.....
.....
Last edited by Nintendo Gamer; 01-25-2016 at 08:11 PM.
When discussing disaster-plagued rollouts it would be disrespectful to ignore the 3DO and the Virtual Boy. Even the NES had to dump the dumb robot-and-blocks games before US gamers took it seriously.Originally Posted by stonic
But as for the 10 year PS3 run, I agree it is absolutely possible. I mean, I can still enjoy a game like, oh, I don't know, Tenchu: Stealth Assassin for the PSone. No joystick control, simple and blocky graphics but it's still a lot of fun because it was well designed and, while not state of the art, the interface is simply brilliant and the graphics are good enough that they don't hurt the game experience. How much more might developers do on the PS3? We can see that dev groups are still making major advances on the PS2 and that platform is still viable. As long as Sony doesn't get stupid and start that "PS4" ball rolling they have the money to let the PS3 killer apps develop. My point was that the game consumer has no reason to trust grandiose assurances of a lengthy lifetime on a system where 3rd party developers are already backing off. So Sony has got to man up and offer a GUARANTEE that it will support the system until 2015. If at any point Sony stops servicing and supporting the system before that point, they will have lost face in the game industry and could even face more litigation (as if blowing up laptops around the world with its batteries wasn't enough). On the other hand, if it succeeds, the R&D mania that drives the costs of console development increasingly skyward will fall solely on MS and Nintendo, leaving Sony free to make money off a machine that will be able to stand up and do tricks for years.
As I said in my column, Sony have been total jerks on this rollout (did you guys SEE the bizarro world PS3 commercials they ran in Europe? If you think that doll ad creeped you out, man, it was nothing!), but the company can still save this system. Of course, by the time it does, if it does, the software will probably no longer be compatible with the current PS3s, but that's typical of the good faith the industry doesn't keep with its most loyal consumers.
Meanwhile, PC sales are up and with the 360 offering online PC convergence while the Wii boasts a wider demographic wingspread, one thing's for sure: this will be the most interesting generational war in decades.
Sony needs to get a grip and admit that they priced themselves right out of this generation of console wars before they even got in full swing... $600 is simply too much, and the $700 3DO should've taught them that in the 90's!
There is no qestion in my mind the PS3 will be a ten year product but the qestion is how good of a ten year product? the untaped power of the PS3 everyone is talking about will be shown in the first 5 to 6 years to me sony will finish third. the wii did show me somthing. that it belongs in this generation console war no dout. the 360 is leading in the next gen console war and microsoft won't give it up I promise you that.
3DO...3DO...3DO.
How many people actually remember the 3DO costing $700? I know the Game Doctor does, and Stonic probably does, and Joe does because he *bought* one.
I don't think most people even remember the 3DO costing that much. I think they read about it on their internets or in a "history of gaming" book and said "Wow! The 3DO cost that much?"
So I don't think the problem was the 3DO costing $700. I think the problem people didn't know what a 3DO *was* when it first came out.
Now do you think most people know what a Playstation 3 is? Yes. So please, no more of the 3DO comparisons. Don't make me write a list of the reasons it just doesn't work. I'm tired.
No, it's just a system that always comes up when botched rollouts are discussed. The 3DO was actually a pretty good system but it was overhyped and obviously overpriced, despite a business model that Trip Hawkins could probably still sell to VCs today.
The difference was primarily that 3DO itself produced nothing, it merely licensed the technology. Of course, it lost a fortune in R&D when the Panasonics and company pulled the plug.
But I have to doubt whether you remember the 3DO's rollout yourself, because there wasn't a gamer in America who didn't know about the 3DO upon rollout because of all the different big name hardware manufacturers who were marketing it as well as the incredible coverage in the game magazines, which we had many of back then. The gamers simply couldn't spend or convince their parents to spend that much money. Panasonic gave me mine or I wouldn't have had one either. Whether today's gamers know their histoy or not is a moot point; the fact is that the 3DO did NOT fail because it was not publicized sufficiently. Jeez.
Having a number after your system's name doesn't guarantee anything. I believe I already observed that no system has dominated the market for three consecutive generations in the history of the business. So brand familiarity, it seems, can be a disadvantage in this industry (ask Atari, Sega, NEC, etc. etc.).
Last edited by BillKunkel; 07-20-2007 at 04:20 PM.
Fair enough. I think that the PS3 is far more recognizable now than 3DO was then, based primarily on all the madness around the holiday with people camping out and all the ebay nonsense. The PS3 passes my "mother" test...if I ask my mother if she knows what a PS3 is she would say yes. I don't think she ever knew what a 3DO was. But it seems we agree the comparison between the two systems is sort of pointless beyond a "who screwed up more?" type of thing.
WHOOOAAA! DONT STEP ON MY SHADOW man dont do itheh
I mean it dont step on my shadow......OF THE COLOSSUS that is
its ok shadow he didnt mean it really
PS3 needs to start selling more if it's going to last 10 years. Consoles can last that long, and have before, but only with good market share. PS3's sales so far haven't been indicative of a prolonged lifespan. I guess Neo Geo's long life means something, but SNK never took the big losses on hardware that Sony is taking. That ten year lifespan ain't happening without either hugely increased market share or a profitable business model.
I agree with the OP that the PS3 can catch up, no doubt about it. However, the longevity of consoles touted by Sony about the PS2 and now the PS3 is unrealistic and PR-BS, nothing else. The Ps3 will last as long as the PS2; if Sony is lucky, not more than 7 years.
Actually, to keep the PS2 alive until now backfired and is not a smart business decission: the certainly robust profits are ouitweighed by the obstacle to get the PS3 established. The Wii as a low-priced competitor and alternative to the PS3 would be surely enough for Sony, the PS2 acts additionally as an in-house competition to get the PS3 established.
The so far disappointing performance of the PS3 is for me part of a much more puzzling question. In 2006 and 2007 we have a discrepancy between the solid but not overwhelmingly good sales for the two next generation consoles and fantastic sales for the new "old" console Wii and the PS2 as low priced-alternatives.
For some time I thought maybe the videogame market in the US might experience a slow-down like the Japanese market, but the videogame industry is expanding, has great sales, online gaming is thriving, and additionally Nintendo tapped into new demographics (women, casual gamers, and non-gamers, older gamers) to an extent which is truly surprising.
The 360 has robust, stable sales each month, but not dramatically good, and the PS3 is disappointing measured on expectations. From the high price point (less sales calculated and accepted by Sony in order to push Blue Ray) did not the 360 profit (not even in the following months after Gears of War which didn't help to sell more systems) BUT ---trara--- the last generation Wii with a new controller.
My explanation for the discrepancy between lackluster sales of the two new systems and the two "old" systems Wii and PS2: the small installed base of HDTVs. Not only does the small number of HDTVs make the PS3 less attarctive as a Blue Ray Disc player in 2007 compared to the PS2 as a DVD player in 2001, it is also an obstacle to push the new systems.
Both systems are marketed as high definition systems and truly shine when attached to a HDTV. They are made and tailored for the new generation of TVs, and I think like me consumers associate the two systems with HDTVs.
In lack of buyers profiles, behaviors and intents, I use anecdotal evidence. Not only a videogame nut like myself bought an HDTV in order to enjoy the 360, also two neighbors of mine, both casual gamers, link the 360 and PS3 to HDTVs: one will get a new TV in a week, and already talks about getting a 360 soon. the other neighbor told me that he waits buying a PS3 until he gets a HDTV.
Certainly the high price point, the need for quick game fixes of short and uncomplicated games thrives the lackluster sales of the PS3 and the successful sales of the Wii besides many other factors, but I think one overlooked main reason for the so far solid but not especially good sales of the two new systems is indeed the small installation base of HDTVs.
To make a comment to Rob (Flack): I'm all for games which are characterized by easy pick-up and play; but I'm for games that are easy to pick up and deliver rich gameplay, I'm not for short easy games that deliver shallow gameplay with a gimmicky controller like the Wii.One of the biggest questions for me since last November and the success of the Wii is the inclusion of the new demographics of players and its consequences. I always said the more gamers the better, but I'm not so sure anymore if the success of the Wii is a good thing or a bad thing for the game industry.
A comment to Bill Kunkels assessmenmt of the success of Blue Ray: it seems that Sony bet on the right horse. After Blockbuster published a month ago numbers that show that Blue Ray outsells and outrents High Def DVDs by 5:1, Blockbuster announced a couple of days ago that they will only carry Blue Ray from now on. It seems that the decision to use the PS3 in order to push for the copyrighted Blue Ray will be successful.
Last edited by lendelin; 07-21-2007 at 02:30 AM.
Thanks; that is, of course, what I meant.I think you meant to say no company has dominated the market for 3 generations. Sony was the first to do it twice (and Nintendo might be the second..), which is why I said people expected more with the PS3. Seriously, a $500-$600 system with NO pack-in game(s)?! Hell, even the 3DO included a handful of discs (one was a "sampler" disc with digitized footage from the animated Batman show). And as you even mentioned, some of the ad campaigns Sony has put out have been ... bizarre. And let's not forget all the infamous press releases (i.e. lies), such as the "PS3 shortage" problem
That, friend Ice, is an excellent gauge you have devised. For example, your mom probably knows what an iPod is, right (at least she knows it holds music)? But Blu-Ray vs HDTV format arguments, for example, would cause her to leave the room, right?
I like that scale a lot.
On the other hand, Blockbuster doesn't carry porn, which has traditionally been the killer app for all visual-based consumer technologies, so I wouldn't necessarily conclude that BR enjoys a similar dominance based on Blockbuster's numbers. Also, renting a system is a lot different from buying it and since this study appears to have combined the numbers, I suspect a lot of people are renting BR systems to see if it's worth all that extra $$ before they buy the less expensive system.
Just as it's too soon to declare a winner in the current console wars, it is FAR to early to make conclusions based on rental numbers from Blockbuster (I may well be wrong, but I suspect BB does a lot more business in hardware rental than sales).
As a quick digression, I'd argue that people are buying the Wii because of a profoundly successful marketing plan. I own one, and I enjoy it. However, there are no 'games for gamers' worth playing on the platform except Zelda and a port of a two year old game, and nevermind the graphics.
While graphics are not the most important aspect of a game (I consider myself a retro gamer and spend most of my gaming time on a Saturn or SNES), it is a very important factor. And when you line up a game like Bioshock or Ratchet and Clank Future next to any given Wii game, the difference is pretty staggering.
You forget that we're going to be a 'hi-def nation' in a couple years time. I think its dumb, myself, but when people are forced to start upgrading their televisions and media players, how their movies, shows and GAMES look will have a huge impact on their buying decisions; its just the mentality of the moment.
So yes. I'd argue that in a years time, with a two or three years left in the Wii life cycle, we're going to see a huge move away from the machine by third party developers and consumers, due largely to the obsolescence of the hardware, including its graphical capabilities. Whether we like it or not, the age of 'Hi-def gaming' is upon us, and the Wii doesnt have the graphical edge it needs to stay relevant in the minds of the gaming populace at large, or survive the coming drought of third party games. That will leave the fight between Sony and Microsoft, and I think that Sony is the least dumb of those two platforms.
Just, of course, My Opinion.
G-Boobie, out.
Last edited by G-Boobie; 07-22-2007 at 02:05 PM. Reason: I edited this for clarity and general 'dont want to be a prick-ishness'
True, but have you SEEN hi-def porn?
Every zit and celluloid crease in the bare ass of every one in front of the camera....
Ugh.... No thanks.
I remember back in 1996/1997, someone at Sony said the original PlayStation would be a viable home console for ten years. Of course, five years after it's debut, Sony released the PlayStation 2.
In 2000, someone at Sony said the PlayStation 2 would be a viable home console for ten years because Toshiba's "Emotion Engine" CPU had so much potential. Six years after its debut, Sony released the PlayStation 3.
To say a home video game console will be actively supported for an entire decade is ridiculous. In the real world, ten year old computer technology is considered ancient. Would most people buy a 66 MHz 486 computer today? Of course not. Will most people buy a PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, or Wii nine years from now? Of course not.
When Sony executives promise their PlayStation consoles will still be alive and kicking a decade after launch, I laugh. Traditionally, home video game consoles have a five or six year active lifespan. That's technology. Sony needs to stop exaggerating.
If graphics mattered, the Lynx would have outsold the GameBoy, the Jaguar would have outsold the SNES, the Nintendo 64 would have outsold the PlayStation, the Dreamcast would have outsold the Nintendo 64, the Gamecube would have outsold the PlayStation 2, the PSP would be outselling the DS, etc.
You're employing broken logic.
Those platforms you're referring failed for reasons OTHER than graphics, sport. The Lynx had no quality software or marketing, the Jaguar didnt work on TOP of looking horrible, the N64 had no third party developer support, the Dreamcast was the final desperate lunge for marketshare for Sega, the Gamecube was the N64 all over again, and the PSP has an inherently flawed control scheme. Graphics have nothing to do with it.
That's exactly my point. Other factors are more important than graphics.
Last edited by Rob2600; 07-22-2007 at 03:39 PM.
I don't think there is anything difficult about this system selling once people realize Blu-Ray players alone cost quite a bit of money, and buying this as your Blu-Ray means a free video game system that is untapped with potential.
As soon as Final Fantasy, GTA, and Gran Turismo come out, this will sell. I'm surprised with the way the market has been structured over the past decade that anyone even needs to bring this up and analyze it in the first place. There is plenty of support for this system, and like the PS1 and PS2, there will be support for these games a lot longer than any other system has done.
Proven track record. Sony is 2 for 2. Granted it's difficult to wager on Blu-Ray over HDDVD, but in terms of licenses and games, they have nothing to worry about.
Put this against Sega, who everyone adored, but they could not really support their systems very long, or even Microsoft, who supported the heck out of that Xbox, but they don't do it any longer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
