History To Repeat Itself With PS3?

Dr. Eggman writes to mention a 1up article looking at the way things were when the PS2 launched vs. next week's PlayStation 3 launch. The question: can history repeat itself? From the article: "PS2: Released one year after the lower priced Dreamcast, lauded for its great games, ease of development, and superior online service. PS3: Releasing one year after the lower priced Xbox 360, lauded for its great games, ease of development, and superior online service. PS2: Competition from Nintendo: A smaller, cheaper 'family friendly' console with a 'focus on gameplay.' PS3: Competition from Nintendo: A smaller, cheaper 'family friendly' console with a 'focus on gameplay.'" The article also looks at how things have changed for Sony since the last time around.

Online support?

[Enoxice]

Maybe I just wasn't as well-informed back in '99-'00, but I don't recall much talk about online plans during the launches. I mean, ChuChu Rocket and PSO were big deals for the DC, but I don't recall the PS2 boasting superior online play right out of the gate...

History doesn't repeat itself...

[Total_Wimp]

... because today is not like yesterday. For example, online game play wasn't as important when the Dreamcast was released. Also, sales were sluggish from the beginning as people held their money for the PS2 launch which was not the case with the 360.

The PS3 might still dominate, but it's not likely to be for the exact same reasons as in the past.

TW

Wrong?

[gcnaddict]

"PS3: Releasing one year after the lower priced Xbox 360, lauded for its great games, ease of development, and superior online service."

Really? Great games? Not at launch.
ease of development? One reason why it has barely any launch titles is because it's so hard to develop for the console. Superior online service? Does it even have an online service?
No, I'm not anyone's fanboy. I still want to play MGS4.

Re:The Other side of the coin

[__aaclcg7560]

That's funny. I'm reading "Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary" by Linus Torvalds that was published in 2001. Linus predicted that Sony would be the next big thing after Microsoft -- if Sony got its act together. A few million laptop batteries and an overpriced game console later, I don't think Sony has a clue. Nintendo might if they get their act together.

Re:Wrong?

[tempestdata]

I think you're parsing that sentence wrong. Read it as :

"PS3: Releasing one year after the lower priced Xbox 360, [with the Xbox360 being] lauded for its great games, ease of development, and superior online service."

Sony doesn't much care how they compare to Xbox...

[rilister]

i think people are a little confused about what Sony are trying to achieve with the PS3. Sure, it's going to be up against the Wii and XB360, but I'm guessing that's a secondary concern to Mr Stringer.

The PS2 sold 105million units. Let's say the PS3 is a disaster - how bad could it be? 50million? 25million?

Those are all Blu-ray devices. At least an installed base of 25million Blu-ray players sold in a few years time. Versus how many HD-DVD players? How can HD-DVD compete with that kind of a headstart?

Owning the next-gen DVD format is the prize here. HD-DVD is only 33% ahead of Blu-ray today, before the PS3 even hits the market. I think that's more precious to Sony than losing a bit of ground to Microsoft. Maybe they calculated on losing gaming market share this time round.

Re:The Other side of the coin

[AKAImBatman]

The article is full of them. My personal favorite is the photo of the XBox 360 where the PS3 should be. (First set of images, even!) I almost have to wonder if 1UP has been hacked...

That's not the real reason

[mcvos]

The real reason why the PS2 was such a success, is that it was a very cheap DVD player, and DVDs had just become established technology.

The PS3 is a cheap Blu-Ray player, but Blu-Ray is by no means established. Instead of using the DVD to launch the PS2, they're trying to do the reverse: using the PS3 to launch Blu-Ray. I don't think that will work nearly as well. In fact, I expect it to fail miserably.

Re:Online support?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony promised Toy Story graphics, hundreds of millions of polys/second, a widely used hard disk add-on to be used with an online Sony store selling music, movies, and games, as well as versatile online gaming. Articles describing it were featured in Newsweek and similar publications for months prior to the console's launch.

Sega launched SegaNet as the start of online gaming, as they were the forefront of console online gaming from the Saturn days. They didn't proclaim the rest.

It's the price, stupid.

[poot_rootbeer]

If we're going to look at the past to predict the future, let's look at these facts:

No console with a launch price higher than $300 (at the time of launch) has ever been a success.

No console with a launch price higher than $400 (adjusted for inflation to 2006 dollars) has been a success since prior to The Crash of 1982.

Sony took a huge risk in pricing their new console so far outside of the historical comfort zone for price, and I don't think the outlook for them is good at all. I only wonder what derisive name will ultimately be attached to their failure:
P$3?
PS3DO?
PS3O-GEO?

Its not the same

[Squarewav]

What killed the dreamcast wasn't the PS2 directly. What killed it was Segas poor reputation with its past systems. The Sega Saturns 3d support was very poor compared to PS1 and N64,and died off rather quickly. Segas Add-ons for the Genesis, Sega CD, 32X, 32x-CD, Sold moderitly well, but had poor games, and killed of right away when Saturn came out.

So when Sega rushed the dreamcast out to be the first of the new generation systems, people were hesitant about buying another sega product. Some people only used the Saturn as a stop-gap till the PS2 came out. The hype of the PS2 helped kill the dreamcast but it wasn't the only factor.

This time around PS3 is competing with Xbox360. Unlike Saturn the Xbox has proven itself as a strong system, and in many ways better then PS2.

Re:The Other side of the coin

[Mr. Underbridge]

You have a valid point, but in this case, both the Wii and the PS3 look like gourmet products. I think kids would appreciate any 3 of the systems, as long as they get a few games too. $600 doesn't leave much room for any games, but $250 certainly does.

You'd think that, but the other way of thinking would be, if you're going to spend $600 you'll damned sure buy some games for it! It's also effective market segmentation - restricted supply at the beginning with a high price tag, followed by increased supply and lower prices later.

I think what happened is they saw what went down with the Xbox 360. They see every unit being scraped up and sold on Ebay for between $600 and $1000. Sony probably figures if anyone is going to profit from the craze, it's going to be them. And if they have the sorts of supply problems that has plagued nearly every console launch in the history of mankind, demand WILL drive the price there anyway. No sense in watching someone else make the money instead.

Re:Reputation

[triffid_98]

Sega didn't have any money for marketing, after their string of failures (32x, Sega CD, Saturn) they barely had enough capital to get the Dreamcast built in the first place.

I'd say the Dreamcast had a lot more in common with the Atari Lynx. Both were innovative platforms made by failing companies that died due to a complete lack of marketing.

and Sega had a failing reputation as well. Combine that with online play not being the key seller that it is not (thanks largely to the XBox), and not particularly good marketing done by Sega, and you might start seeing a few differences.

Re:The Other side of the coin

[whoa buddy]

I'm waiting until after the Christmas rush as well, I'd like to see if the Wii has any technical issues with the controller, the online service, etc.

Back on-topic though, I just don't see the PS3 being worth its cost. Maybe it's because I'm not a fanboy? I love video games but I just don't have that much cash to shell out on a system, AND then the games. Then again I might change my mind once all of my friends get one and I actually get to play it :)

Re:The Other side of the coin

[KDR_11k]

I don't know about American parents but my parents would never agree to a 600$/€ present. They'd give me a part of the money and tell me to save up the rest myself. How many parents would be willing to give their children a 600$ present even if they could actually buy it (at the current shipment numbers the parents won't get one anyway)?

What is this hokey non-sense

[moochfish]

I'm all for objective comparisons we can all argue over but this one killed it for me.

$600 - The average price for PS2 on ebay in November 2000.

vs.

$600 - The price for the higher end PS3 when it releases in November 2006.

How is that a valid comparison? I wonder if the author is aware that the PS3's are going for up to $5000 on ebay right now. And there's also that gem about PS2's having DVD functionality:

Offered DVD playback at a price cheaper than most existing DVD players. "[PS2] put DVD on the map, pushing hardware prices down and forcing the viability of the format. (Gear Live)

From what I recall, DVD's were already kicking ass when PS2 came out. In fact, many people bought a PS2 because they liked the DVD functionality.

One Major Comparison Left Out

[superdan2k]

PS2: Released in the middle of a booming economy when a large number of twentysomethings had either more money than god, or at least enough to warrant spending hundreds of dollars on a video game console.

PS3: Released in the middle of a shitty economy when a large number of twentysomethings have less money, more bills, and enough to worry about that a $700 game console isn't in the cards.

Re:That's not the real reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, of course they didn't buy it for ONLY that reason. Otherwise they would go out and buy an even cheaper DVD player. (Like these days you can get a DVD player for $20, but it still takes up additional space) People who are intelligent generally buy things for a combination of reasons.

The PS2 is, among other things, a DVD player. That was one of it's advantages over say a Dreamcast. That is A reason to buy it for some people. Not THE reason.

It was also a "PlayStation" (could play old PlayStation games) and it was a PlayStation 2 (it could play new PlayStation 2 games). Such things are important to some people due to space concerns, as I already stated, and also due to money concerns, and lastly, simplicitly.

This was definitely a factor in the PS2's success, how big, I have no idea.

Ease of Development on PS2/3???

[xelph]

Was that a serious assertion? At any rate, the XBox beats the PS3 hands down in that category, methinks...

Re:That's not the real reason

[AliasTheRoot]

Which comes back to DVD being an established format with clear reasons to upgrade to. So in the case of PS2 it was a value add, it was a console that gave you DVD playback for a decent price. Bluray isn't established, and you are paying a premium for a feature that isn't adding value.

Re:The Other side of the coin

[BagOBones]

Only two of the launch titles are unique to the PS3 as well, the rest are already available on the 360

Re:Sony doesn't much care how they compare to Xbox

[Al Dimond]

Even if there's a drive that plays all (which as my elder sibling points out hasn't really happened yet), I think that only one of the two formats will win in the end. I don't think there's room on store shelves for two the-same-but-different copies of every movie. The Internet, where shelf space isn't a problem, will lessen that , but if one of the two formats gets critical mass the other will be marginalized. Controlling the format is not a means to the end of making The Big Bucks (tm) by selling hardware; Sony made plenty of money selling VHS players post-Beta failure. Controlling the format is an end of its own, with potentially even Bigger Bucks (tm) to be made.

Re:One Major Comparison Left Out

[mgabrys_sf]

BOOMING? The Nasdaq tanked in March of 2000. Then again, booming is a great word for it.

By the way - you did see the DOWs numbers lately haven't you? Job market compared to the dot-com crash days?

Fuck - you're quite the retard - aren't you? Enjoy your Wii fanboy troll. PS3 people want to talk now.

Re:Wrong?

[Jesterboy]

I think the main thing you're missing is the 360 has Gears of War and Dead Rising right now, whereas FF13 and MGS4 don't even have release dates. At those time scales, we're talking about Halo 3 for the 360 which, love it or hate it, is a big deal.

I have to say, I love me some MGS/FF, but I'll probably get a 360 well before I get a PS3 since it has good games now instead of potential, future good games.

Re:That's not the real reason

[HeavenlyBankAcct]

Trust me, people in America did know that the PS2 played DVD's. It was one of Sony's huge marketing points when the system launched. As a matter of fact, it was exactly that feature that sold me on the system in the first place.

And seriously, other than Gran Turismo 3 (which was released close to a year after the console), exactly which games are you referring to that "sold the system"? The PS2's game library was pathetically anemic for close to a year and a half after launch -- I don't know a single person that was waiting with baited breath for Tekken Tag Tournament, Fantavision, Kessen, or Ready 2 Rumble Boxing 2, and those were arguably the biggest 'standouts' of the system's 29 title launch.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that games become a selling point for a console later on in its life, but at launch date, I think sales are controlled more by brand loyalty and fanboyism than they are by any dearth of software for the systems. The X360 launch illustrated vividly to me that a large contingency of people WILL buy a system with basically no games if they believe in the company behind it. I think this is where Sony might be misjudging their consumer base.

Re:The Other side of the coin

[CronoCloud]

You're forgetting the PS3 does more than the PS2 does.

Download Yellow Dog Linux in a few weeks and it has all the functionality of a PS2 equipped with a Linux kit.

It does PS1/PS2 games too.

Music, photo and video.

There's a built in web browser

Built in WiFi

Built in ethernet

Built in card reader.

It does more so it costs more

Re:Sony doesn't much care how they compare to Xbox

[justchris]

Which is why more and more I'm thinking Nintendo's strategy is brilliant, releasing 2 days after the PS3. Remember last year when the 360 was in the news for over a month with shortages and games and all that? Now, the PS3 will get that press for two days and two days only, then all the news will be about the Wii. Even after the big rush, no single story about the PS3 will be in the news that doesn't also mention the Wii. Nintendo has basically assured themselves equal media attention to Sony by riding their coattails. And with systems more widely available, a lower price, and completely different gameplay, they can't help but look like a tempting option in the inevitable comparison.

Price predictions

[ConfusedSelfHating]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox [wikipedia.org]

The Xbox was released on November 15, 2001 at a price of $299 and it was reduced in price to $199 on May 15, 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2 [wikipedia.org]

The PS2 was released on October 26, 2000 at a price of $299 and it was reduced in price to $199 on May 14, 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamecube [wikipedia.org]

The Gamecube was released on November 18, 2001 at a price of $199 and it was reduced in price to $149 on May 13, 2002.

My guess is that in May, the Xbox 360 Core version will be dropped and the premium version will be reduced to $299. The PS3 will be reduced to $399/$499 and the Wii will be reduced to $199. It may come down to one company cutting their price and the others following.

Microsoft earns over $10 billion a year in profit, while Sony and Nintendo make about $1 billion each every year. Microsoft has been making the Xbox 360 for over a year, significantly cutting manufacturing costs.

The one game that has been reviewed on both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is Tony Hawk Project 8. There are two major problems with the PS3 version: lack of online support and frame rate issues. The frame rate issues are a huge problem for Sony. If someone is paying a premium price, they expect a premium product. If the PS3 version of games is inferior to the Xbox 360 version, I don't see why anyone would want to purchase a PS3. Luckily for Sony, it probably just means that people are having a difficult time developing for the platform.

Re:summary:

[epiphani]

On that list, there are very few things that are truly innovative. Most are simply a natural progression. Look at every one of those, and think to yourself... I'm designing an online gaming system for a console. What would I do. Nothing on that list is one of those "EUREKA" moments of actual epiphany (except maybe this Gamerscore thing you mentioned, which I know not.)

Re:Why are people here rooting for Microsoft?

[grapeape]

So Sony is ok because they do stupid things once in a while? Last I checked MS didnt ship out rootkits embedded in their media, nor did their computer peripherals explode. Evil is all in perspective and frankly neither one is real insterested in your personal well being. I would rather buy from a smart company that one that has an equal chance of screwing me on purpose and by accident.

The idea that the bottom of the line Sony is only $100 more than the top of the line MS product is supposed to be a selling point? More storage in games 99.9% of the time translates into more crappy cinematics to skip...

For the $100, you get an unproven media platform, online play completely lacking in infrastucture and second rate motion sensing. What a bargain, in the end the only real "benefit" is the ability to run linux and most of us do that on our pc's so its not really a selling point.

Personally, im opting for neither, I'm putting my money into a Wii and upgrading my pc with the savings.

Ease of development?

[seebs]

I have not elsewhere seen the PS3 described as "easy" to develop for. More like "very very hard".

I am a big fan of the Cell (I've done some writing about it and played a bit with the sim), but I can't imagine calling it "easy".

For God's Sake

[rsilvergun]

the ps3 is _not_ over priced. Just because you (and I :( ) don't have the scratch (or aren't willing to fork it over if you do), doesn't mean it's overpriced. The pre orders sold out, instantly. By definition it's not over priced. The only way it will become over priced is if Sony fails to drop the prices as sales slow and costs come down. Then it will be overpriced. Until then, if anything it's severely under priced. It's going for well over $600 dollars on ebay and all indications are that the bids aren't jokes.

Re:The Other side of the coin

[Gnostic Ronin]

For one thing, you're talking about Japan choosing ps3 over xbox. I'll let you in on a secret about Japan. If there are two comperable systems one from Japan and one from anywhere else, Japanese will by the Japanese product. The complaints were price-related, at least as far as I can tell, and price won't deter the Japanese public from buying the Japanese product whilst leaving the similar American product in the dust.

Call it patriotism, xenophobia, racism, whatever. That's just how the consumer culture is. No nonJapanese company is going to make large inroads into a market where there are Japanese alternatives. No such Bias exists in the USA. In the USA, the only question is whether the product is a good deal.

Another thing, I believe that there are FAR FAR more HDTVs in Japan than the us, so things like Blu-Ray and HD output matter to a great many Japanese people. In the states, HD is only important for 15% of the population rich enough to afford HDTVs. For the rest of us, we won't be able to tell the graphical difference between XBOX and PS3, and you might need to squint to tell that the image is from a Wii screenshot. This negates the big selling point for ps3 -- graphics.

The reason that I think you ought to listen to the American gamers is simple. That's the base Sony is sopposed to be aiming for -- people Hard-Core enough to follow gaming news and comment on their favourite games. Frankly, as these were JRPG fans, frankly, most of them pretty well expect that their favorite 80-hour timesink will be ps3 exclusive. They aren't excited, hell, they aren't interested. They may eventually buy one IF their favourites remain ps3 exclusives.

They won't remain exclusives if no one buys a ps3. It's a vicious cycle -- everyone will wait for "their game" before buying the ps3, meaning that each game is more likely to port to another console, one that already has a big install base to support the millions of dollars that went into making the game. If there aren't a few million ps3s out there, it's not worth the effort. Square won't make back the millions of dollars on FF13 if there are only 50,000 consoles in the US. Even 1 million may be too small an install base.