Sony's naysayers, then and now

Negative press is one thing.

Negative consumer demand is another.

And with the PS3 it's not just Salon.com saying bad things, it's just about everybody.

Yeah, sorry guys but this is apples and oranges. Sony wasn't expecting the PS2 to sell a new format, and it wasn't asking 3DO-level prices for it.

But if it forces them to actually develop some real first-part support, like they should have in the FIRST place, then I can ultimately see some good coming out of this.

I see someone was reading required's earlier Sony fanboy posts...

The problem with this is multifaceted. First, the PS2 offered a mainstream way to playing a growing format that was in high demand; the PS3 offers a way to play a *possible* new format with relatively smaller demand.

Second, the PS2 started out slow, but had little to no competition because of Dreamcast mistakes and the later debuts of the Xbox and Gamecube. This gave them plenty of time to get some support rolling and have 3rd parties figure out the programming difficulties. On the other hand, the PS3 launched a year behind its main competitor (in terms of style) and has relatively few things to differentiate it from that established foe - plus, the hot new thing (the Wii) has been stealing what thunder it tried for ever since launch.

Finally, the PS2 was a mainstream device - it was comparably priced to its competitors (which, did I mention, came out significantly later). The PS3, on the other hand, is a great deal more expensive than its competitors. Yes, it's a great value for the hardware included, but it has only been a few short years since the PS2's launch: has the consumers' acceptable price really doubled in that time?

The PS3 is the Cadillac of this generation. It will enjoy some success, but it will not come anywhere close to the PS2.

Yeah, I'm afraid that, in this case, the negative consumer opinion far preceded any "gloomy predictions." In fact, most of the analysts still haven't caught on. Hopefully, the first gloomy prediction is right, though, because LittleBigPlanet is certainly a must-buy in my book.

Xbox 360 = Dreamcast?

Ouch.

At least we still have Shenmue and Soul Calibur...

This is totally irrelevant. These comments were made ONE month after the PS2 launch. 6 months later, negative comments are still being written about the PS3 and they're not getting any better.

Remember, Sony has come back from negative media attention before, and there's still a chance it could do it again.

Still a chance? I certainly wouldn't put the PS3 on the recovery end at this point I think its doing quite well for a unit at its price point. Sony is doing the right thing now, they are riding out the criticism while pushing titles back so when they do hit they will be something special (hopefully).

This is a marathon not a sprint and the PS3 certainly has the best longevity potential of all the new gen systems.

Think how you like, I just can't believe anyone would dare to say that this early on.

Dammit joystiq. Quit trying to make sense. You should know by now this will be a lost argument on the blind fanboy trolls.

MDF ATTACK!!!!!

"Finally, the PS2 was a mainstream device - it was comparably priced to its competitors (which, did I mention, came out significantly later)."

Oh so wrong...so, so, so, so wrong. The Dreamcast was the biggest competition for the PS2 when it came out and I bought one for around $125 at the time. PS2 systems were also notoriously impossible to get at launch in ways that make the Wii frenzy seem like a joke. I finally got one a few days before New Years in 2000 and you were forced to get a bundle. I had to pay something like $500 bucks for it.

People seem to have a selective memory about the PS2 launch or are just lying to support their own "theory" on what is going to happen this go around.

Errrrrrrr.... wasn't that article written BEFORE ps2 shipped? And quickly followed by national PS2 mania?

Here we are half a year AFTER ps3 shipped - and still nobody wants it.

(Wouldn't surprise me, though, if the original article was intentially going against the grain to get eyeballs... The same thing happened a few months ago when Sam Kennedy from 1UP said his PS3 wasn't all that bad... Going against the grain - that PS3 blows - for publicity.)

Well as a 360 and a Wii owner, I hope that PS3 turns around and starts picking up. I don't really have any current plans to pick one up, and I probably won't ever, but it definitely isn't being used up to its potential yet. I hope it works out. Wii is almost in its own market right now, and Microsoft needs some competition otherwise game development will end up just growing stagnant there too. Competition is needed. And where would we be without loyal fanboys? The world would fall apart.

@ Gavin

I'm too young (16) to remember the PS2 launch in the detail I know many other things about games, but I've heard countless times that the launch was slow. There was no demand and no units to be sold, unlike how the Wii has high demand and many (6 million) units to be sold. That's just how I've heard it, correct me if I'm wrong.

They aren't very comparable. Trying to compare them is a waste of time. Also, this article was from f'ing Salon and it didn't come 6 months after the PS2 launch. I remember time after the PS2 launched. Everyone wanted them and nobody could get them. The exact opposite is true for the PS3. Also, the PS2 had much, much better gfx than the Dreamcast out of the gate. The PS3 has almost as good of graphics as its year old competitor out of the gate.

Long story short, you just can't compare them.

I'll just condense the main points, which have already been mentioned.

1. The article was written the month of PS2's American launch, 6 months after its Japanese launch. The PS3 has been available in both territories for six months.

2. The PS2 sold as many systems in Japan in one month as the PS3 has in six.

3. The PS2 launched at 300 USD. The PS3 launched at 600 USD.

4. For most of its early period, the PS2 had one major competitor, the Dreamcast, which sold poorly. The PS3 has two major competitors, both of which sell very well - far better than the PS3 or Dreamcast.

5. Early success breeds late success. Publishers and developers strongly consider install base when deciding which systems to target, and Sony's moderate success over its competitors in the first two years led to massive success from there on in. They don't have that option now.

So yes, Kyle, the situations are completely comparable. Well done.

Most powerful gaming machine?
No, thats a PC.

Except what you seem to neglect is that the PS2 was not $600, nor was it released a year after the Xbox and at the same time as the GCN.

The PS2 also had advantages that the PS3 does not, like the fact that a DVD player doesn't require a thousand dollar TV to achieve its full potential, and the fact that at launch its only competitor was basically out of money and ready to leave the hardware buisness.

Number 1 said it best. Also, Dreamcast was NOT as strong a competitor as BOTH Nintendo and MS are.

The PS2 didn't launch at $600 either. That is the main difference between the two.

Let's put it this way. If you could get a PS3 for $300 a year ago the thing would be the hottest selling console possibly ever. :)

The PS2 was not $200 to $350 more than the comnpetition. Blu Ray killed the PS3

The Wii is not Sony's competition. Why?

Because Sony's battle is for SECOND PLACE! ZING!

To all who say the PS2's first few months of sellouts show how the PS3 is some sort of failure, need I remind you that, the first few months fo the PS3 in comparison, they ahve manufactured more than double what they did for the PS2. The sales are decently comparative for the first few months.

For the people who think it's NOT a comparable situation when saying PS2->DC as is PS3->360: When PS2 came out, everyone said, all we see so far are lackluster games, some new media format that no one is going to embrace (dvd), and the games on Dreamcast, in most cases, looked better than the PS2 at the time. This is all completely the same exact thing we are hearing now, with the exception that before the Dreamcast had sold about 8 million units by the time the PS2 came out, and the 360 has sold about 11 million now. Big difference, huh. Even now, the PS3 is STILL outselling the 360's launch sales, and current sales, thanks heavily to comparing their Japan sales rates I'm sure.

Launch sales/hype/predictions/press, historically, have meant NOTHING in terms of success. Every magazine, and everybody, before and after supported and pushed for the "Ultra64" and barely even talked about the Playstation. It wasn't about timing, it's about people going into a retail supplier, seeing the games, seeing the demo unit, playing it, and seeing a system there to buy, regardless of price or reputation. That experience never gets better till 2 years into a consoles life.

PS2 was the only console where I genuinely did the 'wait outside all night in the cold outside of Best Buy' deal just to get one at launch. I was absolutely pumped for it, and it was my primary console for six years, well worth the money.

PS3 is a whole different ballgame. I have not been even remotely interested in picking one up. They certainly have the ability to improve their position, but there is no comparison between where Sony is now, and where they were at the PS2 launch.

Hahaha, Aberu said "regardless of price." Nobody's going to drop $600 after seeing the demo unit. The early adopters all bought PS3s, and the word of mouth isn't getting it anywhere because it costs way too much.

However, when you buy a Wii and show 2 friends and then they show 4 and they show 8 and they show 16...

I remember when ps2 came out people were all complaining about the "emotion" engine being vaporware and how gamespot employees were talking up the xbox and the failure of the ps2.

Oh well I hope Sony succeeds. I hope blue ray catches on, only because i think going to a higher density storage disc for gaming is a plus. Also i like Sony's longterm view. I'd like to own the ps3 for 10 years and use my computer to play 360 games. I think it is powerful enough right now, at least when I get vista, which apparently i'll have to do.

"They aren't very comparable. Trying to compare them is a waste of time. Also, this article was from f'ing Salon and it didn't come 6 months after the PS2 launch. I remember time after the PS2 launched. Everyone wanted them and nobody could get them. The exact opposite is true for the PS3. Also, the PS2 had much, much better gfx than the Dreamcast out of the gate. The PS3 has almost as good of graphics as its year old competitor out of the gate."

I just gotta say this. Research. PS2 criticism in the mainstream gaming news continued well into the systems life. Long enough for the Gamecube and Xbox debuts (incidently, neither of those consolea were able to achieve THEIR tech demos either) to turn some heads. PS2 had a really slow start.

Also, it took PS2 all the way into it's second year before the visuals could finally match Soul Calibur and Shenmue. And until companies started making the DVD games the standard, loading times were horrendous. As a Smugglers Run and Midnight Street owner, take my word for it. Tekken Tag Tournament had become the running gag on the PS2 and all of this animocity remained until MGS2. And even then, the goodwill lasted a mere couple days before people started beating that game and complaining how short and confusing it was.

The only console last generation that I didn't support initially was the Xbox. And as a launch owner of the Dreamcast, PS2, and Gamecube, I can officially tell you anyone who said none of these companies ever caught or caster their own fair of shit doesn't remember things clearly.

"To all who say the PS2's first few months of sellouts show how the PS3 is some sort of failure, need I remind you that, the first few months fo the PS3 in comparison, they ahve manufactured more than double what they did for the PS2."

Problem is, the overall videogame market has more than doubled since that timeframe, and the PS3, unlike the PS2, is not supply-constrained.

"For the people who think it's NOT a comparable situation when saying PS2->DC as is PS3->360: When PS2 came out..."

It's not comparable. The reason Dreamcast died is because of lack of support by the large third parties (EA, etc). At this point, 360 is actually enjoying better third-party support than PS3.

"Every magazine, and everybody, before and after supported and pushed for the "Ultra64" and barely even talked about the Playstation. It wasn't about timing, it's about people going into a retail supplier, seeing the games, seeing the demo unit, playing it, and seeing a system there to buy, regardless of price or reputation. That experience never gets better till 2 years into a consoles life."

Actually, I bought my PS1 within weeks of launch because I was so blown away by Battle Arena: Toshinden. It was immediately apparent to me that this was a step forward in gaming.

Name me one console that floundered in sales for 2 years after launch, and later became a market leader. I'm waiting. I'll be here all night...

$600 compared to $200

heavy competition from Wii and pre-established Xbox 360 compared to no real competition at all

Bluray is possible format compared to DVD is standard format

Needs 1080p HDTV to see any benefits compared to just needs a regular TV

more expensive to develop for than any other platform compared to practically cheapest to develop for than any other platform.

I'll admit, there is the possibility I'm wrong, but I don't see Sony recovering from this. They'll be lucky if they don't die out like Dreamcast, and will probably be remembered similarly.

The ps2 could launch nuclear warheads and had hundreds of top notch titles.

Now with the ps3 we can cure cancer and watch blueray movies!

"However, when you buy a Wii and show 2 friends and then they show 4 and they show 8 and they show 16..."

To me, that's the problem with the Wii right now. The fun ONLY happens with friends. My Wii, aside from Wonder Boy has been collecting dust (and I do believe as I approach my fourth playthrough of Wonder Boy, that charm will wear off). Most of the single player experiences keep being pushed back. So at this point, Wii is dooming itself as the thing to have at parties and not so much the thing to have because you like gaming. Of course, these are just my opinions but let's put it this way. I got my defective Wii back from Nintendo in early February. It wasn't until late march until I even had the urge to plug it in and see if it worked. Super Mario Galaxy cannot possibly get here soon enough.

I have DC, PS1-3, PSP, Wii, Xbox, 360, DS lite and phat.

I love them all.

I hope they all succeed.

Oh yeah, and the thing about PS3 will be a hit in 10 years is crap. New consoles come out roughly every 5 years. Plus there are a ton of software and hardware leaps that will be made since then which will surely be incorporated into the next set of gaming. At which point, PS3 will probably look a little dull by comparison, which will require Sony to answer by developing a PS4, making the PS3 pointless.
If it doesn't work up its install base and developer support in the next 2 years, it will cause a vicious cycle. It won't have an install base worth developing for unless it's a port, and it wont have games being developed to make the system worth buying compared to the Xbox 360.

Right now, the only hope I see for Sony is in Littlebigplanet. If that doesn't drastically boost Sony's position, they're screwed. Developers will just start porting stuff over to the 360 in order to actually turn a profit.

C'mon people. I'm leaving grade A flamebait here. No one is biting!

As for PS2 looking dull and boring...
http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=B281691A
http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=281700
http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=B281716A
http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=281690
http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=281739
http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=281699
http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=281741
http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=281735
http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=281719

Sheppy, your taste in games, at least for me, is quite Gay.

actually the ps3 IS the most powerful gamming machine it is beyond a supercomputer and capable of producing cg/realtime synthesis and it will be the most powerfull for a long long time and you cant do anything about it, and the ps3 will never come close to maxing out

See, Sheppy, PROOF THE PS2 IS DEAD!

One key issue those quotes left out is that the PS2 was launched at $600...
Whats that you say? You mean the PS2 was launched at HALF that price? Oh....I guess the PS3 is fucked then.

I also think the PS2 sold something like 14 million units its first year despite production issues in the beginning....will the PS3 even hit, oh I don't know, 1/4 of that this year? To compare PS2 and PS3 is futile. These are COMPLETELY different animals with COMPLETELY different competition.

Nice flamebait. Must be a slow news day to pull out a turd like this one. It's redundant, having been said a million times before; and irrelevant-- those comments were made at the very beginning, meanwhile we're already 6 months into the generation. I'm not saying the PS3 will or won't win, but your analogues suck. They went right past spurious then specious, and straight into bullshit.

I probably would have gone on a long rant about how stupid this comparison is, but #13 Craigo and #29 Grey Acumen covered the basic arguments pretty well.

PS2 owns everything, and sheppy just proved it. Still cool games coming out! Odin's Sphere looks pretty cool. First they said Okami was PS2's swan song. Then they said it was FFXII. Then Rogue Galaxy. Then God of War 2. But GOOD games are still coming. You can bet your ass that as long as the Wii and PSP are here, PS2 will keep selling. When sales of PS2 drop, Sony can still drop the price, and they can still release another re-make or new colors or whatever to keep it afloat.

I don't think it's bad for Sony if they keep selling PS2's. They're only brand loyalty enforcers. If someone skips a Wii or a 360 in favor of a PS2, it's likely they'll get a PS3 in 3-4 years, and nothing else perhaps. The best part is that the majority of games are compatible with the PS3.

By the way, sheppy:

You forgot about Yakuza 2! XD

Aberu wins.

The only differences this time are

a) the 360 has better 3rd party support than the dreamcast
b) the PS3 costs relatively more than the PS2 did compared to the competition

So, basically, Sony is following the same launch strategy as always (farily weak launch line-up but supporting a new media format). It's just the competition has improved. For the record, the PS3 has a better library than the PS2 did after the same amount of time (The PS2 basically had SSX and a Jagged version of Ridge Racer for the first 6 months)

The PS3 won't see a purchase from me until I can buy one that has a SIXAXIS with rumble capability out of the box and it's at least $100 cheaper.

Until then, tough luck. I have an engagement ring that's QUITE a bit more important anyways :D.

This is exactly as I remember it. I really thought PS2 would fail between 2000 and 2001. I remember owning a Dreamcast and thinking that this was it, Sega were going to take over. My friend had bought the PS2 and was sitting on it for 6 months with the same games (Tekken Tag and Ridge Racer V) He got fed up and sold it to fund a Game Cube in the end, and I carried on playing the DC.

The parallels are scary with PS2 and PS3

BUT this time it is harder... Sony's lucky break last gen was Sega's demise. I don't think Microsoft are going anywhere and they do seem to be in that leading position Sega were enjoying with the DC. Also, Nintendo are out the gates at the same time and selling like hot cake.

The PS3 will pick up, but will it be as successful as PS2?

Who knows. nobody in the world can predict that... never. Thats the exciting thing about the Videogames industry.

Enjoy it. Don't Bash it.

The main difference is the price point. In the beginning the PS2 was $300. That's a lot more than 599 US DOLLARS.

The thing about this article is, it's based on a fundamentally wrong premise. That premise is that the PS2 didn't deserve bad press.

The PS2 sucks as a piece of gaming hardware. It is weaker than both the X-Box and the Gamecube for the same price.

But because DVD took off, so did the PS2. And once it took off, people made great games for it.

Blu ray isn't taking off.

I got tired of FPS some 8 years ago, and have been playing games for 20 years now and no longer look foward to only "how satisfying the guns are" and (insert some colorful 'strategy' bs here)

I also find playing them on a console is like playing Paintball in a wheelchair.

A "hardcore" gamer however, thinks thats all wrong, he has an old CRT TV and an Xbox360 (with headset to scream his frustration at the player who keeps killing him) and thinks 'Gears of War' is a masterpiece and the Holy Grail of games. i.e if the latest PS3 or WII games look worse than Gears, its crap and if the game looks colorful and has no headshots, its for Kids or 'Gay' people...

I, however bought a 360 and a year later have only one good racing game, the most laughable RPG ever to surface for any console, no decent platformers, no innovative titles, no new Japanese game concepts, Gears of War (!) and a Gardening simulator.

My PS2 has never been so good and in the modern age of quick-fix eye candy being better than quality, story driven and emotive titles, never entertained so much with such a diverse back catalogue.

and this difference of $$$ between these new machines may only be 2 or 3 games in reality (they cost the real money, not the consoles) and don't last as long...

What was Sony's financial outlook for their games division in 2000? Had they posted a 1.9 Billion dollar loss that year, too?

McKnight,

Wow, fanboy much. The PS2 has gotten, what, Okami, God of War II, and FFXII and some sports games over the last year and a half. Okami is innovative, nothing else was. Then, you compare that to the 360 and cry "NO Innovation, no good games."

Oblivion was on PC and console and is hardly "laughable". Viva is innovative, though I don't like it, and hardly just a "garden simulator". Gears is more than just gfx and is a very solid game. If you think it's just another alien shooter you probably lacked the skill or patience to master the game. If you can hold out two more weeks the 360 will have another great racing game.

If you think Oblivion and Gears are laughable and Viva is just a Garden simulator, you are obviously an insecure fanboy. The 360 has done very well for games so far. What system has done better over the same time period? PC?