Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Redemption Still Possible For Sony? 122

Posted by Zonk from the on-thin-ice dept.
Gamasutra reports on the slim chance that Sony may still be able to redeem itself from its poor showing at E3. In a new 'Analyze This' column, they ask a group of analysts how things are for Sony today. From the article: "In spite of the higher than expected price points, we still expect the PS3 to be in high demand from early adopters at launch. But Sony must put more effort into differentiating its games from those of rival platforms, both in terms of original compelling titles as well as overall quality. Otherwise, later adopters will not be persuaded that the PS3 has anything more to offer. Sony must clearly also address its relative weakness in online, where Microsoft has a substantial lead."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Redemption Still Possible For Sony? More

Redemption Still Possible For Sony?

Comments Filter:

  • Chicken and egg (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PSXer ( 854386 ) * <psxer@msfirefox.com> on Friday June 02, 2006 @05:44PM (#15458208) Homepage
    If lots of third party developers make exclusive games for PS3 that people want to play, people will buy a PS3. If a lot of people buy the PS3, Third parties will make lots of games that people want to play.

    Which has to come first though? I say it's the people buying the system. Would PS2 have so many games today if there wasn't that initial craze for it? Will PS3 be anywhere near as popular initially as the PS2? From what I'm hearing there aren't a huge number of people who are interested in it at that price, but I could be wrong.

    • ...says PSXer
    • There's been a fair bit of noise in the development community over the work involved in porting games to the cell architecture, too. No doubt this is going to hinder developers since more and more are moving towards cross-platform releases as a way to capture enough market to recover cost/increase revenue.

      Sony could pull off something fantastic by enabling its range of SOE titles to interact from the PS3 to the currently existing servers. Planetside, for a start, had pretty high system requirements which li
    • If lots of third party developers make exclusive games for PS3 that people want to play, people will buy a PS3. If a lot of people buy the PS3, Third parties will make lots of games that people want to play.

      Which has to come first though?

      Just have Sony cut checks to third party developers to make exclusive games for the PS3. Microsoft does this now.
      • Just have Sony cut checks to third party developers to make exclusive games for the PS3. Microsoft does this now.

        And as evidenced by their complete domination of the market with the Xbox, this strategy is flawless.
      • Are you trying to imply that Microsoft developed such a strategy? Exclusive 3rd party development payments pre-date the XBox by at least 1 or 2 generations of consoles. Don't delude yourself into thinking that Sony hasn't been putting out big bags of cash to keep exclusives on the PS2. They had to in order to shore up it's dominance early on, as it isn't nearly as technologically advanced, or easy to program for, as they'd like you to believe.
      • So does Nintendo. In fact, Sony already does it. It helps somewhat, but mostly depends on which games are exclusive.

    • Re:Chicken and egg (Score:3, Insightful)

      by puppetman ( 131489 )

      I don't know if I agree. The PS3 had huge hype. People were going to not buy the XBox360 not too long ago, and wait for the PS3.

      Remember that most game cycles are at least a year, and with new techology (and Sony's inability to ship developer kits), it might be longer. When games were being planned out, and resources allocated, the PS3 looked like an awesome bet for most publishing houses.

      That things have changed recently doesn't mean those games will be scrapped - way too much money has been spent over the

    • Developers, Developers, Developers. (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      As my good friend Steve Ballamer once said. Developers, Developers, Developers.

      Sony does not need to sell lots of PS3 units to get developers to make games. Sony has to ship a lot of development kits! Many games that are released later in the lifecycle are well into development before the console even ships. Most developers are already committed to the PS3 because they made all of their money from the PS2! They have already invested time, money, and people to learn the PS3 and make games for it. Switching g

    • Re:Chicken and egg (Score:2, Insightful)

      by sdhankin ( 213671 )
      But why was there an initial craze for it? Because a boatload of people had PS1's and were happy with them. They wanted more of the same. Why did developers develop for the PS2? Because the PS1 was the dominant platform at the time.

      The PS3 isn't any different. The developers will develop for it because the PS2 is still the dominant platform, and they've made a bundle of money off it. All the platforms are a gamble. The developers will stick with the devil they know. Don't talk to me about how much h
      • If that were true, the PSX never would've taken off because of the success of the SNES.

        I still remember FFVII being shown for Project Reality, aka the N64.

        If you buy a PS3 at launch, you're what's known as an idiot.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • No. (Score:2, Funny)

    by phoenix.bam! ( 642635 )
    No. But for some reason people will still spend $600 on a console that has already been beaten when it hasn't even gone into full production yet.

  • rapid price drop- blu ray/ game (Score:3, Insightful)

    by acomj ( 20611 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @06:01PM (#15458315) Homepage
    It is very likely that the very expensive blu-ray drive will drop in price rapidly as production ramps up. This should allow Sony to drop the price of the console.

    It depends how may developers use the cell processor to its fullest extent and how
    creative/fun the games are.
    • Just like the lowered the price on the PS after there were a lot of games produced, as their ROI started to look good? Oh wait, they didn't do that. How about how they lowered their price on the PS2 after the production costs went down dramatically? Nope, didn't do that either. The simple fact is, prices on consoles rarely drop if history is any guide. When they do make the rare drop, it's generally a negligable amount. If you're more than a once a week gamer, waiting for a $20 decrease in price after 3 yea

      • Just like the lowered the price on the PS after there were a lot of games produced, as their ROI started to look good? Oh wait, they didn't do that.

        Yes they did. North American launch MSRP of the original PlayStation was 300 USD; by the time the PS2 came out, the PSOne was down to 50 USD.

        • Although the PS1 may have dropped from $300 to $50 in five years and the launch of a follow-up console, the PS2 has only fallen from $300 to $150-$130 in a slightly longer period also with the launch of a follow-up console looming.

          I really doubt that the PS3 will drop in price significantly until a few years after launch even if it bombs (which is unlikely).

    • I can think of no better way to make the point that the cell is a different sort of processor. Push it's strengths to the limits in ways other consoles can't touch.
  • "But Sony must put more effort into differentiating its games from those of rival platforms, both in terms of original compelling titles as well as overall quality."

    So... EA won't be making any PS3 games?

    Not really fair - everyone does it - a hit game has to have a sequel. If that sells well, yada yada. We're on Quake 4, Doom 3, but I never hear anyone complaining about id.

    I think EA is going to try to change a bit, but I bet there's a whole shelf of Madden/NFS/NBA games on their way out for the PS3.
    • People complain about Id all the time. The thing to remember is that Id doesn't really make games- they make tech demos for engines.
    • We're on Quake 4, Doom 3, but I never hear anyone complaining about id.

      You must be new here. :D

    • Not really fair - everyone does it - a hit game has to have a sequel. If that sells well, yada yada. We're on Quake 4, Doom 3, but I never hear anyone complaining about id.

      Well I'll be the first then. I love ID, they make great stuff and are ran the way I'd like a company to be ran, but their latest games have been nothing but disapointing. Doom3 tried to use doom1/2 style tactics(Boo! theres a guy behind you in that closet you just checked!), but they fail horribly when mixed with trying to look/feel real

      • I love ID, they make great stuff and are ran the way I'd like a company to be ran


        You mean constant in-fighting, bickering, political maneuvering, ego-driven decisions and backstabbing?

        Because thats pretty much how the people in charge of the company run it. Nobody in their right mind should want to be in a senior position at Id.

        Quake 4 was done by Raven, of Hexen/Heretic/Soldier of Fortune fame.
      • Actually I think Doom 3 was a really good game.

        I'm not trying to pick anyone out specifically, but I often
        wonder if the people bashing Doom 3 have ever played the game
        through. Or least played a decent portion, say 30% - 40%.

        Comparing Doom 3 to Doom 1/Doom 2 is just silly. Doom1/Doom2 were
        pre-quake technology and didn't even have 3D enviroments.

        The level of immersion in Doom 3 blows Doom2/Doom1 out of the water.
        The horror enviroment really sucks you in. It is truely
        one of the only games I have ever felt s
        • Thats my point though. Doom3 tried to be too similar to the previous versions, but it doesnt work on such updated technology. Doom2 didn't have any other way to scare you than either zerg rushing you with monsters, or spawning people behind you. Nobody in their right mind would fill a doom3 room up with monsters due to the resources needed, so they were stuck with the spawning behind.

          I stopped playing about (what I'd assume) is a third way through because it just got so repetitive. I know thats part of the

          • Re:Innovative games??? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Agret ( 752467 )
            I stopped playing about (what I'd assume) is a third way through because it just got so repetitive
            What on earth do you mean!? Clear room out, walk through door, turn to left blast monster supposed to jump out and scare you, turn around blast monster that spawned behind you. Clear out room, walk through door, turn to the lef....

            Doom 3 was scary until I realised that every room follows the same pattern. I never did get around to finishing it but the game improves a a hell of a lot when you get to hell (Was
    • People bash EA because they produce iterations of their games every single year. How long did we wait between Doom 2 & Doom 3? How long do you have to wait between every new Mario platformer? Between every Final Fantasy? Between each version of Civilization?

      Other companies make sequels, there's a lot of money to be made there, there's name recognition that encourages people to buy. But every single year? The problem is too many sequels with not enough changes between them, and that's why people

      • How long do you have to wait between[...] every Final Fantasy?

        To answer your own question: [T]hey produce iterations of their games every single year.

        Here's the past several FF games: FF8 (1999), FF9 (2000), FF10 (2001), FF11 (2002), Final Fantasy X-2 (2003), FF11: Dawn of Souls (2004), FF11: Chains of Promethia (2004), FF12 (2006)

        Admittedly two of those are expansion packs, and there was a single year gap, but nonetheless it shows that Square has gotten just about as bad. Not only that but they

  • Not bashing the PS3 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oahazmatt ( 868057 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @06:07PM (#15458355) Journal
    I'm not going to bash the PS3 directly. I have not seen it in action, held the new controller, or had any other exposure that mainly occurred through E3.

    However, no one can deny that there has been a lot of backlash. First and foremost, the pricepoint. Second, the heated argument that Sony may or may not have received inspiration for their new controller from Nintendo's remote.

    The second argument is almost irrelevant. As a Nintendo fan myself, I will gladly say it. Whether the controller was "stolen" or not is a non-issue. Sony either had plans to use this controller beforehand, or they did not. If they did not, it will show in the game play -- extended game play that will most likely occurr after the purchase of a PS3.

    Regarding the price, that alone has alienated a number of casual fans, such as myself. I own a PS2, but I never bought one outright. I bought mine used, around 2001, when the price tag was far lower. Price is a major factor for many consumers. Many times, it does not come down to "do I want the system with the hard drive, or the one without...", but rather "do I want the system, or do I want to make my car payment".

    Additionally, the PS2 was a good investment in the long run as it had an established game library. When the XBox debuted, most of the games I had an interest in were already released, or being simultaneously released, for the PS2. I did not have to spend the additional $300+ on an Xbox, new controllers, memory cards, etc. Everything I wanted was already available on the PS2, therefore negating my desire (and in fact, need) for an Xbox.

    Today, the roles are reversed. The Xbox 360 is available, stock is being supplied to retailers, and the game library is slowly but surely increasing.

    I believe, in order to gain sure-footing in the market, the PS3 will need not only quality games, but exclusive ones. If the game is available on a system for $200 less, how is that going to encourage someone to spend that extra $200 to begin with? The XBox 360 may very well showcase the same titles as the PS3, but the 360 has already appeared in today's market, giving it some leverage, whereas many of Nintendo's titles will be exclusive their own console, presumably.

    I do not believe that the PS3 will be a "failure". It will sell units. I already know of someone who said, with a shrug, "It's almost like a computer" and seemingly resigned himself to purchasing it. I do not believe that it will be a rampant success by any means.
    • "I have not ... held the new controller..."

      You've had 11 years! What's the hold up?
    • "I believe, in order to gain sure-footing in the market, the PS3 will need not only quality games, but exclusive ones."

      You are right. If the PS3 has at least one "kick ass must have" exclusive game then it will sell. If they have a good edition to the Gran Tourismo series ready on launch and some cool RPGs it will sell.

      But at the likely price point for the console, games that are just good will not cut it. The games must be great.

      I am willing to give Sony a chance and spend the money if they can deliver

  • Depends (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Are we talking about Sony redeeming themselves to normal consumers?

    Or redeeming themselves to Slashdot?

    Because they've got a good shot at the first one.

  • Getting exclusives is not going to be as easy ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Optimizer ( 14168 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @06:25PM (#15458473)
    ... as it was with the PS2. Simple fundamentals ate getting in the way of any developer not in Sony's (or MS's) back pocket.

    As a 3rd party developer, I can say that our high-end titles are being developed for all three platforms: PC, Xbox 360 and PS3. We're doing that out of necessity; "Next Gen" games are costing 8 figures+ ($10+ million) these days, much due to content.

    Now, how many Xbox 360's are there out there? How many will there be when we ship? What about the PS3 installed base? A "Hit" game can sell to well under 5% (say 2-3%) of a given console's owners. 20 Million Xbox's? Sell 500k units (2.5% penetration) and that's a hit. Unless you're a Halo or Grand Theft auto, that's realisitc.

    Now, the cost of developing for both next-gen consoles (360, PS3) is not that much more than developing for just one console (maybe low as 1.1~1.2x) , but you stand to sell a lot more in total. Using an engine such as Unreal 3? Not much more effort and you have a PC version too.

    Now, about that $10 to $20 million we just spent? We better sell a lot of copies, or it was a mistake to make the game in the first place. Right now, it'll be a good while before there is an installed base of 10 million on either console, but yet our games are much more expensive to make than the previous generation. To recoup advances and hopefully turn a profit means getting it out to the largest audience possible.

    Oh, and there's the little matter of Xbox 360 being out first, and having signifiantly better developer tools than Sony that has developers developing on Xbox 360 as first/primary, and then porting their games to PS3. Last generation it was different, but this time Xbox was available first, and Sony's efforts to catchup to Xbox's tool and documentation quality is more than lacking.

    • As a 3rd party developer, I can say that our high-end titles are being developed for all three platforms: PC, Xbox 360 and PS3. We're doing that out of necessity; "Next Gen" games are costing 8 figures+ ($10+ million) these days, much due to content.

      I hafta object to you calling the PC, XBox 360, and PS3 "all three platforms." The Nintendo Wii has just as much of a marketshare right now as the PS3: None, becuase neither has been released. Now, it might be fair to say the PC, PS3, and 360 are the three "ne

      • Re:Getting exclusives is not going to be as easy . (Score:4, Insightful)

        by drewmca ( 611245 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @07:54PM (#15459091)
        I think the point is not that the Wii is not a viable platform, but it's not going to be the same as developing for the other 3 platforms. The other 3 will most likely share quite a bit more code, as well as art assets. The Wii will not, simply because it won't be as powerful as the others. Porting to the Wii will be more like porting to last gen systems, in that you're probably removing a lot of features or in some case creating an almost entirely different game.

        Again, that's not necessarily a problem for the Wii, because it's intended to be a completely different kind of game machine. Games will be simpler in some cases, in other cases they'll be using the Wii custom controls (which no other system will be able to use, including PS3), and most likely the games that use a huge budget and really stretch the limit of the system will be exclusives.

        Point being, if you're writing to multiple platforms at once, the Ps3, 360, and PC can be dealt with at once with the same kind of cost the parent poster hinted at. If you add Wii to the mix, you're porting, and the only reason it's worth doing (because of the extra effort to downgrade) is to most likely take advantage of the Wii's unique features. If wii gets a lot of marketshare, that's exactly what will happen, but it's an additional cost and throws the 1.2x cost factor off kilter.
        • Sorry if I wasn't clear (and re-reading my post, I probably wasn't) but I completely agree with everything you're saying. I just wanted to stress that there are (or, at least, will be) four "new" systems (i.e. ones which will have new games coming out for the forseable future): PC, 360, and the yet-to-be-released Wii and PS3. My issue was the GP said something along the lines of "the three next gen consoles." Market success is as much an issue of mindshare as it is an issue of actual system power. I'd say t
          • No prob. And as much as I usually end up sticking up for xbox against nonsensical anti-microsoft bashers, I feel your pain on the nintendo side. It's not just slashdot that does it, but also the mainstream media; they all refer to the supposed "failure" of the GC, when, as you put it, the marketshare numbers were not that far behind xbox (and were in fact much better in japan). I don't think it helps, though, when Nintendo themselves discuss the "failures" of the gamecube (a recent reggie article did just t
          • I just wanted to stress that there are (or, at least, will be) four "new" systems (i.e. ones which will have new games coming out for the forseable future): PC, 360, and the yet-to-be-released Wii and PS3.

            Not to be too pedantic, but there is also the DS, GBA, PSP, PS2 (still active development going on, probably for the next 4 years or so), browser (different environment than PC), Symbian J2ME Flash Lite BREW Pocket PC Mobile phone development, and the various arcade systems, amusement park attractions, etc

        • I think the point is not that the Wii is not a viable platform, but it's not going to be the same as developing for the other 3 platforms. The other 3 will most likely share quite a bit more code, as well as art assets.

          Surely you jest! The Revolution has much more in common with the PC etc. than, say, the PS3 does. In reality the PS3 is the one that will need an entirely separate codebase, just because the programming model for the Cell is so weird.

          Not to mention that you can "port" a game to the "less po

          • Regardless of the weird programming model, 360, PS3, and most PC games in the future will be working to take advantage of multiple processors. Of course, with PCs, there will still be legacy systems to deal with, but there will be a lot more in common with up to date PCs (with hot shit nvidia cards) and the PS3 (and xbox360) than with the gamecube.

            And as for programming models, what's weirder than a control scheme that no other system uses?
    • As a 3rd party developer, I can say that our high-end titles are being developed for all three platforms: PC, Xbox 360 and PS3.

      Why did you leave the Wii off that list? I'm not trying to criticize; I'm seriously curious as to why you didn't include the Wii in that list, assuming it wasn't a gaff.

      Do you (or your developer) not consider the Wii to be a contender? (Followup, if yes: Is it because it isn't as powerful as the other systems? Is it because of Nintendo's supposed "kiddie" image?)

      Do you feel that th
      • Look at what drewmca said - he got got it pretty close.

        Basically, the Wii is seen as in a different group than PC/360/PS3. Different games, different audience and different content requirements, not to mention different levels of CPU and Graphics horsepower.

        First off, the three platforms mentioned are the ones that are making use of the insanely high-def content with uber-normal maps and shader effects. It's a lot more expensive to make content at the Unreal 3 engine level than at the Wii level. Persona
        • Thanks for clearing that up.

          I just want to saw that I think it's awesome that third parties are planning to create Wii content seperately from PC/360/PS3 stuff. The Wii kind of sets itself up for that, but it would be too easy for companies to just push out the same stuff with a different button scheme and just include a "classic pad" with the game. Ports are still a-okay, just try to do a bit more than just mapping the same action to a different button. :)

    • As a 3rd party developer, I can say that our high-end titles are being developed for all three platforms: PC, Xbox 360 and PS3.

      Funny, but my idea of "all three platforms" is exactly the opposite: Nintendo, Mac OS, Linux. Sure, I'm in the minority, but do you realize that if you developed using standards like OpenGL and SDL you could sell your game for all the platforms except Xbox at once? (And you'd have to develop for Xbox separately anyway, since the PS3 most likely doesn't support DirectX.)

      It's sad t

  • Is advertize the hell out of Metal Gear Solid 4. I know many who would pay $500 or $600 for that game, and I'm one of them.

  • Redemption won't be an issue for Sony (Score:5, Funny)

    by Trogre ( 513942 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @06:32PM (#15458527) Homepage
    but I'm beginning to have my doubts about Zonk.

  • Sod the game console (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by ds_job ( 896062 )
    There's no way I'm buying one, not because it is good / bad / indifferent, not because it is cheap / expensive / reasonable but because the buggers tried to shaft us with that damn rootkit.
    As it is, I'm not convinced I need to spend that much money on a console irrespective of who produced it so chalk me up as one of the angry apathetic.

    • 2030 (Score:2)

      by Nazmun ( 590998 )
      So what do you think abou the PS9?

      I don't give a crap about sony's consoles, remember that rootkit the music division released three decades ago? I haven't touched a sony product ever since.

      Once I got a sony blu-ray player for free, i went home and freaken pee'd on it.
      • Well, if the next 24 years have nothing in the way of contrition from Sony I'd be very tempted to still shun them.
        *** very far fetched analogy alert ***
        To draw tenuous parallels, Libya doesn't seem to have been involved in any terrorism since the mid/late 1980's but they had to demonstrate their change of heart before being tentatively accepted back.

        I know that it is not fair to compare Sony and Libya directly but at the moment consumers have been abused by Sony and their level of remorse seems to o
    • Thats what I'm talking about! When the rootkit news broke, I had a lot of arguments with slashdotters about the power of boycotts. They were mostly lazy apathetic idiots who don't vote IMO. I'm not buying anything Sony produce for 10 years. Glad to see I have some company :)

  • Online Multiplayer (Score:4, Insightful)

    by moe.ron ( 953702 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @06:40PM (#15458586)
    Sony must clearly also address its relative weakness in online, where Microsoft has a substantial lead.

    The future of gaming is online multiplayer (not better graphics) because online multiplayer affects the core of gaming, which is gameplay. This is a big reason PC gaming isn't dead and the reason why any of the major consoles who don't make this leap will be left behind. Of course, this means way more than having an internet ready gaming console. The GameCube and PS2 are internet ready (though adapters are required). Microsoft has XBox live, which is more than internet connectivity, it is a online multiplayer/gaming community platform. What XBox live provides is an easy, well managed solution for developers who are looking for a console to make their online multiplayer games for. Even if Sony were to bring SOE to the PS3, it still falls short of providing any kind of method for third party developers to build online multiplayer games for the PS3. IMHO, for Sony to redeem the PS3, they need to not only bring SOE to the console (and fix the problems with SOE), but also allow third party developers access to its capabilities.

    • I played lots of online games on the PS2, and I didn't have to pay extra for it.
      I also play lots of online games on the PC.

      I don't have an Xbox, so what the heck was the PS2 missing? What is this advantage people speak of? I don't understand what it needs other than an ethernet card. Did it need a built in ethernet card?
      • What is this advantage people speak of? I don't understand what it needs other than an ethernet card. Did it need a built in ethernet card?

        Well, yea a built in ethernet card would have helped, but I'm talking more about infrastructure. The online capabilities of the PS2 is basically as good or as bad as the companies developing the games and the service they are willing to provide on their own. Basically, yea you can get online with the PS2, but your online experience is entirely up to the individual de
        • But aren't Halo 2 games hosted by the player with the fastest connection? Is MS really providing servers or are they merely providing a logon?

          Personally I like it how it is on the PC. Developers do what ever they want.

          A long time ago I was going to buy an Xbox for PSO, but I found out I had to pay a subscription to both Sega and MS. That turned me off so I didn't end up buying it.

          I just don't see anything here but more cost to the consumer.
    • because online multiplayer affects the core of gaming, which is gameplay. This is a big reason PC gaming isn't dead and the reason why any of the major consoles who don't make this leap will be left behind.
      I thought it was because of all the abilities to mod your games and to upgrade your hardware to make your games look better that made PC gaming stick around. With an XBOX/PS3 your games are going to get to a certain level and won't get any better whereas on the PC side you can just keep updating your ha
    • if Sony lets SOE anywhere near the PS3 they will be screwed.

      SOE's specialty is losing customers and marketshare
    • Despite being an avid online gamer myself, I still very much enjoy single player games and purchase most of my games only for their single-player value. Playing online is still just an add-on to me.

      I'm not alone either; I know several XBox 360 early adopters who still haven't played online at all because they have no desire to. There are a lot of gamers who simply do not crave playing games against other people online and would rather just "play a video game".
  • From the US, this wave of critics and pessimism around the PS3 may look like realistic (which I doubt anyway).Sony blahblah is dead, Sony blahblah will block second-hand PS3 games, Sony blahblah puts poison in pirated games! I am not a Sony zealot, but honestly, stop this crappy FUD around the PS3, please!

    From the rest of the world, PS3 gathers LOTS LOTS more expectation than Xbox360 will ever have. Have you seen the number of Xbox360 sold in Japan or even in Europe?? Xbox360 in Japan : 50000 units sold
    • I never doubted Sony would be able to sell more PS3's in Japan than MSFT will sell xBox360's. The question was if they would lock up dominance like they did with the PS2, and the result of E3 is they are going to have a hard fight to keep Nintendo out of the #1 spot with the Wii, both in the US and in Japan. I can't speak for Europe, but my gut tells me that Nintendo will probably do better than Sony there.
    • Firstly, Japan is not the rest of the world. That is your only example (although mentioned Europe, you brought no figures), and Japan is well known for turning a cold shoulder towards foreign companies (though not always). If you'd also brought up numbers of other markets such as Australia and the EU, your claim about the "rest of the world" might be better. As it is, your argument would be better put as "the all important market of Japan".

      Secondly, note something within your own statistics. The Nintendo DS
      • The Nintendo DS, a handheld with good but technically inferior power made up for with a large dose of innovation, outsold the PSP, a handheld with many media functions and supirior power, 10 to every 1.

        It has little to do with the "power" of the system; it's a game console, and simply put, the public liked the DS games lineup much more than they liked the PSP one. This is the same reason why, IMHO, the Wii will do very well, despite being (only?) slighty more powerful than a GC.
        • There are several factory which made the ds an instant success. First the price, face it Sony overpriced the PSP, not in the us, but in many other areas the PSP simply was almost double as expensive as the DS. Add to that that the DS had a huge backlibrary of games ready to play and people could move on from their GBAs.
          Third sony forgot about one aspect, a handheld console is played often not connected to the next electrical outlet, while nintendos console almost can be played for a full day, the PSP even
    • Japan is not the world, it not even is the second or third biggest market anymore, it has just a lot of developers due to having been traditionally a huge market. The EU is the biggest, US the second biggest, and probably China and or Russia the third biggest. But for Europe, believe me, the PS3 at the planned price point will be a non seller, people are way more price sensitive over here than they are in the USA, after all we cannot spend as much on electronics junk as the average US citizen. I talked to a
  • Once they announce their price point for a non-crippled P3 is $499 USD/EU, that DRM has been removed, and they realize that they won't have 80 percent of market share like they did with the PS2.

    The sooner they do this, the better off they'll be.

    • Re:Yes, Sony can redeem themselves after E3 (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That will *NEVER* happen unless they drop Blu-ray. I hear people musing that Sony will drop the price point soon, but they can't do it. Here's why:
      Sony wants Blu-ray to be a success, and to do that, they've gotten together a coalition of companies to support it. Things are about a 50/50 split between the Blu-ray and HD-DVD camps right now. However, there's a lot of tension amongst the hardware segment of the Blu-ray camp, because Sony is selling a Blu-ray player in the PS3 at below cost. This means
      • That will *NEVER* happen unless they drop Blu-ray. I hear people musing that Sony will drop the price point soon, but they can't do it.

        Yeah, I read the same print version of the Fortune interview and the analysis in Wall Street Journal print edition as to the costs.

        But, I reiterate, I believe if their stated goal is to dominate the market with Blu-Ray, they must let the PS3 ship far below cost, or they won't get critical mass, and they must ship cheap PS3 dev kits and provide market muscle for a diverse gam
    • Once they announce their price point for a non-crippled P3 is $499 USD/EU, that DRM has been removed, and they realize that they won't have 80 percent of market share like they did with the PS2.


      One for three!

      http://games.kikizo.com/news/200606/010.asp [kikizo.com]

  • ObClueless Quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rimbo ( 139781 ) <rimbosity@sbcglo[ ].net ['bal' in gap]> on Friday June 02, 2006 @08:15PM (#15459211) Homepage Journal
    David Cole, DFC Intelligence: E3 really isn't that important. The buying public pays little to no attention to the news coming out of E3. It is at best a 'dress rehearsal for the big show that fall.' Sony stumbled out of the gate for both the PS One and PS2 launches. Microsoft had poor initial showings for the Xbox. The only time it matters is when a poor showing at E3 is indicative of what is going to be a poor product. If a company gets its act together between E3 and product launch, all is forgiven.


    1. Sony did not "stumble out of the gate" for the Playstation launch at E3. What happened with the Playstation one at E3 is the stuff of legend. [gamespy.com]

    2. Microsoft had poor initial showings for the Xbox and the Xbox ended up losing Microsoft $7 billion dollars and remains a distant second to the PS2.

    3. As far as I've been able to tell, E3 is the thing among the gamer market to decide what's hip as what's not. Even if he was right about the Xbox and Playstation, the facts wouldn't support this statement.

    4. Even if gamers don't pay attention to E3, the muckity-mucks at places like EA, Activision and Ubisoft do, and Sony's stumble is going to have repercussions regarding the decisions they make regarding what titles they'll produce, what consoles they'll produce them for, and how much effort they'll put into a port. The PS3 went in one week from being the likely market leader to a likely failure, and past crimes of Sony against development houses (i.e., making the Playstation 2 & 3 difficult to develop for, thus cutting into developer's margins) are going to have a substantial effect on what games are available for it. And the gamers will pay attention to what's available for their systems.

    I agree with PJ of Groklaw's comment... I gotta get into this "Analyst" business. You can know absolutely nothing, spew off about things, and people will pay you to do it. How lovely!

  • Get your head out of your ass (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Most gamers who have made Sony rich don't give a fuck about this bullshit. Why the fuck does the slashdot crowd think the eyes of the world turn to them for advice and guidance? Most gamers don't care about E3 and whether or not sony kissed media ass. Most gamers don't give a fuck about rootkits or DRM.

    Will the high price of PS3 bring the platform down? Perhaps. but the rest of this is just pure bullshit according to 99% of sonys past or future customers.

    All of this bickering and fucking bullshit that goe
  • %100 Price

    The REAL problem with that 600$ price tag is that they have a LONG LONG LONG way to go down to hit 200$.

    200$ is the pricepoint that every console has to eventually hit to REALLY push in units. The PS2 more than TRIPPLED market penetration when it hit that point. Its the reason they have over 100million units sold.

    How long do you think its gonna take Sony to hit 200$ for a PS3....

    Personally I think its gonna be a "Very long time"

    And in the meantime all that has to happen is the Wii or XBox360 get
  • The Bluray concept is more like 3DO vs CD-ROM, it's nothing like Betamax vs VHS which I keep hearing. So long as players are made which support both Bluray and HDDVD (check your Asian Tigers they're already on the way) I could care less which way the wind blows on that one - maybe MS will be upset that in 4 years the PS3 can deliver a game on a single disc still while they have to package 5 of their DVD game discs (or maybe Sony will lose sales for including the expensive hardware).

    I just want the best gam
  • Like rootkits. The issues keeping *me* away from Sony products are over things like their maliciousness with DRM. I guess I've stopped considering the consumer value proposition of the products themselves.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close