PS3 launch: the ugly side

Vegeta

steviec wrote:

So lets all just stay with our PS2s. It's got a huge games library, it's cheap, developers are well used to the hardware, the likes of Buzz and Eyetoy show it's very expandable, all it needs is a USB motion sensor and it's the ultimate console!

On the other hand, power does matter. Not now but in 2 to 3 years it will. The very best N64 and PS1 games don't cut the mustard by todays standards
when it comes to gameplay because we've become used to the Gamecube/PS2 standards. The same will happen to PS2/Wii games as people get more used to PS3/360 standards.

And supposing the Wii controller does prove almighty(I haven't used one but reviews so far show a mixed bag of games, just like any console) and some kind of massive gameplay revolution. All it takes is a new peripheral for the 360 and PS3 and they'll do everything the Wii does along with everything they already do.

I think the Wii has been a display of absolutely brilliant marketting and business strategy from Nintendo, and it will give them solid revenue for the next few years. I have no doubt it'll be successful, I just wonder if people will still be using there's a few years from now. I do wonder if Nintendo are already planning ahead for that, with an extra couple of years they could develop technology just as good as the 360 or PS3 while being more cost effective and could release it at a competitive price just when the next gen market really starts to peak. It's a possibility I'd consider if I was Nintendo, they've already shown with the DS then DS Lite that they're able to get people to buy new machines in relatively quick succession.

look I am not saying nintendo are going to win any sort of console race.

I am just disagreeing that power is the most important factor in wether a console will come out on top. If that was true we'd all be playing nothing but PC games and give consoles the boot.

In my opinion its all about how good the software is, games don't have to be photo-realistic to sell.

I'm no standing up for nintendo or anything like that but the best games i've played in the last 12 months are Mario Kart DD and Guitar Hero, both on dying consoles. I've played most of the big titles for the 360 on mine or my friends consoles and I have been completely underwhelmed so far. The games are only ok, sure they look great but I am still having fun on PS2 and GC.

1huge1

^^ exactly if power won a console race (or handheld) the psp would be whooping the ds but quiet the opposite is true
though that might be down to sony making a lot of mistake with the psp
not many good games and umd has gone to hell (my opinion not everyones)

Karmafaerie

It's not as simple as that.
In two-three years time, developers won't be making the same games for the Wii.
Why would the developers limit the power of their games, just for the console that has probably the least units?
The games that are being made by third party developers will be simply to in depth and powerful to run on a Wii.
The developers would have to make a weaker version of the game to run on the Wii, which wouldn't be cost effective.

I'm sure that Nintendo themselves will still bring out some great titles, and some third party developers will make separate games for the Wii, but all of the big games, will be PS3 and 360 territory.

abetarrush

Karmafaerie wrote:

It's not as simple as that.
In two-three years time, developers won't be making the same games for the Wii.
Why would the developers limit the power of their games, just for the console that has probably the least units?
The games that are being made by third party developers will be simply to in depth and powerful to run on a Wii.
The developers would have to make a weaker version of the game to run on the Wii, which wouldn't be cost effective.

I'm sure that Nintendo themselves will still bring out some great titles, and some third party developers will make separate games for the Wii, but all of the big games, will be PS3 and 360 territory.

Thats BS

I work in a comp game shop and all the 2007 releases that arent specific are out on PS2/PS3/WII and XB360


The Wii is gonna blow the other consoles away, with a possible first place victory

Both the PS3 and 360 are too advanced. People want a games console, not every media thing possible in the one. And to get the full PS3 experience you'd need a HD-TV which not many people have. The 360 is sellin good but theres feckall games really. its geared towards men, late teen to adult, and I think the PS3 will be the same

The Wii is a family console [Wii as in "we/us"] So it's gna be the only 7th Gen console [IMO] that will have games suited for everyone and anyone

And the Wii is about twice as powerful as a PS2 [not 100% there] so bad graphics wont be a problem

Same with the DS and the PSP. Theres fxckall PSP games for anyone under 15/in general
And UMD movies are stupid. Whos gna pay 30 for a UMD when they can get the DVD for a tenner, rip it onto a memory card, and have the DVD t watch at home


fin

Karmafaerie

abetarrush wrote:

Thats BS

I work in a comp game shop and all the 2007 releases that arent specific are out on PS2/PS3/WII and XB360


The Wii is gonna blow the other consoles away, with a possible first place victory

Both the PS3 and 360 are too advanced. People want a games console, not every media thing possible in the one. And to get the full PS3 experience you'd need a HD-TV which not many people have. The 360 is sellin good but theres feckall games really. its geared towards men, late teen to adult, and I think the PS3 will be the same

The Wii is a family console [Wii as in "we/us"] So it's gna be the only 7th Gen console [IMO] that will have games suited for everyone and anyone

And the Wii is about twice as powerful as a PS2 [not 100% there] so bad graphics wont be a problem

Same with the DS and the PSP. Theres fxckall PSP games for anyone under 15/in general
And UMD movies are stupid. Whos gna pay 30 for a UMD when they can get the DVD for a tenner, rip it onto a memory card, and have the DVD t watch at home


fin

Please read my post next time.

I said, repeatedly, that in Two-three years time the game developers will be able to make games that the Wii is incapable of playing.
Seeing as the 2007 starts in a month, it hardly constitutes two to three years now does it?!

Be reasonable. You work in a game shop, so you should know how underpowered the console is.
Also if you've worked in the game industry for long, you'll know just how quickly game developments come.

This is not a slight on the Wii, simply a fact.
The 360 has a processor that's almost 6 times more powerful than the Wii's and a software card that's even more advanced again. The PS3 is even more powerful.

Think of it like a PC. If you bought Oblivion for a PC with only a 1.7 processor (which is what the Wii has) then it wouldn't work properly now would it?
The Wii is great, and it will do well at first, but the games just won't be there by the end of the decade.

As for the comment on the 360 not having the games.
What?!
By Christmas there will be 160 titles out, compared to the 20-30 or so for the Wii and the PS3.
What are you on about?!

1huge1

^^if what you say karmafaeire is true (and im not saying its not) the wii is very overpriced

Ciaran500

Karmafaerie wrote:

This is not a slight on the Wii, simply a fact.
The 360 has a processor that's almost 6 times more powerful than the Wii's and a software card that's even more advanced again. The PS3 is even more powerful.

Where does this figure come from and how can you measure it?

Karmafaerie wrote:

Think of it like a PC. If you bought Oblivion for a PC with only a 1.7 processor (which is what the Wii has) then it wouldn't work properly now would it?
The Wii is great, and it will do well at first, but the games just won't be there by the end of the decade.

The Wii specs have never been officially released and its rumoured to be 700mhz but you can't compare processors clock for clock.

Karmafaerie

Ciaran500 wrote:

Where does this figure come from and how can you measure it?

Ciaran500 wrote:

The Wii specs have never been officially released and its rumoured to be 700mhz but you can't compare processors clock for clock.

Wii
http://www.wiisworld.com/wii-specs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii#Technical_specifications


360
http://www.ciao.co.uk/Xbox_360__Review_5553913
http://news.com.com/Xbox+specs+revealed/2100-1043_3-5705372.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360

Basically the 360 processor has a theoretical peak performance of 115.2 gigaflops and is capable of 9.6 billion dot products per second!
If game developers even get next to close to this, we would be experiencing something unknown to modern gaming.

With three symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each, each one is greater than the Wii's.
Plus, the 360 processors, were custom built for the console, while the Wii's were salvaged from notebooks.
Even if the Wii processor was close to the 360's, (which it really, really, isn't) it would never be capable to run as efficiently as the 360's seeing as it was not designed with the Wii specifically in mind!

I'm sorry, but it's simply fact here.
Nintendo had nowhere near enough money to design their own processor, so they bought a load of recalled IBM Broadways on the cheap.

Great business acumen, but hardly great tech!

Ciaran500

Karmafaerie wrote:

Basically the 360 processor has a theoretical peak performance of 115.2 gigaflops and is capable of 9.6 billion dot products per second!
If game developers even get next to close to this, we would be experiencing something unknown to modern gaming.

Completely meaningless figures, devs can never, ever get near that in realistic scenario's.

Karmafaerie wrote:

With three symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each, each one is greater than the Wii's.
Plus, the 360 processors, were custom built for the console, while the Wii's were salvaged from notebooks.
Even if the Wii processor was close to the 360's, (which it really, really, isn't) it would never be capable to run as efficiently as the 360's seeing as it was not designed with the Wii specifically in mind!

I'm not saying Wii is close to the 360, but we have no figures to base your previous "facts" off.

Karmafaerie wrote:

I'm sorry, but it's simply fact here.
Nintendo had nowhere near enough money to design their own processor, so they bought a load of recalled IBM Broadways on the cheap.

Where is this fact from?

ambro25

If every other household with a next-gen console plumps up for a Wii (from Xmas 06) and either a 360 (current or whenever) or a PS3 (from Xmas 07), the Wii will have the biggest installed user base. Period.

For developers to decide which console to develop on (and they most often get told that by publishers, who are just as driven by installed user base), that's all there is to it.

Any Business Analyst worth his or her salt will tell you that you're miles better off, as a business, to have a attach rate of *say* 2 games for 1m installed units, than 4 games for 500,000 units.

At this point, I call my first witness: Mr EA, who has heavily curtailed PSP development and reassigned devteams to DS.

From this moment forward, PS3 is just playing catch up: a devco and/or a publisher isn't going to put at least €10m and 2 to 3 year development into a project for an installed user base of 2 to 3m (in 2 years, say - don't forget about production rates), unless they can garantee as near a 1:1 attach ratio as dammit, else they'll lose money.

The same rationale goes for XB360. They've already got several million units sold, with proven market routes and revenue models for both AAA and opportunistic (Live Arcade) games - PS3 is again playing catchup. The saving grace for PS3 is that hopefully a goodly portion of any game developed for 360 can be economically ported over and save development costs and timescale, so improving PS3's line up quickly. That's so far as such cross-development is possible, and of course don't forget that a Jack of All gameplay/grapphics/etc. Trades, is Master of none on either consoles.

I don't care if any of the 3 'wins', but my business head tells me:

* After DS, Nintendo has done it right again with Wii - in business terms, they are not losing any money on a console, which is a huge difference from an investor POV, because there's net revenue from day 1. The attach rate of software doesn't matter so much for Nintendo as it does for the other two. Moreover, the tech is simpler and cheaper and for these reasons, they can keep lowering both hardware costs and *if needed* console price to get closer and closer to the opportunistic purchase price - as a parent, you don't think twice about grabbing a €200 Wii in Tesco, but you do um-and-ah about €400 to €600 for a 360 or a PS3

* M$ is on track with their "slow and sure-footed market takeover" strategy, which started from day 1 at the inception of the 1st-Gen Xbox. They've proved their online mettle beyond anything, which Nintendo and Sony both have yet to achieve, and I believe that for modern 'hardcore gamers' (I was one for a very long time but then I'm getting on!), it's not so much the console and games anymore, than the online multiplay experience. I don't believe that 360 was a half-assed attempt at getting in the place way before Sony, on the contrary I believe 360 was even fully concepted and proven before any first-gen Xbox was sold, along with relevant hardware introduction timescale etc. And (I've said this before) it wouldn't surprise me one tiny little bit if, by the time Xmas 07 roll up, M$ either lower the 360 price (or bundle the Premium at price of current Core, or... etc.) and/or announces the 720.

* and Sony have suffered from being alone at the top too long, they got complacent and/or megalomaniac (inasmuch as a business can exhibit megalomania).

This all works good for gamers, because it keeps the publishers on their toes with regards to exclusives and therefore does mostly away with those for any format.

Karmafaerie

Ciaran500 wrote:

Completely meaningless figures, devs can never, ever get near that in realistic scenario's.

Hence me saying things like "theoretical" and "if they ever get near",
And, as I've also said, time, and time again, what developers can do now, and what they can do in two-three years time is light years apart.
Think about the PS2 at the start of it's life with GTA3, compared to GTA San Andreas near the end.
Of course game developers will never be able to get the peak performance from the 360, or the Wii, or the PS3. They will however get close, and the fact of the matter remains that the peak performance of the Wii, is nowhere near a reasonable performance for either the 360 or the PS3, who are currently using games that use up maybe a fifth of the respective consoles potential.

Ciaran500 wrote:

I'm not saying Wii is close to the 360, but we have no figures to base your previous "facts" off.

No, I don't know the exact clock speed of the Wii, seeing as Nintendo refuse to release it. (I wonder why, hmmm maybe because it is so far behind the 360 and PS3 that they don't want to put people off!)

Ciaran500 wrote:

Where is this fact from?

The processors that Nintendo have used, which have been re-labeled Broadways were originally designed for Sony notebooks.
There was a problem in testing with these so Sony never used them. Around two years ago Nintendo came in and asked IBM to adapt these processors for the Wii.
Nintendo managed to pick up these processors for nearly nothing, because IBM had so many in stock that and had no plans for all of them.
Before this Nintendo had been just as vocal as MS and Sony about how powerful they were going to make their console, with Nintendo even claiming that the then Revolution would be able to handle games better than either the 360 or the PS3.
As soon as they decided to go down the cheaper path however, they renamed the console, and became very tight lipped about its power, refusing to answer questions about the Wii's capabilities.

Smellyirishman

Karmafaerie wrote:

who are currently using games that use up maybe a fifth of the respective consoles potential.

You're making up numbers/facts again (including maybe does not validate you making stuff up, it just means we won't take the rest of your arguement seriously).

Everybody knows the Wii is not as powerful as the 360 or PS3, nobody is going to argue that. However, as Retrogamer said somewhere the other day, great gameplay cannot hide behind bad graphics (something along those lines anyway).

If there is profit to be made, Devs have no problem downgrading or adapting to weaker systems, if the Wii sells well, Devs will cater to it, simple.

Ciaran500

Karmafaerie wrote:

HOf course game developers will never be able to get the peak performance from the 360, or the Wii, or the PS3. They will however get close, and the fact of the matter remains that the peak performance of the Wii, is nowhere near a reasonable performance for either the 360 or the PS3, who are currently using games that use up maybe a fifth of the respective consoles potential.

They'd be lucky to get half. Those figures come from rendering the simplest possible scene to get the biggest possible numbers.

Karmafaerie wrote:

No, I don't know the exact clock speed of the Wii, seeing as Nintendo refuse to release it. (I wonder why, hmmm maybe because it is so far behind the 360 and PS3 that they don't want to put people off!)

Cause those numbers mean nothing? You can't compare speeds on different processors.

Karmafaerie wrote:

The processors that Nintendo have used, which have been re-labeled Broadways were originally designed for Sony notebooks.
There was a problem in testing with these so Sony never used them. Around two years ago Nintendo came in and asked IBM to adapt these processors for the Wii.
Nintendo managed to pick up these processors for nearly nothing, because IBM had so many in stock that and had no plans for all of them.

Again, source?

Karmafaerie wrote:

Before this Nintendo had been just as vocal as MS and Sony about how powerful they were going to make their console, with Nintendo even claiming that the then Revolution would be able to handle games better than either the 360 or the PS3.
As soon as they decided to go down the cheaper path however, they renamed the console, and became very tight lipped about its power, refusing to answer questions about the Wii's capabilities.

I don't ever remember them saying anything at all about the console before they showed the tiny casing at E3 when it was still called the Revolution. Do you really think they were originally planning to fit a graphics powerhouse in that box?

Ciaran500

Karmafaerie wrote:

HOf course game developers will never be able to get the peak performance from the 360, or the Wii, or the PS3. They will however get close, and the fact of the matter remains that the peak performance of the Wii, is nowhere near a reasonable performance for either the 360 or the PS3, who are currently using games that use up maybe a fifth of the respective consoles potential.

They'd be lucky to get half. Those figures come from rendering the simplest possible scene to get the biggest possible numbers.

Karmafaerie wrote:

No, I don't know the exact clock speed of the Wii, seeing as Nintendo refuse to release it. (I wonder why, hmmm maybe because it is so far behind the 360 and PS3 that they don't want to put people off!)

Cause those numbers mean nothing? You can't compare speeds on different processors.

Karmafaerie wrote:

The processors that Nintendo have used, which have been re-labeled Broadways were originally designed for Sony notebooks.
There was a problem in testing with these so Sony never used them. Around two years ago Nintendo came in and asked IBM to adapt these processors for the Wii.
Nintendo managed to pick up these processors for nearly nothing, because IBM had so many in stock that and had no plans for all of them.

Again, source?

Karmafaerie wrote:

Before this Nintendo had been just as vocal as MS and Sony about how powerful they were going to make their console, with Nintendo even claiming that the then Revolution would be able to handle games better than either the 360 or the PS3.
As soon as they decided to go down the cheaper path however, they renamed the console, and became very tight lipped about its power, refusing to answer questions about the Wii's capabilities.

I don't ever remember them saying anything at all about the console before they showed the tiny casing at E3 when it was still called the Revolution. Do you really think they were originally planning to fit a graphics powerhouse in that box?

ambro25

And to vindicate my earlier ramblings about PS3, Wii, and where all things hardware are likely to be going...

DS is outselling PSP more than twice over in UK

Nintendo has declared that it is now the leader in the UK's home console and handheld markets, with the DS now outselling the PSP by a rate of more than 2.5 to 1.

According to Chart Track data, more than 2 million DS units have now been sold in the UK. Sales have continued to boom following the release of the Lite five months ago, and the success of titles such as Brain Training, Animal Crossing and New Super Mario Bros. - all of which have topped the 1 million sales mark in Europe.

Namco must sell 500,000 PS3 games to make profit

The price of graphics alone costs the second-largest Japanese publisher one billion yen (EUR 6.5 million), more than double that of titles for Nintendo's Wii, according to a report by Bloomberg.

QED

Karmafaerie

Listen guys, I'm not arguing with ye any more.
Every time I post something, ye take a little part of it, and ignore the rest.
Ye never seem to read my full messages, and I'm bored with rehashing the same stuff over and over again.


When I say,

"who are currently using games that use up maybe a fifth of the respective consoles potential."

then I'm not putting it forward as a fact now am I.


To come out and say that a console will only be able to live up to half of it's theoretical capabilities is laughable, and makes me wonder why I'm arguing with you.


Nintendo came out and said that they planned on giving the "Revolution" twice as much memory as the original plans for the 360, and four times as much as the initial PS3 specs.
Granted this was in the "my console is gonna be better than yours" stage, when all three developers were upping each other at each press conference.


I'm not putting down the wii, I've got mine pre-ordered, and a place next to my 360 all dusted down and waiting, but if anybody thinks that the Wii will be able to keep up with it's more powerful cousins, then they're fooling themselves.
It's like Portsmouth in the premiership.
Yeah, they were level on points with Man U and Chelsea for a while, and yes they may still be in third, but lets be honest. Come the end of the season, they're gonna be mid-table. But the extra money they get from that position will help them to progress next season.


I've been a gamer for a long time, and I'm sure most of ye have too. When have ye ever known a console developer to be so tight lipped about he power of their console? (Think of Nintendo constantly harping on about how much more powerful the N64 was!)
It just doesn't happen.
Console developers always ignore their weaknesses publicly.
Sony try to put the emphasis on their supposedly more power full console, and ignore the fact that it's just a more powerful version of a PS2 with a dodgy entertainment system tacked on.
MS try to put the emphasis on Xbox Live, while ignoring the fact that they still haven't really dented the Japanese market.
And Nintendo put the emphasis on the funky control system, and ignore the fact that their console isn't powerful enough to keep up.

It's simply common practice, you over saturate the market with your strengths, and hide your weaknesses. (Hence Nintendo's refusal to give full specs, which was the first thing that both MS and Sony did!)
By Christmas, some industrious individual will have tested the Wii for himself, and will be able to give us all an exact figure.

You're all looking at the short picture here.
Just like MS didn't plan for either the Xbox or the 360 to rival the PS3, Nintendo never thought that the Wii would rival it's bigger competitors.
Both Nintendo and MS are laying the foundations for the next series of Consoles (if not even the ones after that!), and all the current generation of consoles are, are stepping stones.

Sony is still gonna be the biggest when the dust settles this time, but it's gonna be much closer next time round.

ambro25

Karmafaerie wrote:

if anybody thinks that the Wii will be able to keep up with it's more powerful cousins, then they're fooling themselves.

Depends what kind of 'keeping up'. I don't think anyone here has posted that they expect Wii to keep up graphically. On the contrary, I think what others are trying to convey is that Wii is very likely to keep up economically. It doesn't matter if it's outclassed in 3 or even 2 years' time: Nintendo can just up the specs incrementally and release new hardware, get all that publicity going about a launch etc. still at a fraction of the M$/Sony costs behind 360 and PS3 - it's all about profitability, and M$/Sony
have a sh1t of a long way to go before they're back in the green, whereas Nintendo are already there today.

Check Gamesbiz today and see for yourself how many software units Namco has got to shift to make a profit, because graphics development alone on PS3 is twice as expensive as on Wii.

And Nintendo put the emphasis on the funky control system, and ignore the fact that their console isn't powerful enough to keep up. It's simply common practice, you over saturate the market with your strengths, and hide your weaknesses. (Hence Nintendo's refusal to give full specs, which was the first thing that both MS and Sony did!)

See above. The reason Nintendo (rightly) did not engage M$/Sony on the specs is because they knew the (meaningless) tech figures would get brandied about, down to the level of Joe Sap in Dixons who (rightly) would see Wii @ 700 Mhz and PS3 @ 3Ghz and buy a PS3 instead. As I've stated repeatedly, it's a business, not a schoolyard (though at times... )

Sony is still gonna be the biggest when the dust settles this time, but it's gonna be much closer next time round.

I doubt that increasingly - and that's not Sony bashing or down to all of their mistakes over the past year or so, it's down to simple maths: publishers and developers are cash-strapped over the kind of development period required for a AAA PS3 (at this moment in time), if 360 and Wii are cheaper to develop for and already have several million units installed, the returns will be faster and not any smaller. IMHO, I think you're going to witness any increasing amount of 360-developed content ported to PS3, at least during the next 2 years, and which is the inverse of the previous generation - but those first 2 to 3 years are crucial to Sony for gaining the kind of installed user base that will justify the development megabudgets for AAA PS3 exclusives.

My €0,02

Karmafaerie

Sony has one thing going for it, but that's still the most important thing.

The name "PlayStation"

You'd be amazed at how many people don't care about which is better, and will buy the PS3 because it's got that name on it.

As for the idea that games aren't going to get more advanced, that's just not viable.
It may cost less for a developer to make a game for the Wii, but it won't draw as many buys.

The fact of the matter is that people do want better graphics, and they do want more inclusive game play.
Nintendo has gone down one route, while Sony and MS have gone down the other.
The thing is though, both Sony and MS can easily develop hardware to match Nintendo's if it becomes very popular, while the Wii will never be able to compete with the 360 or the PS3 with graphics, or power.

projectmayhem

ambro25 wrote:

For developers to decide which console to develop on (and they most often get told that by publishers, who are just as driven by installed user base), that's all there is to it.

so publishers will ignore the 200million odd install base of the PS2, right? they'll also ignore the dire straights any developer working on gamecube was left in.

lets be honest here, developers are being cautious here. this gen 360 will come out a winner, but probably not the market leader. by that i mean the install base will be slightly larger, but wont overtake sony, but a lot more playstation "exclusives" (and possibly vice-versa) will wander onto both systems.

ambro25 wrote:

Any Business Analyst worth his or her salt will tell you that you're miles better off, as a business, to have a attach rate of *say* 2 games for 1m installed units, than 4 games for 500,000 units.

i'd love to see the figures for PS2. i'd say the attach rate is unreal at this stage.

what? it's 5 years old? i know. welcome to sony and microsoft's business plan matey...

ambro25 wrote:

At this point, I call my first witness: Mr EA, who has heavily curtailed PSP development and reassigned devteams to DS.

slightly false. EA has left their larger PSP teams working away (ref: medal of honour) and split some teams into much smaller teams (less then 10 men) to work on DS titles and ports (i've yet to play a DS title by EA that was good), any surplus developers were moved into PS3, since they originally came from PS2.

ambro25 wrote:

From this moment forward, PS3 is just playing catch up: a devco and/or a publisher isn't going to put at least €10m and 2 to 3 year development into a project for an installed user base of 2 to 3m (in 2 years, say - don't forget about production rates), unless they can garantee as near a 1:1 attach ratio as dammit, else they'll lose money.

the attach rate now stinks for PS3. it probably did for 360 a year ago. once it settles in (about 2-3months) and actual fans who want it to play games as opposed to flog it on ebay own the machine, the attach rate will rise quite considerably.

ambro25 wrote:

as a parent, you don't think twice about grabbing a €200 Wii in Tesco, but you do um-and-ah about €400 to €600 for a 360 or a PS3

working in a store myself, i know this to be absolutely untrue. maybe for the under-6 age group. other then that, parents buy whatever little johnny asked santa for. come hell or high earth, they'll get it.

ambro25 wrote:

* and Sony have suffered from being alone at the top too long, they got complacent and/or megalomaniac (inasmuch as a business can exhibit megalomania).

very true, and the shift of kaz hirai to the top spot (among many other job shifts inside Sony) shows they're aware of this, and are going to try and make sure they don't stay complacent anymore.

needless to say this'll be an interesting generational leap in the industry...

abetarrush

ProjectMayhem wrote:

working in a store myself, i know this to be absolutely untrue. maybe for the under-6 age group. other then that, parents buy whatever little johnny asked santa for. come hell or high earth, they'll get it.

Is that the Christmas out next March??

You're the one who's completely wrong. Everyone who comes into my store [software shop] and asks about the PS3 are immediately put off by the 700 euro pricetag, and 120 tag on new release games.

As it was said before, the Wii has the power to win economically. It will beat the PS3 in the number of units sold, and beat the 360 in the amount of games sold, or even units in the long run, we'll jus have to wait and see

Also, the Wii wont be brushed under the carpet cos its not powerful enough. As said before, you can hide a crap game behind great grapics, but not vice versa

Less-advanced graphics actually causes more effort to be put into the gaming/storyline itself. [Obv not 100% true but ye know what I mean] I'm sure Developers would rather make games for the Wii that'll be big hits, as opposed to 360/PS3 games that are just beautiful. Also, they could make 2 Wii games in the time it takes to make 1 for the 360 or PS3

Even on the handheld side, the DS is sellin more than the PSP at a ratio of 2.5 to 1. But we all know the PSP has a bigger screen, more features, and is technically much more advanced than the DS. So surely because of this the PSP should be on top, no???

And the answer is the variety of games. Thats wha sells a console, IMO. the 360 is goin through a boost atm as Gears of War is MS's only good Killer App since Halo. Zelda will be a killer App no doubt for the Wii.

My 2 feckin euro!:)

steviec

abetarrush wrote:

You're the one who's completely wrong. Everyone who comes into my store [software shop] and asks about the PS3 are immediately put off by the 700 euro pricetag, and 120 tag on new release games.

Well they're bound to be put off when you lie to them about the price :rolleyes:

Gamestop PS3 prices

So games there are €45... Not quite 120. Of course things are always more expensive in Ireland, they'll be the same price as 360 games most likely. They certainly won't be anywhere near 120 euro. Plus, luckily for us, it's the only console with completely region free games so in general I'll be paying far less for PS3 games than Wii games and region locked 360 games.

Karmafaerie

The PS3 games will only be slightly more expensive than 360 games.
The most outlandish figure given was around €100 so I'd love to know where you got this €120 from!
More than likely the most expensive PS3 game won't cost more than €90, with the average game being about €75.

Also, Ambro25, I'd love to know where you're buying that Wii for €200.:rolleyes:

abertaruush. You seem to be obsessed with this image of the PS3 and 360 being nothing more than graphics monsters!
Graphics are only a small part of what sets these two consoles above the Wii.
Both of these consoles will be capable of so much more when the game development technology catches up.
Games will be so much more than what they are.
Read up on Peter Jackson's ideas for the new Halo franchise for the 360, take a look at Dead Rising on the 360 as well.
This is the first game of it's kind to push the limits when it comes to sheer numbers of individual characters on screen at the same time.
And seeing as it's only the first game of its kind, this will become so much more amazing as the games progress.
Look at the 40 player online playability of Resistance on the PS3.
The graphics and look of these games are so good, that you seem to be caught up on that, and refuse to see the other groundbreaking achievements that these games are making.

It's very easy to try and claim that the 360 and PS3 are just big graphics monsters as I said, but that's just not the case.

ambro25

Karmafaerie wrote:

Also, Ambro25, I'd love to know where you're buying that Wii for €200.:rolleyes:

€250, my bad :rolleyes: (when people are apparentyl ready to splash €600 on a PS3, I wouldn't have thought them to be that particular about +/- €50 )

Graphics are only a small part of what sets these two consoles above the Wii. Both of these consoles will be capable of so much more when the game development technology catches up. Games will be so much more than what they are.

Sounds like the Emotion engine all over again

This is the first game of it's kind to push the limits when it comes to sheer numbers of individual characters on screen at the same time.
(...)It's very easy to try and claim that the 360 and PS3 are just big graphics monsters as I said, but that's just not the case.

All good for consoles. But the PC 's been doing that for years.

All of these achievements (biggest number of characters onscreen, increased number of concurrent online player etc.) are either a direct result of the generational increase in processing and graphic resources and/or a mere transposition of PC games features (which is incidentally allowed by the "generational increase in processing and graphic resources")

If the argument is that PS3 and 360 have succeeded in bringing reasonably economical (compared to PC), 'turnkey' (straight-out-the-box-no-fiddling) massively-multiplayer with HD graphics in the lounge (instead of the home office), then by all means - that they have, fair and square.

But to call it revolutionary is just a step too far IMHO.

projectmayhem

abetarrush wrote:

Is that the Christmas out next March??

well for shops it'll be a second christmas

i was referring to parents who aren't aware that there's no ps3 this christmas (which seems to be quite a lot of them) coming into stores and asking about the ps3. i've had people scoff at the €600 and ask why, but all you have to do is quantify it with the 360. it's a premium with bigger HDD, and a blu-ray stuck in for good measure.

abetarrush wrote:

You're the one who's completely wrong. Everyone who comes into my store [software shop] and asks about the PS3 are immediately put off by the 700 euro pricetag, and 120 tag on new release games.

what software shop do you work in?

the ps3 has an RRP of €630 (or thereabouts) and games will retail for the same as 360 games, if not less (Sony want them to retail at €60, but shops wont have any of that when 360 games sell for €75).

maybe you should do some research before telling your customers complete crap, and then going online to say i'm "completely wrong".

abetarrush wrote:

It will beat the PS3 in the number of units sold, and beat the 360 in the amount of games sold

heard all of that when the gamecube came along tbh. in the next year alone, ps3 will probably sell every unit they can make through sheer hype alone, and the 360 will do quite well from price reductions and tempting bundles (like the ones this christmas). not saying the Wii won't do well - it will, but plop it's AAA titles for next year (Mario, Warioware, Pokemon, Animal Crossing & Goldeneye [virtual console... AAA to me anyway ]) next to PS3 (MGS, GT, Killzone, Motorstorm, F1, Lair, Warhawk, UT2007) and 360 (Halo, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Lost Planet, Forza) it doesn't take a genius to see what way the general gaming community will go.

abetarrush wrote:

Less-advanced graphics actually causes more effort to be put into the gaming/storyline itself. [Obv not 100% true but ye know what I mean] I'm sure Developers would rather make games for the Wii that'll be big hits, as opposed to 360/PS3 games that are just beautiful. Also, they could make 2 Wii games in the time it takes to make 1 for the 360 or PS3

but looking at the install base of the ps2 and xbox combined, it overshadows nintendo to the point that nintendo had to do something radical - the Wii. 200million odd PS2 owners and god knows how many xboxes (or even 360s at this stage) is what developers will be looking at. yeah, it's expensive to make a game on 360 or ps3, but it's relatively easy to port over on both consoles, and PC. right there you've got 3 formats that are all pretty much guarinteed a large enough install base to earn you a profit worthy enough to not make you want to make 2 Wii games, because those 2 Wii games will not make the same kind of money.

the same way spending millions on a huge blockbuster film with star actors and huge advertising budgets makes far more money then a good film with half the budget without the stars.

abetarrush wrote:

Even on the handheld side, the DS is sellin more than the PSP at a ratio of 2.5 to 1. But we all know the PSP has a bigger screen, more features, and is technically much more advanced than the DS. So surely because of this the PSP should be on top, no???

i love how people throw the PSP/DS argument out to show that the Wii will dominate. it's a different market. PSP is a portable playstation (it's in the name, folks). developers have yet to really use it's portability though, and are simply treating it as a playstation. the format is making profit for developers, but not as much as DS (because a team of 5 could make a solid DS game and make buckets of cash). DS' success is down to the fact that it's developers are making games that you can shoot into for 5mins on a train, or 30mins in the office during lunch. PSP games demand far more attention because developers are not treating it as a handheld. so far Killzone, Lumines, GTA:VCS, Mercury, Ridge Racer and a few others have actually hit the sweet spot with the machine.

abetarrush wrote:

And the answer is the variety of games. Thats wha sells a console, IMO. the 360 is goin through a boost atm as Gears of War is MS's only good Killer App since Halo. Zelda will be a killer App no doubt for the Wii.

yeah, and the 360's next big hit will be Lost Planet in January. after that, mass effect in march. it's timed perfectly. PS3 has it's titles coming out in similar fashion.

Zelda is a huge title, so is mario, but ask the general irish public if they want zelda, mario or halo and mgs and... well, you know the answer to that.

steviec

ambro25 wrote:

Sounds like the Emotion engine all over again

I sure hope so!

'Emotion Engine' is a huge target of ridicule and hate amongst fanboys whilst at the same time being the heart of the fastest selling console of all time and more importantly home to probably the most fantastic collection of games of any console around. If the Cell turns out like that I can't wait to play games as compelling as Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Katamari Damacy, MGS, Final Fantasy, GTA, Gran Turismo, Suikoden, ICO, Guitar Hero which are just a few of the games off the top of my head that were either exclusive to or primarily targetted at that crappy emotion engine.

ambro25

steviec wrote:

'Emotion Engine' is a huge target of ridicule and hate amongst fanboys whilst at the same time being the heart of the fastest selling console of all time and more importantly home to probably the most fantastic collection of games of any console around.

No fanboyism or hate at this end, m8 (hence the wink icon, not the sarcasm/big grin icon). 'Tis just good-natured ribbing @ Sony, as their marketing hyperbole was always way OTT.

It's just a bigget/better/faster processor at the end of the day.

I get your point and I've got no probs admitting you're right in the rest of your post

Raskolnikov

Jeez, an awful lot of fanboyism here and some ridiculous predictions.

The Wii is always going to be number 3. console simply because nothing is being done to promote its brand. How many kiddies, teens, adults do you hear clamouring for a Wii? The fact as well that it usually has the worst implementation of mega-selling games like FIFA XXXX, NBA XXXX, etc will also stand against it.

The real battle will be Sony Vs XBox.

Karmafaerie

The Emotion engine was hyped up of course, but this is nothing like that.
This is happening here and now.

Take the 360 for instance. If you have a PC with Media Centre, you could link your PC to your 360, and stream video, music, and pictures to the console.

Admittedly most PC owners didn't have Media Centre and couldn't make use of the full service. This is about to change.
Vista will be out by the end of January, and almost every new PC will have Vista.
With Vista you can interact so much more with the 360.

MS have developed the 360 to be more than just a games console.
It can download HD movies and TV episodes, it streams audio, video and pictures from your PC, and MS have a team set up to work out new ways for Visa and the 360 to interact.
The future does look very bright for the 360.

The PS3 will never be as indepth as this, but it will have downloadable content.

Before anyone tries to point out the "Wii channels" that's streaming, not downloading.
Don't forget hat the Wii only has 512mg of memory, and there have been no plans released for more.

All in all, the Wii is only a souped up version of a GC, or an Xbox, or a PS2.
The 360, and the PS3 are much, much, more.

Ciaran500

Karmafaerie wrote:

Take the 360 for instance. If you have a PC with Media Centre, you could link your PC to your 360, and stream video, music, and pictures to the console.

Admittedly most PC owners didn't have Media Centre and couldn't make use of the full service. This is about to change.
Vista will be out by the end of January, and almost every new PC will have Vista.
With Vista you can interact so much more with the 360.

You can stream video, music and pictures with XP now.

savemejebus

Karmafaerie wrote:

It can download HD movies and TV episodes, it streams audio, video and pictures from your PC, and MS have a team set up to work out new ways for Visa and the 360 to interact.
The future does look very bright for the 360.

The PS3 will never be as indepth as this, but it will have downloadable content.

Not wishing to nay say about the 360 but you kinda left out the bits about the heavy drm & 24 hour viewing period for downloaded hd content on the 360 & also the fact that the ps3 can run it's own OS which means it will also be able to download tv, play and stream content etc.

The future looks bright for both ps3 and 360.