The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
gerrid wrote:
> Except that actually programming games for the two consoles is
> extremely different
That's pretty much was I implied. The technology is different, yes, but the results are pretty much the same, however they're programmed, so it wouldn't make much difference if the hardware was identical.
> According to developers, the PS3 is so removed from current PC
> arhitecture that it will be a helluva job to port games from
> the PC/360 over to the PS3,
Converting from one type to another will always pose a few problems, but from all the developer interviews I've read, it's apparently simpler than with the PS2. For example, the entire Unreal Engine was converted in just 2 months.
> Except that actually programming games for the two consoles is
> extremely different
That's pretty much was I implied. The technology is different, yes, but the results are pretty much the same, however they're programmed, so it wouldn't make much difference if the hardware was identical.
> According to developers, the PS3 is so removed from current PC
> arhitecture that it will be a helluva job to port games from
> the PC/360 over to the PS3,
Converting from one type to another will always pose a few problems, but from all the developer interviews I've read, it's apparently simpler than with the PS2. For example, the entire Unreal Engine was converted in just 2 months.
gerrid wrote:
> Er, what? Those two statements are completely unrelated.
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.
You tie the "casual" gamer to buying PlayStation, but you also say...
> lured in by pretty advertising and recognisable brand names.
> I just hope that next generation, with the amount of money it will
> cost to develop games, there will be less time and money wasted on
> games like Starsky & Hutch, Batman Begins or any other of the
> pretty looking trash you see all over the place.
Together, these two statements prove my point. Such titles are available on most/all formats, and often with 'prettier' graphics than the PS2.
Consequently, neither 'lure' can be a reason for anyone to choose PlayStation over other formats.
With that in mind, your claim that "the slack jawed casual gamer population still choose the Playstation, no matter what" would seem to be unfounded, based on your own arguments.
I've always said (and believed) that people who buy only one console are most likely to choose that machine because it offers them the best over-all choice of the games they want to play. That's all there is to it.
> I know plenty of casual gamers who know nothing/next to nothing about
> games
It's entirely down to your own personal tastes, and I'm sorry, but reading a review or looking on the internet doesn't make you any more "hardcore" than anyone else. A little wiser and less willing to part with a hard-earned £40, maybe, but certainly not a different class of gamer.
The PlayStation brand is a success for one reason - it, and the games available for it, appeal to the widest audience.
It's nothing to do with "hardcore" or "casual". At the moment I'm not even sure it's marketing, as Sony haven't needed to advertise for quite some time. Whatever it is, I can guarantee that both Microsoft and Nintendo would do the same if they could. If not, then there's something wrong with their marketing strategy, and they will never overhaul Sony.
> Don't tell me these people don't exist just because you've
> never met any.
Oh, I've met plenty of people matching the description you give. It's just that I don't judge or label them because of the games they play.
They're a gamer, same as me. They chose their console, they choose their games. We're exactly alike - they just enjoy different games for different reasons.
As for the quality of a game, that's an entirely subjective issue. People who buy Starsky & Hutch or Batman games buy them because they are fans. These games get produced because there is quite obviously a huge market for them.
You and I may not like them for any number of reasons, but who are we to say that they shouldn't be produced? 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.
No matter what definition of "casual gamer" I hear, to me it always boils down to one simple statement: "They like different games to me."
> Er, what? Those two statements are completely unrelated.
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.
You tie the "casual" gamer to buying PlayStation, but you also say...
> lured in by pretty advertising and recognisable brand names.
> I just hope that next generation, with the amount of money it will
> cost to develop games, there will be less time and money wasted on
> games like Starsky & Hutch, Batman Begins or any other of the
> pretty looking trash you see all over the place.
Together, these two statements prove my point. Such titles are available on most/all formats, and often with 'prettier' graphics than the PS2.
Consequently, neither 'lure' can be a reason for anyone to choose PlayStation over other formats.
With that in mind, your claim that "the slack jawed casual gamer population still choose the Playstation, no matter what" would seem to be unfounded, based on your own arguments.
I've always said (and believed) that people who buy only one console are most likely to choose that machine because it offers them the best over-all choice of the games they want to play. That's all there is to it.
> I know plenty of casual gamers who know nothing/next to nothing about
> games
It's entirely down to your own personal tastes, and I'm sorry, but reading a review or looking on the internet doesn't make you any more "hardcore" than anyone else. A little wiser and less willing to part with a hard-earned £40, maybe, but certainly not a different class of gamer.
The PlayStation brand is a success for one reason - it, and the games available for it, appeal to the widest audience.
It's nothing to do with "hardcore" or "casual". At the moment I'm not even sure it's marketing, as Sony haven't needed to advertise for quite some time. Whatever it is, I can guarantee that both Microsoft and Nintendo would do the same if they could. If not, then there's something wrong with their marketing strategy, and they will never overhaul Sony.
> Don't tell me these people don't exist just because you've
> never met any.
Oh, I've met plenty of people matching the description you give. It's just that I don't judge or label them because of the games they play.
They're a gamer, same as me. They chose their console, they choose their games. We're exactly alike - they just enjoy different games for different reasons.
As for the quality of a game, that's an entirely subjective issue. People who buy Starsky & Hutch or Batman games buy them because they are fans. These games get produced because there is quite obviously a huge market for them.
You and I may not like them for any number of reasons, but who are we to say that they shouldn't be produced? 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.
No matter what definition of "casual gamer" I hear, to me it always boils down to one simple statement: "They like different games to me."
If I kept buying rubbish games I wouldn't be playing them much either.
Anyway, I hope for everyone's sake that there's some healthy competition between the 3 big hitters next year. Should help drive down game prices which are set to be rising to £50 if EA and Activision get their way.
Anyway, I hope for everyone's sake that there's some healthy competition between the 3 big hitters next year. Should help drive down game prices which are set to be rising to £50 if EA and Activision get their way.
gerrid wrote:
> See to me that sort of person is a casual gamer, not someone
> who buys good games but doesn't have time to play them much like
> Wookiee was describing.
I think it's a bit of both now I come to think of it.
Casual gamers aren't going to be found playing games for several hours a day, and, as has already been explained, won't be found shopping around or doing any real research into a game before they buy it.
> See to me that sort of person is a casual gamer, not someone
> who buys good games but doesn't have time to play them much like
> Wookiee was describing.
I think it's a bit of both now I come to think of it.
Casual gamers aren't going to be found playing games for several hours a day, and, as has already been explained, won't be found shopping around or doing any real research into a game before they buy it.
See to me that sort of person is a casual gamer, not someone who buys good games but doesn't have time to play them much like Wookiee was describing.
The only time I buy games in shops is usually if I see something for cheap that I know is good, or if it's cheap enough to justify it (£2 for a 2 year old wrestling game for instance) even if it's a pretty rubbish game.
The only time I buy games in shops is usually if I see something for cheap that I know is good, or if it's cheap enough to justify it (£2 for a 2 year old wrestling game for instance) even if it's a pretty rubbish game.
I can definitely agree with the marketing point, as did Wookiee. To me, a casual gamer might be somebody who goes into a shop (first mistake, why not buy online for a massive saving?) and then buys something that has a cool box or reminds them of something they saw at the cinema/on tv. They may, by chance, get a good game, but basing a purchase on that information is risky at best.
I was about to say that I couldn't remember the last time I went to a shop and bought a game, but I just recalled buying Soul Calibur 2 in HMV a few months back when it was on sale - got it for £6.29 brand new which seemed okay to me.
I was about to say that I couldn't remember the last time I went to a shop and bought a game, but I just recalled buying Soul Calibur 2 in HMV a few months back when it was on sale - got it for £6.29 brand new which seemed okay to me.
Chr1s wrote:
> I never brought any "it's about what games you play"
> nonsense into the equation, I always based it on the amount of hours
> you put into your gaming.
I don't think how much time you spend playing games makes much of a difference. I think it's more about what games you buy, rather than how long you play them. Surely that makes more sense?
Either way, when I said 'casual gamer', I was talking about the people I described, people who pay no attention to what they're buying and go on the packaging and the name of the game alone. I think they damage the industry by encouraging publishers to be lazy. If you think that's me being 'superior' then fine, but I'm entitled to my opinion.
> I never brought any "it's about what games you play"
> nonsense into the equation, I always based it on the amount of hours
> you put into your gaming.
I don't think how much time you spend playing games makes much of a difference. I think it's more about what games you buy, rather than how long you play them. Surely that makes more sense?
Either way, when I said 'casual gamer', I was talking about the people I described, people who pay no attention to what they're buying and go on the packaging and the name of the game alone. I think they damage the industry by encouraging publishers to be lazy. If you think that's me being 'superior' then fine, but I'm entitled to my opinion.
ssxpro wrote:
> Its not about the graphics and its all to do with casual
> gamers
Tying up my point as "it's not about the graphics" is very misleading. What I said is that graphical improvements aren't the most important step forward in the next generation. That point has nothing to do with casual gamers and isn't contradictory to the idea that they will decide the outcome of the next generation.
The point about casual gamers is an inter-console thing, whereas the graphical point is a general point, and completely unrelated. I wasn't contradicting myself and I just wanted to make that clear.
> Its not about the graphics and its all to do with casual
> gamers
Tying up my point as "it's not about the graphics" is very misleading. What I said is that graphical improvements aren't the most important step forward in the next generation. That point has nothing to do with casual gamers and isn't contradictory to the idea that they will decide the outcome of the next generation.
The point about casual gamers is an inter-console thing, whereas the graphical point is a general point, and completely unrelated. I wasn't contradicting myself and I just wanted to make that clear.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> I still don't subscribe to this casual/hardcore gamer nonsense.
> Gamers are gamers, and that's all there is to it.
I sort of do, but apparently not in the same way as some seem to.
As far as I can see, the only distinction between the so called 'casual gamers' and well...us, is that we probably play games more.
I never brought any "it's about what games you play" nonsense into the equation, I always based it on the amount of hours you put into your gaming.
> I still don't subscribe to this casual/hardcore gamer nonsense.
> Gamers are gamers, and that's all there is to it.
I sort of do, but apparently not in the same way as some seem to.
As far as I can see, the only distinction between the so called 'casual gamers' and well...us, is that we probably play games more.
I never brought any "it's about what games you play" nonsense into the equation, I always based it on the amount of hours you put into your gaming.
That's true and fair. The argument wasn't really directed at you, it was just a collection of two statements, coincidentally both made by you, that gave contradictory results regarding the next generation of consoles. Its not about the graphics and its all to do with casual gamers were two statements that Wookiee didn't think should be there for the same reason. Looking at his post, I don't think he was targeting you specifically, just making his own point with your statements as an opener.
Page: