one said:
It might have introduced CGi to Arnie, not to me at least.
mcv - PS3 concerns ignite Xbox 2 support
- Thread starter Qroach
- Start date
It might have introduced CGi to Arnie, not to me at least.
Qroach:
I'll leave that argument for Vince himself since I don't know which quote in particular you're refering to. On the other hand, is it so important what clarifies as a vision in Vince's eyes - other than to prove a point in semantics?
IMO it would be easier to understand his post(s) if you wouldn't dismiss them as nonsense and "detached from reality" that quickly... just a thought.
Honestly, you should be capable of answering this yourself.
How about we wait til PS3 is formally announced yet and Sony announces to the public what their vision is. Since "we" established that they do have a very big vision - it would be foolish not to expect them to make sure their targeted audience gets the message as well [in given time]. Similarly to how Sony is making sure everyone knows the PS2 is the most sold console, you bet people will also know what PS3 will have in store. Also, rumours have its way to get around with people... and build hype. Just do a few searches on more general gaming forums outthere and do a search on "CELL" and you may be surprised how many hits you'll find on even the most casual gaming boards. Information like that certainly goes around, especially when the platform in question is within the PlayStation brand.
Consumers buy what they think gives them their best value for their money. Even a feature like backwards-compatibility can have an impact - what makes you think even bigger plans won't ultimately result in consumer benefits?
Surely you as an insider should know that there's a lot more associated to the simple statement you just made. Of course they develop for the system that makes them money (duh!) - but before a console launches and sparse information about the future of a console, there are various factors and predictions that come into play. As such, a companies vision may play even the deciding factor in gaining support. And if the company is the leader and the PlayStation brand, it also adds a certain trust in that the company behind the vision obviously is doing some things right and may add credibility to their future actions, even if they are gigantic and unproven. No one is saying that they will all ignore Microsoft and XNA, but that once Sony starts bringing up these topics that there will be ears listening and potentially resources allocated to be there when the show starts.
Think PS2 that was bought as a dvd player in its early days. Didn't that benefit also gamers that wanted both? Sony's vision isn't solely going to benefit non-gamers - it will also benefit them in giving them added value for their money (I don't expect PS3 to cost more than PS2 despite its features and 'vision' behind it) - it might lure other non-gamers into the market though and as gaming becomes more mainstream, they'd be more likely to buy a game(s) too. And if the CELL vision is to be taken even more seriously, then buying other Sony products simply to add CELLs to a network may not be that far fetched either.
Q said:
I'll leave that argument for Vince himself since I don't know which quote in particular you're refering to. On the other hand, is it so important what clarifies as a vision in Vince's eyes - other than to prove a point in semantics?
IMO it would be easier to understand his post(s) if you wouldn't dismiss them as nonsense and "detached from reality" that quickly... just a thought.
Q said:
Honestly, you should be capable of answering this yourself.
How about we wait til PS3 is formally announced yet and Sony announces to the public what their vision is. Since "we" established that they do have a very big vision - it would be foolish not to expect them to make sure their targeted audience gets the message as well [in given time]. Similarly to how Sony is making sure everyone knows the PS2 is the most sold console, you bet people will also know what PS3 will have in store. Also, rumours have its way to get around with people... and build hype. Just do a few searches on more general gaming forums outthere and do a search on "CELL" and you may be surprised how many hits you'll find on even the most casual gaming boards. Information like that certainly goes around, especially when the platform in question is within the PlayStation brand.
Consumers buy what they think gives them their best value for their money. Even a feature like backwards-compatibility can have an impact - what makes you think even bigger plans won't ultimately result in consumer benefits?
Q said:
Surely you as an insider should know that there's a lot more associated to the simple statement you just made. Of course they develop for the system that makes them money (duh!) - but before a console launches and sparse information about the future of a console, there are various factors and predictions that come into play. As such, a companies vision may play even the deciding factor in gaining support. And if the company is the leader and the PlayStation brand, it also adds a certain trust in that the company behind the vision obviously is doing some things right and may add credibility to their future actions, even if they are gigantic and unproven. No one is saying that they will all ignore Microsoft and XNA, but that once Sony starts bringing up these topics that there will be ears listening and potentially resources allocated to be there when the show starts.
Q said:
Think PS2 that was bought as a dvd player in its early days. Didn't that benefit also gamers that wanted both? Sony's vision isn't solely going to benefit non-gamers - it will also benefit them in giving them added value for their money (I don't expect PS3 to cost more than PS2 despite its features and 'vision' behind it) - it might lure other non-gamers into the market though and as gaming becomes more mainstream, they'd be more likely to buy a game(s) too. And if the CELL vision is to be taken even more seriously, then buying other Sony products simply to add CELLs to a network may not be that far fetched either.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Some people may love Sony a little too much, which may lead them to believe the console market is "like a romance", but that's basically ridiculous.
What makes a console a success? Conveying value. Like any other consumer product.
When I first began my armchair analysis back in the Dreamcast days I made a lot of errors in my analysis, mainly because I was out of step with what was truly considered "value" for the consumer. I didn't realize how valuable EA support was, for example, or the fact that Shenmue had very little value in the eyes of the average casual gamer.
All this vision stuff is nonsense. The average gamer doesn't care about any of that. What he cares about is value. Successfully conveying that value is what makes a console a success.
What does all of this mean? Well, the games/features are the "value" and the marketing/branding is the "conveying" of said value. You can absolutely consider all this vision talk to be part of marketing/branding and Sony has an advantage there, but its not the whole story. All the vision in the world isn't going to do you much good if there is no actual value in the end.
The reason I think MS will gain some ground against Sony is that I think they will create more value with Xenon in the form of better games and convey it with stronger marketing/branding than with Xbox.
The main thing I think we can argue about is what constitutes value for the consumer and who is going to convey that value most strongly.
Some things of value to the consumer might include:
HD-DVD/BR playback
Known franchises they want to play
Great new games they want to play
Their friends have the same console
Backward compatibility
Other features like hard drive storage, networking etc...
I think that of these last generation, DVD playback and game selection were the main reason why Dreamcast lacked value and PS2 had value in the eyes of the consumer. Add to that the fact that Sony was much better able to convey this value with marketing/branding, Sega didn't really have a chance. Later on, DVD playback was not really as much of an issue, as most new consumers already had a stand alone player.
People didn't buy PS2 for its "vision". That's ridiculous. They bought it to play DVD movies, GT3, GTA3, MGS2, FFX, and EA games. That's the reality. Sony vision may have been responsible for excellent conveyance of said value, but its not the whole story.
Going forward I expect games to be the big driving value next generation and expect Sony/MS to be pretty close in this regard (just my opinion), mainly because MS will have EA support right away, good western dev support, Halo franchise established, and a one-year headstart on game development. Sony will have better Japanese dev support and a few other key franchises on their side like MGS and GT. I don't think BluRay will be a huge factor for reasons I've stated before, but I could be wrong.
As far as conveying value through vision/branding/marketing, Sony has the advantage here, although MS will not be as far behind as some people here think IMO. That's why in the end I think that Sony will lose some ground to MS, but will still probably win the race next time. The difference is that MS won't lose money and will definitely be right there again for round three.
Sony controls 70% of the market right now and looks like they'll settle in around 67-68% by the end of the cycle. Next generation I expect them to fall into the 55-60% range, losing ground to MS. I think Nintendo will be essentially static, but they might suprise us.
I'm open-minded about all of this stuff now. It's stupid to have allegiances with corporations or to hate certain corporations. It clouds reason and judgment. My Sega fanboi and Sony hating days are over, but I welcome MS as competition to Sony and think they will be more competitive next time around. All IMO of course.
What makes a console a success? Conveying value. Like any other consumer product.
When I first began my armchair analysis back in the Dreamcast days I made a lot of errors in my analysis, mainly because I was out of step with what was truly considered "value" for the consumer. I didn't realize how valuable EA support was, for example, or the fact that Shenmue had very little value in the eyes of the average casual gamer.
All this vision stuff is nonsense. The average gamer doesn't care about any of that. What he cares about is value. Successfully conveying that value is what makes a console a success.
What does all of this mean? Well, the games/features are the "value" and the marketing/branding is the "conveying" of said value. You can absolutely consider all this vision talk to be part of marketing/branding and Sony has an advantage there, but its not the whole story. All the vision in the world isn't going to do you much good if there is no actual value in the end.
The reason I think MS will gain some ground against Sony is that I think they will create more value with Xenon in the form of better games and convey it with stronger marketing/branding than with Xbox.
The main thing I think we can argue about is what constitutes value for the consumer and who is going to convey that value most strongly.
Some things of value to the consumer might include:
HD-DVD/BR playback
Known franchises they want to play
Great new games they want to play
Their friends have the same console
Backward compatibility
Other features like hard drive storage, networking etc...
I think that of these last generation, DVD playback and game selection were the main reason why Dreamcast lacked value and PS2 had value in the eyes of the consumer. Add to that the fact that Sony was much better able to convey this value with marketing/branding, Sega didn't really have a chance. Later on, DVD playback was not really as much of an issue, as most new consumers already had a stand alone player.
People didn't buy PS2 for its "vision". That's ridiculous. They bought it to play DVD movies, GT3, GTA3, MGS2, FFX, and EA games. That's the reality. Sony vision may have been responsible for excellent conveyance of said value, but its not the whole story.
Going forward I expect games to be the big driving value next generation and expect Sony/MS to be pretty close in this regard (just my opinion), mainly because MS will have EA support right away, good western dev support, Halo franchise established, and a one-year headstart on game development. Sony will have better Japanese dev support and a few other key franchises on their side like MGS and GT. I don't think BluRay will be a huge factor for reasons I've stated before, but I could be wrong.
As far as conveying value through vision/branding/marketing, Sony has the advantage here, although MS will not be as far behind as some people here think IMO. That's why in the end I think that Sony will lose some ground to MS, but will still probably win the race next time. The difference is that MS won't lose money and will definitely be right there again for round three.
Sony controls 70% of the market right now and looks like they'll settle in around 67-68% by the end of the cycle. Next generation I expect them to fall into the 55-60% range, losing ground to MS. I think Nintendo will be essentially static, but they might suprise us.
I'm open-minded about all of this stuff now. It's stupid to have allegiances with corporations or to hate certain corporations. It clouds reason and judgment. My Sega fanboi and Sony hating days are over, but I welcome MS as competition to Sony and think they will be more competitive next time around. All IMO of course.
MechanizedDeath
Regular
This random quote caught my attention. Didn't you make these same marketshare prediction LAST gen and weren't completely wrong then too? Last I remember, you predicted Sony would lose a lot of marketshare. IIRC, they've gained it. What makes you think it'll happen this gen? PEACE.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
You didn't read what I wrote. I explained clearly why I was wrong before and why I think things are a little different now. Use your brain.
TheMightyPuck
Newcomer
zurich said:
The problem with "cool" is it is a tough place to pitch a tent: when you get too cool it becomes cool not to like you. Sony has done a great job negotiating this treacherous terrain but consumers are unpredictable. Sony knows they need to deliver more than "cool" with the PS3 and they know Microsoft is a very daunting opponent. MS is like the father of the gay prince in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. They keep building the castle until it finally stands. MS is hedging its bets with respect to predictions on the demise of the PC and the emergence of converged devices (hey that was good--emergence of converged) and will spend plenty of money to stay in the game while they figure out what the game is. Right now, Sony appears to have some potentially kick-ass hardware and are playing the game they played with the PS2 (to great success). They are offering massive potential (call it hype if you must) and known functionality (will play last gen games will play HD DVDs). If I was a betting man I would bet MS gains market share simply because they are so freaking tenacious. I would also bet Sony continues to dominate because they are so freaking, well, dominant
Times like this make me wish I could quote Bilbo Baggins' voice over at the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring. "Life went on as it had for the past age, full of its own comings and goings." Something like that.
Point is, I doubt the status quo will change much either way.
Point is, I doubt the status quo will change much either way.
TheMightyPuck said:If I was a betting man I would bet MS gains market share simply because they are so freaking tenacious. I would also bet Sony continues to dominate because they are so freaking, well, dominant
Also bet the market will grow as it did in this gen from the 32bit days, but it seems like Sony is the only one pushing this.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Hardly. "Cool" is part of branding. I covered it above. Sony has an advantage here, but it's not insurmountable.
Jov said:TheMightyPuck said:If I was a betting man I would bet MS gains market share simply because they are so freaking tenacious. I would also bet Sony continues to dominate because they are so freaking, well, dominant
Also bet the market will grow as it did in this gen from the 32bit days, but it seems like Sony is the only one pushing this.
Curious how exactly can the market expand much more? Without large drops in prices for both hardware and games I don't see the prospect for much in the way of increases. The market seems fairly saturated to me for the current pricing schemes.
...and some people hate them too much. I find the whole process asinine, whether we're talking about a global conglomerate, game company, video card manufacturer... or whatever.Johnny Awesome said:Some people may love Sony a little too much, which may lead them to believe the console market is "like a romance", but that's basically ridiculous.
Talk about what's real, compare what happens, extrapolate what's likely... but why in hell do people invest so much of themselves into the whole thing?
Just about every company delivers golden eggs and turds--it's stupid to ignore the one and polish the other to make a company fit one's personal views.Ah well, enough of my bitching. I just hope people will chill out. Or do so many people get steamed simply to keep warm in these winter months?
Sorry for taking a while to reply!
The later you come to a platform, the greater the disadvantage you have when you come to it. This isn't only in terms of creating an asset base and making your way up the learning curve (both technically and artistically).
If you're a small company, there are opportunities early on when the software market isn't as mature. Franchises on the plaform aren't as established, and due to the very nature of a console's lifecycle, early on you won't be up against fours-years-in-development titles and the kind of hype tidlewaves that they can create. Innovation tends to come in the first few years of a generation; it's a good time to put out a product that's different.
Sticking on an established platform is no guarantee that one badly performing title won't take your small company under!
This is probably the point where I most strongly disagree with you. Less cash does not mean less experience, and the absence of either or both doesn't mean a game will be mediocre. You evaluate games on a submission by submission basis, not a blanket judgement like this. Some of the most worthless games of all time have had huge budgets thrown at them, while conversely some of the best and most interesting games were produced on a low budget by a small companies.
Look at all the *truly* mediocre (sales, technically, criticially ... everything) titles that companies like Namco, Sega, EA, Acclaim etc have pumped out. Then look at a company like Treasure - early or late in a generation, they've produced some real gems. Core Design, for example, were most famous for mostly crappy Mega CD games. They switched to Saturn, and then PS development very early, and produced Tomb Raider. It was enormously important for both Core and Sony. Bungie were relatively small too, until MS bought them and stuck them on Xbox.
Why limit your console's opportuntunity to receive a breakout success, or to cater to the early adopting hardcore? It makes no sense - you lose nothing by making it easier for people to develop games with less risk.
Besides, financial fears are as likely to stop innovation in a big company as a small one. It affects everyone.
Bad games can put customers off, but as we've established these bad games can come from anywhere. So why not make it as easy as possible for everyone to make good games?
I agree that for some companies this will be a good idea. A great idea infact. But not for everyone. Some ideas have a sell by date, for whatever reason (beating competitors to it, chance to gain exposure, riding the new technology wave) and if you wait several years (or even months) you miss out on opportunites. And everyone's worse off for that.
You don't know who they are, so you can't say how good they are ("sub par"?) or where on the next gen development scale they sit. And what you see as whinging, they probably see as taking an interest in their business. I'm sure Sega and Nintendo thought the third parties where whinging and blowing hot air shortly before they started to lose support to Sony.
Maybe the article is making a genuine point, maybe it's void filling crap as Vince suggests. All I think we can do is speculate on what it might mean if it's true.
Technical issues can hold development back at any point. A game that gets delayed by 9 months due to technical issues is going to go way overbudget even if 90% of the original buget was planned for spending on art assets. Missing ideal launch time would cost sales, as could being dated compared to competing titles. Or you might have to drop features that could affect sales.
Reducing risk and reducing projected budget are both plusses for whoever can offer them.
one said:
The later you come to a platform, the greater the disadvantage you have when you come to it. This isn't only in terms of creating an asset base and making your way up the learning curve (both technically and artistically).
If you're a small company, there are opportunities early on when the software market isn't as mature. Franchises on the plaform aren't as established, and due to the very nature of a console's lifecycle, early on you won't be up against fours-years-in-development titles and the kind of hype tidlewaves that they can create. Innovation tends to come in the first few years of a generation; it's a good time to put out a product that's different.
Sticking on an established platform is no guarantee that one badly performing title won't take your small company under!
This is probably the point where I most strongly disagree with you. Less cash does not mean less experience, and the absence of either or both doesn't mean a game will be mediocre. You evaluate games on a submission by submission basis, not a blanket judgement like this. Some of the most worthless games of all time have had huge budgets thrown at them, while conversely some of the best and most interesting games were produced on a low budget by a small companies.
Look at all the *truly* mediocre (sales, technically, criticially ... everything) titles that companies like Namco, Sega, EA, Acclaim etc have pumped out. Then look at a company like Treasure - early or late in a generation, they've produced some real gems. Core Design, for example, were most famous for mostly crappy Mega CD games. They switched to Saturn, and then PS development very early, and produced Tomb Raider. It was enormously important for both Core and Sony. Bungie were relatively small too, until MS bought them and stuck them on Xbox.
Why limit your console's opportuntunity to receive a breakout success, or to cater to the early adopting hardcore? It makes no sense - you lose nothing by making it easier for people to develop games with less risk.
Besides, financial fears are as likely to stop innovation in a big company as a small one. It affects everyone.
Bad games can put customers off, but as we've established these bad games can come from anywhere. So why not make it as easy as possible for everyone to make good games?
I agree that for some companies this will be a good idea. A great idea infact. But not for everyone. Some ideas have a sell by date, for whatever reason (beating competitors to it, chance to gain exposure, riding the new technology wave) and if you wait several years (or even months) you miss out on opportunites. And everyone's worse off for that.
You don't know who they are, so you can't say how good they are ("sub par"?) or where on the next gen development scale they sit. And what you see as whinging, they probably see as taking an interest in their business. I'm sure Sega and Nintendo thought the third parties where whinging and blowing hot air shortly before they started to lose support to Sony.
Maybe the article is making a genuine point, maybe it's void filling crap as Vince suggests. All I think we can do is speculate on what it might mean if it's true.
Technical issues can hold development back at any point. A game that gets delayed by 9 months due to technical issues is going to go way overbudget even if 90% of the original buget was planned for spending on art assets. Missing ideal launch time would cost sales, as could being dated compared to competing titles. Or you might have to drop features that could affect sales.
Reducing risk and reducing projected budget are both plusses for whoever can offer them.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
basicly that's how I see things turning out next gen. Sony will lose 10~15% of its marketshare.
MechanizedDeath
Regular
I did read it. I wanted to point out that you're just as likely to be wrong this gen too. Seems to were just as confident last time around as well. Food fer thought.Johnny Awesome said:
IMO, the ball is Sony's to lose. I don't think there's any magic to the market. I think we saw Nintendo simply squander what they had in the past, but IMO, there's a substantial edge to the entrenched leader, and that's certainly Sony. They don't need to get it right so much as they can't afford a screwup. And screwups are generally easy to avoid, so long as you are stupid like Nintendo and Sega were. And it's not an issue of hindsight either, these are mistakes a lot of people saw coming before they ended up costing the companies. All IMO though, so who really gives a crap? Sony will probably lose marketshare, but I don't think it amounts fo much. It's easy to lose marketshare when you so thoroughly dominate the way they have. What would be more significant is if the other companies can try to steal at least half the market. They haven't yet, and I don't expect that to change this gen either, barring a major cockup by Sony. PEACE.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
So you chastise me, then agree with me. I can live with that.
Just going to say that right now there is most likely more developers programing games for the xenon / xbox2 than the ps3. That will slowly change to a more balanced number as the ps3 launch comes closer .
Only really big sony supporters like square will be working on ps3 games right now if any .
Where as xenon developers are almost on the final dev kits . Last rumor i heard was the r500 was ready and out to most devs but the cpus were still on thier way .
Only really big sony supporters like square will be working on ps3 games right now if any .
Where as xenon developers are almost on the final dev kits . Last rumor i heard was the r500 was ready and out to most devs but the cpus were still on thier way .
Cryect said:
Did the market grow this generation compared to the last? Do we expect the Video games market to continue to grow next generation? If so, which of the 3 makers pushes innovation (EyeToy, SingStar, etc) to lure new segments of consumers?
Just think the potential market if some games were targeted at the females. Not that I can come up with any idea, - [Sims] Shopping anyone?.
one said:Starting from 03/31/2003, Kutaragi is concurrently the vice president of Sony Corp as well as being the CEO of SCE
Then 05/22/2003, PSX was announced and SCE expressly commented (original Famitsu article) that PSX is not a product from SCE but from Sony. PSX is a DVD-recorder which happens to have gaming abiliy provided from SCE, not vice versa.
PSX can't be called a success anyway, the next restrained plan of Kutaragi as a Sony executive, not only as the SCE CEO, is the XMB user interface which is put on Sony's TV and PSP and other possible Sony products. Then the Cell comes in the future of course, but it will permeate beyond Sony, in Toshiba and IBM products, and more - the Cell ISA is like TCP/IP in the internet.
Dont make much sense against my WSJ link. PSX is very much a SCE envison project as PS2 or PSP. It may not receive as much support in the end, but the backbone still come from SCE. PSX failure is hardly material, so no need to spin away the responsibilites of those at fault.
Also, "visions" is very cheesy thing i read this year, no offend. Its still about winning game support and marketing. Even phil lists, 3/4 of them link back to games. Simple things need not made to sound so granduer. XNA can help to win more support, but its not the be all as some here overly emphasis on, MS will have other avenues.
pahcman said:
Then my question is 'vision or no vision'. For what cause and social benefit does Xenon exist? 'Simple games', OK, but unfortunately in modern times you can't play 'simple games' anymore. Halo 2 needed hype to sell, others too. Sometimes vision can get its actual shape, while only stupid people are intimidated and tricked by grandeur things. Don't be afraid of vision
Similar threads
