Sony confirms plans to launch PS3 in Spring 2006 (U.S.)

[Ty]

So that prices fall and we don't have a monopoly .... Last time i check having one company with 70-80% of the market is a bad thing

So do you think it's "a bad thing" now?

if they can it be nice , don't see it happening this generation though .

I highly doubt the PSP will outsell the DS during their lifespans - at least going by their histories so far.

Also its generaly nice to have the new comer put out a competive system in price and features that are important in that sector like battery life

Well the free market will take care of that. And personally I wish the DS would have been a competitive system in price and features like battery life too. But the battery life is too short when I'm up 57 hours straight hopped up on Cocaine and it's too expensive becauce I've been spending all my money on the Cocaine.


Yes it’s a joke.

 

[creon100]

1) they said it during the conference

No they didn't, read my post, have you even watched the conference?

can you post links to your numbers ?

I can't find exact Xbox launch numbers, as I said, I'm not sure about those, but this linked story from IGN indicates they shipped 1.1 million the first three weeks, which would pretty much mean they didn't ship 1 million the first day.

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/100/100392p1.html

Again, it's tough finding news stories that say, "here's the launch number," but again this IGN article is based on a Nintendo PR where Nintendo says they've "sold out of their initial 700,000 launch shipment."

http://cube.ign.com/articles/100/100030p1.html

Finally, the PS2 launch, as I suspected was about 500,000 (and then the ensuing shortage madness that followed). Third paragraph of this article "500,000-plus," nowhere near 1million units at launch.

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/086/086943p1.html

 

[mckmas8808]

highly doubt the PSP will outsell the DS during their lifespans - at least going by their histories so far.

Well just to be fair the PSP has no history. It is only about 2 million behind the DS with not even touching Europe. The DS has sold about 1 million in Europe already. Added to the fact that they have been in the U.S. for an extra 4 months and I can see why they're 2 million ahead.

With GTA coming out at launch for the PSP along with other games and with over 70 UMDs either being out or coming out by then I can easily see the PSP pasting the DS.

You have 80 or 90 million PS2s out there

Well its 90 million and your point to correct. And people on forums keep talking about the casuals. Wouldn't the casuals that brought over 190 million PSones and PS2s feel safe with buying a PS3? Again thats more than Nintendo has sold in their entire life with any console.

If one company does things right and earns 80% of the market, I'm OK with that, because it means they're probably doing something better than the other guys. The competition just keeps them honest.

Hasn't this been the case for the last 10 years. I think videogames have been at the best point in history imho.

 

[jvd]

I see what you're saying. Personally, I think there's little worry of high prices and monopolistic practices when you have two smart, financially strong companies battling it out as you do with Sony and MS in the home console biz and Nintendo and Sony in the portable market.

For example, Sony can't charge us exorbitant prices prices because they'd lose buyers to Microsoft. Nintendo, too, will now have to buckle down a little bit and play a sharper game now that Sony has released its own portable system.

We need companys on even footing if one company has 80% of the market that is not a good thing . Becasue that one company doesn't have to reduce prices they will have the devs making games for them and catering to them .

Look at this gen . THe xbox was more powerfull but many games didn't push the limits of its power because sony had the lions share of the market . If the xbox had 40% of the market with sony having another 40% (and nintendo with 20%) you would have seen alot more games pushing that system further .

We also would have seen the ps2 drop lower in price than the xbox instead of it staying at 150$ .


Letting one company have the market is a bad thing . If the other companys never rival them for market share its as good as not having anyone else in the market .

 

[jvd]

Well just to be fair the PSP has no history. It is only about 2 million behind the DS with not even touching Europe. The DS has sold about 1 million in Europe already. Added to the fact that they have been in the U.S. for an extra 4 months and I can see why they're 2 million ahead.

please post these numbers of yours showing where they sold 2 million less units than the ds . The ds has sold about 1 million more units in japan alone than the psp .

Please do not mix up shpped numbers with sold numbers

 

[mckmas8808]

Well I got part of those number from this website.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/business/11794324.htm

And this is what they said.

But even that dominance is in danger of being chipped away by Sony's recent entry, PlayStation Portable. In the United States, for example, sales of the PSP and the DS are in a dead heat, with 1.7 million DS units shipped as of March 31, compared with 1.5 million PSPs. Here, the challenge for Nintendo is similar to the one it faces in home consoles: appealing to older gamers.

 

[jvd]

Well look at it this way , if we want to go by shipped units the ds has shipped 7.2 million world wide vs the 4 million of the psp .

The sales between the two units are not a million diffrence. They are a litle over a million in japan online

as of april 24th in japan alone

DS 2,171,902
PsP 1,230,128

Ds has sold 941,774 more units

In the usa it may be closer but then you have many other markets (not just counting europe ) where its selling extremely well .

 

[creon100]

Look at this gen . THe xbox was more powerfull but many games didn't push the limits of its power because sony had the lions share of the market . If the xbox had 40% of the market with sony having another 40% (and nintendo with 20%) you would have seen alot more games pushing that system further .

We also would have seen the ps2 drop lower in price than the xbox instead of it staying at 150$ .

But going by your reasoning and if we assume Sony is as nefarious as you make out than the PS2 should currently be more expensive than the Xbox, they're not, pricing is in an equilibrium point, and lower price has done nothing for the Gamecube.

Manufacturers are aware of this, lowest price doesn't mean the most succesful, and neither does a console's relative power to the other consoles. There are other factors at play in the console market, and if companies were as short-sighted as short-term userbase than publishers would have never started making games for the PS2 over the Dreamcast.

I'm not saying having a more equal marketshare would be a bad thing, I just don't see all the stagnation in the market that you seem to be attributing to the PS2 dominance.

 

[jvd]

But going by your reasoning and if we assume Sony is as nefarious as you make out than the PS2 should currently be more expensive than the Xbox, they're not, pricing is in an equilibrium point, and lower price has done nothing for the Gamecube.

First of all i think any company with 80% of a market would do the same . Hell if i had 80% of the market you'd be i'd charge more for my product


Secondly the ps2 should be cheaper than the xbox considering the xbox is able to out put better graphics and has the better online feature set . The problem is so few games support it because the ps2 has the market share . If it was an even split many more games would push the xbox and the graphical diffrence would be seen and the buyers would buy the xbox thus not allowing the ps2 to stay at 150$ . The ps2 is 150$ at 5 years old , the xbox is 150$ + hardrive for a 4 year old system.

 

[Kolgar]

Letting one company have the market is a bad thing . If the other companys never rival them for market share its as good as not having anyone else in the market .

Damn the free market, eh?

All right, let's go in and force Microsoft to stop making OSs, Sony to quit making PlayStations, and Nintendo to stop making Gameboys.

Really, though, what are you going to do, eh? Ultimately, it's we consumers who vote with our dollars (or Euros, or Yen, or whatever) and give these companies their positions.

And if no other companies can deliver what it takes to compete with the market leaders, well, I guess they don't deserve more than limited success anyway.

Ah, well. Such is life.

 

[Ty]

I'm coming to the conclusion that as long Sony is the on one top, it's bad.

 

[jvd]

All right, let's go in and force Microsoft to stop making OSs, Sony to quit making PlayStations, and Nintendo to stop making Gameboys

Sorry i guess you missed the anti trust case against ms in the states ? Sorry pay more attention to the tv .

Not only that but your response with the idiotic lets make them stop making things !!!

No , but good competition is a good thing and rooting for a monopoly is a stupid thing .

 

[mckmas8808]

No , but good competition is a good thing and rooting for a monopoly is a stupid thing .

Well Sony doesn't have a monopoly on the videogame market. To me it seems like you think they do. And if you think they do, then how in the heck can you expect the X360 to come close to the PS3 in sales. What MS has in the OS market is closer to a monopoly.

 

[jvd]

Sony is close to a monopoly . This is a make or break generation . If nintendo fails or ms fails and don't come back for another outting its as good as done

What MS has in the OS market is closer to a monopoly

ANd its really to late to do anything about that . However its not to late for stoping a console monopoly .

Its very simple , Balanced market share will equal cheaper prices for the consumers

 

[JasonLD]

U cannot compare OS market with Console market..since compatibility is everything in OS market...monopoly will continue unless something dramatic change happens..
In console market..saying Sony is having monopoly in console market is kinda funny..because leader is always vunerable every generation change..

Its very simple , Balanced market share will equal cheaper prices for the consumers

Not necessary, even there is balanced market we had a similar price pattern..as long as there is competitor to keep the leader honest..we don't have to worry about price.

 

[Ty]

It's a bit silly to worry about a monopoly. Look at the NES, that WAS a monopoly. Look at Nintendo now, pretty much the polar opposite of a monopoly.

Did you hate Nintendo back in the NES days?

Even if the Xbox were to fali (which NONE of us even think remotely is possible), MS still has TONS of money.

Same with Nintendo.

A virtual console monopoly? Not going to happen anytime soon imo.

 

[JasonLD]

If I had to choose company which can potentially monopolize console market..it would be Microsoft...lol

Microsoft's pattern of market dominance
V1.0(Entrance)
V2.0(Positioning)
V3.0(Dominance)
Xbox is in V2.0 right now..will we be seeing Microsoft dominance of console market in 2011?

 

[Inane_Dork]

It's already acknowledged that MS's backward compatibility will be LIMITED on Xbox360.

Yes? And? You'll need numbers to make that argument worthwhile. Specifically, you'll have to show how limited it will be.

And I agree with Shifty that 'enhanced' BC may be a very big bullet point for PS3 if Sony can pull it off.

Think about it: You have 80 or 90 million PS2s out there. Even if many are broken or no longer used, there may easily be 50-60 million active PS2 users out there. Now you tell them they can play all their existing games on PS3, where they'll look better than ever before.

If I'm one of those people, this feature is a very good reason for me to consider PS3 over Xbox360.

I still think you're greatly overestimating the demand for that type of feature. But even if not, and be honest here, who has the greater potential to offer backwards compatibility with the graphics turned up to 11? Sony or MS?

 

[quest55720]

It's a bit silly to worry about a monopoly. Look at the NES, that WAS a monopoly. Look at Nintendo now, pretty much the polar opposite of a monopoly.

Did you hate Nintendo back in the NES days?

Even if the Xbox were to fali (which NONE of us even think remotely is possible), MS still has TONS of money.

Same with Nintendo.

A virtual console monopoly? Not going to happen anytime soon imo.

Oh ya I had plenty of beefs with nintendo when they controlled the market. Game prices were outragous and content was limited to what nintendo wanted you to play. Thank god Sega showed up with the genesis prices have been frozen ever since. Content is a hell of a lot more diverse because devs can make any game they want not what 1 company says. I will not put up with another monopoly again in gaming. If sony kills of MS then I will just stick to PC gaming.

 

[Acert93]

I still think you're greatly overestimating the demand for that type of feature. But even if not, and be honest here, who has the greater potential to offer backwards compatibility with the graphics turned up to 11? Sony or MS?

If MS has to recompile games and has to spend time doing that I do wonder if that will translate to some improvements.

On both sides there are question marks. A lot of it has to do with how they are providing backwards compatiblity, how the software was written (and how complicated), and how much time they have spent on it. Adding filtering and such to PS games (or running N64 games with a glide rapper in higher resolutions) is one thing because the systems were so simple.

Anyhow, it will be interesting to see who does what. There are some current gen games that with some AA, better filtering, running at a letterboxed 720p and a solid framerate would be just really solid games.