I think it was the price and the selection games that "killed" N64. Games here was like $100 - $150.
I think it was the price and the selection games that "killed" N64. Games here was like $100 - $150.
Last edited by jajaja; 03-05-2007 at 08:12 AM.
It was the format and nintendos unwillingness to lower the royalty fees. That killed the n64.
Sony went for the juggular when the psx was released by If I recalled the royalty fees was like 3.00 per game.
Now that I think about it many companies were destoyed by nintendos fees during the snes it was like 25.00 per game and I believe it was to be paid upfront whether it sold or not. Talk about karma.
neo geo system
Ye, that might be a big factor too. You know how much it was for each N64 game? $25 for each SNES game? Damn hehe.
What exactly is "Fair trade" and how does to relate to Sony and PS3s? A search about "fair trade" on Google talks about fair wages for employees in poor nations and refers to products such as coffee. I know that Sony's stock has taken a beating lately but I don't think that it makes Japan a poor nation.
Whatever man. You can't provide any data to back up what you've said, and I've given you a TON of hard and fast numbers that back up my point. To your credit, you've completely ignored them, refused to bring numbers of your own, and stuck by your initial biased assumptions. You're a true testament to blind devotion (I hear Scientology has some openings, btw). Keep on fighting the good fight chief. Just try to stay out of arguments with anyone who brings factual analysis to the table, and you'll avoid coming off as uneducated and ignorant of the gaming industry, as you've repeatedly done in this thread. Oh yeah, pop back in when you can post some ACTUAL DATA which supports your claim that "the DS is kicking the PSP's ass" (try to keep it relevant to North America, and no, an isolated week of sales in Japan isn't relevant). Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.
If lovin' the facts is wrong, I don't wanna be right.Originally Posted by petefriday
No, not really. Anecdotal "evidence" is merely opinion based upon what the storyteller has seen. For instance, I may go to a local Best Buy and see 12 PS3s sitting there and think to myself, man the PS3 is not selling. What I may not know or not have seen is that they were just delivered and placed on the shelf, which was at the time empty. Furthermore, I will not see them get sold. They could all sell within days of my observation, but I will not know that.
Take another example. I see the same 12 PS3s but no Wiis on the shelf. Does that mean that the Wii is outselling the PS3? Perhaps, but if we do not have hard numbers, we may never know. What if that same Best Buy only received 6 Wii consoles and sold out in hours of their arrival, and 12 PS3s sold out over the course of a few days? Clearly you could not make the same conclusion. Again, anecdotal "evidence" does not prove anything. You are merely drawing conclusions based upon incomplete information.
First, I never thought I'd hear people complain about "pushing" advanced technology on a game console. Sheez, I recall when Microsoft released the two 360 versions and people complained about having to upgrade their Core systems (Premiums were in short supply at release) with the hard drive to save content. Why release an inferior version of the same console, they asked. Furthermore there were the people who complained that the 360 should've had HD-DVD built into the system so that it could be implemented for gaming as opposed just as a novelty, i.e. a cheap HD-DVD player. It just goes to show you that you can't please everyone.
As for the insane pricing comment, I will say it again as I have said many times over in all of the other Sony bashing threads - you get more for your money with the 60GB PS3 than buying a Premium 360 and having to upgrade it. The 360 Premium costs $400, plus another $200 for an HD-DVD player that does not run games, and another $100 for an insanely over-priced wireless adapter that should have been included to begin with. Now you have spent $100 more than the PS3 60 GB, and you still don't have HDMI support; you have 40 GB less in HD space; you have no SD/Memory Stick compatibility; you do not have 100% backwards compatibility on prior gen games; and you have to pay for XBOX Live.
Don't get me wrong, I love the 360, but it is no bargain by any means over the PS3.
Yeah, but you really haven't linked to any sources for your data or your claims. the only real documented fact that I've really seen you post lately has been the one about Monster Rancher 2 being #1 selling game in Japan last week. No offense but you're really looked at as the local Sony PR rep and you really need to post sources for your claims if you're going to be taken seriously.
Or you may work in a retail store and know for a fact that the stack of PS3s that you have sitting in back have been there for weeks while at the same time you can't keep a Wii in stock for a full day. I tend to trust my friends who work in retail.
And if you go to a Sam's Club you'll get more for your money by buying a 10 gallon bucket of mayonnaise over the quart size. The problem is that most people don't need or want to pay for 10 gallons when then only want to make a sandwich. Yeah it's a weird example but I'm in the same boat as many of the others who don't want to have to pay for a Blu-Ray player when I have no interest in watching movies on my console and only want to play video games. Regardless what they're giving us, there's absolutely no value in paying for something that you'll never use.
Last edited by Griking; 03-05-2007 at 06:37 PM.
Everytime you put in a PS3 game and starts to play you use the Bluray player I know many people think only of movies when they hear BR, but its also used for the games. So without it, its impossible to play the games for PS3.
The situation with PS3 isnt really anything difference from any other consoles. Nintendo chose carts for N64, Sega chose GD-ROM for Dreamcast, MS chose DVD-ROM for 360 and Sony chose BR for PS3. Its just a matter of choices. MS chose DVD-ROM because it was cheap and they thought it was enough storage for this generation. Sony chose BR because they wanted something nextgen and a media with more storage.
Of course, it comes for its price, but its because its fairly new. They could have gone for DVD which is old tech and therefor much cheaper, but they wanted something newer instead and they hope that this will be a factor that people want PS3 more. So far its going ok, but how it will work out in the long run, only time knows.
Last edited by jajaja; 03-05-2007 at 07:00 PM.
"Fair trade" is a term that meant something different back in the 70's than it does now (in a more literal sense). Like I said.. when I was growing up "fair trade" items were things like Levi jeans, game consoles (back then) and many high-dollar colognes and perfumes.. some name-brand cookware, etc.
These were items that cost the same no matter where you went.. a K-Mart or a Macy's, a Wal-Mart.. or an Emporium-Capwells or Nordstrom. Take Levis for example.. there was a time when you paid $25 for a pair of Levis.. anywhere.. no matter what store you got them from; they NEVER went on sale.. and if they did.. it was the same price nationwide. Somewhere in the early 80's Levi Strauss lifted that on their clothing and then.. stores were allowed to sell them at whatever price they.. and their profit margin.. could afford (just like 95% of the goods today). Most parfums are still that way today. Consoles are too.
The whole concept of "fair trade" stemmed from the fact that if every seller of a particular item was sold everywhere at the same price (dictated by the manufacturer).. then the "trade" of that item would be "fair" to everyone (et al.. the retailers.. not the public). It works to an extent for dealers.. but of course another added side benefit of this was that a manufacturer could simply fix a price. People either wanted your stuff.. or didn't.. but had to pay the price.
Most of you "young-un's" may not even remember this.. but it was commonly practiced.. especially in every category of goods but usually with top-end high-tier goods (Mercedes as compared to Ford Fiestas) (Bose equipment as compared to Symphonic) (Amana as compared to Lucky Goldstar [at the time.. LG tron is now highly thought of]).
The practice was for the most part dropped in the 80's due to laws passed and the mere fact that it was beginning to work in the opposite direction for most. It's the reason I grew up in Wranglers and JC Penney jeans as opposed to Levis.. no matter how much I asked my mom for them. We weren't the richest people in the world when I was growing up.. but even in the 70's.. in high school.. the label on your jeans meant more than the person inside them.
Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo consoles can still be considered "fair trade" in the sense that when a retailer is considering carrying their items.. they are bound by the manufacturers dictates as to whether they can discount them or not (I'm talking about the consoles themselves.. not games or accessories). It's still practiced in a round about.. legal sort of way. As to how it relates to this discussion.. when people start talking of retail outlets dropping the prices on a console.. it's WHY I explained they can't (until Sony let's them).. and WHY the clerk told me yesterday they COULDN'T discount the PS3.. but COULD knock $100 off the HDTV.
I myself remember at 16 years old walking into a clothing store and asking a clerk, "How come Levis are so expensive?" "They're "fair trade" items.", he replied to me and then went on to explain what it meant. The term has stuck in my mind ever since. You may not find that term even used by Googling (ah.. the younger gen ) in that sense anymore because all of this is pretty much forgotten.. but that WAS the term used for what I AM describing LONG before it was used to describe trade practices between nations.
Hope this clears up your confusion.
Last edited by scorch56; 03-05-2007 at 07:36 PM.
Actually, no. The evidence is the FACT that there were 12 PS3s sitting on that shelf. The evidence is not the OPINION (really, conclusion) drawn from that fact. And you are correct. The fact that there are 12 PS3s sitting on a shelf in one store doesn't prove much of anything. However, the more anecdotal evidence that is received (facts, such as: 10 PS3s at this store, 4 at that, this store hasn't sold a PS3 in two weeks, that store hasn't had a shipment of new PS3s in a month, etc.) the stronger the inference you can draw from those facts.
Do you trust ratings and polls? Those are purely anecdotal. The pollsters haven't asked all 300 million Americans what they think, they have merely asked a representative sample. The more people they ask, and the more scientific of a process is used, the stronger the inference/conclusion that can be drawn from that anecdotal evidence.
The more anecdotal evidence about the PS3 comes in, the closer to a representative sample that evidence becomes and the stronger the opinion that can be rationally drawn from it.
Here's my feedback thread: http://www.digitpress.com/forum/show...ht=FantasiaWHT
Not taking into the (in)significance of random gamers finding PlayStation 3 hardware in stock at local stores...
Don't you chuckle a bit hearing that, to some, having product on the shelves, available for gamers to purchase is seen as a sign of weakness?
Here's my feedback thread: http://www.digitpress.com/forum/show...ht=FantasiaWHT
In the long run it means nothing really. Take football for example. If a team loses the 4-5 first matches it doesnt automaticly mean that this team cant win the serie. Things does change.
And as FantasiaWHT says, its only funny when they say like its damn hard to get and it isnt. Otherwise i dont see why i would laugh at others "missfortune".
Last edited by jajaja; 03-06-2007 at 06:14 PM.
Did we read the same story?
April or May is when we feel like we're going to catch up to demand and have product fully in stock across North America and stay there,"
Tretton told Reuters in an interview that the console was still out of stock in some areas three months after its November launch.
"Our goal is to fill shelves across the United States. Our goal is not to have empty shelves, it's to have full shelves.
He didn't say you simply can't find them on shelves, just that it's not fully in stock around the country. What followed (in this thread) was a lot of people misinterpreting the article and others claiming that 'units on shelves' = 'disaster'.
Tretton's nuts anyway. Everyone remembers the EGM interview when he said that he would pay anyone $1200 if they brought him evidence of a PS3 in stock in a store. He would have lost all of Sony's profits had he been called on that bluff. It's things like this, Sony's arrogance to the consumer, that will cause me to buy a used PS3 and used PS3 games. Sony won't be seeing my money.
<Blackjax> YES!!! MIDGET WRESTLING ON THE SPANISH CHANNEL!!!!
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
Romans 5:8
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.