Sony Needs To React to Microsoft 84
Ars Technica's Opposable Thumbs column discusses comments by Ubisoft president Yves Guillemont. Mr. Guillemont's kind words for the 360 prompted thumbs poster Ben Kuchera to think even less well of Ken Kutaragi's recent arrogant windbag statement. Essentially, Mr. Kuchera is of the opinion that at this stage of the game Sony not only should 'care', they should be worried. From the article: "I wonder what the talk is within Sony... are they talking about the increased competition this generation, or do they all share Kuturagi's confidence? This isn't the same fight they had with the Dreamcast and the Xbox: in that case they had Sega's last system that never enjoyed EA's support, and Microsoft's first, unproven piece of hardware. Now they are up against Microsoft's second system, with very strong software support and online support, and the very popular and affordable Wii."
Audience (Score:4, Insightful)
First two links? (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Dreamcast and XBox? (Score:2)
Re:Dreamcast and XBox? (Score:4, Informative)
The Gamecube fell WAY behind in 3rd party support. They did great with first party- but a lot of big games ignored the 'Cube.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This may be how it appeared from the outside, but I can ensure you that this is not how it worked inside of the industry; there were lots of developers who wanted to bring games to the Gamecube but (as I will explain in a moment) were pressured by their publisher to put the games on other platforms.
When Microsoft entered the Console world they started spending insane ammounts of money
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'm confused. The parent said that Nintendo had poor 3rd party support on the
That's fine by me. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sony's reaction to Microsoft: (Score:4, Funny)
Well, that's what I imagined, anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
Small world, isn't it?
-Eric
Talking about the wrong company. (Score:4, Insightful)
Bam a bunch of good console RPG's come out for PS3 and everyone buys the console because said games aren't on the 360.
It's like a self fufilling prophecy really.
Compared to all the money MS spends on other stuff you'd think they'd bother to at least spend 20 million on making a few good RPGs at a total loss just to sell the console.
So companies release their games on dead consoles (Score:2)
And given that SE and any number of other devs need to sell their games, I can't imagine they're going to put their game on a system that has a tiny install base. Even if 10% of their fans would buy ps3 just for FF, that won't be enough for
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Spreading your gam
Re:So companies release their games on dead consol (Score:1)
But this is about perceptions. Japanese game Dev's "know" FF13 is going to come out for the PS3. They also "know" FF13 is going to be a hit. Since they "know" it's going to be a hit they also "know" a lot of PS3 will have been sold.
Thus they decided to develop on the PS3 as soon as they had hardware they could start working with. It's already a done deal which is why Sony is acting so arr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
With all due respect, while releases of RPGs demonstrate that many players of the genre are fanatics (e.g. long midnight lines, etc), the vast majority of console gamers play sports games, racing games, and fighting games. The 360 will do just fine if zero RPG gamers buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure I'd agree that the fighting genre is bigger than the RPG genre when you count western and eastern gamers but there's no doubt the sports genre outsells them. You overlooked an important fact though. All the sports games are made for every console.
The only companies playing favorites in a big genre are the RPG makers. Thus RPG games sell consoles. Therefore as long as FF13 is coming out on t
Re:Talking about the wrong company. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Oblivion? Um yeah, Bethesda totally didn't support the Xbox. And Bioshock is super different from the type of games the Xbox gets already (not really). As for the Japanesse developers making RPGs for the 360, I would not call the support "a lot". Compared to the Xbox, maybe, but not compared to other systems.
Re: (Score:2)
About 8 'RPG companies' have plans to code RPG's for
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I hope and pray you've never written a paper with citations.
Also, I didn't realize that your post referenced so many publications. Sorry about that, I don't expect anyone to load up each article on 30 websites and page through every issue of every one of the magazines/papers you read.
You know, somebody should invent some tech that would allow a person to type in some keywords and then search through all the text on the Internet. That would be cool! And for paper
RPG support on 360 steadily getting better (Score:2)
I have a feeling that you're trolling, but I'll bite.
Bethesda is supporting MS and the Xbox. Morrowind came out for the Xbox first, and never came to any other console (although it did come out for PC.
Re: (Score:1)
Um [reference.com].
As for Japanese developers, the number is certainly growing. Namco, makers of the Xenosaga series, is working on a 360 RPG called Eternal Sonata. From Software (published by Ubisoft), just released Enchanted Arms recently (which I'm playing through, and it's decent so far). And the big news is that Mistwalker Studios is making a number of exclusive titles for the 360, Blue Dragon and Lost Oddysey. And then you've got all your traditio
Apparently you don't follow the industry (Score:2)
My original subject was "RPG support on 360 steadily getting better". I was comparing it to the last Xbox
Re: (Score:1)
My original subject was "RPG support on 360 steadily getting better". I was comparing it to the last Xbox generation.
Congratulations. Except you were the one who replied to me. And my original post, while talking about RPGs, was in response to a post that claimed the 360 will "do better" because of the RPG support. So our original topi
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, the original topic WAS about RPGs. Well, at least that's what I thought you were referring to. That's why I started talking about RPG support for the 360 getting better.
Anyway, it's apparent that you're nothing but a Sony-fanboi troll (as suspected), who can only throw ad hominem [wikipedia.org] attacks, rather that pa
Re: (Score:1)
That's weird, I don't remember proclaiming my undying love for some faceless multinational corporation anywhere in this discussion. But hey I don't "follow the industry", so I'll take your word here. The even weirder part is that the only Sony game-stuff I own is a few games for the PS2 (plus the PS2 required to play them), and I don't plan on buying a PS3. Also:
it's apparent that you're nothing but a Sony-fanboi troll
Thanks for reducing th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing people in Sony... (Score:3, Insightful)
Behind closed doors (Score:1)
Anything that comes out in public is carefully worded, but in the sony HQ they have no fear from the 'outside' so they can think what they want to, and that is likely to mean that they are being true to themselves, which I believe to be a little bit shaky.
funny but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
* By "average", I mean the average opinion of all people who buy video games. I don't mean "people who respond to polls from a video game magazine" or any other BS like that.
Re: (Score:1)
However, if the inner-core of the customer base [i.e. Forum geeks] is beginning to feel disillusioned with the constant PS3 problems...then it is only logical that the annoyance is spreading outwards to the 'casual gamer'.
Plus, the 'casual gamer' owes no allegiance to any one console...i believe that the core of who sony want to sell to will be easily swayed... or '
Re: (Score:2)
Hardcore geeks are not an inner core. They're not even an outer core. And they're the sort who whine about everything, things that the casual gamer doesn't give a damn about.
If you find rumours and hearsay about future consoles interesting a
Re: (Score:1)
The same is true with games consoles, if companies can sell all there consoles out in the first night they will get a lot of press attention which will make the seem suc
Re: (Score:1)
Don't look at what they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Yea, except they had to drop the DualShock technology altogether for legal reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Couldn't they have ponied up for the licensing fees for the rumble? Or possibly developed some type of non-infringing rumble? The whole 6-axis/no rumble thing sounds like a real copout. And even if they really did have to drop the rumble, why did they scurry at the last minute (according to their own admission) to put the motion sensing in? Why wouldn't they have known earlier they wouldn't be able to do the rumble, a
Re: (Score:2)
They could have, but that would mean admitting they were wrong. Japanese culture isn't like ours. They really don't like admitting that something they did was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
But, more to the point, this seems like a somewhat contradictory argument. Sony's been taking a lot of criticism from the gaming community regarding the PS3's price point, as it is. Having to fork over a license fee for the rumble technology is only going to make the PS3 more expensive to produce, and, in all likelihood, more expensive for the consumer. There's really no easy way out for them on this on
Re: (Score:1)
You have taught me a great lesson, sir. Anyone who uses an idea that has been thought of before is simply "copying". There's no possible way they could be inventive or smart, and they are obviously "worried" about their "competition". They never ever ever would add som
Re: (Score:2)
If consoles historically had their own intergrated monitor and company X made a killing off of selling a console that output to TV instead and then in response, Company Y also made a console outputting to the TV, then I would most certainly accuse Company Y of copying.
Online gaming services for consoles have been around for at least a decade. In the US, XBox managed to have the first successful one
Re: (Score:1)
This makes sense, because your entire argument is fucking stupid. Human beings, like many other animals, imitate behaviors. Nature itself makes "copies" of stuff through reproduction. Pointing out how some corporation is doing something sim
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the one throwing out proanity and comparing a ripped off controller design to biological reproduction because I can come up with no better defense. There is someone here sounding like a 7 year old and I'm pretty sure it's not me.
"Pointing out how some corporation is doing something similar to another corporation by saying ZOMG COPYING is unnecessary and stupid."
And that's not what I'm doing. I'm pointing out that the way Sony is copying Microsoft and Nintendo lea
Re: (Score:1)
Once again, your grasp of logic slips further and further away from reality. It's pretty hilarious that you think analogies make one look like a child. The truth of the matter here is that you are the child for attacking the use of analogy rather than the content of the analogy itself. Disliking the manner in which an argument is made does not make it wrong. If you wish to actually address what I s
Re: (Score:2)
I can see why you don't think I have a lick of logical reasoning if you're reading comprehension is so bad that you can't piece a very obvious summary from it's source elements so I'll break it down for you here. First let's look at the title of the original post: "Don't look at what they say..." Then I go right on to say "Look at what Sony is doing instead of wha
Re: (Score:1)
Nowhere in your posts do you explain your reasoning as to "how Sony is copying" and why this shows that "they are worried about the competition". All you do is say "they'r
Reaction (Score:3, Funny)
Sony HAS reacted... (Score:3, Funny)
Well it's all still speculation at this point (Score:1)
Very Popular? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sun Tsu's Art of War (Score:3, Insightful)
If I had to guess, they're just playing right out of the Art of War rulebook: When strong, appear weak, and when weak, appear strong. They have to exhibit an air of confidence because they know they're vulnerable and taking a big risk this round. If they don't show confidence in their own product at this stage in the game (and they are very much behind) then they're not going to rally the support they need from consumers or third parties. At this point, they've been dealt all the cards they have to play, and it's poker face time, except it's up to consumers to place their bets for them from here on.
Personally, I'm going to be betting on the Wii this hand, and wait till the stakes are a bit lower before I throw any more money down on something more expensive.
Sony should worry a lot (Score:4, Interesting)
In the game console business alone we've seen leaders being bent over and abused. Nintendo comes to mind. It's a very fluid business. There isn't much customer loyalty.
Microsoft has been manufacturing the Xbox 360 for about a year, its part costs have probably come down 15 to 25 %, it is about to move to a 65 nm process for certain components (which will reduce power consumption and save money) and Microsoft has a huge amount of money. Microsoft can rape Sony on price. Nintendo is currently making money on each console sold and is using low cost components which will only get cheaper over time. Nintendo is in a position to rape Sony on price. The reason the Xbox 360 is selling as many consoles as expected is that $399 is too much to pay for a console. Microsoft has it in their power to correct that.
Sony's exclusivity deals with game developers are far more limited than they were before. The PS2 had a 100 million consoles sold (probably about 80 million are working), it made sense for developers only to develop for the PS2. With an uncertain install base, no developer in their right mind will develop exclusively for the PS3 without a sack full of money from Sony. This is compounded by high development costs for next gen games. If a developer makes a game for two or three consoles, the failure of one console will not ruin game sales.
1080p graphics don't matter at the moment. Look at bestbuy.com. Look at the televisions costing over a thousand dollars. How many of them support 1080p? There are quite a few televisions under a thousand dollars which support 720p. Sony is relying on the PS3 purchases 3 or 4 years from now. By that time this particular generation will be over.
I think that both the Xbox 360 and the Wii will do well. After the Xbox 360 drops its price by about $100 and includes a game with the system. Third-party developers will show a preference for the Xbox 360 over the Wii until it is clear that third-party games can sell well on the Wii. There were many people who bought a Gamecube and only played Nintendo games on it. Months would go by and there would be no Gamecube games on the top 20 games sold in the United States. The Wii is also a different sort of console, which will cause a degree of hesitation. Despite a small install base for the Xbox 360, a number of third-party Xbox 360 games have become number one sellers in the United States and Europe. Saint's Row, Dead Rising and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter come to mind. When a developer is looking for investment, being able to say that other companies have been successful in the same field is a big selling point. Development of third-party Wii games will pick up once third-party sales pick up.
I think that the game console market is extremely price sensitive. If the game console market was not price sensitive, why did Sony drop the price of the all-powerful PS2? Why not keep it at $299 and rake in the cash? If Sony executives face a $299 Premium Xbox 360 and a $199 Wii, I think they'll start to worry or be replaced by their shareholders.
Re:Sound and fury (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know where you're looking but Ubisoft is a pretty platform agnostic compay, look at the list of Wii games they're releasing before March 31, 2007:
I know for a fact that several of those games are going to be multiplatform, with games like Assassin's Creed and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas being on both the XBox 360 and PS3.
I thought the 360 was going to suck chicken balls. I was surprised. It isn't too bad (though I'll never own one, boycotting Microsoft and whatnot). Now all these PS3 naysayers are screaming to beat the band about how it's going to fail, it's going to suck, and all that.
Honestly, I think the most vocal people against the PS3 were people who were expecting to buy a PS3 at launch and are so disapointed by the line-up and outraged by the cost that they're angry at Sony; Sony has promised so much with the PS3 and most people are discovering that it is not true and are (understandably) upset.
Until we see the PS3, and see the games that are there, and see how Sony handles the business end, everything we say is just a bunch of wind. The PS3 may suck, or it might be the best thing since the 6502. Sony may price themselves out of business, or they might hit the sweet spot. The launch titles may suck, or they may totally rock like an old lady on a rocking chair. The PS3 may be exploding batteries. It might be the best thing you've ever seen. We don't know. We can only speculate.
Based on the PS2, I'm thinking the PS3 is going to be a decent console, and they have nothing to worry about from Microsoft. The 360 may be Microsoft's best product ever, but that's damning with faint praise.
I think the PS3 will be a fine system, just like the XBox and Gamecube were fine systems, but I suspect that the success that Sony had with the PS2 and Playstation is a thing of the past. Much like the PSP, I think Sony is bringing the wrong dog to the fight and they're going to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
See Amazon 's games list for the Wii [amazon.com], Red Steel is one of the "ones to watch" as well. Of course Ubisoft and ps3 produces nothing, so it's possible MS is trying an "anything but PS3 play" to hurt Sony but that seems too tin foil hat like.
Sony's Track Record With Consoles (Score:2)
I'd better start by openly admitting to not being a fan of the PS2, partly because Sony lied so audaciously about it's performance and in reality - despite how much later it hit the streets - the games were no better than the by then already aging Dreamcast (I assume this was in part because it was more difficult to develop games for and because the Dreamcast was a much more developer
Sony "reacting" has been the problem all along (Score:1)