[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by one

You don't mention Ratchet & Clank PS3 which is already showing your selective point of view.

I don't mention RC as I'm not a believer in platformers moving high priced hardware.

The other titles you mentioned would be coming anyway along with RC.

None of this goes against the idea of putting a well known and respected title like GoW2 on ps3 INSTEAD of ps2.

[Carl B]

Originally Posted by TheChefO

I think I'm misunderstood here.

I don't mean "the games suck!" and "the sdk sucks!". I mean they aren't good enough to overcome the systems other liabilities in the context of the systems current market situation.

No I get you, and I didn't mean to say that these weren't a factor at all, just that I feel they are factros out of Sony's control. They did all that could be reasonably expected of them on this front; I definitely give them a 'pass' on a pass/fail system.

If they put their full dev effort behind ps3 in 2004 and signed a few key exclusives, they may have got away with the price, timing, BD, etc. as they would currently be releasing a flood of killer software.

Well, but for what it is that time will be next year instead... similar in time horizon from launch to Halo 3. And whether it's a good position for them to be in or not, I think most all of us regardless of our disparate views have already resigned ourselves to 2008 being the year where either PS3 picks it up... or it doesn't. The titles it lacks this year, it will have next year though.

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by Nesh

Why do that when PS2 was very alive and kicking?

Priorities.

They'd still be making money on 3rd party sw and ps hw.

Now, they're losing money on ps3 hw, not making much on ps3 sw and not making much on 3rd party royalties either... and ps2 isn't doing much for em nowadays too.

Add the fact that if they took such an aggressive stance on ps3, xb360 would not be doing as well as it is which would be even more money in their pocket now and in the future.


btw - I'm speaking strictly sw here.

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by Carl B

No I get you, and I didn't mean to say that these weren't a factor at all, just that I feel they are factros out of Sony's control. They did all that could be reasonably expected of them on this front; I definitely give them a 'pass' on a pass/fail system.

In the sense of "did they have decent sw"? yes, I agree they pass, but it is an obvious fail as it wasn't good enough to make up for their other negative factors such as price, timing, etc. I think if they were smarter about their dev sw selection and execution, they could have pulled it off.

The titles it lacks this year, it will have next year though.

Indeed. Imagine if it would have had these 2008 titles this year ... or better yet, last year.

[one]

Originally Posted by scooby_dooby

Look at PS2's lineup at the same timeframe. And all arguments about PS2's strong install base now, could've been made avout PS1 in 2000/2001.

In 2001 Sony PS2 had the following blockbuster titles:
1. GTA 3
2. Metal Gear Solid 2
3. Grand Turismo 3
4. FFX
5. Devil May Cry
6. Tony Hawk 3
7. Jak & Daxter
8. Twisted Metal: Black

No one denies the more the better. However, PS2 was released for $299 and the install base grew according to that price. PS3 was $599. Then again, GTA4, MGS4, GT5P and DMC4 will come approx. 1 year after the launch of PS3 though they slipped this Christmas. It's interesting especially for third-party games that are conscious about their profit on the install base. I suspect the delay of GTA4 was due to the small install base of PS3 at that time.

[Acert93]

Originally Posted by scooby_dooby

In 2001 Sony PS2 had the following blockbuster titles:
1. GTA 3
2. Metal Gear Solid 2
3. Grand Turismo 3
4. FFX
5. Devil May Cry
6. Tony Hawk 3
7. Jak & Daxter
8. Twisted Metal: Black

And an amazing lineup it was--with 2 of the 3 (and 3 of 4 if you count Madden) best selling franchises last gen all appearing within the first year. And FFX and MGS are also amazingly great selling franchises (probably both in the top 10 last gen). The PS2 was all about the games, both hardcore and casual, American and Japanese. It really was the one-size-fits-all console in almost every way. FPS and online, both of which it did too, were the only areas you really could find it lagging much. And it supported the new movie standard that had mass appeal and had a good market price. Complete market domination followed.

[Acert93]

Originally Posted by one

Then again, GTA4, MGS4, GT5P and DMC4 will come approx. 1 year after the launch of PS3 though they slipped this Christmas.

Approximately...

Which is a huge issue with the PS3. Sony's priorities weren't well invested into the PS3 until later instead of sooner and it has shown. It is a big issue that for Holiday #2 Sony is missing those titles.

It is more troublesome when your competitor has already been out a year longer and is in Holiday #3 and has a distinct software edge.

[TheChefO]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Nesh

Hmm? I wouldn't go as far as to say "poor dev tools".

Relatively speaking. But yes, I agree they have done a lot recently to fix the situation.

Sony has nothing to do with the release of few games...

Sony internal studios are 2-3 times bigger than N or MS. They should have been the ones to put ps3 on their back and say "this is how it's done guys!"

Example. If KZ2 were released THIS year, they would be sitting pretty. One title.

Additionally I see nothing wrong with proprietary media if it contributes positively

Me neither. Problem is it isn't contributing positively. The associated price has kept ps3 away from consumers and thus away from devs.

Also I doubt there is a company in existence that wouldnt have exploited their position if they were alone.

That's the problem, they thought they were alone when they weren't. They may win the movie format war (doubtful at this point) but even if so, they still killed their dominance in the games realm in order to do so.

Lastly it is not like Sony was selling PS3 at a profit. They were selling it at their expense. Even at that price

no doubt, but it doesn't mean they were the only ones to do so or that they didn't have dreams of owning the HD movie format and all the profits that come with it.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by TrungGap

Eh, you're talking about MS and Windows here... DirectX on a PC vs Sony with experience on Nintendo's console, PS1 and PS2. Who would know more about minimalist OS? Definitely not MS. Who should feel more at home? It think it's obvious...but it didn't turned out that way.

To my understanding, the PC shader approach provides more structure, tools and foundation to 3D development than traditional console approaches. They have to deal with the API overhead though and more optimization.

The Windows kernel runs well in mobile phones and PDAs too. Furthermore, the game console specs have also increased significantly this gen. So MS's expertise has proved invaluable thus far (MS engineers said so ).

Now with a well-tested preemptive OS foundation, mature toolchain, familiar SDK, assorted Windows software IP (even Javascript was used in the HD-DVD layer), a large and self sustaining development staff, plus developer support methodology and experiences. MS definitely has the advantage. On top of that, add economy of scale and operational experiences for the MSN network.

Again, they don't have to deal with the Cell architecture. It's an area where everyone including the research labs are learning.

I think we both in agreement that Sony's software left the hardware team hanging. So marketing did what it can with the cards it dealt with. Unfortunately, I think marketing instead of making the proper alignment, such as asking the hardware team to adjust the hardware initially, told world that they're should be happy to work overtime to get a PS3.

Except that... that was not marketing but an executive mis-spoke.

Marketing should have realized that $600 console without software isn't going to sell like hotcakes, and push back on the hardware.

The marketing folks are probably busy testing bits and pieces of the next revision. We have heard a few rambling, but no one outside Sony seems to know yet.

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by Joshua Luna

Approximately...

Which is a huge issue with the PS3. Sony's priorities weren't well invested into the PS3 until later instead of sooner and it has shown. It is a big issue that for Holiday #2 Sony is missing those titles.

It is more troublesome when your competitor has already been out a year longer and is in Holiday #3 and has a distinct software edge.

Exactly.

At a time when they should have been even more heavily investing in ps3 due to an early and aggressive MS, they were riding the gravy train of ps2. Were they incompetent or "overconfident"?

[RobertR1]

Originally Posted by one

Do you believe if Wii bombed, suddenly there would been more people who buy a $599 console?

Absolutely, the market attention shift would now be on the PS3. Consumer buzz is important to sales.

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by TrungGap

I'm sure Sony execs don't have that luxury knowing that software won't be there. Or that it won't be there even after launch window...

Indeed.

Software is a big variable especially on new and radical HW (cell). That's why it's SMART to give them enough time to ensure they will have quality games ready at launch and the first year... not sitting back, milking ps2 profits.

[woundingchaney]

Originally Posted by TheChefO

Exactly.

At a time when they should have been even more heavily investing in ps3 due to an early and aggressive MS, they were riding the gravy train of ps2. Were they incompetent or "overconfident"?

I think the correct term would be unprepared. I doubt Sony didnt realize the situation they were in (to some extent at least) and I wouldnt consider Sony to be "incompetent" particularly with their direction of first party relations. I primarily believe it to be a "grin and bear it" scenario.

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by woundingchaney

I think the correct term would be unprepared...

Ok, but who's job is it to prepare their internal studios to produce ps3 games?

This isn't a 3rd party dev that wasn't given the proper tools from the hw maker...

They chose to stick with ps2 as a priority when they should have been getting them prepared to release launch titles and 1st year titles as they were already going to be late compared to their competition.

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by RobertR1

Consumer buzz is important to sales.

Exactly.

That's why I think GoW2 would have been great for ps3.

[patsu]

The Sony execs has the responsibility to make money for the shareholders. While I can empathize with people who want GoW on PS3 asap, I think the execs' also need to allocate minimal/sufficient resources to keep the money going.

It is not clear if they can do a mind-blowing job for GoW2 on PS3 yet. As I understand, Wipeout had to drop a few features to make the timeline. GoW2 may suffer similar fate.

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by patsu

I think the execs' also need to allocate minimal/sufficient resources to keep the money going...

They've lost how much on ps3 already? I really don't think missing this one title on ps2 would kill them. Plus they would have eventually made significant profit on the ps3 version (potentially more).

[one]

Originally Posted by RobertR1

Absolutely, the market attention shift would now be on the PS3. Consumer buzz is important to sales.

Don't you realize Wii and PS3 are in totally different ranges of price elasticity? The attention you are talking about would shift to more appropriate substitutional goods such as PS2, PSP, and Xbox 360.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by TheChefO

They've lost how much on ps3 already? I really don't think missing this one title on ps2 would kill them. Plus they would have eventually made significant profit on the ps3 version (potentially more).

Doesn't mean you can forget about profitability. P&L pressure is no joke. Like I said, it's hard for outsiders to see. And yes, hindsight is 20/20, so we always get to b*tch.


I am hoping these few threads get surfaced to Sony internal folks. Not sure what kind of effect it will have (Probably none since this is very busy period ).

Hey Sony, I saw Warhawk v1.2 patch coming, which is great (I am really impressed !). But are you still afraid of wasting marketing $$$ like the "This is living" campaign when timeline get shifted ? Are things firming up yet ? How about some sign...

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by patsu

And yes, hindsight is 20/20, so we always get to b*tch.

For some, it's hindsight.

To be fair, I had no idea Sony would be this light on the SW front by this point. I did however caution that ps3 would have significant issues trying to sell a $600 system with xb360 sitting next to it.

[dubyateeeff]

I think their mistake was in the hardware. It was quite apparent that the delays were due their unique hardware, most likely the BR-diods.

But the first mistake is Cell. I think it is extremely unnecessary for a company like Sony to invest so much money in a CPU where the positives doesn't outweigh the negatives significantly. Different hardware architecture, different programming methodologies. I don't think Cell2 for PS4 will happen, and so we waisted a lot of time churning out new tools and learning new methodologies. And this will also result in a BC-problem for PS4.

I've would've stuck a 'standard' AMD/Intel/IBM processor inside it and be done with it. It is not in the hardware but in the software and services where Sony's expertise is.

Hopefully they will stick with innovating hardware that will add value like the Wii mote, DS, BR (although it was to early for PS3) and not waist their time developing with things they can't compete with (CPU, GPU).

[scooby_dooby]

Originally Posted by TheChefO

For some, it's hindsight.

To be fair, I had no idea Sony would be this light on the SW front by this point. I did however caution that ps3 would have significant issues trying to sell a $600 system with xb360 sitting next to it.

Well those views were echoed pretty loudly throughout the industry the day Sony unvieled it's pricepoint. Until then it was widely anticipated they would launch at somewhere between $400-500. When they announced the $600 price, alot of people were shocked.

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by dubyateeeff

I think their mistake was in the hardware. It was quite apparent that the delays were due their unique hardware, most likely the BR-diods.

But the first mistake is Cell. I think it is extremely unnecessary for a company like Sony to invest so much money in a CPU where the positives doesn't outweigh the negatives significantly. Different hardware architecture, different programming methodologies. I don't think Cell2 for PS4 will happen, and so we waisted a lot of time churning out new tools and learning new methodologies. And this will also result in a BC-problem for PS4.

I've would've stuck a 'standard' AMD/Intel/IBM processor inside it and be done with it. It is not in the hardware but in the software and services where Sony's expertise is.

Hopefully they will stick with innovating hardware that will add value like the Wii mote, DS, BR (although it was to early for PS3) and not waist their time developing with things they can't compete with (CPU, GPU).

I'm not sure, but I think this might be the most disagreeable post I've ever seen here.

I think cell is THE strength of ps3 and will be the heart of ps4. In fact, by that gen, the cell should really start to establish itself over the competition. Sony did a great job with Cell and the architecture is very easy to scale for generations to come. The only thing they screwed up with HW wise is BR.

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by scooby_dooby

Well those views were echoed pretty loudly throughout the industry the day Sony unvieled it's pricepoint...

Indeed, but the thought that ps3 would have issues selling at $600 wasn't taken too kindly around some places.

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by patsu

I am hoping these few threads get surfaced to Sony internal folks. Not sure what kind of effect it will have...

I think Sony has already got the massage loud n' clear. Hopefully, they don't repeat the same mistakes twice.