What? Then why are the PS2 tech demo's always cited by the gaming press as notorious examples of unrealistic claims being made by game companies?
NPD February 2009
- Thread starter RobertR1
- Start date
What? Then why are the PS2 tech demo's always cited by the gaming press as notorious examples of unrealistic claims being made by game companies?
I think you have the answer right there, they just go with the hive, whatever it is. They do not really represent the pinnacle of investigating journalism.
Odd, I just invite friends into my game as they come online, or if they are already online they invite me. 8-10 of us regularly race in Pacific Rift and we have never had a problem with getting into the same game within moments of signing in. Do you not know about the invite system in Pacific Rift?
Because while they are possible with intense effort in isolation, their utility in-game is limited at best.
Yeah, indeed, specially when they themselves fail to bother to challenge their claims on what is supposed to be unrealistic.
Not only that but all of those demos were surpassed by the actual PS2 games that kept raising the technological bar.
I only know one person that wants a Mac and he already has one. I used to know 2 others that used Macs, but they've since switched to PCs.So that analogy is a bit flawed.
I also don't know many people in RL that go to great lengths to defend one console or the other. I see it far more often on forums. What I DO hear quite a bit from those that actually do buy a PS3 though...
"It's a Playstation" And... "I know the X360 has more games, but it's a Playstation." And other variations of that.
Despite that, I know more people with X360's than PS3's. Most of us, if we want to play something on PS3. Well, we're just fine with borrowing a mates PS3 or just going to their place to play it.
The Playstation brand still has huge mindshare, but even with that, people just aren't willing to plonk down huge gobs of money for it just yet. At least no around where I live...
Had the PS3 launched at the same price as X360 and stayed roughly the same price. It would have wiped the floor with the X360. Assuming there were actually more games for it...
It really is too bad that they included a bluray drive. I'm pretty sure a cost competitive PS3 with a DVD would have smacked the X360 all over the place, even with it being harder to develope games for.
Regards,
SB
I cannot believe people still post stuff like this, Sony brought to the table an actual generational leap in a physical console we cannot just blame Sony for not knowing the variables of consumer spending trends changing and then facing the economic crysis.
Sony has delivered on their promise with the PS3 and as the most expensive console it seems to be doing pretty damn healthy in terms of sales, its not like people are scrambling to replace their dead consoles by buying new ones to help push the world wide systems sold numbers.
Please do enlighten us, what was it about those tech demos that made them limited for use in-game?
Blu ray is the third rail here
... it all depends on your opinion of what success is this generation.Silent_Buddha
Legend
I'll still stick with my opinion that the PS3 would have done far far better had it launched without BluRay and thus at a similar cost to the X360.
No one can say whether it still would have sold better or not due to it being hard to develope for relative to the X360. It's quite possible that lack of games might still have held it back.
However, I'd contend that at a similar price point and without the delays in launch needed to get enough of the blueray laser crystals (remember there was a shortage at the time) that it quite possibly could have launched closer to the X360 launch and at a similar price. Although being hard to develope for it's possible that the delays were inevitable regardless in order to actually have some games at launch.
Had that happened, it would have absolutely wiped the floor with X360 and todays HD console landscape would be completely different. The X360 is a good console, but so is the PS3. The only advantages that X360 has IMO is that it's quite a bit easier to develope for and has a lower price point.
A similarly priced PS3 would have sold incredibly well in comparison rendering the easy to program nature of the X360 moot. Similar to PS2 versus Dreamcast. The PS3 would have sold enough consoles that it wouldn't really matter if the X360 was easier to program for...
So yes, it's only an OPINION. Not a fact. I'm not claiming it as a fact. But it is my opinion that BlueRay is the major failing of the PS3 not currently leading the X360.
The fact that by including BlueRay may have helped Sony win the HD player war against HD-DVD is irrelevant to that point.
Regards,
SB
ShadowRunner
Veteran
I think its quite obvius PS3 would have sold better if it had of been cheeper (no blu-ray). It would have sold even more if it was the wii of the gen too. Why is there even a discussion on this? The only debatable thing is whether the route they did take will eventually pay off...
I don't think there is a debate on that either. With the amount of money they burned through I don't think it will ever pay off and the damage they have done to their brand is going to take years to fix if not decades.
I wouldn't have thought we'd have enough information to make such definitive statement...
ShadowRunner
Veteran
However MS is not capitalising on their advantage over the PS3 either, by being aggressive.
Unlike Sony they're not courting innovative, non-traditional games like Heavy Rain or LBP (which incidentally was created by Lionhead devs).
And they've shut down or lost, many of their first/second party devs. Which is completely the opposite of Sony, which uses stellar first party titles (eg. KZ2, Uncharted) to drive platform/brand awareness and sales.
Unlike Sony they're not courting innovative, non-traditional games like Heavy Rain or LBP (which incidentally was created by Lionhead devs).
And they've shut down or lost, many of their first/second party devs. Which is completely the opposite of Sony, which uses stellar first party titles (eg. KZ2, Uncharted) to drive platform/brand awareness and sales.
there have been reports and articles about how much the ps3 has burned through cash wise and unless you think the ps3 is going to hit anywhere close to 150 m then the brand has weakened.
But does Sony's strategy pay off?
This has not happened to the levels Sony has hoped. Sony has lost market share while MS has gained market share.
Yes, but MS had a year's head start and much cheaper SKU's. And still we see the PS3 closing the gap and slowly catching up to the 360 in sales, unlike the Wii which has a growing lead over the other two.
The question is when will the PS3 catch up to the 360, before or after the seventh generation begins.
Taking Zed's trend graph from the NPD JAn09 thread:
The case of "the PS3 catches up" has been dead for half a year now. the last round of 360 pricedrops killed PS3 sales, and if I'm correct the number of months the PS3 actually sold more than the 360 can be counted on one hand. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony starts focussing more on the Media Center aspect of the PS3 instead of games. Taking the year headstart plus Sony's reluctance to release a PS4 any time soon (2012?) would give the MSX3 a 2 to 3 year headstart on Gen.7.
Only Salvation for Sony would be a PSThrii with DDR mat/Fit board, Sixaxis pointing stick and a ton of PSN party games.
Meh, all the PS3 needs is a price cut.
