PS3 is DOOMED. Sony is just going to have to figure out what to do with a console that isn't doing nearly as well as they expected and is losing them money.
Because of the economics of it, if Sony does the math one day only to find the entire PS3 project was a sunk cost, they will have buy back the PS3s on the shelf and have them destroyed.
Free market FTL
halkun on
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
That would be great but megathreads be outlawed. Instead we get to have a swarm of PS3 is doomed threads, one for every time something like this happens. But that is neither here nor there...
We could probably discuss the topic of the this thread.
Sony is hemorrhaging cash. It's pretty easy to point at them and say "wow, look at all those bad business moves you made!" Hindsight being 20/20 and all.
PS3 is DOOMED. Sony is just going to have to figure out what to do with a console that isn't doing nearly as well as they expected and is losing them money.
With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite Blue being newer and more expensive, as well as PS3s big sellers not yet released, on top of poor 360 sells in Japan means the PS3 ain't going anywhere. Specially when they've already made up the lose that the game division made with the PS3 launch with their camera and tv sells and with them investing in Blueray and future game sells.
No one said it wasn't doing better than HD, in fact they both came too early and will be outsold by DVD probably their entire lifespan.
Did you just read the first 10 words of my post?
No, I read more than "With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite." I'm good like that. Each and every week the PS3 is coming closer and closer to 360's numbers in the land of the Rising Sun, so the PS3 is going somewhere, exactly where the 360 is. Can't really blame the price, either, as its not much more money over there than the 360. I've heard reports its not even the shitty games holding the sales back, its the size of the shiny grill of doom. No one cares about Cameras in a videogame discussion. Microsoft making a ton off of Office sales doesn't mean jack when it comes to the 360.
Well, but a lot of people here believe that Sony is in the hole because of the PS3, and that the PS3 is doomed. Neither of which being true. Which was my post.
In fact, you are right, Sony isn't doomed. Not even fucking close. There are two schools of thought when you have a majorly failing product when you are a monolithic multinational corporation; kill it or continue to pour money into it. We'll find out what type Sony is if this continues, and that right quick.
PS3 is DOOMED. Sony is just going to have to figure out what to do with a console that isn't doing nearly as well as they expected and is losing them money.
With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite Blue being newer and more expensive, as well as PS3s big sellers not yet released, on top of poor 360 sells in Japan means the PS3 ain't going anywhere.
The Wii does exist.
PS3 and 360 games are different then Wii games.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
PS3 is DOOMED. Sony is just going to have to figure out what to do with a console that isn't doing nearly as well as they expected and is losing them money.
Continue making stereos.
I'm sure that will go over really well with the stock owners. They will want to know why the PS3 isn't making money like the PS2, and why they should continue to fund what is currently a money hole.
With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite Blue being newer and more expensive, as well as PS3s big sellers not yet released, on top of poor 360 sells in Japan means the PS3 ain't going anywhere.
The Wii does exist.
Wii what's this? I haven't seen any in stores, so I'm not sure it exists.
With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite Blue being newer and more expensive, as well as PS3s big sellers not yet released, on top of poor 360 sells in Japan means the PS3 ain't going anywhere.
With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite Blue being newer and more expensive, as well as PS3s big sellers not yet released, on top of poor 360 sells in Japan means the PS3 ain't going anywhere.
The Wii does exist.
PS3 and 360 games are different then Wii games.
That doesn't mean most companies will still make games for the PS3 if it doesn't make them much money. High budget games with really pretty graphics aren't the best games to release onto a console that is in a fairly distant second place.
The Internets is full of crufty old Nintendo fanboys, such as myself, who were pissed at Sony during that whole N64/PS1-era, which is why you see so many "lolerz Sony is DOOMED" threads these days.
Anyway, I agree. Sony is by no means doomed, just like MS isn't either (thanks to Office and Windows). But the PS3 isn't exactly in the best of shape either. (And neither is the 360, depending on how you look at it)
With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite Blue being newer and more expensive, as well as PS3s big sellers not yet released, on top of poor 360 sells in Japan means the PS3 ain't going anywhere.
The Wii does exist.
PS3 and 360 games are different then Wii games.
Right, we know this, they sell well in Japan.
America too.
Europe.
I could go on.
I think you're missing the point here. Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on would not work for the Wii. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, Mario, and just about everything of Nintendo's first party does. People will still want games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on despite how many units the Wii is selling.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
I think this is a good place and time to mention my Grand Unified Theory of 7th-Gen Consoles, to wit:
Sony and Microsoft decided to make their consoles more like gaming PCs, forgetting the obvious fact that console games sell better than PC games because consoles cost less than PCs.
If you can buy a decent (not superb, but decent) gaming PC for the price of a PS3, and that same PC can do all the things a PS3 can't, why the hell does the PS3 even exist? Protein folding?
With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite Blue being newer and more expensive, as well as PS3s big sellers not yet released, on top of poor 360 sells in Japan means the PS3 ain't going anywhere.
The Wii does exist.
PS3 and 360 games are different then Wii games.
Right, we know this, they sell well in Japan.
America too.
Europe.
I could go on.
I think you're missing the point here. Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on would not work for the Wii. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, Mario, and just about everything of Nintendo's first party does. People will still want games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on despite how many units the Wii is selling.
Those are hight budget games that need high sales in order to make a profit. How often do third party companies release games that are expensive to develop exclusively on a console in 2nd place? I think that means we will see a ton of multiplatform releases.
That would be great but megathreads be outlawed. Instead we get to have a swarm of PS3 is doomed threads, one for every time something like this happens. But that is neither here nor there...
We could probably discuss the topic of the this thread.
Sony is hemorrhaging cash. It's pretty easy to point at them and say "wow, look at all those bad business moves you made!" Hindsight being 20/20 and all.
I think another part of it is basically the for some of those bad business moves, we could see them coming. And then watched sony do it over and over.
I think this is a good place and time to mention my Grand Unified Theory of 7th-Gen Consoles, to wit:
Sony and Microsoft decided to make their consoles more like gaming PCs, forgetting the obvious fact that console games sell better than PC games because consoles cost less than PCs.
If you can buy a decent (not superb, but decent) gaming PC for the price of a PS3, and that same PC can do all the things a PS3 can't, why the hell does the PS3 even exist? Protein folding?
Well a few things really. For one, to be able to play the newest games for the PC at the highest settings, it's going to cost you around $1,300. And that's if you build it yourself. Expect that to double or triple if you buy a brand name. Secondly, you aren't going to get the first party games, or games that just don't make it to PC. I wouldn't be upset at all if they did come out for the PC instead, because that's my preference, but it ain't going to happen. Then there's the people who also use their consoles as entertainment systems.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite Blue being newer and more expensive, as well as PS3s big sellers not yet released, on top of poor 360 sells in Japan means the PS3 ain't going anywhere.
The Wii does exist.
PS3 and 360 games are different then Wii games.
Right, we know this, they sell well in Japan.
America too.
Europe.
I could go on.
I think you're missing the point here. Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on would not work for the Wii. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, Mario, and just about everything of Nintendo's first party does. People will still want games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on despite how many units the Wii is selling.
I think you're missing the point here, games follow the console sales. The companies will follow whereever the sales are. Sure they won't look as good, but they are possible.
It's a matter of effort to make games look good on "underpowered" systems. You could probably do Half Life 2 fairly well on the ole' Wii if someone actually tried.
I think you're missing the point here. Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on would not work for the Wii. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, Mario, and just about everything of Nintendo's first party does. People will still want games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on despite how many units the Wii is selling.
You've got your head pretty deep in the sand. What 90% of people want are games that are entertaining to play. While you're right that the Wii won't be running a purty game like HL2, it can run fun FPS's. It will have fun covert ops movies that masquerade as games. Hell, I doubt that FFXIII gameplay will have anything that the Wii can't do. Sure, it won't be able to have as pretty fifteen minute summons but pretty pictures is not why I play games.
With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite Blue being newer and more expensive, as well as PS3s big sellers not yet released, on top of poor 360 sells in Japan means the PS3 ain't going anywhere.
The Wii does exist.
PS3 and 360 games are different then Wii games.
Right, we know this, they sell well in Japan.
America too.
Europe.
I could go on.
I think you're missing the point here. Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on would not work for the Wii. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, Mario, and just about everything of Nintendo's first party does. People will still want games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on despite how many units the Wii is selling.
Those are hight budget games that need high sales in order to make a profit. How often do companies release games that are expensive to develop exclusively on a console in 2nd place? I think that means we will see a ton of multiplatform releases.
Well I was referring to games that are more driven by hardware power, such as physics, graphics, AI, and other tech goodies. Those were just examples that came to mind.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite Blue being newer and more expensive, as well as PS3s big sellers not yet released, on top of poor 360 sells in Japan means the PS3 ain't going anywhere.
The Wii does exist.
PS3 and 360 games are different then Wii games.
Right, we know this, they sell well in Japan.
America too.
Europe.
I could go on.
I think you're missing the point here. Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on would not work for the Wii. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, Mario, and just about everything of Nintendo's first party does. People will still want games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on despite how many units the Wii is selling.
I think you're missing the point here, games follow the console sales. The companies will follow whereever the sales are. Sure they won't look as good, but they are possible.
It's a matter of effort to make games look good on "underpowered" systems. You could probably do Half Life 2 fairly well on the ole' Wii if someone actually tried.
Wasn't HL2 released on the Xbox?
TheSonicRetard on
0
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
They lost money in their games division.
what is that, 1/20th of their company?
ALSO: Blu-ray has a higher diskspace that HD does it not, some kid at college reckons that HD has more space.
Rectification please?
With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite Blue being newer and more expensive, as well as PS3s big sellers not yet released, on top of poor 360 sells in Japan means the PS3 ain't going anywhere.
The Wii does exist.
PS3 and 360 games are different then Wii games.
Right, we know this, they sell well in Japan.
America too.
Europe.
I could go on.
I think you're missing the point here. Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on would not work for the Wii. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, Mario, and just about everything of Nintendo's first party does. People will still want games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on despite how many units the Wii is selling.
I think you're missing the point here, games follow the console sales. The companies will follow whereever the sales are. Sure they won't look as good, but they are possible.
It's a matter of effort to make games look good on "underpowered" systems. You could probably do Half Life 2 fairly well on the ole' Wii if someone actually tried.
I think you're missing the point here. Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on would not work for the Wii. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, Mario, and just about everything of Nintendo's first party does. People will still want games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on despite how many units the Wii is selling.
You've got your head pretty deep in the sand. What 90% of people want are games that are entertaining to play. While you're right that the Wii won't be running a purty game like HL2, it can run fun FPS's. It will have fun covert ops movies that masquerade as games. Hell, I doubt that FFXIII gameplay will have anything that the Wii can't do. Sure, it won't be able to have as pretty fifteen minute summons but pretty pictures is not why I play games.
For fucks sake, a game being pretty doesn't mean the gameplay is shallow, just like a game with Wii controls doesn't instantly make it fun. A lot of people enjoy physics and graphics, specially if it brings out a games story.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
I think you're missing the point here. Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on would not work for the Wii. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, Mario, and just about everything of Nintendo's first party does. People will still want games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on despite how many units the Wii is selling.
You've got your head pretty deep in the sand. What 90% of people want are games that are entertaining to play. While you're right that the Wii won't be running a purty game like HL2, it can run fun FPS's. It will have fun covert ops movies that masquerade as games. Hell, I doubt that FFXIII gameplay will have anything that the Wii can't do. Sure, it won't be able to have as pretty fifteen minute summons but pretty pictures is not why I play games.
For fucks sake, a game being pretty doesn't mean the gameplay is shallow, just like a game with Wii controls doesn't instantly make it fun. A lot of people enjoy physics and graphics, specially if it brings out a games story.
I hate to ever bring this up, as it'll make me look silly in a few years (this post won't last this long, so I don't feel THAT bad) but graphics have pretty much reached the point where no extra light bloom or shinyness will help tell the story, just tell it a bit flashier. Same state movies have reached pretty much. You should have gone with B: The whole Blue-Ray=more room=bigger story. Sorry but you've failed your Sony Apologist test, feel free to reapply in two months.
I think this is a good place and time to mention my Grand Unified Theory of 7th-Gen Consoles, to wit:
Sony and Microsoft decided to make their consoles more like gaming PCs, forgetting the obvious fact that console games sell better than PC games because consoles cost less than PCs.
If you can buy a decent (not superb, but decent) gaming PC for the price of a PS3, and that same PC can do all the things a PS3 can't, why the hell does the PS3 even exist? Protein folding?
Well a few things really. For one, to be able to play the newest games for the PC at the highest settings, it's going to cost you around $1,300. And that's if you build it yourself. Expect that to double or triple if you buy a brand name. Secondly, you aren't going to get the first party games, or games that just don't make it to PC. I wouldn't be upset at all if they did come out for the PC instead, because that's my preference, but it ain't going to happen. Then there's the people who also use their consoles as entertainment systems.
Highest settings on PC > Highest settings on PS3/Xbox
You don't need a turbo studly PC to play games at [email protected], which is in fact what the PS3 and the 360 do.
And the PC has games the consoles don't have, so where does that leave you?
For fucks sake, a game being pretty doesn't mean the gameplay is shallow, just like a game with Wii controls doesn't instantly make it fun. A lot of people enjoy physics and graphics, specially if it brings out a games story.
Er...my point wasn't with any of those isn't that the gameplay is shallow. The point was that the reason they all "need" to be on the next gen system is because they're pretty. Barring HL2 which has a considerable amount of gameplay physics I don't see either of the other two pushing beyond the Wii's hardware capabilities based upon game play alone.
Also I know my assumption that not every damn game for the Wii needs to use the Wii mote functions is silly. I know it seems like they all do right now but in a years time if this dominance continues I'd expect to see more games that are simply fun games that ignore the unique control scheme. I won't cry tears of sorrow if this happens on some games. It'd be a shame if it was ignored by all of them though.
I think this is a good place and time to mention my Grand Unified Theory of 7th-Gen Consoles, to wit:
Sony and Microsoft decided to make their consoles more like gaming PCs, forgetting the obvious fact that console games sell better than PC games because consoles cost less than PCs.
If you can buy a decent (not superb, but decent) gaming PC for the price of a PS3, and that same PC can do all the things a PS3 can't, why the hell does the PS3 even exist? Protein folding?
Well a few things really. For one, to be able to play the newest games for the PC at the highest settings, it's going to cost you around $1,300. And that's if you build it yourself. Expect that to double or triple if you buy a brand name. Secondly, you aren't going to get the first party games, or games that just don't make it to PC. I wouldn't be upset at all if they did come out for the PC instead, because that's my preference, but it ain't going to happen. Then there's the people who also use their consoles as entertainment systems.
Highest settings on PC > Highest settings on PS3/Xbox
You don't need a turbo studly PC to play games at [email protected], which is in fact what the PS3 and the 360 do.
And the PC has games the consoles don't have, so where does that leave you?
Upgrading every year just to play the latest game, millions of possible issues and about $600 more down the potter.
The reason people buy consoles is they are easy, consistent in performance and can be played on a bigger screen.
I think you're missing the point here. Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on would not work for the Wii. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, Mario, and just about everything of Nintendo's first party does. People will still want games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on despite how many units the Wii is selling.
You've got your head pretty deep in the sand. What 90% of people want are games that are entertaining to play. While you're right that the Wii won't be running a purty game like HL2, it can run fun FPS's. It will have fun covert ops movies that masquerade as games. Hell, I doubt that FFXIII gameplay will have anything that the Wii can't do. Sure, it won't be able to have as pretty fifteen minute summons but pretty pictures is not why I play games.
For fucks sake, a game being pretty doesn't mean the gameplay is shallow, just like a game with Wii controls doesn't instantly make it fun. A lot of people enjoy physics and graphics, specially if it brings out a games story.
I hate to ever bring this up, as it'll make me look silly in a few years (this post won't last this long, so I don't feel THAT bad) but graphics have pretty much reached the point where no extra light bloom or shinyness will help tell the story, just tell it a bit flashier. Same state movies have reached pretty much. You should have gone with B: The whole Blue-Ray=more room=bigger story. Sorry but you've failed your Sony Apologist test, feel free to reapply in two months.
What? Have you seen the amount of detail going into facial expressions alone in games like Heavenly Sword? Have you seen the physics engine used in Lucas Arts new Star Wars game? Have you seen the sheer amount of detail put into the GTA4 city? Maybe you don't care about that stuff, but there are plenty of people that do.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
For fucks sake, a game being pretty doesn't mean the gameplay is shallow, just like a game with Wii controls doesn't instantly make it fun. A lot of people enjoy physics and graphics, specially if it brings out a games story.
Er...my point wasn't with any of those isn't that the gameplay is shallow. The point was that the reason they all "need" to be on the next gen system is because they're pretty. Barring HL2 which has a considerable amount of gameplay physics I don't see either of the other two pushing beyond the Wii's hardware capabilities based upon game play alone.
Also I know my assumption that not every damn game for the Wii needs to use the Wii mote functions is silly. I know it seems like they all do right now but in a years time if this dominance continues I'd expect to see more games that are simply fun games that ignore the unique control scheme. I won't cry tears of sorrow if this happens on some games. It'd be a shame if it was ignored by all of them though.
You're right. There are going to be games that don't use the Wii controls like we expect, and may take a more traditional path. That isn't a bad thing at all. Just like there will be plenty of games for the PC, PS3, and 360 that won't take advantage of what they can do, which isn't a bad thing either. But it's the things that each of the system can do that makes them worth having over a single system.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
Upgrading every year just to play the latest game, millions of possible issues and about $600 more down the potter.
The reason people buy consoles is they are easy, consistent in performance and can be played on a bigger screen.
That whole "you need to upgrade your PC every year for the latest games" idea has got to die. Although I just built a completely new machine about a month ago, my old rig could handle all the new games just fine and it's about three years old (some of the components are older still). Consoles are cheaper, no argument with that, and it's just better for a good lot of people. But people are consisantly overstating how expensive PC gaming really is.
(And, for the record, there's nothing stopping you from hooking up your computer to an HDTV. Sure, it'll be awkward if you're doing a KBAM setup, but one could concievably hook up his computer to a 60" TV on his desk and do the HD thing from two feet away. TRUE HD MANG.)
I'm good for "olol Sony" as the next asshole, but all these threads the past few weeks on Sony's doom and gloom is getting really old. I mean, yeah, the PS3 isn't selling as well as Sony likes. We get it. Let's move on to more important and pressing subjects like how much cocks forumers are eating this year or some shit like that.
Can I just ask something before this thread gets locked?
No one made a big deal out of the buckets of cash Microsoft lost with the Xbox, because it was "an investment." So why is Sony's current profit loss a big deal when it too is an investment in current and future plans?
That and the OP's other quote of a 6 mil forecast shipping "only" 5.5 make the article a little sensationalist.
Upgrading every year just to play the latest game, millions of possible issues and about $600 more down the potter.
The reason people buy consoles is they are easy, consistent in performance and can be played on a bigger screen.
That whole "you need to upgrade your PC every year for the latest games" idea has got to die. Although I just built a completely new machine about a month ago, my old rig could handle all the new games just fine and it's about three years old (some of the components are older still). Consoles are cheaper, no argument with that, and it's just better for a good lot of people. But people are consisantly overstating how expensive PC gaming really is.
(And, for the record, there's nothing stopping you from hooking up your computer to an HDTV. Sure, it'll be awkward if you're doing a KBAM setup, but one could concievably hook up his computer to a 60" TV on his desk and do the HD thing from two feet away. TRUE HD MANG.)
I'm good for "olol Sony" as the next asshole, but all these threads the past few weeks on Sony's doom and gloom is getting really old. I mean, yeah, the PS3 isn't selling as well as Sony likes. We get it. Let's move on to more important and pressing subjects like how much cocks forumers are eating this year or some shit like that.
Too bad there is nothing better going on to talk about right now. Plus, us die hard Nintendo fans are like Conan, we live to crush our enemies. To see them driven before us. And to hear the lamentations of the women.
Can I just ask something before this thread gets locked?
No one made a big deal out of the buckets of cash Microsoft lost with the Xbox, because it was "an investment." So why is Sony's current profit loss a big deal when it too is an investment in current and future plans?
That and the OP's other quote of a 6 mil forecast shipping "only" 5.5 make the article a little sensationalist.
Microsoft was buying their way into the console race. Sony already won two generations, so it's not the same thing, at all. Don't think we didn't mock the XBOX something fierce, just look a the first three years of the PA comic for the general sentiment.
Can I just ask something before this thread gets locked?
No one made a big deal out of the buckets of cash Microsoft lost with the Xbox, because it was "an investment." So why is Sony's current profit loss a big deal when it too is an investment in current and future plans?
That and the OP's other quote of a 6 mil forecast shipping "only" 5.5 make the article a little sensationalist.
Microsoft was buying their way into the console race. Sony already won two generations, so it's not the same thing, at all. Don't think we didn't mock the XBOX something fierce, just look a the first three years of the PA comic for the general sentiment.
Also, Microsoft has windows, and Bill Gates could probably fund the Xbox program personally. Sony, however, doesn't have quite the finacial pillow to fall back on
I think you're missing the point here. Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on would not work for the Wii. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, Mario, and just about everything of Nintendo's first party does. People will still want games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on despite how many units the Wii is selling.
You've got your head pretty deep in the sand. What 90% of people want are games that are entertaining to play. While you're right that the Wii won't be running a purty game like HL2, it can run fun FPS's. It will have fun covert ops movies that masquerade as games. Hell, I doubt that FFXIII gameplay will have anything that the Wii can't do. Sure, it won't be able to have as pretty fifteen minute summons but pretty pictures is not why I play games.
For fucks sake, a game being pretty doesn't mean the gameplay is shallow, just like a game with Wii controls doesn't instantly make it fun. A lot of people enjoy physics and graphics, specially if it brings out a games story.
I hate to ever bring this up, as it'll make me look silly in a few years (this post won't last this long, so I don't feel THAT bad) but graphics have pretty much reached the point where no extra light bloom or shinyness will help tell the story, just tell it a bit flashier. Same state movies have reached pretty much. You should have gone with B: The whole Blue-Ray=more room=bigger story. Sorry but you've failed your Sony Apologist test, feel free to reapply in two months.
I wanted to jump in here, but please don't think of me as either a Sony Apologist or Nintendo Hater, as I am neither.
I do think there is a fallacy in thinking that better hardware only equals prettier games. As a few people have already mentioned, better hardware drives things such as physics. I also wanted to point out that it can also lead to immersiveness. One of the great things about Crackdown and Oblivion was just how large the world was, how so many bits and pieces of the world were constantly being "remembered", the level of AI, and with minimal loading time to boot. Yes, previous games have done similar things (such as the GTA games of last generation), but certainly not to the same scale (including graphics, AI, physics, etc.).
Keep in mind too that those games are essentially 1st-gen games, and that future games this console generation (GTA4 perhaps?) may far exceed the level of immersiveness that we've seen so far. Another good example is Spore. There probably is a reason why Chris Hecker made his controversial Wii rant at GDC earlier this year.
Of course, just like graphics, things like immersiveness (or more physics, or better AI, etc.) don't automatically equate to fun either. But obviously there's no harm in certainly having the potential of having good graphics or great AI or incredible immersiveness either.
To sum it up, my point is that there's more to hardware than just driving pretty graphics.
Can I just ask something before this thread gets locked?
No one made a big deal out of the buckets of cash Microsoft lost with the Xbox, because it was "an investment." So why is Sony's current profit loss a big deal when it too is an investment in current and future plans?
That and the OP's other quote of a 6 mil forecast shipping "only" 5.5 make the article a little sensationalist.
Microsoft was buying their way into the console race. Sony already won two generations, so it's not the same thing, at all. Don't think we didn't mock the XBOX something fierce, just look a the first three years of the PA comic for the general sentiment.
Plenty-o-big deal was made of Microsoft pissing away money on Xbox. You just don't remember it.
Can I just ask something before this thread gets locked?
No one made a big deal out of the buckets of cash Microsoft lost with the Xbox, because it was "an investment." So why is Sony's current profit loss a big deal when it too is an investment in current and future plans?
That and the OP's other quote of a 6 mil forecast shipping "only" 5.5 make the article a little sensationalist.
Microsoft was buying their way into the console race. Sony already won two generations, so it's not the same thing, at all. Don't think we didn't mock the XBOX something fierce, just look a the first three years of the PA comic for the general sentiment.
Plenty-o-big deal was made of Microsoft pissing away money on Xbox. You just don't remember it.
And XBOX was still a success, can we stop bitching at each now?
Posts
Continue making stereos.
SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
Free market FTL
We could probably discuss the topic of the this thread.
Sony is hemorrhaging cash. It's pretty easy to point at them and say "wow, look at all those bad business moves you made!" Hindsight being 20/20 and all.
In fact, you are right, Sony isn't doomed. Not even fucking close. There are two schools of thought when you have a majorly failing product when you are a monolithic multinational corporation; kill it or continue to pour money into it. We'll find out what type Sony is if this continues, and that right quick.
And crying inside every time they see an iPod.
PS3 and 360 games are different then Wii games.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
I'm sure that will go over really well with the stock owners. They will want to know why the PS3 isn't making money like the PS2, and why they should continue to fund what is currently a money hole.
Wii what's this? I haven't seen any in stores, so I'm not sure it exists.
Right, we know this, they sell well in Japan.
America too.
Europe.
I could go on.
That doesn't mean most companies will still make games for the PS3 if it doesn't make them much money. High budget games with really pretty graphics aren't the best games to release onto a console that is in a fairly distant second place.
Anyway, I agree. Sony is by no means doomed, just like MS isn't either (thanks to Office and Windows). But the PS3 isn't exactly in the best of shape either. (And neither is the 360, depending on how you look at it)
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
I think you're missing the point here. Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on would not work for the Wii. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, Mario, and just about everything of Nintendo's first party does. People will still want games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Half-Life 2, FFXIII, and so on despite how many units the Wii is selling.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
Sony and Microsoft decided to make their consoles more like gaming PCs, forgetting the obvious fact that console games sell better than PC games because consoles cost less than PCs.
If you can buy a decent (not superb, but decent) gaming PC for the price of a PS3, and that same PC can do all the things a PS3 can't, why the hell does the PS3 even exist? Protein folding?
I think another part of it is basically the for some of those bad business moves, we could see them coming. And then watched sony do it over and over.
Well a few things really. For one, to be able to play the newest games for the PC at the highest settings, it's going to cost you around $1,300. And that's if you build it yourself. Expect that to double or triple if you buy a brand name. Secondly, you aren't going to get the first party games, or games that just don't make it to PC. I wouldn't be upset at all if they did come out for the PC instead, because that's my preference, but it ain't going to happen. Then there's the people who also use their consoles as entertainment systems.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
I think you're missing the point here, games follow the console sales. The companies will follow whereever the sales are. Sure they won't look as good, but they are possible.
It's a matter of effort to make games look good on "underpowered" systems. You could probably do Half Life 2 fairly well on the ole' Wii if someone actually tried.
You've got your head pretty deep in the sand. What 90% of people want are games that are entertaining to play. While you're right that the Wii won't be running a purty game like HL2, it can run fun FPS's. It will have fun covert ops movies that masquerade as games. Hell, I doubt that FFXIII gameplay will have anything that the Wii can't do. Sure, it won't be able to have as pretty fifteen minute summons but pretty pictures is not why I play games.
Well I was referring to games that are more driven by hardware power, such as physics, graphics, AI, and other tech goodies. Those were just examples that came to mind.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
Wasn't HL2 released on the Xbox?
what is that, 1/20th of their company?
ALSO: Blu-ray has a higher diskspace that HD does it not, some kid at college reckons that HD has more space.
Rectification please?
Indeed, that is what I was thinking.
For fucks sake, a game being pretty doesn't mean the gameplay is shallow, just like a game with Wii controls doesn't instantly make it fun. A lot of people enjoy physics and graphics, specially if it brings out a games story.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
I hate to ever bring this up, as it'll make me look silly in a few years (this post won't last this long, so I don't feel THAT bad) but graphics have pretty much reached the point where no extra light bloom or shinyness will help tell the story, just tell it a bit flashier. Same state movies have reached pretty much. You should have gone with B: The whole Blue-Ray=more room=bigger story. Sorry but you've failed your Sony Apologist test, feel free to reapply in two months.
Highest settings on PC > Highest settings on PS3/Xbox
You don't need a turbo studly PC to play games at [email protected], which is in fact what the PS3 and the 360 do.
And the PC has games the consoles don't have, so where does that leave you?
Er...my point wasn't with any of those isn't that the gameplay is shallow. The point was that the reason they all "need" to be on the next gen system is because they're pretty. Barring HL2 which has a considerable amount of gameplay physics I don't see either of the other two pushing beyond the Wii's hardware capabilities based upon game play alone.
Also I know my assumption that not every damn game for the Wii needs to use the Wii mote functions is silly. I know it seems like they all do right now but in a years time if this dominance continues I'd expect to see more games that are simply fun games that ignore the unique control scheme. I won't cry tears of sorrow if this happens on some games. It'd be a shame if it was ignored by all of them though.
Upgrading every year just to play the latest game, millions of possible issues and about $600 more down the potter.
The reason people buy consoles is they are easy, consistent in performance and can be played on a bigger screen.
What? Have you seen the amount of detail going into facial expressions alone in games like Heavenly Sword? Have you seen the physics engine used in Lucas Arts new Star Wars game? Have you seen the sheer amount of detail put into the GTA4 city? Maybe you don't care about that stuff, but there are plenty of people that do.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
You're right. There are going to be games that don't use the Wii controls like we expect, and may take a more traditional path. That isn't a bad thing at all. Just like there will be plenty of games for the PC, PS3, and 360 that won't take advantage of what they can do, which isn't a bad thing either. But it's the things that each of the system can do that makes them worth having over a single system.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
As if the money for Wii games doesn't come from the exact same source of money that 360 and PS3 games are purchased with.
That whole "you need to upgrade your PC every year for the latest games" idea has got to die. Although I just built a completely new machine about a month ago, my old rig could handle all the new games just fine and it's about three years old (some of the components are older still). Consoles are cheaper, no argument with that, and it's just better for a good lot of people. But people are consisantly overstating how expensive PC gaming really is.
(And, for the record, there's nothing stopping you from hooking up your computer to an HDTV. Sure, it'll be awkward if you're doing a KBAM setup, but one could concievably hook up his computer to a 60" TV on his desk and do the HD thing from two feet away. TRUE HD MANG.)
I'm good for "olol Sony" as the next asshole, but all these threads the past few weeks on Sony's doom and gloom is getting really old. I mean, yeah, the PS3 isn't selling as well as Sony likes. We get it. Let's move on to more important and pressing subjects like how much cocks forumers are eating this year or some shit like that.
No one made a big deal out of the buckets of cash Microsoft lost with the Xbox, because it was "an investment." So why is Sony's current profit loss a big deal when it too is an investment in current and future plans?
That and the OP's other quote of a 6 mil forecast shipping "only" 5.5 make the article a little sensationalist.
I really think people that act like that here are in the minority
Too bad there is nothing better going on to talk about right now. Plus, us die hard Nintendo fans are like Conan, we live to crush our enemies. To see them driven before us. And to hear the lamentations of the women.
Microsoft was buying their way into the console race. Sony already won two generations, so it's not the same thing, at all. Don't think we didn't mock the XBOX something fierce, just look a the first three years of the PA comic for the general sentiment.
Also, Microsoft has windows, and Bill Gates could probably fund the Xbox program personally. Sony, however, doesn't have quite the finacial pillow to fall back on
I wanted to jump in here, but please don't think of me as either a Sony Apologist or Nintendo Hater, as I am neither.
I do think there is a fallacy in thinking that better hardware only equals prettier games. As a few people have already mentioned, better hardware drives things such as physics. I also wanted to point out that it can also lead to immersiveness. One of the great things about Crackdown and Oblivion was just how large the world was, how so many bits and pieces of the world were constantly being "remembered", the level of AI, and with minimal loading time to boot. Yes, previous games have done similar things (such as the GTA games of last generation), but certainly not to the same scale (including graphics, AI, physics, etc.).
Keep in mind too that those games are essentially 1st-gen games, and that future games this console generation (GTA4 perhaps?) may far exceed the level of immersiveness that we've seen so far. Another good example is Spore. There probably is a reason why Chris Hecker made his controversial Wii rant at GDC earlier this year.
Of course, just like graphics, things like immersiveness (or more physics, or better AI, etc.) don't automatically equate to fun either. But obviously there's no harm in certainly having the potential of having good graphics or great AI or incredible immersiveness either.
To sum it up, my point is that there's more to hardware than just driving pretty graphics.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
Plenty-o-big deal was made of Microsoft pissing away money on Xbox. You just don't remember it.
And XBOX was still a success, can we stop bitching at each now?