HD-DVD falters as well, but more likely it will start a slow takeover of the DVD market, getting people to pay, yet again, for the same thing they already own.  The upshot is that by the time HD-DVD is dominant in physical media, physical media will barely be dominant, being subsumed by downloaded or streaming content.

Care to comment/disagree?


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 16, 2006)

The Magic 8-Ball says:

Massive Wiilash from current gamers after prolonged play time with the system.  The Wii doesn't manage to capture the casual gamer market in any territory but Japan, where it proceeds to become huge.

Sony loses a good chunk of market share worldwide.

Microsoft gains a good chunk of market share outside of Japan.

Come Christmas 2008, the Xbox 360 and the Wii will split the leadership positions, relative to the US/Europe and Asian markets.  The PS3 will remain a steady second place in all territories.


----------



## SnowRaven (Sep 16, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> IMHO, when it came to the 360, the 2 packages was a bad deal for the consumer's point of view, but was brilliant in terms of marketing.  It lets MS say that the 360 is only $300, even though with the $300 model, you can't save games - you need a $50 memory card for that.  There is just no reason to buy the cheap version.



Simply because it's cheaper really. That's more than enough for plenty of folks. (See my Wii COmments later.)


> Conversely, for Sony, the two models are decent for the consumer, but from a PR point of view, it was stupid.  Even though the $500 PS3 is the equivalent of the $400 360 (plus the Blu Ray drive), people compare the cheap model of the 360 to the expensive PS3.



I think it works bad either way for Sony. If the best they can say is "it's unfair to compare, we're only $100 more than an equivalent system!" then I think the general market will see it for what it is, a BluRay push that will be lost on most gamers.



> So the perception is that Sony is trying to rip people off, even though the $600 PS3 is a better value than the 360.



It's a better value if you add in all those features that mean nothing to the common gamer. If you put a free country western music CD in every D&D book, and charged extra for them, that wouldn't mean people got extra value. They're telling people what they want instead of listening to what they want.



> Anyway, I think the 360 will probably come close to even with the PS3 in the US.  But in Japan, it will do about as well as the original Xbox (which is not very good).  And probably a little better in Europe than the original Xbox.



I think the PS3 will be lagging behind the 360 significantly for a couple years. I think more XBox users will switch to 360, while a lot of PS2ers will simply stick with PS2's.


> The Wii is something of a wild card.   Rather than having good graphics, it relies mostly a gimmicky controller.   That worked wonderfully for them with the DS, but flopped with the virtual boy. The Wii is more like the DS than VB, so it seems to have an edge there, but it's not nearly as casual as the DS (you'll need a lot of room to play games), and the casual gamer has really driven DS sales.



I think the Wii's main focus is on actual gameplay, rather than theoretical processing. The gimick controller is hard to judge, but I think the Wii Campaign will be focused more on gaming vs "multimedia".



> I really don't think people who want a PS3 or even 360 will buy a Wii. I think the Wii will mostly be for Nintendo fans. However, Nintendo does seem to be much better gameplan wise for the Wii than they were for the Gamecube.




What I think is missing, is the idea that early adopters that are willing to spend $1000 for the perfect setup will get their system, but I think people are ignoring the holiday season and the kid angle.
Frankly, if parents are buying a gift, or someone else is buying a gift, you're more likely to sell them that Wii than the 360 or PS3. I think parents will prefer the Wii in a lot of ways, games as well as price.

For Sony, I think the PS2 will maintain a lot more inertia than the PS3 will gain. It will be a while before the current users switch over to the PS3 IMO.

I think the PS3 has overstepped and the market will stick with PS2's for a while, until games that really look a lot better come out.

(IOW, you'll see PS2 and Wii duking it out for a while.)


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 16, 2006)

One of the nice things about the Wii... it's region free (I think that's one reason they removed the DVD capabilities the device at one time was supposed to have). So it actually doesnt matter to the consumer if it only catches on in Japan... developers couldmake games for the Japanese market that could be imported to America as cheaply as, for instance, subtitling a Final Fantasy game.

But still, I think the Wii is going to sell a lot of consoles here as well as Japan... heck... they could sell 3 million easily by Christmas... and since neither MS nor Sony will be ABLE to get that many consoles out... Wii should have market share over everything but the PS2 at least through this year (though there might be more X-boxes out than that, not entirely sure). 

Chuck


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 16, 2006)

It turns out the Wii isn't region-free.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=19686


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 16, 2006)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> It turns out the Wii isn't region-free.
> 
> http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=19686




Well, given my prediction that the Wii will be popular, it wasnt a selling point for me. Of course since I have decided to buy on launch, Nintendo doesn't need to sell I suppose 

As for the Wii being gimmicky, I really dont think so. Everytime reviewers play the games, they like the controller more. In part because they are realizing you need to flick the wrist lightly, not do a full, tiring sword swing, and in part because the game designers have been refining the controls nicely. 

I know at the recent NYC announcement gathering, the gamespot editors were impressed at the growth of the controller interface in Red Steel and Zelda, and I have heard nothing but good things about Madden. 

As someone VERY used to playing madden on PS2 though, it wont be one of my first purchases.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 16, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Care to comment/disagree?




The only think I'd add to it is the very real possibility that Microsoft will have an overwhelming edge in installed base before Sony gets their production issues sorted out and can start selling PS3s at a semi-resonable (i.e. sub-$300 price) without devastating their bottom line. And that could force a lot of developers' hands (making games multiplatform when they would have been PS3 exclusive, or 360-only when they would have been multiplatform).


----------



## John Crichton (Sep 19, 2006)

This system launch means next to nothing to me as far as gaming is concerned.  There are much more exciting things going on with consoles I already own (PS2 & 360).  The PS3 won't be a big deal until the Spring/Summer of 2007.  Just like the PS2 took forever to put out a good game.

The Wii is coming out.  Meh.  I'm sure the 1st party games will work well with the controller but I am skeptical about anything not developed by Nintendo.  I've been burned with the last 2 Nintendo consoles so I may hold off but will end up with one eventually as I buy all the major consoles.  If the new Zelda looks better on a Wii I may get one just for that but it would be an impulse buy.  That may be hard considering that new consoles tend to sell out pretty quickly.

The PS3 is coming out with no exciting games.  Meh.  The BR-player is cool and will sell me on it but that's not because of the games.  This is a movie watching upgrade for me.

I'll be buying in the fall:

Gears of War (360)
Phantasy Star Universe (360)
Final Fantasy XII (PS2)
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance (360)
Guitar Hero II (PS2)
PS3 - for the BR player
Wii - Maaaaaaybe. I want to demo one first but I can be easily sold.
Zelda: Twilight Princess (GC or Wii)

No predictions from me except for the obvious.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 20, 2006)

FWIW -- news from the Tokyo Gaming Show this week

- The 360 will be getting a software update to enable 1080p, so it can show high-res graphics when not much is going on, too (mostly a feature checkpoint; neither console can handle complex graphics at that resolution)
- The 360 HD-DVD player add-on is launching around Thanksgiving, and in Japan will go for 19,800 Yen (xe.com says that's ~$170, but I'll bet it's $199)


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 22, 2006)

A rare piece of good news from Sony via their TGS press conference:  The $500 PS3 will have an HDMI port.


----------



## trancejeremy (Sep 22, 2006)

Also in Japan, they dropped the price of the cheap PS3 to $420 or so. (Wouldn't expect a similiar cut in the US though)



Here's a pretty good recap post of what's going on at TGS

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=120120

(That message board is sort of like the RPG.net of video games. Only much worse. But they have good info)


----------



## drothgery (Sep 22, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Also in Japan, they dropped the price of the cheap PS3 to $420 or so. (Wouldn't expect a similiar cut in the US though)




Not too surprising; the cheap 360 is debuting this fall there for ~$250. And they're bundling a game with it.


----------



## reanjr (Sep 25, 2006)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> A rare piece of good news from Sony via their TGS press conference:  The $500 PS3 will have an HDMI port.




Yes, but isn't that the same show they dropped the news that Gran Turismo HD will cost $400+ to get the whole game?

Edit: I suppose I should explain this for people who may not be aware.  Gran Turismo HD will be release with two different SKUs, one Classic, the other Premium.  Classic will come with the game but NO tracks and NO cars.  Those will have to be purchased separately for approx. $0.75/car and $2.00/track.  The premium package will come bundled with 30 cars and some amount of tracks it was announced but I do not remember).  Now word on price for the games.  If Classic isn't free, it's likely dead in the water.  I could see them releasing it as a free download, though, allowing you to start playing the (limited) game for as little as $3.

We'll see, somehow I think they're probably going to release it for about $30-40 and expect you to pay for more to actually play the game.


----------



## reanjr (Sep 25, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Also in Japan, they dropped the price of the cheap PS3 to $420 or so. (Wouldn't expect a similiar cut in the US though)




Sony rep confirmed to 1up.com that the price drop is NOT effective for North America.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 25, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Yes, but isn't that the same show they dropped the news that Gran Turismo HD will cost $400+ to get the whole game?
> 
> Edit: I suppose I should explain this for people who may not be aware.  Gran Turismo HD will be release with two different SKUs, one Classic, the other Premium.  Classic will come with the game but NO tracks and NO cars.




There's been a lot of misunderstandings about that game.  The real deal is there's one game called Gran Turismo: HD and it will come with two sections.  One is Gran Turismo 4 with a high-def graphic upgrade and some online stuff.  On that same disc will come the demo of GT5 that was shown at E3.  

So it's just a pretty meh title instead of being a total microtransaction scam.


----------



## reanjr (Sep 25, 2006)

Here's yet another report (citing "multiple information sources") of PS3 games costing more than current gen.  http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=10992

This story places prices for PS3 Japan games at $75-$84.  I know hardware tends to be cheaper in Japan, but I'm sure of software, so I'm not sure of the correlation to the U.S. market.

Sony's only official word so far has been that games will be under $100.  Which doesn't really say much.  Sony has also recently changed their Japan strategy to push the low end PS3 as the primary model, adding HDMI to the $500 version.

Guess they're feeling the pressure from gamers over releasing a ridiculously priced item.


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 25, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Here's yet another report (citing "multiple information sources") of PS3 games costing more than current gen.  http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=10992
> 
> This story places prices for PS3 Japan games at $75-$84.  I know hardware tends to be cheaper in Japan, but I'm sure of software, so I'm not sure of the correlation to the U.S. market.




There is pretty much nothing that's cheaper in Japan and hardware is no exception. A used slimline ps2 I bought there a couple of months ago was about $160, iirc. The PS3 game prices you are quoting are more expensive than past games, but by about the same amount that xbox 360 games are in the US.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 25, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Sony has also recently changed their Japan strategy to push the low end PS3 as the primary model, adding HDMI to the $500 version.





The funny thing about that is, I'm pretty sure AACS doesn't let you display 1080p movies over component.  They'd be able to show games at that resolution, but anyone trying to play a Bluray film would get bumped down to 1080i.  

I guess someone at Sony finally woke up and realized the huge backlash that would result from them pushing that resolution bulletpoint so heavily.


----------



## reanjr (Sep 26, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> There is pretty much nothing that's cheaper in Japan and hardware is no exception. A used slimline ps2 I bought there a couple of months ago was about $160, iirc. The PS3 game prices you are quoting are more expensive than past games, but by about the same amount that xbox 360 games are in the US.




PS3 lite at $427 ($499 in US), Wii at $212 ($250 in US), 360 core system at $256 ($299 in US).

I reiterate, launch console hardware is cheaper in Japan.


----------



## ohGr (Sep 26, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> PS3 lite at $427 ($499 in US), Wii at $212 ($250 in US), 360 core system at $256 ($299 in US).
> 
> I reiterate, launch console hardware is cheaper in Japan.



Well, to be fair, the PS3 is cheaper because "Americans thought the $500/$600 price was cheap" (Krazy Ken's words, not mine), the NA Wii comes packaged with Wii Sports whereas the JP one doesn't, and, well, Microsoft is just getting their ass handed to them in JP so they've just recently announced that price cut (until now, or whenever the price cut takes effect, they've been paying the same price, or very nearly, that we have, IIRC).

When it comes to software, though, JP prices have been generally higher than NA prices.


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 26, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> PS3 lite at $427 ($499 in US), Wii at $212 ($250 in US), 360 core system at $256 ($299 in US).
> 
> I reiterate, launch console hardware is cheaper in Japan.




You're original line was "I know hardware tends to be cheaper in Japan" I lived there for three years and was there about 3 months ago. It doesn't tend to be cheaper, prices for two yet to be released products not withstanding. And the yet to be implement Price on the Xbox 360 represents a price cut. I suspect you'll see a similar price cut in the the US before christmas/PS3 launch.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 26, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> You're original line was "I know hardware tends to be cheaper in Japan" I lived there for three years and was there about 3 months ago. It doesn't tend to be cheaper,




Heck, IIRC, hardware is typically more expensive. But exchange rates and Microsoft's desperation to catch on in Japan are factoring into this round.



			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> prices for two yet to be released products not withstanding. And the yet to be implement Price on the Xbox 360 represents a price cut. I suspect you'll see a similar price cut in the the US before christmas/PS3 launch.




Microsoft officials are adamant that there will be no 360 price cut in the US this year (though there are pretty strong rumors about bundling more stuff with them for the same price). I'd bet there won't be one while you can actually get 360s, and can't actually get PS3s, and will be a serious ($50-$100) price cut shortly after then (and no later than the middle of next year in any case).


----------



## reanjr (Sep 26, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> You're original line was "I know hardware tends to be cheaper in Japan"




My original line was of course in the context of the conversation which was launching game consoles...  When I said games, did you presume I meant PC or board games should be included in that statement?


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Sep 29, 2006)

Ouch...



> While the PlayStation 3 and 360 versions of Assassin's Creed are virtually identical, Raymond did say that on the 360 the team is putting a special emphasis on achievements. The hardware also allows for improved threading, which will improve even further the crowd AI.




And I'm not really sure what to make of this...

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3875&Itemid=2



> While the Xbox and GameCube both received at least some support from Final Fantasy developer Square Enix, it’s the PlayStation 2 that laid claim to the big-hitting games such as Final Fantasy X and XII, Dragon Quest VIII and the Kingdom Hearts series.
> 
> Square Enix senior VP Michihiro Sasaki told the Wall Street Journal today that his company is certainly going to support the PS3, but it isn’t going to overdo it. "We don't want the PlayStation 3 to be the overwhelming loser, so we want to support them," he said. "But we don't want them to be the overwhelming winner either, so we can't support them too much."


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 29, 2006)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Ouch...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It means pretty much waht a lot of people in the industry have been saying. Sony won't be making so many exclusivity contracts in this next generation. You can see that happening in the latter days of this generation. Final fantasy on the xbox, grand theft auto on the xbox Metal gear on the gamecube. The software makers have been figuring out and trying new ways to skirt the exclusivity agreements they do have. Final fantasy XI is online so that doesnt count, So long as theres a year between the games it should be ok. 

This next generation we'll see a lot of things released multiplatform. I bet to the point where we will open up game magazines and the only section may just be multiplatform(it certainly will be the largest).


----------



## reanjr (Sep 30, 2006)

I'm really surprised at the multi-threading comment.  What about the Cell architecture makes it deficient at multi-threading?  Why can't the multi-threaded features be replaced with multiple process an inter process communication?  Anyone know?

From what I've seen of Suare Enix's lineup, I think they plan to release the core FF games on PS3 and all most other games on the other platforms.  Square Enix very much remembers when Nintendo was the despot of the gaming industry and they see Sony going in that direction.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 30, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> I'm really surprised at the multi-threading comment.  What about the Cell architecture makes it deficient at multi-threading?  Why can't the multi-threaded features be replaced with multiple process an inter process communication?  Anyone know?




The Cell's bad at conventional multithreading because it's an asymetric multiprocessing CPU -- it's got one fairly conventional core (the PPE), and the 7 SPEs which are really wierd, and only really good at single-percision floating point. So the techniques you'd use to scale an application so that it's faster on a dual-CPU (or dual-core CPU these days) machine don't really work for offloading stuff on to the SPEs. And you'd rather do as much on the PPE as you can, because it's very similar to the main core on the Xbox 360, so anything you do there doesn't have to be reworked for a port (in either direction).

There's a lot more overhead with processes than with threads, and for various reasons it's kind of difficult for the SPEs to talk to the rest of the system.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 30, 2006)

Here's a snippet from Arstechnica about the different cores:


"However bad off Xenon (360 CPU) will be in that department, the PS3's Cell will probably be worse. The Cell has only one PPE to the Xenon's three, which means that developers will have to cram all their game control, AI, and physics code into at most two threads that are sharing a very narrow execution core with no instruction window. (Don't bother suggesting that the PS3 can use its SPEs for branch-intensive code, because the SPEs lack branch prediction entirely.) Furthermore, the PS3's L2 is only 512K, which is half the size of the Xenon's L2. So the PS3 doesn't get much help with branches in the cache department."

-Arstechnica


----------



## reanjr (Sep 30, 2006)

Ummm... what is the point of 7 procs if they shouldn't be used for game control, AI, and physics?  What else is there besides audio and video?  Why not SLI in another video card or add a nice dedicated sound card in the mix?

What gaming benefits does this architecture provide?


----------



## drothgery (Sep 30, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Ummm... what is the point of 7 procs if they shouldn't be used for game control, AI, and physics?  What else is there besides audio and video?  Why not SLI in another video card or add a nice dedicated sound card in the mix?
> 
> What gaming benefits does this architecture provide?




Originally, the idea was to use the Cell (or two Cells) as both a CPU and a GPU. When the 360 was ramping up, it became pretty clear that wasn't going to work well enough (Sony had used a similar approach in the PS2; the Emotion Engine is the same kind of design as the Cell, except that the sub-CPUs are simpler, there are only four of them, and the main core is MIPS-based rather than PowerPC-based), nVidia was hastily brought on board to provide a GPU, which is pretty much a GeForce 7900 (though of the less-extreme variety; keeping within a console power envelope means the GPU and video memory aren't clocked anything like top-end PC cards). Sony denies this these days, but there's really no logical explanation otherwise.

I'm not a fan of any of the CPU choices in this round of the console wars, though I think the 360's sucks the least. Nintendo's is massively underpowered (if rumors are correct, and the Wii CPU is nothing more than a die-shrunk, higher-clocked version of the GameCube's G3). Microsoft and Sony both committed to highly parallel, in-order designs which just suck for conventional programming. The Xenon's effectively better than the Cell (though the Cell's got a higher theoretical top-end) because it's got three identical cores, so conventional approaches for taking advantage of parallelism work. And Microsoft and Sony like oddball designs because they're harder to hack. But I still think a dual-core x86 or G5 variant would have worked better.


----------

