NPD March 2008
- Thread starter iceberg187
- Start date
If you're right, that would certainly make a lot of sense, with the 360 being out a year longer. Though it may also be a little surprising, given the numbers we've seen on the 360. This is definitely something that deserves a follow-up.
@Natoma: for me (it probably sounds corny) the PS3 is still the game with the best games overall, combining at least most of the best of both the Wii and the 360 - a lot of very decent free online gaming, some very cool and 'big' releases with technical wow-factor and a large variation in type of games available, a lot of fun and varied PSN games and some decent Motion Sensing and PS Eye support to boot (Creature Feature for instance deserves more credit than it's getting, very successful with non-gamers, more so than I myself would have guessed, especially when you realise you can hand creature over to each other and play cooperatively
). And those PSN games are some great value for money as well.If I were to make a PS3 marketing campaign and strategy, I'd know how to do it ... as a complete package, it's just awesome! (and yes, I'd definitely start considering the PS Eye as a pack-in) It's really the only box we require (well, that and the digital cable box at the moment) for watching and downloading all sorts of media, browsing the web (and combinations of both, thanks to youtube for instance, which is used a lot), watching the family fotos and videos (also partly on the web these days), music, games, everything. Crossovers are nice too - watch a great movie, then hit up imdb and check out whether we identified a certain actor that also played in that other movie whatsitcalled ... Just awesome.
But anyway, enough of off-topicness for me.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Price isn't much of factor for most people I know. They rather have a good service. After all TV is technically free if you want barebones, but most people decide they'd like something better like cable or satellite. Everyone I know buys every game they want. The extra $50 would not get them any other game, since they have everything they want. Thus the $50 goes to Live because it's the best console online service out there.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Exactly. In fact BR vs. Live are similar value added propositions. Both are an extra $50 and focused into the areas that their respective companies care most about: Networked living room for MS and HD movies for Sony. Of course, the BR is a one time investment, so cheaper cost in the long run.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
While I agree with this for the most part, I have to say that I think GT5 and FFX will turn some heads. MGS not so much IMO. Why? Because unlike the "wait until X" arguments that have been made in the past, which I agree were pretty silly in hindsight, these are very established franchises that are highly sought after. Not unlike Halo 3 and GTA being big draws as well. But it was pure fantasy to think that anyone would give a shit about Uncharted or Ratchet & Clank, especially at the $400 price point.
Then we have to get into market demographics and see that the average age and usage patterns of PS3 vs. 360 owners tends to skew towards a higher age for PS3 owners, as well as a much higher likelihood to use the devices a media center/movie playback device.
Really? Where did I say that?
I didn't, actually. I simply pointed out that it's not all roses in the MS garden. Sony provides an online gaming service free of charge to their users, MS has chosen to use this as a stream of revenue instead. I never said Live was a bad service.
Home would be/will be a bigger selling point than Live because
1) free vs. ~$50 expense annually
2) offers a more interactive environment than Live
3) unique content (plus for both services)
Not really. It's so blatantly appallingly obvious which of the two machines is the superior media center that any debate would be purely semantic and subjective, likely to devolve into a flamewar.
Just to address this point, when Home launches, it'll be great, but MS aren't sitting on their laurels. It wasn't too long ago I was reading an interview where an MS spokesman was talking about something wonderful in the online space. So if we're going to look at what Home will offer versus what Live offers now, we should also look at what Live will offer too. Which doesn't help us any, as MS haven't given the slightest clue! I guess I'm only trying to muddy the waters here and adding confusion where once their was clarity
You don't need to pay to use any of the features of Live, except for multiplayer. I suggest that the free portion of Live is more attractive than Home to mainstream users. I'm a longtime MMORPG gamer, but to me there is no contest - the average customer has little interest in fooling around with a 3D avatar. Giving them a convenient way to rent their favorite TV/movies is way more mainstream.
Home is going to be on top of their basic service, which should be very convenient. I have absolutely zero interest in home, and I don't understand why it would be a huge hit, but it also doesn't subtract anything from the PS3 because you aren't forced to use it.
It depends on how well they implement it.
Based on observation, it has the most potential in clan rooms and game lobbies. I meet with the GAF Resistance clan frequently (almost every week day) and noticed that people socialize quite a bit in the lobby. Sometimes, they play music to the entire lobby, sometimes they criticize the latest happenings in gaming, other times they ask questions, sometimes I check the web while waiting for expected firmware upgrade, etc. there is always stuff to talk and laugh about. It has kinda become part of the gaming experience and I look forward to the gathering as much as the game itself -- even though I always keep quiet (They b*tched/joked about it too).
If such behaviour is common and Sony continues to extend that experience, it can be attractive for online gaming. The other pieces (media sharing, video streaming, trophies, etc.) are simply additional tools to help us socialize better (More topics and things to talk/do).
But everything hinges on how well Sony executes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Its seems like a common positive outlook to Home is that it will have the same social appeal as a MMORPG. I find this highly suspect as a lot of MMORPGers adore the social aspect but time and time again reality has shown its the gameplay aspect that determines the success of these titles. Its one thing to roleplay a warrior, mage, space pilot or bounty hunter, it another when simply presenting an interactive online persona of oneself.
I'd say they are different. In MMORPG, there is the fantasy aspect (plus currency, plus assets). In Home, at least in the game lobby, there is no such context in general. People just talk about (real) everyday matters. There is little need to put up a fake front. Sometimes people just want to vent to a group of likeminded folks and then shoot some aliens.
It's a casual and very loose network unlike the deep, vested ones in MMORPG. Doesn't mean it cannot do well though. We have to wait and see.
There seems to be an impression on this thread that it is either TV/movies or Home. That isn't the case for either console. Sony should be rolling out their own download service around the same time that they roll out home (Which is to say it has been slated for sometime this summer - no firm release date yet). Given that they are also one of the largest media producers in the business I have a feeling that content will not be that much of an issue in short order. If the rumors are true, Sony's service will also be open format - meaning you can buy movies on your PS3 to play on your PSP, your computer, or any other device you can transmit it too. There are really only two questions at this point in time - when will it be released and how much content will it have.
I am certain Live probably has something in response to Home as well. I really see little point in the Home vs TV/Movies discussion - because both consoles will have their own solutions in BOTH areas.
The Wii I can accept, but the PS3 number is impossible. Multiplatform games are selling at least two times as many copies for the Xbox, and it has a lot more exclusives and million sellers.
I mean, just how many actual million sellers are there on the PS3 at all?
COD4, Assassin, Guitar Hero are the most successful multiplatform games, and the exclusives are Resistance, Motorstorm, Uncharted, and maybe Heavenly Sword and Ratchet.
Now Halo3, Gears and COD4 for the X360 alone have sold more than all the million sellers on the PS3 combined, and there's still a huge list of other games on that platform. So those numbers have to be complete bogus.
This news from GI.biz confuses the matter. Regarding game sales in the UK...
So Nintendo had the lion's share of the market with 37%. The most MS could have had then is 36%, leaving Sony with 27%, worst case. Thus, in the UK, PS3 games are selling almost as well as XB360 games, and interestingly on a smaller install base. These wild regional differences must make worldwide predictions a bit tricky!
I agree as I can see Home being used by large portion of the PS3 userbase who game online. However, I still don't see Home as being a strong selling point. The majority of gamers will base their console purchase on the respective libraries of the consoles with price coming in at a strong second.
I can't see someone who strongly attracted to the Gears or Halo pick the PS3 simply because they can have a 3d interactive persona of themselves. Vice versa for the PS3, as I don't GT, FF or MGS fans suddenly foregoing those titles because they see Live as such a great setup. More than likely most will deal with the flaws or disadvantages of their online service to play their favorite games.
How do you come to that? The numbers in include portables and probably the ps2 as well. Sony could have 27% and the ps3 could have sold 0.
The network effect helps to sell more software, just like XBL allegedly does.
Home is only a consolidation platform. The 3D UI is incidental but eye catching. To become a hardware driver, Home will need help from the PS3 content library (games + video), additional developer support to complete Home's unique experiences, and the user community itself. When packaged together, PS3 will sell better. The same goes for Wiimote. Alone, the controller is only part of the puzzle. It boils down to how and how quickly Sony folds everything together.
People who are strongly attached to specific games may not move, but there are many who aren't. Those are the potential switchers up for grabs. Something exciting, forward looking and fun may be just what they are looking for. But yes, Home should appeal to netizens most.
People who have no online interests or access will likely not bite -- unless there is such a thing as a single user experience for Home.
EDIT: I forgot to consider Home applications such as Dress. Essentially, it depends on how Sony intends to market PS3 to the masses too. They may tailor the experience to the netizens at large, gamers and non-gamers. In which case, it would be a different draw.
Last edited by a moderator:
Good point. I missed that.
