"Sony walking a tightrope" another reason why no playable at tgs [Archive]

barnak

03-Oct-2005, 21:12

As revelations about Sony's thinking in not putting playable PS3 titles on the show floor at TGS last month emerge in the media, the difficulties facing the firm in making the next-generation transition without damaging existing business become more apparent, says Rob Fahey.

Sony's balancing act is becoming more and more interesting to watch by the day. Forced into revealing its next-generation hand far earlier than it would have liked by Microsoft's rush to get the Xbox 360 out while the Xbox is dumped unceremoniously into an early grave, much like a protesting elderly relative being dragged in the night from a nursing home and off to his fate, Sony now finds itself in the awkward position of trying to showcase the power of PlayStation 3, while making sure nobody loses interest in PSP or PS2.

The Tokyo Games Show was a good example of this delicate tightrope walking, with the PS3 being showcased in the form of video reels in a large open cinema, while the PS2 and PSP took pride of place on Sony's enormous demo pod area. However, an even more astonishing example comes from statements made by Sony exec Masatsuka Saeki speaking to Famitsu in the wake of the show.

Saeki-san apparently felt the need to explain why Sony had broken Ken Kutaragi's promise to have playable PS3 titles on the show floor - saying that the reason was that while the firm could have put playable code out there if it wanted to, PS3 was being shown in Japan for the first time at TGS, so the company wanted consumers to feel the same impact that people who saw the trailer reel at E3 did.

This is one of those circumstances where Sony might have been better off saying nothing, because any idiot can sniff that statement and tell that it doesn't smell of roses. "This is the first time we've shown PS3 in Japan" is not a reason to show off only the E3 videos and a few new ones, as any fool can tell. Statements like this sound defensive, and will immediately raise suspicions that the company is having trouble with PS3 development, that titles haven't progressed as far as Kutaragi-san might have wished or that the firm simply isn't happy with the quality of the titles as they stand, compared to the far closer to completion Xbox 360 games on the other side of the hall.

In fact, the reality is far more mundane. Sony almost certainly does have playable code ready on PS3, and plenty of real-time PS3 demonstrations took place in private meeting rooms around the TGS venue in Makuhari - it's just that the company is absolutely desperate not to detract attention from the PS2 and PSP line-up for Christmas and beyond. Certainly, it would be tough for Saeki-san to say this in public, but Sony doesn't want the current generation to end right now. PS2 is a cash cow, and PSP is still getting established; focusing on next generation too quickly will destroy what the firm has built with those platforms, and we don't doubt that Microsoft's name is cursed daily in Sony's offices for trying to force the console giant's hand in this manner.

There's a lesson here for the industry as a whole too, though; shortening the console cycle is a very dangerous business. Microsoft is keen to move to the next-gen faster than its rival, simply because it doesn't have so much to lose by dropping its existing platform and may have much to gain from moving first in the next platform battle - but ironically, if the company is too successful, the whole industry will suffer. Whether Microsoft likes it or not, the industry's publishers and developers need the PlayStation 2 to continue to be successful for their businesses to thrive - and launching the next generation into the consumer mindspace, at the same time forcing Sony into this tricky PR balancing act, threatens that entire hugely valuable ecosystem. If consumers lose interest in the current generation, it's not just Sony who'll lose out - every company in the industry will take the hit.

Thankfully, though, Sony seems quite good at the balancing act - even if sometimes it can be a little too cautious. Saeki-san also dropped the bombshell that originally, Sony was considering just showing the E3 demo reel, and that the Metal Gear Solid 4 trailer was only added at the last minute - a lucky eleventh hour addition, since without it, PS3 might as well not have bothered showing its face at TGS. We're glad we're not in the position of the Sony exec who has to make the calls that prevent PS3 from eclipsing the existing, profitable business, while still standing up to Microsoft's Xbox 360 PR machine, but we're also amazed at how close the company apparently came to effectively ceding round two of the next-gen battle before it even began.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=11937

clears alot up for me.

hugo

03-Oct-2005, 21:18

It's the Xbox360 launch day that I'm concerned with.Sony is hiding their secrets so that they can reveal it all on that day.Perfect timing.

blakjedi

03-Oct-2005, 21:20

Saeki-san apparently felt the need to explain why Sony had broken Ken Kutaragi's promise to have playable PS3 titles on the show floor...

{highlighted for clarity :twisted: ]
I remember some poor poster getting cranked on hard by a couple folks... Someone owes someone an apology me thinks...

Titanio

03-Oct-2005, 21:21

It's the Xbox360 launch day that I'm concerned with.Sony is hiding their secrets so that they can reveal it all on that day.Perfect timing.

Doubtful. Nothing will stop X360 selling, like any system, at launch. They'd be competing with the X360 launch for attention too. I think we'll just see some more "information release" before the end of the year, and then probably a lot more in the new year.

{highlighted for clarity :twisted: ]
I remember some poor poster getting cranked on hard by a couple folks... Someone owes someone an apology me thinks...

When did Kutaragi promise this? I honestly can't remember, I only remember him saying at the PSM that it might be playable. Based on that comment at least, it should have been clear as and from July that playables shouldn't necessarily have been expected at TGS, and I think most who were paying attention weren't.

hey69

03-Oct-2005, 21:22

this thread is gay

voila, i said it

barnak

03-Oct-2005, 21:25

Doubtful. Nothing will stop X360 selling, like any system, at launch. They'd be competing with the X360 launch for attention too. I think we'll just see some more "information release" before the end of the year, and then probably a lot more in the new year.

When did Kutaragi promise this? I honestly can't remember, I only remember him saying at the PSM that it might be playable.

Hmm I thought I saw it in alot of places let me dig up some old sources and find out for sure

RancidLunchmeat

03-Oct-2005, 21:32

Cute spin, but I think the easiest explanation is that Sony isn't happy with their playable demos for the PS3 so they didn't show them.

Also, I fail to understand the part about the launching of the X360 being bad for the industry because people are still developing for the PS2.

Uhhh.. so? That'll teach developers not to keep pushing forwarded with titles on MS's competitor's consoles. Really, how is this bad for the industry? It's good MS, they're part of the industry. It's good for MS developers, they'll be the ones getting their titles off the shelf quicker. It's only bad for Sony and Sony developers who will be announcing new products on inferior hardware to compete with the X360.

As far as Sony walking the tight rope, I think it's laughable to give the props for doing 'such a great job', when at the same time essentially saying there was very little that they got to show and if they hadn't included the MGS vid at the last minute, there wouldn't have even needed to be any reason for them to be there.

MS is the one that forced Sony into this position, and if anybody thinks they didn't do it on purpose, they're too busy drinking the kool-aid.

aldo

03-Oct-2005, 21:36

Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi has hinted that there may be playable PlayStation 3 demos at this year's Tokyo Games Show. Speaking at the PlayStation Meeting in Japan last week, Kutaragi said: We hope to use the Tokyo Game Show as a chance for everyone to get to know, or possibly experience, what next-generation entertainment is all about.- Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=60198)As Titanio said, Kutaragi only promised that we'd possibly see working games at TGS.

edit: More accurately. he did not necessarily mean playable games. That was the media's interpretation of Kutaragi's statement. To many, the SG4 trailer could be interpreted as a next-generation experience.

-aldo

Titanio

03-Oct-2005, 21:39

Also, I fail to understand the part about the launching of the X360 being bad for the industry because people are still developing for the PS2.

A 3-4 year cycle isn't good for the industry.

Uhhh.. so? That'll teach developers not to keep pushing forwarded with titles on MS's competitor's consoles. Really, how is this bad for the industry? It's good MS, they're part of the industry. It's good for MS developers, they'll be the ones getting their titles off the shelf quicker.

No they won't, I guarantee you PS2 software will far outsell X360 software this Xmas.

It's about taking advantage of a large and mature userbase. Cutting short the generation prevents this. For MS it's not a problem because they were never going to get that same large userbase with Xbox in the same timeframe as PS2, but for publishers, they simply can't ignore PS2 right now. The transition appears to be slower this time than the last transition - the number of new big PS2 games still to come is quite large given that PS3 is due in the next 12 months. PS2 is a massive market right now, and it's very understandable if Sony and publishers are slower to leave it behind. You make consoles to build this kind of market, you don't just then abandon it when you get there. You'll still have PS2s selling beyond PS3's release, and you'll still see PS2 games beyond PS3's release - the same was true of PSone, but that'll be potentially even more pronounced with PS2.

Johnny Awesome

03-Oct-2005, 21:48

This article is nonsense. Consumers at large don't even pay attention to trade shows. Casuals gamers will walk into EB and buy whatever they can for whatever system they own this holiday, regardless of next-generation demos given to hardcore gamers at E3 and TGS.

Vince

03-Oct-2005, 21:48

Cute spin, but I think the easiest explanation is that Sony isn't happy with their playable demos for the PS3 so they didn't show them.

If we're going to take the article as factual (which you tacitly invoked by your use of the article in the latter portion of your post), It clearly states that playable material was presented behind-closed doors. Something which, IMHO, would be indicative of developers showing off titles to prospective publishers. Obviously, you don't show off RT playable material if it sucks to a publisher. That much is sheer logic.

It also has come to my attention after reading your post that racid (or otherwise rotten) lunchmeat is too close to dead meat for my liking.

MS is the one that forced Sony into this position, and if anybody thinks they didn't do it on purpose, they're too busy drinking the kool-aid.

Nobody is saying they didn't, much to the contrary if you would have read the article. What is up for debate is if Microsoft's willingness to cannobilize markets and platforms at their whim is good for the industry as a whole... I, for one, do not believe so. Their truncating and quickening of the console cycle is inheriently dangerous when viewed historically and you note that publishers profit from the latter half of the cycle; keep this in mind everytime you wish to promote the unbearable costs of developing for PlayStation3 argument.

RancidLunchmeat

03-Oct-2005, 21:51

No they won't, I guarantee you PS2 software will far outsell X360 software this Xmas.

En mass? Certainly. There will be more PS2 games available, and more people will own the PS2 than the X360. But I'm fairly certain that none of the X360 buyers will be purchasing PS2 games this Christmas. Do you disagree?

but for publishers, they simply can't ignore PS2 right now. The transition appears to be slower this time than the last transition - the number of new big PS2 games still to come is quite large given that PS3 is due in the next 12 months. PS2 is a massive market right now, and it's very understandable if Sony and publishers are slower to leave it behind. You make consoles to build this kind of market, you don't just then abandon it when you get there. You'll still have PS2s selling beyond PS3's release, and you'll still see PS2 games beyond PS3's release - the same was true of PSone, but that'll be potentially even more pronounced with PS2.

Sorry, but I'm confused. You seem to be saying that essentially because of the large installed base of the PS2, that it is still profitable for developers to continue to develop for that market.

If that's the case, then what difference does it make if Sony showed playable demos at TGS?

Also, you seem to believe (and I'm sure are correct), that the PS2 will continue to sell even after the PS3 is available. And PS2 games will also continue to sell. Once again, if that's the case.. How does Sony benefit or lose from pushing the PS3 now?

Developers won't leave the PS2 because Sony is pushing the PS3 according to this logic, because the PS2 already has such a huge install base the profit/unit is going to be greater. Additionally, the market of people that are going to buy the PS3 within 6 months (probably to 1 year) of it's launch is a completely different market than those who would be going out right now or within that 6 months to 1 year to buy a PS2.

So again, announcing (or pushing, promoting, if you will), the PS3 now shouldn't impact development of PS2 games, or PS2 continued sales.

Either developers are going to drop the PS2 development and go towards PS3 development in order to take advantage of a new market and showcase "better" games on "better" hardware, or they will stick with the PS2 development for as long as possible because the install base is bigger and development costs are lower.

The article seems to believe the first statement is a concern to Sony (and your response seems to illustrate you believe that to be aconcern as well), but then you use the second argument as support and I seem them as contradictory.

Help here?

Vince

03-Oct-2005, 21:55

Sorry, but I'm confused. You seem to be saying that essentially because of the large installed base of the PS2, that it is still profitable for developers to continue to develop for that market.

If that's the case, then what difference does it make if Sony showed playable demos at TGS?

Osborne effect. QED.

Alpha_Spartan

03-Oct-2005, 21:57

MS is the one that forced Sony into this position, and if anybody thinks they didn't do it on purpose, they're too busy drinking the kool-aid.

Oh please! We all know that the PS3 could launch tomorrow with 18 AAA games if Sony wanted to. MGS4 is actually the worst looking PS3 game. Sony is holding back until February where they'll announce all the launch details with a simultaenous launch in all territories two weeks later. If you think the G70 launch was impressive, then Sony will knock your socks off with the PS3 launch. Shock and awe much? Killzone will be playable and it will look better than the E3 demonstrations. Also, the Cell was bumped up to 4.0GHz and the RSX is running in SLi. But wait, there's more! We will have all this at a retail price of only $299.99!

Chug, chug, chug!!!

Mr., may I have some more?!

http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/18/jonestown.anniv.01/link.jones.jpg

Okay, I think I covered all speculative bases.

ihamoitc2005

03-Oct-2005, 21:58

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=11937

clears alot up for me.

That article is very sensible and reflects what is obvious and predicatable problem for Sony ... how to keep media focus on PS2 and PSP. Is this not what people mean by battle for "mindshare"? Only way for Sony to reduce "mindshare" of xbox360 is to promote PS3 early but doing so can affect mindshare of PS2 and PSP which are very good and profitable businesses. Microsoft's strategy although expensive, is very effective.

Titanio

03-Oct-2005, 22:00

En mass? Certainly. There will be more PS2 games available, and more people will own the PS2 than the X360. But I'm fairly certain that none of the X360 buyers will be purchasing PS2 games this Christmas. Do you disagree?

None? Well I'll be one.

Sorry, but I'm confused. You seem to be saying that essentially because of the large installed base of the PS2, that it is still profitable for developers to continue to develop for that market.

Err...yes.

If that's the case, then what difference does it make if Sony showed playable demos at TGS?

Because if they overpromote PS3 now, consumers may easily close their wallets till it comes out. There is a large body of PS2 owners out there, and they want them to keep buying PS2 games, and for new people to keep buying PS2s. As the article says, they have to tread carefully. SCEE has been particularly cautious about this, not least because PSP is only out recently (and doubtless much to their dislike, I've already read a couple of articles now encouraging customers to save PSP money for PS3 instead - that's exactly what they're trying to avoid by being cautious about PS3's profile). Cautious consumers would piss off their publishing partners, who also want to ride the gravy train again this holiday. Sony is being perhaps paranoid about this, but I think it's understandable if they want to eliminate any risk of upsetting this particular apple cart.

This article is nonsense. Consumers at large don't even pay attention to trade shows.

It was a public show, open to consumers.

RancidLunchmeat

03-Oct-2005, 22:04

If we're going to take the article as factual (which you tacitly invoked by your use of the article in the latter portion of your post),

Or, we could simply call the article 'RUBBISH' like some have already deemed necessary to do so and have no further discourse. OR, you could attempt to point out WHY the article is rubbish and the discussion could follow from there. Finally, you could ignore the entire thread entirely and not devote any energy to it.

It clearly states that playable material was presented behind-closed doors.

That it does.

Something which, IMHO, would be indicative of developers showing off titles to prospective publishers.

And that is your opinion, which isn't based on anything contained in this article. It's your hope, it's your dream, because that makes your position on the matter more heavily supported. But it's simply a leap that has no foundation from the source material.

Obviously, you don't show off RT playable material if it sucks to a publisher. That much is sheer logic.

Imaginary points leading to sheer logic? Hmm.

It also has come to my attention after reading your post that racid (or otherwise rotten) lunchmeat is too close to dead meat for my liking.

Rancid. Not racid. I'm glad my choice of user name could strengthen your vocabulary.

Nobody is saying they didn't, much to the contrary if you would have read the article.

Second time now you've insinuated that I haven't read the article. I did, which is why I responded. Why not just attempt to make your point?

What is up for debate is if Microsoft's willingness to cannobilize markets and platforms at their whim is good for the industry as a whole... I, for one, do not believe so. Their truncating and quickening of the console cycle is inheriently dangerous when viewed historically and you note that publishers profit from the latter half of the cycle; keep this in mind everytime you wish to promote the unbearable costs of developing for PlayStation3 argument.

And yet, Titanio seems to believe that those developers will still continue to develop for the PS2 because as you've agreed with, that's where they receive the majority of their profits, and it's also where the largest install base is.

If what you seem to believe in this response are true, you have then provided absoutely zero reason why Sony decided not to show playable demos at TGS. You think they are available and are so far along they are shopping them to publishers, and you believe that developers will continue to make PS2 games regardless because that's where the money is.

So, what then is your explanation of why Sony chose not to provide playable demos at TGS?

Alpha_Spartan

03-Oct-2005, 22:06

RancidLunchmeat

03-Oct-2005, 22:07

Because if they overpromote PS3 now, consumers may easily close their wallets till it comes out. There is a large body of PS2 owners out there, and they want them to keep buying PS2 games, and for new people to keep buying PS2s. As the article says, they have to tread carefully. SCEE has been particularly cautious about this, not least because PSP is only out recently (and doubtless much to their dislike, I've already read a couple of articles now encouraging customers to save PSP money for PS3 instead - that's exactly what they're trying to avoid by being cautious about PS3's profile). Cautious consumers would piss off their publishing partners, who also want to ride the gravy train again this holiday.

PS2 users are going to stop purchasing PS2 games for a period of 6 months to 1 year while waiting for the PS3? Come on, that's not very likely.

Also, the current buyer of the PS2 is simply not the same market as the buyer of the PS3 at launch.

Vince

03-Oct-2005, 22:09

Or, we could simply call the article 'RUBBISH' like some have already deemed necessary to do so and have no further discourse. OR, you could attempt to point out WHY the article is rubbish and the discussion could follow from there. Finally, you could ignore the entire thread entirely and not devote any energy to it.

Uh, ok. *shakes head* I refuse to get into a -point-by-point semantic debate with somone who obviously has an agenda and obviously is trying his hardest to push a specific line of thinking on the rest of us. My statements are all holistically consistent and logical, if you want to troll... so be it, but don't expect a responce.

And that is your opinion, which isn't based on anything contained in this article. It's your hope, it's your dream, because that makes your position on the matter more heavily supported. But it's simply a leap that has no foundation from the source material.

Ok, why else would a developer show off a game behind closed doors? I want an answer: go...

So, what then is your explanation of why Sony chose not to provide playable demos at TGS?

I already did: The Osborne Effect (ps. I'm sure you can google it). This is supported by Phil Harrison's comments concerning how PlayStation3 would go "underground" after E3, the data fits. This isn't that difficult, well for you it is as you need to both attack the article as "rubbish" and make up some logical system of why it's BS. But, for the rest of us it approximated the general situation quite well.

EndR

03-Oct-2005, 22:09

A 3-4 year cycle isn't good for the industry.

Correct but who says this will be the norm in the future? MS *must* shorten the life of Xbox, to compete "on an even scale" against Sony on next gen. Xbox came 18 months after, MS cannot afford to come 18 months after PS3, the same thing would happen again. Now MS has the chance to closen the gape considerably to Sony marketshare-wise..

So, Xbox lifespan was shortened so that 360 could live longer.. is that easy..

Titanio

03-Oct-2005, 22:10

Sony's E3 showing didn't look like a company that didn't want to usher in the next gen of console gaming. The press conference seemed to be more PS3 and less PS2. Why all of a sudden are they backtracking? Perhaps the PS3 is farther away than they'd like to admit.

Seems to me like Sony's just buying time. They sure didn't pull any punches at E3. And with the system supposedly launching first in Japan in March, you'd think that the Fall TGS would be to Sony what E3 was to Microsoft. Some stuff just isn't adding up. Everytime a Sony exec gives a statement you better don the hip-waders.

Sony said at E3 that they were going underground about PS3 till next year. They had to come out swinging at E3 to mark their presence (they were already expected to show something in March, remember), that doesn't mean they'd continue to have E3-size knock-outs regularly and consistently throughout the rest of the year.

You can read it whatever way you like, really, but I think they've done a good job thusfar of balancing information with tease/mystery.

Titanio

03-Oct-2005, 22:15

Correct but who says this will be the norm in the future? MS *must* shorten the life of Xbox, to compete "on an even scale" against Sony on next gen. Xbox came 18 months after, MS cannot afford to come 18 months after PS3, the same thing would happen again. Now MS has the chance to closen the gape considerably to Sony marketshare-wise..

So, Xbox lifespan was shortened so that 360 could live longer.. is that easy..

Like I said, it was no loss to MS to cut Xbox now and go with X360. But on a successful mature platform with a large market, cutting that after 3 or 4 years would be crazy.

It's not like Xbox software sales were terrible last holidays or anything though! I do wonder how many publishers would have preferred for another holiday with just the current systems. I know as a gamer I'd have liked to see another final, very mature cycle of Xbox titles.

Hopefully MS can stablise now into at least a 5 year cycle.

Alpha_Spartan

03-Oct-2005, 22:24

Sony said at E3 that they were going underground about PS3 till next year. They had to come out swinging at E3 to mark their presence (they were already expected to show something in March, remember), that doesn't mean they'd continue to have E3-size knock-outs regularly and consistently throughout the rest of the year.

You can read it whatever way you like, really, but I think they've done a good job thusfar of balancing information with tease/mystery.
Of course you think they've done a good job. ;)

I call PR BS.

scooby_dooby

03-Oct-2005, 22:24

According to Moore ~160 XBOX titles in development, so you can expect at least 1 full generation of titles over the next year if not more.

You may not be able to buy the system come 2006, but there are still 20million+ users loooking to purchase software.

Also, one look at X360's design and it should be completely obvious they are aiming for a more cost-effective product in the latter years of the lifecycle, so there's no reason to think they will repeat the short lifecycle of the XBOX

Titanio

03-Oct-2005, 22:43

I call PR BS.

You don't think they've generated an effective hype wagon?

That's what I'm commenting on.

blakjedi

03-Oct-2005, 22:45

Its not as if the current PS2 userbase doesnt KNOW that PS3 is coming already...and soon.

The logic in that article is rather bad.

Laa-Yosh

03-Oct-2005, 22:47

The cycle does not get shortened, PS2 already had its 5 years, right? With at least another half year to go until its launch, if not another 12 months... If anything, Sony wants to lengthen the cycle because they are the market leader and they want to milk every cent out of their advantage to cover up their losses.

Then again, it might turn out that MS has decided to shorten the cycle and defeat Sony using their heaps of money. But as the article states, the whole industry would turn into their enemies in this case, so it's not really likely to happen.

Titanio

03-Oct-2005, 22:54

Its not as if the current PS2 userbase doesnt KNOW that PS3 is coming already...and soon.

Have you ever worked in retail? Generally seen the average level of cluelessness amongst massmarket videogame buyers? ;) Particularly those picking up consoles later, when cheaper..I'd say a lot if not most people buying PS2s now aren't very aware of PS3. Awareness amongst that group is probably very low.

Mordecaii

03-Oct-2005, 23:17

I agree that I just don't see why Sony is saying that it's early to release the PS3... if we go by a typical console life of 5 years, then that would put the PS3 releasing THIS year, whereas in actuality it's releasing sometime next year. (My typical console life numbers are based off the time between PS1 and PS2, and also between the time of the Genesis and Saturn, and other consoles where it works out that the average lifetime of a console is usually 5 years). Back to the point though, I honestly can't understand why Sony would be complaining about Microsoft bringing about the new generation early when Sony should have been ready for all of this anyway. If anything, Microsoft is releasing around the time that Sony should have. I won't even try to guess at the reasons that Sony is lagging behind (I'm sure their current marketshare and profits are a big reason), but I will say that I don't blame them since they are making quite a bit of money off the PS2, as are the developers. When it comes down to it, I don't like how MS ditched the Xbox because I think it hurts consumers and developers who were writing games for it, but since they were losing so much money with it and they couldn't reasonably expect to even remotely catch up to Sony, they did the only thing they could do. I think the comments about Microsoft cutting short the current generation would be true if the PS2 and Dreamcast hadn't been around for more than 5 years already, but this generation has had 5 years and the time to move to the next gen is now.

IMO Sony really had a tough choice to make... Keep with the PS2 and make a good profit but risk losing ground to MS since they are releasing the 360 first, or switch to PS3 and start losing a substantial amount of money (at first) but get a jump start on the next gen and hopefully repeat their market dominance. I have to wonder though, if Microsoft faces the same kind of gap between themself and Sony again this gen, will they come out with new hardware early again? If so, will the industry abandon them because of it? Because game developers do make more money towards the end of a console's life cycle since they can make games faster due to better tools and middleware.

mckmas8808

03-Oct-2005, 23:22

Of course you think they've done a good job. ;)

I call PR BS.

Oh course because you don't understand business. MS cut their console life short due to business. Business is business and everyone has to make a buck without it nobody would be making videogames.:wink:

mckmas8808

03-Oct-2005, 23:24

Its not as if the current PS2 userbase doesnt KNOW that PS3 is coming already...and soon.

The logic in that article is rather bad.

No you just can't understand business. If they had pushed the PS3 at TGS like they did at E3, then the PSP would have been hidden compared to PS3's huge news. Why is this so hard for you guys to understand?:mad:

Alpha_Spartan

03-Oct-2005, 23:34

You don't think they've generated an effective hype wagon?

That's what I'm commenting on.
I admit that they generated hype, but now they're backtracking saying that they don't want to generate hype to take steam away from the PS2. But I think they failed in that regard. After seeing the PS3, I mean, who can go back to those PS2 titles? Hell, after seeing Xbox 360 games I can't go back to this gen.

Mordecaii

03-Oct-2005, 23:39

I do have to wonder, just how much do consoles and handhelds converge in terms of markets? Will the PS3 cut into the number of people who will buy a PSP or are the markets different enough to where it really won't matter? I just can't see people who are looking for a mobile game system go out and buy a PS3 and conversely I can't see someone who wants a console to hook up in the livingroom going out and buying a PSP. Of course, some people aren't quite so specific in what they're looking for and they just want the next "cool" thing, but overally I think people know what they want and I just can't see the two systems competing as much as some people might think.

Of course, I could be completely wrong since I'm basing this off my own opinions and thoughts which hardly ensure accuracy. But actually, now that I think of it I would think the PS3 would actually help sell the PSP since the two are supposed to work together to do some really neat stuff. I think the release of the PS3 will really just hurt the PS2 which is obviously Sony's biggest money-maker at the moment. I would feel the exact same as Sony if I was in their shoes and it is tough to decide whether to move on or not when your current product is doing so well.

mckmas8808

03-Oct-2005, 23:40

I admit that they generated hype, but now they're backtracking saying that they don't want to generate hype to take steam away from the PS2. But I think they failed in that regard. After seeing the PS3, I mean, who can go back to those PS2 titles? Hell, after seeing Xbox 360 games I can't go back to this gen.

Trust me Alpha it would have been worst for PS2 owners had they had the same exposure to next-gen games as you have with the X360 games. See if I seen NBA Live playing on the PS3 I probably wouldn't want to buy it for PS2. I'll just sit out a year personally.

Alpha_Spartan

03-Oct-2005, 23:43

Trust me Alpha it would have been worst for PS2 owners had they had the same exposure to next-gen games as you have with the X360 games. See if I seen NBA Live playing on the PS3 I probably wouldn't want to buy it for PS2. I'll just sit out a year personally.
Dude, can you HONESTLY tell me that you haven't skipped out on any PS2 purchases (if you own one) to put money aside for the PS3 launch?

avaya

03-Oct-2005, 23:44

And with the system supposedly launching first in Japan in March, you'd think that the Fall TGS would be to Sony what E3 was to Microsoft. Some stuff just isn't adding up. Everytime a Sony exec gives a statement you better don the hip-waders.

A trade show is only there to build up hype. Having playable games before launch is an irrelevance to 99% of the market.

Who will play those alpha kit games? Corporate schoomzers, gaming hacks and the odd booth babe.

Microsoft completely messed up at E3. They should have done what Sony did, the mind-set generated among casuals after E3 was that PS3 is more powerful than X360. It was a marketing disaster for Microsoft.

Trade shows are there to raise the public profile of your product prior to release.

If an early build does not look marketable as next-gen, you do not show it. PDZ and Kameo are the greatest examples of this.

First impressions are everything.

MechanizedDeath

03-Oct-2005, 23:51

There's a reason they won't announce any pertinent PS3 launch or price details until next year. And it's not b/c the system launch is further away, or that they lack this information. This is the last big holiday season for the PS2. This is the first big holiday season for the PSP. One needs to maximize its final sales, and one needs to see the first big sales of its life. The PS3 doesn't earn Sony a red cent this holiday. There's a reason we're hearing that CES will be the big show for the PS3 coming up. There's a reason the February show has been earmarked for over a year now as the major jumpoff. There's a reason the PS2's big coming out party was in February and not really the TGS before it.

For the PS2, Sony had no early competition and could take its time. For the PS3, the 360 poses a particular problem in the US, and Sony doesn't want to give them a year alone here. They'll at least plant some seeds of doubt for people to contemplate while they ready the platform for official release. But in the meantime, they still need to ensure their two other platforms actually on the market continue to sell. The article makes sense IMO. Playable PS3 does nothing but distracts from the PS2 and PSP. The video reels gave people something to look forward to, but didn't necessarily detract from the actual playable games. For showgoers, they could watch PS3, but they were busy playing PS2 and PSP. The gameplay experiences would all be tied to the coming holiday season, whereas next year we're bound to be inundated with nothing but PS3. PEACE.

wco81

04-Oct-2005, 00:04

I don't know if the argument is true but I can see it. Sony has huge revenue streams which could dry up if consumers think something better is imminent.

The games industry is one of the few that I can think off the top of my head which has to promote new products years or at least months ahead of time, basically telegraphing the obsolescence of products still in channel.

By contrast, look at how the iPod nano as an example was introduced. Sure there were rumors but when it was finally unveiled, it was available for purchase or order while the obsoleted product had limited inventory in channel. Apple is obsessive about keeping new products as hidden as possible. They are not the only company in the tech industry whose official policy is to not comment on unannounced products and these products aren't announced until they've ramped and are actually shipping to channel.

Another example is cars. There are new cars coming. While they've been shown in various auto shows (althought not in final form), they will not announce actual prices, colors, options until they are essentially at the dealers.

The console makers on the other hand have to announce specs months ahead and eventually, the actual date, price and launch lineup to produce buzz. This in spite of the fact that some companies plan to continue to support the existing product for years (although obviously they expect the volumes to decline steeply).

mckmas8808

04-Oct-2005, 00:07

Dude, can you HONESTLY tell me that you haven't skipped out on any PS2 purchases (if you own one) to put money aside for the PS3 launch?

Yes I own a PS2. It's the only console this gen I bought. And no I didn't skip out on any PS2 purchases to save for the PS3. I'm just going to cut my PS3 money out of my girl's fund for stuff like eating out and going to the movies. You know saying things to her like, "sorry baby can't go to Red Lobster tonight gotta get that PS3.":twisted:

TrungGap

04-Oct-2005, 00:48

Yes I own a PS2. It's the only console this gen I bought. And no I didn't skip out on any PS2 purchases to save for the PS3. I'm just going to cut my PS3 money out of my girl's fund for stuff like eating out and going to the movies. You know saying things to her like, "sorry baby can't go to Red Lobster tonight gotta get that PS3.":twisted:

Man, you're lucky...As for me, I'm saving for the x360, and it's cutting into my beer budget. If it cuts deeper than 25%, I'm going to have to reconsider getting a x360. The way I figured, with 25% more beer, I will see more special effects than x360 can render. ;)

Back on subject, I'm not sure how much thoughts the author put into this article. Consider this...PS3 will have 100% backward compatibility. So buy a PS2 for the current PS2, will still be playable on the PS3. So it will have zero impact on titles that scheduled to release (soon) on PS2 only. Now for titles that announced for PS3, who the hell knows when it's going to be available, so franchise fans will still buy the PS2 version so they can play it now...

The only impact is sale of new PS2 system. People will put off buying a new PS2, but Sony already milked PS2 already. With it's installed base, royalty from the software is already excellence, don't need to expand their market share.

What I find unfortunately, is for dev studio releasing games on current gen and next gen with the same content. Now of course, they're stuck in the situation because of the release date of the x360. I think x360 release date caught everybody by surprise (including Sony).

Seriously, I doublt anybody will put off buying a PS2 game, just because they're waiting (or saving) for the PS3. So why nothing was playable at TGS? Remember Sony is different than MS. MS is a software company, they're used to releasing alpha/beta/rtm software. They like see how the people react to the WIP software. Their reasoning is to create awareness, gage feedback, using the games (software) to create excitement as oppose using the console to create excitement. Hence, you see the force on Live and WIP games.

scooby_dooby

04-Oct-2005, 00:54

First impressions are everything.

In video games first impression mean nothing.

That's why Halo went on to be a huge hit, and why PD0 and Kameo will probably do the same, because they are QUALITY games and that's what's important.

scooby_dooby

04-Oct-2005, 00:59

Sony is walkng a tightrope, but they're doing a damn good job of it.

When you think about it, what's the point of Sony hyping the PS3 right now anyways? X360 will sell-out it's launch quantities anyways, that's pretty much a given. So, they have nothing to gain really by trying to steal hype from the X360.

When the initial hype dies down, heading into 2006, after the PS2 and PSP holiday shoppers are all done, then they will try and battle the X360.

The only potential pitfall I see, is allowing X360 to become a runaway success while they hold back on the PS3 related news.

SubD

04-Oct-2005, 01:03

The only impact is sale of new PS2 system. People will put off buying a new PS2, but Sony already milked PS2 already. With it's installed base, royalty from the software is already excellence, don't need to expand their market share.

The PS2 is selling at a faster rate than the first Playstation and it hasn't even dropped to 99 dollars yet. There are probably another 10 to 20 million PS2s yet to be sold over the next couple of years. Sony is in no way done with the PS2.

seismologist

04-Oct-2005, 01:22

I've always thought this was partially the reason. The PS2 still has much life in it. There's still one more Final Fantasy game and rumored God of War sequel that wont even be out until 2006.

Alpha_Spartan

04-Oct-2005, 01:22

scooby_dooby

04-Oct-2005, 01:24

I've always thought this was partially the reason. The PS2 still has much life in it. There's still one more Final Fantasy game and rumored God of War sequel that wont even be out until 2006.

The other reason is that if Sony shows works in progress people would see they are not any more impressive than the X360 stuff, and all of Sony's XBOX 1.5 hype would vanish into smoke.

In order to maintain this "more power" myth they've created they are forced not to show anything that doesn't meet the expectations they raised at E3. Eventually though, they will have to dissapoint people.

seismologist

04-Oct-2005, 01:40

blakjedi

04-Oct-2005, 01:47

No I do understand business. And I do know that more people know that PS3 is coming than know the real name of xbox2.

I do know that casuals read the internet for their gaming news and games and systems are talked about in the usa today, newsweek, msnbc and other sights. I do know that casuals know and heard that MGS 4 is "phat" and could care less about what we say at b3d.

I know that middle schoolers I mentor, some without computers at home, know what ps3 is, that they are "gonna buy it when it comes out." What that has to do ps2 sales is a mystery to me.

If I dont have the choice to buy it, it cant cut into the sales. 75% of retail for console will occur between thanksgiving and christmas 06... @ $400 a pop, there is no impulse buy there.

The hardcore will buy when they buy so ... again its bad logic...

For being "underground" Sony did a pretty terrible job... on purpose...:wink:

MechanizedDeath

04-Oct-2005, 02:27

The other reason is that if Sony shows works in progress people would see they are not any more impressive than the X360 stuff, and all of Sony's XBOX 1.5 hype would vanish into smoke.

In order to maintain this "more power" myth they've created they are forced not to show anything that doesn't meet the expectations they raised at E3. Eventually though, they will have to dissapoint people.
If the illusion is to vanish, it will vanish whether they show works in progress or not. This is specious reasoning b/c it assumes that the final product will be miraculously better than the X% complete version.

Showing a trailer of a version of the final target for the game is the same as showing it incomplete. The graphics aren't left until final, they are usually in place at some earlier point in development. Take MGS for example. The graphics are already there, and the game is far from complete. Heavenly Sword was shown as clips from gameplay, and it still had a ways to go from completion.

Showing incomplete games still didn't seem to matter this times around. Warhawk wasn't particularly impressive IMO. Vision GT uses GT4 assets ffs. For the PS2, they showed RR5 while early, TTT while early, and GT2000 was a game that used GT2 assets for the longest time. These titles alone are enough to carry the system, regardless of how they look, so I think it refutes the argument that they were afraid of some graphical parity, if there's one to be had. There's been enough shown now that's either greatly superior, or completely underwhelming that I think graphics prowess means little at this point. PEACE.

mckmas8808

04-Oct-2005, 02:34

I know that middle schoolers I mentor, some without computers at home, know what ps3 is, that they are "gonna buy it when it comes out." What that has to do ps2 sales is a mystery to me.

Read the thread blakjedi. It's been explained like 10 times. You don't show your next hand when nothing is there to sell. Why advertist something when it's not even gonna be avaivalble? I don't even think Sony knows when they will release the PS3 in each territory. All they know now is it will be released somewhere next Spring.

On the other hand they have the PS2 and PSP to push so why not spend more time on that?

bRoNx

04-Oct-2005, 11:38

I believe SONY showed the PS3 at E3 because it had to be there when X360 was shown. And it was a rush job, but it achieved what it set out to do...impress. Now, not everyone that saw those reels at E3 is on some internet forum debating it's legitimacy (real time vs. whatever!). Most people would've walked away from it thinking "Sh*t, that was f**k'n crazy!"...and BANG! Mission accomplished. They've planted the PS3 seed in people's minds. They couldn't have done this if they A) let X360 have E3 all to itself and B) showed off some wack WIP games.

Fastforward to September, TGS, 3 months out from the holiday season. They hardly showed any PS3 media...and it's understandable. Why would anyone in their right mind promote something they can't sell, and put a perfectly fine cash cow on the back-burner? Admit it, if the PS3 had playable games, it would've made it that much harder for PSP & PS2 softwares to get the media coverage they desperately need heading into the holiday season -- and unnecessarily, IMHO. Like some people have pointed out already, there's really nothing SONY can do to stop the sales of the X360 this holiday period...nothing, nada, zilc...hold on, they can always launch the PS3 in Dec...;)...I know, not gonna happen! But as I was saying, bombarding the public with PS3 media right now will do them more harm than good. Yes, the PS2 games on sale this holiday will be playable on the PS3, but that's something they can strongly promote in Feb...once everyone's done spending!

Look at it this way: X360 will not be able to keep up with demand early on. I'm pretty certain that there's gonna be a shortage of X360's during the holiday, certainly heading into early 2006 (world wide launch). This is where SONY can step in at their Feb. event, and go PS3 crazy! :cool: AND, it won't harm their bottom line, because their cash cow (read: PS2) would, by now, be much healthier having gone through the holiday season without it's successor stealing that precious "mindshare". This is when they can promote the PS3, show everything & anything in order to create a little doubt for those waiting to get a X360, or even the 'fence-sitters' who haven't quite decided on what they want yet.

Well, that's my logic anyways...I hope atleast half of it made some sense! ;)

overclocked

04-Oct-2005, 12:47

Just hopping in here to say that the ONLY games that interests me are CoD2 and to a certain degree Quake4. But those games will i play om my computer, it seems that Q4 will come in a matter of weeks.

Another discussed thing in this thread is who will buy PS2 software, actully the titles i most look forward to are 3-4 titles to the PS2. That combined with the titles i mentioned(CoD2,Q4) does this gen that im not are going to be an early adapter as last gen with all three consoles.

I dont think i will buy the PS3 at the launch either if there no new titles being shown that interests me.

ims

04-Oct-2005, 15:39

Uh, ok. *shakes head* I refuse to get into a -point-by-point semantic debate with somone who obviously has an agenda and obviously is trying his hardest to push a specific line of thinking on the rest of us.

/\ /\ Oh lord I wept with laughter when I read this. Hi pot....meet kettle :)

Thegameman

04-Oct-2005, 17:51

Correct but who says this will be the norm in the future? MS *must* shorten the life of Xbox, to compete "on an even scale" against Sony on next gen. Xbox came 18 months after, MS cannot afford to come 18 months after PS3, the same thing would happen again. Now MS has the chance to closen the gape considerably to Sony marketshare-wise..

So, Xbox lifespan was shortened so that 360 could live longer.. is that easy..

The fact that PS2 remain king has nothing to do with time frame,from the release of the xbox nov 2001 to now the PS2 has badly out sell the xbox 70 million to 22 million that is not even close.

People don't see both console equal for them the PS2 is just better,even now more people continue to buy more PS2 in US. than Xbox and Gamecube combined every month,even that the Xbox has the same price as the PS2 and comes build in with and HDD,and even that the Gamecube is cheaper,all this say very clear that people still see the PS2 as a superior gaming machine than the xbox,perception will keep the console seling,even that the xbox is more powerful people just don't care.

The only thing i can spot here, games on PS2 there are alot more than on xbox or brand loyalty,are the only 2 reasons why the xbox doesn't sell better than the PS2.

Mordecaii

04-Oct-2005, 17:56

Thegameman

04-Oct-2005, 18:05

Face it, the PS2 hardware earns Sony a good chunk of money, why would they want to overpromote the PS3 now when that could end up causing Sony to lose PS2 hardware sales?

P.S. I know this is off subject, but does anyone know if Sony is going to drop the price of the PS2 to $99 anytime soon? I'd like to pick one up if I can get it at that price since I miss playing my FF games after I sold my old PS2 to buy new computer parts. :) Also I want to be able to play FF12 the day it comes out! (Although if it comes out after PS3 or the PS3 comes out before the price drop then I'll just buy it hehe)

No only that but it could send a terrible hiden massage.

If they show alot of games playable,many of them will also be multiconsole games,they will not release for 6 or 8 month after the xbox 360 is launch,many people could end up buying a 360 just cuz multiplatform games look equal or close,or maybe it just fuel the graphic whore in many PS2 fans and buy a 360.

Having playbale games early is like saying to their user base buy a 360,insted of wait for a PS3.

randycat99

05-Oct-2005, 03:28

A "hidden massage"? That sounds awesome! :p

rabidrabbit

05-Oct-2005, 05:44

I think one reason, if not the biggest reason Sony is not showing too much of PS3 now, at the time period xbox360 hype is at it's fullest, is that there is a danger of consumers confusing the PS3 with xbox360.
I think if the average consumer is shown some next gen footage, he doesn't necessarily remember the next day if it was for the PS3 or xbox360, especially if it's not Halo, Gran Turismo, Zelda or some other title that's clearly an xbox, Playstation or Nintendo franchise.
For a company it's a big advantage to come first at hyping, to put the minds of the consumers to their product, a product from another company competing on the same field must work hard to distinquish itself, and that kind of marketing costs money and is really not very sensible to do until closer to actual launch of the product.

I have heard several times, especially as the original xbox launched, people mistaking the xbox with the PlayStation brand, asking me "What is that new PlayStation xbox like". I don't think people any more mistake them, but when there's two new products competing for the same mindshare the danger is there, no matter if the brand is already heavily recognised.

Another thing (maybe in reality the no. 1 reason) why there hasn't been publically playable PS3 games at TGS or other shows, the PS3 is simply not yet that ready.
Playable code on devkits there most certainly is, but letting people play them in public would be a very very bad idea, as that software is very likely still less than optimal, running slower and buggy. The RSX isn't ready yet, right? Then how could they show the games at an acceptable state if there is not yet fully functioning hardware.
Why show games running slow, not at their full graphical splendor if there is no real need to yet.

jvd

05-Oct-2005, 06:20

Timing is everything and people are naive to think otherwise .

Sony had a time advantage with the ps2 over the xbox . You feel it may not amount to much but it amounted to a whole lot . Sony had over a year on development time for developers to get used to the system and had a year to bring up the user base . By the time the xbox launched sony had over 10 million units shipped. If you were a developer which system would u push your game for ? 10 million users or 0 users ? This continued and at some point snowballed as the consumer saw the huge diffrence in titles released and went with the system that had the highest volume .

This time things are diffrent . Ms will have the lead. Depending on sony launching ms can have up to a year in some markets . This will allow ms to have more systems sold before sony launches world wide. This coupled with what we are hearing on the xbox 360 being easier to develop for but ps3 being slightly more powerfull and we may see many developers develop on the x360 and then port over to the ps3 . Thisis what we saw this gen . Games were developed on the ps2 and were ported to the xbox as it was more powerfull .

Now if this is good enough to steal the market for sony , well I don't think so. But i def think ms will take a large chunk of hte market , much more than they have .

It reminds me alot of sega going from the master system to the genesis . I don't see it as a saturn or dreamcast type system as both of those were launched from a company coming off a failed system or add ons and the dreamcast came at a time when sega was almost broke .

For ms the most important thing is to increase thier base in europe and north america as this is what they can do .Japan is a lost cause but i stil lsee them making small inroads . For north america and europe they need to release a slew of games . It doesn't matter if they are all trpple a (though the more the better ) But just fun games and they need to release around the same number of titles a year that the ps3 gets . There can't be any huge gaps between good games .

As for sony and not showing playable hardware at tgs . Well i think its a mistake in some ways . IF they are launching the ps3 in quarter one of 2006 then this was the last major show to um show it at . Looking back at the ps2 they had playable games before the ps2 launch the following year. So i'm thinking sony wont be launching early in 2006 , but perhaps try what ms is trying and launching in the 3 major markets .

Mordecaii

05-Oct-2005, 06:30

Edited due to not realizing how much of a difference there was in PS2 to Xbox sales in the U.S.

Basically I think it all comes down to which system has the games that a person wants to play, and if both systems have the games that someone wants then usually it will come down to which one looks better. If it's still a tie, then I think price will be the issue.

For me, I honestly couldn't care less if the only games the PS3 had on it was FF, I'd still buy it since I'm such a fan of the series, although I'd probably also buy a X360. In fact I'll probably end up buying both as it is, but due to the different franchises on the consoles the PS3 is more important in my mind for me to own. For many people, this will also be their reason for buying a certain console.

rabidrabbit

05-Oct-2005, 06:31

IF they are launching the ps3 in quarter one of 2006 then this was the last major show to um show it at . Looking back at the ps2 they had playable games before the ps2 launch the following year. So i'm thinking sony wont be launching early in 2006 , but perhaps try what ms is trying and launching in the 3 major markets .
Wouldn't they have the E3 2006 before the US and EU launches?
For Japan, the TGS was the last big show, E3 is not that big a deal for Japanese consumers anyway.
Come to think of that, does a console need a major consumer electronics show with playable games prior launch? Do they have that big an impact on consumers, or is there other ways to generate the pre launch hype and awareness?

Mordecaii

05-Oct-2005, 06:42

If Sony has their own mini "show", I can see that as being almost as good as a big trade show. When you think about it, the people that actually attend the show number in the low thousands, so it's not like everybody and their neighbor gets a chance to try out the games. If Sony invited the major journalists and got a ton of media coverage for their event, then I think it would suffice, even if it wasn't quite as good as an E3 or TGS. All I know is that everything we've heard from Sony indicates a Spring launch so until we hear from them that it's been pushed back I'm going to assume it'll launch then in one of the regions at least (of course I'm hoping NA :) ).

rabidrabbit

05-Oct-2005, 06:47

jvd

05-Oct-2005, 06:49

I disagree with you to an extent jvd when you say that timing is everything... I may be wrong, but aren't sales between PS2 and Xbox at least close to the same in the US? So in the US then, timing was not everything. And for Japan, MS never really stood a chance there, and Sony seems to have for some reason been a bigger hit in Europe than Xbox (which cannot be attributed to just time since as already pointed out, sales in the US for both systems were at least in the same ballpark). MS needs to establish themselves as a worldwide gaming company instead of mostly relying on the US and if/when they can do that, then they will start to challenge Sony.

They are not close . I think in the usa ms has sold 10-14 million systems ? THe ps2 has to be in the high 20 million mark if not higher . Sony had a huge lead in time . This lead to more developer support which meant more games , which meant a bigger installed base which meant more games , which meant a bigger installed base and so on and so forth .

I don't know who is pointing out that sales were in the same ball park . I don't see how that can be factual . If ms sold 12 million units in the usa and sony sold 12 million units in japan we can figure ms sold another 8 million world wide. Sony would have to have sold at least 78 million more world wide and we know that hte usa is 1 of the 3 biggest market (if not the biggest. ) Which figuring around the same numbers for europe and japan that would be 24m more units or 36m total . There is still 54m units missing . So i don't see why you think that .

As for ms , they are establishing themselves as a worldwide option . They launched one product late in the last generation against a very strong market leader comming off a very sucessfull product . This time they are launching first and have a strong brand name with some big games . This time people wont go whats an xbox , they will go what games are on it . Which is a huge step foward . Once again time is key as they will in some parts of the world have a whole season of sports games with next gen graphics in the market before sony comes around with those graphics which will get many sports fans .

Wouldn't they have the E3 2006 before the US and EU launches?
For Japan, the TGS was the last big show, E3 is not that big a deal for Japanese consumers anyway.
Come to think of that, does a console need a major consumer electronics show with playable games prior launch? Do they have that big an impact on consumers, or is there other ways to generate the pre launch hype and awareness?

But it will be out in japan .

See a tradeshow even when the games are playable is diffrent than a system being in the wild .

You can put mgs 4 on the show floor and even if it has warts many sites and people at the show will add in it looks great and there are still x amount of months to go (See pdz for an example of this ) However once a system launches and the game is out there is no excuse .

Also trade shows are huge for hype and do get alot of media buzz . It also assures investors and gamers that there is a product to be shown . at about 7 months from a japanese launch they didn't even have playable beta machines . Even ms at e3 had playable beta / alpha on the show floor (full auto comes to mind ) . So its unnerving for some people to see sony showing off tech demos instead of having playable code on the floor.

jvd

05-Oct-2005, 06:52

If timing is everything, and previous console launches are taken as a guideline, wouldn't the "logical speculation" (heh, that's another oxymoron like "promise of a possibility" ;) ) be "first in, first out".

Nintendo was first in , atari was first in bot hwere succesfull . Genesis was first in and was the market leader untill the 32x / saturn when nintendo kept the supernes going and took market share back .

So first isn't allways bad . Only the saturn that came off a failed 32x , an unsucessfull sega cd and its own rushed launch (to beat psone to the market) and the dreamcast which came off a failed saturn and was alunched by a broke sega failed by coming first .

rabidrabbit

05-Oct-2005, 08:44

Yep, that's my point - my post should have read previous recent console launches are taken as a guideline.
i.e. launching first is just one of the many variables affecting the ultimate success of the console.

Edit: Now that I think of it, what xbox360 games have really been playable by public? The launch is... what... a month+ ahead! PDZ at that MTV event was one (for a very limited "public"), any others?
Will there be any public events before the launch where people would be able to sample the games, or will the demo pods in stores at launch be the first where games are playable?
Why are we demanding Sony to give us playable games, if MS who is so much closer to launch has had so little publicly playable games on final hardware, or even having finalised the launch lineup?

Shifty Geezer

05-Oct-2005, 10:09

This coupled with what we are hearing on the xbox 360 being easier to develop for but ps3 being slightly more powerfull and we may see many developers develop on the x360 and then port over to the ps3 . Thisis what we saw this gen . Games were developed on the ps2 and were ported to the xbox as it was more powerfull .This is a contradiction. You're saying devs will write for XB360 because it's easier, then port to PS3, but then you say this gen games were written on the difficult PS2 and ported to the more powerful XB. :???:

london-boy

05-Oct-2005, 10:37

WELCOME BACK JVD!!
Anyway...

This coupled with what we are hearing on the xbox 360 being easier to develop for but ps3 being slightly more powerfull and we may see many developers develop on the x360 and then port over to the ps3 . Thisis what we saw this gen . Games were developed on the ps2 and were ported to the xbox as it was more powerfull .

Uhm actually they developed on PS2 because it was the market leader, and ported to the Xbox because they wanted to do some quick cash on top of their PS2 profits, not "because it was more powerful".
They will develop for X360 next year because it will be market leader (for a while at least), then port to PS3, not because it's more powerful, but because they need the cash.
If PS3 becomes the market leader, they will develop for it, then port to X360.
No "power" involvment really generally, it's all a matter of "biggest userbase".

Thegameman

05-Oct-2005, 13:30

The PS2 had more games on development before it was release than what the DC had in store by the time the PS2 hit.

The PS2 was the best seling game console from go with almost 3 million pre-order in US. alone with only half a million fill that demand.

The PS2 was 10 million strong by march 4 2001,just a year after release and it was close to 18 millions by the time the xbox hit.

The xbox 360 vs PS3 look very alike with the DC vs PS2 when one was more powerful the other was friendly to develop for,and we all remember how both console games look close on 2000 but by 2001 PS2 games like GT3 were showing who had the power advanatge.

What have been show now show just that very close games for both consoles.

The xbox din't sold like the PS2 cuz people din't want it,most games now are multiconsole and people still buy the PS2 over the xbox and gamecube in all countrys.

Now is very diferent they release first,but they give up having the most powerful console which was like the most push feature the xbox had over the PS2,which did make the user base that is now on the console.

Now there is not HDD standar which was something they flame sony for,now many xbox 360 owner will be force to buy a memory card like PS2 users did.

I think they will sell a decent number of consoles but knowing how fast sony can sell PS,i don't see them satying on top for much time,and world wide will be worst cuz US. is MS best market in UE the xbox is very weak and in Japan is dead.

Also as of now the xbox is like 14 million in US the PS2 is like 37 million not 20 like some one was saying.

london-boy

05-Oct-2005, 13:45

^^ Oh dear...

Goodbye thread.

hugo

05-Oct-2005, 13:48

Where the hell is UE?

Powderkeg

05-Oct-2005, 15:19

^^ Oh dear...

Goodbye thread.

No kidding. I'm not even going to bother touching that much flamebait piled all in one place.

mckmas8808

05-Oct-2005, 15:36

Also as of now the xbox is like 14 million in US the PS2 is like 37 million not 20 like some one was saying.

This part is true though. It's not 20 something million for the PS2.

jvd

05-Oct-2005, 17:15

This is a contradiction. You're saying devs will write for XB360 because it's easier, then port to PS3, but then you say this gen games were written on the difficult PS2 and ported to the more powerful XB. :???:

No its not , the developers of the ps2 had a 18month gap in which to learn the ps2 over the xbox . The ps2 also had the larger installed base . This time ms has 3 advantages , the time period , ease of programing (realitive) and of course the installed base .

i.e. launching first is just one of the many variables affecting the ultimate success of the console.

Edit: Now that I think of it, what xbox360 games have really been playable by public? The launch is... what... a month+ ahead! PDZ at that MTV event was one (for a very limited "public"), any others?
Will there be any public events before the launch where people would be able to sample the games, or will the demo pods in stores at launch be the first where games are playable?
Why are we demanding Sony to give us playable games, if MS who is so much closer to launch has had so little publicly playable games on final hardware, or even having finalised the launch lineup?

Actually if we look at recent history we will see that coming after the market leader is a bad thing to do also . Sega who was in the market with the dreamcast for 2 years roughly sold a good 12 million worldwide which is only 8 million less than nintendo and ms who had 2 more years over them in terms of sales . If the dreamcast was launched by a company with money and was allowed to live a full life it could have easly outsold what the cube and xbox sold .

Ms has had playable public games on the show floor at e3 . At x05 they have a slew of playable games also . But the fact remands that ms at 7-8 months before launch had playable gamecode on the show floor . Sony at the same time frame (if its indeed a qtr1 launch) does not . Do you not remember the ps2 launch games in japan ?

The stupidity in thinking that sony will win when history has shown that the market leader can loose large amounts of hte market in 1 system generation just flabergasts me . We saw nintendo loose half the market to the genesis when we all thought it would be impossible as sega had less than 5% of the market with the master system . We then saw sony come in and take 70% of the market from 2 strong players (sega and nitnendo) in one generation .

So its not like this hasn't happened before . All it takes is good moves by ms . And its not just moves at launch but all through out the life of the console

Black Dragon37

05-Oct-2005, 17:23

I already did: The Osborne Effect (ps. I'm sure you can google it). This is supported by Phil Harrison's comments concerning how PlayStation3 would go "underground" after E3, the data fits. This isn't that difficult, well for you it is as you need to both attack the article as "rubbish" and make up some logical system of why it's BS. But, for the rest of us it approximated the general situation quite well.It wasn't Phil Harrison. It was David Reeves, CEO of SCEE.

mckmas8808

05-Oct-2005, 19:16

Actually if we look at recent history we will see that coming after the market leader is a bad thing to do also . Sega who was in the market with the dreamcast for 2 years roughly sold a good 12 million worldwide which is only 8 million less than nintendo and ms who had 2 more years over them in terms of sales . If the dreamcast was launched by a company with money and was allowed to live a full life it could have easly outsold what the cube and xbox sold .

Doesn't that speak more on the disappointment of the Gamecube than greatness of the Dreamcast though? It's Nintendo you should be blaming more for poor sales. The Xbox I can understand. I mean it was MS's first shot at the game consoles. Nintendo should be ashamed of what they have done as far as market share is concerned.

PS: I thought the PS2 had a 12 month lead on the Xbox not a 18 month lead? *scratches head*

EpicZero

05-Oct-2005, 20:38

PS: I thought the PS2 had a 12 month lead on the Xbox not a 18 month lead? *scratches head*
March 4 2000 - November 15 (I think) 2001.

Powderkeg

05-Oct-2005, 21:14

March 4 2000 - November 15 (I think) 2001.

That would be correct.

Powderkeg

05-Oct-2005, 21:17

Actually if we look at recent history we will see that coming after the market leader is a bad thing to do also . Sega who was in the market with the dreamcast for 2 years roughly sold a good 12 million worldwide which is only 8 million less than nintendo and ms who had 2 more years over them in terms of sales . If the dreamcast was launched by a company with money and was allowed to live a full life it could have easly outsold what the cube and xbox sold .

You just contridicted your own claim.

You say if Sega, who launched first, had stayed in the market, they would have outsold both the xbox and GCN and been #2 in the market, and that would have been a bad thing?

doob

05-Oct-2005, 21:38

If you people (and "analysts") think that Sony is doing that (apparently not presenting playable demos) as a industry/business move to try and not hurt the cash flow of PS2/PSP hardware/software ... think again because micrososft and its new hardware + software titles will for sure. And if sony does what that report tells even better for microsoft!

Sony would do allot better by showing off that it will deliver what it is saying/showing.

Gholbine

05-Oct-2005, 23:56

mckmas8808

06-Oct-2005, 00:30

Sony would do allot better by showing off that it will deliver what it is saying/showing.

And then sell what this holiday season? What will they sell? So they should cut the advervising cost to show the PSP's games and PS2 games to show games for a system that's not coming out for another 6 months at the earliest.

doob

06-Oct-2005, 12:24

And then sell what this holiday season? What will they sell? So they should cut the advervising cost to show the PSP's games and PS2 games to show games for a system that's not coming out for another 6 months at the earliest.

To convince the market and end consumer to think "Hey we DO have a better system comming out! Are you sure you want to waist your money on a Xb360 and not wait a few more months?"

Imo microsoft has a nice step ahead of sony and it will gain allot of market share this round (this Christmas). Or what do you think kids/teenagers will be asking for? a PS2 or a Xbox? or a Xbox360 and a game for its new console?

london-boy

06-Oct-2005, 12:35

Uhm actually, looking at history, shortages will surely affect MS (especially with a worldwide launch in the space of a couple of weeks), and current-gen consoles will most probably outsell the X360 this christmas, just like PS1 outsold ALL of the new consoles put together (ps2, DC and N64) in the year PS2 came out.
There won't be too many X360 out "to pick up" before Xmas.

Phil

06-Oct-2005, 12:58

March 4 2000 - November 15 (I think) 2001.

That's correct, but take in account that PS2 launched 7 Months in advance in Japan only. If we keep this strictly on the NA market / region, it's a 13 months difference (PS2 October 2000 launch in NA vs a Xbox November 2001 launch).

Shifty Geezer

06-Oct-2005, 13:23

Imo microsoft has a nice step ahead of sony and it will gain allot of market share this round (this Christmas). Or what do you think kids/teenagers will be asking for? a PS2 or a Xbox? or a Xbox360 and a game for its new console?It's more a question of what'll kids/teenagers be getting, not what are they asking for. Even if 10 million want an XB360, there won't be that many available. MS will gain, at best, 3-5 million units by my guessing before Sony get passed Christmas and start there PS3 promotional strategising. But either way that's irrelvant. A system on view in shops has a trillion times more advertising power then playable games at a gaming convention which 90% of the gaming populace will never even hear about.

Thegameman

06-Oct-2005, 13:59

No kidding. I'm not even going to bother touching that much flamebait piled all in one place.

Escuse me it was not flame bait.

Those are facts and i have never flame any one here.

I say it cuz some people here are saying things which are way off,in fact the comment about the Xbox losing cuz the PS2 release first is completely pull out of MS PR section.

What i say is a fact were ever some one may like it or not.

How i'm flaming when the PS2 did out sold the xbox bad,how i'm flaming when the most push advatage of the xbox have been graphics and HDD,by MS own people.

I have site save with comment from MS people on the xbox graphics power that would blow you mind off,they hype the xbox power to the extreme.

How i'm flaming when the PS2 did sold 10 million units the first year of release.

How i'm flaming when the PS2 did had like 18 million consoles world wide by the time the xbox hit..

People get mad and acuse other of doing things,when info they don't like is posted sorry but saying MS loose cuz Sony release first is out of this world,the PS2 still outsold to this day the xbox,people don't seeit equal no matter what you people like to think i just point the fact,cuz many people here are way off.

And yes i'm new here but i long year falowing games and yes i do have all consoles and had enjoy them all.

Powderkeg

06-Oct-2005, 14:10

Escuse me it was not flame bait.

Those are facts and i have never flame any one here.

Your personal opinion is not a fact. I would love to see you actually back up your claims line by line with indesputible proof that they are factual. I only count 2 that you could actually prove true.

london-boy

06-Oct-2005, 14:11

Escuse me it was not flame bait.
No? Was it a suicide napalm post then?

Those are facts and i have never flame any one here.

SIR YES SIR YOUR WORD IS TRUTH.

I say it cuz some people here are saying things which are way off,in fact the comment about the Xbox losing cuz the PS2 release first is completely pull out of MS PR section.

YES everyone here apart from you don't know what they're talking about. It's clear from your posts.

What i say is a fact were ever some one may like it or not.

SIR YES SIR!

How i'm flaming when the PS2 did out sold the xbox bad,how i'm flaming when the most push advatage of the xbox have been graphics and HDD,by MS own people.

Mmmkay... Ps2 outsold Xbox... True true. What's a push advantage? Is it naughty?

I have site save with comment from MS people on the xbox graphics power that would blow you mind off,they hype the xbox power to the extreme.

Mmmkay, MS PR people doing their job.... True true. I mean i could show you 2 articles from a friend in Scandinavia, they're exclusive interviews with top Sony execs telling him that PS3 is actually LESS powerful than X360! He's a reliable source too, posts here sometimes...

:wink:

How i'm flaming when the PS2 did sold 10 million units the first year of release.

Yes.

How i'm flaming when the PS2 did had like 18 million consoles world wide by the time the xbox hit..

82

People get mad and acuse other of doing things,when info they don't like is posted sorry but saying MS loose cuz Sony release first is out of this world,the PS2 still outsold to this day the xbox,people don't seeit equal no matter what you people like to think i just point the fact,cuz many people here are way off.
:shock:
*goes back to the top*

*ONE MORE TIME!*

And yes i'm new here but i long year falowing games and yes i do all all consoles and had enjoy them all.

Thank you.

EDIT: SORRY COULDN'T HELP IT I KNOW THEY NEED TO BE IGNORED BUT THIS WAS JUST THERE AND EASY TO PICK ON! :oops:

hey69

06-Oct-2005, 14:32

you are too evil on him
make love not war

Thegameman

06-Oct-2005, 16:45

Your personal opinion is not a fact. I would love to see you actually back up your claims line by line with indesputible proof that they are factual. I only count 2 that you could actually prove true.

So in other words you want some link to were Sony did all this i say?

Sony launched its popular PlayStation 2 almost 2 years ago, and the device has sold more than 30 million units worldwide, the company says. Since its launch, the PlayStation 2 has sold for $300 in the United States, the same price that Microsoft has asked for the Xbox; Nintendo's GameCube, which features lower-end technology than its rivals, has always cost $200.

Compared to Sony's soaring success, consumer acceptance of the Microsoft and Nintendo boxes has been somewhat muted. Microsoft has sold more than 1.5 million Xboxes since the devices became available late last year, and the company says it's on track to sell more than 3.5 million units by midyear. Nintendo's GameCube has sold about 4 million units so far. Sony sold more than 10 million PlayStation 2 units in its first year of availability and would have sold more had the company been able to meet demand. Since then, Sony has increased capacity to meet the demand.

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/25194/25194.html?Ad=1

2 bird with one stone this arcticle was write on May 2002 by that time the xbox din't have a year on the market and the PS2 was already at 30+.

Gates noted that the last time around [when the PlayStation 2 was released ahead of the Xbox], Microsoft was beaten to the punch and said overall sales suffered as a result.

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-15016-2377-4-4-x

MS has say many times that they loss cuz of the PS2 release first,is the reason why they are releasing firt now.

Sony revealed that it has shipped 91.62 million PS2 units worldwide as of July 20. Of those, 37 million were in North America, 21.41 were in Japan and Asia, and 33.21 were in Europe. PS2 software has shipped a cumulative 863 million during the same period: 395 million in America, 176 million in Japan, including Asia, and 292 million in Europe.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/rpg/roguegalaxy/news_6129647.html

More than three times the graphics performance of the newest-generation game consoles will be offered. Co-developed with experts at NVIDIA, the custom-designed graphics chip will deliver more than 200 million polygons per second.

Rich, fast-action and realistic experiences will be enabled by the Xbox hard drive.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2000/mar00/XboxPR1.mspx

Is not my opinion as you can see those are facts,they hype the power and HDD from the star.

Jan-05

PS2 490,002
xbox 242,375
Gamecube 112,327

Feb-05

PS2 537,904
xbox 213,042
Gamecube 114,411

http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=42588&page=1&pp=50

March
PS2 - 495,000
Xbox - 227,000
Gamecube - 94,000

http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=42588&page=11&pp=50

Is the same up until now if you search you find it easy,it was not my opinion this are hard facts,of what has happen and what is going on now.

So please stop acusing me of flaming those things i say are facts not my opinion.