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!

Sony Console the Worst Launch Ever

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the no-not-that-one dept.

Games 193

No, not that one. 1up set out to see if the PlayStation 3 had the worst launch of any modern gaming console, and found that another Sony console held that title. The original PlayStation's launch was pretty dreadful, with Warhawk's average of 89.4 being fairly low for most launch title leaders. The worst launch lineup of the 'next-gen' systems is actually the Wii, which has averaged only a 71.3 over its 20 launch titles. The PS3 is next up, with 73.4, and the 360 has the overall best of the three consoles, having scored an average of 77.3 over its 18 titles last year. From the article: "Averages are just that, though, and don't tell you much about the best games that accompanied the launches. And the best of the batch wasn't a surprise, but it wasn't a Nintendo game either. Soul Caliber for the Dreamcast, with an average of 96.4 just barely squeaks out the win over the Legend of Zelda: The Twilight Princess for Wii. At the other end of the spectrum, both Wii and PS3 share the worst stinkers with Happy Feet for Wii coming in at a 45 and Gundam: Crossfire at the very bottom with its 34.8."

cancel ×

193 comments

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

ZONK: SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FUCKING FAGGOT (-1, Troll)

CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005446)

I am getting tire of telling you.

Brilliant Profile (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005570)

I'm here to dispell a few rumors about the retarded:

First off, they don't rule the night, no one does. They don't have the strength of apes, but you don't want to look them straight in the eyes, that might send them into beserko mode. They'll come at you with hell's fury, all fists and elbows. You're yelling, "No, No, No!", but all they hear is, "Who wants cake?" They all want cake.

Re:Brilliant Profile (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005632)

Thanks for my daily dose of surrealism

Re:Brilliant Profile (1)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006160)

They'll come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows.

I appreciate your input, Wilfred Brimley, but what the heck does this have to do with the article?

SPENGBAB DIABEETUS. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17006436)

All I have to do is issue an anti-Zonk fatwa, and we will have jihad at the hands of my personal army.

Nevertheless, let's lay off the protarded for now. They are my ace in the hole, the largest constituency of my legion of insurgents.

Re:Brilliant Profile (0)

oc255 (218044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006500)

If you take whirling apart, you get hrlng wii. And we all know how that pertains to current events . :)

BEST FP EVAR (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005458)

ZOMGggies i love fping

Not exactly the most scientific (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005488)

The worst launch lineup of the 'next-gen' systems is actually the Wii, which has averaged only a 71.3 over its 20 launch titles.

That would be because the THQ [thq.com] conversions from the previous gen are dragging them down. Not to mention the Vivendi (Ice Age) and Ubisoft (Open Season) titles that are similar conversions. Most launches put their best foot forward, but Nintendo allowed a few tag-alongs to immediately fill out their software library. The result is that there's a lot of great stuff for the Wii, but there's also plenty of so-so conversion stuff that appeals to a very specific market.

Of course, life would be better if movie and TV conversions were done better to begin with. Anyone remember when Capcom did the Duck Tales and Chip and Dale games for the NES? Now THOSE were great games first, but with quality TV tie-ins that tried to be true to the source material. Alas, once Capcom started chucking out unsuitable tie-ins of The Little Mermaid and other Disney properties, it was all over. :(

Back on topic, these numbers don't really mean anything. If a store sells 2 HDTVs a year, but 3,000 DVDs, the averages will still say that the HDTVs are making them more money. For that sort of situation, you need a weighted average to find the profits compared to the number of units sold. It's the same thing here. A smaller launch lineup is going to have a better average than a larger, more varied lineup. Something which 1Up themselves admit when discussing the N64.

So I wouldn't take these metrics as anything more than a cutsie invention. They certainly have little to do with the success or failure of a console launch.

Re:Not exactly the most scientific (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005794)

If a store sells 2 HDTVs a year, but 3,000 DVDs, the averages will still say that the HDTVs are making them more money.

OK, $4000 for a decent HDTV, that's $8000 gross. 3000 DVDs at a heavily discounted $15 is $45,000 gross. So the mean over the year for profit on the HDTVs is rather low compared to the ample profit margins of the DVDs.

Re:Not exactly the most scientific (1)

XMyth (266414) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005998)

Hurry, look up!

Re:Not exactly the most scientific (4, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006236)

Let's say you have two different brands of HDTVs. One has a profit margin of $300, while the other has a margin of $600. Furthermore, let's say you have 4 DVDs with profit margins of $2.00, $3.00, $4.00, and $0.50. How do we compare the profits of one type of item over the other?

Well, we could use averages:

1 $300 HDTV
1 $600 HDTV
-----------
$450/unit average

600 $2.00 DVDs
600 $3.00 DVDs
800 $4.00 DVDs
1000 $0.50 DVDs
---------------
$2.23/unit average

Obviously, the HDTVs win. But that's not a very good way to actually compare your business units. A much better way is weighted averages [mathforum.org] . If we weight the averages of the products against the total sales, we find that the HDTVs are only pulling in a profit of about 30 cents for every sale made while the DVDs are pulling in $1.00 for every sale made. So which one is more valuable to be selling? The big clunky HDTVs that take up shelf space but sell poorly overall, or the DVDs which make up most of the revenue and take very little shelf space?

Of course, actual business practices would state that the HDTV is a method of selling more DVDs. So the sales of the HDTVs in the same store would be justified. But it does show how naive math can get you in serious trouble.

Re:Not exactly the most scientific (4, Funny)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006544)

Let's say you have two different brands of HDTVs. One has a profit margin of $300, while the other has a margin of $600. Furthermore, let's say you have 4 DVDs with profit margins of $2.00, $3.00, $4.00, and $0.50. How do we compare the profits of one type of item over the other?

My head hurts from your analysis. One question though: Are those African HDTVs or European HDTVs?

Re:Not exactly the most scientific (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17006780)

Are those African HDTVs or European HDTVs?

I don't know that!

*thwump*

AAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHhhhhhh!!

Re:Not exactly the most scientific (1)

wirelessbuzzers (552513) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006692)

So which one is more valuable to be selling? The big clunky HDTVs that take up shelf space but sell poorly overall, or the DVDs which make up most of the revenue and take very little shelf space?

Of course, to make the profit margins what you said they were, you have to sell about 200 times as many DVDs as HDTVs. Many of them will be copies of the same few hits, but still, you may find yourself needing a lot of shelf space.

Re:Not exactly the most scientific (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005970)

If there is anything more pathetic than yet another Zonk FUDfest, it's some fuckwit typing out a reply to the latest bit of Zonk FUD.

Guy, wake the fuck up. No one gives a shit.

Re:Not exactly the most scientific (2, Insightful)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006386)

I generally agree with you that an "Average" doesn't really tell that much about the quality of a line-up, and I think that the quantity of games within a certain ranking would probably tell you more about a software line-up

The Wii had 1 game at 90% or higher, 5 games that were 80%-89%, 7 games that were 70%-79%, 4 games that were 60%-70% and 3 games below 60%; I may have made a mistake with the handful of virtual console games mixed in the Gamerankings list.

The PS3 5 games that were 80%-89%, 5 games that were 70%-79%, 1 games that were 60%-69%, and 2 games below 60%.

Between the 2 I would say that the Wii had 13 games that were playable (70% or better) whereas the PS3 only had 10 that were playable; the Wii also had 7 crappy games (below 70%) whereas the PS3 had 3 crappy games. The Wii's average is lower even though it had more playable games.

Re:Not exactly the most scientific (5, Insightful)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006668)

"Slashdot Headline is Most Misleading Ever"

Console launch? No, game title average.

Relivance? Console two generations ago was worst, but the time of the article makes you think otherwise.

Agreement with article? No, the title of the 1UP article makes clear it's about the games and that it's an open ended question answered in the text.

You can tell the truth just by reading further? Well yeah, but it's a not a main-page aritcle so you have to click-through first.

Do I care that the Wii was the worst of this gen? Not really, because it still has good games.

Do I think the PS3 sucks because Slashdot keeps wanting to tell me it does? Oh yes. I really don't care to think for myself.

Good day all,

TW

Re:Not exactly the most scientific (1)

Joker1980 (891225) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007654)

"Anyone remember when Capcom did the Duck Tales and Chip and Dale games for the NES? Now THOSE were great games first, but with quality TV tie-ins that tried to be true to the source material." I do, oh the memories that came flooding back after reading that. There was a mickey mouse/disney (sorry forget the name)game on the SNES which was also excellent. They were great games but there is a danger with being too true to the source material. For example spiderman 2 on the PS2 was an excellent game, the major problem with it was it copied the film almost scence for scene which made it about as long as the film.

Zonk and the PS3 (5, Funny)

alexhard (778254) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005492)

Dude, we got it. You hate the PS3 and Sony. It's OK, we do too but we are REALLY getting tired of your stories about it..

Re:Zonk and the PS3 (3, Funny)

Madpony (935423) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006440)

Folding his arms in front of his chest Zonk looks at you sternly, and in the Comic Book Store Guy's voice he says, "Worst. Launch. Ever."

Re:Zonk and the PS3 (4, Interesting)

GoNINzo (32266) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007286)

I completely agree. If it's not an xbox 360 fan boy story or a ps3 hater story, it doesn't get put up. If you'd like some examples from the past 2 weeks, I come up with this pretty rough count based on article titles:

Sony: 11 anti, 2 pro
Microsoft: 1 anti, 6 pro
Nintendo: 4 anti, 5 pro

Granted, Sony is screwing up pretty badly, and the xbox 360 is hitting it's stride, it is a pretty annoying bias.

We get it. We're interrupting your gears of war sessions and you can't find a ps3. But get over it. heh

Slashdot headline worst ever (5, Funny)

wampus (1932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005502)

...but not this one. Is Zonk some 14 year old with Mario sheets on his bed?

Re:Slashdot headline worst ever (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005710)

Is Zonk some 14 year old with Mario sheets on his bed?

No, he just has a 15 year old named Mario in his bed.

OHHH!!

Re:Slashdot headline worst ever (1)

gt_mattex (1016103) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005722)

Per Zonk:

8.) Nay-Sayers by Zonk (12082) Despite the obvious debt that the Warcraft setting owes to Warhammer (and D&D, and Tolkien) there have been several comparisons drawn between Warhammer Online and World of Warcraft. It's obvious that any modern fantasy MMOG will have similarities to what has come before; Everquest owes a great deal to MUDs, for example. That said, how would you respond to onlookers who look at your game, look at WoW, and say that you are trying to capitalize on the success of World of Warcraft by aping many elements of Blizzard's title?
- Link [slashdot.org]


I'd say that's one hell of an eloquent 14 year old.

Re:Slashdot headline worst ever (2, Insightful)

wampus (1932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006832)

I was commenting upon the constant "boo Sony" and "yay Wii" headlines. I am sure Zonk is a very well spoken and intelligent person, but this misleading headline irritated me. This type of thing also bothers me when mainstream news outlets do it, but it is especially depressing when "new media" does it, and as blatantly as this.

Re:Slashdot headline worst ever (1)

NinjaFarmer (833539) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007482)

So Zonk's reporting is biased. At least he doesn't even try to hide it, so you can consider what he's saying in that light.

I tend to agree with him about the quality of Sony as a company nowadays, although this headline was still a bit over-the-top misleading.

For the record, my one bad experience with Sony is having a DVD burner brick on me after burning 3 DVDs.

Re:Slashdot headline worst ever (5, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006464)

Is Zonk some 14 year old with Mario sheets on his bed?

No, he's a 30 year old with Mario sheets on his bed.

Re:Slashdot headline worst ever (1, Funny)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007052)

Wait ... is there something wrong with that?

--Jeremy

Re:Slashdot headline worst ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007180)

No, he's a 30 year old with Mario sheets on his bed.
Don't you mean Master Chief?

Sony. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005510)

You give me great dishonor!

Re:Sony. (2, Funny)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006504)

You're okay as long as they don't give you giant crabs for massive damage.

Average Scores (5, Insightful)

the dark hero (971268) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005522)

What about average games sold per console sold? That to me would make more sense in determining the worst/best console launch.

Re:Average Scores (1)

grogdamighty (884570) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005842)

Or the number or percentage of launch games that are ranked above a certain level. Personally, I'd rather have a console with 2 90s and 1 30 than 3 70s.

Re:Average Scores (3, Insightful)

RemovableBait (885871) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005884)

I think almost any other metric would be a better one than 'average review score of the launch line-up'...

Re:Average Scores (1)

tzhuge (1031302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005996)

I agree that average games sold per console sold would be a better metric. However, that's partially clouded by what the early buyers are getting the console for. It seems that a larger percentage of PS3 buyers are reselling them. So that metric is quite likely tainted against PS3.

I would rather see a more in depth examination of the top 3~5 launch titles for the different consoles. It's only the best and most unique games for any console I am interested in anyways. I think ultimately that's what most people judge consoles on rather than some abstract 'average' game construct.

PS3s on eBay (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006656)

I agree that average games sold per console sold would be a better metric. However, that's partially clouded by what the early buyers are getting the console for. It seems that a larger percentage of PS3 buyers are reselling them. So that metric is quite likely tainted against PS3.

But those PS3's were still bought and (eventually) used by someone. Whoever would have bought a PS3 for $1800 on eBay would most likely have preordered some games or bought some games on launch day or soon after, so even the PS3's sold on eBay should already have games accounted to them. I guess that's assuming it takes less than 10 days to sell a PS3 on eBay and ship it. In any case, if those games haven't already been accounted for, they will be soon.

Re:Average Scores (1)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007292)

would rather see a more in depth examination of the top 3~5 launch titles for the different consoles. It's only the best and most unique games for any console I am interested in anyways. I think ultimately that's what most people judge consoles on rather than some abstract 'average' game construct.
Good point! Most people will buy only 1 or 2 titles, and most of the time there is a clear killer app that sells almost 1 to 1 with the console. Another good metric might be to simply compare the exclusive titles for that console. If you consider that variances in 3rd party titles are minimal you're really making your choice based on what one console offers that the other doesn't.

Re:Average Scores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17006122)

What about average games sold per console sold? That to me would make more sense in determining the worst/best console launch.
But look at how many people bought Halo and what a heaping pile of fail that game was... The metric you suggest would only work if the definition of "best" was "most profitable".

Re:Average Scores (4, Insightful)

donglekey (124433) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006568)

Exactly, because a console doesn't succeed by it's average score, it succeeds by the number of really good games that are out for it. The PS2 isn't selling because there are 1000's of mediocre games, it is selling because there are dozens of great ones. The 360 is leading the way in the number of games people buy for the next gen. If the library was more diverse and the games were exclusive, it would probably be doing better than it already is.

Re:Average Scores (5, Informative)

AArmadillo (660847) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006620)

This is known as the attach rate. PS3's attach rate has been 1.5, the Wii's attach rate has been 3.0, and the Xbox 360's attach rate at launch was about 4.0 (now it is around 5.0).

Re:Average Scores (0, Troll)

cttforsale (803028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006884)

When a modchip that allows true XBMC running on the 360, you'll get a 0.0 attach rate out of me...

Re:Average Scores (1)

Rabbid_Wii (1032570) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007200)

Very good insight. This is perhaps the best measurement of any launch. Software is what really matters, and, unlike scores, which are horribly subjective because they're based soley on an opinion, games sold per console at launch is the true measurement for success. The fact that the Dreamcast had a 96.4 game at launch says nothing for the fact that the Dreamcast was killed two years after its launch, if that. So, who was more successful? The Dreamcast who barely edged out a higher score over Zelda, which has won almost every single Game of the Year title each time a rendition comes out, or the Wii, which sold out its 2 million consoles at launch and will most likely sell out the additional 4 million planned before January 2007? *shrugs* Oh, it's worth mentioning that the Wii is selling 3 games per console, average, where the PS3 is selling 1.5 average. Look it up on Gamestop and Gamespot news threads. Again, it's too early to really tell, but measuring launch success purely by launch title score averages is just silly. I'm not begrudging the XBox 360 or the PS3 either in this post. I love the Wii, but I'm old enough to realize that Nintendo finally did something right after three consoles in the past ten years or so (the 64, GC, and now the Wii). PS2 was short at its launch, but it kicked everything's butt, and I have no doubt the PS3 will rock the market as well, once Sony manages to manufacture any. The playing field is different, though, this time around, and Nintendo has shocked the world with its new console, period. They might not take the market back by storm, but they are proving that they have the innovation to stay in the game and perhaps gain the foothold they've lost over the last ten years or more.

One obvious fact from this... (4, Insightful)

Nevyn (5505) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005542)

One obvious fact from this list is that it bears zero correlation to anything useful. Also, I thought the main complaint with the PS3 is that almost all the games are available elsewhere (resistance being the exception) ... not that they are bad.

And Soul Caliber beating Zelda TP, is probably mainly due to gamespot not wanting "another" Zelda ... and it's upto 96.4 anyway (higher than the above article).

If anyone wants the sure fire way to know which of the current "next-gen" consoles is going to win ... wait 12 months, maybe 18-24 to be sure.

Re:One obvious fact from this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005990)

In 2 years time the 360 will be 60-75% through its lifespan... I only buy obsolete consoles myself, but it's pretty clear based on people's purchasing habits that waiting that long isn't preferable for the majority.

Not wanting another Zelda is fair criticism, isn't it? Lots of games get marked down for that: Ridge Racer 7, Call of Duty 3, Monkey Ball Wii, Soul Calibur 2/3...

Re:One obvious fact from this... (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007166)

Not wanting another Zelda is fair criticism, isn't it?,/i>

I don't think that is a fair criticism. That would be like rating a racing game, basketball game, or RPG down just because you didn't want another one. Maybe if you have originality included in your scale I may accept it, but I think you should only grade a game based on gameplay, controls, fun, graphics/style, and sound. Now the review should most definitely state something along the lines of "This is another Zelda game like the past few, if you don't like the past few you probably won't like this one".

Re:One obvious fact from this... (3, Funny)

Pope (17780) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006540)

Zelda Toilet Paper? Awesome!

Re:One obvious fact from this... (4, Funny)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007656)

Something tells me that wiping your ass with the Master Sword may not be the best idea you've had today.

Re:One obvious fact from this... (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008008)

What about the Nunchuck?

Re:One obvious fact from this... (1)

prator (71051) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007820)

It is awesome. After every wipe, you get the treasure chest opening music.

Re:One obvious fact from this... (1)

Garse Janacek (554329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006950)

Soul Caliber beating Zelda TP, is probably mainly due to gamespot not wanting "another" Zelda

No, Soul Calibur beating Zelda is mainly due to the artificial use of a single absolute numerical scale to rank two games that have nothing in common except that they are, in fact, games. A multi-player fast-twitch non-story-based fighting game taking place in small, functionally identical arenas, versus a single-player story-based RPG taking place in a huge interactive world. Both are a lot of fun, and great launch titles, but... 96.4? What?

This whole approach to the subject is silly. These things are subjective. It's natural to want to quantify things, but this is just too much, and the article is basically a worthless way to measure "success."

Re:One obvious fact from this... (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007742)

Zelda does have two glaring flaws in my opinion. I've been playing it and it's a great game. I've got about 9 hours into it so far. But there are the graphics, which look perfectly Game Cube (not even top end Game Cube, some other games looked better) and the Wiimote (which except for aiming arrows/the slingshot often feels tacked on). If I were to give it a score for a gaming magazine I'd drag it down for that.

If it came out on the 'cube, it's scores would be near perfect. I'm talking 99% range.

Misleading title (2)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005546)

TFA reviews console launches, not consoles. The title should be "Sony Console Launch the Worst Ever".

Re:Misleading title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005882)

Worst ever?

last time I checked.. they were sold out.

same with the wii.. sold out.

If selling 100% of what you made is bad.. what's good?

I thought mondays was hate MS day.. wednesdays being hate sony day.

Re:Misleading title (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006066)

RTFA. It's about the average scores of launch titles.

Re:Misleading title (1)

C0rinthian (770164) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007842)

Company A makes 50 units of their product and sells all of them.
Company B makes 500 units of their competing product and sells all of them.

Which company would you rather be?

Now add in this:
Company A sells 1 accessory per unit of product sold.
Company B sells 3 accessories per unit of product sold.

Again, which company would you want to be?

We could also get into the profit per unit sold, but thats just getting silly. We all know who wins that fight...

Re:Misleading title (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006848)

TFA reviews console launches, not consoles. The title should be "Sony Console Launch the Worst Ever".

What exactly is the semantic difference between "Sony Console the Worst Launch Ever" and "Sony Console Launch the Worst Ever"?

Re:Misleading title (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008086)

The latter implies that it's of all console launches, whereas the former doesn't. I'm inclined to think that The Challenger would be better suited to get the title of Worst Launch Ever, which obviously wouldn't apply when you're only talking about consoles.

Average over lifetime (2, Interesting)

Joker1980 (891225) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005626)

Just out of amusement i would like to know what the average scores were for games over the entire life of the last gen (PS2/GC/Xbox). While i know that its hardly a fair comparision what with the PS2 having many more titles than it competitors combined i think it would still be interesting from a quality over quantity stand. for an anecdotel example nearly all the gamecube games i have i think are really good, i have twice as many (at least) PS2 games but i would say that only a 1/4 of them are in the excellent range.

How about average of top 100 (2, Insightful)

Nazmun (590998) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005824)

I think Sony will do much better then others if you changed average of all games to average of the top 100 or top 50 games per console. That is more representative of what most gamers will experience. As few people buy more then 25 games let alone 50 or 100. Who cares if the psx, ps2, or ps3 has 400 mediocre games as long as they have 100 decent ones.

Re:How about average of top 100 (1)

Carbonite (183181) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006092)

This is an important point. If dozens of awful games were suddenly were released for the PS2 (or any other current gen system), would this somehow diminish the great games that were released for that console? Of course not.

Re:How about average of top 100 (1)

Joker1980 (891225) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007420)

While I agree with you entirely by changing the metric to a top ten of first party games im sure nintendo would win. in fact im sure we could get the xbox to come out on top if we again changed the metric to suit. My point wasent to attack one console and praise another, im no fanboi i have all 3 and a pc and all have their pro's and cons. i was just wondering if we would see any similarity in the percentage of good games across the systems regardless of the number of titles available.

Re:Average over lifetime (2, Informative)

oc255 (218044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006802)

Fine. I'll do the legwork. :)

Using IGN I got the PS2 launch list. Using metacritic, I got the aggregate scores of today. So two things to consider:
- TFA uses a single source where metacritic would churn that into a greater aggregation.
- Present-day scores over a longer period of time for the PS2 VS present-day scores over a short period of time on the PS3.
- There's no accounting for taste, ok three things. :P


OMG PS2 Launch List
-------------------
Armored Core 2 - 78
DOA2: Hardcore - 91
Dynasty Warriors 2 - 75
ESPN International Track and Field - 72
ESPN X-Games Snowboarding - 73
Eternal Ring - 62
Evergrace - 59
FantaVision - 72
Gun Griffon Blaze - 73
Kessen - 75
Madden NFL 2001 - 91
Midnight Club - 78
Moto GP - 77
NHL 2001 - 85
Orphen - 54
Q-Ball Billiards Master - 65
Ready 2 Rumble Boxing: Round 2 - 75
Ridge Racer V - 78
Silent Scope - 63
Smuggler's Run - 79
SSX - 93
Street Fighter EX3 - 64
Summoner - 74
Swing Away - 78
Tekken Tag Tournament - 85
TimeSplitters - 81
Unreal Tournament - 77
Wild Wild Racing - 64
X-Squad - 64


PS2 Launch List Average Score: 74.31 (and change)

Re:Average over lifetime (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007658)

I havn't looked at the big consoles, but I recently did a little statistic of the NintendoDS and the PSP based on the review scores from Metacritic, you can find the resulting graph here [seul.org] . Some additional information, the average score is 65% for NintendoDS and 70% PSP. NintendoDS has 163 games available while the PSP has 195 games.

Short summary: The PSP has more games and better gamse, yet still loses on the market against the NintendoDS, most likly due to far to much PS2 recycling on the PSP.

Interesting but. (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005650)

How many titles does the PS3 have for launch?
Just wondering if the greater number of titles for the Wii is dragging down the average?
Of course the real question is how many PS3 where bought by people that are going to play them?
From what I have seen on like Sony is selling only 1.2 games per PS3 sold while Nintendo is around 3 games per Wii.
If they are not counting Wii sports I would say that more people are buying the Wii to play than the PS3.

Re:Interesting but. (4, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005880)

How many titles does the PS3 have for launch?

16. The Wii had 21.

Just wondering if the greater number of titles for the Wii is dragging down the average?

Indeedy, do. Although, the problem is more that the Wii has a lot of so-so multi-system titles like Happy Feet, Open Season, SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab, Cars, Barnyard, and Avatar: The Last Airbender. Not only do these games smack of little more than attempts to cash in on major franchises, but their cross-platform nature means that they aren't very well tuned for the Wii's new motion sensing abilities.

Of course the real question is how many PS3 where bought by people that are going to play them?

Very few. But in its defense, the systems *are* getting in the hands of players in the end. So the PS3 game sales are just a bit delayed.

Re:Interesting but. (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007242)

So take the 16 top games from the Wii and compare them to the 16 top for the PS3?
That way the bigger library is an advantage "which I think it is" instead of a disadvantage.
Let's be fair. Someone will like SpongeBob.

Re:Interesting but. (1)

gt_mattex (1016103) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005948)

If they are not counting Wii sports I would say that more people are buying the Wii to play than the PS3.

Of course people are playing with their Wii. Not only is it great exercise but now in my fantasies my girlfriend is much stronger than usual.

lots of ways or rating a launch (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005654)

I for one would like to see a console launch rated by the number of people that were mugged for a given console on launch day

Unscientific survey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005698)

Several of the students at our school were willing to wait as long as 18 hours for the Nintendo. None that I know of were thinking about buying the Sony. Money is an issue. The Nintendo controller got a lot of comment. Nobody particularly wants a Blu-Ray player.

Googling for 'sony nintendo console launch' got quite a few more Nintendo hits than Sony hits.

It sounds like a win for Nintendo. So, there's another reason it wasn't a good launch for Sony.

Sony: the End of an Empire (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005780)

During the last 2 decades of the 20th century, 2 brands became synonymous with top-notch quality at a price that the common folks can afford. Those brands were Sony and Honda. When people wanted to buy top-notch quality that could rival what the rich snobs bought, the former would buy Sony and Honda. A Honda was just as good as a Mercedes or a BMW at a much lower price.

By the start of the 21st century, Honda continued to be synonymous with affordable top-notch quality.

However, Sony's star began to fade as Sony slapped a price premium on all its products. The quality is still quite good, but is it worth the price premium? Increasingly, people say, "No way, you arrogant SOB!"

The sun has set on the Sony empire. The customer has stopped worshipping at the altar of the Sony ripoff artist.

A new champion has arisen. It is Matsushita, which includes the Panasonic brand. This past week, I perused some old issues of "Consumer Reports". Interestingly, according to various customer surveys, Panasonic's quality is almost identical to Sony's quality. Yet, Panasonic's prices are typically 20% lower than Sony's prices.

Here's the rub. The Panasonic product is typically (but not always) "Made in Japan", but the Sony product is typically (but not always) "Made in a Nation of Desperate Slave Labor". Why is the Sony product so expensive when its labor costs are so low?

Re:Sony: the End of an Empire (1)

Maxwell (13985) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006126)

agreed, but wrong target.

c/panasonic/samsung and you've got it.

JON

Re:Sony: the End of an Empire (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006812)

Oh, and don't forget the Sega Saturn, which launched 6 months earlier than developers expected it to.

The parent isn't a troll (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17006808)

I'm not the AC who posted the parent. "a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic, insulting, or otherwise inappropriate messages." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll [wikipedia.org]

The reason that I post this at all is that I agree with the parent. I've used Sony's professional equipment and it was first rate. Over the years I have bought their consumer grade stuff and ALWAYS been disappointed. If I were thinking of buying their game console, I would get someone to kick me in the the pants to remind me not to do so.

I suspect that lots of people are in the same boat with me and the parent. Sony's deteriorating reputation can only hurt the sales of their console.

Why average over all games? (1)

shimage (954282) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005840)

They didn't even provide the important parameters. Like the standard deviation. Who cares what the average is when 80% of the titles are crap that no one wants. Why not rate the top 5 (or 25%) of the launch titles and average those? You know, the games that people might actually want. Either way, you want to know what the spread is; if they're all within 1 sigma, then it doesn't matter what the "ranking" is.

Warning: NPOV (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005974)

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.

Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

Re:Warning: NPOV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17006770)

Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled.
Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

Really? Worse than Jaguar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17006008)

Sounds implausible.

Re:Really? Worse than Jaguar? (2, Insightful)

c_forq (924234) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007446)

Yeah, I think the 3DO and the NeoGeo are also missing.

Re:Really? Worse than Jaguar? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008126)

what was wrong with launching with Magician Lord, Baseball Stars and Nam-1975?!

Philistines.

Bottom line... (1)

not already in use (972294) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006082)

Regardless the average rating of the games (which is arbitrary in the first place, since it's one sources opinion), at least the Wii games are being played outside Best Buy kiosks and video game editor offices.

This means absolutely...dick (1)

jizziknight (976750) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006146)

So we're measuring the launch lineup of a console based on an average of average scores for the titles? That make a whole lot of sense. Especially since the scores for the games don't exactly mean a whole lot; they're very subjective, prone to bias, and mostly meaningless (games get rated low because of what they're not, instead of what they are).

It'd be far more meaningful to correlate the number of consoles available, the number of consoles sold, and the number of games sold per console. Hell, we could even factor in the number of consoles that are up for auction on eBay.

Let's also not forget that you really can't measure much of anything until a few MONTHS after the launch, not a week or two.

This makes no sense... (0, Flamebait)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006232)

I'd venture to call Zelda: Twilight Princess the best launch title ever released. When you think about launches, they don't always have the greatest games. Any Zelda at release would have a good chance of getting this honor... but TP is far-and-away the best Zelda made (sorry Ocarina, TP makes you look like a joke), kicking down FF12 and Okami for game of the year, IMHO. So, if you're into this type of game (Adventure / Action / RPG), you're probably going to have a lot better luck with the Wii launch then any other. And yet the PS3 somehow pulls out ahead... with what? Ultimate Alliance? Tony Hawk? Seriosly, wtf does the PS3 have to offer?

No shit Happy Feet is going to blow, it's a game based on a movie, and we all know how AMAZING those are. I'm with the guy who suggests taking a standard deviation: pit Twilight Princess, Excite Truck, Rayman Raving Rabbits, Monkey Ball, and Red Steel, against the PS3s best, and see what you come up with.

Re:This makes no sense... (1)

keyrat rafa (856668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006482)

I think a lot of the Sony haters are underestimating Resistance. I'd go as far as to say it's the best console online multiplayer to date. 20 on 20 has never been done, and it's the first game for PS3. It's smooth as butter too.

Re:This makes no sense... (1)

kc32 (879357) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006760)

Link to the Past was the best Zelda ever made. I have several friends who would kill you for saying differently.

Re:This makes no sense... (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007462)

Twilight Princess may very well be better than Link to the Past, and I prefer LttP to Ocarina.

If you could throw/shoot your sword at full health, and the twilight world was a bigger part of the endgame(which would've necessitated another couple temples, and two more zones), I'd hands down call it for Twilight Princess.

Funny because the wii actually has the best. (4, Insightful)

kinglink (195330) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006488)

Putting aside bias for a minute I've played all next gen launches. The Xbox 360s launch was moderate. It did have some high points (COD2) but overall there was few break out games. Though it does have a lot of what the system would become known for.

ON the other hand the Ps3 has the worse. Nothing feels innovative, there's only three or four games that isn't on the 360 in some form already. And the ones that used motion control were poor (ridge racer and tony hawk both felt laggy in their responsiveness). That being said their "break out hit" Resistance, felt like a FPS, and only a FPS. Seeing as insomniacs record that was a low.

The Wii on the other hand had a truely unique controller so even ported hits couldn't be played the same way, yet the control has such tight controls that games which would be problematic with lag feel tight. What drags down the launch however is Ubisoft's titles, Red steel which was supposed to be the second best game at launch turns out to be a pretty big dud. The two racing games they released are budget titles at best. And the systems graphics are constantly dinged by Gamespot mostly.

Overall though the Wii has a great variety, improved by their unique controls. However the proper way to find out how good a launch is, isn't through scores, at least not averaging all the scores of the system. It's better to look at the uniqueness of the launch (AKA port city from the 360 and PS3), the variety available, and the quality of the top games. If there's 5 good games that come out, why should we care there's 10 crap games. We don't blame the Ps2 for having 50 good games and 200 crap games do we? Why does the N64 get high marks? EASY! they have 3 games at launch! That doesn't make it a great launch either.

Of course on the other hand 1up is about as worthwhile as a gaming source as crap is a painting source. They arn't biased, but they have awful reviews and complain about minor things while ignoring the best part of games. They post biased top 10s and such, or they'll back up their facts with flawed or weak math (aka let's take the average of all games launched). If you read the worst games at launch you'll probably notice you don't know many of them. So why are we averaging them in?

Re:Funny because the wii actually has the best. (1)

Jarlsberg (643324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007914)

Overall though the Wii has a great variety, improved by their unique controls.
Well, a variety in mediocrity is not that big of a feat. Personally, I'm getting a Wii sometimes in december (I'm in Europe) and I'm only getting one game for it, and that's Zelda. The rest seem pretty bad overall. I'm waiting for the next Mario game after that.

Recently, I've picked up several games for the 360, a few which were rather good (NFS:Carbon, though I think Most Wanted is a better game overall, the canyons notwithstanding, Dead Rising, Just Cause, Hitman, Condemned), a couple are outstanding (Oblivion & Gears of War) and quite a few duds (Far Cry being one of the prime examples, Saint's Row I quite fancied for the first 10 hours, but I actually prefer GTA: Liberty City Stories on the PS2 over that one).

I noticed the blurb said "modern" gaming console. That's the only reason they could have picked out PS1 as a bad console launch. If you want an example of a truly botched console launch, look no further than the Amiga CD32. I love the Amiga, but the CD32 produced one stinker after another.

A better metric (2, Interesting)

dlthomas (762960) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006616)

No one cares how bad the worst game is for each system - even if purchased, it's not going to get much playtime if it falls below a certain threshold. How many bad games there are only matters if you're making uninformed decisions about what to play. What is interesting is whether there are enough good games to keep my schedule full, and the quality of those games. A much better metric would be the average of the best N games, where N is the number I'm likely to purchase. Now, this clearly differs from player to player, so it's more difficult to come up with a single number to represent it, but it would be a more informative comparison. I propose a triplet of averages for different values of N. The question is, what should those be? Might as well ask the question here... How many games do you buy in a year for a given console, and what type of gamer do you consider yourself?

All I know is the NY Times and Wash Post (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006730)

both have online reviews where they say that people did side by side game comparisons - one TV with a Wii, a similar size HDTV with a PS3 - and found that even though people thought the graphics were nice on the HDTV, they all clustered around the Wii and had more fun with it.

With all the games.

I haven't found any Wii game turkeys yet, personally, and I bought three - and I've talked to a lot of other dads and they all bought or are buying Wii consoles for their kids - ages from 3 (yeah) to 19.

In the end, only the market matters. And right now the market says Sony got a zero on lauch buzz.

Re:All I know is the NY Times and Wash Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007468)

Question,

Did you and AKAImBatman (assuming you're actually different people) get some sort of nintendork implant that causes you to auto-reply to any story that mentions video game consoles with comments about how much "fun" everything with the Wii is?

Do you think that people who play other systems aren't having any fun? That they are just mindlessly trudging through them for the graphics, and that you really need some arm-waving powerglove 2.0 gimmick controller and a game with blow-your-eyes out bright colors about saving twinkie princesses or something?

Why do people INSIST that one console is better? (5, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006912)

Let's face it folks. Call them what you want, someone who says "this console is better than another" this generation is a Grade A Nimrod (thank you calvin & hobbes)

Come on. This is like a movie critic trying to compare Dumb and Dumber with A Fistfull of Dollars...they are entirely different movies, just like each of the three new consoles have entirely different purposes.

The Wii is for those that want something new, something fresh. It is the perfect example that graphics don't always make the game...and frankly, while comparitavely the graphics are so-so, they are still quite nice. They have a deliberate 'Nintendo signature' feel to them, which personally I am very happy was not abandoned. If there is one thing to be said about any of Nintendo's previous consoles, it is that they were entirely unique on their own, and you KNOW when you are looking at something on a Nintendo System. Modern day technology meets retro gaming demand: fun above all else.

The PS3 is for those that want to be on the cutting edge. With it's ability to display 1080p, a next-gen optical disc format, and its configurability (read: simple Linux support), it just begs people to tinker with it. Sony's price is not just because the components are expensive, it is used as a method to bring in the drooling techies: if it is shiny, black, and expensive, it HAS to be cool. I for one am very excited to see certain next-gen entries in some series on the PS3...or have you all not thought about God of War 3?

The Xbox 360 is for those that want a sleek, integrated system. Because of Microsoft's hold on the general public in the form of operating systems, it makes it EXTREMELY easy for them to design the 360 in such a way that allows it to integrate seamlessly with your system. Streaming media, accessing files over the network without even needing to check out the instruction manual, slick shape, comfortable controller...the 360 screams 'chic geek'. While it lacks first-party supported Linux now, I can assure you with Microsoft's recent aquisition in the Linux market, it is only a matter of time before Linux on the 360 becomes a reality. And given the way the 360 can already integrate itself into your home network, imagine the fun that could be had...the infinite application availability for Windows with the customization capabilities and rock-solid operation of Linux. It will truly be a thing of beauty.

So this generation, I think all consoles win. They each are attempting to break into a different part of the market, and they all have succeeded tremendously.

All I ask of my fellow gamers is that they stop comparing Dumb and Dumber with A Fistfull of Dollars.

Re:Why do people INSIST that one console is better (1)

Buddy_DoQ (922706) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007240)

But how else does one, who can only afford one console, confirm their purchase decision as the right one?

Like it or not, the world needs a winner, and we all want to be on that team.

That said, if I had mod points you'd get +insightful or +interesting.

Re:Why do people INSIST that one console is better (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007316)

I appreciate the phantom mod points;-)

To answer your question, if you can only afford one...buy the one that fits your needs or wants.

Do you want something that is simply a gaming system, something to just have fun with? Buy a Wii.

Do you want something that can play next-gen optical discs and has the capability of simple Linux operation without much trouble? Buy a PS3.

Do you want something that is a fantastic alternative to a Streaming PC Workhorse, while providing a rich online experience? Buy a 360.

Don't rely on someone elses assertion. My needs and wants are potentially VASTLY different from another person, just as yours are potentially vastly different from mine.

Re:Why do people INSIST that one console is better (1)

Xolom (989077) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007538)

I'm sorry to say this, but the huge majortiy of game people buying a game console don't care if you can hack it and put Linux on it. No, this isn't a troll, this is a fact. People want to play games an d have fun with their consoles.

Re:Why do people INSIST that one console is better (1)

Xolom (989077) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007670)

another reason to use the preview button. yes, i screwed up the words "majority" and "and."

Re:Why do people INSIST that one console is better (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007740)

Hack it to put linux on it? That's exactly my point...the PS3 has first-party Linux support, no hacking neccessary. That, combined with the Blu-Ray player, the 1080p, the larger hard drive...are you honestly telling me that you think these things would NOT entice a techie to buy a PS3?

Beyond that, if all people wanted to do was play games on their consoles, console makers would not be putting in the kind of functionality that they are...TV shows available online, streaming capabilities, DVR capabilities...they would make something used strictly for gaming. Like an N64 or PS1 or Dreamcast...notice how the market changes.

See, consoles USED to be for nothing but games...then, Microsoft said "Hey, lets see what happens when we enable them to mess around with it and use it as a DVR and to stream shit" So, with the Xbox, they tried a little experiment...and guess what? A VERY VERY large number of people modified the Black and Green box to put linux on it (or a homebrew OS). MANY people. Granted, not nearly half of the owners did, but a large chunk did indeed do this.

So, Microsoft (and Sony) got smart...hey, why should these hackers get all the credit? Let's make it so that they can do all these things out of the box...that should help reduce piracy as well as fraudulent warranty requests due to people messing up their systems because they didn't know what to do...and while we are at it, let's create a market place where they can go to BUY stuff for their console.

Nintendo realized that not everyone would want or need this stuff, and so they said to themselves hey, let's do what we do best. Let's make a gaming system. Sure, just to keep up we will put in some stuff...but what? I GOT IT! Let's allow people to buy games from a long time ago! You know, things that will be really nostalgic for people...older games, back when fun was king!

See how much economic sense that makes? If all you want is to play games, buy a Wii. I mean after all, if you don't need all that extra functionality that you are paying for but will never use, what is the point of buying any other system this generation?

Unless of course you are sucked into the psuedo-political stance of being an *ahem* "fanboi"

Re:Why do people INSIST that one console is better (1)

Nevyn (5505) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007792)

So this generation, I think all consoles win. They each are attempting to break into a different part of the market, and they all have succeeded tremendously.

I doubt that, the PS3 and Xbox 360 look like they are going after basically the same market to me ... and most everyone else I've read. Also, much like previous generations, the market just isn't going to support all three well (network effect). So the average person needs to know which is better ... because the other two are worth much less, in the long run.

Saying that, Nintendo again have a minor second chance ... due to their making money and being a great first party publisher (but it'll be pretty bad for them long term if they fail to be a major player again this generation, IMO).

Re:Why do people INSIST that one console is better (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007906)

you are very slightly mistaken...Microsoft and Sony are MARKETING to the same market...

An example.

There is this fantastic Apple Pie. It is delicious and sweet in every way an apple pie should be. Both Microsoft and Sony want it. Nintendo looks at it and says "Thanks guys, but we are going to try this Pumpkin Chiffon pie. Enjoy that apple though!"

So now you have Sony and Microsoft sitting there, one with a fork and one with a spoon, eating from the same apple pie, staring at nintendo trying out that chiffon. They start wondering to themselves "wow...I wonder what kind of tasty pie we could make for ourselves"

I know the things I outlined in an earlier post don't reflect the way Microsoft and Sony are MARKETING, but the mere fact they have included what they have in their respective consoles is showing that they are indeed beginning to notice there is more than just one type of pie. Sure, from the gaming perspective they are going after the same market.

From a functionality perspective though? One is eyeing Lemon Merangue, while the other is admiring a Banana Cream.

Sony sucking people in... again. (1, Insightful)

georgep77 (97111) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007260)

Yup, Sony is going to suck people in with it's PS3 the same way it sucked people in with it's PS2. 100,000,000 people got suckered into buying the worst/stupidest/most evil/not nintendo console! It's going to happen again. It amazes me that this is now a religious issue for some. Get over yourself people. My choice of console (or even to NOT get a console) has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

Every console maker is trying to make money, end of story. This is a great thing in that it leads to innovation and advancement. You have to love capitalism. The only thing better than capitalism to spur on new development is warfare. I prefer capitalism.

Cheers,
    _GP_

Di(ck (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007710)

of the aBove declined in market something that you Charnel house. contributed code
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>