CELL will be there in PS3!
- Thread starter Deepak
- Start date
I dont think Developers will run to XB2 and GC2 even if they were to be launched 2 years before PS3.....PS3 is the current market leader by a very wide margin....they are going to set the rules....by that time (2005) around 70-80 million PS2 will be sold, now that a hell of a market....presuming that PS3 will be launched in 2007 (wild guess!), I am sure developer would want to stick with 80 million BIG market than new next gen consoles (XB2/GC2)...infact even after PS3 is launched, developers will continue to support PS2....
Deepak said:
I'm not saying they'll completely jump ship. However the major players will want to start development on the new systems ASAP just to get a head start on other developers. If MS and N release their consoles before PS3, all the media and publicity will be on those consoles especially when they show off the games that blow away the dated PS2 games. PS2 will be old hat by then and consumers will be moving towards the new systems. Even if the userbase is still there the number of games being bought for PS2 will go down just like PSX. If somebody wants to play the next Halo they'll have to get an Xbox2. They're not going to wait for a PS3 and they won't be able to play it on a PS2.
That's true for new releases - which explains why publishers were quickly loosing interest in PSX games. However I suspect that was in large part due to also having a successor to the system out, not just other competing systems.
Incidentially though, PSOne still managed to sell over 20mil since it was released, so it didn't loose appeal quite as fast as some might think. (at this rate it'll be quite a while yet before the other two newer consoles catch up to it
).If PSTwo is anywhere near as cute, new systems will have a tough time competing...
PC-Engine said:
Why no of PSX games went down was becse the succesor was another PLAYSTATION.....!
I still dont believe that XB2/GC2 will be launched before PS3....I mean no indications...no rumours....no partnership deals...nothing....atleast SONY/T are building a new fab...but MS/N, they have nothing to prove that they are anywhere near next gen...!
Gr8...double century for me....200 posts! LARA's test record is my target!
Developers weren't going multiplatform back then like they are now and going forward. Next generation the only exclusives will mostly be 1st party. Developers won't be waiting for PS3 to make a multiplatform title. They'll be starting with the console(s) that are released first then port to PS3. Consumers will be buying Xbox2 and GCN2 in large numbers even if they're released before PS3. The launch games will be to irresistable. This is assuming PS3 will be released after the other two. Even if we assume the PS3 to be backwards compatible with PS2, it still wouldn't change much if Xbox2 and GCN2 has the games consumers want especially since the trend is going multiplatform.
jvd:
I believe bias isn't really dependend to what I was saying...
PC-Engine:
Yeah, I wonder how many though. At the moment, the odds are more for Sony than for Nintendo and Microsoft combined.
*thinks of current userbase and imagines how it will look in 2005*
Actually, most important developers I can think of aren't really "multiplatform": SquareEnix, Konami, Namco and others come to mind. of course, they might be doing ports, but take a close look at the teams doing the ports. Also, when they launch. I doubt those devs would just bring their best games that sold millions on a PlayStation console without a second thought to a different MS or Nintendo console.
Heh, that's actually quite funny considering that the almost 8 year console PSX enjoyed a few months outselling Xbox in Japan. And Xbox was out, had the games, the publicity and the incredible graphics going for it. And despite the success of Halo, it doesn't quite reach the status of a Final Fantasy, GTA or even Gran Turismo game just yet.
jvd said:
I believe bias isn't really dependend to what I was saying...
PC-Engine:
Pc-Engine said:
Yeah, I wonder how many though. At the moment, the odds are more for Sony than for Nintendo and Microsoft combined.
*thinks of current userbase and imagines how it will look in 2005*
Actually, most important developers I can think of aren't really "multiplatform": SquareEnix, Konami, Namco and others come to mind. of course, they might be doing ports, but take a close look at the teams doing the ports. Also, when they launch. I doubt those devs would just bring their best games that sold millions on a PlayStation console without a second thought to a different MS or Nintendo console.
Heh, that's actually quite funny considering that the almost 8 year console PSX enjoyed a few months outselling Xbox in Japan. And Xbox was out, had the games, the publicity and the incredible graphics going for it. And despite the success of Halo, it doesn't quite reach the status of a Final Fantasy, GTA or even Gran Turismo game just yet.
It doesn't matter if Xbox2 and GCN2 doesn't sell as much as PS3, it doesn't have to.
As long as it sells well enough for developers to make games for it then that's all that matters. Does the fact that PS2 is outselling Xbox and GCN combined force developers to not make games for those two consoles? Nope.It'll look a lot different. No headstart for PS3 and developers going multiplatform
Excuse me? Konami and Namco are already going multiplatform. Don't be delusional. Xbox got SH and MGS. GCN is getting MGS. Both got SCII. There's a trend and it isn't going to change unless somebody comes up with a lot of money.
Doesn't matter if it's outselling or not read above. Regarding Halo, it was a brand new franchise that will only get better with regards to sales don't kid yourself. Outselling a console isn't going to change 3rd party support in the next generation just like it isn't having any affect on Xbox or GCN right now. Look at all the new high profile 3rd party titles that's currently available. Guess what? They're multiplatform.
If PS3 is really hard to work for, developers might want to consider spending resource time on it.
Playstation name might be hot now, but it doesnt ensure smooth victory next gen, especially now that MS/Nintendo are more aggressive with their next console. No additional time for Sony to dwindle on devkits or middleware to help 3rd parties, no time for Sony to rake up sales against a financially and reputationally struggling competitor like Sega.
Playstation name might be hot now, but it doesnt ensure smooth victory next gen, especially now that MS/Nintendo are more aggressive with their next console. No additional time for Sony to dwindle on devkits or middleware to help 3rd parties, no time for Sony to rake up sales against a financially and reputationally struggling competitor like Sega.
chaphack said:
yeah because that really hurt them this generation didn't it
get over it, the Playstation brand name and market share is too HUGE for developers to just switch development to other platforms....
the fact that xbox and GC are MUCH easier to develop for didn't mean anything, PS2 is still the market leader BY A LONG MARGIN. the only way Microsoft secured exclusives was by BUYING the flipping studios.....
hell, look at Nintendo. they are only surviving thanks to brand recognition. and they will only release a next gen machine thanks to brand recognition, not thanks to the NON-huge success of the GC...
(Microsoft will release a next gen machine only because they have the money to do so...)
by the time PS3 comes out, most developers will still be making games for the market leader, which happens to be PS2...
A good headstart against Nintendo/MS had something to do, right? Something to note, next gen development costs will rise, very much rise. If PS3 is really "crazy-hardware" again, it will not help development houses....
The PS3 initial sales should be good, a few branded titles will be announced, but will they keep their momentum? Can the PS3 pull far and away early? How will early/similarly launched Xbox2/GC2 fair? If they keep up with PS3, then there is a good chance of software houses doing a switcharoo, if development costs are cheaper. PS2 landside victory will now be long forgotten, sales counter is reset to zero, everything starts all over again.
I think people should stop automatically assume that PS3 will crush their rivals all over again. Tell that to Sega or Nintendo....a few bad decisions and delays, goneth are their market share...
I mean, if Sony plays their cards right then yeah, good possibility for another grand canyon victory but it will be by no means a walk in the park for them. Any little fubar counts.
For all the good people of B3D, im going to give my godly predictions here..."Unlike today, Sony lead will not be as huge next generation. Will they still remain as leader? Who knows... but surely no more Grand Canyon like victory next time"
And the chap has spoken!
chaphack said:A good headstart against Nintendo/MS had something to do, right? Something to note, next gen development costs will rise, very much rise. If PS3 is really "crazy-hardware" again, it will not help development houses....
The PS3 initial sales should be good, a few branded titles will be announced, but will they keep their momentum? Can the PS3 pull far and away early? How will early/similarly launched Xbox2/GC2 fair? If they keep up with PS3, then there is a good chance of software houses doing a switcharoo, if development costs are cheaper. PS2 landside victory will now be long forgotten, sales counter is reset to zero, everything starts all over again.
I think people should stop automatically assume that PS3 will crush their rivals all over again. Tell that to Sega or Nintendo....a few bad decisions and delays, goneth are their market share...
I mean, if Sony plays their cards right then yeah, good possibility for another grand canyon victory but it will be by no means a walk in the park for them. Any little fubar counts.
For all the good people of B3D, im going to give my godly predictions here..."Unlike today, Sony lead will not be as huge next generation. Will they still remain as leader? Who knows... but surely no more Grand Canyon like victory next time"
And the chap has spoken!
CHAP, ignoring for the moment the chap-chronicles style of your posts, there is not IF in *IF PS3 will be a crazy architecture*....
PS3 WILL be a crazy architecture, and by CRAZY i mean *different from the usual PC setup* a bit like ps2...
all Sony has to do is provide developers with decent tools and libraries so that the don't have to fight with the crazy architecture... with good tools and libraries who cares if the architecture is crazy or not.,....
PC-Engine:
Then what exactly are your argueing? This all started by jvd making a point that if PS3 launches later (i.e. 2007) that they will have a huge disadvantage. I disagreed with that, given the mindshare Sony has that will make it a minor disadvantage. As said, I don't think Sony can do much wrong if they want to stay on top, even if they launch later. This was never about if GCN2 or Xbox2 are going to fail - please read the posts above.
I put multiplatform in "brackets" for a reason. True multiplatform to me is a game like TimeSplitters2 which was developed and launched on all platforms simultaneously. Konami, with Silent Hill, ZOE and Metal Gear Solid are not considered multi-platform games. They are being/were developed for one console only, with the option to cash in some more on additional portings. Those ports are not a given though. Similar to Konami, Namco's big games are also developed for the one console AFAIK. Ace Combat did not launch on any other consoles, neither did any Tekken game. Soul Calibur is an exception though. The big franchise are not "multi-console" though. Who's the one delusional here?
Multiplatform games are more dependend on sales and the available resources to make those ports.
I wonder what you mean byhigh profile 3rd party games - the list I'm looking at doesn't exactly suggest what you are saying:
With the exception of sport titles which are multiplatform, the big sellers this generation are exclusive games or games that are not considered multiplatform: Grand Theft Auto: Vice, Grand Theft Auto 3, Metal Gear Solid 2, Tony Hawks Pro Skater 3, Final Fantasy X and some others. Other "big" games that also sold more than well are Devil May Cry, Silent Hill 2. I'm too lazy to look up more, but I'm also sure that Tekken TAG/4, Dead or Alive 3, Ace Combat, Virtua Fighter, Final fantasy X-2 sold more than enough which are also exclusives or not multiconsole considered games. True, there are many multiplatform games which did sell well, but they aren't in the majority as you suggest.
Then what exactly are your argueing? This all started by jvd making a point that if PS3 launches later (i.e. 2007) that they will have a huge disadvantage. I disagreed with that, given the mindshare Sony has that will make it a minor disadvantage. As said, I don't think Sony can do much wrong if they want to stay on top, even if they launch later. This was never about if GCN2 or Xbox2 are going to fail - please read the posts above.
I put multiplatform in "brackets" for a reason. True multiplatform to me is a game like TimeSplitters2 which was developed and launched on all platforms simultaneously. Konami, with Silent Hill, ZOE and Metal Gear Solid are not considered multi-platform games. They are being/were developed for one console only, with the option to cash in some more on additional portings. Those ports are not a given though. Similar to Konami, Namco's big games are also developed for the one console AFAIK. Ace Combat did not launch on any other consoles, neither did any Tekken game. Soul Calibur is an exception though. The big franchise are not "multi-console" though. Who's the one delusional here?
Multiplatform games are more dependend on sales and the available resources to make those ports.
I wonder what you mean byhigh profile 3rd party games - the list I'm looking at doesn't exactly suggest what you are saying:
With the exception of sport titles which are multiplatform, the big sellers this generation are exclusive games or games that are not considered multiplatform: Grand Theft Auto: Vice, Grand Theft Auto 3, Metal Gear Solid 2, Tony Hawks Pro Skater 3, Final Fantasy X and some others. Other "big" games that also sold more than well are Devil May Cry, Silent Hill 2. I'm too lazy to look up more, but I'm also sure that Tekken TAG/4, Dead or Alive 3, Ace Combat, Virtua Fighter, Final fantasy X-2 sold more than enough which are also exclusives or not multiconsole considered games. True, there are many multiplatform games which did sell well, but they aren't in the majority as you suggest.
There is no need to ignore, i think i put it quite well which i think the neutrals will agree.
Thats what i saying. Sony has to play the cards right. There are more cards to play too. It is not going to be easy. PLAYSTATION might have a good rep, but that alone does NOT allow PS3 to crush rivals.
What if the price is not right? What if the hardware is delayed? What if there are shortages? What if the inital graphics are not up to par? What if Sony put less emphasis on gaming? What if blah blah blah..
Many factors to consider just for Sony alone, MS/Nintendo can have their own cards to play.
And the morale of the story? PS2 might have won today, but that will be the past. If anything, it just tilt next gen, slightly, in Sony's favor. Everything else start from Square ONE!
chap said:
Correct chap. Seems like you're agreeing indirectly what we've been saying anyway: no one is suggesting that Sony will win - it's quite obvious that they will have to play their cards right.
I will agree that they will give away part of their advantage if they launch significantly later than the other two, for example by over a year in the last region. I don't think it would be that crucial though - much more crucial to the competitors would be if Sony launches at the same time with the better hardware and the exclusives out then (together with great libraries etc).
Actually, i kinda agree with PC Engine, more and more games are getting ported around. In the 32bit days, most games were on the PSX.
No surprises, since porting kinda rake in additional profits. EA is no.1 for certain reasons. I think the trend will carry on growing, especially when developing costs are rising.
IMHO, future exclusives will only be if you count 1st party or money hat$ or a console that sold realy shitty that a port is not worth it.
No surprises, since porting kinda rake in additional profits. EA is no.1 for certain reasons.
I think the trend will carry on growing, especially when developing costs are rising. IMHO, future exclusives will only be if you count 1st party or money hat$ or a console that sold realy shitty that a port is not worth it.
chaphack said:
There is no need to ignore, i think i put it quite well which i think the neutrals will agree.
no i'm talking about the *WILL SONY WIN THE NEXT GENERATION OF VIDEO GAMES CONSOLES WAR? WE SHALL SEE IN THE NEXT EPISODE OF CHAPPY THE BOARDS SLAYER* kind of messages...
and most importantly, what exactly is SLIGHT about the current Sony's advantage over the competition?
Nope but it makes for more PS2 games.
Speaking of which, I'm sort of wondering if we're not underestimating the playstation brandname power.
PSOne still had 60milion software units shipped this year alone (and 6milion hw) - that's in the same range as GC/XBox iirc.
And that's 3 years into the life of its successor... not too bad for the little piece of kit.
If PS2 follows suit, and given how much better it's been doing from the get go...
