History (and logic) suggest it obviously ain't over for the PS3

#35
""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?""

Yes, b/c 100 yard dash is usually too short of a race for any trailing runners to catch up. If it were long distance of 1600m+, leading runners have a better chance of spraining/cramping or losing stamina and giving way due to bad pacing.

"
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."

Yes, but there is a big difference. Microsoft had a whole year to fix their mistakes, which they did for the most part, while Sony lacks that luxury.

To put it in other words; Microsoft was able to start the sprint a few seconds early, trip and fall down, pick themselves up and gain momentum, while the PS3 just started the sprint and tripping over their untied show lace.

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.

The days of clear winners in the console wars are over. Over the next few years I predict the PS/3, Xbox 360 and Wii will sell in roughly equal numbers. Exclusive titles are what powered the PS/2 to victory in the last round. Right now developers don't seem to decisively favor 1 console over another.

Difference between the PS2 and PS3 are huge though, PS2 launched before it major competitors, and was comparable in price, PS3 has no such luxury

http://bestof.ign.com/2006/gear/1.html

PS3 gets some love.
That is REALLY going to piss off the Wii fanboys.

The PS3 is definitely in trouble. The high price point leads to less sales (many of the sales they did have were only b/c people wanted to resell them on ebay). The supply issues leads to less consoles for people actually willing to spend the money for a console with no good games yet. The development costs are too high. With limited PS3's on the market and the unattractive price point, Sony will definitely lose out on many of the exclusives it enjoyed with the PS2 (too risky for developers). IF Blueray ever does take off, i'm willing to bet it'll be down the line and Blueray players will have already dropped in price and the PS3 will not be the cheapest Blueray player anymore. Lack of rumble support. The graphics are not THAT much better than the 360 to warrant the purchase. The PS3 would look much more attractive if Sony made God of War 2 a PS3 exclusive... or even side by side with the PS2 version, but jam packed with extra features. Sony also needs FFXIII to be the greatest FF yet!... If that's the case, i would HIGHLY consider buying a PS3. Basically, right now is crucial for them and they need to milk the exclusives they to have for all they're worth.

Another problem i see is that there are soo many great games out right now, even if the PS3 does get some nice exclusives, people won't care as much because they're still playing Gears of War (online), Okami, FFXXII, Zelda, Castlevania and whatever else is released between now and then.

I hope to 1 day have the PSWii60 combo... but that is looking bleak b/c Sony has soo many problems right now.

@51
Way to miss the point. Here's another crack at the bat:

Would you call the Indy 500 after the first 15 miles?

Or the Tour de France after 150km? (about 1 stage- to use Jakes analogy from earlier).

The point was not to display my knowledge of foot races, but to point out how small the so-called "launch window" is in terms of the overall lifespan of the console. However, you have succeeded in pointing out a gap in my familiarity with track and field events.

A journalist and a true Sony fanboy wrote that article. In the end it totally came across in fanboy fashion although he still tried to use his ties to the industry to legitimize his fanboyish optimism.
There are so many factors that he didn't take into consideration and one of the main ones being that maybe Nintendo got their marketing right. So, all Nintendo need is one gritty game like GTA (no matter how crappy and repetitive the game play is) to close the deal so guys like him (guys who need everything from their pit bull to their videogame console to reflect an image that can help secure their manhood) will feel comfortable saying I own a Wii.
He also should take into consideration maybe everybody doesn't want a 600 dollar BD player when most people don't know what the hell it is. Then when you do learn what it is the first thing you realize is it is not as great a jump from DVD to BD as it was from VHS to DVD.

@58- Is the author your roommate or something? You sure do know a lot about him.

Also, you clearly have a background in marketing- where did you get your degree?

@57

If Sony were to fail (not all the way, just to 2nd or 3rd), that doesn't mean games that were originally developed for the PS3 couldn't be ported to 360/Wii. In recent news we've been hearing about developers of MGS being under pressure to make a 360 version to meet sales expectations.

Honestly, who would touch a PS3 if they lost Square-Enix and the exclusive rights to MGS3?

The PS2 didn't start to really sell until it's first price drop, and what starting at the $299 Launch price. Sony can't Drop the price of the PS3 for quite a while at loosing around $250 a console which has to be a new all time Record. Sony is hoping this will pay off, because Royalties on Blu-Ray Players and Disc's will be where the real money is made in the future. I think it's a bad Gamble. There just isn't enough HDTV's out to to make this work and they priced themselves out of the Market in many countries!

Anyone counting Sony out at this point is a Nintendo Fanboy desperately trying to convince themselves that the Wii isn't a gimmik and can be your sole console.

Time will tell with the PS3, but it's not looking promising.

Sony has turned away from their key empire-building strategies, like designing a modest piece of affordable hardware, and making third-parties the star of the PlayStation show (the recent comment from Sony leadership that they didn't 'need' to have a period of exclusivity on the PS3 with GTA IV because they've got killer first-party apps shows just how out of touch they are with their roots).

The PlayStation became such a juggernaut because of little risk involved to Sony: third-party publishers funded their own games and if they became hits, everybody won. Sony collected royalties on million-selling titles and they helped sell the hardware. If they flopped . . . no damage done to Sony, and they still made some extra on royalties even on losuy, poor-selling games.

Sony is no better or worse a game publisher than anyone else, but to believe they can 'do it themselves' and they don't need third-party exclusives as much as MS does - that smacks of Nintendo a decade ago when things started to go downhill for them.

Sony has forgotten how to compete. MS and Nintendo aren't going to beat them, Sony's hubris is their own worst enemy.

#62, This "gimmick" is winning the casuals and non-gamers, and for most will be their only console

I don't think the price isn't a factor at all. if the games are good enough, people will find a way to buy it. they just gotta show one real killer app, and the sales will go back up. hell a lot of people are planning to buy one just for Metal Gear Solid 4, and Final Fantasy XIII. even if those don't remain exclusive, it won't matter, because they will still take Asia, as they dominate the next-gen market there.
you guys seem to equate failure in America as failure in the rest of the world. the Ps3 is selling like crazy in Japan. if they were to drop a million units right now, all of them would fly off the shelves, not to mention they haven't launched in Europe yet and i'm at least most of the bugs will be worked out by then... oh, and they have Singstar.

"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!"

wow, you could at least get your facts straight. Dragon Quest has never had exclusivity with any console, it just goes with the current highest install base. everyone knows Whorii likes money... which is why they chose the DS instead of the Wii, not to mention Level 5 is making "White Knight Story" as a PS3 exclusive, so that point's kinda invalid.
and i don't see where you got that they pissed off EA. they're still making games for them, and i highly doubt they're gonna completely pull PS3 support just cause the PSP is a failure, that's just stupid.

"I don't think the price isn't a factor at all."

I stopped reading here. Your first statement alone invalidates the rest of your post.

"I don't think the price isn't a factor at all."

"I stopped reading here. Your first statement alone invalidates the rest of your post."

I totally agree with 65. The PS3 is $600+ FREAKING DOLLARS!!!!!! Anybody who thinks that the massive PS2 fanbase has that much extra cash to throw around and upgrade to a PS3 has rocks in their head.

I'm tired of these arguments. Just gonna hack a Sega 32x and attach it to a 128-bit Atari Jaguar with a modified SegaCD attachment to read Holographic discs.

At $600, Sony can keep their Cell.

Another important factor in this console war are the games released in Q1 and Q2 of the next year, games that could change the sales numbers of the recently released consoles. If Nintendo releases Metroid Prime 3 and Mario Galaxy early they could maintain the momentum, but if not, things could change with games like Hevenly Sword, Lair and Virtua Fighter 4 for the PS3.

"I don't think the price isn't a factor at all."

Depends on the audience. Right now, it's more about hardcore gamers who can / will pay the asking price for hardware if they have the proper motivation: games that they find appealing.

Get beyond the hardcore and price is going to become an issue. The PlayStation brand has a huge 'blue-collar' fanbase who are price-sensitive, and games like Metal Gear and Final Fantasy mean little to nothing to them. They're EA Sports and GTA fans, and are more likely to say Motorstorm is a good reason to buy a PS3, not MGS 4.

Both PlayStations did their best sales when the price hit $149. The difference is that the platforms did well before then and had little competition. It's hard to say if a budget-conscious PlayStation fan will give in and buy a 360 or hold out for a $149 PS3 . . . that depends on how long it takes Sony to drive the PS3 price down.

Just cutting it in half to $300 may not do it, because there were tens of millions who didn't run out and buy a new PlayStation at $300, which they could've done from day one with the previous two models.

Slower sales at the start has a snowball effect, it doesn't drive publishers to get new games on a platform, which in turn gives consumers less incentive to buy the hardware. The PS2's later success was due to the fact that Sony had time to manuever and regroup from the launch shortcomings and the competition wasn't particularly strong or had the same level of acceptance or brand loyalty. That's not going to happen this time around, so it's not a given history will repeat itself.

"I stopped reading here. Your first statement alone invalidates the rest of your post."

people walk around with 400 shoes on their feet, and can barely pay their bills. no the price isn't a factor. if the 360 were 600 dollars right now with it's current lineup, you would buy it in a second, even if you had to work overtime pay for it. the real problem is Sony hasn't any shown anything good yet that has people dying to buy it. granted i'm sure more people will come around when the big games hit next year, but they haven't shown anything that makes people say "HOLY SHIT! i have to have this". and once they do that, THEN people will turn around. i think we'll see at next year's (supposed)E3 what you're paying 600 dollars for, if not earlier than that.

#28 - I make it a point not to bash anybody's post no matter how asinine their comment... So instead of insulting your intelligence - let me offer you a suggestion: pull the first 2 requirements (10 posts and a referral). I'm willing to bet you will have better luck giving your PS3 away once you do that (I'd sure sign up. Whereas I won't bother the way it is right now - since I've never heard of your site before; so I don't want to waste my time making posts and referring ppl)

Michael

If anyone cares, I saw a, "We have PS3s, ask us how!" sign at the Best Buy in Eau Claire, WI...

"people walk around with 400 shoes on their feet, and can barely pay their bills. no the price isn't a factor."

What dumb logic.

So a minuet percentage (well under 1%) of the population are dumb enough to put a 400 dollar sneaker before their rent/food proves your point that price doesn't matter?

Answer me something then. If price doesn't matter, why does Microsoft and Sony subsidize their consoles? Could it be that price does play a factor and they wouldn't be able to sell it for such obscene prices?

If you take inflation into account, the PS3 is actually only marginally more expensive than the PS2, which originally launched at $391. On top of that, it's offering a hell of a lot more than its successors ever did in terms of features, quality, and power.

With people spending thousands of dollars on HDTVs, and anywhere from $200~$400 on trivial things like cameras, cell phones, and mp3 players, it's obvious that $500 just isn't what it used to be.

You get a PS1, PS2, PS3, CD player, DVD player, Blu-ray player, Hard Drive for media playback and content storage, Bluetooth wireless, HDMI 1.3, Gigabit Ethernet, a bunch of usb ports, and free online multiplayer to top it all off.

All that for only $100 more than an Xbox 360? It's obvious that Sony is going to use both their power/feature advantages and brand recognition all the way through to first place. Their real competitor is the Wii, and not the 360. Come on, only 4 million units in the U.S. after two Holiday seasons? Talk about weak performance. Microsoft better get on the ball, otherwise they're going to be stuck in third place.

" If you take inflation into account, the PS3 is actually only marginally more expensive than the PS2"

You obviously live with your parents or you'd understand that most people's wages haven't kept up with the rate of inflation. I just spent $1700 on an HDTV which I still think is a little too much but I'll get a lot of use from but $600+ for a console is outrageously expensive. I for one can afford it but won't buy a PS3 till the price comes down. Others simply won't be able to justify the cost while their PS2 continues to provide them with new games.

"So a minuet percentage (well under 1%) of the population are dumb enough to put a 400 dollar sneaker before their rent/food proves your point that price doesn't matter?"

apparently you don't get out much if you think it's less than 1 percent. take a trip to any big city. hell there's a whole subculture in Japan of little girls who turn tricks to buy things like clothes cellphones. seriously, you give people too much credit.
and like i said, if the 360 were 600 dollars right now with it's current lineup, people would buy it without a second thought. granted a 400 dollar price tag would make it a nice, but if games are good enough, gamers are willing to ignore the price. look at the Dreamcast. it was cheaper than the ps2, and still got beat. the problem is Sony hasn't shown any killer apps yet that don't appeal to niche groups. MGS4 and FFXIII will be huge, but they need something that grabs everyone.

"If you take inflation into account, the PS3 is actually only marginally more expensive than the PS2, which originally launched at $391. "

What the hell does inflation matter? Six hundred dollars is six hundred dollars, inflation or not. (I use the $600 price because, in all likelihood, you won't find a $500 PS3 for a long, long time, let alone a $600 one).

"You get a PS1, PS2, PS3, CD player, DVD player, Blu-ray player, Hard Drive for media playback and content storage, Bluetooth wireless, HDMI 1.3, Gigabit Ethernet, a bunch of usb ports, and free online multiplayer to top it all off.

All that for only $100 more than an Xbox 360?"

And what if people don't care about all that crap? What if they only care about playing next-gen games? I remember Sony fans calling me retarded for saying the DS was going to mop the floor with the PSP. They tried to convince me with "Oh the PSP can play UMD movies, and play music through memory sticks" and yaddayaddayadda. NO ONE buys a PSP for its multimedia features anymore, and I doubt too many will buy a PS3 for the features you listed. They'll buy a PS3 for the games.

"Come on, only 4 million units in the U.S. after two Holiday seasons? Talk about weak performance."

Yeah that certainly is pathetic. At least it would be if it were true. Fact of the matter is sales data for this holiday in US hasn't been released yet, so who knows what 360 is at right now?

Besides, even if the 360 sales sucked right now, it really doesn't matter yet, since the PS3 is in such short supply and will be *at least* through mid-2007 (they still have a Europe launch to meet after all). MS's lead combined with PS3 shortages will mean 360 will stay in the lead for a while.

@ v1cious

This "subculture" you're referring to is very, very, very small. Yes, there are "little girls" (as you say) in Japan who buy ridiculously (and entirely superfulous) luxories, but that is by no means the mass populace. And yes there are those out there who buy $400 iPods and whathaveyou, but that is a very low percentage of people. Most people who buy iPods buy them in the $150-$200 range, in large part because they don't see enough benefit to pay twice as much for the larger model.

I agree with you that people waste their money on stupid crap, but I don't think they waste their money quite as extravagently as you seem to think. I don't know what kind of economic background you have, but I have never known ANYONE that would EVER pay $400 for a pair of shoes.

(Unless they won the lotto, but even then, they probably STILL wouldn't pay that much for a pair of shoes)

The people you're talking about would have enough money to buy ALL the consoles, and probably will just for the hell of it. So your argument isn't very well supported.

The 360's price will drop well before the 65nm chips come out. They have already reduced the cost of the system over the past year, and are merely waiting until supply of their competitors catches up before dropping a bomb on them. No way the 360 is still at the $400 price point past Spring.

Metal Queer Solid 4 is a system seller? I don't think so. Who the hell is going to buy a PS3 for the sole purpose of watching "Solid Snake" (aka the "Snake Eater") run around in a thong on his homo-erotic adventures? Jesus am I the only one who thinks this series is fucking weird as hell and has totally lost its appeal?? Maybe Snake and Raiden will hit the showers together in this installment...I can't wait!!

"Metal Queer Solid 4 is a system seller? I don't think so."

I agree with Pete C. As I recall it was Grand Theft Auto that sold the PS2 for me and everyone else I know. I don't think MGS4 is gonna justify the cost.

The price of the 360 will drop when demand drops. They've been reducing the cost of components all along in the 360, and the processor is just yet another cost reduction. During the same time, the console price remained unchanged.

As far as the PS3, I don't envision it ever reaching $149, unless Sony wants to subsidize the console for life. At 50% off the current price of $599, which is already subsidized mind you (it actually costs Sony much more!), the cost becomes $299. But then Sony realizes huge losses in an effort to reclaim money via software. That, in my opinion, would be a bigger gamble than using Blu-Ray.

Sony is in a bit of a hard place initially. They have to somehow sell consoles at a premium cost, and be successful at it.

Well,

I have had the chance to buy a PS3 these last few days and have flip-flopped over it about a thousand times. One minute I want it, another time I don't. I have two local EB's near me with PLENTY of PS3's in stock. At both locations I had employees persuading me to NOT purchase a PS3 right now. How's that? These are EB employees! They aren't feeling the love either and they are supposed to sell the damn things! Anyhow, I COULD buy a PS3 NOW but I'm going to wait til next year sometime. There really is ONLY 1 game I am interested in and many of the others I can play on my 360 anyhow. I have seen really no graphical upgrade over the 360...YET. Still early.

I think the reason why the PS3 isn't selling well is two-fold: 1)lack of AAA games, 2) cost. It's Sony's "double whammy" right now. $600 is NOT a small amount of money and they are in trouble if they think the average mom and pop is gonna shell out that kind of money for lil Timmy for his bday when they can get much less expensive consoles. I think the Wii is selling well do to it's "fun factor" but also because it doesn't hit people heavy in their wallets.

Sony has dug themselves a really big hole here. They better hope to have EXCLUSIVE AAA titles next fall in time for xmas or they are gonna be in a bigger hole.

"64. I don't think the price isn't a factor at all. if the games are good enough, people will find a way to buy it."

That sounds suspiciously like that Kutagari quote about Sony expecting people to work overtime to be able to afford a PS3.

So price isn't a factor. Then why drop the price of the PS3 at all this generation? As someone else said, why subsidize the console? The fact is that price is a massive factor in sales, and unless the Sony can manage to drop the price of the PS3 substantially in the near future I have a feeling the company will be learning that lesson the hard way.

That's what the autor is talking about: Sony has founditself in a very real no-win situation - but which will it be? That's the root of this article! The Autor is saying that the no-win situation of (no want/no supply anyway = hardware surpluss, no money, no future) OR more tragically (Put a masive, company-crushing debt onto Sony Corp?)

If those are the only two options you have; you've screwed the pooch. Doom and gloom? Yeah, I can see why a guy like me (and apparently The Author) is doomy and gloomy.

""""Maybe Snake and Raiden will hit the showers together in this installment...I can't wait!!""""

That would rule.

But back to the topic at hand.

I just can't help but comment on how similar Wii vs PS3 is to DS vs PSP.

1.The wii/ds was/is "underpowered" and derided for its "gimmicky" interface.

2.People said the DS would just be for "kids" while "hardcore" gamers would go for the PSP.

3.Both the PSP and the PS3 are pushing unproven movie formats.

4.Both the PSP and the PS3 are media convergence type devices. People have shown little interest in the media capabilities of the PS3, which many people expected would justify its cost to consumers. A similar fate could befall the PS3.

5.Just as people said developers would never catch on to the DS interface and thus it would fail (nelson laugh-HA-HA), people are saying the same thing about the Wii.

6.The DS faced an even more limited number of releases in its first year than the Wii looks like it will, but it still pulled through.

As I've said, I want the PS3 to do well.
I guess that, as someone who has been a gamer since before the NES, since I was very very young, I just trust Sony and Nintendo more than Microsoft, because I loathe shooters so much. But regardless, I think Nintendo's more exclusive focus on game systems that play games and do little else will probably turn out to be the right decision, especially if the PS3 tends to crash and burn. A failure on the part of the PSP AND PS3 could easily make them the poster children for what happens to game systems when they try to spread their focus too thin and forget about games.

The 360 will only prove itself to me when it has a PS2-like library of games that includes things like MGS4 and FF13 and lots of japanese titles, rather than sports games and American shooters. The 360 may be the current console for most American gamers, but its not for me.

The best gaming device out there right now is still the DS.

Now, as for the arguments about whether or not people will pay 500-600. I certainly see what vicious means about people spending more money than they have. They do it all the time. I don't know if its as many people as he implies, but I think its more than 1% of the population as well. And lets not forget how many pople foolishly put things on their credit cards. Thats even easier than forgoing expenses such as rent and food, since the issue is out of sight and mind for at least a few months.

And yes, people spend nearly as much on phones, tv's, and cameras. But those things are a bit easier to justify as neccesities, at least moreso than a game system.

Another reason not to expect media capabilities to sell the PS3 is that probably 99.99%, if even that few, of people buying a PS3 have a PC in their homes. With the exception of the blu-ray player, any standard PC will fill most all the multimedia functions the PS3 can, and will usually do it better and easier.

Blu-Ray probably won't help very much. DVD did help the PS2, but there are some differnces in the two situations.

1.DVD was introduced in roughly the 96-97 timeframe, and was already showing up on shelves before the millineum was over. The PS2 was not released until 2000, well after DVD was already becoming known and was on its way to replacing VHS with no real competition. Blu-Ray, however, did not hit the shelves until roughly the same time as the PS3. There was already a demand for DVD and DVD players by the time the PS2 came to the market. Not only that, but DVD had time to prove itself. People still know little about blu-ray.

2.As someone else pointed out, the leap from VHS-DVD was much larger and more beneficial than the leap from DVD-Blu-Ray. Dvds were smaller, easier to store, and in aaddition to picture and sound quality that surpassed VHS, as well as the extras included on DVD releases such as deleted scenes, DVD's also made owning an entire TV series on DVD feasible in both economic and storage terms. Blu-Ray, so far, is only offering improvements in audio and video quality, and then only if you have the proper setup with which to view it. If either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray become the new standard, I think it will take another 3-5 years, because I don't think the public will be as easily sold on the formats as a/v nuts and tech heads will.

You can go on about picture quality of Blu-Ray and how the PS3 is a cheap blu-ray player and all that, but Joe Average consumer isn't as knowledgeable about these matters as those of us who have nothing better to do than hang around forums like this one and evaluate tech specs of the latest impulse buys and fad gadgets.

The only thing that can keep the PS3 afloat are games, plain and simple.

I honestly don't know why everyone is so concerned about which one of these international, multi-billion-dollar companies will make the most money.

seriously, who cares? stop looking at it from their perspective and start looking at it from... oh, I don't know, maybe a GAMER'S perspective?! as gamers, we are about to have a golden age of gaming akin to the SNES and Genesis days, and that is solely because all 3 of these companies are trying to outdo eachother to win our love.

whichever company 'wins' (I guess we're going by number of consoles sold to determine this, for some reason) it's going to be great for all gamers. I've had a 360 since launch and I couldn't be more excited about the lineup of games for 2007-08. My roommate has had a Wii since launch, and that system brings my friends together around the console unlike anything since Goldeneye on N64. If any amazing exclusives come along for PS3, then I guess I'll have to get one of those too.

but no matter which system you pick, you're in for a great time these next 5 years. seriously guys, let's relax a bit and stop being concerned with how much money your favorite company makes. it's not like they're going to share it with you.

87 is totally right, stop your bullshit flame wars and realize that competition is a blessing from the gods!

Do you think the Xbox 360 would sell at 400$ if there was no competition? I think not. Do you think Zelda: The Twilight Princess would've been so fucking sweet if there was no competition? I think not.

The only bad part about competition is that you can't play all AAA titles unless you buy all consoles, but on the flip side, if there was no competition, they wouldn't be AAA titles at all.

In my personal super humble opinion, the Wii has the best value. If you think otherwise, that's great, because that will force Nintendo to improve, you are happy and I'm happy, it's a win-win scenario.

Just don't flame everyone and their dog for their choice of console, that's just annoying and it doesn't change a damn thing anyway.

#86: "People still know little about blu-ray."

And the people that I know that do know more about blu-ray are all "no". Keys revokable on a whim? No thanks.

It is interesting that Frys in Dallas has had 10 or so PS3s for at least the last three days. They are only selling them in bundles with 5 games or combinations of games and blue-ray movies.

But, alas, strange, sad, exciting that only one PS3 has disappeared (sold) from the cabinet on the sales floor in the last 3 days.