multiplatform games, the sales of the 360 version bests the PS3 version by an average of 2:1.
I'd say it is more like 55 to 45 percent early on with the gap widening over a game's life.
The exclusives that do come out usually sell well enough but not ZOMG well. It has had its fair share of bombs including Lair and Haze plus some that don't seem to have done as well as expected such as Heavenly Sword (wasn't that supposed to be a trilogy?).
Hurm...after some more thought I'm thinking of going the 360 route instead. Half the price + better online + more games - Red Ring = I dunno. I'd still miss out on Valkyria Chronicles, but SF4 wouldn't be a problem. Argle bargle.
Half the price for half of what the PS3 is. No wireless out of the box, no replacable HDD, the 360 really doesn't have much more games than PS3 anymore, Red Ring fucking sucks, discs are much more prone to scratches, you'd have to keep buying batteries for the controllers unless you buy rechargable ones, you have to pay for XboxLive.
Stop being a cheap ass.
Oh you are right. Everyone should have bought a PS3 and anyone who bought an Xbox is a MORON!! Now I see the light. :zzz: Back to the topic of the PS3 price cut - I've already got an Xbox, but would probably shell out for a PS3 if it ever hit the $250-300 price range. A $300 bundle with GOW3 is about what I'd pay to be able to play that game, as no other PS3 games interest me.
Unfortunately, Sony better drop that price-cut soon because I think by the start of 2010 people will start waiting for the new Xbox (i'd guess november 2011, but just an out-of-my-ass guess). I'm also really hoping the next gen of consoles embrace the "home theater" aspect and get ALOT quieter.
multiplatform games, the sales of the 360 version bests the PS3 version by an average of 2:1.
I'd say it is more like 55 to 45 percent early on with the gap widening over a game's life.
The exclusives that do come out usually sell well enough but not ZOMG well. It has had its fair share of bombs including Lair and Haze plus some that don't seem to have done as well as expected such as Heavenly Sword (wasn't that supposed to be a trilogy?).
It's actually pretty hard to estimate the initial sales difference between them since we only get chart positions, not actual numbers. Is the difference between #4 and #7 50,000 or 250,000? That said, the leaked numbers we've gotten months after the fact are what I based my 2:1 average on, but you said the gap widens over a game's life so we're probably agreeing.
Like I said to the OP. If you want to buy the PS3 at $100 off the current price, go to sony.com's website, find their credit card page, apply for the sony credit card than gives you $100 back on your PS3 purchase, then make the purchase and cancel the card after you get your $100 rebate.
Like I said to the OP. If you want to buy the PS3 at $100 off the current price, go to sony.com's website, find their credit card page, apply for the sony credit card than gives you $100 back on your PS3 purchase, then make the purchase and cancel the card after you get your $100 rebate.
...if you don't mind possibly taking a hit on your credit rating.
Unfortunately, Sony better drop that price-cut soon because I think by the start of 2010 people will start waiting for the new Xbox (i'd guess november 2011, but just an out-of-my-ass guess). I'm also really hoping the next gen of consoles embrace the "home theater" aspect and get ALOT quieter.
I'm not sure I buy this logic. November 2011 would put them on the same path as Xbox to Xbox 360, but rushing it out early really bit them in the ass. The hardware failures cost them a lot of money, and it's still a mystery to me how they didn't lose more business because of that...a true testament to how popular their system is. But I bet they take more time with the next system. Especially since consumer opinion is taking longer and longer to want to upgrade. Look how long the blu-ray switch has been taking, and how low-end electronic sales are doing compared to high-end. My guess is the PS3/X360 have longer than two years of life on them.
I have no use at all for a PS3 because I own a physical Blu-Ray player. It plays my Blu-Rays, and has an IR remote. It cost half the price of a PS3. It doesn't play games, but I don't care because the PS3 has not one single game I am interested in. Not one. Like the PS2 and PS1 before it, I won't buy one until near the EOL. I bought a PS1 in 2000, and a PS2 in 2005. By then both were hovering at the $100/120 range. And I won't pay a cent more.
I already got burned by that PSP I spent $250 for the day after launch and ended up shelving a year later. I haven't played a game on it, or done anything else on that hunk of junk in years now.
The only price drop I want is the one that comes in 4 years when the PS4 and Xbox 720's are on the way.
The PS3 itself may be selling behind the 360, but its games are doing fine. Killzone 2 and Resistance 2 both did very well, and this year has infamous, Uncharted2, GOW3, and GT5 all coming out. I think they'll make enough money off those that they won't care to drop the price yet. Especially since there are reports floating around of that one-red-light error affecting some of the 360s yet again. I could see a price drop for the holiday crush but I wouldn't expect one before then.
Really?
So EA is losing tons, Activision is probably only making money because of the WoW cash cow, Eidos just collapsed and were bought out, THQ is losing money, etc., etc., but yet Sony can make money selling games with super high production values (read super high budgets) to the smallest existing install base?
I like your sense of humor.
There won't be a price cut but that's because the PS3 is still stupidly expensive to make and the Yen is just too high.
Also, the recent PS3's sales could count as "decent" and actually look good compared to 2007 sales which were terrible. Outside of Europe it's selling about as well as the GameCube. However it costs a lot more to make a PS3 game than a GC game so the PS3 really needs a bigger install base so maybe "decent" is pushing it.
Luckily 3rd parties have enforced a shotgun wedding between the 360 and PS3 and the combined userbase should ensure a decent amount of support for both.
Go to this link, sort by Developer, and see if you can figure out all on your own why EA might be losing money. Then lets consider some Activision games that are cash cows besides WOW: the Call of Duty franchise, the Guitar Hero franchise, the Tony Hawk and Quake franchises (though not so much anymore)...I mean do you realize how many game studios publish their games under Activision? Eidos pinned their hopes on Tomb Raider and Age of Conan...whoops. THQ is the only developer you mentioned that could really be relevant here. Plenty of developers can afford to make successful games for the PS3 if they don't suck.
However, as you noted, most have figured out that it is more profitable to produce a game for both consoles rather than stick to one or the other. Considering that the PS2 is still going, I think Sony is very comfortable betting on the longterm with their system, and isn't too concerned with the price drop. Especially given the massive hardware failures their chief competitor (Wii doesn't really count here) incurred going the cheap route.
Edit: What's really sad here is that the Wii Fit is going to eclipse the PS3. I find the direction that system took to be more depressing than if the PS3 went the way of the Dreamcast or something.
Look, going into Activision's earnigns would be a bid deep in the weeds for this thread, but thier non-MMO business including all those cash cows probably lost money in the last holiday quarter. EA's revenues have been hitting records even as they bleed cash so it's not about not having enough sales.
The point is that the cost of HD games is really astounding so sales have to be much higher than last gen to make money. Sony's first party games don't really have amazing sales. This gen not having amazing sales equals losing money. The only time this isn't true is if you are talking niche titles with lower production values. Since Sony's games have been very impressive on that front their is no way they are making money.
Oh, and Sony's execs have to be some bad ass motherfuckers to remain "comfortable" with a console that has already lost more money than the PS2 ever made for them. Especially since their "only" competition has been kicking their ass ever since the last price cut.
As time goes on the number of people that are willing to spend $300 on a console but haven't bought a 360 or Wii (multi console owners are a small minority) will continue to shrink so Sony's decision to hold off on cutting the PS3's price, while probably correct, is not without cost.
Finally please tell me you don't think the fact that the PS2 had a very long lifespan is evidence that the PS3 will as well.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Half the price for half of what the PS3 is. No wireless out of the box, no replacable HDD, the 360 really doesn't have much more games than PS3 anymore, Red Ring fucking sucks, discs are much more prone to scratches, you'd have to keep buying batteries for the controllers unless you buy rechargable ones, you have to pay for XboxLive.
Stop being a cheap ass.
I already made those points, in a much less inflammatory way. Lets not get into system warz. Also I wouldn't bother bringing up RROD as a concern as long as the person is buying a newer machine. (I would advise them to check the power rating before they buy though to make sure they aren't buying an old machine that has been kicking around a warehouse).
I still think the PS3 is a better deal if you want a HD console with media functions. But if you don't care about blu-ray and don't need some of the options the ps3 comes equipped with or are heavy into online gaming (and community) then I would go with the xbox.
(I think things are pretty equal game selection wise. Xbox has a bigger library but I tend to like the ps3 exclusives a bit more but its all personal choice.)
I’ll tell you what happens in Demon’s Souls when you die. You come back as a ghost with your health capped at half. And when you keep on dying, the alignment of the world turns black and the enemies get harder. That’s right, when you fail in this game, it gets harder. Why? Because fuck you is why.
Actually Activision managed to lose money last quarter even when you include the WoW money hose. I'm still a little baffled as to how they did that, considering that was the quarter with new Guitar Hero, Call of Duty and WoW games.
the PS3 has not one single game I am interested in. Not one.
Seriously? WTF is wrong with you, do you even like games? If so, what kind? (Do you even know what games have been released on the system?) Barring ancient systems like the Atari I can't think of a single console that doesn't have a single game on it that I would be interested in playing.
You have lost all credibility with me, turn in your gamercard(tag).
Actually Activision managed to lose money last quarter even when you include the WoW money hose. I'm still a little baffled as to how they did that, considering that was the quarter with new Guitar Hero, Call of Duty and WoW games.
Yeah I don't understand that either. I'm guessing it has to do with all those mountains of GHWT boxes I see in stores.
I’ll tell you what happens in Demon’s Souls when you die. You come back as a ghost with your health capped at half. And when you keep on dying, the alignment of the world turns black and the enemies get harder. That’s right, when you fail in this game, it gets harder. Why? Because fuck you is why.
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
Hell, I'm super partisan, with an overt agenda against online gaming, digital distribution, multimedia functions in consoles and high definition, and I can pull at least 2 games on the PS3 I'm interested in playing, though both shouldve been PS2 games (Disgaea 3, Cross Edge).
The problem then becomes that I have plenty of PS2 games to play on the PS2 before I buy a new machine to play "PS2" games.
With the drop in price of the PS2 and the high price still of the 60GB I wouldn't be surprised if you see something around June at E3. Sony has no big game line up to show us so I can't imagine they wouldn't like to show something more on the hardware side other then the PSP 2 ...
Don't count on a drop any time soon. Sony's strategy of surviving this recession is, in part, sticking to its guns and keeping the same prices on everything in all of its departments. Hell, they've said they're raising prices on some of its stuff in Europe. Not to mention the final decision is under the control of the top execs, not the execs in its gaming division, and their attitude is "make a profit on console sales at all costs." They could very easily be stubbon enough to not drop the price again this year.
Then again, Sony's been very hard to predict this generation and their strategy could change in a heartbeat. So who knows.
Hell, I'm super partisan, with an overt agenda against online gaming, digital distribution, multimedia functions in consoles and high definition, and I can pull at least 2 games on the PS3 I'm interested in playing, though both shouldve been PS2 games (Disgaea 3, Cross Edge).
Holy crap, I've finally met the Bizarro version of me. :P
Edit: And to be somewhat on-topic, I think that Sony's strategy of sticking to selling the PS3 at a profit may have some merit even if it dooms the PS3 to third place or an eventual second place worldwide, since that's what Nintendo did with the Gamecube and last I heard they've made somewhat of a comeback this generation.
Edit: I had a long thing addressing lowlycock's sales stuff but cloudeagle's post confuses me just as much as him. It leads to me to wonder why Sony should feel inclined to drop the price when somebody like Activision can rock the market and lose money anyways. One comment amused me though:
Oh, and Sony's execs have to be some bad ass motherfuckers to remain "comfortable" with a console that has already lost more money than the PS2 ever made for them. Especially since their "only" competition has been kicking their ass ever since the last price cut.
You know, I think I saw this exact statement somewhere. Where was it? Dammit I can't remember. Oh wait I got it...it was early on in the blu-ray/HD-DVD war. I think it was when Sony's execs were called dumbasses for putting the blu-ray in the PS3 or even standing behind the more expensive tech at all. Lets go ask Toshiba how big the balls are on Sony execs. Personally I think it's a smart conservative move to not risk losing money by dropping the price in these economic conditions.
Edit: And to be somewhat on-topic, I think that Sony's strategy of sticking to selling the PS3 at a profit may have some merit even if it dooms the PS3 to third place or an eventual second place worldwide, since that's what Nintendo did with the Gamecube and last I heard they've made somewhat of a comeback this generation.
Barring outside factors, that is the preferred option. Unfortunately, profitability for Sony means a $400 sales price, which hasn't caught the market on fire. The Cube was able to do it because it sold for $200, something average buyers are much more comfortable with. Not to mention Nintendo made a profit on day one, and Sony's looking at a profit on day 850 or so.
And actually, the situation Nintendo faced going from the Cube to the Wii is somewhat like what Sony's facing going from the PS3 to the PS4, but a similar outcome is far from guaranteed. Before motion capabilities were revealed, most third-parties were about to give up on Nintendo entirely. But then Nintendo managed to pull a rabbit out of a hat and come up with something HOLY SHIT AWESOME (at least as far as the general market is concerned). As much ground as Sony's losing, they'll have to pull something that is every bit as HOLY SHIT AWESOME on the PS4 to be able to really recover significantly next generation, as the strength of brand loyalty in the game biz from generation to generation is middling at best (see: Atari 2600-Atari 5200/7800, NES/SNES-N64/Cube, PS1/PS2-PS3, etc. etc.), though the stench of failure can linger if you don't manage to pull out the awesome (see: Atari, Sega). Also, Sony could be helped if both Microsoft and Nintendo manage to fuck things up big-time next gen, but of course they shouldn't bank on that.)
the PS3 has not one single game I am interested in. Not one.
Seriously? WTF is wrong with you, do you even like games? If so, what kind? (Do you even know what games have been released on the system?) Barring ancient systems like the Atari I can't think of a single console that doesn't have a single game on it that I would be interested in playing.
You have lost all credibility with me, turn in your gamercard(tag).
I can understand where he's coming from. With most games being cross platform, I can only think of a few games on the PS3 that have really been must have. For me it was Metal Gear Solid 4. But you know, I can't fault anyone for not liking Metal Gear Solid. To date I've only purchased 3 games for my PS3. MGS4, Little Big Planet so my girlfriend would have something to play, and Overlord: Raising Hell. And I probably should have gotten Overlord on my 360.
There are tons of great downloadable games on my PS3. I love the pixeljunk series. But a $10 game is not a good justification for a $400 system.
the PS3 has not one single game I am interested in. Not one.
Seriously? WTF is wrong with you, do you even like games? If so, what kind? (Do you even know what games have been released on the system?) Barring ancient systems like the Atari I can't think of a single console that doesn't have a single game on it that I would be interested in playing.
You have lost all credibility with me, turn in your gamercard(tag).
I can understand where he's coming from. With most games being cross platform, I can only think of a few games on the PS3 that have really been must have. For me it was Metal Gear Solid 4. But you know, I can't fault anyone for not liking Metal Gear Solid. To date I've only purchased 3 games for my PS3. MGS4, Little Big Planet so my girlfriend would have something to play, and Overlord: Raising Hell. And I probably should have gotten Overlord on my 360.
There are tons of great downloadable games on my PS3. I love the pixeljunk series. But a $10 game is not a good justification for a $400 system.
Me too. At this point Fable II and Gears of War plus a couple downloadables are the only reason I can think of for me to buy an 360. Of course, since it's so cheap I probably will do that after I buy a new TV at some point. Dunno how many people are like me in that sense though.
Also, Sony could also be helped if both Microsoft and Nintendo manage to fuck things up big-time next gen, but of course they shouldn't bank on that.)
Microsoft DID fuck things up big-time this gen and it still didn't seem to help.
Well, a fuck-up that the general market cares about. People seem to be generally forgiving of the RROD even though that was a billion-dollar mistake, but they reacted badly to, say, Nintendo sticking to expensive carts and telling third parties to fuck off in the N64 era, Sega releasing too many expensive and quickly discontinued periperals followed up by poor game support in the late Genesis/Saturn era, or, well, the PS3's price.
Edit: And there's just so goddamn much overlap between the 360 and PS3 there's little reason to buy one if you have the other. As a 360 owner I feel little motivation to get a PS3, but I know that if I just had a PS3 I'd feel little motivation to get a 360.
I can understand where he's coming from. With most games being cross platform, I can only think of a few games on the PS3 that have really been must have. For me it was Metal Gear Solid 4. But you know, I can't fault anyone for not liking Metal Gear Solid. To date I've only purchased 3 games for my PS3. MGS4, Little Big Planet so my girlfriend would have something to play, and Overlord: Raising Hell. And I probably should have gotten Overlord on my 360.
There are tons of great downloadable games on my PS3. I love the pixeljunk series. But a $10 game is not a good justification for a $400 system.
I can totally understand someone saying the cost of the ps3 isn't worth it. Or that the ps3 doesn't have enough good games to justify buying it. (disagree, but understand) But if you can honestly say you aren't interested in a single game, then you are either ignorant or don't really belong on this forum.
I’ll tell you what happens in Demon’s Souls when you die. You come back as a ghost with your health capped at half. And when you keep on dying, the alignment of the world turns black and the enemies get harder. That’s right, when you fail in this game, it gets harder. Why? Because fuck you is why.
I, myself, have never been a Sony fan since after the PSX. Since, I'm not a RPG fan all other games have been crossed platformed so I either own it with Nintendo or Microsoft. But the PS3 is coming not for any one game but because a $300* price is a hundred dollars more then a Blu-Ray player and I get a game system that comes with it ...
Actually Activision managed to lose money last quarter even when you include the WoW money hose. I'm still a little baffled as to how they did that, considering that was the quarter with new Guitar Hero, Call of Duty and WoW games.
As far as I can tell, and I'm no accountant/analyst, that's because they were forced by the accounting rules to defer some of that income to later quarters. It may well be that they lost money if you don't count the WotLK expansion sales which may well be the difference between their GAAP and non-GAAP results.
Heh, and even I who is slightly depressed that Sony's reorganization will deprive me of the pleasure of watching their games division lose money could name a few games for the PS3 I'd like to play, Valkaria Chronicles for one.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Actually Activision managed to lose money last quarter even when you include the WoW money hose. I'm still a little baffled as to how they did that, considering that was the quarter with new Guitar Hero, Call of Duty and WoW games.
As far as I can tell, and I'm no accountant/analyst, that's because they were forced by the accounting rules to defer some of that income to later quarters. It may well be that they lost money if you don't count the WotLK expansion sales which may well be the difference between their GAAP and non-GAAP results.
Activision claimed they lost money under GAAP (which included WotLK sales), but made money under non-GAAP calculations they flogged repeatedly in their PR. GAAP stands for "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles." In other words, when they count their money the way other public companies are required by law to count their money, they lost money.
Somehow I'm inclined to give more weight to the GAAP figures.
Posts
The exclusives that do come out usually sell well enough but not ZOMG well. It has had its fair share of bombs including Lair and Haze plus some that don't seem to have done as well as expected such as Heavenly Sword (wasn't that supposed to be a trilogy?).
Oh you are right. Everyone should have bought a PS3 and anyone who bought an Xbox is a MORON!! Now I see the light. :zzz: Back to the topic of the PS3 price cut - I've already got an Xbox, but would probably shell out for a PS3 if it ever hit the $250-300 price range. A $300 bundle with GOW3 is about what I'd pay to be able to play that game, as no other PS3 games interest me.
Unfortunately, Sony better drop that price-cut soon because I think by the start of 2010 people will start waiting for the new Xbox (i'd guess november 2011, but just an out-of-my-ass guess). I'm also really hoping the next gen of consoles embrace the "home theater" aspect and get ALOT quieter.
It's actually pretty hard to estimate the initial sales difference between them since we only get chart positions, not actual numbers. Is the difference between #4 and #7 50,000 or 250,000? That said, the leaked numbers we've gotten months after the fact are what I based my 2:1 average on, but you said the gap widens over a game's life so we're probably agreeing.
...if you don't mind possibly taking a hit on your credit rating.
I'm not sure I buy this logic. November 2011 would put them on the same path as Xbox to Xbox 360, but rushing it out early really bit them in the ass. The hardware failures cost them a lot of money, and it's still a mystery to me how they didn't lose more business because of that...a true testament to how popular their system is. But I bet they take more time with the next system. Especially since consumer opinion is taking longer and longer to want to upgrade. Look how long the blu-ray switch has been taking, and how low-end electronic sales are doing compared to high-end. My guess is the PS3/X360 have longer than two years of life on them.
PSN: TheScrublet
I already got burned by that PSP I spent $250 for the day after launch and ended up shelving a year later. I haven't played a game on it, or done anything else on that hunk of junk in years now.
The only price drop I want is the one that comes in 4 years when the PS4 and Xbox 720's are on the way.
Click here to see the ANIMATED version of this signature too big for the forums! :winky:
Look, going into Activision's earnigns would be a bid deep in the weeds for this thread, but thier non-MMO business including all those cash cows probably lost money in the last holiday quarter. EA's revenues have been hitting records even as they bleed cash so it's not about not having enough sales.
The point is that the cost of HD games is really astounding so sales have to be much higher than last gen to make money. Sony's first party games don't really have amazing sales. This gen not having amazing sales equals losing money. The only time this isn't true is if you are talking niche titles with lower production values. Since Sony's games have been very impressive on that front their is no way they are making money.
Oh, and Sony's execs have to be some bad ass motherfuckers to remain "comfortable" with a console that has already lost more money than the PS2 ever made for them. Especially since their "only" competition has been kicking their ass ever since the last price cut.
As time goes on the number of people that are willing to spend $300 on a console but haven't bought a 360 or Wii (multi console owners are a small minority) will continue to shrink so Sony's decision to hold off on cutting the PS3's price, while probably correct, is not without cost.
Finally please tell me you don't think the fact that the PS2 had a very long lifespan is evidence that the PS3 will as well.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I already made those points, in a much less inflammatory way. Lets not get into system warz. Also I wouldn't bother bringing up RROD as a concern as long as the person is buying a newer machine. (I would advise them to check the power rating before they buy though to make sure they aren't buying an old machine that has been kicking around a warehouse).
I still think the PS3 is a better deal if you want a HD console with media functions. But if you don't care about blu-ray and don't need some of the options the ps3 comes equipped with or are heavy into online gaming (and community) then I would go with the xbox.
(I think things are pretty equal game selection wise. Xbox has a bigger library but I tend to like the ps3 exclusives a bit more but its all personal choice.)
Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....
Seriously? WTF is wrong with you, do you even like games? If so, what kind? (Do you even know what games have been released on the system?) Barring ancient systems like the Atari I can't think of a single console that doesn't have a single game on it that I would be interested in playing.
You have lost all credibility with me, turn in your gamercard(tag).
Yeah I don't understand that either. I'm guessing it has to do with all those mountains of GHWT boxes I see in stores.
Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....
The problem then becomes that I have plenty of PS2 games to play on the PS2 before I buy a new machine to play "PS2" games.
I wouldn't be shocked if Activision has been over-producing Guitar Hero bundles since III. But this isn't the general sales thread.
Seriously, drop the fucking price already. Even I've lost patience at this point.
LIZ: Different.
VOICE-OVER: It's September 24th, I'm Liz Parker and five days ago I died. But then the really amazing thing happened. I came to life.
Then again, Sony's been very hard to predict this generation and their strategy could change in a heartbeat. So who knows.
Holy crap, I've finally met the Bizarro version of me. :P
Edit: And to be somewhat on-topic, I think that Sony's strategy of sticking to selling the PS3 at a profit may have some merit even if it dooms the PS3 to third place or an eventual second place worldwide, since that's what Nintendo did with the Gamecube and last I heard they've made somewhat of a comeback this generation.
You know, I think I saw this exact statement somewhere. Where was it? Dammit I can't remember. Oh wait I got it...it was early on in the blu-ray/HD-DVD war. I think it was when Sony's execs were called dumbasses for putting the blu-ray in the PS3 or even standing behind the more expensive tech at all. Lets go ask Toshiba how big the balls are on Sony execs. Personally I think it's a smart conservative move to not risk losing money by dropping the price in these economic conditions.
PSN: TheScrublet
Barring outside factors, that is the preferred option. Unfortunately, profitability for Sony means a $400 sales price, which hasn't caught the market on fire. The Cube was able to do it because it sold for $200, something average buyers are much more comfortable with. Not to mention Nintendo made a profit on day one, and Sony's looking at a profit on day 850 or so.
And actually, the situation Nintendo faced going from the Cube to the Wii is somewhat like what Sony's facing going from the PS3 to the PS4, but a similar outcome is far from guaranteed. Before motion capabilities were revealed, most third-parties were about to give up on Nintendo entirely. But then Nintendo managed to pull a rabbit out of a hat and come up with something HOLY SHIT AWESOME (at least as far as the general market is concerned). As much ground as Sony's losing, they'll have to pull something that is every bit as HOLY SHIT AWESOME on the PS4 to be able to really recover significantly next generation, as the strength of brand loyalty in the game biz from generation to generation is middling at best (see: Atari 2600-Atari 5200/7800, NES/SNES-N64/Cube, PS1/PS2-PS3, etc. etc.), though the stench of failure can linger if you don't manage to pull out the awesome (see: Atari, Sega). Also, Sony could be helped if both Microsoft and Nintendo manage to fuck things up big-time next gen, but of course they shouldn't bank on that.)
Microsoft DID fuck things up big-time this gen and it still didn't seem to help.
PSN: TheScrublet
I can understand where he's coming from. With most games being cross platform, I can only think of a few games on the PS3 that have really been must have. For me it was Metal Gear Solid 4. But you know, I can't fault anyone for not liking Metal Gear Solid. To date I've only purchased 3 games for my PS3. MGS4, Little Big Planet so my girlfriend would have something to play, and Overlord: Raising Hell. And I probably should have gotten Overlord on my 360.
There are tons of great downloadable games on my PS3. I love the pixeljunk series. But a $10 game is not a good justification for a $400 system.
Me too. At this point Fable II and Gears of War plus a couple downloadables are the only reason I can think of for me to buy an 360. Of course, since it's so cheap I probably will do that after I buy a new TV at some point. Dunno how many people are like me in that sense though.
PSN: TheScrublet
Well, a fuck-up that the general market cares about. People seem to be generally forgiving of the RROD even though that was a billion-dollar mistake, but they reacted badly to, say, Nintendo sticking to expensive carts and telling third parties to fuck off in the N64 era, Sega releasing too many expensive and quickly discontinued periperals followed up by poor game support in the late Genesis/Saturn era, or, well, the PS3's price.
Edit: And there's just so goddamn much overlap between the 360 and PS3 there's little reason to buy one if you have the other. As a 360 owner I feel little motivation to get a PS3, but I know that if I just had a PS3 I'd feel little motivation to get a 360.
I can totally understand someone saying the cost of the ps3 isn't worth it. Or that the ps3 doesn't have enough good games to justify buying it. (disagree, but understand) But if you can honestly say you aren't interested in a single game, then you are either ignorant or don't really belong on this forum.
Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....
*$300 price because I got in on the Dell deal ...
LIZ: Different.
VOICE-OVER: It's September 24th, I'm Liz Parker and five days ago I died. But then the really amazing thing happened. I came to life.
As far as I can tell, and I'm no accountant/analyst, that's because they were forced by the accounting rules to defer some of that income to later quarters. It may well be that they lost money if you don't count the WotLK expansion sales which may well be the difference between their GAAP and non-GAAP results.
Heh, and even I who is slightly depressed that Sony's reorganization will deprive me of the pleasure of watching their games division lose money could name a few games for the PS3 I'd like to play, Valkaria Chronicles for one.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Activision claimed they lost money under GAAP (which included WotLK sales), but made money under non-GAAP calculations they flogged repeatedly in their PR. GAAP stands for "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles." In other words, when they count their money the way other public companies are required by law to count their money, they lost money.
Somehow I'm inclined to give more weight to the GAAP figures.