The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 spoke to a lecturer over in the media section of a neighbouring university recently and he told me something rather startling. He said to me that he believes the next gen console war could be the end for the Playstation brand. He said it could also mean problems for HD-DVD and then he went on to explain why…
But how on earth can Sony topple from its perch? I mean really? The mighty Playstation Company produce less software than the Nintendo and Microsoft but the high sales of their format is just unbelievable.
But is that about to change?
Sony's new era is supposed to be great, and it looks it. Sony's E3 show defeated Nintendo's hastily put together production and Microsoft's grand celebrity unveiling. The games looked better, Sony themselves were more sophisticated and they didn't need a hobbit to tell everyone they are the best. The PSP highlights their new venture into handheld gaming and it is moving at a swift pace.
It is impossible to say Sony are losing, the PSP may not have had the impact it should have had but it is still selling amazingly and the PS2 is the run away leader world-wide.
But the warning signs are here.
Nintendo's DS has upset Sony... upset Sony a lot. Sony, when first unveiling the PSP, did not expect to go head to head with a new Nintendo handheld right from the word go.
Sony hoped that the PSP would outshine the GBA SP so much it was bound to win due to its fantastic graphics, brand name and look, regardless of the price. And this was rather likely. But the DS has confused matters, it is a new competitor, cutting projected sales and its low price of £99 has meant Sony have had to cut the planned price for the PSP. This means the PSP will make a far greater loss at the beginning than Sony originally intended.
In Europe and America the PSP could well beat the DS. It has had a good start in America and pre-orders are high in Europe. But in Japan it is a different story.
In Japan Nintendo's DS has firmly beaten the PSP. PSP is doing okay; it is selling solidly and is unlikely to go anywhere. But the DS is beating it by 2 million consoles overall and outsells the PSP by about 20,000 consoles every week. Why? Well the Japanese market is in a slump and the DS not only tries to rejuvenate things with its new ideas but there are also a load of non-games, appealing to those Japanese folk that buy consoles for random reasons like "gentle brain exercises". The DS is even outselling the Playstation 2.
The Nintendo Revolution, although unknown for the moment, could well do something similar. It'll be cheaper than the PS3, much cheaper, and it'll have random Japanese games (like the gentle brain exercises) that will mean the Revolution could do "A DS"... as in dominate Japan. The Japanese market is volatile and easily changes, Nintendo could well take dominance back in the home ground.
But not in Europe and America. Nintendo could well rule the Japanese roost again but they are far from dominating the west. No, the new threat is Microsoft.
The X-box, in the sense of weekly sales, is beating the PS2 in America and Europe. It makes sense as the PS2 has been out 2 years longer. But the X-box franchise has made a MUCH larger name for itself over the last few years, taking supporters from the Sony encampment. Sony has to take this threat seriously. The PS3 is a VERY expensive console to produce, it needs to sell around £500 to make a profit and Sony are gonna go for around £400 and make a loss. Simply so they don’t upset the punters.
But Microsoft are set to have their system priced even lower AND they have a vital head start. Sony will have to re-consider pricing if they want to keep up. If they do cut the price then the PS3's first year losses will be massive. But if they don't they'll let Microsoft in.
Sony are facing a problem. They are at risk of losing their vital monopoly, vital because Sony make losses (at the start anyway) on each system they produce. Sony does not produce the software of Microsoft and Nintendo. Nintendo do not need to sell at the rate of the Playstation because Nintendo’s mass of software sells so well on its system (people buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games). The same, although to a lesser extent, applies to Microsoft (people buy the X-box for Live and Halo).
The Playstation brand is strong. Yet at the moment Nintendo are the number one games company in Japan and Microsoft are making a larger name for itself year in year out. As my lecturer friend put it “Nintendo are hot right now in the east and Microsoft are hot right now in the west… Sony are falling out of favour”.
Is this the beginning of the end? Or is the PS3 simply gonna destroy all?
Here’s to the future
Dringo.
The conspiracy theorist inside me can not help but mention that Microsoft are making it possible to send messages to DS through the 360 and have allowed their company, RARE WARE, to develop DS games. To say the two are working together to defeat Sony is a ridiculous story to spin, but it is interesting to see these rivals getting along so well.
But how on earth can Sony topple from its perch? I mean really? The mighty Playstation Company produce less software than the Nintendo and Microsoft but the high sales of their format is just unbelievable.
But is that about to change?
Sony's new era is supposed to be great, and it looks it. Sony's E3 show defeated Nintendo's hastily put together production and Microsoft's grand celebrity unveiling. The games looked better, Sony themselves were more sophisticated and they didn't need a hobbit to tell everyone they are the best. The PSP highlights their new venture into handheld gaming and it is moving at a swift pace.
It is impossible to say Sony are losing, the PSP may not have had the impact it should have had but it is still selling amazingly and the PS2 is the run away leader world-wide.
But the warning signs are here.
Nintendo's DS has upset Sony... upset Sony a lot. Sony, when first unveiling the PSP, did not expect to go head to head with a new Nintendo handheld right from the word go.
Sony hoped that the PSP would outshine the GBA SP so much it was bound to win due to its fantastic graphics, brand name and look, regardless of the price. And this was rather likely. But the DS has confused matters, it is a new competitor, cutting projected sales and its low price of £99 has meant Sony have had to cut the planned price for the PSP. This means the PSP will make a far greater loss at the beginning than Sony originally intended.
In Europe and America the PSP could well beat the DS. It has had a good start in America and pre-orders are high in Europe. But in Japan it is a different story.
In Japan Nintendo's DS has firmly beaten the PSP. PSP is doing okay; it is selling solidly and is unlikely to go anywhere. But the DS is beating it by 2 million consoles overall and outsells the PSP by about 20,000 consoles every week. Why? Well the Japanese market is in a slump and the DS not only tries to rejuvenate things with its new ideas but there are also a load of non-games, appealing to those Japanese folk that buy consoles for random reasons like "gentle brain exercises". The DS is even outselling the Playstation 2.
The Nintendo Revolution, although unknown for the moment, could well do something similar. It'll be cheaper than the PS3, much cheaper, and it'll have random Japanese games (like the gentle brain exercises) that will mean the Revolution could do "A DS"... as in dominate Japan. The Japanese market is volatile and easily changes, Nintendo could well take dominance back in the home ground.
But not in Europe and America. Nintendo could well rule the Japanese roost again but they are far from dominating the west. No, the new threat is Microsoft.
The X-box, in the sense of weekly sales, is beating the PS2 in America and Europe. It makes sense as the PS2 has been out 2 years longer. But the X-box franchise has made a MUCH larger name for itself over the last few years, taking supporters from the Sony encampment. Sony has to take this threat seriously. The PS3 is a VERY expensive console to produce, it needs to sell around £500 to make a profit and Sony are gonna go for around £400 and make a loss. Simply so they don’t upset the punters.
But Microsoft are set to have their system priced even lower AND they have a vital head start. Sony will have to re-consider pricing if they want to keep up. If they do cut the price then the PS3's first year losses will be massive. But if they don't they'll let Microsoft in.
Sony are facing a problem. They are at risk of losing their vital monopoly, vital because Sony make losses (at the start anyway) on each system they produce. Sony does not produce the software of Microsoft and Nintendo. Nintendo do not need to sell at the rate of the Playstation because Nintendo’s mass of software sells so well on its system (people buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games). The same, although to a lesser extent, applies to Microsoft (people buy the X-box for Live and Halo).
The Playstation brand is strong. Yet at the moment Nintendo are the number one games company in Japan and Microsoft are making a larger name for itself year in year out. As my lecturer friend put it “Nintendo are hot right now in the east and Microsoft are hot right now in the west… Sony are falling out of favour”.
Is this the beginning of the end? Or is the PS3 simply gonna destroy all?
Here’s to the future
Dringo.
The conspiracy theorist inside me can not help but mention that Microsoft are making it possible to send messages to DS through the 360 and have allowed their company, RARE WARE, to develop DS games. To say the two are working together to defeat Sony is a ridiculous story to spin, but it is interesting to see these rivals getting along so well.
Page:
smedlos wrote:
> PS1 vs N64 vs XBOX.
Er?
> PS1 vs N64 vs XBOX.
Er?
Well the software point was a valid one.
Incorrect, unlucky.
It's just a repeat of years gone by, SNES vs Megadrive, PS1 vs N64 vs XBOX. Software is the biggest player in console wars - whichever platform has the best games will win.
Hedfix wrote:
> However with the 360 being out first it may take a short time for the
> PS3 to catch up (although I'd wager that most of the non-xbox
> exclusives will see PS3 releases around launch).
Agreed. If casual gamers are looking for a next gen console when the 360 is the only one around, then logic should dictate that they'd buy one. Why would they wait if they're only casual gamers? Surely it wouldn't make any difference to them what console they have if they can have it immediately.
But then you could also say that they wouldn't mind waiting for a PS3 if they're only casual gamers.
Christ this is getting complicated. Speculating which console will turn out to be the front runner next generation seems to be pointless because there are so many plausible ways of looking at it.
> However with the 360 being out first it may take a short time for the
> PS3 to catch up (although I'd wager that most of the non-xbox
> exclusives will see PS3 releases around launch).
Agreed. If casual gamers are looking for a next gen console when the 360 is the only one around, then logic should dictate that they'd buy one. Why would they wait if they're only casual gamers? Surely it wouldn't make any difference to them what console they have if they can have it immediately.
But then you could also say that they wouldn't mind waiting for a PS3 if they're only casual gamers.
Christ this is getting complicated. Speculating which console will turn out to be the front runner next generation seems to be pointless because there are so many plausible ways of looking at it.
However with the 360 being out first it may take a short time for the PS3 to catch up (although I'd wager that most of the non-xbox exclusives will see PS3 releases around launch).
And of course there's Halo 3 to combat too and microsoft have a respectable amount of studios working excusively for them.
And of course there's Halo 3 to combat too and microsoft have a respectable amount of studios working excusively for them.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Well, with the greatest respect to you and your girlfriend, that just
> makes her brother stupid. I've no doubt he'd do exactly the same if
> he had an Xbox, because generally speaking, the same games are
> available.
I know it's stupid. That's my point! There are lots of people like that! And the reason they all choose the Playstation is because it has the most games to pick and choose from. He'd never get an Xbox because there aren't as many games for it. It's simple. If there are more games (a lot more) available forthe PS3 than for the 360, then all these kinds of people will choose it once again. And it will win. And I think that's what will happen. And that's what I said in the beginning. And it had nothing to do with graphics.
> Well, with the greatest respect to you and your girlfriend, that just
> makes her brother stupid. I've no doubt he'd do exactly the same if
> he had an Xbox, because generally speaking, the same games are
> available.
I know it's stupid. That's my point! There are lots of people like that! And the reason they all choose the Playstation is because it has the most games to pick and choose from. He'd never get an Xbox because there aren't as many games for it. It's simple. If there are more games (a lot more) available forthe PS3 than for the 360, then all these kinds of people will choose it once again. And it will win. And I think that's what will happen. And that's what I said in the beginning. And it had nothing to do with graphics.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> the point I'm making is different (though
> connected) and you seem to be fixated on the next-gen aspect and
> overlooking it entirely.
I wasn't arguing against the point you made. I was just showing that I wasn't contradicting myself. I take your point and I agree with it wholeheartedly. It's what I've been saying all along - the reason that more people buy the Playstation is due to a) branding and b) the vast amounts of games available for it. And, like I said, unless either the branding or the volume of publishers eager to make PS games changes, then why would the situation change? It wouldn't.
The only thing that will change it is if the PS3 is so expensive and complicated to develop for that publishers steer clear, meaning there are less games available and so a smaller user base and so less publishers are willing to spend money etc etc.
As far as graphics go, I don't think 'less interested' gamers, shall we say, are lured to one particular console because of it's graphics, I think that graphics make a difference from game to game. So someone may buy NFS instead of some other racing game because it looks better in the screenshots on the back of the box. I don't think that the console with the best graphics will win out, as that's never been a huge factor.
> the point I'm making is different (though
> connected) and you seem to be fixated on the next-gen aspect and
> overlooking it entirely.
I wasn't arguing against the point you made. I was just showing that I wasn't contradicting myself. I take your point and I agree with it wholeheartedly. It's what I've been saying all along - the reason that more people buy the Playstation is due to a) branding and b) the vast amounts of games available for it. And, like I said, unless either the branding or the volume of publishers eager to make PS games changes, then why would the situation change? It wouldn't.
The only thing that will change it is if the PS3 is so expensive and complicated to develop for that publishers steer clear, meaning there are less games available and so a smaller user base and so less publishers are willing to spend money etc etc.
As far as graphics go, I don't think 'less interested' gamers, shall we say, are lured to one particular console because of it's graphics, I think that graphics make a difference from game to game. So someone may buy NFS instead of some other racing game because it looks better in the screenshots on the back of the box. I don't think that the console with the best graphics will win out, as that's never been a huge factor.
gerrid wrote:
> Please tell me that you understand. I am so tired of explaining it.
Yes, I do understand, but the point I'm making is different (though connected) and you seem to be fixated on the next-gen aspect and overlooking it entirely.
Forget the next generation for a moment - for the point I'm making, it's irrelevant. You said that these "casual" gamers will buy PlayStation because of known brands and licenses. I'm pointing out that - currently, not with next-gen - the same brands and licenses are available on other platforms, often with prettier graphics, which are the other main lure.
As such, these people will not choose PlayStation over other formats simply because of big licenses and pretty graphics. There has to be another reason, and that is - I believe - that PlayStation offers them a larger selection of the type of game they want to play.
Now I agree with you as far as the next generation is concerned. Graphics are more or less identical, and it will be other aspects which determine how good a game is.
I know things don't always translate literally, but if we take the specs at face value, PlayStation will again be the system to choose. AI, organic 3D worlds and the emulation of real-world physics, for instance, rely heavily on number crunching.
Sony claim to have a 2:1 advantage in this area, and that they are under-cooking their number a little. This may or may not be the case when the machines finally appear, but it seems that PS3 will have a definite edge, even if it's not as much as Sony claim. Even game worlds have the potential to me larger and more detailed, as the BluRay format holds far more data than HD-DVD.
Their are obviously many more aspects which will ultimately decide success or failure for all of the next-gen formats, but simply in terms of potential, all of the balls would appear to be firmly in Sony's court.
> That's fine if it was true, but the people that I'm talking about buy
> games, play them for an hour or two, realise they're rubbish but never
> learn. For instance, my girlfriend's brother just buys every single
> sports game released on the PS2.
Well, with the greatest respect to you and your girlfriend, that just makes her brother stupid. I've no doubt he'd do exactly the same if he had an Xbox, because generally speaking, the same games are available.
It's not something specific to PlayStation, but there will be more PlayStation owners like that simply by virtue of the fact that more people own PlayStations than any other console.
You could just as easily class them as 'braver' gamers, because they're willing to take a chance on games when the so-called "hardcore" avoid a game because they blindly follow reviews.
I've bought games which were slated or 'discouraged' in reviews and enjoyed them thoroughly. A review is just one person's opinion, and opinions differ wildly. Most reviewers are no more qualified to give an opinion than you or I.
The Getaway games, for example, are consistently slated for their controls, but I love them. Sure, the controls could be better, but with a little practice they become second nature and are quite playable; they've certainly never posed me any major problems, and I'm far from being the world's greatest gamer.
> Please tell me that you understand. I am so tired of explaining it.
Yes, I do understand, but the point I'm making is different (though connected) and you seem to be fixated on the next-gen aspect and overlooking it entirely.
Forget the next generation for a moment - for the point I'm making, it's irrelevant. You said that these "casual" gamers will buy PlayStation because of known brands and licenses. I'm pointing out that - currently, not with next-gen - the same brands and licenses are available on other platforms, often with prettier graphics, which are the other main lure.
As such, these people will not choose PlayStation over other formats simply because of big licenses and pretty graphics. There has to be another reason, and that is - I believe - that PlayStation offers them a larger selection of the type of game they want to play.
Now I agree with you as far as the next generation is concerned. Graphics are more or less identical, and it will be other aspects which determine how good a game is.
I know things don't always translate literally, but if we take the specs at face value, PlayStation will again be the system to choose. AI, organic 3D worlds and the emulation of real-world physics, for instance, rely heavily on number crunching.
Sony claim to have a 2:1 advantage in this area, and that they are under-cooking their number a little. This may or may not be the case when the machines finally appear, but it seems that PS3 will have a definite edge, even if it's not as much as Sony claim. Even game worlds have the potential to me larger and more detailed, as the BluRay format holds far more data than HD-DVD.
Their are obviously many more aspects which will ultimately decide success or failure for all of the next-gen formats, but simply in terms of potential, all of the balls would appear to be firmly in Sony's court.
> That's fine if it was true, but the people that I'm talking about buy
> games, play them for an hour or two, realise they're rubbish but never
> learn. For instance, my girlfriend's brother just buys every single
> sports game released on the PS2.
Well, with the greatest respect to you and your girlfriend, that just makes her brother stupid. I've no doubt he'd do exactly the same if he had an Xbox, because generally speaking, the same games are available.
It's not something specific to PlayStation, but there will be more PlayStation owners like that simply by virtue of the fact that more people own PlayStations than any other console.
You could just as easily class them as 'braver' gamers, because they're willing to take a chance on games when the so-called "hardcore" avoid a game because they blindly follow reviews.
I've bought games which were slated or 'discouraged' in reviews and enjoyed them thoroughly. A review is just one person's opinion, and opinions differ wildly. Most reviewers are no more qualified to give an opinion than you or I.
The Getaway games, for example, are consistently slated for their controls, but I love them. Sure, the controls could be better, but with a little practice they become second nature and are quite playable; they've certainly never posed me any major problems, and I'm far from being the world's greatest gamer.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> But they are related, even if you didn't intend them as such. Pretty
> graphics are always said to be the primary lure for the so-called
> "casual" gamer, followed - as you say - by a big license.
Yes graphics are a lure for casual gamers, but that has nothing to do with the fact that next generation the update in graphics won't be the most important update as far the evolution of games goes. Please tell me that you understand. I am so tired of explaining it. One is a general point and one is a point about "console wars".
> There are no doubt fans who
> get as much pleasure out of those titles as Dringo gets out of
> Mario/Zelda, I get out of GT/Jak & Daxter, and others get out of
> Halo.
That's fine if it was true, but the people that I'm talking about buy games, play them for an hour or two, realise they're rubbish but never learn. For instance, my girlfriend's brother just buys every single sports game released on the PS2. Even if I tell him that Dave Mirra's Super Jet Ski Adventure is rubbish and he'd be better off buying something decent, he doesn't listen, buys the game, plays it for a couple of hours, realises it's absolutely terrible and never plays it again. And I know more than one person like that.
Also, from the charts over the past couple of years, it's obvious that there are quite a few people who do that same exact thing - buy games that they know nothing about, and, judging by the amount of these games that end up in the Pre-Owned bins, realise they're terrible and sell them on straight away. These aren't people who like different games from me - if they just bothered to look around a bit they'd enjoy the exact same games as you and I do - the good ones.
> But they are related, even if you didn't intend them as such. Pretty
> graphics are always said to be the primary lure for the so-called
> "casual" gamer, followed - as you say - by a big license.
Yes graphics are a lure for casual gamers, but that has nothing to do with the fact that next generation the update in graphics won't be the most important update as far the evolution of games goes. Please tell me that you understand. I am so tired of explaining it. One is a general point and one is a point about "console wars".
> There are no doubt fans who
> get as much pleasure out of those titles as Dringo gets out of
> Mario/Zelda, I get out of GT/Jak & Daxter, and others get out of
> Halo.
That's fine if it was true, but the people that I'm talking about buy games, play them for an hour or two, realise they're rubbish but never learn. For instance, my girlfriend's brother just buys every single sports game released on the PS2. Even if I tell him that Dave Mirra's Super Jet Ski Adventure is rubbish and he'd be better off buying something decent, he doesn't listen, buys the game, plays it for a couple of hours, realises it's absolutely terrible and never plays it again. And I know more than one person like that.
Also, from the charts over the past couple of years, it's obvious that there are quite a few people who do that same exact thing - buy games that they know nothing about, and, judging by the amount of these games that end up in the Pre-Owned bins, realise they're terrible and sell them on straight away. These aren't people who like different games from me - if they just bothered to look around a bit they'd enjoy the exact same games as you and I do - the good ones.
Page: