Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Redemption Still Possible For Sony?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the on-thin-ice dept.

122

Gamasutra reports on the slim chance that Sony may still be able to redeem itself from its poor showing at E3. In a new 'Analyze This' column, they ask a group of analysts how things are for Sony today. From the article: "In spite of the higher than expected price points, we still expect the PS3 to be in high demand from early adopters at launch. But Sony must put more effort into differentiating its games from those of rival platforms, both in terms of original compelling titles as well as overall quality. Otherwise, later adopters will not be persuaded that the PS3 has anything more to offer. Sony must clearly also address its relative weakness in online, where Microsoft has a substantial lead."

cancel ×

122 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Chicken and egg (5, Insightful)

PSXer (854386) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458208)

If lots of third party developers make exclusive games for PS3 that people want to play, people will buy a PS3. If a lot of people buy the PS3, Third parties will make lots of games that people want to play.

Which has to come first though? I say it's the people buying the system. Would PS2 have so many games today if there wasn't that initial craze for it? Will PS3 be anywhere near as popular initially as the PS2? From what I'm hearing there aren't a huge number of people who are interested in it at that price, but I could be wrong.

Re:Chicken and egg (2, Funny)

DrLZRDMN (728996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458293)

...says PSXer

Re:Chicken and egg (1)

FooHentai (624583) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458317)

There's been a fair bit of noise in the development community over the work involved in porting games to the cell architecture, too. No doubt this is going to hinder developers since more and more are moving towards cross-platform releases as a way to capture enough market to recover cost/increase revenue.

Sony could pull off something fantastic by enabling its range of SOE titles to interact from the PS3 to the currently existing servers. Planetside, for a start, had pretty high system requirements which limited adoption... if it became open to the console crowd as well I think that would boost both the PS3 sales and SOE's dominance in the face of WoW.

But this seems a pipe dream. Unless they're going to shock everyone including their shareholders and reveal a slew of surprise facts surrounding the PS3, it simply looks like a complete dog.

Re:Chicken and egg (1)

HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458335)

If lots of third party developers make exclusive games for PS3 that people want to play, people will buy a PS3. If a lot of people buy the PS3, Third parties will make lots of games that people want to play.

Which has to come first though?

Just have Sony cut checks to third party developers to make exclusive games for the PS3. Microsoft does this now.

Re:Chicken and egg (1)

bskin (35954) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458370)

Just have Sony cut checks to third party developers to make exclusive games for the PS3. Microsoft does this now.

And as evidenced by their complete domination of the market with the Xbox, this strategy is flawless.

Re:Chicken and egg (2, Insightful)

HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458454)

And as evidenced by their complete domination of the market with the Xbox, this strategy is flawless.
Where would Xbox be without Halo and Halo 2?

Re:Chicken and egg (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460077)

Where would Xbox be without Halo and Halo 2?

With 15% less of the market? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Chicken and egg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15458485)

And as evidenced by their complete domination of the market with the Xbox, this strategy is flawless.

Nobody said it was flawless -- merely that it works.

The XBox doesn't dominate the market, but nor did it flop embarrassingly (except in Japan). Why? Well, some people think it might just have something to do with a little exclusive game called "Halo"...

Re:Chicken and egg (1)

Quarters (18322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458552)

Are you trying to imply that Microsoft developed such a strategy? Exclusive 3rd party development payments pre-date the XBox by at least 1 or 2 generations of consoles. Don't delude yourself into thinking that Sony hasn't been putting out big bags of cash to keep exclusives on the PS2. They had to in order to shore up it's dominance early on, as it isn't nearly as technologically advanced, or easy to program for, as they'd like you to believe.

Re:Chicken and egg (1)

HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458595)

Are you trying to imply that Microsoft developed such a strategy?
no

Re:Chicken and egg (1)

justchris (802302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459697)

So does Nintendo. In fact, Sony already does it. It helps somewhat, but mostly depends on which games are exclusive.

Re:Chicken and egg (2, Insightful)

puppetman (131489) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458372)


I don't know if I agree. The PS3 had huge hype. People were going to not buy the XBox360 not too long ago, and wait for the PS3.

Remember that most game cycles are at least a year, and with new techology (and Sony's inability to ship developer kits), it might be longer. When games were being planned out, and resources allocated, the PS3 looked like an awesome bet for most publishing houses.

That things have changed recently doesn't mean those games will be scrapped - way too much money has been spent over the last year or so.

This article makes it sound like Sony might have a chance if they can convince some development companies to make some innovative titles in the next few months for the release. Won't happen. Can't be done.

Innovation in gaming should have been Sony's priority a year ago. Instead, it looks like it was Nintendos.

Re:Chicken and egg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15458635)

Sony's convinced a ton of companies to develop games for the PS3. It's just none of them are coming out until 2007.

I find it fascinating that everyone is expecting that whether the PS3-- a system that will be for sale for five years-- succeeds or fails will be entirely tied to how it does at launch. If that were the case, the PS2, XBox 360, and Gamecube would have been abject failures, as they had terrible launches. I don't understand why we're expecting Sony to have the fantastic launch that even Microsoft failed to produce-- the only positive thing one can say about the XBox 360's launch was that it was in 2006. There is only going to be one system with an adequate launch this generation, and it will be the Wii.

The PS3 had huge hype. People were going to not buy the XBox360 not too long ago, and wait for the PS3

And, of course, every single bit of that hype evaporated the moment Kaz Hirai said the words "five hundred and ninety-nine u.s. dollars". Oddly enough, though, Sony is doing nothing to preserve or reclaim that hype, or to change the subject away from the dismal subject of their launch price. Sony doesn't seem to have noticed what they've lost. Instead their strategy seems to be to just go back and keep talking about how $599 is a good price, as if they can convince consumers that black is white. This clearly isn't working. Why is Sony just throwing away their media momentum like this?

Re:Chicken and egg (2, Insightful)

justchris (802302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459739)

The gamecube "failed" entirely on how it did at launch when compared to the PS2. The games available at launch aren't the really important factor. The important factor is how well a system sells at launch. If one system launches and shows that it is clearly selling better than the competition, developers will either shift development of existing games or start development of new games for that console.

That's what's happened the past 3 generations, and why there was a clear victor each time. This time, the 360 launched early, but failed to gain a significant lead. Now it's up to Sony & Nintendo. If they both fail to gain a significant league, then the launch won't matter, but if either one clearly pulls ahead of the other two, development houses will spend the extra money to shift development to the more popular console, and that will mean more exclusive games for that console, which will lead to more people buying it.

So the launch is vitally important. It may turn out to mean nothing at all, but all too often it decides who will "win" this console generation.

Developers, Developers, Developers. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15458822)

As my good friend Steve Ballamer once said. Developers, Developers, Developers.

Sony does not need to sell lots of PS3 units to get developers to make games. Sony has to ship a lot of development kits! Many games that are released later in the lifecycle are well into development before the console even ships. Most developers are already committed to the PS3 because they made all of their money from the PS2! They have already invested time, money, and people to learn the PS3 and make games for it. Switching gears isn't that easy especially when you've already spent $250,000 buying the dev kits for your team.

If it isn't blaringly obvious, the console industry doesn't work so that someone releases a console and after a couple of months the developers notice it. We wouldn't have any games for the first two years of a console's life if that were the case. That's half the entire life of the original Xbox.

If the PS3 has a killer app you can bet it will sell for $600. These armchair analysts keep talking price, price, price. But if you look at the adjusted price this isn't all that much more than the original NES was back in the 80's. And the ps3 kicks the shit out of the NES as far as functionality. It's a gaming console, a media center, a personal PC (linux+internet). Which is pretty much what the analysists said. People always want a better deal, but in the end this is a culture of excess and totally misguided priorities. I have no doubt people will find a way to justify $600 despite being on public assistance and barely holding down a part time job. And the people that do have a decent job are no better. Making the equivalent income of a small city yet somehow finding a way to put themselves into debt.

I certainly think the PS3 is premature. Another year or two to perfect the technology and reduce the price would have given Sony a fantastic foundation for the future. Unfortunately Microsoft had to spoil their fun by distrupting the release cycle.

Re:Chicken and egg (2, Insightful)

sdhankin (213671) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459742)

But why was there an initial craze for it? Because a boatload of people had PS1's and were happy with them. They wanted more of the same. Why did developers develop for the PS2? Because the PS1 was the dominant platform at the time.

The PS3 isn't any different. The developers will develop for it because the PS2 is still the dominant platform, and they've made a bundle of money off it. All the platforms are a gamble. The developers will stick with the devil they know. Don't talk to me about how much harder it is to develop for. The way I hear it, compared to the PS2, the PS3 is a walk in the park. The PS2 was supposedly a bear to work on. It still ended up with the greatest developer support.

I currently have 40-50 PS2 titles. Care to guess what percentage of my total outlay the initial box was? Hint: tiny. If I buy 40-50 titles for ANY of the platforms, guess how much of a difference $200-350 will make in my total cost? 2nd hint: not much. It's razors vs. blades. Compared to the blade cost, the razor is free.

Do you really think you'll buy a console and a couple of games over its lifetime?

Re:Chicken and egg (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460257)

If that were true, the PSX never would've taken off because of the success of the SNES.

I still remember FFVII being shown for Project Reality, aka the N64.

If you buy a PS3 at launch, you're what's known as an idiot.

Re:Chicken and egg (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460620)

Ah, but they do have third party support already, and quite possibly the most major third party around - Square-Enix. The fact that FFXIII (and presumably DQ9) is going to be on the system pretty much guarantees that millions of people will pick up a PS3.

If Sony didn't have the major S-E titles, I'd be a lot less confident in their ability to move consoles. As it is, though, it seems they've got their killer app.

No. (1, Funny)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458211)

No. But for some reason people will still spend $600 on a console that has already been beaten when it hasn't even gone into full production yet.

For me. (-1, Troll)

AWhiteFlame (928642) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458228)

PS2 was a disappointment.
PS3 was a disappointment.
SOE is a disappointment.

Three strikes, you're out. Not suspended.

Re:For me. (2, Insightful)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458266)

Dude - in what way was the PS2 a disappointment? And how can the PS3 be a disappointment when you haven't even touched one? It looks a bit expensive, and still in development, but it can't be disappointing until you've played some games on it, right?

Re:For me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15458342)

Maybe it was the lack of high quality games? A simple survey (From any given site) shows games 9.0 or better on the xbox and on the ps2 are comparable in numbers. While the PS2 had more games, they certainly didn't have more, better games.

Maybe it was the flop that was emotion engine, all the hype sure didn't help it.

Maybe it was the lack of reliability/quality?

Or maybe the lack of compatibility with DVDs?

Re:For me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15458477)

Awesome games.

No troubles with DVD's.

My only problem with it, is they didn't give it more ram.

Re:For me. (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458511)

They certainly had games that *I* liked. Dino Crisis, Parasite Eve, FF series, Onimusha, etc. Some of these were not PS2, obviously.

"Emotion Engine" was just a marketing hype, how was it a flop?

Quality - for every post that says that they have bought multiple broken PS2 units, I can show you another post where folks have had up to 5 broken xbox 360s. But, reliability in general, isn't about what one person sees, but what the overall rate is, and PS2's broken rate isn't that high, iirc.

What lack of compatibility with DVDs? I've never had any problems, and I've had my PS2 from day 1.

Re:For me. (1)

justchris (802302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460011)

Can you show me posts where multiple people show they only ever bought one ps2, and it's always worked? You're only the second person I've ever met/heard of/talked to who's never had to replace their ps2. For me, that makes you 2 people out of about 275. Admittedly, that's othing considering over 100 million ps2 sold, but how disappointing a system is is determined by what the one person sees.

Re:For me. (1)

apoc06 (853263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460306)

i never had to replace my ps2. its been through the wringer, but plays games and dvds fine.

where are these 275 other people you claim bought multiple ps2s? there are people out there i am sure that have. however if you are going by internet survey, you obviously are counting dozens of microsoft "plants" as well. there are people that claim to have bought 5-8 ps2s. WTF?!?!? considering the ps2 isnt that old, surely the warranties would overlap.

personally my xbox has itermittent issues with games. new and old games... cant play half of the dvds i own... etc. i know that all xboxs are not like mine. i wont call all xboxs shoddy, just because many of the people i know have had a few problems. overall, every single issue the ps2 has had, the xbox suffered from just the same. this is a console that had a year to work out the kinks and learn from its competitor.

fact is, all consumer electronics have issues... thats why they come with warranties; and more importantly, thats why warranties expire.

Re:For me. (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460536)

make that 276

/not buying a PS3
//already been burned once by sony

Re:For me. (1)

Mark Maughan (763986) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460939)

I bought my PS2 when they first came out. Preordered at ToysRus.

Still works great with games, DVD's, online, ...

Same with my Dreamcast, PS1, Saturn, SNES, Genesis, NES, Master System, ... I've never had any console fail me.

Re:For me. (1)

PeelBoy (34769) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458394)

Speaking for my self: The lack of good multiplayer games (lack of 4 controller ports) and the shoddy hardware (I have personally owned 3 PS2's and several new controllers because they keep breaking). Now I did like some of the games on the PS2 so therefor it was worth owning, but I play it far far less than my Xbox(before it got stolen) and GameCube. Infact I haven't played it at all in almost 2 years(mine got stollen with my xbox but there is still one in our house and it never gets played). I still play my GameCube a few times a week. Our modded Xbox got a lot of play. I mostly used it for old SNES games, but now that we have some 360's nobody plays the old Xbox anymore.

For the PS3 the high price and the lack of any compelling games is killing it for me. I could care less about every game shown so far. The graphics don't look any better than the 360's from what I can tell and we already have 2 of those in the house so I doubt I will get a PS3.

Another thing he missed is the PSP. Do I even have to say anything about that? Atleast I've had good luck with the hardware thus far. It seems to be fairly good quality. I don't like how easy it is to scratch though.

Re:For me. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15458581)

(I have personally owned 3 PS2's and several new controllers because they keep breaking). Now I did like some of the games on the PS2 so therefor it was worth owning

Worth owning three fucking times despite poor build quality by the sounds of things. If you really weren't that impressed by it and nevertheless kept buying more of then when they broke then you're an addict. Seek help.

Re:For me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15460333)

Or he bought a new one, swapped serials and returned it. Twice.

Re:For me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15460841)

I could care less about every game shown so far.
So you do care about the games shown so far. Because if you didn't care about them, you couldn't care less.

Damn, and I'm not even english!

Re:For me. (1)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458523)

PS2 was a disappointment.
PS3 was a disappointment.
SOE is a disappointment.

Three strikes, you're out. Not suspended.


Yeah it's disappointing to see how poorly Sony understands the origins of gaming. They really need to hire some old-school table-top/PnP gamers as consultants. The nerdier the better.

Actually, the entire board of directors should attend gen-con and dragoncon annually...that'll learn 'em.

Re:For me. (1)

AWhiteFlame (928642) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458987)

PS2 was a disappointment for a number of reasons. The two main things for me were, I've had horrible experiences with the DVD player in both my and my friend's PS2, and that the remakes of PS1 games seemed to be much, much worse. My opinion, though. PS3 is overpriced. That's all I need. I'm not going to pay about as much as I'd pay for a PC just to game, and maybe watch some videos in a format I won't buy. SOE is a disappointment. I don't think this needs further detail.

Re:For me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15459807)

I've got to agree that based on history I am very cautious about the quality of the PS3 Blu-ray drives. I got a used PS2 to catch up on some of the exclusives I missed and to get a more reliable DVD player than the often-freezing software on my old Windows ME computer. After a few months, I went back to the more reliable ME computer.

Yes, it is entirely possible Sony learned their lesson here, and that the first Blu-ray player out of the gate will be perfectly reliable for years to come...but I am not going to believe it until I see it.

Re:For me. (1)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460583)

Well more than 100 million users weren't disapointed in the PS2, and the gross tonnage of games bears that out (compared to - say - the Jaguar which had enough retruns to effectively put Atari-Trammel out of business).

Sometime in the next 6 years I'll be looking to upgrade my entertainment system to something 1080p capable - and then I would be disapointed if my console / movie player didn't make the grade. I used (and still use) my PS2 as my prime DVD player (I have having a stack of boxes piled around the TV among other arguments) and will be curious how Blue's debut compares to the 1st gen HDDVD players. The picture from HDDVD is so robust (given that it has the highest throughput of any HD format available) you can see film grain. The boot and load times are staggering however.

Between that and capacity, I'm looking to get a cheap HD player as much as a game box, and considering my (sluggish) mac-mini was the same price, I think the capablilities are a bargin.

And if Rockstar gives me full-on chainsaw enabled goodness in 1080i to 1080p - oh - I'll be quite happy. Quite happy indeed.

Re:For me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15461201)

"Sometime in the next 6 years I'll be looking to upgrade my entertainment system to something 1080p capable"

Six years! You'll be able to get an Infinium Phantom by then...

Also, don't forget that MS is on a four year console cycle. Xbox 3 is due in 2008.

WTF? (0, Troll)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458232)

High demand by people who buy stuff first? Who would of thought it! People who buy stuff first just to be first/cool/whatever will buy it early! Wow news there folks!

Sony's problem is they've just made a playstation Mark 3. Except the Mark 2 was a huge step up from the original, where as the third step is all but unnoticable as it is. Untill Sony break away from the "me too!" style and basic frame work of the PSX they'll stay in the same rut.

The 360 did the "me too!" thing and look where it is now. Does anyone even care any more?

Re:WTF? (1)

grammar fascist (239789) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458379)

Sony's problem is they've just made a playstation Mark 3. Except the Mark 2 was a huge step up from the original, where as the third step is all but unnoticable as it is.

Actually, I think the Mark 3 is a huge step up. It's just that people aren't so impressed with that - what they want is a step away.

Supply vs. Demand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15458282)

I am behind the idea that Sony watched the Xbox360 launch and are reacting to the large ebay reseller market. Obviously fewer people will pay the higher price, so you hopefully match your output to demand. They also get a share of the money that in MS's case went to the Ebay crowd. The question though is if that strategy will fly with a similar console out there for less.

Re:Supply vs. Demand (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458311)

Or if that strategy will goover with the general population. Hearing that it costs $600, even if they plan to cut it later, will permanently turn some people off of the console. These things tend to stick in people's minds. Its also going to piss off their publishers- high priced console means less money for games, which means less money for them. Charging what the maximum the market will bear is not always the smartest option.

rapid price drop- blu ray/ game (2, Insightful)

acomj (20611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458315)

It is very likely that the very expensive blu-ray drive will drop in price rapidly as production ramps up. This should allow Sony to drop the price of the console.

It depends how may developers use the cell processor to its fullest extent and how
creative/fun the games are.

Re:rapid price drop- blu ray/ game (1)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458381)

Just like the lowered the price on the PS after there were a lot of games produced, as their ROI started to look good? Oh wait, they didn't do that. How about how they lowered their price on the PS2 after the production costs went down dramatically? Nope, didn't do that either. The simple fact is, prices on consoles rarely drop if history is any guide. When they do make the rare drop, it's generally a negligable amount. If you're more than a once a week gamer, waiting for a $20 decrease in price after 3 years for a $200-$300 system is probably not worth it.

PS1 price cut from $300 to $50 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458941)

Just like the lowered the price on the PS after there were a lot of games produced, as their ROI started to look good? Oh wait, they didn't do that.

Yes they did. North American launch MSRP of the original PlayStation was 300 USD; by the time the PS2 came out, the PSOne was down to 50 USD.

cant wait (0, Flamebait)

geekylinuxkid (831805) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458328)

im going to reserve mine as soon as it's possible. $600 is nothing when it means that ill have 5+ years of awesome gameplay with it. rock on sony!

Re:cant wait (-1, Flamebait)

grammar fascist (239789) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458408)

im going to reserve mine as soon as it's possible. $600 is nothing when it means that ill have 5+ years of awesome gameplay with it. rock on sony!

I honestly can't tell if you were being serious. In case you weren't, here's a tip in the form of an example:

$600 is nothing when it means that ill have 5+ years of awesome gameplay and the most amazing hi-tech cup holder ever. rock on sony!

Innovative games??? (1)

puppetman (131489) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458343)

"But Sony must put more effort into differentiating its games from those of rival platforms, both in terms of original compelling titles as well as overall quality."

So... EA won't be making any PS3 games?

Not really fair - everyone does it - a hit game has to have a sequel. If that sells well, yada yada. We're on Quake 4, Doom 3, but I never hear anyone complaining about id.

I think EA is going to try to change a bit, but I bet there's a whole shelf of Madden/NFS/NBA games on their way out for the PS3.

Re:Innovative games??? (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458365)

People complain about Id all the time. The thing to remember is that Id doesn't really make games- they make tech demos for engines.

Re:Innovative games??? (1)

grammar fascist (239789) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458420)

We're on Quake 4, Doom 3, but I never hear anyone complaining about id.

You must be new here. :D

Re:Innovative games??? (0)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458543)

Not really fair - everyone does it - a hit game has to have a sequel. If that sells well, yada yada. We're on Quake 4, Doom 3, but I never hear anyone complaining about id.


Well I'll be the first then. I love ID, they make great stuff and are ran the way I'd like a company to be ran, but their latest games have been nothing but disapointing. Doom3 tried to use doom1/2 style tactics(Boo! theres a guy behind you in that closet you just checked!), but they fail horribly when mixed with trying to look/feel realistic. Either give me a cartoon, or give me the realism of knowing what I just checked 3 seconds ago isn't going to lead to my demise.

Quake4 I havn't even botherd picking up because its just generic scifi on the doom3 engine. Hey guys, already did that, was called doom 3. THe Q2 story really had nothing behind it, I'd have much rather seen a sequel to Q1 story wise. The engines much better suited for it, what with all the shadows/dark gameplay.

For the record, QW is still my favorite online game. I think most of the problem with modern gameplay is everybody(id included) focuses on a new gimick and leads to bad gameplay. QW didn't have a "new gimmick", it was all new and experimental, and ended up being great. Thats not to say there arn't "gimmicks" that made qw great, but none of them were intentional-- Rocket Jumping/Wall Strafing/Bunnyhopping/Trimping/etc, all lead to what made QW great.

Re:Innovative games??? (1)

MaineCoon (12585) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459007)

I love ID, they make great stuff and are ran the way I'd like a company to be ran


You mean constant in-fighting, bickering, political maneuvering, ego-driven decisions and backstabbing?

Because thats pretty much how the people in charge of the company run it. Nobody in their right mind should want to be in a senior position at Id.

Quake 4 was done by Raven, of Hexen/Heretic/Soldier of Fortune fame.

Re:Innovative games??? (1)

copenja (840759) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459062)

Actually I think Doom 3 was a really good game.

I'm not trying to pick anyone out specifically, but I often
wonder if the people bashing Doom 3 have ever played the game
through. Or least played a decent portion, say 30% - 40%.

Comparing Doom 3 to Doom 1/Doom 2 is just silly. Doom1/Doom2 were
pre-quake technology and didn't even have 3D enviroments.

The level of immersion in Doom 3 blows Doom2/Doom1 out of the water.
The horror enviroment really sucks you in. It is truely
one of the only games I have ever felt scared while playing.

The level design of Doom3 also completely destroys previous versions.
Many levels in previous Dooms probally only took a day or less to create.
Every Doom3 level has much more time and thought put into. Doom 3 doesn't
just create a bunch of squares rooms, throw some monsters here, some keys here, and some barrels there. Each level comes off as a unique indepth enviroment. The monster placement is there to build/release tension. Every
level in Doom 3 probally took weeks to develop.

The flashlight also provided a new deminsion to the game play. You can
see or you can shoot, pick one. Brought a new feeling of urgency to the
game. Also added to the horror enviroment.

Sure Doom 3 is still a shooter game. If you don't like shooters, then don't
play it. But among single player shooters, it is one of the best.

Re:Innovative games??? (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459380)

Thats my point though. Doom3 tried to be too similar to the previous versions, but it doesnt work on such updated technology. Doom2 didn't have any other way to scare you than either zerg rushing you with monsters, or spawning people behind you. Nobody in their right mind would fill a doom3 room up with monsters due to the resources needed, so they were stuck with the spawning behind.

I stopped playing about (what I'd assume) is a third way through because it just got so repetitive. I know thats part of the genre, but compare it to a game like HL1 or Q1 and I'd rather replay either of those any day.

Re:Innovative games??? (2, Insightful)

Agret (752467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460046)

I stopped playing about (what I'd assume) is a third way through because it just got so repetitive
What on earth do you mean!? Clear room out, walk through door, turn to left blast monster supposed to jump out and scare you, turn around blast monster that spawned behind you. Clear out room, walk through door, turn to the lef....

Doom 3 was scary until I realised that every room follows the same pattern. I never did get around to finishing it but the game improves a a hell of a lot when you get to hell (Was playing Last Man Standing co-op with some mates). Last Man Standing co-op makes Doom 3 worth the money I paid for it. It's so awesome having old school co-op goodness through beautifully designed levels. If only I could say the same about the standard Doom 3....

Re:Innovative games??? (1)

justchris (802302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459801)

People bash EA because they produce iterations of their games every single year. How long did we wait between Doom 2 & Doom 3? How long do you have to wait between every new Mario platformer? Between every Final Fantasy? Between each version of Civilization?

Other companies make sequels, there's a lot of money to be made there, there's name recognition that encourages people to buy. But every single year? The problem is too many sequels with not enough changes between them, and that's why people complain about EA and less about other companies.

They're schizophrenic and have been for years. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15458347)

Some of Sony's products have been amazing, especially some of the commercial stuff. On the other hand, I have bought several pieces of overpriced junk from Sony. After a particularly useless pair of noise cancelling headphones, I'm not buying a PS3 just on principle. Add rootkits to that if I need more convincing.

Sony may be able to pull off what Microsoft wants to do which is make the game console a general purpose net surfing, email appliance. It hasn't worked yet but maybe someone will get it right yet; maybe Sony; but I'm not holding my breath.

Maybe the PS4 (yes I know it doesn't exist yet/ever) will redeem them but consumers have long memories and some of them hold grudges.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2634 [dailytech.com]

Re:They're schizophrenic and have been for years. (2, Interesting)

PeelBoy (34769) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458452)

Shoot you'll be able to surf the web with the Wii for much cheaper. The way they've been talking Opera is going to come standard with the Wii and it will be connected to the internet 24/7 (if you let it).

Not bashing the PS3 (4, Insightful)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458355)

I'm not going to bash the PS3 directly. I have not seen it in action, held the new controller, or had any other exposure that mainly occurred through E3.

However, no one can deny that there has been a lot of backlash. First and foremost, the pricepoint. Second, the heated argument that Sony may or may not have received inspiration for their new controller from Nintendo's remote.

The second argument is almost irrelevant. As a Nintendo fan myself, I will gladly say it. Whether the controller was "stolen" or not is a non-issue. Sony either had plans to use this controller beforehand, or they did not. If they did not, it will show in the game play -- extended game play that will most likely occurr after the purchase of a PS3.

Regarding the price, that alone has alienated a number of casual fans, such as myself. I own a PS2, but I never bought one outright. I bought mine used, around 2001, when the price tag was far lower. Price is a major factor for many consumers. Many times, it does not come down to "do I want the system with the hard drive, or the one without...", but rather "do I want the system, or do I want to make my car payment".

Additionally, the PS2 was a good investment in the long run as it had an established game library. When the XBox debuted, most of the games I had an interest in were already released, or being simultaneously released, for the PS2. I did not have to spend the additional $300+ on an Xbox, new controllers, memory cards, etc. Everything I wanted was already available on the PS2, therefore negating my desire (and in fact, need) for an Xbox.

Today, the roles are reversed. The Xbox 360 is available, stock is being supplied to retailers, and the game library is slowly but surely increasing.

I believe, in order to gain sure-footing in the market, the PS3 will need not only quality games, but exclusive ones. If the game is available on a system for $200 less, how is that going to encourage someone to spend that extra $200 to begin with? The XBox 360 may very well showcase the same titles as the PS3, but the 360 has already appeared in today's market, giving it some leverage, whereas many of Nintendo's titles will be exclusive their own console, presumably.

I do not believe that the PS3 will be a "failure". It will sell units. I already know of someone who said, with a shrug, "It's almost like a computer" and seemingly resigned himself to purchasing it. I do not believe that it will be a rampant success by any means.

Re:Not bashing the PS3 (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460371)

"I have not ... held the new controller..."

You've had 11 years! What's the hold up?

Re:Not bashing the PS3 (1)

Half a dent (952274) | more than 8 years ago | (#15461053)

"I believe, in order to gain sure-footing in the market, the PS3 will need not only quality games, but exclusive ones."

You are right. If the PS3 has at least one "kick ass must have" exclusive game then it will sell. If they have a good edition to the Gran Tourismo series ready on launch and some cool RPGs it will sell.

But at the likely price point for the console, games that are just good will not cut it. The games must be great.

I am willing to give Sony a chance and spend the money if they can deliver, I'm sure that we will get a better idea closer to launch.

Depends (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15458388)

Are we talking about Sony redeeming themselves to normal consumers?

Or redeeming themselves to Slashdot?

Because they've got a good shot at the first one.

Getting exclusives is not going to be as easy ... (5, Insightful)

The Optimizer (14168) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458473)

... as it was with the PS2. Simple fundamentals ate getting in the way of any developer not in Sony's (or MS's) back pocket.

As a 3rd party developer, I can say that our high-end titles are being developed for all three platforms: PC, Xbox 360 and PS3. We're doing that out of necessity; "Next Gen" games are costing 8 figures+ ($10+ million) these days, much due to content.

Now, how many Xbox 360's are there out there? How many will there be when we ship? What about the PS3 installed base? A "Hit" game can sell to well under 5% (say 2-3%) of a given console's owners. 20 Million Xbox's? Sell 500k units (2.5% penetration) and that's a hit. Unless you're a Halo or Grand Theft auto, that's realisitc.

Now, the cost of developing for both next-gen consoles (360, PS3) is not that much more than developing for just one console (maybe low as 1.1~1.2x) , but you stand to sell a lot more in total. Using an engine such as Unreal 3? Not much more effort and you have a PC version too.

Now, about that $10 to $20 million we just spent? We better sell a lot of copies, or it was a mistake to make the game in the first place. Right now, it'll be a good while before there is an installed base of 10 million on either console, but yet our games are much more expensive to make than the previous generation. To recoup advances and hopefully turn a profit means getting it out to the largest audience possible.

Oh, and there's the little matter of Xbox 360 being out first, and having signifiantly better developer tools than Sony that has developers developing on Xbox 360 as first/primary, and then porting their games to PS3. Last generation it was different, but this time Xbox was available first, and Sony's efforts to catchup to Xbox's tool and documentation quality is more than lacking.

Re:Getting exclusives is not going to be as easy . (1)

Trillian_1138 (221423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458933)

As a 3rd party developer, I can say that our high-end titles are being developed for all three platforms: PC, Xbox 360 and PS3. We're doing that out of necessity; "Next Gen" games are costing 8 figures+ ($10+ million) these days, much due to content.
I hafta object to you calling the PC, XBox 360, and PS3 "all three platforms." The Nintendo Wii has just as much of a marketshare right now as the PS3: None, becuase neither has been released. Now, it might be fair to say the PC, PS3, and 360 are the three "next gen platforms in terms or processing power or graphics," and I think that's what you meant as you go on to talk about the high cost of "next gen" games. But don't forget that Nintendo is coming out with a console soon, too...

-Trillian

Re:Getting exclusives is not going to be as easy . (3, Insightful)

drewmca (611245) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459091)

I think the point is not that the Wii is not a viable platform, but it's not going to be the same as developing for the other 3 platforms. The other 3 will most likely share quite a bit more code, as well as art assets. The Wii will not, simply because it won't be as powerful as the others. Porting to the Wii will be more like porting to last gen systems, in that you're probably removing a lot of features or in some case creating an almost entirely different game.

Again, that's not necessarily a problem for the Wii, because it's intended to be a completely different kind of game machine. Games will be simpler in some cases, in other cases they'll be using the Wii custom controls (which no other system will be able to use, including PS3), and most likely the games that use a huge budget and really stretch the limit of the system will be exclusives.

Point being, if you're writing to multiple platforms at once, the Ps3, 360, and PC can be dealt with at once with the same kind of cost the parent poster hinted at. If you add Wii to the mix, you're porting, and the only reason it's worth doing (because of the extra effort to downgrade) is to most likely take advantage of the Wii's unique features. If wii gets a lot of marketshare, that's exactly what will happen, but it's an additional cost and throws the 1.2x cost factor off kilter.

Re:Getting exclusives is not going to be as easy . (2, Insightful)

Trillian_1138 (221423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459523)

Sorry if I wasn't clear (and re-reading my post, I probably wasn't) but I completely agree with everything you're saying. I just wanted to stress that there are (or, at least, will be) four "new" systems (i.e. ones which will have new games coming out for the forseable future): PC, 360, and the yet-to-be-released Wii and PS3. My issue was the GP said something along the lines of "the three next gen consoles." Market success is as much an issue of mindshare as it is an issue of actual system power. I'd say the constant posts on Slashdot about the iPod not having $FEATURE_X while $PLAYER_Y does are an example of this sort of thing. For example, many publications put the GameCube behind the XBox and PS2 in terms of marketshare when, internationally, this really isn't true - XBox and GC are in the same ballpark, while both are quite a bit below the PS2. I know I'm fighting a losing battle, but I'd like to prevent that sort of thing for the 'next generation' of consoles. By leaving the Wii off (and by implying - intentionally or unintentionally - that no fourth system exists) it sends a message about the Wii's relationship to the 360, PS3, and computer.

Again, I don't think this was intentional on the part of the GP and I think he meant "the three most graphically powerful systems (PS3, 360, and PC)" rather than simply "the three next gen systems (PS3, 360, and PC)."

Just my two cents.
-Trillian

Re:Getting exclusives is not going to be as easy . (1)

drewmca (611245) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459561)

No prob. And as much as I usually end up sticking up for xbox against nonsensical anti-microsoft bashers, I feel your pain on the nintendo side. It's not just slashdot that does it, but also the mainstream media; they all refer to the supposed "failure" of the GC, when, as you put it, the marketshare numbers were not that far behind xbox (and were in fact much better in japan). I don't think it helps, though, when Nintendo themselves discuss the "failures" of the gamecube (a recent reggie article did just that). Your reasoning is exactly mine when I try to contradict asinine xbox bashing: if it's not true, then don't act like it's true, and don't expect that other people are so dumb as to not be able to differentiate when you're stating opinion versus fact. The "you" there was the general "you", and not you directly of course.

Re:Getting exclusives is not going to be as easy . (2, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460123)

I just wanted to stress that there are (or, at least, will be) four "new" systems (i.e. ones which will have new games coming out for the forseable future): PC, 360, and the yet-to-be-released Wii and PS3.

Not to be too pedantic, but there is also the DS, GBA, PSP, PS2 (still active development going on, probably for the next 4 years or so), browser (different environment than PC), Symbian J2ME Flash Lite BREW Pocket PC Mobile phone development, and the various arcade systems, amusement park attractions, etc. Possibly the XGP / 32X2 as well.

There is a lot of options out there. And as the market evolves, and consumer devices become more powerful, it looks like more and more will spring up.

Re:Getting exclusives is not going to be as easy . (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460125)

I think the point is not that the Wii is not a viable platform, but it's not going to be the same as developing for the other 3 platforms. The other 3 will most likely share quite a bit more code, as well as art assets.
Surely you jest! The Revolution has much more in common with the PC etc. than, say, the PS3 does. In reality the PS3 is the one that will need an entirely separate codebase, just because the programming model for the Cell is so weird.

Not to mention that you can "port" a game to the "less powerful" (not by much, though) Revolution just by reducing texture size and polygon count, and that can be done by automated tools.

Re:Getting exclusives is not going to be as easy . (1)

drewmca (611245) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460533)

Regardless of the weird programming model, 360, PS3, and most PC games in the future will be working to take advantage of multiple processors. Of course, with PCs, there will still be legacy systems to deal with, but there will be a lot more in common with up to date PCs (with hot shit nvidia cards) and the PS3 (and xbox360) than with the gamecube.

And as for programming models, what's weirder than a control scheme that no other system uses?

No wii? (1)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459123)

As a 3rd party developer, I can say that our high-end titles are being developed for all three platforms: PC, Xbox 360 and PS3.

Why did you leave the Wii off that list? I'm not trying to criticize; I'm seriously curious as to why you didn't include the Wii in that list, assuming it wasn't a gaff.

Do you (or your developer) not consider the Wii to be a contender? (Followup, if yes: Is it because it isn't as powerful as the other systems? Is it because of Nintendo's supposed "kiddie" image?)

Do you feel that the controller setup is too new to work with yet, and you need time to play with it and brainstorm (or see how it fares)? Do you find it hard to program for? Has Nintendo pissed you/your company off in some way?

Re:No wii? - let me clarify (2, Insightful)

The Optimizer (14168) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459262)

Look at what drewmca said - he got got it pretty close.

Basically, the Wii is seen as in a different group than PC/360/PS3. Different games, different audience and different content requirements, not to mention different levels of CPU and Graphics horsepower.

First off, the three platforms mentioned are the ones that are making use of the insanely high-def content with uber-normal maps and shader effects. It's a lot more expensive to make content at the Unreal 3 engine level than at the Wii level. Personally, I think Nintendo is freaking awsome for realizing that you don't need to have 2 artists and a programmer spend a week getting the specular sweat-drop effects working just right against the character's facial acne. That's where it seems like were going with the crazy levels of detail these days.

We do have plans for Wii and other (non next-gen) platforms, but it's best to approach them on their own terms and not try to force a 360/PS3 title onto them.

Re:No wii? - let me clarify (1)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460040)

Thanks for clearing that up.

I just want to saw that I think it's awesome that third parties are planning to create Wii content seperately from PC/360/PS3 stuff. The Wii kind of sets itself up for that, but it would be too easy for companies to just push out the same stuff with a different button scheme and just include a "classic pad" with the game. Ports are still a-okay, just try to do a bit more than just mapping the same action to a different button. :)

Re:Getting exclusives is not going to be as easy . (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460145)

As a 3rd party developer, I can say that our high-end titles are being developed for all three platforms: PC, Xbox 360 and PS3.
Funny, but my idea of "all three platforms" is exactly the opposite: Nintendo, Mac OS, Linux. Sure, I'm in the minority, but do you realize that if you developed using standards like OpenGL and SDL you could sell your game for all the platforms except Xbox at once? (And you'd have to develop for Xbox separately anyway, since the PS3 most likely doesn't support DirectX.)

It's sad that you've already eliminated the possibility that I (and others like me) would by your game, no matter how great it might turn out to be.

Re:Getting exclusives is not going to be as easy . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15461633)

Wait!

Let me get this straight!

You're the dumbfuck who wrote "Comments from an RTS programmer" recently???

A fucking PC RTS clown is lecturing people about console platform exclusives.

Go away dipshit, go back to cutting and pasting DirectX code! Can't stop laughing! RTS, console...yeah we're all waiting around for your crap

Funny, (1)

The Optimizer (14168) | more than 8 years ago | (#15462510)

The most recent game I shipped was FPS game that shipped simultaneously on PC, Xbox and PS2. Did rather well too. Doesn't change the fact I wrote a lot of code for best-selling RTS games too.

All they need to do (1)

ZakuSage (874456) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458522)

Is advertize the hell out of Metal Gear Solid 4. I know many who would pay $500 or $600 for that game, and I'm one of them.

Redemption won't be an issue for Sony (5, Funny)

Trogre (513942) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458527)

but I'm beginning to have my doubts about Zonk.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15458551)

Sony is the new Micro$oft.

Sod the game console (1, Flamebait)

ds_job (896062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458567)

There's no way I'm buying one, not because it is good / bad / indifferent, not because it is cheap / expensive / reasonable but because the buggers tried to shaft us with that damn rootkit.
As it is, I'm not convinced I need to spend that much money on a console irrespective of who produced it so chalk me up as one of the angry apathetic.

2030 (1)

Nazmun (590998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459679)

So what do you think abou the PS9?

I don't give a crap about sony's consoles, remember that rootkit the music division released three decades ago? I haven't touched a sony product ever since.

Once I got a sony blu-ray player for free, i went home and freaken pee'd on it.

Re:2030 (1)

ds_job (896062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460528)

Well, if the next 24 years have nothing in the way of contrition from Sony I'd be very tempted to still shun them.
*** very far fetched analogy alert ***
To draw tenuous parallels, Libya doesn't seem to have been involved in any terrorism since the mid/late 1980's but they had to demonstrate their change of heart before being tentatively accepted back.

I know that it is not fair to compare Sony and Libya directly but at the moment consumers have been abused by Sony and their level of remorse seems to only extend to "We're sorry we got caught" not "We're sorry we did it in the first place"
As I said, I am not enthused by the PS3 from the information I have received, so with regards to the PS3 I just can't find the energy to become excited or even that bothered about it.

Online Multiplayer (4, Insightful)

moe.ron (953702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458586)

Sony must clearly also address its relative weakness in online, where Microsoft has a substantial lead.

The future of gaming is online multiplayer (not better graphics) because online multiplayer affects the core of gaming, which is gameplay. This is a big reason PC gaming isn't dead and the reason why any of the major consoles who don't make this leap will be left behind. Of course, this means way more than having an internet ready gaming console. The GameCube and PS2 are internet ready (though adapters are required). Microsoft has XBox live, which is more than internet connectivity, it is a online multiplayer/gaming community platform. What XBox live provides is an easy, well managed solution for developers who are looking for a console to make their online multiplayer games for. Even if Sony were to bring SOE to the PS3, it still falls short of providing any kind of method for third party developers to build online multiplayer games for the PS3. IMHO, for Sony to redeem the PS3, they need to not only bring SOE to the console (and fix the problems with SOE), but also allow third party developers access to its capabilities.

Re:Online Multiplayer (1)

Mark Maughan (763986) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459220)

I played lots of online games on the PS2, and I didn't have to pay extra for it.
I also play lots of online games on the PC.

I don't have an Xbox, so what the heck was the PS2 missing? What is this advantage people speak of? I don't understand what it needs other than an ethernet card. Did it need a built in ethernet card?

Re:Online Multiplayer (1)

moe.ron (953702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459440)

What is this advantage people speak of? I don't understand what it needs other than an ethernet card. Did it need a built in ethernet card?

Well, yea a built in ethernet card would have helped, but I'm talking more about infrastructure. The online capabilities of the PS2 is basically as good or as bad as the companies developing the games and the service they are willing to provide on their own. Basically, yea you can get online with the PS2, but your online experience is entirely up to the individual developers. What this means is that fewer developers are going to add online multiplayer capabilities to a game if it is going to cause them more cost to develop and more cost through the life of the game to provide the online service.

XBox live on the other hand provides that service, so the developers can concentrate more on the game, and less on what they themselves will have to do to actually provide the online multiplayer service.

From one PC Gamer to another, this doesn't seem like a big deal when you think about a lot of the online multiplayer games where it is up to the end users to provide the service (run their own servers). Of course it is an entirely different story with massively multiplayer games, where it takes a server farm (and a lot of bandwidth) to provide the online service, but this is beside the point. In the universe of PC gaming, the end users also create their own communities and really do an excellent job of it. However, they have the advantage because they are already in control of that online multiplayer platform that we call the internet. When you're talking more about consoles, there is less there for people to work with on the console itself. For PC users this isn't an issue because you have your PC to turn to for creating that online community and for running game servers like Halo. For the console owners out there that don't have PC's already, there is no ability for them to create any sort of community or provide any sort of service on their own. Any console maker interested in the casual gamer market, and they all are, needs to keep in mind that their users could be relying entirely on the abilities of the console for their online experience. This means a little more than just the connection is required, you need to provide no only the game server, but an easy way for communities to form and grow. The PS2 does not provide this at all really, but XBox live does. You not only get the online gaming service, but you also get very accessible modes of communication between all of the players. This is important for an online multiplayer game to succeed because most of the fun of online multiplayer is the fact you're playing with so many people. You need an easy way to meet them, play with them, and talk to them outside of the game.

Side note, I do not own an XBox and am not an XBox live user. I'm in now way trying to sell the XBox as the better console. I speak from my own experiences with online PC gaming and the communities that I have been a part of that grow around the games I have played. Largely, it either the accessibility of the game or the community that keeps me coming back to a game. Some games with online multiplayer force you to have to know the other parties you're playing with in order to start a game. I don't play much of those. Other games with online multiplayer feature user runnable servers that are easily browsable and always have people playing whether I know them or not. I play a lot of these. And finally some games have such a fanatical following and strong communities grow from them and people actually get together, organize among themselves, and from that organization add a deeper level of gameplay that only the players themselves can provide and developers can only dream of. These are the games I play for years and years without tiring of them. They are what online multiplayer is all about, and from my first post, they are what the future of gaming will be all about.

Re:Online Multiplayer (1)

Mark Maughan (763986) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460962)

But aren't Halo 2 games hosted by the player with the fastest connection? Is MS really providing servers or are they merely providing a logon?

Personally I like it how it is on the PC. Developers do what ever they want.

A long time ago I was going to buy an Xbox for PSO, but I found out I had to pay a subscription to both Sega and MS. That turned me off so I didn't end up buying it.

I just don't see anything here but more cost to the consumer.

Re:Online Multiplayer (1)

Agret (752467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460071)

because online multiplayer affects the core of gaming, which is gameplay. This is a big reason PC gaming isn't dead and the reason why any of the major consoles who don't make this leap will be left behind.
I thought it was because of all the abilities to mod your games and to upgrade your hardware to make your games look better that made PC gaming stick around. With an XBOX/PS3 your games are going to get to a certain level and won't get any better whereas on the PC side you can just keep updating your hardware and the games will get much better.

Re:Online Multiplayer (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460507)

if Sony lets SOE anywhere near the PS3 they will be screwed.

SOE's specialty is losing customers and marketshare

Re:Online Multiplayer (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15461371)

Despite being an avid online gamer myself, I still very much enjoy single player games and purchase most of my games only for their single-player value. Playing online is still just an add-on to me.

I'm not alone either; I know several XBox 360 early adopters who still haven't played online at all because they have no desire to. There are a lot of gamers who simply do not crave playing games against other people online and would rather just "play a video game".

US-centric view on the PS3 (1, Troll)

davFr (679391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15458944)

From the US, this wave of critics and pessimism around the PS3 may look like realistic (which I doubt anyway).Sony blahblah is dead, Sony blahblah will block second-hand PS3 games, Sony blahblah puts poison in pirated games! I am not a Sony zealot, but honestly, stop this crappy FUD around the PS3, please!

From the rest of the world, PS3 gathers LOTS LOTS more expectation than Xbox360 will ever have. Have you seen the number of Xbox360 sold in Japan or even in Europe?? Xbox360 in Japan : 50000 units sold since its launch. 1242 sold this week. On the other, 20000 PS2 units (I really mean PStwo) were sold this single week! In the same week, 300000 Nintendo DS and 30000 PSP!

Re:US-centric view on the PS3 (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459150)

I never doubted Sony would be able to sell more PS3's in Japan than MSFT will sell xBox360's. The question was if they would lock up dominance like they did with the PS2, and the result of E3 is they are going to have a hard fight to keep Nintendo out of the #1 spot with the Wii, both in the US and in Japan. I can't speak for Europe, but my gut tells me that Nintendo will probably do better than Sony there.

Re:US-centric view on the PS3 (2, Insightful)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459234)

Firstly, Japan is not the rest of the world. That is your only example (although mentioned Europe, you brought no figures), and Japan is well known for turning a cold shoulder towards foreign companies (though not always). If you'd also brought up numbers of other markets such as Australia and the EU, your claim about the "rest of the world" might be better. As it is, your argument would be better put as "the all important market of Japan".

Secondly, note something within your own statistics. The Nintendo DS, a handheld with good but technically inferior power made up for with a large dose of innovation, outsold the PSP, a handheld with many media functions and supirior power, 10 to every 1.

The point there is, Sony is not only competing with Microsoft. Nintendo continually claims they aren't competing directly with Sony and Microsft. In a sense that is true, because they are largely aiming for people who don't already play games or who gave up playing them. However, Nintendo is competing with them for developers. When developers see that one console is selling ten times what another is, an OLDER console no less, they aren't going to ignore that.

I highly doubt that the PS3 won't sell well at launch, despite the over optimism the analysts seem to ooze. The PSP sold well at launch too. However, we now see Nintendo's DS not only competing but in many ways thrashing the PSP. The potential exists for a similar event with the new generation of consoles.

Re:US-centric view on the PS3 (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460424)

The Nintendo DS, a handheld with good but technically inferior power made up for with a large dose of innovation, outsold the PSP, a handheld with many media functions and supirior power, 10 to every 1.

    It has little to do with the "power" of the system; it's a game console, and simply put, the public liked the DS games lineup much more than they liked the PSP one. This is the same reason why, IMHO, the Wii will do very well, despite being (only?) slighty more powerful than a GC.

    I think that Sony is missing the point if they expect people to shell $600 for a game console just because it does much more than playing games (as it was the argument for the "blu-ray tax").

Re:US-centric view on the PS3 (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460758)

There are several factory which made the ds an instant success. First the price, face it Sony overpriced the PSP, not in the us, but in many other areas the PSP simply was almost double as expensive as the DS. Add to that that the DS had a huge backlibrary of games ready to play and people could move on from their GBAs.
Third sony forgot about one aspect, a handheld console is played often not connected to the next electrical outlet, while nintendos console almost can be played for a full day, the PSP even for non technical users is known to be a power drainer once in "offline" mode.
The funny thing is the games lineup for new titels is not really that important because both consoles have a strong lineup. But having a 200-250$ pricetag on the PSP and a 100-150$ pricetag on the DS simply made the difference, between a buy for the kids or just because you had the money left and looking at the console in the electronics store, almost buying it but then putting it back because of the price.

Re:US-centric view on the PS3 (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 8 years ago | (#15460741)

Japan is not the world, it not even is the second or third biggest market anymore, it has just a lot of developers due to having been traditionally a huge market. The EU is the biggest, US the second biggest, and probably China and or Russia the third biggest. But for Europe, believe me, the PS3 at the planned price point will be a non seller, people are way more price sensitive over here than they are in the USA, after all we cannot spend as much on electronics junk as the average US citizen. I talked to a lot of people over here, and most of them plan to go for the Wii instead some for the xbox 360.

Yes, Sony can redeem themselves after E3 (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459134)

Once they announce their price point for a non-crippled P3 is $499 USD/EU, that DRM has been removed, and they realize that they won't have 80 percent of market share like they did with the PS2.

The sooner they do this, the better off they'll be.

Re:Yes, Sony can redeem themselves after E3 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15459754)

That will *NEVER* happen unless they drop Blu-ray. I hear people musing that Sony will drop the price point soon, but they can't do it. Here's why:
  Sony wants Blu-ray to be a success, and to do that, they've gotten together a coalition of companies to support it. Things are about a 50/50 split between the Blu-ray and HD-DVD camps right now. However, there's a lot of tension amongst the hardware segment of the Blu-ray camp, because Sony is selling a Blu-ray player in the PS3 at below cost. This means Sony is undercutting the other Blu-ray player manufacturers, and they're not happy about it. Why buy $minor-name-brand Blu-ray player for $900 when you can get a Sony-branded player inside a PS3 for less?
  If Sony were to reduce the PS3's price even further, you'd see the other Blu-ray hardware makers jump ship to the HD-DVD camp. (and who could blame them! To compete with Sony's price, they'd have to sell at a huge loss, with no hope of ever making it back on movies and games the way Sony can.) This would likely precipitate a large shift among the content companies over to HD-DVD as the perception sets in that Blu-ray is a Sony-only format. At that point Blu-Ray dies like Betamax, Mini-disc, and UMD.

Re:Yes, Sony can redeem themselves after E3 (1)

Rallion (711805) | more than 8 years ago | (#15461977)

Once they announce their price point for a non-crippled P3 is $499 USD/EU, that DRM has been removed, and they realize that they won't have 80 percent of market share like they did with the PS2.


One for three!

http://games.kikizo.com/news/200606/010.asp [kikizo.com]

ObClueless Quote (4, Interesting)

Rimbo (139781) | more than 8 years ago | (#15459211)

David Cole, DFC Intelligence: E3 really isn't that important. The buying public pays little to no attention to the news coming out of E3. It is at best a 'dress rehearsal for the big show that fall.' Sony stumbled out of the gate for both the PS One and PS2 launches. Microsoft had poor initial showings for the Xbox. The only time it matters is when a poor showing at E3 is indicative of what is going to be a poor product. If a company gets its act together between E3 and product launch, all is forgiven.


1. Sony did not "stumble out of the gate" for the Playstation launch at E3. What happened with the Playstation one at E3 is the stuff of legend. [gamespy.com]

2. Microsoft had poor initial showings for the Xbox and the Xbox ended up losing Microsoft $7 billion dollars and remains a distant second to the PS2.

3. As far as I've been able to tell, E3 is the thing among the gamer market to decide what's hip as what's not. Even if he was right about the Xbox and Playstation, the facts wouldn't support this statement.

4. Even if gamers don't pay attention to E3, the muckity-mucks at places like EA, Activision and Ubisoft do, and Sony's stumble is going to have repercussions regarding the decisions they make regarding what titles they'll produce, what consoles they'll produce them for, and how much effort they'll put into a port. The PS3 went in one week from being the likely market leader to a likely failure, and past crimes of Sony against development houses (i.e., making the Playstation 2 & 3 difficult to develop for, thus cutting into developer's margins) are going to have a substantial effect on what games are available for it. And the gamers will pay attention to what's available for their systems.

I agree with PJ of Groklaw's comment... I gotta get into this "Analyst" business. You can know absolutely nothing, spew off about things, and people will pay you to do it. How lovely!

Re:ObClueless Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15460265)

E3 is not about the game buying public. Yes it is about the EA's, Ubi's et al. But even more importantly it is about the Walmarts, EB's etc. RETAIL comes out of E3 and makes their year plan. Sure there is flexibility, but Sony took a knock and that will be reflected in their presence in retail. That is retail shelve space, presence, prominence in retail floor space, co-marketing, etc. A lot of retail $$$ shifted from PS3 to Wii at E3 relative to what it was in February. That has a trickle down effect on the game buying public. In the most extreme if no one carries the PS3 it doesn't matter who wants it; you can't get it. Note: I'm not saying that retail doesn't want the PS3 I'm just exaggerating to emphasize the importance. In the UK several major outlets stopped carrying the GameCube, it's not to say that you couldn't get it in the UK but if someone went into one of the stores wanting a GC and didn't find one there's a good chance that they'd come out with a PS2 instead. Thus the GC sales to a bigger hit which made retail claim that their decision was justified.

Get your head out of your ass (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15460346)

Most gamers who have made Sony rich don't give a fuck about this bullshit. Why the fuck does the slashdot crowd think the eyes of the world turn to them for advice and guidance? Most gamers don't care about E3 and whether or not sony kissed media ass. Most gamers don't give a fuck about rootkits or DRM.

Will the high price of PS3 bring the platform down? Perhaps. but the rest of this is just pure bullshit according to 99% of sonys past or future customers.

All of this bickering and fucking bullshit that goes on here makes zero difference to the majority of the buying public. Stop acting like you have some great insight into the future of the company.

Why the fuck am I bothering? You guys are the same fucks who've been chanting that Linux is a MS killer for the last 10 years and still look at where we're at.

Take heed sony! the fucks of slashdot have predicted that you're going to lose big very soon, that translates into you may lose 3% of the market share to XBox in 2018.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>