Sony charging editors for PSN?

That's where I think we'll just end up having to agree to disagree as it's almost impossible now to pull up relevant figures for the Jaguar, 3DO, Dreamcast, Saturn, and a few other contenders to Sony/Nintendo.

I still think it's quite likely that the Xbox brand would have followed in the step of the Dreamcast had it not been for MS's willingness to suffer incredible losses in order to give it a viable chance in the next round.

I don't think that PS3 is currently in that dire shape. As I've said before they are only really at a relatively large disadvantage in the US. In other territories it's currently alot closer, although MS is pushing hard to gain ground in Europe without much of a response from Sony. And Sony doesn't appear to be doing much to change the situation in the US. At least not yet...

However, all that said. It is my opinion that it is having an impact or will have an impact on games being made for current consoles as well as how developement money is being allocated. And if (really BIG IF) numbers continue to slide for PS3 then things could potentially get ugly. IE - it could become the Xbox of this generation.

However, there's still some extremely compelling exclusives coming down the pipe, so I don't think it'll get that bad. God of War III "should" move some consoles and will probably have a larger impact on PS3 sales than MGS4 did.

Regards,
SB


We agree to disagree then :)

To make two quick points, I think the Xbox is an entirely different boat.

In one hand, it came to the market extremely late with no brand recognition, and had to establish it's "name" from scratch, so it's not really a good example to use as a comparison to any other console. In fact, I'd say that the PS3 / 360 / Wii situation is completely unique.

Also, I don't really understand what it is you mean when you say it could become the next "xbox" of this generation. It seems you are implying some sort of negative connotation, however, I don't see it. The Xbox had a lot of superior ports, and some really really good exclusive titles. Hell, I wouldn't have played any Half Life at all if it weren't for the Xbox. I just don't get the direct connection between it and the PS3, other than both consoles were in 3rd place and still had a fantastic software line up.
 
Also, I don't really understand what it is you mean when you say it could become the next "xbox" of this generation. It seems you are implying some sort of negative connotation, however, I don't see it. The Xbox had a lot of superior ports, and some really really good exclusive titles. Hell, I wouldn't have played any Half Life at all if it weren't for the Xbox. I just don't get the direct connection between it and the PS3, other than both consoles were in 3rd place and still had a fantastic software line up.

I should have been a bit more clear on that. The only implication is a relative lack of games in comparison to the competition. For example Xbox compared to PS2.

There were some good games, and some good franchises saw their start (Halo for example), but in general it lagged far behind PS2 both in number of games as well as number of exclusives.

Xbox sometimes saw better quality ports, but it wasn't unusual for a port to appear up to a year later on Xbox compared to PS2. D.O.A. 2 for example. Although there were also titles that saw same day release.

So there are a lot of similarities between PS3 this generation and Xbox last generation. But it's not nearly as bad. And there's more cross platform titles (in relation to the whole body of gaming as a whole on both platforms) this generation than there was last generation.

So, as I said, I doubt it will be anywhere near as big a seperation as we've had last generation, but the similarities are enough that it could be considered the Xbox of this generation.

[Edit] And no the connotation isn't an enitirely negative one. IE - lack of games and exclusives in comparison to PS2 didn't make Xbox a bad console. Although disappointing selection of games might play into that. Similarly noone can claim PS3 is a bad console. And Dreamcast wasn't a bad console...

Regards,
SB
 
I should have been a bit more clear on that. The only implication is a relative lack of games in comparison to the competition. For example Xbox compared to PS2.

There were some good games, and some good franchises saw their start (Halo for example), but in general it lagged far behind PS2 both in number of games as well as number of exclusives.

Xbox sometimes saw better quality ports, but it wasn't unusual for a port to appear up to a year later on Xbox compared to PS2. D.O.A. 2 for example. Although there were also titles that saw same day release.

So there are a lot of similarities between PS3 this generation and Xbox last generation. But it's not nearly as bad. And there's more cross platform titles (in relation to the whole body of gaming as a whole on both platforms) this generation than there was last generation.

So, as I said, I doubt it will be anywhere near as big a seperation as we've had last generation, but the similarities are enough that it could be considered the Xbox of this generation.

[Edit] And no the connotation isn't an enitirely negative one. IE - lack of games and exclusives in comparison to PS2 didn't make Xbox a bad console. Although disappointing selection of games might play into that. Similarly noone can claim PS3 is a bad console. And Dreamcast wasn't a bad console...

Regards,
SB
Isn't that kind of like trying to call an ending to a book that's only 1/4 of the way of being written (PS3 and X360), and comparing that book to a book that was basically completed (PS2 and Xbox) long ago?
 
I should have been a bit more clear on that. The only implication is a relative lack of games in comparison to the competition. For example Xbox compared to PS2.

There were some good games, and some good franchises saw their start (Halo for example), but in general it lagged far behind PS2 both in number of games as well as number of exclusives.

Xbox sometimes saw better quality ports, but it wasn't unusual for a port to appear up to a year later on Xbox compared to PS2. D.O.A. 2 for example. Although there were also titles that saw same day release.

So there are a lot of similarities between PS3 this generation and Xbox last generation. But it's not nearly as bad. And there's more cross platform titles (in relation to the whole body of gaming as a whole on both platforms) this generation than there was last generation.

So, as I said, I doubt it will be anywhere near as big a seperation as we've had last generation, but the similarities are enough that it could be considered the Xbox of this generation.

[Edit] And no the connotation isn't an enitirely negative one. IE - lack of games and exclusives in comparison to PS2 didn't make Xbox a bad console. Although disappointing selection of games might play into that. Similarly noone can claim PS3 is a bad console. And Dreamcast wasn't a bad console...

Regards,
SB

Ah, gotcha! Thanks for clearing that up :)
 
It's really quite simple: if developers put less effort into the PS3 due to lower sales and expected RoI, you get less games or worse quality games.

This was proven wrong last generation with the Xbox and Gamecube, both of which recieved stellar titles.

It's also been proven wrong this gen, as the PS3 has been pretty far behind the 360 in sales here in NA, but the ports keep coming.

And contrary to what pixel counters believe, the ports are far from "unplayable" or "poor quality". You get a pretty much identicle experience, baring a few lines of resolution, a couple of dropped frames, etc. There are some cases where this has happened, but they are far fewer than the decent ports.
 
9 to 10 year lifecycle for the PS3 and around 7 year lifecycle for the X360. The PS3 is 2+ years old (barely 2 years old in Europe). The X360 is 3+ years old. So, I guess the book is closer to 1/3 written.

You think Sony really will let the next Xbox have the "Next Gen" title all for itself for 4 years?
 
You think Sony really will let the next Xbox have the "Next Gen" title all for itself for 4 years?

It depends on whether they have a choice or not. If Sony continues to suffer large losses (as a company, not just gaming division) they may not have the funding available to launch a PS4 sooner than they originally planned.

In their efforts to win the HD format war, they may end up losing far more.

Regards,
SB
 
It depends on whether they have a choice or not. If Sony continues to suffer large losses (as a company, not just gaming division) they may not have the funding available to launch a PS4 sooner than they originally planned.

In their efforts to win the HD format war, they may end up losing far more.

Regards,
SB

Please, the HD format war is not the only reason the PS3 is where it is. Go back and reread some of the countless PS3 price + Blu-Ray drive threads.
 
You think Sony really will let the next Xbox have the "Next Gen" title all for itself for 4 years?
I'm sorry, but that statement doesn't make any sense to me. Console lifecycles overlap. In other words, you don't have to stop one console's lifecycle to start another.
 
It's really quite simple: if developers put less effort into the PS3 due to lower sales and expected RoI, you get less games or worse quality games.
Yes, but predicting that is irrevelant, no? That's my point. There's no need to worry about this. If it happens, if happens and I can jump ship whenever I want, keeping the old console and games I like. But if I already have a PS3 now, there's nothing I can do about the choices developers make. And that's all ignoring exclusives. At the end of the day, if PS3 sells worse and gets inferior ports, but I still get the quality exclusives I like, much as better cross-platform titles would be preferred to cheap ports, the console still serves me. There's no need to turn every third thread into a prediction as to how many PS3's will be sold in the next 4 years. Anyone accurately predicting today that PS3 will sell no more than 35 million in its life makes no difference to me owning a PS3 now and buying games for it based on the quality and appeal of those titles. And if that prediction is wrong and PS3 sells 28 million in its life, or 50 million, or 100 million, my position is still the same.

The only sensible reason to want to know how much the machines will sell and what their life-time libraries will be like is if you're sitting on the fence wondering which one to choose. Then you have to weigh up the features and exclusives of PS3 against it's probability of suffering a software slide, and maybe decide 'no, because in a few years the quality of software will be too low to interest me because it won't have a large enough install base.' And that reasoning is ignoring completely the price difference, features, and also the change in the market where games have moved towards cross-platform rather than ports.

AFAICS there's really nothing in it. If you want cross-platform games, buy an XB360. It's cheaper and the games tend to be better, though the difference isn't normally worth bothering about, less so even than PS2 versus XB difference. That's a no brainer. If you want the BRD player and/or PS3's exclusives along with your cross-platform games, get a PS3. If you want both, get both. None of these machines are going to die and leave you with a closed library like the Saturn, or a very limited library like GC. Those lokoing at PS3's relative performance now really aren't factoring in that it hasn't had a price drop and is still silly expensive by comparison to the competition, yet is still selling better than XB did and that remained a viable platform. Once the price comes down, it'll do far better bulking out the user base with buyers of cross-platform games that'll keep the developers interested. So between now and 2013, the only thing PS3 owners or buyers really need worry about is hardware failure, worldwide economic collapse, heart disease or meteor collisions.
 
Back
Top