PS3 launch : total flop ?

[chrisbid]

since the SNES was the only console to ever work its way up the sales chart, sony has an awful lot of work to do (and hope for some mistakes by the competition) to wiggle its way to second place.

 

MS releasing an upgraded 360 at a higher price point than the current xbox could leave the door open for sony (if MS had sense, theyd see sony weakened state and go for the jugular with a lower price on current hardware)

[moycon]

MS releasing an upgraded 360 at a higher price point than the current xbox could leave the door open for sony (if MS had sense, theyd see sony weakened state and go for the jugular with a lower price on current hardware)

 

Here's the thing, folks have been asking for a bigger HD because they enjoy the HD content from Live. A person doesn't need a bigger drive otherwise. This is for a target audience. You as a consumer can feel free to pick up the CORE unit or the 20 Gig unit if HD movies and TV shows do not appeal to you. It almost sounds like your business model would be to just ignore what your customers are asking for and just lower prices even though your company just started turning a profit on the hardware you already have on the market. Makes perfect sense. Like I said...Everyone's an expert.

Edited March 26, 2007 by moycon

[ninjarabbit]

MS releasing an upgraded 360 at a higher price point than the current xbox could leave the door open for sony (if MS had sense, theyd see sony weakened state and go for the jugular with a lower price on current hardware)

 

Here's the thing, folks have been asking for a bigger HD because they enjoy the HD content from Live. A person doesn't need a bigger drive otherwise. This is for a target audience. You as a consumer can feel free to pick up the CORE unit or the 20 Gig unit if HD movies and TV shows do not appeal to you. It almost sounds like your business model would be to just ignore what your customers are asking for and just lower prices even though your company just started turning a profit on the hardware you already have on the market. Makes perfect sense. Like I said...Everyone's an expert.

 

The problem is most of the people who want the bigger HD already have the 360 so the early adopters are kinda screwed in this respect. Now they have to buy an overpriced HD unit because they jumped on the bandwagon too early. Not to mention the fact that for $20 more than the upgraded 360 you can have the $500 PS3 which has superior hardware specs.

 

Lowering prices would make since if your interested in capturing marketshare. A $50 price drop puts the Core system at the same price as the Wii and a $350 Preminum system would probably kill off the PS3 for good.

[agradeneu]

 

That depends on the definition on your average consumer.

Needs of everyday comsumers are changing quickly, they are not static. If so, capitalism would not work.

Sony is very ambitious with the PS3. The qestion is if this ambition will pay off this year or next year.

MS limited the Xbox as a machine for gamers. Nintendo and Sony are aiming for home entertainment which means a much wider audience.

 

I don't quite understand this point of view at all. The 360 not only offers an online gaming community that is unmatched, a decent selection of casual games on the Live marketplace, but also movie downloads, TV show downloads, music downloads, game guide downloads, demo's, playable demo's, preview videos, and developer videos plus the HD DVD add-on. How exactly is this not home entertainment? And how exactly does the wii fit the definition of home entertainment when all you can do is play games, you can't even watch a dvd movie? It seems that you have things backwards unless I am missing what you mean.

 

 

Technically the PS3 is much better suited for being a media center than the Xbox and the Xbox is quite poor with that. Everything the Xbox does it does better. DvD, Blue Ray, plenty of HDD storage for download content, WLAN, connectivity, functionality. Xbox's strenghts are gfx, price and online community. Besides that it has failed to attract consumers besides the regular gaming crowd (Market shares show that). Generic racing games, FPS and RTS are only appealing to a limited market, a lot of games are cross platform with PC (!). Nintendo builds upon new content, Sony has strong franchises like EyeToy or Singstar to attract casual gamers too. It would be a failure if Sony tries to compete the Xbox for the regualr gaming crowd. The PS3 is meant to bemuch more than a console for gaming. Right now, concerning home entertainment, Nintento has the content to make interactive media popular to the masses but Sony holds the superior technology for the future. In that respect a lot of criticims towards the PS3 is extremely shortsight. The question remains if the Sony is capable of bringing new and exciting content which actually uses the PS3 technology.

[Agent X]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6168087.html

 

What's that, you say? Exceeding the Wii UK launch sales figures by nearly 60%? I thought so.

[Jess Ragan]

And yet people are finding dozens upon dozens of systems in European stores. Something's not adding up here.

 

http://www.ukresistance.co.uk/2007/03/vict...otographic.html

 

(Pictures of game stores with dozens of PS3s remaining, up to seventy in some!)

 

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56490.html

 

(A critical view of the Playstation 3's European launch, including the observation that there were more members of the press at the French launch than prospective PS3 owners)

 

JR

[Starscream]

 

Technically the PS3 is much better suited for being a media center than the Xbox and the Xbox is quite poor with that. Everything the Xbox does it does better. DvD, Blue Ray, plenty of HDD storage for download content, WLAN, connectivity, functionality. Xbox's strenghts are gfx, price and online community. Besides that it has failed to attract consumers besides the regular gaming crowd (Market shares show that). Generic racing games, FPS and RTS are only appealing to a limited market, a lot of games are cross platform with PC (!). Nintendo builds upon new content, Sony has strong franchises like EyeToy or Singstar to attract casual gamers too. It would be a failure if Sony tries to compete the Xbox for the regualr gaming crowd. The PS3 is meant to bemuch more than a console for gaming. Right now, concerning home entertainment, Nintento has the content to make interactive media popular to the masses but Sony holds the superior technology for the future. In that respect a lot of criticims towards the PS3 is extremely shortsight. The question remains if the Sony is capable of bringing new and exciting content which actually uses the PS3 technology.

 

Yes the PS3 is an inclusive media center whereas the 360 needs a PC connection for some functions so without a doubt the PS3 is tops there. As for what the PS3 does better, almost everything you metioned except for the HDD storage space, I see no advantage on the PS3 whatsoever. I don't take blu-ray or wlan into consideration. HD DVD is no better or worse visually than BR but has Tru HD sound which BR lacks and has a uniform feature standard that BR lacks but BR has storage advantage and better support. Wireless is available on the 360, just not outta the box. But I am not here to argue or disrespect. All I know is I can actually do a ton more on the 360 than I can on a PS3 at this point. Until I can do comparable things on the PS3, it isn't real.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Starscream

[moycon]

The problem is most of the people who want the bigger HD already have the 360 so the early adopters are kinda screwed in this respect. Now they have to buy an overpriced HD unit because they jumped on the bandwagon too early. Not to mention the fact that for $20 more than the upgraded 360 you can have the $500 PS3 which has superior hardware specs.

 

I agree it's too bad they don't offer a trade in on your old 20 Gig drive or something. I dunno.... 60 Gig HD compared to a 120 Gig HD doesn't sound superior to me...LOL I know what you're saying tho. I guess it just all depends on what gives you the most pleasure. I think the PS3 will get to the point where it interests me eventually...maybe a year from now? For right now, there's so much to do on the 360 I cant even think of considering another system, especially at the price they want. I already have a Wii sitting next to my TV collecting dust. This might explain why folks aren't so eager to jump on the Sony band wagon. Specs aside, you can just plain do a lot more gaming wise on the 360. The fact that MS is releasing a 360 with a bigger HD doesn't change that for me. I would indeed buy a PS3 right now if I was considering a Blu-Ray player purchase...Unfortunately, I'm not. Doesn't seem like many gamers are too interested in a Blu-Ray player right now. Bring on the GAMES!

[Steril707]

I have been to the stores here in Muenchen/Germany yesterday, and so far there were not that many units sold i felt..Large stockpiles standing around...Wii was sold out as always...

 

Microsoft lowered the price for the Premium X-Box down to 300 Euros...This will make it very hard for the PS3..You can really get a Wii and a Premium X-Box for 50 Euros less than a PS3...

 

I have never been a big Playstation Fan (i kinda feel it killed off Sega), but i always liked Sony a lot, when they still did the AIBO and had all of these technological Visions...So i really don't want them to fail...

 

I hope the PS3 gets down to a more exceptable Price point in one year so people will embrace it more readily...

[Mord]

And yet people are finding dozens upon dozens of systems in European stores. Something's not adding up here.

 

 

Part of what's not adding up include:

 

1. A Wii costs a LOT less than a PS3 - you don't have to sell nearly as many PS3's to make the $$ counts add up.

2. There weren't as many Wii's available at launch, and I believe they sold out during the launch weekend (And according to some people above, continue to be sold out. )

 

So if you have a cheaper system, and you haven't been stockpiling them for 4-6 months in preparation for a launch, of course your sales figure for the launch weekend is going to be be fairly low - simply because you've managed to run out of product to sell. But more people for the buck would be happily playing their new console.

 

In my books, sales figures mean little to how successful a launch was. It's the total number of units that ended up in consumers hands. (ebay resellers not included. )

 

I'm still waiting for all the consoles to do some price dropping before I consider picking any of them up all the same.

 

 

 

--

Mord

I shouldn't post so early in the morning.

[EricDeLee]

I honestly HATE threads like these because it is nothing but a bashing thread.

 

You want to compare?

To get the same thing that the PS3 offers... you have to buy this if you are a microsoft fan:

$400 system

$200 HD DVD Drive

That equals the exact same price as the PS3. But you still are not on par with the PS3 in terms of the hard drive.

 

So for a Microsoft fan/apologist/Sony antagonists to come in here to say their system is better then the PS3 because the PS3 caosts so much is nothing but hogwash in my eyes.

 

Do you have the best games? For crying out loud... you've been out for a year. You better have a better game library than Sony at this point.

 

The 360 and the PS3 offer the best for the gamers that love there systems and love graphics and games. The Wii offers the best for exciting, fun games. But the Wii is in many aspects just like the gamecube. I'll buy such and such game on it, because you are supposed to (Zelda). But when NCAA comes out, or the new Metal Gear, I'll let the big dogs handle it like they are meant to do.

 

The 360 is awesome in many aspects. I've played it, I've enjoyed it... etc. The Wii is fun. But I can't justify buying it as my complete gaming console. The PS3 I can. I chose the PS3 because I think it is better. I don't like to shell out $600 for this, but come on... how often do you see a person shelling out $500 for such and such Atari game because it includes a box? Or perhaps $2000 on an unreleased prototype? One single game?

 

Are you honestly going to tell me that shelling out $600 for everything a PS3 can do is hard... when you yourself (nobody in particular... but just think about it) have spent hundreds of dollars on such and such for some nameless classic system?

 

How many here have bought Battlesphere for the Jaguar?

How many own a Quadrun, an Air Raid, a boxed Malagi... etc etc?

 

I've seen the same collectors shell out over $350 for just a BOX and MANUAL that a certain rare game came in. No game. Just the box and manual.

 

Yet we are still having this debate everyday where Microsoft lovers come over to the PS3 side and complain that the price is too high and that they will fail because of that.

 

Then they throw out rumors as fact: Stuff like "MGS4 is going to XBOX 360 cause I heard someone tell me so in line at Walmart".

 

Trends change with the generations. I just see no point in coming to a PS3 subforum, popping in and saying it is a failure and then leaving.

 

That's my opinion. Right now... I still choose my Turbo Grafx Express over all three of the new generation consoles. It may not have the best for graphics, but I'm warming p the buttons for my copy of Devil's Crush that is on the way.

 

And for me... that's all that counts. (Wasn't the TG Express more than the PSP when it came out?)

[Cheese007]

That equals the exact same price as the PS3. But you still are not on par with the PS3 in terms of the hard drive.

Actually, the premium gets the 120 GB HD after the elite is gone. Core will get the @0.

[EricDeLee]

Thats great... but it is still a year later.

 

It is funny how people say... I want a gaming machine not a Blu-Ray player. Yet.... Blue-Ray offers a lot to the gamers (more room for a game to be placed on the disk is just one).

 

But the biggest thing I remember was wack when PS2 came out: I don't wanna buy another dvd player... I already have one sitting on my entertainment stand. Why would I need one in the PS2?? All I want is a gaming machine.

 

Then... the same xbox players complained to get dvd for their xbox (cause you had to buy something or another for it to work). I don't know exact details because I didn't pay attention to xbox.

[moycon]

To get the same thing that the PS3 offers... you have to buy this if you are a microsoft fan:

$400 system

$200 HD DVD Drive

That equals the exact same price as the PS3. But you still are not on par with the PS3 in terms of the hard drive.

 

This is only true if you care to watch pretty movies and if you bought your console to watch pretty movies. I personally did not. I'm not bashing anybody or any company but I want to play lots of good games, and I want to be able to hook up with my pals and play lots of good games with them. I want to be able to able to download a good game on a whim, and I want to be able to try out a game before I spend money on it. In this respect 360 blows PS3 out of the water right now. I don't care how big of a F$Ckin hard drive you have. LOL

 

Like I said. PS3 will get there eventually. You can talk specs and dollars till you're blue in the face and your wee-wee falls off and you wont convince me otherwise. Sorry.

[AtariJr]

Thats great... but it is still a year later.

 

It is funny how people say... I want a gaming machine not a Blu-Ray player. Yet.... Blue-Ray offers a lot to the gamers (more room for a game to be placed on the disk is just one).

 

But the biggest thing I remember was wack when PS2 came out: I don't wanna buy another dvd player... I already have one sitting on my entertainment stand. Why would I need one in the PS2?? All I want is a gaming machine.

 

Then... the same xbox players complained to get dvd for their xbox (cause you had to buy something or another for it to work). I don't know exact details because I didn't pay attention to xbox.

 

when a launch system is 299 and it comes with the new media format, thats one thing... when you raise the price of a gaming system to 600 dollars because of it.. and you give people no choice as to if they want it or not, yes then it becomes a bit of an issue!

 

two things as well, 1. the blue ray player isnt in the same type of demand as the dvd was when it was paired with the ps2, thus there is not an overly large amount of people buying it to use as a media player. and 2, the space a dvd offered came at a good time when the ps2 and xbox game out, and was used properly in the first year of both of those system's lives. you can argue that Resistance used much of this space, but it was all crap programing to waist space. what im getting at here is that the ps3 has NOT made it clear that you NEED to have the larger format disk to play next gen games. In fact, with so many games either being shared with the 360 or taken as exclusves from ps3 to 360, and not having to make it so games are on more than one disk, id say dvd's storage capacity is still just peachy. if a game is made for both systems and can be fit on the older storage medium, then obviously the extra space isnt needed. if in the future this DOES seem to be an issue, i still dont mind putting a second dvd in to save 200 bucks by not buying a system that forces me to buy a blue ray player.

 

ive said it before and ill say it again. if you want all of what the ps3 offers, and were planning on buying the individual components anyway, its a really freakin great deal. however, if you are like many people who dont even have a hd tv and cant gain in benifit from hidef movies and games anyway, its really a bit of a rip off.. making "upgradable" systems like the 360 more appealing, despite it costing more when fully upgraded than the ps3.

 

im still up in the air as far as which wil be my second system.. i honestly am. but even at a lower price point of 400 , the 360 TOO has to lower its price a bit for me to fit in my budget, so honeslty both are quite far out of my wallet's range right now. if in a couple years the ps3 gets more exclusives i want and is about 400, maybe ill get it. but right now, and this goes for both systems, the games im looking foward to playing have not come out yet (ace combat, kingdom hearts included). so i can afford to wait for a price drop unlike many others. as i said before, i really freakin miss the days when systems launched at 299...

Edited March 30, 2007 by AtariJr

[agradeneu]

Thats great... but it is still a year later.

 

It is funny how people say... I want a gaming machine not a Blu-Ray player. Yet.... Blue-Ray offers a lot to the gamers (more room for a game to be placed on the disk is just one).

 

But the biggest thing I remember was wack when PS2 came out: I don't wanna buy another dvd player... I already have one sitting on my entertainment stand. Why would I need one in the PS2?? All I want is a gaming machine.

 

Then... the same xbox players complained to get dvd for their xbox (cause you had to buy something or another for it to work). I don't know exact details because I didn't pay attention to xbox.

 

 

you can argue that Resistance used much of this space, but it was all crap programing to waist space.

 

 

No, graphic data needs space. The more the better.

 

 

what im getting at here is that the ps3 has NOT made it clear that you NEED to have the larger format disk to play next gen games. In fact, with so many games either being shared with the 360 or taken as exclusves from ps3 to 360, and not having to make it so games are on more than one disk, id say dvd's storage capacity is still just peachy. if a game is made for both systems and can be fit on the older storage medium, then obviously the extra space isnt needed.

 

Your last conclusion is not logical. It is clear that cross platform developing demands compromises. This means that developers don't use the extra storage of Blue Ray because of the Xbox's DVD media. First party titles WILL use the advantages of BR. More data storage= bigger worlds, details and games.

Since developers can stream gfx and sound data from the medium, it becomes clear that BR holds an advantage over DVD.

[Cheese007]

No crap will it hold an advantage, but will it be worth the extra $200 in the long run?

[misspent_youth]

In the long run, most definitely. I again have to say that the double-sided Blu-Ray disc holds between 5 and six times the amount of data that a DVD9 does. In two years' time, would you really want to have to change discs 3, 4 or 5 times in one game, especially if you need to go back and forth in the game? Not me. It's the short term where the space is not effectively used where it's not worth the $200.

 

I borrow from the article posted in the other thread to say that the extra storage capacity, combined with the built-in HDD (not simply for storage, but because it can be utilized to enhance the performance of the games, whereas the 360 games must be programmed with the HDD-less SKU in mind) are the two things that convince me that the ps3 will be the superior system throughout the life of this generation.

[Hyper_Eye]

And you really believe that games are going to take up 4 or 5 DVD's in any necessary way? Oblivion is a huge game that took years to develop and it is 4.4G in size total. You don't even need a DVD-9 to store that. In the entire life of the XBox there were only a handful of games that required more then a 4.7G DVD. And all but a couple of those could be cut down to a 4.7G DVD by cutting out things like ending credits. The DVD-9 has barely been tapped in a meaningful way. With the time that it takes to develop the content required to fill these discs how much more space do you think is going to be needed in the near future? How much do you expect development time to increase? Compression is getting better and faster all the time. When space on a DVD-9 starts to become an issue I am sure there will already be a solution available that will last through the end of this generation. I don't think it will have to last long because I don't think it is going to be an issue until the end if at all.

 

Also, games will detect and cache to the hdd when it is present. Oblivion does this. While games are developed to accommodate the hdd-less SKU they also take advantage of it when it is there.

Edited March 30, 2007 by Hyper_Eye

[AtariJr]

No crap will it hold an advantage, but will it be worth the extra $200 in the long run?

 

thast what im getting at.. and if you can fill the whole blue ray disk with good programing and good game contents ill be quite suprised...

[Tempest]

No crap will it hold an advantage, but will it be worth the extra $200 in the long run?

 

thast what im getting at.. and if you can fill the whole blue ray disk with good programing and good game contents ill be quite suprised...

 

Give it time. I can remember when people said "There's no way you'll ever be able to fill a 360K 5.25" disk", or a 1.44MB 3.5" disk, or a 20MB hard drive, or a 700MB CD. People will always find ways to fill the available storage media with something, and in 10 years we'll be complaining about games requiring 3 or 4 Blu-Ray or HD-DVD discs and how they need to come out with something that holds more data.

 

Tempest

[AtariJr]

No crap will it hold an advantage, but will it be worth the extra $200 in the long run?

 

thast what im getting at.. and if you can fill the whole blue ray disk with good programing and good game contents ill be quite suprised...

 

Give it time. I can remember when people said "There's no way you'll ever be able to fill a 360K 5.25" disk", or a 1.44MB 3.5" disk, or a 20MB hard drive, or a 700MB CD. People will always find ways to fill the available storage media with something, and in 10 years we'll be complaining about games requiring 3 or 4 Blu-Ray or HD-DVD discs and how they need to come out with something that holds more data.

 

Tempest

 

very true.. ist just i dont see games going past 2 dvds for a while.. at least, not console games.

[CPUWIZ]

Motorstorm is around 15Gigs, I know there are a couple others that are bigger than a DVD.

 

And they are all early titles, I bet games like Lair and Assassins Creed are gonna be even bigger.

[tantone56]

My moth waters when I picture GTA 4. I just hope that they don't cheap out because the xbox 360 can't hold all the memory, and make the same exact versions for both.

[Agent X]

And you really believe that games are going to take up 4 or 5 DVD's in any necessary way? Oblivion is a huge game that took years to develop and it is 4.4G in size total. You don't even need a DVD-9 to store that.

 

But games like Oblivion were designed with the limitations of the X-Box 360 in mind. It may be a fine game now, but just think of how much better it could have been if the designers had 25-50 GB discs to work with, rather than the restrictions imposed on them by the DVD format.

 

With more storage available, graphics could look better by virtue of having higher resolution textures with higher color depth, and more variety in textures so there's less repetition. Textures that might be left on the cutting room floor for lack of space on a lesser system could instead be integrated elsewhere into the game. More capacity for audio means having a bigger soundtrack, multiple voice tracks, and even the possibility of lossless multichannel audio to please even the most demanding audiophile.

 

Think of it this way (since this is an Atari-oriented forum after all): Imagine how much better Atari 2600 Pac-Man could've been if Tod Frye got the 8 KB cartridge he asked for rather than the 4 KB he was saddled with.

 

There's a reason why ColecoVision and Atari 5200 cartridges were regularly 16-32 KB, rather than 4-8 KB like most 2600 games. There's a reason why NES games at the peak of the system's popularity were 4-8 times the size of CV/5200 games. There's a reason why Genesis/SNES games were 4-8 times bigger than NES games.

 

As you can see, every generational leap in home video game consoles has been accompanied by a significant boost in the memory capacity of the storage media. You might not immediately see the advantages of higher-capacity Blu-ray discs, but as time progresses gamers will demand growth and improvement in the quality of the visuals and audio, and the PS3 will be in the best position to showcase that growth and improvement.