History (and logic) suggest it obviously ain't over for the PS3
It's hard not to get caught up in the doom and gloom of Sony's status quo. You know, the one where the PS3 can't catch a break and is rumored to be experiencing waning demand despite a short supply. Enter one level-headed writer over at Amped News who gives the company and console the benefit of the doubt based on recent history and some much-needed logic. Author Anthony Perez in an article entitled "Hasty Conclusions: The Fate of the PS3 and Wii" profiles early PSP and GameCube buzz to what would eventually become lackluster systems for most gamers, and a poor PS2 launch that would later become the beginning of the most widely purchased home console to date. So keep hope alive despite the PS3's controversial launch.
Perez also reminds us that enthusiasts like you and I are merely a minority in mass gaming culture, you know the one where Madden consistently is the top selling game in the US contrary to what is covered in the press. From the article: "Sony still has the definitive brand in gaming and to the average mainstream consumer that's all that really matters." So what's the doom and gloom conversation really focused on: The fact that Sony may have blown its 70% PS2 market share, or the long-shot of a chance that the PS3 may have seriously jeopardized the company's gaming business? There I go getting all hasty again...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
x876543 @ Dec 28th 2006 1:01PM
http://flickr.com/photos/58273565@N00/336392273/
JodyAnthony @ Dec 28th 2006 1:07PM
the fact of the matter is that its way too early for anyone to know what system will become the top seller this generation. everyone has their predictions, but for the most part, those predictions are biased. I think that Wii is going to have the highest market share 5 years from now. why? Because I am a nintendo fanboy. A sony fan will say the same of the ps3, and a ms fan will say the same of xbox 360. Point is, if you take away the biases we all have, there is honestly no way to tell what system will be the market leader this time around. 2 years from now maybe, but not today.
MoonfirePewPEwPEw @ Dec 28th 2006 1:08PM
The Author is grasping at straws. Brand recognition will only take Sony so far, but at such a steep price and lack of a price drop before 2008, not to mention no must have title until late 2007 at the earliest (MGS4), most of these people the Author thinks will buy the system will not.
tony starks @ Dec 28th 2006 1:10PM
and a poor PS2 launch that would later become the beginning of the most widely purchased home console to date.
thought the most widely purchased was either the NES or PS1?
john @ Dec 28th 2006 1:10PM
If anyone should be worried, it should be ms
kyle @ Dec 28th 2006 1:12PM
He has a point. The fact is that no matter what happens in relations to sales towards hardcore gamers, the general populace can easily support and make profitable systems like the wii. I think the idea of a console war is getting kind of rediculous because there is no last man standing rule in business. The videogame demographic is expanding and will support all three systems as they develope their own unique fanbases
TxdoHawk @ Dec 28th 2006 1:14PM
I think Sony has made some huge mistakes, but as this article points out, don't ever count anyone in...or out.
Look at the Xbox 360. When it launched, it was laughed out of the park, and the launch lineup was pretty pathetic. Now? Accepted next-gen system with a great selection of titles.
The Nintendo DS. Initially considered a gimmicky flop, after the ho-hum launch lineup there was an entire year of gaming drought. Now? Considered a stellar portable, with an exceedingly strong gaming selection.
You never truly know how things will turn out in this industry, until it happens.
Embassy @ Dec 28th 2006 1:15PM
Its always about the long game with consoles, Both the PS3 and X360 stand a good chance or keeping there customers interested for the next few years, the Wii is the one I would worry about, just how soon will the novelty wear off? At the end of the day non of us really know which console will be king, but an indication of the future can be seen if we look at the past and to that end the edge has to be given to the PS3. I admit I love my X360 and I have no doubt this will not be a white wash war, but lets just try and keep an open mind because as I said, non of us know how things will pan out in the next few years.
Erwos @ Dec 28th 2006 1:17PM
The PS3 has a single underlying problem: price. There is just no getting around the fact that $600 is clearly above the public's price point for a gaming console. The "advertise cheap Blu-Ray player and Linux machine" tactic has clearly failed to take root. They need a price cut to 360 levels, or maybe $50 above.
If you think it's bad now, wait until Microsoft's gone to 65nm and does a serious price cut in Q3 2007. A $300 X360 premium is a serious problem for Nintendo, but it's going to be worse for Sony, especially if their library doesn't improve. However, don't be mistaken: the lack of quality titles is only aggravating the situation - the pricing is what's responsible for it.
Dannnagar @ Dec 28th 2006 1:18PM
1.) Although the Playstation 2 didn't have a great line up of games, it had DVD play back at a time that the standard DVD player was $400+. Many bought the PS2 as a DVD player (Which was leaps and bounds above VHS).
2.) Playstation 2 was Less than $300.
3.) Playstation 2 was on the Market 1 year before GameCube and Xbox.
4.) Playstation 2 had far more exclusives in the pipeline.
The Playstation 3 doesn't have anything of these advantages.
David004 @ Dec 28th 2006 1:19PM
"early PSP and GameCube buzz to what would eventually become lackluster systems for most gamers"
I never saw that much buzz for either one. Sure there was buzz, like there is for any new system besides the PS3, but it wasn't anything huge.
And sure the PS3 isn't dead, but unless it gets a price drop of at least $200 they are really in trouble. Third paries ditched Nintend for doing carts and mini discs with no online. Third parties are ditching PS3 because of the cost to make the games is so high for no real reason.
Have a Wii60 New Year everyone!
Mr. Khan @ Dec 28th 2006 1:22PM
If i were Sony, this is what i would do to insure victory
Make an offer to cut $150 off of a new PS3 if one sends in their PS2 (kind of like how some auto dealerships will give way more money than they should for a trade in, just to make a sale)
They should milk their brandname for all its worth, and try to make sure that everyone who had a PS2 has a PS3
That's the only way i could see Sony "winning"
All Nintendo has to do is keep original titles (1st party or otherwise) coming, and they will win as "the 2nd console of choice"
Microsoft just needs to market aggresively. Very aggresively
(Remember, what saved the PS2 was the fact that SEGA couldn't market a product to save their lives, combined with Nintendo's lack of third party tools and Xbox's more expensive/clunkier CPU Architecture, thus they were the easiest to develop for, PS3 doesn't have that going for it, the other guys are much easier to develop for)
Radon @ Dec 28th 2006 1:24PM
Sure the PS3 isn't dead yet but you have to look at what a good 70% of the people who would buy it see. You can't tell me that a mother with no idea on gaming can look at the $600 PS3 and the $250 Wii and justify spending more than double on a gift for their child.
Sony needs to get the cost of the PS3 down if they want a widespread attach rate. The PS2 cost $300 when it was launched and is half that now.
I've seen many parents buy their child a game cube simply because it was $20 cheaper than a PS2 so you can better beleave that parent will go for a $150 Wii over a $300 PS3 5 years down the road too.
WMain00 @ Dec 28th 2006 1:25PM
The writer is forgetting that that was the past, this is the future. In the past the only real contender in the console market was the PS2, with the Dreamcast being dead and the X-Box and Gamecube being late.
Today however the market is currently being gripped by the X-Box 360, with the Wii coming very quickly in from behind. The PS3 meanwhile is limping along with poor sales figures, poor marketing strategies, poor games and poor stock allocation.
The PS3 may well become the success story just like the PS2, but i think it has far further to go this time than it did compared to it's predecessor.
My conclusion is the market is quite good this time around and Sony are going to have to get off there arse and work for it, something i really doubt they'll do.
Embassy @ Dec 28th 2006 1:32PM
@ 11 - which third parties are ditching Sony? Some are porting games to other systems but thats hardly ditching the system, thats called "business".
The only time Sony have to really worry is when Microsoft manage to catch up to there market share, and that is a LONG way off yet.
JohnQAnonymous @ Dec 28th 2006 1:33PM
What's the point of these articles? Is it really all that newsworthy to tell people, "Whoa there, son, don't jump to conclusions?"
I can understand a forum poster or a commenter here doing so, but since when is writing an article to tell people, "Time will tell" considered a worthy use of a journalist's time?
Aren't they supposed to be reporting on you know, stuff that matters?
Rob @ Dec 28th 2006 1:35PM
All you nerds arguing with this article are ridiculous. Just go play the system you like
Saneless @ Dec 28th 2006 1:35PM
Playstation may be a mainstream name, but it's certainly not selling at a mainstream price.
Everyone knows what a BMW is but you don't see everyone buying one - it's just out of most people's practical ranges. For the majority of people there's a much cheaper car that offers 95% of what they need. Same with PS3. Why buy a PS3 for 600 when a system offers the same or MORE for 200 to 350 less?
hegemonyhog @ Dec 28th 2006 1:38PM
"Although the Playstation 2 didn't have a great line up of games, it had DVD play back at a time that the standard DVD player was $400+. Many bought the PS2 as a DVD player (Which was leaps and bounds above VHS)."
DVD players in mid-2000 were going for under $100 for base models.
Shadow @ Dec 28th 2006 1:39PM
I agree that the author is grasping for straws. The PSP and GCN had completely different circumstances than what's going on now. While the PSP had the hype train behind it(much like the Wii)it still wasn't selling quite as well as expected which lead to it's not doing so well. The Wii, however, not only has a strong lineup(Something the PSP didn't have, coupled with the saturation of adding UMD movies), but the Wii also is just selling out. We all know it. We've all gone to our local mall to see a crowd of about 15-20 people waiting outside Gamestop for the Wii. On the other hand, we've all walked into our local EB and seen PS3s on the shelf waiting to be bought.
As far as the Gamecube, there's no comparison. The only people who saw the Gamecube as Nintendo's shining light were fanboys. That was the problem. Sure, the Nintendo fanboys knew that the Gamecube was a great console, but nobody else did. With the Wii everyone and their grandmother is talking about this thing. I'm even amazed at people's reactions when I tell them I own one. Most people will call me lucky, and then demand to play it for themselves, and of course tell me some story about how their uncle or cousin couldn't get their hands on one. This is nothing like the GCN launch. Hell, when the GCN came out I went to a local Target on launch day, came in at around 3 in the afternoon, and picked up two of them. With the Wii you would be lucky to pick up one at noon.
While I agree there is a chance that the PS3 may come back out on top, it's not very likely at this point, but this guy is just grabbing for straws. This guy would be better off showing more solid history of the video game world and technology in general. Things like how the best technology almost never wins out in the end(Beta Vs VHS, N64 Vs. Playstation, GCN+XBOX Vs. PS2, PSP Vs. DS), never has a single company ever won the 'console wars' three times in a row, etc. Also he needs to realize that even though Sony has a strong brand name in video games, 600 dollars is still 600 dollars. That's a lot of money when compared to the 360 which has the same capabilities in the public's eye, but with almost half the price, and the Wii which is a hype-train-fanatic's wet dream right now at less than half the price of a PS3.
Also you have to put into consideration that the majority of PS2 owners(Those who helped Madden keep it's number 1 spot)aren't going to buy a PS3 just for Resident Evil 5 and Metal Gear Solid 4. Just like he says, those of us ranting on the internet who say the PS3 won't sell are in the minority, but we're the same minority that fuels games like MGS4 and RE5. Hell, I even see the Madden fueled gamers buying a 360 simply for its lower price. The 360 has a "Cool" image here in the states, and is cheaper than the PS3. It's not like with the Gamecube where it had a bad image, which kept people away from it despite its lower price.
Sony is seriously hurting, and anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously in denial. Can they bring themselves back up? Sure, it's possible, but it's not likely. At this point there's a lot of things that would save them that they simply can't do. For instance, the cell technology R&D has already been all payed for and implemented into the PS3. If the Cell technology doesn't garner people over to the PS3 like Sony is hoping it to, they can't take it out and replace it with technology such as used with the 360. This means that Sony is not going to be able to lower it's prices anytime soon. We all know that Sony payed an arm and a leg for the Cell technology that is in the PS3, and is paying another arm and a leg for it to be production into every PS3. A price decrease anytime soon would just put more nails into Sony's coffin.
nick @ Dec 28th 2006 1:40PM
The problem here is not the brand, or the games at launch, it's the price of the PS3. If the PS3 were to cost $300 or less, you have a guaranteed success. At $600, I think you have a hard sell ahead of you.
Is it worth the cost of the console to play a certain game? Since many people do not have HDTVs, is it worth buying knowing that you're not receiving the full benefit of the movie player until you spend a lot more?
Anyway, only time can tell. As far as history is concerned, I think it's worth mentioning this is somewhat like the launch of the 3DO. Another great, but way too expensive console. And you could almost mention NeoGeo, but the games for that one were cost prohibitive to boot.
Bottomline, lower the price of the PS3.
Stevedroid @ Dec 28th 2006 1:45PM
The PS2 launch may have been "poor", but demand for that system remained consistently high even with worse launch titles than the the PS3.
Also while it may be non-enthusiasts that determine the success of a console, the PS3 is getting bad press in the general media. You have things like the New York Times giving it bad reviews, for example. That stuff does filter down to the general consumer and I think that's why we're alread seeing demand for the PS3 waning.
Playstation might still have the most brand recognition, but I think most people now know you can get Madden on the 360 that's just as good.
moofree @ Dec 28th 2006 1:45PM
Though I'm getting tired of sony's console market dominance, once the PS3 starts coming down in price, gets some good exclusive games, and has games that look superior to the xbox 360, it'll probably sell like hotcakes.
Remember the lackluster PS2 launch?
Scott @ Dec 28th 2006 1:46PM
I don't know...I just think the price of entry for the PS3 is too high and it is reflected in how the prices on eBay dropped down to retail levels and how there are plenty of stories about PS3s sitting on store shelves. Something that never happened with the PS2, Xbox 360, or Wii.
Maybe it will pick up steam once more quality games are released but it won't be significant until there is big price drop.
FSK405K @ Dec 28th 2006 2:03PM
And don't forget about Dreamcast predictions. It had the best launch lineup ever and incredible, incredible games that changed their genres--Soul Caliber & NFL 2K among them--and what did it get them? The Hello Kitty license for 2007.
species8472 @ Dec 28th 2006 2:04PM
The logic of the article is flawed as SONY had no competition when they launched the PS3. Today they have two competitors (very very good ones), a high price, no exclusives (except MGS and GT - plus GTA is what made the PS2) and a poor online service (which did not matter back in 2000). Sony will never recover due to price and that fact the the Wii and 360 can FILL everyone gaming needs. There is simply no reason to buy a PS3.
VampireHunter Z @ Dec 28th 2006 2:05PM
December 18 - 24, 2006
Nintendo DS Lite - 485,584
Wii - 279,277
PSP - 138,588
PS3 - 76,882
PS2 - 46,209
X360 - 17,213
Game Boy Micro - 2,394
Game Boy Advance SP - 1,858
GameCube - 1,250
Nintendo DS - 380
Game Boy Advance - 57
Xbox - 11
There you have it. Those crazy Japanese. The PS3 seems to be selling a steady 70K/week. Wii production seems to be fairing a lot better. 360 did just as well as it did last week. And the DS Lite....I think everyone owns it in all 3 colors by now. Nearly half mil in a week is just crazy. This will be the most sold system of all time.
species8472 @ Dec 28th 2006 2:07PM
And you cannot give a PS3 away. I have had a PS3 giveaway (www.hidef.com) going since Sat and only 6 people have signed up. This should tell you a lot.
zim zima @ Dec 28th 2006 2:09PM
I agree with what they are saying about it being way to early to count out the ps3 and if i was a betting man i would still put my money on sony pulling it out some how but i think one of the big things sony had going for it in the past with the ps1 and ps2 was the cool factor.
It like there are better mp3 players then the ipod now (and cheaper) but because the ipod is still the cool item its sells more, i think sony lossing this factor to the wii along with the high price may hurt them big this time.
DojoRacoon @ Dec 28th 2006 2:09PM
Why does everyone point to the poor PS2 launch? I thought first to market was a viable business strategy. I think that the fact that PS3 launched a year later than one competitor and only 2 days earlier than the other and is showing up really late for the European party makes a huge difference between the lackluster PS2 and PS3 launches. the PS2 had a year to really get things up and running. The PS3 has no time and is falling a little behind more and more everyday. They can still pull it out though if they can manage to score more AAA titles. For now all they have is FPS, Sports and Racing games. All genres in which right now MS is doing much better in.
gymbrall @ Dec 28th 2006 2:12PM
He makes a lot of good points, but then at the end, he still jumps to the conclusion that Sony isn't stupid and that the Sony and the PlayStation 3 are here to stay, and a lot of the negative opinions circling the PS3 will be gone come this time next year. PS3 hardware will be in full supply, compelling software will hit and the triple-A titles of forthcoming years will be revealed. Huh?!?! I thought it was too early to tell? I thought the PSP and the Gamecube taught him that lesson?
Maybe somebody else wrote that last paragraph for him...
MoonfirePewPEwPEw @ Dec 28th 2006 2:18PM
"Remember the lackluster PS2 launch?"
Remember the high demand for the PS2, despite its launch?
People need to learn that this launch isn't the same as the PS2 launch, things are much different now, and not for the better.
Shakers @ Dec 28th 2006 2:18PM
I think the important factor everyone is forgetting is that Sony plans to continue producing PS2 titles for quite some time.
They have already stated that the PS3 is a premium gaming console - meaning it IS the BMW to quote an earlier post.
Everyone is quick to leap at Sony's throat for their faults - yet what other system has offered 100% cross compatibility along with continued product development on outdated systems?
I'm not a overzealous fanboy of any console as I plan to eventually own all of them. But I think alot of predictions such as the original article fail to take into account the massive library Sony will continue to offer people.
Houp @ Dec 28th 2006 2:18PM
I know this information would be near impossible to gather, but I'll try to come to a conclusion anyway. Sony's PS2 won leaps and bounds on consoles sold last gen. From what I've experienced and what friends have experienced, many PS2 owners bought more than one PS2 due to their old one dying on them. Some of my friends are on their 3rd or 4th PS2 now, which I think greatly affects Sony’s sales numbers.
I'll admit, I'm Pro Xbox since I've had problems with the PS2 (both of them), and that I now have 4 Xbox 360's in my house (1 for each kid, my wife, and I). There have been problems with the 3 red rings on 3 of the 4 Xbox 360’s, which we've sent them back, had them repaired, and returned at no cost to us and haven't had any problems since (Note: these are all launch 360's).
What I'm getting at is I think the number of sold PS2's is probably doubled or tripled due to people just buying a new one to replace their old one.
If JoyStiq could only set up a poll somehow... ;)
Greg @ Dec 28th 2006 2:26PM
I was behind the cash register last year when the 360 was launching, and I remember complaints about the price.
"$400? Ain't nobody gonna buy that!"
And the PSP.
"$300 for a souped-up gameboy?! Ain't nobody gonna buy that!"
I think that Perez's insight is important here- the 360 has only been on the market for about 14 months, and it's only been widely available for about 8 of those 14. The PS3 and the Wii aren't even 2 months old yet- that's about 3% of a 5-year console lifespan. Would you call the winner of a 100-yard dash after the first 9 feet?
MoonfirePewPEwPEw @ Dec 28th 2006 2:26PM
"But I think alot of predictions such as the original article fail to take into account the massive library Sony will continue to offer people."
And you fail to take into account that well over 90% of those games are from 3rd party developers, and not Sony. Sony rode on the 3rd party titles they were able to buy for the pass 2 generations, and now it seems they are losing a sizable amount of them, making your point moot.
And for your comment on them supporting previous consoles while the new one is launched, they were still profitable. Do you think they would had supported the PS1 if it wasn't profitable? Why do you think Microsoft and Nintendo dumped theirs and looked into the future?
Logic people, use it.
hedgehoggy @ Dec 28th 2006 2:34PM
The most interesting thing to me about this new "console war" is the way that the media is so determined to declare the winners and losers within weeks of the consoles being released.
I must admit that the Wii is the more attractive of the two because of the immediate gratification it offers - anyone can pick up the controller and have a blast playing Wii Sports. And for most purchasers, that will be enough, but what about longer term? Will the controller prove to be a suitable interface for good, solid games or will the party/novelty titles win out and the Wii be the people's champ for the next eighteen months, then slowly fade away.
And as for the PS3. To me, it is the real wild card because despite people's claims about it being too expensive, it has still been selling (albeit slower than the Wii) and some of the games waiting in the wings look good enough to keep those sales going. I think that Blu-ray might turn out to be more important than people think. Remember how for a lot of people (including myself) the PS2 was their first DVD player? There is a lot of added value in a PS3 that retails for a few hundred dollars less than the cheapest Blu-ray machine. So as the number of HD tvs increase, the PS3 might find itself as the gateway into the next generation of DVD. Assuming that HD-DVD doesn't do anything, of course.
Still, the article is interesting because it seems there is a lot more thought put into it than the standard CNBC-type report where one weeks sales is the deciding factor in who wins and loses.
Chris @ Dec 28th 2006 2:36PM
#17
THANK YOU! Mr. Rob, you're my hero. Silly nerds. Wait... doesn't the fact that I've got this site bookmarked make me a nerd? ;-)
Greg @ Dec 28th 2006 2:38PM
@36-
"Why do you think Microsoft and Nintendo dumped theirs and looked into the future?"
Interesting choice of words- a lot of the customers who came into my store didn't see it as "looked into the future," they saw it as forced upgrading- working in retail around the time that MS dropped support for the original XBOX, I saw a LOT of folks disappointed with Bill & Co- they sure didn't see it as "looking into the future." And Nintendo dumped support for the GC LONG before the Wii hit the shelves- what makes you think they won't do that again?
Erwos @ Dec 28th 2006 2:39PM
"Would you call the winner of a 100-yard dash after the first 9 feet?"
If one of the participants tripped and fell on his face, yes, I'd feel pretty confident saying he's not going to win.
crono141 @ Dec 28th 2006 2:47PM
Nice Erwos!
Shakers @ Dec 28th 2006 2:48PM
@ 36
1) Where is it confirmed that sony lost a majority of their 3rd party vendors?
2) Your second paragraph only supports my point. If your saying that xbox is no longer profitable and that people are upset over not having 100% cross-compatability then I'm not sure what to say to you other then..
Logic, LRN2USEIT
Greg @ Dec 28th 2006 2:49PM
"If one of the participants tripped and fell on his face, yes, I'd feel pretty confident saying he's not going to win."
Don't forget last year's 360 launch, with MS slashing system allocations and launch titles (Gears of War was supposed to be a launch title). Not to mention a fairly shallow game library until Spring 06. Also shoddy backwards compatibility. And systems bricking left and right.
Not to say that the 360 is junk (I love mine), but it's important to remember that most of us were saying the same things about Microsoft last year that we're saying about Sony this year.
ipodfanboy @ Dec 28th 2006 2:56PM
ps3 could have been 300 dollars only if sony did not screw up its entire business model after the debacle with the walkman line against apple ipod and sony's failure of not making flat panel which lead samsung to be number 1 in tvs for sometime. During the launch of ps1 and ps2, sony used its sources from its other divisions like the walkman line or sony music line, used money from sony's movie line or from sonys tv line and from there the money from sony other divisions would allocate to sony computer entertainment and help subsidize the cost of ps1 and ps2, this is why we never saw the ps1 at 500 bucks or the ps2 at 400 but at a fair 300 bucks for both systems. Sony started to screw up after the launch of the ps2. A year later sony released the minidisc player then a year later apple released the ipod to a small fanfair. Slowly apple started to take away portable music thunder from sony, Ipod killed the walkman. Sony failed to follow the trend of flat tvs samsung started to make flat tvs for cheap, samsung dethroned sony from the tv market. Sony screwed up and screwed time and time again, with their vaios against more popular dell pc line. Memorysticks could not out due panasonics SD card, sony cybershot could not take out kodak easyshare. Sony screwed up in all of its divisions and the the trend could not be reversed and not its going to bite the playsation line with the psp and ps3. If sony had profitable divisions like th walkman line or the wega bravia tvline it will probably be likely we would have seen a 300-400 dollar ps3 but that aint never happening.
MoonfirePewPEwPEw @ Dec 28th 2006 3:02PM
"what makes you think they won't do that again?"
To kill your argument in 1 sentence, Nintendo is still supporting the GBA after 2+ years of the DS being out.
Fact is, companies support winners and not losers. It was better off for them as a company to just dump the gamecube and xbox for their new consoles.
Jake @ Dec 28th 2006 3:03PM
@40
Ha! I like when people do a good job of dismantling analogies while totally missing the point. I do mean that in a good way. Perhaps the analogy should be "would you say Lance Armstrong won't win the Tour after losing the first stage."
MoonfirePewPEwPEw @ Dec 28th 2006 3:05PM
"
1) Where is it confirmed that sony lost a majority of their 3rd party vendors?
2) Your second paragraph only supports my point. If your saying that xbox is no longer profitable and that people are upset over not having 100% cross-compatability then I'm not sure what to say to you other then.."
1.) I guess you don't see nothing wrong with them losing more exclusives as time goes on. I guess losing the Dragon Quest series wasn't that big of a problem, I guess them losing other exclusives like VF5 and AC is not a problem, and who cares if they pissed off EA, the biggest publisher in the US!
2.) What the hell are you talking about. This isn't worth even commenting about.
Greg @ Dec 28th 2006 3:14PM
Yes, Nintendo is still supporting the GBA- but that doesn't negate the fact that they screwed GC owners. Nintendo's track record of handheld support is pretty flawless (unless you count the Virtual Boy)- but in the console realm they haven't done so well in recent years.
Patrick @ Dec 28th 2006 3:14PM
You guys are right. A console that struggles at launch can become the next big thing. In that case, better dust off the ole' Panasonic 3DO and Tiger Game.Com. Lights Out FTW!
Jason @ Dec 28th 2006 3:17PM
There was a tidal wave of change in 1995 when Sony took over as the #1 game console maker from Nintendo. Nintendo has been mad as hell since then, fighting furiously to win that title back and Microsoft is essentially playing Sony's game (arguably better and more innovatively).
The PS3 is the most technologically advanced platform available but it's also the worst gaming console based on games (360 beats it) and gameplay (Wii beats it).