TIME: PS3 a 'bust'

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2006-12-20 10:10am

Here are five phenomena that captivated the media for a spell, then turned out to be less than huge.

[...]

TO PLAY'S THE THING

The big story in computer games this year was HOW TO BLOW A HUGE LEAD, by Sony. Its PlayStation 2 was the champ in the last round of the console wars. This time Sony bet on a chip called the Cell and a disc format called Blu-ray. They're probably awesome, but how would anybody know? The PS3 is hideously expensive--it goes for up to $600--and Sony manufactured only a piddling few hundred thousand for the U.S., fewer for Japan. Plus it's hard to write games for; the launch titles were lame. You know you're in trouble when you get beat by something called a Wii.

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2006-12-20 10:17am

This morning at the SEARS I work at, I actually had a lady returning a PS3. Thats right, shes RETURNING a PS3. She was one of only a handful that actually got one from Sears and she said she had checkjed it out and found there where "Not enough games" for it and that she also didn't realise it could only play Blu-Ray DVD's.

The best part of it? She wanted to return it to get a Wii

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-12-20 10:26am

Yeah, I've read the articles, talked to people who work for retail about what is selling more, and laughed at Sony losing DQ9, and finally heard the cries of PS3 fanboys who claim "The PS2 started out the same way!!!!!!"

Strange in that perspective, the PS2 didn't start the same way. Literally it had little in the way of competition, had a better line up then one decent game with failures abound, and had a future that wasn't FF10 and MGS2.

But hey, who knows...the moving of Sony's President and other bits are just signs that Sony is back on the ball and 2007 will be their banner year.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-12-20 10:27am

It's funny how most arguments about game consoles neglect the simple fact that people buy a game console to have fun, and it had better give them enough fun to justify the purchase price. It's only the hardcore geek who buys a game console because its technology is so advanced.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2006-12-20 10:52am

Ghost Rider wrote:Yeah, I've read the articles, talked to people who work for retail about what is selling more, and laughed at Sony losing DQ9, and finally heard the cries of PS3 fanboys who claim "The PS2 started out the same way!!!!!!"

Strange in that perspective, the PS2 didn't start the same way. Literally it had little in the way of competition, had a better line up then one decent game with failures abound, and had a future that wasn't FF10 and MGS2.

But hey, who knows...the moving of Sony's President and other bits are just signs that Sony is back on the ball and 2007 will be their banner year.

I'm not so sure, the kind of rife incompetence that leads to as many fuckups as Sony's had isn't fixed by just replacing a few executives. The PS3 will follow path of the original XBox, I think. Capable of the most powerful graphics of the bunch, but lacking the momentum and number of high profile games as the leader. Not sure whether the leader will be the 360 or the Wii at this point. The 360 has its own problems, such as terrible build quality combined with a short warranty and the fact that $400 for a console only seems like a good deal when compared to $600. There also aren't that many truly good games and it's been over a year since launch. The Wii could end up being a runaway success that appeals to the largest number of market segments, but only if they come out with some excellent 'serious' games. Casual games like Wii Sports are great, but they won't hold the attention of softcore gamers forever (softcore gamers being not quite hardcore and not quite casual).

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-12-20 10:58am

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:Yeah, I've read the articles, talked to people who work for retail about what is selling more, and laughed at Sony losing DQ9, and finally heard the cries of PS3 fanboys who claim "The PS2 started out the same way!!!!!!"

Strange in that perspective, the PS2 didn't start the same way. Literally it had little in the way of competition, had a better line up then one decent game with failures abound, and had a future that wasn't FF10 and MGS2.

But hey, who knows...the moving of Sony's President and other bits are just signs that Sony is back on the ball and 2007 will be their banner year.
I'm not so sure, the kind of rife incompetence that leads to as many fuckups as Sony's had isn't fixed by just replacing a few executives. The PS3 will follow path of the original XBox, I think. Capable of the most powerful graphics of the bunch, but lacking the momentum and number of high profile games as the leader. Not sure whether the leader will be the 360 or the Wii at this point. The 360 has its own problems, such as terrible build quality combined with a short warranty and the fact that $400 for a console only seems like a good deal when compared to $600. There also aren't that many truly good games and it's been over a year since launch. The Wii could end up being a runaway success that appeals to the largest number of market segments, but only if they come out with some excellent 'serious' games. Casual games like Wii Sports are great, but they won't hold the attention of softcore gamers forever (softcore gamers being not quite hardcore and not quite casual).

The moving of executives is meant as a joke. I view it as if Sony thinks that their President was the cure all, they are more fucked then they know.

As for good games on the 360, for you, for me...possibly not. But more then enough have clamored that Gears of War as the first real killer application and enough so that MS has taken real notice. It was a nice surprise for them and they are banking on it for the Christmas season. But the problem does linger that Gears of War was a surprise, and not planned. So far they are coming up rather light. Halo 3 is next Christmas big hit and pretty much their load.

And the Wii, is unusual that it is not a traditional system, so one will have to see how that pans out. Course, Sony losing Dragon Quest in Japan, makes me wonder how well the PS3 is going over in Japan.

This newest iteration is the most unusual since Sony entered with a rather pathetic whimper, MS is only making a few inroads, and Nintendo has gone a route that most are amazed it's succeeding.

Edward Yee · Post by **Edward Yee** » 2006-12-20 11:11am

she also didn't realise it could only play Blu-Ray DVD's.

What the... what was the point of Sony even mentioning backward compatibility with anything?

How were PS1/PS2 discs supposed to run a PS3, again? (I was told right before the release that there's differences in the physical dimensions of Blu-Ray discs compared to PS1/PS2, but...)

Ahh, and Darth Wong perfectly summarizes my own feeling about consoles choice.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2006-12-20 11:30am

Ghost Rider wrote:Strange in that perspective, the PS2 didn't start the same way. Literally it had little in the way of competition, had a better line up then one decent game with failures abound, and had a future that wasn't FF10 and MGS2.

Actually, the PS2's launch lineup was pretty weak. But it sold plenty in Japan because it was an affordable DVD player (which was, at the time, a market that was just on the verge of making it). The PS3 didn't have the volume, wasn't affordable, and HD media is a couple of years from making it.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2006-12-20 11:47am

Edward Yee wrote:
she also didn't realise it could only play Blu-Ray DVD's.
What the... what was the point of Sony even mentioning backward compatibility with anything? How were PS1/PS2 discs supposed to run a PS3, again? (I was told right before the release that there's differences in the physical dimensions of Blu-Ray discs compared to PS1/PS2, but...)

It can, she's just an idiot.

Edward Yee · Post by **Edward Yee** » 2006-12-20 12:09pm

Sharp-kun wrote:It can, she's just an idiot.

Oh, okay. Never mind then.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-12-20 01:01pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote: I'm not so sure, the kind of rife incompetence that leads to as many fuckups as Sony's had isn't fixed by just replacing a few executives. The PS3 will follow path of the original XBox, I think. Capable of the most powerful graphics of the bunch, but lacking the momentum and number of high profile games as the leader. Not sure whether the leader will be the 360 or the Wii at this point. The 360 has its own problems, such as terrible build quality combined with a short warranty and the fact that $400 for a console only seems like a good deal when compared to $600. There also aren't that many truly good games and it's been over a year since launch. The Wii could end up being a runaway success that appeals to the largest number of market segments, but only if they come out with some excellent 'serious' games. Casual games like Wii Sports are great, but they won't hold the attention of softcore gamers forever (softcore gamers being not quite hardcore and not quite casual).

So... wait, if the PS3 is a bust, the 360 is lacking, and the Wii doesn't come out with any serious games to appeal to 'serious gamers', would that make this whole generation something of a bust?

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » 2006-12-20 02:38pm

Uraniun235 wrote: So... wait, if the PS3 is a bust, the 360 is lacking, and the Wii doesn't come out with any serious games to appeal to 'serious gamers', would that make this whole generation something of a bust?

Well we need to see in one year: if some major franchises switches sides; the victory could go either sides.
Otherwise well, even if it's a handheld; the DS is still sell by truckload

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2006-12-20 02:40pm

I'll wait a while before declaring either new console a bust.

PS3 has the cost problem, and current lack of games.
Wii also has a general lack of games, and I want to know if in the long term it will have a wide selection, an area all Nintendo's previous home consoles failed in (compare the number of RPG's on PS2 to the amount on Cube).

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » 2006-12-20 03:18pm

Sharp-kun wrote:I'll wait a while before declaring either new console a bust.

PS3 has the cost problem, and current lack of games.
Wii also has a general lack of games, and I want to know if in the long term it will have a wide selection, an area all Nintendo's previous home consoles failed in (compare the number of RPG's on PS2 to the amount on Cube).

Who need third party on a nintendo's console?

Jade Falcon · Post by **Jade Falcon** » 2006-12-20 03:22pm

As Darth Wong basically put it, it doesn't matter what the tech is, and how high powered a console/computer is, if there isn't software support, its dead in the water.

I remember seeing it happen so often. I used to own an Atari ST, and Commodore had a far superior marketing team, Atari tried to market their Falcon computer as the 'next big thing', and apart from a few musicians, the same ones who had found the ST useful, the Falcon flopped.

Same with video recorders, there were three main formats, the VHS, Betamax, and V2000. Technically from what I hear, the VHS was the lesser of the three, but it won because it was the cheapest.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2006-12-20 03:26pm

Uraniun235 wrote:So... wait, if the PS3 is a bust, the 360 is lacking, and the Wii doesn't come out with any serious games to appeal to 'serious gamers', would that make this whole generation something of a bust?

That's why the Phantom will be the king of this generation.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2006-12-20 03:34pm

Yogi wrote:That's why the Phantom will be the king of the next generation.

Fixed.

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2006-12-20 03:35pm

While this is all very funny, I have to say that Time doesn't have the greatest track record with VG industry predictions here.

Time, 2000 wrote:Sony's game-machine competitors, meanwhile, have their own plans. Sega last year released Dreamcast, which similarly promises Internet connections, and Nintendo is coming out with a high-powered machine later this year. To complicate matters even further, mighty Microsoft weighed in with a game console of its own late last week. (See following story.) In a rapidly changing market, there is no shortage of skeptics who wonder if Sony can make the transition into the online world. "Sony is a dinosaur," says Kimihide Takano, an analyst at Dresdner Kleinwort Benson in Tokyo. "PS2 is like a bud growing out of the dinosaur, but it's not big enough to save the dinosaur."

FEAR THE DREAMCAST!

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2006-12-20 03:42pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
Arthur_Tuxedo wrote: I'm not so sure, the kind of rife incompetence that leads to as many fuckups as Sony's had isn't fixed by just replacing a few executives. The PS3 will follow path of the original XBox, I think. Capable of the most powerful graphics of the bunch, but lacking the momentum and number of high profile games as the leader. Not sure whether the leader will be the 360 or the Wii at this point. The 360 has its own problems, such as terrible build quality combined with a short warranty and the fact that $400 for a console only seems like a good deal when compared to $600. There also aren't that many truly good games and it's been over a year since launch. The Wii could end up being a runaway success that appeals to the largest number of market segments, but only if they come out with some excellent 'serious' games. Casual games like Wii Sports are great, but they won't hold the attention of softcore gamers forever (softcore gamers being not quite hardcore and not quite casual).
So... wait, if the PS3 is a bust, the 360 is lacking, and the Wii doesn't come out with any serious games to appeal to 'serious gamers', would that make this whole generation something of a bust?

That was my entire thread of displeasure at all 3.

Worst case scenario, yes, it is a bust. Best case: it's too early to call.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-12-20 04:00pm

Question from the audience: What the fuck is a 'Serious Gamer'?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-12-20 04:03pm

SirNitram wrote:Question from the audience: What the fuck is a 'Serious Gamer'?

Y'know, nutbars who never see the sun and live in holes in the grind.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2006-12-20 04:05pm

Mobius wrote: Who need third party on a nintendo's console?

How many first party games did the Cube have that were single player? Nintendo do excellent party games, but I don't have friends over constantly. I need a steady supply of single player games and Nintendo have failed me in the past for that.

Losonti Tokash · Post by **Losonti Tokash** » 2006-12-20 04:22pm

SirNitram wrote:Question from the audience: What the fuck is a 'Serious Gamer'?

Usually the sort of person involved in "Major League Gaming." Which is an actual organization. They're prominent in Halo 2 for hijacking a popular gametype, calling it their own, and then looking down on anyone who does not play this gametype exclusively.

More succinctly, someone who literally does not play for fun.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » 2006-12-20 04:25pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Mobius wrote: Nintendo do excellent party games, but I don't have friends over constantly. I need a steady supply of single player games and Nintendo have failed me in the past for that.

Metroid Prime
Zelda WW
F-Zero GX
Mario Sunshine (even if it's not a AAA games)
Pikmin
Chibi Robot
You had the stuff from Capcom that were "supposed" to be Cube Exclusive:
Killer 7
Viewtiful Joe
and finally Ikaruga (okay it's not Cube Exclusive, but in Europe, the Dreamcast version never got out)
well it's enough fun for a lot of time (okay i spent 8 months on mastering Ikaruga) but of course if you're JRPG addicted, the NGC si definitely not the good console to get.

Davis 51 · Post by **Davis 51** » 2006-12-20 04:39pm

Mobius, don't forget the Gamecube's Juggernaught, RE4.