mcv - PS3 concerns ignite Xbox 2 support

[Qroach]

Why would you think i was talking about you?

Well I'm posting in this thread aren't I? and I didn't say specifically myself. Who were you targetting that commetn at?

Also, i have not made one single comment on this thread so the bolded part of your post was uncalled for. I was retaining a broad mind and that's why i made no names (people in here or companies supported) in my post.

I really don't see how there was a problem with what I wrote. I was merly adding to what you were saying.

People in here twist reality and spin their arguments according to how they feel it's going to put their preferred company in a better light.

The same people saying PS3 will be hard to program for, that it will be another failure from Sony because (1) they think PS2 was a failure and (2) they think Sony's "vision" of the PS2 gen was never accomplished, are also the same persons saying that the real failure of MS and Nintendo of this generation (cause let's face it, it is, whatever way you look at it, whatever territory they did better than others) will not be carried over next gen because we'll be strarting from zero.

How coherent is that?

Not coherent IMO. I agree with you if there's people that think that, but I don't think anyone in this thread considers the PS2 as a failure, or that sony never accomplished their vision.

The same people saying that Sony will totally win the next gen because it's "impossible" for them to lose, are also the same people who think we shouldn't look at previous generations when talking about PSP and how Nintendo will "go down".

right I agree with you.

Then there are the ones talking about how the next offerings from MS or N will be easy to program for while PS3 won't, just because it happened to be like this in the current generation, and only because they will feature GPUs from ATI. I don't think in the next generation we'll have anything that could be called "easy to program for" at all to be honest, with the Xbox's 3 CPUs and a whole lot of power that needs to be harnessed and used correctly and efficiently.

Well CPU concurency on any platform will make it difficult to code for. I think it's more an issue of development environment, tools, and suport that will matter the most next gen. If they can make the new console easy to code for, then more power to them.

 

[London Geezer]

Hey i wasn't attacky, i was just... errr.. bitchy i guess, comes natural to our kind you see...

The comment was directed to whoever uses "will" in next gen predictions, the ones saying for example "MS/Sony will do this" and "things will go this way", when really no one knows what will happen. Added to the total "starting from zero" incoherence, it makes hobbits like me cringe.

 

[Qroach]

ok I got you. Yeah I can be pretty bithcy over the net too for some reason

 

[Vince]

Did I specifically say you weren't correct on any of those matters? No, so I don't see why you need to get defensive.

Then why did you mention it? To reinforce my predictions? :?

I didn't "ask" what has made the playstation brand successful. I said "What is the one reason that made people want to buy the PS2 instead of any other console?". The PS2 Vince. In fact this CAN be attributed to one reason. It provided the games people wanted to play. Plain and simple. Without those games, and without developer support, the PS2 would NOT have been the success it is this generation. Outside of proper timing and other factors people obviously bought the unit to play games, (or possibly DVD's), but games are what kept it selling.

Again, I think you're committing the fallacy of limited depth. It's very easy for you to connect [70M PS2s] to [Games] as the casuation, but that doesn't describe the situation accurately. You can see this happening already by you hedging with the "or possibly DVD's" comment. Your argument isn't coherent and doesn't describe what happened -- and you can't do it with a model that's been reduced to a single aspect. Which is what I already stated but you dismissed because you know better I suppose.

Sony sold PlayStation2 as a vision, it was holistically superior to it's individual parts. People bitched about Dev support, about the initial games, about the price, about the output, et infinitum. And untill you realize that Sony sells visions, they sell products which have intangible value attached that Microsoft doesn't, then you just won't get it IMHO. And they'll do the same thing this generation with World Simulation and the nexus of broadband, connectivity, HDTV intercepting in the digitial home.

What a bunch of nonsense. It seems you already fell for the marketing hype before it really started. I couldn't give a crap about sony's visions for the future regarding other home devices. All I care about is what I need to do to release a game on their damn platform.

Or is it that I just see the hype and how this is going to unfold before you do? What makes you think I "fell" for it... maybe I'm just a step beyond you. Nah.

And as for the "All I care about..." comment, which is cute but flawed, ask yourself if this is a supply or demand driven market.

I'm not claiming that PS3 is goign to lose support or anything like that. I'm only talking about Xbox 2 doing better than it did this round.

The percentage game is a zero-sum game. Your comment is obviously flawed, unless you're reducing it to some abstract Microsoft gains that translate to negligable or nothing in the real world.

Or moving an Xbox 2 title to the PC, hence the PC controller standardization and DX10 class hardware as the minimum for requirement for Longhorn.

Ok, lets wait and see how many X2 games get ported over to the PC. You really believe that XNA was designed with helping out PC gaming, eh?

 

[Vince]

There's some people here such as Vince and I guess Tuttle (correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that Tuttle) that believe XNA is simply a market cannibalization, yet Cell being designed and used throughout a number of Sony's products in an attempt to interconnect a series of home appliances while leveraging common technology is "not"?

Uh, Econ101 books have a fabulous definition of "marketplace cannibilization," I'm sure. Check it out before posting about how the situations are analogous.

• Exactly how is a Cell powered PS3 going to eat away at Cell powered TV profits?
  
  [list:221f96ad1e]
• Answer: They're not. They have a synergistic, additive effect on sales potential because the more Cell you own, theoretically, the more value you derive from each purchase.

[/list:u:221f96ad1e]
In Microsoft's case, they are eating away at their own market (DirectX, Windows PC based) by making the transitory costs of a X2 port lower via XNA.

Lets look at an extreme, a bastardized-reductio approach. If they succeed, they won't only reset the equilibrium point for where the platforms intercept, but they'll invert the curves so that a, theoretical, [1]:[1] mapping of [X2]:[DX] games is possible (why not go multiplatform?). Following in this line of argument lets add in more information by biasing each title by the [fixed] costs to play for each consumer (which are going to be a multiple of X2cost for the DirectXcost) and you'll see pure market cannibilization at work.

If you get bored, simulate it out for 100 trials or something, you'll see exactly hat I'm talking about. Now, granted, this was an ad absurdum example, but the effect will occur... there is no doubt about it. The market dynamics make it intrinsic.

Interestingly enough, it's in Sony's best interest to maintain the status quo and shift the interception to a point where the costs are prohibitively high to transit away. Granted, this is if they can maintain the market demand, which they should be able to.

 

[Jov]

Don't remember the consensus view of XNA, but I just don't have faith in it improving MS gaming development overall besides Xbox2 <-> PC cross platform.

Sure some developers will utilise it, but console gaming is different from PC where the lowest common detonator is not very clear, if at all.

For XNA to work, Sony, Nintendo and giants like EA will have to support it, otherwise individual devs will have to develop the underlying elements between the h/w to the XNA API (back to square one). Or is MS going to do this (fat chance)?

 

[Qroach]

Then why did you mention it? To reinforce my predictions?

It was more of a rhetorical question.

Again, I think you're committing the fallacy of limited depth. It's very easy for you to connect [70M PS2s] to [Games] as the casuation, but that doesn't describe the situation accurately. You can see this happening already by you hedging with the "or possibly DVD's" comment. Your argument isn't coherent and doesn't describe what happened -- and you can't do it with a model that's been reduced to a single aspect. Which is what I already stated but you dismissed because you know better I suppose.

If you don't want to answer the question, just come out and say so. Again, I wasn't asking about models or about the playstation brand. I asked a pretty simple question you could simply provide an answer for in your opinion, but obviously you don't want to say what I expect you'll say. It seem to me you're very detached from the average game buying public, or simply you just don't want to provide an answer to the question. Whichever it is, it that can be your little secret.

Sony sold PlayStation2 as a vision, it was holistically superior to it's individual parts. People bitched about Dev support, about the initial games, about the price, about the output, et infinitum. And untill you realize that Sony sells visions, they sell products which have intangible value attached that Microsoft doesn't, then you just won't get it IMHO. And they'll do the same thing this generation with World Simulation and the nexus of broadband, connectivity, HDTV intercepting in the digitial home.

As soon as you start believing in a faceless corporation selling "vision" and other nonsense like that, you have clearly lost touch with the average game buying public. You're right in that Microsoft doesn't sell the Xbox as a vision, as I'm NOT interested in buying into a "vision". I'm interested in what I can make money on and as a gamer what console will satisfy my needs. That statement you wrote, imo wreaks of someone far too attached to a brand. God you won't ever hear me talking about MS like that. I simply don't like them or any other company "that" much.

Or is it that I just see the hype and how this is going to unfold before you do? What makes you think I "fell" for it... maybe I'm just a step beyond you. Nah.

What make me think that? Have you heard yourself talking about selling "vision" and selling products with "intangible value". It's comments like that, that's what makes me think you fell for it.

And as for the "All I care about..." comment, which is cute but flawed...

Cute, flawed, true...

The percentage game is a zero-sum game. Your comment is obviously flawed, unless you're reducing it to some abstract Microsoft gains that translate to negligable or nothing in the real world.

Once again, I feel you're talking nonsense. You keep talking as if the next gen console market has already come and gone. Perhaps in your mind it has already has.

Ok, lets wait and see how many X2 games get ported over to the PC. You really believe that XNA was designed with helping out PC gaming, eh?

Hey fine with me, I've been saying wait and see. Btw, and please get this straight. I said it can work both ways numerous times.

 

[Qroach]

Answer: They're not. They have a synergistic, additive effect on sales potential because the more Cell you own, theoretically, the more value you derive from each purchase.

In theory. However what is the "more you own, the more value you derive goign to play out for the average consumer that can't affor to have all new applicences and veices and can only scrounge enough money together to get a new game system once eveyr four years? What is this value they are getting?

Assuming you're talking about the value a consumer would get from this and not talking about Sony as if it were a human being.

 

[Deepak]

Rygar is the only game Tecmo did for the PS2 this whole generation iirc.

DoA2:H and Fatal Frame Series.

 

[Vince]

Hey Q, say what you want about me being "detached" and out-of-touch for looking at how they're going to package and sell this generation. Appearently I've been taken in and am no longer of pure conviction like you hard-core folks who can reduce everything to"one thing." Lets just see how this plays out...

 

[rabidrabbit]

I voted "Yes, possibly", as that is the only option that is sane.

Of course it is possible, to say "no, never" would be just stupid.
I think the poll was made delibrately so that the "yes" answer would get the most votes, because it is the only "correct" answer, and as such, this poll is one of the most meaningless ever.

It's another thing if there really are such "concerns" and how serious they are.

 

[Vince]

I voted "Yes, possibly", as that is the only option that is sane.

Of course it is possible, to say "no, never" would be just stupid.
I think the poll was made delibrately so that the "yes" answer would get the most votes, because it is the only "correct" answer, and as such, this poll is one of the most meaningless ever.

Same. I was sooo tempted to make a point of this by creating a thread that was bound to a single, insane, answer by it's syntax like:

• Could Xbox 2, theoretically, not sell a single console?
  [list:19a4dae508]
• Yes, possibly.
• No, never.

[/list:u:19a4dae508]
But I figured I'm enough of an asshole already.

 

[Jov]

I voted "Yes, possibly", as that is the only option that is sane.

Of course it is possible, to say "no, never" would be just stupid.
I think the poll was made delibrately so that the "yes" answer would get the most votes, because it is the only "correct" answer, and as such, this poll is one of the most meaningless ever.

Same. I was sooo tempted to make a point of this by creating a thread that was bound to a single, insane, answer by it's syntax like:

• Could Xbox 2, theoretically, not sell a single console?
  [list:40d528b07e]
• Yes, possibly.
• No, never.

[/list:u:40d528b07e]
But I figured I'm enough of an asshole already.

And I'm one of the 21 ppl that voted "No", because we all know in this game never is a very short time.

 

[Phil]

If you don't want to answer the question, just come out and say so. Again, I wasn't asking about models or about the playstation brand. I asked a pretty simple question you could simply provide an answer for in your opinion, but obviously you don't want to say what I expect you'll say. It seem to me you're very detached from the average game buying public, or simply you just don't want to provide an answer to the question. Whichever it is, it that can be your little secret.

The difference is, there are people [i.e. Vince] that believe the answer to your question is attributed to various factors - the factors he listed - while you obviously see only 1 reason responsible.

"What is the one reason that made people want to buy the PS2 instead of any other console?"

There are various factors because people didn't all face the same market when they made their choice. Factors like...

1.) ...that the PS2 would continue its leader position and ensure the best game support

2.) ...the games and franchises available / exclusive to the system

3.) ...the vision in that it's going to become something big which will result in something that the consumer will buy into

4.) ...added value through backwards compatibility, dvd playback

Timing was a very important factor aswell. Only because of all the different factors did the userbase continue to grow and is today at over 75 million. The reasons why someone chose a PS2 over any other console varied over it's life span and was dependend on the market, the projection (where will the market be a few years from now, is it a good investment, what games will be available?), the current support etc. Games in generall isn't only factor; most casual people that bought a PS2 didn't have an idea about gaming and went with the best bet and the most successful one.

Attributing the PS2's success simply to one factor is foolish and given that you see yourself as an insider of this industry, something that should seem fairly obvious to you too.

As soon as you start believing in a faceless corporation selling "vision" and other nonsense like that, you have clearly lost touch with the average game buying public.

Wait a minute: which coorporation that is willing to make its own product (and believes in) successful isn't backed by a vision? How is Sony having a vision (and a strong one at that) any different than what MS is doing when they're going out to sell their 'idea' to 3rd parties in the hope they'll support and go with their solution?

Vision isn't nonsense at all - you as an insider claiming this actually shocks me. People buy into visions. 3rd parties will buy into either Microsofts vision of standing behind XNA or Sony's vision and plans for the future. Any companies plans is backed by a plan, a strategy, a goal and a direction - something when put into one word... is a vision.

Sony will try to sell their vision to developers to gain support. That support will gain the support of customers. Customers support will gain other customers confidence and support. Sony's vision and future plans may also convince customers - people that when they buy a certain product and give their support bought into that vision in believing that what the company is saying will become indeed become reality.

If you seriously think that the vision driving a company like Sony will not influence and play a significant factor in what support it will get - then I do wonder in what world you've been living in to be calling it "nonsense". Companies sell their visons on a daily basis - and this is not limited to the console industry. It happens everwhere when a company tries to sell its product that it believes in (or may change something big).

 

[Qroach]

Well jeez, Rabbid and Vince, there obviously was a point I asked the question at the start of this thread. Yeah it was a loaded question designed that way because of the way people are acting.

I asked it that way because, of course, it's foolish to say "it's not possible" considering how that's what you've been doing in other threads. People posted saying how MS has takena different approach to the hardware design and this can possibly help them control cost, and you say No that's not true and they aren't doing anything different. People posted saying how MS could possibly gain develoeprs due to the unknowns about the PS3, only saying it "could happen", and you jump down their throat with "vision" and how this hasn't happened yet and won't happen. IMO of course it is "possible", and that was all I was saying before getting the usual supporters jumping about screaming bloody murder. To see you now say of course it is "possible", really bothers me as it's a complete reversal from your reaction in other threads.


Phil.

There are various factors because people didn't all face the same market when they made their choice. Factors like...

1.) ...that the PS2 would continue its leader position and ensure the best game support

2.) ...the games and franchises available / exclusive to the system

3.) ...the vision in that it's going to become something big which will result in something that the consumer will buy into

4.) ...added value through backwards compatibility, dvd playback

I know these were all the factors involved, it's pretty obvious the features it has. but I was specifically as abotu average consumers. How many questions do you think they asked when they went into a store to purchase a PS2? Do you think they asked all of those to themselves or retail employees? or do you think they asked themselves a single question. IMO they asked a single question. Or rather which one of those choices do you think was chosen by the majority of PS2 owners. I think the majority of PS2 owners bought into #2.

IMO if the majority of ps2 owners bought the console for the other three reasons, there would be very little software being sold.

I can tell you it certainly wasn't # 3. Like i said before that entire "vision" argument doesn't hold water as a reason for a consumer buying a porduct unless they can clearly see a what the benefit is.

let me say it agian. Sure companies have an internal vision on where they want to be after X years, or an internal plan on how they can tie thier products together. However what I don't think is that the average consumer cares about a so called "vision". They don't go into a store thinking of a game console being part of a bigger plan, they go in (not everyone of course but I think the majority) and look to see what games they can buy (as cheap DVD playback is no longer a feature that matters with all the cheap DVD players on the market.) and they make teh choice based on available software.

I'll admit that when PS2 launched I wanted to buy it for two reasons which quickly narrowed to one. I wanted the new GT game, and I wanted DVD playback (although I waited a little longe rand DVD playback becuase very cheap. So I didn';t buy one or use one for that.). I idn't care about vision, I didn't care about the previous success of PS2. I ended up caring about what games were available and when MORE games were released.

btw, Phil, if you think MS does have a vision then why aren't you arguing with Vince instead of myself? He clearly stated he doesn't think MS has a vision. I'm sure they do, but it's not what they are selling IMO. so go argue with him now, ok?

 

[cthellis42]

As soon as you start believing in a faceless corporation selling "vision" and other nonsense like that, you have clearly lost touch with the average game buying public.

Got EverQuest?


(My bad. I keep linking like I'm posting pics to LiveJournal, which is what I'd do most of the time. Most people just don't want page clutter.)

 

[one]

Got EverQuest?

mmm...

http://www.gucomics.com/archives/view.php?cdate=20000926

 

[Phil]

Qroach,

btw, Phil, if you think MS does have a vision then why aren't you arguing with Vince instead of myself? He clearly stated he doesn't think MS has a vision. I'm sure they do, but it's not what they are selling IMO. so go argue with him now, ok?

I don't think Vince explicitly ment that Microsoft doesn't have a vision - just that it isn't in the same league as what Sony is planning to achieve through CELL. While that certainly is very subjective and only time will show who's strategy will succeed, I do agree with the Vince's comment that you dismissed as nonsense:

They'll [Sony] be unveiling a vision of the future, a digital home that unites Broadband, HDTV, WiFi, Games and Blue-Ray. That type of $300 vision sells, just as it did with the PlayStation2 over the Dreamcast. By the time E3-2005 ends, Sony will have become the de facto winner of the second round.

...which brings me back to the point what a vision can achieve: A vision like the one stated above, a vision we all know has been the reason for huge investments in fabbing and R&D - is not only directed to buy consumers money, but also 3rd parties support.

PS2 and its success as a dvd player was just an example - imagine PS3 as a blu-ray player and a digital home unit interconnecting other [Sony] products? Of course, it is still uncertain if Sony will ultimately deliver - but as it stands, that is their vision as stated numoures times by Kutaragi and others - and those claims go back since the release of the PS2 in 2000! This kind of vision goes beyond the standard one of just "develop for our game system" - it's an idea, a strategy - a vision which could change or at least impact consumer electronics. This kind of vision does sell - or at least raise eyebrows. If it can convince 3rd parties and consumers is another thing - but then, while you're thinking about this one, factor in the market recognition the PlayStation brandname has, Sony's own market recognition as a manufacturer of consumer electronics, as a activist in the movie industry (Columbia TriStar, MGM?) and the past in which a console also doubled as a dvd-player and was bought as such.

You asked the question what the prime reason for a purchase of a PS2 was over other consoles for the average consumers. The answer isn't purely games: it's for one the huge brandname PlayStation as the leader in gaming, it's the huge selection of games. The vision behind PS3 is certainly much bigger than what was put forward with PS2, but the game is changing and just because it didn't play a significant role then, surely doesn't mean it won't in the future. Contrary to that in fact, because we have two big companies battling it out and both are setting on different visions - developers will be buying into one of them either way. The question is, which one will it be?

Perhaps in little addition to that, do I understand you correct that you believe Sony's vision doesn't hold any weight and will have no impact what so ever on consumers nor on 3rd parties? Or that the vision as such is just PR bullshit backed by something that is no more than MS is delivering? If that is what you're thinking, I fail to see how the large investments fit into this picture... maybe you can explain?

 

[Qroach]

I don't think Vince explicitly ment that Microsoft doesn't have a vision - just that it isn't in the same league as what Sony is planning to achieve through CELL.

That's certianly how I read it, read his quote again and see if you could interpret it that way.

...which brings me back to the point what a vision can achieve: A vision like the one stated above, a vision we all know has been the reason for huge investments in fabbing and R&D - is not only directed to buy consumers money, but also 3rd parties support.

Yes "we" know this has been the reason for huge investments, R&D etc. I still fail to see how the consumer will care about any of that, or even how this vision will benefit the consumer.

Contrary to that in fact, because we have two big companies battling it out and both are setting on different visions - developers will be buying into one of them either way. The question is, which one will it be?

The answer to that is simple, developers and publishers will develop for the system that makes them money.

Perhaps in little addition to that, do I understand you correct that you believe Sony's vision doesn't hold any weight and will have no impact what so ever on consumers nor on 3rd parties?

I believe sony's vision won't have any affect on people buying the PS3 for video games "if" they can not clearly show those users what the benefit is. if they are selling the vision, how does this "vision" benefit game developers, game publishers, and the average consumer? I also asked a similar question to vince in this thread, but he didn't respond. I think the reason was because he bought into this "vision" without knowing how it would benefit anyone (aside from sony or IBM).

 

[one]

I believe sony's vision won't have any affect on people buying the PS3 for video games "if" they can not clearly show those users what the benefit is. if they are selling the vision, how does this "vision" benefit game developers, game publishers, and the average consumer?

C'mon, we're talking about entertainment... you know, people got excited when the Terminator 2 movie introduced CG in it. It's the same thing, the same big FUN.