One of the major contributers to PS3s failure is definately their releases or lack there of... I mean check out this month's listing: http://archive.gamespy.com/gamereleases/october07/ (http://archive.gamespy.com/gamereleases/october07/)
PS2, X360, Wii, Nintendo DS are all way larger (not to say better) but most of the PS3 releases this month are also cross plateform releases. Combined with the huge price margin on the PS3, I think sony will have to invest a lot more development into the PS3 in 2008 or definately become the lost console of this console wars generation.
Even last month the only unique release (http://archive.gamespy.com/gamereleases/september07/ (http://archive.gamespy.com/gamereleases/september07/)) was Heavenly Sword. Kind of pisses me off a bit, as I only have 2 games for mine, and I bought them the same time PS3 was released.
What do you think will save the PS3?
I don't think it really needs to be "saved". With the upcoming 40GB model dropping for $399 its one hell of a deal for a Blu-ray player that just happens to be also capable of some of the best graphics in video games. So while it might not succeed to the extent that the visionaries and bean counters at Sony are expecting (at least from a Video Game Perspective) I anticipate it sells pretty well as a Blu-ray player.
I wonder (out loud) what the attachment rate of the PS3 is vs. total Blu-ray movie sales, that might give you some indication of how well its selling each type.
The issue they have in gaming wont easily be solved unfortunately. Titles that would seem A or B+ on the 360 library (Lair, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, etc) are unfairly being billed as AAA titles that will sell the console! Despite the cries the only game(s) coming in the foreseeable future that can do this are Metal Gear Solid and Gran Turismo. Final Fantasy sure but its probably 2+ years off yet (the latest was sorta just released).
They also really gotta stop the constant hardware revisions or at the very least give them a name. The 360 its pretty simple...Elite, Premium, Arcade. Which do you think is best? The problem we have with the PS3s is so much more. The 80GB uses software to do backwards compatibility, the 60GB (discontinued) uses hardware to do the BC, and the upcoming 40GB doesn't have BC. So they are trying to use harddrive space to dictate functionality when its not entirely accurate.
I've attempted to buy a PS3 4 times so far. Each time I'm ready to do it the rumors start coming out that another version or a price drop or something is happening. 2 price drops this year so far another anticipated before Xmas maybe or at the very least a new bundle.
Its odd, they didnt want to do what Microsoft did with the 3 skus but instead they do it anyways but far worse.
Also, I noticed that Lost Planet and Dead Rising were just announce and surprisingly to much fan fair whats that all about? Are PS3 owners really so desperate for games that they are joyously applauding development studios for porting Xbox 360 games a year or more after the release?
What will save the PS3? If Sony went back in time and did the following:
-Dropped Blu-Ray support
-Added an open development architecture
-Produced more units at launch
-Procured several 3rd party developers and forced them to produce PS3-only titles
Despite the claims that it wouldn't help Microsoft by launching a year early that doesn't seem to be the case as PS3 is losing exclusives quickly and Microsoft is willfully taking these titles multi platform with joy (Devil May Cry for instance).
I think it also bears mentioning that Sony is THE Big Stubborn Corporation and that the game division, which may have once been a vibrant subcomponent that took a lot of risk back in the mid-90s with massive returns, has been corralled into the Sony Reality Distortion Field (where decisions get made by executive committee and not by market forces).
We could see the same kind of pattern in the coming years from Microsoft as they may fall into panic mode over Nintendo's success.
From what I've read Microsoft isnt interested in battling Nintendo as they seem themselves serving similar but diverse markets. What I think is going to happen is that the 360 is the last console Microsoft releases.
Probably...
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 01:59:11 PM
What I think is going to happen is that the 360 is the last console Microsoft releases.
Why do you think that?
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 01:59:11 PM
From what I've read Microsoft isnt interested in battling Nintendo as they seem themselves serving similar but diverse markets. What I think is going to happen is that the 360 is the last console Microsoft releases.
I think that statement will very much hinge upon your definition of a console, and when a device stops being a "gaming console", and turns into a converged home-theater component capable of playing games, PVR/DVR functionality, IPTV, etc. I am 100% certain that MS is not giving up on taking over the living room - whether it'll be another generation of xbox, or something closer to a PC, I don't know.
I dunno, I just got that feeling. Its a mixture of things really: What I saw at the years E3 conference (a focus on 2007 and nothing in the future), Bungie separating (though thats probably so that the team stays intact, but they lose the name), Not putting up a fight for Bioware, no real big showcase games in late 2008 or so, they have lost epic amounts of money on the whole Microsoft Games division for little to no gain, can't escape the negative shroud of the Microsoft name that some people have despite it being an industry leading platform.
With almost every major game going multiplatform whats the real desire to design, manufacture, market, support, etc your own platform?
I bet it hinges on the success of the PS3. If the PS3 gains momentum and starts double or triple selling the 360 like the PS2 was doing to the Xbox1 then I dont think we see another MS console sadly.
Cova
That I will agree with, but a dedicated gaming platform, I just dont see it. Something more PS3 and more PC-like is probably closer to the mark.
Quote from: Melbosa on October 24, 2007, 02:09:43 PM
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 01:59:11 PM
What I think is going to happen is that the 360 is the last console Microsoft releases.
Why do you think that?
I'll tell you why I think it!
The XBox has been a risky venture for Microsoft, in fact up to 2005 Microsoft's gaming division had lost over $4 billion dollars (http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2005/09/12/microsoft-management-software_cz_vm_0913microsoft.html). Now Microsoft says that they'll turn this around moving forward, but of course they're going to say this they have investors and publishers etc. This year was not especially kind to Microsoft they had a lot of competition from Nintendo (and Sony I guess) at what point will Microsoft cut their losses, pack it in and let consumers supply the [PC] hardware and rake in the licensing money?
Only time will tell I guess.
Nintendo is less competition now then the PS2 was in the last generation.
MS will keep losing money on gaming, as long as gaming is the best way to get the MS name into living rooms instead of home-offices. MS knows that the entire computer industry is changing and they can't keep depending on just Office and Windows as their prime revenue anymore. The future will be applications that can run from anywhere, displaying anywhere, always-on and always-connected. And MS will throw money away left and right to make sure they have a presence everywhere that the future MIGHT go, cause whatever ends up the next big they they don't wanna miss.
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 01:49:04 PM
With the upcoming 40GB model dropping for $399 its one hell of a deal for a Blu-ray player [..] I anticipate it sells pretty well as a Blu-ray player.
I think that whether or not it plays Blu-Ray will have less of an impact than you think. I don't think that the general buying populace is as entranced with high-def audio/video signals as the big players are hoping. Yes, several of the people on here would or already have bought high-def disc players, but we do represent a niche market and most of the people out there seem to be sticking with yesterday's technology. I managed to find an Internet comment that adequately states what my opinion on the whole matter is:
Quote from: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/9316.cfm
InvPhlegm (Newbie) 9 April 2007 22:24
Neither format has a winning formula going for it. While Blu-ray looks in the lead due to support from Hollywood, HD DVD counters with the low cost to manufacture hardware and press discs; something that China (which makes over 80% of the world's disc-based drives and media), and now the Europeans are starting to become very vocal about - China going so far as to create their own HD standard based on HD DVD spec.
Ultimately, what is really killing both formats is existing DVDs. The overwhelming number of consumers are simply just happy with what they already have and see no need to make the move to HD.
It does not help that the pricing for HDTVs is still pretty high (and almost prohibitive in most parts of the world). And the fact that there is a format war in the first place, only clouds the playing field even further for the consumer.
The greatest fault against both formats is outside of higher video resolution and audio fidelity, they offer the consumer nothing the consumer can't already get on DVD. Now before the techie in you says that is enough and site that it was better audio and video that convinced the world to make the move from VHS to DVD, consider to things.
1 - Betamax offered both higher quality video and audio over VHS; the world picked VHS anyway.
2 - it was not better quality audio and video that converted people from VHS, over to DVD, it was ultimately, the added convenienceand extra content that the DVD format offered beyond VHS.
With DVD, there was no more rewinding the tape, there was no more wear and tear on the tape that would damage the consumer investment just from watching their movie; gone were the days of getting your taped jammed into the machine; discs and their cases were smaller than VHS and thus easier to store; chapters, bookmarks and other navigational tools made it easier to watch your movie your way; deleted scenes, behind the scenes documentaries, trailers and other content has become one of the biggest selling points in home video history; and the lists of conveniences that DVDs offer over VHS goes on and on and is sometimes staggering. It was convenience that sold DVDs, not higher fidelity movie quality. Most DVD owners did not even realize the movies looked and sound better until after they had DVDs around for a while and then happened to visit a friend or relative who still had VHS.
And lets face facts. Even if you were a DVD adopter, if you still had your DVD player attached to your old and busted television set that you had your old VHS player attached to, there was simply no way you got any real higher fidelity benefits from DVD over VHS - and this is until very recently, how most consumers have viewed their DVD collections.
I know, I know. The techie in all of us, updated ages ago. We may have even scraped and saved forever to update our entertainment centers to accommodate DVDs. But most consumers don't even use the term "entertainment center" to describe where they watch TV and play their videogames. To most people, it's just the TV. But we here are already aware that if you are running anything less than a flat screen (not to be confused with flat panel), 480p Progressive scan television and have it plugged to your DVD player via component cables, and have at least the most rudimentary 5.1 audio surround sound receiver, that you are not getting the full audio/video fidelity that regular DVDs have to offer. And this is the scariest part. Once guys like us start looking outside of our circle of techies, we find that the vast majority of DVD owners have their DVD players still plugged up to their non-Progressive, bubble screen television with the two low watt stereo speakers via either coax or composite set of cables; the exact same rig they had their VHS players hooked up for years.
Higher fidelity has not affected the masses of consumers; quite the opposite actually. And you have to sit down and ask yourself, if the masses are already satisfied to what amounts to VHS 1.5 (ie. DVDs plugged up to bargain basement TVs with bargain basement connectors and cables), why on Earth would these people want to invest thousands more of hard-earned money just to make the bump to HD for even higher fidelity, when they are already clearly satisfied with what they have already?
The most basic of facts that very few techies want to own up to (and both Sony and Toshiba do not want anyone to realize either), is that the disc media as a whole, has nothing new to offer consumers in terms of convenience. It is because of this, more than anything else, why consumers are just as apathetic over Blu-ray and HD DVD as they were towards SACD and DVD-A a decade ago. People already had CDs, despite the fact of the obvious fidelity increase that both audio disc formats offered, the vast majority of people (99% of all consumers) could and still does not care one bit. But once you offered consumers the new worlds of convenience that downloaded music represented, not only were they happy to stick with lower fidelity music, but were even happy to trade-in lossless audio formats like CDs, for lossy audio formats like MP3s, WMAs and AACs. But what the convenience and the freedom that downloadable audio offers to the consumer is just as much a paradigm shift forward as audio CDs were over cassettes, LPs and 8-tracks. Witness the hurt that downloadable music is putting on even regular CD sales; the RIAA who refused to adopt and monetize online distributed music early on are hurting as they are watching their bottomlines bottom out. And even as I write this, the unthinkable is occurring with major labels looking to provide their music online sans DRM - the ultimate in consumer convenience and freedom. This last hurdle is being crossed, and with it the dawn of the true age of digitally distributed audio content.
The outcome for the blu-ray/HD DVD format war has already been foretold; we watch this same war played out almost a decade ago with SACDs and DVD-As. Because there is no new convenience factor to be derived from either Blu-ray or HD DVD (or the shift to HD overall), public apathy toward both will remain. It will remain long enough for companies like Apple and Microsoft and Google and Bittorrent and Azureus and Tioti and all the other technologies and companies backing them to get a grip on how best to offer consumable products and convenience over the web. This apathy toward next-gen disc medium will remain in place long enough for the bandwidth to be there to make it worth anyone's while to make the jump online. And even if that means not going HD, most consumers will be consumed with the next paradigm shift in convenience that they will buy as much into downloadable movies and TV as everyone is currently buying into downloadable music. And in the meantime, everyone will be more than satisfied with regular, old DVDs.
And don't you think for a single minute that all those Hollywood studios that are supposedly supporting Blu-ray and HD DVD are not aware of where their true future lies. All you need do, is pick up any MPAA trade publication to figure out the obvious. Since the launch of HD DVD and Blu-ray into the market space a year ago, there have literally been over 20x the number of articles, editorials and commentaries in Hollywood trade publications and how best to monetize on the trend, than all talk of Blu-ray and HD DVD combined. If Hollywood really thought their future was in either disc format, they would be overwhelmingly making it known. But instead you have the CEO or ABC/Disney giving keynote addresses at trade events telling the industry explicitly the opposite.
So what about Blu-ray and HD DVD? What about their futures? Two words for you: laser disc. The future of Blu-ray and HD DVD is a similar niche market that was once home to the laser disc. Not that that is a bad thing. It still means that techies like the rest of us can get our disc groove-on. I still purchase DVD-As and SACDs. Their is simply nothing out their commercially available that rivals the audio quality. The first time you hear Marvin Gaye's What's Going On in 5.1 surround, you'll be sold on DVD-As and SACDs too. And while true that both formats have fallen into a niche market, most if not all major releases are either mastered or get a re-master in 5.1. So it's all good. And I get to experience my musical entertainment in a way that most people do not and which will put any MP3 to utter shame. The same will become of Blu-ray and HD DVD; which is fine by me. I'll have something that very few other people will have and will get to experience it at a level that very few people even knows exists. In a very small way, that makes me just a little bit more special than the next guy.
(emphasis mine)
Oh I know. The one stat that I heard a while back is that Blu-ray and HD DVD had sold a combined since their release that is less then the amount of copies 300 on SD DVD sold in its first week. Its pretty crappy.
It might be just a matter of time. I try to buy my new dvds in HD DVD as the quality is just astounding.
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 02:24:27 PM
Nintendo is less competition now then the PS2 was in the last generation.
How do you gather that? Nintendo has gotten a lot more media attention and nearly as many units sold as the 360 in under a year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii#System_sales
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7224&Itemid=2
I think there's a fairly healthy competition being waged these days between Microsoft and Nintendo!
That's right "it's just a fad"... or is it?
I don't think its a fad at all and I dont see an end to the console sales. But I also see them as different target markets. Wii applies to more the casual and younger audience for the most parts where as the 360 appeals to a more mature and media-centric audience. They both play games sure, but their is no Halo 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc on the Nintendo but their is also no Mario and Zelda on the 360.
Getting more consoles into homes Im not sure crowns a winner, goes a long way, but its ultimately down to software and Nintendo just doesnt have it.
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 02:41:39 PM
Oh I know. The one stat that I heard a while back is that Blu-ray and HD DVD had sold a combined since their release that is less then the amount of copies 300 on SD DVD sold in its first week. Its pretty crappy.
It might be just a matter of time. I try to buy my new dvds in HD DVD as the quality is just astounding.
And you qualify as one of those techies that Internet commenter was referring to. I even do, somewhat (I at least have optical digital hookup from the DVD player to the receiver). But the point is that so many other people out there are
not techies and won't bother buying either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, and therefore won't require either. So to hope or suggest that the PS3 sells well because it has a built-in Blu-Ray player for cheap seems to me to be false hope.
Off-topic: Wow, lots of posting today :P
If HD DVD or Blu-ray can get a hi-def player into the $199 area I could see the sales come. Its not a $30 DVD player like you can get at Wal-Mart but its at that price thats at least accessible. My first DVD player was my Xbox.
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 02:53:51 PM
Wii applies to more the casual and younger audience for the most parts where as the 360 appeals to a more mature and media-centric audience. They both play games sure, but their is no Halo 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc on the Nintendo but their is also no Mario and Zelda on the 360.
Do Resident Evil 4 or Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles or Medal of Honour: Vanguard or Call of Duty 3 compare somewhat to Halo 3, Mass Effect, or Bioshock? I haven't played any of them, but they all appear to be similar genres. How about others on the list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_games), like Battalion Wars II or Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 or Red Steel or Splinter Cell: Double Agent or Manhunt 2?
Wii has a surprisingly large number of T and M rated titles for it supposedly being the kid console.
Quote from: Thorin on October 24, 2007, 03:18:58 PM
Off-topic: Wow, lots of posting today :P
OOT: Yeah and its all my fault :P, and one by Shayne/Lazy a piece :D
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 02:53:51 PM
I don't think its a fad at all and I dont see an end to the console sales.
Sorry, I didn't mean that to sound like I was directing at you. I apologize
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 02:53:51 PMBut I also see them as different target markets. Wii applies to more the casual and younger audience for the most parts where as the 360 appeals to a more mature and media-centric audience. They both play games sure, but their is no Halo 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc on the Nintendo but their is also no Mario and Zelda on the 360.
Now, I've heard this argument before and I have to disagree (and I used to support the belief that there was clear market segregation). I think peoples' perception of Nintendo's library of games as being purely "kids stuff" is largely a stereotype. To say that the library doesn't offer more "mature" content because of some strategic focus or that Nintendo isn't in direct competition with Microsoft for video game dominance is probably naive.
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 02:53:51 PMGetting more consoles into homes Im not sure crowns a winner, goes a long way, but its ultimately down to software and Nintendo just doesnt have it.
Ok, then I suppose I'm a bit confused about your earlier post claiming the Wii is "less competitive" against the 360 than the PS2 was against the XBox. Mindshare is a difficult thing to measure, but if there are more console owners of one kind than another there is a clear market advantage. Having market dominance is what crowns a console as a "winner" to me.
Perhaps in a year when we see what level of establishment each console carves out it will be clearer and the importance of market share may be more apparent.
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 03:28:45 PM
If HD DVD or Blu-ray can get a hi-def player into the $199 area I could see the sales come. Its not a $30 DVD player like you can get at Wal-Mart but its at that price thats at least accessible. My first DVD player was my Xbox.
Well, a bit OT but I'll say this much, I honestly think that hi-def disc media hit the market too soon and may end up as an evolutionary dead end as far as media goes. Talking to Thorin here in the office I drew similarities between Laserdisc and the current push for HD DVDs. For those who can recall (Mags?) Laserdisc was also a "better" format, digital sound, quality picture, no rewinding etc. The trouble was, at the time VHS was "good enough" for most people with their 27" tv sets and no one really saw value into buying into a more expensive format.
IF HD / Blu-Ray DVD sticks around long enough for Joe Average to have purchased Hi-Def televisions we may see a shift but there isn't any kind of market-driven need for upgrading. We will probably see what we did in the 90s; almost glacial acceptance of digital video and even a few dead ends (DivX set top box). It's just not a "gotta-have-it" thing yet.
Right now Wii has almost caught up to Xbox360 (according to nexgenwars.com). If the current rate of sale continues, Wii will be 40%+ ahead of Xbox360 by this time next year. By then we may very well see EA do more Wii/DS-exclusive games like Playground (http://www.ea.com/eaplayground/). If Wii gets a decent number of exclusives, would that convince you that it's competitive as you define the word "competitive"?
Quote from: Thorin on October 24, 2007, 03:47:42 PM
Right now Wii has almost caught up to Xbox360 (according to nexgenwars.com). If the current rate of sale continues, Wii will be 40%+ ahead of Xbox360 by this time next year. By then we may very well see EA do more Wii/DS-exclusive games like Playground (http://www.ea.com/eaplayground/). If Wii gets a decent number of exclusives, would that convince you that it's competitive as you define the word "competitive"?
Well, even with the crop of killer apps ready for the Wii's Christmas season I'm relatively sure that Wii sales will drop off (as will XBox 360s). Whether that rate is a constant between the two should be interesting.
All I know is this; the PS3 is done like dinner.
Maybe next year I'll be eating those words, but I strongly doubt it at this point in time.
If you sell 100,000,000 consoles but only 200,000,000 games is that better then 30,000,000 consoles and 240,000,000 games? Im not so sure it is. Looks pretty equal to me. Maybe it isn't, I'm not a market analyst. It just seems to me that if people are buying up Wii's for Wii Sports (bundled) is that really market dominance?
These forums actually support my market segregation argument. Melbosa, Cova, Druid, AdamS and myself are all sporting Xbox 360s for the hardcore games with lots of graphics and gameplay. Dare I say the hardcore gamers. Tonnica, MrA, Throin (not sure who else) have Wii, the less hardcore and people with families. Lazy has a Wii as well, but is looking at a 360 when a few games he is looking forward to arrive.
I'm sure their is overlap in the marketplace. much like a ven diagram. its not like owning one takes you out of the market for the other.
As for mature games, Im sure they do exist, but quality over quantity is what Im after. Red Steel is not quality, CoD3 isnt bad but with CoD4 dropping in a couple weeks (not on Wii as far as I know), Resident Evil the real one will be on 360 not a zapper game. Thorin goes on to list a bunch of other games that are cross platform as well.
I could be wrong, I just feel sorry for those that are so closed to a second console and praise the Wii for Mario and Zelda that they are missing out on the masterpieces that are Bioshock, Final Fantasy, Gears of War, Metal Gear Solid, Mass Effect, Halo, etc. Different strokes for different folks, but getting excited for Zelda 15 is a little hard.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 24, 2007, 03:51:17 PMWell, even with the crop of killer apps ready for the Wii's Christmas season I'm relatively sure that Wii sales will drop off (as will XBox 360s). Whether that rate is a constant between the two should be interesting.
Like Mario Galaxies..and? With Smash Brothers being delayed till next year it doesnt look so good on the Wii to be honest. Nothing compared to what its going to be on PS3 and 360
I think the Wii has the potential to outstretch the 360 save the High Def content. But at this point, as a general rule the Wii focus is barely teens and lower or family/party functions. The 360 focus is home media center and teen through adult content. This doesn't mean either console doesn't have software or features specific to the others focus, far from it. But as such is sales enough to justify a win? Is there enough of a diversity in market focus to compare sales in equality? There may be, there may not, I'm not sure.
Could price margin be a factor? 360 is more pricey than the Wii, yet yields more powerful hardware in terms of graphics and computing. Not to say the Wii isn't capable of attaining to a certain degree the features of the 360 media center, or the 360 implementing some type of interactive controller system. Is competitive being most sales or best bang for power purchase or more of what works for the focus market? Is success=competitiveness in this? Again just asking the question.
In either case, I think the looser of the game is the PS3. The feature set that unit brings to the table is somewhere inbetween the Wii and the 360 but does neither as good as the originals. Will Home from Sony be their breakthrough feature? If Blue-ray wins the HD wars (should there not be the whole LaserDisc thing again), will that revive the PS3 sales? Time will tell.
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 03:53:03 PM
These forums actually support my market segregation argument. Melbosa, Cova, Druid, AdamS and myself are all sporting Xbox 360s for the hardcore games with lots of graphics and gameplay. Dare I say the hardcore gamers. Tonnica, MrA, Throin (not sure who else) have Wii, the less hardcore and people with families. Lazy has a Wii as well, but is looking at a 360 when a few games he is looking forward to arrive.
Hey I have a PS3 too :P ;)
You're obviously a witch! Burn him!
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 03:53:03 PMThese forums actually support my market segregation argument. Melbosa, Cova, Druid, AdamS and myself are all sporting Xbox 360s for the hardcore games with lots of graphics and gameplay. Dare I say the hardcore gamers. Tonnica, MrA, Throin (not sure who else) have Wii, the less hardcore and people with families. Lazy has a Wii as well, but is looking at a 360 when a few games he is looking forward to arrive.
What the heck are you on about? "Hardcore"? What does that even mean? More hours of games played? The types of games being played? The content?
To hold a console up as a "Badge of Badassness" is fanboyism. I'm not opposed to owning an XBox, but given how much gameplay I already invest on my PC I don't see what the XBox is going to give me that I don't already get.
I assert that you have divided gamers into two groups; those who own XBoxes like yourself and those who do not.
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 03:53:03 PM
These forums actually support my market segregation argument [..] I'm sure their is overlap in the marketplace. much like a ven diagram. its not like owning one takes you out of the market for the other.
Okay, aren't those two contradictory statements? Either there's segregation where people are in one group or the other and only buy one or the other, or there is overlap where people buy both...
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 03:53:03 PM
I could be wrong, I just feel sorry for those that are so closed to a second console and praise the Wii for Mario and Zelda
This made me do a double-take. I had to go back and see who started the Wii-vs-Xbox360 debate in this thread:
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 02:24:27 PM
Nintendo is less competition now then the PS2 was in the last generation.
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 03:53:03 PM
I could be wrong, I just feel sorry for those that are so closed to a second console and praise the Wii for Mario and Zelda that they are missing out on the masterpieces that are Bioshock, Final Fantasy, Gears of War, Metal Gear Solid, Mass Effect, Halo, etc. Different strokes for different folks, but getting excited for Zelda 15 is a little hard.
I'm not exactly excited about Halo 3, myself. Correct me if I'm wrong, are Bioshock, Final Fantasy, Gears of War, Metal Gear Sold, Mass Effect, and Halo all action/shooter games? Are there any non-shooter games that you're actually interested in playing?
I'm not sure what I mean by Hardcore gamer but you don't see the a connection of the people who play each console here on the forum? I do. Guess I'm naive or whatever I was called earlier. We are all gamers everywhere or whatever. I'll stick to online, hidef, fancy graphics, great marketplace and media center, you can have your waggle.
As for the argument of one or the other, I didn start that Thorin, MrA did with his statement in the topic above mine. All I said was that Sony was more of a competition then Nintendo is this time around as they sough the same audience.
As for the games listed, 2 are RPGs. 1 is a FPS/RPG, 1 is an FPS and 2 are "Action" games.
So yes PS3 has issues in the future, Nintendo and Microsoft seem to have it figured out.
Quote from: Shayne on October 24, 2007, 04:54:14 PMI'll stick to online, hidef, fancy graphics, great marketplace and media center, you can have your waggle.
There you go again, marginalizing... but you don't really prove your point either. There is a big pie called "gamers", each publisher does not see part of the pie and say that's all they want. That's a ridiculous notion, even without a degree in market analysis.
I think they may focus on a demographic for marketing / image purposes but ultimately they are always in direct competition with each other.
XBox 360 Wins because it has a great lineup of games, met expectations and has a lot of added value (Live! for one).
Wii Wins because it has a great lineup of games, met expectations and was sold at a value.
PS3 Fails because it has a limited lineup of games, did not meet expectations and is not a good value.
OT: I didn't mean for this thread to fly off the handle (complete with name calling) but when you say something like
"Nintendo is less competition now then the PS2 was in the last generation." as a rebuttal when clearly sales figures argue against that I'd like you to at least explain what you meant by it otherwise it's just your opinion, which is all fine and well, but irrelevant to the discussion.
Aye, things went a tad astray. At least we all agree on the PS3 :P
QuoteSony reported its second quarter earnings today, and while the company's overall profits were up, at ?90.5B ($790M), the Playstation division's losses for the quarter came in at ?96.7B ($844M), double those of a year ago.