Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Comments: 122 +-   LittleBigPlanet Could 'Move Consoles' For PlayStation 3 on Monday October 01 2007, @01:32PM

Posted by Zonk on Monday October 01 2007, @01:32PM
from the need-a-bit-of-a-jump-start dept.
playstation
The always popular Michael Pachter offered up the opinion last week that LittleBigPlanet may be the title the PlayStation 3 needs to have breakout success. In a report pointing out failings on Microsoft and Sony's part to appeal to 'family gamers', Pachter said: "After seeing LittleBigPlanet at TGS, I believe it could be a console mover. The game is really innovative, and I think it adds a family element that is so far missing from both the Xbox 360 and the PS3. If they can accompany that game's launch with a price cut (or a lower priced SKU), I think we'll see a spike in sales." The game is really innovative, and I'm looking forward to it a bunch ... but I think I agree with the folks at Ars when they say the pricetag is still too high to appeal to family gamers.
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

LittleBigPlanet Could 'Move Consoles' For PlayStation 3 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Interesting idea, but they are ignoring the Wii (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jimstapleton (999106) on Monday October 01 2007, @01:36PM (#20813879) Journal
    being both cheaper, and having plenty of family-friendly titles, I think it'll make it harder for the PS3 to have a one-title-wonder breakout in this sector, like the XBox had it's one-title-wonder breakout with the Halo series.

    Simply put, hardcores (Halo) will spend more money than families (this game), and the Wii will certainly provide a lot of competition in that arena. Plus, the Wii has many games (even if you count all the [animal]z games as just one game) that seem to excel in this arena, rather than just one.
    • Perhaps... but families like to watch movies, too. If the rumors about them hyping the Blu-Ray aspect is true, it could dovetail nicely. The PS3 is a really nice movie, streaming media, gaming, etc., box. It could sell to families as an HD movie player. Sony could keep the price at its current level but package two controllers, the Blu-Ray remote, a movie and LittleBigPlanet and move a LOT of systems.

      • "Perhaps... but families like to watch movies, too. If the rumors about them hyping the Blu-Ray aspect is true, it could dovetail nicely."
        DVDs look great on an HDTV. Yes a vidoephile will notice the difference but for most of use DVDs are still good enough.
        Unless you have a really big high end HDTV then and HD-DVD is just a "That is nice but not worth the money" item for most people. My wife and I are in the wait and see mode. Until there is only ONE format I am not buying.

      • I have to respectfully disagree. Having a family game isn't enough. It needs to be on a family budget too, $299 or less. I'm sure at $399 the ps3 will move quite a bit of systems (unless that version is severely hamstrung) but it won't be for simply family entertainment. They need more enticing titles, I don't remember what is coming out for the ps3 this holiday but without a combination of A-List titles and a nice price drop they won't be moving many systems.

        However if there is a price drop in japan an

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Lally Singh (3427)
      Couple of things:
      1. That assumes you can get a Wii. Only reason I bought one at all was b/c they had one in stock and I was gift shopping. (It turned out the gf didn't want it, so I kept it).
      2. I've got both the PS3 and the Wii. The Wii's got maybe 2-3 good games on it, and one of those comes with it. It's really not useful for me now beyond keeping guests happy. The PS3 games I enjoy more (regular ones, Resistance, Warhawk, etc) than the Wii stuff. IMHO people who played a lot of games
  • My roommate bought a PS2 when GTA III came out. This is one of the best examples of a console mover that I can remember. Sure the game had tons of hype, but it seems like a lot of people agreed that it delivered... and it was also a bit different nearly every game released. The problem now is that with genres being flooded with clones of clones of clones, and multiplatform releases... there are fewer console movers. It's going to take an game that has takes a COMPLETE departure from games that exist now
      • Not really - there were dozens of RPGs before FF7, it was hardly a complete departure.

        You had Final Fantasy 1-6 + Mystic Quest, Chrono Trigger, Dragon Warrior, Inindo, and quite a few others

        And that's just the "pure" menu based RPGs.

          • no, not on the PS1 (although I believe WildArms may have been pre-ff7)

            Regardless, the OP suggested that the game should be unique in comparison to what is already out there, and not just what is already out there on that system only.
              • Suikoden kicked FFVII's ass up and down the street. An RPG with a real story! Hot damn!

                But no. It wasn't THREE DEE, so it tanked.
            • FFVII had 3D and Materia. If Wild Arms came first, than all FFVII had was Materia.

              Oddly enough, I thought that was the one *REALLY* nice thing about the game. I wish Square had played with that one more.
              • The Final Fantasy series has never rehashed the same ability system that I can recall -- I might be wrong. In any case, the Materia system was hampered by it's own flexibility, and I really hated it. It was too flexible and so far off balance that it wasn't even funny -- it made what was initially an easy game even easier. Killer materia combinations were found even by casual gamers, and the hardcore tweakers? Well, as a result we know that a level 7 Tifa can solo Emerald Weapon.
                http://www.youtube.com/w [youtube.com]
                • You haven't looked back far enough. The Final Fantasy series' base "job class" model has been used quite a number of times. It was fairly inflexible in the first game, but FF3 pretty much hit the modern incarnation dead center. It was used again in FF5, and to very good effect in FF Tactics and FF Tactics Advance.

                  FF1 - D&D Style "pick it and you're stuck with it" job class system
                  FF2 - Story driven fixed abilities/classes
                  FF3 - Flexible job class system
                  FF4 - Story driven fixed abilities/classes
                  FF5 - Flexi
            • Umm, Pokemon was actually quite a huge departure. Sure, there were certain vague similarities with some elements from other games, but the whole capture/build team/choose Pokemon fighting system was something new.

  • I guess it could... (Score:3, Funny)

    by seebs (15766) on Monday October 01 2007, @01:50PM (#20814073) Homepage
    I dunno. I mean, I already HAVE a PS3, and I don't see why I'd want this.
    • I dunno. I mean, I already HAVE a PS3, and I don't see why I'd want this.

      Ahh just wait until the hype machine convinces you it's greatest thing since the pill.

      • Which pill? The one that makes you smaller? One that makes you tall? Or the one that keeps you from being a mom?

  • How Sony could actually sell PS3s (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    People might consider buying a PS3 if it came with a Wii bundled.
  • "Family gamers" don't spend $300 or more on a console.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kevin.fowler (915964)
      Considering how entrenched the PS2 is as a family gaming console (and how you can get it for $100), it's likely even harder to sell a "new one" for $600.
    • The original NES was $200 or $250 (depending on the bundle) in 1985. If you add in inflation, that $200 becomes $375 in 2006 dollars, and the $250 is roughly $468. How many units of the NES did Nintendo sell at that price, anyway?
      • The original NES was $200 or $250 (depending on the bundle) in 1985. If you add in inflation, that $200 becomes $375 in 2006 dollars, and the $250 is roughly $468. How many units of the NES did Nintendo sell at that price, anyway?

        Your factoring the average value for inflation. Don't forget the huge dip the US dollar took recently and the fact inflation is often under estimated. that 250$ buys about 600$ buys now for many things. So it's even more of a bargain these days.

      • The original NES was $200 or $250 (depending on the bundle) in 1985. If you add in inflation, that $200 becomes $375 in 2006 dollars, and the $250 is roughly $468. How many units of the NES did Nintendo sell at that price, anyway?

        Yeah, and? Think of other electronics back in 1985. How much did 64k of RAM cost then? More than what you can find a gig for today. Game consoles have generally been the same price at launch - $200 to $300 - every generation. The Wii costs $250, and there was a 360 for $300 at launch. The PS3 is priced out of the market. Though, since Microsoft has actually managed to raise the price of the 360 since launch (they started with consoles at $300 and $400, then got rid of the Core so now the cheapest is

      • The original NES was $200 or $250 (depending on the bundle) in 1985. If you add in inflation...

        Stop there. Electronics aren't subject to inflation when comparing old models to new models, they get continually de-valued as time moves on. Hell a 286 cost over $2,000 at retail in the 80's not even "Adjusting for inflation..." what's the value now?

        The only thing adjusting for inflation gives you is "back then they saw the value of X product was worth Y to them." It does NOT serve as a gauge to tell you

        • Buying a 286 retail in the 80's still cost X dollars, that money had a purchase power separate from the object it purchased.

          The product depreciates over time, but the cost can still be measured in terms of relative value, subject to inflation. That comparative buying power is what is being measured. (usually described as "it would cost X 2007 dollars to buy Y." Yeah, buying an NES for that amount of money now would be ridiculous, but you CAN say "People spent X% of their paycheck to buy it". That X% wou

  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kelbear (870538) on Monday October 01 2007, @02:11PM (#20814369)
    I saw the demonstrations for Little Big Planet, and don't get me wrong, I would definitely like to get a crack at this game.

    But it's not the kind of play that I'd throw down 600 bucks for. It's a seriously cool casual play game, but I mean casual play as in playing it when I don't have anything else to do. That kind of appeal doesn't make people throw down big bucks in a huge payout. It works /great/ getting a lot of people to spend a small amount of money repeatedly, but it's not the sort of thing that clears the huge mental hurdle of 600 bucks.
    • I think we all know that by the time this game comes out, it won't be $600. Granted, it'll probably be $400 (especially if all these 40 GB PS3 October 12 rumors turn out to be true) which is still good hunk of change, but a lot of people have spent $400 on a console before. Also, while I don't really believe the console will last for 10 years, I think it might last more than the 5 year norm.
    • I don't see the logic in the "This game isn't worth spending $XXX" comments that are often associated with the PS3. No game is worth $600 - just like no game on the XBox 360 is worth $400.

      It's cumulative - some people will want to buy it because it offers a better A/V experience, some for Linux, some because it's a solidly built machine, some because of free online gaming, bluetooth, blu-ray, or maybe just for looks. But most people will buy it for a combination of these reasons.

      I don't understand how one

      • No, it's actually more likely that the general tenor of the console market is being accurately reflected by the comments in this thread. The PS3's market share is hurtin' for a variety of reasons, and it doesn't help that the "positive" comments you're speaking of are often trivial or, worse, contrived.

  • Can't Wait (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dracocat (554744) <dracocat@hotmail.com> on Monday October 01 2007, @02:21PM (#20814523)
    This game is obviously on my must have list of games to buy. Don't get me wrong, Heavenly Sword was great, but thats come and gone.

    What Sony really needs is more good games, not one blockbuster. My co-worker compares the PS3 to a sports car. Most of the time its sitting in the garage or somewhere collecting dust. Then every once in a while a fantastic game comes out and you get to take it out for a good drag-race.

    To sell more PS3s Sony needs more than a killer game once every six months.
    • The PS3 is a year behind the 360 and probably has exactly the same number of games in its life as the 360 did this time last year. It is certainly well over the drought that traditionally accompanies new consoles. There are something like 30 or 40 titles being release in the US before the year end.
      • So true. My wife and I still play Wii Sports for at least 30 minutes a day (usually Tennis, too). Lots of fun and decent exercise considering how much we plow into each other in the living room...

        Had a PS3 for about 2 days. Boxed it up and gave it to a friend's teenage kids -- the games were just not enticing for us (30-somethings). We buy a new Wii game at least once a month (not huge spenders) and all our games get fairly equal time if you remove Wii Sports from the daily spin.

        The only reason we have
          • Cool. Er, where does the Wii come into this again and when do you find the time to play it?

            Funny you mention that, because the extra energy the Wii introduces into our entertainment (over just couch surfing to watch TV) has enhanced our sex life significantly. The weight loss also increases our mutual attraction towards one-another, something I think would be an advantage for the typical geek physique.
          • > where does the Wii come into this again

            If you need us to draw a diagram, I'm sure there's plenty of pictures on the internet that will suffice.
  • Final Fantasy 13 will be the next PS3 console mover. However, this will only happen IF the PS3 breaches the $199/console barrier.

    Why do I choose that barrier? $249 and $199 seem to have been historically numbers to shoot for in the console market. The $249 barrier seems to be the barrier at which the console is perceived as accessible, and is purchased mostly by people with disposable income (usually, singles, married couples, college students, and some households with children.) The $199 barrier seems to b
    • There are problems with your numbers, most relating to the fact that they're old. At least 5-10 years old in most cases. Inflation has resulted in the $200 Nintendo 64 of 1996 being much more comparable to the $300 XBOX 360 of 2006. Add into that the recent huge losses of the US dollar against most international currencies and it adds up to Americans better get used to paying more for things.

      Who to Blame? Alan Greenspan. His policy of Fed Lending to get out of recessions has left the dollar hugely

      • Who to Blame? Alan Greenspan. His policy of Fed Lending to get out of recessions has left the dollar hugely weaker than it was 15 years ago. He did at least as much damage as Richard Nixon's destruction of the gold standard.

        There is a huge fallacy in that statement. The Gold standard had so many drawbacks that it's hardly "damaging" to move to another system. Tying your currency to a commodity is foolish. The price of gold is artificial as it isn't useful for much and is precious only because it's precious.
        • You really need to research Bretton Woods. Also the argument that "Good isn't useful for much and is precious only because its precious" is just insane. The first part is dead wrong. Gold has myriad industrial uses. As for the second, its even more true of money, and I really fail to see how that's a criticism of the idea. Also, you're attacking a completely tangential part of my point, which is that (completely aside from the relative merits of gold back vs. fiat currency) the Fed is guilty of grossly

          • What qualifies as "prolonged periods of very high inflation"? Post the 1970's stagflation, I don't believe I can recall "prolonged periods of very high inflation", unless you can inflation being between 4-5% as "very high".

          • What time span are you referring to? Since the abolishment of the gold standard or the last 8 years? the last 8 years I agree.

            The gold standard is dead And there isn't a compelling reason to revive it.
            • The last 8 years. Admitted, the Gold Standard is dead, but the US Dollar is anything but stable, and the Fed solution to recent economic woes (More Loans! Lower Rates!) is unlikely to do anything to change that.
              • A stable dollar isn't necessarily a sigh of economic health. The current admin has made a whole slew of bad financial choices. It's going to take some time to turn that around. Hopefully the next be financially responsible. Demo or repub I think it's independent of party.

      • Why on earth would you believe that suddenly, and without any historical precedent to the contrary, people automatically expect video game consoles to become more affordable (as a percentage of household income) over time?
        Because consoles have had similar prices each generation despite inflation. The NES was $200 at launch. The SNES was $200 at launch. The N64 and the Gamecube were $200, and the Wii was $250. The Xbox was $300 at launch, the 360 was $300 and $400. The PS1 was $300, the PS2 was $300, and the PS3 was $500 and $600 at launch. Do you see a bit of a difference? Every major console ever released has been $200 or $300, and the PS3 is twice that. Why on earth would you believe that a console could be priced high above what consoles have been priced before, even current gen consoles, and people would be fine with that?

        And, I feel you are discounting the importance of the blu-ray player. Sony rightly believes that compared to past consoles, theirs offers more value. Surely, having a blu-ray player must be worth something.
        Not enough. Few people have HDTVs, without which the blu-ray is pointless, and even people with HDTV are waiting and seeing which format wins before they plunk down hundreds of dollars for a new player. This isn't like PS2 with DVD at all. DVDs didn't have any competition for the most part, everyone was onboard with the evolution from VHS to DVD just like they had with cassettes to CD. DVDs also had plenty of features over VHS, in addition to graphical pluses they also killed the tedium of fast forwarding and rewinding, and they introduced "special features" that couldn't fit on VHS. Blu-ray offers graphical improvements over DVD only if you have an HDTV, and while it offers more special features we reached the limit on how many special features people care about back on DVD. People will watch a few deleted scenes, maybe a commentary, but beyond that most don't care. High definition video just doesn't have that big of a market yet, especially not until a winner is chosen between HD-DVD and BD, and Sony has been foolish to throw away this gaming generation for it.

        • Not enough. Few people have HDTVs, without which the blu-ray is pointless, and even people with HDTV are waiting and seeing which format wins before they plunk down hundreds of dollars for a new player.

          Perhaps not entirely on topic but relevant none-the-less, I found myself with a PS3 after some certain temptations (and a cheaper price from being open-boxed) and naturally, had to give Blu-Ray a try.

          I wasn't expecting much from the visuals really, simply because I lack a full HDTV (I have a 1024x768 res. p

  • It's not news and it's not even original, in the slightest bit. When Sony first showed LBP, many of the commentators said pretty much the same thing. Yada, yada, yada, shows the potential of the PS3, yada, yada, may be a reason to get a PS3, yada, yada, just about anything now is good news for Sony compared to how bad things are, yada, yada...

    Quick, someone post a cost comparison showing how the PS3 is actually cheaper then a 360 and inline with the Wii, cause that will change the fact that Sony is losi
  • Price cut, 100 bucks across the board, and bundle LittleBigPlanet for free.
  • but it won't make me buy a console for just that.
  • It seems to be more gimmicky than innovative, to me. How many people are going to spend hours and hours building cardboard cutout tanks? -yawn-

    Don't get me wrong, I think the game will be neat, and I look forward to the adventure, especially with a friend (it had BETTER have net play, damnit) and I've pre-ordered it... But it's not the 'killer app' of the PS3 by any means.
    • Sure. If the Wii is a gimmick, then it's a gimmick on the level of a pet rock. Pet rock sold millions in it's day, just like the Wii is selling millions now. Worldwide, Wii has outsold both PS3 and the 360. So, even if it is a fad or a gimmick, it's done it's job. Made Nintendo millions of dollars and given them back a dominating market share to play with.
    • If the 360 is so much better, why isn't it winning?
Search
RAM wasn't built in a day.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.