The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
ssxpro wrote:
> Wooks means that although we might agree that graphics aren't
> everything, they are one of the things the so-called casual gamer
> looks for:
But I'm not relating the increase in graphics to the casual gamer! The two points are completely unrelated!
My point isn't about the different graphical capabilities of the consoles, it's that this generation the jump will be more noticeable in other areas, not in graphics. That has nothing to do with the casual gamer. I was replying to a post about a 360 game not being as good looking as the PS2 version.
> Wooks means that although we might agree that graphics aren't
> everything, they are one of the things the so-called casual gamer
> looks for:
But I'm not relating the increase in graphics to the casual gamer! The two points are completely unrelated!
My point isn't about the different graphical capabilities of the consoles, it's that this generation the jump will be more noticeable in other areas, not in graphics. That has nothing to do with the casual gamer. I was replying to a post about a 360 game not being as good looking as the PS2 version.
You know, in Home and Away, one of the kids said "They haven't taken the XBox"
But I still think Sony are alright.
But I still think Sony are alright.
dp
Wooks means that although we might agree that graphics aren't everything, they are one of the things the so-called casual gamer looks for:
"look mate, my game has got wicked graphics, erm, like..."
that sort of stuff. So what he's saying is that if its not about the graphics, then its not about the "casual gamer", if there is such a thin. It can't be one without the other.
He then pointed out, as you did, that the rest is down to advertising, marketing and perhaps a good hefty name such as "Batman", "Spiderman" or "Star Wars" to back the game up.
"look mate, my game has got wicked graphics, erm, like..."
that sort of stuff. So what he's saying is that if its not about the graphics, then its not about the "casual gamer", if there is such a thin. It can't be one without the other.
He then pointed out, as you did, that the rest is down to advertising, marketing and perhaps a good hefty name such as "Batman", "Spiderman" or "Star Wars" to back the game up.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> I think we've already seen the start of it with the PS3 and the 360.
> In terms of gaming specs, the machines are extremely similar - the
> hardware is different, but the results almost identical.
Except that actually programming games for the two consoles is extremely different, to the point where you need to almost wholesale change the code between the two consoles. 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, which could spell trouble for Sony, or trouble for the 360, depending on who the publishers choose. This generation the two consoles hav actually moved further apart in terms of design, rather than closer together, but it's as much to do with the different middleware that Sony and Microsoft provide as anything (Microsoft using Direct3D and Sony using their own version)
I think in the future, if the convergence that you're talking about is to occur, middleware will need to be standardised, like on the PC, so the developers can programme their game on the middleware, and then just plug it in to the different machines with the same, or similar results. But I certainly don't think it will happen this generation.
> I think we've already seen the start of it with the PS3 and the 360.
> In terms of gaming specs, the machines are extremely similar - the
> hardware is different, but the results almost identical.
Except that actually programming games for the two consoles is extremely different, to the point where you need to almost wholesale change the code between the two consoles. 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, which could spell trouble for Sony, or trouble for the 360, depending on who the publishers choose. This generation the two consoles hav actually moved further apart in terms of design, rather than closer together, but it's as much to do with the different middleware that Sony and Microsoft provide as anything (Microsoft using Direct3D and Sony using their own version)
I think in the future, if the convergence that you're talking about is to occur, middleware will need to be standardised, like on the PC, so the developers can programme their game on the middleware, and then just plug it in to the different machines with the same, or similar results. But I certainly don't think it will happen this generation.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Two contradictory statements, surely?
>
> To the "slack jawed casual gamer population" sexy graphics
> are the main lure, and they would all be buying Xboxes or GCs.
Er, what? Those two statements are completely unrelated. I'm saying that the main improvement next generation won't be the graphics. That has nothing to do with who will buy which consoles as it's a general statement about all of them. What doesn't make sense is what you said ^^^
> There are no casual or hardcore gamers, just those who - for whatever
> reason - seem to think they're somehow better than someone else.
> Gaming snobbery - no more, no less.
I know plenty of casual gamers who know nothing/next to nothing about games and are lured in by pretty advertising and recognisable brand names. There's nothing wrong with that, except that it means publihers put more money into making a game look enticing rather than actually making it fun to play. Don't tell me these people don't exist just because you've never met any. Then there are people who read reviews, look on the internet and pay attention to the games industry. Whether they play a lot of games or not doesn't matter, because they're discerning about the quality of the games they buy, which can only be a good thing.
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.
> Two contradictory statements, surely?
>
> To the "slack jawed casual gamer population" sexy graphics
> are the main lure, and they would all be buying Xboxes or GCs.
Er, what? Those two statements are completely unrelated. I'm saying that the main improvement next generation won't be the graphics. That has nothing to do with who will buy which consoles as it's a general statement about all of them. What doesn't make sense is what you said ^^^
> There are no casual or hardcore gamers, just those who - for whatever
> reason - seem to think they're somehow better than someone else.
> Gaming snobbery - no more, no less.
I know plenty of casual gamers who know nothing/next to nothing about games and are lured in by pretty advertising and recognisable brand names. There's nothing wrong with that, except that it means publihers put more money into making a game look enticing rather than actually making it fun to play. Don't tell me these people don't exist just because you've never met any. Then there are people who read reviews, look on the internet and pay attention to the games industry. Whether they play a lot of games or not doesn't matter, because they're discerning about the quality of the games they buy, which can only be a good thing.
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.
gerrid wrote:
> But remember, people, it's not all about graphics.
> I don't think there's any way that Sony could lose out next
> generation, mainly because the slack jawed casual gamer population
> still choose the Playstation, no matter what, and that's unlikely to
> change.
Two contradictory statements, surely?
To the "slack jawed casual gamer population" sexy graphics are the main lure, and they would all be buying Xboxes or GCs.
I still don't subscribe to this casual/hardcore gamer nonsense. Gamers are gamers, and that's all there is to it.
Those that can afford to will buy every machine that offers them games they want to play. The only reason not to is bias.
Those that can't afford to will buy the one that offers them most of the games they want to play.
There are no casual or hardcore gamers, just those who - for whatever reason - seem to think they're somehow better than someone else. Gaming snobbery - no more, no less.
The only real difference is the amount of time people can spend gaming. Just because Person A can only play for a few hours a week, while Person B can play for 40 hours or more, doesn't make Person A any less of a gamer.
After that, it comes down to marketing.
With fewer and fewer exceptions, the same games are available on all formats, so the machine you buy is largely irrelevant. It's all down to who sells the image the best. So far, that's been Sony.
Within the next 2 or 3 generations of gaming hardware, I think we'll see more standardisation across platforms. We have to, because the cost of producing top titles is spiralling. We've gone from major titles created by one or two people in their bedroom, to massive teams of people - and often one team for each available format - PS2, Xbox, GC, PC etc. Develpment times have gone from a few weeks to a couple of years.
Personally, I don't think the games industry will be able to support itself in its current form for very much longer, and we'll eventually see a 'trimming down', to a point where developers will make games for one particular configuration, and console manufacturers will make hardware to suit.
A lot like the video and DVD industry. There's a standard which all machines must adhere to, and one disc/tape will play in any machine, but some offer more features.
I believe that, at some point in the next 10 to 15 years, it won't matter what games you want to play. You'll be able to pick up a games machine made by Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Pioneer, Panasonic or whoever, and know that whatever game you buy, it will work.
I think we've already seen the start of it with the PS3 and the 360. In terms of gaming specs, the machines are extremely similar - the hardware is different, but the results almost identical.
> But remember, people, it's not all about graphics.
> I don't think there's any way that Sony could lose out next
> generation, mainly because the slack jawed casual gamer population
> still choose the Playstation, no matter what, and that's unlikely to
> change.
Two contradictory statements, surely?
To the "slack jawed casual gamer population" sexy graphics are the main lure, and they would all be buying Xboxes or GCs.
I still don't subscribe to this casual/hardcore gamer nonsense. Gamers are gamers, and that's all there is to it.
Those that can afford to will buy every machine that offers them games they want to play. The only reason not to is bias.
Those that can't afford to will buy the one that offers them most of the games they want to play.
There are no casual or hardcore gamers, just those who - for whatever reason - seem to think they're somehow better than someone else. Gaming snobbery - no more, no less.
The only real difference is the amount of time people can spend gaming. Just because Person A can only play for a few hours a week, while Person B can play for 40 hours or more, doesn't make Person A any less of a gamer.
After that, it comes down to marketing.
With fewer and fewer exceptions, the same games are available on all formats, so the machine you buy is largely irrelevant. It's all down to who sells the image the best. So far, that's been Sony.
Within the next 2 or 3 generations of gaming hardware, I think we'll see more standardisation across platforms. We have to, because the cost of producing top titles is spiralling. We've gone from major titles created by one or two people in their bedroom, to massive teams of people - and often one team for each available format - PS2, Xbox, GC, PC etc. Develpment times have gone from a few weeks to a couple of years.
Personally, I don't think the games industry will be able to support itself in its current form for very much longer, and we'll eventually see a 'trimming down', to a point where developers will make games for one particular configuration, and console manufacturers will make hardware to suit.
A lot like the video and DVD industry. There's a standard which all machines must adhere to, and one disc/tape will play in any machine, but some offer more features.
I believe that, at some point in the next 10 to 15 years, it won't matter what games you want to play. You'll be able to pick up a games machine made by Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Pioneer, Panasonic or whoever, and know that whatever game you buy, it will work.
I think we've already seen the start of it with the PS3 and the 360. In terms of gaming specs, the machines are extremely similar - the hardware is different, but the results almost identical.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> I can't recall the game, but it is to be available on both PS2 and
> 360, among others. And they actually said that the PS2 version was
> far more impressive.
Sounds like you're talking about Gun. IGN said almost the exact same thing (raving about the graphics on the PS2 version), but if it is Gun, then no one has seen any footage of the 360 version (the developers say that it is far behind in production terms so it looks worse atm anyway), so I don't know what Edge were talking about saying the PS2 version looks better. Could be another game but I struggle to think of any others that will be on both consoles.
But remember, people, it's not all about graphics. Power upgrades through generations do improve graphics, yeah, but what really makes a difference are things like AI, size of the game world, organic environments etc.
I don't think there's any way that Sony could lose out next generation, mainly because the slack jawed casual gamer population still choose the Playstation, no matter what, and that's unlikely to change.
> I can't recall the game, but it is to be available on both PS2 and
> 360, among others. And they actually said that the PS2 version was
> far more impressive.
Sounds like you're talking about Gun. IGN said almost the exact same thing (raving about the graphics on the PS2 version), but if it is Gun, then no one has seen any footage of the 360 version (the developers say that it is far behind in production terms so it looks worse atm anyway), so I don't know what Edge were talking about saying the PS2 version looks better. Could be another game but I struggle to think of any others that will be on both consoles.
But remember, people, it's not all about graphics. Power upgrades through generations do improve graphics, yeah, but what really makes a difference are things like AI, size of the game world, organic environments etc.
I don't think there's any way that Sony could lose out next generation, mainly because the slack jawed casual gamer population still choose the Playstation, no matter what, and that's unlikely to change.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Even the now infamous Killzone 2 demo is, according to the developer,
> a relatively accurate simulation of what they believe they will be
> able to acheive, having had access to a dev kit for some time.
Everything I've read leads me to agree with that statement. Most authors point out that people won't forget demos like that and if they are then shown something of a much lower standard when the PS3 arrives, they are likely to be quite disappointed and unimpressed with the PS3. Comparisons were made with the pre-launch shows for PS2 and the footage for games like Tekken Tag and Gran Turismo. Whilst Tekken Tag was showing off a little too much, Gran Turismo was actually worse than its final appearence. In general, things developed according to plan and I hope the same will happen here for PS3.
> Even the now infamous Killzone 2 demo is, according to the developer,
> a relatively accurate simulation of what they believe they will be
> able to acheive, having had access to a dev kit for some time.
Everything I've read leads me to agree with that statement. Most authors point out that people won't forget demos like that and if they are then shown something of a much lower standard when the PS3 arrives, they are likely to be quite disappointed and unimpressed with the PS3. Comparisons were made with the pre-launch shows for PS2 and the footage for games like Tekken Tag and Gran Turismo. Whilst Tekken Tag was showing off a little too much, Gran Turismo was actually worse than its final appearence. In general, things developed according to plan and I hope the same will happen here for PS3.
Yeah I know I totally change when I write one of these essay type things.
Strafio could be right of course. Microsoft is hot right now yet, despite the 360 coming at Christmas... no hype.
I believe Nintendo will gain a mass of ground in Japan (whilst stay stationary in the west despite increased third party support by Japanese third parties Capcom, SEGA, Namco and Square), be in better shape for it.
Perhaps I could be wrong... perhaps Microsoft will fall.
Yet will it be the next Dreamcast? Dreamcast failed for many reasons, 1 being the lack of support from EA and other third parties... another was the lack of money SEGA had to market it... in fact SEGA blew any money it had left marketing it and went into trouble.
As shown with the original X-box, if the 360 does really badly to begin with then Microsoft will throw money at it to make it compete well rather than let it die.
We shall see.
Strafio could be right of course. Microsoft is hot right now yet, despite the 360 coming at Christmas... no hype.
I believe Nintendo will gain a mass of ground in Japan (whilst stay stationary in the west despite increased third party support by Japanese third parties Capcom, SEGA, Namco and Square), be in better shape for it.
Perhaps I could be wrong... perhaps Microsoft will fall.
Yet will it be the next Dreamcast? Dreamcast failed for many reasons, 1 being the lack of support from EA and other third parties... another was the lack of money SEGA had to market it... in fact SEGA blew any money it had left marketing it and went into trouble.
As shown with the original X-box, if the 360 does really badly to begin with then Microsoft will throw money at it to make it compete well rather than let it die.
We shall see.
Page: