The Playstation Loses.. To the Playstation
- Thread starter Khazoth
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Two words:Jumplion said:
LAST
Generation
Who was their real competition during the PS2 age??
The Xbox? It came late to the party and left early.
Nintendo? the Gamecube was them trying to move too cautiously but with an aim to hit the lower price point of the market and family oriented gamers.
The PS2 fell into a nice niche where their one competitor, the Dreamcast fell too quickly. Had the dreamcast shipped immediately with an updated version with a DVD player, the hot new format at the time with no other format to compete with it (i.e. digital downloads) the Dreamcast might have taken on and even beat the PS2. It was a hell of an awesome console.
But in the business world, quite frankly the PS2 had luck on it's side. It was an awesome console that came out with little to NO competition, and the next best competition came along late enough and with little fan support that it allowed the PS2 to stay in the fight much much longer. That and technology increases exponentially and so the PS2 had a longer period to exist where technology didnt completely overshadow it's abilities. As it is, the PS3 is only marginally at BEST a superior system over the 360... but I wouldnt call that margin of superiority very large. Most people cant tell the difference between 720p and 1080i at first glance and there isnt enough supporting software to really make that a point of contention. Look at Fallout 3. It looks great on both consoles, and depending on your TELEVISION not the console, you still have the exact same game that plays the exact same way for the most part.
The PS3 is a better system but it's hard to sell that it is when the next nearest competitor is only slightly, almost imperceptibly worse. This is why the PS2 outsells the 360... the leap in technology is just not so huge that people cant justify purchasing one over the other beyond the titles that are available to play.
The PS3 is a better system, I think everyone can agree, but most of it's superiority is on PAPER, not in PRACTICE.
In truth, if the Red Ring of Death didnt exist, the xbox would probably have put the PS3 to bed already, and that is Sony's only REAL saving grace.
The problem with the PS3 is price for one (Sony shouldn't have forced a new, very expensive technology into it). If Sony really wanted to use Blu-ray they should've waited until it is economical. Speaks volumes about Sony's arrogance.
The other problem is the Blu-ray itself. From everyone I know in real life that I've talked to, the Blu-ray drive is slow and worthless. 360 uses an ~8GB disc, PS3 uses a 26GB to ~50GB (single/dual layer) and there's no real difference in graphics. There is however a huge difference in read time. Not to mention the fact that you are forced to install large chunks of games on the PS3 in a feeble attempt at combating the slow speed of the drive.
If Sony waited to use the Blu-ray drive until it was economical and actually worked, the PS3 would be crushing the 360.
The other problem is the Blu-ray itself. From everyone I know in real life that I've talked to, the Blu-ray drive is slow and worthless. 360 uses an ~8GB disc, PS3 uses a 26GB to ~50GB (single/dual layer) and there's no real difference in graphics. There is however a huge difference in read time. Not to mention the fact that you are forced to install large chunks of games on the PS3 in a feeble attempt at combating the slow speed of the drive.
If Sony waited to use the Blu-ray drive until it was economical and actually worked, the PS3 would be crushing the 360.
Another excellent point.DemonI81 said:
When the PS2 came out, it included a dvd drive which gave it the edge over the Dreamcast and the Gamecube, enough to dominate the market.
The thing is, contrary to popular belief, by that time, DVD players were already on the market at fair to decent prices, and rental stores had already begun replacing vhs with dvds. It was a format with NO competition as the next best thing, and offered instantly recognizable improvements over quality and sound. Sure they scratched like nobody's business but they were infinitely better than cds and cartridges and tapes.
The problem is, NOBODY was really making that Blu-ray leap and for the most part still isnt. When it comes to buying movies, i still opt for the cheaper DVD... why? Because 1. I'm not going to go replacing my dvd collection with blu-ray movies just because they "look prettier" and 2. Dvd's offer roughly the same quality for cheaper. I can still watch a movie and enjoy it and honestly, once I've seen it, I dont have the need to see it again right away, so it goes on the shelf. Why would I want to spend $10 more on a blu-ray movie i'll watch once and then shelve when I can do the same thing and still enjoy the experience with a much cheaper movie that will play on just about every movie player, dvd OR blu-ray player out there? Dvd players are cheap and come attached to just about anything with a screen.
Sony made this same mistake of forcing formats when it came to UMD movies. Had they priced UMD's sensibly (say, $5 per UMD movie) I think they'd have sold like gangbusters. But in typical bone-headed fashion, Sony tried to soak their loyal customers into buying a cheap little version of a movie with no special features or anything else that could ONLY be played on the PSP for the SAME price as a full-sized regular DVD. That was just plain stupid and it failed like it should have. I'd rather buy the dvd that I can take to any friend's house and watch than pay the same money for a little copy I can only watch on the personal screen in my LAP, having seen it once, most adults with disposable income dont usually have 2 hours where they just sit looking at a psp screen to pass the time. Once portable little dvd players with personal screens hit the market at nearly the same price as a PSP, the UMD's were doomed.
Are we speaking technically, because the internals of the PS3 are much better than that of the 360. It's hardly only marginally more powerful. Pure teraflops, its twice as powerful (the 360 is 1 teraflop, the PS3 is 2 teraflops). The processor is something to be marvelled at. It's far beyond anything any of the big processor names are producing (Intel, AMD) with their 4 core and still depending on shared caches. The cell processor doesn't build on later processors but does it's own thing entirely, dedicating caches individually to each processor, forgoing the FSB long before the i7 among other advances. The world is currently dragging behind the PS3, and for this it has failed. It has alienated developers who don't want to step away from the money (and why should they?). They all want to remain safe with technology thats familiar and that has documentation up the arse due to years of taking baby steps, resulting also in much backwards compatiblity of old source code, which saves months of effort. The PS3 is a different machine altogether, and it's superiority techincally is its failing moreso than anything. The wise thing to do may have been to hold off on the PS3s design and leave it in the works for a console in the more distant future. Build on the PS2 like Microsoft did with the 360, and set up a decent online community (which they've done regardless of anyones misgivings).HyenaThePirate said:
If developers came out of the comfort zone of familiarity and began to work on future tech the PS3 would shine through. It won't happen though.
The Playstation 2 has sold, and is still selling, for near 10 years by now. That was what I was trying to get through was that regardless of any hardware inferiorities to PCs, lack of real competition, or beating the PS3 itself, it's still alive after 10 years.HyenaThePirate said:
How much has hardware improved since the PS2 was launched. A helluva lot! And that's not mentioning the success of the Wii.
Just by that statement your whole argument over that the PS3 cannot hold out for 10 years because, quote;
"The much touted cell chip for example was fascinating and marvelous technology... in 2005. Now in a world where Quad core pc's are becoming the NORM for the average PC consumer, and where there are 8 core processors available for consumers, the cell chip is a technology that missed it's moment."
is inherently futile as the PS2 has been alive for nearly 10 years and it doesn't need that stuff.
PCs will always be ahead of consoles, so it's no use using the "Inferior technology by tomorrow!" card as console gaming and PC gaming are two completely different entities.
I'm speaking FUNCTIONALLY.NezumiiroKitsune said:
Seriously, do you notice the difference in Teraflops when you are gaming? I most certainly don't. I can honestly say I havent noticed this 'technological' superiority ONCE in my gaming experiences with both systems.
Your marvelling at the Processor of the PS3 makes me really wonder how easy you are to please. By most terms, the PS3 processor isnt even comparable by some of the mid-range PC dual-core processors. But again, what looks good on paper isnt always great in IMPLEMENTATION. Have you ever noticed a vast difference in gaming on either system because of it? Honestly, my PC blows the HELL out of my PS3 in almost any catagory you care to name and it's about 3 years old and woefully underpowered by most PC gaming standards.
And ask anyone in the business... 'cells' do not = processors and cell-chip technology isnt exciting anymore. Nobody cares about it, it's a technology that had promise, just like the virtual boy, but unfortunately nobody really invested in it because better things came along. Thats just the way technology works. Once 8-10 core processors became easy to produce, the idea of a cell chip became redundant. Sure, maybe the cell phone market will find something useful to do with it but as far as console gaming and Pc's are concerned, it's as useless as betamax.
But for the most part, we are in agreement. In my opinion, Sony got TOO ambitious with the PS3, trying to make it the greatest gaming console of all time instead of making moderate improvements on their current console. Sure, it all SOUNDS wonderful in advertisements, but people see with their eyes and thats what gets them to open up their wallets. The PS3 could have 20 teraflops and if you cant tell the difference instantly vs. the modestly cheaper price of the nearest competitor, you arent going to sell them.
I will say this though.. had the PS3 released a year earlier it would be dominating the market. but the time spent trying to perfect bleeding edge technology to shoehorn in a next gen now current gen system forcing a much higher price point than it's competitor while taking tremendous losses on every unit sold was a mistake, pure and simple. Now they have an expensive system with technology nobody wants or cares about while people are still buying their old system off the shelves as fast as they can make them.
Even the 360 cant outsell the PS2.
That should tell console makers something.
You are still trying to shoehorn the PAST into the PRESENT.Jumplion said:
Thats just bad business.
Things move faster than they did then. By your argument, Nintendo should still be the greatest thing out there because the NES and the SNES did so well and lasted so long.
Thing is, technology and advancements move MUCH faster these days. The environment that allowed the ps2 to do so well and last so long is not the same consumer environment. Technology is faster, cheaper, and CONSUMERS (the goal) are short-sighted in their purchases.
They will buy what is cheaper with the best new technology compared to it's competitors.
The PS2 defeated it's only real competitor right out the gate, lacked a decent competitor for nearly 3 years, and then coasted it's way through to the current generation where it's HUGE game library, still releasing awesome titles, dvd player, reliability, and most importantly it's PRICE point make it the best value on the market.
Unfortunately the PS3 is a new toy in a world of new toys with newer toys coming out even faster than before for a better value in price. You can wait 5 years from now and hope that the PS3 is still selling but Sony probably doesnt want to wait that long to see a profit, while their competitors are already researching and designing the 'next big thing' and with other competitors (Apple and that online console that is in the works) considering jumping into the fray with consoles of their own.
This is assuming that the only thing you can do with the PS3's processor is improving graphics with it. You can do other stuff with it, and better visuals (an entirely different concept I don't want to retype about) can always improve a game with better aesthetics and atmospheric settings.HyenaThePirate said:
You are right about that... the potential of the PS3's processor IS greater than anything else on the market.Jumplion said:
But the problem again, is that you're weighing potential against the present.
Nobody wants to pay for "potential" which is unrealized and might not ever be fully realized in a satisfactory way to justify buying the system on that alone.
If it came to that, it would just be better to buy a 360 NOW, and then later when Sony has blown the doors off of what the PS3 can do and developers are making use of the PS3 in ways that nobody can compete with, the price will have fallen to a point then that makes it a worthy buy.
But that definitely is not what Sony wants. They dont want ps3's sitting on shelves while buyers wait until the price comes down or the games improve before spending their money. Chances are, by then, Microsoft (if they still have any smart business people on their payroll) will have capitalized on the wasted time and release a comparable system at a close enough price point to negate the PS3's current advantages.
That was never my argument, I'm saying that if the PS2, and PS1 if you want to go there, lasted so long and is still kicking then it's not that improbable that the PS3, hell even the 360 or Wii, could last over 10 years maybe even more.HyenaThePirate said:
You have just proved my point in your own post. Technology does grow and improve, sure, but technology also gets cheaper. It took a very long time before DVDs were affordable for the average joe. The availability of the technology from the PS2 era did not come over night, it took a few years before it caught on with the market and became more affordable. The same thing could very well happen with Blu-Ray and the likes, it's in the same cycle.
Technology has always improved this way, it starts out an innovation but it's not easily available. Then as the price goes down, people adopt it, and the next innovation comes along with the same cycle. You're claiming that technology is somehow different from the days of old, but it's always been like this.
I'm hearing the same swan-song from you that I've heard from so many other people. Sony obviously wants to make a profit, in fact that's probably their number 1 concern as they've stated in several interviews before. Sony seem confident to stick with their 10-year plan, and you and I both know that they're too stubborn to stop doing something like that
It's always "The Ps3 is too far ahead of it's time!" but then "it's so weak compared to new advancments in technology!". Those new advancements are barely even available to the public, they're just products of the future when they can be readily available and part of the norm.
Actually, I think it's losing to the PS-2 due to both the fact that the PS-2 was heavily circulated, a lot of the games have stood the test of time (coming out during an era when good graphics were good graphics, and music sounded like music), plus it's easy to develop for ane people still play it.
Considering some of my all time favorite games are on the PS-2, truthfully I wind up using my PS-3 (60GB version, original model) mostly as a PS-2. However Sony in their infinite wisdom decided that they were going to remove the backwards compadibility from the newer 360 units which was one of the biggest selling points, and kind of shot themselves in the foot. The PS-3 mostly promising awesome exclusives, it has yet to deliver many of them.
Truthfully I'm actually thinking that it might be wise to invest in a PS-2 system to keep in storage in case my PS-3 breaks since if I get a replacement it won't be backwards compadible. Foolishly I traded in my PS-2 for money towards my PS-3.
Really, if you do RPGs the PS-2 is your only real serious choice for a system. The Xbox/360 has a few, as does the PS-3. However the PS-2 has a megaton of them, including some awesome titles like Persona 3 & 4, Eternal Poison, Mana Khemia, Rogue Galaxy, etc... all within the last few years.
The first real PS-3 "Killer App" known as "inFamous" is coming out this month, I have my copy paid off (I have both a PS-3 and a 360). It is however receiving mixed reviews (some harsh criticism here at the Escapist from Jordan's replacement). White Knight Chronicles is so far a no-show, and Final Fantasy XIII isn't going to be a PS-3 exclusive, and is scheduled to MAYBE be released towards the end of the year.
When your considering that I'm more excited to try and find/import a copy of this Demon's Souls thing, than I am about any of their official releases, I think that says a lot.
>>>----Therumancer--->
>>>----Therumancer--->
Considering some of my all time favorite games are on the PS-2, truthfully I wind up using my PS-3 (60GB version, original model) mostly as a PS-2. However Sony in their infinite wisdom decided that they were going to remove the backwards compadibility from the newer 360 units which was one of the biggest selling points, and kind of shot themselves in the foot. The PS-3 mostly promising awesome exclusives, it has yet to deliver many of them.
Truthfully I'm actually thinking that it might be wise to invest in a PS-2 system to keep in storage in case my PS-3 breaks since if I get a replacement it won't be backwards compadible. Foolishly I traded in my PS-2 for money towards my PS-3.
Really, if you do RPGs the PS-2 is your only real serious choice for a system. The Xbox/360 has a few, as does the PS-3. However the PS-2 has a megaton of them, including some awesome titles like Persona 3 & 4, Eternal Poison, Mana Khemia, Rogue Galaxy, etc... all within the last few years.
The first real PS-3 "Killer App" known as "inFamous" is coming out this month, I have my copy paid off (I have both a PS-3 and a 360). It is however receiving mixed reviews (some harsh criticism here at the Escapist from Jordan's replacement). White Knight Chronicles is so far a no-show, and Final Fantasy XIII isn't going to be a PS-3 exclusive, and is scheduled to MAYBE be released towards the end of the year.
When your considering that I'm more excited to try and find/import a copy of this Demon's Souls thing, than I am about any of their official releases, I think that says a lot.
>>>----Therumancer--->
>>>----Therumancer--->
Don't you think a ten year plan is ridiculous though. In a few years technology will change and become better. With accurate timing a console will outplay the PS3 by making a higher spec model while it continues to use what will then be old tech. I feel planning towards the future was a bad move. Especially considering the rate at which technology improves.Jumplion said:That was never my argument, I'm saying that if the PS2, and PS1 if you want to go there, lasted so long and is still kicking then it's not that improbable that the PS3, hell even the 360 or Wii, could last over 10 years maybe even more.HyenaThePirate said:
You have just proved my point in your own post. Technology does grow and improve, sure, but technology also gets cheaper. It took a very long time before DVDs were affordable for the average joe. The availability of the technology from the PS2 era did not come over night, it took a few years before it caught on with the market and became more affordable. The same thing could very well happen with Blu-Ray and the likes, it's in the same cycle.
Technology has always improved this way, it starts out an innovation but it's not easily available. Then as the price goes down, people adopt it, and the next innovation comes along with the same cycle. You're claiming that technology is somehow different from the days of old, but it's always been like this.
I'm hearing the same swan-song from you that I've heard from so many other people. Sony obviously wants to make a profit, in fact that's probably their number 1 concern as they've stated in several interviews before. Sony seem confident to stick with their 10-year plan, and you and I both know that they're too stubborn to stop doing something like that
It's always "The Ps3 is too far ahead of it's time!" but then "it's so weak compared to new advancments in technology!". Those new advancements are barely even available to the public, they're just products of the future when they can be readily available and part of the norm.
Nope, I do not think that it's ridiculous, infact I encourage it. I don't want to have to worry about buying a new console in two years and you can optimize the hell out of a console in 10 years.bad rider said:
Again, I reiterate, technology does grow faster and faster but that does not mean that it will be cheap, affordable, or accepted by the masses. It takes time.
DVD came out, it was expensive, people didn't want it. DVD then got cheaper, people bought it, and it became a wild success.
Blu-Ray came out, it was really expensive, and people didn't want it. Soon when Blu-Ray prices go down, I wouldn't be surprised that it would sell much better.
How about the next innovation? Deep-UV, we'll call it (according to my dad, it's the next step). Right now my dad works with over a $100 million dollar machine that produces a Deep-UV ray. Sooner or later, that will become much cheaper and it could even be sold to the masses.
It's the same cycle, but until then, Blu-ray could very well take over for as long as DVD has. It doesn't matter if Deep-UV comes out next year, it wouldn't nearly be as cheap as Blu-Ray would (hopefully) be by then but eventually it'd be cheaper and phase out Blu-Ray (if BR does dominate).
Oh I understand what you are saying, and on certain points reasonable people could have a good discussion about.
But my point is that you are assuming that the "old" business model is as sound today as it was 10 years ago, and I'm saying that it is not.
The technology is not the only thing rapidly changing, so is consumerism and as a result Business in general.
The reason people use those same recycled lines of "The PS3 is too far ahead of it's time" is because of the exact problem they are facing now. Those new advancements that are barely available to the public NOW used to take long to BECOME available. Now they dont. That time frame from Concept to R&D to store shelves has condensed considerably and still is. I simply do not believe the PS3 is going to HAVE 10 years to grow old gracefully like the PS2, that the market will dictate the console generation cycles based on how quickly and how affordable new technology can come to bear.
It used to be that people could settle for technology you that you would consider "outdated" because of the cost, but that model is no longer valid. Again, look at any technological field out there... instead of people sitting around with old technology waiting for newer technology to drop in price so they can get that when even newer technology is out of their comfortable price range, people are now storming to buy the next big thing as quick as possible if they feel the purchase is warranted. That reflects in PS2 sales. People choose the PS2 because it is the better system for the price than the PS3, even though the PS3's price has been dropping as well as the price of the xbox. The thing is however, people are already looking past the current gen to the NEXT gen which I honestly believe will arrive in the next 3 to 4 years. If that happens, Sony's 10 year plan gets blown out of the water because by then the PS3 will be their ONLY system on the market, but it will have a slew of competitively priced competitors with potentially equal or better technology.
Given the choice, consumers will split the market, and Sony will have to take a bath on all the PS3's they lost money on and never recoup those losses.
That by any definition is a TERRIBLE business model to be sitting on, but Sony has it's hands tied. They cant realistically drop the price on the PS3 because they are already taking a bath on it.
The only option they might have is to make a PS3 withOUT a blu ray player so they can manufacture it cheaper and sell it cheaper but that probably wont work either and completely destroys the way they currently produce their games.
But my point is that you are assuming that the "old" business model is as sound today as it was 10 years ago, and I'm saying that it is not.
The technology is not the only thing rapidly changing, so is consumerism and as a result Business in general.
The reason people use those same recycled lines of "The PS3 is too far ahead of it's time" is because of the exact problem they are facing now. Those new advancements that are barely available to the public NOW used to take long to BECOME available. Now they dont. That time frame from Concept to R&D to store shelves has condensed considerably and still is. I simply do not believe the PS3 is going to HAVE 10 years to grow old gracefully like the PS2, that the market will dictate the console generation cycles based on how quickly and how affordable new technology can come to bear.
It used to be that people could settle for technology you that you would consider "outdated" because of the cost, but that model is no longer valid. Again, look at any technological field out there... instead of people sitting around with old technology waiting for newer technology to drop in price so they can get that when even newer technology is out of their comfortable price range, people are now storming to buy the next big thing as quick as possible if they feel the purchase is warranted. That reflects in PS2 sales. People choose the PS2 because it is the better system for the price than the PS3, even though the PS3's price has been dropping as well as the price of the xbox. The thing is however, people are already looking past the current gen to the NEXT gen which I honestly believe will arrive in the next 3 to 4 years. If that happens, Sony's 10 year plan gets blown out of the water because by then the PS3 will be their ONLY system on the market, but it will have a slew of competitively priced competitors with potentially equal or better technology.
Given the choice, consumers will split the market, and Sony will have to take a bath on all the PS3's they lost money on and never recoup those losses.
That by any definition is a TERRIBLE business model to be sitting on, but Sony has it's hands tied. They cant realistically drop the price on the PS3 because they are already taking a bath on it.
The only option they might have is to make a PS3 withOUT a blu ray player so they can manufacture it cheaper and sell it cheaper but that probably wont work either and completely destroys the way they currently produce their games.
You keep forgetting... DVD had no real viable competition. At all. It was a noticeably large leap in quality, sound, size, portability, and even durability to an extent. It was the next and ONLY media format. VHS had reigned long enough and there was absolutely NOTHING ELSE to compete with DVD realistically.Jumplion said:
Blu-ray does not have that luxury, nor does the PS3's technology.
Why can't the Sony exclusives be on the PC D:
Damnit, why can't Sony and Microsoft be at peace D:
Damnit, why can't Sony and Microsoft be at peace D:
That is an utter lie and I can prove it.HyenaThePirate said:
My PC is crap. I'm not in any rush to go out and buy the latest CPU or GPU for my computer. Neither is anyone else I know.
When have people ever constantly gone out to get the "next great thing"? And even if that were true, that does not mean that it's accepted by the masses.
You can have a few rabid technophiles go out and buy every single latest advancement, like OLEDs, 3D monitors, the latest CPUs, or any other crazy advancment that comes out these days, but that does not mean that it's available to the masses.
And the PS2 was out when the PS1 was still going, and the PS1 went for a good near 10 years also. It's not improbable for Sony to have two simultaneous consoles out, and it's already happening!
You're going all over the place, first you say that everyone is going out to get hte latest stuff, but then you say "People choose the PS2 because it is the better system for the price than the PS3, even though the PS3's price has been dropping as well as the price of the xbox."? You're jumping all over the place.
And we just went over this. I'm sorry, but you're starting to piss me off now. I just completely disproved your last sentence;
"If that happens, Sony's 10 year plan gets blown out of the water because by then the PS3 will be their ONLY system on the market, but it will have a slew of competitively priced competitors with potentially equal or better technology."
By proving that the PS2 is still selling and is still alive!!!!!
Look at the fucking Wii for Pete's sake! It does not always matter about the damn hardware, the PS3 could do just fine if some random new competitor steps in the ring with more and better technology, that does not mean that it's automatically better as it would still be brand new and it'd probably be in the same situation as the PS3 is in now!
You're repeating the same thing over and over again when I've already explained to you how it's not like that. I'm sorry if I'm coming off as an asshole, but in all honesty it's frustrating me.
Again, that was not my point. I never said that DVD did not have competition (actually it did if you count CDs). I'm saying that it still started out as expensive and people stuck with VHSs because DVDs were not among the norm at the time.HyenaThePirate said:
You forgot to add wireless internet and a hard driveincubus42 said:
Xbox 360 120GB (to be as big as PS3 hdd) Hard Drive $129.97
xbox 360 wireless adapter $99.99
= $429.95 Plus internet for life =$10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000429.95