PS3 is a great gaming machine, but it will never be a success.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="nmaharg"] True enough, but the fact Sony even has to compare it's self to what you call "losing consoles" says it all to me.nmaharg

Says what all to you? If it's in last place, then it makes sense for it to be compared to last place consoles. What's interesting is that in terms of library, the PS3 beats the best selling console and is fairly close behind the 360. And while, no, it will never reach beyond 3rd place for overall sales, it will outsell the Wii for Japan this year and has sold very well this year.

You said that the fact that Sony's console is being compared to last place consoles is telling. Yes, it tells us that Sony has fallen in the gaming world. No, it does not tell us that the PS3 is an outright failure. The PS3's actual sales tell us whether or not it is an outright failure, and believe it or not, it's still in production and it's still selling.

For a 3rd place console, it is doing very, very well.hakanakumono

Believe it or not, videogame libraries are a part of the real world. Games wise, which is what consoles are for, the PS3 and 360 are both more important than the 360. The majority of the most important titles of this gen will go to PS3, 360, or likely both.

hakanakumono

I'm mostly talking about real world perspective, where I see Nintendo operating in a more stable and innovative business model, while Sony is the cliche "Big Evil Corporation". It's nice to see the underdogs, who care about gaming, having success. Sony failing with their Blu-Ray trojan horse and $60 million games is a good thing for the industry.

[QUOTE="nmaharg"][QUOTE="MJ4040"]

"The general opinion of the gaming world" Where do some of you people get this stuff from???

Actually most of the gaming world really doesnt care about system wars, so you are incorrect again.

hakanakumono

Of course the PS3 can't compare to PS2 or PS1, but many gamers say things like "N64 > PS1" or "XBOX > PS2" when they clearly have significantly lesser libraries. Just because a console isn't in first place, doesn't mean it's invalid. If a console is in 3rd place saleswise then we should be measuring how close it is to the 1st place console saleswise (and apparently, we're going to need to compare it to the 1st place console library wise, which is the 360). For a 3rd place console, it is doing very, very well. Compare the PS3 to the Saturn or the Gamecube.

[QUOTE="MJ4040"][QUOTE="nmaharg"] Fine I don't need them to care about SW. Are you implying that most gamers wouldn't call the PS2 and PSX better gaming platforms than the PS3? nmaharg

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

It sold slose to as many consoles as the 360 did the first three years that was out. Learn your facts. Also, just because a console sellls more than another one does not mean that the one that sold the most is "better". Almost everyone knows that the Wii isnt as good as the PS3. Even the lemmings would admit that. MJ4040

I knew the PS3 was tracking on pace with the 360 while it was happening so keep that nugget to yourself.

It's clear in my post that I said the PS3 has a decent software library. I was simply commenting on the irony that here in SW 360 and PS3 are all that matters, but in the real world the Wii is a much more successful and important console.

Believe it or not, videogame libraries are a part of the real world. Games wise, which is what consoles are for, the PS3 and 360 are both more important than the 360. The majority of the most important titles of this gen will go to PS3, 360, or likely both.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

I knew the PS3 was tracking on pace with the 360 while it was happening so keep that nugget to yourself.

It's clear in my post that I said the PS3 has a decent software library. I was simply commenting on the irony that here in SW 360 and PS3 are all that matters, but in the real world the Wii is a much more successful and important console.

nintendoboy16

Believe it or not, videogame libraries are a part of the real world. Games wise, which is what consoles are for, the PS3 and 360 are both more important than the Wii. The majority of the most important titles of this gen will go to PS3, 360, or likely both.

Thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't able to sleep last night. @_@;

Fine I don't need them to care about SW. Are you implying that most gamers wouldn't call the PS2 and PSX better gaming platforms than the PS3? nmaharg

Of course the PS3 can't compare to PS2 or PS1, but many gamers say things like "N64 > PS1" or "XBOX > PS2" when they clearly have significantly lesser libraries. Just because a console isn't in first place, doesn't mean it's invalid. If a console is in 3rd place saleswise then we should be measuring how close it is to the 1st place console saleswise (and apparently, we're going to need to compare it to the 1st place console library wise, which is the 360). For a 3rd place console, it is doing very, very well. Compare the PS3 to the Saturn or the Gamecube.

[QUOTE="nmaharg"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Says what all to you? If it's in last place, then it makes sense for it to be compared to last place consoles. What's interesting is that in terms of library, the PS3 beats the best selling console and is fairly close behind the 360. And while, no, it will never reach beyond 3rd place for overall sales, it will outsell the Wii for Japan this year and has sold very well this year.

hakanakumono

You said that the fact that Sony's console is being compared to last place consoles is telling. Yes, it tells us that Sony has fallen in the gaming world. No, it does not tell us that the PS3 is an outright failure. The PS3's actual sales tell us whether or not it is an outright failure, and believe it or not, it's still in production and it's still selling.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="nmaharg"] Fine I don't need them to care about SW. Are you implying that most gamers wouldn't call the PS2 and PSX better gaming platforms than the PS3? nmaharg

Of course the PS3 can't compare to PS2 or PS1, but many gamers say things like "N64 > PS1" or "XBOX > PS2" when they clearly have significantly lesser libraries. Just because a console isn't in first place, doesn't mean it's invalid. If a console is in 3rd place saleswise then we should be measuring how close it is to the 1st place console saleswise (and apparently, we're going to need to compare it to the 1st place console library wise, which is the 360). For a 3rd place console, it is doing very, very well. Compare the PS3 to the Saturn or the Gamecube.

Yes you are. It is a huge slap to the Sony brand. Point taken. But it's less of a slap to Sony than N64 was to Nintendo back in the day.

Well sony is now learning from thier mistakes. At least I can say now with confidence that sony has a great libary which is only getting better.

[QUOTE="nmaharg"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Of course the PS3 can't compare to PS2 or PS1, but many gamers say things like "N64 > PS1" or "XBOX > PS2" when they clearly have significantly lesser libraries. Just because a console isn't in first place, doesn't mean it's invalid. If a console is in 3rd place saleswise then we should be measuring how close it is to the 1st place console saleswise (and apparently, we're going to need to compare it to the 1st place console library wise, which is the 360). For a 3rd place console, it is doing very, very well. Compare the PS3 to the Saturn or the Gamecube.

MJ4040

[QUOTE="nmaharg"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Of course the PS3 can't compare to PS2 or PS1, but many gamers say things like "N64 > PS1" or "XBOX > PS2" when they clearly have significantly lesser libraries. Just because a console isn't in first place, doesn't mean it's invalid. If a console is in 3rd place saleswise then we should be measuring how close it is to the 1st place console saleswise (and apparently, we're going to need to compare it to the 1st place console library wise, which is the 360). For a 3rd place console, it is doing very, very well. Compare the PS3 to the Saturn or the Gamecube.

hakanakumono

Yes you are. It is a huge slap to the Sony brand. Point taken. But it's less of a slap to Sony than N64 was to Nintendo back in the day.

I think PS3 is great success.playdar

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="nmaharg"] Says what all....? Tells me how far the Sony brand has fell in the gaming world. Thats all great, but not my point at all. Read the last line of my original post again.nmaharg

You said that the fact that Sony's console is being compared to last place consoles is telling. Yes, it tells us that Sony has fallen in the gaming world. No, it does not tell us that the PS3 is an outright failure. The PS3's actual sales tell us whether or not it is an outright failure, and believe it or not, it's still in production and it's still selling.

It's not about excuses, it's about risks, mistakes, and unforseen factors. The PS3's hardware, like the PS2's, was a risk. It did not pay off and was a mistake. The Wii's success was an unforseen factor. The important thing is that Sony stays in the race and has as strong a showing as they possibly can. The Ps3 will not win this gen in terms of games or sales, but it will stand as an excellent game system and Sony is still in a position where they can take 1st place once more next gen if the cards are in their favor and they play their cards right.

[QUOTE="MJ4040"][QUOTE="nmaharg"] So you're saying instead of comparing it to it's predecessors we should compare it to the last place consoles of past generations? And I am saying that alone is a huge slap in the face to the Sony brand.nmaharg

[QUOTE="nmaharg"]

[QUOTE="MJ4040"] And I am saying that since you dont have a business degree, or making a case about the PS3 that is actually rational, that you are being foolish. MJ4040

Well do you? Forming a statement by saying "it will never be a success" (your topic title) because "it doesnt live up to the hype of its early predecessors" seems irrational to me. MJ4040

If Sony execs were like, "Hey, let's lose 75% market share with the PS3!" Then it's a success indeed.

[QUOTE="nmaharg"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

You said that the fact that Sony's console is being compared to last place consoles is telling. Yes, it tells us that Sony has fallen in the gaming world. No, it does not tell us that the PS3 is an outright failure. The PS3's actual sales tell us whether or not it is an outright failure, and believe it or not, it's still in production and it's still selling.

hakanakumono

It's not about excuses, it's about risks, mistakes, and unforseen factors. The PS3's hardware, like the PS2's, was a risk. It did not pay off and was a mistake. The Wii's success was an unforseen factor. The important thing is that Sony stays in the race and has as strong a showing as they possibly can. The Ps3 will not win this gen in terms of games or sales, but it will stand as an excellent game system and Sony is still in a position where they can take 1st place once more next gen if the cards are in their favor and they play their cards right.

'Failure' as in sales compared to PS1 and PS2? Uhhhh maybe:roll:

'Failure' as in keeping me happy with great exclusive titles? NO! 8)

Considering it is going to pass the Xbox 360 in worldwide units probably this year after starting a year late, I consider it a success.

Comparing to the PSX or PS2 is flawed since there really wasnt much competition besides the N64.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Believe it or not, videogame libraries are a part of the real world. Games wise, which is what consoles are for, the PS3 and 360 are both more important than the 360. The majority of the most important titles of this gen will go to PS3, 360, or likely both.

gamecubepad

I'm mostly talking about real world perspective, where I see Nintendo operating in a more stable and innovative business model, while Sony is the cliche "Big Evil Corporation". It's nice to see the underdogs, who care about gaming, having success. Sony failing with their Blu-Ray trojan horse and $60 million games is a good thing for the industry.

It's funny that you portray Nitnendo as some benevolent corporation, whereas Sony is a "big evil corporation."

Is it not the same Nintendo that historically charged 3rd party developers more to develop for Nintendo than their competitors? Their reason being, "Because we are Nintendo?" In other words, Nintendo charged it's 3rd party support more to develop for the SNES simply because they could get away with it and they had no problem with admitting it. Or maybe this was the same Nintendo who's president essentially said that RPGs were for losers who sat in the dark in their basements? Or maybe this is the same Nintendo that did not let developers choose how many cartridges that they could produce during the SNES era? Or maybe this is the same Nintendo that made a deal with Sony, and then decided against the deal after becoming increasingly unhappy with the fact that they would have to share profits with Sony for their joint endevor?

And Sony is the "big bad evil corporation" in comparision? The same Sony that made sure Final Fantasy VII made it's way to western shores? The same Sony that produces artistic games such as Ico and Siren? The same Sony that saw promise in Little Big Planet and is now a major proponent of it's innovations in console gaming?

And what did Nintendo do? Simplify controls and replace buttons with arm waving? Refuse to release Fatal Frame IV and Soma Bringer in the west? Nintendo is first and foremost a business, probably moreso than Sony is in terms of gaming.

Considering it is going to pass the Xbox 360 in worldwide units probably this year after starting a year late, I consider it a success.

Comparing to the PSX or PS2 is flawed since there really wasnt much competition besides the N64.

Reemer99

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Believe it or not, videogame libraries are a part of the real world. Games wise, which is what consoles are for, the PS3 and 360 are both more important than the 360. The majority of the most important titles of this gen will go to PS3, 360, or likely both.

hakanakumono

I'm mostly talking about real world perspective, where I see Nintendo operating in a more stable and innovative business model, while Sony is the cliche "Big Evil Corporation". It's nice to see the underdogs, who care about gaming, having success. Sony failing with their Blu-Ray trojan horse and $60 million games is a good thing for the industry.

It's funny that you portray Nitnendo as some benevolent corporation, whereas Sony is a "big evil corporation."

Is it not the same Nintendo that historically charged 3rd party developers more to develop for Nintendo than their competitors? Their reason being, "Because we are Nintendo?" In other words, Nintendo charged it's 3rd party support more to develop for the SNES simply because they could get away with it and they had no problem with admitting it. Or maybe this was the same Nintendo who's president essentially said that RPGs were for losers who sat in the dark in their basements? Or maybe this is the same Nintendo that did not let developers choose how many cartridges that they could produce during the SNES era? Or maybe this is the same Nintendo that made a deal with Sony, and then decided against the deal after becoming increasingly unhappy with the fact that they would have to share profits with Sony for their joint endevor?

And Sony is the "big bad evil corporation" in comparision? The same Sony that made sure Final Fantasy VII made it's way to western shores? The same Sony that produces artistic games such as Ico and Siren? The same Sony that saw promise in Little Big Planet and is now a major proponent of it's innovations in console gaming?

And what did Nintendo do? Simplify controls and replace buttons with arm waving? Refuse to release Fatal Frame IV and Soma Bringer in the west? Nintendo is first and foremost a business, probably moreso than Sony is in terms of gaming.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

I'm mostly talking about real world perspective, where I see Nintendo operating in a more stable and innovative business model, while Sony is the cliche "Big Evil Corporation". It's nice to see the underdogs, who care about gaming, having success. Sony failing with their Blu-Ray trojan horse and $60 million games is a good thing for the industry.

nmaharg

It's funny that you portray Nitnendo as some benevolent corporation, whereas Sony is a "big evil corporation."

Is it not the same Nintendo that historically charged 3rd party developers more to develop for Nintendo than their competitors? Their reason being, "Because we are Nintendo?" In other words, Nintendo charged it's 3rd party support more to develop for the SNES simply because they could get away with it and they had no problem with admitting it. Or maybe this was the same Nintendo who's president essentially said that RPGs were for losers who sat in the dark in their basements? Or maybe this is the same Nintendo that did not let developers choose how many cartridges that they could produce during the SNES era? Or maybe this is the same Nintendo that made a deal with Sony, and then decided against the deal after becoming increasingly unhappy with the fact that they would have to share profits with Sony for their joint endevor?

And Sony is the "big bad evil corporation" in comparision? The same Sony that made sure Final Fantasy VII made it's way to western shores? The same Sony that produces artistic games such as Ico and Siren? The same Sony that saw promise in Little Big Planet and is now a major proponent of it's innovations in console gaming?

And what did Nintendo do? Simplify controls and replace buttons with arm waving? Refuse to release Fatal Frame IV and Soma Bringer in the west? Nintendo is first and foremost a business, probably moreso than Sony is in terms of gaming.

I don't hate Nintendo, but they're certainly not the patron saints of gaming. Sony has historically played dirty as well, and I think it's pretty clear that Microsoft tried to pay for JRPGs this gen.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Believe it or not, videogame libraries are a part of the real world. Games wise, which is what consoles are for, the PS3 and 360 are both more important than the 360. The majority of the most important titles of this gen will go to PS3, 360, or likely both.

hakanakumono

I'm mostly talking about real world perspective, where I see Nintendo operating in a more stable and innovative business model, while Sony is the cliche "Big Evil Corporation". It's nice to see the underdogs, who care about gaming, having success. Sony failing with their Blu-Ray trojan horse and $60 million games is a good thing for the industry.

It's funny that you portray Nitnendo as some benevolent corporation, whereas Sony is a "big evil corporation."

Is it not the same Nintendo that historically charged 3rd party developers more to develop for Nintendo than their competitors? Their reason being, "Because we are Nintendo?" In other words, Nintendo charged it's 3rd party support more to develop for the SNES simply because they could get away with it and they had no problem with admitting it. Or maybe this was the same Nintendo who's president essentially said that RPGs were for losers who sat in the dark in their basements? Or maybe this is the same Nintendo that did not let developers choose how many cartridges that they could produce during the SNES era? Or maybe this is the same Nintendo that made a deal with Sony, and then decided against the deal after becoming increasingly unhappy with the fact that they would have to share profits with Sony for their joint endevor?

And Sony is the "big bad evil corporation" in comparision? The same Sony that made sure Final Fantasy VII made it's way to western shores? The same Sony that produces artistic games such as Ico and Siren? The same Sony that saw promise in Little Big Planet and is now a major proponent of it's innovations in console gaming?

And what did Nintendo do? Simplify controls and replace buttons with arm waving? Refuse to release Fatal Frame IV and Soma Bringer in the west? Nintendo is first and foremost a business, probably moreso than Sony is in terms of gaming.

This post is full of win.

^ PS3 is 3rd cause it has no games. The closest it has to a system seller is MGS4 and while its a great franchise its not on a Halo or Mario Kart level to move consoles. And once you look past MGS4 there's really nothing to buy a PS3 for. UC2 is the only other game I could see someone buying a PS3 for.Y2Jfan23

Well sony is now learning from thier mistakes. At least I can say now with confidence that sony has a great libary which is only getting better.

finalfantasy94

And let's not forget online.

Situation:

Wii: Winning and raking in the profits. Sells for much more than it actually costs to produce as well.

PS3: Losing and struggling for profits. Likely sells less than what it's worth to produce.

Free Online:

Wii: Abysmal.

PS3: Virtually on par with M$'s subscription based LIVE service.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

I'm mostly talking about real world perspective, where I see Nintendo operating in a more stable and innovative business model, while Sony is the cliche "Big Evil Corporation". It's nice to see the underdogs, who care about gaming, having success. Sony failing with their Blu-Ray trojan horse and $60 million games is a good thing for the industry.

qewrewq

It's funny that you portray Nitnendo as some benevolent corporation, whereas Sony is a "big evil corporation."

Is it not the same Nintendo that historically charged 3rd party developers more to develop for Nintendo than their competitors? Their reason being, "Because we are Nintendo?" In other words, Nintendo charged it's 3rd party support more to develop for the SNES simply because they could get away with it and they had no problem with admitting it. Or maybe this was the same Nintendo who's president essentially said that RPGs were for losers who sat in the dark in their basements? Or maybe this is the same Nintendo that did not let developers choose how many cartridges that they could produce during the SNES era? Or maybe this is the same Nintendo that made a deal with Sony, and then decided against the deal after becoming increasingly unhappy with the fact that they would have to share profits with Sony for their joint endevor?

And Sony is the "big bad evil corporation" in comparision? The same Sony that made sure Final Fantasy VII made it's way to western shores? The same Sony that produces artistic games such as Ico and Siren? The same Sony that saw promise in Little Big Planet and is now a major proponent of it's innovations in console gaming?

And what did Nintendo do? Simplify controls and replace buttons with arm waving? Refuse to release Fatal Frame IV and Soma Bringer in the west? Nintendo is first and foremost a business, probably moreso than Sony is in terms of gaming.

This post is full of win.

Thank you.

Well the definition of success can mean a lot of things, so sure the PS3 can't be number this gen like how it was the past gens, because of Nintendo and MS but I think it's been doing fine in providing me with great games and opportunities to watch movies on Blu Ray. Though Sony did say that they hope to be profitable by 2011.

success and failure are relative... you define your own success.. no one else can define it for you...

And what did Nintendo do? Simplify controls and replace buttons with arm waving? Refuse to release Fatal Frame IV and Soma Bringer in the west? Nintendo is first and foremost a business, probably moreso than Sony is in terms of gaming.

hakanakumono

You understate the impact the Wii and motion controls have had on gaming. Not to mention the Virtual Console. Even Sony is trying to copy the Wiimote in a desperate attempt to appeal to more people.

Sony's business model is not sustainable. They designed the PS3 as a Blu-Ray trojan horse, but BD failed to catch on in mainstream society. Sony is taking a hit at a $300 price point to try to boost sales, while simulataneously throwing unbelievable amounts at 1st party games like Killzone 2. This way of business is illogical and harmful to the industry. Nintendo has shown a way to make money on consoles, while selling games in quantities Sony could only dream of.

This is why Sony and the PS3 are a failure. They're the Yankees, trying to win the super bowl.

WOW,, i cant believe at the responses im seeing.. UMM hello, the 360 has been in 3rd place for 3 months in a row now and even AFTER a 360 price drop the PS3 is still outselling it.. the fact remains that the 360 user base wont significantly increase.. All the people that own 360s own 360 for shooter games like Gears, Halo and COD.. i see the user base of the 360 staying stagnate because all the 360 owners are just going to keep buying Gears and Halo sequels.. sure the 360 will still sell consoles every month but i definitley see the 360 staying in 3rd place until atleast until Natal comes out.

[QUOTE="MJ4040"][QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

Sony just overhyped the PS3 and it flopped. They built a overpriced, overly complicated game system and now they are bottom feeders. It's ironic considering the PS3 was hyped as the greatest game console ever, but most people wanted the Wii instead.

nmaharg

Then what about the X360 do you think it's a success? I mean a console with a great variety of technical issues which isn't by far that big of a bestseller, which also is trying to rip off its owner in a sneaky way and the only two must have games for it are Halo 3( I actually prefer Viva Pinata) and Gears of War I can hardly agree that you can call it a milestone...

Mooo

[QUOTE="Reemer99"]

Considering it is going to pass the Xbox 360 in worldwide units probably this year after starting a year late, I consider it a success.

Comparing to the PSX or PS2 is flawed since there really wasnt much competition besides the N64.

nmaharg

Simple math

Currently Xbox 360 = 31 mil worldwide as of 8/09

Currently PS3 = 27 mil worldwide as of 9/09

Current growth rate of PS3 is 52% current monthly rate is 792k updated with growth rate is 1.2mil http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=5919

Current growth rate of Xbox 360 is -4% current monthly rate is 705k updated with growth rate 676k

That gives the PS3 an edge of 534k per month which is over 6mil for the year and that tops the 4mil gap that is currently there.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

And what did Nintendo do? Simplify controls and replace buttons with arm waving? Refuse to release Fatal Frame IV and Soma Bringer in the west? Nintendo is first and foremost a business, probably moreso than Sony is in terms of gaming.

gamecubepad

You understate the impact the Wii and motion controls have had on gaming. Not to mention the Virtual Console. Even Sony is trying to copy the Wiimote in a desperate attempt to appeal to more people.

Sony's business model is not sustainable. They designed the PS3 as a Blu-Ray trojan horse, but BD failed to catch on in mainstream society. Sony is taking a hit at a $300 price point to try to boost sales, while simulataneously throwing unbelievable amounts at 1st party games like Killzone 2. This way of business is illogical and harmful to the industry. Nintendo has shown a way to make money on consoles, while selling games in quantities Sony could only dream of.

This is why Sony and the PS3 are a failure. They're the Yankees, trying to win the super bowl.

No I don't. Games have been great. Was it pressing A that made Zelda great? Or O that made Xenosaga great? No, it's a what's actually in the game. Controls are just what connect you to the game. The highlight of the game should be the game. The vast majority of the motion controls on the Wii are used to perform functions that we were already able to perform with controllers, except now much slower, less precise, and less effective.

A desperate attempt? They're releasing it as a side peripheral to grab in some of the casuals that Nintendo is attracting right now.

A "trojan horse?" Bluray is a feature and it's the future of disc based media that's being adopted faster than DVD was. Putting a lot of money into great games is harmful to the industry?

Nice comeback. "Big bad corporation" indeed.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

And what did Nintendo do? Simplify controls and replace buttons with arm waving? Refuse to release Fatal Frame IV and Soma Bringer in the west? Nintendo is first and foremost a business, probably moreso than Sony is in terms of gaming.

gamecubepad

You understate the impact the Wii and motion controls have had on gaming. Not to mention the Virtual Console. Even Sony is trying to copy the Wiimote in a desperate attempt to appeal to more people.

Sony's business model is not sustainable. They designed the PS3 as a Blu-Ray trojan horse, but BD failed to catch on in mainstream society. Sony is taking a hit at a $300 price point to try to boost sales, while simulataneously throwing unbelievable amounts at 1st party games like Killzone 2. This way of business is illogical and harmful to the industry. Nintendo has shown a way to make money on consoles, while selling games in quantities Sony could only dream of.

This is why Sony and the PS3 are a failure. They're the Yankees, trying to win the super bowl.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

And what did Nintendo do? Simplify controls and replace buttons with arm waving? Refuse to release Fatal Frame IV and Soma Bringer in the west? Nintendo is first and foremost a business, probably moreso than Sony is in terms of gaming.

ermacness

You understate the impact the Wii and motion controls have had on gaming. Not to mention the Virtual Console. Even Sony is trying to copy the Wiimote in a desperate attempt to appeal to more people.

Sony's business model is not sustainable. They designed the PS3 as a Blu-Ray trojan horse, but BD failed to catch on in mainstream society. Sony is taking a hit at a $300 price point to try to boost sales, while simulataneously throwing unbelievable amounts at 1st party games like Killzone 2. This way of business is illogical and harmful to the industry. Nintendo has shown a way to make money on consoles, while selling games in quantities Sony could only dream of.

This is why Sony and the PS3 are a failure. They're the Yankees, trying to win the super bowl.

Not to mention that the world is switching to HD and Bluray is the HDformat.

the ps3 biggest problems is it's pass mistakes, it's doing alot better now but the damage at already being done, i'm sure at the end it will out sell the 360 but not by much , unless natal destroy the ps3

[QUOTE="nmaharg"][QUOTE="Reemer99"]

Considering it is going to pass the Xbox 360 in worldwide units probably this year after starting a year late, I consider it a success.

Comparing to the PSX or PS2 is flawed since there really wasnt much competition besides the N64.

Reemer99

Simple math

Currently Xbox 360 = 31 mil worldwide as of 8/09

Currently PS3 = 27 mil worldwide as of 9/09

Current growth rate of PS3 is 52% current monthly rate is 792k updated with growth rate is 1.2mil http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=5919

Current growth rate of Xbox 360 is -4% current monthly rate is 705k updated with growth rate 676k

That gives the PS3 an edge of 534k per month which is over 6mil for the year and that tops the 4mil gap that is currently there.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

And what did Nintendo do? Simplify controls and replace buttons with arm waving? Refuse to release Fatal Frame IV and Soma Bringer in the west? Nintendo is first and foremost a business, probably moreso than Sony is in terms of gaming.

hakanakumono

You understate the impact the Wii and motion controls have had on gaming. Not to mention the Virtual Console. Even Sony is trying to copy the Wiimote in a desperate attempt to appeal to more people.

Sony's business model is not sustainable. They designed the PS3 as a Blu-Ray trojan horse, but BD failed to catch on in mainstream society. Sony is taking a hit at a $300 price point to try to boost sales, while simulataneously throwing unbelievable amounts at 1st party games like Killzone 2. This way of business is illogical and harmful to the industry. Nintendo has shown a way to make money on consoles, while selling games in quantities Sony could only dream of.

This is why Sony and the PS3 are a failure. They're the Yankees, trying to win the super bowl.

No I don't. Games have been great. Was it pressing A that made Zelda great? Or O that made Xenosaga great? No, it's a what's actually in the game. Controls are what actually connects you to the game. The vast majority of the motion controls on the Wii are used to perform functions that we were already able to perform with controllers, except now much slower, less precise, and less effective.

A desperate attempt? They're releasing it as a side peripheral to grab in some of the casuals that Nintendo is attracting right now.

A "trojan horse?" Bluray is a feature and it's the future of disc based media that's being adopted faster than DVD was. Putting a lot of money into great games is harmful to the industry?

Nice comeback. "Big bad corporation" indeed.

You can spin all like, that won't change the validity of my point. Sony takes the big money approach. They're the ones who pushed Blu-Ray over games, released a $600 console, and created a system which is unusually difficult and expensive to develop for. People forget the past so quickly, like the Slim is at $300 and Sony is dumping money into 1st party games because they are benevolent.

Your posts are just hot air and nit picking. Sounds like a lot of opinion and denial. The PS3 failed to be even half of what Sony expected. It's in last, nothing special. Like the Gamecube of this gen.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

You understate the impact the Wii and motion controls have had on gaming. Not to mention the Virtual Console. Even Sony is trying to copy the Wiimote in a desperate attempt to appeal to more people.

Sony's business model is not sustainable. They designed the PS3 as a Blu-Ray trojan horse, but BD failed to catch on in mainstream society. Sony is taking a hit at a $300 price point to try to boost sales, while simulataneously throwing unbelievable amounts at 1st party games like Killzone 2. This way of business is illogical and harmful to the industry. Nintendo has shown a way to make money on consoles, while selling games in quantities Sony could only dream of.

This is why Sony and the PS3 are a failure. They're the Yankees, trying to win the super bowl.

gamecubepad

No I don't. Games have been great. Was it pressing A that made Zelda great? Or O that made Xenosaga great? No, it's a what's actually in the game. Controls are what actually connects you to the game. The vast majority of the motion controls on the Wii are used to perform functions that we were already able to perform with controllers, except now much slower, less precise, and less effective.

A desperate attempt? They're releasing it as a side peripheral to grab in some of the casuals that Nintendo is attracting right now.

A "trojan horse?" Bluray is a feature and it's the future of disc based media that's being adopted faster than DVD was. Putting a lot of money into great games is harmful to the industry?

Nice comeback. "Big bad corporation" indeed.

You can spin all like, that won't change the validity of my point. Sony takes the big money approach. They're the ones who pushed Blu-Ray over games, released a $600 console, and created a system which is unusually difficult and expensive to develop for. People forget the past so quickly, like the Slim is at $300 and Sony is dumping money into 1st party games because they are benevolent.

Your posts are just hot air and nit picking. Sounds like a lot of opinion and denial. The PS3 failed to be even half of what Sony expected. It's in last, nothing special. Like the Gamecube of this gen.

You can spin all like, that won't change the validity of my point. Sony takes the big money approach. They're the ones who pushed Blu-Ray over games, released a $600 console, and created a system which is unusually difficult and expensive to develop for. People forget the past so quickly, like the Slim is at $300 and Sony is dumping money into 1st party games because they are benevolent.

Your posts are just hot air and nit picking. Sounds like a lot of opinion and denial. The PS3 failed to be even half of what Sony expected. It's in last, nothing special. Like the Gamecube of this gen.gamecubepad

Do you really think they "pushed Blu-ray over games", or is it possible that the games planned for the PS3's launch weren't ready because they had to move up the console's release to compete with MS? Has that ever occurred to you, in the midst of digging for conspiracy theories?

People on both sides of this fence are foolish. Neither company cares about you.