Is it too early to declare the PS3 a failure? [Archive]

Madd Maxx

01-09-2007, 07:48 AM

I have a $500 PS3 and I wouldn't trade it for a Wii or an Xbox 360. I might have bought a Wii if I hadn't been able to get a PS3, and I may still get a Wii for my kids in the future. Everyone (including me) complained when they were nowhere to be found at launch and now, not even two months later, you (VCO3) are complaining that they are "rotting" on the shelf? How are you so sure they are "rotting", are you positive that the machine on the shelf on Tuesday is the same as the one sitting on the shelf on Wednesday? Hell, the way I look at it is maybe, just maybe, Sony has gotten their shit together and there are actually products available to be bought. Huh, what kind of business model is that, selling products that people were clamoring for instead of constantly being "sold out " like the Wii?

RE: Killer app; Resistance: Fall of Man is a great game and is so far the best game for the PS3 at launch, and I don't even have mine hooked up to the internet for online gaming (yet). I have no doubt that there will be more great games coming soon that utilize more of this machines capabilities. So far I have 4 games for it, Madden 07, Tiger Woods PGA, Need for Speed Carbon, and the aforementioned Resistance. I have thus far resisted getting the Marvel Alliance game but my willpower is wearing thin and I may soon own that game as well. It also seems that I have a $800+ Blueray disc player included, which I haven't yet used although the DVD player works just fine.

I may have to do a little research too back this up but to me it appears that VCO3 is just a Sony-hater and is sitting there like the Grinch just waiting to say "I told you so" to the news of the PS3's failure. Don't hold your breath though, the Sony's down in Sonyville sitting there playing their Sony PS3's, PSP's and PS2's even though VCO3 has proclaimed the PS3 to be dead rotting on the vine.

Just Some Guy

01-09-2007, 07:54 AM

Can we say definitively at this point that the PS3 is dead? No, but we can say that it's going to be almost impossible for it to recover.

The PS3 is excellent hardware; it's impossible to deny that. It's my feeling that Sony shot at a level of technical design that was two years too early for the mass market and that's going to kill them. The high end hardware has driven up the price point far past what mass consumers are willing to pay for a game console.

There's certain psychological price barriers and if you can get your product below that price then demand increases dramatically. At $300 it's the die-hard gamers that are going to buy; at $200 it starts slipping into every living room in the country. A $600 price tag means that everyone but the most obsessed are going to stay clear. The mass consumers don't care that it has a blu-ray player; they just want something that plays games.

The only thing Sony could do in this is drop the price, but that's something they won't be able to do even next Christmas. The X-Box 360 doesn't have as much of a pricing problem and Microsoft wasn't able to drop the price this year (though they were able to arrange for some minor purchase incentives). Come next year when the X-Box can afford a $100 price drop and the Wii may be able to slide down $50 Sony will still be forced to sell at $600. A 50% price drop from the introduction price like Sony needs in order to be competitive usually doesn't occur until well into a console's life cycle.

At this point in time we have PS3's rotting on the shelves, direct competition that is very active in the Wii, and a system that has reached a critical mass of entrenchment in the US with the X-Box 360. All of those publishers who hitched their wagons to Sony based on the strength of the brand are trying to shift direction fast. You'll note that the PS3 hasn't gained any new exclusive content or announced any hot upcoming releases since well before the launch. A snowball effect has started: the PS3 can't get many purchasers so publishers won't develop for it so more people avoid it so more publishers walk away. See what happened to the Gamecube last generation for an example of this problem; they might have had some big exclusives that were announced early like Resident Evil 4 but publishers quickly moved away and the system sold weakly compared to the PS2.

All of this was foreseeable well before the launch. I know that when pricing on the PS3 was announced there were quite a few people pointing out this doomsday scenario. I personally pegged the demand for a $600 PS3 at about a million units and it looks like I over estimated by a considerable amount (Sony has shipped a million but sales of the PS3 have all but stopped and large numbers have been returned to the stores from people attempting to scalp them; the actual sales appear to be closer to 500k though its impossible to tell with how Sony gives numbers). Still I can't call it a failure yet; it's not impossible that some miracle will happen and somehow sales will pick up. At this point it's better that Sony take a page from Nintendo's game book; stop trying to push the PS3 and relaunch a PS4 built on the same hardware designs with some improvements three years from now. That's the best way to pull a win out of the current mess.

Just Some Guy

01-09-2007, 07:58 AM

Max, before you ask, yes I have seen PS3's rotting on the shelves in local stores. More game stores around here have at least ten with product in them. The big box stores have had large piles of them since before Christmas. That's what I've seen with my own eyes.

Madd Maxx

01-09-2007, 08:01 AM

Just Some Guy, many of the stores I have been in have "display boxes" in the windows and on shelfs. Ask them if they have any in stock and the answer is usually "No."

Tabby_Cat

01-09-2007, 08:03 AM

CandidGamera

01-09-2007, 08:35 AM

Kayeby

01-09-2007, 09:01 AM

I went along with my fiance as he shopped for component cables, and all the Wii displays have SOLD OUT signs on them, with no such signs on the PS3 displays.

Anecdotally among my gamer friends there is very little interest in the PS3 at the current price point - even the most hardcore of them is unwilling to spend $AUD999 plus $100 per game on a system that has received a fairly lackluster reception. They're all playing their Xbox 360s, PS2s and Wiis, and waiting for the price to drop by a couple of hundred.

Paul in Qatar

01-09-2007, 09:31 AM

Sony?

They got in the cell phone market. They got beat. They pulled out.

They got in the flat-screen market, couldn't compete, now LG make all Sony flat-screens

They got in the MP3 player market. Couldn't make it work.

Now they are getting beat in the game marketplace. What was their last big hit? The Walkman?

Menocchio

01-09-2007, 10:02 AM

I'm just in disbelief that Nintendo has actually garnered the attention it has, after a 10 year downhill journey (although N64 was awesome, GameCube, not so much).
It should be noted that while the GC was the 3rd place console, Nintendo sold each unit at a profit, unlike the PS' and X-Boxes. I don't know how the final numbers worked out, but this practice kept them solvent in the console market. (That's still true. Sony's taking a ~$300 loss for every $600 PS3, while Nintendo is making profit on every Wii sold, even if the buyers never buy another Nintendo game)

Perhaps more importantly, Nintendo utterly dominates the hand-held market. The DS outsells its next two closest competitors combined, and #2 is Nintendo's own Gameboy Advanced.

Tabby_Cat

01-09-2007, 10:11 AM

Now they are getting beat in the game marketplace. What was their last big hit? The Walkman?

How about.. the PS2? PS1? It was a pretty big hit, by any definition. PS2s are still the top selling console, perhaps second to the GBA/DS.

Slacker

01-09-2007, 10:13 AM

Just Some Guy, many of the stores I have been in have "display boxes" in the windows and on shelfs. Ask them if they have any in stock and the answer is usually "No."
That's not the answer around here (North Dallas, TX). I spent weeks looking for a Wii (finally found one at Target), and I saw PS3s all over the place. One day at lunch I was feeling especially intrepid and hit 6 stores. All but one of them had PS3s in stock (and yes, I asked). No one had Wiis.

I also ended up using itrackr.com to help me find a Wii. Currently they list 0 stores (out of 23 in my area) with Wii systems. They show 18 of the 23 as having PS3s in stock. Since I started looking during the last week of '06, there has never been a time when at least 8-10 of the stores listed there had PS3s in stock. Now whether these systems are "rotting" or just being restocked fast is another question. But they're certainly easy to find around here. You still can't find a Wii unless you happen upon a new shipment.

As for the OP, it's way too early to declare anything. Yes, the launch was a disaster, but we have a long way to go. Check back when we have a few titles like Final Fantasy, Ratchet & Clank, God Of War, and Gran Turismo floating around and I'm sure we'll see a different story.

It's really disappointing to see the state that the Playstation brand is in now. I was (and am) a huge PS2 fanboy. I loved that Sony seemed to want to take a chance on some different types of games like Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, Frequency and Amplitude, Guitar Hero, etc. When I heard about the PS3 I immediately started a PS3 fund, where I dropped off my change whenever I could to start saving up (my former gaming fund is now the diaper fund). Then the nonsense started. They unveiled that ridiculous boomerang controller. After getting laughed off of the internets they said they'd redesign it, then revealed that they gave up and the controller would be the Same Damn Thing we've had for years.

And the troubles kept coming. By the time the launch actually came around it was clear that they weren't going to have near enough units to sell and the launch was going to become a scalping nightmare. People camped out for two days for the systems, hoping to sell them on eBay for thousands. Of course, when everyone does that, it tends to drive prices down a little. A friend of mine spent two nights in ~40F weather for a 60 GB PS3, and ended up only getting $1000 for it on eBay. After listing fees and shipping he made a little over $100. Whoops.

And can I just ask who the hell is in charge of advertising at Sony? First they come up with the world's most editable slogan: "Play Beyond." Which of course was immediately morphed into "Pay Beyond" by every amature photoshopper on the world wide internets. Then the ads start. I'm sorry, but the Baby From Hell salivating from the eyes while looking at the floating PS3 is not working. That may be the worst advertisment I've ever seen, and I live in Texas, where ads routinely feature Alan Jackson, so that's saying something.

And of course the price. I don't want or need a Blu-Ray player. I have a very limited gaming budget and I'm not paying $600 for anything, much less a system with as weak a launch lineup as the PS3. When I heard the price announced a few months ago, my PS3 fund became my breakfast burrito fund. I think I made the right choice.

I still hope to see Sony pull their heads out for the reasons I mentioned above. They're responsible for some really great gaming. They just really screwed up the PS3 launch more than I could have ever imagined.

Kiros

01-09-2007, 10:23 AM

The PS1 and PS2 were winners because they had the largest, most diverse, and overall highest-quality game libraries. The PS3 doesn't have that yet. If it gets it - GTA remaining primary-PS, the main-line Final Fantasy games remaining on the PS, etc etc - then the PS3 will end up being fine, though certainly with a lot more trouble to get there than was really necessary. If the exclusives start jumping to the Xbox 360 (or even just publishing for both systems), well, then Sony has a problem on its hands.

It's also worth noting that they need to not only have a better set of games, but a MUCH better one. I mean, there's a very valid argument to be made that the PS3 already has better games than the Wii - not necessarily the only argument, but a valid one given that the Wii has one fun tech demo, one amazing game that's pretty much just as amazing on the GC, and a bunch of really average games - but a couple more good games isn't going to make up that difference in price point. You need a LOT more good games, and they have to be stuff that people HAVE to HAVE.

As a disclaimer, I've played all of the systems involved, but I'm that guy who's about to buy a PS2 to play all of the console games I've been pointedly ignoring for the last several years. So I'm not really the one spending my money on this stuff :)

Hampshire

01-09-2007, 11:02 AM

Somebody needs to link to it (I can't, I'm at work) but there is a Wii ad on youtube that has a really hot skimply clad blonde called Wii next to a fully dressed chubby nerd girl (PS3).

The blonde has the best line: "Come play with me, I'm cheap AND fun!"

control-z

01-09-2007, 11:56 AM

Sony?
Now they are getting beat in the game marketplace. What was their last big hit? The Walkman?

Trinitron TVs
PS1
PS2

Skipper Too

01-09-2007, 12:00 PM

I'd be happy to see some kind of cite from a gaming site as well. Penny Arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2007/01/08) have also anecdotal evidence regarding the availability of PS3s in some retailer called "Fredrick Meyers" (I have no idea what kind of retailer this is), but so far all I've seen is anecdotal evidence, people saying they've "seen PS3s stacked up", but no gaming news site with any kind of report.

Fred Meyers is a Northwest Retailer/Grocer in the Northwest. They are Headquartered in Portland and have stores all over Washington where I live Fred Meyers Website (http://www.fredmeyer.com/homepage/index.htm) They were purchased 5-10 years ago by Kroger. Not that I have been in a Walmart, but from what I understand they are a bit more Upscale. Their Stores also tend to have other store fronts, that they lease to other buisnesses, the one by my house has a Baskin and Robins, a Teriaki joint, and a Dry Cleaner that face the Main Parking lot. They have been Marketing the "One stop Shopping" for years now.

They have a better selection of 360 games in thier Electronics department than some of the Category Killer Box stores I have been in lately. I have been looking for Rainbow Six Vegas Lately and found it there where I could not find it in stock at Circuit City, Best Buy, or Comp USA.

Hampshire

01-09-2007, 12:01 PM

The PS3 vs. Wii (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovjpek4ALmM)

HoboStew

01-09-2007, 12:08 PM

Slacker

01-09-2007, 12:28 PM

Speaking of HDMI, I'll tell you another thing I found irritating about the PS3 - no HD cables included. For a system touting its OMG BLU RAY player, it's pretty dumb to not have the cables in the box.

Martin Hyde

01-09-2007, 12:31 PM

Anecdotal : I wandered into Wal-Mart the other day to try and find one of the rare Wiimotes, and there was a PS3 gathering dust. A friend of mine tried to locate a Wii in the days after Christmas; every store he went to had PS3s in stock, but not the Wii. The Wii, reportedly, was shipped in higher volume than the PS3. *shrug*

Interestingly enough I see you're from Morgantown, WV.

I have some family there I was visiting a few days after Christmas and I went to the EB Games at the local mall and there was a woman looking for a Wii for her son. The manager happened to be the guy working the desk and he said they had actually only ordered a small number of Wiis because apparently the word they were getting from corporate was the Wii was going to have low demand and it wouldn't be prudent to stock too many of them. Now they can't get more in for several weeks and are left turning people away who want to buy them.

TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW

01-09-2007, 12:40 PM

I may have to do a little research too back this up but to me it appears that VCO3 is just a Sony-hater and is sitting there like the Grinch just waiting to say "I told you so" to the news of the PS3's failure.

Far from it - I'm a complete and utter PS2 fanboy who's disgusted at what's happening to what should have been the successor to my favorite console.

I had all three systems in this past generation - I started with the PS2 and then added the Gamecube and the Xbox. I bought the other systems as their few exclusive killer titles appeared, and gradually sold both the Xbox and the Gamecube as I realized that there was really nothing else great coming from them. I still buy PS2 games - the system quite simply has absolutely killer games, and that's all that matters. The great thing about the PS2 is that they really had the most diverse games - tons of bizarre japanese games that in previously generations would have never made it to America were released for the PS2 by companies like Atlus and Nippon Ichi, and the system really seemed to be home to a lot of more daring "boutique" titles like the Shadow Hearts and Katamari Damacy series - not to mention all of my favorite big franchises like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Grand Theft Auto, all of which were either PS2 exclusives or at least debuted on the system months before making it to the others.

And yet, even though the Gamecube was a complete disaster of a console in many ways, Nintendo won me back with their DS handheld system, showing that instead of half-assing an entry in the graphics/performance arms race (like they did with the Gamecube) against the PSP, they'd focus on new game experiences and new forms of playing. It was a complete smash, and remains so. And that's exactly what they're doing with the Wii - instead of trying to get on board with the whole HD/mega graphics/$500 entertainment hub of your life bandwagon, they're instead just trying to offer new ways of playing, new gaming experience, new ways of interacting. And that's why I bought one - because after what they've done with the DS, I'm excited to see what they can do by taking that same philosophy to a full console. And I think developers are, too, and they're excited to do new things with the Wii.

The PS3 reminds me of something from my childhood - the NeoGeo, which was by far the best system around, but it was completely immaterial because it was hundreds upon hundreds of dollars ($600 or $800 or somethingl ike that) in an era when the SNES and Genesis were around $150. Individual NeoGeo games were $200 each. Everyone "knew some friend of a friend whose dad brought him one from Japan." It was the best system around, but who cared?

Critical1

01-09-2007, 12:56 PM

not to hi-jack the thread but what the hell is with the google add?

in a thread all about video game systems we get that/

cckerberos

01-09-2007, 01:56 PM

If the exclusives start jumping to the Xbox 360 (or even just publishing for both systems), well, then Sony has a problem on its hands.
That's not going to happen (at least in the case of FF). If you want to see a real case of console failure, you look at the 360's sales numbers in Japan.

TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW

01-09-2007, 02:00 PM

That's not going to happen (at least in the case of FF). If you want to see a real case of console failure, you look at the 360's sales numbers in Japan.

Actually, Square is already working on an unnamed Final Fantasy title for the Wii (not another "Chrystal Chronicles," either) and have already released one DS exclusive (III) and are on their third GBA reissue. I guarantee that you'll see the next FF core title on the Wii before all is said and done.

TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW

01-09-2007, 02:02 PM

Oh yeah, and a sequel to the PS2's "Final Fantasy XII," "Final Fantasy VII: Revenant Wings" is coming out on the DS only. Square and Nintendo are in love.

Martin Hyde

01-09-2007, 02:24 PM

I had all three systems in this past generation - I started with the PS2 and then added the Gamecube and the Xbox. I bought the other systems as their few exclusive killer titles appeared, and gradually sold both the Xbox and the Gamecube as I realized that there was really nothing else great coming from them. I still buy PS2 games - the system quite simply has absolutely killer games, and that's all that matters. The great thing about the PS2 is that they really had the most diverse games - tons of bizarre japanese games that in previously generations would have never made it to America were released for the PS2 by companies like Atlus and Nippon Ichi, and the system really seemed to be home to a lot of more daring "boutique" titles like the Shadow Hearts and Katamari Damacy series - not to mention all of my favorite big franchises like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Grand Theft Auto, all of which were either PS2 exclusives or at least debuted on the system months before making it to the others.

I never got the Game Cube, and to be honest I didn't like the PS2. Well, there were two things I didn't like about it, for one it had poor graphics compared to the Xbox and two, I really hated the PS2 controllers not because of the controller design but because of the shoddy materials from which they are apparently made. I've had to actually throw away and purchase new 3 PS2 controllers because over time the shoulder buttons just seemed to either stop working or would stick way too much to be playable (and it wasn't a matter of the controller being dirty, I cleaned them to an unimaginable degree to try and fix the problem, and many of my friends also have PS2 controllers with messed up shoulder buttons.)

But I had a PS2 simply because a lot of the games that appealed to me came out for the PS2 and no other system, like you I like a lot of strange games and a lot of very unheard of games from Japan (on top of enjoying mainstream titles which would usually come out for the PS2 first, and sometimes even exclusively.)

I had an Xbox too, but no GC. Anytime a title was available for the Xbox and the PS2 I'd always pick the XBox version because of the better graphics, the convenience of the Xbox's hard drive, and because I tended to like the Xbox controller more (more durable and something about it made it more comfortable, despite its large size.)

I imagine a lot of gamers, especially younger ones who may not have any form of income probably picked the PS2 because even though they might want to play some of the GC or Xbox exclusives, they couldn't afford to buy a system just for a few games, and the PS2 by far had the biggest selection.

And yet, even though the Gamecube was a complete disaster of a console in many ways, Nintendo won me back with their DS handheld system, showing that instead of half-assing an entry in the graphics/performance arms race (like they did with the Gamecube) against the PSP, they'd focus on new game experiences and new forms of playing. It was a complete smash, and remains so. And that's exactly what they're doing with the Wii - instead of trying to get on board with the whole HD/mega graphics/$500 entertainment hub of your life bandwagon, they're instead just trying to offer new ways of playing, new gaming experience, new ways of interacting. And that's why I bought one - because after what they've done with the DS, I'm excited to see what they can do by taking that same philosophy to a full console. And I think developers are, too, and they're excited to do new things with the Wii.

In reference to this and earlier posts in the thread, despite some initial poor reception from the industry, the PSP has actually quietly become very successful.

For example in November of 2006 (most recent period I have numbers on hand helds), the Nintendo DS sold 918,000 units, and the PSP sold 412,000. So the DS is definitely more popular (especially in Japan) but the PSP has become quite competitive. In revenue the PSP made $90m in November and the DS $116m (that's one thing about the PSP being more expensive, that's more money to Sony than Nintendo gets for the DS.)

The PSP has sold 24m units world wide (with a fairly even distribution between Japan/Europe/and the US.) While the DS has sold 26m + 9m DS Lite.

If I was going to buy a hand held console it'd definitely be the DS, though. I honestly think the PSP is getting most of its sales because of its non-game features (USB storage, MP3 player, video player) than it is for its games. I've played a PSP game in a store and it was really uncompelling, and from what I've heard it has a pretty terrible game library.

One of my friends has a DS on the other hand and it has an enormous library of games, and if I want an MP3 player I'm not going to buy a PSP which is more expensive compared to a good-quality MP3 player because of all of the features I wouldn't use (like its bad games and uncompelling ability to watch movies on a very small screen.)

The PS3 reminds me of something from my childhood - the NeoGeo, which was by far the best system around, but it was completely immaterial because it was hundreds upon hundreds of dollars ($600 or $800 or somethingl ike that) in an era when the SNES and Genesis were around $150. Individual NeoGeo games were $200 each. Everyone "knew some friend of a friend whose dad brought him one from Japan." It was the best system around, but who cared?

There were tons of systems like that. The NeoGeo is one of the most infamous, but the 3DO was pretty bad too, as was the Jaguar.

What was amazing about the Neo-Geo wasn't even its $650 price tag, it was the fact that the individual games sold for $200. Now, admittedly, the NeoGeo was unique in that it was delivering 2D graphics equivalent to those found at the arcades (back when arcade graphics blew anything on the home market away) and an individual arcade game is quite expensive as you're paying for a lot of hardware, but $200 a game is still way out of whack with the market both then and now.

Martin Hyde

01-09-2007, 02:33 PM

That's not going to happen (at least in the case of FF). If you want to see a real case of console failure, you look at the 360's sales numbers in Japan.

They're stronger than the Xbox's were at this point. But Microsoft is not a Japanese company, and is only on its second system. Sony and Nintendo are prominent Japanese companies that have been involved in the Japanese market for over 20 years, so it isn't surprising Microsoft does not do all that well there, but the 360 is already looking to be more popular than the original Xbox was in Japan. I think a big part of the problem's the Xbox franchise has had in Japan is they have very few titles which are the type that would be significantly popular in the Japanese markets. Most of their exclusives are 1st or 3rd person shooters, which tend to be more popular in the United States. They don't have a very wide selection of RPGs, and the RPGs they do have are more in the style of the PC RPG as opposed to the traditional console RPG style. The Xbox has also traditionally been devoid of fighting games, which haven't been that popular in the United States (since the Mortal Kombat era, which is sad as MK was a horrible game compared to some of the fighting games that were on the market when MK1/2 were around) in a long time but continue to be very popular in Japan

But keep in mind not all game developers are based in Japan, Microsoft already has several exclusive titles and its not impossible that EA for example might not start making some of its series exclusive to the 360 if the PS3 really does fail.

On the topic of the 360, they're looking to be in a very strong position right now.

Optimistically Nintendo hopes it will have manufactured enough Wiis to ship 6 million by 3/31/2007, the 360 has already sold 10.4m systems and is projected to have sold 15m by 6/2007. That's only 9m less than the Xbox has sold in its entire 6 year run.

These are pretty strong numbers, keep in mind there were something like 110m PS2s sold and only 38m of them in the United States, Japanese customers tend to buy a lot more consoles than their American counterparts, so the 360 is already in a very dominating position within the American market.

CandidGamera

01-09-2007, 02:38 PM

Interestingly enough I see you're from Morgantown, WV.

I have some family there I was visiting a few days after Christmas and I went to the EB Games at the local mall and there was a woman looking for a Wii for her son. The manager happened to be the guy working the desk and he said they had actually only ordered a small number of Wiis because apparently the word they were getting from corporate was the Wii was going to have low demand and it wouldn't be prudent to stock too many of them. Now they can't get more in for several weeks and are left turning people away who want to buy them.

Indeed, I am.

There are 7 EBs/GameStops in driving distance from my home in Fairmont, WV (I moved last year - about 15 miles South of Motown.) 5 Wal-Marts, 2 Targets, 1-2 Best Buys, and a Circuit City, and there were regular, small shipments of Wiis throughout December to each of those stores - but each shipment would sell out within an hour of the store's opening. (Quicker, if the shipment date was public knowledge.)

My friend who was hunting for one, though, was looking in the Charleston, WV area.

neutron star

01-09-2007, 02:41 PM

The PS3 doesn't have that yet. If it gets it - GTA remaining primary-PS

Rockstar announced last May (http://ir.take2games.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=195753) that GTA IV will be released simultaneously for the Xbox 360 and the PS3, unlike the last two installments of the game, which gave nine-month leads for the PS2 versions of the games.

malkavia

01-09-2007, 03:49 PM

From IGN (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/753/753859p1.html)

January 9, 2007 - Despite promises of a million systems at Japanese retail by the end of 2006, Japanese publisher Enterbrain reports today that Sony has managed to sell just 466,716 PS3 units to Japan. This figure covers the period from the Japanese launch on 11/11 to the end of the year.

In comparison, Enterbrain reports that Nintendo managed to sell 989,118 Wii units from the 12/2 launch to the end of the year, with the number quickly jumping over the million mark for a total of 1,135,671 units by 1/7.

PS3 is also missing (or has lost) the hottest exclusives:

- Virtua Fighter 5 (available on 360)
- GTA 4 (360 timed exclusive AND with exclusive, downloadable content)
- Assassin's Creed (available on 360)
- Dragon Quest 9 (DS Exclusive)
- Splinter Cell 5 (360 Exclusive)
- Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (Available on Xbox Live Arcade, possibly the biggest PS1 game EVAR)
- Guitar Hero 2 (New and Improved on 360 - Now with Possum Kingdom! YAY!)

I love to hear people talk about the "artificial shortage" of Wii's, when it's pretty clear that Wii's have outsold the PS3 by almost 4 to 1 [cite (http://www.vgcharts.org/)].

Here's a tip: The PS3's aren't flying off the shelves because:

- They're overpriced
- Your average consumer won't be able to take advantage of blu-ray for a few more years.
- The biggest exclusive titles are backing away from Sony in terror and jumping on the 360 bandwagon

I'd bet you my lunch money that the PS3 you saw on the shelf a week ago is the same PS3 you'll see on the shelf today. I don't know very many people willing to fork out $500+ to play Final Fantasy. :rolleyes:

H3Knuckles

01-09-2007, 03:53 PM

Yes, it is too early.

With that said, it's defintley an unexpected possibility at this point. I've read numerous reports of PS3s just sitting in stores, whereas Wiis are near impossible to find.

I'm just in disbelief that Nintendo has actually garnered the attention it has, after a 10 year downhill journey (although N64 was awesome, GameCube, not so much).

As to the OP, I would absolutely agree that it's too early. Sony's held a very dominant position for some time now, and non-gamers (who are the real majority of the market) aren't as picky about their systems as gamers are. They are prone to go with what's "safe." I think that Sony has made a lot of very big mistakes with this launch, but given time, I think the worst that they could (realistically) do is find themselves on fairly equal footing with their two competitors. Besides, every Playstation has had a lackluster launch, as far as I can recall.

I'm kind of surprised by your opinion, Red. Most gamers would say the opposite; that Gamecube was a much better deal than N64. As a diehard Nintendo fan from wayback even I think so. I'd like to point out however, that Nintendo's got two things going for it:
1.) The traditional console (ie, Japanese) gaming market has shifted it's focus to handhelds. Plain and simple. And the DS & DS Lite are kicking the PSP's ass both in Japan and the North American market
2.) The Wii should be very appealing to non-gamers. It's got Nintendo's well-earned reputation for fun party games, enhanced by the less video-game like feel of the new control system. It's going to have all the games from the NES, SNES, N64, and for some odd reason NEC's Turbografx 16 (aka the PC Engine as it was known in Japan) available via the virtual console feature. It's 60% cheaper, and it will support online gaming. It's really not surprising to me that it's taking off so well; but I am biased, so take that with a grain of salt.

malkavia

01-09-2007, 03:53 PM

- GTA 4 (360 timed exclusive AND with exclusive, downloadable content)

Correction: I guess they're releasing GTA 4 on 360 and PS3 simutaneously, but 360 will have exclusive, downloadable content (http://www.xb360info.com/xbox/news/281). Sorry!

malkavia

01-09-2007, 04:10 PM

2.) The Wii should be very appealing to non-gamers. It's got Nintendo's well-earned reputation for fun party games, enhanced by the less video-game like feel of the new control system. It's going to have all the games from the NES, SNES, N64, and for some odd reason NEC's Turbografx 16 (aka the PC Engine as it was known in Japan) available via the virtual console feature.

And some Sega games too!! I spent most of the Christmas vacation reliving my youth with Sonic the Hedgehog on the Wii. Awesome.

myskepticsight

01-09-2007, 04:16 PM

I've played the Wii and the PS3. The PS3's graphics are pretty killer, but it seems like a system only for the hardcore gamer. The Wii on the other hand, is super fun even if you suck at video games. I was skeptical about the controls, but they really are nice. I had a blast playing it. I'm not a gamer by any means, but when the Wii's become more easily available, I will probably pick one up. If the PS3 was 250, I would not get one. I don't care about Blu-Ray. Besides sports games, I don't care about most of the games PS puts out. It's not kid friendly either, at least not yet with the current games. We only have one game rated 'E' available right now at work. The Wii just has a way bigger market. At work we get probably 7 to 1 people asking for Wii's over PS3s. We have 60gb PS3s in stock, 0 Wiis. The PS3 just seems to me to be ahead of its time. like someone else mentioned. The average person is just starting to get into plasma and LCD TVs and HD stuff. Not everyone can afford it and the other stuff works fine for now. I had a PS2 and loved it for Tony Hawk and Madden and all that, and wished I hadn't sold it becaue of Guitar Hero. But the price and audience for the PS3 is what's killing it, IMO. How many people do you know that can just go out and blow 600 on a game system and 60 for each game?

Just Some Guy

01-09-2007, 05:34 PM

Just Some Guy, many of the stores I have been in have "display boxes" in the windows and on shelfs. Ask them if they have any in stock and the answer is usually "No."

I know the difference between floor display boxes and boxes with product in them placed in secure cages. That is why I specified with product in them.

Regarding that NeoGeo tangent, I don't think it's fair to compare the NeoGeo to the PS3. The NeoGeo wasn't targeting a mass consumer audience like the PS3 supposedly is. Instead it was directed at more exclusive audience that as it turned out didn't really exist. The 3do is a better comparison since it was intended for a mass audience, had superior hardware, and priced themselves right out of the market.

One thing I do wonder is if the scalper situation in those first few weeks drained what momentum the PS3 could have built away. With so many people buying to resell instead of play there was very little positive word of mouth and those people who did want one to play the games had a harder time getting one. By the time the bubble burst two weeks later the Wii was the "hot item" to get for Christmas. I still doubt there's much of a market for a $600 console but they might have been able to build up enough steam to look like a threat to the 360...

Carnick

01-09-2007, 06:09 PM

Martin Hyde

01-09-2007, 06:15 PM

I love to hear people talk about the "artificial shortage" of Wii's, when it's pretty clear that Wii's have outsold the PS3 by almost 4 to 1 [cite (http://www.vgcharts.org/)].

The Wii's shortages aren't artificial but it should be noted that most new consoles can't produce near enough systems at release to satisfy the market, every major console launch in recent memory has sold out the systems. That's why it's so telling that there are a lot of PS3s on the shelves.

Here's a tip: The PS3's aren't flying off the shelves because:

- They're overpriced
- Your average consumer won't be able to take advantage of blu-ray for a few more years.
- The biggest exclusive titles are backing away from Sony in terror and jumping on the 360 bandwagon

The PS3 isn't overpriced when you consider it's a full fledged gaming system (a system which is definitely technically superior to its competitors) and also has a blu-ray player. It's actually underpriced, Sony loses money on every unit sold (this tends to be standard in the video game industry at least since the last two generations the game companies have made most of their money off of software/licensing not hardware.)

The problem is, I just don't think the video game market was ready for a $600 system. Like VCO3 said, the NeoGeo was the best, and it was definitely priced appropriately, the thing was, no one was willing to pay such a premium for that type of hardware.

Martin Hyde

01-09-2007, 06:20 PM

The strengths of a console are portability, price, group play, and ease of use. The Wii is playing to all of those strengths, the PS3 is not. When you pass the $300 barrier you're looking at a serious piece of hardware. If you're going to spend ~$750 (including one game and HDMI cables) then why not get a PC? Computers have word processing, real internet capibilities, REAL FPS games, MMORPGs, and you can actually be productive on them. Computers also have a bigger game library than all of the old consoles combined.

For someone who loathes how the game industry has been co-opted by the jock culture, it's great news to see consoles return to their roots - quick, simple, fun games. I'll probably be strung up for saying this, but I think games like Halo and Resistance aren't meant for consoles. I have my PC for my WW2 Shooter of the Month needs. Why play Oblivion on X-Box when you can have it on PC?

Also, the 80's gamers are growing up now and spawning new gamers. Nintendo is wise to tap into the kid friendly market.

I do play most of my FPS games on a PC, but if you've bought any of the recent PC shooters you'll find out you won't be playing them on a $750 system. A true gaming rig is way out of the price range of your average console player (not meaning they necessarily can't afford it, but it is outside the price range they consider acceptable fro a computer.) Most people aren't willing to by a $2,000+ computer system.

I just recently built a new gaming rig and the video card alone cost more than the PS3 premium system (and yeah, games like BF2142 on my system blow any PS3 graphics I've seen out of the water, dispelling the myth that Sony spread pre-launch that their system would top any PC gaming system.)

levdrakon

01-09-2007, 06:22 PM

The PS3 vs. Wii (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovjpek4ALmM)I adore that commercial. I also love the Mac-PC commercials. They're silly. Perhaps a bit moronic even, and work on a purely emotional level, but they work.

I'm biased though; Apple & Nintendo already own my soul.

Don't underestimate the value of "must have" games. That's why Nintendo owns my soul. They've got my "must have" games.

I enjoy my PS2. I really do. But it doesn't have anything "must have." GTA? Played it. A lot. Bored now. Kingdom Hearts? Love it. Kingdom Hearts II? Played it. Don't love it so much anymore.

Colossus? Ico? I appreciate them for what they are, but don't love them. (to be honest, haven't played Ico yet - I'm basing my opinion on Colossus, which was sorta pretty & different but left me a bit underwhelmed)

Nintendo means Mario, Zelda, Starfox, Metroid and probably a Resident Evil I simply must play. All of them.

There's nothing on PS3 I must play. Someday I'll get a PS3 because it broadens the number of games available to me. Well, I assume it will. But it's not "must have" and I won't ever pay $600 for one unless I come into some serious extra play money somehow.

I'll spend my money on Nintendo games and wait for the PS4 which hopefully will be cheaper and be backwards compatible with all the PS3 games I missed and are then cheaper.

Trinitron TVs
PS1
PS2Pretty much. I bought my TV and stereo equipment from them back in the early '90's and was happy. Haven't bought anything since. The PS2 is actually my roommate's. The Gamecube is mine. Come divorce time, I know how the custody battle is going to go.

Just Some Guy

01-09-2007, 06:51 PM

The PS3 isn't overpriced when you consider it's a full fledged gaming system (a system which is definitely technically superior to its competitors) and also has a blu-ray player. It's actually underpriced, Sony loses money on every unit sold (this tends to be standard in the video game industry at least since the last two generations the game companies have made most of their money off of software/licensing not hardware.)

It is overpriced. Mass consumers (the ones that really drive the market) are not willing to spend $600 on a game console. They don't care what hardware is in it or if it plays movies; they're buying a game machine and are going to compare the prices based solely on that. It may be underpriced to Sony but who cares about their perspective? They're not the ones being asked to buy it.

Apos

01-09-2007, 07:10 PM

The PS3 is overpriced as a console, but vastly underpriced as a computer: a really great deal for the amount of power you're getting. Sony should have tried to market it as a dual home-computer/console system.

That said, searched long and hard for a Wii, and failed. It was like tracking the spoor of a recently departed animal. I literally once came within minutes of one, but it was bought just before I walked into the Toys R Us.

Leaper

01-09-2007, 07:25 PM

I dunno, what is it about the Wii that's so hot? I don't think I would ever get used to its style of controls. Plus, that style really doesn't lend itself well to some genres, especially the one I really like (RPGs).

I don't have a dog in this fight, since I'm waiting to see where more good RPGs (and, to a lesser extent, the big two Square-Enix titles) end up before buying the latest generation (and waiting for bugs to be worked out), but having enjoyed the PS for so long, and seeing the console's "commitment" to RPGs, it'd be a shame if it expired. (Or rather, it probably won't expire, just flounder.) But right now, we're only comparing inital hype/reactions/libraries. I think it's fair to wait a bit.

Tabby_Cat

01-09-2007, 07:43 PM

For someone who loathes how the game industry has been co-opted by the jock culture, it's great news to see consoles return to their roots - quick, simple, fun games.

And this is why I'm waiting, with bated breath, to throw my hands in the air and scream "YESSSSSS" if the PS3 gets stuck in third place. Ooooh, the sweetness.

Viva la Dreamcast!

Carnick

01-09-2007, 08:00 PM

Carnick

01-09-2007, 08:03 PM

Viva la Dreamcast!
I miss my Sea Man. He's been floating at the top of that tank now for years, poor abandoned fish-guy.

Argent Towers

01-09-2007, 08:06 PM

I still have my Dreamcast and play Shenmue every now and then (I still think that's one of the most underrated games of all time and definitely one of the most revolutionary, and unique, games ever.) Power Stone isn't bad either. The Dreamcast is a sad story.

Just Some Guy

01-09-2007, 08:21 PM

I dunno, what is it about the Wii that's so hot? I don't think I would ever get used to its style of controls. Plus, that style really doesn't lend itself well to some genres, especially the one I really like (RPGs).

Point and click doesn't lend itself to RPG's? There's about twenty-five years of computer games that go against that. Most console RPG's only need a direction pad and three or four buttons which the Wiimote can do even without the nunchuck attached.

Kiros

01-09-2007, 08:47 PM

I'm kind of surprised by your opinion, Red. Most gamers would say the opposite; that Gamecube was a much better deal than N64. As a diehard Nintendo fan from wayback even I think so.

To continue this little hijack... it surprises me to hear this. Everyone I know remembers the N64 with fond memories, and remembers the Gamecube as the weakest system in its generation by far. This could be a fairly long discussion, so I won't get into it... but I really don't know many people in RL other than my resident Nintendo fanboys who would defend the Cube against, well, anything but the PS3 ;)

Point and click doesn't lend itself to RPG's? There's about twenty-five years of computer games that go against that. Most console RPG's only need a direction pad and three or four buttons which the Wiimote can do even without the nunchuck attached.

To be fair, I don't think there have been that many good 'console' style RPGs for the computer... but that shouldn't hurt the Wii at all, because the answer is (or SHOULD be, at least)... the Classic Controller. The best console RPG systems, IMO, were the SNES and the PS1... and the Wii Classic Controller can do everything those two controllers can do (and the system itself can do anything a SNES can do, at least! :p).

TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW

01-09-2007, 09:20 PM

I don't think I would ever get used to its style of controls. Plus, that style really doesn't lend itself well to some genres, especially the one I really like (RPGs).

Something that a lot of non-Wii owners don't seem to get - and the blame lies with Nintendo, what with their commercials featuring people jumping around and full-arm swinging the wii remote like monkeys - is that the controllers respond to extremely subtle gestures just as accurately as wide-swinging monkey man gestures. I've been playing Zelda, sitting on my ass, making no greater movements than I make with a normal wired controller.

Asylum

01-09-2007, 09:24 PM

Besides, every Playstation has had a lackluster launch, as far as I can recall.
You might want to define "lackluster" because I recall the PS2 selling for thousands on ebay at the launch. There were problems with production, but there weren't PS2's sitting on the shelf.

Also, someone made a mention about how the Dreamcast had a great launch and then crumbled before the PS2's onslaught, and that's why we shouldn't make gloomy predictions for the PS3: bad comparison. Both the Dreamcast and PS2 had stellar launches, but the PS3's launch has been poor in terms of sales vs available units.

OpalCat

01-09-2007, 09:44 PM

Sony?
They got in the cell phone market. They got beat. They pulled out.
They got in the flat-screen market, couldn't compete, now LG make all Sony flat-screens
They got in the MP3 player market. Couldn't make it work.
Now they are getting beat in the game marketplace. What was their last big hit? The Walkman?

But you can't beat their slogan: "Sony. Because Caucasians are just too damned tall."

;)

smiling bandit

01-09-2007, 09:55 PM

To continue this little hijack... it surprises me to hear this. Everyone I know remembers the N64 with fond memories, and remembers the Gamecube as the weakest system in its generation by far. This could be a fairly long discussion, so I won't get into it... but I really don't know many people in RL other than my resident Nintendo fanboys who would defend the Cube against, well, anything but the PS3 ;)

You're in a definite minority, then. The 'Cube had its strengths, but the N64 had about 3 good games and an abundance of crap, in adition to a total and complete lack of content in most games. The 'Cube isn't and wasn't perfect, but it has a good selection of stuff and solid, if not amazing, hardware.

Kiros

01-09-2007, 10:34 PM

You're in a definite minority, then. The 'Cube had its strengths, but the N64 had about 3 good games and an abundance of crap, in adition to a total and complete lack of content in most games. The 'Cube isn't and wasn't perfect, but it has a good selection of stuff and solid, if not amazing, hardware.

Okay, we do this hijack after all :)

I tend to feel that the N64 had... probably the best Mario game ever, the best Mario Kart game ever, the best Starfox game ever, one Zelda game that was absolutely top-rate and a second that was playable, and two truly amazing play-with-other-people games in Smash and Goldeneye. Some other pretty high quality stuff, Paper Mario, Ogre Battle, the first Wave Race when it came out. The selection after that was weaker than normal for a system, but still had a few decent games. Mostly, the N64 gave you a lot of things that you couldn't get from the PS1 or Sega Saturn (even if it was virtually devoid of good RPGs) - and they were REALLY GOOD things. Mario/Starfox/Ocarina hold up even today against any set of three games from any system.

The Cube had (relatively) weak installments in many of the signature series (Mario Sunshine (weak), Wind Waker (good but not on the level of Ocarina), Starfox (very weak), and Double Dash (*hated*, though I realize some people loved it); it made up for that a little with Metroid Prime (best game on the system IMO). Smash held up well to its predecessor. Another Paper Mario that was similarly good to the N64 version. Put Fire Emblem opposite OB64, and put Resident Evil 4 opposite Goldeneye (though RE4 didn't have nearly the multiplayer greatness of Goldeneye, the single player was better IMO). After that stuff... the GC had a much stronger set of support games than the 64 did on the face of it... but it was mostly above-average to very-good platformers and sports games - while the PS2 versions of all the sports games were better, and it had a better platformer selection overall. So it's a nice thing if you already have a Cube, but most people wouldn't buy one for that stuff.

I should note that I haven't played the GC version of Twilight Princess. Though I hear it's every bit as good as the Wii version, it will be associated (perhaps unfairly, since it was developed for GC) as a Wii game because it was by far the best title out for the first several months of Wii-ness. It's a point for the GC that it can be played there, but... not as big a one as it might have been since more people will end up playing it on the Wii.

I guess I'm willing to say the the GC had a deeper library, but I buy the Nintendo consoles for the core titles, and the N64 did a much better job with all of the traditional Nintendo series except for Metroid. Of course, they can share the title of the two most absolutely terrible RPG systems of all time - we're not exclusive on stuff like that :p

BabaBooey

01-09-2007, 10:39 PM

My history with Sony purchases:
1) 27" Trinitron. Fantastic purchase, still going strong to compliment my new Sanyo Z5 FP.
2) Sony receiver (don't recall model). Constantly goes into "Protect mode", regardless of how loud it's being played.
3) 5 CD changer. Worked OK for a while, then kept on spinning, taking about 30 minutes of shutting it on and off before it would stop on a CD (once it stopped on one successfully, it would be OK until you opened it up again to replace a CD, then repeat).
3) PS1: Great purchase.
4) PS2: Disc read error.
5) PS2: Another disc read error. Had to purchase it on account of the library built from the first one.
6) Was late learning my lesson with the 2nd PS2, so I didn't buy this, but received a VAIO laptop as a gift. Backlight went out within 2 months. Then this turned out being one of the models recalled for having the tendency of exploding.

So, basically, the PS3 has no place in my home, and this coming from someone with a need for a high def media need. I'm willing to pass up on great films in HD if it means keeping the Sony brand out of my house. Hell, I'm willing to pass up on future Final Fantasy games to keep it out.

As for the Wii, I don't really get the hype. Zelda was great (I only made it through the first temple), but there was nothing to it that couldn't be done with a plain ole console controller. Monkey Ball was fantastic with the Wii controller (never played it on other consoles, but with a normal controller it would be too easy), but that was it.

The original Xbox didn't exactly get me excited, but it looks like the 360 is going to be my console of choice (it's going to be as expensive as the PS3 with the HD-DVD add-on, so I'm in no rush to buy it).

Red Barchetta

01-09-2007, 10:42 PM

Bosstone

01-10-2007, 12:15 AM

SenorBeef

01-10-2007, 12:25 AM

I do play most of my FPS games on a PC, but if you've bought any of the recent PC shooters you'll find out you won't be playing them on a $750 system. A true gaming rig is way out of the price range of your average console player (not meaning they necessarily can't afford it, but it is outside the price range they consider acceptable fro a computer.) Most people aren't willing to by a $2,000+ computer system.

This isn't true at all. You can build a very respectable gaming system for $750, especially if you can keep an old monitor, keyboard, speakers, etc.

I'm a hardcore PC gamer who has always built and tweaked good rigs, and I've never spent anywhere near $2,000 on one, but none of my systems have ever been more than a small fraction behind the highest-end when I built them. My current system cost somewhere around $1200, which is more than I'd normally spend, but decided to splurge a bit on the best video card available - and it's still, 2 years later, more than adequate for anything coming out.

Of course, you can rack up a huge bill if you don't do any research, and build an overly expensive prebuilt "gaming system", or buy cutting edge parts. There's an absurd premium for performance at the top end. You might be able to get, for example, a 2 ghz processor for $150, whereas the 2.2 ghz version is $450, and 2.4 ghz version is $900. Is that extra 20% of performance worth 6 times the price? Especially since that lower priced chip is actually the same hardware, and with some technical savvy, you can run it as fast or faster than the $900 part.

rjung

01-10-2007, 12:43 AM

Just to add my meager POV to the others in this thread, I'll be surprised if the PS3 finishes the worldwide XBox360/Wii/PS3 race anywhere besides dead last.

I mean, sure., the games are gorgeous, but they're not OMGWTFBBQ $600 gorgeous. To most folks -- hardcore gamers and casuals alike -- the graphics are not significantly different than the XBox 360's, which is already (a) cheaper and (b) has a larger game library. And while the Wii's graphics aren't on the same level as the other two, for most folks, they're good enough -- your non-hardcore gamer who looks at Gamecube titles like Rogue Squadron or Starfox Assault is just going to enjoy the already-better-than-anything-we've-had-before graphics, and if Nintendo can squeeze even more power out of the Wii, they'll be in good shape. Throw in the lower price and the unique controller and they've got enough appeal to overcome the graphics deficiency.

I haven't owned a game console since the Sega Saturn, and I will agree that the last few years of console gaming has struck me as a ho-hum case of "same games with prettier graphics". At least the Wii gives me something truly different and original, and the ability to bring in the rest of my family for mutual gaming is a big plus. All the polygons in the world wouldn't be enough to make my wife pick up a DualShock, but she can jump into Wii Sports Tennis without a second's hesitation, and that's worth $250 to me.

(And anyone who dismisses Wii Sports as a "shallow tech demo" hasn't tried getting Pro rank yet... ;))

Sublight

01-10-2007, 01:17 AM

Just to add another data point, the Nintendo Wii is outselling the PS3 by more than 2-to-1 in Japan.

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070110p2a00m0et008000c.html

Disclaimer: I hate Sony. I hate every person who works at Sony and hope they die cold, alone and friendless. Seriously. Sony products are banned from my household. It's not because of DRMs or crap products, this is entirely personal.

Martin Hyde

01-10-2007, 01:59 AM

It is overpriced. Mass consumers (the ones that really drive the market) are not willing to spend $600 on a game console. They don't care what hardware is in it or if it plays movies; they're buying a game machine and are going to compare the prices based solely on that. It may be underpriced to Sony but who cares about their perspective? They're not the ones being asked to buy it.

Overpriced isn't really a subjective term in my opinion. If something is overpriced then you're being charged more than the market value for it, if you look at the costs of its components, the PS3 is most definitely not overpriced.

Anything they loses money on every sale by its very nature cannot be overpriced.

Martin Hyde

01-10-2007, 02:01 AM

The PS3 is overpriced as a console, but vastly underpriced as a computer: a really great deal for the amount of power you're getting. Sony should have tried to market it as a dual home-computer/console system.

That said, searched long and hard for a Wii, and failed. It was like tracking the spoor of a recently departed animal. I literally once came within minutes of one, but it was bought just before I walked into the Toys R Us.

Nintendo plans to have shipped 6 million by 3/31/2007, they should have greater availability then as the Christmas rush will be firmly behind us (and the rush of people who couldn't get one for Christmas who are still trying to get one) and also as Nintendo is able to roll out more per week than they currently can.

Interestingly enough the Wii was sought after but fairly available here for the first 2 weeks or so after it came out, after Dec. 15th though, you have been unable to find a single one.

Martin Hyde

01-10-2007, 02:17 AM

This isn't true at all. You can build a very respectable gaming system for $750, especially if you can keep an old monitor, keyboard, speakers, etc.

I'm a hardcore PC gamer who has always built and tweaked good rigs, and I've never spent anywhere near $2,000 on one, but none of my systems have ever been more than a small fraction behind the highest-end when I built them. My current system cost somewhere around $1200, which is more than I'd normally spend, but decided to splurge a bit on the best video card available - and it's still, 2 years later, more than adequate for anything coming out.

Of course, you can rack up a huge bill if you don't do any research, and build an overly expensive prebuilt "gaming system", or buy cutting edge parts. There's an absurd premium for performance at the top end. You might be able to get, for example, a 2 ghz processor for $150, whereas the 2.2 ghz version is $450, and 2.4 ghz version is $900. Is that extra 20% of performance worth 6 times the price? Especially since that lower priced chip is actually the same hardware, and with some technical savvy, you can run it as fast or faster than the $900 part.

I'm never including stuff like monitors for my systems.

I'll throw down the gauntlet and ask you to put together a system that you could aseemble for $750 that would be able to play a newly released game on max video settings.

If it can't do that, to me, it isn't a top end system. In any case, your average gaming system isn't $750 because your average PC gamer is probably going to get their PC from some mass builder like Dell or Alienware or perhaps a popular local store. And to be honest I can understand the reasoning behind that, it's more expensive than assembling the components yourself, and there's always the risk that one of these mass builders will use weak components, but the vast majority of the time you'll get a system that is capable of playing top end games very well, and it also comes with a lengthy warranty and the convenience of an easily configurable system for someone that has no desire to do in depth research on the individual components.

The average PC Gamer I know spent $1500-1800 on their system, not including monitor or etc.

The last system I bought I think I spent $2200 on it. I should mention that while I select all of the components myself and get them at the lowest prices I can find (I usually do significant research into this) I do take them to a local computer shop owned by two people I'm good friends with. They do add some cost to the system (their normal rate is something like $95/hour build time and they discount me to $60/hour build time) and I also usually get a store warranty for 4 years which covers parts and labor. To me that's the sort of convenience and comfort I'm willing to pay a little extra for, any time I have a system problem I take it 2 minutes down the street and they'll have it fixed by the next business day.

If I put together a system myself (and I have done this, but never for my primary gaming system) and a component goes bad I have to look through my warranty box to see if I've lost mine or not, and then usually I find out the component only had a 1 year warranty on it so I'm SOL. Then I have to send off for a replacement if it is covered by warranty which can take anywhere from 5-20 days to arrive depending on the suppliers current stock, and usually I do have to pay for the shipping.

When I build a system I'm also future proofing, my previous system lived for 4 years and at the end of that 4 year period it was still able to play games like the most recent Elder Scrolls with the highest graphical quality/performance. In its 5th year a few games started to test its abilities and thats when I started looking for a new system (plus I think a few components were going bad, and 5 years is a long time for a PC in my opinion.)

If I was able to put together a $750 system capable of playing the current games to the standards I expect (which I do not believe is acutally possible) I can be certain it wouldn't continue to do so 3-4 years down the road. To me, if you're going to play a PC game in crappy resolution with PS2-esque graphics you may as well not even bother, PCs are unique in that they can be customized and you push the envelope to the very edge.

Also, a big problem I see with a $750 system is even what I consider to be a mediocre video card is going to cost $200, and a good power supply (a frequently overlooked component) is going to be expensive as well. I just don't see it leaving tolerances for quality components, a quality case is at least $50+. Then you will almost certainly have to pay shipping on some of the components, because I've never lived anywhere where you can walk up and find in-store all the specific components you want for a custom-built system.

SenorBeef

01-10-2007, 03:02 AM

I'll throw down the gauntlet and ask you to put together a system that you could aseemble for $750 that would be able to play a newly released game on max video settings.

I haven't been in the market for hardware for years, so I don't know what the current price/performance ratios are. I assembled most of this system in late 2004 - for comparison's sake, this system doesn't have a problem running at HL2, high end at the top, at 1280 at full video settings. Of course, if you've got some crazy ass 2000x1500 res LCD, then the requirements go up.

If it can't do that, to me, it isn't a top end system.

You didn't say "top end system" in your first post. You said:

I do play most of my FPS games on a PC, but if you've bought any of the recent PC shooters you'll find out you won't be playing them on a $750 system.

Now, you might say "if you don't have them at 1600x1200 with maximum settings, 8x FSAA and 16x anisotropy, you're not really playing them", but that doesn't seem to be what you were saying in your original post.

As I said, I haven't kept up with current hardware, but I have no problem believing I could assemble a $750 system that would play a current shooter (what is the current shooter nowadays, anyway? Newest thing I've played is F.E.A.R, which my current system has no problem with at all) at a reasonable resolution with high video settings.

Just guessing here, because like I said I'm not up to date, but I'd imagine you can get at a gf7800-class video card for $150, an athlon x2 in the "4000" range for 150, a good motherboard for 100, 250gb hard drive for 90, a good power supply for 70, a gig of good ram for $100, a good case for 70m, and an adequate sound card for 50, which you might not even need, given the increasing quality of audio that comes from motherboard chipsets these days, dvd burner for 20 (it seems extremely cheap, but you can get perfectly good lite-on burners for that much) - did I forget anything? That's under $750. It's not top-end, but it's more than adequate to be able to play current games with a positive experience.

If you know how, you can find the best parts to overclock and get extra performance out of. (Your reaction might be "but that's stupid/dangerous/inadequate!" There are a ton of myths about overclocking due to ignorance).

Even if you double the money you throw into that system, that's still well short of the $2000+ system that you quoted as being the minimum for a gamer system. I can't even come up with a part list that would cost over $2000 without going into "paying 3x as much for a 10% boost" territory.

It's not the crazy high end SLI setup that can run the highest possible settings that the game allows, but it'd be more than adequate for playing it with a good gameplay experience.

In any case, your average gaming system isn't $750 because your average PC gamer is probably going to get their PC from some mass builder like Dell or Alienware or perhaps a popular local store.

That's why I added the bit about technical savvy in my posts. I'd never build a prebuilt even if cost wasn't an issue - I want to know precisely what components are going into my system. The price of prebuilts vs component systems has narrowed significantly over time, and you can get respectable systems from places like Dell for reasonable prices, but it's still superior all around to build your own if you can (and it doesn't require all that much knowledge).

To me, if you're going to play a PC game in crappy resolution with PS2-esque graphics you may as well not even bother, PCs are unique in that they can be customized and you push the envelope to the very edge.

This makes me wonder if you're out of touch. My 2 year old, $1200 system does things a ps2 could never hope to do, not even close. You make it sound like you'd be getting bottom end stuff by spending less than $2000, when the reality is that you just wouldn't be paying high premiums for super high end stuff.

If that's what you like - cool - but don't suggest that people who don't pay insane premiums for small amounts of extra performance are getting the shaft and aren't truly experiencing games.

CandidGamera

01-10-2007, 09:24 AM

The N64 was the only non-portable Nintendo console I skipped. Played Ocarina of Time on a friend's N64. Enjoyed occasional bouts of Goldeneye or Forsaken. Just didn't have the titles or specs to really pull me in. The still-cartridge-based system lost them their alliance with Squaresoft, which was the final nail in the N64's coffin.

Merijeek

01-10-2007, 10:42 AM

I have a wii and I love it, but I also want to get a PS3. It's really a remarkable piece of hardware when you think about it. Its the cheapest blue-ray player on the market, and if that gives Sony an edge in the blue-ray vs hd-dvd war that alone may justify the system. Its also one of the only things on the market that supports HDMI 1.3. Sure it doesn't have game support yet but that will come, and its not like the Wii is tearing up in that regard either. I'd say the jury is still out and will be until next january.

Hell, I got a Wii and the thing that I'm most disappointed about is that it has a component connection. WTF is the deal with that?

As for buying for for blu-ray, sure it's cheaper now, but prices are going to come down on other players. And, just like the DVD+/DVD- non-war of a few years ago, there's already a dual-format HD DVD announced by LG.

-Joe

Kiros

01-10-2007, 11:25 AM

I'll agree the N64 had the better library (sort of; just how many third person over-the-shoulder 3D games can you HAVE?), but I think the Gamecube is the better system. I've seen the GC put out graphics the PS2 would break itself trying to match (and yes Twilight Princess on the GC looks fantastic). The controller is far better, and the hardware itself is designed better. It didn't have a whole lot of knock-out games, I'll admit.

The last game I played on the Gamecube was the ported Ocarina of Time. I refused to play it on the N64 because I hated the system and the controller, but it certainly is an excellent game.

Heh, the N64 controller was stupid-looking to a spectacular degree... but other than one flaw*, it was an excellent controller. The D-pad on the left "handle" was actually very effective - it's a shame so many games didn't enable it - compared to the mini-Dpad on the GC controller that was virtually vestigal. The C-buttons versus the C-stick largely depended on what game you were playing, but on the whole, the buttons were more useful (they were MUCH better for Ocarina, for instance, having played both the N64 and GC versions). The Z-button on the N64 controller was a first and perfectly executed, while the Z-button on the GC controller... well, defeated the purpose of the Z button (as a "trigger" button), and was positioned such that it was nearly useless for any other function.

The Cube controller has grown on me a little (I previously thought it was the worst controller design in the history of consoles... through using it a ton and much debate I have revised that opinion to "a good effort with a few things that weren't thought out too well")... but the N64 controller was functional excellence under a really clunky guise.

That's an even deeper digression, though, and also a matter of personal opinion to a significant degree. As long as you're willing to admit that the game library was relatively lacking in top-of-the-line, must-have stuff, I'm perfectly willing to say that overall the Cube is a better system than it's often given credit for.

*the analog stick on the N64 controller - which was itself a pretty big step forward at the time - tended to get "loose" over time. More so - and more quickly so - if you were a little 'rough' with the controller, but over enough time it would happen to any of them. Not the worst thing in the world, but you also didn't want to be the one with the loose controller during the Goldeneye deathmatch.

The N64 was the only non-portable Nintendo console I skipped. Played Ocarina of Time on a friend's N64. Enjoyed occasional bouts of Goldeneye or Forsaken. Just didn't have the titles or specs to really pull me in. The still-cartridge-based system lost them their alliance with Squaresoft, which was the final nail in the N64's coffin.

Yeah, that did kind of suck... but like I said, the GC was just as bad for RPGs. Each of the system had one excellent S-RPG, one very good Mario-RPG, and a bunch - though, really, not even that many - of pretenders. Cube has a slight edge with Tales of Symphonia, I guess, because that was at least 'pretty good', if certainly not overwhelming in any way whatsoever. The PS has been the unquestioned home of console RPGs for each of those generations, though, and that's one of the things that disturbs me the most about the... issues... that the PS3 is having. If third-party devs split off, it'll be that much harder to be able to play the quality RPGs that are out there. To this moment in time, if you just bought a PS1 and PS2, you'd have played virtually every worthwhile console RPG of the last two generations (and this one, even, given that there isn't a single good console-style RPG out yet for the new generation). That's not likely to be the case going forward, and I do hate missing out on that sort of thing.

Rysto

01-10-2007, 11:41 AM

Overpriced isn't really a subjective term in my opinion. If something is overpriced then you're being charged more than the market value for it, if you look at the costs of its components, the PS3 is most definitely not overpriced.

Anything they loses money on every sale by its very nature cannot be overpriced.
Sure it can, if $600 is more than consumers are willing to pay for the machine.

Jayrot

01-10-2007, 01:33 PM

A couple things to remember:

1) At 720p (probably the most common res used by console games), is only 720 lines vertically So if you really want to compare PCs and consoles correctly, you need to figure what system you need to run a game at max settings for 1024x768.

2) In many cases, all that's needed to play the latest games a new video card. SenorBeef specs for a $750 system above are certainly reasonable, but in many ways overkill. No PC gamer buys a new hard drive or burner with each upgrade. In actuality, as each new generation of games comes out, it's usually a new GFX card, new processor + GFX card, new GFX card, new processor + GFX card type of every-other cycle.

In truth, I don't care about PC vs. consoles because I just love gaming and will go wherever the good games I want to play are.

Martin Hyde

01-10-2007, 03:16 PM

I haven't been in the market for hardware for years, so I don't know what the current price/performance ratios are. I assembled most of this system in late 2004 - for comparison's sake, this system doesn't have a problem running at HL2, high end at the top, at 1280 at full video settings. Of course, if you've got some crazy ass 2000x1500 res LCD, then the requirements go up.

Well, as I said, I disagree and I'd have to see a system configuration to convince me otherwise. I should say I was off base in saying "you won't be playing it on a $750 machine" because it's certainly possible to play games with systems that don't even match the minimum requirements listed on the box, but there is a drop off in quality/performance in doing so.

My point was, no person I know that primarily uses their PC for gaming has a $750 system, I'll concede the point that you can run a lot of games on a $750 system, but I do not believe you would be able to run them very well by anyone's reasonable definition.

You didn't say "top end system" in your first post. You said:

I also never said you have to have a $2,000 system to play them.

Now, you might say "if you don't have them at 1600x1200 with maximum settings, 8x FSAA and 16x anisotropy, you're not really playing them", but that doesn't seem to be what you were saying in your original post.

No, you're right, it isn't. But if you're playing them at a low resolution with low quality video/performance settings my point is you're not really getting much out of what the PC can offer.

As I said, I haven't kept up with current hardware, but I have no problem believing I could assemble a $750 system that would play a current shooter (what is the current shooter nowadays, anyway? Newest thing I've played is F.E.A.R, which my current system has no problem with at all) at a reasonable resolution with high video settings.

Again, show me, and then I'll agree with you.

Just guessing here, because like I said I'm not up to date, but I'd imagine you can get at a gf7800-class video card for $150, an athlon x2 in the "4000" range for 150, a good motherboard for 100, 250gb hard drive for 90, a good power supply for 70, a gig of good ram for $100, a good case for 70m, and an adequate sound card for 50, which you might not even need, given the increasing quality of audio that comes from motherboard chipsets these days, dvd burner for 20 (it seems extremely cheap, but you can get perfectly good lite-on burners for that much) - did I forget anything? That's under $750. It's not top-end, but it's more than adequate to be able to play current games with a positive experience.

I question the mother board price and the power supply price.

Even if you double the money you throw into that system, that's still well short of the $2000+ system that you quoted as being the minimum for a gamer system. I can't even come up with a part list that would cost over $2000 without going into "paying 3x as much for a 10% boost" territory.

I never said it was the minimum.

This makes me wonder if you're out of touch. My 2 year old, $1200 system does things a ps2 could never hope to do, not even close. You make it sound like you'd be getting bottom end stuff by spending less than $2000, when the reality is that you just wouldn't be paying high premiums for super high end stuff.

I never said otherwise, my point about the $2000 system was that's what I pay, not that it is what is needed to play games.

If that's what you like - cool - but don't suggest that people who don't pay insane premiums for small amounts of extra performance are getting the shaft and aren't truly experiencing games.

I don't know how I was acting, but I certainly never said that, and that's really all you have to go on through a medium like this.

But I will stand by my point that you can't play games very well on a $750 system.

I haven't bothered to research the specs of the best system you can build for $750, but I have looked at how much one computer of mine would go for based on the sum of its component costs and it'd be around $680 assuming all the components were new. This particular system cannot run Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, and by cannot run I mean you literally cannot move around in the game world, the video lag on the absolute lowest settings is so poor that you cannot meaningfully interact with the game world.

It can run EverQuest2, just, but on absolutely the lowest video settings and even then there is very bad stuttering.

And this wasn't a terrible system when it was built, it has moderately respectable specs (256 MB vid card, 2gb ram, its processor is a little dated.)

Now obviously this is an old system, and you would probably be able to get more per dollar with new components, but I still see it being very difficult to do what you claim you can do within the $750 cap. Especially when we factor in shipping costs or sales tax (you'll certainly pay one or the other.)

Martin Hyde

01-10-2007, 03:22 PM

2) In many cases, all that's needed to play the latest games a new video card. SenorBeef specs for a $750 system above are certainly reasonable, but in many ways overkill. No PC gamer buys a new hard drive or burner with each upgrade. In actuality, as each new generation of games comes out, it's usually a new GFX card, new processor + GFX card, new GFX card, new processor + GFX card type of every-other cycle.

Actually some games are very processor intensive but you can play them with an integrated graphics video card. An example of this is Paradox Games "Crusader Kings" title.

Games may be reaching a point where you are buying new hard drives when you upgrade a system. Vanguard: Saga of Heros is a 20 GB install, for example.

It's usually best to get a good all around system if you're buying a new system to be your primary computer. Just because most people do more than play games on them, and it's convenient to have a good amount of storage space (within reason, there's no reason to pay for a 750 GB HDD when a 250 one is enough for most people) as well as be able to write to different mediums like DVD. But a huge hard drive and the ability to burn DVDs isn't really essential by any means for a pure gaming system.

Personally with a new system I usually buy a new keyboard, new mouse, and new speakers. As all three are things that I feel wear and tear gets to a good bit in the life span of one of my systems (usually 4-5 years.) I usually only get a new monitor once every two systems (so 8-10 years.) Although with LCD technology these days my current monitor may even last longer than that, we'll just have to see.

iamthewalrus(:3=

01-10-2007, 04:43 PM

The PS3 is overpriced as a console, but vastly underpriced as a computer: a really great deal for the amount of power you're getting. Sony should have tried to market it as a dual home-computer/console system.I disagree. All that power's worth nothing without stuff to do on it. Who's going to write the OS, the Office suite, the email client, the peripheral drivers, and all the other stuff that you need to have for a desktop? The Cell speaks PowerPC, so it won't run Windows. It's not made by Apple, so it won't run MacOS. That leaves a specialty OS, something Sony rolls itself, or some manner of open source OS. But, really, "it won't run Windows" is enough to doom it as a realistic personal computer option for the vast majority of people.

From what little I know about the Cell, it's really efficient at floating point ops, which makes it great for gaming and physics simulation (with specialized software for it), but not necessarily that good for lots of other uses. But many commonly used applications have little to no need for floating point calculations. Furthermore, vast existing code bases are optimized for integer calculations instead, since they have historically been faster and cheaper to perform. Which is probably still the case with the Cell, except that it's got multiple efficient floating-point coprocessors to ease the pain.

Mr2001

01-10-2007, 09:58 PM

The PS3 isn't overpriced when you consider it's a full fledged gaming system (a system which is definitely technically superior to its competitors) and also has a blu-ray player.
Problem is, no one cares about Blu-Ray. Only 11% of US households have HDTV. If you don't have an HDTV set, there's no point at all to getting Blu-Ray, and even if you do have one, you might be satisfied with a decent upscaling DVD player.

OTOH, if you have HDTV, the price of the PS3 is peanuts compared to what you already spent on the set.

I disagree. All that power's worth nothing without stuff to do on it. Who's going to write the OS, the Office suite, the email client, the peripheral drivers, and all the other stuff that you need to have for a desktop?
They've already been written. If you want to use your PS3 as a desktop, you can install Linux today and use OpenOffice, Thunderbird, etc.

SenorBeef

01-10-2007, 10:12 PM

Well, as I said, I disagree and I'd have to see a system configuration to convince me otherwise. I should say I was off base in saying "you won't be playing it on a $750 machine" because it's certainly possible to play games with systems that don't even match the minimum requirements listed on the box, but there is a drop off in quality/performance in doing so.

My point was, no person I know that primarily uses their PC for gaming has a $750 system, I'll concede the point that you can run a lot of games on a $750 system, but I do not believe you would be able to run them very well by anyone's reasonable definition.

You make it sound like you'd be stuttering along at 10 FPS on minimum settings, but that's not remotely the case.

Let me use my PC for an example. It's 2 years old, with some components older than that. If you throw out the $350 I spent on hard drives (75gb raptor, 2 high quality 250gb drives), I spent:
IIRC $~80 for the case, Antec Sonata,
$80 for power supply, antec truepower 430 (the case came with a truepower 380 - I had the power supply from a previous computer. I could've saved $80 here by using the adequate to good power supply the case came with if I didn't already have something better - but you can get a decent case/psu combo for under $100)
about $130 combined for a 512 stick of corsair 3200c2 and mushkin 2-2-2 3200 (added later),
$400 for a gf 6800 GT,
$130 for an athlon 3200+ winchester,
$120 for a MSI neo platinum 2 nforce 3 board

If you take out the $80 I'm counting for the old power supply, since the case came with one, that's $860. So this system I'm running now is barely more expensive than this hypothetical $750 system built today - and I still have no trouble running modern games without slowness - except for, perhaps, flight sim X, but apparently it runs slow for EVERYONE and really benefits from the dx10 generation of cards.

I haven't played whatever the latest cutting edge games are, but it can do oblivion with high settings with 50+ fps, which was cutting edge over a year after I built this system. F.E.A.R., also a year after I built it, runs more than adequately even with FSAA and anisotropy. What was cutting edge at the time I built it, hl2, runs fine with max settings, fsaa, aniso, and still pumps out 80+ FPS at all times.

Of course, a sytem built today with 750 would be more powerful than this system built with a little more 2 years ago. You make it sound as if I'm barely meeting the minimum requirements for things, but for the most part, I'm still having good frame rates at high settings on every game I play, when the reality is that when I built this rig, it was far above average for a gaming system, and 2 years later, is still adequate.

I also never said you have to have a $2,000 system to play them.

You said

I do play most of my FPS games on a PC, but if you've bought any of the recent PC shooters you'll find out you won't be playing them on a $750 system. A true gaming rig is way out of the price range of your average console player (not meaning they necessarily can't afford it, but it is outside the price range they consider acceptable fro a computer.) Most people aren't willing to by a $2,000+ computer system.

It sounds to me as if you're saying

A) a $750 system won't run the latest games (or, at least, won't won them adequately)
B) A true gaming rig is way out of most people's price range
C) Most people aren't willing to pay $2000

It seems to me that B and C are linked, in that you're saying a "true gaming system" starts at $2000. I may be mistaking your meaning, but I'm not just pulling it out of nowhere.

No, you're right, it isn't. But if you're playing them at a low resolution with low quality video/performance settings my point is you're not really getting much out of what the PC can offer.

1280x and even 1024x are relatively low resolutions by modern standards, I admit - but I'm still a CRT fan and that's what I tend to game at. Certainly, the settings I use at these resolutions aren't low at all, and neither is the performance.

Again, show me, and then I'll agree with you.

Well I'm not going to do a ton of research for a hypothetical system, so this may not be the absolute best value, and I'm just going with what I'm familiar with (nvidia, AMD) but pulling prices from newegg:

Athlon X2 4200+ Windsor, $170
Geforce 7800 gt, $130
Antec Sonata 2 with 450w SmartPower, $100 + $15 shipping
Gig of ddr 2 $110 (various brands)
Asus M2N4-SLI motherboard, $100 - I basically looked for the most expensive board from a reputable manufacturer. You can't even find nforce 4 board for over $100 there.
Not sure if we're including hard drives, but WD 320 GB HD for $100

I rounded up a bit on prices to factor shipping in - there was even a rebate I didn't factor in.

Comes out to $725.

This system could easily run any game you throw at it at 1280x with maximum settings. It would probably be more than adequate at 1600x1200 too, but I've never ran resolutions that high, so I don't know how much of a drop off there is.

In no way would this system remotely be barely scraping by with minimum requirements, at low resolutions, settings, and frame rates. That's so far detached from reality that I'm not sure if you've ever worked with anything between a $2000+ gaming rig and trying to run games on some casual computing dell.

I question the mother board price and the power supply price.

Look on newegg yourself. Even the high quality motherboards cost under $100. I've never paid more than $120-$130, and I always buy the best/"enthusiast" motherboards. An Antec Truepower 430, which is a good power supply, is $70 shipped.

I never said it was the minimum.

Well, again, rereading what you said, it sounds like you're saying "true gamer rigs" start at $2000+

I never said otherwise, my point about the $2000 system was that's what I pay, not that it is what is needed to play games.

Fair enough - but still, what I'm attacking is the notion that you'd have a laughably bad gaming experience with $750.

But I will stand by my point that you can't play games very well on a $750 system.

Well, now you've got a hypothetical system to chew on. My current system, is equal or inferior in every way to that system (except hard drive space) still plays any game adequately at high settings at the resolutions I prefer - so there's no way that you could say that the system listed above would be barely scraping by.

Shalmanese

01-10-2007, 10:33 PM

The other thing that's missing is that people don't buy computers just to play games. They spec out a computer and then figure out what to add on top so that it can become a gaming machine. If you decide to buy a PS3, you're still going to be buying that $300 PC anyway to use word and surf the web. So really, the price for a gaming PC to be competitive is $750 + $300 which gives you much more latitude.

Terminus Est

01-10-2007, 10:35 PM

1) At 720p (probably the most common res used by console games), is only 720 lines vertically So if you really want to compare PCs and consoles correctly, you need to figure what system you need to run a game at max settings for 1024x768.

Your common standard definition TV plays at 480i. To get the equivalent on a PC, you'll have to drop your resolution all the way down to 640x480, and even then you're getting 480p not 480i.

Mr2001

01-10-2007, 10:38 PM

It's $600, not $750. If you're not including the price of a game in the PC price, you shouldn't include it in the PS3 price either, and hardly anyone needs an HDMI cable (which you can get for $30 or less) because hardly anyone owns an HDTV.

neutron star

01-11-2007, 12:30 AM

A quality power supply is important, but some people seem to be going way overboard on the wattage (and I've made that mistake in the past, I admit).

Right now I'm running just peachy with a 430W Antec Truepower 2.0 (surprisingly only $55 at my local computer shop, compared to $70 online), and I've got two optical drives and four hard drives (two connected via a PCI IDE card), an AGP video card, a PCI sound card, a PCI USB card, and a PCI TV card.

Most gaming systems don't have the power-consuming extra hard drives and plethora of PCI cards that I'm using. The main reason to get a good PSU is proper voltage regulation.

When you buy an Antec or an Enermax or equally high-quality power supply, you don't really need to spring for the $100+, 500W+ PSUs, IME. YMMV.

cckerberos

01-11-2007, 12:39 AM

I'm fascinated by the popular reaction to the iPhone... $600 is too much to pay for a gaming console, but apparently isn't too much for a phone.

Mr2001

01-11-2007, 12:43 AM

I'm fascinated by the popular reaction to the iPhone... $600 is too much to pay for a gaming console, but apparently isn't too much for a phone.
Haven't you heard? Any electronic device doubles in value if it has a picture of an apple on it.

sturmhauke

01-11-2007, 03:15 AM

A year ago, I was very interested in the PS3, sort of interested in the 360, and skeptical about the Wii (still called the Revolution back then). Over the summer I got to test games on all of them, and my opinions essentially reversed. The PS3 feels like Sony tried to stuff too much crap into one machine and rushed it out the door before it was really ready. I've posted about this all before, if anyone cares they can search for it.

I won't be buying a PS3 for quite a while, if at all. The price would have to drop by at least half and some more good games would have to come out for it. For Christmas I was wavering between a Wii and a 360, and ended up with a 360 mostly because they were lying around all over the place while the Wiis were all evading my pursuit.

Tabby_Cat

01-11-2007, 08:11 AM

Haven't you heard? Any electronic device doubles in value if it has a picture of an apple on it.

You need to consider the competition, though. The iPhone is competing against other smartphones, which generally are in that price range. The PS3 is by far the most expensive console, more than double the price of the Wii, and at least 1/3 more expensive than the xbox 360 platinum edition. The iPhone is nowhere near that, and is even cheaper than some smartphones.

So, apples and oranges. $600 is too expensive for a console. Not too expensive for a smartphone.

Mr2001

01-11-2007, 06:14 PM

The PS3 is by far the most expensive console, more than double the price of the Wii, and at least 1/3 more expensive than the xbox 360 platinum edition. The iPhone is nowhere near that, and is even cheaper than some smartphones.
Oh? Verizon's most expensive smartphone (at least in my area) is the Treo 700p, $499 with contract. Cingular's is the Treo 750, also $499 with contract. The iPhone is 20% more expensive than either. Which competing smartphones are more expensive than the iPhone?

levdrakon

01-11-2007, 06:30 PM

I'm fascinated by the popular reaction to the iPhone... $600 is too much to pay for a gaming console, but apparently isn't too much for a phone.It is a fascinating phenomenon, isn't it? I remember when the Mac Mini came out it sold for something like $500 and people were like "hmm. No. Kinda still too pricey." Then the iPod comes out and people are all "$400? I want one!"

Sony is gambling on this phenomenon. People will pay 4, or 5 or 600 bucks on a gadget, but you just never know which gadget they'll pay that for. Just because I'm willing to shell out $600 for a gadget doesn't guarantee I'll shell out $600 for your gadget.

Mr2001

01-11-2007, 06:30 PM

Also, in light of the news that the iPhone won't let you install (http://www.tuaw.com/2007/01/09/iphone-will-not-allow-user-installable-applications/) third party apps (http://www.tuaw.com/2007/01/10/apple-vps-confirm-no-3rd-party-iphone-apps/), it hardly seems fair to compare it to a normal smartphone, from which you can get your money's worth by expanding and customizing it with other software.

CandidGamera

01-11-2007, 07:20 PM

The Wii just let me buy Altered Beast and Golden Axe. It wins.

Mr2001

01-11-2007, 08:21 PM

The Wii just let me buy Altered Beast and Golden Axe. It wins.
OTOH, if you install an emulator on your PS3, you can play any retro game, not just the handful of games that Nintendo has put up for sale. (You can then buy the original cartridges on eBay or from a used game store, if you feel the need, probably for less than Nintendo is charging.)

Tabby_Cat

01-11-2007, 08:35 PM

Oh? Verizon's most expensive smartphone (at least in my area) is the Treo 700p, $499 with contract. Cingular's is the Treo 750, also $499 with contract. The iPhone is 20% more expensive than either. Which competing smartphones are more expensive than the iPhone?

The iPhone will also be $499 with contract. Wireless news article (http://wireless.itworld.com/4267/070111iphonemarket/page_1.html).

The price that Jobs announced was before contract. I'd doubt very much that Cingular would release the after contract price to Jobs to announce, in any case.

Mr2001

01-11-2007, 08:54 PM

The iPhone will also be $499 with contract. Wireless news article (http://wireless.itworld.com/4267/070111iphonemarket/page_1.html).
That's only the 4 GB version. The 8 GB version will be $100 more.

Tabby_Cat

01-11-2007, 09:36 PM

And the Treo has, what, 64MB?

But that aside, if no 3rd party apps is confirmed (and it's such a bone-headed move I can't believe it until it is), then I will be very.. disappointed.

[/hijack]

Mr2001

01-11-2007, 09:59 PM

And the Treo has, what, 64MB?
The Treo isn't trying to be an iPod. 64 MB is plenty of space for contacts and notes, but 4 GB is tiny for a music and video jukebox. In any case, you can add a 4 GB SD card for $50, which is $50 more than the iPhone but also gets you the ability to install your own software - arguably the defining characteristic of a smartphone.

Really Not All That Bright

01-12-2007, 01:05 AM

It can run EverQuest2, just, but on absolutely the lowest video settings and even then there is very bad stuttering.
And this wasn't a terrible system when it was built, it has moderately respectable specs (256 MB vid card, 2gb ram, its processor is a little dated.)
Now obviously this is an old system, and you would probably be able to get more per dollar with new components, but I still see it being very difficult to do what you claim you can do within the $750 cap. Especially when we factor in shipping costs or sales tax (you'll certainly pay one or the other.)

Hmmm.

Recommended System Requirements (not minimum)
- Operating System: Windows 98/2000/ME/XP
- Processor: 2 GHz or greater
- RAM: 1 GB
- Video Card: DirectX 9 compatible; pixel shader and vertex shader compatible hardware with 128 MB or more of texture memory
- Sound Card: DirectSound compatible audio hardware

In 2001, I built my current system for slightly under $600 US.
-Currently running WinXP, check.
-Athlon 2600+... looks like we're good there.
-1GB RAM... again, apparently that's plenty.
-NVidia FX 5200 video card with 256MB of RAM.

So my $589 built-by-the-lowest-bidder-who-happened-to-be-me system that I built with off-the shelf parts- from a single local store (http://www.cheapguys.com/)- can run EQ2 but yours won't?

Really Not All That Bright

01-12-2007, 01:06 AM

Sorry, that should have said "GeForce FX 5200".

And the "not minimum" in the EQ sysreqs was added by me.

CandidGamera

01-12-2007, 08:14 AM

OTOH, if you install an emulator on your PS3, you can play any retro game, not just the handful of games that Nintendo has put up for sale. (You can then buy the original cartridges on eBay or from a used game store, if you feel the need, probably for less than Nintendo is charging.)

The cartridges won't plug into the PS3, last I checked.

If I want to emulate and pirate software ROMs, I could do that on my PC.

Mr2001

01-12-2007, 08:36 AM

The cartridges won't plug into the PS3, last I checked.
The cartridges are to satisfy Jiminy Cricket when he whispers in your ear that ROMs are bad, mm'kay. If you own the cartridge, you have every right to play it on an emulator.

If I want to emulate and pirate software ROMs, I could do that on my PC.
You think the Wii isn't emulating them?

CandidGamera

01-12-2007, 08:45 AM

The cartridges are to satisfy Jiminy Cricket when he whispers in your ear that ROMs are bad, mm'kay. If you own the cartridge, you have every right to play it on an emulator.

You think the Wii isn't emulating them?

"and pirate" is an essential part of that sentence.

DigitalC

01-12-2007, 10:31 AM

My point was, no person I know that primarily uses their PC for gaming has a $750 system, I'll concede the point that you can run a lot of games on a $750 system, but I do not believe you would be able to run them very well by anyone's reasonable definition.

I have a five year old 500 dollar computer, i added 500 more ram for a total of 1gig and an nvidia geforce 6600 GT to that so it ended up being around 750 (a tad lower actually). I have yet to find a game that doesn't run perfectly, the last few games i've played are Oblivion, F.E.A.R combat, battlefield 2, neverwinter nights 2, Titans Quest, Guild Wars and World of Warcraft. I never touch the settings, usually the game auto configures to run with whatever ive got and i've experienced no problems at all. I've been meaning to upgrade for a while now but everytime i start thinking about it i notice theres absolutely no reason too until i find a game that doesn't run well.

Really Not All That Bright

01-12-2007, 03:51 PM

You think the Wii isn't emulating them?
Not exactly. The games that you download for Wii aren't the exact same code as they were when you originally played them on the SNES or whatever.

Besides, I can guarantee you the Wii will run those games in a much more stable fashion than any PC emulator. Especially with the N64 (and presumably Gamecube when emulators for it are available) emulators crash a lot.

Mr2001

01-12-2007, 05:50 PM

"and pirate" is an essential part of that sentence.
Just like "buy the original cartridge" was an essential part of my post.

If you really have an irrational objection to downloading code from the internet which is stored inside a cartridge you own, you can get a cart reader and extract it yourself. But hopefully, before you got that far, you'd realize how silly your objection was and change your mind, since you'd know full well that the data is exactly the same whether it comes from the internet or from your cart reader.

Besides, I can guarantee you the Wii will run those games in a much more stable fashion than any PC emulator. Especially with the N64 (and presumably Gamecube when emulators for it are available) emulators crash a lot.
The N64, yes, but emulating the older systems is essentially a Solved Problem. These days, any PC can emulate the NES, Genesis, SNES, or TG16 as well as the Wii can possibly hope to do... and PC emulators have extra features like Game Genie codes, internet multiplayer, and high quality scaling.

Menocchio

01-12-2007, 06:48 PM

The N64, yes, but emulating the older systems is essentially a Solved Problem. These days, any PC can emulate the NES, Genesis, SNES, or TG16 as well as the Wii can possibly hope to do... and PC emulators have extra features like Game Genie codes, internet multiplayer, and high quality scaling.
If you're willing to track down and install a good emulator program, track down and download ROMs from various pirate sites, and then if you still want to stay on the fair side of the law, track down cartridges from eBay and flea sales (many of which will still go for $5 or more, at least after shipping).

Or you could just use the storeon your Wii. And you also have a Wii, and access to all Wii and Gamecube games right out of the box.

The thing that consoles really have over PCs for gaming (besides bigger screens and, often, the control pad) is ease of use. No screwing around with software. You get the thing, you plug it in to the TV, you put in your game. Done. Newer systems have an additional step with the online component, but it's still less work than a PC. I'll pay for Wii's classic games for their convenience over ROMs.

Mr2001

01-12-2007, 07:27 PM

The thing that consoles really have over PCs for gaming (besides bigger screens and, often, the control pad)
The PS3 has a big screen and control pad, of course, and it can run emulators. (As can a modded Xbox for one-sixth the price, but this is a PS3 thread.)

is ease of use. No screwing around with software. You get the thing, you plug it in to the TV, you put in your game. Done. Newer systems have an additional step with the online component, but it's still less work than a PC. I'll pay for Wii's classic games for their convenience over ROMs.
*shrug*

You're getting a worse product (no multiplay, fast forward, high quality scaling, etc.) and paying more for it. If you think the convenience of not having to do a 90-second search is worth it, then I guess good for you.

Martini Enfield

01-12-2007, 08:21 PM

I'll be very interested to see how the PS3 does in Australia when they release it- not having it out in time for Christmas was a very, very bad thing for Sony, IMO.

The official info we got at work was "problems sourcing DVD drives". Still, I figured they could have put together 1,000 units or so, released them before the Wii (in November, when the PS3 was supposed to have come out), and then just drip-fed them onto the market in batches of 1,000 or so as they got the parts.

Instead, they just didn't release any here, and now everyone has gone and bought Wiis, which means they won't be buying a PS3 when they come out in March, simply from a budgetary point of view ("We've already bought a Wii, we're not buying a PS3 as well!")

Still, I think it's too early to declare the PS3 a failure, especially when it hasn't been made available for sale outside the US and Japan.

Just Some Guy

01-12-2007, 09:22 PM

The thing is that it's a little more complicated that just sending out 1000 systems when they can.

First, Sony had to try to fill orders in the US and Japanese markets. Retailers are still getting shipments for those early orders made months before release. So if Sony starts diverting systems to other markets they're losing what guaranteed revenue from the PS3 they already have. Sales are slowing but Sony is still pumping out PS3's as fast as they can because from Sony's perspective they're already sold.

Second, the game distributers in those markets where the PS3 isn't released yet are going to be rather upset if Sony does such a small launch. A trickle of systems means a trickle of software sales; 1000 systems means a maximum of 1000 copies of a game sold and that's not enough to cover the basic distribution in a market.

Third, the retailers in those markets have been promised a certain number of PS3's for launch day. They've offered pre-orders based on what Sony has made available. Depending on the contracts there could be some significant penalties for Sony not following through (most terrible potentially for Sony, they might get to cancel any outstanding orders).

Really Not All That Bright

01-14-2007, 01:33 PM

Second, the game distributers in those markets where the PS3 isn't released yet are going to be rather upset if Sony does such a small launch. A trickle of systems means a trickle of software sales; 1000 systems means a maximum of 1000 copies of a game sold and that's not enough to cover the basic distribution in a market.
Even the 1000 consoles = 1000 possible copies of your game sold equation is inherently unrealistic.

Well over 100 million PS2s have been sold, but the best selling game is GTA: Vice City at 13 million.

So it's more like 1000 consoles sold = you're incredibly lucky if you sell 100 copies of your game.

hey alright

01-14-2007, 03:53 PM

Viva la Dreamcast!

Fuck yeah. Shenmue 4 Life.

Just Some Guy

01-14-2007, 05:33 PM

Even the 1000 consoles = 1000 possible copies of your game sold equation is inherently unrealistic.

Well over 100 million PS2s have been sold, but the best selling game is GTA: Vice City at 13 million.

So it's more like 1000 consoles sold = you're incredibly lucky if you sell 100 copies of your game.

Of course. My point was that even with a magically perfect sales rate trickling consoles into a market like that would screw distributors and publishers.

Fredescu

01-14-2007, 06:11 PM

It's too early to call the PS3 a failure, especially without defining what constitutes a failure. It's also too early to buy one.

Really Not All That Bright

01-14-2007, 08:50 PM

Of course. My point was that even with a magically perfect sales rate trickling consoles into a market like that would screw distributors and publishers.
I know, I was just pointing out that they'd be even more screwed.

CandidGamera

01-14-2007, 10:57 PM

Just like "buy the original cartridge" was an essential part of my post.

That's not conclusively not-piracy. That's just shady. Owning a copy of the cartridge does not necessarily allow me to legitimate use the ROM on another machine.

Further, I'm still better off with a PC.

Mr2001

01-14-2007, 11:31 PM

Owning a copy of the cartridge does not necessarily allow me to legitimate use the ROM on another machine.
AFAICT no one's ever been successfully sued over it. Common sense suggests that it would fall under fair use, just like format-shifting your music from CDs to an iPod.

CandidGamera

01-14-2007, 11:53 PM

AFAICT no one's ever been successfully sued over it. Common sense suggests that it would fall under fair use, just like format-shifting your music from CDs to an iPod.

I'm not a lawyer. I have no idea. Common sense would tell me half the provisions of the DMCA are unconstitutional, but.. *shrug*

The point you are attempting to make, however, is moot. Whether they or legal or not, whether I buy cartridges or not, should I choose to indulge in home-brew ROM emulation (as opposed to the spoon-fed version the Wii provides) I might as well do it on the PC, as it will be easier and more convenient than the PS3 - and I already own one.

Scoundrel Swanswater

01-15-2007, 06:28 AM

and I still have no trouble running modern games without slowness - except for, perhaps, flight sim X, but apparently it runs slow for EVERYONE and really benefits from the dx10 generation of cards.

But that is exactly the problem, you will need to get a newer generation of card if you want to play the latest software with most bells and whistles turned on.
That alone will cost you around 500 USD, won't it?

I have a five year old 500 dollar computer, i added 500 more ram for a total of 1gig and an nvidia geforce 6600 GT to that so it ended up being around 750 (a tad lower actually). I have yet to find a game that doesn't run perfectly, the last few games i've played are Oblivion, F.E.A.R combat, battlefield 2, neverwinter nights 2, Titans Quest, Guild Wars and World of Warcraft. I never touch the settings, usually the game auto configures to run with whatever ive got and i've experienced no problems at all. I've been meaning to upgrade for a while now but everytime i start thinking about it i notice theres absolutely no reason too until i find a game that doesn't run well.
The titles you are mentioning are OLD !!!

SenorBeef

01-15-2007, 06:43 AM

But that is exactly the problem, you will need to get a newer generation of card if you want to play the latest software with most bells and whistles turned on.
That alone will cost you around 500 USD, won't it?

I don't understand your point. Because my cheapish system can't run the best stuff 2+ years later at the highest possible settings.. then... what? PCs aren't good for gaming? Or.. that you have to spend $2000 on a computer, which needs new parts in 2 years anyway?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Because console technology stays exactly the same for years every generation, while the PC capabilities are constantly being upgraded, the consoles are better?

[/quote]
The titles you are mentioning are OLD !!![/QUOTE]

So wait, you're advocating consoles, which go years between generations, yet calling my examples, which are a little over a year old to a few months, old?

SenorBeef

01-15-2007, 06:44 AM

Woops, ignore the last part of my post. You were talking about what the examples he gave, not the examples I gave.

Still, Oblivion and FEAR aren't too old, and if you can run those well, chances are you can run just about anything pretty well.

Scoundrel Swanswater

01-15-2007, 09:22 AM

I don't understand your point. Because my cheapish system can't run the best stuff 2+ years later at the highest possible settings.. then... what? PCs aren't good for gaming? Or.. that you have to spend $2000 on a computer, which needs new parts in 2 years anyway?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Because console technology stays exactly the same for years every generation, while the PC capabilities are constantly being upgraded, the consoles are better?

What I mean is that I will always be able to run the latest Xbox360 game on my Xbox360 without having to invest anything.
If I buy a PC now that will be able to run, for example Crysis at 1080i, I will have to spend a whole lot of money. (the videocard alone will be more expensive then my Xbox360).
You might be able to run all games that get released over the next 2 years, but most likely you will need to disable some graphic features or go for a lower resolution.
Of course, the argument goes both ways, as I will be able to run all new Xbox360 software, but the latest gaming PC will blow it out of the water within no time.

I have been in the gaming computer ratrace for a few years, but finally threw in the towel and went console, saving me thousands of Euros a year.
I am not looking back.

Just Some Guy

01-15-2007, 09:43 AM

RogueRacer

01-15-2007, 10:46 AM

The titles you are mentioning are OLD !!!Actually, NWN2 and Oblivion are two of the more system demanding games out there (and they aren't all that old). The example is a very good one.

Asylum

01-15-2007, 05:54 PM

SenorBeef

01-15-2007, 06:47 PM

What I mean is that I will always be able to run the latest Xbox360 game on my Xbox360 without having to invest anything.
If I buy a PC now that will be able to run, for example Crysis at 1080i, I will have to spend a whole lot of money. (the videocard alone will be more expensive then my Xbox360).
You might be able to run all games that get released over the next 2 years, but most likely you will need to disable some graphic features or go for a lower resolution.
Of course, the argument goes both ways, as I will be able to run all new Xbox360 software, but the latest gaming PC will blow it out of the water within no time.

I have been in the gaming computer ratrace for a few years, but finally threw in the towel and went console, saving me thousands of Euros a year.
I am not looking back.

Thing is, though, you can still *play* games made on the PC years into the future, just not at the highest possible settings.

Console technology doesn't advance. The XBox you get in 2001 is the same Xbox you get in 2005. The games and graphics technology are the same. You get no upgrade in performance in years.

But most/all PC games are designed to be very scalable to run on older hardware. So, if you get a PC, you can do the same thing - not get new hardware all the time, and just bump down the settings when you need to. And this is effectively the same thing as owning a console - your graphics technology is at a set level, and doesn't advance.

You're effectively listing the inability to advance in technology as a plus consoles have over PCs, when it's really a disadvantage.

Imagine they came out with a new model of xbox every year, that played the same games, but each time, looked better than the previous ones. You could either choose to buy the new model every year, or just keep your old model, and play the same games, and just not have them look better. It's pretty much the same thing, except in reality the PC allows you to keep up with technology, and not wait years for an upgrade in technology.

Kraut

01-15-2007, 07:41 PM

Just adding fuel for the OP, I was in Best Buy today and they had at least 50 PS3s for sale. I asked a clerk when they came in and he said 2 or 3 days ago. They were telling people to show up before the store opened on the 21st if they wanted a Wii however.

I was at my local Best Buy early yesterday and they must've had 2,000 PS3s. They had taken to building an exact scale model of Venice.

Pretty impressive, imo.

Ximenean

01-15-2007, 07:54 PM

Round here, they're grinding down PS3s and using them in cattle feed. Meanwhile, anyone who's even seen a Wii is automatically granted a knighthood.

Just Some Guy

01-15-2007, 09:12 PM

Knighthood? You should hold out for more. I'm now Baron Just Some Guy.

Of course the PS3s are now so plentiful they have replaced urinal cakes.

RickJay

01-15-2007, 09:57 PM

Around here, they're burning unsold PS3s in generators to generate power to satiate the massive strain on the power grid caused by Wii's being used 24 hours a day.

sturmhauke

01-15-2007, 10:51 PM

Here many PS3s have been converted to George Foreman grills. The conversion is simple - just attach a steel plate to it and turn it on. If done correctly, you can play games and cook a meal at the same time.

rjung

01-17-2007, 05:10 PM

Knighthood? You should hold out for more. I'm now Baron Just Some Guy.
For having a Wii available for my family on Christmas morning, I was crowned king of my own country! KNEEL BEFORE ME, PEASANTS! :D

Fish

01-17-2007, 07:10 PM

As long as we're so wonderfully on-topic, what's the projection for the Xbox 360?

I've got the original Xbox. My favorite gams on it have been... oops, I meant to say "games," but as far as gams go, the girls of DOAX have pretty nice ones.

Anyway, my favorite games have been Halo, Dark Alliance, DOA, and Morrowind (which I now also own and prefer on PC). I liked renting Burnout, but didn't buy it. I had one of the baseball and football games for it, though I forget which titles — haven't played in a while.

I've put off getting a 360 because none of the games really reach out and grab me. Well, that, and it's four hundred bucks.

What's on the horizon? A price drop? New games coming out? Cool stuff? Is it worth the upgrade if I've already got a gaming PC?

Just Some Guy

01-17-2007, 08:43 PM

Tough call on the XBox 360.

Going for it: There are now 10 million of them. It's a critical mass of systems that insure that development is going to continue on it. People who weren't planning on getting one because of the price are now being driven to it by the PS3 pricing. The upcoming game line up looks bright, especially for the kind of games that were done well on the original XBox. Finally, the Wii's position in the market isn't solidified yet and Microsoft may be able to take advantage of that to cut out a more significant market share. The online play is by far the best of any console out there.

The problems that the XBox 360 has to overcome: That $400 price tag seems reasonable next to the PS3 but it isn't at a level that will make systems fly off the shelves. The Japanese market is pretty much completely dead; the US might be the single largest market now but Japanese publishers aren't going to look to the XBox 360 for exclusive titles or even their target development platform. They may be relying too much with the online experience which hasn't really caught on with console gamers outside of a rather small circle.

Microsoft is doing a lot of things right with the 360 and I think they're going to be rewarded with a larger market share than the original XBox had. I don't see a complete market split happening like in the SNES/Genesis era and I don't think they're going to overcome the Wii in the long run, but they'll carve out a respectable portion of the US and European markets.

TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW

01-17-2007, 09:49 PM

The 360 has a few much-hyped and very killer-looking exclusives on the horizon like Bioshock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioshock), and it's going to have the next Grand Theft Auto at the same time as the PS3. I think that the GTA4 release is going to be the "tipping point" (to borrow from professional douchebag Malcolm Gladwell) for many gamers - they'll realize that now they really need a next-gen system, and the 360's the obvious choice over the PS3 for the vast majority of gamers.

However...

The 360 has a few serious hardware problems that need to be addressed, most notably the well-documented overheating problem. The system overheats even when placed in a well-ventilated area, and players have already reported system deaths and component failures as quickly as hours after taking it out of the box. You know it's a bad scene when there are already several aftermarket coolers for the system - one of which is notorious for melting onto the back of it, it gets so hot!

Asylum

01-18-2007, 11:13 AM

I'm going to predict that the 360 will win this round of the console wars. Even with the problems with its hardware that people have pointed out, it's a system that's comparable to the PS3 in terms of power and graphics and the PS3's $600 price tag makes the 360's $400 look like a bargain. I'm sure Microsoft will get the hardware problems ironed out eventually.

I think that a lot of people see the Wii as a novelty or a family system, as opposed to the 360 which looks like a serious gamer's system. I think that the Wii will sell gangbusters, but globally I think that the 360 is going to beat it.

Bosstone

01-18-2007, 12:03 PM

I think that a lot of people see the Wii as a novelty or a family system, as opposed to the 360 which looks like a serious gamer's system. I think that the Wii will sell gangbusters, but globally I think that the 360 is going to beat it.It's a good thing Nintendo isn't trying to compete with Sony and Microsoft this time around. :D

Personally, I see value in having both a Wii and a 360. There's very little overlapping of features in each; the Wii has the more interesting control system and Nintendo-brand games, while the 360 has the more hardcore games and HD quality video. And you can get both for the price of one PS3.

TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW

01-18-2007, 12:46 PM

Personally, I see value in having both a Wii and a 360. There's very little overlapping of features in each; the Wii has the more interesting control system and Nintendo-brand games, while the 360 has the more hardcore games and HD quality video. And you can get both for the price of one PS3.

I'm with you - barring some major PS3 price drop or hardware overhaul (a blu-ray-less version?), I imagine that I'll be getting an Xbox 360 (once they fix the overheating problem) to add to my Wii. There's nothing on the system yet that screams "must-have," but once the next Grand Theft Auto is on the market, we'll see.

Just Some Guy

01-18-2007, 02:36 PM

I think that a lot of people see the Wii as a novelty or a family system, as opposed to the 360 which looks like a serious gamer's system. I think that the Wii will sell gangbusters, but globally I think that the 360 is going to beat it.
Right there you've touched on two major problems that Nintendo has to overcome to be crowned winner of this generation. Nintendo sold the Wii on the strength of that controller and it was the right strategy because it sold the distinctive features of the system. The problem is that the Wiimote isn't just a motion sensing stick and a lot of people don't realize that. The Wiimote and nunchuck give you an analog stick and twelve buttons to use in a game (the PS2 has 13 buttons counting the directional pad on the controller); it'll work just fine for the same kind of games that have been around before. Without the nunchuck you've got a digital pad and six buttons. More than any platform before it developers on the Wii need to really think about how they're implementing the control scheme. There are games that will take advantage of the Wiimote and until the Wii builds its own critical mass of customers those games will be the system sellers, but not every game has to track motion.

And it doesn't help that there's a lot of "Nintendo is for kiddies!" sentiment out there that has been running around for a long time that at this point is completely without merit. Convincing the teenage boys that currently dominate the market that Wii is the platform for them is going to be the trick.

Personally I think Nintendo can do it. They're positioned well in the market, the developers are shifting gears fast to provide more Wii games and I think one killer ap being ported to the Wii is all it will take to send the hesitant into Nintendo's arms. I think Metroid Prime 3 could do it, but it's going to be next December before we really see how things are shaking out.

Asylum

01-18-2007, 04:54 PM

The Wiimote and nunchuck give you an analog stick and twelve buttons to use in a game (the PS2 has 13 buttons counting the directional pad on the controller)
I haven't picked up a Wii yet (but I will Sunday morning), and I've only fiddled with it in some game stores, but are the twelve buttons really accessible the way a PS3's thirteen are? It seems that if you're using the Wiimote and Nunchuk at the same time there are some buttons that practically become inaccessible.

Jayrot

01-18-2007, 05:51 PM

I think the Madden controls are a decent compromise between old school and new school. It basically controls like a normal football game with movement on the analog stick and turbo and dive buttons and all that. The motion comes in with throwing passes -- a quick gestures gets you a bullet, a slow gesture gets a lob. This works really well, but can still be done while sitting way back on the couch. No flailing around necessary. They don't make you steer your player around with the wiimote or anything like that. Kicking field goals actually requires a tiny bit of skill now.

It's been a while since I've given a crap about a Madden game, but this version is different enough that it isn't just a $50 roster update.

Just Some Guy

01-18-2007, 05:52 PM

Four are accessible without second thought (A and B on the Wiimote, C and Z on the Nunchuck). Six more are accessible without really shifting your hand though I welcome disagreement on this since I'm also the guy who thought the original XBox controller was the right size (the directional pad at the top of the Wiimote, minus, and plus). Two more require enough movement to not really be instantly accessible (1 and 2 on the Wiimote), but are more like the Start button on the PS2 controller in terms of accessibility. So four that are in a natural and immediate feeling position, six that require some thumb movement but not so much that they can't be used for quick actions in games, and two that are best used for utility functions.

In case you were wondering, the Home button is always mapped to the Wii's OS and the power button certainly wouldn't count.

It's a set up that can work very well for the vast majority of the games that were released last generation, but at the same time it means that anyone who was going to just use the Wiimote and Nunchuck as a standard controller still needs to put some thought into the user interface.

rjung

01-18-2007, 07:58 PM

I think that a lot of people see the Wii as a novelty or a family system, as opposed to the 360 which looks like a serious gamer's system. I think that the Wii will sell gangbusters, but globally I think that the 360 is going to beat it.
If the 360 doesn't start making some serious numbers in Japan, I seriously doubt it. Even with the release of Japanese-friendly titles like Blue Dragon, the 360 is still lagging seriously behind the Wii and the PS3.

(And for those who haven't seen it, the Japanese video game market is 98% Nintendo at this point. Last week's top ten video game sales list avoided being a total Nintendo blowout only because Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops managed to get #7...)

Asylum

01-18-2007, 08:08 PM

If the 360 doesn't start making some serious numbers in Japan, I seriously doubt it. Even with the release of Japanese-friendly titles like Blue Dragon, the 360 is still lagging seriously behind the Wii and the PS3.
Yeah, but the original X-Box sold like crap in Japan and it still beat the GameCube in worldwide sales.

Fredescu

01-18-2007, 08:37 PM

Yeah, but the original X-Box sold like crap in Japan and it still beat the GameCube in worldwide sales.
Just barely, and as far as I know we only have "shipped" numbers for Xbox as opposed to actual sold numbers for Gamecube. Probably not enough to account for a difference of a couple of million though.

Merijeek

01-18-2007, 08:42 PM

I haven't picked up a Wii yet (but I will Sunday morning), and I've only fiddled with it in some game stores, but are the twelve buttons really accessible the way a PS3's thirteen are? It seems that if you're using the Wiimote and Nunchuk at the same time there are some buttons that practically become inaccessible.

I don't know about the PS3, but I can tell you I have no trouble controlling the Wii. However, when I had an Xbox (original), it drove me nuts. What was it, shoulder buttons, two sticks, a D-pad, and like six buttons?

I can do all sorts of cool stuff with a keyboard and mouse, I have no problem with the Wii, but if the PS3 controller is anything like the Xbox's, I'm not even going to try.

-Joe

sturmhauke

01-18-2007, 09:39 PM

The PS3 controller is very similar to the PS2 controller. The rumble motors were removed and replaced with motion sensors, and the L2 and R2 buttons were altered to have a trigger type motion. I don't think either was an especially good idea, but if you liked the previous controller you'll probably be OK with this one. Except for the desync problem, but that's potentially fixable.

rjung

01-19-2007, 03:10 PM

I haven't picked up a Wii yet (but I will Sunday morning), and I've only fiddled with it in some game stores, but are the twelve buttons really accessible the way a PS3's thirteen are?
Not entirely; if you're using both the remote and the nunchuk, the 1 & 2 buttons (on the bottom end of the remote) are a bit of a reach.

On the other hand, doing a direct 1:1 mapping of other game controllers' buttons to the Wii's controls is pointless anyway. You can just as easily map some of the buttons to gestures and motions with the Wii, such as tilting the nunchuk controller left and right to strafe/turn, or swinging the remote up-and-down to do a slam attack. The whole point of the Wii is to get away from merely pressing buttons.

Meeko

01-23-2007, 06:51 AM

No.

PS3 HAS failed.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/22/tretton-ps3-will-be-difficult-to-cost-reduce/

Why would sony even consider price reductions, unless it didn't "take" with consumers?

Tabby_Cat

01-23-2007, 07:44 AM

Uh.. maybe I'm not reading that right, but Joystiq was interviewing the Sony head, and put forward the question of "When price reductions", and Sony basically said "Nuh uh".

Sony is not considering price reductions. It can't. R&D and manufacturing costs are simply too high.

Now, a high price may cause the PS3 to fail, especially if it's still $600 Chrismas '07, but it's not guaranteed.

I'm still hoping, though. =^^=

Merijeek

01-23-2007, 08:35 AM

Can retailers return unsold PS3s to Sony, or do they take the bath on it?
-Joe

control-z

01-23-2007, 09:35 AM

I've been wanting to pick up a Wii, and they're not much cheaper than the PS3 for some reason. With the PS3 you get some major high def horsepower and a Blu-Ray player. Of course the porn companies have gone with HD-DVD. The PS3 is going to need a killer game or two to save it, like the next Grand Theft Auto.

Asylum

01-23-2007, 09:36 AM

control-z

01-23-2007, 09:39 AM

Huh? The Wii is half the price of a PS3.
It was supposed to be. It's $638 and out of stock at Walmart: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=5303671

Slacker

01-23-2007, 10:06 AM

It was supposed to be. It's $638 and out of stock at Walmart: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=5303671
That's for a bundle with 7 games. The system itself is $250. Don't do it, by the way. Forced bundles with little or no savings suck. You should be able to find one by itself soon enough (I hope).

cckerberos

01-23-2007, 11:37 AM

No.

PS3 HAS failed.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/22/tretton-ps3-will-be-difficult-to-cost-reduce/

Why would sony even consider price reductions, unless it didn't "take" with consumers?
So you consider the PS2 to have been a failure?

TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW

01-23-2007, 12:47 PM

Uh.. maybe I'm not reading that right, but Joystiq was interviewing the Sony head, and put forward the question of "When price reductions", and Sony basically said "Nuh uh".

Sony is not considering price reductions. It can't. R&D and manufacturing costs are simply too high.

Don't forget Sony's incredibly arrogant quote that "There will be no price reduction because the PS3 is not a videogame system but an appliance like a television or a microwave; everyone will want one, and if you want nice things, you have to pay for it."

Jayrot

01-23-2007, 01:23 PM

Only Apple gets to do things like that.

MacTech

01-23-2007, 02:18 PM

Only Apple gets to do things like that.
but Apple has the advantage of the Jobsian "Reality Distortion Field" that makes the general public believe anything Jobs touches is perfect.....

luckilly, the longer you use Apple products, you kinda' build up an immunity to the RDF, personally I see Jobs as just another empty suit, he's a personable, likeable marketing drone, nothing more, he doesn't actually get his hands dirty....

now Woz, OTOH, Woz I respect.....

RogueRacer

01-23-2007, 03:46 PM

luckilly, the longer you use Apple products, you kinda' build up an immunity to the RDF, personally I see Jobs as just another empty suit, he's a personable, likeable marketing drone, nothing more, he doesn't actually get his hands dirty....Really? From my observations of Mac users, I see it the other way around. The longer people use the products, the worse effect of the Jobsian RDF.

Meeko

01-23-2007, 03:58 PM

So you consider the PS2 to have been a failure?

I assume you mean to reference the price.

When did the PS2 lower its price, some 500+ days after release? They didn't talk about lowering the price after just 50+ days.

iamthewalrus(:3=

01-23-2007, 04:07 PM

Huh? The Wii is half the price of a PS3.Only in magical MSRP land. In the real world, the prices aren't that different.

Merijeek

01-23-2007, 04:17 PM

Only in magical MSRP land. In the real world, the prices aren't that different.

Eh.

About 3 weeks ago I had an urge to go to the local Wal-mart. Since these urges are rare (first time, actually!) I decided to give in and look for a Wii.

I bought one, not sure if it was for keeping or scalping. Later that day I checked Ebay, found they were selling for $100 over MSRP and decided to see if one of the remaining 5 was available after work.

It was, so I got a second one. I kept one and put it on Ebay. It went for $80 over MSRP.

So, supply is finally catching up to demand. Still, though, $330 is QUITÃˆ different from $600.

-Joe

Just Some Guy

01-23-2007, 05:57 PM

The PS3 price drop is a bad sign, but it's not a Sony endorsed one. It's just from one Japanese discount store. The fact that they are putting them on sale like that does indicate that they have way more stock than they hope to sell, though, and it means reorders from that retailer are going to be effectively nothing.

It's a bad sign, but no worse than all of the other ones that are already there. When more retailers start closing out and refusing to reorder then the PS3 is as dead as the NGage, but I'm not willing to just call it with one.

sturmhauke

01-23-2007, 06:14 PM

Only in magical MSRP land. In the real world, the prices aren't that different.
Go forth and find me a price quote on a Wii and a PS3. Not bundles, just the base system. And from a retailer, not some dude selling it on eBay or craigslist or whatever.

Asylum

01-23-2007, 09:29 PM

Only in magical MSRP land. In the real world, the prices aren't that different.
That's just nitpicking. I bought my Wii two days ago for MSRP*. Yes, if I had been impatient I could have gone on eBay and paid more, but in two months when supply has caught up with demand no one is going to be paying over $250 for a Wii. But they'll still be paying $600 for the PS3.

*Full disclosure: I did wait in line for three hours.

rjung

01-25-2007, 12:10 PM

but Apple has the advantage of the Jobsian "Reality Distortion Field" that makes the general public believe anything Jobs touches is perfect.....
Steve Jobs can sell overpriced and underpowered products only to a degree -- remember the Cube? And I don't recall Jobs ever trying to justify that with a cavalier "just go get a second job" attitude, either.

Some might also say the iPhone is another such dud, but since they're only targeting 1% of the cell phone marketplace to start, I don't think they're being unrealistic. Time will tell...

Huh? The Wii is half the price of a PS3.Only in magical MSRP land. In the real world, the prices aren't that different.
I must've inadvertently visited MSRP land when I got my Wii in December, then, as the receipt clearly shows $250 + tax. Wal-Mart's bundle is a bad joke, but I don't expect anything better from them anyway.

iamthewalrus(:3=

01-25-2007, 03:59 PM

Go forth and find me a price quote on a Wii and a PS3. Not bundles, just the base system. And from a retailer, not some dude selling it on eBay or craigslist or whatever.Emphasis mine.
That's a pretty silly restriction. I can find lots and lots of price quotes for the Wii at $250. The thing is, all those retailers who claim to sell it for $250 don't have any. If you think that a posted price for an item someone doesn't have to sell is a valid representation of what that item costs, I've got a bridge you might be interested in.

Everyone I know who has a Wii either
1. Got lucky. Nothing wrong with that, except lots of people haven't and it's not a valid way of determining the actual price. The price of a $5 lottery scratcher win isn't $1 just because you get lucky every once in a while.
2. Called stores every day, waited for hours in line somewhere, sometimes multiples times. How much is your time worth?
3. Paid extra to buy it on eBay or some other such site.

sturmhauke

01-26-2007, 03:04 AM

That's a pretty silly restriction.
I don't think so. My point is, it's possible to get a Wii for $250, although you may have to do some extra work to do so. No one anywhere is selling a PS3 for $250, unless they're feeling charitable or something.

iamthewalrus(:3=

01-26-2007, 11:42 AM

I don't think so. My point is, it's possible to get a Wii for $250, although you may have to do some extra work to do so. No one anywhere is selling a PS3 for $250, unless they're feeling charitable or something.I'll sell you a PS3 for $250. Hell, you got a nice face: $200.

I don't have any, of course. How is that different than all the retailers who claim to sell Wiis for $250 and don't have any.

Given that at least one store has already started marking PS3s down from the MSRP, and Wiis continue to go for $300+ on eBay, I stand by my statement that Wiis do not cost half as much as PS3s.

Miller

01-26-2007, 12:17 PM

Emphasis mine.
That's a pretty silly restriction. I can find lots and lots of price quotes for the Wii at $250. The thing is, all those retailers who claim to sell it for $250 don't have any. If you think that a posted price for an item someone doesn't have to sell is a valid representation of what that item costs, I've got a bridge you might be interested in.

If they're selling them for $250, and they don't have any left, then somebody has been buying them for $250.

I'll sell you a PS3 for $250. Hell, you got a nice face: $200.

I don't have any, of course. How is that different than all the retailers who claim to sell Wiis for $250 and don't have any.

Well, one difference is that you're probably not going to be getting any PS3s in any time soon, and if you did, you probably wouldn't actually be willing to sell it for $200. The retailers, on the other hand, will be getting more Wiis, and they will be selling them for $250.

Given that at least one store has already started marking PS3s down from the MSRP, and Wiis continue to go for $300+ on eBay, I stand by my statement that Wiis do not cost half as much as PS3s.

Your logic doesn't make any sense. I got a Wii for Christmas from my mom. I didn't pay a dime for it. That doesn't mean Wiis are free.