Topic: Sony getting hit Hard lately

[darknight06]

Quote
The price is the big problem, and I can't see how to fix it without losing tons of money or rejecting Blu-ray. I guess if I was in charge, I'd go for a Blu-rayless PS3. Maybe a Blu-ray playing version could be available at the current price, but the games would all go back to DVD. It would cheese my partners off, but it could mean the difference between one of Sony's biggest brands failing or succeeding.

The entire idea of the PS3 is to be the ultimate home media hub, not a game console.  It's also being made to rival the PC which is the ONLY reason Microsoft is in the game industry.  For them to give up Blu-Ray would mean Microsoft would've scored another fairly significant victory against them, the first score being from getting Ken Kutargi demoted.  Sony really doesn't have any real choice here, they want to finish their original disruption plans they had since the PS1.  Making a more affordable console for gamers by cutting Blu-ray ain't gonna do it.  They might get more sales out of it, but you better believe there would be a serious press backlash from it, not to mention that Microsoft would've effectively defended the PC market and Direct-X from invasion meaning Sony still loses.

[Kairon]

Sony has to beat MS to the punch with games. If they can deliver on the promise of such titles as God Of War 3, Heavenly Sword, MGS4 and FFXIII before MS can cut 'em off with Alan Wake and Halo 3, then they'll be fine.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[nitsu niflheim]

I don't like the idea of trojan horse appliances, I want to play games, I don't want a multi-universal-world-dominating-hub.

[JonLeung]

Quote
Originally posted by: KaironSony has to beat MS to the punch with games. If they can deliver on the promise of such titles as God Of War 3, Heavenly Sword, MGS4 and FFXIII before MS can cut 'em off with Alan Wake and Halo 3, then they'll be fine.

I don't know if "fine" is the right word for it.  They'll be better off with good (read: hyped and popular) games like the ones you mentioned, but there's enough negative press at launch that I don't think they'll fully recover.  Most of the negative press is stuff like "Is the PS3 worth it?" so unless there's a significant price drop for the machine in addition to some good games, it still won't be.  And a price cut is unlikely...if they're losing a couple hundred (at least) on each PS3, do they really want to lose more per unit AND sell them faster?

The day-by-day viral interest in the Wii certainly doesn't help Sony, either.  Halo 3 will probably come out before FF XIII - wasn't Halo 3 originally supposed to come out the same day as the PS3?

As big as Sony makes themselves out to be, I think it's safe to say that PS3 dominance will never happen.

Go ahead and laugh at me in a few years if they do smarten up and save themselves.  I'd hate to be the person at Sony hired to fix up what is already screwed up.

[SixthAngel]

I don't think the metal gear rumor is that big of a deal.  If it does go multiplatform it probably won't be coming to the 360 until 6 months later or be announced until after the ps3 one is released.  Timed exclusivity is all that is needed to make the ps3 the mgs system.  Whenever a game goes multiplatform it seems to lose some of its magic and hype, whether that is because it stops being a reason to justify a console purchase or because they generally drop in quality I am not sure.  At least timed exclusivity would probably be good for mgs.

Overall I don't expect the 360 or the ps3 to have many exclusives outside of first parties.  The ps3 will probably have a few more because they will actually have some sort of presence in Japan so they will pick up a couple of extras.  The 360 will be extremely lacking in japanese style games that they didn't essentially pay for entirely (blue dragon).  The deciding factor between the two sytems will be price (with live and the expensive add-ons its not different enough for me at least) and whether people want more pc shooters and halo or if they want ff13 and sonys first parties like the makers of shadow of the colossus.

[couchmonkey]

My last bunch of babble was mostly on a brainstorming level rather than reality.  A lot of it would never happen, and I agree with KDR that Sony has pretty much permanently shot itself in the foot with the price.  That's why I was coming up with such unlikely suggestions: it will take something unlikely to fix the PS3 situation.

If Sony can keep it's big exclusives exclusive that'll help for sure, but I think Sony is ultimately pretty screwed.  PS3 may still do moderately well, but I can't see Sony taking first this generation without some drastic, unlikely changes.  

[Ceric]

SixthAngel by your reasoning the Gamecube should have been THE Resident Evil 4 box and THE Viewtiful Joe Box but it wasn't.  Time exclusivity can never rival true exclusivity.

[denjet78]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
SixthAngel by your reasoning the Gamecube should have been THE Resident Evil 4 box and THE Viewtiful Joe Box but it wasn't.  Time exclusivity can never rival true exclusivity.

Capcom is, now how can I put this, retarded beyond all comprehension. According to Wikipedia RE4 on GC sold around 1.5 million copies while RE4 on PS2 sold around 2 million. Considering Capcom did almost everything they could do to kill possible GC sales of the game, even going so far as to annouce a PS2 port of the "absolutely, positively exclusive" GC game a few scant weeks before it released, doesn't anyone else think its odd that a system with what was supposed to be 4 to 5 times the installed userbase was only able to sell a scant half million more copies? It's almost assured that the GC version of the game would have sold even better had exclusivity not been broken until a few months after the game had been released. As it is I'm impressed the GC version sold more that a half million copies given how Capcom was treating it.

And then there's Viewtiful Joe which when they ported to the PS2 absolutely flopped compared to the GC numbers. So they release the sequal on both systems at the same time, only to see the same sales situation. The game does well on GC but gets absolutely slaughtered on the PS2. To put it bluntly, the GC "was" the system for RE4 and Viewtiful Joe. Sales numbers prove that. And they would have been even higher had Capcom not had such a stick up their butt for their "glorious" PS2. Even when porting games to the system basically killed them, they still kept it up.

Or do I need to bring up Killer7 as well? If one game appeared as if it would have benefited from a PS2 port. And yet once again, sales numbers proved the exact opposite. I don't think Capcom will ever admit it though. I mean, to actually come out and say that they were wrong? It's never going to happen.

[SixthAngel]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
SixthAngel by your reasoning the Gamecube should have been THE Resident Evil 4 box and THE Viewtiful Joe Box but it wasn't.  Time exclusivity can never rival true exclusivity.

As the person above me said the timed exclusivity did help the GC game get far more hype then the ps2 version.  That is also with the exclusivity announced broken before release.

RE4 is a single game in a franchise that jumped all over the different systems.  I am looking more at GTA San Andreas as an example.  It came out on the xbox 7 months after the ps2 but if you asked most anyone what to buy if you want to play gta they would say ps2.  It has a long history with sony consoles and a substantial exclusivity deal that means few people would care when it reached the xbox besides current owners.  I remember a lot of hype for ps2 but I wasn't even sure which gta the xbox had recieved until I looked it up.

[BranDonk Kong]

Considering the PS2 sold about 100x as many systems as Gamecube, 1.5 million on GCN crushes PS2's 2 million.

[Shecky]

Supposidly the SIXAXIS didn't actually win an emmy this year as Sony had earlier reported.  Whoops.

[Shorty McNostril]

It didnt.  Sony lied again.  That award was for the ps2's dual shock 2 controller, not for the sixaxis.  

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Shorty McNostril
It didnt.  Sony lied again.  That award was for the ps2's dual shock 2 controller, not for the sixaxis.

How did the PS2's dual shock 2 controller win? The N64 controller with a joystick nub and rumble pak were revealed LONG before Sony's dual shock. From what I gathered this award was for innovation or something, and I see nothing innovative about the DS2 besides MAYBE the second analog stick, but that pales in comparison to N64 actually implementing the stick FIRST along with rumble.

[JonLeung]

Timed exclusivity SHOULD matter, but apparently it does and it doesn't.

I remember people making a big deal that Splinter Cell sold better than Metroid Prime at first, even when I was pretty sure it was common knowledge that Splinter Cell wouldn't always be on just the Xbox.  In fact, it would even make it onto the GameCube.

People make a big deal about Final Fantasy and consider it a PlayStation franchise.  But the PC soon got VII & VIII, and it even got XI shortly before the PS2 did, and later XI also came to the Xbox 360.  Excluding the side story games and spinoffs, that means IX is the only PSX one, and X and XII are the only PS2 ones.  That's three games out of twelve are actually exclusive, that's only a quarter of the main games.  It could be less than a quarter since XIII is not guaranteed to stay on only the PS3.  How does one-quarter (or less) of a franchise equate the franchise with one brand of consoles?  (In fact, half of the series debuted on the NES/Famicom and Super NES/Super Famicom!)

By that logic, Nintendo should be the home of Metal Gear, since it has the original Metal Gear and the definitive version of Metal Gear Solid in the Twin Snakes version.  Sure, we don't have Sons Of Liberty, Snake Eater, and are unlikely to get Guns Of The Patriots, but even if we counted the "real" Metal Gear 2 on the MSX (which I don't think the PSX has any version of), Nintendo has one third of the Metal Gears.  If one-quarter of FFs is exclusively on the PlayStations and known for it, it's actually less ridiculous to claim Metal Gear as a Nintendo franchise since Nintendo has one-third of it.  (Well, Snake IS in SSB:B, which actually came to me as an afterthought to this point.)

Timed exclusivity, but moreso marketing and the prospect of future sequels, is what destroys what I think should be pretty good logic above.  You hear more about a game when it's new, so when FF VII and FF VIII were hot on the PSX, that cemented it in the minds of gamers that modern FFs somehow "belonged" there - and most (stupid) people didn't care about pre-VII FFs.  The Twin Snakes was well after the original MGS which was revolutionary at the time and the GameCube wasn't getting any sequels so everyone believed the PlayStation was the place for MGS, disregarding the PC ports of Solid and Solid 2: Substance (which also ended up on the Xbox).

Viewtiful Joe and RE4 are a different story - the PS2 was too far ahead.  I still think it was pretty idiotic for Capcom to announce the PS2 port of RE4 just BEFORE the GCN version came out.  Dumb, dumb, dumb.  RE4 was on everyone's radar, PS2 fans were considering GameCubes just for that, then while they have everyone's attention, Capcom goes "oh, don't worry, we decided to put it on your beloved PS2s as well."  Timing came into play there too.

No one operates on pure logic, unfortunately, so mention FF and even you would probably still think "PlayStation", not "PlayStation and PC".  Mention MGS and you will probably think "PlayStation", not "PlayStation and Xbox and GameCube and PC."  But, mention RE4 and you will probably think "GameCube AND PlayStation 2" and not just "GameCube".  Sheesh.

[couchmonkey]

The thing with Final Fantasy and MGS is that if you want to play all of the games, you need Sony hardware.  Sure a few came out eventually on other machines, but you can get all of them on Sony, usually earlier.

But I think exclusives (timed or not) are a little over-rated anyway.  When Sega and Nintendo were running a really close race in the 90s, every big game counted, but the past 10 years have demonstrated that big games can't turn things around when there's a clear leader.  What if Resident Evil 4 had been totally exclusive?  Based on the PS2 sales mentioned on the previous page, up to 2 million people might have bought a GameCube for this game.  So what?  GameCube would have 24 million users instead of 22 million, and Sony would still be well over 100 million.  It's laughable.

A successful console needs third party support on its side, you can worry about the exclusives after that's taken care of.

Edit: Oh, and LOL at the entire Emmy thing.  Why are the Emmys sticking their noses into video games in the first place?

[Spak-Spang]

I think Exclusives are pretty important.  

Think of this...the only reason Nintendo has survived is people enjoy to play Nintendo games.  Every Nintendo game is exclusive to Nintendo.

Without those games Nintendo would have been dead.  The Nintendo 64 and Gamecube would have been complete flops.

Now, Nintendo is pushing forward, and the exclusive games and exclusive controls for ports are what is going to help Nintendo succeed in the future.

[KDR_11k]

I think Exclusives are pretty important.

Yes but individual exclusives rarely matter, it's the mass of them that makes a platform.

[MaryJane]

This is the 1,267 post in this thread, obviously we love to hate on sony!

Anyway, I heard something recently that I know can't be true. the SIXAXIS uses special batteries that can't be recharged and can only be replaced by ordering them from Sony.

Surely Sony can't be that stupid.

[denjet78]

Quote
Originally posted by: MaryJane
This is the 1,267 post in this thread, obviously we love to hate on sony!

Anyway, I heard something recently that I know can't be true. the SIXAXIS uses special batteries that can't be recharged and can only be replaced by ordering them from Sony.

Surely Sony can't be that stupid.

Um... DUH! Sony's E-V-I-L remember?

Anyway, the battery in the PS3 controller are like the battery in the DS/GBA SP. But, unlike the DS/GBA SP you're never supposed to be able to replace them. Sony isn't going to sell replacements. When the battery goes bad you're supposed to throw your controller away and just buy a new one.

Now that, my friend, is evil.

[WuTangTurtle]

And the Emmy goes to.....

(SONY) Oh my god, I can't believe it we beat the Wii controller!  I want to thank mom, dad, god....

....The Dualshock.

(SONY) whoops!

http://kotaku.com/gaming/top/sony-whoops-dualshock-not-sixaxis-won-emmy-227799.php

hehe, Sony u just reminded me of that Faith Hill incident only Faith Hill was just joking around (she claims atleast).  Funniest thing is that the Dualshock wins an award yet it probably shouldn't be allowed to be nominated due to the legal problems it suffered.

[KDR_11k]

Never mind that the Dual Shock was probably one of the worst things to happen to gaming. The only reason that POS can get any awards is bribery/blackmail (Sony owns a large part of the movie and music market, after all).

[couchmonkey]

Ha ha, I may have underestimated exclusives a little bit back there...I think they're important, but I think they're secondary to massive third-party support, which winds up creating exclusives in and of itself.  How many Square Enix exclusives does PS2 have just because it was the most popular console last generation?

As of right now, PS3 still has a lot of third-party support but it seems like games are being ported to 360 or cancelled on a weekly basis.  (Speaking of which, IGN says Konami has cancelled 4 PS3 games and 2 Wii games, leaving 3 for PS3 and 4 for Wii.

[vudu]

Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
(Speaking of which, IGN says Konami has cancelled 4 PS3 games and 2 Wii games, leaving 3 for PS3 and 4 for Wii.

That sucks; I was really looking forward to New Action Adventure Game 2 (Wii) and Role Playing Game (Wii).

[KDR_11k]

Yeah, the Wii could really have used those... I wonder if there was any Castlevania in there?

[Ceric]

Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
SixthAngel by your reasoning the Gamecube should have been THE Resident Evil 4 box and THE Viewtiful Joe Box but it wasn't.  Time exclusivity can never rival true exclusivity.

Capcom is, now how can I put this, retarded beyond all comprehension. According to Wikipedia RE4 on GC sold around 1.5 million copies while RE4 on PS2 sold around 2 million. Considering Capcom did almost everything they could do to kill possible GC sales of the game, even going so far as to annouce a PS2 port of the "absolutely, positively exclusive" GC game a few scant weeks before it released, doesn't anyone else think its odd that a system with what was supposed to be 4 to 5 times the installed userbase was only able to sell a scant half million more copies? It's almost assured that the GC version of the game would have sold even better had exclusivity not been broken until a few months after the game had been released. As it is I'm impressed the GC version sold more that a half million copies given how Capcom was treating it.

And then there's Viewtiful Joe which when they ported to the PS2 absolutely flopped compared to the GC numbers. So they release the sequal on both systems at the same time, only to see the same sales situation. The game does well on GC but gets absolutely slaughtered on the PS2. To put it bluntly, the GC "was" the system for RE4 and Viewtiful Joe. Sales numbers prove that. And they would have been even higher had Capcom not had such a stick up their butt for their "glorious" PS2. Even when porting games to the system basically killed them, they still kept it up.

Or do I need to bring up Killer7 as well? If one game appeared as if it would have benefited from a PS2 port. And yet once again, sales numbers proved the exact opposite. I don't think Capcom will ever admit it though. I mean, to actually come out and say that they were wrong? It's never going to happen.

I'll read beyond this in a minute I wanted to address this right away.  When you talke to someone about Viewtiful Joe or RE4 do they automatically go "that game for the Gamecube right?"  No, they think about how it flopped on the PS2 comparatively.  I don't consider a system to be "the" system for a game unles when you mention it to someone that they automatically assume the version your talking about, which in this cape would be the Cube.  Now when I start talking say Halo do you have to wonder if I mean the PC or the XBox version?  No you automatically assume the XBox version.

How about Starcraft?  PC or Console version?  You assume the PC Version.

This is what I'm talking about.  Those franchises are indellibly linked to a platform.  A definitive version is generally known.  You can only be the system if in the common frame of mind that people think that your platform is the definitive one and other are not Canon.  Thats what I was getting at.  GCN could have in theory 3.5 million sales of the game and the better Nuby chainsaw controller.