"Sony walking a tightrope" another reason why no playable at tgs

[Mordecaii]

Edited due to not realizing how much of a difference there was in PS2 to Xbox sales in the U.S.

Basically I think it all comes down to which system has the games that a person wants to play, and if both systems have the games that someone wants then usually it will come down to which one looks better. If it's still a tie, then I think price will be the issue.

For me, I honestly couldn't care less if the only games the PS3 had on it was FF, I'd still buy it since I'm such a fan of the series, although I'd probably also buy a X360. In fact I'll probably end up buying both as it is, but due to the different franchises on the consoles the PS3 is more important in my mind for me to own. For many people, this will also be their reason for buying a certain console.

 

[rabidrabbit]

IF they are launching the ps3 in quarter one of 2006 then this was the last major show to um show it at . Looking back at the ps2 they had playable games before the ps2 launch the following year. So i'm thinking sony wont be launching early in 2006 , but perhaps try what ms is trying and launching in the 3 major markets .

Wouldn't they have the E3 2006 before the US and EU launches?
For Japan, the TGS was the last big show, E3 is not that big a deal for Japanese consumers anyway.
Come to think of that, does a console need a major consumer electronics show with playable games prior launch? Do they have that big an impact on consumers, or is there other ways to generate the pre launch hype and awareness?

 

[Mordecaii]

If Sony has their own mini "show", I can see that as being almost as good as a big trade show. When you think about it, the people that actually attend the show number in the low thousands, so it's not like everybody and their neighbor gets a chance to try out the games. If Sony invited the major journalists and got a ton of media coverage for their event, then I think it would suffice, even if it wasn't quite as good as an E3 or TGS. All I know is that everything we've heard from Sony indicates a Spring launch so until we hear from them that it's been pushed back I'm going to assume it'll launch then in one of the regions at least (of course I'm hoping NA ).

 

[rabidrabbit]

I disagree with you to an extent jvd when you say that timing is everything... I may be wrong, but aren't sales between PS2 and Xbox at least close to the same in the US? So in the US then, timing was not everything. And for Japan, MS never really stood a chance there, and Sony seems to have for some reason been a bigger hit in Europe than Xbox (which cannot be attributed to just time since as already pointed out, sales in the US for both systems were at least in the same ballpark). MS needs to establish themselves as a worldwide gaming company instead of mostly relying on the US and if/when they can do that, then they will start to challenge Sony.

If timing is everything, and previous console launches are taken as a guideline, wouldn't the "logical speculation" (heh, that's another oxymoron like "promise of a possibility" ) be "first in, first out".

 

[jvd]

I disagree with you to an extent jvd when you say that timing is everything... I may be wrong, but aren't sales between PS2 and Xbox at least close to the same in the US? So in the US then, timing was not everything. And for Japan, MS never really stood a chance there, and Sony seems to have for some reason been a bigger hit in Europe than Xbox (which cannot be attributed to just time since as already pointed out, sales in the US for both systems were at least in the same ballpark). MS needs to establish themselves as a worldwide gaming company instead of mostly relying on the US and if/when they can do that, then they will start to challenge Sony.

They are not close . I think in the usa ms has sold 10-14 million systems ? THe ps2 has to be in the high 20 million mark if not higher . Sony had a huge lead in time . This lead to more developer support which meant more games , which meant a bigger installed base which meant more games , which meant a bigger installed base and so on and so forth .

I don't know who is pointing out that sales were in the same ball park . I don't see how that can be factual . If ms sold 12 million units in the usa and sony sold 12 million units in japan we can figure ms sold another 8 million world wide. Sony would have to have sold at least 78 million more world wide and we know that hte usa is 1 of the 3 biggest market (if not the biggest. ) Which figuring around the same numbers for europe and japan that would be 24m more units or 36m total . There is still 54m units missing . So i don't see why you think that .

As for ms , they are establishing themselves as a worldwide option . They launched one product late in the last generation against a very strong market leader comming off a very sucessfull product . This time they are launching first and have a strong brand name with some big games . This time people wont go whats an xbox , they will go what games are on it . Which is a huge step foward . Once again time is key as they will in some parts of the world have a whole season of sports games with next gen graphics in the market before sony comes around with those graphics which will get many sports fans .

Wouldn't they have the E3 2006 before the US and EU launches?
For Japan, the TGS was the last big show, E3 is not that big a deal for Japanese consumers anyway.
Come to think of that, does a console need a major consumer electronics show with playable games prior launch? Do they have that big an impact on consumers, or is there other ways to generate the pre launch hype and awareness?

But it will be out in japan .

See a tradeshow even when the games are playable is diffrent than a system being in the wild .

You can put mgs 4 on the show floor and even if it has warts many sites and people at the show will add in it looks great and there are still x amount of months to go (See pdz for an example of this ) However once a system launches and the game is out there is no excuse .

Also trade shows are huge for hype and do get alot of media buzz . It also assures investors and gamers that there is a product to be shown . at about 7 months from a japanese launch they didn't even have playable beta machines . Even ms at e3 had playable beta / alpha on the show floor (full auto comes to mind ) . So its unnerving for some people to see sony showing off tech demos instead of having playable code on the floor.

 

[jvd]

If timing is everything, and previous console launches are taken as a guideline, wouldn't the "logical speculation" (heh, that's another oxymoron like "promise of a possibility" ) be "first in, first out".

Nintendo was first in , atari was first in bot hwere succesfull . Genesis was first in and was the market leader untill the 32x / saturn when nintendo kept the supernes going and took market share back .

So first isn't allways bad . Only the saturn that came off a failed 32x , an unsucessfull sega cd and its own rushed launch (to beat psone to the market) and the dreamcast which came off a failed saturn and was alunched by a broke sega failed by coming first .

 

[rabidrabbit]

Yep, that's my point - my post should have read

previous recent console launches are taken as a guideline

.
i.e. launching first is just one of the many variables affecting the ultimate success of the console.

Edit: Now that I think of it, what xbox360 games have really been playable by public? The launch is... what... a month+ ahead! PDZ at that MTV event was one (for a very limited "public"), any others?
Will there be any public events before the launch where people would be able to sample the games, or will the demo pods in stores at launch be the first where games are playable?
Why are we demanding Sony to give us playable games, if MS who is so much closer to launch has had so little publicly playable games on final hardware, or even having finalised the launch lineup?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This coupled with what we are hearing on the xbox 360 being easier to develop for but ps3 being slightly more powerfull and we may see many developers develop on the x360 and then port over to the ps3 . Thisis what we saw this gen . Games were developed on the ps2 and were ported to the xbox as it was more powerfull .

This is a contradiction. You're saying devs will write for XB360 because it's easier, then port to PS3, but then you say this gen games were written on the difficult PS2 and ported to the more powerful XB.

 

[London Geezer]

WELCOME BACK JVD!!
Anyway...

This coupled with what we are hearing on the xbox 360 being easier to develop for but ps3 being slightly more powerfull and we may see many developers develop on the x360 and then port over to the ps3 . Thisis what we saw this gen . Games were developed on the ps2 and were ported to the xbox as it was more powerfull .

Uhm actually they developed on PS2 because it was the market leader, and ported to the Xbox because they wanted to do some quick cash on top of their PS2 profits, not "because it was more powerful".
They will develop for X360 next year because it will be market leader (for a while at least), then port to PS3, not because it's more powerful, but because they need the cash.
If PS3 becomes the market leader, they will develop for it, then port to X360.
No "power" involvment really generally, it's all a matter of "biggest userbase".

 

[Thegameman]

The PS2 had more games on development before it was release than what the DC had in store by the time the PS2 hit.


The PS2 was the best seling game console from go with almost 3 million pre-order in US. alone with only half a million fill that demand.


The PS2 was 10 million strong by march 4 2001,just a year after release and it was close to 18 millions by the time the xbox hit.

The xbox 360 vs PS3 look very alike with the DC vs PS2 when one was more powerful the other was friendly to develop for,and we all remember how both console games look close on 2000 but by 2001 PS2 games like GT3 were showing who had the power advanatge.


What have been show now show just that very close games for both consoles.


The xbox din't sold like the PS2 cuz people din't want it,most games now are multiconsole and people still buy the PS2 over the xbox and gamecube in all countrys.

Now is very diferent they release first,but they give up having the most powerful console which was like the most push feature the xbox had over the PS2,which did make the user base that is now on the console.


Now there is not HDD standar which was something they flame sony for,now many xbox 360 owner will be force to buy a memory card like PS2 users did.


I think they will sell a decent number of consoles but knowing how fast sony can sell PS,i don't see them satying on top for much time,and world wide will be worst cuz US. is MS best market in UE the xbox is very weak and in Japan is dead.


Also as of now the xbox is like 14 million in US the PS2 is like 37 million not 20 like some one was saying.

 

[London Geezer]

^^ Oh dear...


Goodbye thread.

 

[hugo]

Where the hell is UE?

 

[Powderkeg]

^^ Oh dear...


Goodbye thread.

No kidding. I'm not even going to bother touching that much flamebait piled all in one place.

 

[mckmas8808]

Also as of now the xbox is like 14 million in US the PS2 is like 37 million not 20 like some one was saying.

This part is true though. It's not 20 something million for the PS2.

 

[jvd]

This is a contradiction. You're saying devs will write for XB360 because it's easier, then port to PS3, but then you say this gen games were written on the difficult PS2 and ported to the more powerful XB.

No its not , the developers of the ps2 had a 18month gap in which to learn the ps2 over the xbox . The ps2 also had the larger installed base . This time ms has 3 advantages , the time period , ease of programing (realitive) and of course the installed base .

i.e. launching first is just one of the many variables affecting the ultimate success of the console.

Edit: Now that I think of it, what xbox360 games have really been playable by public? The launch is... what... a month+ ahead! PDZ at that MTV event was one (for a very limited "public"), any others?
Will there be any public events before the launch where people would be able to sample the games, or will the demo pods in stores at launch be the first where games are playable?
Why are we demanding Sony to give us playable games, if MS who is so much closer to launch has had so little publicly playable games on final hardware, or even having finalised the launch lineup?

Actually if we look at recent history we will see that coming after the market leader is a bad thing to do also . Sega who was in the market with the dreamcast for 2 years roughly sold a good 12 million worldwide which is only 8 million less than nintendo and ms who had 2 more years over them in terms of sales . If the dreamcast was launched by a company with money and was allowed to live a full life it could have easly outsold what the cube and xbox sold .

Ms has had playable public games on the show floor at e3 . At x05 they have a slew of playable games also . But the fact remands that ms at 7-8 months before launch had playable gamecode on the show floor . Sony at the same time frame (if its indeed a qtr1 launch) does not . Do you not remember the ps2 launch games in japan ?


The stupidity in thinking that sony will win when history has shown that the market leader can loose large amounts of hte market in 1 system generation just flabergasts me . We saw nintendo loose half the market to the genesis when we all thought it would be impossible as sega had less than 5% of the market with the master system . We then saw sony come in and take 70% of the market from 2 strong players (sega and nitnendo) in one generation .

So its not like this hasn't happened before . All it takes is good moves by ms . And its not just moves at launch but all through out the life of the console

 

[Black Dragon37]

I already did: The Osborne Effect (ps. I'm sure you can google it). This is supported by Phil Harrison's comments concerning how PlayStation3 would go "underground" after E3, the data fits. This isn't that difficult, well for you it is as you need to both attack the article as "rubbish" and make up some logical system of why it's BS. But, for the rest of us it approximated the general situation quite well.

It wasn't Phil Harrison. It was David Reeves, CEO of SCEE.

 

[mckmas8808]

Actually if we look at recent history we will see that coming after the market leader is a bad thing to do also . Sega who was in the market with the dreamcast for 2 years roughly sold a good 12 million worldwide which is only 8 million less than nintendo and ms who had 2 more years over them in terms of sales . If the dreamcast was launched by a company with money and was allowed to live a full life it could have easly outsold what the cube and xbox sold .

Doesn't that speak more on the disappointment of the Gamecube than greatness of the Dreamcast though? It's Nintendo you should be blaming more for poor sales. The Xbox I can understand. I mean it was MS's first shot at the game consoles. Nintendo should be ashamed of what they have done as far as market share is concerned.



PS: I thought the PS2 had a 12 month lead on the Xbox not a 18 month lead? *scratches head*

 

[EpicZero]

PS: I thought the PS2 had a 12 month lead on the Xbox not a 18 month lead? *scratches head*

March 4 2000 - November 15 (I think) 2001.

 

[Powderkeg]

March 4 2000 - November 15 (I think) 2001.

That would be correct.

 

[Powderkeg]

Actually if we look at recent history we will see that coming after the market leader is a bad thing to do also . Sega who was in the market with the dreamcast for 2 years roughly sold a good 12 million worldwide which is only 8 million less than nintendo and ms who had 2 more years over them in terms of sales . If the dreamcast was launched by a company with money and was allowed to live a full life it could have easly outsold what the cube and xbox sold .

You just contridicted your own claim.

You say if Sega, who launched first, had stayed in the market, they would have outsold both the xbox and GCN and been #2 in the market, and that would have been a bad thing?