Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sony Entertainment Games

Prognosticating Sony's Downfall 175

Posted by Zonk from the monday-afternoon-speculation dept.
Via Evil Avatar, an article on About.com theorizing Sony's defeat at the hands of Nintendo and Microsoft. An interesting piece of speculation. From the article: "Sony introduces the PS3, sporting far more powerful hardware than either alternative system, limited online system support, and a fairly solid launch line-up. Nintendo introduces the Revolution. At the same time that the Revolution and PS3 hit the store shelves, Microsoft reduces the price of the Xbox 360 and releases Halo 3. Halo 3, combined with the price reduction, effectively undercuts the momentum of the PS3 launch. Customers have to decide between the 360 with Halo 3, the PS3 with a potentially high price tag, and the Revolution, priced near current generation game consoles."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Prognosticating Sony's Downfall More

Prognosticating Sony's Downfall

Comments Filter:

  • Good news. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14, 2005 @04:56PM (#14029726)
    I can't wait until those computer-destroying sons-of-bitches Sony go down in flames and honest consumer-friendly companies like Nintendo and Microsoft take over.
    • I typed Microsoft + Consumer Friendly into my thesaurus and it gave me Oxymoron.

    • Re:Good news. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by G-funk ( 22712 )
      Microsoft, sure (but I'd still rate them less evil than Sony). But what's evil about the big N? Besides the whole virtual boy thing.
      • They were jerks during the NES era. Everyone wanted to put out cheap and cheesy games, but Nintendo didn't let them. You had to buy your cartridges from them and pay license fees, etc.

        • Re:Good news. (Score:2, Insightful)

          by dq5 studios ( 682179 )
          Yes, they wanted to stop another atari 2600 from happening. So evil of them.
      • Massive censorship of games to make them more "kiddie-friendly". Absurdly high licensing fees. Reusing the same goddamn "Mario Bros" character set, visuals and music over and over again since the early nineties. Need I go on?
        • What the hell is evil about that? People like mario. And they used to censor games. It cost them millions upon millions of dollars when MKI came out, 10 years ago. They learned their lesson and everybody outside of the US is over it. Licensing fees are hardly exorbitant in the face of sony/microsoft, and that's the only way people can get $400 of hardware for $200.

    • Re:Good news. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Elite Xizer ( 915457 )
      Nintendo...not consumer friendly? Bullshit. I had my Nintendo DS repaired last week completely free. I scratched the touch screen, Nintendo paid for shipping there and back, and they even replaced the touch screen. It was shipped there, fixed, and mailed back. The total time for all this? 6 days. Now, you think Sony would do this for you? I believe they have a policy that they won't accept a PSP for a free repair unless it has 14 dead pixels - all close together. Nintendo will replace a DS if it has only o

  • We Have More Options That Just Those Decisions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BigDork1001 ( 683341 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @04:58PM (#14029747) Homepage
    Customers have to decide between the 360 with Halo 3, the PS3 with a potentially high price tag, and the Revolution, priced near current generation game consoles."

    No, no, no no, no no. Customers don't have to decide between the three. They can choose more than one. I own all three (actually four, Dreamcast too) of this generations systems. Eventually I will own all three of the next gens too. There is no law that says I can only get one and I won't.

    Not to mention that these predictions have little to no value. They are just predictions. People have predicted that Microsoft will flop. People predict that Nintendo will go the way of Sega. People have predicted that the world will end. It's just someone's opinion and while there's a chance it'll happen, whatever, there's a chance it won't too. We'll just have to wait and see.

    • Don't forget that Halo 3 will not be able to counter the PS3's launch (as the author seems to think it still will). It's been delayed. Good thing too, because even if you downplay Bungie's continued work on H:2 it still wouldn't have had the slightest chance of being good otherwise. A little more than a year is simply not enough time to make a good sequel.
    • No, no, no no, no no. Customers don't have to decide between the three. They can choose more than one. I own all three (actually four, Dreamcast too) of this generations systems. Eventually I will own all three of the next gens too. There is no law that says I can only get one and I won't.
      You are every company's wet dream. Unfortunately, people like you are in the minority, and cannot support an entire industry for very long.

      The average family has a lot of financial stress. Even affording one next-gen system would be tough. In the end, it might be a choice of the Revolution that you can afford, or the PS2 that you will have to save up for in time for next year's Christmas. As for me, I will likely pick up a Revolution after the first round of price cuts (probably a year after release). I do not see a 260 or PS3 in my future.

      • Unfortunately, people like you are in the minority, and cannot support an entire industry for very long.

        Maybe, but the "videogame generation" who grew up on the NES is now in their 20s and 30s, probably don't have a family to support, and are willing to buy 2-3 consoles. We have money, and we are the gamers.

        As for me, I will likely pick up a Revolution after the first round of price cuts (probably a year after release). I do not see a 260 or PS3 in my future.

        You are not the sort who supports

        • Maybe, but the "videogame generation" who grew up on the NES is now in their 20s and 30s, probably don't have a family to support, and are willing to buy 2-3 consoles. We have money, and we are the gamers.

          Huh? What planet are you from? People in their 20's are generally starting a family. People in their 30's are mostly firmly entrenched in doing the "family" thing. I am a part of the Nintendo generation. My first console was an Odyssey 2 (look it up).

          If you look at the demographics, I think that you

      • You are every company's wet dream. Unfortunately, people like you are in the minority, and cannot support an entire industry for very long.

        About 40% of the gamers I know have multiple consoles.

        The average family has a lot of financial stress. Even affording one next-gen system would be tough.

        If your bottom line was profit, what interest would you have in financially stressed families?

        As for me, I will likely pick up a Revolution after the first round of price cuts (probably a year after release). I do not s
      • Not many can afford to buy all three systems at launch, all at once. But I don't know many people with kids that don't have at least the PS2 & X-Box (or Gamecube and PS2 for the younger crowd). They bought them separately, usually not at launch when they're overpriced. "$100" really isn't that much money, it's really the games that get costly (hence rentals, and buy/sell stores). Once the NRE is paid for, buying a game for the XBox is not different than the Playstation. Within a year you'll be able to b
    • I think they're talking about the majority of customers, not the very small but vocal minority who would buy more than one console. At 300-400 a time, most people will buy only one.

  • And Then (Score:2, Funny)

    by ViperG ( 673659 )
    Don't forgot about sony's DRM stuff. Nobody wants a rootkit included in their PS3.

    if (Halo.3 > DRM.rootkit)
            DONT_BUY_PS3

    • Re:And Then (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Xugumad ( 39311 )
      This is a point I've been trying to make, actually. Until Sony actually realise that backstabbing the people who actually buy their products (I don't mean reluctantly taking them off the shelves while muttering about it not really being a big deal, I mean actually understanding this is a bad idea) I cannot trust their products. CDs are the first thing we've noticed with DRM in, but I wouldn't touch a DVD they've produced, right at the moment.

      And frankly, I'm not willing to trust that the PS3 won't try hacki

  • Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fodi ( 452415 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:03PM (#14029783)
    What a perfect time to spread some FUD about Sony. Perfect timing, since the whole tech-world hates them at the moment. Not that I'm discounting the articles opinions, it's just funny that the DRM debacle has helped bring this article out...
    • ...theorizing Sony's defeat at the hands of Sony.

      If they were still innovating like they did back in the days of the VCR and the Walkman then they wouldn't be needing to treat customers like criminals in order to screw money out of them. Until Sony gets rid of its IP-based divisions it's only got a long spiral into self-destruction to look forward to.

      • If they were still innovating like they did back in the days of the VCR and the Walkman

        Yes, Sony introduced the Walkman to the world, but if you'll remember correctly they were the losing party in the VCR/BetaMax war. I guess you could claim that they were innovative with the Beta, but it doesn't appear to have gotten them anywhere.
        • One reason that they lost (IIRC) is that they locked down the format. Anybody could make a VHS box. Beta was Sony's ball, and they weren't letting others play. So the ball game was won by the only ball that people could play with.

          Of course, this is all from my memory, which could be wrong. Take anything in the internet with a block of salt.

      • Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by blincoln ( 592401 )
        If they were still innovating like they did back in the days of the VCR and the Walkman then they wouldn't be needing to treat customers like criminals in order to screw money out of them.

        Microsoft is certainly no better. I wouldn't be surprised if they're astroturfing some of the anti-Sony sentiment in the hopes of making people forget about "Trusted" Computing, DRM, et cetera.

        Nintendo are the ones who invented unlicensed third-party lockout chips for home consoles, censored tons of games, and fixed retail
        • Nobody's as hardcore about DRM as Sony, at least out of the three companies mentioned. I'm not even sure other music/movie companies are as enthusiastic about it as Sony. I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't like DRM, but they also have a strong interest in not crippling Windows. They want to sell a platform to use media, so they have plenty of incentive to let users do as much with media files as they media companies will let them get away with. They're far from perfect, but they're better than Sony.

          • Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Informative)

            by blincoln ( 592401 )
            Would you be willing to elaborate more on your line of thinking?

            When I think of MS, I think:

            - First company to require online/phone activation of a mainstream product (Windows XP).
            - Inventor of Windows Media, the format that made useless an entire library of "free*" (as in "*some restrictions apply") music I'd downloaded when the authentication server was turned off.
            - First company to market a game console that depends on an online service for a good portion of its functionality.
            - First company (at least, t

            • Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

              by illumina+us ( 615188 )
              The biggest development company pushing for software subscriptions instead of purchases.
              Not sure if you mean biggest in size or biggest in push, if the latter be the case, perhaps you've never heard of Valve Software.
            • Yeah, they've created plenty of DRM technology, but they aren't trying to stop people from using more reasonable file formats. Have you ever tried putting any standard file format on any Sony device? You'll need a converter at the very least. Yes, they required online or phone activation, but I'd consider that far less offensive than Sony's rootkit shennanigans. As for Windows Media Player, I have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to free music being deactivated. I've never bothered with WMA
              • Yeah, they've created plenty of DRM technology, but they aren't trying to stop people from using more reasonable file formats.

                Of course they are. Palladium? Like I mentioned? That's what the "Trusted" platform is all about.

                Xbox Live is nothing but an added feature.

                It started out that way. Now if you don't have Live, games like Ninja Gaiden are crippled. Oblivion on the 360 is going to REQUIRE you to buy items in the Live Marketplace in order to get the full experience.

                This isn't an intrusive or crippled tec
            • Yeah...Microsoft also makes computer software that depends on an online service for a good portion of its functionality.
               (Which you said was a bad thing on the console) In fact, if you took away my internet connection, I wouldn't even use my computer at all.

              Do I blame Microsoft for that?

              If you downloaded 'free' music which required an authentication server...you made a bad choice. Or at least one that you should have known would end up causing problems in the future. My guess is that you signed up for a
              • Yeah... Microsoft also makes computer software that depends on an online service for a good portion of its functionality.

                Any modern desktop OS meets that criteria, because so many applications are internet-based.

                There is no good reason for Xbox owners to have to have Live in order to get the full version of games like Ninja Gaiden on the original and Oblivion on the 360.

                My guess is that you signed up for a free trial of one of the music services...then when the free trial expired, you didn't pony up the mon
        • Microsoft has never been innovative in its life. And while Nintendo have made some interesting stuff, they've been into DRM-esq tech since they were locking developers out of the NES platform.

          The difference with Sony is that it used to produce interesting hardware and defend fair use. Sony would be the one with the cool harddrive-based MP3 player if they hadn't fallen prey to this content control obsession. Even before the rootkit people were writing articles about Sony's self-destructive actions with th

  • Hit the History Books (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:05PM (#14029799) Journal
    History pop quiz: What video game company has managed to dominate three console generations (~5 years)?

    By my reckoning, nobody. (Atari: 2600 era. Nintendo: NES and to some degree SNES. Sony: PS1 & PS2.)

    If anyone's going to make it, it's Sony. (I mean that beyond the obvious historically-tautological aspects of the statement; they have a better chance IMHO because this is clearly a "more of the same" generation, which I think is a first, and that makes it easier to maintain momentum. I think the best way to understand the Revolution is as an attempt to disrupt the momentum by disrupting the "more of the same"-ness of this generation.) On the other hand, flaming people for questioning it is probably excessively fanboy-ish. I wouldn't commit to that exact scenario, personally, but scenarios where Sony is not #1 are quite plausible.
    • Speaking of the history of game consoles, Joystiq has an interesting article [joystiq.com] about the ~10 year dominance cycle of gaming consoles.
    • Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
      -Someone much smarter than myself

      What does this mean for the console wars? Sony was able to take the lead when the largest number of sheep started buy consoles. The drones and dregs only know the names Sony and Playstation. Need further proof? We game in sequel city. Seriously, how many versions of Madden can one person own?

      Nintendo will retain its niche and possibly carve a new one, Microsoft will throw more money into the hole and
    • "If anyone's going to make it, it's Sony."

      Yeahhhhh... You know something else that hasn't happened in the video game industry before? Somebody other than Nintendo topping the Game Boy. In light of the lackluster performance of the PSP, do you still believe Sony has the ability to pull a hat trick out of their rear end?

      Besides, the only reason this is a "more of the same" competition is because of the tactics of both Microsoft and Sony, looking for little else beyond keeping it "more of the same," a compet
      • I don't think Sony stands a good chance because they have such wonderfully superior products. I think Sony stands a good chance because they have the largest group of fanboys I've ever seen, many of which write in influential gaming publications.

        While a PS2 is actually the only current-gen console I own (unless you count the Dreamcast), it's because of the games, not the hardware; I think the hardware has some amazingly bad design decisions in it and is clearly the worst hardware of the current generation.
    • History pop quiz: What video game company has managed to dominate three console generations (~5 years)?

      By my reckoning, nobody. (Atari: 2600 era. Nintendo: NES and to some degree SNES. Sony: PS1 & PS2.)

      Yes, but there is one other pattern you should see with that list. Each time the previous generation's champion was displaced, it was by a company that was releasing their first console. I'm sure others can come up with other reasons why this is the case, but the first one that comes to my mind is

      • >sarcasm<The other variable is of course the Phantom -- if it comes out this generation, then it'll fit the new company coming to market, and will of course blow the other three away.&gt/sarcasm<

        Oops...I apologize for my poor syntax there...it should have been:
        <sarcasm>The other variable is of course the Phantom -- if it comes out this generation, then it'll fit the new company coming to market, and will of course blow the other three away.</sarcasm>

  • Insufficient (Score:5, Funny)

    by dbhankins ( 688931 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:06PM (#14029808)
    All this is not enough to ensure the PS3's failure. To make it complete, Sony needs to:

    - Reduce or eliminate backwards compatibility, like the Silver Slimline PS2 but more so
    - Implement nodelocking of game- and video-disks, using the technology they've recently secured a US patent on
    - Make game development as difficult as possible and as different from conventional architectures as possible to reduce the number of game companies willing to crossdevelop for or port to the new system

    Only then can they guarantee the PS3 will flop.
    • "Reduce or eliminate backwards compatibility, like the Silver Slimline PS2 but more so"

      You mean like not being able to take your old memory cards?
    • All this is not enough to ensure the PS3's failure. To make it complete, Sony needs to:

      ...allow Vadar to discover that Luke has a twin sister? Then, their failure is complete. If Luke will not turn to the Dark Side, then perhaps she will.

  • 10 pages? bleh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GoNINzo ( 32266 ) <(GoNINzo) (at) (yahoo.com)> on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:08PM (#14029824) Journal
    After 10 pages of extensive advertising, I see some problems, besides the about.com revenue stream.

    1. Needs a much stronger outline form. I'm not the best writer in the world but that is a rambling article.
    2. The handhelds are basically useless in this discussion, unless you talk about integration with the platforms. And I'm sure the market will accomidate whatever is popular.
    3. The market has already seemed to have pushed the revolution out of the running as the 'next console'. But as long as they continue to make money on the hardware and the software, I'm sure they will continue to sell. It just won't be the 'it' console, which is okay with Nintendo.
    4. It's not clear the market has the room for another console entry such as the ybox or ps3 or revolution, especialy if people keep making sequels for all the old generation machines.
    5. I don't believe online will make/break this generations release, still. However, the download part might seriously help some platforms.
    6. The consolidated control preferences and user details within the ybox series might seriously help them, as people are generally lazy. heh
    7. Halo 3 is not the 'killer app' it used to be. Halo 2 didn't sell more xboxes.
    8. The Revolution is not getting nearly the developer support that the PS3 or the ybox.
    9. The PS3 will have exclusive titles that people will be willing to buy one for. And they are promising on release now, but we'll see.
    10. I don't think the sony rootkit problem has much to do with their games division, really. And I doubt it will bankrupt them.
    11. Backwards compatibility is still questionable on all three systems. Xbox 360 has 200 some titles they've announced, but how well they work and the requirements for a hard drive make it somewhat questionable. The others are questionable entirely. I think this will influence buyers, as it did when the PS2 came out.
    12. The use of the multiple cores on the ybox and ps3 might be a total success on some software titles and a total bomb on others, it's an unknown and dependant upon the developers.
    13. The prices of the hardware are pies in the sky, it's what they'd like to get near. And it's not completely clear if microsoft can drop the price of hardware, though they have the deepest pockets to do so. They won't let it get dreamcasted. (*sob*)
    14. The launch of the ybox is not looking good currently, due to the restricted inventory and lack of revolutionary single platform games. However, microsoft will throw money to make it 'good', I'm sure.
    15. I'm not without bias, but damn, you could at least pretend for a bit.

    Anyway, I'm not convinced either way, it's still wait and see. With this subject matter, you'd be better off getting a random games.slashdot.org reader to come up with a comparison between the machines and the possible outcomes. Plus, you might not have to deal with 10 pages of ads.

    • Re:10 pages? bleh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BigDork1001 ( 683341 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:20PM (#14029895) Homepage
      I'm just going to hit on a couple of these. I don't necessarily disagree with your post on a whole. I'm just bored at work and looking for conversation.

      It just won't be the 'it' console, which is okay with Nintendo.
      I think it's okay with Nintendo fans too. Not the fanboys but the fans. I'm okay with Nintendo not being number one. As long as they are cranking out good games what do I care if PS3 is outselling them?

      Halo 3 is not the 'killer app' it used to be. Halo 2 didn't sell more xboxes.
      True but Halo 2 came out after X-box was in a lot of homes. People who loved Halo didn't have to buy a new X-box to enjoy Halo 2. In order to enjoy Halo 3 they have to buy a 360. Halo and Halo 3 have more in common than Halo 2 and Halo 3. Halo 3 will definitely sell 360s.

      The PS3 will have exclusive titles that people will be willing to buy one for. And they are promising on release now, but we'll see.
      Revolution will have exclusive titles that people will be willing to buy one for too. SMB Melee, Mario Kart, Zelda, Metroid, these are going to be exclusive and they're going to sell systems. I agree that PS3 will sell systems for the same reason though.

      The launch of the ybox is not looking good currently, due to the restricted inventory and lack of revolutionary single platform games. However, microsoft will throw money to make it 'good', I'm sure.
      Lord knows they have enough money.

      Anyway, I'm not convinced either way, it's still wait and see.
      100% with you on this. :)

      -BigD

      • I'm not 100% sure that Halo 3 will be good enough to sell xbox 360's, but who knows. Marketing may overcome this.

        I agree with you on the rest of these points. `8r)

        • A decently done Halo 3 coupled with a good pricecut will sell systems though and good marketing. If they can get Halo 3 out the door in 1 year from now, drop the price of the 360 to $199/$299 (core/premium or whatever they are calling it), they'll push some units for Christmas 2006. The other thing that they could move a ton of merchandise would be to launch Halo 3 in a pack that includes whatever you don't get in the premium kit for $100, and get all the people who bought the core system this year to shell
    • Halo 3 is not the 'killer app' it used to be. Halo 2 didn't sell more xboxes.

      As someone has already posted, this isn't a very good argument as most of the people who bought Halo 2 already had an XBox because of the original Halo. That's like saying GTA:SA didn't sell more PS2's...it probably didn't, but that's because most people already had a PS2 because of GTA or GTA:VC. You can't expect games that come out late in a generation's lifespan to be console movers. You better believe, however, that Halo3

  • Highly doubtful! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ssand ( 702570 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:15PM (#14029863)
    While online gaming is a large factor for the xbox, and is a nice feature, there are still quite a few gamers out there who don't go online with their consoles. Even though Sony won't have a fortifide online structure, that still does not mean that some games will have it. In addition to that, as an xbox owner I have never really seen any big titles for the Xbox. Sure there is Halo 3 for the 360 but At the rate Halo 2 was going, it won't be anything more than a good game. Many large titles that will be on the 360 like GTA or Burnout will be on the PS3 at the same time, if not before the 360.
    • In addition to that, as an xbox owner I have never really seen any big titles for the Xbox.

      Sure...because Halo: CE and Halo 2 weren't big titles for the xbox, nor was Fable, KOTOR, DOA3, etc.

      Sure there is Halo 3 for the 360 but At the rate Halo 2 was going, it won't be anything more than a good game.

      Halo 2 is the most popular game on the xbox, so I'd say that the rate that Halo 2 was going would bode well for Halo 3. Even if Halo 2 was a disappointment to some, that doesn't mean that the next game in

  • Revolution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CH0DE ( 927973 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:22PM (#14029917)
    As everyone is talking about the next gen consoles the revolution is rarely mentioned. Is it because Nintendo isn't aiming to be the "it" system? I really think that a lot of us who go back several generations of consoles have a quiet respect for Nintendo and what they've done for console gaming. Not to mention you can almost always guarantee that Nintendo will sacrifice flashy graphics, blood and gore to make fun games. IMO that is the biggest downfall of sony and M$. Lots of games lots of explosions but not tons o' fun.

    • Re:Revolution (Score:2, Insightful)

      by BigDork1001 ( 683341 )
      Sony and MS have spent a lot of money to hype up their products. Boasting impressive numbers that mean little to most people and making claims that might or might not be met. All the while Nintendo has kept quiet. I think their plan is to just let the product speak for itself. In the end I hope it works for them. It may or may not. But as long as there are quality games and they aren't losing money who cares if they are #1 or #6?

      • Re:Revolution (Score:3, Interesting)

        by HarvardAce ( 771954 )
        But as long as there are quality games and they aren't losing money who cares if they are #1 or #6?

        The shareholders will. If the difference is between being #3 (or #6 as you say) and making $10M in profit and being #1 and making $100M in profit, then you can be sure that the shareholders will care. Now, what is more likely the case is that Nintendo knows that in order to get close to #1 or #2 they would have to spend too much money in marketing. Therefore, the profit wouldn't be any greater (or perhaps

      • Somewhat off topic, but has anyone else seen the new ads for the xbox 360? I've seen two of them -- one with the jumprope and the other with the water balloons. I was amazed at the jump rope one, and the water balloon one really made me want to go have a water balloon war (except for the fact it's about 40 degrees out right now), but what does either really have to do with the xbox 360? I guess nothing, but since I'm talking about it here it must have done it's job...those darn marketing folks messing wi
    • I know I'm buying a revolution console on it's launch date. I'm really excited to see all the innovative uses that this controller will get. At first when I saw it I thought "WTF?", but it just seems genius to me now. As for the 360 and PS3 we'll see. Most likely I'll pick up the PS3, but the 360 I'm only going to get if a game blows me away. I think most games will end up being on both the 360 and PS3, but the PS3 will have the HD discs that can hold much more data, which could later hurt the 360 when game
    • I think that it is a foregone conclusion that N will "win" in this generation. Not "win" in the sense they will sell the most systems or have the most games, but rather that they will sell enough consoles, controllers, and games to make a tidy profit, and hence Nintendo will be around for the next generation. That's all it's really about, isn't it? Nintendo isn't going to care whether you buy just a Revolution, or a PS3 and a Rev, or a 360 and a Rev, or all damn three, so long as you buy the Revolution.

      The

  • Duplicate Article (Score:3, Funny)

    by esampson ( 223745 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:37PM (#14030034) Homepage
    http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/25/ 2034217&tid=10 [slashdot.org]

    This article was posted on Slashdot on October 25th talking about how the Microsoft's game console was going to be released and completely crush Sony's.

    I realize it's a different author but its pretty much the same talking points. Microsoft has endless supplies of money, it will be easier to program the XBox than the PS2, people will have to choose one or the other (since we all know that at night when everyone is asleep the two systems would fight to the death), blah, blah, blah.

    Do we really need to have such similar articles posted within the same 1,846 day span?

  • Not all of us are Holo fanboys (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nursie ( 632944 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:52PM (#14030140)
    You know that right? The last thing I want to do is play an FPS on a console. Just doesn't work for me. I like consoles for the more social games that are not done better by PC.

    I'm sure Halo sold well, but I' equally sure there are many more like me out there.

    Having said all that I'll be buying the 360 because it's out first. Later I'll likely get a PS3.
  • That way I can make stuff up and get ad revenue for it.

    This article would be great, but it's based on two longshot assumptions. First, that Microsoft will lower the price of the 360 any time in the next 18-24 months. They probably won't. They certainly wont if it's still selling well at the higher price. Second, that Halo 3 will be ready in time for the PS3 launch. It probably won't. The tenative release date is "Fall 2006" right now (Two seasons past the tenative PS3 release). That's before you factor in t
    • Just like every other console generation in history, the winner(s) will be system(s) with the best games

      So who won last round?
        • All three.

          If you consider surviving winning, then yes. IF you consider coming in with most units/games sold then it was the PS2.
          • Are you going back through all my old comments just to disagree with me or something? If so you've failed. You'll notice that I said the same exact thing in a followup to this comment.

            Having the most market share isn't a metric that anybody sane uses to measure success anyway. At least not since the dot-com boom ended. In the real world, success is typically measured in profit on a balance sheet and through survival on a resume. On the balance sheet, Sony and Nintendo both won, Sega lost, and Microsoft lost
      • I should be more specific than "All three.". since there were four. Sega lost. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony won.

        You could probably make an argument for Microsoft losing too, since they lost money on their product, but it was available and maintained demand through the entire generation so I'd say they 'won' just like the others.
      • I don't think any of the major three 'lost': Sony sold untold millions of consoles and games, Microsoft went from zero to major console player and Nintendo made a healthy profit (and learned some important lessons for the next round).
    • Third assumption; that the success of the PS3 will be determined at it's launch; certainly the impression I get is that the vast majority of console buyers won't be upgrading until a year or more into the next gen, when the price drops start coming through and there's a good number of games available.

  • PS3 = far more powerful hardware than 360? (Score:4, Informative)

    by HunterZ ( 20035 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @06:15PM (#14030330) Journal
    Sony introduces the PS3, sporting far more powerful hardware than either alternative system

    What? I admit that I haven't been following this for the last month or so, but from what I've seen the XBox 360 will be at least as powerful as the PS3. Yes, the PS3 has a bunch of processing units in its cell processor, but most of them are special-purpose and not as powerful as the XBox 360's three generic cores.
    • Gaaaa. Processing power again.

      Processing power != fun
      (or for you VHDL jocks, processing_power /= fun)
      (or PERL, processing_power ne fun)

      What really matters is the GAMEPLAY. A great game with fewer polygons is still a great game. A crappy game with more polygons is still a crappy game. This war will NOT be won or lost on technical specifications. It will be decided by the game quality, availability, and price. Period. In the end, that is what people look at.
      • Gaaaa. Processing power again.

        Processing power != fun
        (or for you VHDL jocks, processing_power /= fun)
        (or PERL, processing_power ne fun)

        What really matters is the GAMEPLAY. A great game with fewer polygons is still a great game. A crappy game with more polygons is still a crappy game. This war will NOT be won or lost on technical specifications. It will be decided by the game quality, availability, and price. Period. In the end, that is what people look at.

        Yes very very true. Sony actually has been better i
      • What really matters is the GAMEPLAY. A great game with fewer polygons is still a great game. A crappy game with more polygons is still a crappy game. This war will NOT be won or lost on technical specifications. It will be decided by the game quality, availability, and price. Period. In the end, that is what people look at.

        No, that's only one factor among several -- the quality, availability, and price of games for a console are only a major factor when one of those three aspects is at an extreme. What is t
    • What? I admit that I haven't been following this for the last month or so, but from what I've seen the XBox 360 will be at least as powerful as the PS3. Yes, the PS3 has a bunch of processing units in its cell processor, but most of them are special-purpose and not as powerful as the XBox 360's three generic cores.

      Both have a PPC based chip running at 3.2 ghz. Except the 360 has a shared cache, while the Cell has multiple cashes. Speed is a hard thing to calculate with such different architectures but gener
      • The problem is partly that programmers don't really know how to take advantage of the parallel processing architecture of the PS3. Yes, the will learn, but it may take most of the lifespan of the PS3 and XBox 360 for them to invent a new way of programming games that takes advantage of multi-processor and/or multi-core hardware.

        Another part of the problem is that the industry likes porting games across multiple platforms as cheaply as possible, which means that multiplatform titles will probably take as lit
        • The problem is partly that programmers don't really know how to take advantage of the parallel processing architecture of the PS3. Yes, the will learn, but it may take most of the lifespan of the PS3 and XBox 360 for them to invent a new way of programming games that takes advantage of multi-processor and/or multi-core hardware.

          Another part of the problem is that the industry likes porting games across multiple platforms as cheaply as possible, which means that multiplatform titles will probably take as lit

  • BOYCOTT SONY (and do yourself a favour) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @09:47PM (#14031685) Homepage
    First, Sony needs to be boycotted as a consumer act that sends a clear message to Big Business that we will not accept invasive DRM, such as that which made the headlines this past week. Smashing a security hole into our systems? That must be protested, no two ways about it.

    Second, Sony will not be destroyed by the boycott. And to your benefit it will motivate Sony to perform so very, very well that they regain their loyal customers. This time next year they'd re-release the product with such stunning capabilities that you'd happily purchase it at even a premium price. Your boycott will spur them to outperform themselves.

    Win-win situation all around. Boycott Sony. :-)
    • BoingBoing [boingboing.net] has a nice list of what Sony has done wrong. Take the boycott suggestion seriously: this is a prime opportunity for the consumer to communicate with the company. Opportunities for communicating such a very clear message do not come around often. In fact, if the companies have their way, the opportunity will never, ever happen again.

      Summarized:

      Oct 31: Sony DRM uses black-hat rootkits
      Nov 3: Sony releases de-rootkit-ifier, lies about risks from rootkits
      Nov 3: Felten on Sony's rootkit-"remover: th

      • Tell you what... I'll boycott Sony's MUSIC and maybe VIDEO products, how does that sound?

        Oh, wait, I almost forgot. I boycott ALL "copy-protected" CDs already. If there's a copy-protected CD that I want, I'll purposely avoid buying it and go download it from some gnutella network or something like that... or just live without it. Everyone needs to consistently boycott copy-protected CDs, that's the moral of this story, really.

        Honestly, I think that should do the trick. These divisions within Sony are just t

  • I think that the PS3's major obstacle will be making software development easy. Writing software that takes full advantage of the Cell processor is not exactly child's play. I'm sure they'll have some really impressive launch titles but will every 3rd party developer be willing to hire the best/most expensive coders?
    Short of falling back on strong support from Unreal 3...

    Compare this with Xbox 360 (with MS pushing its XNA platform for combined Windows and 360 development) and Revolution (which is essentiall

Slashdot Top Deals

/earth: file system full.

Close