Playstation 3 in 2007??? I dont think so!

[swlovinist]

There have been several reports on the internet that are pointing to the Playstation 3 not coming out to the end of 2006/2007. I dont think that this is a good move at all, with the PS2 really starting to show its age already. I know that the PS2 has a considerable lead in the market, but is this a good move? Does Sony really think they can milk the PS2 that long? I know that the PS one was on vapors for several years, but this console war is different in my opinion. The stakes are alot higher, for the loser of the big three(Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft) might bow out of the console making business. Is it to focus on the PSP? What the heck?

[aaron_157]

and what makes u think the loser will bow out of making consoles???

[Jasoco]

I agree with Link. What makes you think the "loser" will decide to stop? All three companies have a lot of money, especially Microsoft. If MS were the "loser", they'd still go just because they have money to burn and MAKE people love them. If Nintendo's #3, they still will stick around because people actually like their games. If Sony's numero tres, well.. I dunno what Sony would do. They've never been out of first sadly. :o Let's hope this round shows them what it's like to NOT be first place. :evil:

[Ed Oscuro]

If Sony's numero tres, well.. I dunno what Sony would do. They've never been out of first sadly. :o
You know how long Sony Computer Entertainment has been around? They put the original Lode Runner on the MSX computer. They've been around quite a while, and not always in first place :)

Anyhow, I've seen 2007 as a late date for how long certain publishers are planning on supporting the PS2. I was pretty sure that Sony had said 2005 for the PS3...

[swlovinist]

As for the looser bowing out of the console makingI was thinking of Microsoft and Nintendo mostly. They really do have more to loose this next round in the console war. Its kind of wierd to even think of Sony placing last.....but then again anything goes these days. The whole 2007 thing is distrubing to me. Again I have heard stuff from various sites, and nothing set in stone. I think all three companies need to be competitive, but the more I think about it, I dont think Sony can roll out an expensive handheld and new system so close together...even for them there is a limit on how much they can spend at once!

[Jasoco]

If Sony's numero tres, well.. I dunno what Sony would do. They've never been out of first sadly. :o
You know how long Sony Computer Entertainment has been around? They put the original Lode Runner on the MSX computer. They've been around quite a while, and not always in first place :)I mean first place in the console business.

[zmweasel]

If Sony's numero tres, well.. I dunno what Sony would do. They've never been out of first sadly. :o
You know how long Sony Computer Entertainment has been around? They put the original Lode Runner on the MSX computer. They've been around quite a while, and not always in first place :)

Anyhow, I've seen 2007 as a late date for how long certain publishers are planning on supporting the PS2. I was pretty sure that Sony had said 2005 for the PS3...

Sony has NEVER officially announced a release date for the PS3. Dunno where you heard it had.

A 2006/2007 ship date for the PS3 wouldn't surprise me at all, since one of Sony's major themes at this year's E3 was its desire to break the traditional five-year hardware cycle and extend it to a ten-year cycle. In theory, this would giving manufacturers and publishers more time to recoup on ever-increasing R&D expenses, and more time to explore current technology instead of always worrying about the Next Big Thing.

One stat of Sony's that gave much credence to their plan: 90% of PS1 hardware sales came when the price point was $149 or less. In other words, if the PS2 mirrors the sales history of the PS1--which, so far, it has--the PS2's dominance has only just begun. Why interfere with the PS2 by prematurely launching the PS3?

Sony was beaten to market twice before by competing consoles (Saturn and Dreamcast), and it didn't hurt 'em at all. Nintendo certainly won't be a threat with its next console, as it's been all downhill since the NES. Microsoft could be a threat, but it's still a one-trick pony, and hasn't proven it can establish multiple brands.

-- Z.

[Ed Oscuro]

That date wouldn't have been official, more rumors than anything. This does make sense, though, and also does make me hate Sony more than ever ;P

I'll bet you this trend won't last, but it should serve them for a good number of years. Just a hunch I have about how technology moves along. The PS3 will have to be something amazing to survive for six years, and the PS4...

[goatdan]

I think that some others have nailed this topic right on the head. Basically, if Sony did put out the PS3 in 2006 or 2007, that wouldn't be so far fetched. In fact, that would be a five year product cycle again.

I think that Microsoft is trying to push out the next XBox so that they can continue to be the technological leader, but I don't think pushing it out so soon will be a great help to them -- unless they can price the new one EXTREMELY low to compete with the current crop. I don't think that a new console launching right now at a price point of $300.00 or more would make too much of a splash, as at least the PS2 has enough of a life cycle in it that most people wouldn't upgrade unless exclusive content came out for the new system, which quite frankly Microsoft isn't very big into (And before the bashing begins, I own an Xbox and I love it. I just don't see that many exclusives that are vastly different and/or superior to other games...)

I think that a new system launched at $150.00 could compete, but the only company stupid (or smart) enough to do that would be Microsoft... Guess we'll have to see exactly what is in store with the Xbox 2!

But until then, long live the PS2 hardware and lets slow the market down for a long, long time so I can continue to enjoy owning a "current" system 8-)

[Nez]

Personally I think that Sony can and will continue to milk the PS2. For two reasons. A the console is currently in first place. B Sony is still milking THE PSONE! So until a next gen system comes out that starts to sell like hot cakes Sony will be happy with there current hardware.

[-hellvin-]

I hope sony continues supporting the ps2 and someone takes the bastards out. I wouldn't even mind seeing microsoft do it.

[PapaStu]

Its well known that the PS3 isnt gonna get out until the new 65 Nm processors are well into production. That is slated for late 2005-2006. So they take a little longer and maybe even go till 2007.

They are going to be publishing for the PsP Which will have no real ports after the GT4 launch game. They want all new games for that system, and still more PS2 games will be developed into oblivion. Let em milk the system, Cause I dont want the PS3 to seem like its hitting its best span, 2-3 years into the life of the system.

There really is no rush for Sony to cough out a new system. They are makin plenty of money per system, and they are still selling incredibly well. They arnt in a rush, dont see why we need to clamor for a new system either, there are plenty of games and things for us to enjoy right now.

[kai123]

Its well known that the PS3 isnt gonna get out until the new 65 Nm processors are well into production. That is slated for late 2005-2006. So they take a little longer and maybe even go till 2007.

They are going to be publishing for the PsP Which will have no real ports after the GT4 launch game. They want all new games for that system, and still more PS2 games will be developed into oblivion. Let em milk the system, Cause I dont want the PS3 to seem like its hitting its best span, 2-3 years into the life of the system.

There really is no rush for Sony to cough out a new system. They are makin plenty of money per system, and they are still selling incredibly well. They arnt in a rush, dont see why we need to clamor for a new system either, there are plenty of games and things for us to enjoy right now.

I'm sorry but the psp is full of ports. In fact the only original game I have seen is that death jr. That is not a bad thing but don't get your hopes up on a all original line up.

[PapaStu]

I'm sorry but the psp is full of ports. In fact the only original game I have seen is that death jr. That is not a bad thing but don't get your hopes up on a all original line up.

Sequels do not equal Ports. Sony has said that they dont want to just port games, it takes away from the selling points for the system. The only reason that you've really seen Death Jr. is because thats really the only one thats being shown in decently large amounts. Most everything else is all a rare random screen shots and non playable demos. http://www.us.playstation.com/news.aspx?id=328

Ive never heard of Metal Gear: Acid before, guess thats a port too. Just because the systems development unit is suppose to be close to the PS2 archecture doesnt mean that they are going to port games, it just allows for easier development and the useage of physics and game and graphics engines.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ive never heard of Metal Gear: Acid before, guess thats a port too.
Needs rolleyes :P

Anyhow, the big difference between the two is that PSP is gonna be...NURBSy. So...they're still similar, you can do ports easy, but the PSP should end up better.

Death Jr. isn't very impressive, though.

[hydr0x]

I agree with Link. What makes you think the "loser" will decide to stop? All three companies have a lot of money, especially Microsoft. If MS were the "loser", they'd still go just because they have money to burn and MAKE people love them.

you do know that Bill Gates once said that if the Xbox2 is going to lose MS as much money as the xbox is doing they probably won't make another system. Yes, MS has A LOT of money to burn but if they realize they won't find a way to make profit they will stop their console, they are known well enough in the world, they don't need another market just to make them more popular or whatever...

[thegreatescape]

I dont mind sony milking the ps2- saves me having to fork over a few hundred to have a current system :roll:

I also dont think the loser of this "console war" will bow out of consoles, but if nintendo (sorry) lose the next round aswell then maybe...

[EnemyZero]

mm I remember reading back a while on IGN they interviewed someone from sony and the statement they gave was " the cell technology is still deep in development and wont be done untill sometime in 2006 EARLIEST" personally i think if xbox 2 GETS the 3rd party support, like EA and recently square-enix was looking into it...it can sell.....remember we make up like what...30% of the gamers in the world? most people who play games want GRAPHICS or the latest technology, so i can see people buying it.....its either do or die for xbox's future, if they throw the box2 at us and it rocks then sony is in for a suprise, but if it fails...its doomed like sega was.....i for one hope it rocks, i will support it, sick of ps2 this and ps2 that, its not even a good system except for its small rpg library and its few good platformers....call me a segafanboy but when sony released the psx and knocked saturn out, then knocked DC out...all i have is hate for sony...and i dont support it at all.

[Griking]

There have been several reports on the internet that are pointing to the Playstation 3 not coming out to the end of 2006/2007. I dont think that this is a good move at all, with the PS2 really starting to show its age already. I know that the PS2 has a considerable lead in the market, but is this a good move? Does Sony really think they can milk the PS2 that long? I know that the PS one was on vapors for several years, but this console war is different in my opinion. The stakes are alot higher, for the loser of the big three(Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft) might bow out of the console making business. Is it to focus on the PSP? What the heck?

Are better graphics and sound effects necessarily going to mean better games? Believe me, once the PS3 is released all you're going to see are new ports and sequels of the same boring games that they're making now. The gaming industry needs an injection of creativity and imagination, not more power.

[Kamino]

Milking out the life of the ps2.........hrm...maybe we should start calling it the atari ps2...........*coughs*

[RCM]

ZMWeasel wrote:

In other words, if the PS2 mirrors the sales history of the PS1--which, so far, it has--the PS2's dominance has only just begun. Why interfere with the PS2 by prematurely launching the PS3?

Actually the PS2 has consistently sold better then the PS. Sony shipped 100,000 at launch for the PS. Sony was supposed to ship 1,000,000 units at launch for the PS2 but actually shipped half. I am pretty sure they sold all 500,000 units at launch. I think most people look to Final Fantasy VII as the turning point for Sony. That's when they went from having a lead over their competitors to having complete dominance of the market.

I agree that if the PS2 business still turns a profit for Sony they should certainly keep producing it. The biggest problem I see for Sony is the fact that the PS2 has sold so much better then the PS. Perhaps the PS2 business will start to cool or go cold once the Xbox 2 and Nintendo revolution come out just because so many more people own PS2s. Sometimes it can take 1 awesome title to turn the tides. If the big N and M come out swinging and capture the hearts and minds of the gamers that matter, the casual gamers, it could spell big trouble for Sony. Most casual gamers seem interested in only the next big then.

Another problem with waiting till 2007 is the fact that an entire new generation of gamers will be ready to play. the PS will have been out for 13 years (in Japan) by 2007. Perhaps the majority will be interested in something new. They might want a new alternative.

That's quite a lot of "coulds" and "maybes" and "mights" etc. in my observations. I really dont care when they launch. What im really looking forward to is a balanced videogame war. The 16bit war was very exciting. I hope we are in for another one of those. I think the industry needs balance. I hope it gets it in the upcoming 5948 bit wars!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[RCM]

ZMWeasel wrote:

In other words, if the PS2 mirrors the sales history of the PS1--which, so far, it has--the PS2's dominance has only just begun. Why interfere with the PS2 by prematurely launching the PS3?

Actually the PS2 has consistently sold better then the PS. Sony shipped 100,000 at launch for the PS. Sony was supposed to ship 1,000,000 units at launch for the PS2 but actually shipped half. I am pretty sure they sold all 500,000 units at launch. I think most people look to Final Fantasy VII as the turning point for Sony. That's when they went from having a lead over their competitors to having complete dominance of the market.

I agree that if the PS2 business still turns a profit for Sony they should certainly keep producing it. The biggest problem I see for Sony is the fact that the PS2 has sold so much better then the PS. Perhaps the PS2 business will start to cool or go cold once the Xbox 2 and Nintendo revolution come out just because so many more people own PS2s. Sometimes it can take 1 awesome title to turn the tides. If the big N and M come out swinging and capture the hearts and minds of the gamers that matter, the casual gamers, it could spell big trouble for Sony. Most casual gamers seem interested in only the next big then.

Another problem with waiting till 2007 is the fact that an entire new generation of gamers will be ready to play. the PS will have been out for 13 years (in Japan) by 2007. Perhaps the majority will be interested in something new. They might want a new alternative.

That's quite a lot of "coulds" and "maybes" and "mights" etc. in my observations. I really dont care when they launch. What im really looking forward to is a balanced videogame war. The 16bit war was very exciting. I hope we are in for another one of those. I think the industry needs balance. I hope it gets it in the upcoming 5948 bit wars!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[goatdan]

Actually the PS2 has consistently sold better then the PS. Sony shipped 100,000 at launch for the PS. Sony was supposed to ship 1,000,000 units at launch for the PS2 but actually shipped half. I am pretty sure they sold all 500,000 units at launch. I think most people look to Final Fantasy VII as the turning point for Sony. That's when they went from having a lead over their competitors to having complete dominance of the market.

I think that it needs to be stated here that there is a huge difference between the launch of the Playstation, from a company that had never done video games before, and the PS2 from a very established player. The SNES probably sold better than the NES at the beginning too...

So to finish my point with this, I wouldn't take the PS2's initial sales as being any better than the PSX. At this point, the PS2 has slowed when the PSX was just gaining steam...


I agree that if the PS2 business still turns a profit for Sony they should certainly keep producing it. The biggest problem I see for Sony is the fact that the PS2 has sold so much better then the PS. Perhaps the PS2 business will start to cool or go cold once the Xbox 2 and Nintendo revolution come out just because so many more people own PS2s. Sometimes it can take 1 awesome title to turn the tides. If the big N and M come out swinging and capture the hearts and minds of the gamers that matter, the casual gamers, it could spell big trouble for Sony. Most casual gamers seem interested in only the next big then.

The PS2 hasn't sold much better than the PSX. And realistically, it would have to be more than one awesome title to change the tides. Xbox has Halo, which many people think is one of the best FPS ever. Even so, that hasn't allowed them to capture most of the market. It would take an entire line-up of unique, new games to draw enough people away from anything current for a while longer. Graphics aren't _that_ important, as has been proven when systems like the SNES whomped the Jaguar. Marketing is.


I hope it gets it in the upcoming 5948 bit wars!

Actually, we are still on 128 and 64 bits and will be for the foreseeable future...

[zmweasel]

Actually the PS2 has consistently sold better then the PS. Sony shipped 100,000 at launch for the PS. Sony was supposed to ship 1,000,000 units at launch for the PS2 but actually shipped half. I am pretty sure they sold all 500,000 units at launch. I think most people look to Final Fantasy VII as the turning point for Sony. That's when they went from having a lead over their competitors to having complete dominance of the market.

Actually, most people look at the launch of FF7 as the moment when RPGs became a truly significant genre in North America, whereas they'd previously been considered a niche product. FF7 may have been a system seller in Japan, but in the States, it was merely a huge seller. (It's still the best-selling FF of all time, thanks to Sony's marketing prowess and the excitement surrounding the series' jump to CD/3D.)

The closest thing to a "turning point" for Sony was when the PS1 price point dropped to $199 and then $149. Sales skyrocketed after both drops. The great games were there from the start with PS1 (Twisted Metal, NFL GameDay); the price point put the system over the top.


Another problem with waiting till 2007 is the fact that an entire new generation of gamers will be ready to play. the PS will have been out for 13 years (in Japan) by 2007. Perhaps the majority will be interested in something new. They might want a new alternative.

Six or seven years isn't that much longer than five years. Ten years, Sony's ultimate goal, is significantly longer, but the presumption is that the PS3 will be powerful enough to hold gamers' (and developers') interest for that long.


That's quite a lot of "coulds" and "maybes" and "mights" etc. in my observations. I really dont care when they launch. What im really looking forward to is a balanced videogame war.

Well, the DS/PSP war will be the closest thing to a fair fight in the game biz since '95.

-- Z.

[RCM]

goatdan wrote:


I think that it needs to be stated here that there is a huge difference between the launch of the Playstation, from a company that had never done video games before, and the PS2 from a very established player. The SNES probably sold better than the NES at the beginning too...

So to finish my point with this, I wouldn't take the PS2's initial sales as being any better than the PSX. At this point, the PS2 has slowed when the PSX was just gaining steam...

I was merely showing the increase in sales. The launch numbers were an example. I knew the launch numbers off the top of my head. Actually Sony has done videogames before, they just never launched hardware. As for the PS2 sales numbers slowing, I think the sales were up over 200% since the price drop, which wasn't unexpected. Being an established hardware manufacturer or not wasn't the issue. THe issue was that sales of the PS2 far outpaced that of the PS. By the way are you comparing sales of the PS or PSX? Those are 2 different systems if you didn't know.


The PS2 hasn't sold much better than the PSX. And realistically, it would have to be more than one awesome title to change the tides. Xbox has Halo, which many people think is one of the best FPS ever. Even so, that hasn't allowed them to capture most of the market. It would take an entire line-up of unique, new games to draw enough people away from anything current for a while longer. Graphics aren't _that_ important, as has been proven when systems like the SNES whomped the Jaguar. Marketing is.

The PSX doesn't even come close to the installed base of the PS2. THe PS2 has outpaced the sales of the Playstation by far. Sony reached 70 million units faster with the PS2 then they did with the PS. I actually said sometimes it can take 1 title to turn the tides. Final Fantasy VII comes to mind. Sony blew Sega away but was being outsold by Nintendo with their N64 consistently month by month. After FFVII was released there was no contest, Sony ruled. So with that example my statement holds true. I could name a bunch more but wont even if you ask! Ha! I don't know If I agree with the statement you made about a unique line-up of new titles coming along to sway the public. Sequels seem to rule the day. They rule b/c that's what people want I guess. I agree that graphics arent that important, just look at the PS and PS2. They have ruled while systems that are clearly more powerful have come out. I totally agree.


Quote:
I hope it gets it in the upcoming 5948 bit wars!


Actually, we are still on 128 and 64 bits and will be for the foreseeable future...

Thanks for the information. I really thought that the next generation CPUs were going to be 5948 bit! That actually was an attempt at humor, I guess it didnt translate well on the board!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[optic_85]

I hope sony continues supporting the ps2 and someone takes the bastards out. I wouldn't even mind seeing microsoft do it.

Man, i couldnt agree more!....God! I hate that over-hyped, poor quality, retaded VCR look-a-like that we call the PS2! I would love to see nintendo make a come back, but i also really enjoy my XBOX so i wouldnt mind at all if they came out on top.

[RCM]

ZmWeasel Wrote:


Actually, most people look at the launch of FF7 as the moment when RPGs became a truly significant genre in North America, whereas they'd previously been considered a niche product. FF7 may have been a system seller in Japan, but in the States, it was merely a huge seller. (It's still the best-selling FF of all time, thanks to Sony's marketing prowess and the excitement surrounding the series' jump to CD/3D.)

The closest thing to a "turning point" for Sony was when the PS1 price point dropped to $199 and then $149. Sales skyrocketed after both drops. The great games were there from the start with PS1 (Twisted Metal, NFL GameDay); the price point put the system over the top.

The $199-149 price drop was significant. But the release of FFVII was as well. It sold boatloads of systems and took large sales away from Nintendo, Sonys only legit contender at the time. If you wanted to play FF you had to buy a Sony system. A lot of people obviously wanted to. FFVII absolutely moved systems in America and is what I and many others consider a turning point for Sony.


Well, the DS/PSP war will be the closest thing to a fair fight in the game biz since '95.

You could be right. I have my doubts about Sonys PSP. I am shocked that I do. WHen the PSP was first announced I thought they would certainly be able to have a profitable business with little to no effort. Im sure Sony wont like this but I believe that the public will view the PSP primarily as a videogame handheld. Playstation is synonmous with videogames. So many times have I heard people say "lets play some playstation" instead of saying "lets play some videogames." I don't think casual gamers will be willing to pay between $250-$500 for a handheld machine. I want to but can't see the PSP going under $250 for a core system. Shockingly enough, I wouldn't be surprised if the DS dominates the PSP.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[zmweasel]

The $199-149 price drop was significant. But the release of FFVII was as well. It sold boatloads of systems and took large sales away from Nintendo, Sonys only legit contender at the time. If you wanted to play FF you had to buy a Sony system. A lot of people obviously wanted to. FFVII absolutely moved systems in America and is what I and many others consider a turning point for Sony.

The RPG genre wasn't (and isn't) as big in America as you think it was (and is). I have no doubt that FF7 was a system seller in Japan, but in America, we already had loads of killer apps: Twisted Metal 1/2, NFL GameDay, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Tekken 1/2, Crash Bandicoot.

FF7 did big business in America, no question of that, but it was the price drop that put the PlayStation over the top. The $149 "turning point" was six months before the Stateside launch of FF7.

FF7 might have given Sony a higher standing in the eyes of hardcore gamers (for a little while, anyway) and RPG freaks, but it was a combination of great games, great marketing, and competitive pricing that made the PS1 a mainstream success. It's not just one thing. It's never just one thing.

I should've mentioned that the PS2 was exceeding the PS1 in sales performance, but I already receive enough heat in this very anti-Sony forum for daring to point out the company's success.

-- Z.

[RCM]

The RPG genre wasn't (and isn't) as big in America as you think it was (and is).

And how big did/do I think it was/is?

I agree that it was more then just FFVII. But as ive already pointed out I believe it was a significant contributor in America (and Japan).


I should've mentioned that the PS2 was exceeding the PS1 in sales performance, but I already receive enough heat in this very anti-Sony forum for daring to point out the company's success.

Yeah I guess you should have mentioned the Ps2 was/is exceeding the PS in sales performance. I have gotten the feeling that the entire board is kind of anti-Sony. Not everyone on here, but a noticable amount of people. As for me, ive been a fan of Sonys videogames for years. Jeopardy for the Sega CD might very well be Sonys shining moment in gaming history! Anybody remember the print ads for that one?

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Aswald]

What will it do that is actually new?

[zmweasel]

And how big did/do I think it was/is?

You tell me. :) It's certainly not the #1 genre in America, as it is in Japan. Americans buy sports games ("extreme" sports included), racing games, first/third-person shooters, and tie-in action games in greater numbers than RPGs.

Of course, these days, Square Enix is the only major-league RPG developer/publisher in the States, so RPGs don't really have a chance of leading the U.S. charts.


Yeah I guess you should have mentioned the Ps2 was/is exceeding the PS in sales performance. I have gotten the feeling that the entire board is kind of anti-Sony. Not everyone on here, but a noticable amount of people. As for me, ive been a fan of Sonys videogames for years. Jeopardy for the Sega CD might very well be Sonys shining moment in gaming history! Anybody remember the print ads for that one?

Some of the Sony hatred seems to be fueled by the PlayStation having taken videogames "mainstream," which conveniently ignores that the Atari 2600 and NES weren't exactly underground items.

And anyone who hates Sony must REALLY hate Nolan Bushnell and Ralph Baer, since those bastards commercialized videogames to begin with.

-- Z.

[Berserker]

THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE.

I've chosen to Edit this post, maybe I'll bring this out again in a more suitable topic.

[Daria]

Of course, these days, Square Enix is the only major-league RPG developer/publisher in the States, so RPGs don't really have a chance of leading the U.S. charts.

So was that a jab at Square or Square and Enix? Or did you just mean that there aren't enough major publishers jumping on the RPG bandwagon to really push the genre to new heights of popularity?

[RCM]

ZMWeasel Wrote:

Some of the Sony hatred seems to be fueled by the PlayStation having taken videogames "mainstream," which conveniently ignores that the Atari 2600 and NES weren't exactly underground items.

And anyone who hates Sony must REALLY hate Nolan Bushnell and Ralph Baer, since those bastards commercialized videogames to begin with.

I agree with you. I think people get that whole "mainstream" issue wrong. If anything, Sony changed gamers and gamings images. Sony made gaming acceptable to the masses. It's "cool" to play videogames because of Sony. But for anyone to say that they took gaming into the mainstream reads too much fucking Game Informer. That was a slap to GI if anyone was confused by that last comment! Still, my biggest question is: does anybody remember the print ads for Jeopardy for the Sega CD?

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[goatdan]

I was merely showing the increase in sales. The launch numbers were an example. I knew the launch numbers off the top of my head. Actually Sony has done videogames before, they just never launched hardware. As for the PS2 sales numbers slowing, I think the sales were up over 200% since the price drop, which wasn't unexpected. Being an established hardware manufacturer or not wasn't the issue. THe issue was that sales of the PS2 far outpaced that of the PS. By the way are you comparing sales of the PS or PSX? Those are 2 different systems if you didn't know.

Uh... Making a game console and having the distribution system to get it to market isn't something that a company can just do overnight. Sony had to build the infastructure with the original Playstation before it could become a hit. That is no different than any other first-generation console release, with the possible exception of Microsoft who worked at developing that infastructure with the examples that had been set before it and was willing to invest tons and tons of money into it. And you can't use Atari as an example here because they had to develop the internal system too.

The issue is that initial sales of the PS2 *should* outpace the sales of the PSX because of the infastructure. I'm positive that sales of the SNES for the first year or so outpaced the initial sales of the NES. That is because there was a distribution channel set up and everything was ready to go from the first success.

And I don't understand what you are saying about the PS and the PSX being different systems. I, along with much of the world have used the PSX abbreviation for the Playstation for a long time. If you are seperating the original Playstation with the PS One hardware, I think that is odd considering they are the same machine underneath it all. If not, please fill me in because I'm really confused.


The PSX doesn't even come close to the installed base of the PS2. THe PS2 has outpaced the sales of the Playstation by far. Sony reached 70 million units faster with the PS2 then they did with the PS. I actually said sometimes it can take 1 title to turn the tides. Final Fantasy VII comes to mind. Sony blew Sega away but was being outsold by Nintendo with their N64 consistently month by month. After FFVII was released there was no contest, Sony ruled. So with that example my statement holds true. I could name a bunch more but wont even if you ask! Ha! I don't know If I agree with the statement you made about a unique line-up of new titles coming along to sway the public. Sequels seem to rule the day. They rule b/c that's what people want I guess. I agree that graphics arent that important, just look at the PS and PS2. They have ruled while systems that are clearly more powerful have come out. I totally agree.

Again, I'm not arguing the point that Sony sold units quicker. All that I'm stating is that should be expected in this day and age. Sony is an older company (in the video game hardware world) and therefore should be doing more quicker.

My other point with this is that I don't think that the public is going to run out and pruchase a new system this year or even next when the untapped potential of the current line-up is still huge. And really, if I can get an Xbox, PS2 or GameCube for $150 or less with a well-established library of titles, I am not going to look into upgrading to the "next generation" until something that is unique can sway me.

We are to the point with consoles that I don't think people will need to upgrade. In the past, each new generation has come with a new feature. For instance:

2600 - Played relatively simple games
NES - Added side scrolling and much deeper games like Zelda that were not possible on the 2600
Geni / SNES - Added more speed and better graphics that offered new styles of games -- Like Mario Kart, Sonic and so on.
Playstation / N64 - Took gaming into a 3D world
Dreamcast / Xbox / GameCube / PS2 - Offered gamers 'net connectivity (although GameCube doesn't count) and much better 3D graphics.

What will the next generation offer that the current systems don't have? 3D graphics can't get that much better from here to be the only reason that people are going to upgrade...


Thanks for the information. I really thought that the next generation CPUs were going to be 5948 bit! That actually was an attempt at humor, I guess it didnt translate well on the board!

I apologize for this. I guess I've been jaded by the people who talk about how their 256 bit and 512 bit PS2 and Xbox systems are just awesome. :o

[zmweasel]

Of course, these days, Square Enix is the only major-league RPG developer/publisher in the States, so RPGs don't really have a chance of leading the U.S. charts.

So was that a jab at Square or Square and Enix? Or did you just mean that there aren't enough major publishers jumping on the RPG bandwagon to really push the genre to new heights of popularity?

Not a jab. I love Square Enix on both a personal and professional level. They've just raised the bar so high on RPG production values that no one can seriously compete. They dominate the RPG genre like EA dominates the sports genre.

That being said, RPGs and S/RPGs are about the last niches in which smaller publishers can still make a buck. Just ask Nippon Ichi.

-- Z.

[Captain Wrong]

Heh. Zach, your posts about mainstream and FFVII, excellent. Man, I've been trying to make those points myself (espically about FFVII, I really think people over-estimate the importaince of that game) but never quite get the words right. I know people will hear what they want (and ignore what they want :o ) but it's still nice seeing it up there anyway.

[ManekiNeko]

If Sony's numero tres, well.. I dunno what Sony would do. They've never been out of first sadly. :o
You know how long Sony Computer Entertainment has been around? They put the original Lode Runner on the MSX computer. They've been around quite a while, and not always in first place :)

Yeah, just look at Last Action Hero on the Genesis, or Hudson Hawk on the NES! Oh, how I pine for the days when Sony was an industry joke, rather than an industry powerhouse...

Anyway, I think it's gotten to the point where the first console out of the starting gate is usually the last one to reach the finish line. Sega gained an important advantage in 1989 by releasing the Genesis two years before the Super NES, but since then, early console launches have become a liability. I think Sega's next two flagship systems are proof enough of that.

I don't think it will hurt Sony to wait a few years to release the Playstation 2. I think there's still a lot that can be done with the system, even though it is technologically inferior to its competitors. Game consoles are more powerful than they've ever been before, and any new console release would be negatively affected by the law of diminishing returns.

Until we see the next monumental paradigm shift that changes gaming forever (ie the larger rounds and increased complexity in NES games, or the evolution from 2D to 3D first set into motion by the Playstation), the only benefits a new console would have to offer is a higher clock speed and prettier polygons. I just can't see people paying three hundred dollars for slightly improved graphics... they're going to want more a lot more bang for their buck.

JR

[RCM]

goatdan wrote:


Uh... Making a game console and having the distribution system to get it to market isn't something that a company can just do overnight. Sony had to build the infastructure with the original Playstation before it could become a hit. That is no different than any other first-generation console release, with the possible exception of Microsoft who worked at developing that infastructure with the examples that had been set before it and was willing to invest tons and tons of money into it. And you can't use Atari as an example here because they had to develop the internal system too.

I agree with you. What's the problem? My statements had nothing to do with Sony launching a system for the first time. Again, I was merely stating that the PS2 outpaced the PS in sales. That's it. I wasn't and am not concerned with the situation of each launch. You clearly missed the point.


And I don't understand what you are saying about the PS and the PSX being different

They are very different. The PS and PS1 are compatible. They can only play Playstation games. THe PSX is a sort of do everything miracle system that SOny launched in Japan within the past year. It has TiVo liike functions along with dvd playback and PS2 compatibilty (i think it does more). I presume it plays PS titles as well. You just lost a bit of credibilty with me, the PSX isnt exactly an industry secret. I am aware that PSX was the development name for the Playstation. I am of the opinion that people should not refer to the PS as the PSX anymore for the fact that there is a piece of hardware called the PSX!


All that I'm stating is that should be expected in this day and age. Sony is an older company (in the video game hardware world) and therefore should be doing more quicker.

Huh? I dont get it.


My other point with this is that I don't think that the public is going to run out and pruchase a new system this year or even next when the untapped potential of the current line-up is still huge. And really, if I can get an Xbox, PS2 or GameCube for $150 or less with a well-established library of titles, I am not going to look into upgrading to the "next generation" until something that is unique can sway me.

We are to the point with consoles that I don't think people will need to upgrade. In the past, each new generation has come with a new feature. For instance:

2600 - Played relatively simple games
NES - Added side scrolling and much deeper games like Zelda that were not possible on the 2600
Geni / SNES - Added more speed and better graphics that offered new styles of games -- Like Mario Kart, Sonic and so on.
Playstation / N64 - Took gaming into a 3D world
Dreamcast / Xbox / GameCube / PS2 - Offered gamers 'net connectivity (although GameCube doesn't count) and much better 3D graphics.

What will the next generation offer that the current systems don't have? 3D graphics can't get that much better from here to be the only reason that people are going to upgrade...

Wow, are you the editor-in-chief of Gamepro? Nintendo is said to be working on a system that almost completely defys your statements about the next generation. They are said to be developing a system that will "upgrade" the way people currently play games giving them a compelling reason to upgrade a new system. ANd actually, 3D graphics can get better then what is out on the current systems. Look at the current graphic accelerators on PC as evidence. By the way, I love your razor sharp examples of new features introduced by each system. Truly classic! How old are you? Please don't take my request for your age as an insult. I am just very curious.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[goatdan]

I agree with you. What's the problem? My statements had nothing to do with Sony launching a system for the first time. Again, I was merely stating that the PS2 outpaced the PS in sales. That's it. I wasn't and am not concerned with the situation of each launch. You clearly missed the point.

You stated that the PS2 was doing so incredibly much better than the original Playstation straight out of the gate, and I was simply stating a reason that this makes sense. You say that you agree with me, but you were trying to give reasons why that made the PS2 the "end-all" system. I'm not saying that it is a bad system or has poor performance or anything like that. I'm simply stating that it makes sense that the launch was better, and comparing the sales charts for both systems is comparing apples to oranges.

You'll be able to make a much better comparison after the XBox 2 comes out and can see how it's sales do versus the Playstation 2, just like it is more fair to compare initial Playstation sales to Xbox sales -- both the first gaming console hardware released by two giants in different aspects of technology that had no foothold in the industry before their consoles were released.



And I don't understand what you are saying about the PS and the PSX being different

They are very different. The PS and PS1 are compatible. They can only play Playstation games. THe PSX is a sort of do everything miracle system that SOny launched in Japan within the past year. It has TiVo liike functions along with dvd playback and PS2 compatibilty (i think it does more). I presume it plays PS titles as well. You just lost a bit of credibilty with me, the PSX isnt exactly an industry secret. I am aware that PSX was the development name for the Playstation. I am of the opinion that people should not refer to the PS as the PSX anymore for the fact that there is a piece of hardware called the PSX!

Oh, because there is a system that Sony dubbed the PSX released in a different country, those of us who have referred to it as the PSX for the last eight years suddenly have to change how we refer to the original Playstation or we lose credibility with people like you? If that's the case, I guess who cares. Be realistic. You couldn't have thought that I was refering to the Japanese system in my original post, and if that is what you were thinking of, you just lost a TON of credibility with me.



All that I'm stating is that should be expected in this day and age. Sony is an older company (in the video game hardware world) and therefore should be doing more quicker.

Huh? I dont get it.

The first time you try to organize a softball team, it would be a little rough. You would have to figure out where everyone would play, who plays in what positions are and who bats in what order. After you did it once, the second time you assemble the team it is a little easier to make the same decisions.

Right?

A company with experience in a field should be able to put plans in motion a lot quicker the second time around. That shouldn't be a huge surprise.


Wow, are you the editor-in-chief of Gamepro? Nintendo is said to be working on a system that almost completely defys your statements about the next generation. They are said to be developing a system that will "upgrade" the way people currently play games giving them a compelling reason to upgrade a new system. ANd actually, 3D graphics can get better then what is out on the current systems. Look at the current graphic accelerators on PC as evidence. By the way, I love your razor sharp examples of new features introduced by each system. Truly classic! How old are you? Please don't take my request for your age as an insult. I am just very curious.

Wow, do you have to make negative statements about me when I was completely respectful of you? Don't be a troll.

Read my statements again. Read your statements about how Nintendo is trying to ""upgrade" the way people currently play games giving them a compelling reason to upgrade a new system." and realize that you just stated what I did in the same types of terms -- a simple graphical upgrade will not compel people to upgrade without a change of some sort in gameplay -- as this "young dumbass" just outlined for your "mighty wise" self.

Act like an adult when you reply, or don't reply to me please. I won't waste my time with you if you are just trying to be a fanboy.

[kai123]

Breath IN



Breath OUT


Everybody feel better? Good, lets not flame each other or the thread will just be locked and nothing will be accomplished. Back to discussion. :)

[Captain Wrong]

Good, lets not flame each other or the thread will just be locked and nothing will be accomplished.

Oh I think we've already reached that point without the thread being locked. LOL

[goatdan]

kai,

I really don't think that I was at all rude in my reply. Why I got statements like this last time was a surprise to me:


Wow, are you the editor-in-chief of Gamepro?


By the way, I love your razor sharp examples of new features introduced by each system. Truly classic! How old are you?

I found this an interesting topic, and I really don't believe that there will be a compelling reason to upgrade to the next generation of consoles until they can provide a new play mechanic that is available due to the upgrade. I made this clear in my last post and I outlined the history that upgrades have in consoles, and because of my differing opinion, I was made fun of. That isn't a fair conversation, and I don't think it is fair to make fun of anyone for stating a differing opinion, and I think that Joe and the rest of the DP staff would feel the same way. If that is the way that RCM is going to reply to posts I simply will no longer pay any attention to him.

Anyway, I am completely done with this now and I will not post again about it unless this topic gets back on track and my opinion is asked.

[RCM]

goatdan-

I am not trying to pick a fight with you. Don't take offense to this if possible, but you seem pretty confused. I am actually young as well but not nearly as out of it as you. I will accept that there is no reasoning with you and that's fine with me. You completely missed my points and and are arguing for no good reason. If you don't like my comments perhaps you should become more informed about gaming and think about what you post before you hit the submit button. All in all I take no offense to your comments and truly hope you dont take offense to mine. You clearly missed me trying to be humorous quite a few times. I was just shocked by a lot of your comments. Maybe I am missing the humor, were all of those posts serious or were you trying to be funny? My hope is with the latter. I had the impression that the people on DP were well informed. Anyway, hopefully no harm is done. At least you learned what a PSX is! You learn something new everyday!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[ianoid]

What we need isn't the next generation of CONSOLES, we need the next generation of games. I doubt that any of the current consoles have been pushed by more than 1% of the titles out for each system, when you compare to what was being done for Atari 2600 5 years into it's release. It won't matter if the consoles are more powerful if the games are a significant enough improvement to justify buying them.

My other point is, I have no point.

Actually, my other point is that the next generation console winner WILL be backward compatible with the previous console. The only two consoles to carry a legacy of success over multiple generations are the Game Boy series and the Playstation series. If Xbox isn't backward compatible, it will seriously hurt it's odds of success.

In order to capture the next gen console buyers, you have to appeal at least partially to their checkbooks. Assume that they don't want to have 2 generations of consoles sitting around their entertainment centers- unlike most of us. If you can buy Xbox2 and still play your 20 old Xbox games- dammit, why not? Get Halo3, an Xbox2, and still have all your old titles to play. Ditch the old Xbox, or just put it in junior's room.

[Half Japanese]

Wow, I'd love to know what the hell Sony did to half of the posters here. It seems to me that they'd have a better reputation had they drowned a basketfull of kittens, lit an orphanage on fire and gave the Pope a golden shower. I don't own a ps2 and of the 3 current systems it's my least favorite, mostly because of faulty hardware issues, not due to the fact that they are the market leader or somehow pushed Nintendo off the monkey bars and can swing the highest on the swingset. Get over it, your nostalgia for Nintendo is as generic as everyone else's and I'm sick of hearing Sony raked over the coals. Now...if you'll excuse me, I've got to go play some......Four Swords Adventures.

[Jasoco]

[Rakes Sony over the coals more]

[dethink]

don't blame sony, blame the american public/marketing people.

look at all the arcade/shooter/etc. titles for the PS2 in japan, as opposed to the US's library.

while nintendo does milk the HELL out of their franchises just like everyone else, at least there was a discernable difference between mario 1-3 as opposed to say, tomb raider 1-3. i think that's the harshest criticism that can be leveled at sony, is that the franchises that are pushed over here, frankly suck.

my PS library that i sold off most of was CRAMMED with just as many great games as any other system. they're just the ones that never got any attention, or were oddball ones that came over early in the system's life cycle, that never appealed to americans (i.e. Jumping Flash).

sony's marketing people somewhere along the line discovered americans want (other than sports) an "experience", not a game. metal gear is an "experience", GTA is an "experience", gradius V isn't. while those games are kinda nifty the first time through, they're a chore whenever you want to go back and revisit, whereas gradius will undoubtedly still be fun 10 years from now. the american market wants something they can get through from start to finish, from point a -> b, not "this game is just too hard for you, so either deal and get better, or play something else."

anyone remember spiderman on the genesis, and the flood of calls that sega's customer service line got when people called and said there was something wrong with the game because they couldn't figure out how to beat sandman?

can you imagine that in today's significantly more whiny climate?

"I SPENT $50 ON WHAT?! I CAN'T GET PAST THE 2ND F-%#@ LEVEL! I'M GONNA SUE!" LOL

[zmweasel]

while nintendo does milk the HELL out of their franchises just like everyone else, at least there was a discernable difference between mario 1-3 as opposed to say, tomb raider 1-3. i think that's the harshest criticism that can be leveled at sony, is that the franchises that are pushed over here, frankly suck.

TR2 didn't suck; it was the best game of the series. TR3 sucked, because the creators of the franchise had bailed Core to make a new game called Galleon (which Atlus is publishing in the States later this year).


sony's marketing people somewhere along the line discovered americans want (other than sports) an "experience", not a game. metal gear is an "experience", GTA is an "experience", gradius V isn't.

I recently read a review which referred to these meta-categories as "experience games" and "score-attack games." (I would've gone with "high-score games" myself.) But you're right: high-score games aren't what Americans want. The Sims isn't a high-score game. GTA3/VC aren't high-score games (although they do have scoring elements for players who pursue them, yet another of that game's brilliant design aspects). Need for Speed Underground is about 2/3 experience and 1/3 high-score.

I myself enjoy both categories, but I understand why most Americans prefer experience games: they just don't have the time to sink into the pattern memorization and flawless technique that high-score games demand. High-score games are great when you're a teenager with time to kill, but not so great when you're a grown-up with a job and a wife and (shudder) children.

-- Z.

[GaijinPunch]

You know how long Sony Computer Entertainment has been around?

Yep... a bit over 10 years. They were a spin off of Sony to R&D, manufacture, sell the PS.

http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/index_e.html

[thegreatescape]

Wow, I'd love to know what the hell Sony did to half of the posters here. It seems to me that they'd have a better reputation had they drowned a basketfull of kittens, lit an orphanage on fire and gave the Pope a golden shower.

Shhhh. Your giving take 2 ideas for their next game :eek 2: LOL

Ive never had a problem with any of my sony systems (playstation,psone,ps2), but the nes toaster i had made up for that. I guess people are sick of ripping on the toasters and now moving on to sony?


The Sims isn't a high-score game

depends how you play it (cough simgenocide cough) :evil:

[hydr0x]

You know how long Sony Computer Entertainment has been around?

Yep... a bit over 10 years. They were a spin off of Sony to R&D, manufacture, sell the PS.

http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/index_e.html

when did Sony Imagesoft first appear??

[dethink]

I recently read a review which referred to these meta-categories as "experience games" and "score-attack games." (I would've gone with "high-score games" myself.) But you're right: high-score games aren't what Americans want. The Sims isn't a high-score game. GTA3/VC aren't high-score games (although they do have scoring elements for players who pursue them, yet another of that game's brilliant design aspects). Need for Speed Underground is about 2/3 experience and 1/3 high-score.

I myself enjoy both categories, but I understand why most Americans prefer experience games: they just don't have the time to sink into the pattern memorization and flawless technique that high-score games demand. High-score games are great when you're a teenager with time to kill, but not so great when you're a grown-up with a job and a wife and (shudder) children.

-- Z.

*shrugs*

to each their own. :) now that i'm settling down, i find it easier to put a few rounds into something arcadey, rather than have to block out 2 or 3 hours to play xenogears, and pray i get to a save point so i don't have to go through all the reading again.... LOL or play for 60-70 hours to complete VC 100%.

[Flack]

I should've mentioned that the PS2 was exceeding the PS1 in sales performance, but I already receive enough heat in this very anti-Sony forum for daring to point out the company's success.

Weren't you the one who posted the "I officially hate Sony" thread a while back?

[zmweasel]

I should've mentioned that the PS2 was exceeding the PS1 in sales performance, but I already receive enough heat in this very anti-Sony forum for daring to point out the company's success.

Weren't you the one who posted the "I officially hate Sony" thread a while back?

Ah, yes, my ill-advised rant about Sony's quality-control policies, which was cut-and-pasted onto every freakin' forum in existence, or so it seemed. And, of course, the only post of mine on this forum that drew the attention of a Sony employee. You can't win for losin'.

Prior to that rant, I'd been accused of Sony fanboyism on umpteen occasions.

-- Z.

[zmweasel]

to each their own. :) now that i'm settling down, i find it easier to put a few rounds into something arcadey, rather than have to block out 2 or 3 hours to play xenogears, and pray i get to a save point so i don't have to go through all the reading again.... LOL or play for 60-70 hours to complete VC 100%.

But are you a teenager with time to kill, or a grown-up with responsibilities? If you're the latter, your preference for high-score games is an interesting exception to the rule.

-- Z.

[Daria]

I should've mentioned that the PS2 was exceeding the PS1 in sales performance, but I already receive enough heat in this very anti-Sony forum for daring to point out the company's success.

Weren't you the one who posted the "I officially hate Sony" thread a while back?

Ah, yes, my ill-advised rant about Sony's quality-control policie...

... which completely blow... ;)

... but I still like games on Sony consoles. Which is probably as far as my affection for any console company runs.

[Lemmy Kilmister]

when did Sony Imagesoft first appear??

I think with flying hero for the famicom. Though the only good game they ever really made was skyblazer and in a ways hook.[/quote]