I don't think your topic provides much perspective for why the PS3 isn't as much of a failure. It almost makes it seem worse.

There is always going to be competition and its not like they weren't trying last gen. Sony made some bad decisions and they're going to have to deal with it.

I think some more appropriate perspective is the fact that as production costs go down, the PS3 could end up being profitable for Sony.

hakanakumono

They won't do it because it's too much to readbez2083

I have seen many people say this although not so much lately but there is still a few people who seem to beleieve this.

They keep saying how lost marketshare means the ps3 is a failure fact is the ps3 is on pace to outsell the GC and original xbox(at a higher price point, not to mention the surge of sales it will get when it reaches around the $250 point in say 12-16 months). The lost marketshare is due to the fact that the competition actually stepped up this gen .

Nintendo aggresively went after the casual market with cheaper hardware a broader spectrum of family/casual friendly games and low developing costs. Because of the cheaper hardware/low developing costs its very low risk for devlopers especially now with its install base. They aggresively used marketing to show wii as a hip device like apple did with the ipod. Its still selling very well and has a solid library, its the undisputed sales winner of this gen hands down unless sales drastically drop off or nintendo relases a system early(both of which are about as likely to happen as the zombie apocalypse)

Microsoft launched early, spent tons on marketing and bought 3rd party support and exclusives. the 360 is ahead of the ps3 but is still within range of the ps3 catching it at somepoint this gen. It has the best current library and online service lowest initial price and is still barely out pacing the ps3 worldwide and has only been doing so since the price drop. Microsoft fought hard for the hardcore audience and they have it at the moment but day by day its momentum is slowing the big realeases have come with few known hits on the horizon it seems to be losing some of its steam and while still a great value is future in this gen is a big question mark as to where it will finish 2nd or 3rd, highly dependent on it upcoming games which at the moment is up in the air nobody really knows much about where its going but right now is the best bang for your buck especially for the hardcore gamer and online gamer.

Sony stumbled out of the blocks this gen expensive hardware, limited library sony made mistakes(focusing on cell and bluray hurt them but in the end made the system better but kept manufacturing costs high). As time has gone by its has improved its library signifigantly and with the exception of 360's first year of games has close to the same number of high quality exclusives keeping pace with the 360(since the 2nd half of last year most would argue it has outpaced the 360 in quality exclusives). It has the nex-gen movie format, free online and is currently the best "value" in hardware out of the 3. Sony is close to profitability on the ps3 after about 2 years which is roughly where they have tarditionally started to make money on their consoles(in the 3rd and 4th year).

What I'm saying is yes sony made a few mistakes but the fierce competition is why they are behind not because the system itself is a failure. At its current pace it could very easily do 50-60 million in install base at the end of its lifespan which would place it roughly ahead of the snes and n64(acording to wikipedia) and well ahead of the GC and orginal xbox all of which many people consider great systems. If you gauge failure based on losing marketshare its pretty hard for sony to do anything but fail considering the monsterous numbers the psx and ps2 reached. personally I'm a sony support have been since I switched to the psx from my snes. I'm very happy with my ps3 don't have a wii or 360 but think they are good systems. To be honest although a little off topic I think the ps3 will pass the 360 eventually cause MS seems to be gambling its future for short term success in the pocketbook(spending on 3rd party exclusives, folding development houses, letting bungie go 2nd party) which I think will hurt in the long run.

Just figured it was time for a little perspective for some of those people who still think its a failure now freel free to rip my post apart in classic SW style.

While it was poorly worded he does have a point. The fact is making it difficult to program for wasn't done on purpose to make it harder for developers. Its hard to develop for because of the architecture the architecture has some advantages if properly programmed but this takes skill and time with the hardware. People like to say the 360 and ps3 are equal in power and to the general public there isn't a big enough difference for them to be able to distinguish which one is more powerfull. They probably never will, but as we have seen alot of ps3 exclusives do look better than most xbox 360 exclusives(gears 2 being the only real standout contender although games like mass effect still look great and are comparable also). Look at games like lair, heavenly sword, uncharted, mgs4, ratchet and clank regardless of the game qulaity, many of these game LOOK better than similar 360 games in the same genre and that is what we are arguing here not game quality thats a whole separate argument which comes down to mostly opinion.

If we look at the ps2 for example its was released 6 months before the xbox was even announced yet it was still able to compete graphics wise until the end(the xbox had a big advantage in its textures but alot of particle effects and such were better on the ps2 despite being 1 1/2 years older(look at burnout 3 as an example many reviewers said the ps2 version had better particle effects and ran smoother than the xbox version). Look at later games like god of war and shadow of the collosus graphically amazing games for hardware from 2000/1999.

Back to the present right now most games across both systems look comparable with slight variations in multiplats for one system or the other most of the time the xbox version look slightly better because it is often the lead platform. Sony creates it hardware with power and flexibility in mind while the xbox is created with power in mind but also ease of programming because of this xbox devs are able to get great results much earlier but are limited to mostly existing programming libraries and engines to get these results. This is why the 360 has better graphics across more games where the ps3 has very impressive exclusives. I'm sure that we will see xbox devs start to hit a ceiling within the next year where the graphic engines will be polished to get better framerates and such but won't imrpove too much in terms of increased geometry and new effects. Ps3 on the other hand probably won't hit that ceiling for another 2 years and as sony ramps up the dev support which they have been much better with this gen (but are still lacking according to most devs) we will see the entire library of new games improving not just the exclusives.

I have seen many hardware experst predict that the ps3 will distance itself hardware wise in its later years(still not enough to make a difference to casuals but hardcore gamers will notice) and that I feel is the philosophy kaz was trying to convey. He sounded like an ass but I understod what he was trying to say despite his foot in mouth arrogant attitude. At the same time if he didn't say this lemmings would be running out of things to badmouth sony about so I think deep down in their hearts they love kaz.

I'm a huge playstation fan got my psx back in the fall of 1996(my second one in like 1998 when my first died). bought a ps2 jan 2001 and a ps3 in nov 2007. I'm a huge playstation supporter and gamer in general but I always have a playstation system(I've also owned a n64, dreamcast and xbox in that timeframe and a snes and nes before that). I just feel sony's systems have the best mix of genres in their library(the 360 this gen currently has that but the ps3 is quickly catching up and while I still have a warm spot in my heart for the nintendo franchises it doesn't justify paying for a overpriced GC in my mind).

Anyway back to topic the psx in my mind is probably my favorite system; final fantasy 7-9, mgs, castlevania sotn, the crash and spyro games, xenogears, syphon filter series, tenchu, resident evil 1-3, fear effect, chrono cross, arc the lad, tomba, and many othe games that are considered classics for the era. I know some people will argue the snes and nes were better and I say its a valid argument but in my mind the psx beats those systems even if not by much.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"][QUOTE="Yellow_Rose"]

 

The console generation doesn't have to be over for a stalemate to be called.

Yellow_Rose

So did LBP.  How did that turn out? 

are you implying LBP was a failure of some sort saleswise? if you are I think it way too early to be making that judgement based on it being a new ip and the type of game that takes time to build an audience(platformer that is community driven, 2d style unfamiliar to mosty modern casual gamers that would turn them off initially, I know this because I have had many people say WTF are you playing then when they actually play they really enjoy it). Give it 2-3 months then we'll have a better indication of LBP impact or non-impact on the idustry.

I agree. As of right now its a stalemate, with 2-3 years left there is still time for a clear winner but its highly unlikely. As you said the wii should have the games with its sales but it doesn't, the ps3 price is and will continue to hold it back even with price drops considering there as still 2 cheaper consoles with good dev support. the 360 should be in the lead but ms gouging on live($50 won't break anyone's bank but the service is not that much better than the free service ps and pc offer still the best service just with other options being free makes you wonder how much profit MS is actually making on the live fees) and system reliabilty have held them back and will keep them from winning and may even have them slip into 3rd by the end of the generation.

Right now we have nintendo playing it too safe, sony taking all the risks hopeing for an eventual payoff and MS failing to put work into their own system, they would rather just pay developers for content(which is really keeping it from carving out a brand identity and a bigger lead in my opinion).

No it's flopped, deal with it. I'll give you a tissue if it's that hard to accept. CreepyBacon

I personally don't care have the game think its awesome but 500,000 in its first month is not a flop I'm sorry if you think it is, especially at this time of year for a brand new ip thats not in a popular genre like fps. Its just sad that you can't bash the game for anything else but sales and yet even then you are stretching the argument saying it flopped. No its not an uber mega seller but it still has good sales. Also to say it flopped you would have to have someone throwing numbers abnout how much it would sell before it launched and it would have to be below those. As far as I know nobody was hyping it for anything except being a good AAA which it is. If you can show evidence of multiple people saying its would be a number one seller I would love to see it even then the game has only been out a month . the first month of sales for a new ip is hardly a good judegme of its lifetime sales. As an example guitar hero the original didn't even make it into the top 10 its first month out and it went on to sell over 1.5 million copies which is a good number. LBP made it to the number 8 spot and wasn't even out for a full week in that month.

If you think I'm the one who needs the tissue you are also wrong I actually have argued why I think its not a flop or at least why I think its even too early to judge if its a flop or not in sales. You seem to just state an opinion as fact and insult people who think otherwise.