PS3 Sales Soar With Release of the Slim

[Jumplion]

....and? I don't see your point, of course they want to be first, I never argued that. What I did say was that it's not "too late to win", and just so long as they turn in a profit and are successful then everyone is good.

By win, we mean "lead", which is what Sony's wanted all along. Why not? Like you said, they want to make a profit, fund new research, and become the leading company in the field. Turning in a profit isn't their biggest concern (hell, if I remember correctly the PS3 originally cost more to make than it made selling); it's developing a hardcore fan group and dominating the market. Which, by this point, I don't think they can do, given the 360's dominance over multiplayer experience (Halo, GoW) or the Wii's mom-appeal.

...erm, run that by me again?

You think Microsoft or Nintendo give two donkeys testicles what their "hardcore fan group" is? They rake in the money, that's it. You have to spend money to make money, just because the PS3 sold at a loss doesn't mean Sony isn't trying to make money, just like every other business out there. It's just another business strategy.

Is it even possible to say that a companies top priority isn't to make money? Again, as I've said before, you don't need to be "NUMBAH UNO!@#$!@" to be successful or turn in a profit. Would it be nice? Sure, of course. But it's hardly Sony's concern, or any other damn company for that matter, about their "hardcore fanbase". They're just more customers to them.

If the "winnahr" was determined by the "fanbase" then by god nobody would win. Companies try to make money by any means. Would it be nice if they could be #1 constantly? Sure, but it's not required and companies definitely don't care about their "fanbase", at least to the extent where everything is determined by them.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

...erm, run that by me again?

You think Microsoft or Nintendo give two donkeys testicles what their "hardcore fan group" is? They rake in the money, that's it. You have to spend money to make money, just because the PS3 sold at a loss doesn't mean Sony isn't trying to make money, just like every other business out there. It's just another business strategy.

Is it even possible to say that a companies top priority isn't to make money? Again, as I've said before, you don't need to be "NUMBAH UNO!@#$!@" to be successful or turn in a profit. Would it be nice? Sure, of course. But it's hardly Sony's concern, or any other damn company for that matter, about their "hardcore fanbase". They're just more customers to them.

If the "winnahr" was determined by the "fanbase" then by god nobody would win. Companies try to make money by any means. Would it be nice if they could be #1 constantly? Sure, but it's not required and companies definitely don't care about their "fanbase", at least to the extent where everything is determined by them.

You're wrong. I feel bad for being so blunt, but I know no substitute for the term.

For example, take the Wii; releasing kid-friendly and cheaply-made games every day or so (hyperbole, I know). They don't need quality; their existing fanbase will latch on no matter what, while their marketing of the console will get it adopted by every second family in America. And, sadly, their plan is working; the Wii is the top-selling console. It's cheap, simple, and caters to the majority. Now, when Nintendo releases something new, they've got millions of existing consumers to swoop in and pick it up. That's marketing and producing to win.

I don't know about Microsoft's approach, but they're also aggressively pursuing dominance; releasing DLC for literally every game that comes out, just to keep players coming back. Making profit to stay in the lead, etc.

I'm not sure what Sony thinks; given their bizarre tendencies, it might be something totally different. It might be, as you say, to turn in a simple profit and go home happy. I'd hope that this isn't the case, though, and that they're actually actively pursuing a winning strategy (like, say, re-releasing a much-derided console for a cheaper price).

I guess my point is that game companies are more interested in maintaining a lead and reaping profit over time rather than making a simple living.

 

[Jumplion]

You're wrong. I feel bad for being so blunt, but I know no substitute for the term.

For example, take the Wii; releasing kid-friendly and cheaply-made games every day or so (hyperbole, I know). They don't need quality; their existing fanbase will latch on no matter what, while their marketing of the console will get it adopted by every second family in America. And, sadly, their plan is working; the Wii is the top-selling console. It's cheap, simple, and caters to the majority. Now, when Nintendo releases something new, they've got millions of existing consumers to swoop in and pick it up. That's marketing and producing to win.

I don't know about Microsoft's approach, but they're also aggressively pursuing dominance; releasing DLC for literally every game that comes out, just to keep players coming back. Making profit to stay in the lead, etc.

I'm not sure what Sony thinks; given their bizarre tendencies, it might be something totally different. It might be, as you say, to turn in a simple profit and go home happy. I'd hope that this isn't the case, though, and that they're actually actively pursuing a winning strategy (like, say, re-releasing a much-derided console for a cheaper price).

I guess my point is that game companies are more interested in maintaining a lead and reaping profit over time rather than making a simple living.

But that's just Nintendo's strategy. They couldn't give three bull anuses damns (okay, I'll stop with the anatomies) how happy their demographic is, just look at Nintendo's "hardcore" lovers back in the day. They're just targeting that certain demographic that gives them the money, that's it. They certainly care about who they're catering to, but not to the extent that you're claiming. It's just a business strategy, cater to a demographic and exploit it. Hell, it's not like the "Bratz" toy manufacturers actually give a damn about the girls, they just know that they'll gobble it up.

Now, is the companies strategy partially defined by it's userbases response? Of course, plenty of people whined for a price cut and Sony gave them one. But that is only because they know that it will get them money in the long run. I'm not saying that the fanbases isn't important, but it's not as big of a variable as you're claiming it is.

 

[Pendragon9]

I'm glad they sold more. Since I refuse to touch the 360 and Wii on the grounds that the fanboys have often thrown their own feces at me for no reason whatsoever, I'm glad to hear some Sony news that isn't about them being in trouble or how they lost the game.

Those threads got annoying.

 

[Axle_Bullitt_19]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.139310#3128836
Looks like I beat you to the punch but 1500% that is a lot higher from what it was when I posted.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

But that's just Nintendo's strategy. They couldn't give three bull anuses damns (okay, I'll stop with the anatomies) how happy their demographic is, just look at Nintendo's "hardcore" lovers back in the day. They're just targeting that certain demographic that gives them the money, that's it. They certainly care about who they're catering to, but not to the extent that you're claiming. It's just a business strategy, cater to a demographic and exploit it. Hell, it's not like the "Bratz" toy manufacturers actually give a damn about the girls, they just know that they'll gobble it up.

Now, is the companies strategy partially defined by it's userbases response? Of course, plenty of people whined for a price cut and Sony gave them one. But that is only because they know that it will get them money in the long run. I'm not saying that the fanbases isn't important, but it's not as big of a variable as you're claiming it is.

Oh, no, I don't mean the actual hardcore fanbases. Those are a thing of the past. I mean the new generation of "hardcore"; Xbox gamers who only want twitch-and-shoot gameplay such as Halo 3, or kids who'll only accept Wii games. They're the easy-to-please, ignorant demographic. The sheep looking for a shepherd, if you will. Nintendo could care less about their old flock, you're right, and they probably don't care about the new one either. However, at least the new one is easy to appease; they don't have to focus on much except milking the cash cow.

 

[park92]

i got the slim too its great but not for gaming but everything else its great for gaming i just play on my ekk bok

 

[Jsnoopy]

....what no u.s. numbers? Thats odd

 

[Treblaine]

Plug an ipod into your PS3, notice PS3 does not recognise and cannot play songs off it. Plug your ipod into any Xbox 360 and you can play any of the songs directly off it which is just so convenient.
PS3 works absolutely fine with iPods. It recognises them and can play songs off them.

PS3 does not support the most basic features as NTFS file structure which means connecting any external hard drive or USB thumb drive is a pain in the arse to read if it can read it at all. It should be noted that both Linus and Mac OS can handle NTFS file structure so Sony has no excuse for their incompetence.
I have a 2GB thumb drive and a 60GB external hard drive and I've used both to transfer files (music, movies, TV shows) to the PS3 without any problems. I suggest rereading the section of the manual which tells you how to connect USB devices.

If somehow you do manage to get music onto your PS3 you cannot play it in games unless it actively supports it (very few games do), while on the Xbox 360 you can play any song on the 360's HDD, eternal HHD/thumb-drive or even directly off your ipod... for ANY game. This is such a great feature as replacing a games soundtrack with AC/DC or Black Sabbath = monumental win.
Not an issue with me as I think custom soundtracks are stupid and I have no idea why anyone would want to use them. I used my own music to replace the menu music in PES2009 but otherwise I'd much rather listen to a professionally composed soundtrack. In-game audio is a big thing for me and most of my favourite games have a memorable soundtrack.

As for games, just go to Digital Foundry [http://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry/] of Eurogamer and you will see for 90% of the time (or at least the overwhelming majority of the games I want) the PS3 version of multiplatform games has inferior graphics and gameplay performance (frame-rate/screen tear) compared to the Xbox 360 version. This is almost entirely down to the PS3's idiosyncratic and convoluted design that makes it a living hell to program for i.e. not software friendly and Sony has not supported the software for it.
"Overwhelming majority" is a gross exaggeration. Some early multi-platform games looked better on 360 but those released more recently have no noticeable differences between versions. And who cares, anyway?

If most of these multiplatform game play better and often have better DLC and patch support on 360, that puts those games in the 360's line-up not PS3's line-up.
Only if you have both consoles, which most people don't. And I think you're confusing "most" with "a couple".

To me (and most others who own both consoles) PS3 has only got exclusives going for it and in all this time Resistance FOM and Killzone 2 are the only games I have seen worth it, having played R:FOM singleplayer and multiplayer to death, KZ2 turned out to have virtually no replay value and multiplayer destroyed by it's terrible controls. The main appeal of KZ2 was knifing the dumb AI with the 1-hit-kill Knife. If feels cheap but is WAY more fun than struggling to aim quick and accurately with the loose, clunky and laggy controls.
I don't like Killzone 2. Resistance is good but not great. The exclusives on PS3 suit my tastes so I don't have any complaints with the current line-up.

Online support is highly subjective but I have found it much worse than XBL and compared to PC it's a joke. You will find plenty of people who will agree with me on this.
Never had any problems playing online in any game.

Online content is WEAK for PS3. Almost every Downloadable game that is worth a damn is on XBL Arcade while PSN has virtually nothing. The DLC games that are on both XBLA and PSN, they are usually cheaper on XBLA by a factor of around 50% (remember, I am going by UK prices of MS points and PSN list price). Also, PSN Europe has not had a single Movie, TV show, song or anything of worth to download other can a couple of trailers that just tell me to go out and buy a blu-ray for £20 = half the price of a new game.
"PSN has virtually nothing"... hmmm I don't think so. Some of the best games of this generation are downloadable PSN games - Trash Panic, PixelJunk Eden, Shatter, Super Stardust HD, Wipeout HD, The Last Guy, Flower, Fat Princess, Lumines Supernova etc. Maybe this is just a case of us having different tastes again. Either way, it's nothing to do with Sony. The variety is there.

PSone downloadable classics have also been, in a totally unscrupulous move, region locked so what Japan gets America sees little of and Europe again gets virtually nothing. I'd love to download MGS1 and sync it with my PSP but Sony limits that to Japan only. Most likely because they are completely incompetent when it comes to negotiating the copyright of software on an international level.
This is to do with SCEE, who are completely incompetent. Metal Gear Solid is available in the US store and has been for a while, along with plenty of other PSOne classics and downloadable games which haven't reached Europe. The extortionate UK pricing referred to in your previous point is also the fault of SCEE. Overall I have nothing but contempt for SCEE and always have done since the days of the original Playstation.

Firmware updates have shown how far Sony is lagging behind, slowly adding features that 360 has had since launch. Though iPlayer is a neat feature they finally put on the XMB but is still impossible to get to work unless you are already very familiar with PS3's controls which is a huge oversight that is typical of Sony's software incompetence.
iPlayer is simple and works without any problems, so I don't know what you're talking about (it's just a shortcut to the internet browser after all). Sony isn't "slowly adding features that 360 has had since launch" either. Both consoles have useful features which the other doesn't have and likely never intends to have. You make it sound like they're both trying to be the same system.

On "connectivity" I mean video output options, with HD output only supported via HDMI for PS3 while Xbox 360 can output HD resolution via VGA and I can testify the quality is on par with HDMI. The importance of a feature like this is you can get a "HD resolution" computer monitor with VGA input for much lower price than a HDTV which is usually the only viable option to get HDMI for HD gaming with PS3. As a result my PS3 has been stuck at my parent's plugged into their HDTV for almost the entire time I have owned it as I can't afford a HDTV of my own = £1000 = 3 times the price of the PS3 itself.
VGA is not on par with HDMI, otherwise there would be no point to HDMI. VGA is nowhere near 720p, let alone 1080p. It's also not Sony's fault that you can't afford a HDTV. It's like buying a £1000 stereo system and criticising the sound quality because you can only afford £10 speakers.

Xbox 360 via VGA also fully supports all aspect ratios and computer monitor resolutions, scaling on hardware and without distorting the image at all. Try that with PS3 with some awkward HDMI-DVI adapter and you'll end up with a distorted image.
The idea of paying big bucks for a HD console only to play it through a computer monitor is, again, bizarre.

There are a whole bunch of other problems with PS3 mainly to do with Sony supporting it poorly that I have since forgotten about as I hardly play on it at all any more, especially since I've upgraded my PC and got my Xbox 360.
So you can't afford a HDTV but you've just upgraded your PC? OK....

I think the only reason you are happy with the PS3 is you don't know what you are missing out on and don't realise how much you have been short changed.
Nice try. The reason I'm happy with PS3 is because it has lots of games that I enjoy playing and some useful extra features, such as the ability to play PS2 games and the ability to store and play movies and TV shows. I have no opinion on the 360 because I've never owned one, and very little interest in buying one because its exclusives, online community and Live don't appeal to me.

I'll try to keep this response brief:

___How the hell did you manage to get iPod to work with your PS3? Everyone I have asked says "it just won't work, suck it". Even if there is a solution, why is it so freaking hard to figure out?
___Custom soundtrack for games are great as even AAA titles cannot secure the copyright of classic bands like Black Sabbath for their soundtrack, but nothing stops the user adding in their legally owned tracks... except for Sony.
___None the less, all the multiplatform games I happen to want are better on 360
___Of your list of PSN games, only Fat Princess and Wipeout HD (OVERPRICED) interest me and very fucking funny recommending Flower, you have go to be kidding? You also list only 10 PSN games of rather dubious distinction, I have a list of 24 "MUST GET" games to DL from XBL Arcade like Braid, Shadow Complex, Duke Nukem 3D... do you really want to know them all?
___Agreed, SCEE sucks. But Sony is still ultimatley responsible.
___The thing is I can use iPlayer fine but no one else in my family can figure it out, you still need to know how to use virtually every button on the controller to use it. The main appeal of iPlayer is my family members always want to catch up on missed BBC programs and could have done if from the comfort of the living room... if Sony had made the interface in any way user friendly.
___VGA is on par with HDMI and can support up to 1080p and 1920x1200. HDMI was mainly endorsed to allow for HDCP = DRM-on-crack so to make it harder to rip Blu-ray movies and HD broadcasts. Computer monitor with VGA is perfect for HD gaming with the cost saving well worth it plus monitor has dual use as a monitor for my PC.
___It doesn't cost anywhere near as much to upgrade a PC as to buy a decent HDTV. Also I don't want to have to worry about The Man slamming me with a £2'000 fining me for having a HDTV without a TV licence.
___360 is not so terrible, every single version can play Xbox 1 games perfectly. It is also way easier to store and play TV shows on 360 than PS3 in my experience (don't need to consult a god-damn manual or forums just to connect a thumb drive) especially with Movies the 360 excels with its extensive Video Marketplace.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Not suprising.

However, they're far to late too the game to win the console war. And this comes from a non-fanboy of anything and someone who is actually going to buy a Slim himself.

Technological endeavors are not something that can be 'won.'

Besides it's not like Sony has an ace in the hole or anything. *Wink Wink Nudge Nudge*

 

[oppp7]

Does anyone care about the console war?
OT: Why is the Slim "better?"

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Great, I'm still not buying one.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Hard to believe reducing the size of something would cause people to rush out and buy one. The Dreamcast was one of the smallest consoles ever and it didn't help there.
I'm chalking this up to the price drop.

 

[Blanks]

I really don't like the slim, it's ugly looking and is slower than it's predecessor
so i guess i'm going to spend the extra 200 bucks and buy the older one

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

is slower than it's predecessor

You sure about that? [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.136825]