PS3 comeback

[Dr Spaceman]

The biggest problem I see is that PS3 hasn't seemed to really distance itself from the 360 as a worthy investment. The 360's head start and large initial install base (along with the PS3's initial slow sales) has really put Sony in trouble.

I just can't really imagine most gamers wanting both a 360 and a PS3. There's so much crossover between the two that it just doesn't seem worth the investment to buy a PS3 after buying a 360. Someone who has yet to purchase either of these two systems would probably base their decision on exclusives, but few people would want to spend several hundred dollars to play any exclusive game if they've already invested in a pricey console. That's not to say some people wouldn't, it's just that I don't see many gamers making this choice.

This is really an example of how clever Nintendo has been this generation. By marketing a console that exists outside of the high-end market, essentially carving out their own niche, I can see early 360 adopters being more likely to buy a Wii than a PS3. Regardless of how you feel about the Wii, it is an entirely different game system than either the 360 or PS3. Overlap is nearly nonexistent.

It'll be interesting to see how Sony reacts to being in "third place." Nintendo pulled a remarkable move and went immediately from third to first. I wonder if Sony will be willing to make such a bold maneuver...

 

[TheGhostOfSin]

PSP is $1999 and PSP 3000 is slightly more

Wow, that's some price tag...

 

[Bocaj2000]

Isn't the DS about the same price to? I don't know, can't remember the recent price tag for a DS.

PSP is $1999 and PSP 3000 is slightly more.

is a PSP really that much? I can buy 100 xboxes with that much money!
EDIT: 100 +or- 10

Also, I lost some respect for Microsoft after ripping off the Mii idea and totally stealing the PS3 intro. Granted, I own a 360 and would never trade it back for several reasons that I don't have to patience to go into at 10pm. I also have Vista and love it. I like the company and I respect the business, however the the respect is slowly depleting.

 

[Jumplion]

Why do you think that you have seen so many games that were once exclusive are no longer exlcusive anymore? Because the huge publishers EA, Act-Bliaa and Take-2 see the money in multiplatform games. You fail to mention these publishers, you must have forgot. Sony and Microsoft see this and that is why Microsoft has DLC and made the big deal with Netflix or Sony's attempt to create the interactive interface (forgot the name)and has Blu-Ray. Wii doesn't have to do such things because 1st party games drive the system. I'm not saying that exlusives are dead but what games a console has doesn't completely go in a consumers decision into buying a game because the other consoles have the same games. That is the reason I purchased my 360 after great contemplation, because of the DLC. And I'm not bitching and moaning about not seeing LBP on the 360 I am simply stating that its bad sales could be directly connected to its exlusivity and disecting why it is so, so maybe I can learn something and not be an asshole like yourself.

I'm not trying to be an "asshole", I'm just saying what I think. No need to get your nickers in a twist over my opinion that is different than yours.

First of all, why do you think some other developers/publishers (Square Enix, Konami, Media Molecule) keep some of their games exclusive to one console? Because they're payed by one of the big three (Sony, MS, Nintendo) to keep it exclusive. Ea/Acti-Blizard/Take-Two are going to keep their games on one consome because they don't own any other console unless one of the big three pay them to keep exclusivity. I believe L.A. Noire, made by Rockstar, is supposed to be a PS3 exclusive (though I think it's on 360 now). Either Rockstar were payed to keep it exclusive or they for some reason decided to keep it exclusive anyway.

If you're buying a games console the first thing on your mind is usually going to be the games. If one console is the cheapest, and has all the games regardless of quality, most people are going to go to that. I can't blame them, that's probably what I would do to, but the two other companies are going to want to drag you away from the competition and exclusives are one way to do it.

And also, what bad sales? I don't know how much LBP has sold so far, but could you validate your statement of LBP not selling well? Even if it's not sellling well, who knows what could be the problem; advertising, people thinking it's gay/stupid/a simple platformer/don't care, all the other games coming out this season, ect...

My friend who had owned a Wii since launch bought a PS3 for LBP and many other games that were exclusive to the PS3 or inevitable games that would be exclusive to it like God of War III, Resistance 2, White Knight Chronicles, ect...

People bought a PS3 for MGS4, LittleBigPlanet, ect..
People bought a 360 for Halo 3, Fable II, Gears 2, ect...
People bought a Wii for the next Mario/Metroid/Zelda game.

I'm not saying that everyone bought that certain console for that certain game, but that's what many people bought it for; the exclusives.

You can talk all you want about how it "makes sense" for developers to go multiplatform with their games, but aslong as the big three have money in their pockets and maybe a basket of chocolates, you're going to see exclusives.

HOWEVER, I do agree with the notion that it's stupid for most 3rd party developers to have exclusive games unless they're payed to (Square's RPGs on the 360 is an example).

 

[Kermi]

"From now on"? Are you sure? Because people were saying the same thing last year and devs are still using the 360 as the lead console. If you could name a few titles that are being developed with the PS3 as the lead and then ported to the 360 it would bolster your claim.

Mirrors Edge? Final Fantasy XIII? Resident Evil 5? Dead Space? Burnout Paradise?

Quoting me then quoting a post that makes your point instead of answering the question yourself works better when I haven't already replied to the post you quoted and am awaiting a response.

 

[Kermi]

The Orginal 20GB PS3 and Orginal 60GB PS3 can play PS2 Games.
All formats of hte PS3 can play PsX Games.
And since I have an orginal 60GB Ps3, thusly the library of games I can play, kicks the library of games a 360 owner can play on there 360.
Even if you JUST include PsX games its still bigger.

Sorry, but no. You can't trumpet backwards compatibility as a feature when the feature was only available for a very short period of time - Sony were supposed to be adopting software emulation to make up for removing the emotion engine and two years later, they still haven't done it. I have PS2 games I'd love to play again - my PS2 is dead and I don't see the point in paying to replace it when I have a PS3 that should be up to the task. Also, you're using PSX games to bolster the PS3 catalogue? Really? I understand wanting to play some of those games for the nostalgia factor - I mean who doesn't have Super Mario Bros on their Wii? And I can play the original Silent Hill (even if I can no longer play 2-4).
But for the most part PSX games have been surpassed in every way by later generations of gaming. Someone entering the world of console gaming today is not going to say "Oh man, the original Crash Bandicoot! Fuck yeah!"

 

[SteveDave]

Why do you think that you have seen so many games that were once exclusive are no longer exlcusive anymore? Because the huge publishers EA, Act-Bliaa and Take-2 see the money in multiplatform games. You fail to mention these publishers, you must have forgot. Sony and Microsoft see this and that is why Microsoft has DLC and made the big deal with Netflix or Sony's attempt to create the interactive interface (forgot the name)and has Blu-Ray. Wii doesn't have to do such things because 1st party games drive the system. I'm not saying that exlusives are dead but what games a console has doesn't completely go in a consumers decision into buying a game because the other consoles have the same games. That is the reason I purchased my 360 after great contemplation, because of the DLC. And I'm not bitching and moaning about not seeing LBP on the 360 I am simply stating that its bad sales could be directly connected to its exlusivity and disecting why it is so, so maybe I can learn something and not be an asshole like yourself.

I'm not trying to be an "asshole", I'm just saying what I think. No need to get your nickers in a twist over my opinion that is different than yours.

First of all, why do you think some other developers/publishers (Square Enix, Konami, Media Molecule) keep some of their games exclusive to one console? Because they're payed by one of the big three (Sony, MS, Nintendo) to keep it exclusive. Ea/Acti-Blizard/Take-Two are going to keep their games on one consome because they don't own any other console unless one of the big three pay them to keep exclusivity. I believe L.A. Noire, made by Rockstar, is supposed to be a PS3 exclusive (though I think it's on 360 now). Either Rockstar were payed to keep it exclusive or they for some reason decided to keep it exclusive anyway.

If you're buying a games console the first thing on your mind is usually going to be the games. If one console is the cheapest, and has all the games regardless of quality, most people are going to go to that. I can't blame them, that's probably what I would do to, but the two other companies are going to want to drag you away from the competition and exclusives are one way to do it.

And also, what bad sales? I don't know how much LBP has sold so far, but could you validate your statement of LBP not selling well? Even if it's not sellling well, who knows what could be the problem; advertising, people thinking it's gay/stupid/a simple platformer/don't care, all the other games coming out this season, ect...

My friend who had owned a Wii since launch bought a PS3 for LBP and many other games that were exclusive to the PS3 or inevitable games that would be exclusive to it like God of War III, Resistance 2, White Knight Chronicles, ect...

People bought a PS3 for MGS4, LittleBigPlanet, ect..
People bought a 360 for Halo 3, Fable II, Gears 2, ect...
People bought a Wii for the next Mario/Metroid/Zelda game.

I'm not saying that everyone bought that certain console for that certain game, but that's what many people bought it for; the exclusives.

You can talk all you want about how it "makes sense" for developers to go multiplatform with their games, but aslong as the big three have money in their pockets and maybe a basket of chocolates, you're going to see exclusives.

HOWEVER, I do agree with the notion that it's stupid for most 3rd party developers to have exclusive games unless they're payed to (Square's RPGs on the 360 is an example).

Your last point was the point I was trying to make. You see a lot less exclusives out there than you did yesterday and consoles can't really on exclusives anymore. The 360 doesn't have to get many exlcusives, all it needs to do is take them away from PS3 and make them multiplatform because the 360 is cheaper. And why do you think Bungie left Micro? Because they want to make more money buy going multiplatform. No, Halo will never go multiplatform because Micro owns the rights but Bungie leaving validates what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that exlusives don't factor in the equasion of buying a console but their role is diminishing and it is a pattern that will continue and bring changes to how the next consoles are designed.

I read on Edge-Magazine.com that after week two LBP sales were only at 400k, bad sales for what was supposed to be a great game.

The reason I call you an asshole is because you immediately jump to the conclusion that I am a fanboy because I have a differing opinion and own a 360.

Also, I wouldn't call Sony and Micro part of the big three in game publishing. EA and Acti-Blizz publish way more games.

 

[SteveDave]

I have to agree with Kermi here, Sony seems to think Backwards compatibility is bad for the console, it is not, it would increase sales SO MUCH.

Supposedly Kermi they didn't want people playing so much with PS2 stuff, I don't get it, look, drop the PS2 from the market, market the PS3 with backwards compatibility, that way you still make PS2 games and it's a net gain, yes the PS2 still sells, but Backwards compatibility, I recently had your problem Kermi, and since I had games from Japan, I have to buy and chip a new PS2, or buy a good graphics card for my PC, but you know what I mean, I shouldn't have to.
Also I'm sure Backwards compatibility was never available in Australia.


As for Steve, you do know the 360 hasn't broken even yet? because they lowered the price again, and have to keep replacing them, also out of curiosity, have you ever done a business course?

Actually they are finally making profits for the first time. Sure they havn't payed off the giant bill from breaking into the business but it is looking up. I also remember way back when they first announced the new consoles experts were saying how manufacturing the 360 would get cheaper and more efficient over time. And yes I have done and am doing business courses. But most of what I am saying is simple econ.

 

[Jumplion]

Your last point was the point I was trying to make. You see a lot less exclusives out there than you did yesterday and consoles can't really on exclusives anymore. The 360 doesn't have to get many exlcusives, all it needs to do is take them away from PS3 and make them multiplatform because the 360 is cheaper. And why do you think Bungie left Micro? Because they want to make more money buy going multiplatform. No, Halo will never go multiplatform because Micro owns the rights but Bungie leaving validates what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that exlusives don't factor in the equasion of buying a console but their role is diminishing and it is a pattern that will continue and bring changes to how the next consoles are designed.

I read on Edge-Magazine.com that after week two LBP sales were only at 400k, bad sales for what was supposed to be a great game.

The reason I call you an asshole is because you immediately jump to the conclusion that I am a fanboy because I have a differing opinion and own a 360.

Also, I wouldn't call Sony and Micro part of the big three in game publishing. EA and Acti-Blizz publish way more games.

Please show me one multiplatform game Bungie has made since they left. I don't even know why they're still making Halo, I don't care if their next game was multiplatform I just want them to get away from all this Halo stuff.

The LBP sales could be an effect of countless things, mainly trying to get the game atleast well known which I don't think it has. I highly doubt that LBP being multiplat would make much of a difference in sales, but that's my opinion.

Never thought you were a fanboy, what gives you that idea? Just don't call people assholes for no aparant reason and you're fine, I just thought we were on a friendly debate of some sorts.

Erm, no. By "Big Three" I'm talking about the console manufacture-ers. I could care less if EA was a big name publisher, they have no reason to pay someone else to keep their games exclusive to one platform. Only the "Big Three" have reason to pay EA or Acti-Blizz to keep a game exclusive.

 

[SteveDave]

Your last point was the point I was trying to make. You see a lot less exclusives out there than you did yesterday and consoles can't really on exclusives anymore. The 360 doesn't have to get many exlcusives, all it needs to do is take them away from PS3 and make them multiplatform because the 360 is cheaper. And why do you think Bungie left Micro? Because they want to make more money buy going multiplatform. No, Halo will never go multiplatform because Micro owns the rights but Bungie leaving validates what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that exlusives don't factor in the equasion of buying a console but their role is diminishing and it is a pattern that will continue and bring changes to how the next consoles are designed.

I read on Edge-Magazine.com that after week two LBP sales were only at 400k, bad sales for what was supposed to be a great game.

The reason I call you an asshole is because you immediately jump to the conclusion that I am a fanboy because I have a differing opinion and own a 360.

Also, I wouldn't call Sony and Micro part of the big three in game publishing. EA and Acti-Blizz publish way more games.

Please show me one multiplatform game Bungie has made since they left. I don't even know why they're still making Halo, I don't care if their next game was multiplatform I just want them to get away from all this Halo stuff.

The LBP sales could be an effect of countless things, mainly trying to get the game atleast well known which I don't think it has. I highly doubt that LBP being multiplat would make much of a difference in sales, but that's my opinion.

Never thought you were a fanboy, what gives you that idea? Just don't call people assholes for no aparant reason and you're fine, I just thought we were on a friendly debate of some sorts.

Erm, no. By "Big Three" I'm talking about the console manufacture-ers. I could care less if EA was a big name publisher, they have no reason to pay someone else to keep their games exclusive to one platform. Only the "Big Three" have reason to pay EA or Acti-Blizz to keep a game exclusive.

Like you said Bungie hasn't gotten away from the Halo thing but they will make, or making, a multiplatform game, I can garuntee it.

LBP has been touted all over the place by Sony. Bag Boy was being touted as the new sony mascot as much as Master Chief has been for the 360. And mulitplatforming would have sold more games and thus create a difference in sales, that you can't deny.

Then next post don't talk about what I said then add your hatred for 360 fanboys, misunderstanding.

And in a previous post you talked about Sony, Micro, and Nintendo and referred to them as "publishers". To your point that Sony and Micro are paying for exclusives, what exclusives are you reffering to? I know Microsoft has paid for GTA and the next FF but like I said before the strategy there is not to get exclusives but to take them away from the PS3 because the 360 is more competitively priced. The common way that "The Big Three" get exclusives is through in house development, ala Nintendo, or by gobbleing up developers and publishing them themselves. The only independent developer that I can think of that gives exclusives to one console is Konami with MGS.

 

[Kermi]

Please show me one multiplatform game Bungie has made since they left. I don't even know why they're still making Halo, I don't care if their next game was multiplatform I just want them to get away from all this Halo stuff.

Halo 3 only came out a year ago and I'm guessing part of their parting terms was to make Halo 3: Recon. It doesn't necessarily mean they'll start making multi-platform games as they still have a very close relationship with Microsoft, but even if they were going to they really haven't had the opportunity yet. Give them a break.

 

[SteveDave]

Besides, do you know what time it is almost? Christmas

With all the games that have just come out, and Christmas right around the corner, all the sales will be seen.

Like I said before, most consumers this holiday season are going to be more frugile because no one has any money this holiday season. So if they buy a console which will they buy? The PS3? I think not.

 

[Jumplion]

Please show me one multiplatform game Bungie has made since they left. I don't even know why they're still making Halo, I don't care if their next game was multiplatform I just want them to get away from all this Halo stuff.

Halo 3 only came out a year ago and I'm guessing part of their parting terms was to make Halo 3: Recon. It doesn't necessarily mean they'll start making multi-platform games as they still have a very close relationship with Microsoft, but even if they were going to they really haven't had the opportunity yet. Give them a break.

It's not so much that they're working on Halo, it's that they're still working on Halo after they separated. I mean, what's the point of becoming a 3rd party developer if you're just going to do the same thing? Branch out a bit, heck I'd be content with a Marathon game even if it was exclusive.

 

[SinisterDeath]

You know, I think M$ should never have gotten into the console buisness. They could have totally made more money if they had just dedicated there Game Studio to making Microsoft games on the Ps2/Dreamcast, PS3/Wii. Cause lets face it, Sony is a Hardware company, and dominated 2 generations of consoles, and Nintendo had been around since nearly the beginning. (NES/SNES won the previous generations prior to the psx)

AS it is, consoles really get there money from software sales, and sine M$ is notorious for becoming rich on 'software', Jumping into the hardware sector really didn't seem like a smart move imo. Hell, if you noticed Xbox was released 'late' last generation, had the best graphics, and was dominated by Dreamcast/PS2, This round, Xbox Jumped in to the game 'early', the ps3 jumped in 'late', and the tables are turned. Xbox has 'possibly' lower stats then the ps3, ps3 has more shit stuffed into the box... With the wii releasing 'late' with less power... Well, the wii is just a gamecube with motion sensing...

Anyways, Using the PS3s back catelogue of games, to add to the actual PS3's catelogue IS a valid tactic.
360, Launches with what, 20 games?
Ps3 Launches with 12 games + PS2 Library + PSX Library.
And even if the newer ps3's don't play PS2 games, they CAN and DO play Ps1 games. Hell, the PSN has PS1 Games on it for sale!

Hell, back when I first got my ps3, after beating Resistance: Fall of Man, I popped in FF1&2, and about half a dozen other PsX games while I waited for some money to get more ps3 games. I even popped in other ps2 games.

Why Sony stopped BC from newer models, was an asshat move imo. They figured that by eliminating ps2 games, they'd force more sales for ps3 software. And they figured that the people who'd buy the 40GB ps3, would buy it to just play ps3 games, and those who got the 60GB ps3 would buy it to have all the bells and whistles...
Keeping the trend was meant to reduce the price of the ps3, which while a 'good' thing, it would have been nice if they could have 'scrapped' other things, like... oohh, I dunno the card readers, various USB ports, possibly even some of the excess 'ports' on the back that no one uses that cost money... I know if they had a high end version and a low end version they could eaislly have kepted BC with out killing it...
But then again, Sony did say they were going to work on Software ps2 emulation... We' haven't heard hide nor hair of it. However I did hear a rumor that they have the ps2 emulation software on there servers...