How is it possible for the PS3 to fail in less than a year? Discuss...

I just cant see how so many thread say that the system is failing... It is not doing as well as it could be, since it seems to be common knowledge that it has superior hardware, but itseemsto bedoing well for itself. Sony are not worrying about the situation it seems.

I checked here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_failures_in_video_gaming

....and nothing on the PS3 :

I read the article and it says:
For the sake of scope, a commercial failure for a video game hardware platform is generally defined as a system that either fails to become adopted by a significant portion of the gaming market place, or fails to win significant mindshare of the target audience. This definition should be applied internationally, and not based strictly on the success or failure of a platform in any one given market (e.g. North America).

I'm sitting here thinking... maybe fanboys are reading a bit too many self help books in their spare time and are trying to make a self-fulfilling prophecy by constantly claiming the system is failing... Anyone think otherwise?

PS3 is failing, MS is going out business, the PC doesn't count and the Wii has won this generation. Where have you been?Heil68

you got 2/4 right. guess which ones (P.S. its the true ones.)

[QUOTE="Heil68"]PS3 is failing, MS is going out business, the PC doesn't count and the Wii has won this generation. Where have you been?hazuki87

you got 2/4 right. guess which ones (P.S. its the true ones.)

[QUOTE="Heil68"]PS3 is failing, MS is going out business, the PC doesn't count and the Wii has won this generation. Where have you been?hazuki87

you got 2/4 right. guess which ones (P.S. its the true ones.)

[QUOTE="hazuki87"]

[QUOTE="Heil68"]PS3 is failing, MS is going out business, the PC doesn't count and the Wii has won this generation. Where have you been?CameosisJ

you got 2/4 right. guess which ones (P.S. its the true ones.)

The Wii has won and the PS3 is failing those are the rihgt ones.

Didn't think I'd have to clarify. See the PS3 IS failing, end of story, maybe it wont fail but at this point its heading there. And the Wii has won I don't even need to explain that any more.

Didn't think I'd have to clarify. See the PS3 IS failing, end of story, maybe it wont fail but at this point its heading there. And the Wii has won I don't even need to explain that any more.hazuki87

While I might agree with your overall point, using Wikipedia as evidence is really, really poor form.Danm_999

[QUOTE="CameosisJ"][QUOTE="hazuki87"]

[QUOTE="Heil68"]PS3 is failing, MS is going out business, the PC doesn't count and the Wii has won this generation. Where have you been?hazuki87

you got 2/4 right. guess which ones (P.S. its the true ones.)

The Wii has won and the PS3 is failing those are the rihgt ones.

Didn't think I'd have to clarify. See the PS3 IS failing, end of story, maybe it wont fail but at this point its heading there. And the Wii has won I don't even need to explain that any more.

i heard the ps3 is selling just as well as the ps2 did in the same time point of its life. which is pretty good because its double the price.what worries me is the game delays for my ps3 and the blurry bright type graphics it has on most muilti plats

Sales will be even with the 360, if not the Wii, if they were released the same time.

"fails to become adopted by a significant portion of the gaming market place,...."

that pretty much underscores the ps3's failure...

and keep the stupid "just wait" predictions.... they have NEVER come true in ANY bovine prediction....

sorry..

How was it possible that the Dreamcast failed within a year ?

1. better product came out (ps2)

2. Lost alot of hype

3. Failer to meet expectations or even exceed them

Thats pretty much what is happening with the ps3 right now I dont see it failing in a year but I see it not meeting anyone expectations it was hyped to do.

Why do people continue to try to compare the ps2 launch to the ps3 one? Its not the same, ps2 had a whole year to get a firm foot in the race. Dreamcast don't count as competition because it was decending and basically dead. So through out the year what else would people buy? Ps2, especially given the success of the ps1. It was a name you could trust.

Ps3 is different, it came out a year later after its competition. So thats pretty opposite to the launch of ps2. Not only that, it brought nothing graphically different from the 360. So why buy it? Technically you can say its better, but how many buyers do you think care about the technical stuff?

As for the guy posting pc sales...I can't believe you would do something so dumb. How many of those pcs do you think were made for gaming? Probably less that 5%, most are probably for buisnesses etc not gaming.

As for the guy posting pc sales...I can't believe you would do something so dumb. How many of those pcs do you think were made for gaming? Probably less that 5%, most are probably for buisnesses etc not gaming.

Ramadear

He should probably have posted GPU sales figures, which are huge and give more idea of purpose.

[QUOTE="Ramadear"]

As for the guy posting pc sales...I can't believe you would do something so dumb. How many of those pcs do you think were made for gaming? Probably less that 5%, most are probably for buisnesses etc not gaming.

Danm_999

He should probably have posted GPU sales figures, which are huge and give more idea of purpose.

Depends what GPU, I don't consider the low end ones equal to consoles i.e the $99 ones. Post the $300-$700 gpu sales and then we'll have a fair comparison.

I just cant see how so many thread say that the system is failing... It is not doing as well as it could be, since it seems to be common knowledge that it has superior hardware, but itseemsto bedoing well for itself. Sony are not worrying about the situation it seems.

I checked here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_failures_in_video_gaming

....and nothing on the PS3 :

I read the article and it says:
For the sake of scope, a commercial failure for a video game hardware platform is generally defined as a system that either fails to become adopted by a significant portion of the gaming market place, or fails to win significant mindshare of the target audience. This definition should be applied internationally, and not based strictly on the success or failure of a platform in any one given market (e.g. North America).

I'm sitting here thinking... maybe fanboys are reading a bit too many self help books in their spare time and are trying to make a self-fulfilling prophecy by constantly claiming the system is failing... Anyone think otherwise?

CameosisJ

Using your own topic, it is failing. It has not been adopted by a significant portion of the gaming market, and has not won the mindshare of it's target audience.

So maybe saying it "failED" is a stretch, but it is "failING". I'm sure it has "failed" to meet Sony's expectations and those of their corporate partners.

Why do people continue to try to compare the ps2 launch to the ps3 one? Its not the same, ps2 had a whole year to get a firm foot in the race. Dreamcast don't count as competition because it was decending and basically dead. So through out the year what else would people buy? Ps2, especially given the success of the ps1. It was a name you could trust.

Ps3 is different, it came out a year later after its competition. So thats pretty opposite to the launch of ps2. Not only that, it brought nothing graphically different from the 360. So why buy it? Technically you can say its better, but how many buyers do you think care about the technical stuff?

As for the guy posting pc sales...I can't believe you would do something so dumb. How many of those pcs do you think were made for gaming? Probably less that 5%, most are probably for buisnesses etc not gaming.

Ramadear

Dremacast was not "decending" when the PS2 launched. In fact, some of it's best games came out the holiday that ps2 launched.

[QUOTE="hazuki87"][QUOTE="CameosisJ"][QUOTE="hazuki87"]

[QUOTE="Heil68"]PS3 is failing, MS is going out business, the PC doesn't count and the Wii has won this generation. Where have you been?Heil68

you got 2/4 right. guess which ones (P.S. its the true ones.)

The Wii has won and the PS3 is failing those are the rihgt ones.

Didn't think I'd have to clarify. See the PS3 IS failing, end of story, maybe it wont fail but at this point its heading there. And the Wii has won I don't even need to explain that any more.

I'm sure we all know he means won among consoles. in pure hardware sales the pc always wins because it's not just for gaming. Personally when pc's are involved i think it's better to look at software sales for a better indication of it's impact on the gaming market. this would also have to include subscriptions to mmorpgs for the fullest picture.

[QUOTE="Ramadear"]

Why do people continue to try to compare the ps2 launch to the ps3 one? Its not the same, ps2 had a whole year to get a firm foot in the race. Dreamcast don't count as competition because it was decending and basically dead. So through out the year what else would people buy? Ps2, especially given the success of the ps1. It was a name you could trust.

Ps3 is different, it came out a year later after its competition. So thats pretty opposite to the launch of ps2. Not only that, it brought nothing graphically different from the 360. So why buy it? Technically you can say its better, but how many buyers do you think care about the technical stuff?

As for the guy posting pc sales...I can't believe you would do something so dumb. How many of those pcs do you think were made for gaming? Probably less that 5%, most are probably for buisnesses etc not gaming.

TBoogy

Dremacast was not "decending" when the PS2 launched. In fact, some of it's best games came out the holiday that ps2 launched.

Dude Dreamcast died about a year later, gamers then started to rely on imports for it.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Ramadear"]

As for the guy posting pc sales...I can't believe you would do something so dumb. How many of those pcs do you think were made for gaming? Probably less that 5%, most are probably for buisnesses etc not gaming.

Ramadear

He should probably have posted GPU sales figures, which are huge and give more idea of purpose.

Depends what GPU, I don't consider the low end ones equal to consoles i.e the $99 ones. Post the $300-$700 gpu sales and then we'll have a fair comparison.

$300-$700 is extreme high end IMO, if you consider that the standard of proof for PC gaming, your looking too high.

But anyway, here's a rundown of how many, and what type of GPUs were sold Q4 2006. A good microcosm of how things run at Xmas.

Even tells us which ones are for workstations, handy huh?

Most cards sold are labelled performance from $150 to $249, so that can include anything from low end Dx10 cards to high end Dx9 cards. That comes to about 21 million cards, something repeated Q1 of 2007.

[QUOTE="Ramadear"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Ramadear"]

As for the guy posting pc sales...I can't believe you would do something so dumb. How many of those pcs do you think were made for gaming? Probably less that 5%, most are probably for buisnesses etc not gaming.

Danm_999

He should probably have posted GPU sales figures, which are huge and give more idea of purpose.

Depends what GPU, I don't consider the low end ones equal to consoles i.e the $99 ones. Post the $300-$700 gpu sales and then we'll have a fair comparison.

$300-$700 is extreme high end IMO, if you consider that the standard of proof for PC gaming, your looking too high.

But anyway, here's a rundown of how many, and what type of GPUs were sold Q4 2006. A good microcosm of how things run at Xmas.

Even tells us which ones are for workstations, handy huh?

Most cards sold are labelled performance from $150 to $249, so that can include anything from low end Dx10 cards to high end Dx9 cards.

I don't think its to high and it while $150 mark might be the standard for pc gaming, those cards don't have enough power to give decent performance in games like Crysis and Bioshock. I noticed a majority of pc gamers don't even care about fps , AA or AF. So that doesn't count. When I think of pc gaming I think of the guys who have the top of the line gpus and cpus not the average joe who is using a Geforce 8600.

you guys think ok nin last gen 30 million, 30 million xbox. 140 million ps 2. do you now how hard it is to get rid of a user base. now the ps 2 is still selling. did it occured to someone that the reason for the 4.5 is because ready there waiting. there ps 2 is still there and has games coming out ect. the wii and 360 fans 30 million apeace had to buy new systems. these people don't relize why the ps 3 is not selling as much of the others. it is because the ps 2 is still alive period. end of thread. i can't belive you guys don't realize this. i bet anything i have once the ps 3 goes down to 399 dollars it will out sell all of them because by then all the great games will be there. i hope you guys are ready for damage control in the future yes even nin. GARRYTH

Keep dreaming, because those aren't the reasons.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Ramadear"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Ramadear"]

As for the guy posting pc sales...I can't believe you would do something so dumb. How many of those pcs do you think were made for gaming? Probably less that 5%, most are probably for buisnesses etc not gaming.

Ramadear

He should probably have posted GPU sales figures, which are huge and give more idea of purpose.

Depends what GPU, I don't consider the low end ones equal to consoles i.e the $99 ones. Post the $300-$700 gpu sales and then we'll have a fair comparison.

$300-$700 is extreme high end IMO, if you consider that the standard of proof for PC gaming, your looking too high.

But anyway, here's a rundown of how many, and what type of GPUs were sold Q4 2006. A good microcosm of how things run at Xmas.

Even tells us which ones are for workstations, handy huh?

Most cards sold are labelled performance from $150 to $249, so that can include anything from low end Dx10 cards to high end Dx9 cards.

I don't think its to high and it while $150 mark might be the standard for pc gaming, those cards don't have enough power to give decent performance in games like Crysis and Bioshock. I noticed a majority of pc gamers don't even care about fps , AA or AF. So that doesn't count. When I think of pc gaming I think of the guys who have the top of the line gpus and cpus not the average joe who is using a Geforce 8600.

Umm, I'm running a 7900 and I'm maxxing out Dx9 Bioshock and I'll be able to max out Dx9 Crysis.

Thinking of PC gaming as only top of the line GPUs is like thinking of seafood as only caviar. Plenty of people get by on less.

Otherwise we'd reduce console install bases to only people who own HDTVs, to demand the xenith as the standard is a really silly exercise.

[QUOTE="Ramadear"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Ramadear"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Ramadear"]

As for the guy posting pc sales...I can't believe you would do something so dumb. How many of those pcs do you think were made for gaming? Probably less that 5%, most are probably for buisnesses etc not gaming.

Danm_999

He should probably have posted GPU sales figures, which are huge and give more idea of purpose.

Depends what GPU, I don't consider the low end ones equal to consoles i.e the $99 ones. Post the $300-$700 gpu sales and then we'll have a fair comparison.

$300-$700 is extreme high end IMO, if you consider that the standard of proof for PC gaming, your looking too high.

But anyway, here's a rundown of how many, and what type of GPUs were sold Q4 2006. A good microcosm of how things run at Xmas.

Even tells us which ones are for workstations, handy huh?

Most cards sold are labelled performance from $150 to $249, so that can include anything from low end Dx10 cards to high end Dx9 cards.

I don't think its to high and it while $150 mark might be the standard for pc gaming, those cards don't have enough power to give decent performance in games like Crysis and Bioshock. I noticed a majority of pc gamers don't even care about fps , AA or AF. So that doesn't count. When I think of pc gaming I think of the guys who have the top of the line gpus and cpus not the average joe who is using a Geforce 8600.

Umm, I'm running a 7900 and I'm maxxing out Dx9 Bioshock and I'll be able to max out Dx9 Crysis.

Thinking of PC gaming as only top of the line GPUs is like thinking of seafood as only caviar. Plenty of people get by on less.

Otherwise we'd reduce console install bases to only people who own HDTVs, to demand the xenith as the standard is a really silly exercise.

I don't consider 21 fps at 1280x1024 to be good. Like I said, most pc gamers have no perception of what is good and what is not good in terms of performance for pc.

I don't consider 21 fps at 1280x1024 to be good. Like I said, most pc gamers have no perception of what is good and what is not good in terms of performance for pc.

Ramadear

So? Again, why are we defining something by it's pinnacle? It's an innately stupid exercise.

The fact that PC gamers cannot max Crysis out does not make them NOT PC gamers. It doesn't make PC gaming less popular. It doesn't mean PC gaming isn't bigger than console gaming.

[QUOTE="TBoogy"][QUOTE="Ramadear"]

Why do people continue to try to compare the ps2 launch to the ps3 one? Its not the same, ps2 had a whole year to get a firm foot in the race. Dreamcast don't count as competition because it was decending and basically dead. So through out the year what else would people buy? Ps2, especially given the success of the ps1. It was a name you could trust.

Ps3 is different, it came out a year later after its competition. So thats pretty opposite to the launch of ps2. Not only that, it brought nothing graphically different from the 360. So why buy it? Technically you can say its better, but how many buyers do you think care about the technical stuff?

As for the guy posting pc sales...I can't believe you would do something so dumb. How many of those pcs do you think were made for gaming? Probably less that 5%, most are probably for buisnesses etc not gaming.

Ramadear

Dremacast was not "decending" when the PS2 launched. In fact, some of it's best games came out the holiday that ps2 launched.

Dude Dreamcast died about a year later, gamers then started to rely on imports for it.

You are right there.

A year later. But Sega was still heavily marketing the system when Sony launched theirs. It was their failure to move enough units over the holiday season that moved them to announce the cancellation of the system.

you guys think ok nin last gen 30 million, 30 million xbox. 140 million ps 2. do you now how hard it is to get rid of a user base. now the ps 2 is still selling. did it occured to someone that the reason for the 4.5 is because ready there waiting. there ps 2 is still there and has games coming out ect. the wii and 360 fans 30 million apeace had to buy new systems. these people don't relize why the ps 3 is not selling as much of the others. it is because the ps 2 is still alive period. end of thread. i can't belive you guys don't realize this. i bet anything i have once the ps 3 goes down to 399 dollars it will out sell all of them because by then all the great games will be there. i hope you guys are ready for damage control in the future yes even nin. GARRYTH

This is one thing people seem to forget. The 360 has yet to beat the PS2 in monthly sales word wide and the PS2 user base is large enough to keep the PS name on peoples minds for a long time. As long as the PS2 is selling it is a contender in the market, although most people don't want to admitt this fact.

How was it possible that the Dreamcast failed within a year ?

1. better product came out (ps2)
What console is better than the PS3? some consoles might have more games for the moment but in terms of consoles. PS3 is CLEARLY the best.

2. Lost alot of hype
PS3 has not tried to hype the system.. whens the last time you saw a PS3 commercial... if they were really feeling like they were failing, wouldnt they push it, dont you think theyd be throwin commercials left rite n center?

3. Failer to meet expectations or even exceed them
In America, yes, but that is one country. What about Canada, Japan, Australia?

Thats pretty much what is happening with the ps3 right now I dont see it failing in a year but I see it not meeting anyone expectations it was hyped to do.
Touche, but hype is something created by gamers with too much time on their hands, it has nothing to do with the company

cyprus646

Using your own topic, it is failing. It has not been adopted by a significant portion of the gaming market, and has not won the mindshare of it's target audience.

So maybe saying it "failED" is a stretch, but it is "failING". I'm sure it has "failed" to meet Sony's expectations and those of their corporate partners.

TBoogy