Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Entertainment Games

MS Touts Time Advantage Over PS3 Launch 73

Posted by Zonk from the fud-for-lunch dept.
Gamasutra is reporting on Microsoft's loud exclamations on the advantage their November launch will afford them, compared to the expected 2006 launch of the PS3. In fact: "UK Xbox boss Neil Thompson has boasted that Microsoft expects to have a even more significant lead on the PlayStation 3 than previously supposed, suggesting that, in his opinion, the PlayStation 3 might launch in Europe as late as spring 2007 ..." More on this FUD from Next Generation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Touts Time Advantage Over PS3 Launch More

MS Touts Time Advantage Over PS3 Launch

Comments Filter:

  • Don't Forget ... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ... that, unlike the XBox 360, the PS3 may launch with games I would want to buy

    • Re:Don't Forget ... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
      The word here is "may". A year ago it seemed like the X360 may launch with interesting titles, too. That usually gets resolved as launch draws closer.

  • Console competition (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MBraynard ( 653724 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @03:19PM (#13811735) Journal
    The Xbox 360 isn't going to compete with the PS3 when it is released - there isn't much point in discussing them head to head for market performance purposes.

    The Xbox 360 will be competing with the PS2, however. And is anyone predicting that there will be more Xbox 360 games sold in than PS2 games sold in the time before the release of the PS3? Or at least in the time before the end of the 05 holiday shopping season?

    Perhaps the sales of games will tilt a little more in favor of the Xbox brands and the PS2 sales > xbox 360 + xbox sales won't be as overwhelming as the PS2 sales > xbox sales were in the earlier days.

    Rather than focusing on trashing a yet to be released console, I hope MS realizes that on their release day, their nemesis is still the PS2.

    • That's a very good point you know.

      However, I'm sure they know that already. Their game is to bash as much as they can on the PS3 because THAT will be their real challenge. You can bet your hand that Sony would do the exact same thing if they had that kind of advantage. It's all about convincing the mass that by buying their product they will have access right here, right now to the 3rd (or 4th ?? whatever) generation of consoles.

      They're both releasing xbox 360 early to kill the PS2, that is, what killed the
  • If Sony released the PS3 on the 31st of October?

    I know it's almost certainly not going to happen, but we can dream.

    Also, why is it FUD if it's MS, and rumours if it's anyone else?
    • I thought the same thing, or if sony just went and said "hey, stop down to EB/Best Buy/Wherever and pick up a ps3 today" the day before the 360 hits. THAT would be the funniest thing ever. Not that I wish microsoft any harm (well, maybe a little, but I do love my xbox), but that would just have my laughing for hours.

      After 6 months of High wind in their sails, to have it knocked down, god that would be hilarious

    • Re:Wouldn't it be hilarious (Score:4, Insightful)

      by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Monday October 17, 2005 @09:27PM (#13813891)
      Also, why is it FUD if it's MS, and rumours if it's anyone else?

      It's FUD to say the PS3 won't be shipping in Europe until 2007 when Sony has said no such thing and MS clearly has a financial agenda for spreading such nonsense.

      Rumors are spread by people with either a) no vested interest, or b) an unconfirmed (or uncomfirmable) vested interest. You could call this a rumor if you didn't know the source, or if the source was independent, e.g. neither MS nor Sony (nor Nintendo).

      Coming from the company with a console going head to head with the PS3, it is FUD to spread unsubstantiated rumors that make the competing system look as bad as possible.

      You may as well say it's a "rumor" that there's SCO code in Linux. That's not a rumor, that's FUD coming from SCO. It's an unsubstantiated factoid designed for no other reason than to drive people away from a competing product and towards yours. That's the definition of what FUD is, and this is the same thing.

  • First-release advantage? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @03:43PM (#13811932)
    One word: Sega
    • Same answer in more words: It's the games that win, not the launch date. If they deliver the better lineup, they'll win. End of story.
      • Price is a factor for many of us, as well. I want an X-Box but still haven't bought one. $150 for a brand new console when its successor will be out before year's end? A GameCube costs $100 with a Super Smash Bros. pack-in.
      • Even more words: Sony fucked Sega by paying retailers to pull Saturn advertising and shelf-space. Then with the Dreamcast, Sony promised the stars with the PS2 and hyped it so much that people held off on buying Sega's machine. It wasn't until release that people found out DOA 2 looked as good or better on the DC because of the better textures and reduced jaggies.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • You think users care about petty crap? It would be a tough sell to even convince me they care much about the difference between the graphics on a Dreamcast and on an Xbox. Sony didn't win against Sega because of silly retail games. They won because the developers wrote for PS2, and because the developers wrote for Playstation. Even if your crackpot conspiracy theory is true, it doesn't matter. Those things you are describing aren't what get gamers to break out their wallets.

          You say it yourself. They held of
          • Good lord, what the fuck is wrong with you? Why are you jumping to conclusions so easily? I didn't waste my $200 because there were still many great games for the DC that I fully enjoyed.

            Do you really think I just made stuff up to "hear" myself talk on the internet or pick an argument with you?

            I never said that the games weren't the most important deficit. I just felt a few lesser known facts needed to be pointed out. It's pretty obvious developers went to the PS2 in part because it was a safer bet, eve
            • Do you really think I just made stuff up to "hear" myself talk on the internet or pick an argument with you?

              Obviously, when you spew made up crap like "Sony fucked Sega by paying retailers to pull Saturn advertising and shelf-space." And "it's hard to compete when others are willing to spend whatever it takes no matter how high the losses."

              When you say stuff like that; stuff that's proveably untrue, you come off as a fanboy who is only capable of sharing a biased opinion. Especially when it's just because y
              • You say it yourself that companies buy shelf space in larger department stores, and you say that Sega was financially vulnerable. It would seem then not unreasonable to think Sony could pay for K-Mart to stock more Playstation stuff at the expense of the weakly-selling Saturn products. Although you say that isn't how it's done.

                Frankly I'm having trouble finding a source online to back up my recollections. But you say it's provably untrue. How can you prove this negative?

                Now I didn't say this earlier, bu
            • I'd like to add one more thing.

              If paying retailers for shelf space, and spending whatever it takes dispite losses had any signifigant effect on the outcome of the market share race for any particular console generation, Microsoft would be king of the hill ten times over with the Xbox. I mean, have you been to an EBGames store lately? Plus they've lost enough cash on the thing to put most Fortune 500 companies out of business.

              You can't buy a win in a console race. The reason is that when it comes down to it,
      • The Dreamcast had a much better lineup over the first ~2 years than the PS2 did, but that didn't stop the FUD from Sony killing the little white box that could(n't).

    • No more Sega comparisons. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by superultra ( 670002 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @12:19AM (#13814651) Homepage
      Come on guys. Every Xbox360 slashpost for the last three months ends up with some highly moderated post about how the Xbox360=Dreamcast. If it's gotten to the point where you're using one word and getting modded up X points, it's too far. There are other, far more intelligent reasons why a first release does not equal an advantage, but a comparison to Sega is not one of them. Sega is nothing like Microsoft, and the Dreamcast is completely different than the Xbox360.

      Microsoft could not be more different than Sega in this situation. Sega was already running out of cash. Its arcade incomes had dropped next to nothing. More than that, Sega had lost its single major technology partner - Microsoft - just before launch, because Microsoft had suddenly decided to start dev on its own console. Sega lost its president just before the Dreamcast launch. It postponed the launch date an entire month after a solid promise of September 23. Sega was banking on the Dreamcast, but Microsoft will not go under if no one buys an Xbox360. Sega nearly did when few bought the Dreamcast.

      With regards to the hardware, there are now declining returns on hardware performance. Three years of R&D does not look like three years of graphical and gameplay improvement to the mainstream. Nintendo has wisely realized this and correspondingly revamped the UI technology rather than the graphic tech. I haven't seen the PS3 in real action (few have), but I can't imagine it can do much more technically than the Xbox360, at least in terms of the difference between the Dreamcast and PS2. Sega pushed the online capabilities of the Dreamcast, but they were too far ahead of the game (this was when ISDN was fast). Now, with broadband penetration in most American middle class homes, Xbox Live 2 looks revolutionary.

      Finally - and unfortunately - Microsoft has realized that it really isn't even games that matter to a consoles success: it's culture. The Dreamcast's launch lineup was unarguably the best console launch ever, and hedgehog heads and tails above the medicore PS2 launch and Halo-driven Xbox launch. What it was missing was cultural penetration. But owning an Xbox, in America and Europe, is cool. Turn on MTV and watch Pimp My Ride. It's not PS2s people want in the backseats of their cars, it's Xboxen. You never saw anything like that with the Dreamcast. Sega thought it was all about the games, and it never was. The PS2 succedded because the PS1 was cool, and because it racked up massive cool points with GTA3.

      I could go on. Go research the Dreamcast launch and you'll see that not only is Sega/Dreamcast completely unlike Microsoft/Xbox360, but the market is a completely different animal now. But please, stop with the Sega comparisons. They're dumb.
      • The status of the parent company isn't the issue. It's the timing and positioning of the product and the reasoning behind it that are uncannily similar to the DC. MS have been pretty frank that their strategy is to push the machine hard while it's not possible to make a like for like comparison between games running on the X360 and the PS3.

        "Microsoft has realized that it really isn't even games that matter to a consoles success: it's culture."

        If you genuinely think that a console can make headway without st
        • Well, the poster said, "Sega" not "Dreamcast." And once again, you said that the two are uncannily similar to the DC without specifically mentioning why. The only one I see is that they are both a year ahead of the PS2, but the same could be said of the PS2 to the Xbox.

          I might be insane, but if you think it's all about the games you're niave.

          Think back to the PS2 launch. It blew. Seriously. I am not a fanboy. I love all games, regardless of their platform. But when I was an assistant manager at EB dur
      • OK, so we can come up with a bunch of reasons why the Dreamcast failed, but Sega's first-release flops also include the Saturn, and while the Genesis got a huge head-start on the 16-bit market, the SNES still ended up becoming the dominant system for that generation.

        I'm not saying, "The 360 is doomed to failure because it's coming out first and the Dreamcast came out first and it failed so it's all, like, obvious, you know?" I'm saying I'm sick of everyone talking about this mythical first-to-market advant
  • Well, if you mean that the 360 has a possibility of having a price drop, then, yes, they may have a lead. If Halo 3 comes out before/around the PS3, then they may have a chance. But it sounds like Bungie won't be following Bill's schedule.

    Maybe they are talking about a whole new competition. Like whose product can aquire more dust on the boxes in the back room at Best Buy.

    I just hope Sony is using this time to find cheaper or more reliable parts so there isn't another dieing drive problem. I hope both co

  • FUD? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jarlsberg ( 643324 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @03:53PM (#13812007) Journal
    UK Xbox boss Neil Thompson has boasted that Microsoft expects to have a even more significant lead on the PlayStation 3 than previously supposed, suggesting that, in his opinion, the PlayStation 3 might launch in Europe as late as spring 2007 ..." More on this FUD from Next Generation.

    I know how Slashdot likes to spread their funny acronyms whenever they have a chance, but this is certainly not fear, nor uncertainty, and certainly not doubt. The PS3 is going to be equal to or slightly better than the Xbox 360 in performance, but it's going to be launched at least a year after the new Xbox. That's pretty much a fact. It's definitely not going to be launched earlier than spring/summer in Japan, and then late summer/fall in the US. Given how Sony treats the European market, it's probably going to launch here about six to nine months later, so I don't think a 2007 release date is off the wall.

    • Sorry - all of your "facts" are speculation. You don't know when the PS3 will be released, either here or in Japan. Sony hasn't announced that. "Pretty much fact"? What does that mean? Either it is a fact or it isn't. Since Sony hasn't said, it isn't.

      Making bold pronouncements about how well the Xbox 360 is going to do because the PS3 "might launch in Europe as late as Spring 2007" is FUD, pure and simple. Spread fear among buyers that if they don't buy a 360, they won't have any new console for more
      • "Pretty much fact"? What does that mean? Either it is a fact or it isn't. Since Sony hasn't said, it isn't.

        "Hey, I heard you're pregnant. Is it true?"

        "Pretty much"

        hahaha.
      • Making bold pronouncements about how well the Xbox 360 is going to do because the PS3 "might launch in Europe as late as Spring 2007" is FUD, pure and simple. Spread fear among buyers that if they don't buy a 360, they won't have any new console for more than a year. Spread uncertainty about the launch date of the PS3. Spread doubt that the PS3 will launch next year at all. That's crap and you know it. You're just trying to squeeze in the keywords and try to make them fit. If anyone is spreading uncertaint

  • Desperate And Misguided PR (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The only people who care about the 360 are the hardcore Sega "Sony killed my Dreamcast with Hype" and Microsoft is "always the winner" crowds.

    No Sony PS2 owner has ever expressed any interest in the 360. If such a PS2 owner exists, I'd love to see proof of it.

    No Nintendo GameCube owner has ever expressed any interest in the 360. If such a GameCube owner exists, I'd love to see proof of it.

    PS2 owners are talking about getting a Revolution as a second system.

    GameCube owners are talking about wanting a PS3.

    PC
    • There are people that buy all consoles. They would count as PS2 and Gamecube owners that will buy an X360 at launch.

      I'd say you're trolling.
    • Raises hand.

      Former PS2 owner who going to be buying the 360 at launch. The biggest draw for me to the 360 is the online. MS has put together a solid online system that neither Sony or Nintendo can even come close to at this point.

      There are many games that I am looking forward to for the system, many of which will use the online connectivity for more than just multiplayer aspects.

      Also the media centre extender capabilities are a plus on top of that as well as I'm planning to set up a media server PC to host
      • The biggest draw for me to the 360 is the online. MS has put together a solid online system that neither Sony or Nintendo can even come close to at this point.

        Give Microsoft reputation for producing less than par network application how long do you think it's going to be before you XBox 360 is owned? I doubt that their DRM + trusted architecture is going to be bullet proof enough to prevent hackers running code.
        • What does that have to do with what I was talking about? I was talking about their having good services in xbox live i.e. voice/vid chat, matchmaking, etc. I wasn't talking about security or hacking the thing.
          • Saying that the biggest draw is Online content and then saying that you choose Microsoft is like saying that the biggest thing in your life is peace and then voting for Bush.
            • Okay....then explain to me what is better about Sony or Nintendo's online systems.

              But way to go bashing MS just because it's MS rather than actually making a valid point. Linux Zealots FTW.
    • I own a PS2 and a GameCube, and I'm interested in the 360, but I probably won't buy one due to its price. I'll pick up a regular X-Box when they drop in price after the 360 release though.
      • Assuming they do price-drop. It occurs to me that part of the advantage of having such an insanely priced 360 is that they won't have to price-drop the XBox. If they want to encourage adoption of the 360, rather than people paying less for the Xbox and ignoring the 360, it would make sense.

        Of course, after all the time it's been out, the xbox STILL doesn't fit my "5 must-have titles" requirement for buying a console (3 for handhelds)
        • I'm sitting comfortably at four games (but three of them are largely the same game).

          - Fable
          - Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
          - Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II
          - Jade Empire

          I'm probably also buy multi-platform stuff for X-Box since it seems to be faster and a bit nicer looking if they were the same price as the PS2 or Cube version.
          • Fable has an enhanced port and KOTOR 1&2 have versions for the PC. Personally I prefer the PC over any console as the mouse+keyboard combination allows for much better control in many games (for the rest I got a gamepad) and the picture is better.
            • I prefer to game on a console. They're more cost efficient, I can sit on the couch while I play, the game works every time (no config stuff), and I don't have to continuously upgrade my computer (my computer is working on 4 years old).
    • I'd appreciate you not lumping the DC fans in with the X-Box owners. The GameCube is largely the benefactor of the Dreamcast game library (and therefore its fanbase), not the X-Box. The Cube is where the former DC owners (including myself) tend to get their current fixes for all things Sega. Even the post-DC projects like Monkey Ball came to the Cube first. I consider myself pretty hardcore Saturn and DC. The X-Box has never been on my radar. The Cube gives me the best Sega has to offer and I still ge

  • What MS has... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by oGMo ( 379 )

    So, let's see where Microsoft is at:

    • They're releasing their second console.
    • They've got a technologically inferior console that's the sequel to a console whose only redeeming feature was technological superiority.
    • They're releasing a console without any significant original titles, and the only significantly-planned title is ... Halo 3.
    • They're trying to get this out the door early.

    So in essence, they're delivering a time-crunched crappy box that doesn't run anything... even existing XBOX games. Even

    • the only significantly-planned title is ... Halo 3.

      What about Perfect Dark Zero and Fable 2? The latter isn't officially announced, but it's almost a sure thing.

    • Re:What MS has... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Keeper ( 56691 )
      They've got a technologically inferior console that's the sequel to a console whose only redeeming feature was technological superiority.

      The inferiority/superiority of the consoles isn't something anyone can decide on until both are out and you see what both are capable. Comparing paper specs of an unreleased console to something that is actually real is like mag-racing cars. It's lame, unproductive, and everyone has their own special 'source' which proves the other guy wrong.

      They're releasing a console

      • Re:What MS has... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by KillShill ( 877105 )
        even on paper, the 360 specs are equal or greater than the ps3's.

        anyone with a decent understanding of the technology involved can see that.

        simply having a faster cpu, as in the case of the "6.4GIGAfLops Emotion Engine" that was in the ps2... doesn't make it remotely more powerful if the competing solution has a much better graphics subsystem as was the case with the xbox.

        the new cell boasts "2 trillion FLOPS...etc)... let's see what the real world performance is like... if anyone has a copy of the xbox lau
      • ... and its graphics quality/detail is simply amazing.

        This isn't a dig on you, but yeah, that's exactly what I want: a graphical masterpiece. I'd be especially pumped if it was a sequel to ET for the 2600. Unfortunately, graphics sell (and thankfully we have the justifiable term "nerd porn").
        • No matter what anyone says, graphics and sound are always important qualities in a game. This doesn't mean that they're the only qualities that matter, just that they matter.

          To spin this on the side a bit: take the voice acting and plot from the last pixar flick and replace the animation with stick figure slides. Would you consider that to be just as good as the real movie? The plot and substance are the same, right? Of course you wouldn't want to see it -- you aren't going to plop down 10 bones to wat
          • Oh, I definitely agree that graphics & sound are important in a game. I just think that the importance MS is putting on them is not a good idea. For one thing, you get slick-looking games that are either crappy (first-gen PS2 games come to mind) or pretty-much-rehashed with more shinies added (Halo [2]).

            I dunno if animated movies are really a good comparison to games. Pixar (and old-school Disney) is good at creating the illusion of reality, or at least realistic...something or other (i'm tired :P).
            • MS is touting their improvements in this area because as a console manufacturer, it is the only thing they can tout. Everything else is up to the game developers. The small handful of 1st party launch titles Microsoft is putting out all look very good titles.

              I think a comparison to movies is a fair one for the point I was trying to make. I don't think the analogy holds up much beyond that though. The point I'm trying to make is that while graphics don't make a good story/game, they do make it better --
      • I don't know what to think of it myself but according to Marshall Brain and howstuffworks.com [howstuffworks.com] the Revolution will be about as powerful as the XBox360, but it will also have a PPU in it. That's pretty cool if true.

  • Dirty Tricks (Score:4, Insightful)

    by malsdavis ( 542216 ) * on Monday October 17, 2005 @06:35PM (#13813073)
    It seems very malicious of Neil Thompson to suggest the PS3 will have such an extremely late launch date. Does he have a reliable source backing up this claim?

    I suspect he is trying to use the age old Microsoft-perfected tactic of instilling doubt about their competitor's product. Trying to say to people, the PS3 is years off (even though offically it is less than a year away) ...so buy our product which you don't really want in the meantime.

    Oh well, Microsoft using dirty tricks is nothing new I guess.

    • >>Does he have a reliable source backing up this claim?

      How about every thing Sony has ever launched?

      I think using an organizations overwhelming history can be considered somewhat 'reliable'.

      For those with a short term memory, go back and read the PS2 launch promises and compare to what actually happened.
    • Slander/Libel? Unfortunately, it probably couldn't be proved (that he knew he was lying), but the UK does have pretty aggressive laws in these areas.

  • FUD? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @02:53PM (#13820030) Journal
    So, people want to start this DC and 360 comparison again...let me tell all of you who never picked up a DC and have never seen one, it was and is better than a PS2. It was the only online console at the time. Games were often made on both systems, and often ran faster and looked better on the DC. The DC had all the advantages in place that the 360 had, the difference is that Sony did something Sega didn't expect...they dished out the FUD. Go back and do some checking and you will find that Sony's FUD compain against Sega was as bad as this one everyone is claiming M$ is up to now.

    The fact is we have two huge companies going head to head over a console. This is honestly something that has never really happened. Sony has TONS of money and check out the numbers folks, their worth is more the M$. Sega and Nintendo never could have hoped to make the money these two companies make because they are specialized into a single market of consoles. Sony has their hands in everything from home electronics to DVDs and computers. There is a lot more money for M$ and Sony to duke it out with.

    So we will see two new consoles going head-to-head at the same time, relatively. There will not be the 1 year gap like the last time, 1999 for DC, 2000 for PS2 and 2001 for Xbox. If PS3 is out in Spring 06, we will see to competitive consoles with close launch dates duking it out for supremacy and then we'll see if Sony starts up their own FUD.

Slashdot Top Deals

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Close