Sony: Microsoft or Nintendo Will Go Next-Gen Before Us
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
I am also a believer of "First to come to the table..." concept of console releases.Jezzascmezza said:
Whichever console hits the streets first of a console generation seems to win the market. As long as it is in the right "generation bracket"
The Dreamcast was almost as powerful as the PS2 (give or take) but was released to early, and therefore was considered to be in the same bracket as the PS1.
If you view it as that you can clearly see from the PS1 generation to now that:
PS1: First on market, most popular of its generation.
PS2: First on market, most popular of its generation.
360: First on market, I will call it the most popular, because the Wii might have sold a gazillion machines, but are struggling to sell games.
so id PS4 is released much later than the Xbox720, it might not be considered for the same generation as the Xbox'Whatever-degree-they-will-use-next'
So I am not sure it is a wise move to have "The most powerful machine" It's better to be rather cheap and rather okey
PS: I still prefere PS3 to 360
And yet, they still refuse to include proper backwards compatibility. Why would they jeopardise PS3 sales when they make it explicitly apparent that they are still concerned about a last-gen console? If they were to include the BC, that value of the PS3 would make a huge jump.Logan Westbrook said:
Better yet, why don't they make the European online store not crap, and add the other half the content that's already available in the NA and Japanese stores?
Not exactly depending on how you look at the charts, the PS3 is only about 5 million units away.Jezzascmezza said:
Also, if you take the amount of units sold in the first, say, 3 years of the 360's life and compare it to the units sold in the first 3 years of the PS3, the PS3 is actually selling at a much faster rate than it (I wish I could make a chart, but VGChartz is being stupid).
It's not about who can run the fastest, it's who can keep up (or whatever pseudo-philosophical stuff)
But the Dreamcast came before the PS2 and it failed.Jezzascmezza said:
But the PS3 is quickly catching up now.
As of April 2010, 360 has sold 40million
As of March 2010, PS3 has sold near 36million.
Baring in mind the PS3 was released how long after the 360 (about a years head start, right?) I think it may be a matter of time before the PS3 surpasses.
So basically they're gonna stagnate the industry like they did with the PS2?
I don't mind, i can wait years before a new console.
I don't mind, i can wait years before a new console.
When they took out Backwards compatibility, they mainly did it for one thing;Andronicus said:
To lower the god damn price.
BC easily bumped the cost of the PS3 an extra $100, and people kept complaining over and over "THE PS3 IS TOO EXPENSIVE!@#!", so Sony removes a feature (admitedly useless when you can just buy a PS2 for less than $99) so they can finally get to a competitive price.
Besides, why do you think they're trying to release more PS2 collections? They're trying to phase to almost 12 year old console out already (at least in North America and whatnot, still selling in Latin America apparantly). It's hard enough to find some games for the PS2 already (damn ICO) so this way they can deliver PS2 titles while turning in a better profit.
Very bold call there by Sony.
the PS2 was very good and lasted quite a while. Gives families a decent gaming platform at a very decent price.
I'm not quite sure about the PS3, I've yet to see much mind-fuckingly good come out from the damn thing apart from a few exclusives and the potential of the otherOS for server clusters.
the PS2 was very good and lasted quite a while. Gives families a decent gaming platform at a very decent price.
I'm not quite sure about the PS3, I've yet to see much mind-fuckingly good come out from the damn thing apart from a few exclusives and the potential of the otherOS for server clusters.
True, but the PS2 was in a significantly different market position to the PS3, it was a clear and uncontested market leader for basically it's entire lifespan, rather than struggling for second place. Ironically that success is what caused them to overreach with the PS3, believing that their audience would simply naturally follow their brand. Turns out it didn't when there was a cheaper mass market alternative with a significant marketing gimmick.Jumplion said:
And whilst, yes, Sony has more divisions than just Sony Computer Entertainment, they're not necessarilty successful enough to bankroll the console division completely (Indeed, the most successful divisions are the most isolated ones, Sony Music and Sony Pictures. Their core consumer electronics division has also been pinched for cashflow over the last couple of years)
In a way it's a smart move. They can steal ideas from the other consoles, after seeing what was successful with them, and make sure NOT to make the same mistakes as they did.
They can also be sure to study their opponent's specs for a while, and make sure to make a more powerful console, and give flaming fanboys some fuel.
Although a lot of people may grow tired of waiting, so timing is a necessity.
They can also be sure to study their opponent's specs for a while, and make sure to make a more powerful console, and give flaming fanboys some fuel.
Although a lot of people may grow tired of waiting, so timing is a necessity.
Try $30. And remember that when they dropped backwards compatibility they didn't reduce the consumer price, they made the change to reduce manufacturing costs, which were astronomical at the time (estimates were they were losing $250 per unit). Now they could probably reintegrate hardware backwards compatibility and remain profitable on the hardware because the blue laser diodes that are required by the blu-ray drive are significantly cheaper.Jumplion said:
It still feels like a dick move, expecting me to buy the PS2 collections when I already own the games. It's extremely cumbersome having to switch between consoles when I decide I want to change from one to the other. The least they could have done was get the PS1 BC right, but they couldn't even do that; half of my old PS1 games won't even play on the PS3 due to various software issues. It wouldn't be so bad if they actually were available to purchase from the store. Did you know we still haven't got Spyro yet? America got it late 2007. I mean, there's "localisation issues", and then there's being a dick.Jumplion said:
Anyways, yeah I guess it makes sense if they want to lower the price. Still, I don't see any reason why software updates shouldn't be able to allow for the playing of even a couple of select titles, especially now the PS2 is beginning to lose steam. They can't possibly hope to release all of the PS2's catalogue by way of collections.
Hogwash. I mean really, are people still taking Sony spin at face value?Glademaster said:
The truth is that Sony screwed up. Their machine was much more expensive to produce than they probably planned for it to be, and if it wasn't for the Xbox 360 showing it up it would still be at least $100 more expensive right now. The PS3 was only supposed to launch a few months after the 360 in the first place, but it was delayed due to production problems.
Meanwhile, the current state of the economy isn't screaming "New console generation!" right now. None of the companies are talking about the next gen right now, and they certainly don't want to discourage people from bying their current consoles because they think a new one is right around the corner.
I thought the point was that Kutaragi loves playing around with overly complicated hardware, and call it an architectural masterpiece.Glademaster said:
And if low graphical power was a motivator to release new hardware before the competitors, the 360 wouldn't have been released before the PS3.
It's not really future proof if the competition moves a generation ahead before you, is it? It will be interesting to see how things unfold in the future. Seeing how easily Nintendo successfully wrapped up the handheld war with merely a preview, the same might happen in the console war if they release a system that can handle all multiplatform games as well as their own IP's. It seems that Sony will once again choose to fight the same uphill battle in the future, release a more powerful console later, deal with a couple of years of "NOGAEMS" and then slowly increase their userbase with superior titles. Is this a good strategy? It seems so, if you have the games to back it up, but it is also very risky.