PS3 slim sells over half a milion in a week! [Archive]

jonnyutah

09-09-2009, 01:10 AM

VGChartz reproted that over 500,000 PS3 Slim were sold worldwide last week, which is 400% more than average weekly sales. Around 250,000 units were sold in Europe, 125,000 units in North America and 150,000 units were sold in Japan. PS3 software also has a significant boost in sales due to increase in hardware sales, many PS3 versions of multiplatform titles have outsold the Xbox 360 counterparts.

That is impressive number for a week of sales. i'm sure the new $299 price has much to do this it. with modern warfare 2, uncharted 2, assassins creed 2, donte's inferno,demons souls and gran turismo 5 i'm sure the ps3 will do quite nice this holiday.

Sonicwolf

09-09-2009, 01:12 AM

otaku

09-09-2009, 01:45 AM

yes indeed a good move now they just build that catalog up (bluray helps alot to) in fact I almost want one again for the sake of bluray

It may well take over the 360 but largely because the 360 has already sold a fair number to begin with...

Oobgarm

09-09-2009, 08:02 AM

I would put my money on the 360 falling behind the PS3 by next summer when it comes to system sales. Easily. Kudos to Sony for doing something right smart for a change. That redesign and price drop has leveled the playing field a little.

I highly doubt this. There can't be THAT many people that were holding out on getting a PS3 before the $100 drop. Back in May it was close to an 8 million unit gap.

duffmanth

09-09-2009, 08:31 AM

I've been saying all along that the PS3 just needed a good price drop and the flood gates would open. These retards that have been writing the PS3 off for the last few years are idiots. It's not that most people didn't want a PS3 the last few years, they just either couldn't afford it or weren't willing to spend that much on it. I can see the PS3 catching up with the 360 next year. The PS3 has by far the most momentum going into next year.

carlcarlson

09-09-2009, 08:52 AM

It's not that most people didn't want a PS3 the last few years, they just either couldn't afford it or weren't willing to spend that much on it.

Ohh. Ohhhhhhhhh, THAT'S what it was. I did not realize.

So, how is everyone on the planet? It's been awhile since I talked to them.

Ahem... good for Sony. I still prefer my 360 but it's good to see them taking a step in the right direction for once.

megasdkirby

09-09-2009, 09:03 AM

There can't be THAT many people that were holding out on getting a PS3 before the $100 drop.

You might be surprised. I for one refused to purchase one until it was, what I considered, a "decent" price. This was the magical $300 price tag. When it finally did, I purchased one. It was even better that I purchased a fatty for only $250 (thank you, Sony Puerto Rico! :)).

After the price reduction, local GameStops as well as Sears got a plethora of calls asking to purchase one. So I feel the $300 price tag was what the console needed to have a push. If it was even lower, even more would purchase it (as it was the case when Sony PR reduced the fatty to $250).

It's not that most people didn't want a PS3 the last few years, they just either couldn't afford it or weren't willing to spend that much on it.

I feel the same way too. The console is excellent, but the price tag was very high, causing many to choose other consoles in the process.

I could have purchased one for $600, as I have more than enough to squander. But I refused to, because I considered the price very high.

But getting it for $250 (for my fatty) was excellent. It's been selling like mad (in Sears) ever since the reduction.

I remember customers pissing off (even pissing off the associate...) about why the console was so much money. Now that it reduced in price, those same customers are picking it up. So a price drop was very important, at least to those customers we attend every day.

kupomogli

09-09-2009, 09:28 AM

I highly doubt this. There can't be THAT many people that were holding out on getting a PS3 before the $100 drop. Back in May it was close to an 8 million unit gap.

Actually it was an 8 million gap last month too. That gap hasn't widened really. You could also say some of those 8 million 360's were because of failed systems.

Anyways. I don't think the PS3 will pass the 360 in a year. Infact, I highly doubt it. However, I'm sure that in the long run, Sony will end up coming in second place. I'd say by two years they'll possibly be equal in sales or atleast close.

You got to think though. Sony could afford to do another price drop lower than the current price. Microsoft's big plan was to do nothing more than drop the Elite price to match that of the PS3. They were ready to do it, yes, however, it was only to counter the PS3's price drop, and then you see no component cables, no HDMI, and no games, so what they were really doing was giving an Elite at a price that wasn't bundled rather than a price drop.

As with some of the people on this forum as well. Disc drive errors and RRoD are going to play a part in people getting a PS3 now that it's so cheap.

garagesaleking!!

09-09-2009, 09:45 AM

kupomogli

09-09-2009, 10:19 AM

ps3 may catch up on nunber of units sold, but i dont see game manufacturers jumping to the ps3 as their main system anytime soon.

Most games are multi console nowdays, but other than that, most of the good 360 timed exclusives have been pushed onto the PS3, the ones that were 360 exclusive before are now on the PS3 with sequels(Dead Rising, Test Drive Unlimited 2.) Sony has more first party releases and the flood gate will be lifted near the end of this year. There are quite a few good non Sony exclusives released that the 360 hasn't received though, such as Valkyria Chronicles, Yakuza 3(from what I can tell from Yakuza 1 and 2 being awesome plus the demo,) and Infamous. Games that look good that aren't first party are Heavy Rain and 3d Dot Game Heroes.

Playstation online still sucks compared to live.

Yeah. It sucks that we have to pay nothing to get the same services. Damn. I wish I had to pay $50 a year. It isn't fair :(.

Oobgarm

09-09-2009, 10:31 AM

but i dont see game manufacturers jumping to the ps3 as their main system anytime soon.

How many manufacturers/publishers are exclusive to one machine or another these days? This is a non-issue.

duffmanth

09-09-2009, 02:46 PM

I think a lot of developers and publishers will be devoting more resources to the PS3 in the next little while. The 360 will continue to sell very well I'm sure, but the fact that it's still tanking and probably will continue to do so in Japan is going to hurt its overall sales, and I think this is where the PS3 is going to gain a lot of ground, especially with FFXIII being a PS3 exclusive over there. Like FxMercenary has pointed out, Blu-ray is going to be a huge advantage for Sony to.

FxMercenary

09-09-2009, 03:09 PM

ps3 may catch up on nunber of units sold, but i dont see game manufacturers jumping to the ps3 as their main system anytime soon. The 360 will be the top gaming system of the current gen still as far as im concerned. Playstation online still sucks compared to live.

Ah yes, but you forget about the size of the game. 360s largest downfall wont be from the RROD issue, it will be with disc size and content.

Look at Rage, its already had content removed, and has been put on 2 discs just to become a multi-platform release. That removed content will still become available for both systems, but for an extra Fee ( DLC )

I for 1 will opt for the single disc Blu-Ray release over the multi-disc 360 games. And believe me, they will be here sooner than you think.

If anything, the 360s disc size is a handicap to this generation of high-end gaming.

one more thing, Blu-Ray movies. I believe that Blu-Ray movies are going to be the console pusher this holiday. Now that the price is so low, and even new release movies are now around $20 a piece, the time for the PS3 is now.

I was in Best Buy last week, and they are already pushing the PS3 like crazy. They have come to realize that by selling PS3s, they are opening up their movie sales, they tried to push one on my parents by saying this " You can watch the best looking movies, and your kids can play games on it too!" My parents ordered one ( they sold out ), and my little brother is happy as ever.

"No cost to you"... With live being $50 a year, another pricing point you need to take into consideration, the parents who buy will not want annual fees to their movie player just so their kids can play video games. This was another interesting thing that the employee brought up to my parents as I watched them shop.

unwinddesign

09-09-2009, 03:53 PM

Yeah. It sucks that we have to pay nothing to get the same services. Damn. I wish I had to pay $50 a year. It isn't fair :(.

I can't believe you're still such a shill for the PS3 that you continue to spout this bullshit. It'd be like claiming the 360 was as powerful as the PS3.

I'm not surprised to see a huge increase in sales, but they'll taper off significantly in a month or two. The slim console has already dropped from #1 to #7 on Amazon's chart (not scientific/statistical in any way, just an observation) and the "newness" factor will surely wear off in a bit. It'll outsell the Xbox over the next four months, but I doubt it will with a 2:1 margin or something outrageous. If MS was that concerned about losing a ton of market share, they would have made the price cut on the Xbox 360 more aggressive.

One of the things that hurts Sony over the Christmas season is that God of War III and Gran Turismo 5 won't be out. There are many great games -- Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank Future, Demon's Souls, God of War Collection -- but no "system seller," per se. It doesn't just come down to price when purchasing this stuff; last gen, Sony had GTA and Final Fantasy as exclusives. That's why they dominated. Now, with that type of stuff multi-platform, their exclusive/first party titles are good (possibly better; there are tons of great games)...just not blockbusters.

BHvrd

09-09-2009, 04:03 PM

One feature that alot of people dismiss is the great upscaling PS3 has for playing dvd's, so not only are you buying into the next format but you are getting the most out of the current.

Here's a review on how good it is and how it closely compares to top of the line upscaling dvd player. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9722853-1.html

Also, when Blu-Ray came out it wasn't long after that the format was upgraded and unless you had a PS3 which could update to the new format you needed to buy a new player, this was/is awesome and makes it the best Blu-Ray player on the market for that alone.

Of course it goes without saying that the exclusives are numerous on the system and the games truly can be played nowhere else! You have some amazing talent working on first party PS3 software, we're talking AAA movie like quality gaming. They are building a great first party lineup and really making some serious franchise games. Not just one or two. Also, though many don't "I do" consider the fact that no less than 5 MMORPG's will debut on the system by 2010 it's the MMO system of choice. This may seem weak to some but MMO's have a big draw, no denying that and Sony is the place to be if you like them.

There is much to like about the system and getting wi-fi and a huge hard drive right outta the box is also a big draw.

megasdkirby

09-09-2009, 04:14 PM

One feature that alot of people dismiss is the great upscaling PS3 has for playing dvd's, so not only are you buying into the next format but you are getting the most out of the current.

I don't know if it's me, but I don't see a really huge difference over something like component cabling with the upconvert. Sure, my TV says that DVD's are being upscaled to 1080i, but to be honest, I don't see much of a difference between 480p via component cables on my regular DVD player and a PS3 upscaled to 1080i via HDMI. It could be me, though.

There is much to like about the system and getting wi-fi and a huge hard drive right outta the box is also a big draw.

I still prefer a Cat5e or Cat6 cable. :D

I can't believe you're still such a shill for the PS3 that you continue to spout this bullshit. It'd be like claiming the 360 was as powerful as the PS3.

That really depends on the person. I personally don't care much for online gaming. Sure, I have an ID and I go online, but I've yet to play online with someone, because quite frankly, it's not a priority. At least for me, anyway.

BHvrd

09-09-2009, 04:35 PM

There are many great games -- Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank Future, Demon's Souls, God of War Collection -- but no "system seller," per se.

The "system seller" came out quite a while back and actually REALLY helped PS3 sales, it's a little game called Metal Gear Solid 4. Also Little Big Planet is definetely a system seller as well.

Of course what you consider a system seller some others may not. The only game I consider a system seller on Xbox 360 is Left 4 Dead, but I can play that on my pc, I can also play Halo and Halo 2 and have no desire for 3.

I guess people want a "Gears of War" for PS3 maybe. Well Tecmo is working on a hybrid one and it's exclusive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHxnJLRcxOE&feature=fvw

The 1 2 P

09-09-2009, 04:49 PM

I can see the PS3 catching up with the 360 next year.

Well thats a real shocker coming from you. Keep hope alive;)

Ohh. Ohhhhhhhhh, THAT'S what it was. I did not realize.

So, how is everyone on the planet? It's been awhile since I talked to them.

LOL

I don't think the PS3 will pass the 360 in a year. Infact, I highly doubt it. However, I'm sure that in the long run, Sony will end up coming in second place. I'd say by two years they'll possibly be equal in sales or atleast close.

The PS3 will never catch the 360 in sales in the US. They'd have to outsell the 360 atleast 2 to 1 every month for the next year and a half straight and that ain't happening. In Europe they have a chance but the brand loyalty to the 360 is unfathomable. Thats why people have put up with multiple system failures: they want the best gaming this generation has to offer and in their eyes thats the 360.

I will agree that Sony will certainly lesson the worldwide gap, mainly due to Japan's non-existant 360 sales. And of course the PS3 slim will continue to sell well this entire holiday season. One might also make an arguement that the system that sells the best this holiday season will be the one with the most momentum during the next two years. But that all remains to be seen.

Frankie_Says_Relax

09-09-2009, 04:51 PM

Playstation online still sucks compared to live.

So, you have both systems and put an comparable amount of time into online gameplay on both to make that assessment?

I do, and ... I can't think of much that 360 offers above/beyond anything that PSN does apart from cross-game-chat and faster downloading firmware updates.

I think both services are great and I'm not trying to wave the flag for either ... it's a pretty even comparison the way I see it and I hardly think that PS3 "sucks" in comparison.

Both offer:
Single user-ID log-in for use across all games
Multi-user chat rooms
Online game stores
Full Retail Games on Demand
Online movie/tv show marketplace
Friends Lists
Messaging
Goal-based achievement/trophy systems with API code for online forum tags

360 exclusive:
$50 yearly Gold service level to play games online
Cross-game chat
Netflix subscription service
Avatars
Avatar Parties/Netflix Viewing Parties

PS3 exclusive:
100% free service
Web Browsing with streaming HD video compatibilty
Playstation Home
Life with Playstation
Remote Play PSP functionality
Purchased software licensed to download to up to 5 PS3 systems (unlike 360's uber stringent DRM ties to one console)

duffmanth

09-09-2009, 05:20 PM

I certainly will : )!

Greg2600

09-09-2009, 05:44 PM

I bet many of the people who were still buying new PS2 Slims the last few years will be buying a PS3 slim.

PS: I have and always will find Microsoft's fee-based online multiplayer distasteful.

guitargary75

09-09-2009, 06:36 PM

It's finally the price it should have been from the start!

garagesaleking!!

09-09-2009, 06:45 PM

i still dont think blu ray is going to become a big widely accepted thing anytime soon. I ran out and bought a laptop with blu ray and never used it. And i know most people are still satisfied with dvds. Also to say exclusives have no impact on which consoles people choose is a foolish comment. The best games are usually exclusives, its a fact. And as far as xbox live and psn, it just takes forever to get a game started in call of duty on psn , where for 360 its almost instant.

heybtbm

09-09-2009, 06:47 PM

Ah yes, but you forget about the size of the game. 360s largest downfall wont be from the RROD issue, it will be with disc size and content.

Look at Rage, its already had content removed, and has been put on 2 discs just to become a multi-platform release. That removed content will still become available for both systems, but for an extra Fee ( DLC )

I for 1 will opt for the single disc Blu-Ray release over the multi-disc 360 games. And believe me, they will be here sooner than you think.

If anything, the 360s disc size is a handicap to this generation of high-end gaming.

I'll be buying the PS3 version of FFXIII for this exact reason.

On topic: I bought a slim two weeks ago (my 2nd PS3). I did my part. Now let's have ourselves a real console war!

TheDomesticInstitution

09-09-2009, 07:07 PM

These fucking retards that have been writing the PS3 off for the last few years are idiots.

As a happy PS3 owner, who doesn't own a 360 yet I'd just like to ask if the name calling is really necessary?

FxMercenary

09-09-2009, 08:20 PM

I don't know if it's me, but I don't see a really huge difference over something like component cabling with the upconvert. Sure, my TV says that DVD's are being upscaled to 1080i, but to be honest, I don't see much of a difference between 480p via component cables on my regular DVD player and a PS3 upscaled to 1080i via HDMI. It could be me, though.

DVD is 2 bits per pixel. Netflix Streaming HD is 2 bits per pixel. Blu-Ray is 10 bits of image data per pixel.

If you have a 1080p HDTV, you will notice the difference, especially in a screen 32" or higher. Try Blu-Ray.

chicnstu

09-09-2009, 08:24 PM

Uncharted 2 is coming out soon this year. It's sad to me to think that it's not a system seller.

It's probably going to be the most polished PS3 game so far.

monkeychemist

09-09-2009, 08:37 PM

I'm so happy I put my faith in the correct console this generation PS3HIGHFOOTBALL RULES!!

megasdkirby

09-09-2009, 08:38 PM

DVD is 2 bits per pixel. Netflix Streaming HD is 2 bits per pixel. Blu-Ray is 10 bits of image data per pixel.

If you have a 1080p HDTV, you will notice the difference, especially in a screen 32" or higher. Try Blu-Ray.

Oh, on BluRay I notice an incredible difference. My TV is only 26", but I can see the quality in BluRay movies. It's incredible.

On DVD's, on the other hand, I don't see much of a difference: either it be from my Koss DVD Player (outputting 480p on component cables) or my PS3 (outputting 1080i via HDMI). Perhaps I need a bigger TV, like you stated. Would love a 50" LCD :D

jonnyutah

09-09-2009, 08:57 PM

I've pretty much decided to drop my 360 in favour of a ps3 becasue of 2 rrod and now a failing disk drive. sometimes i can't even open the dvd tray! >.< but now with the 299 ps3 it's looking real sweet. the only thing holding me back is live. I also like the official xbox magazine. but I'm more excited about the ps3 exclusives...mgs4, last guardian, demons souls, little big planet, gran turismo 5 etc.

with the new 299 price and more kid friendly console design i can see it being more appealing to parents much like th ps2 was. no one is talking about the 360 price drop. the gaming press from tv, magazine and web hyped the redesign/pricedrop to the point of a new system launch. with all the unboxing videos out you would almost think the ps3 just launched again. the 360 price drop news got lost somewhere in the back streets of the web. ps3 still has that newness/wow factor going for it.

I predict the new ps3 price/design spikes a new holiday interest in the system. almost like the launch only affordable this time LOL. on top of that, blu ray players will be a huge holiday item this year!

Sonicwolf

09-09-2009, 10:11 PM

http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss191/Sonicwolf359/3650787478_a65736e5e6.jpg

This is going to get way out of hand easily

"Oh no, we can't allow some good news about the PlayStation 3 to be heard without my 360 fanboy bitching to also be heard with even more gusto than ever."

Now Microsoft needs to resdesign the XBOX and fix its damned problems. I have had 3 RROD's in the last year.

gepeto

09-09-2009, 10:39 PM

IMO the window for the ps3 to make a splash was the first 2 years. Like one reporter said if you go house hunting and something initially turns you off it is hard to get people to take a second look. While things may be equal perception is everything. The network has gotten much better alot of nice improvements.

BHvrd

09-09-2009, 10:46 PM

http://h1.ripway.com/BsheaH/Choose Wisely.jpg

http://1416andcounting.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/choose-wisely1.jpg

garagesaleking!!

09-10-2009, 01:07 AM

i like the people that like to like where the thread is going...\\^_^/

Icarus Moonsight

09-10-2009, 01:16 AM

I like people who, like, post that they like people who, like, like stuff and, like, stuff.

Red ring at night, wife take delight. Red ring in mornin', gamer order coffin.

FxMercenary

09-10-2009, 01:36 AM

i Like Turtles.

Sonicwolf

09-10-2009, 01:42 AM

i Like Turtles.

It's getting pretty close to "IBTL"

http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss191/Sonicwolf359/tuttles.jpg

Anyone wish that sony had tried the boomerang controllers with the PS3? I wish I could have. Curiousity.

Nionel

09-10-2009, 02:21 AM

I'll likely get a PS3 in the near future thanks to this price drop, there's some games I want to play on it, but I think I'll still keep the 360 as my primary console. I must say though, all this console fanboyism is sickening, it's like I clicked on a gamefaqs thread, or walked in to a room with a bunch of little kids arguing over who has the coolest toy. Seriously guys, I'd like to think we'll all intelligent people, can't we just accept that everyone is free to have their own opinions about which console is better?

Sonicwolf

09-10-2009, 02:26 AM

Fuyukaze

09-10-2009, 02:36 AM

I think it's great that sony is finaly droping the price of the system. Reguardless of how powerfull the system may be, if most interested parties cant afford it the system wont sell. I myself still have no plans to buy one yet as there remains only a handfull of games that interest me and even those are marginal at best. Doesnt help that Sony's anounced they have no plans to add BGC to the system either. While some dont consider playing their PS1 and PS2 games on their PS3 to be important, as there's less then 5 games of interest doing so would go a long way with me.

j_factor

09-10-2009, 04:19 AM

Oh, on BluRay I notice an incredible difference. My TV is only 26", but I can see the quality in BluRay movies. It's incredible.

On DVD's, on the other hand, I don't see much of a difference: either it be from my Koss DVD Player (outputting 480p on component cables) or my PS3 (outputting 1080i via HDMI). Perhaps I need a bigger TV, like you stated. Would love a 50" LCD :D

Why would you upscale to 1080i? That sounds silly.

TheDomesticInstitution

09-10-2009, 04:54 AM

Why would you upscale to 1080i? That sounds silly.

This is just a hypothetical, but maybe he has a TV that doesn't support 1080p. He doesn't mention in his post what sort of TV he has, so it's possible he has a 26 inch CRT widescreen TV, which would only support up to 1080i. Panasonic made such a set for a while, before LCD's were affordable to everyone. Again, I'm just guessing though.

Mimi Nakamura

09-10-2009, 05:01 AM

The new design does it for me, it's a good-looking system.

exit

09-10-2009, 06:52 AM

Playstation online still sucks compared to live.

Elaborate please, I hate when people say this, especially when 90% of the time they've never even touched a PS3.

]i still dont think blu ray is going to become a big widely accepted thing anytime soon.

That's where you are wrong, blu-ray sales have been steadily increasing, it's pretty much been accepted for a while. I don't see DVD's going anywhere anytime soon tho, pulling them off the shelves like they did with VHS would be a poor decision.

chrisbid

09-10-2009, 06:57 AM

why all the kudos for 299?

remember, 299 was the launch price of the ps1 and ps2, its still too expensive for a console

The 1 2 P

09-10-2009, 07:09 AM

why all the kudos for 299?

remember, 299 was the launch price of the ps1 and ps2, its still too expensive for a console

Perhaps but $299 is a far cry from the $599 launch price of the PS3. Granted, that price should have never happened in the first place, but that's Sony for you: over estimating their brand loyalty(and suffering for it). And I have to smh@all the people who paid that price. Outside of reselling on ebay for a profit, there wasn't any reason to snatch the PS3 up for $599. And then there was the $499 20 gig version, which after playing three games you would have ran out of hd space due to mandatory installs.

So while the $299 price point may not be for everybody, it's the same as the Elite, only $50 more than the Wii and $300 less than what the 60 gig(which has 60 gigs less than the slim) launched for. Thats not a bad price, as long as there are more than a handful of exclusive games you are interested in.

megasdkirby

09-10-2009, 08:21 AM

Perhaps but $299 is a far cry from the $599 launch price of the PS3. Granted, that price should have never happened in the first place, but that's Sony for you: over estimating their brand loyalty(and suffering for it).

I believe this as well. Although we may never know, I feel that if Sony would have priced the console at the same price as the X360, or at the $299 it is now, it would have sold very well, even surpass the X360 in sales. But because the price was so prohibited at first, it hurt sales in the process.

However, now that it's $300, it will continue to sell quite nicely, making the user base grow in the process. Sales will dip after the initial "fever", but should continue to sell nicely for some time.

And then there was the $499 20 gig version, which after playing three games you would have ran out of hd space due to mandatory installs.

I've yet to encounter more games that requiere a mandatory install. Apart from Brother's in Arms: Hell's Gateway (which installs less than 2GB during initial installation), I've yet to see another game do the same. I think Mirror's Edge does that, but no where near the GB's other games might require.

Does anyone have a list of games that need HDD installation?

FxMercenary

09-10-2009, 09:10 AM

I must say though, all this console fanboyism is sickening, it's like I clicked on a gamefaqs thread, or walked in to a room with a bunch of little kids arguing over who has the coolest toy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PSvWR4dZKc&feature=related

jonnyutah

09-10-2009, 10:44 AM

arguing over the coolest toy? heck just give me a toy that dosen't break every week LOL.

turtle boy looks like he walked into a fanboy party promoting the wrong console.

in all seriousness i posted this thread because i thought it was interesting news. no partisan console politics here.

Nionel

09-10-2009, 11:06 AM

Unfortunately, due to the oppinionated critical-mass of humanity, most people would prefer to make asses out of themselves based on their beliefs than play friends.

One again proving that people just like to be jerks on the internet since they can do it anonymously. It gets annoying seeing these threads turn into yelling matches until they're locked by a mod.

why all the kudos for 299?

remember, 299 was the launch price of the ps1 and ps2, its still too expensive for a console

Well, keep in mind that I'm sure a lot of the reason the PS3 launched so high was due to politics within the business world. Sony had to think about their partner companies that make Blu-ray players, because if you sell your product too low, you run the risk of cutting into your business partners profits and upsetting them. Then suddenly no one is backing Blu-ray and Sony is in an even work position because their new format loses to HD-DVD because their business partners are now supporting that format. So, if you think about it's they did what was best for them in the long run.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PSvW...eature=related

Ha. Never seen that video before, children and their shenanigans make me laugh. :D

Back on topic, kudos to Sony, this really was a brilliant marketing move. As I said in my original post, I'm want to get a PS3, but I'm guessing that the new slim model and higher demand are going to make them tough to find once holiday shopping picks up, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to get one until after the first of the year, which isn't such a bad thing, but I want to play LBP and the God of War Collection. :(

j_factor

09-10-2009, 11:43 PM

This is just a hypothetical, but maybe he has a TV that doesn't support 1080p. He doesn't mention in his post what sort of TV he has, so it's possible he has a 26 inch CRT widescreen TV, which would only support up to 1080i. Panasonic made such a set for a while, before LCD's were affordable to everyone. Again, I'm just guessing though.

Did they ever make 1080i sets that didn't support 720p?

TheDomesticInstitution

09-11-2009, 05:29 AM

Did they ever make 1080i sets that didn't support 720p?
In the early days when CRT HD sets where the norm, and LCD TVs were way to expensive, there were some sets that did not support 720p. But if you're asking if his set supports 720p (no matter what display technology it is), then the answer is probably yes. But if you're also suggesting that it's silly to use 1080i over 720p, that's one of those "it depends on the TV and signal" questions. CRT sets, like I have, and like I thought he may have, all tend to make a 1080i signal look better than a 720p, because it's the native resolution of the set. Fixed resolution sets that natively display a 720p signal, would obviously prefer a progressive signal (most of the time).

And even beyond that, there are some that suggest that 1080i looks better than 720p and vice versa. For fun, Google 720p vs. 1080i for all kinds of wonderful arguments and technical jargon.

Oobgarm

09-11-2009, 05:39 AM

Did they ever make 1080i sets that didn't support 720p?

They certainly did. I had a Samsung CRT set that did 480i, 480p, and 1080i only.

TheDomesticInstitution

09-11-2009, 05:48 AM

That and the simple fact that most HD boxes and DVD upscaling players give you the choice to output between the two resolutions, should be an indicator as well.

duffmanth

09-11-2009, 03:56 PM

why all the kudos for 299?

remember, 299 was the launch price of the ps1 and ps2, its still too expensive for a console

Yeah and those prices were 10-15 years ago. I would say $299 for the PS3 is a steal. It amuses me how much people complain about the prices of gaming consoles when they stay current and don't go out of date usually for a good 5 years.

garagesaleking!!

09-11-2009, 04:22 PM

keep in mind the ps3 and 360 have already been out for a good amount of years, so the 5 years is a long shot, the next new console will be out in 2-3 years i bet.

BHvrd

09-11-2009, 05:13 PM

keep in mind the ps3 and 360 have already been out for a good amount of years, so the 5 years is a long shot, the next new console will be out in 2-3 years i bet.

When did he ever state otherwsie? He didnt. Never in his post did he say any system has 5 years left, he just made a statement that's relevant to the lifespan of a console. Which if either did go out in 2-3 years as you say would in fact be 5+ years.

j_factor

09-11-2009, 08:49 PM

In the early days when CRT HD sets where the norm, and LCD TVs were way to expensive, there were some sets that did not support 720p. But if you're asking if his set supports 720p (no matter what display technology it is), then the answer is probably yes. But if you're also suggesting that it's silly to use 1080i over 720p, that's one of those "it depends on the TV and signal" questions. CRT sets, like I have, and like I thought he may have, all tend to make a 1080i signal look better than a 720p, because it's the native resolution of the set. Fixed resolution sets that natively display a 720p signal, would obviously prefer a progressive signal (most of the time).

And even beyond that, there are some that suggest that 1080i looks better than 720p and vice versa. For fun, Google 720p vs. 1080i for all kinds of wonderful arguments and technical jargon.

Yes, I know some prefer 1080i over 720p, in general. But for upscaling from 480p? I've never heard of anyone doing that. You're going to have a loss in quality by interlacing a non-interlaced video.

TheDomesticInstitution

09-11-2009, 09:14 PM

Yes, I know some prefer 1080i over 720p, in general. But for upscaling from 480p? I've never heard of anyone doing that. You're going to have a loss in quality by interlacing a non-interlaced video.

Well, that wasn't the question I was answering. You asked why someone would want to use 1080i over 720p... and I gave a list of reasons why someone would do this. And even so, my CRT TV plays 480p DVDs better in 1080i than 720p. Most CRT sets generally look better in 1080i than 720p, because it's their native resolution. Do you have a CRT HD set? If so, have you tried comparing?

Seriously (http://forum.videohelp.com/topic346641.html), do (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archive/index.php/t-698738.html) a little Googling (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/archive/t-452764.html). This debate is all over the internet and is really dependent on equipment. There isn't a clear-cut answer.

duffmanth

09-12-2009, 02:22 PM

keep in mind the ps3 and 360 have already been out for a good amount of years, so the 5 years is a long shot, the next new console will be out in 2-3 years i bet.

This is exactly my point though. The PS3, 360, and Wii have all been out for almost 3-4 years and they're still going strong and are still current, and probably will be for a few more years at a minimum. This is why I don't have a problem paying $299 or more for a gaming console because you know you're going to get a good 5+ years out of it before something else comes along to replace it. Pretty much every other electronics product gets replaced on a yearly basis and are out of date almost overnight it seems.

tom

09-12-2009, 03:13 PM

megasdkirby

09-12-2009, 03:37 PM

This is exactly my point though. The PS3, 360, and Wii have all been out for almost 3-4 years and they're still going strong and are still current, and probably will be for a few more years at a minimum. This is why I don't have a problem paying $299 or more for a gaming console because you know you're going to get a good 5+ years out of it before something else comes along to replace it. Pretty much every other electronics product gets replaced on a yearly basis and are out of date almost overnight it seems.

I really hope the current console generation stays for many more years.

But I can't help but wonder how long before the "next" generation. Just when a console is at it's peak, the company decides to unveil a "better" console. It's a never ending cycle.

I fear that in 2010 or so, all three companies will start bragging about their newest console. To be honest, they don't really need it, as the current gen is pretty solid. But I can't help but wonder...

Yes, Germans are lot like that, holding out for cheaper.

Like me! :D

Btw, go to work, Tom! :)

Baloo

09-12-2009, 04:05 PM

What's the average lifespan of a console, 7-8 years? This generation definitely has at least 5 years left in it.

kupomogli

09-12-2009, 04:51 PM

I fear that in 2010 or so, all three companies will start bragging about their newest console. To be honest, they don't really need it, as the current gen is pretty solid. But I can't help but wonder..

I hope this doesn't happen. The PS3 isn't being used to it's full potential by most developers. Games like GT5 and Uncharted are the best looking games this generation, or there's even Final Fantasy 13 which only fills a bluray about 2/3.

duffmanth

09-12-2009, 06:51 PM

I really hope the current console generation stays for many more years.

But I can't help but wonder how long before the "next" generation. Just when a console is at it's peak, the company decides to unveil a "better" console. It's a never ending cycle.

I fear that in 2010 or so, all three companies will start bragging about their newest console. To be honest, they don't really need it, as the current gen is pretty solid. But I can't help but wonder...

Like me! :D

Btw, go to work, Tom! :)

I don't think the next generation of consoles will be here for another 2 years at a minimum, probably even longer, but who really knows for sure? As far as the current consoles go, the PS3 really hasn't even hits its stride yet. That system is going to be around for many years to come, and I don't think Sony will be releasing a new console any time soon? The 360, who knows? Based on how quickly MS pulled the plug on the original Xbox and how they dropped all support for it right away, it might lead some to think they might do the same with the 360? Based on the issues of the current 360, it wouldn't surprise me if they come out with a revamped model? The Wii, who gives a shit....I lost all interest in Nintendo back in the SNES days.

The 1 2 P

09-12-2009, 06:56 PM

What's the average lifespan of a console, 7-8 years?

I think thats about right. In November the 360 will be four years old and it's not hard to imagine we are just at the half way point. While I'm sure all three companies want that fabled ten year life cycle, the truth is that we will here about the newer systems atleast three years before that happens(meaning year 7 ish).

Having just bought my two next gen systems earlier this year, I really hope that we won't get any announcements about the next gen systems for atleast three more years.

megasdkirby

09-12-2009, 07:02 PM

I don't think the next generation of consoles will be here for another 2 years at a minimum, probably even longer, but who really knows for sure? As far as the current consoles go, the PS3 really hasn't even hits its stride yet. That system is going to be around for many years to come, and I don't think Sony will be releasing a new console any time soon? The 360, who knows? Based on how quickly MS pulled the plug on the original Xbox and how they dropped all support for it right away, it might lead some to think they might do the same with the 360? Based on the issues of the current 360, it wouldn't surprise me if they come out with a revamped model? The Wii, who gives a shit....I lost all interest in Nintendo back in the SNES days.

Hey, I'm currently using my Wii as I write this! Well, as a web browser anyway, watching Youtube videos. LOL

I agree about the PS3. I feel the console has plenty of hidden potential that can be used for many years to come. I just hope Sony doesn't come and release a new console in just a few years. If I am not mistaken, the PS3 came out Nov. 2006...and noticing that there is a rough wait of five years per new console, the "next" console should arrive in 2011. I surely hope not, as this current generation can be "milked" as much as possible. This generation can easily last until 2015 and over, but I doubt it, as many will consider this generation "old" by that time. :(

But then, noticing the popularity the Wii has, I don't doubt that a new console is just around the corner, trying to beat out Nintendo. Or at least in the planning stages.

I just hope the PS3 and X360 are both supported for many years to come. Maybe if we are all lucky, supported to the same degree the NES and 2600 were! :)

kupomogli

09-12-2009, 07:45 PM

j_factor

09-12-2009, 09:50 PM

Well, that wasn't the question I was answering. You asked why someone would want to use 1080i over 720p... and I gave a list of reasons why someone would do this.

The question I asked (and you quoted) was, "Why would you upscale to 1080i?" and clearly referring to DVD playback.

And even so, my CRT TV plays 480p DVDs better in 1080i than 720p. Most CRT sets generally look better in 1080i than 720p, because it's their native resolution.

Thanks, I didn't know that. It didn't occur to me that any HD sets would have an interlaced native resolution, nor did it occur to me originally that he'd have a CRT, which in my experience is fairly uncommon.

Do you have a CRT HD set? If so, have you tried comparing?

I don't, and my experience with CRT HD sets is next to nil. I don't know anybody who owns one.

Seriously (http://forum.videohelp.com/topic346641.html), do (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archive/index.php/t-698738.html) a little Googling (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/archive/t-452764.html).

I was hoping for a simpler answer, rather than sifting through pages of argumentative forum posts filled with technical information that may or may not be accurate, and may or may not be entirely germane to this specific situation. I apologize if this is expecting oversimplification of an incredibly complex issue.

This debate is all over the internet and is really dependent on equipment. There isn't a clear-cut answer.

I'm aware of the debate and lack of a clear-cut answer. But there may have been a clear-cut answer as to why the person I originally quoted chose one over the other. Apparently not, though.

Therealqtip

09-12-2009, 09:51 PM

I just hope the PS3 and X360 are both supported for many years to come. Maybe if we are all lucky, supported to the same degree the NES and 2600 were! :)

To be honest what else can be put into these systems? Besides a gimmicky motion sensor? These systems are near perfect besides the failure rate of the 360.

duffmanth

09-12-2009, 10:23 PM

Nintendo is going to fail next generation. If Nintendo releases another gimmick, everyone who isn't a Nintendo fanboy will be like. "I bought into all the hype and picked up the system, but when did I ever play it?" The system itself is a joke. Sure it's got this neat gimmick, but every good game the system has except Wii Sports and possibly Wii Sports resort doesn't take advantage of the Wiimote(that one arcade port where you lasso stuff up does) and there are hardly any good games.

I know people here list alot of games the Wii has that are "good," but other than the a few that are legitimately good, I don't see where alot of other choices really come from.

However. Even though I dislike the Wii, I may pick it up for the Resident Evil games, Tales of Symphonia, Super Smash Bros, Wii Sports, Wii Sports Resort, and Metroid the Other M(this one is the system seller for me, but I wouldn't pick it up if I didn't like the other games.) Also, once owning a Wii I may just go ahead and sell my Gamecube only if there is a disc for the Wii that will allow me to play my one import(I hope there is. That game is badass and I would like to play it again without the need to use a GC.)

I don't know if Nintendo will fail next gen, they will always be around in some way, shape, or form, but they need to appeal to the core gamers who made them the company they are today in addition to the casual audience. It's great that the Wii has been such a success for Nintendo by appealing to the casual audience, but it's been done through gimmicky tactics (talking mostly about the novelty that is motion sensing here), useless accessories, watered down games, and milking the same franchises they've been milking for nearly 25 years now. It's fine that they keep making Mario and Zelda games as long as they keep them fresh and innovative, but come out with some new franchises already. Wii sports and resort is a start, but not nearly enough. This whole approach that Nintendo has taken appealing to the casual crowd has come at the expense of truly great AAA games. I can't even remember the last blockbuster game released for the Wii? The things I just mentioned about the Wii are the flaws that I truly believe the PS3 is going to capitalize on. This approach is already starting to bite Nintendo in the ass. Wii sales are down in Japan, and are already starting to level off in North America.

megasdkirby

09-12-2009, 10:47 PM

To be honest what else can be put into these systems? Besides a gimmicky motion sensor? These systems are near perfect besides the failure rate of the 360.

Consoles get "more advanced" on each passing of generation. Right now, we see current gen as "state of the art" or "excellent", but 20 years from now, it will be considered obsolete. Graphics will improve, thanks to more sophisticated hardware. It has always happened, and will continue to do so. I don't think there will ever be a "perfect console".

Now the Wii is another story. LOL

Also, many see the Wii as a "gimmicky" console. So is the PS3 with the Sixaxis and the upcoming Microsoft project (NATAL is it?). Being "gimmicky" does not detract from a console, but instead, it's implementation is what either makes or brakes the console and it's games. The Wii's "gimmick" is actually a fantastic piece of hardware with unfathomably endless possibilities. Unfortunately, it's not being used to it's fullest, and thus appear lackluster and "gimmicky". Same thing can also be said about other consoles and it's "extras". But if a game is really good, and the controls are executed perfectly, the "gimmick" turns into "innovation".

I'm happy Nintendo added the Wii motion controls, because otherwise, we would always have the same controler type for years and years. And eventually, this feature will evolve into something that may revolutionise gaming. Only time will tell, but I would love to think of it as the first step of controlling games "virtually" (like virtual reality).

duffmanth

09-12-2009, 10:56 PM

Yeah but being gimmicky and constantly releasing shitty games at the same time does detract from a console.

jonnyutah

09-13-2009, 01:19 AM

i think this gen will stick aroudn a while. i'm thinking the nex gen shows up maybe late 2013. keep in mind this gen console developers were forced to learn systems that were quite different in comparison to last gen. the biggest difference was the new multi core cpu's this gen cpu's (minus wii) are quite new and challenging to code and take advantage of.

last gen we got improved cpu's but it was basicly the same core type of cpu only faster. plus the dreamcast introduced the development commuity to these better perforance cpu's/gpu's in 1997/1998 so by ps2/xbox/gc they had a good understadning of how to program the cpu's. it was more of a simple evolution of the 32-bit gen.

this gen they have these new ibm multi core cpu's they had to learn from the ground up. sure some developers can simply emulate ps2/xbox code and emplement better texures but that basicly using ps2 code/physics and using the extra memory and shaders to add improved tectures at a higher resolution. not programming multi cores and taking advantage of the new physics.

the xbox 360 ws rushed out in 2005. what did doa4 4 do that doa3 didn't?? the 360 was rushed out to store shelves. most of the games were last gen ports. it wasn't until unreal engine3, dice engine and rage when programmers started tapping into the multi core cpu's. gears of war started out only using 1 core. i think it was running on 1 core at x05. and it's even playable on older pc's with a single pentuim 4.

bottom line: developers got a late start on this gen. I think rage and doom 4 will really tap these console and show us what they are really capable of.

TheDomesticInstitution

09-13-2009, 07:22 AM

The question I asked (and you quoted) was, "Why would you upscale to 1080i?" and clearly referring to DVD playback.

Fair enough, I guess I was being a little snippy. Even so, I did provide some sort of plausible answer to your question. To me, what he was doing did not "seem silly."

I'm aware of the debate and lack of a clear-cut answer. But there may have been a clear-cut answer as to why the person I originally quoted chose one over the other. Apparently not, though.

I don't think he ever answered your question, did he?

Through much research, I've found that a lot of times there isn't a clear cut answer as to what looks better. Just because something on paper may look better, doesn't make it so. Personally I've found that you try multiple settings and see what works for you.

But a lot of it has to do with the processing a TV does to an incoming signal to convert that particular signal to the sets native resolution. It's actually gotten a lot better than it was, believe it or not because most sets are now only doing fixed resolutions of either 1080p or 720p. 1080i was sort of a transitional resolution until TV set manufacturers could make affordable 1080p sets. But quite a few people have not replaced those earlier HD sets they purchased a few years ago. Any many stations still broadcast in 1080i.

I could go on for a while longer, but I think you get the idea now. TV technology and HD signals can be really complicated- I guess thats my point. Also no one is really reading this shit anyway.

megasdkirby

09-13-2009, 10:06 AM

Yeah but being gimmicky and constantly releasing shitty games at the same time does detract from a console.

Again, it's not that it's gimmicky, as every console has a gimmick or two. But it's the implementation that is important.

Being poorly implemented gives a sense that it's "gimmicky", If there were better games, or like some call it "AAA" titles, your definition of gimmicky would change to "innovative". It was the same thing the DS was accused of being, "a gimmicky touch screen", and to be honest, I don't hear it quite so often because it's being used efficiently.

The moment the motion sensing technology is used to it's fullest is the day the term "gimmicky" will dissipate.

And like you stated, with so many crappy games, it's a shame that many think of it the way they do.

But Nintendo doesn't care: if it continues to make them millions, they will continue the same strategy.

duffmanth

09-13-2009, 10:29 AM

I agree that every system has a gimmick or two, but that's the Wii's problem, it has too many gimmicks and novelties and not enough substance. You're also right saying that these gimmicks and novelties have made Nintendo millions, but it's already biting them in the ass now as Wii sales are going down in Japan and really leveling off in North America. The PS3 and 360 have their so called gimmicks like Six-axis, rumble, Natal coming, but those systems also have tonnes of great games as well, something the Wii is sorely lacking. The Wii better get a price drop and some solid AAA games soon, or it's going to go shit in the next 1-2 years.

megasdkirby

09-13-2009, 04:02 PM

I agree: most games on the Wii focus on doing simple tasks with the controller, as though it's just showcasing what the controller can do instead of adding depth to the game.

It's a decent console, but I rarely play with my Wii. It's just not something I prefer to do my gaming on. It's not that it's bad, because it isn't...it's just now what I expected. Sure, it has good games, but all the games I see (at work) are either shovelware or of little interest to me. Because of this, I thought I wasn't into this generation of gaming, until I purchased the PS3, which I really LOVE. (up next is a X360...just waiting for certain things to "clear out" before I do. :))

I'm hoping certain games, like Shattered Memories, make good use of the Wii's controller, and not just use it for "flash".

Sonicwolf

09-13-2009, 05:00 PM

The Wii has managed to get little attention from me once I finished with Brawl. So little on the system is worth playing.

kupomogli

09-13-2009, 05:41 PM

It's a decent console, but I rarely play with my Wii. It's just not something I prefer to do my gaming on. It's not that it's bad, because it isn't...it's just now what I expected. ~~~ I thought I wasn't into this generation of gaming, until I purchased the PS3, which I really LOVE. (up next is a X360...just waiting for certain things to "clear out" before I do. :))

Man, and this is coming from an obvious Nintendo fan. That pretty much tells you the Wii's a crappy system :P.

Awesome you like the PS3 megasdkirby. Tied for this generations best system but me as a Sony fanboy and from the terrible 360 design(and I hate the controller,) this is my choice for this gen.

Sonicwolf

09-13-2009, 05:58 PM

Nintendo really needs to get their act together and make some really killer titles if they want to really maintain a lead.

arakias

09-14-2009, 12:06 PM

At first I thought it was just in the US which would have been outstanding but its still a very impressive figure

duffmanth

09-14-2009, 02:43 PM

Nintendo really needs to get their act together and make some really killer titles if they want to really maintain a lead.

Nintendo's lead is already shrinking and I think will continue to do so. The Wii doesn't have the AAA games, the online presence, the power, or the decent 3rd party games that the PS3 and 360 have. A Wii price drop will probably spur sales short term, but I don't think the Wii has the legs to go strong for another few years. I think the Wii is going to be the N64 all over again, it's comes out of the gates strong, but fizzles out after a few years.

The 1 2 P

09-14-2009, 07:29 PM

I think the Wii is going to be the N64 all over again, it's comes out of the gates strong, but fizzles out after a few years.

Considering that the Wii has already outsold the N64's total worldwide sales in less than three years(compared to the N64's 5-7 year life span), I'd say your comparison is grossly misplaced. And the Wii price cut is coming next month (http://www.industrygamers.com/news/rumor-nintendo-planning-wii-price-cut-for-early-october/).

duffmanth

09-14-2009, 08:12 PM

Considering that the Wii has already outsold the N64's total worldwide sales in less than three years(compared to the N64's 5-7 year life span), I'd say your comparison is grossly misplaced. And the Wii price cut is coming next month (http://www.industrygamers.com/news/rumor-nintendo-planning-wii-price-cut-for-early-october/).

I realize the Wii has out sold the N64, I'm merely saying that if the Wii continues on its current path, I think there's a good chance that it will fizzle out like the N64 did. Like I also stated before, I think a Wii price drop will help it in the short term, but long term success is probably going to depend more on Nintendo delivering AAA games more frequently.

megasdkirby

09-14-2009, 08:31 PM

duffmanth

09-14-2009, 09:30 PM

Press_Start

09-14-2009, 10:14 PM

Nintendo really needs to get their act together and make some really killer titles if they want to really maintain a lead.

They have....Mario Kart, Smash Bros Brawl, Twilight Princess, Mario Galaxy, Punch-Out, Metroid Corruption, Wario Land, etc.

And they are...Mario Galaxy 2, Pikmin 3, Sin and Punishment 2, Other M, and new Zelda game.

The so-called "lack of good Wii games" lies fault on the 3rd-party side. Their failure on the big N's system is of their own making thanks to their reluctance, poor audience recognition, and bad marketing.

megasdkirby

09-14-2009, 10:18 PM

The so-called "lack of good Wii games" lies fault on the 3rd-party side. Their failure on the big N's system is of their own making thanks to their reluctance, poor audience recognition, and bad marketing.

It's like third party companies just want to release whatever crap they can to cash in on the Wii and make a quick buck. And in turn, games released are not up to par with those on the X360 and PS3.

The moment Vivid makes a Wii game, that is when the console will "revolutionise" LOL

guitargary75

09-14-2009, 10:32 PM

The very fact that nintendo is beig talked about so much in a PS3 thread shows their dominance of the last three years!

badinsults

09-14-2009, 10:43 PM

Nintendo really needs to get their act together and make some really killer titles if they want to really maintain a lead.

Nintendo already has some killer titles out the past year. They are called Wii Fit and Wii Sports Resort. Oh wait, you mean games that you think are killer? I don't think Nintendo cares about what you think. They are happy to make money off the general public and let the 20 million or so hardcore gamers left go to the Xbox 360 and PS3.

Hell, I got an Xbox 360. It has enough gaming goodness for me.

Icarus Moonsight

09-14-2009, 10:49 PM

This reminds me of the "Nintendo software only" threads we all loved soooo much...

More Nintendo talk domination of a Sony thread... This is getting too predictable. Don't you think that fact alone is slightly telling? How about that RRoD? That's a topic that needs to be covered desperately. Or what about the casual/hardcore demographics? You rarely ever hear about that...

Ze_ro

09-14-2009, 10:53 PM

Nintendo has already announced a new Zelda game, a new Metroid game, and TWO new Mario games for the Wii. That's their killer franchises... What more do you want from them?

--Zero

Icarus Moonsight

09-14-2009, 10:55 PM

Wii <3 Real Dolls? Finally, justification for motion control! :vamp:

Press_Start

09-14-2009, 10:57 PM

I don't think Nintendo cares about what you think. They are happy to make money off the general public and let the 20 million or so hardcore gamers left go to the Xbox 360 and PS3.

Yeah, cause bending over backwards and producing 10 or so great titles certainty shows how much they hate gamers. :roll:

badinsults

09-14-2009, 11:33 PM

Yeah, cause bending over backwards and producing 10 or so great titles certainty shows how much they hate gamers. :roll:

Hey, I'm not saying the Wii is a bad system or that there are no good games. I quite enjoy many of them, including Wii Sports. But come on, you have to admit that it is not for "hardcore gamers". Most "hardcore games" fail miserably on Nintendo hardware, which is why you won't see games like Gears of War on the Wii. But the Wii was not marketed towards the hardcore gamer. It was marketed to people who would not regularly buy game systems. And in that regard, Nintendo was and is very successful.

The Xbox 360 and PS3 were always geared towards more traditional gamers, but that market is dwindling due to the aging demographics of the "hardcore gamer". Another problem is that innovation of hardcore games has diminished, and RPGs don't sell like they used to. Like it or not, Sony has suffered because of the downfall of the RPG, as Final Fantasy games were really the big system sellers for the PS1 and PS2. Although the PS3 will sell more at a lower price, I think Final Fantasy will come too late to change the game this console generation, and to boot it is also on the Xbox 360, eliminating any advantage.

j_factor

09-14-2009, 11:42 PM

Ah who knows what's going to happen? I just think that if Nintendo and 3rd party companies don't start pumping out more AAA games for the Wii, I think it's really going to have an impact on it's sales and longevity.

I heard the same thing two years ago. I'd say it's still doing pretty well.

I'm not really sure what "AAA" means, but great games don't sell systems. Popular games sell systems. Popular features sell systems. Good marketing sells systems. Price point (to an extent) sells systems. A lot of people said the Wii would flop on release. When it didn't, it was then said that it would soon fizzle out. And people just keep on saying that. It still hasn't happened, and I don't see it happening anytime soon. Nintendo's lead isn't shrinking either -- unless I'm mistaken, Wii hasn't been outsold by another console in North America since the month Halo 3 was released. Its lead has only grown. The sales may be closer lately, but a smaller growth in lead isn't a shrinking lead.

InsaneDavid

09-14-2009, 11:44 PM

Nintendo really needs to get their act together and make some really killer titles if they want to really maintain a lead.

Nintendo has already announced a new Zelda game, a new Metroid game, and TWO new Mario games for the Wii. That's their killer franchises... What more do you want from them?

--Zero

A YouTube graphic that looks suspiciously like a penis. Oh wait...

Press_Start

09-15-2009, 01:04 AM

But come on, you have to admit that it is not for "hardcore gamers". Most "hardcore games" fail miserably on Nintendo hardware, which is why you won't see games like Gears of War on the Wii.

There in lies the problem.

Where does it say:

fun = hardcore

not fun = casual

The mentality that assumes one group comprehends fun while the other doesn't is a stupid one. The adoption of such a segregation by video gaming companies is stupider and a big reason they continue to fail on the Wii. The "casual crowd" is only guilty of being noobs, like every gamer on this forum started out. Don't deny it! No one is born a gamer. All it took was one game or games, whether it be on TV or at a friend's house, that made us believe in our minds that video gaming is the most awesome thing ever.

I believe companies are capable in producing games that appeal to everyone without devaluing it game-wise. By showcasing that spirit of video gaming fun we can all recognize and with a little proper marketing, developers will find success on the Wii without creating a "ghetto" selection of titles that ostracizes the "casual crowd". They just need to drop this highschool drama called "casual/hardcore" like a bad habit.

badinsults

09-15-2009, 01:28 AM

There in lies the problem.

Where does it say:

fun = hardcore

not fun = casual

The mentality that assumes one group comprehends fun while the other doesn't is a stupid one. The adoption of such a segregation by video gaming companies is stupider and a big reason they continue to fail on the Wii. The "casual crowd" is only guilty of being noobs, like every gamer on this forum started out. Don't deny it! No one is born a gamer. All it took was one game or games, whether it be on TV or at a friend's house, that made us believe in our minds that video gaming is the most awesome thing ever.

I believe companies are capable in producing games that appeal to everyone without devaluing it game-wise. By showcasing that spirit of video gaming fun we can all recognize and with a little proper marketing, developers will find success on the Wii without creating a "ghetto" selection of titles that ostracizes the "casual crowd". They just need to drop this highschool drama called "casual/hardcore" like a bad habit.

/me watches the point of his argument fly right over Press_Start's head

I'm not arguing about fun here. Wii Sports is fun. So are many of the games for the Wii. However, I would define hardcore games as being:

- RPGs
- FPSs
- Fighting games
- Specialized racing games (ie Gran Turismo)
- Professional sports games

These were all genres that carried the last two generations of video games (and possibly the last three, though the side scrolling platformer was king in the 16-bit era). However, the importance of those genres and their overall sales have diminished greatly. Sure, the most hyped games in these genres still sell millions on the PS3 and Xbox 360, but it is largely to a diminishing audience. The rise of "casual gaming" (ie music games, Wii Sports, edutainment titles) has really hurt the potential that the PS3 and the Xbox 360 had coming into the present generation of consoles, and why the Wii is winning. However, the biggest thing that has hurt "hardcore games" is that there is a diminished audience for those genres above, for the reasons I stated in my previous post.

I am not dismissing those who enjoy the games that the Wii has to offer, all I am saying is that for me, as someone who enjoys the genres above, I would rather have an Xbox 360. And there is nothing wrong with that. It is the same with classic arcade games: there is an audience for that, but if you released Pac-Man with moderately upgraded graphics and new mazes but left the gameplay untouched, it would likely sell very few copies relative to Wii Fit even though it may still be considered "fun".

The 1 2 P

09-15-2009, 01:42 AM

I realize the Wii has out sold the N64, I'm merely saying that if the Wii continues on its current path, I think there's a good chance that it will fizzle out like the N64 did. Like I also stated before, I think a Wii price drop will help it in the short term, but long term success is probably going to depend more on Nintendo delivering AAA games more frequently.

The Wii won't "fizzle out". Is it going to sell less than it sold it's first three years? Most likely. But considering they were averaging 400,000-600,000 systems sold a month(when there was ample supply and demand), it doesn't really matter if they only start selling 200,000-300,000 a month. The 360 would still have a hard time catching up to them and the PS3 will never catch up to them.

Honestly, I don't think the Wii will be dethroned this generation. Although anything can happen, I don't see the Wii dropping to second or third place. Even if the other consoles sell extremely well, the amount of Wii consoles sold is just too many. This is because it will still continue to sell, even if the other consoles sell more. And this will just add to the amount of units sold, increasing it's number. The X360 and PS3 can sell relatively well this generation, but I don't see them topping the Wii.

Excellent point and if I may tweak it a bit, the same logic applies to the PS3 catching up to the 360. Let's say the PS3 starts outselling the 360 by like 5,000-20,000 a month. The 360 would still be selling and everything they sell gets added up to their total. This is why I know that the PS3 will never catch the 360 in the US. This gen is halfway over now(4 years for the 360 and 3 years for the Wii and PS3) and all three systems have enough good games coming where things will pretty much remain the same. Despite how much Sony fans hang on every new AAA PS3 release, theres nothing that will get it out of last place. And the same goes for the 360. It has some amazing exclusives coming this year and next but none of those will get it out of second place. The Wii's lead is too far ahead.

I would consider the PS3 more of a N64 than the Wii being an N64. Thinking they would be undefeated, the company makes poor decision choices leading to the collapse of leadership. Just look what happened to both Nintendo (with the N64) and Sony (with the PS3).

Another excellent point, although you'd never get a Sony fanboy like Duffmanth to admit that. There are so many parallels between the PS3 and N64 but the most important would be each one arriving last during their generation and thinking that all of their fans were going to make their newest system number one just because they both had won the previous two generations. And then theres all the arrogance each showed in the beginning of what they thought would be their third conquering gen in a row. Nintendo learned their lesson and now it's Sony's turn. They are definitely alot less arrogant now than when this genration started(I suppose being in last place for three years straight can humble you) but the true test will be how they launch their next system. We have no idea when or where that will be but I can guarantee you that it won't be for $599.

Press_Start

09-15-2009, 03:09 AM

Rickstilwell1

09-15-2009, 03:27 AM

Nintendo has already announced a new Zelda game, a new Metroid game, and TWO new Mario games for the Wii. That's their killer franchises... What more do you want from them?

--Zero

How about a new Kirby, a new Star Fox, a first party try at a new Donkey Kong adventure, and why not yet another standalone Yoshi game? Only the DS gives them any time of day anymore...

I wonder what Dragon Quest X will be like? Dragon Quest IX has to come on DS first though...

kupomogli

09-15-2009, 08:03 AM

I heard the same thing two years ago. I'd say it's still doing pretty well.

Wii hasn't been outsold by another console in North America since the month Halo 3 was released.

You mean an altogether amount and not weekly right? Because the PS3 outsold the Wii two to one the past week in the US.

duffmanth

09-15-2009, 09:54 AM

The Wii won't "fizzle out". Is it going to sell less than it sold it's first three years? Most likely. But considering they were averaging 400,000-600,000 systems sold a month(when there was ample supply and demand), it doesn't really matter if they only start selling 200,000-300,000 a month. The 360 would still have a hard time catching up to them and the PS3 will never catch up to them.

Excellent point and if I may tweak it a bit, the same logic applies to the PS3 catching up to the 360. Let's say the PS3 starts outselling the 360 by like 5,000-20,000 a month. The 360 would still be selling and everything they sell gets added up to their total. This is why I know that the PS3 will never catch the 360 in the US. This gen is halfway over now(4 years for the 360 and 3 years for the Wii and PS3) and all three systems have enough good games coming where things will pretty much remain the same. Despite how much Sony fans hang on every new AAA PS3 release, theres nothing that will get it out of last place. And the same goes for the 360. It has some amazing exclusives coming this year and next but none of those will get it out of second place. The Wii's lead is too far ahead.

Another excellent point, although you'd never get a Sony fanboy like Duffmanth to admit that. There are so many parallels between the PS3 and N64 but the most important would be each one arriving last during their generation and thinking that all of their fans were going to make their newest system number one just because they both had won the previous two generations. And then theres all the arrogance each showed in the beginning of what they thought would be their third conquering gen in a row. Nintendo learned their lesson and now it's Sony's turn. They are definitely alot less arrogant now than when this genration started(I suppose being in last place for three years straight can humble you) but the true test will be how they launch their next system. We have no idea when or where that will be but I can guarantee you that it won't be for $599.

I don't remember stating that the PS3 and 360 will catch up to the Wii, because they probably won't. I'm merely saying that the Wii price drop will help it in the short term. I just think if Nintendo continues on this path of releasing shitty shovelware and watered down games, with the odd AAA game thrown in there, it's going to have an impact on the system's long term sales and longevity.

j_factor

09-15-2009, 10:11 AM

You mean an altogether amount and not weekly right? Because the PS3 outsold the Wii two to one the past week in the US.

I was just going by monthly sales, I don't pay attention to individual weeks. Weekly sales fluctuate more due to price drops, the arrival of certain games, etc. Even Saturn had individual weeks of being the #1 system in America. Doesn't really mean anything.

megasdkirby

09-15-2009, 01:14 PM

I don't remember stating that the PS3 and 360 will catch up to the Wii, because they probably won't. I'm merely saying that the Wii price drop will help it in the short term.

Ah yes, it will always happen. Any console that is reduced in price will have a spike in sales for a short amount of time. The time frame is longer if done before the holiday season. Right now the PS3 is selling well. The only console I have not seen information on is the X360. the $300 price tag for the X360 seems to have been done very quietly, to little fanfare. At least at work, customers phone in for the PS3 and the Wii, but it's been weeks since anyone has asked for a X360. Very weird, I will admit.

I just think if Nintendo continues on this path of releasing shitty shovelware and watered down games, with the odd AAA game thrown in there, it's going to have an impact on the system's long term sales and longevity.

But imagine if the console was constantly bombarded with great games at a constant rate (I don't use the term "AAA" because it's all to the Eye of the Beholder...for instance, I think GTA is horrible while others think it's godly...it all depends on the person). Wii sales would be through the rood, hardcore gamers would notice the console, and give it a chance.

I bet that if the Wii had the same quality games found on the PS3 and X360, things would be even better for Nintendo.

badinsults

09-15-2009, 07:40 PM

No, Evan, you're missing the point. By defining one group as "our games" and another as "your games" the way you put it, implies that games reserved for "us" are reserved ONLY for "us" and no one outside that will understand is, IMO, wrong.

Take RPGs for example. During the 16-bit and early 32-bit era, RPGs were in the minority in an environment defined by action, adventure, and platformers. Then Final Fantasy 7 came and the RPG craze took place. Out of nowhere, the genre became popular cause a majority of gamers (who liked Crash Bandicoot, Mario, etc) took the first step and began to understand what made RPGs fun and wanted more, where beforehand didn't know what the heck it was. All cause they finally "got it".

Like FF7 for RPGs, Street Fighter II for fighters, Halo for FPS, etc., it's possible for the new crowd (defined by the "casual" stuff) to break out and enjoy the same things we do, maybe more. I'm waiting for developers to provide that first step and so far, they're doing a piss-poor job at that.

You still don't get it. The people who are picking up the Wii for things like Wii Fit or Wii Sports are not likely going to be interested in the popular genres from previous generations, no matter how hard developers try to shove these titles down their throats. My uncle has a Wii sitting here in his living room, but he is not going to play a FPS. These people do not enjoy games that take hours to pass and require complex control schemes. This is why Nintendo designed the Wii, because they failed miserably with the Gamecube trying to emulate what Sony was doing with the PS2. I'm not pointing this out to diss people who like these games, but to point out the reality of the current video game market. People who like the traditional genres already have a PS3 and/or Xbox 360, so those genres do better on those systems than on the Wii.

And this is why I say that the price drop of the PS3 will have limited impact on the long term survival of the console. There is a limited amount of people who will buy the game genres I defined as "hardcore", and it is unlikely there will be much grown this market. In fact, I recall reading interviews by Nintendo management before the release of the Wii that stated that much. It doesn't matter how awesome the people on this forum think games like Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid 4 or LittleBigPlanet are, the fact is these games were all outsold by Wii minigames like Carnival Games. I doubt that these games would have sold much more if they were available on the Wii despite the larger user base.

Press_Start

09-16-2009, 12:06 AM

You still don't get it. The people who are picking up the Wii for things like Wii Fit or Wii Sports are not likely going to be interested in the popular genres from previous generations, no matter how hard developers try to shove these titles down their throats.
Says who?!

Your whole argument rests on the fact they are a lost cause implies it's impossible to gain profit yet the major success of the big N's titles including Mario Kart, Mario Galaxy, and Smash Bros debunks it.

My uncle has a Wii sitting here in his living room, but he is not going to play a FPS. These people do not enjoy games that take hours to pass and require complex control schemes.

Has your uncle ever played a FPS? Did you ever take the time to sit down with him or your family and play some games outside the "casual" stuff? Like Metroid, Wario Land, or Final Fantasy? Cause I'm thinking the "hardcore" hate the idea of mom and dad playing Halo, God of War, and Killzone.

This is why Nintendo designed the Wii, because they failed miserably with the Gamecube trying to emulate what Sony was doing with the PS2.

I thought it was the bitchslapping Nintendo got the pandering to the "hardcore" for so long.

I'm not pointing this out to diss people who like these games, but to point out the reality of the current video game market. People who like the traditional genres already have a PS3 and/or Xbox 360, so those genres do better on those systems than on the Wii.

The same way they said Wii will never find a market outside the "hardcore" then big N's soaring sales Mario-stomped any doubt. The same way Mario Kart, Mario Galaxy, and Twilight Princess proves there's a respectfully strong interest in racing, platforming and adventure genres by the so-called "casual" crowd. Nintendo's money maker has brought the base, the numbers and the success. Third-party companies have themselves to blame for their streak of failure on the most selling console this generation for reasons as I've stated in a previous post.

j_factor

09-16-2009, 12:27 AM

Says who?!

Your whole argument rests on the fact they are a lost cause implies it's impossible to gain profit yet the major success of the big N's titles including Mario Kart, Mario Galaxy, and Smash Bros debunks it.

Sorry to butt in, but... that doesn't at all contradict what he said. "The people who are picking up the Wii for things like Wii Fit or Wii Sports are not likely going to be interested in the popular genres from previous generations, no matter how hard developers try to shove these titles down their throats."

This is pretty true. When a "hardcore" game (whatever that means) comes out on the Wii -- which is far more often than the Wii bashers will admit -- it almost never sells terribly well. Red Steel is really the only exception I can think of.

Has your uncle ever played a FPS? Did you ever take the time to sit down with him or your family and play some games outside the "casual" stuff? Like Metroid, Wario Land, or Final Fantasy? Cause I'm thinking the "hardcore" hate the idea of mom and dad playing Halo, God of War, and Killzone.

My dad likes RPGs, point and click adventures, and turn-based strategy games. He likes that type of game because he doesn't like games that require fast reflexes. So I think of those as "casual" types of games. I mean think about it, an RPG is a game that you can just sit back and relax with, and not have to focus too hard on the game. But other people say RPGs are "hardcore". It's very ill-defined.