The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I read Digitiser the other day. According to the article, the PS2's weekly sales were 3 times the combined sales of the Gamecube and Xbox.
Now my personal opinion is that these two consoles are MUCH better than the PS2, but I'll put that aside for now - it would be wrong to assume that my opinion is right and that everyone elses is wrong.
But the PS2 does NOT blow these two away (I mean in performance, not sales, because in sales it seems to be blowing EVERYTHING away - that's right - not JUST other games consoles!).
Both the Gamecube and Xbox are technically superior to the PS2.
Not 100% as some parts of the PS2 do surpass the equivilant parts of their rivals, but overall, the more recent consoles have the technological edge.
Turok Evolution was a recent example of this.
Don't get me wrong now, I'm not saying that the Xbox and GC make the PS2 look crap, but there is NO WAY that the PS2 blows them away either, not to the extent of tripling their combined sales atleast!
But people don't go for the technology, they go for the games.
The PS2 has it's fair share of great games. The GTA series in particular is amazingly popular (combining Nintendo style playing around doing things your way, only with "big boy toys" such as cars and weapons - little wonder it was such a huge hit!), and there's loads of other titles (that I've not exactly looked into, but I hear odd names being mentioned all the time).
The PS2 has it's good games, and whether they're better or worse than the Xbox/GC games is a matter of opinion.
But I don't think the PS2 has anything that blows away the competition in "triple combined sales" proportion.
YES, Vice City and MGS2 are great, but so are Halo and Splinter Cell, and Eternal Darkness and Mario. Also, although I've not looked into the PS2 schedule to see what's coming, I'd be surprised if it has anything that can topple the excitement of the new Zelda game and Metroid Prime for the Gamecube, or Halo 2 and Rare games for the Xbox. Sure, there's bound to be something great in there that can more or less MATCH the promise of these rival releases, but most certainly NOTHING that completely blows them away, not enough to explain "triple combined sales" atleast!
Perhaps people aren't looking at the technology or the games. After all, they only have so much money in their pocket, and the PS2 being the oldest one of the lot, it's sure to be the cheapest... no... wait...
Despite being older and technologically inferior, the PS2 is priced higher than both of it's competitors. Why? Because they can. Despite being more expensive, the PS2 still outsells it's competition - by MILES!
The PS2 is definately the weakest choice when it comes to pricing.
Although some could argue that it's only 40 pounds more than the Gamecube AND you get a DVD player as part of it, many people already have DVD players and I expect people to be buying consoles for their games, not extra's.
Besides, although the Gamecube doesn't put up the biggest fight on the pricing, the Xbox goes all out!
For 10 pounds LESS than the PS2 you can get an Xbox and 2 games.
For just 30 pounds more than the PS2 (with no games), you get an Xbox, 3 brilliant classic games, and a reasonable racing game from Sega too.
AND you don't need to buy a memory card for it!
The Xbox rips the PS2 to shreds when it comes to value.
The PS2 STILL rips the Xbox to shreds when it comes to sales figures!
So what does the PS2 have that it's competition doesn't.
The brand name. Playstation.
Nintendo used to have similar powers with Nintendo and Mario, but they blew that quite spectacularly when they complacently released the N64 overpriced, undersupported, and lost nearly all but the most hardcore of their fanbase. They've learnt their lesson with the Gamecube, but too late. Sony now own gaming's most prestigous brand.
When the PS2 came out, it was a war of brand name/advertising VS game quality. Brand name won, the Dreamcast died and Sony had the entire market to themselves.
Even though they didn't have a really stunning game for atleast 6 months (the Gamecube and Xbox in comparison had plenty of stunners at launch!), there was no competing consoles to "better" them.
Competition was a whole 6 months away when games like GTA3 and Jak and Daxter came out pull gamers. It's little wonder that the PS2 had such a huge user base before the Xbox and Gamecube even came out.
And you know how it all works from there.
Lad with console invites friends round, friends plays brilliant game and wants it himself so gets one.
It happens with all 3 consoles, but compare how many PS2 owners there are compared to Gamecube and Xbox, not to mention the fact that people are going to want to be able to get the system that most of their mates have, so they can swap games and stuff...
So Sony win. They dominate the games market.
But I hope this domination doesn't go too far.
Although if anyone did dominate the market, I'd rather it was Sony
Nintendo, despite having a genius games develloping department, also have this dodgy business side which overprice and treat third party devellopers badly if they get take control of the market - days of the Snes, early N64 and current GBA show this. And MS aren't exactly the most popular company around after some of their previous monopolies...
But a market leader is always bad news.
Competition keeps pricing and games making competitive which is always great.
Last May - Xbox gets trounced by PS2 sales so it cuts 100 pounds of it's retail price. Both Sony and Nintendo respond to this with price cuts of their own.
Hence I got my Gamecube 40 pounds cheaper than I would have otherwise! Wehey! :-)
Now my personal opinion is that these two consoles are MUCH better than the PS2, but I'll put that aside for now - it would be wrong to assume that my opinion is right and that everyone elses is wrong.
But the PS2 does NOT blow these two away (I mean in performance, not sales, because in sales it seems to be blowing EVERYTHING away - that's right - not JUST other games consoles!).
Both the Gamecube and Xbox are technically superior to the PS2.
Not 100% as some parts of the PS2 do surpass the equivilant parts of their rivals, but overall, the more recent consoles have the technological edge.
Turok Evolution was a recent example of this.
Don't get me wrong now, I'm not saying that the Xbox and GC make the PS2 look crap, but there is NO WAY that the PS2 blows them away either, not to the extent of tripling their combined sales atleast!
But people don't go for the technology, they go for the games.
The PS2 has it's fair share of great games. The GTA series in particular is amazingly popular (combining Nintendo style playing around doing things your way, only with "big boy toys" such as cars and weapons - little wonder it was such a huge hit!), and there's loads of other titles (that I've not exactly looked into, but I hear odd names being mentioned all the time).
The PS2 has it's good games, and whether they're better or worse than the Xbox/GC games is a matter of opinion.
But I don't think the PS2 has anything that blows away the competition in "triple combined sales" proportion.
YES, Vice City and MGS2 are great, but so are Halo and Splinter Cell, and Eternal Darkness and Mario. Also, although I've not looked into the PS2 schedule to see what's coming, I'd be surprised if it has anything that can topple the excitement of the new Zelda game and Metroid Prime for the Gamecube, or Halo 2 and Rare games for the Xbox. Sure, there's bound to be something great in there that can more or less MATCH the promise of these rival releases, but most certainly NOTHING that completely blows them away, not enough to explain "triple combined sales" atleast!
Perhaps people aren't looking at the technology or the games. After all, they only have so much money in their pocket, and the PS2 being the oldest one of the lot, it's sure to be the cheapest... no... wait...
Despite being older and technologically inferior, the PS2 is priced higher than both of it's competitors. Why? Because they can. Despite being more expensive, the PS2 still outsells it's competition - by MILES!
The PS2 is definately the weakest choice when it comes to pricing.
Although some could argue that it's only 40 pounds more than the Gamecube AND you get a DVD player as part of it, many people already have DVD players and I expect people to be buying consoles for their games, not extra's.
Besides, although the Gamecube doesn't put up the biggest fight on the pricing, the Xbox goes all out!
For 10 pounds LESS than the PS2 you can get an Xbox and 2 games.
For just 30 pounds more than the PS2 (with no games), you get an Xbox, 3 brilliant classic games, and a reasonable racing game from Sega too.
AND you don't need to buy a memory card for it!
The Xbox rips the PS2 to shreds when it comes to value.
The PS2 STILL rips the Xbox to shreds when it comes to sales figures!
So what does the PS2 have that it's competition doesn't.
The brand name. Playstation.
Nintendo used to have similar powers with Nintendo and Mario, but they blew that quite spectacularly when they complacently released the N64 overpriced, undersupported, and lost nearly all but the most hardcore of their fanbase. They've learnt their lesson with the Gamecube, but too late. Sony now own gaming's most prestigous brand.
When the PS2 came out, it was a war of brand name/advertising VS game quality. Brand name won, the Dreamcast died and Sony had the entire market to themselves.
Even though they didn't have a really stunning game for atleast 6 months (the Gamecube and Xbox in comparison had plenty of stunners at launch!), there was no competing consoles to "better" them.
Competition was a whole 6 months away when games like GTA3 and Jak and Daxter came out pull gamers. It's little wonder that the PS2 had such a huge user base before the Xbox and Gamecube even came out.
And you know how it all works from there.
Lad with console invites friends round, friends plays brilliant game
It happens with all 3 consoles, but compare how many PS2 owners there are compared to Gamecube and Xbox, not to mention the fact that people are going to want to be able to get the system that most of their mates have, so they can swap games and stuff...
So Sony win. They dominate the games market.
But I hope this domination doesn't go too far.
Although if anyone did dominate the market, I'd rather it was Sony
Nintendo, despite having a genius games develloping department, also have this dodgy business side which overprice and treat third party devellopers badly if they get take control of the market - days of the Snes, early N64 and current GBA show this. And MS aren't exactly the most popular company around after some of their previous monopolies...
But a market leader is always bad news.
Competition keeps pricing and games making competitive which is always great.
Last May - Xbox gets trounced by PS2 sales so it cuts 100 pounds of it's retail price. Both Sony and Nintendo respond to this with price cuts of their own.
Hence I got my Gamecube 40 pounds cheaper than I would have otherwise! Wehey! :-)
Page:
Strafex wrote:
> Besides, although MS are making a loss, it's worth it to get their
> machine into people's homes.
That's what it's all about. When the next wave of consoles hits, then MS have stated they will be first on the market this time - thats a big advantage and unless Sony rapidly gets the PS2 successor ready then MS will do it. By 2005 we'll hopefully see more widespread broadband, like in America, and this will be when MS can reap the benefits. Content delivery will be a big thing in the future.
~~Belldandy~~
> Besides, although MS are making a loss, it's worth it to get their
> machine into people's homes.
That's what it's all about. When the next wave of consoles hits, then MS have stated they will be first on the market this time - thats a big advantage and unless Sony rapidly gets the PS2 successor ready then MS will do it. By 2005 we'll hopefully see more widespread broadband, like in America, and this will be when MS can reap the benefits. Content delivery will be a big thing in the future.
~~Belldandy~~
maddmun wrote:
> Yeah, I always knew that, with all consoles it is.
> But Microsoft lost mooney on every X-Box they sold when it cost 300,
> now they are losing 20 more than that but there is 4 games given away
> at that price, they are losing even more money than before if I'm
> correct
>
> Original (without price drops) RRP 460, some money lost due to the
> X-Box cost
> CURRENT PRICE 200, hmm, I think that is a bad marketting plan
It's called competition. I doubt Microsoft ever intended to break even on the Xbox. As I've said time and time and time again - the Xbox is the start of Microsofts strategy to scoop the home entertainment market. They are quite willing to stomach any losses incurred by the Xbox.
Microsoft literally make 10 times the profit on Windows and Office that they lose on the Xbox. If the Xbox ensures that most movies, music and games in the future are played using Microsoft software/hardware, MS will spend whatever it takes.
> Yeah, I always knew that, with all consoles it is.
> But Microsoft lost mooney on every X-Box they sold when it cost 300,
> now they are losing 20 more than that but there is 4 games given away
> at that price, they are losing even more money than before if I'm
> correct
>
> Original (without price drops) RRP 460, some money lost due to the
> X-Box cost
> CURRENT PRICE 200, hmm, I think that is a bad marketting plan
It's called competition. I doubt Microsoft ever intended to break even on the Xbox. As I've said time and time and time again - the Xbox is the start of Microsofts strategy to scoop the home entertainment market. They are quite willing to stomach any losses incurred by the Xbox.
Microsoft literally make 10 times the profit on Windows and Office that they lose on the Xbox. If the Xbox ensures that most movies, music and games in the future are played using Microsoft software/hardware, MS will spend whatever it takes.
Nah. As production continues, consoles cost less to produce.
Besides, although MS are making a loss, it's worth it to get their machine into people's homes.
Besides, although MS are making a loss, it's worth it to get their machine into people's homes.
Miserableman wrote:
> maddmun wrote:
> Cost £200? RRP 280? Yes?
>
> Looks like Microsoft have a bad sales plan to me...
>
> If I recall correctly, Sony make a loss on every PS2 they sell too
Yeah, I always knew that, with all consoles it is.
But Microsoft lost mooney on every X-Box they sold when it cost 300, now they are losing 20 more than that but there is 4 games given away at that price, they are losing even more money than before if I'm correct
Original (without price drops) RRP 460, some money lost due to the X-Box cost
CURRENT PRICE 200, hmm, I think that is a bad marketting plan
> maddmun wrote:
> Cost £200? RRP 280? Yes?
>
> Looks like Microsoft have a bad sales plan to me...
>
> If I recall correctly, Sony make a loss on every PS2 they sell too
Yeah, I always knew that, with all consoles it is.
But Microsoft lost mooney on every X-Box they sold when it cost 300, now they are losing 20 more than that but there is 4 games given away at that price, they are losing even more money than before if I'm correct
Original (without price drops) RRP 460, some money lost due to the X-Box cost
CURRENT PRICE 200, hmm, I think that is a bad marketting plan
Belldandy wrote:
> MS may have been guilty of monopoly in some cases, but didn't Nintendo
> just get whacked with a huge fine for price fixing in Europe ? Isn't
> that a monopoly as well...
Read it properly!
I said that Nintendo were also bad at owning the market because of their high prices and bad treatment of third parties.
And yes, that DOES include the price fixing scandal!
You've really turned anti Nintendo if you just picked up on that line out of context.
Chill! Just because some Nintendo owners didn't like how you like an Xbox as well as a Gamecube, you don't have to be like them!
> MS may have been guilty of monopoly in some cases, but didn't Nintendo
> just get whacked with a huge fine for price fixing in Europe ? Isn't
> that a monopoly as well...
Read it properly!
I said that Nintendo were also bad at owning the market because of their high prices and bad treatment of third parties.
And yes, that DOES include the price fixing scandal!
You've really turned anti Nintendo if you just picked up on that line out of context.
Chill! Just because some Nintendo owners didn't like how you like an Xbox as well as a Gamecube, you don't have to be like them!
AliBoy wrote:
> Turok is a bad example, it wasn't designed as best as it could on all
> three consoles. A prime example of quick porting to another consoles
> just to boost sales.
Probably. Although according to the reviews, the Gamecube version had the nicer frame rate, the Xbox boasted the nicest graphics, while the PS2 was left behind in all areas - that can't be ALL down to sloppy devellopment.
And it wasn't a port, it was released at the same time as both versions.
> Another way you might have to look at it is compare the XBox and
> Gamecube sales when they have been out the same amount of months as
> teh PS2. Wait that isn't really explaing it well. Right. Take a note
> of the PS2 sales figures now. Then once the XBox and GC have been out
> the same number of months note their sales figures. Then you will be
> able to compare it a lot better.
> Look at the titles that will be out before christmas. XBox seems to be
> basing everything on splinter cell, Gamecube has a few good titles but
> the PS2 has a range of must have games. Might be why sales are so high
> for it.
Possibly, but that didn't exactly help the Dreamcast during the PS2's launch...
> Nice post. I guess in the end it all comes down to what people want
> and right now more people want a PS2. There could be a million and one
> reasons for this or none at all it just comes down to personal taste I
> guess.
I know. But the fact that the PS2 is outselling the combine competition 3 to 1 would be down to more than personal taste.
Most people who wanted one, played a PSOne and wanted the PS2 the moment they heard it existed. Although the PS2 deserves good sales with it's good catalogue of games, the brand name has accounted for most of the sales.
Nintendo have had a similar advantage with the Gamecube and Mario, they've mostly sold to their previous fans, but the Nintendo name doesn't appeal to the masses quite the same way the Playstation does, all though the Gameboy is pretty popular at the moment...
>For me I want to play decent games on my PS2 and gamecube. have
> no intentions of getting an Xbox at the moment but it could change if
> they decided to release a bunch of games the appeal to me.
That's how it works for most of us.
The Xbox has caught my eye lately with Halo, Rare being bought and Xbox live. But that's not the way that most of the consumers think else the sales gap would be a LOT smaller.
Thanks for the compliments. :-)
> Turok is a bad example, it wasn't designed as best as it could on all
> three consoles. A prime example of quick porting to another consoles
> just to boost sales.
Probably. Although according to the reviews, the Gamecube version had the nicer frame rate, the Xbox boasted the nicest graphics, while the PS2 was left behind in all areas - that can't be ALL down to sloppy devellopment.
And it wasn't a port, it was released at the same time as both versions.
> Another way you might have to look at it is compare the XBox and
> Gamecube sales when they have been out the same amount of months as
> teh PS2. Wait that isn't really explaing it well. Right. Take a note
> of the PS2 sales figures now. Then once the XBox and GC have been out
> the same number of months note their sales figures. Then you will be
> able to compare it a lot better.
> Look at the titles that will be out before christmas. XBox seems to be
> basing everything on splinter cell, Gamecube has a few good titles but
> the PS2 has a range of must have games. Might be why sales are so high
> for it.
Possibly, but that didn't exactly help the Dreamcast during the PS2's launch...
> Nice post. I guess in the end it all comes down to what people want
> and right now more people want a PS2. There could be a million and one
> reasons for this or none at all it just comes down to personal taste I
> guess.
I know. But the fact that the PS2 is outselling the combine competition 3 to 1 would be down to more than personal taste.
Most people who wanted one, played a PSOne and wanted the PS2 the moment they heard it existed. Although the PS2 deserves good sales with it's good catalogue of games, the brand name has accounted for most of the sales.
Nintendo have had a similar advantage with the Gamecube and Mario, they've mostly sold to their previous fans, but the Nintendo name doesn't appeal to the masses quite the same way the Playstation does, all though the Gameboy is pretty popular at the moment...
>For me I want to play decent games on my PS2 and gamecube. have
> no intentions of getting an Xbox at the moment but it could change if
> they decided to release a bunch of games the appeal to me.
That's how it works for most of us.
The Xbox has caught my eye lately with Halo, Rare being bought and Xbox live. But that's not the way that most of the consumers think else the sales gap would be a LOT smaller.
Thanks for the compliments. :-)
MS may have been guilty of monopoly in some cases, but didn't Nintendo just get whacked with a huge fine for price fixing in Europe ? Isn't that a monopoly as well...
~~Belldandy~~
~~Belldandy~~
†HÊ_MÅÐMÃÑ wrote:
> the playstation is selling better because of the games not the
> graphics whta have gamecube got? super mario
> what have x box got? splinter cell
> and the ps2 have got Vice city and tony hawks and so on
I covered games.
The PS2 has good games, but nothing that completely blows away the competition. Besides, Tony Hawks is on ALL consoles...
> the playstation is selling better because of the games not the
> graphics whta have gamecube got? super mario
> what have x box got? splinter cell
> and the ps2 have got Vice city and tony hawks and so on
I covered games.
The PS2 has good games, but nothing that completely blows away the competition. Besides, Tony Hawks is on ALL consoles...
Tribute wrote:
> †HÊ_MÅÐMÃÑ wrote:
> the playstation is selling better because of the games not the
> graphics whta have gamecube got? super mario
> what have x box got? splinter cell
> and the ps2 have got Vice city and tony hawks and so on
>
> It has Vice City and AL consoles have Tony Hawks 4 - get your facts
> right.
>
> I won't stick up for the X - box, but the GC also has Metroid Prime,
> Zelda, Starfox, F Zero, SonicResident evil and many more, just askfor
> some and I'll tell you...
i know gamecube is great but i dont really pay much attention to it so
> †HÊ_MÅÐMÃÑ wrote:
> the playstation is selling better because of the games not the
> graphics whta have gamecube got? super mario
> what have x box got? splinter cell
> and the ps2 have got Vice city and tony hawks and so on
>
> It has Vice City and AL consoles have Tony Hawks 4 - get your facts
> right.
>
> I won't stick up for the X - box, but the GC also has Metroid Prime,
> Zelda, Starfox, F Zero, SonicResident evil and many more, just askfor
> some and I'll tell you...
i know gamecube is great but i dont really pay much attention to it so
maddmun wrote:
> Cost £200? RRP 280? Yes?
>
> Looks like Microsoft have a bad sales plan to me...
If I recall correctly, Sony make a loss on every PS2 they sell too
> Cost £200? RRP 280? Yes?
>
> Looks like Microsoft have a bad sales plan to me...
If I recall correctly, Sony make a loss on every PS2 they sell too
Page: