Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

PS3 Delay May Hurt Current Gen Too 85

Posted by Zonk from the ea-executives-in-the-streets dept.
Next Generation reports that, in some analysts view, the real victim of the PS3 delay may actually be current gen console publishers and gamers. Houses like EA and Activision have a lot of money tied up in creating games for the next generation, and if the PS3 isn't launching here in the states until after summmer... They end up laying out four increasingly bad scenarios for the industry. From the article: "The third scenario theorizes on a 25 percent price cut on current generation software. We've already seen substantial price-cuts from EA, as the current-gen versions of The Godfather, Black and Fight Night Round 3 all debuted or will debut at $40, a 20 percent cut from the normal $50 price tag. The erosion of sales prices may be caused by publishers trying to unload inventory, or by publishers that target budget shoppers. This scenario could cause major publishers' earnings to drop between 35 and 49 percent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PS3 Delay May Hurt Current Gen Too More

PS3 Delay May Hurt Current Gen Too

Comments Filter:

  • I beg to differ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @01:04PM (#14876254)
    Gentoo will be fine thank you. And it will probably run faster on teh PS3 than other Linuces because it is optimized for... Oh wait... :)

  • Fifth scenario (Score:5, Funny)

    by Walkiry ( 698192 ) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @01:05PM (#14876261) Homepage
    Blame them thar pirates again. Yarrr!

  • The obvious solution (Score:5, Funny)

    by KingBraden ( 959219 ) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @01:08PM (#14876283)
    Maybe they could go back to making good games. Seriously, I haven't bought a PS2 game in ages. Not because I want to save an extra ten bucks, but because the games all suck.
    • I also have to agree, I think the PS2 had a fairly piss-poor game lineup in general. That said, though, I am enjoying the hell out of Dragon Quest VIII, so maybe not all is lost.
    • Maybe they could go back to making good games.

      I remember there was a guest on Letterman once who when asked what kind of movies they liked said "I like good movies". The audience and host laughed at him for saying something so idiotic, and the actor tried to recover by quickly naming a few favorites and articulating what in particular was good about them.

  • So...what? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gothic_Walrus ( 692125 )
    This scenario could cause major publishers' earnings to drop between 35 and 49 percent.

    Look at how much money they're raking in now, though. If EA takes a bath for a quarter or two, the company's not going to suffer in the slightest. They'll just make most of it back when they release the next go round of sports titles.

    • Look at how much money they're raking in now, though. If EA takes a bath for a quarter or two, the company's not going to suffer in the slightest. They'll just make most of it back when they release the next go round of sports titles.

      First of all, they're a publically traded company. So a drop in revenues that bad will definitely hurt their share price and investor confidence.

      Second, that big of a revenue drop for most companies could seriously impair their ability to generate operating revenue. If the de

    • If EA takes a bath for a quarter or two, the company's not going to suffer in the slightest.

      I don't know, taking a bath in a pile of money would probably cause a lot of paper cuts. Thousands of paper cuts from bathing in money could possibly considered suffering.

      I'm not terribly worried about companies like EA hurting in all this; they have a huge amount of cash and have no problem screwing over gamers if it means a higher profit. I'm more worried about the effect on small and independent developers who are

  • "summmer" (Score:2, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 )
    Is that the season wedged between spring and autumn?

  • Until after the summer? (Score:2, Informative)

    by CaseM ( 746707 )
    According to the interview cited here [slashdot.org] it won't launch in Japan until Holiday '06, which puts the US release sometime in '07!
    • Actually, in the article says "Sony will roll out the PS3 by year end, in time for the holidays", but I don't see any quote from Stringer saying anything about release dates in Japan or America.

  • wait... (Score:1, Redundant)

    by munehiro ( 63206 )
    How could the delay of PS3 hurt the current gentoo?

    Is a gentoo porting for PS3 planned ?

    heh ... ;)))
    • They're being sent via the Cape to the Eastern Seaboard, and if the ships leave too late, they'll collide with all those penguins going past Antarctica.

      Possibly.
  • Cheaper games are always welcome. Try again later, thanks.

  • "Delays" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @01:41PM (#14876641) Homepage
    As far as I am aware Sony never actually announced a spring release for America. They've been talking about a spring launch quite a lot, but I've never seen them do so without the "...in Japan" qualifier. My assumption all along has been that we'll be getting a mid-late Spring launch in Japan*, with a four or five month gap before the American launch, just like with the PSP, and the "PS3 release in Spring!" thing is as far as America's concerned just internet rumors blown out of proportion.

    Now, maybe Sony claimed something specific about American release dates that I didn't see at some point. But that brings me to my point: Practically nobody knows they were supposed to be expecting a ps3 spring launch in the first place unless they follow websites and magazines like this one religiously! Sony's been so tight-lipped in the general american press about the PS3 it's crazy. A lot of people don't really know anything at all about the PS3 except that it's someday coming-- which is something they probably knew two years go, too. The uncertainty about the release date is a big deal on internet message boards, but internet message boards are not the market.

    How can delays in the PS3 possibly hurt PS2 game sales when practically nobody knows a delay is happening in the first place? Especially considering
    1. The PS3 is backward compatible with the PS2, so PS2 games can be played on and bought for the PS3.
    2. The major blockbuster games still yet to come for the PS2 have been in development for years-- they couldn't be switched to PS3 titles even if the publisher wanted, and most of the minor titles between now and the "real" PS3 launch probably couldn't either. If there's a next-gen sales cooling effect coming, it will happen to those games whether the PS3 is delayed or not.

    It just seems kinda silly to me. PS2 hardware sales are probably going to drop off as people increasingly wait for the PS3-- I know I personally would have probably bought a ps2 several months ago if I weren't waiting for the PS3-- but the PS2 sales base is already ginormous, and they're talking about game sales in this article. PS2 games absolutely can and will continue to sell briskly right up to the PS3 release, even if there is a "next gen" system already available; look at Final Fantasy 9, a PS1 game which came out shortly after the PS2 launch and after the Dreamcast had been out a year. It was a top seller at release despite being widely viewed as the worst game in the series**.

    This whole thing just sounds to me like gibberish from analysts trying to rewrite reality to be more dramatic.

    * Though if they don't announce a release date at GDC on March 20, I will take that as a sign the Japan launch date has slipped as well. You do not go from media blackout to release in under three months unless you are Sega and you have a death wish.
    ** Mystic Quest doesn't count.
    • Practically nobody knows they were supposed to be expecting a ps3 spring launch in the first place unless they follow websites and magazines like this one religiously!

      Actually, I had to have my PS2 replaced by Sony a few months ago, and a customer service rep I spoke with on the phone was allowed to tell me that the release is expected to be in the March-May time frame.
      • "a customer service rep I spoke with on the phone was allowed to tell me that the release is expected to be in the March-May time frame."

        Tech-monkey often don't follow company policy; that monkey would at least get chewed out if his manager found out.
      • And customer service reps know whats going on? I think we'll see Sony hold their cards close, and hope to get it out this late spring, but you'd think they'd be pushing the ad campaign really hard for this if it was coming sooner rather than later.
    • Really?

      I've never heard that. In fact, most people that I know of would tag 8 as the worst, or maybe I or II.

      9 seems to be viewed as a nostalgia-fest, but most people liked it. I know I did.

      Jon Acheson

    • As far as I am aware Sony never actually announced a spring release for America.

      Yeah they did, at E3 last May. Moreover, they just re-confirmed the Spring launch [ign.com] last month.

      But more to the point, it's not that Sony isn't hitting their announced ship date, it's that the ship date is so long after the 360 ship date. Until the PS3 ships, the entire console gaming market can't decide if they should (a) get a 360, (b) get a PS3, or (c) stick with what they got. And if you don't know what console you'll have i

      • Yeah they did, at E3 last May. Moreover, they just re-confirmed the Spring launch last month.

        I don't think any such statement was made at E3, and your own link "re-confirm"ing the launch says:

        A Sony public relations representative didn't specifically deny the report, stating to Reuters, "We cannot comment on analyst reports. At the present, we're aiming for a spring 2006 launch, just as planned." Reuters points out that Sony's comments did not specify a territory.

        Here is an article titled U.S. November Gam

        • The article in no way demonstrates the lack of sales were because of "transitions". In fact, the article says quite the opposite, blaming the drop in sales specifically on:

          the lack of major releases

          Sales last november were poor because the game selection was poor; it wasn't consumers were unwilling to buy PS2 games, it was that there were no PS2 games worth buying in that period.

          ...where "major release" is defined to be a game that sells a ton of copies. The article is not giving this as a reason for the

  • Real Victim? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ect5150 ( 700619 ) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @01:44PM (#14876672) Journal
    ....the real victim of the PS3 delay may actually be current gen console publishers and gamers... "The third scenario theorizes on a 25 percent price cut on current generation software.

    The way I see this, is that the publishers lose, and the customer wins. So, does that mean if the PS3 were here now, prices would be higher and the publisher wins and customer loses?

    There is the concept of 'risk' that every company must analyze and accept. Sometimes you win some, sometimes... well, you know...
  • Something else to consider is how current gamers spend their money. If a new system is coming out, and someone has a reserve down or wants one, they may be less likely to buy games for the current console. They may want to save money to buy the new console and games for the new one too. Buying games for PS2 when PS3 is slated to come out soon might be a waste of money. The backwards compatibility might help this but there's still something to be said about new hardware and games.

    Think of it this way,

  • Something Different (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TeamSPAM ( 166583 ) <(flynnmj) (at) (gmail.com)> on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @01:47PM (#14876712) Homepage

    Wouldn't now be the time for the software houses work on different/quirky games for the current consoles? Now I understand that it takes a lot to get a game out on a console, but it seems to me that there is a lull in the gaming market. Other than the 360, most consoles should have well developed/tuned library that they could churn something out easily. What if they did a google labs kinda thing? Take a quarter or two and incubate some low budget games. Peridocially you see what's sticking and cull the stuff that's not. Who knows, maybe this will give them a new franchise to run into the ground or even better a new genre of game.

    • Wouldn't now be the time for the software houses work on different/quirky games for the current consoles?

      There was an article on Slashdot just this past week on some of the new PS3 titles, and there were a lot of different/quirky game titles for the PS3, so the question becomes, should they not just concentrate on porting more Japan-only games instead.

  • There is one good scenario (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel.johnhummel@net> on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @01:48PM (#14876717) Homepage
    The one "good" scenario deals not with the developers and publishers, but with Sony. If the system is delayed, that will allow any last minute "bug crushing" to finish - and more importantly, allow more titles to be finished by launch date. Instead of having 10 games (and a large library of backwards-compatible titles), Sony could wind up with more.

    Granted, that means the publishers are screwed over, but as someone else mentioned, they'll just blame it on piracy and life will move on.
    • I agree, I personally think xBox360 shot itself in the foot by releasing with so few titles. If PS3 ships with a wider variety of finished titles in stores by Halloween, and has bug crushed most of the titles and the Blu-Ray hardware (due to shipment of Blu-Ray movie/music players and titles this spring), it might work best.

      Since more than half of all revenue for the publishers of games comes in the Thanksgiving to New Years period, I don't think they'll be hurting that much, though. But, yes, they'll pro

  • PS3 may not be backwards compatible with PS2 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @02:10PM (#14876917) Homepage
    What makes anybody think that the PS3 will be backwards compatible with the PS2? The hardware is totally different. The PS2 is a MIPS machine with two streaming vector processors. The PS3 is a PowerPC machine with seven or eight "cell" processors and an NVidia GPU. Not even close.

    Sony has been backing away [digitalworldtokyo.com] from claiming compatibility. "It's hard to say the PlayStation 3 will be 100 percent backwards compatible but as we said earlier this year we aim to make it so as much as possible."

    Sony will probably try software emulation, but there's no guarantee it will be fast enough to play all PS2 games. Tetris, no problem. Call of Duty, maybe not. "Compatible" might have to be an upgrade deal; turn in your PS2 game disk and get a discount on a PS3 version.

    • Re:PS3 may not be backwards compatible with PS2 (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What makes anybody think that the PS3 will be backwards compatible with the PS2?

      The fact they said so, over and over again, endlessly? The "it may not be fully backward compatible" comments shold be taken in the same sense as PS1->PS2 compatibility, I.E., the number of incompatible games will be measured in tens.

      I mean, yes, of course, anything Sony says may be a lie. But why not just go whole hog, and claim the PS3 doesn't exist, or won't actually have a blu-ray drive, or won't have controllers? I'm sur
  • If the price is what has been rumored, that's going to really hurt adoption rates. Who's going to buy the games if no one's buying a console that costs $800?
    • Wow, troll. Thats just fragged up man. Mods must have a hate on for you for calling that a troll.

      While the console will probably cost 600 - 800 to sony, I highly doubt that it will be retailed at that price to compete with MS. I would expect in the 300 - 400 American. I know I paid 500 CDN on the first run PS2. Which is about 400 American I think. (Lazy to find a currency calculator for that time).

      Lots of people won't buy the first run because of cost, but I think thats the same with every console on the ma

  • It's a non article just pass it by. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kabocox ( 199019 ) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @04:38PM (#14878262)
    As previously commented, most people have no idea when the PS3 is going to come out. "Everyone" knows that the PS3 is going to be backwards comp. with PS2 though. So what's the issue here? The /. commentary seems to state that publishers are going to cut prices on PS2 games before PS3 games come out. Hmm, I doubt it. I'd say that most PS2 games will stay right at their current price point until shortly after the PS3 goes on sale. You'll see maybe a $5-10 drop on the big seller games while those that have been on the shelves and not moving will be dropped to $20-25 dollars. Alot of PS3 buyers will just pickup cheap PS2 games rather than spend $50-70 on "new" PS3 games. Backwards compatiblity is really bad for "new game" sell, but great for reselling the same stock over and over again. (That publisher that has sequel 3 that is moving well, with I don't really see a negative if they plan on just dropping prices for the PS3 release just to move stock. Trust me, the publishers aren't going to be losing money.
  • I was thinking a delayed PS3 made the developers think more about enhancing the distribution, instead of spending the time playing that darn thing!

Slashdot Top Deals

To do nothing is to be nothing.

Close