DFC Report: "Clear possibility that PS3 could end upthird in market share"

[Titanio]

There's a Hitachi 160GB 2.5" drive on newegg already. And various other flavours of drive over 60GB (80/100/120).

I'm perhaps as interested in taking a 3.5" drive, putting it in an enclosure, and using a 3.5" to 2.5" adaptor, if that is possible. I'm assuming you can't just use an external USB HDD as the "main" HDD (I assume something has to be connected in the 2.5" port to act as the primary HDD for caching etc. whereas a USB connected one would just be read as mass storage for things like media files etc.).

 

[Bad_Boy]

Phil talks about upgrading the ps3 hard drive here.
http://www.gametab.com/news/571687/

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There's a Hitachi 160GB 2.5" drive on newegg already. And various other flavours of drive over 60GB (80/100/120).

I'm perhaps as interested in taking a 3.5" drive, putting it in an enclosure, and using a 3.5" to 2.5" adaptor, if that is possible. I'm assuming you can't just use an external USB HDD as the "main" HDD (I assume something has to be connected in the 2.5" port to act as the primary HDD for caching etc. whereas a USB connected one would just be read as mass storage for things like media files etc.).

You can always do like the Amiga A1200 and just squeeze a 3.5" in the case!

As for perpendiciular recording, I'll wait until it's proven reliable myself. I see there's a few larger capacity drives, but most listed (eBuyer) aren't SATA. eg. Looking at newegg, out of 60 2.5" HDDs, 7 are SATA. And 6 of those are from Hitachi. So there really isn't much choice for a larger SATA 2.5" over the 60 GB that comes with PS3. Also, as was pointed out with the XB360 HDD, we don't need laptop HDD's with durability features. Someone needs to produce small drives for non-laptops, especially with small form factor PCs really taking off. Then there ought to be more choice.

 

[Titanio]

Oops, hadn't noticed they weren't SATA. The largest on newegg then seems to be 100GB. More reason to use a 3.5" solution if possible, for me!

I doubt a 3.5" will squeeze into PS3 though I'm resigned to an external enclosure or something. I'm wondering if there'll be a limit to how much the OS will recognise, presumably not.

 

[Huh?]

What? if you think the core 360 is not useable out of the box then you need to research your facts a little harder.

I own a core pack.

*You can't play any Xbox Live arcade game without either buying a memory card or a HDD.
*Even with the memory card you still can't play the majority of Aracde games on Live.
*You can't play Final Fantasy Online, and a few other games that require the HDD.
*Games like Oblivion play pretty horrendously on core packs.
*You can't download updates for games and the like without the required space on a memcard or HDD.

Yes the basic service is free.

Basic service does not include free online play.
You only get that on weekends at specific times.

------------

Back on topic:
If the PS3 ends up in 3rd place I fear that gaming as a whole will have taken a huge nose dive. Is anyone actually expecting the PS3 to sell LESS than the Xbox360 has already sold? 100 Million people own a PS2, if only 25% of those end up buying a PS3 then Sony has already defeated the Xbox360, and by a pretty large margin.

Feature for feature the PS3, just like the PS2, simply does more stuff out of the box.
PS2 = PS1, PS2, DVD Player
Xbox = Xbox

PS3 = PS1, PS2, PS3, DVD Player, Blu-ray, Linux?
XBox360 = Broken Xbox, Xbox360, DVD Player

Are you sure most of you guys are programmers?
Cause, you know, basic logical is a requirement!

 

[pc999]

Are you sure most of you guys are programmers?
Cause, you know, basic logical is a requirement!

That is not the complet argument.
Logic aplied to humans usually fails.

 

[Acert93]

100 Million people own a PS2, if only 25% of those end up buying a PS3 then Sony has already defeated the Xbox360, and by a pretty large margin.

Sony as of March 31, 2006 had shipped 103M PS2 units.

25% of 103M is ~26M.

MS as of December 31, 2005 had shipped 24M Xbox units.

1.) 2M units is not "by a pretty large margin" and

2.) The fact you believe that if Sony sells 26M units they will have defeated the Xbox 360 is a major "Huh?!" and ignores the momentum MS has made with publishers, has established themselves as a reliable console platform, have a much larger portfolio of games coming out of MGS than last go around, Live co-launched and is a proven service, MS's early launch, pricing advantage, and so forth

Basically in a 5 year period you are making the projection MS will be doing worse with the Xbox 360 than they did with the unproven Xbox1 in 4 years.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Not to mention that all the customers that Sony would loose would probably not leave gaming altogether, but rather go and buy a Wii or X360 instead. So even if Sony sells more PS3s than the 24 million Xboxes out there, that still does not guarantee that they'd outsell MS or Nintendo.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

I own a core pack.

*You can't play any Xbox Live arcade game without either buying a memory card or a HDD.
*Even with the memory card you still can't play the majority of Aracde games on Live.
*You can't play Final Fantasy Online, and a few other games that require the HDD.
*Games like Oblivion play pretty horrendously on core packs.
*You can't download updates for games and the like without the required space on a memcard or HDD.

I think some people are getting themselves really confused. I don't think anyone here has offered the opinion that the core pack is the best value out there. Everyone, myself included, sees the problem with peripheral pricing.

And I don't think anyone has made the argument that the core pack is the most useful console configuration, either. It can't do the things you listed above. There are several other things it can't do either. But can you play games on it? Can you plug it in, stick in a game, and entertain yourself? Seems like it obviously has some usefulness. Limited, perhaps, but it gets people playing games for less money, and that's what MS intended. I think most would agree that a small mem card should have been bundled to at least allow for a limited selection of games to have progress saved.

 

[fearsomepirate]

The answer is simple, online is not for everyone, lots of people are not interested it's really that simple.

Or maybe a lot more people don't have convenient high-speed Internet access in their living rooms than you think.

 

[Sis]

Feature for feature the PS3, just like the PS2, simply does more stuff out of the box.
PS2 = PS1, PS2, DVD Player
Xbox = Xbox

Xbox+= Xbox Live, Xbox Live Arcade, music server, built-in memory storage

PS3 = PS1, PS2, PS3, DVD Player, Blu-ray, Linux?
XBox360 = Broken Xbox, Xbox360, DVD Player

Xbox360+=Xbox Live, Xbox Live Arcade, Media Center Extender

Are you sure most of you guys are programmers?
Cause, you know, basic logical is a requirement!

Can you point to the logical arguments you've made in your post? Because apparently I'm missing it.

However, it is not illogical to assume that the PS3 can end up in third place. It is not illogical to think that Wii and Xbox 360 are better positioned price wise to become mass market items. Whether these are likely scenarios is debatable.

 

[Acert93]

Or maybe a lot more people don't have convenient high-speed Internet access in their living rooms than you think.

Or, and I think significantly, it is no fun playing competitively if you are in the bottom tier of skill. Lets face it, fact is a small percentage of online gamers are really good and everyone else is fodder. As online gaming moves more into coop and some less direct competitive styles of play this could change, but gaming is about fun and a lot of gamers don't like being used for target practice. That violates one of the principles of gaming that attract many consumers: to do things you cannot do in real life. While this is not true of all games or gamers, in general no one like getting 3 kills and 37 deaths in multi-player.

 

[Arwin]

Sony as of March 31, 2006 had shipped 103M PS2 units.

25% of 103M is ~26M.

MS as of December 31, 2005 had shipped 24M Xbox units.

1.) 2M units is not "by a pretty large margin"

He was talking about 360 sales, wasn't he?

2.) The fact you believe that if Sony sells 26M units they will have defeated the Xbox 360 is a major "Huh?!" and ignores the momentum MS has made with publishers, has established themselves as a reliable console platform, have a much larger portfolio of games coming out of MGS than last go around, Live co-launched and is a proven service, MS's early launch, pricing advantage, and so forth

Basically in a 5 year period you are making the projection MS will be doing worse with the Xbox 360 than they did with the unproven Xbox1 in 4 years.

He just means that if everyone who has an Xbox now buys a 360, it takes only 25% of the PS2 population to buy a PS3 to already beat the Xbox. He's not stating it all that well though, I agree.

One thing that interests me. The original Xbox struggled in the beginning, but as time went on and people saw more and more clearly that the Xbox was faster, offered better online play and had a nice harddrive, the system began to pick up.

Now however, we are starting with the 360 out first, the system is dependent on gaining the early lead. For this it needs to cash in on the reputation it built up with the original Xbox. Once the PS3 is released, however, the PS3 will be the more powerful and feature-rich system, and will have all the additional benefit from its very strong brand reputation as well, so at least on paper it looks likely to win market share later in its life-cycle.

Pricing, I think, is indeed going to be key for the 360. Assuming the PS3 doesn't really foul up significantly, I think the 360 will have a tough battle ahead to gain market share. It could surely happen though, but at the same time it could go wrong really fast too, especially if PS3 games start to visibly 'outshine' the 360 within the first year.

The fate of the 360 will probably be decided fairly early. It's going to be a very interesting time, especially with the Wii thrown into the mix.

 

[jb]

He just means that if everyone who has an Xbox now buys a 360, it takes only 25% of the PS2 population to buy a PS3 to already beat the Xbox. He's not stating it all that well though, I agree.

I am wondering out of that number, how many PS2 were sold because of the low cost of the unit. I mean today PS2 are still selling rather well, and I am sure the price point has a large factor in those sales (along with brand recognition, media content, ect). So if your trying to take predict the25% of sales figure, its still seems flawed due to the MUCH higher price point of the PS3. Volume is and has always been with the lower cost products...

I guess what I am trying to say is this time so many things are different this time around that looking at past trend to predict the winner is a guess at best. And some tend to be more one sided

 

[scooby_dooby]

Or, and I think significantly, it is no fun playing competitively if you are in the bottom tier of skill. Lets face it, fact is a small percentage of online gamers are really good and everyone else is fodder. As online gaming moves more into coop and some less direct competitive styles of play this could change, but gaming is about fun and a lot of gamers don't like being used for target practice. That violates one of the principles of gaming that attract many consumers: to do things you cannot do in real life. While this is not true of all games or gamers, in general no one like getting 3 kills and 37 deaths in multi-player.

Key point acert. I'm the perfect example of that, I have a 12month gold membership, and I've used maybe 2 hours in 6months for online play. I hate losing, and online always pisses me off. I just can't get into it. The MotoGP demo has gotten the majority of my time as most people were pretty crappy at that.

Online gaming just doesn't appeal to everyone, and that's an understatement.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Your saying you dont like online gaming because you loose a lot?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Your saying you dont like online gaming because you loose a lot?

I think a lot of people are in that boat. You won't find many people who enjoy doing something they have little success at. I've known plenty of experiences where one person always 'wins' and someone or other always 'loses', and that tends to discourage the 'loser'. Fun in most games requires effort to succeed at a goal, and success in that goal. In multiplayer the effort is invariably blasting your opponent's, and the success is blasting them more than they blast you. If you're nothing but cannon fodder, incapable of executing any maneouvres that see you achieve the goal, why play the game? To like to do something you habitually fail at is to not care whether you succeed or fail. I don't play tennis. I have no interest in tennis. I could play tennis a lot and not care about losing, but there's no incentive for me to play tennis as I care nothing for the game. I can't think of anything I would choose to do where I don't care about the outcome, don't need to try to achieve something, and have success in part along the way.

 

[pc999]

Didnt H2 (and few others) had a ranking system or something that you could always play with people at your level?

Still it would give you a 50% ratio of kill/deaths, not ideal for someone who dont like to die...

Anyway Acert does have a great point here.

 

[CountZeroInt]

What should be scary to Sony is that they will have almost NO western 3rd party exclusives. I mean the number will be 5% or less. This is a huge difference from last generation.

I see the generation working out like Genesis versus SNES. Genesis vs SNES was pretty much a wash worldwide, the perception is that SNES won but that is mostly perpetuated by JRPG and Nintendo ******s. The fact is that games like NBA Jam and Mortal Kombat were the ones dictating the western market share, and this round it will not be any different.

 

[Tap In]

Or, and I think significantly, it is no fun playing competitively if you are in the bottom tier of skill. Lets face it, fact is a small percentage of online gamers are really good and everyone else is fodder. As online gaming moves more into coop and some less direct competitive styles of play this could change, but gaming is about fun and a lot of gamers don't like being used for target practice. That violates one of the principles of gaming that attract many consumers: to do things you cannot do in real life. While this is not true of all games or gamers, in general no one like getting 3 kills and 37 deaths in multi-player.

I agree with this

I play the games online that I excell at because it is fun.
While in games where I struggle to catch the curve, I get frustrated and lose interest.

I have also noticed a similar pattern on Live over the past couple of years among those on my friend's list. I agree that co-Op is where we, collectively, have the most fun. I've had friends who I have gotten along very well with so long as we were on the same team yet when pitted against one another, and if I dominate, I may not hear from that person for quite a while and they are visibly pissed off.