Sony claims Wii and Xbox 360 overpriced

BlitzKrieg

http://kotaku.com/gaming/famitsu/famitsu-picks-ps3-as-winner-wii-as-loser-208027.php


Hmm seems expert opinion is against me.


but on a side note.

Another day of oops:
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/phil-harrison/phil-harrison-is-stuffing-bluray-disc-full-of-prerenders-208053.php



I got to go to work in 4 hours so I had another quick think about this.

The PS3 is attempting to break or at least stall the traditional 6 or 7 year jjump up consoles take (8bit>16bit>32bit etc) which is admirable and promising for gamers.

The notion we could own a console for a such a long period and still have games developed for it must be appealing to all gamers.

Meanwhile Nintendo's policy could be argued as a much shorter term policy, with the Wii lasting 3-4 years (instead of traditional 5-7) but its backlog and iinnovation would be carried over (like the way the gamecube and PS2 are being carried over.) Now there is not much out there proving that theory but its my personal theory. the question is would you be willing to pay up now the full $600 for the next generation, or pay in an installments?

Another variation of the episodic vs full retail software debate?

Microsoft like the current mold and seem to be pushing the generation jumps: http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/xbox/xbox-3-already-being-planned-208191.php

This can be both good and bad, generation jumps in theory push the standard up each year (sadly it seems mostly to be graphical.) It also has a habit of pushing up prices.


Also it must be noted while the PS2 brought the success of DVD to Japan, I find its influence on dvd success outside the land of the rising sun to be less of a decider

wiki wrote:

n 2000, Sony released its PlayStation 2 (PS2) console in Japan. In addition to playing Video Games developed for the system, it was also able to play DVD movies. This proved to be a huge selling point because the PS2 cost less than most DVD players in Japan. As a result, many electronic stores that normally did not carry video game consoles carried PS2s[citation needed]. Despite many reports of poor and bad playback and green screens, this proved popular and was often used as a primary DVD player until the prices of good standalone players went down

There's no mention of the influence the PS2 had on DVD sales in europe or the US, and it must be noted that in Japan Laserdisc was a success while it flopped here, so in reality DVD had no competition outside Japan while in Japan the PS2 proved to be the ace for DVDs over Laserdiscs.

Now Blu-Ray doesnt have the same clear run as DVD had coming, not only is DVD happily entrenched, but it also has HD-DVD to compete with.


That puts another major risk on the PS3's long term lifespan which is what alot of the experts are putting the consoles success on, which is something I find absolutly bizarre (but appealling like I said above) The gaming industry (like most entertainment based industries) has never been one for permanent standards, PC or console it has always been a forward moving industry. Maybe most experts feel it needs to stall now and feel the PS3 rather then the Wii or 360 would be a good place to stop for a number of years.

It all seems a rather messy affair.

I have no idea whay I wrote this, but the next generation has finally got interesting me, mainly because it seems to be a mess.

uberpixie

As far as I can see all the comapnies will "win".

Nintendo: should be well able to flog all their Wii's and then some: they will def make enough money to have another gen without breaking much of a sweat.
They really are laughing all the way to the bank.

Microsoft: should be able to sell plenty of consoles, Halo 3 will no doubt push up sales. They will further improve their position in the games market and their reputation. They should also be able to make less of a loss this time, hell maybe even a profit :-)

Sony: if the get their **** together, should be able to make their money in the long term. Once they improve their manufacturing and flog a couple of million machines.

They still have a pretty good image (with a lot of non hardcore gamers:rolleyes:) and always put the money down on the advertising, which works well for them.

Yes they are arrogant, yes the are up their own hole in cloud cuckoo land, but they do attract the softcore in mass numbers and sell lots of mindless ****e that lots of people will buy in big numbers.

They will really have to go out of their way to mess it up proper,
(much more than they have so far) to hurt their sales.

I really don't see any losers in any of this, bar the poor parents that have to listen to some spoiled brats whinging they didn't get a PS3 for xmas this year :-)

abelard

famitsu wrote:

....trumping a guesstimated 28 Xbox 360 units sold and 25 million Wii sales by 2009

lol, and there i was thinking it would have outsold that already.

Anyway, based on those figures the consoles won't be too far apart with only 9 million units worldwide between ps3 and wii. Now that's still fairly significant, but if Nintendo is the only one actually making a profit before mass prosuction costs are reduced, Nintendo could end up fiancially in the best position in terms of hardware. And given that Nintendo first party software always sells loads, they would get another sinificant monetary boost. PS3, if it sells the 34 million, though, will still make Sony a nice bit of money eventually, and possibly more inportantly, will make third party publishers a mint due to the huge market, obviously making them very happy indeed and pledging continued suport for PS3.

Glipmac

From what i have heard Sony are releasing a Gaming Pack, thats gonna be about £700... i know there are stupid ppl out there who would actually pay that price but i wont be one of them, The PS3 is going to have the same problems as both the ps1 and ps2 did upon release:

1. everyone is gonna want one the day they are released
2. They are gonna be faulty because sony cannot create them fast enough like the ps2
5... 3. they are gonna out price themselves as always, and the price will drop dramaticly after the holliday seasons

its almost garrenteed that sony will make millions form this, but they arnt getting my monies, its gotta go to Nintendo for the "wii" personally that name sucks they should have stayed with the "Revoloution"

and it will have a decent price on it

Talk to you soon ppl

(p.s sorry about the python reference, i couldnt resist)

plonk

i bought a ps1 and a ps2 on the day of release and never had a problem with them I wont be buying a ps3 as too pricey. i might buy a wii and a ds instead

tba

The hardcore gamers of this world will buy whatever they feel like in the short term, it all falls on third party titles in the longer term.

Systems that provide the widest and deepest selection of games will win in the end.

Who exactly that will be remains to be seen.

As for Sony they appear to be moving themselves out of competion with MS and Nintendo, their development cycles if accurate would mean that they will never be in direct competion with them again.

projectmayhem

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Will Sony have lasted to the point that they can afford a price drop?

this stuff is all very long-term, and sony's got the advantage of cleaning up in the HD-tv market right now so finances aren't exactly shabby over at sony HQ.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

And another element to take in. If PS3 doesnt pick up steam fast enough, developers will start dropping like flies, 50,000 units worldwide at launch, The only developers licking their lips at those numbers are those of games that are garunteed to be bought with the console (ensuring th 50,000 number.) which to be honest looking at the PS3 line up there is no clear winner.

you are right, a lot of devs are probably worried. but these are small ones. the big ones that produce major hits (epic, valve etc.) are all working hard on titles, and sony's buying up devs left, right & center to fund their own in-house development (killzone2 being the major prop for them)...

BlitzKrieg wrote:

The PS3 is attempting to break or at least stall the traditional 6 or 7 year jjump up consoles take (8bit>16bit>32bit etc) which is admirable and promising for gamers.

The notion we could own a console for a such a long period and still have games developed for it must be appealing to all gamers.

casual gamers are already aware of this. new PS2 owners are the biggest profiteers within the industry right now. a cheap, relatively powerful console with a huge back catalogue (and it has the 4000 odd ps1 games in its arsenal too).

it's the "hardcore" (and by that i mean anyone who buys at launch, or even looks at gaming websites and stuff... people who take an active interest in the games world) who probably want a quick transition. people who want the technology to move on quickly when they get bored of the graphics becoming great as standard... and want more. even today i was at q4 training for work, and i was scoffing at the people who were impressed by the 360 test drive game that was on. medium textures? bloom? pah! (:p)

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Another variation of the episodic vs full retail software debate?

well about 2 years ago nintendo's iwata said the industry needs to move into upgrades, rather then full consoles for the "next gen". but then you have to consider that, even if it's cheaper in the long run, and easy to do (unlike PC's for un-savvy non-tech heads), all an upgraded graphics card or processor would do is separate the market. we need to have the full, new machines every 5 years or so.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

I have no idea whay I wrote this, but the next generation has finally got interesting me, mainly because it seems to be a mess.

the industry itself isn't really a mess. devs will survive the ps3 early-slump. consumers will always be there... and all 3 companies will roll out happy with this gen (most likely).

the reason it seems to be a mess is because, unlike years gone by, gaming is finally reaching a new market. sure over the weekend there was the BAVGA ceremony. 10 years ago there wasn't a proper awards ceremony for games! you can't walk down a street without hitting a GAME or Gamestop outlet. so people know more about games generally, since the generation who grew up with the commodore64 etc. are having kids, and remaining gamers themselves...

on top of that, the industry is now dictating the future of entertainment. blu-ray and HD-DVD are going to battle it out in the gaming market, and then it'll be decided whether movies will follow.

all in all, it'll be interesting to see, after this roll up to this gen, what the roll up to the next gen will be like. i'd say calmer, more incremental. but feel free to dig this up in 5 years time when e3 is on and sony have cell squared

BlitzKrieg

you are right, a lot of devs are probably worried. but these are small ones. the big ones that produce major hits (epic, valve etc.) are all working hard on titles, and sony's buying up devs left, right & center to fund their own in-house development (killzone2 being the major prop for them)...

Funny, I thought that would have been reversed, seeing as it was the big companies like EA that walked away from the Gamecube when the machine failed to penetrate the market as deeply as the Xbox and PS2 (and I mean europe and USA only.)

But of course that could be more to the point that the owners of gamecubes wouldnt be interested in those type of softwares.

well about 2 years ago nintendo's iwata said the industry needs to move into upgrades, rather then full consoles for the "next gen". but then you have to consider that, even if it's cheaper in the long run, and easy to do (unlike PC's for un-savvy non-tech heads), all an upgraded graphics card or processor would do is separate the market. we need to have the full, new machines every 5 years or so.

I didnt mean individual componants upgradable, what I meant was the model went like so:

Wii
(backlog:gamecube, n64, snes, nes)

then 3 years down the line (rather then the traditional 5-7)
A new Nintendo console which is improved grpahically (but not to an extent that would make it a loss making hardware) but due to lowering prices (like you said) graphically equivelent or maybe even superior to the PS3 and 360, with a new style being focused on (maybe control again, or something else) BUT all your controllers for gamecube and Wii can be plugged into it and your virtual console (and mii) will be moved over to the new machine, thus its a cheap console, you can trade in the old one to make it cheaper and all your software and periphals can still be used.

There will be no division in hardware as it will work in a building block manner.

1. Wii (Virtual console and gamecube supported)

2. Wii2 (wii, Virtual console and gamecube supported)

3. Wii3 (wii2, wii, virtual console and gamecube supported)

due to making smaller jumps focused on other areas outside a complete overhaul and an evergrowing library innovation will be kept alive while progress will also continue without any serious financial risk.

the only major flaw is developers will have shorter periods of time to squeeze all they can out of the previous machine (look at what they squeezed out of the PS2) But that can be combated by simply being pragamtic with the updates, if one version is very strong, then the machine can be left on the market longer.

The reason I have this model in my brain is because while I am very excited about the Wii, its one weakness I feel is that I dont see it being able to strike the same longevity as the PS2 had, unless developers suprise me (which they might) so this model I see can support the Wii's structure and cover its flaw.

I see flaws in all 3 machines though.

on top of that, the industry is now dictating the future of entertainment. blu-ray and HD-DVD are going to battle it out in the gaming market, and then it'll be decided whether movies will follow.

I find that the industry comes across more *drunk* on its success and thinks its dictatin the future of entertainment, hence why you see a glorious future, I see a incoming train wreck. But thats differenting opinions.


(just note you've gone from sony fanboy to user with interesting viewpoints in my boards records)

flogen

Just to take the thread back to the seemingly arrogant statements of Sony, here's another for the list:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055002556&page=2

when [SCE boss Ken Kutaragi was] quizzed about whether PlayStation 3 would outsell Xbox 360 and Wii, he simply said, "We don't care."

I love the explanation Sony gave:

The blog picks it up: "We spoke to Sony about this response, as it seemed a pretty ballsy statement to make, especially in light of how they're being perceived (arrogant, out of touch, losing the battle etc.) by press and consumers alike at the moment.

"They told us that what Ken will have meant is that, while they have a great deal of respect for the 'competition', they have always worked to their own business plan. In essence, regardless of what anyone else does, they'll be sticking to their original plan where PS3 is concerned and won't be changing things, just because company A does this, or company B does that."

So when Ken said 'I hate Europeans', what he probably meant was 'I believe that Europe is a vital market in the world of gaming, and as such I have decided to hold back the EU launch just to make sure we get everything right'

Royale with Cheese

Ok just to butt in on this thread.

I have an xbox 360. Premium pack, cost €400.

PS3, we'll say about €630. Negative points: no rumble feature on controllers, won't have the downloadable content for gta 4 that the xbox 360 will, and obviously the price.

However it does come with a bigger hard drive, a blu ray disk drive. The online service is free. I heard quite a while ago it supports wireless without having to buy a seperate wireless adapter. I also heard a while ago that all games will be region free (haven't really been keeping up to speed on ps3 updates, so I'm not sure if either of those are still true).

Assuming everything there is correct (I'm assuming somebody here will know this) the ps3 looks like much better value for money to me than the 360 does. Add the cost of a wireless network adapter and 1 years xbox live gold subscription and the price of the 360 comes to €540 or so (with more payments for xbox live to come), with the ps3 having the blu ray drive and 40gb extra hard disk space, and cheap games from play-asia. The ps3 doesn't seem that much of a rip off to me.

johnny_ultimate

Royale with Cheese wrote:

Ok just to butt in on this thread.

I have an xbox 360. Premium pack, cost €400.

PS3, we'll say about €630. Negative points: no rumble feature on controllers, won't have the downloadable content for gta 4 that the xbox 360 will, and obviously the price.

However it does come with a bigger hard drive, a blu ray disk drive. The online service is free. I heard quite a while ago it supports wireless without having to buy a seperate wireless adapter. I also heard a while ago that all games will be region free (haven't really been keeping up to speed on ps3 updates, so I'm not sure if either of those are still true).

Assuming everything there is correct (I'm assuming somebody here will know this) the ps3 looks like much better value for money to me than the 360 does. Add the cost of a wireless network adapter and 1 years xbox live gold subscription and the price of the 360 comes to €540 or so (with more payments for xbox live to come), with the ps3 having the blu ray drive and 40gb extra hard disk space, and cheap games from play-asia. The ps3 doesn't seem that much of a rip off to me.

Yeah i was thinking about it the other day as well and it isn't really that bad, but the fact that you are forced to pay 630 euro in one foul swoop is the major problem. Considering the fact that I don't particularly want a blu ray drive, a 60GB hard drive etc... i think that the x box 360 is better value for me personally. The fact you could easily pick up a 360 with an extra cotroller 4-5 games for under 550 makes it fairly decent compared to the PS3. However, as you pointed out, you do need to get Live as well ( if you're into idiot kids whupping your behind of course

BlitzKrieg

However it does come with a bigger hard drive, a blu ray disk drive. The online service is free. I heard quite a while ago it supports wireless without having to buy a seperate wireless adapter. I also heard a while ago that all games will be region free (haven't really been keeping up to speed on ps3 updates, so I'm not sure if either of those are still true)

It is all very impressive, the only catch is that unlike the 360 where you know what you're getting when you pay for it, alot of the PS3's value is sort of still up in the air, the blu ray is a new format that might not get the support it needs, the internet support has had little to no exposition until now weeks before its US launch, pretty much all of sony's trump cards have had some *hiccup* thrown at it (the recent no real 1080 debate.) or have not been given that concrete support polish they need.

When one looks at the PSP which also appeared as great value for money you cant help but feel that a part of this value might not get any use.

In comparison to the 360 who's major problems were a technical hiccup, far too much demand at launch and a generally poor game selection, the machine itself and its base were all sound tested mechanics which I guess reassured gamers. We know LIVE works, so most are willing to pay the monthly fee to ensure it stays working so well.


Sony's PR hiccups are a problem because people are not 100% comfortable with the PS3, if the console was like the 360 where every detail had enough exposition to allow the machine to speak for itself then there wouldnt be a problem would there?

monument

Royale with Cheese wrote:

won't have the downloadable content for gta 4 that the xbox 360 will

It's still possably it's because Blu-ray will hold it on a single disk.

Ciaran500

monument wrote:

It's still possably it's because Blu-ray will hold it on a single disk.

I doubt it since its exclusive

Stoichkov

Ps3 version of gta4 is 99.99% likely to have exclusive content.

gta4

monument

Ciaran500 wrote:

I doubt it since its exclusive

Maybe I’m wrong, but I think Microsoft’s words were, or at least their clarification was, “exclusively downloadable”.

Ciaran500

monument wrote:

Maybe I’m wrong, but I think Microsoft’s words were, or at least their clarification was, “exclusively downloadable”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV#Episodic_content
I seriously doubt it.

KdjaCL

Blu-ray


Why do people go on about Blu Ray and HD DVD , has anyone ever got a game that used the full 4gb off a normal DVD?

DVDs can hold 9gb yet noone ever made a game to fit on it, why do people expect that having blu ray support will some how make bigger or better games, and as for movies HD can be Xvided with no loss of quality

So why do people care for Blu ray?


kdjac

Stoichkov

KdjaCL wrote:

DVDs can hold 9gb yet noone ever made a game to fit on it, why do people expect that having blu ray support will some how make bigger or better games, and as for movies HD can be Xvided with no loss of quality

That's the situation now, but in three or four years time who knows how big the games will be. Why limit the potential of the console by using dvds rather than hd-dvd or blu-ray. Nintendo suffered when it stuck with cartridges rather than move on to cd based games and tried to remedy the mistake with the failed 'DD'. Plan for the future!

Ciaran500

Stoichkov wrote:

Why limit the potential of the console by using dvds rather than hd-dvd or blu-ray.

Cause it would cost a fortune and wouldn't of been possible at the time? The Xbox360 couldn't of been out before 07 if they wanted to use HD-DVD's for games.

monument

Ciaran500 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV#Episodic_content
I seriously doubt it.

Do I need to remind you what site your linking to?

On its page of one Irish journalist, it had the person listed as ‘gay’ and substituted part of the name of the paper he writes for as the same. This charming bit of facts was left up on that site for – I think – over a week or more.

KdjaCL

Stoichkov wrote:

That's the situation now, but in three or four years time who knows how big the games will be. Why limit the potential of the console by using dvds rather than hd-dvd or blu-ray. Nintendo suffered when it stuck with cartridges rather than move on to cd based games and tried to remedy the mistake with the failed 'DD'. Plan for the future!

Well they could use BMP instead of tagra to fill out the discs, who knows?, its obvious what games engines we will be playing in 3 or 4 years.

Cheaply made ones so Source and Unreal 3.0 will be the engine of choice for most games companies and some crytek too.

If one 40 minute episode of a tv show is 350mb in SD and 700mb in HD 1080 when coded in xvid, why do we need blu ray for HD movies?

If a game say UT2003 can fit on a 3gb dvd and expand to 6gb when installed, why do we need blu ray?

Is it new and shiny and somehow better because it can hold more empty space?

kdjac

Ciaran500

monument wrote:

Do I need to remind you what site your linking to?

On its page of one Irish journalist, it had the person listed as ‘gay’ and substituted part of the name of the paper he writes for as the same. This charming bit of facts was left up on that site for – I think – over a week or more.

:rolleyes:

Its pretty much the same on every site I could find, wiki just has it all summed up nicely.

kaisersose77

deadly you can play ps1 games on a psp, small catch though

http://psp.ign.com/articles/740/740691p1.html


didnt mention this did they when there were all excited about playing ridge racerrrrrrrrr at e3

KdjaCL

kaisersose77 wrote:

small catch though

LMFAO!!!

Small? If 700+ quid considered small.



kdjac

monument

Ciaran500 wrote:

:rolleyes:

Its pretty much the same on every site I could find, wiki just has it all summed up nicely.

There was so much bull shi+ around the last E3 Microsoft were confused at why other people in the company were saying things. Don’t get me wrong, I had said “Maybe I’m wrong”, and E3 this year really has stretched my cynical thinking when it comes to what (any) games company says.

On another note, if there is exclusive extra content for both consoles (rather then just the 360) it brings the fact the console wars is bad for games to a new level.

kaisersose77

sorry i forgot the



and another lol

http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/19/sony-claims-xbox-360-requires-hd-dvd-etc-thus-costs-700

monument

Oh, and if it's "Its pretty much the same on every site I could find", link to them in the future. [Smiley-like image over load]

Ciaran500

monument wrote:

Oh, and if it's "Its pretty much the same on every site I could find", link to them in the future. [Smiley-like image over load]

http://www.clubskill.com/?view=article&article=4403
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/27/splinter-cell-bioshock-gta-iv-episodes-are-console-exclusive-f/
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6158823.html
http://www.gamernode.com/Xbox_360/News_1509/index.html
http://www.xbox.com/en-GB/community/news/x06/gta4.htm
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/735/735683p1.html

You could of done just a tiny bit of searching yourself

Royale with Cheese

KdjaCL wrote:

Blu-ray


Why do people go on about Blu Ray and HD DVD , has anyone ever got a game that used the full 4gb off a normal DVD?

DVDs can hold 9gb yet noone ever made a game to fit on it, why do people expect that having blu ray support will some how make bigger or better games, and as for movies HD can be Xvided with no loss of quality

So why do people care for Blu ray?


kdjac

Stand alone players don't seem to be too cheap from what I've seen. Nobody's saying the format will be a success but it doesn't hurt to have the blu ray drive included. Like I said earlier the cost of a 360 once you buy all the extras isn't far off the price of the ps3, the ps3 having more features.