# Fortune Magazine: How Nintendo is beating Sony and Microsoft



## Vigilance (Jun 2, 2007)

> At the Nintendo World store in New York City's Rockefeller Center, shipments arrive nightly. In the wee hours customers begin lining up around the block. Doors open at nine, and a few hours later the consoles are gone. In the world's gadget epicenter, Tokyo's Akihabara district, shopkeepers complain about the lack of inventory. Wii displays are covered with SOLD OUT signs, while piles of PlayStation3 boxes carry a different message: 5 percent OFF. Even the Nintendo of America company store near Seattle sees lines of employees, visitors and contractors. Forget about lucking into a Wii at your local Best Buy (Charts, Fortune 500).
> 
> It's not unusual for a new game console to sell out during its pre-Christmas introduction, only to see sales dwindle come January. But six months after the Wii's launch, sales are accelerating. Nintendo sold 360,000 boxes in the U.S. in April, 100,000 more than in March. That's two Wiis for every Xbox 360 and four for every PlayStation3.
> 
> ...




Plenty more nice observations in the full article, including that Nintendo's employees generate more revenue than Microsoft (not the games division, overall) and more than Google as well.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/06/11/100083454/index.htm


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 4, 2007)

Turns out it's even worse in Japan:



> Bloomberg, quoting figures from Famitsu publisher Enterbrain Inc, revealed that 251,794 Wiis had been sold in Japan in May, five times as many units as the PS3. Microsoft's Xbox 360 lagged even further behind, with 11,082 units changing hands last month. Exact figures were not given for PS3 sales, but they are likely to be in the region of 50,000.
> 
> The story was much the same in the battle of the handhelds, with the Nintendo DS having sold 620,670 to the PlayStation Portable's 123,673 during May.




http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171932.html?tag=latestnews;title;0


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 5, 2007)

You do realize you're putting a smile on my face, right?


----------



## Thanee (Jun 5, 2007)

More power to them! 

The Wii was a great idea and the current up is certainly deserved.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 5, 2007)

Economic analysis is nice and all, but there's a simpler reason for Nintendo's success.  Nintendo is a gaming company, Sony and Microsoft are not.  It's not surprising they'll make better games, because they're more focused.  Sony (especially) and MS tried to be too many things at once.  At least MS has XBox Live, which I consider one of the biggest innovations in current console gaming.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 5, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Economic analysis is nice and all, but there's a simpler reason for Nintendo's success.  Nintendo is a gaming company, Sony and Microsoft are not.  It's not surprising they'll make better games, because they're more focused.  Sony (especially) and MS tried to be too many things at once.  At least MS has XBox Live, which I consider one of the biggest innovations in current console gaming.




Actually, in another Fortune article, they mentioned how Nintendo is well known for its games, but that that is not necessarily a good thing.  Consoles thrive on 3rd-party support (as sales ramp up later in the consoles life, a big part of that is 3rd-party releases).

Nintendo being a gaming company is a part of the success, but I'm not sure how significant.  Nintendo took a totally different approach than Sony and Microsoft.  They took a huge risk, and so far they're reaping the benefits.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 5, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Actually, in another Fortune article, they mentioned how Nintendo is well known for its games, but that that is not necessarily a good thing.  Consoles thrive on 3rd-party support (as sales ramp up later in the consoles life, a big part of that is 3rd-party releases).
> 
> Nintendo being a gaming company is a part of the success, but I'm not sure how significant.  Nintendo took a totally different approach than Sony and Microsoft.  They took a huge risk, and so far they're reaping the benefits.




Well- 3rd party support for the Wii is starting to ramp up after an initial dry spell because of the huge growth curve of the install base.

This is more or less exactly what happened with the DS.


----------



## Rl'Halsinor (Jun 5, 2007)

I remember when Nintendo (and I am not a fanboy by a long shot) first revealed the Wii and how the naa sayers replete with gaming Wisdom 1) said it couldn't compete against the XBox 360 and especially the PS3 because 2) that the Wii was for "kids" while the other two were for "adults and teens", 3) the graphics are no where near as good [strange, I always thought replayability and story/concept were vastly more important],and 4) the new controllers though novel weren't very practical. 


Now Wii is kicking both of the big boys all over the place it has become outright laughable to read the excuses as to why this is happening from the XBox 360 and PS3 fanboys.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 5, 2007)

Rl'Halsinor said:
			
		

> I remember when Nintendo (and I am not a fanboy by a long shot) first revealed the Wii and how the naa sayers replete with gaming Wisdom 1) said it couldn't compete against the XBox 360 and especially the PS3 because 2) that the Wii was for "kids" while the other two were for "adults and teens", 3) the graphics are no where near as good [strange, I always thought replayability and story/concept were vastly more important],and 4) the new controllers though novel weren't very practical.
> 
> 
> Now Wii is kicking both of the big boys all over the place it has become outright laughable to read the excuses as to why this is happening from the XBox 360 and PS3 fanboys.




When I said I thought the Wii was going to be the dominant console of this generation of systems, I was told I was a Nintendo fanboy who just didn't understand the appeal of high-end electronics, HD TV, Blue Ray etc. by folks on this board. 

I was also told I was silly for thinking the PS3 would be a disaster because of its price point and lack of features (relative to the 360). Cause... you know... it's the Playstation. How could it fail? Even if it is overpriced and loses all its non-Sony exclusives (like GTA especially).


----------



## Nyaricus (Jun 5, 2007)

PS3 = Still too expensive, not many games which are taking advantage of it's power.

XBox 360 = it's all in the name mate... they just did the same thing again, albeit with a few more toys and a higher pricetag.

Wii = a cheap (as in you could still likely buy two Wiis for one PS3), hella fun console with an imaginative, innovative controller.



That's my take on it. It's fairly easy to see.

cheers,
--N


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 5, 2007)

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> PS3 = Still too expensive, not many games which are taking advantage of it's power.




Yeah... and I think this will be the problem with the PS3 over its life cycle. If you look at the original X-Box, its games could potentially look MUCH better than the PS2, if you look at games designed for the platform.

But since PS2 had such a larger install base, all game developers not being paid off by MS would design for that, and then port to the X-box, meaning 99% of the games for the platform looked like their PS2 counterparts, or a bit worse.

This time, that trend will be reversed, with all non-Sony games being developed for the bigger install base (360) and then ported over.

In fact that's been happening so far, with the expected results: most Ps3 games look the same or a little worse than the 360 despite it's technological edge.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 6, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> In fact that's been happening so far, with the expected results: most Ps3 games look the same or a little worse than the 360 despite it's technological edge.




There's an additional subtle reason for this, I think.  From what I understand, the XBox and 360 are based more on PC architecture, and are easier to program on, so more time can be spent on the pretty than optimization.  I remember when the PS2 came out, there was a big uproar over how difficult it was to do something as relatively trivial as anti-aliasing.  In fact, IIRC Sony even had to teach people how to do it.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 6, 2007)

Yet another tidbit... for the month of may, the 20 best selling games were all Nintendo platform games (Wii and DS). 

Ouch.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 6, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Yet another tidbit... for the month of may, the 20 best selling games were all Nintendo platform games (Wii and DS).
> 
> Ouch.



You know what that means. Sony needs to put out more porn games.

*placeholder: evil laugh smiley*


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 6, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You know what that means. Sony needs to put out more porn games.
> 
> *placeholder: evil laugh smiley*




Yeah cause that's clearly what the market wants. Most of them were super kid-friendly lol. 

An over-reliance on shooters and racers is what has traditionally killed MS consoles over there (than and I think Japanese people made their Will save in larger numbers and can see Gates is the devil).


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jun 6, 2007)

Rl'Halsinor said:
			
		

> Now Wii is kicking both of the big boys all over the place it has become outright laughable to read the excuses as to why this is happening from the XBox 360 and PS3 fanboys.




See, from what I remember, most folks figured Nintendo would sell lots of consoles as "second consoles", and folks would get a 360 & Wii for the price of a PS3, etc. Now, this is not entirely true, obviously.

I was really having fun with the Wii before it released to an utter lack of anything I wanted to play on it. I held off getting a 360 for a while until I could get games I actually wanted to play. (And right now it's basically useless until the rest of the games come out I want.)

BUT, all that said, the comparisons I've seen are all majorly faulty. Comparing Wii Sales for this month with 360 Sales for this month is bad logic. Comparing Wii Sales for this month vs 360 Sales for last year would be a bit more accurate, though still a little off due to availability issues.

At this point, the 360 still has a larger install base (worldwide) than the Wii, but these articles make it seem the opposite.

I think the Wii will keep going, but eventually the gimmicky nature of most of it's games will start to lag and sales will fall, especially when other consoles lower prices and kick out some big names to compete.

As for the PS3? The price, the blu-ray, the arrogance... I never figured the PS3 would fail against the 360, but I figured it'd fail against the PS2. The PS2 is probably competing well with the Wii & 360 still, and the PS3 won't gain energy until Sony pulls the PS2 plug. (Which, I doubt it will soon, given it's making more money there...)

Also, the old maxim is that "games sell consoles", but the Wii seems to be selling based more on it's controller than it's games. Except maybe Wii Sports. I don't know if that's sustainable, and I"m sure they'll want to transition to a more stable model once they get the game support.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 6, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> BUT, all that said, the comparisons I've seen are all majorly faulty. Comparing Wii Sales for this month with 360 Sales for this month is bad logic. Comparing Wii Sales for this month vs 360 Sales for last year would be a bit more accurate, though still a little off due to availability issues.




Oh they've done those comparisons too. 

The Wii has outsold every console ever in its first 6 months, even the PS 2.

http://www.informationarbitrage.com/2007/05/nintendo_wii_a_.html



> At this point, the 360 still has a larger install base (worldwide) than the Wii, but these articles make it seem the opposite.




No, it's the growth curve everyone is looking at with a raised eyebrow. Of course the install base of the 360 is larger. If you run unopposed for more than a year and get passed in a few months (remember the Wii only debuted at November of last year) then you have flopped.

But right now Wii's are selling at twice the pace of the 360. If they can maintain that for awhile, they will pass them. 

Also, these guys are looking at the worldwide market. The Wii is selling at twice the pace of the 360 here. In Japan, Wiis are selling at something like twenty times the pace of the 360. 



> I think the Wii will keep going, but eventually the gimmicky nature of most of it's games will start to lag and sales will fall, especially when other consoles lower prices and kick out some big names to compete.




I disagree, and I think one reason the analysts are thinking this might not happen is looking at the DS. They dismissed the DS as "a gimmick" when compared to the PSP. The PSP has more bells and whistles, is more of a multimedia device, and is much more expensive. 

And the DS is cleaning its clock. 



> As for the PS3? The price, the blu-ray, the arrogance... I never figured the PS3 would fail against the 360, but I figured it'd fail against the PS2. The PS2 is probably competing well with the Wii & 360 still, and the PS3 won't gain energy until Sony pulls the PS2 plug. (Which, I doubt it will soon, given it's making more money there...)




I think Sony would be willing to pull the plug on the PS2 and eat the loss (lord knows it's losing billions in the gaming division already) but Sony is in a weird spot where developers just aren't making many games for the PS3. So they risk losing even more market share if the PS2 leaves the new games picture. 



> Also, the old maxim is that "games sell consoles", but the Wii seems to be selling based more on it's controller than it's games. Except maybe Wii Sports. I don't know if that's sustainable, and I"m sure they'll want to transition to a more stable model once they get the game support.




I think what we're already seeing is exactly what happened with the DS. Some third parties supported it early, most didn't, but then the install base got so big, they had to, and then there was a flood of 3rd party games.

We're already hearing rumblings that this is happening with the Wii. Just about every 3rd party company has promised more support for the console. 

Games might sell consoles, but the console is ALREADY selling. And the inverse is also true. Developers are happy to develop for any console that has a large install base. Especially one without a lot of competition, and one that is the cheapest console to develop for. 

In other words, based on its controller or not (and again you could say exactly the same thing about the single fastest selling console in the world- the DS- and a lot of folks did), I expect to see a lot of 3rd parties make good on their recent promises to support the Wii and its install base, which is still growing, and growing faster than any other console.

Chuck


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jun 6, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Oh they've done those comparisons too.
> 
> The Wii has outsold every console ever in its first 6 months, even the PS 2.
> 
> http://www.informationarbitrage.com/2007/05/nintendo_wii_a_.html



Thanks, haven't seen that comparison before. There are still other factor of course (price vs current consolves for example), but I imagine the main one is as much availability as anything.





> But right now Wii's are selling at twice the pace of the 360. If they can maintain that for awhile, they will pass them.




Right, but most of the stuff makes it seem like Wii's already outnumber 360's. In addition, the Wii is the delight of the press, and that amount of coverage/ free advertising is a huge boost.



> Also, these guys are looking at the worldwide market. The Wii is selling at twice the pace of the 360 here. In Japan, Wiis are selling at something like twenty times the pace of the 360.



Lets be realistic, everyone knew that everyone would outsell the 360 in Japan, long before the systems were even finalized. Folks can say it is nationalist buying on Japan's part, or that Microsoft simply doesn't understand the market, but the idea that they would ever outsell in Japan was never even floated. Aside from that though, the Wii is a perfect fit for the Japanese market IMO, a more casual game system for a culture with a more ingrained casual game.





> I disagree, and I think one reason the analysts are thinking this might not happen is looking at the DS. They dismissed the DS as "a gimmick" when compared to the PSP. The PSP has more bells and whistles, is more of a multimedia device, and is much more expensive.
> 
> And the DS is cleaning its clock.



The DS is a product improved Gameboy, which already owned that market. Sony had to fight into that market, like they did with PS1, and this time they lost. (I blame it on stupid advertising, a Sony Hallmark. 

The DS is a well thought out little game system, certainly. I have one myself, and it's enjoyable when I can find a good game for it.

That said, way too many of the DS games add the touch screen stuff as a gimick. A significant amount of Wii games look the same way. The system risks being marginalized with all the "party game" stuff, IMO.





> I think Sony would be willing to pull the plug on the PS2 and eat the loss (lord knows it's losing billions in the gaming division already) but Sony is in a weird spot where developers just aren't making many games for the PS3. So they risk losing even more market share if the PS2 leaves the new games picture.




I think Sony might have blinked first and realized that maybe building the PS3 around BluRay might have been a bit bad. They've got investors and they can't make every decision to lose money. 





> I think what we're already seeing is exactly what happened with the DS. Some third parties supported it early, most didn't, but then the install base got so big, they had to, and then there was a flood of 3rd party games.
> 
> We're already hearing rumblings that this is happening with the Wii. Just about every 3rd party company has promised more support for the console.




I think third party will be there, but I think it's a matter of them always making the same style games. It all depends on whether they can get some good games that break the mold and branch out the system.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 7, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> More power to them!
> 
> The Wii was a great idea and the current up is certainly deserved.



So's their handheld DS.   

Don't worry. Sony is somehow getting ready to release a next-gen handheld that has something to do with Sony filling a patent for something.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 8, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> An over-reliance on shooters and racers is what has traditionally killed MS consoles over there (than and I think Japanese people made their Will save in larger numbers and can see Gates is the devil).



Personally, Microsoft shouldn't be in the business of doing game consoles in the first place. They should focus on making computer replacing game consoles.

But NOOOOOOOO!!! For a nerd, Gates is dumb.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 8, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Personally, Microsoft shouldn't be in the business of doing game consoles in the first place. They should focus on making computer replacing game consoles.
> 
> But NOOOOOOOO!!! For a nerd, Gates is dumb.




The thing is though, PC gaming is in serious decline until you look at MMOs. The money is in MMO memberships and console game license fees. 

So MS had the choice of taking on WoW, taking on Sony, or trying something totally new. I think they made a pretty reasonable choice myself. 

And as far as their consoles go, I never had an X-Box, but Im on the verge of buying a 360. It interests me WAY more than the PS3.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 8, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> When I said I thought the Wii was going to be the dominant console of this generation of systems, I was told I was a Nintendo fanboy who just didn't understand the appeal of high-end electronics, HD TV, Blue Ray etc. by folks on this board.
> 
> I was also told I was silly for thinking the PS3 would be a disaster because of its price point and lack of features (relative to the 360). Cause... you know... it's the Playstation. How could it fail? Even if it is overpriced and loses all its non-Sony exclusives (like GTA especially).



Yeah, I remember that never ending debate.

However I will stand by my statements - Wii is a damned silly name!  (Not very constructive, but still true.)

If Oblivion was available for the Wii they might almost have had me.... You look like a complete idiot when using the controller, but it _is_ fun.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 8, 2007)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Yeah, I remember that never ending debate.
> 
> However I will stand by my statements - Wii is a damned silly name!  (Not very constructive, but still true.)



I'm already over the silly name like I'm over the "tough little ship" _Defiant_ in _DS9_ (I initially didn't liked it but now I'd rather have that over _Enterprise-D_).

If Nintendo can join with LucasArts and make a lightsaber duel videogame with their controllers, they'll secure their top position.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jun 8, 2007)

Heh, Nintendo fans sure like to gloat. But still, it's hard to say who is a winner, because all 3 companies are playing different games.  And it's still early yet - remember, the PSP was actually beating the DS until the DS lite came out.

Sony is taking more of a long view - they aim for a console lifespan of about 8-10 years. Since they were the "winner" of the last generation, any new console would be competing with themselves. And indeed, the PS2 has continued to sell extremely well even after the launches of all 3 consoles. It's only just now that the Wii has gone ahead of the PS2 in monthly sales, and the 360 doesn't even do that

But beyond that, Sony has other goals. They want to push their disc format for movies (Blu Ray) and they want to push their vision of a connected home (and beyond), as opposed to Microsoft's.   Although sales of either format of HD disc are really lousy, it does look like the PS3 threw the tide in favor of Blu Ray. Maybe it's only temporary, but without the PS3, Blu Ray would be dead already.  And we're just starting to see their ideas of connectivity, like how you can now use a PSP to access content (like video or music or photos) on your PC from anywhere in the world over the internet, via a PS3.


Microsoft wants to keep their dominance in the PC realm. They only got into the console business because they feared Sony's vision of the Playstation becoming an internet hub instead of the PC, thus cutting out their sales of $100-200 OSs for just about every home computer sold.

They also want to get a cut of the money from online internet gaming, via Xbox Live.     They are begining to introduce that with Shadowrun - you need to buy Live Gold if you are on a PC and want to play against 360 owners. Not exactly enticing, but I'm sure they will roll out more benefits down the road.  


Nintendo, OTOH, focuses more on games and profit. They almost always go with underpowered but cheap to produce hardware. And while I personally can't stand most of them, they have always been able to produce critically acclaimed games and even when they've come in "3rd", they've actually make tons of money, because their own games sell very well, and their hardware is cheap.

And I think it does remain to be see if the Wii is more than a fad. I mean, the Wii is literally a turbo charged gamecube with a gimmicky controller (It's arguably less powerful than the original Xbox).  While I do think that the desireability of graphics from a consumer's standpoint is somewhat overrated (since the PS2 was basically the weakest of the lot, and it won), at the same time, most of its popularity seems to be with non and casual gamers.  I think it will lose some of its luster as more and more people HDTVs and people wonder why the graphics are so bad, and get tired of waggling all the time.

And Sony has yet to launch its Eyetoy for the PS3. Which will apparently allow waggle without using a stick (well, the original PS2 eyetoy actually did as well, but the PS3 one is supposed to be a lot better at tracking movements). Although IMHO it's doubtful that people will buy a PS3 + a fairly expensive add on just for waggle, it could not only do that light saber game, but map your face on your guy in the game as well.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 8, 2007)

My observation is that people are playing with the Wii who have never touched other console games. The interactivity with the controller is so much more appealing to the variety of people I see using it.

I wonder to what extent the Wii's good figures comes from it breaking into brand new consumers, rather than a traditional console consumers market?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 8, 2007)

Here's an interesting new report.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172235.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;1


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 8, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting new report.
> 
> http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172235.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;1




Interesting.

It basically sounds like they want to be the Wii. More kid friendly games and a $200 price? 

Heck... they'd have me for more than that. Im considering getting a 360.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 9, 2007)

Damn, I've been trying to get my hands on a Wii ever since I got royally screwed out of one as a X-mas present for my nephews by stupid Wally World employees on release day.  Makes me wonder if I'll be able to get them one for next Christmas...


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 24, 2007)

Rl'Halsinor said:
			
		

> I remember when Nintendo (and I am not a fanboy by a long shot) first revealed the Wii and how the naa sayers replete with gaming Wisdom 1) said it couldn't compete against the XBox 360 and especially the PS3 because 2) that the Wii was for "kids" while the other two were for "adults and teens", 3) the graphics are no where near as good [strange, I always thought replayability and story/concept were vastly more important],and 4) the new controllers though novel weren't very practical.
> 
> 
> Now Wii is kicking both of the big boys all over the place it has become outright laughable to read the excuses as to why this is happening from the XBox 360 and PS3 fanboys.




Congrats on Nintendo.  A friend of mine just got one for his birthday, and it's pretty cool.  Doesn't mean I love my 360 any less.  It all comes down to what you like, what games etc. you're interested in.  On a personal level, many 360 games appeal to me more than what I've seen on the Wii, or on the older Gamecube.

It's good to see Nintendo doing well, however.  The controls are kind of innovative, though I don't think they'll be nearly as good for things like driving or flight sims.  Maybe *arcade* games, but not the sims.

And any gaming company that figures a way to get players butts off the couch, and get them to do something that can cause them to start sweating deserves some kudos in my book.

I think the MS reliance on online playing will hurt them in the battle in the long run.  The 360 has fantastic games, but many are online playable only, instead of split screen.  Some, like Forza 2, Gears of War, NHL 07 etc. can be played split screen...but not enough.  A buddy of mine has the 360 also, and we live a few minutes away from each other.  But if we can to play together with many of our games, we've got to be sitting in separate homes....kinda hard to open a beer and tease each other when we're away.  The Wii is much more conducive to that style of play.

I still like many of the titles on the 360 better....as I did with the original XBox vs. the PS2 and GameCube.  The Nintendo games tend to be more "kid-friendly", whereas I tend to prefer more hardcore games.  But those preferences likely don't extend as much to the broader gaming public.

In the end, given how much my wife enjoyed the Wii last night, I'll likely need to end up buying one for her at some point anyways.  Sheesh....scoring 191 in bowling, and kicking the butts of the rest of us, two games in a row.  I guess how can she not like it? 

Banshee


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 24, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Sony is taking more of a long view - they aim for a console lifespan of about 8-10 years. Since they were the "winner" of the last generation, any new console would be competing with themselves. And indeed, the PS2 has continued to sell extremely well even after the launches of all 3 consoles. It's only just now that the Wii has gone ahead of the PS2 in monthly sales, and the 360 doesn't even do that.




While I don't disagree that may be part of their strategy, I don't think it's a strategy that works.

For one, they're competing against themselves - if the PS2 is selling so well, that's (theoretically) cutting into the PS3 market.  With the PS3, they're cutting into the well-selling PS2 market.  In essence, for all the casual gamers, they're dividing that market and hurting both, which is generally seen as a bad thing to do to yourself.  Through supporting the PS2, they're encouraging people not to buy the PS3.  Sure, there's a side-effect of encouraging a few people not to buy _any_ current-gen console - but I think those people are a rarity.

That's not the big problem though.  The big problem is that the lifespan of the PS2 and PS3 might be 8-10 years, or more - but that's not the cycle that console development has.  Irregardless of what Sony plans, Nintendo and Microsoft will push the next-gen on them in five years, or sooner.  Sony will have no choice but to match that cycle, and the reason for _that_ is because of the hardcore gamers, who want to have the latest and greatest.  So, focusing on that 2-4+ years for the PS3 after they're forced to put out the PS4 doesn't really help them in the long run.  While it's certainly possible that the PS3 may repeat the PS2's late-game success, I don't feel that's likely to happen.

So, as I said, I do agree with you that this is part of their strategy, and I do agree with several other points you made.  However, I don't think that calling this a long-term strategy makes it become a winning strategy.  Contrast that with the Blu-ray player, which definitely has potential to be a winning strategy.  The lifespan strategy has little to almost no potential, in my opinion.


----------



## ssampier (Jun 24, 2007)

Glad to see Nintendo finally getting some respect. In my mind, they were gasping for air until the Wii came out. Previously, they were rehashing Game Boy consoles and releasing boring games for N64 (Mario Kart is one exception). Then the GameCube came out and not much had changed; more generally boring games (with a few exceptions).

The Wii was going to make or break the company. Glad they are still around.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 25, 2007)

ssampier said:
			
		

> Glad to see Nintendo finally getting some respect. In my mind, they were gasping for air until the Wii came out. Previously, they were rehashing Game Boy consoles and releasing boring games for N64 (Mario Kart is one exception). Then the GameCube came out and not much had changed; more generally boring games (with a few exceptions).
> 
> The Wii was going to make or break the company. Glad they are still around.



 Truthfully, I think everyone(including myself) should have started paying Nintendo a bit more attention when the DS came out. Or at least once it proved to do something that seemed stupid(touching is good) and ran with it in such a way that they just knew exactly what they were doing. They found game models that were just plain fun, even if it wasn't the most amazingly looking or deep plot...fun.

It was a perfect preview of what happened with the Wii, save for the cries about the name.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 25, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Truthfully, I think everyone(including myself) should have started paying Nintendo a bit more attention when the DS came out. Or at least once it proved to do something that seemed stupid(touching is good) and ran with it in such a way that they just knew exactly what they were doing. They found game models that were just plain fun, even if it wasn't the most amazingly looking or deep plot...fun.
> 
> It was a perfect preview of what happened with the Wii, save for the cries about the name.




Yep. 

There's also some lessons to be learned from a failed console here: the Nokia NGage.

That lesson is that specialization is good. Game consoles are dedicated computers. You can try to grow them beyond that all you want, but the console's primary purpose (as a gaming device) still has to be top notch in order to drive sales.

In other words, the PS3 isn't worth a premium price as a game console. The fact that it's an all-in-one entertainment center won't drive sales, anymore than the Nokia working as an MP3 player and a phone could drive its sales.

And the PSP is in sort of the same boat imo, though the jury is still out on that system. The price cut seems to have helped it A LOT. Now we need to see a steady stream of great games for it, and it will have a good chance of sticking around.

Trying to marry it to a video format (UMD) that was interesting, but overpriced, almost sunk the PSP, because people frankly never gave a damn about UMD. They wanted games, and two GTA games isn't enough to sell a console, especially not when they come to the console everyone owns (the PS2) shortly thereafter. 

Sound familiar? Sounds like the exact strategy Sony is employing with the PS3. 

Price your console way higher than the competition, keep your install base mired at about 1/3 to 1/2 of your competition, spend most of your first party support dollars propping up a video format no one cares about, then look around in disbelief when the 3rd party support flocks to the superior game console (that also happens to be outselling you by a huge margin). 

Way to learn from your mistakes guys.

And btw... I'm not one of those "gloating" Nintendo fanboys someone mentioned above, any more than Fortune Magazine is. I think the game industry is vastly improved by a healthy presence from Sony, Nintendo and MS. I just call BS when I see it, and Sony's strategy post PS2 Slimline has been BS. 

Chuck


----------



## ssampier (Jun 27, 2007)

That's a good point, I had nearly forgotten about the DS. When it came out, I was thinking it was innovative and different, but those things don't necessarily sell a system (Virtual Boy was both of these things, but with more eyestrain). As you mentioned they gambled and hit it big.

Further, yes, being "all things to all people" does not equal success. I'm sure the only people that really care the Ps2 can play DVDs are younger kids; the true selling point is the games.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 27, 2007)

As much as Nintendo has done well (I love my Wii, BTW!) it's them coming back to the party.  It's about damn time.  Still, they are going to need more games to keep this going (read: competing with the PS3/360).  The big guns are still a way off with the PS3 and the 360 has some killer stuff on the horizon.  The PS3 won't see real growth until late 07/early 08.  It doesn't need to as the PS2 is still selling and competitive in the market.

As an owner of all the consoles, I am most impressed with the PS3 as a next-gen machine.  It is rock-solid compared to the 360 (hardware issues) and the Wii, as fun as it is, still worries me a bit, just like the last 2 Nintendo consoles.  The problem is obvious with the PS3 - the games, not the price.  If there were real killer titles on it (or maybe just one) it would be doing better.  Motorstorm & Resistance are excellent but not must haves.  We'll see what happens when Lair hits.

I should also mention that while I do own all three, I haven't used any of them all that much recently or even bought a game since God of War II.  The PS3 gets used for movies/TV and that's about it.


----------



## werk (Jun 27, 2007)

The problem with the playstation 3 is the problem with Sony.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 27, 2007)

Remember, though, that the Wii still has some big guns on the horizon, too. Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Brothers Brawl, and Metriod Prime 3 being foremost...and there IS something to be said about them being out this year, while the PS3 is still waiting on thiers.

I still think we'll see the Wii develop like the DS, especially with third party games. At first, no one really knew what to do with the DS and Nintendo was just cranking out the games with anything they could think of to use the touch screen. Then, after publishers started to see what you could really DO, they began jumping in with some amazing games and it hasn't stopped. As the Wii is selling much like the DS, getting the same kind of criticisms(just a party game, too odd, a fad, not enough power compared to competitors[PSP]), and showing the same initial third party game slump...I see no reason that this won't happen.

Really, there's already been talk about third party publishers starting to jump in after a few months of seeing what can be done.

If the PS3 keeps waiting, its only going to keep hurting Sony. The second the Wii passes enough time to finally get past the "Its just a fad" comments, like the DS did, people will start to REALLY take notice even moreso. If Sony just relies on the PS2 to drive them, then the PS3 is going to only fall farther behind both the 360 and the Wii. The price shows no real sign of changing, and even if it does, Sony will lose even more money selling the systems.

While I love the PS2, and still turn it on to play some great games all the time, I just can't get behind Sony for this generation. They're trying too hard to rely on "We're Sony, buy us because we're amazing" rather than actually...well...anything else. Nintendo's jumped back into the game and is using what they've learned from the handheld market to dominate, and whether people like it or not, this is staying strong, Wiis are still near impossible to get a hold of because people are buying them so fast. And Microsoft is watching all of this and LEARNING. They're doing what Sony should be doing, adapting. The 'kid friendly' insult for the Wii is something that MS is going to try more with their system...because its selling.

While Nintendo is taking the lead, MS seems to be taking a very smart road and seeing what works, then adapting that to their system...while at the same time playing to their own strengths. Sony, however, is just trying to do the same old thing, which is failing terribly.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 27, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Remember, though, that the Wii still has some big guns on the horizon, too. Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Brothers Brawl, and Metriod Prime 3 being foremost...and there IS something to be said about them being out this year, while the PS3 is still waiting on thiers.



I'm never worried about the 1st party stuff from Nintendo, it is there on every console.  I'm always concerned about the 3rd party stuff.  It is looking up for the Wii, but I'll wait and see if it gets more attention than the N64 & GC.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 27, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> The problem is obvious with the PS3 - the games, not the price.  If there were real killer titles on it (or maybe just one) it would be doing better.  Motorstorm & Resistance are excellent but not must haves.  We'll see what happens when Lair hits.




But that's the rub isn't it? I mean, how do you let GTA go to the 360 at the game's launch? Sony clearly had no idea that getting GTA all to itself for a year or so was a major part of their dominance at the end of the last generation. 

And also, I'll say it again: it's the price. 

If the consoles were comparably priced, it would be a slugfest. But the PS3, from what I've seen, just hasn't done anything to justify its higher price point. Even MS have admitted now that the "sweet spot" in the market is a $200 console. On almost the same day, Sony said they were thinking about "adjusting" the price of the PS3.

Basically, both console makers are now trying to figure out how much MORE money they can afford to lose on their consoles to try and compete with the Wii. 

I think the two dominant consoles of this generation will be the Wii and PS2 (assuming Sony doesn't start refusing to license games for the console in an attempt to force an upgrade).

We're already seeing this trend, with game publishers making Wii games and then porting them to the PS2. The consoles seem graphically similar and things I've read from publishers make it clear that the port isnt that difficult.  

Though it isnt coming out, this is where the PS2 Manhunt 2 game came from. Rockstar had made it for the Wii and the PSP, and from there it wasn't hard to port it to the PS2, which is still attractive because everyone has one (with more slimlines sold everyday).


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 27, 2007)

Really, I wouldn't say its the price OR the games that are hurting the PS3. Its both. The price is so high that its hard to justify spending that much for the games that are out, but at the same time, the games just don't justify the price.

So the real problem is on both ends, which is worse than it being one or the other.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 27, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Really, I wouldn't say its the price OR the games that are hurting the PS3. Its both. The price is so high that its hard to justify spending that much for the games that are out, but at the same time, the games just don't justify the price.
> 
> So the real problem is on both ends, which is worse than it being one or the other.




You also can't justify the price because of how few exclusive games there are for the PS3.

If you want to play Madden and GTA, and let's face it, there were plenty of people who bought a PS2 *solely* so they could play Madden and GTA, and you're looking to upgrade so you can play the next-gen Madden and GTA, would you get the PS3 for $600 or the 360 for $400, given that the games are going to look almost identical.

Not much of a choice is it?


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 27, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> The problem is obvious with the PS3 - the games, not the price.  If there were real killer titles on it (or maybe just one) it would be doing better.  Motorstorm & Resistance are excellent but not must haves.  We'll see what happens when Lair hits.



I agree with this. Absolutely.

It's especially true (ie. price isn't an issue) if one likes online (in which the PS3 is cheaper).


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 28, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> I agree with this. Absolutely.
> 
> It's especially true (ie. price isn't an issue) if one likes online (in which the PS3 is cheaper).




But when you say games, what you really mean is exclusive games. A console has to justify its purchase through games you cant get anywhere else, a game experience you cant get anywhere else, or else the games have to look better than they do everywhere else. 

If you aren't dealing with exclusive games, which PS3 doesn't really have in abundance, then they have to look better. Which won't happen on 3rd party games until PS3 becomes the market leader. 

In the PS2-X-Box-Gamecube era, 3rd party games were developed for the PS2 first, and frequently didn't look any better (or looked worse) on the X-Box. If you look at games that were developed for the X-Box (say Halo), it showed that games *could* look much better on the X-box. But we never saw that in terms of 3rd party games.

This time around, the situation is reversed. So Sony needs to do something, either through 1st party games or just paying to be the lead platform (which is how they held onto GTA in the PS2 era). Or a steep price cut.

Sony is selling fewer units than the 360, but since the 360 basically had a year of lead time, they need to sell MORE if they ever want to be the market leader again. 

You can say it isn't the price, and I might even buy that, but they need something on their side. And where are these games going to come from? They need games other consoles don't have, and I don't see it on the horizon for them.

I'll even relent a little on the price and say I don't think it was the biggest mistake Sony made with the PS3. The worst mistake Sony made was not dropping a pallet of money on Rockstar to keep GTA coming out first on their system. 

But in the absence of a lot of exclusive games (especially the biggest games), then price competition comes into play.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 28, 2007)

And in a move that should be a surprise to no one:



> According to a report from Variety Asia, Japan's top three third-party publishers are ramping up development for Nintendo's Wii and DS systems, at the expense of rivals Sony and Microsoft. Namco Bandai will reportedly increase Nintendo hardware development by 109 percent to 115 titles, Sega will up its titles by 96 percent to 49, and Capcom titles will rise by 5 percent to 20.
> 
> Not only will Nintendo platforms be getting a greater assortment of games, but they will see a greater availability of them as well. Variety Asia says that more than 26.8 million units of Wii, DS, and Game Boy Advance software will ship during Nintendo's 2007 fiscal year. By comparison, 23.3 million units of software for the Sony platform will ship during the same period. Further, Sony machines will see a 30 to 40 percent decrease in shipped units from the three Japanese publishers, while Capcom alone will increase shipments for Nintendo systems by 81 percent to 4.7 million units.
> 
> ...


----------



## Agamon (Jun 28, 2007)

Wow.  I kinda thought the way Sony went about things with the PS3 was going to be problematic, but there really hasn't been any good news for Sony these days (unless you count their own spin).


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 28, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> And in a move that should be a surprise to no one:



 That article would only be interesting if Square-Enix decided to pull all development for the PS3 and put FFXIII on another system exclusively.  Where is the news?  Companies are producing more games for consoles that are more widespread in people's homes and less for a console that is lagging behind.  That's not news.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 28, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> That article would only be interesting if Square-Enix decided to pull all development for the PS3 and put FFXIII on another system exclusively.  Where is the news?  Companies are producing more games for consoles that are more widespread in people's homes and less for a console that is lagging behind.  That's not news.




Huh? Weren't you the guy like three posts up saying "I dunno, Nintendo consoles don't usually get a lot of 3rd party support, the Wii might be a fad".

So here's an article with the four largest 3rd party developers in Japan doubling their support for Nintendo consoles, and now you say "how is this news".

Anyway, by any reasonable definition of the term, the four largest 3rd party developers in Japan doubling their support for Nintendo, and halving it for Sony, constitutes "news".  It represents a major shift in the gaming landscape. 

And as a matter of fact, it was a headline on all the major gaming news sites. Huh, I guess those guys don't know news when they see it either. 

As for Square, they're making like two games for the PS3 sure, but what you obviously fail to realize is that their #1 game franchise, DragonQuest, is moving to the DS and the Wii, exclusively. 

And again, to me, stating that they are more or less taking a wait and see approach to any further support of the PS3 *at all* constitutes news. 

As a matter of fact, the announcement of two upcoming FF games for the DS and DQ IX for the DS were the system sellers that got me to buy my DS.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 28, 2007)

And yet we haven't heard of _Star Wars Lego Duel_ from LucasArts.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 28, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> But when you say games, what you really mean is exclusive games. A console has to justify its purchase through games you cant get anywhere else, a game experience you cant get anywhere else, or else the games have to look better than they do everywhere else.
> 
> This time around, the situation is reversed. So Sony needs to do something, either through 1st party games or just paying to be the lead platform (which is how they held onto GTA in the PS2 era). Or a steep price cut.



Well... yes? I thought that's what I was agreeing with. There's no "but".



> Sony is selling fewer units than the 360, but since the 360 basically had a year of lead time, they need to sell MORE if they ever want to be the market leader again.



I _really_ wish we could see the worldwide numbers to see by how much, instead of the incomplete (and thus unhelpful) U.S.-only numbers.



> I'll even relent a little on the price and say I don't think it was the biggest mistake Sony made with the PS3. The worst mistake Sony made was not dropping a pallet of money on Rockstar to keep GTA coming out first on their system.



Indeed. As has been said countless times on ENWorld - "it's all about the games". Glad to see that hasn't changed.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jun 29, 2007)

Personally.. I wish that Sony would release a PS2.5 meaning a system that has the gaming and graphics capabilities of the PS3 but without the Blue Ray albatross tied to its neck.  Then what they get rid of the PS2 and then later the PS3 (but after the PS4 is released.. assuming there is one).


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 29, 2007)

Is Blue Ray an albatross?  One guy I know is crowing about the PS3, because of an announcement by Blockbuster about increasing their Blue Ray complement of videos, and reducing the HDDVD.  He claims that because of that, it's an indication that Blue Ray is winning the war.  If this is true, then the fact that the PS3 is a cheaper way to get a Blue Ray player than actually buying a Blue Ray player (from what I understand), you'd think that the PS3 would be in a good position as a result.

Banshee


----------



## Bront (Jun 29, 2007)

The Wii is the first gaming consol that has gotten my mother to ASK to play it at family functions.  She's not a gamer in any sense of the word, but she loves bowling and tenns.  Games like Mario Party and Wario Ware are fun in groups, and condusive to picking up the consol for a few minutes or rotating out at a party.

I love me some graphics, but as long as you can tell what you're doing, do they need to be ultra sharp?  My only worry about the Wii is that it may be replaced in 3 years by a newer consol.  But, if it's around the same price point, I'll have STILL payed less for both of them than I would have for the PS3.


			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> I'm never worried about the 1st party stuff from Nintendo, it is there on every console.  I'm always concerned about the 3rd party stuff.  It is looking up for the Wii, but I'll wait and see if it gets more attention than the N64 & GC.



It already is.  The college games are coming back to the Wii finaly, which is good (and a good example of games you can sit around and taunt people while playing in the same room).  And a lot of games that would have only been X-box and PS2 are now coming out 360, Wii and PS2 (Note, PS2 and NOT PS3 btw).  There are also still plenty of good classic Gamecube games out there (Tales of Symphonia, Baten Kaitos if you're into RPGs, Metroid Prime and Prime 2, and many other Nintendo classic franchises) that can be had for under $20 a pop.


----------



## Bront (Jun 29, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> We're already seeing this trend, with game publishers making Wii games and then porting them to the PS2. The consoles seem graphically similar and things I've read from publishers make it clear that the port isnt that difficult.



WFIW, the Wii is supposedly insanely easy to program for.  It's debatable if it's easier than the X-Box, that's probably programer preference, but Nintendo has a huge software package available for game developers that's supposed to be pretty darn cool.

So ports TO the PS2 from the Wii make a lot of sense.


----------



## Bront (Jun 29, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Is Blue Ray an albatross?  One guy I know is crowing about the PS3, because of an announcement by Blockbuster about increasing their Blue Ray complement of videos, and reducing the HDDVD.  He claims that because of that, it's an indication that Blue Ray is winning the war.  If this is true, then the fact that the PS3 is a cheaper way to get a Blue Ray player than actually buying a Blue Ray player (from what I understand), you'd think that the PS3 would be in a good position as a result.
> 
> Banshee



The HDDVD/Bluray war won't be over for years, because they aren't NEED products.

VHS vs Betamax, you still had a VCR which was new and provided something incredably useful compaired to what was out there before (nothing).  It was a mainstream product.

CDs and DVD provided increased clairity, but it's big features were size (for storage), Data access, ease of production, and durability (Tapes wear with age and use poorly), and the industry backed them.  They were mainstream products.

But HDDVD/Bluray doesn't bring anything new to the table beyond storage, which isn't usefull unless you've already spent a good $3,000 to $5,000 on a system to use it.  It's truely a luxury product, and most mainstreamers could care less beyond any preference to technical specs or companies.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 29, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Is Blue Ray an albatross?  One guy I know is crowing about the PS3, because of an announcement by Blockbuster about increasing their Blue Ray complement of videos, and reducing the HDDVD.  He claims that because of that, it's an indication that Blue Ray is winning the war.  If this is true, then the fact that the PS3 is a cheaper way to get a Blue Ray player than actually buying a Blue Ray player (from what I understand), you'd think that the PS3 would be in a good position as a result.
> 
> Banshee




I think the importance of the Playstation consoles as media players has long been overstated and that the addition of media play capabilities is a nice bonus, as long as it doesn't affect a console in other ways. 

The Playstation didn't succeed because it was a CD player, and the PS2 didn't succeed because it was a DVD player. 

The CD capability *DID* help the Playstation gain dominance because that increased storage capacity led to games that literally couldn't have been made without it. The Final Fantasy series, for example, jumped to the PS because the CD gave them the ability to make VII the huge game that it was. 

Now clearly Sony thinks being a media player is an advantage, because of the 1st party development effort they put into UMDs for the PSP, which was largely a fiasco.

With regards to the PS3, the addition of Blueray is mostly what has jacked the price up. So for now, yes I think it's an albatross, because there aren't enough exclusive games for the system, which is affected by the price. 

If developers begin to see a need for all that space on a Blue Disc though, and begin to develop games specifically for the PS3 as a result, then the addition of Blue Ray becomes a huge win.

But barring that, yes I think it was a mistake.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 29, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> If developers begin to see a need for all that space on a Blue Disc though, and begin to develop games specifically for the PS3 as a result, then the addition of Blue Ray becomes a huge win.
> 
> But barring that, yes I think it was a mistake.



And even more of a reason for Sony to kick themselves in the ass, hard, when it comes to not getting the exclusive (limited time or otherwise) for GTA IV. Already Rockstar is complaining about the 360's poor storage space, and noting the PS3's superior blu-ray (reported at IGN among others).

Konami has already said that MGS4 will fill up a blu-ray disc (again, reported at IGN).

Sony has to be nuts to not heavily incent developers to use the blu-ray's space, which is a  competitive advantage for them - though it is increasing, but very _very_ slowly (see the PS3's version of Stranglehold, which includes the entire Hard Boiled movie on it).


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 29, 2007)

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=25736714

That right there points at what might be hurting the PS3 a great deal, too. It would be interesting if people just not knowing the full capabilities of the PS3 could account for its lack of sales at the price, rather than putting the blame soley on Sony.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 29, 2007)

Bront said:
			
		

> It already is.  The college games are coming back to the Wii finaly, which is good (and a good example of games you can sit around and taunt people while playing in the same room).  And a lot of games that would have only been X-box and PS2 are now coming out 360, Wii and PS2 (Note, PS2 and NOT PS3 btw).  There are also still plenty of good classic Gamecube games out there (Tales of Symphonia, Baten Kaitos if you're into RPGs, Metroid Prime and Prime 2, and many other Nintendo classic franchises) that can be had for under $20 a pop.



I didn't mean attention from people, I meant attention from 3rd party developers actually releasing lots of good exclusive games for different genres.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 29, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Konami has already said that MGS4 will fill up a blu-ray disc



I wonder how many developers can afford to make games that do that? Does all that space to fill have the unintended effect of 'raising the bar' too high for smaller developers? 



> see the PS3's version of Stranglehold, which includes the entire Hard Boiled movie on it



My first reaction to this was "Neat!". My second, a few seconds later, was "How does this add any real value to the product?". Sure, it drives home the point that Blu-Ray has a _lot_ of storage capacity, but unless the customer really wants both the film and the software, they're left paying for content they don't want. Bundling items like that is usually reserved for marketing shovelware.

As for Nintendo's success; a hearty congrats. Me, I'm waiting for a die-shrunk 360 that won't melt itself, for no other reason than the upcoming games (Mass Effect and Bioshock, I'm looking at you).


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jun 29, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> And even more of a reason for Sony to kick themselves in the ass, hard, when it comes to not getting the exclusive (limited time or otherwise) for GTA IV. Already Rockstar is complaining about the 360's poor storage space, and noting the PS3's superior blu-ray (reported at IGN among others).
> 
> Konami has already said that MGS4 will fill up a blu-ray disc (again, reported at IGN).





I can see where a sandbox game (like GTA) might push boundaries, especially if they broaden the tiles to use, but I think there's also the matter of whether they COULD shrink the games to fit on a DVD or not, rather than whether they can fill a BluRay.


Also, I saw some new discs coming (Warner maybe? TDVD?) that will run on both HDDVD and Bluray, and that'll probably become more common. (resulting in a win for whoever's player is cheaper, probably)


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 29, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I wonder how many developers can afford to make games that do that? Does all that space to fill have the unintended effect of 'raising the bar' too high for smaller developers?



Probably not a tremendously huge number - especially if some developers are saying that the 360 and PS3 are "over-engineered" and the like. It could certainly shut out smaller developers.

But remember - if it were entirely up to developers, they'd only be making flash games and charging $60 for them. (There's been more than a few developers who have said [sometimes accidentally and/or candidly] "we'd prefer to make short, simple games! Big epic games are too hard!" Well, no duh, sherlocks. But, not surprisingly, a significant number of consumers want them, so suck it up.)



> My first reaction to this was "Neat!". My second, a few seconds later, was "How does this add any real value to the product?". Sure, it drives home the point that Blu-Ray has a _lot_ of storage capacity, but unless the customer really wants both the film and the software, they're left paying for content they don't want.



Well, no, they're not. It's a bonus - the price of the game is the same (ie. it's a cross-platform game with the same price). Free bonus material is almost always appreciated by the masses.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 29, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Sony has to be nuts to not heavily incent developers to use the blu-ray's space, which is a  competitive advantage for them - though it is increasing, but very _very_ slowly (see the PS3's version of Stranglehold, which includes the entire Hard Boiled movie on it).




The thing is that there's absolutely nothing stopping developers from making multi-DVD Xbox 360 games (and in fact, Blue Dragon is one), and three DVD9s are still cheaper than one BD.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 29, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Probably not a tremendously huge number - especially if some developers are saying that the 360 and PS3 are "over-engineered" and the like. It could certainly shut out smaller developers.




I think it will depend on the PS3's market share mostly. Developing for the PS3 is the most expensive, especially if you're going to make a huge game that fills a BD. Publishers will continue to develop for the 360 and port to the PS3, thus eliminating the advantage of the extra storage, until the PS3 becomes a major player in the market.

As for the need to use a BD, I don't see it. This isn't an upgrade from SNES cartridges to the CD, which is what convinced FF VII to jump ship to the PS. A dual-layer DVD holds, what, 9 gb?

The only thing I could see you needing more than that for would be a TON of full-motion video sequences in 1080p. Given that the FF series already seems to be the upper limit of FMV that people will tolerate in a game, I can't see needing more than 9 gb, especially since that likely limits your game to being an exclusive on the console with the smallest install base. 



> But remember - if it were entirely up to developers, they'd only be making flash games and charging $60 for them. (There's been more than a few developers who have said [sometimes accidentally and/or candidly] "we'd prefer to make short, simple games! Big epic games are too hard!" Well, no duh, sherlocks. But, not surprisingly, a significant number of consumers want them, so suck it up.)




No, the so-called "hardcore" gamers want them. Now don't get me wrong, I'm *IN* that group, but there's a much, much larger market for casual games. Moms who want something they can play for 30 minutes and put away, and/or for the younger set. 

Us hardcore gamers might bitch about all the mini-game compilations, but they have been selling extremely well, especially in Japan.   



> Well, no, they're not. It's a bonus - the price of the game is the same (ie. it's a cross-platform game with the same price). Free bonus material is almost always appreciated by the masses.




That's cool, and it's a great idea, the type of thing the BD needs to do imo. If you look at the initial offerings Sony put out for BD, it was laughable. I mean, Hitch? Who the heck wants to watch Hitch (at a significantly higher price no less) on BD as opposed to DVD?

When Sony gives me the entire run of Buffy or Deep Space Nine on 7 BDs, then we can talk.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 30, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> As for the need to use a BD, I don't see it. This isn't an upgrade from SNES cartridges to the CD, which is what convinced FF VII to jump ship to the PS. A dual-layer DVD holds, what, 9 gb?
> 
> The only thing I could see you needing more than that for would be a TON of full-motion video sequences in 1080p. Given that the FF series already seems to be the upper limit of FMV that people will tolerate in a game, I can't see needing more than 9 gb, especially since that likely limits your game to being an exclusive on the console with the smallest install base.




More than that, as per above, making a 9GB+ game _doesn't_ limit you to the PS3. There were tons of multi-CD PS1 games (pretty much every RPG), a handful of multi-DVD PS2 and Xbox games, and there's at least one multi-DVD9 360 game. I doubt it's all that difficult to make a 3 DVD 360 version and 1 BD PS3 version.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> That's cool, and it's a great idea, the type of thing the BD needs to do imo. If you look at the initial offerings Sony put out for BD, it was laughable. I mean, Hitch? Who the heck wants to watch Hitch (at a significantly higher price no less) on BD as opposed to DVD?
> 
> When Sony gives me the entire run of Buffy or Deep Space Nine on 7 BDs, then we can talk.




Heck, while I'm sure DS9 would be beautiful in HD if it had been filmed that way to start with, I really don't think it was. Of course, I don't have an HDTV quite yet.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 30, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> When Sony gives me the entire run of Buffy or Deep Space Nine on 7 BDs, then we can talk.



They weren't taped in HD, so those particular series would probably fit but only look a little better.  Now a newer series, like Lost, that was was filmed in HD would probably need the same or a similar amount of discs for all the uncompressed video and audio.  They usually fit 4 eps/DVD these days so the same would probably hold true on BR/HD-DVD.  Maybe they could squish it a bit, but why bother.

I get your point, tho concerning space.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 30, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> They weren't taped in HD, so those particular series would probably fit but only look a little better.  Now a newer series, like Lost, that was was filmed in HD would probably need the same or a similar amount of discs for all the uncompressed video and audio.  They usually fit 4 eps/DVD these days so the same would probably hold true on BR/HD-DVD.  Maybe they could squish it a bit, but why bother.
> 
> I get your point, tho concerning space.  Just sayin'.




Well, space is a concern. I buy slimline DVD packs when available for space. 

And I've seen DVDs on HDTVs and they look great. Im sure a lot of that is the TV, but watching DVD on a HDTV looks mighty nice to me, especially if it's on a progressive scan DVD player. 

But basically, it is the space in this issue. And I think it's something BD should take more advantage of. Blowing everything up to 1080p, keeping the 4 eps per disc paradigm and just saying "ooo it looks a little better" doesn't really do it for me.

Yes, I'd rather have Buffy in standard def on 7 discs than in high def on 49. 

Reducing storage is an attractive feature of new media, when manufacturers will let us (they seem afraid of doing so- not sure why). Id buy the complete Ray Charles catalogue on a single DVD for twice what Id pay for it in another format.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 1, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well, space is a concern. I buy slimline DVD packs when available for space.



Well, duh.  Who doesn't?



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> And I've seen DVDs on HDTVs and they look great. Im sure a lot of that is the TV, but watching DVD on a HDTV looks mighty nice to me, especially if it's on a progressive scan DVD player.



Upconverted DVDs can look very nice, for sure.    Progressive scan isn't what does it, it's up-converting, just so ya know.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> But basically, it is the space in this issue. And I think it's something BD should take more advantage of. Blowing everything up to 1080p, keeping the 4 eps per disc paradigm and just saying "ooo it looks a little better" doesn't really do it for me.



No, it doesn't look a little better, it looks much better and it looks much better on a bigger screen.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Yes, I'd rather have Buffy in standard def on 7 discs than in high def on 49.



You, sure.  I'd rather have it the other way around.  See, we all have opinions.  I'd love to have it all on one disc for ease of use, but that isn't the way it works and wouldn't serve all consumers.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Reducing storage is an attractive feature of new media, when manufacturers will let us (they seem afraid of doing so- not sure why). Id buy the complete Ray Charles catalogue on a single DVD for twice what Id pay for it in another format.



So would I.  That said, there is a reason why most companies don't do that just yet.  It's all about the money.

Someday, we'll have little chips or discs or cards or whatever that hold scads of information.  But it isn't there yet nor is the full quality of these mediums really coming through when the data is compressed to fit on these older type discs.  We'll see uncompressed audio/video before we'll see more stuff put onto less discs.  The bean counters like it that way, too.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 3, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> As for the need to use a BD, I don't see it. This isn't an upgrade from SNES cartridges to the CD, which is what convinced FF VII to jump ship to the PS. A dual-layer DVD holds, what, 9 gb?
> 
> The only thing I could see you needing more than that for would be a TON of full-motion video sequences in 1080p. Given that the FF series already seems to be the upper limit of FMV that people will tolerate in a game, I can't see needing more than 9 gb, especially since that likely limits your game to being an exclusive on the console with the smallest install base.



*shrug* Blue Dragon is already _three_ DVDs. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it won't continue happening.



> No, the so-called "hardcore" gamers want them.



That's what I said. I said "a significant number of consumers want them", and that's true -  the sales of Halo, GoW, and Final Fantasy shows that I continue to be correct. There is no "no". 

(Yes, there is certainly a very large market for casual games, but there is also a large enough market for 'epic' games that there's money to be made. In any case, the sales numbers don't lie.)



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> The thing is that there's absolutely nothing stopping developers from making multi-DVD Xbox 360 games (and in fact, Blue Dragon is one), and three DVD9s are still cheaper than one BD.



No idea what your point is, and why you bothered to respond to my post. I think it's patently obvious that multiple DVD games are going to be _de rigueur_ a little while from now. Some people like continually switching out multiple discs, some don't. Whether developers will bother putting bonus material in when it means yet another disc remains to be seen. Stranglehold won't, in any case.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 3, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> *shrug* Blue Dragon is already _three_ DVDs. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it won't continue happening.




And Blue Dragon is an RPG with tons of FMV.



			
				Arnwyn said:
			
		

> drothgery said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You seemed to imply pretty strongly that the extra storage space of a BD vs a DVD9 was a significant advantage. The only time storage space has played out as big advantage in the console wars was with PS1 vs N64, and there CDs were both much cheaper and held more data than cartridges (effectively indefinitely more, as per the plethora of multi-CD PS1 games).

My point was that it's not, because, like Vigilance, I think only extremely FMV-heavy games need more than a DVD9 worth of space for graphics this generation of consoles are capable of handling (which is 720p for anything of non-trivial complexity at a decent frame rate), and because there's no cost advantage to going with 1 BD vs 3 DVD9s. I expect multi-DVD9 Xbox 360 games to be slightly more common than multi-DVD PS2/Xbox games (heck, most PS2 games could fit on a CD), but nowhere near as common as multi-CD PS1 games.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 3, 2007)

Via gamespot...



> Outside pressure continues to mount for Sony this week as one more game-industry exec calls for a PlayStation 3 price drop. Speaking to Reuters on Monday, Sega corporate director Masanao Maeda said that Sony's best shot for increasing demand of its next-gen console is a price cut by the end of the year.
> 
> According to the Reuters interview, Maeda believes brand recognition, price point, and software availability factor most importantly into selling consoles. With Sony's flagship system no longer backed by superior software exclusives, Maeda asserts a "superior marketing and pricing strategy will be the key for Sony."
> 
> ...




Hmmm... looks like Sega and Ubisoft think the price is a problem. Square has sort of said the same thing.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 4, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Hmmm... looks like Sega and Ubisoft think the price is a problem. Square has sort of said the same thing.



 Yes, but reading it tells us that price is an issue due to software not being up to snuff.

And as a PS3 owner, I firmly believe that it should fail if the system doesn't get any good games.  I'll wait and see how it does when there is actually at least one game worth buying the system for.



EDIT:  Added the owner part.  I am not actually a PS3, although coincidentally I do play Blue-Ray discs...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 4, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Yes, but reading it tells us that price is an issue due to software not being up to snuff.
> 
> And as a PS3, I firmly believe that it should fail if the system doesn't get any good games.  I'll wait and see how it does when there is actually at least one game worth buying the system for.



 Yeah, the price drop will do absolute jack if there are still no games. Sony's back themselves into a corner and the only way out is going to take action on multiple angles at the same time rather than hoping for one magic cure.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 4, 2007)

Define "good game."

Is it the graphics?

Is it playability?

Is it the age range of playability?


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 4, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Define "good game."
> 
> Is it the graphics?
> 
> ...



 In this case, a good game is one that sells well and is widely accepted as quality.  But we aren't talking about just good games here.  We are talking about games so good they'll make you drop hundreds of dollars on the only console they are available on just to play it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 4, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> In this case, a good game is one that sells well and is widely accepted as quality.  But we aren't talking about just good games here.  We are talking about games so good they'll make you drop hundreds of dollars on the only console they are available on just to play it.



So a game that is exclusive to one console. I doubt many outside software developers would conform to just one console. Nintendo has to be the one to go ahead because they got known brands that date back to my heydays that are still working for them: _Donkey Kong/Super Mario_ franchise.

Personally, I can recall Sony's iconic brand. You could say _Final Fantasy_ but Sony don't fully owned that franchise, now do they?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 4, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So a game that is exclusive to one console. I doubt many outside software developers would conform to just one console. Nintendo has to be the one to go ahead because they got known brands that date back to my heydays that are still working for them: _Donkey Kong/Super Mario_ franchise.
> 
> Personally, I can recall Sony's iconic brand. You could say _Final Fantasy_ but Sony don't fully owned that franchise, now do they?



 Well, the PS2 had GTA, Final Fantasy, and Metal Gear really driving sales.

Of course, towards the end of its life, all three of those were branching out towards the other two major consoles. IF they had these kind of franchises still, and were exclusive to their system, it MIGHT justify the high price for many. Of course, it also still might not, but the lack of exclusive games for the PS3 is definitely one major change from the last generation to this one.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 4, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> At least MS has XBox Live, which I consider one of the biggest innovations in current console gaming.



I loved it back when it was Battle.net.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 4, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> http://www.gamespot.com/forums/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=25736714
> 
> That right there points at what might be hurting the PS3 a great deal, too. It would be interesting if people just not knowing the full capabilities of the PS3 could account for its lack of sales at the price, rather than putting the blame soley on Sony.



Since it's Sony's responsibility to communicate that to the consumer via marketing, how is it not Sony's fault? The people who learn all the technical specs of all the consoles and what's coming out in 18 months and so on -- the console power users -- have already bought the PS3 or whichever console they prefer.

To succeed, a console needs to be successfully marketed to the mainstream. People can diss the Wii all they want, but the ads showing parents and grandparents playing Wii Sports bowling or tennis communicate what the console has to offer and what makes it different -- it's got stuff to offer to people other than guys in their teens and early 20s -- very explicitly. And the market has rewarded them as a result. I can't think of the last console my mom expressed an interest in.

Just as PCs didn't break out until the industry explained why ordinary people needed them -- Quicken, the Internet, etc. -- consoles need to explain why they're a must-have for someone other than unmarried dudes. Sony simply hasn't done that.

And as a PS2 owner, it amuses me how many games are still coming out for it, and how many great games are available for it, compared to the PS3. My wife and I would have upgraded to the PS3 if there was any compelling reason for us to do so, but between the problematic backwards compatibility and no new games of the franchises we're interested in -- not even the latest installment of the horrible things they've done to the Spyro franchise -- they simply didn't bother to upsell us at all.

And that's Sony's fault, and no one else's.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 4, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I loved it back when it was Battle.net.




While the concept isn't new, Battle.net was of course only usable for computer games.  In this aspect, while MS didn't do anything innovative, per se, they certainly can be credited with the leap in popularity of online console gaming.  Even if it was simply a matter of being in the right place at the right time.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 5, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Well, the PS2 had GTA, Final Fantasy, and Metal Gear really driving sales.
> 
> Of course, towards the end of its life, all three of those were branching out towards the other two major consoles. IF they had these kind of franchises still, and were exclusive to their system, it MIGHT justify the high price for many. Of course, it also still might not, but the lack of exclusive games for the PS3 is definitely one major change from the last generation to this one.



Well, Sony could try to revive/re-envision their _EverQuest_ franchise. Then again, it has probably ran out of steam


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 6, 2007)

Well, it would seem Sony is starting to get the hint:

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/archives/100-ps3-price-drop-starts-july-12.php

Only $100, but that's still a lot.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 6, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Well, it would seem Sony is starting to get the hint:
> 
> http://www.cheapassgamer.com/archives/100-ps3-price-drop-starts-july-12.php
> 
> Only $100, but that's still a lot.



 It was definitely only a matter of time.

Question is if $100 is really enough, but I guess we'll see. Doesn't solve their game problem, though.

Course, it means its even cheaper to get a Blu-Ray player now if it comes down to that.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 6, 2007)

Yeah, just read that myself.  But considering it's yet to be confirmed I'm rating the 360's three year warranty extension  as a bigger deal for the time being.  

This is a good thing for early adopters as the rate of failing 360's is alarming.  A piece of $400 hardware shouldn't crap out that easily.  I'm just waiting for mine to die fully.  Too bad it doesn't have the rock-solid build of the PS3.  That thing really _feels _like a next-gen machine ... that at the moment is serving mostly as a BR player.  Doh!







This is also why I firmly believe that the console races haven't really started yet.  The Wii is a different beast altogether, the 360's hardware (for whatever reason) is faulty and Microsoft feels the need to keep upgrading it and the PS3 is just begging for a few quality titles to flex its muscles.  Things should even out a bit as the 360 will still have trouble in Japan, the PS3 lost some critical exclusives and the Wii continues to not meet consumer demand.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 6, 2007)

Somehow, I missed this post before...


			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Just as PCs didn't break out until the industry explained why ordinary people needed them -- Quicken, the Internet, etc. -- consoles need to explain why they're a must-have for someone other than unmarried dudes. Sony simply hasn't done that.
> 
> And as a PS2 owner, it amuses me how many games are still coming out for it, and how many great games are available for it, compared to the PS3. My wife and I would have upgraded to the PS3 if there was any compelling reason for us to do so, but between the problematic backwards compatibility and no new games of the franchises we're interested in -- not even the latest installment of the horrible things they've done to the Spyro franchise -- they simply didn't bother to upsell us at all.
> 
> And that's Sony's fault, and no one else's.



I agree to a point.  They really don't have much to sell right now.  Is it their fault their in-house devs didn't get the games out earlier?  Yes, and the blame stops right there.

For a gamer who doesn't really dig on the HD stuff, there is no reason at all to get a PS3 yet.  Which is one of the reasons the price doesn't matter.  It's the people like myself who are early adopters or just want all the HD machinery (or Sony fans) they can get their hands on that are buying it.  So it's fine for their to be a premium price.

When they have some must-have games (late '07/early '08?) is when they are going to need to start weening PS2 owners to the new console.  Which is the opposite strategy MS took.  They dropped Xbox development and support altogether not to mention the legacy support was terrible.  Not that I'm saying what they did was a bad move but it would have been nice to be able to play all my Xbox games on the new box, upgrades or not.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 6, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Yeah, just read that myself.  But considering it's yet to be confirmed I'm rating the 360's three year warranty extension  as a bigger deal for the time being.
> 
> This is a good thing for early adopters as the rate of failing 360's is alarming.  A piece of $400 hardware shouldn't crap out that easily.




This is completely anecdotal, but my friend has had five 360's die on him... he has two, so that's still (on average) two and three times he's had each console fail.  That's still a lot, IMO.  It reminds me of the hard drive problems the original XBox had.

I know you and I are on rather opposite ends of the next-gen thought process, but I will give you one thing - Sony does generally make products that last.


----------



## ohGr (Jul 6, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Well, it would seem Sony is starting to get the hint:
> 
> http://www.cheapassgamer.com/archives/100-ps3-price-drop-starts-july-12.php
> 
> Only $100, but that's still a lot.



This  says otherwise.

So, it's either 1. "We have no plans to drop the price on the PS3 at the moment (although we really do, we're just waiting until E3 to announce it);" or, 2. Circuit City is just trying to dump some of its PS3 stock with a sale.

Normally, i'd say 1 is the most likely proposition, but with the way the PS3 is selling...


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 6, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Yeah, just read that myself.  But considering it's yet to be confirmed I'm rating the 360's three year warranty extension  as a bigger deal for the time being.
> 
> This is a good thing for early adopters as the rate of failing 360's is alarming.  A piece of $400 hardware shouldn't crap out that easily.  I'm just waiting for mine to die fully.  Too bad it doesn't have the rock-solid build of the PS3.  That thing really _feels _like a next-gen machine ... that at the moment is serving mostly as a BR player.  Doh!
> 
> ...




I actually agree with all this. I know, I was shocked too 

One thing I'd add is that the Wii really needs a firmware update so I can run games off SD cards, or a hardware update with a larger HD. With all the great VC games, and new games coming next year, that HD is filling up crazy quick.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 6, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> This is completely anecdotal, but my friend has had five 360's die on him... he has two, so that's still (on average) two and three times he's had each console fail.  That's still a lot, IMO.  It reminds me of the hard drive problems the original XBox had.



Yikes!  And this is not the first time I've read horror stories of multiple 360's dying on a single owner.  Luckily, I was able to self-fix the cooling problem on mine.



			
				LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> I know you and I are on rather opposite ends of the next-gen thought process, but I will give you one thing - Sony does generally make products that last.



With the exception of the original Playstation.  That thing was a POS.  Still more reliable than the 360, tho...


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 9, 2007)

*Price Drop Confirmed*

Looks like the whole "it's not the price" debate has been settled.

For Sony to be offering a major price drop this early in the game is a huge admission that the original price was too high.

They're also offering a PS3 with a larger HD and a game bundled in at the original $599 price. 

IMO, these are both excellent moves and should help the console get some traction. 

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6173806.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 9, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Looks like the whole "it's not the price" debate has been settled.
> 
> For Sony to be offering a major price drop this early in the game is a huge admission that the original price was too high.
> 
> ...



 Its not settled yet. Part of it might be the price, but if they lower the price and it STILL doesn't sell, well...its more than just the price. Or maybe the price wasn't the real problem before.

Still too early to really make a call until we see what happens because of this.

It just means Sony is trying something...but note that they're ONLY doing this price drop in North America, not everywhere.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 9, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Its not settled yet. Part of it might be the price, but if they lower the price and it STILL doesn't sell, well...its more than just the price. Or maybe the price wasn't the real problem before.
> 
> Still too early to really make a call until we see what happens because of this.
> 
> It just means Sony is trying something...but note that they're ONLY doing this price drop in North America, not everywhere.




But remember that they lowered the price in Japan immediately, pre-release.

They realized Japanese folks were just too tight with their money and the price wouldn't fly.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 9, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> But remember that they lowered the price in Japan immediately, pre-release.
> 
> They realized Japanese folks were just too tight with their money and the price wouldn't fly.



 Look at the effect on sales its had in Japan, though...slim to none. PS3s just aren't selling well at all, and obviously a price drop in Japan hasn't helped that.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 9, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Look at the effect on sales its had in Japan, though...slim to none. PS3s just aren't selling well at all, and obviously a price drop in Japan hasn't helped that.




Well- I think Sony painted itself into a corner. The problem with the price is that it's more than double that of the console's most serious competition in Japan, the Wii.

So that's why this is only in America. They can cut the price here and be competitive with the 360. In Japan, I dunno, I think they're never going to get more than 50% market share there.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 9, 2007)

Price drops are great and all but it really doesn't mean much at all.  I wouldn't expect many folks to buy the system to play games just because it's now $100 cheaper.  I'm sure there will be some that will get it now that it's a more affordable BR player and yeah this may sway a few people sitting on the fence.  To me, there isn't a ton of difference between $500 and $600 dollars when we are talking about a piece of non-essential hardware.   Now, if there were a few games coming out along side it that you could only get on the PS3 and they were pretty good, this would be a bigger deal.  

If the masses weren't buying it to play the available games @ $600, I don't see why they would get it for the bad games lineup now when it is a bit cheaper.   And the newer version @ 80GB + Motorstorm is attractive but not a big deal.  It is, however, consistent with Sony's past systems where they'll release a game-bundle version of a system.

The PS3 didn't need a price drop.  It needs to release least one must-have high profile title and then drop the price for the holiday season.  Of course accompanied by at least one other quality exclusive.

To me, the PS3 hasn't had its Onimusha yet.  That was really the first game for the PS2 after launch that made some people go out and get the system just to play it.  It didn't sell like crazy, but it did very well and got people talking more about the system.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 9, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> The PS3 didn't need a price drop.  It needs to release least one must-have high profile title and then drop the price for the holiday season.  Of course accompanied by at least one other quality exclusive.




I think it needs a price drop, but a $100 drop (to $499) probably isn't sufficient. Sony -- and Microsoft -- need to get under $300* if they want to sell beyond harcore console gamers and their respective fanboys. Because of a much better and more extensive library and substantially lower price, the 360 is currently more compelling to hardcore console gamers, but the Wii's sucking up everyone else (except those who are just sticking with their PS2 for now). Even FFXIII and MGS4 aren't going to change this much.

* The 360 Core is $299, but it's (correctly) percieved as crippled and a poor value. It's my opinion that MS should cut the Elite's price to $399 and either cut the Core to $249 and bundle in a memory unit and a game and drop the 'Premium', or drop the Core and cut the price of the 'Premium' to $299.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 9, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Price drops are great and all but it really doesn't mean much at all.  I wouldn't expect many folks to buy the system to play games just because it's now $100 cheaper.




Well, part of why I think this is good is from a cost comparison standpoint.

$100 might not be a big difference, but if there's a comparable product that's significantly cheaper, most folks will buy that. 

But you also need to come to grips with the fact that the product it's trying to move closer to in price, the 360, is ALSO overpriced.

MS themselves have admitted that the "sweet spot" in the console market is $200.

There's one console near that price, the Wii, and it's selling like gangbusters, at twice the rate of the 360 and 4 times the rate of the PS3.

And of course the other major console that's still the dominant player in the market is even cheaper than the Wii: the PS2.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 10, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I think it needs a price drop, but a $100 drop (to $499) probably isn't sufficient. Sony -- and Microsoft -- need to get under $300* if they want to sell beyond harcore console gamers and their respective fanboys. Because of a much better and more extensive library and substantially lower price, the 360 is currently more compelling to hardcore console gamers, but the Wii's sucking up everyone else (except those who are just sticking with their PS2 for now). Even FFXIII and MGS4 aren't going to change this much.



I can agree with this.  Final Fantasy is a sure system seller.  But if you are saying that those two games aren't enough, I agree and have been saying that all along.  It would serve as a nice shot in the arm to say that "The PS3 has arrived."



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> * The 360 Core is $299, but it's (correctly) percieved as crippled and a poor value. It's my opinion that MS should cut the Elite's price to $399 and either cut the Core to $249 and bundle in a memory unit and a game and drop the 'Premium', or drop the Core and cut the price of the 'Premium' to $299.



I agree wth all of this.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 10, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well, part of why I think this is good is from a cost comparison standpoint.
> 
> $100 might not be a big difference, but if there's a comparable product that's significantly cheaper, most folks will buy that.
> 
> But you also need to come to grips with the fact that the product it's trying to move closer to in price, the 360, is ALSO overpriced.



I'm well aware of this, but the thing is that it's not terribly overpriced.  The Core unit is, for certain.  The Elite is too much.  $400 is about right for a system that powerful.  That will need a price drop before another year passes but for now, it's just fine.

There are tons of people just waiting for Mass Effect to come out and snatch up their 360 at its current price.  Again, it's all about the games and not so much the price.

And your mention of the PS2 later in the post brings an interesting quandary to this generation of consoles.  It's the most successful of all time and still going strong due to an awesome selection of games and a low price point.  That is what the Wii is contending with, not the PS3 or 360:  Two last generation consoles going head to head.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 10, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I'm well aware of this, but the thing is that it's not terribly overpriced.  The Core unit is, for certain.  The Elite is too much.  $400 is about right for a system that powerful.  That will need a price drop before another year passes but for now, it's just fine.
> 
> There are tons of people just waiting for Mass Effect to come out and snatch up their 360 at its current price.  Again, it's all about the games and not so much the price.




I think it's all about the games for the hardcore AV consumer. These are the people console launches are catering to by design.

The big event, the waiting for days in line, the hype, the high price, for a certain type of hardcore AV consumer, these are all features not bugs. They are one of the elite few.

But eventually, consoles have to appeal to a mass market beyond these people. This is why the prices fall. The 360 will not stay $400 forever. That's a sign that it needs a lower price point for a broader market presence. 

Also, it's about time. The PS2 had its first price drop at 20 months. The 360 has been out for 19. So Christmas this year would be about when a price drop would be expected.

The PS3 is clearly realizing they were too high, thus the correction after only 8 months. They thought their brand and their hype machine (which is truly stellar if you think back to the PS-Dreamcast days, the Sony hype machine killed Sega more than the relative merits of the two consoles imo) would be enough for them to say "this is a Rolls-Royce, you know you want it, it's the elite".

But the 360 was stronger than they expected, and the Wii caught Sony completely by surprise and the market they thought they would be releasing into just wasn't there. 

Also, the Japanese gaming market has fundamentally shifted toward casual games. This is why both the 360 and PS3 are and will continue to struggle there. 



> And your mention of the PS2 later in the post brings an interesting quandary to this generation of consoles.  It's the most successful of all time and still going strong due to an awesome selection of games and a low price point.  That is what the Wii is contending with, not the PS3 or 360:  Two last generation consoles going head to head.




Yeah, I almost wonder if Sony will at some point just stop licensing PS2 games in an attempt to force an upgrade. Right now the Wii is serving to keep the PS2 in even better shape, since a lot of Wii games are being ported to the PS2. 

To me, this is another sign that Sony made a huge blunder. When the PS2 was released, it seemed like time for an upgrade. But I don't think desire for a technology bump, HD, Blue Ray etc had reached anywhere near the critical mass they thought it had.

Does this mean I think the 360 was a mistake too? No. MS needed to do something radical to try and further erode Sony's market share and a technology bump is a good way to do that. But the number of consumers looking to drop $400-600 dollars on a console is very, very small, certainly not enough for TWO companies to be successful there. 

The Wii showed that people were quite content with the PS2. Wii games look a *little* better than PS2 games and have an added sense of novelty.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 10, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I can agree with this.  Final Fantasy is a sure system seller.  But if you are saying that those two games aren't enough, I agree and have been saying that all along.  It would serve as a nice shot in the arm to say that "The PS3 has arrived."




Well, basically I think the known big PS3 system sellers (most notably FFXIII and MGS4) aren't going to drive any more console purchases than the known big Xbox 360 system sellers (most notably Halo 3, Mass Effect, and Bioshock), and that a $500 price point is still too high for most people who already have a 360 (or even a Wii) to think about picking up a PS3.

Now, unless Square Enix shocks the world and announces a 360 port of FFXIII (unlikely mostly because the game's probably too far along), I'll end up with a PS3 eventually. But it'll be a while, because I'm not spending more on two consoles in this generation than I spent on three (one of which I hardly ever used) in the last one (which was $300 for a PS2, $200 for an Xbox, and $150 for a GameCube).


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 10, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I think it's all about the games for the hardcore AV consumer. These are the people console launches are catering to by design.
> 
> The big event, the waiting for days in line, the hype, the high price, for a certain type of hardcore AV consumer, these are all features not bugs. They are one of the elite few.
> 
> ...



I can't say that I disagree or agree strongly on any points.  I will say that the high-price of the PS3 was certainly by design and a brilliant move (you may recall I said the same thing at/before launch).  People pay a premium for these new consoles and Sony might as well just take their cut rather than let the ebayers rip people off.  The problem is the continuing lack of any real system selling games to get them to Holiday Season 2007.  I fully expected Sony to drop the price within the first year as $600 is way too much to keep a console priced at.

Honestly, I'm surprised in the slightest by anything that has happened with the PS3 so far.  With the singular exception of not releasing anything but Motorstorm or Resistance worth owning so far (read:  Where is the killer action game?).



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Yeah, I almost wonder if Sony will at some point just stop licensing PS2 games in an attempt to force an upgrade. Right now the Wii is serving to keep the PS2 in even better shape, since a lot of Wii games are being ported to the PS2.
> 
> To me, this is another sign that Sony made a huge blunder. When the PS2 was released, it seemed like time for an upgrade. But I don't think desire for a technology bump, HD, Blue Ray etc had reached anywhere near the critical mass they thought it had.
> 
> Does this mean I think the 360 was a mistake too? No. MS needed to do something radical to try and further erode Sony's market share and a technology bump is a good way to do that. But the number of consumers looking to drop $400-600 dollars on a console is very, very small, certainly not enough for TWO companies to be successful there.



This, I agree on with an addendum.  I don't think Sony is making a mistake here.  Just like I don't think it was a mistake for MS to release the 360 when they did at the price they are selling it at.  MS needed the head start and Sony couldn't wait any longer on the PS3.  MS made a crummy console and should have spent more money and a little time on QA.  The numbers for the extended warranty and the dollars they are losing are staggering.

The PS3 can take the hit of not being a big deal for a year due to the success of the PS2 and PSP.  They are still making money off those systems and the PS3 will sell to the higher-end consumer at the current rate.  The PS2 is kicking around about as long as I expected and it may go even longer, which is a surprise.  It may continue to do well beyond Holiday 2007 if the trends continue.  Walk into a gamestore (or the games section of Walmart/Target) and I see that the system is still a big presence.  It's eerie!

So, the PS3 doesn't have to be a big deal right now.  Sony still has a margin of error.  Now, when the big hits do come and the system is around $400 and still is selling badly, then they should really panic.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> The Wii showed that people were quite content with the PS2. Wii games look a *little* better than PS2 games and have an added sense of novelty.



I don't think anyone need the Wii to show how great of a system the PS2 was.    It's quite possibly the best console of all time in terms of overall game selection.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 10, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Well, basically I think the known big PS3 system sellers (most notably FFXIII and MGS4) aren't going to drive any more console purchases than the known big Xbox 360 system sellers (most notably Halo 3, Mass Effect, and Bioshock), and that a $500 price point is still too high for most people who already have a 360 (or even a Wii) to think about picking up a PS3.



I think I already said something to the effect of this before, but yeah, I don't expect the PS3 to surpass the 360 with just two big hits.  The system that consistently pumps out quality games that cover every major console genre (I exclude 4x & RTS games from the long list) will win this console cycle.  I believe Sony has the edge here based on history and partnerships with many Japanese devs.  The PS3 is also built to last for at least 5-6 years and games will look and play better as time goes on.  The way the 360 is going, there will continue to be excellent games for it but people will need to see more than a smattering of RPGs and lots of racing/FPS games.  GTA and Resident Evil 5 being on both consoles helps MS, for sure.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 10, 2007)

In any case, the PS3 price drop is good news for consumers - especially Canadians. M$ has been ripping Canadians off for quite a while (Sony has always appropriately priced here), so the competition looks good.

Current prices:

360 Elite = $550
PS3 = $549
360 = $500

(Yeah, there really is that dollar difference between the Elite and PS3 here...)

M$'s consoles are overpriced by ~$60 here.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 10, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> In any case, the PS3 price drop is good news for consumers - especially Canadians. M$ has been ripping Canadians off for quite a while (Sony has always appropriately priced here), so the competition looks good.
> 
> Current prices:
> 
> ...



 Analysts have been saying they're expected to see Microsoft also announce a price drop. Seems kind of soon to me with the Elite having just came out, but I don't think it would really surprise me.

Being the middle of the road price-wise isn't doing badly for them.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 10, 2007)

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6173911.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0

And now it looks like Konami is considering a multiplatform MGS4, even AFTER the price drop for the PS3. If that happens, it really could just murder the system. Game wise, that would really leave only FFXIII, as even the next Katamari has been moved(apparently, the PS3 version was CANCELLED in favour of a 360 and Wii version).


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 11, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> http://www.gamespot.com/news/6173911.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0
> 
> And now it looks like Konami is considering a multiplatform MGS4, even AFTER the price drop for the PS3. If that happens, it really could just murder the system. Game wise, that would really leave only FFXIII, as even the next Katamari has been moved(apparently, the PS3 version was CANCELLED in favour of a 360 and Wii version).



 I thought they were already mulling it over, but that could be just my mind already assuming every dev is already doing it behind closed doors, if not publicly.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 11, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I thought they were already mulling it over, but that could be just my mind already assuming every dev is already doing it behind closed doors, if not publicly.




I'm sure they've been talking about privately. I think mentioning it publicly is a ploy to see if Sony will pony up some cash to keep MGS4 exclusive.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 11, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I'm sure they've been talking about privately. I think mentioning it publicly is a ploy to see if Sony will pony up some cash to keep MGS4 exclusive.



 Hmm, could be true.  Not a bad tactic.

The industry certainly seems to be going further down the route of console makers buying developers outright or sinking big money into shares of the company and the like.  It's probably the only way any console maker will be getting exclusives later in this generation and beyond.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 13, 2007)

http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_b...vert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;1

And now a twist on the PS3 Price drop.

Sure, the 60GB is going to be cheaper and the 80GB is coming out at the 'old' price of $599, but it looks like the 60GB is being phased out completely in North America, meaning its not really a price drop at all.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 13, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_b...vert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;1
> 
> And now a twist on the PS3 Price drop.
> 
> Sure, the 60GB is going to be cheaper and the 80GB is coming out at the 'old' price of $599, but it looks like the 60GB is being phased out completely in North America, meaning its not really a price drop at all.




Looking back on what Sony's done in the console industry since the PlayStation launch, it seems more astonishing that the PS2 was a success than that the PS3 is, at best, off to a very slow start.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 14, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_b...vert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;1
> 
> And now a twist on the PS3 Price drop.
> 
> Sure, the 60GB is going to be cheaper and the 80GB is coming out at the 'old' price of $599, but it looks like the 60GB is being phased out completely in North America, meaning its not really a price drop at all.



 There have been two updates and it appears that there should be plenty of the $499 units to go around for the time being.  This paves the way for another price drop near the holidays that will have this bundle and possibly another.  Sony loves those bundles...


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 14, 2007)

Here's a funny bit I came across. I actually wonder if this will impact how many PS3 ports we see. 

In other words, if it's such a pain, will designers shy away from the console unless the install base gets really big? 

Of course, this begs the question how much power designers have. Probably about as much as RPG authors (in other words, almost none lol). 



> It's hard to believe, but every so often the developers at E3 forget that they're talking to a room full of journalists and they say something that they probably shouldn't.
> 
> A developer was demonstrating her team's multiplatform game for myself and two other journalists, both of whom happened to have been from Xbox-specific outlets. She jokingly asked if it was ok that we were going to see the Wii version, and the two guys chucklingly assured her that yeah, that was fine.
> 
> ...




http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/07/heard-at-e3-we-.html


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 14, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> There have been two updates and it appears that there should be plenty of the $499 units to go around for the time being.  This paves the way for another price drop near the holidays that will have this bundle and possibly another.  Sony loves those bundles...



 Even though the 60GB will be around for a while(since they...haven't sold), it still smacks of a lie from Sony. Once the 60GB are gone, do you really expect them to lower the 80GB price? At this rate, it just seems hard to trust what they say, as they're jumping back and forth on issues, saying different things, then finally saying one thing...after someone seems to have screwed up and told the truth(like how this stuff turned out today).

Though, to defend the PS3 on the development side, I remember comments like that about the PS2 when it was first released.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 14, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Even though the 60GB will be around for a while(since they...haven't sold), it still smacks of a lie from Sony. Once the 60GB are gone, do you really expect them to lower the 80GB price?



It doesn't look good at all on their end but this really seems like 3 different branches not having their stories straight and confusing everyone in the process.  And yes, I do believe another price drop will happen around Holiday 2007.  That would put things right in line with having the console be closer to the 360's price (pending a price drop by MS - their move, now) at that time.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 14, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> It doesn't look good at all on their end but this really seems like 3 different branches not having their stories straight and confusing everyone in the process.  And yes, I do believe another price drop will happen around Holiday 2007.  That would put things right in line with having the console be closer to the 360's price (pending a price drop by MS - their move, now) at that time.




I disagree. Has Sony ever been particularly honest when it comes to their PR?

Remember when they said the Playstation would have "Pixar-style graphics"?* 

That the PS3 would have a "digital storage locker" to turn regular video content into HD content?

That they would have a worldwide launch for the PS3? 

That they would ship 5 million PS3's by the end of 2006?

And of course, though this one hasn't been PROVED false yet, what about the recent claim that there would be 380 new PS3 titles by March of 2008? (Yes I'm jumping the gun on this, but it's clearly bananas and is typical of the kinds of lies Sony tends to tell)

I mean c'mon John. Sony has a proven pattern of making claims that will get them some good press. In this case, they both got good press about the price cut, they also got a stock bump because they announced the price cut at a shareholders meeting. 

Heck, analysts were even threatening to DING MS stock if *they* didn't match the price cut!

This is typical Sony business practice.

Chuck

*This is an example of when their rhetoric actually worked, since they basically killed the Dreamcast in the opinion of one Gamespot editor by making wild claims about the PS graphics capabilities that caused many consumers to just wait and see what the playstation would look like. 

Since Sega was teetering on the brink of financial ruin, the delay in purchasing the Dreamcast actually contributed to their downfall, and all the claims Sony made about the PS were things not achieved until late-stage PS2 titles like FF XII and God of War.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Jul 14, 2007)

Every time I hear the PS3 prices referred to as a "drop" it frustrates me.  

The basic fact is this: by Christmas, even in the best case scenario of a second "drop", the absolute minimum price of entry to play any Playstation 3 game is a $500 unit.

That's EXACTLY where we were at last year.  

After TWO "price cuts".  

Unacceptable.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 14, 2007)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> Every time I hear the PS3 prices referred to as a "drop" it frustrates me.
> 
> The basic fact is this: by Christmas, even in the best case scenario of a second "drop", the absolute minimum price of entry to play any Playstation 3 game is a $500 unit.
> 
> ...



I call BS.  Again.  The problem with the PS3 isn't the price of the console, it's the lack of games.  This whole "price cut" issue is largely irrelevant right now.  The games are the true issue.

The fact that this is still a big deal simply means that Sony is still on everyone's radar and is waiting for them to really enter the next generation scene.  If Sony really wasn't a player at this point all this would mean nothing and it wouldn't annoy anyone.  The point is that people WANT the PS3.  They want it to be affordable and they want it to do well.  And they are frustrated with all the perceived screwing around, which realistically is no more or less than another of the other companies.

By and large, the public doesn't care about any of this because there isn't much of a game selection for the machine.  It will matter when the games get good and people have to have it.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 14, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I disagree. Has Sony ever been particularly honest when it comes to their PR?
> 
> Remember when they said the Playstation would have "Pixar-style graphics"?*
> 
> ...



I don't care about any of this.  All companies constantly spew nonsense and propaganda to keep the stockholders happy.  I pay much more attention to the end numbers like what people are buying, real release dates for games and what is currently available to buy and play.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> I mean c'mon John. Sony has a proven pattern of making claims that will get them some good press. In this case, they both got good press about the price cut, they also got a stock bump because they announced the price cut at a shareholders meeting.



This means right next to nothing to me.  People get all wrapped up in all these articles, what the press is saying and what companies are trying to market.  Any company can talk until they are blue in the face and it means zero to me.  I'll talk about things like projections but I never assume what any company rep says is fact until I see it happen.  Wanna say your machine will produce Pixar quality graphics?  Show me and then maybe I'll take notice.  I'm not one for faulting any company for their hype machine and get all bent out of shape about it.  It's all about the games.  Make 'em good and fun and that is all the matters.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Heck, analysts were even threatening to DING MS stock if *they* didn't match the price cut!
> 
> This is typical Sony business practice.



Again, I couldn't care less about Sony's business practices.  They are a business and will do everything they can to try and make money.  They are no better or worse than anyone else in the videogaming industry.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Jul 14, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I call BS.  Again.  The problem with the PS3 isn't the price of the console, it's the lack of games.  This whole "price cut" issue is largely irrelevant right now.  The games are the true issue.




I've never said that games aren't important.  I'm not interested in arguing that a game console would sell even without games (unlike certain Sony executives).  However dismissing price is taking a myopic view on the situation.

There's a reason why most console sales happen below a certain price point (and why a lot of people picked up the Wii on almost a whim).  Because price, despite how great something may be, determines what people will and will not even consider buying.  Right now, at the sort of prices Sony is charging, they're in the ultra hardcore demographic of video game players.  More games will encourage more of those people, sure, but the pool of possible consumers is still limited to those willing and able to drop $600 on a video game system.

Microsoft has a software library which, apparently, even at $400 (a price point that never worked before in video game history) is able to sell twice as many consoles to consumers as the PS3.  Meanwhile, Microsoft is long overdue to drop the Premium's price down to $300, while Sony will struggle to even make $500 this Christmas season.  

What are the people who only play Madden each year supposed to buy?  The console that can play BluRay movies for the HDTV they don't have? 

What about the people who only play GTA?  (That series which sold 14 million copies last time around.) 

Those are a huge number of sales to lose.  

Heavenly Sword, Ratchet, Drake's Fortune, Lair, and Warhawk will move consoles.  But not as many at $600 as $400.  Meanwhile Microsoft is coming out with some, it's fair to say, much more hotly anticipated titles this holiday, while already at that lower price point (and with the potential to dip even further).  Lower prices equal more possible consumers; more possible consumers equal more sales; which equals a bigger install base; which generates more exclusive deals; which leads to even greater sales; which lead to even more exclusives.  

This is a race Sony is going to lose, and if they do it's because they handed the victory to Microsoft.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 14, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I call BS.  Again.  The problem with the PS3 isn't the price of the console, it's the lack of games.  This whole "price cut" issue is largely irrelevant right now.  The games are the true issue.




Price affects how many units you sell.

Porsche sells fewer units than mid-line Toyota Corollas.

Do you think that's because people think the Corolla is the more attractive car? 

The thing is though, unlike Porsche, Sony can't *afford* to sell to only hardcore AV consumers willing to drop 600 on a console and 1000 on a tv.

Why? Because they are losing money on the hardware (unlike Porsche). They need a large install base so they can make that money back on licensing software.

This is a game for the mass market.

Something Sony, and you, don't seem to grok.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 15, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Price affects how many units you sell.
> 
> Porsche sells fewer units than mid-line Toyota Corollas.
> 
> ...



Sony is just fine for the moment, I posit.  They are selling both the Corolla (PS2) and the Porsche (PS3) right now and getting the income (or lack of?) for both.

And for the record, one could own a shiny new PS3 & decent HDTV for $1000.  And don't discount the fact that anyone buying a new TV these days will pretty much have to buy one that is at the very least HD ready (ew!) and widescreen.  The market will grow with the system and the PS2 will slowly be phased out.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Why? Because they are losing money on the hardware (unlike Porsche). They need a large install base so they can make that money back on licensing software.
> 
> This is a game for the mass market.
> 
> Something Sony, and you, don't seem to grok.



Bah and bah again.  I grok just fine, thanks.    If you want to personally attack me for "not getting" the way the industry works that is just fine.  But I'll remind you that you were convinced that PS3 games would sell for $100 a pop.  So, lets dispense with the personal attacks, no?

Sony's main competitor is losing even more money, especially after the warranty extension/faulty 360 fiasco.  Sure, MS has virtually unlimited pockets but if this is a game for the mass market then Sony is certainly playing by the rules.  If Microsoft really wanted to try to blow Sony and Nintendo out of the water, they would just take more hits on each 360 and drop the extra SKUs and put the Elite @ $250 or some kind of other price drop.  So why don't they just do that?  Get that install base up, right?  No, that would mean more losses or revenue on top of what they are already loosing.

The console prices will drop when the companies are able to do so.  Sony doesn't have to go into panic mode just because there is negative buzz.

So again, price in this circumstance is largely irrelevant.  I didn't say it was completely irrelevant.  The only factor that makes it relevant would be if people are just chomping at the bit to buy the system but needed it to be a little cheaper despite the lacking games selection.  And if people will really snatch the console up in huge amounts just because it is cheaper, that means there is a reason, outside the games, that people are picking it up.  Be it their confidence in Sony or the presence of a solid BR player.

Add all that together, throw in a few must-have exclusives and there is a recipe for success.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 15, 2007)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> I've never said that games aren't important.  I'm not interested in arguing that a game console would sell even without games (unlike certain Sony executives).  However dismissing price is taking a myopic view on the situation.



I'll admit that "largely irrelevant" may not have been the best choice of two words.  



			
				TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> There's a reason why most console sales happen below a certain price point (and why a lot of people picked up the Wii on almost a whim).



I want the "picked up a Wii almost on a whim" struck from the record.  The console isn't on the shelves long enough for an impulse buy.  



			
				TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> Because price, despite how great something may be, determines what people will and will not even consider buying.  Right now, at the sort of prices Sony is charging, they're in the ultra hardcore demographic of video game players.  More games will encourage more of those people, sure, but the pool of possible consumers is still limited to those willing and able to drop $600 on a video game system.



I agree that it is too much for the mass market right now.  This is not in dispute.  Does a price point of $500 and a crummy selection of games make that any better right now for the non-hardcore demo?  Sure, it's a step in the right direction down the line but it's not as important as giving people who are gamers and current PS2 owners looking for the next big thing a reason to make the jump.



			
				TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> Microsoft has a software library which, apparently, even at $400 (a price point that never worked before in video game history) is able to sell twice as many consoles to consumers as the PS3.  Meanwhile, Microsoft is long overdue to drop the Premium's price down to $300, while Sony will struggle to even make $500 this Christmas season.



I'll believe the Premium @ $300 price point when I see it.  That happens, expect to see the PS3 follow right behind.  Either way, both companies are still losing money and at the very least the PS3 is a very reliable piece of equipment.  I cross my fingers every time I turn my 360 on that it will survive a 3-4 hour gaming session.



			
				TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> What are the people who only play Madden each year supposed to buy?  The console that can play BluRay movies for the HDTV they don't have?
> 
> What about the people who only play GTA?  (That series which sold 14 million copies last time around.)
> 
> Those are a huge number of sales to lose.



Who says they are losing them?  You are forgetting about the PS2 versions of the mutli-console games, especially the ones from EA.  GTA is a big one, for sure.  We'll see how the numbers pan out by that time for install base.  I still expect the PS3 to be lagging behind at that point, but we'll see by how much.




			
				TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> Heavenly Sword, Ratchet, Drake's Fortune, Lair, and Warhawk will move consoles.  But not as many at $600 as $400.



Obviously.  C'mon, let's stay within the confines of conversation here.



			
				TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> Meanwhile Microsoft is coming out with some, it's fair to say, much more hotly anticipated titles this holiday, while already at that lower price point (and with the potential to dip even further).  Lower prices equal more possible consumers; more possible consumers equal more sales; which equals a bigger install base; which generates more exclusive deals; which leads to even greater sales; which lead to even more exclusives.



I am completely aware of how companies make money and aware of what will sell and how it will sell.  This isn't just a battle between the PS3 and the 360.  The 360 is still competing with the PS2, as well.  

Microsoft has a lead right now.  They launched earlier.  With an inferior machine that breaks at an alarming rate and a plan that included multiple SKUs that can be misleading to the people looking to drop money on a higher end machine that has limited genre selection.  The 360 is caught in the middle of truly being a next-gen machine and last generation technology.  Why release a model with HDMI and a HD-DVD drive peripheral at all.

They have an excellent online model but then again, there is more money to shell out just to play games on it.



			
				TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> This is a race Sony is going to lose, and if they do it's because they handed the victory to Microsoft.



There is not nearly enough sample size of either console or this generation to even think this is the case at this point.

The bottom line is that for people actually looking for a next generation machine there is only one out there right now and it will only get more games and cheaper.  It will be interesting to see how the 360 will do once the PS3 actually starts being competitive.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 15, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Sony's main competitor is losing even more money, especially after the warranty extension/faulty 360 fiasco.




Err... no. That maybe equalized their losses on hardware, and that only because MS has sold more than three times as many consoles. And that's assuming they actually spend all -- or even most -- of that $1B accounting charge they took (which seems extremely unlikley).



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> Sure, MS has virtually unlimited pockets but if this is a game for the mass market then Sony is certainly playing by the rules.  If Microsoft really wanted to try to blow Sony and Nintendo out of the water, they would just take more hits on each 360 and drop the extra SKUs and put the Elite @ $250 or some kind of other price drop.  So why don't they just do that?  Get that install base up, right?  No, that would mean more losses or revenue on top of what they are already loosing.




They'd rather not lose money, have a huge lead in installed base, and they don't see the Wii as a direct competitor. So they're not going to cut prices any faster than they think they have to; they lost a lot of money last-generation by being the company that took the initiative on price cuts. They're not going to respond immediately to price cuts that don't reduce the price of the cheapest PS3; if Sony stays above $500, they're not cutting 360 prices until their own costs fall more (and the 'Falcon' internals update this fall should do that). But if they see Sony gaining ground on them significantly, then there will be 360 price cuts, and Sony cannot afford to get in a price war with Microsoft.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 15, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I'll believe the Premium @ $300 price point when I see it.




If the rumored $399 Elite/$349 Premium/$249 Core price cut happens this fall, it'll be because they're cancelling the Premium. I think that's quite possible; you can't get 20GB PC hard drives anymore, but retail prices of a 40GB 2.5" hard drive and a 120GB 2.5" hard drive are only ~$30 apart, and I'm sure the price gap is far less when buying millions at wholesale. But if they're keeping the Premium around, it'll get a bigger price cut than that.



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> I am completely aware of how companies make money and aware of what will sell and how it will sell.  This isn't just a battle between the PS3 and the 360.  The 360 is still competing with the PS2, as well.




No it's not. The Wii is, to a small degree; they're both selling to non-hardcore gamers that don't have HDTVs yet. But the PS2 isn't anywhere near in the same league graphically as the 360 -- it barely qualifies as being in the same generation as the original Xbox.



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> a higher end machine that has limited genre selection.
> 
> I'm not quite sure where the 'limitted genre selection' is coming from. At the end of the year, there's not a single genre out there where the 360's game selection is either clearly better (RPGs, FPS games, fighters, racing games) or something of wash because everything's multi-plaftorm (sports games), and it's hard to argue that 360 versions of multiplatform games aren't the superior versions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 15, 2007)

One more hit against the 'new' 80GB PS3 is the emulation software for new games is no longer the Emotion Engine(I believe that's what they called) that was basically a PS2 within the PS3. Now its software, like the 360, so only some games will work from the PS2.

And it looks like that's the standard for any PS3s from this point on, as according to Sony is cheaper that way. So there's another big problem for the PS3 that Sony's bringing upon itself.

And that seems to be the real problem. Most all of Sony's problems they're bringing themselves. They're making decisions that are just constantly shooting themselves in the foot, and while Microsoft is definitely losing money on the warranty thing, its no where near the amount that Sony's lost thanks to these constant screw ups.

It also seems to me that the whole not-competiting-with-the-Wii that both MS and Sony isn't really that true in how the companies are reacting. Or, at least, its not working, as the Wii is still destroying both of them...MS is adapting to this, attempting to bring in a casual market of their own, but Sony just isn't grasping that one, either, despite it being proven to be a major way to push consoles this generation.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 15, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Err... no. That maybe equalized their losses on hardware, and that only because MS has sold more than three times as many consoles. And that's assuming they actually spend all -- or even most -- of that $1B accounting charge they took (which seems extremely unlikley).



And how is that not losing more money?



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> They'd rather not lose money, have a huge lead in installed base, and they don't see the Wii as a direct competitor. So they're not going to cut prices any faster than they think they have to; they lost a lot of money last-generation by being the company that took the initiative on price cuts. They're not going to respond immediately to price cuts that don't reduce the price of the cheapest PS3; if Sony stays above $500, they're not cutting 360 prices until their own costs fall more (and the 'Falcon' internals update this fall should do that).



That is what I was eluding to.  I'm a little confused, were you disagreeing with me or just clarifying?



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> But if they see Sony gaining ground on them significantly, then there will be 360 price cuts, and Sony cannot afford to get in a price war with Microsoft.



No, they probably can't be then again they don't have to right now.  Again, I don't think anyone can reasonably predict what Sony can really do strategically until they get some killer games for the system coupled with a price point that is more appealing to the rest of the gaming community.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 15, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> One more hit against the 'new' 80GB PS3 is the emulation software for new games is no longer the Emotion Engine(I believe that's what they called) that was basically a PS2 within the PS3. Now its software, like the 360, so only some games will work from the PS2.
> 
> And it looks like that's the standard for any PS3s from this point on, as according to Sony is cheaper that way. So there's another big problem for the PS3 that Sony's bringing upon itself.



That very well could suck hard but we'll have to see how bad the software emulation will be.  Can't be much worse than the 360's, which 







			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> is terrible and frustrating beyond reasonable belief, outside of a few games.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## drothgery (Jul 15, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> That very well could suck hard but we'll have to see how bad the software emulation will be.  Can't be much worse than the 360's, which is terrible and frustrating beyond reasonable belief, outside of a few games.




In Sony's defense, the software PS2 emulation is actually pretty good (about 75% of games work, though some of those have issues). Of course, if MS had to emulate a PS2 rather than an Xbox, their emulation would also be pretty good; it's a lot easier to emulate 6.5 year-old hardware than 4 year-old hardware even without throwing in a radically different CPU architecture (the Cell is similar to an overgrown Emotion Engine; Xenon is almost nothing like a Pentium III) in the mix.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 15, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Sony isn't grasping it?  I know you are a big Nintendo supporter but don't be mistaken, Sony is still directly competing with the Wii by still supporting the PS2.




See, that's one of those things shooting themselves in the foot, though. Yeah, the PS2 is selling well...but THAT is hurting the PS3 sales. They're trying to support two generations of products here, and only one is really selling...the old one.

Though I'd dispute the fact that the Wii is in direct competition with the PS2 anymore than its in direct competition with the PS3 and 360. Say what you want about graphics or any of that...they are competing. All of them. And the Wii is winning against all of them.

And yeah, I'm a big Nintendo guy, but I love my PS2. I think that's what frustrates me so much about Sony. They can make a great system and get great games, but they aren't. They just keep screwing things up and constantly changing their minds on what they want to do or how to do it. My annoyances at Sony are less because I'm loving what Nintendo is doing and more that I'm just baffled by the decisions Sony's making despite the reality of the world around them.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 15, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> No it's not. The Wii is, to a small degree; they're both selling to non-hardcore gamers that don't have HDTVs yet. But the PS2 isn't anywhere near in the same league graphically as the 360 -- it barely qualifies as being in the same generation as the original Xbox.



The market would disagree with you.  It's certainly still a player.  Graphics don't enter into it.  If the PS2 wasn't being supported anymore that would change things for all three of the new consoles.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure where the 'limitted genre selection' is coming from. At the end of the year, there's not a single genre out there where the 360's game selection is either clearly better (RPGs, FPS games, fighters, racing games) or something of wash because everything's multi-plaftorm (sports games), and it's hard to argue that 360 versions of multiplatform games aren't the superior versions.



Right now, they have a limited genre selection.  And 2 more RPGs (one of them killer) won't change that.  Just like with the Xbox, the new machine is struggling with that genre despite some excellent individual games.  And the fighting game genre includes DOA4 and Def Jam right now.  I'd say that is lacking.  The 360 is primarily a system for FPS & racing games.  That's where the limited genre selection comment is coming from.  MS still has a very long way to go to emulate what Sony and Nintendo before them did in the past by having a machine that covers every genre with a wide selection of games.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> Huh? The CPU and GPU are what make a console, and the two systems are pretty much even there. Blu-Ray vs standard DVD is just insignificant for most games capable of running on either system; you're not going to come close to filling a BD without including tons of FMV, packing all the international versions on one BD, and not bothering to compress files.



That may be just fine for now, but I'm not ready to discount the advantage of all that extra space and the simple ability to have the extra tech there to help out down the line.  Sony has a great history of having games on their consoles look better as time goes on.  Additionally, the Core 360 has no built-in HD which will effect some devs as opposed to anyone making games for the PS3 knowing it's there.

And the 360's GPU & CPU may be about the same but at least the PS3's isn't frying systems.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> Why release a version with an HDMI output? Why not? The spec wasn't completed when they finalized the 360 spec (and if you want to make a case that MS launched too soon, I'd agree for various reasons; Sony launched at the wrong time for what they launched with -- a console with Blu-Ray shouldn't have launched before 2008 -- but really should have put a new console out in 2005 or 2006), and videophiles thought it was important.



I won't say they launched too soon because of HDMI, I'll say it because they didn't put together a solid system.  Either QA dropped the call or they just rushed the thing out there knowing there might be hardware failures.

And just like with the statements below about the HD-DVD add-on, this is something that should have been included.  The rush out the door for the 360 was just that.  A rush.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> Why release an HD-DVD add-on? Mostly because of big-picture tactics vis a vis Sony that have almost nothing to do with video games. It got a very inexpensive (to people with Xbox 360s and/or clever people with PCs) HD-DVD player out there, and so helped prevent Blu-Ray from being a runaway success.



I know why they did it and it was a complete 180 turn from what they were saying all along.  I like that they were trying to adapt to a market that they underestimated (as companies do very often, this is by no means a dig @ MS).  The problem is that it's an add-on.  Those don't usually do so well.  And HD-DVD is slowly slipping behind BR in sales.  Currently at 2:1 but some big HD-DVD releases (Star Trek, Heroes) could swing that.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> The conosle that hit 10 million units first has won the console war every time. Without exception. That was the 360. The only 'come from behind' winner in the console wars ever was the SNES over the Genesis -- which was two years newer.



Right, so there is the exception and it's a good one.  I don't believe the "first to 10 million" is going to be the gold standard this time around.  The market alone has millions more gamers than it previously did not to mention there are more factors at play than there have ever been with the console and handheld markets.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> I just don't see the PS3 ever really being competitive as anything more than an N64-style niche box, except possibly as a basis for a Wii-style PS4 (i.e. a straightforward, 100% backward compatible upgrade of the same architecture) that's launched in 2009 or 2010. They're not going to have a sub-$300 model before 2009, and I'd bet quite a bit that MS's thrid-gen console will be out in 2010.



I see the PS3 as one of the only consoles to cover all genres with a better than respectable games line-up.  The 360 and MS still have a long way to go in Japan and in all genres with the exception of FPS and racing.  They are certainly getting better are setting up well to take the crown from Sony in the next generation (GTA4 & RE5 are big steps).

The PS3 is built to last longer than the years you mentioned above.  If MS is planning on pushing the envelop even more by releasing a new console 3 years from now, I'll just have to wait and see how things have played out by that time.  4 year console life cycles don't sit too well with me, though.  It reeks of what MS has already done:  a partially baked system that is lacking features and wasn't tested enough before release to make sure it actually lasts 5 years, not 5 weeks.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 15, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And yeah, I'm a big Nintendo guy, but I love my PS2. I think that's what frustrates me so much about Sony. They can make a great system and get great games, but they aren't.




Here's the thing. The PS2 was not a great system; it was the same kind of difficult to program technological mush doomed to underperform its theoretical specs that the PS3 is.  The only time Sony really had superior hardware was with the original PlayStation. Heck, I've maintained for a while that attempting to emulate the PS2 strategy (only with an exlamation point) has been the source of most of Sony's problems with the PS3.

The PS2 had a weird, massiveley parallel CPU design. So does the PS3.

The PS2 was in part an attempt to popularize a new media format. So was the PS3. Except that DVD had been around in the videophile market for a few years already, and had no serious competing format.

The PS2 was preceded by an absurd amount of hype claiming the console was a 'supercomputer' even though its actual capabilities (as opposed to its theoretical maximum capabilities) were no better than its year-old competitor. So was the PS3.

The difference is that today Sony's competion is a Nintendo that was riding high on the DS even before the Wii launched, and a Microsoft that has been in the console business for 5 years, not a Nintendo that seemed to be on the verge of abandoning nonportables, a bankrupt Sega, and an a Microsoft that was new to the console business (and both Nintendo and MS spotted Sony a 1 year head start in the US).


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 15, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> See, that's one of those things shooting themselves in the foot, though. Yeah, the PS2 is selling well...but THAT is hurting the PS3 sales. They're trying to support two generations of products here, and only one is really selling...the old one.



The PS2 doing well is not hurting PS3 sales.  The people buying a $130 system with that selection of games are not the same people who would be willing to dump 4 times that to play the same games.  It's about the selection available on the PS3 right now.  Sony didn't need to do what MS did and dump the Xbox.  The PS2 was still bringing in money and selling well based of it's incredible game selection.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Though I'd dispute the fact that the Wii is in direct competition with the PS2 anymore than its in direct competition with the PS3 and 360. Say what you want about graphics or any of that...they are competing. All of them. And the Wii is winning against all of them.



They are all in the same market and while they aren't all in the same category or console cycle they are all competing for the public's gaming dollar.  So I agree.  And the Wii is doing very well for itself, which is a very nice change of pace.  We'll see if they can sustain it when the PS3 and 360 break out the big guns.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And yeah, I'm a big Nintendo guy, but I love my PS2. I think that's what frustrates me so much about Sony. They can make a great system and get great games, but they aren't. They just keep screwing things up and constantly changing their minds on what they want to do or how to do it. My annoyances at Sony are less because I'm loving what Nintendo is doing and more that I'm just baffled by the decisions Sony's making despite the reality of the world around them.



How are Sony changing their minds?  Any more or less than any company does?  And if you really love your PS2, just remember how long it took for that system to build up a respectable games lineup.  I'll bet it was longer than 9 months.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 15, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> The PS2 doing well is not hurting PS3 sales.  The people buying a $130 system with that selection of games are not the same people who would be willing to dump 4 times that to play the same games.  It's about the selection available on the PS3 right now.  Sony didn't need to do what MS did and dump the Xbox.  The PS2 was still bringing in money and selling well based of it's incredible game selection.




But someone buying a PS2 now is not buying a PS3. Yes, the price difference between the two is huge, but they're both from the same company. By supporting both, Sony is possibly shipping less PS3s due to the PS2s still out there selling.

Of course, with the way Sony has been losing money over the past months, the PS2 is probably the only way they're making much at all.



> They are all in the same market and while they aren't all in the same category or console cycle they are all competing for the public's gaming dollar.  So I agree.  And the Wii is doing very well for itself, which is a very nice change of pace.  We'll see if they can sustain it when the PS3 and 360 break out the big guns.




See, I don't agree they aren't in the same console cycle. I think the idea that huge jumps in graphics and all that are necessary for that kind of thing isn't true at all. The Wii IS the same cycle as the 360 and PS3. In fact, calling it a cycle behind or 'last generation' actually is a bigger boost to Nintendo and a harder hit for the other two...since that would mean they're losing to something 'outdated'.

And as for the big guns...well, the 360s been out a good while now. Sure, its got more big guns coming(Halo 3 a huge one along with Mass Effect), but really, you can't say that they don't have huge games now. And despite the big guns they already have out, the Wii is still doing insanely well.

As for Sony, you're right that their big success for the PS2 was game selection. Most of those were because they were exclusive. This generation they have...Metal Gear and Final Fantasy. But even then, Nintendo's getting more Final Fantasy for the Wii(Crystal Chronicles), and the 360 is getting most of their old exclusives. The old 'big guns' for Sony just aren't there anymore. In fact, one thing that kind of bothers me about the so called 'big guns' for both the 360 and the PS3 is they're usually FPS games, which are all, essentially, the same game with different window dressing put on it.

And it should also be mentioned that Nintendo still has big guns to put out, too. Super Mario Galaxy looks absolutely amazing, and Metroid Prime 3 is sure to sell a ton along with Super Smash. Not to mention the so-called 'casual' games like Wii Fit and other very unique games that sell insanely well to the disbelief of so many(truthfully, me included).

So its not just big guns for Sony and Microsoft. And Sony really badly needs some heavy hitters to step up and compete with both the 360 and the Wii.



> How are Sony changing their minds?  Any more or less than any company does?  And if you really love your PS2, just remember how long it took for that system to build up a respectable games lineup.  I'll bet it was longer than 9 months.




Changing their mind probably wasn't the best choice of words. It just bothers me how much different parts of the company continually say different things that completely contradict one another. 

And yeah, the PS2 took a bit to really get going, but it had games coming on the horizon that would really sell systems. And not just a few, it had a ton coming and we knew it. This generation is just a different beast. The 3rd party guys are branching out much, much more, and exclusives just aren't as common as they were. The same games are commonly comming out for all three systems and that really hurts Sony a great deal since they're old big guns just aren't completely their's anymore.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 15, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> But someone buying a PS2 now is not buying a PS3. Yes, the price difference between the two is huge, but they're both from the same company. By supporting both, Sony is possibly shipping less PS3s due to the PS2s still out there selling.



There isn't a correlation between the two.  It's like with the Nintendo DS & GBA, they both existed just fine in the same market because they offered different things at different prices, not to forget the great game line-up on the GBA.

People who are buying the PS2 aren't doing so because they wanted a PS3.  If they wanted a PS3, they would buy it because they have the setup for it.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> See, I don't agree they aren't in the same console cycle. I think the idea that huge jumps in graphics and all that are necessary for that kind of thing isn't true at all. The Wii IS the same cycle as the 360 and PS3. In fact, calling it a cycle behind or 'last generation' actually is a bigger boost to Nintendo and a harder hit for the other two...since that would mean they're losing to something 'outdated'.



Don't even try to sell anyone that the Wii compares to the PS3 or 360's visuals.  You'll simply be wrong.  It's closer to the PS2's than the PS3's.

That's not to say that the games look terrible on the Wii, but that's not what we are talking about.  The Wii is a modded Gamecube with slightly enhanced graphics and the motion sensing.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And as for the big guns...well, the 360s been out a good while now. Sure, its got more big guns coming(Halo 3 a huge one along with Mass Effect), but really, you can't say that they don't have huge games now. And despite the big guns they already have out, the Wii is still doing insanely well.



Yes, the 360 already has Gears of War along with Dead Rising and Crackdown plus some quality FPS (I'm not a fan but there are certain ones I like).  That's still not enough.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> As for Sony, you're right that their big success for the PS2 was game selection. Most of those were because they were exclusive. This generation they have...Metal Gear and Final Fantasy. But even then, Nintendo's getting more Final Fantasy for the Wii(Crystal Chronicles), and the 360 is getting most of their old exclusives. The old 'big guns' for Sony just aren't there anymore. In fact, one thing that kind of bothers me about the so called 'big guns' for both the 360 and the PS3 is they're usually FPS games, which are all, essentially, the same game with different window dressing put on it.



The sharing of GTA & Resident Evil are the big ones that really hurt Sony, as is Assassin's Creed.  But that's not to say Sony is losing all it's exclusives, that is far from the truth.  There are still plenty of franchises that are still sticking with Sony.  These are interesting times for gaming as more and more companies go multi-platform.  Something has to give and I'm interested to see where it goes.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And it should also be mentioned that Nintendo still has big guns to put out, too. Super Mario Galaxy looks absolutely amazing, and Metroid Prime 3 is sure to sell a ton along with Super Smash. Not to mention the so-called 'casual' games like Wii Fit and other very unique games that sell insanely well to the disbelief of so many(truthfully, me included).



The Wii's big guns aren't that big a deal if the systems are already flying off shelves.  Really, all they have to go is down at this point.  It's more likely that these big releases will keep them chugging along and selling well.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> So its not just big guns for Sony and Microsoft. And Sony really badly needs some heavy hitters to step up and compete with both the 360 and the Wii.



Yes, the PS3 needs to get out Heavenly Sword, Rachet & Clank: Tools of Destruction, Warhawk and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune out in time for the holiday season.  They could afford a delay to 1 maaaaybe 2 of them so I think they'll need at least 3 big games to compliment the multi-platform games and Home for the end of the year.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Changing their mind probably wasn't the best choice of words. It just bothers me how much different parts of the company continually say different things that completely contradict one another.



Yeah, *that* is annoying.  This whole price drop/model availability thing was handled terribly.  Bleh!  Personally, I'm waiting for this week to hear more clarification.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And yeah, the PS2 took a bit to really get going, but it had games coming on the horizon that would really sell systems. And not just a few, it had a ton coming and we knew it. This generation is just a different beast. The 3rd party guys are branching out much, much more, and exclusives just aren't as common as they were. The same games are commonly comming out for all three systems and that really hurts Sony a great deal since they're old big guns just aren't completely their's anymore.



There are less exclusives coming to the PS3 than the PS2 at this point in their lifecycles, but you are badly underestimating the amount that are still there.  Yes, there is another player in town with the 360 but there are many games that Playstation fans are just chomping at the bit, waiting for them to come out.  MS is pulling closer and that is a good thing.  Doesn't spell the death of the PS3.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 15, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> There isn't a correlation between the two.  It's like with the Nintendo DS & GBA, they both existed just fine in the same market because they offered different things at different prices, not to forget the great game line-up on the GBA.
> 
> People who are buying the PS2 aren't doing so because they wanted a PS3.  If they wanted a PS3, they would buy it because they have the setup for it.




That's possible, but one of the things that could realy help move PS3s is that they can play PS2 games(Well, all of them before and who knows how many after the 80GB is out...hopefully most). So, like the PS2, one of the big advantages of buying the PS3 is you CAN play the older games. 

Though, of course, that's true of the GBA/DS, too.

But it doesn't seem like the PS2 and PS3 ARE existing just fine in this market. The PS3 isn't selling. The PS2 is. At least with the DS coming out, that sold more...same with the PS2 when it was released over the PS1. But the PS3 just isn't moving enough units and having the PS2 out can't be helping that.



> Don't even try to sell anyone that the Wii compares to the PS3 or 360's visuals.  You'll simply be wrong.  It's closer to the PS2's than the PS3's.
> 
> That's not to say that the games look terrible on the Wii, but that's not what we are talking about.  The Wii is a modded Gamecube with slightly enhanced graphics and the motion sensing.




I didn't say a thing about comparing the visuals. 

What I DID say was that I don't believe visuals are all that determine what generation a console is.

The very fact that a modded Gamecube is outselling two machines that are built around the fact that 'graphics are great' says a great deal about the current market. MS has taken note of this and they've already made mention of trying to tap this market they never thought about before, a market that doesn't value graphics as high as some hardcore gamers. Sony, though, is still playing the same old game.

And the simple fact is, the same old thing doesn't work right now. It isn't. Say what you want about Nintendo, with both the DS and the Wii having such insane success, they've proved that the market is shifting(and they're helping to move it), and you can't just rely on graphics and power of a game system to actuall sell things.



> The sharing of GTA & Resident Evil are the big ones that really hurt Sony, as is Assassin's Creed.  But that's not to say Sony is losing all it's exclusives, that is far from the truth.  There are still plenty of franchises that are still sticking with Sony.  These are interesting times for gaming as more and more companies go multi-platform.  Something has to give and I'm interested to see where it goes.




Sony isn't losing all of them, no, but they're losing most of the ones that used to be considered system sellers. And while some franchises are staying with Sony, there's been branching out(see Final Fantasy), talk of possibly branching out(in the case of Metal Gear, which amazes me), and downright cancelling of games to move to other systems(the new Katamari).

Interesting is definitely the word for it.



> The Wii's big guns aren't that big a deal if the systems are already flying off shelves.  Really, all they have to go is down at this point.  It's more likely that these big releases will keep them chugging along and selling well.




Makes sense. Though I think its bad to ignore the Wii's big guns while mentioning the others, as they have the potential to still pull sales from the other two. You have to consider it all to get a good picture of things.



> Yes, the PS3 needs to get out Heavenly Sword, Rachet & Clank: Tools of Destruction, Warhawk and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune out in time for the holiday season.  They could afford a delay to 1 maaaaybe 2 of them so I think they'll need at least 3 big games to compliment the multi-platform games and Home for the end of the year.




Delays of any of those could really hurt them. There's also the chance that any one of them might end up being so overhyped they just don't live up to it...another thing that could hurt the system.

The constant "Over the horizon" feeling for PS3 games may actually hurt it anyway, because when they do come out, even if they're good...will it have been worth the wait?



> Yeah, *that* is annoying.  This whole price drop/model availability thing was handled terribly.  Bleh!  Personally, I'm waiting for this week to hear more clarification.




No! Don't ask for clarification! Next thing you know we'll have them telling us that its not a 80GB, but actually a 65GB for only Europe but not Australia and actually for everywhere except the places they didn't say.



> There are less exclusives coming to the PS3 than the PS2 at this point in their lifecycles, but you are badly underestimating the amount that are still there.  Yes, there is another player in town with the 360 but there are many games that Playstation fans are just chomping at the bit, waiting for them to come out.  MS is pulling closer and that is a good thing.  Doesn't spell the death of the PS3.




Its way too early to claim the death of any of the three. However, if Sony doesn't pick up quickly and get some steam going, they're headed for a bad path. The PS2 was slow, but they didn't have the competition then that there is now. Between Nintendo just being a monster out of no where and Microsoft watching both companies and trying to do what they can, Sony has to start making some smart moves soon.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 15, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Bah and bah again.  I grok just fine, thanks.    If you want to personally attack me for "not getting" the way the industry works that is just fine.  But I'll remind you that you were convinced that PS3 games would sell for $100 a pop.  So, lets dispense with the personal attacks, no?




I wasn't aware that saying someone didn't understand an issue was a "personal attack". If so, should I have reported your post when you told me I just didn't understand high definition electronics and what people would pay?

You know, when I said the PS3 would be in last place and you told me I was flat wrong? That thing I was 100% right about? That the sales would be Wii, then 360, then PS3?

So don't act like you were right and I was wrong.

On the games being $100 thing, I was quoting a Sony executive. I know, given the rate at which they lie, that's probably the last person I should have quoted, but don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't say the games would be 100 bucks. Sony said they might be, I said that was crazy. 

So, are you ready to stop with this petty score-keeping thing? I was right about something. You were right about something. How's that. 



> Sony's main competitor is losing even more money, especially after the warranty extension/faulty 360 fiasco.  Sure, MS has virtually unlimited pockets but if this is a game for the mass market then Sony is certainly playing by the rules.  If Microsoft really wanted to try to blow Sony and Nintendo out of the water, they would just take more hits on each 360 and drop the extra SKUs and put the Elite @ $250 or some kind of other price drop.  So why don't they just do that?  Get that install base up, right?  No, that would mean more losses or revenue on top of what they are already loosing.




See this is how I know you're wrong about price not mattering, because MS has repeatedly said that they KNOW their price is too high. That the sweetspot in the market is @ $200, the price the Wii is flying off the shelves at.

So why aren't they dropping the price?

Because right now they don't have to. As long as the PS3 stays at $600, and as long as the Wii's install base isn't obscenely larger (which, with the lead, it's only just now passing the 360's install base, even though it's selling at a 2:1 rate). 

So for now, MS has no pressure to change. They're being smart and playing for time.

You notice, as soon as Sony announced it's "price cut", analysts started pressuring MS? 

Those are the forces that are driving the situation right now. It's a question of install bases.

As long as MS has the lead in the install race, or at least is competitive enough to keep 3rd party support intact, they know they don't need a price drop, even though they also know where the sweet spot in the market really is.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 16, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I'll believe the Premium @ $300 price point when I see it.  That happens, expect to see the PS3 follow right behind.



Why do you believe that, when the PS3 hasn't matched the 360's price yet at all?

Sony's answer to "this isn't worth $600" was not to drop the price, but to raise the specs. They obviously missed what most of us wanted. Perhaps the company is moving in a direction you like, but I'm not sure that's a popular place you live in.

The "price reduction" on their old SKU has been labeled "clearance discount". And the fact that there is an "adequate supply" is because... 
::drumroll::

No Body Is Buying Them.

Anecdotes are fun, I like anecdotal evidence. Locally, I can find a PS3 anywhere that sells games. I can track down a 360 without too much effort, but it's not everywhere. I can find a Wii easy enough, but it's out of stock at most places.

Say what you will about whether it's lack of games or price point, but the PS3 is more available than the 360 was at this point in it's lifecycle... heck, it's more available than the 360 currently.




> Either way, both companies are still losing money and at the very least the PS3 is a very reliable piece of equipment.  I cross my fingers every time I turn my 360 on that it will survive a 3-4 hour gaming session.




Interesting. What exactly is the failure rate of the PS3 and 360's?

It's a popular subject, but so was "flying wiimotes kill children!" or whatnot, it doesn't make it an epidemic.


Of particular amusement at this years E3 was the mantra "ten year plan". I'm sure the Wii won't be the core console for 10 years. (And, I can see them dropping in price to the point they are everywhere.) Nintendo makes money on Wii's, so that's good, but I think lots of folks are buying Wii and Wii Sports and nothing else. Thus the Wii's low attach rate.

But, give it ten years, and Sony will be telling you how their console "won" versus the defunct 360 and Wii, simply because it'll be competing against completely different systems.

Heck, Blu Ray probably won't even last that long.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 16, 2007)

The other funny from E3 at Sony's expense was the Killzone 2 thing.

They swore it was game footage, it wasn't.

Now they are vindicated, because they have eventually managed to make actual game footage that looks close enough to the lie. I guess if you ignore the fact they LIED about it, and the game isn't due until next year...


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 16, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> But, give it ten years, and Sony will be telling you how their console "won" versus the defunct 360 and Wii, simply because it'll be competing against completely different systems.



Wii lasted ten years before Sony beat them?

That's even better news.  

I mean, how often can you find a 10-year-old console or computer still kicking despite rapid technology turnovers?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 16, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The other funny from E3 at Sony's expense was the Killzone 2 thing.
> 
> They swore it was game footage, it wasn't.
> 
> Now they are vindicated, because they have eventually managed to make actual game footage that looks close enough to the lie. I guess if you ignore the fact they LIED about it, and the game isn't due until next year...



 Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who remembers the first Killzone.

It was terrible.

Okay, so maybe they've improved the many problems it had...but what everyone always talks about is "THE GRAPHICS LOOK GREAT!!!" and that's it. What about oooh...the gameplay? Its yet another FPS and it needs something beyond GRAPHICS!!! to actually make it good.

But eh, maybe I'm just to the point where the whole graphics thing doesn't impress me like it used to.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 16, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Wii lasted ten years before Sony beat them?
> 
> That's even better news.




Seriously though, if you watched any E3, the Ten Year Plan came up in every conversation with Sony that I saw.

In 10 years, the Wii will be everywhere. Forget price, it'll probably be free with a happy meal and used as voting machines at elections.

And the PS3 will be trumpeting that their price is now $599, but it comes complete with a 5-terabyte HD and BluRay2 adapter.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 16, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Okay, so maybe they've improved the many problems it had...but what everyone always talks about is "THE GRAPHICS LOOK GREAT!!!" and that's it. What about oooh...the gameplay? Its yet another FPS and it needs something beyond GRAPHICS!!! to actually make it good.




Well, how can you judge anything that you haven't seen? They've focused on the graphics because that's all there is. The game will have years of development solely for the PS3, and if it can't pull off something like what is shown and have smooth frame rate and good gameplay, it'll be a very bad shot for the PS3 I think.

It's one of those lose-lose situations. Sony used the game to preach their system capabilities, so it has to be up to par just to break even.



> But eh, maybe I'm just to the point where the whole graphics thing doesn't impress me like it used to.



I certainly don't pick games purely by graphics, but I do notice bad graphics as compared to other games of the time. FPS's of the same 6 month period should look roughly similar, graphics power wise, or it'll be really noticeable.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 16, 2007)

I WANT to see more about Killzone 2. I mean, maybe it will have great gameplay and a good story and all that other fun stuff beyond just GRAPHICS!!!

But that's all Sony's talking about. And that worries me. A game can look beautiful and absolutely amazing...but if the gameplay is junk, what's the point?


----------



## Pants (Jul 17, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who remembers the first Killzone.
> 
> It was terrible.



The original Killzone was the height of mediocrity, both in graphics and gameplay.  I never understood the furor over that game, but then again I'm a PC gamer so obviously my opinion shouldn't count. 

Still, I'd rather play Halo on the X-Box over Killzone any day of the week.


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 30, 2007)

Wii is a fraction of a cost of it's competitors. That alone is a big thing. 

Halo 3 coming out over a *year* after the system is hurting the 360. 

Does the PS3 even have a flagship game? 

Nintendo made their system NOT targeted at hardcore console gamers. I almost don't blame them, we are not that big of a market. They dumbed down the base controller into a psudo remote control so anyone who was inclined to try a game can play it. 

The normal console game controller of 10-12 buttons and 3 control pads [2 of which are hidden buttons] is a learning curve. Arcade games, even in their heyday, avoided that many. The companies that made arcade games knew folks would take one look at that number of buttons and walk away. Wii went with that philosophy for the wii-mote.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 30, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Does the PS3 even have a flagship game?




I think the first PS3 game I'd actually label a system seller is Metal Gear 4, which won't be out in time for this Christmas (and probably not in time to coincide with the temporary price drop).


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 1, 2007)

*So... EA now says they bet on the wrong horses (360 and PS3)*

When the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 launched in November 2005 and November 2006, respectively, Electronic Arts was there with a full slate of games. Each system received the latest iterations from the publisher's Need for Speed, Madden NFL, NBA Live, and Tiger Woods PGA Tour franchises. The Xbox 360 also welcomed FIFA 06: Road to FIFA World Cup, while Fight Night Round 3 arrived on the PS3 just weeks after the console's launch.

By contrast, only two EA games made it to the Wii's launch: Need for Speed Carbon and Madden NFL 07. Though he wasn't yet appointed to his current post as EA's CEO, that's something John Riccitiello regrets, as he explained at the company's annual meeting of stockholders yesterday.

Taking questions from the audience, Riccitiello was asked about several years of less-than-stellar performance on the stock market. He responded first by saying that the company is aligned behind the goal of driving shareholder value, but acknowledged that the company could have better handled the recent transition between console generations.

"[This transition has been] harder because of the complexity," Riccitiello said, "and harder because unfortunately, we bet a little bit on the wrong horse in focusing so much on the PS3 and Xbox 360, and to a lesser degree on the Wii. And let me assure you that almost all of us in the industry made the same judgment. So after so many transitions of guessing exactly right, we got this one a little bit wrong and we're dealing with that now with strong investments on the Wii."

One of those investments--a studio dedicated to developing specifically for the Wii--was announced roughly a week after Nintendo's system launched.

Later in the session, Riccitiello touched on the Wii launch again when asked about which of the company's competitors keep it up at night.

"We're all fairly paranoid, so a lot of them keep us up at night for different things," Riccitiello replied. "There aren't companies that are really directly comparable in all areas. But if you're looking for companies that we admire and might well keep us up at night, I think about companies like Ubisoft, that made a quicker and more forceful move against the Wii and Nintendo DS, and that's showing in their results. [They're] insightful, and they create an awfully large number of great titles. No question, there's a lot to admire there." 

More here:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6175764.html


----------

