Sony says PS2 for 2-3 more years | PS3 for 9

[>HyperlogiK<]

The only thing fudge maybe got wrong was 1st and 2nd place, it's very hard not to see the PS3 coming in third unless the prices keep dropping and a whole lot of key games like Tekken 6 come out soon.

The PS3 has had such a bad launch and has attracted so much bad press that approximately equal pricing to the 360 won't do it. It might boost the sales a bit this Christmas, but I don't think it's going to magically reverse Sony's fortunes.

 

[rainless]

The only thing fudge maybe got wrong was 1st and 2nd place, .

The ONLY thing? Fudge said the one company that has no chance in hell of getting more than two third publishers on their side... and subsequently losing them... over the next five years is going to come out on top. That's more than "maybe" getting something wrong. That's half-way to the Happy Home. (Where life is beautiful all the time and he'll be happy to see those nice men in their clean white suits with the butterfly nets.)

But Nintendo makes money on the GameCube 1.5's it makes

Sony and MS have to worry that hardware sales counter act production cost.

No they don't. Unlike Nintendo they have software sales to makeup for the hardware costs. When you've sold fifty eight billion copies of Halo 3 and Gears of War... losing ten or twenty bucks per console isn't that big of a concern.

 

[Maverick0984]

Excuses.

 

[FudgeNuggets]

okay....okay....okay.... you don't like Nintendo.... we get it and we all know it..... just like everyone knows I have no love for Sony..... What I'm saying is this and it is pure logic, emotions set aside:

PS3:
People are not sold on HD movies yet, the BluRay functionality of the PS3 is a moot point. I bought one because of BluRay but I am in the VAST minority. The PS3 is an abject FAILURE in the gaming realm because of their shortsightedness on price and overconfidence in BluRay and believing the consumers would flock like lemmings to the sea. By the time they have enough exclusives or IF BluRay wins the HD war it will be too late for the PS3 to be relevant.

360:
They got their first and didn't blow it like Sega did with the Dreamcast. They have the marketing, they have the 3rd parties, they knew the sweet spot in price, they keep releasing improvements via download. Microsoft would have slaughtered the competition this round if it wasn't for:

Wii:
Cheapest of the bunch, MASS appeal and that WONDERFUL control scheme..... that's all they need, they may not sell to people who are set on playing Halo, HalfLife, Unreal and stuff like that, but MY WIFE AND MOTHER will play the Wii.... They have tapped the untappable market. No the graphics aren't even 30% as good as the 360 or PS3 but do my wife and mom care? HELL NO! They think pointing the remote and gyrating it at the screen is the coolest thing ever. They both thing the SIMPLE bowling game on Wii Sports is the most BRILLIANT thing ever..... Who they LOSE in hardcore games like Unreal, GTA etc... they gain in moms, wives and girls 3-fold. Yes there are only a handful of good games for it and a TON of ****ty games, but wives and moms don't care, they'll be patient enough to wait until a good one comes along.

Sony outpowered the competition and LOST
Microsoft threw the kitchen sink at the competition and would up second
Nintendo outsmarted and outmarketed and undercut them all.

 

[rainless]

okay....okay....okay.... you don't like Nintendo.... we get it and we all know it..... just like everyone knows I have no love for Sony..... What I'm saying is this and it is pure logic, emotions set aside:

PS3:
People are not sold on HD movies yet, the BluRay functionality of the PS3 is a moot point. I bought one because of BluRay but I am in the VAST minority. The PS3 is an abject FAILURE in the gaming realm because of their shortsightedness on price and overconfidence in BluRay and believing the consumers would flock like lemmings to the sea. By the time they have enough exclusives or IF BluRay wins the HD war it will be too late for the PS3 to be relevant.

360:
They got their first and didn't blow it like Sega did with the Dreamcast. They have the marketing, they have the 3rd parties, they knew the sweet spot in price, they keep releasing improvements via download. Microsoft would have slaughtered the competition this round if it wasn't for:

Wii:
Cheapest of the bunch, MASS appeal and that WONDERFUL control scheme..... that's all they need, they may not sell to people who are set on playing Halo, HalfLife, Unreal and stuff like that, but MY WIFE AND MOTHER will play the Wii.... They have tapped the untappable market. No the graphics aren't even 30% as good as the 360 or PS3 but do my wife and mom care? HELL NO! They think pointing the remote and gyrating it at the screen is the coolest thing ever. They both thing the SIMPLE bowling game on Wii Sports is the most BRILLIANT thing ever..... Who they LOSE in hardcore games like Unreal, GTA etc... they gain in moms, wives and girls 3-fold. Yes there are only a handful of good games for it and a TON of ****ty games, but wives and moms don't care, they'll be patient enough to wait until a good one comes along.

Sony outpowered the competition and LOST
Microsoft threw the kitchen sink at the competition and would up second
Nintendo outsmarted and outmarketed and undercut them all.

This has nothing to do with me hating the Wii. This has something to do with REALITY. People paying $500 for a Wii and $500 for a Beanie Baby simply isn't a long term reality. Your WIFE and your MOTHER may like the Wii... but your wife and your mother aren't gamers. Wives and mothers buy Beanie Babies and later on they buy Lance Armstrong bracelets. Right now the Wii just happens to be the in thing... but it won't last.

And for the VERY LAST TIME... The Wii will never... and let me make sure you hear me this time:

EVER

...be able to compete with Sony and Microsoft in terms of selling software. And that's what it's all about in the end. It's not about some shiney piece of hardware. It's about the amount of software you sell. The Saturn was far superior, in terms of hardware, to every other console on the market. But they couldn't get it done where it counted: The software. They had some great titles. The Wii has maybe THREE great titles. But they aren't going to be able to get it done where it counts.

And until you address that little issue, you haven't really said anything.

 

[Hardin]

Nothing is set in stone right now. Nintendo may be first now but I don't think they will last. Casual gamers will forget about the wii like they do with all fads. It's the hardcore gamers that stick around.

 

[Seven]

You guys are missing the point. The Wii is WINNING. Not "for now" or "until the fad wears off", they're literally handing the 360 and PS3s normal controllers back to them on a silver platter.

As long as titles are being released for the Wii that are actually good (for god's sake, they had super mario galaxy no less than a MONTH ago), it will keep selling. It has little kids, girls, old people and the party scene locked down. No other console has that. The 360 has the real gamers and most high school and college kids right now. The PS3 is out in the cold.

Secondly, the Wii is doing well. The market really has a carrying capacity for 2 consoles, max. This has been shown time and time again, there's really no room for a 3rd, even if it's stellr. Nintendo pulls ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY DOLLARS OFF EVERY SINGLE WII. HOW CAN I MAKE THAT MORE CLEAR? For every Wii, you are putting literally about half of that money straight into Nintendo's pocket in pure profit. THAT is why it's doing well. Period.

Microsoft is doing well, I own a 360, and I like it. It's very nice to play online with your friends, and the system for doing so is unparalled. Microsoft just made some blunders, as always, with their system. First of all, failing to put in an HD-DVD drive was somewhat of a mistake, as it would have helped their case. But again, we'd be looking at a PS3 price system with a format that might not even be used to it's fullest if it's so hard to work with. No wireless is just inexcusable. The Wii has it FFS. But the main point I'm trying to make is that Microsoft got into the market first (they had to), hit HARD with some nice titles (Gears, Halo) and now they're sitting in a nice position just fending off whatever the PS3 has coming.

Now, lets talk holidays, this is where it's really going to matter. The Wii and the 360 will do well. I can guarantee it. Right now, the PS3 DOES NOT have the games to do well this christmas. What the hell are you going to get a little kid, a PS3 with warhawk and uncharted, or a Wii like all of his friends have with Mario? For adults, you're looking at a small segment of the market as PS3's ideal buyers, yet they either a) already have a 360 or b) are planning on getting one because all their friends have one and the games are out for it that make it great. The PS3 is just the odd console out in this situation, and banking upon ONE game that's been hyped to oblivion to somehow miraculously pull this console from the grave is ridiculous.

Sony needs to do the smart thing, and maybe stop focusing on the OLD PS2. The PS2 still outsells the PS3. That's a joke for any company. Microsoft and Nintendo have moved on, it's time for Sony to do the same.



Now, switching directions for a bit...

I'd like to argue that Sony did not WIN with the PS1. Ask ANYBODY what the system of the 90s was and they'll tell you the N64. The number of classic 10/10 games (GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Super Mario 64, MOTHER****ING ZELDA, MarioKart, StarFox 64, Bomberman, and so on and so forth) was unprecedented for a single console. Seriously, N64 whomped on the PS1. Name a game lineup that can beat mine and I'll paypal you $10. You can't. As long as Nintendo has Shigeru Miyamoto (sp?), there's no stopping them. They've been in gaming for too long to simply give up their stake. And the N64 conquered the gaming world. It was a truly great system.

7

 

[Hardin]

The Wii is not going to win without third party support! All the big games that I have been hearing about on the Wii have been first party. And not even new first party games. Just list some third party games for me. The controller is fun for awhile but there is nothing else interesting about the wii. It has poor graphics with a low selection of games.

 

[Thund3rball]

I don't know about where you guys are but up here Wii's are all but non-existant on store shelves and rampant on Craigslist starting at $400. I might see myself paying $260 + tax for a Wii, but $400-$600... no bloody way. I won't even pay that for a 360. So I wonder how many moms, sisters & grammas are going to fork over the big bucks on CL for a beanie baby over the next month?

 

[rainless]

You guys are missing the point. The Wii is WINNING. Not "for now" or "until the fad wears off", they're literally handing the 360 and PS3s normal controllers back to them on a silver platter.

As long as titles are being released for the Wii that are actually good (for god's sake, they had super mario galaxy no less than a MONTH ago), it will keep selling. It has little kids, girls, old people and the party scene locked down. No other console has that. The 360 has the real gamers and most high school and college kids right now. The PS3 is out in the cold.

Secondly, the Wii is doing well. The market really has a carrying capacity for 2 consoles, max. This has been shown time and time again, there's really no room for a 3rd, even if it's stellr. Nintendo pulls ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY DOLLARS OFF EVERY SINGLE WII. HOW CAN I MAKE THAT MORE CLEAR? For every Wii, you are putting literally about half of that money straight into Nintendo's pocket in pure profit. THAT is why it's doing well. Period.

Microsoft is doing well, I own a 360, and I like it. It's very nice to play online with your friends, and the system for doing so is unparalled. Microsoft just made some blunders, as always, with their system. First of all, failing to put in an HD-DVD drive was somewhat of a mistake, as it would have helped their case. But again, we'd be looking at a PS3 price system with a format that might not even be used to it's fullest if it's so hard to work with. No wireless is just inexcusable. The Wii has it FFS. But the main point I'm trying to make is that Microsoft got into the market first (they had to), hit HARD with some nice titles (Gears, Halo) and now they're sitting in a nice position just fending off whatever the PS3 has coming.

Now, lets talk holidays, this is where it's really going to matter. The Wii and the 360 will do well. I can guarantee it. Right now, the PS3 DOES NOT have the games to do well this christmas. What the hell are you going to get a little kid, a PS3 with warhawk and uncharted, or a Wii like all of his friends have with Mario? For adults, you're looking at a small segment of the market as PS3's ideal buyers, yet they either a) already have a 360 or b) are planning on getting one because all their friends have one and the games are out for it that make it great. The PS3 is just the odd console out in this situation, and banking upon ONE game that's been hyped to oblivion to somehow miraculously pull this console from the grave is ridiculous.

Sony needs to do the smart thing, and maybe stop focusing on the OLD PS2. The PS2 still outsells the PS3. That's a joke for any company. Microsoft and Nintendo have moved on, it's time for Sony to do the same.



Now, switching directions for a bit...

I'd like to argue that Sony did not WIN with the PS1. Ask ANYBODY what the system of the 90s was and they'll tell you the N64. The number of classic 10/10 games (GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Super Mario 64, MOTHER****ING ZELDA, MarioKart, StarFox 64, Bomberman, and so on and so forth) was unprecedented for a single console. Seriously, N64 whomped on the PS1. Name a game lineup that can beat mine and I'll paypal you $10. You can't. As long as Nintendo has Shigeru Miyamoto (sp?), there's no stopping them. They've been in gaming for too long to simply give up their stake. And the N64 conquered the gaming world. It was a truly great system.

7

You still haven't said anything. You still haven't mentioned the one thing that actually counts: The software. Everybody wants to talk about kids and old ladies... Well how many copies of Super Mario Galaxy were sold versus copies of Halo 3?

I rest my case.

Until somebody comes up with a counter-argument to that (And right now Nintendo JUST has Mario and two other games)... and the Bioshocks and Mass Effects of the world that turn that $150 advantage into a $6000 loss... then you're just talking into the wind.

EDIT: Oh... and I'm afraid your second point doesn't pan out either. It's not about "the number of classic games" yadda yadda yadda... It's about... again, the number of games sold. And on that level Sony annihilated Nintendo and went well on their way of putting Sega's hardware division out of business... with inferior hardware I might add. See... you can have inferior hardware if you have the third party developers on your side (which nintendo doesn't.) But if you're got inferior hardware, the third party developers are on the OTHER team's side, AND you don't have the games to sell...

 

[TommyHolly]

I don't think you can compare the Wii with Sega's Dreamcast (or even Saturn). I have owned all these systems and Sega just didnt have good games. Thats the main thing that killed them. Add to that they kept coming up with these rediculously expensive systems too late with too little to offer. Nintendo is fun to play and has a wider audience. For example, when girls come over and see the Wii, they love it. But when they see me playing Portal or some FPS they don't want anything to do with it.

When it's time to upgrade the graphics, Nintendo will just come out with a new system. Until that time, Nintendo should be good for a long while. Not everyone needs all that expensive stuff Sony and Xbox has...I'd rather play the high end things on a PC anyway. Sony and Microsoft won't keep thier current platforms for 10 years. I expect a new system in 5-6 years for all 3 systems.

 

[rainless]

I don't think you can compare the Wii with Sega's Dreamcast (or even Saturn). I have owned all these systems and Sega just didnt have good games. Thats the main thing that killed them. Add to that they kept coming up with these rediculously expensive systems too late with too little to offer. Nintendo is fun to play and has a wider audience. For example, when girls come over and see the Wii, they love it. But when they see me playing Portal or some FPS they don't want anything to do with it.

.

What's this? Somebody ELSE dancing around the amount of software sold?

It's great that you think Sega didn't have good games. You're entitled to your opinion. The only problem is, everyone else in the universe would say you were wrong. The 2k series started on the Dreamcast. Panzer Dragoon started on the Saturn. Marvel vs. Capcom 2 was created FOR the Dreamcast and built using the Naomi system which was also used in half of the arcade games that existed in the last portion of the existence of arcades. Well... I don't need to go down the list of classic Sega games (and best sellers... and series that are now being created on next gen systems...)

Suffice to say: You're wrong.

And what's this about the systems "coming out late"? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Are you telling me the Dreamcast "Came out late?" Even in the Saturn era... the N64 was the last system to come out. I believe the Saturn was the first.

 

[Hardin]

The Dreamcast was probably our most used console of the last gen. We had the most games for it and played it all the time. It's a shame it went under.

 

[JzAr]

So who won?

 

[Elif Tymes]

I'll buy a PS3 when it hits $250 for a unit used. I'll buy a Wii when it hits $150 for a used unit and I just bought a 360 for $280 with HDMI and a couple games.

Lots of people are like me. They're waiting on prices to drop. However, I think 360 is in first place, with Wii a close second and PS3 is in third.

But that can change.

 

[IR1]

Sony says a lot of things! Half the crap coming out of Sony's Playstation Dept is BS. Sony needs to just shutup and make some games that people actually want to play, instead of lobbing verbal grenades at the 360 they need to show people where the benefit to the PS3 is. The PS3 right now is just a blueray player IMO. Games that used to be exclusive to PS, aren't anymore, Devil May Cry 4 will be on the 360, GTA4 of course at launch, and I would not be the least bit surprised if MGS4 eventually came to the 360, but probably a year or so later. The issue is developers spend so much money they have to offer their product to as many customers as possible to maximize revenue in hopes to turn in a profit. Being exclusive to one console has minimal if any benefit to the developer.

Here is the kicker for the Wii, the 360 and PS3 are close enough in terms of performance that any multiplatform games will be pretty much the same. The Wii, takes a big hit plus the control scheme becomes an afterthought for 3rd party developers making games for all 3 systems. What you get with the Wii is a lot of stripped down games where the control scheme is less than steller. That does not make for a good combination... I agree with Rainless, the Wii has a TON of hype and a ton of non-gamer types buying the hardware, but non-gamer types do not drive the purchase of software nearly as much. The console industry is about selling games, that is where the profit is. If you can make money on the console then good for you but you better have some games soon because a one time fixed profit per machine will not keep you ahead of the 360. It may not even keep them ahead of the PS3.

My predicton for the next 3 years of this console generation is: 1. 360, 2. PS3, 3. Wii. (I see PS3 and Wii very close) Why? The Wii will show some serious aging compared to the 360 and PS3 hitting their strides in terms of developers taking full advantage of their capabilities. I see Nintendo pulling a Sega Dreamcast somewhere in the next 5 years as well.

In closing, I see absolutely no reason to buy a PS3, none...

 

[rainless]

Here is the kicker for the Wii, the 360 and PS3 are close enough in terms of performance that any multiplatform games will be pretty much the same.

ERRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

[-_{MoW}_-Assasi]

F@H just doesnt captivate me to buy a PS3

Nor does any other PS3 game

My mate's bro bought 3 PS3s from America and brought it back, one for him, one for his dad, and one for my mate

They played it for a week and none of them have touched their consoles since


I like the PS3, I really do, but there is not one game at the moment that would push me to buy it


Unitl Gran Turismo 5, I dont think Ill be looking at consoles atm

(I currently have a PS2 and a PSP)

To me, the XBox 360 is overated, I dont like Halo and the games and graphics on it just dont captivate me

The Wii, I might actually buy this one, if there was one good game on it
I like the concept, I like the way its played, but its games are just so childish

 

[tenchi86]

The PS3 currently has a few very good titles. Resistance, Unreal Tournament, Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted, the issue is the Xbox 360 simply got out first and also has some very good titles; not to mention it has Xbox Live! and most people like to play with their friends so if the games they want comes on both systems then it only makes sense to get the system your friend has.

Anyway we are talking about console life cycle here. 2-3 years more for the PS2 seems like a long shot to me, at least as a top selling system. Though I don't at all doubt it will be supported by rental/retail stores for that long. The PS3 I could easily see going another 9 if you take into account that the projection is including years where the system is not longer the top contender, such as the years the PS2 is facing now. (So really like 5-6 more years till another Playstation is released)

 

[Neural Net]

Rainless is frustratingly in error about this generation. Plus I fail to see any sales figures that back up his claim. Some careful reassessment of the situation is needed. Stating "you're wrong" to everyone that offers a different angle does not make you right, and to top it off, you haven't gone to any lengths to prove you're right either (large and bold type does not count).

Back on topic: 9 years is far too long in terms of graphics at least, the PC is already leaps and bounds above anything this current generation of consoles are capable of. And btw, don't say the 360 runs on Direct X10, it doesn't it's 9.0c with some DX10 elements, namely the unified architecture which provides flexible performance, and allows developers to overcome some hurdles, such as developing games according to the number of vertex, shader and geometry pipelines a GPU has - theoretically providing the 360 with a longer shelf life.

No one is buying PS3 titles, because the PS3 hasn't got any good titles at the moment. Drake's Fortune has 8 hours of gameplay including cutscenes at that was meant to be a console seller. Assassin's Creed and COD4 are the most popular selling PS3 titles, but wait, they're not exclusives. I've seen 10 times the demand for Mario Galaxy and Mario Olympics than any PS3 title you care to mention.

This is PS3 vs Wii btw, so don't quote Halo 3 figures. Kthxbye.