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!

Games Analysts Weighs In On Console War

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the xtc-vs-adam-ant-content-vs-form dept.

XBox (Games) 194

Gamaustra's latest in its 'Analyze This' series asks the question point blank: Which Console Will 'Win' 2007? The regular series puts weighty questions to business analysts who specialize in the games industry, to get a gestalt opinion on what's really going on. The well-respected Michael Pachter, of Wedbush Morgan Securities, had some of the most interesting comments to review. He says that Nintendo will 'appear' to win in 2007 because of its low price and innovative control scheme, but that Sony will be the winner in the long run. From the article: "My best guess is that Sony emerges as the winner of the movie format war in late 2008, and games start looking noticeably better in 2009. That's when Sony starts looking like the winner of the next generation battle. All of this is pretty far out, and a lot can happen with pricing to change things. For example, if Sony gets down the cost curve for Blu-ray and Cell processors, [the PS3] may be below $300 shortly thereafter. It's hard to say that this will happen before 2009, but it could. That would change everything."

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

New game consoles, OK, but what about new games (2, Interesting)

jurt1235 (834677) | more than 7 years ago | (#17776818)

I am actually more interested about new game styles than new game console. The WII has added some new possibilities and shows potential, certainly looking more reliable than the camera games on my PS2 (The NIKE game. I am a master in karate according to that game by just flapping my arms up and down, lighting is nearly impossible to get correct, and the distance which you need between camera and screen varies all the time).

Re:New game consoles, OK, but what about new games (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17777804)

New game styles are great, but they're only new for a little while. Your Eye-Toy is great, but it's certainly no longer new. I hope Nintendo is working diligently on expanding the success of the Wiimote because before too long, it will not longer be new either.

We went through DDR, the Eye-Toy and now we're working on Guitar Hero and Karaoke on the PS2. Only the last two are seen as relatively new. I'm sure gaming with the Wiimote will continue to be fun for quite some time to come, but at some point it will look about as fresh as the gamepad or a mouse.

When that comes to pass, I hope the "next big thing" is ready for delivery and Nintendo doesn't get stuck with a one-trick pony. New controllers are going to keep coming for the PS3, much like they did for the PS2. I hope Nintendo is not so enamored with it's current innovation that it decides to take a pass on the innovations yet to come.

Re:New game consoles, OK, but what about new games (2, Insightful)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 7 years ago | (#17780630)

New game styles are great, but they're only new for a little while.

Ding! Some of them even get annoying after a while. While I love my Wii and think Wii Tennis is one of the most fun party games ever, I DON'T WANT to have to always be swinging that thing around (it got somewhat annoying in Zelda, and VERY annoying in Marvel). I'm doubting many games will be put out that doesn't involve the motion sensing, so I'm pretty much ruling out the Wii as my "just lay on the couch and chill" console.

Maybe there's a reason... (1)

Da3vid (926771) | more than 7 years ago | (#17776824)

...that I'm not a game analyst. But frankly, sir, I disagree.

Re:Maybe there's a reason... (4, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777044)

All being an analyst means is that you pull things directly out of your ass and present them as news. It's actually a misspelling of Analist.

Re:Maybe there's a reason... (4, Insightful)

cowscows (103644) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777478)

Anyone can do that. Being an analyst means you somehow convinced someone to pay you to do it.

How will they hang on to developers (3, Insightful)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#17776826)

But if Sony still has a couple of years to go before they get enough consoles out there, how will they hold on to developers and in particular exclusive titles? If a publisher can't count on selling half a million copies of an exclusive PS3 title to break even (games are costly to produce these days) by virtue of there not being enough PS3s out there to begin with (and you need far more than half a million PS3s of course), then that publisher will sign deals with Microsoft and Nintendo as well if not instead.

On top of that, with the money Sony is losing per console right now, they will have to sell a lot of games per console sold in order to break even. PS2 might be keeping SCE afloat, but I don't really see PS3 keeping a PS4 afloat at all considering how drastically the course of things would need to change.

Re:How will they hang on to developers (0, Troll)

Rimbo (139781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777890)

On top of what you say, Microsoft has a huge cash war chest, while Sony is hanging by a thread financially. Microsoft has more than enough money to tell developers: We'll give you the money to make it profitable to be exclusive to us!

Once Sony is thus destroyed, Microsoft gets the high-end "game/media box" market pretty much to themselves.

Microsoft really has an opportunity to pound Sony into oblivion here. This is something Microsoft has been good at, historically.

Sony is fine (5, Informative)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#17780798)

"Sony is hanging by a thread financially."

That's not in any way true [yahoo.com] . Multiple Apple's sales by 3, and their profit by 4, and you got Sony. Sony has $32B in short term assets. Sony is quite healthy, financially. I don't know where you got your information.

Re:Sony is fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17781312)

Don't let your facts get in the way of Slashdotruthiness.

Re:How will they hang on to developers (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778158)

Hmm, I think Cars, Monsters Inc, and other Blu-Ray exclusives count towards "exclusive titles" that will make the PS3 profitable.

Most people buy 10x as many movies as they buy games (since most people don't buy games...)

Re:How will they hang on to developers (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778758)

they aren't blu-ray exclusive unless they aren't available on DVD

Re:How will they hang on to developers (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17778258)

Sony has developers working on games right now. Many of them are enthusiastically anticipated. The most that has happened is some exclusive developers have chosen to go multiplatform, but it's a trickle, not a flood. This means a)They're not going to run out of titles overnight. At worst it would be a year and b)If they start losing developers, the most likely "loss" is that the games will go multiplatform which would not be great for enticing new buyers, but wouldn't put a dent in the number of games overall.

When, not if, HD hits America big, there are only going to be two options for your gaming, and neiter one of them has a W anywhere in the name. But that's the trick, when will it happen? If it happens in late 2007 or 2008 the PS3 will benefit and game publishers will take notice.

If your prediction is that it will be totally dead by then, I think you might be talking more with your heart than with your head. Your "half a million" number is just that kind of thinking. It's predicting that Sony will not only fail to sell even one more console, but will actually take back a third of what it already has sold. If you're ready to call it after just two months, you've got steel balls. I suggest waiting for The Fat Lady to at least start warming up.

Sooo... (1, Insightful)

GweeDo (127172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17776864)

All they have to do is cut the price in half and get more good games out. Lets see, if we use our friend history the PS2 took nearly four years to get to half price. So as we close in on 2011 the PS3 should hit that $300 price point he claims is needed. People just need to realize that this is an expensive piece of electronics and Sony can't cut the price to that point anytime soon. They will need something else to win.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2#Price_h istory [wikipedia.org]

Re:Sooo... (4, Interesting)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777262)

Apples and oranges. The environment around the PS2 is much much different than PS3. Look at what the PS2 had to face in the Dreamcast, Xbox, Gamecube. There wasn't much difference in game quality, so the PS2 wasn't surpassed by anyone. There wasn't much difference in gametypes (Wii), so you could treat the systems as equals. The Gamecube was cheaper, but not by half. Factor in PS2 locking in GTAIII, GTIV, FFX all in the same year, and you've got a slam dunk. There was no stopping the PS2, so the bottom line: why cut the price when you're selling like hotcakes? You never really know how much they were making off each one, but given that they didn't need to chop the price down, why bother? In this case, they'll continue to lose money on each system but the price can come down faster. There's also the component cost: DVD wasn't super commonplace in 1999, but it wasn't brand new either. It had been out a few years and definately wasn't as new as Blu-Ray. The initial price drops in components as adoption speeds up are much higher than later on the lifetime of a technology in terms of percenteges. So given that, I can definately see the price coming down a lot faster than PS2.

What's the End Game? (4, Insightful)

FormulaTroll (983794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17776866)

On what criteria do we evaluate a winner? Consoles sold, games sold, profits? It makes a difference, does it not?

Re:What's the End Game? (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#17776990)

That's quite an even-handed question for a formula troll...

Re:What's the End Game? (1, Offtopic)

FormulaTroll (983794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777076)

High-school nickname was Troll for other reasons, and I drive a Firebird Formula. And now I'm offtopic (but informative nonetheless).

Re:What's the End Game? (1)

Jartan (219704) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777826)

That's my question too. "Winner" is pretty subjective. The original Xbox was arguably a pretty good buy if you liked certain types of games. If you happened to be an avoid PC RPG gamer who liked a lil console RPG on the side though it was an absolute disaster. Almost no RPG's worth playing and the ones that were came out for the PC where I could play them with real controls and high res.

If they want to talk about money though it's obvious who's going to win. The Nintendo DS is already the reigning king showing no signs of giving up it's throne now that dragonquest is going to release on it.

Winner = market share leader? (1)

jchenx (267053) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778278)

On what criteria do we evaluate a winner? Consoles sold, games sold, profits? It makes a difference, does it not?
I think generally the "winner" is essentially the market share leader (which obviously is tied to consoles sold).

Now granted, you could argue that it should probably be tied to profits, since this is a business we are talking about. However, that's a bit difficult seeing how there's much more to MS and Sony than just their game units (MGS is notorious for losing the company money), so they can afford to be a loss leader. Alternatively, Nintendo is pretty much solely focused on games, so while their consoles may not be the market leader, they still make a profit on each one (GameCube is the best example).

Also, with the market share, comes the spoils: more developers likely to focus on your platform, more exclusives, more games ... which generates an even larger market share, etc.

Re:Winner = market share leader? (3, Insightful)

FormulaTroll (983794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778682)

I think generally the "winner" is essentially the market share leader (which obviously is tied to consoles sold).

Perhaps the real question is whether or not there will be a loser in this round. Whereas the previous generation had a real loser in the Dreamcast, will this generation see one of the "Big Three" falling down substantially?

Some people conveniently forget the Dreamcast and call the Gamecube the loser of the previous generation, but as you mentioned, this is a business we're talking about, and the Gamecube didn't lose Nintendo any money.

In this round, I see the possibility for Sony to lose big. Of course PS3's will sell better as the games improve in number and quality. The question is will the the games be enough of a quantum leap over the 360 to justify the cost differential and foster greater adoption?

Re:Winner = market share leader? (1)

jchenx (267053) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778926)

Perhaps the real question is whether or not there will be a loser in this round. Whereas the previous generation had a real loser in the Dreamcast, will this generation see one of the "Big Three" falling down substantially?

Some people conveniently forget the Dreamcast and call the Gamecube the loser of the previous generation, but as you mentioned, this is a business we're talking about, and the Gamecube didn't lose Nintendo any money.
I think asking "Is there a loser?" is an interesting question. You could say that no matter what, it'll be hard for Nintendo and MS to truly lose. Nintendo, regardless of the market share of the Wii, is going to make a profit, and can always depend on extremely strong sales of the DS. For MS, they obviously have their huge Windows/Office divisions to fall back on. I'm not sure with Sony, though, since I remember seeing reports that their games division is responsible for a significant portion of the total company's profits. So arguably, I agree with you that they have the most to lose in the end.

The winner is the console I have... (4, Insightful)

AmazingRuss (555076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778922)

...because the other consoles are purchased only by loser moron fanboys.

Well, (1, Interesting)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 7 years ago | (#17776868)

If sony actually managed to get a $300 PS3 out, it would change dramatically the number of sold consoles. Without a doubt. The problem is GETTING to that price point. Right now, as far as I'm concerned, Sony has completely priced themselves out of this generation of consoles...and that without the fact that Sony's dropping what, $250 per console? Dont get me wrong, I'm NOT a Sony hater...but Nintendo has got a genuinely fun system to play on the cheap, and Microsoft has a year head start. With the disapointing sales numbers for the PS3 so far, will Sony be able to attract the high-end exclusive games they've had in the past, when the installed base for the Wii is double, or triple, their penetration? I say no, but it is true that only time will tell. Can they win long-term? Mabye...but it is likely they HAVE to win the HD Format War before they win this console war. If HD-DVD wins, Sony's in for a MAJOR hurt.

Re:Well or why the price must drop (2, Interesting)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17776966)

If sony actually managed to get a $300 PS3 out, it would change dramatically the number of sold consoles.

This is a true statement. Notice the street price in Japan has already been slashed, even before the EU launches, as they try to deal with lower console sales there. Prices haven't dropped in the US market, but the product isn't moving either, according to a number of online and print articles in various business sources - WSJ, CNN Business, CNBC, etc.

With the massive console losses already in place, it might be better to realize who the real competition is - Nintendo's Wii console - and fight them on price. Because, frankly, Sony has a better console at the same price point of the Wii, at least on graphics and speed, even if they don't have a full-fledged motion controller.

You fight the battle with the enemy that's there, not the enemy you lied to yourself would be there.

Re:Well or why the price must drop (3, Insightful)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777078)

With the massive console losses already in place, it might be better to realize who the real competition is - Nintendo's Wii console - and fight them on price. Because, frankly, Sony has a better console at the same price point of the Wii, at least on graphics and speed, even if they don't have a full-fledged motion controller.

The Wii is indeed killing them, and if there was sufficient stock, it would probably be killing the 360 as well. But considering the high-end technology used in the PS3, and the cost to manufacture, Sony quite frankly can't afford to fight the Wii on Price. At most likely we're looking at a minimum of 2 years before Sony can even come close.

By that time, nintendo should be able to drop there's to lets say even 2/3 of what the price is now. So you have $300 vs $175-ish. Without some seriously fun exclusives, Sony still can't compete on price, will be dropping hundreds of dollars still per unit sold, and while graphically superior, will probably not be able to compete with the Wii on the fun-factor.

I'm not saying Sony is doomed, but they're humped the dog on the PS3, and it will take some marketing genius AND developers jumping hard on board to save their ass.

Re:Well or why the price must drop (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777752)

Personally I see the winning game console being a PC. With the falling cost of high performance hardware getting to the point where the open system is cost competitive on the initial purchase and it will play sufficiently attractive games, then the closed console systems will disappear (unless they want to give them away free, as per the M$ prediction, in that case I will pre order a few thousand for the parts).

As for mass media forecasts, they will align with which ever manufacturer pays for the most advertising.

Don't forget with the console, your just paying for the hardware with part payments over the long term by paying around $20 more for each software title, plus with the PC you get access to the whole of the internet not just one closed in dead end part of it. So the big looser in the console wars is most likely to be the game console idea itself and the only interesting thing will be which company ends up losing the most amount of money achieving that goal.

Re:Well or why the price must drop (0, Troll)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17779166)

Personally I see the winning game console being a PC. With the falling cost of high performance hardware getting to the point where the open system is cost competitive on the initial purchase and it will play sufficiently attractive games, then the closed console systems will disappear (unless they want to give them away free, as per the M$ prediction, in that case I will pre order a few thousand for the parts).

No.

I think you have it the otherway around, the consoles are going to eventually canabalize all functions of the PC. Thus the goals of the consoles are for one of them to eventually win the home coputer OS war.

The PC's % of the game market has been stedily declining. In recent years even the raw numeric sales of PC games has declined too. If declining game sales is a sign of winning the console war, then the dreamcast must have won the last round since it's sales declined to almost 0.

Re:Well or why the price must drop (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 7 years ago | (#17780084)

So if the hardware price is equal, why would the consumer be enough of an idiot to get stuck on a closed system and pay 20% more for all their content. Consoles are aimed at people who can not afford full fledged open hardware apart from the minority technology collectors and as the price has risen it has started to squeeze them out.

Sales in PC games has actually risen, there is just so much available that sales for any individual game has fallen. Let alone a full range of free games available for PC as well as an ever growing number of free on line games. A console is the ultimate technology lock in, basically a dead end for the consumer.

Sure consoles suit the anti copying fraternity but the suck for the end user. Just try selling a PC that only uses software approved by one company, only plays content approved by one company, and only uses hardware approved by one company and only connects to one companies version of the internet (you might manage some of them but definitely not all of them).

Re:Well or why the price must drop (2, Insightful)

Grave (8234) | more than 7 years ago | (#17781324)

The reasons so many people are going with consoles instead of computers are:

Multiplayer on one system (thus more directly social)
Larger screen (and increasingly, equal resolution to PC)
Easy setup/compatibility (plug it in, put the disc in, it works)
Simple controls
Easy online play (at least for the Xbox/360.. PS3 is still a question mark)

Consoles are not aimed at "people who can not afford full fledged open hardware", they are aimed at people who want an easy, fun gaming experience. No matter what your personal experience, the PC is the most complicated gaming platform there is. There is still no easy way for a mother who knows nothing about games to walk into a store and know if their computer can play any given PC game. On the other hand, they know that a game for PS2 will always play on PS2.

Re:Well or why the price must drop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17777114)

The interesting thing with the Japaneese price is that the PS3 is still not selling particularly well there and almost more systems are sold than games (22,250 systems to 13,000 games link [vgcharts.org] in the last week, but typically the tie-ratio is close to 1) ...

It seems like Japan is (mostly) not interested in the PS3 ...

Re:Well or why the price must drop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17777716)

The price hasn't been cut in Japan, some stores just took a loss by selling it below cost. That's not something they can do forever.

Re:Well or why the price must drop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17780552)

No, obviously not. They'll just stop ordering new stock.

$300 PS3 means they have to sell twice as many (1)

jchenx (267053) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777476)

If sony actually managed to get a $300 PS3 out, it would change dramatically the number of sold consoles.
Yes, but would it sell twice as many? The premium PS3 SKU is $600 USD. To break even on revenue, Sony would have to sell twice as many. I really don't see that happening. Certainly, you'd get a lot more people buying the systems, but a significant number of people still sitting on their hands, waiting for actual games to come out, or an actual winner for the HD-DVD/Blu-ray battle to be decided.

Plus, it doesn't even consider that Sony is already taking a loss on the sale of each system, so to make up selling that many more systems, the software attach rate has to increase substantially. That's really not going to happen, especially this early in a console life-cycle.

As much as gamers would love for Sony to drop the PS3 price drastically (myself included), I really can't see them doing it any time soon, without totally tanking the business side of things. After all, they are ultimately beholden to their shareholders.

Interesting, as WSJ reports Sony losing format war (4, Informative)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17776870)

Directly contradicting this story, I read the print edition of the Wall Street Journal [wsj.com] (expensive subscription required) and it said that in point of fact - as also backed by articles in Fortune [fortune.com] and Forbes [forbes.com] - that Sony is losing the format war to HD-DVD, due to low adoption rates by pr0n providers, low sales of the PS3 consoles, and labels shunning the format. Perhaps if someone were prognosticating back in October 2007, such a forecast might have seemed reasonable, but the post-Christmas sales figures in the US and Japan as well as worldwide show that adoption rates are sub-par.

But, live in a dream world if you must.

Re:Interesting, as WSJ reports Sony losing format (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778078)

My neighbor's a pretty damn successful stock broker, and while the WSJ and such CAN be useful information sources, he never uses them for their actual predictions. He just uses the backround information they give and then runs with it on his own. It's waayyyyyy to early to say who's winning or losing currently. Especially since SED tech isn't out yet and so HD stuff is still far from mainstream. I live in Lake Forest, and even here the saturation of both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is sparse indeed since most people already had upscaling DVD players. Until one or the other takes over 10% of the market, neither is really winning or losing as they are both still quite likely to go the way of the dodo.

Re:Interesting, as WSJ reports Sony losing format (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17778494)

Thank god, someone finally realizes that the porn industry always decides the winner of a format war!

Sprint not Marathon (2, Insightful)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17776954)

I constantly see people mention that the console war is a "Marathon not a Sprint" which, from what I have seen, is completely wrong. The console war is a sprint to the point where developers simply are forced to heavily support your system; if you have enough of a lead at this point you tend to have support at the expense of other systems.

I don't know where the point is, and I don't know when any of the systems will hit it, but it is foolish to assume that the PS3 will have an easy time catching up in 2008/2009 simply because it has better graphics.

Re:Sprint not Marathon (1)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 7 years ago | (#17776984)

And this is of course assuming that the PS3 truely DOES have better graphics. The verdict isn't out yet, but most XBOX360 versions beat the PS3 versions graphically. Of course, the first round of 360 games looked like crap too, so realistically it will be a year before that verdict can be delivered.

Re:Sprint not Marathon (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777482)

I totally agree. The "Marathon" analogy just doesn't work in this business. A snowball is probably a better analogy. Once a console gets going, it pulls in developers and consumers alike, which then just feed off each other. It's an all out race to convince the developers that you have a product that consumers will buy into. You don't accomplish that, it's all over, marathon or not.

ummm ... movies? (0)

Frag-A-Muffin (5490) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777012)


"My best guess is that Sony emerges as the winner of the movie format war in late 2008 ..."

Ummm, when did the console wars become 'who can push the most movies'?

Another reason why I don't care what the analysts say. I buy a console for games. Period. Have fun watching your movies on your PS3 until 2009, when games apparently get made for the PS3? WTF? :)

There's no fucking way (0, Flamebait)

felonious (636719) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777128)

This all bullshit speculation. How can someone, say what he's said, especially with the current state of things? PS3 is getting it's ass kicked, hardcore. They can't sell the things at current prices. Fanbois are the only ones buying them. The rest are sitting on shelves, wasting space. When Japan drops the price on the newest PS's then you know there's a serious problem. has this guy even read all of the backlash out there, as far as, people wanting a gaming system and not a next generation DVD player?

Hmm, do trends even matter?
Cities
http://www.google.com/trends?q=xbox360%2C+playstat ion+3.+wii [google.com]

Regions
http://www.google.com/trends?q=xbox360,+playstatio n+3.+wii&ctab=1&sa=N [google.com]

Languages
http://www.google.com/trends?q=xbox360,+playstatio n+3.+wii&ctab=2&sa=N [google.com]

I have a feeling Sony is now paying people to write up baseless bullshit like this guy.
Does anyone actually know a person who wants a PS3? I don't and my friends are all gamers.
Same reasons, as for not wanting one....
1) Too expensive
2) Don't need/want a Blu-Ray player
3) No games
4) Too expensive

The Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD is also pure speculation
More trends -

http://www.google.com/trends?q=blue-ray,+hd-dvd&ct ab=0&sa=N [google.com]

Personally I believe HD-DVD will win or both formats with coexist because -

1) HD-DVD is cheaper to manufacture
2) Porn has chosen HD-DVD as it's main format
3) Blu-Ray is Sony's format - this makes, some people hate it, period.
4) Much more expensive to manufacture

Blu-Ray's only plus is more storage, but don't we have way too many, trivial extras, on movie disks and do we really need 1,000,000 cgi-cutscenes, in game? Blu-Ray space is only a plus on the pc storage side of things.

Anyway, to paraphrase, that article is total bullshit....the end:D

Re:There's no fucking way (2, Interesting)

Xymor (943922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777378)

Popularity in google doesn't necessarily mean sales.

According to dvd empire [dvdempire.com] and Eproducwars [eproductwars.com] blu-ray is currently outselling hd-dvd, an effect widely attributed to Ps3 owners buying HD movies. The average blu-ray movie costs less than hd-dvd in amazon as well.

Here's Debbie does dallas in blu-ray, porn in 1080p and multiple angles. [highdefdigest.com]

In a objective comparison, both formats are about the same(excluding player costs which will eventually be similar), except for future catalog:

Blu-ray [highdefdigest.com]
HD-DVD [highdefdigest.com]

Re:There's no fucking way (1, Troll)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777592)

Well, if you notice DVD empire has Blu-Ray winning the week by a wide margin, the month by a pretty narrow margin and losing the year; this would be quite likely if Blu-Ray ended up having a much better couple of weeks of releases than HD-DVD and not really suggestive of any larger trend.

Eproduct wars has far more statistics and many of the stats are not important for sales; most of the sales stats are pretty split and will change week to week.

The real problem with the parents post is he does the google trends incorrectly

region [google.com]
city [google.com]
Languages [google.com]

Currently the data is only current up to the end of November 2006 ...
December 2006 and January 2007 may have a greater search quantities for the Wii (as people played it) or any of the systems

Re:There's no fucking way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17777950)

Mod Up. Parent is a dumbass

Re:There's no fucking way (1)

davebo357 (730081) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777846)

First Let me just say that Debbie Does Dallas: The Next Generation is the only porn dvd I've bought, so I'm actually considering this third one, assume there's only three? My question in the movie format war, is how big a role do you think Sony Picture's exclusive movies will play? If some people haven't bought a movie they like yet, and see that it's only out on blu-ray, would they be more likely to buy a blu-ray player, or a ps3 instead of an xbox? I haven't looked up what movies those are, and the only reason I bought two brd's is because best buy had a two for one sale. Frankly I don't really want to give brd my support until I know this format war is going to turn out okay, and not have one format "win" and the other become obsolete. Although I am renting brd's through netflix now, I hope people don't check those kind of statistics.

Re:There's no fucking way (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777546)

Same reasons, as for not wanting one....
1) Too expensive
2) Don't need/want a Blu-Ray player
3) No games
4) Too expensive


Which is why, if Sony can get the price down under $300 in a couple years, everything could change. Two of your reasons for not wanting a PS3 would be instantly invalidated, and depending on how many PS3 games and movies are released in the meantime, the other two might be as well.

I don't expect Sony to give up on the PS3 before 2009, either; they're some stubborn bastards. How long did it take after the adoption of MPEG Layer 3 as THE ad-hoc standard for digital music for Sony to abandon their ATRAC as the format for their portable players? Hell, I think they're STILL pushing it even though they support MP3 as well now.

Re:There's no fucking way (2, Insightful)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777888)

Yes, but a couple of years is an eternity in a race to convince developers that your product isn't a flop. This is NOT a marathon, it's a snowball race. There's also a chance that in 2-years, there's about a 50% chance that the HD wars will be lost to HD-DVD, in which case, the blu-ray player is practically useless. Plus, don't hold your breath for the PS3 to fall to $300 in two years. They're already taking a loss far greater than any other console in history, they simply can't afford to drop it down much more. No console has slashed 50% in two years (other than Nintendo, who makes a profit on their consoles to begin with). And Nintendo and Microsoft aren't standing still, by that time, the Wii could be down by 50%, and Microsoft could pull the 360 down to $250. The other companies have more room to pull their prices down than Sony. The percentage gap is only going to widen.

In two years, this is, most likely, how the game is going to look (360 and PS3 projections are of the higher end model):

Nintendo Wii: $150
XBox 360: $250
Sony PS3: $450

PS3 (2, Informative)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777674)

If you change the search for PS3 instead of "playstation 3" and use "," instead of "." to seperate PS3 from Wii, the trend seem to be that PS3 is consistently above XBOX360, and almost identical to Wii. But in the very latest results, Wii has outrun PS3.

If you look at at the cities/regional/language bars below, PS3 is consistently in top for all cities, regions and languages, with Wii and XBOX 360 fighting for the second spot. However, Wii is seriously handicapped by being known under a different name for half the period.

Try checking your punctuation (4, Interesting)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777758)

It looks a little different when you get the punctuation right

http://www.google.com/trends?q=xbox360%2C+playstat ion+3%2C+wii&ctab=1&geo=all&date=all [google.com]

Anyways, as was already noted, Google trends don't exactly indicate hard scientific data, and especially sales. The 360 outsold the Wii 3/2 in the US over the holidays and the PS3 3/1 yet it lagged behind both of them in the Google trends for that period.

Re:There's no fucking way (1)

Jartan (219704) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777956)

Those trends you linked are actually just linking search terms. In this case since you used "playstation 3" instead of "PS3" you are seeing the wrong data.

Your very first trend when properly entered actually shows the PS3 slaughtering the other two. Not that people searching for information is going to translate into relevant sales numbers when the console prices are so different.

Re:There's no fucking way (2, Insightful)

coop247 (974899) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778524)

You do realize that investment firms use analyst's data to make decisions on stocks and bonds worth tens of millions of dollars. These aren't some fanboys sitting around pulling data out of their ass. Unless what you think can move stock prices, I'm not too interested. They all pretty much said the same thing and their analysis seems to make a lot of sense. But hey, your "friends are all gamers", so obviously know more than guys who spend 10 hours a day studying the industry.

Re:There's no fucking way (3, Informative)

kai.chan (795863) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778964)

It is amazing how such false and misleading information was modded Interesting. Before you call "bullshit", it might help if you provided evidence using more accurate test variables to trend popularity.

Firstly, many people refer to the "Playstation 3" as the "PS3". Secondly, it _might_ help your test results if you used "Playstation 3, Wii" instead of "Playstation 3.wii". So, let's take a look at the _real_ trend:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=xbox360+%7C+(xbox+3 60),+(playstation+3)+%7C+ps3,+wii&date=all&geo=all &ctab=2&sa=N [google.com]

Finally, before trending the HD formats, it would make your argument more convincing if you spelt "Bluray" correctly:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=bluray%2C+hddvd&cta b=0&geo=all&date=all [google.com]

If there ever was a good example of skewing of test results to conform to ones own opinion, it would be your misinformed post.

Re:There's no fucking way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17779282)

False information? No. Misleading on accident since I mistakingly did search terms.
Yes analysts are always right, aren't they? Anyone here able to detect cynicism? The price of the PS3, when it does drop, will still be higher than the other systems.
I have always bought new gadgets, gaming systems, but I have no interest in this PS3 and I am not a teenie bopper using my friends as the basis for sales data. We are in our 30's and we have money to
buy anything we want. None of us and no one we know wants a PS3. Can anyone comprehend that? The PS3 will not win this war regardless of past wins.

There's already a dual hd-dvd/BR player out so being able to coexist is real at this point. Yes and because I added a hyphen it invalidates my argument. You know what I meant so GFY.

Re:There's no fucking way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17779728)

So, you are saying that if I based my entire argument about "Apples are better, or Oranges are better" on Google Trends' search term popularity, and then using "Apples" and "Bananges" search terms to conclude that Apples are better, my argument is validated? Do you have any logic skills?

Re:There's no fucking way (2, Informative)

Gansan (789505) | more than 7 years ago | (#17779496)

You're absolutely right on the misspelling of "Blu-ray", except you spelled it wrong too! Check it out:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=blu-ray%2C+hd-dvd&c tab=0&geo=all&date=all [google.com]

Now who can say HD-DVD has the uncontested Google Trends lead (however much that means), looking at that graph with both terms spelled correctly?

Re:There's no fucking way (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17780136)

If you include "xbox", which is how most people refer to the 360, you'll find both xbox and PS3 at nearly the same point. Which is interesting, considering that the PS3 was just released, and is already on a downtrend.

Re:There's no fucking way (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17779158)

2) Porn has chosen HD-DVD as it's main format

In the home theater market, the driving force is more likely to be Disney and Time-Warner. Porn may obsess the Geek, but that is not why the family room gets the 60" DLP projection set and the XBox 360.

Re:There's no fucking way (1)

dirk (87083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17779312)

Personally I believe HD-DVD will win or both formats with coexist because -

1) HD-DVD is cheaper to manufacture
2) Porn has chosen HD-DVD as it's main format
3) Blu-Ray is Sony's format - this makes, some people hate it, period.
4) Much more expensive to manufacture

While I agree, I think it is important to point out that the pr0n industry hasn't chosen HD-DVD. Quite a few companies were actually behind Blu-Ray until recently when it came out that companies are not allowed to make XXX Blu-Ray discs. XXX companies have come forward and said they were told that companies were not allowed to make Blu-Ray discs for them because Sony would yank their license to manufacture Blu-Ray discs if they did. Funny enough, this exact thing happened with VHS/Beta with Sony saying no to pr0n on Beta, and we all know how that turned out. So Sony is once again shooting themselves in the foot and ensuring that they lose the format wars.

Re:There's no fucking way (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 7 years ago | (#17780598)

That is absolutely not true. What happened is that companies aren't allowed to duplicate XXX DVDs in the same facility that they duplicate Disney DVDs at. Sony is not prohibiting porn by any means.

Mod Parent DOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17780590)

Wow what a blatant skewing of the search terms to get the results you wanted. "xbox 360" compared to "playstation 3. wii"? "hd dvd" versus "blue-ray" (there's no "e" in blu-ray). Who in their right mind is searching for the term "playstation 3. wii" period and all?

What's funny is if you fix the spelling of the comparisions, the terms you favored lose out in all cases. Not that this sort of BS metric means much anyway...

"xbox 360, wii"
http://www.google.com/trends?q=xbox360%2C+wii&ctab =0&geo=all&date=all [google.com]

"xbox 360, playstation 3"
http://www.google.com/trends?q=xbox360%2C+playstat ion+3&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all [google.com]

"hd-dvd, blu-ray"
http://www.google.com/trends?q=hd-dvd%2C+blu-ray&c tab=0&geo=all&date=all [google.com]

Okay, What? (2, Insightful)

Draconix (653959) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777136)

Are these people all getting paid by Sony, or something? Seriously. IANAGA, but it's not rocket science to be able to know the main driving forces behind the console gaming market. The _only_ customers the PS3 attracts are the techno-whores with lots of disposable income, extreme fans of a small handful of exclusives, and people who want a "cheap" Blu-Ray player while it still seems like it could end up being akin to buying a betamax player. The main factors that drive the console market: 1) Available games. The 360 currently leads the pack, and may continue to do so for some time. It may be passed by the Wii at some point, but is unlikely to be passed by the PS3. 1a) Ease of development. The 360 and Wii are a _hell of a lot_ easier to develop games for than the PS3, and cheaper, too. 2) Total cost of ownership. The 360 and Wii cost less (the Wii a lot less) and the Wii's games cost less. That makes them a lot more attractive to the average consumer thank the PS3. Exclusive titles, though a definite boost to sales, don't even really factor into the big picture. The Gamecube had several exclusives in franchises that had a great many fans, yet that didn't somehow propel them to the top last generation, and the GC was _cheaper_ than its competitors. Seriously, I can analogize this situation pretty easily: PC vs. Mac. Apple was top dog back in the pre-GUI days, and they went on to make the Mac. PCs, however, were cheaper, and had more third party support, and got more software. By the logic of a lot of these analysts, the Mac should have come out on top, which is pretty far from what actually happened. :P

Re:Okay, What? (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777328)

The _only_ customers the PS3 attracts are the techno-whores with lots of disposable income, extreme fans of a small handful of exclusives...

Isn't this what we said about the 360 adopters when it first came out? Replace things like Gran Turismo with Halo and you've got the mirrored story.

Re:Okay, What? (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777728)

I tend to agree with you, but I would like to point out that ease of programming has very little influence on a company's decision as to which console to run on. I don't mean to put down all you programmers out there, but programmers are at the bottom of the totem pole. The designers and marketting staff are going to make that decision for you, and the producers are going to listen to them. Programming makes up a very very small part of the time, work, and money that goes into making a game. If exclusivity wasn't awarded by the hardware manufacturer's, you can bet that every game developer would put in the extra 5% to get a small team of programmers to port the sucker to all major systems, and thus sell almost three times as many copies.

This is why I'm predicting that if the PS3 doesn't pick up, we'll be hearing from Square, soon, that FF13 will be ported to the 360 and Wii (it will be ported to both if they break their exclusivity contract)

I'm a Sony guy (1, Insightful)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777166)

So what?

I know, they've been involved in all kinds of terrible anti-customer sorts of things lately. The fact is, I've never been unhappy with a Sony product. I think that their product quality is excellent. My portable CD player would be stolen or misplaced before breaking down, while I've lost two competing brands to a mis-aligned laser. They consistently had better battery life in their portable products than their competitors. PS/2 is an amazing platform; it's 4 years old now, and there's still new titles being released for it. There's some excellent titles for PSP. I'm planning to purchase a PS/3 in the next year or so, and I expect I'll be equally happy with it. I also don't expect that I'll have to replace it within 5 years.

Overall, Sony has a good track record. I think that there will be people who boycott them over the blinking PS/3 fiasco or the PSP astroturfing, but overall business will be good and many terrific titles will make their way to PS/3.

Re:I'm a Sony guy (0, Flamebait)

croddy (659025) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777278)

"PS/2" was an IBM line of personal computers. Today it is used more to refer to the mini-din mouse connector, which found its way into being the standard mouse and keyboard connectors before it was challenged by USB. I've never seen it used to refer to the second Sony console.

Re:I'm a Sony guy (1)

timster (32400) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777606)

Really, if your standard for technology products is reliability and nothing else, history would suggest you'd be a Nintendo fan.

I'm glad that you've gotten good use from your Sony products, but why would that stop you from giving competing products a fair shake? Sure, the PSP has some good games, but it's hard to build a case that the PSP has a better library than the DS. I mean, Hotel Dusk _alone_...

Re:I'm a Sony guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17780840)

Really, if your standard for technology products is reliability and nothing else, history would suggest you'd be a Nintendo fan.

Yeah, nothing says "reliable" like blowing into carts to try to get them to work. Until 2001.

Nintendo and reliable are two total opposites. Nintendo and proprietary though, are like bread and butter.

PS2 ... the best ever? (1)

jchenx (267053) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777688)

Disclaimer, I work for MS, so I'm technically a 360 guy ... although what I may next may surprise some of you ...

PS/2 is an amazing platform; it's 4 years old now, and there's still new titles being released for it.
I have to say that the PS2 can probably be considered one of the best video game platforms of all time. It would definately rank up there with the NES or SNES in my book. Reason? It's not so much the PS2 itself, but the amazing library of games it had. It pretty much had all of the major franchises (Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Madden), revitalized others (Grand Theft Auto 3 hit it big here), created a few (God of War, Devil May Cry), and was also home to a bunch of smaller (but really outstanding) titles (Disgaea, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, etc.). It's not surprising though, since a great library comes with the territory of being far-and-away the market share leader. So yeah, no argument here at all.

There's some excellent titles for PSP. I'm planning to purchase a PS/3 in the next year or so, and I expect I'll be equally happy with it. I also don't expect that I'll have to replace it within 5 years.
I would certainly hope the PS3 lasts longer than 5 years, myself ... since $500/600 is a lot of money to spend on one system (not counting even extra accessories and games). That said, I think the main allure of the PS3 has to do with the domination the PS2 had against all others. If it can repeat having the same game library, then I have no doubt the system will do outstanding (despite what all the nay-sayers say). The problem, of course, is that games industry is ever changing. It wasn't that long ago that Nintendo was in the same position (NES/SNES days), with the same amazing library, and no one gave any thought to the new upstart called Sony ...

Re:I'm a Sony guy (3, Funny)

dukieduke (918198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777718)

"They consistently had better battery life in their portable products than their competitors." If this is not enough to convince you of a troll, you deserve to go up in flames.

Re:I'm a Sony guy (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778336)

Actually, that's not the only troll tipoff:

I've lost two competing brands to a mis-aligned laser.
PS2 disc read error, anyone?

PS/2 is an amazing platform; it's 4 years old now,
The PS/2 was a computer released by IBM in the 80s. Also, the PS2 is nearly seven years old (released March 4, 2000 in Japan).

it's 4 years old now, and there's still new titles being released for it.
Ooooh, a market-leading console gets software for more than four years? That's never happened before! (except with the 2600, NES, SNES, PS/N64, etc)

And of course:

I'm a Sony guy. So what?
All in all, it's a good troll: it's pretty non-obvious at first glance. But it's still a troll: it states things in confrontational terms, says nothing of significance, and gets things wrong.

Re:I'm a Sony guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17779668)

The PS2 was released early in 2000, it's almost 7 years old now, not 4.

Re:I'm a Sony guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17779676)

And, on the reverse side of the coin, you have people that have owned all Sony Playstations and, after several replacements, have realised that Sony actually makes the poorest quality CD transports and optics ever to come out of any Asian factory (and that's pretty sad, considering I'm including $19.99 Chinese DVD players in that).

The average PS1 or PS2, especially if they're playing CD-R or DVD-R, will last 1 to 2 years. There's plenty of outside cases, some last only 3 months, some last 6+ years.

This is coming from someone that has modded/repaired 3,000+ consoles. I know what I'm talking about here.

The next-to-latest version of PS2 (V12) was so incredibly poorly built, the default mode of the laser, if the mechacon chip inside crashed, was to BURN OUT THE LASER IN UNDER 5 SECONDS. Like cracked smoking lens melted burning. Absolutely, positively the poorest engineering I've ever seen in a product and Sony should have been ashamed of themselves. P-a-t-h-e-t-i-c.

The one benefit to all of this is that when I repair the consoles, I offered a chip for about half what the repair costs. It's a good enough deal, and the customers are so pissed off at Sony they'd love to tear a strip from them, that customers would almost always take it. So, in the end, I guess I shouldn't complain...

Re:I'm a Sony guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17780692)

Well, you got modded "troll".. I'm not surprised, given that most of the mod points seem to be doled out to those with the brain power of a gnat.

If you replaced the word 'Sony' with 'Nintendo' in your post, people would have modded it up through the roof. That's just how it is around here, and why it makes more sense to believe one of the pros instead of the half-cocked theories the armchair analysts on slashdot come up with.

Nintendo Wii to age faster? (1)

MasterC (70492) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777234)

Mike Wolf (page 2):

Their system will age faster due to the lack of high-end graphics and HD resolution...
The near constant thing I hear people say about the Wii is the game play. So if the key compliment to the Wii is not the graphics then I'm not seeing how the Wii will age faster...because of its lack of HD graphics. Perhaps most notably is that people who aren't gamers are also talking about the game play.

The game play is what will keep the Wii from aging fast.

Re:Nintendo Wii to age faster? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778918)

the Wii plays just fine at 480P using Component cables from nintendo.

the "lack of HD" is really lack of 720 and 1080 resolutions, though supposedly the hardware could put out 720i but nintendo doesn't allow it in firmware because game performance would be unacceptable at those resolutions

Re:Nintendo Wii to age faster? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17779398)

The game play is what will keep the Wii from aging fast.

assumming that players don't tire of the Wii controller.

I have to ask how the casual gamer reacts when he is first exposed to Oblivion or Gears of War.

There seems to be an opportunity here for Sony and Microsoft to strike gold with titles that have game play, graphics and sound that the Wii simply can't deliver.

Re:Nintendo Wii to age faster? (1)

Mr. Hankey (95668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17779896)

I have to ask how the casual gamer reacts when he is first exposed to Oblivion or Gears of War.

That experience varies, some people like the graphics while others dislike the violence. I can tell you that in my experience, all the non-gamers and casual gamers who have seen it reacted surprisingly well to the Wii's control scheme and had no complaints. Wii Sports was really the first killer app for people who wouldn't consider themselves video gamers, with Rayman:RR and Wario Ware being excellent follow-ups through the humor angle. A few (who might be considered hard-core gamers, including a Sony employee who works for SCEA) were critical of the graphics in Wii Sports, but still enjoyed the gameplay.

My take is that there are more non-gamers than hard core gamers, and including the baby boomers in the target audience as they retire (i.e. have plenty of money for entertainment) is a master stroke on Nintendo's part. The PS3 may do very well, but it will probably need to go down in price quite a bit before the majority of households will be able to afford one. The 360 has a viable price point, but it's more of the same thing that only gamers tend to go for. Neither has displaced my other consoles the way the Wii has.

Re:Nintendo Wii to age faster? (2, Interesting)

Toby_Tyke (797359) | more than 7 years ago | (#17779692)

Actually, I have a slightly different take on this.

Lets assume HD TV adoption really takes off in the next year or two, to the extent that by, say, 2010, SD sets are a real minority (-30 percent of sets).

Lets also assume, and it's probably not too far from the truth, that MS has a bottomless pit of money, and are willing to do prety much anything to bury Sony.

Now, lets stop assuming things and look at stuff we know. The X-box had a four year life cycle (2001 - 2005). The PS3 is being sold at a loss, so sony need it to have a nice long life cycle in order to recoup their investment. They have publicly stated that they expect the PS3 to have 10 year life cycle. Nintendo on the other hand, make money on every Wii they sell.

OK, time for some more suppositon. Suppose MS decides to stick to four year turnaround, and X-box 3 launches in 2009. This would put Sony in a virtually impossible position. They would have only had three years of PS3 at that point, would be unlikely to have a PS4 ready to launch any time soon, and if the new X-box was significantly better than the PS3 and started to steal its sales, they might be looking at taking a loss on the PS3 overall

Nintendo, on the on the other hand, probably wouldn't care. They don't sell the Wii off the back of power or pretty graphics. The X-box 360 is already more powerful than the Wii, so if X-box 3 was even more powerfull, who cares? And if it really became an issue, if the market was really demanding an HD Wii, well OK. Nintendo aren't selling at a loss, they are likely to have made plenty of cash off the Wii in three years time, so they could just shrug their shoulders, move to four year structure themselves, and launch the Hii Dii in 2010.

Of course that's probably all bullshit.

Maybe I could be an analyst too.

Wait and see approach (3, Informative)

jchenx (267053) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777350)

I was surprised by how good the analyst opinions were. They all pretty much said the same thing: Wii is doing well, MS is on track, and Sony is lagging a bit now ... but it's still too early to say who the long-term market leader will be. I think that's definately the right approach to take.

In contrast, here's a typical fanboy view of all the consoles:

Wii
Pro: Wii-mote rules! It's all about the innovation and gameplay. Sony and MS have none of that, so they're doomed! Who cares about HD? Look at the holiday sales! We are DEFINATELY going to win.
Con: The Wii was doomed from the start when they released the hardware specs. HD is the wave of the future. The "waggle" is just a gimmick, no one is going to want a "GameCube 1.5" months from now. Nintendo is DOOMED.

Xbox 360
Pro: First to 10 million baby! Also, see how Sony is losing exclusives left and right. Xbox Live all the way. Finally, Halo 3 babeeee! We are DEFINATELY going to win.
Con: M$ should go back to making Windows. 360 is failing in Japan, and red-lights are everywhere! M$ is DOOOMED.

Playstation 3
Pro: Blu-ray all the way baby! PS3 is the real next-gen and HD. Also, the PS2 is still selling like hot-cakes. Finally, you can't deny the power of MGS4 and FFXIII. We are DEFINATELY going to win.
Con: Batteries exploding, root kits, and constant PR fiascos. Also, PS3s sitting on shelves everywhere? $ony is DOOMED!

Certainly, there are lots of both truth and falseness to the statements above, which is why fanboys keep making them. However, it's still way too early to tell anything, especially when consoles generally last for years and perceptions change quickly. Remember how doomed many people thought Nintendo was when they first announced the "Wii" name? Or how silly the DS seemed, compared to the sexiness of the PSP? Or about how solid the PlayStation brand was a year and half ago?

Yeah, go figure.

Re:Wait and see approach (2)

Daneboy (315359) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777616)

LOL, pretty funny how all three of your fanbois misspelled "definitely" in the same way! :-) Joking aside, I think you're absolutely right -- the only people who are making bold predictions now are either (a) fans of one of the platforms, or (b) paid by the creators of the platforms, or (c) clueless idiots. Personally, I think Sony will win in the long term, precisely because Sony is thinking in the long term. I bet the Sony execs don't give a damn how much they're losing on each PS3 unit, while the PS2 is continuing to outsell the 360. When was the last time anyone bought a brand-new last-gen Xbox? Or a last-gen Gamecube?

Re:Wait and see approach (1)

jchenx (267053) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777854)

LOL, pretty funny how all three of your fanbois misspelled "definitely" in the same way! :-)
Argh, "definately" is my Achilles' heel of spelling. I didn't mean to spell it incorrectly, although in that context, I guess it does make sense. ;)

Joking aside, I think you're absolutely right -- the only people who are making bold predictions now are either (a) fans of one of the platforms, or (b) paid by the creators of the platforms, or (c) clueless idiots. Personally, I think Sony will win in the long term, precisely because Sony is thinking in the long term. I bet the Sony execs don't give a damn how much they're losing on each PS3 unit, while the PS2 is continuing to outsell the 360. When was the last time anyone bought a brand-new last-gen Xbox? Or a last-gen Gamecube?
I'm actually (B), since I work at MS, although really, you have to have an open mind if you really want to succeed in the industry. (Besides, in 5 years I might be working for Nintendo, Sony, or some other game company)

Xbox and GC sales are essentially dead, because their respective owners have put all their eggs in the new systems. I can't blame them. The 360 and Wii offer so much more over their predecessors in terms of new features and services (Xbox Live, Virtual Console, Wii-mote, etc.), and the original machines weren't exactly selling like hot cakes to begin with.

I agree that the PS2 selling so well is beneficial to Sony, at least when it comes to their bottom line. However, it does have an impact on PS3 sales, so it'll be interesting to see just how much longer the PS2 will last ...

Re:Wait and see approach (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17778100)

This is quite possibly the best post ever in Slashdot Games.

If it is so cheat - I can upgrade it! (1)

killmore (641635) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778560)

Look I upgrade my PC about every 2 years.
Since nintendo is making money on every console sold, whats preventing them from releasing much more powerful version in a year or 2. It could be as powerful as PS3 or X-Box but quite inexpensive because all of the components become cheaper by then.
They could call it next generation :)
I would buy it - Wii costs as much as my graphic card on PC. (And I replace it every 18 months)

Re:If it is so cheat - I can upgrade it! (1)

jchenx (267053) | more than 7 years ago | (#17779004)

Look I upgrade my PC about every 2 years.
Since nintendo is making money on every console sold, whats preventing them from releasing much more powerful version in a year or 2. It could be as powerful as PS3 or X-Box but quite inexpensive because all of the components become cheaper by then.
They could call it next generation :)
I would buy it - Wii costs as much as my graphic card on PC. (And I replace it every 18 months)
There is definately precedent with Nintendo doing this. All you need to do is look at their portable systems. I admit to being one of the suckers who bought the original Game Boy Advance, then upgrade to the GBA SP, then the original DS, and finally to the DS Lite (taking advantage of trade-ins along the way).

I do think, though, that this is a harder thing to pull with consoles. That said, I would not be surprised if we see console revisions from multiple companies (notably Nintendo and MS), addressing things like adding in DVD/HD-DVD functionality, hard-drives (or larger ones), more HD video options (like HDMI), etc. As an "early adopter", I think it sucks, but then again, I also have a lot of friends who WON'T adopt until those revisions make it in. :P

Re:If it is so cheat - I can upgrade it! (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17780864)

And of course, they'll call it the WiiII.

Re:Wait and see approach (1)

Mathonwy (160184) | more than 7 years ago | (#17780616)

Certainly, there are lots of both truth and falseness to the statements above, which is why fanboys keep making them.

What the heck is that supposed to mean, exactly? Fanboys keep making the statements above, because they are both true and false? Because they contain both truth and not-truth? Becase they are simultaneously both correct and incorrect?

If you'd said something like "Certainly each of these viewpoints has a grain of truth buried somewhere in it, which is what fanboys cling to" I'd have been all with you. The inclusion of falseness however, throws the whole thing into heavy-zen-land.

Just say'n.

Can't they all win (1)

nuggz (69912) | more than 7 years ago | (#17777902)

Isn't the goal to sell a profitable product that people like?

The Wii is there, sales are strong because it's fun, they're making a profit and people are happy. This is win for Nintendo. BTW I bought a Wii and Zelda and it's my first Nintendo product.

Xbox360 has the critical mass to encourage continued third party development, lots of games == happy people. Again this is a win.

PS3 most powerful, lots of people like power and they'll pay for it. I think the PS3 will remain a usable console well into the next generation, so this is a win too.

Wow everyone succeeds, how unnewsworthy.

Re:Can't they all win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17778268)

The PS3 is actually LESS powerful in terms of graphics capabilities... Just thought I'd clear that up!

2008? 2009? (3, Insightful)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778382)

With due respects to these "experts", the race for videogame supremacy will be over before 2008/2009. The next generation of consoles will probably be out in 2009.

I'm really surprised the "experts" have missed the obvious point here...

I think MS released the XBox360 about a year earlier than Sony anticipated. I believe Microsoft did this to force Sony to release a console 9-12 months before they were ready. Sony essentially abandoned the very profitable PS2 way too soon to push the PS3 and compete with the Xbox360. In my opinion, Sony managed in the space of 6 months to throw away a commanding lead in videogames. Now they're in 3rd place for the "new" generation. And it's going to be a tough hole to dig out of.

You can argue that the new PS3 has wonderful technology, you can talk about the wonderful WiFi, BluRay, and all of that is true. But people are going into stores and looking at $250 for a Wii (which is still hard to get), $300 for an Xbox360 (even if that price is deceptive), and then $500/600 for the PS3. I think it's a tough sale.

And again, listening to these experts talk about how the PS3 will come from behind in 2-3 years to take over the lead... it's never been done in consoles, I doubt it will happen now.

I'm really surprised at Sony. They know as well as anyone how easily the lead in videogames can be lost. And despite all that they threw that lead away.

If I was Sony, I'd cut prices by $100-150 across the board, get the cheaper unit into stores, get some games out there and advertise the heck out of the console itself. I think they're in trouble at the moment, and the game is MS's to lose right now.

printer friendly version (1)

farker haiku (883529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778480)

look ma, no ads [gamasutra.com] !

what about psp/ps3 and DS/Wii combo potential? (2, Interesting)

adez (967740) | more than 7 years ago | (#17778578)

I think it's funny that none of the analysts mention pre-installed base of portable units. The 'base station' aspect of these new consoles will play into the equation for sure.

Download services and hand-held integration hopefully will play a big part in this generation. A wireless Four Swords
would be great, and SOCOM3 has some unlockables when you plug
your PSP into a PS2 USB port. I also remember hearing that PS3 has a download service already in Japan.

If Sony and Nintendo can leverage their handheld sales from
the last year properly, they will make up ground they lost
from the Xbox360's head start.

"Games Analysts Weighs"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17778834)

Someone is a little too excited about the letter "s". Yes, we know "s" is awesome, but really: everything in moderation.

In other news (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 7 years ago | (#17779036)

After his latest blunder, in which he allegedly blindfolded himself and threw darts at a chart on a wall to determine who will win the current generation game console "wars", one Michael Pachter, of Wedbush Morgan Securities, is no longer well-respected.

Who cares? (3, Funny)

Lithdren (605362) | more than 7 years ago | (#17779222)

Do these people's opinions really matter? It seems like they speak with 10,000 analysts, get 40,000 diffrent answers, and when one is correct (suprise suprise) they tout it as some achievement, beacuse they guessed the right number.

Who cares who wins in 2007? I sure dont. If you like Wii, you'll go Wii. if you like PS3, guess what, you'll go PS3. Xbox? Do a little dance and make a 360!

The only true winner is the consumer, because they have a choice, IMHO. Analyze that.

BS mainly. (2, Interesting)

ecuador_gr (944749) | more than 7 years ago | (#17779256)

There are three analysts on TFA and the first two basically don't declare a winner. It's far too early in the game, so it is better if they don't risk such estimates based on wild speculation.
Now there is the third, "respected" analyst. Example argument from TFA:

"If I'm right, Sony will end up winning the high-definition format war, and once there are millions of Blu-ray enabled PS3s floating around, I think we will see sharper graphics on PS3 games compared to Xbox 360 games."

Where does he base this? Because maybe just because the PS/3 touts "1080p"? Or because Blue Ray "is larger so it can fit sharper graphics... and stuff". Any hardware geek (like several here), just looking at the specs can see that the 360 has a more capable GPU (compare unreleased R600 level GPU to previous gen G70...), and a CPU which is easier to use effectively.
Not to mention that by 2009 when the PS/3 will have become "affordable", it will no longer be a nexgen system, so it will only sell if it already has a huge base (thus developer support).

I don't see such a bright future for the PS/3, unless something big happens (half price anyone?), but if Sony wins the HD wars, they will probably not really care. Royalties from Blue Ray will bring more money :)

Slashdot hires Dethklok to write headlines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17779308)

Skwiskar Skwigelf: "Games Analysts Weighs in Ons Console.... Warses."
Nathan Explosion: "Man, I hate Slashdot. They choke all the bandwidth and then it takes forever to get to tits."
Pickles the Drummer: "What they OUGHTTA do, see, is get all the console designers in a room together and just have 'em knife each other until there's only one left."
William Murderface: "These articles make me wanna kill myself.. ..... I approve."
Toki Wartooth: "Oh boy! First po --- awww. I never gets the first posts."

  - mantar

Biased "weighing in" (2, Funny)

Vacardo (1048640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17779552)

"My best guess is that Sony emerges as the winner of the movie format war in late 2008, and games start looking noticeably better in 2009. That's when Sony starts looking like the winner of the next generation battle. All of this is pretty far out, and a lot can happen with pricing to change things. For example, if Sony gets down the cost curve for Blu-ray and Cell processors, [the PS3] may be below $300 shortly thereafter. It's hard to say that this will happen before 2009, but it could. That would change everything."

Why do I see the term "Sony" used 3 times in this quote and not one mention of "Nintendo" or even "XBox"? Seems like an outright biased and overly opinionated review, completed void of the fairness and ethics.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?