Playstation 3 in 2007??? I dont think so!

[RCM]

ZMWeasel wrote:

In other words, if the PS2 mirrors the sales history of the PS1--which, so far, it has--the PS2's dominance has only just begun. Why interfere with the PS2 by prematurely launching the PS3?

Actually the PS2 has consistently sold better then the PS. Sony shipped 100,000 at launch for the PS. Sony was supposed to ship 1,000,000 units at launch for the PS2 but actually shipped half. I am pretty sure they sold all 500,000 units at launch. I think most people look to Final Fantasy VII as the turning point for Sony. That's when they went from having a lead over their competitors to having complete dominance of the market.

I agree that if the PS2 business still turns a profit for Sony they should certainly keep producing it. The biggest problem I see for Sony is the fact that the PS2 has sold so much better then the PS. Perhaps the PS2 business will start to cool or go cold once the Xbox 2 and Nintendo revolution come out just because so many more people own PS2s. Sometimes it can take 1 awesome title to turn the tides. If the big N and M come out swinging and capture the hearts and minds of the gamers that matter, the casual gamers, it could spell big trouble for Sony. Most casual gamers seem interested in only the next big then.

Another problem with waiting till 2007 is the fact that an entire new generation of gamers will be ready to play. the PS will have been out for 13 years (in Japan) by 2007. Perhaps the majority will be interested in something new. They might want a new alternative.

That's quite a lot of "coulds" and "maybes" and "mights" etc. in my observations. I really dont care when they launch. What im really looking forward to is a balanced videogame war. The 16bit war was very exciting. I hope we are in for another one of those. I think the industry needs balance. I hope it gets it in the upcoming 5948 bit wars!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[RCM]

ZMWeasel wrote:

In other words, if the PS2 mirrors the sales history of the PS1--which, so far, it has--the PS2's dominance has only just begun. Why interfere with the PS2 by prematurely launching the PS3?

Actually the PS2 has consistently sold better then the PS. Sony shipped 100,000 at launch for the PS. Sony was supposed to ship 1,000,000 units at launch for the PS2 but actually shipped half. I am pretty sure they sold all 500,000 units at launch. I think most people look to Final Fantasy VII as the turning point for Sony. That's when they went from having a lead over their competitors to having complete dominance of the market.

I agree that if the PS2 business still turns a profit for Sony they should certainly keep producing it. The biggest problem I see for Sony is the fact that the PS2 has sold so much better then the PS. Perhaps the PS2 business will start to cool or go cold once the Xbox 2 and Nintendo revolution come out just because so many more people own PS2s. Sometimes it can take 1 awesome title to turn the tides. If the big N and M come out swinging and capture the hearts and minds of the gamers that matter, the casual gamers, it could spell big trouble for Sony. Most casual gamers seem interested in only the next big then.

Another problem with waiting till 2007 is the fact that an entire new generation of gamers will be ready to play. the PS will have been out for 13 years (in Japan) by 2007. Perhaps the majority will be interested in something new. They might want a new alternative.

That's quite a lot of "coulds" and "maybes" and "mights" etc. in my observations. I really dont care when they launch. What im really looking forward to is a balanced videogame war. The 16bit war was very exciting. I hope we are in for another one of those. I think the industry needs balance. I hope it gets it in the upcoming 5948 bit wars!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[goatdan]

Actually the PS2 has consistently sold better then the PS. Sony shipped 100,000 at launch for the PS. Sony was supposed to ship 1,000,000 units at launch for the PS2 but actually shipped half. I am pretty sure they sold all 500,000 units at launch. I think most people look to Final Fantasy VII as the turning point for Sony. That's when they went from having a lead over their competitors to having complete dominance of the market.

I think that it needs to be stated here that there is a huge difference between the launch of the Playstation, from a company that had never done video games before, and the PS2 from a very established player. The SNES probably sold better than the NES at the beginning too...

So to finish my point with this, I wouldn't take the PS2's initial sales as being any better than the PSX. At this point, the PS2 has slowed when the PSX was just gaining steam...

I agree that if the PS2 business still turns a profit for Sony they should certainly keep producing it. The biggest problem I see for Sony is the fact that the PS2 has sold so much better then the PS. Perhaps the PS2 business will start to cool or go cold once the Xbox 2 and Nintendo revolution come out just because so many more people own PS2s. Sometimes it can take 1 awesome title to turn the tides. If the big N and M come out swinging and capture the hearts and minds of the gamers that matter, the casual gamers, it could spell big trouble for Sony. Most casual gamers seem interested in only the next big then.

The PS2 hasn't sold much better than the PSX. And realistically, it would have to be more than one awesome title to change the tides. Xbox has Halo, which many people think is one of the best FPS ever. Even so, that hasn't allowed them to capture most of the market. It would take an entire line-up of unique, new games to draw enough people away from anything current for a while longer. Graphics aren't _that_ important, as has been proven when systems like the SNES whomped the Jaguar. Marketing is.

I hope it gets it in the upcoming 5948 bit wars!

Actually, we are still on 128 and 64 bits and will be for the foreseeable future...

[zmweasel]

Actually the PS2 has consistently sold better then the PS. Sony shipped 100,000 at launch for the PS. Sony was supposed to ship 1,000,000 units at launch for the PS2 but actually shipped half. I am pretty sure they sold all 500,000 units at launch. I think most people look to Final Fantasy VII as the turning point for Sony. That's when they went from having a lead over their competitors to having complete dominance of the market.

Actually, most people look at the launch of FF7 as the moment when RPGs became a truly significant genre in North America, whereas they'd previously been considered a niche product. FF7 may have been a system seller in Japan, but in the States, it was merely a huge seller. (It's still the best-selling FF of all time, thanks to Sony's marketing prowess and the excitement surrounding the series' jump to CD/3D.)

The closest thing to a "turning point" for Sony was when the PS1 price point dropped to $199 and then $149. Sales skyrocketed after both drops. The great games were there from the start with PS1 (Twisted Metal, NFL GameDay); the price point put the system over the top.

Another problem with waiting till 2007 is the fact that an entire new generation of gamers will be ready to play. the PS will have been out for 13 years (in Japan) by 2007. Perhaps the majority will be interested in something new. They might want a new alternative.

Six or seven years isn't that much longer than five years. Ten years, Sony's ultimate goal, is significantly longer, but the presumption is that the PS3 will be powerful enough to hold gamers' (and developers') interest for that long.

That's quite a lot of "coulds" and "maybes" and "mights" etc. in my observations. I really dont care when they launch. What im really looking forward to is a balanced videogame war.

Well, the DS/PSP war will be the closest thing to a fair fight in the game biz since '95.

-- Z.

[RCM]

goatdan wrote:

I think that it needs to be stated here that there is a huge difference between the launch of the Playstation, from a company that had never done video games before, and the PS2 from a very established player. The SNES probably sold better than the NES at the beginning too...

So to finish my point with this, I wouldn't take the PS2's initial sales as being any better than the PSX. At this point, the PS2 has slowed when the PSX was just gaining steam...

I was merely showing the increase in sales. The launch numbers were an example. I knew the launch numbers off the top of my head. Actually Sony has done videogames before, they just never launched hardware. As for the PS2 sales numbers slowing, I think the sales were up over 200% since the price drop, which wasn't unexpected. Being an established hardware manufacturer or not wasn't the issue. THe issue was that sales of the PS2 far outpaced that of the PS. By the way are you comparing sales of the PS or PSX? Those are 2 different systems if you didn't know.

The PS2 hasn't sold much better than the PSX. And realistically, it would have to be more than one awesome title to change the tides. Xbox has Halo, which many people think is one of the best FPS ever. Even so, that hasn't allowed them to capture most of the market. It would take an entire line-up of unique, new games to draw enough people away from anything current for a while longer. Graphics aren't _that_ important, as has been proven when systems like the SNES whomped the Jaguar. Marketing is.

The PSX doesn't even come close to the installed base of the PS2. THe PS2 has outpaced the sales of the Playstation by far. Sony reached 70 million units faster with the PS2 then they did with the PS. I actually said sometimes it can take 1 title to turn the tides. Final Fantasy VII comes to mind. Sony blew Sega away but was being outsold by Nintendo with their N64 consistently month by month. After FFVII was released there was no contest, Sony ruled. So with that example my statement holds true. I could name a bunch more but wont even if you ask! Ha! I don't know If I agree with the statement you made about a unique line-up of new titles coming along to sway the public. Sequels seem to rule the day. They rule b/c that's what people want I guess. I agree that graphics arent that important, just look at the PS and PS2. They have ruled while systems that are clearly more powerful have come out. I totally agree.

Quote:
I hope it gets it in the upcoming 5948 bit wars!


Actually, we are still on 128 and 64 bits and will be for the foreseeable future...

Thanks for the information. I really thought that the next generation CPUs were going to be 5948 bit! That actually was an attempt at humor, I guess it didnt translate well on the board!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[optic_85]

I hope sony continues supporting the ps2 and someone takes the bastards out. I wouldn't even mind seeing microsoft do it.

Man, i couldnt agree more!....God! I hate that over-hyped, poor quality, retaded VCR look-a-like that we call the PS2! I would love to see nintendo make a come back, but i also really enjoy my XBOX so i wouldnt mind at all if they came out on top.

[RCM]

ZmWeasel Wrote:

Actually, most people look at the launch of FF7 as the moment when RPGs became a truly significant genre in North America, whereas they'd previously been considered a niche product. FF7 may have been a system seller in Japan, but in the States, it was merely a huge seller. (It's still the best-selling FF of all time, thanks to Sony's marketing prowess and the excitement surrounding the series' jump to CD/3D.)

The closest thing to a "turning point" for Sony was when the PS1 price point dropped to $199 and then $149. Sales skyrocketed after both drops. The great games were there from the start with PS1 (Twisted Metal, NFL GameDay); the price point put the system over the top.

The $199-149 price drop was significant. But the release of FFVII was as well. It sold boatloads of systems and took large sales away from Nintendo, Sonys only legit contender at the time. If you wanted to play FF you had to buy a Sony system. A lot of people obviously wanted to. FFVII absolutely moved systems in America and is what I and many others consider a turning point for Sony.

Well, the DS/PSP war will be the closest thing to a fair fight in the game biz since '95.

You could be right. I have my doubts about Sonys PSP. I am shocked that I do. WHen the PSP was first announced I thought they would certainly be able to have a profitable business with little to no effort. Im sure Sony wont like this but I believe that the public will view the PSP primarily as a videogame handheld. Playstation is synonmous with videogames. So many times have I heard people say "lets play some playstation" instead of saying "lets play some videogames." I don't think casual gamers will be willing to pay between $250-$500 for a handheld machine. I want to but can't see the PSP going under $250 for a core system. Shockingly enough, I wouldn't be surprised if the DS dominates the PSP.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[zmweasel]

The $199-149 price drop was significant. But the release of FFVII was as well. It sold boatloads of systems and took large sales away from Nintendo, Sonys only legit contender at the time. If you wanted to play FF you had to buy a Sony system. A lot of people obviously wanted to. FFVII absolutely moved systems in America and is what I and many others consider a turning point for Sony.

The RPG genre wasn't (and isn't) as big in America as you think it was (and is). I have no doubt that FF7 was a system seller in Japan, but in America, we already had loads of killer apps: Twisted Metal 1/2, NFL GameDay, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Tekken 1/2, Crash Bandicoot.

FF7 did big business in America, no question of that, but it was the price drop that put the PlayStation over the top. The $149 "turning point" was six months before the Stateside launch of FF7.

FF7 might have given Sony a higher standing in the eyes of hardcore gamers (for a little while, anyway) and RPG freaks, but it was a combination of great games, great marketing, and competitive pricing that made the PS1 a mainstream success. It's not just one thing. It's never just one thing.

I should've mentioned that the PS2 was exceeding the PS1 in sales performance, but I already receive enough heat in this very anti-Sony forum for daring to point out the company's success.

-- Z.

[RCM]

The RPG genre wasn't (and isn't) as big in America as you think it was (and is).

And how big did/do I think it was/is?

I agree that it was more then just FFVII. But as ive already pointed out I believe it was a significant contributor in America (and Japan).

I should've mentioned that the PS2 was exceeding the PS1 in sales performance, but I already receive enough heat in this very anti-Sony forum for daring to point out the company's success.

Yeah I guess you should have mentioned the Ps2 was/is exceeding the PS in sales performance. I have gotten the feeling that the entire board is kind of anti-Sony. Not everyone on here, but a noticable amount of people. As for me, ive been a fan of Sonys videogames for years. Jeopardy for the Sega CD might very well be Sonys shining moment in gaming history! Anybody remember the print ads for that one?

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Aswald]

What will it do that is actually new?

[zmweasel]

And how big did/do I think it was/is?

You tell me. :) It's certainly not the #1 genre in America, as it is in Japan. Americans buy sports games ("extreme" sports included), racing games, first/third-person shooters, and tie-in action games in greater numbers than RPGs.

Of course, these days, Square Enix is the only major-league RPG developer/publisher in the States, so RPGs don't really have a chance of leading the U.S. charts.

Yeah I guess you should have mentioned the Ps2 was/is exceeding the PS in sales performance. I have gotten the feeling that the entire board is kind of anti-Sony. Not everyone on here, but a noticable amount of people. As for me, ive been a fan of Sonys videogames for years. Jeopardy for the Sega CD might very well be Sonys shining moment in gaming history! Anybody remember the print ads for that one?

Some of the Sony hatred seems to be fueled by the PlayStation having taken videogames "mainstream," which conveniently ignores that the Atari 2600 and NES weren't exactly underground items.

And anyone who hates Sony must REALLY hate Nolan Bushnell and Ralph Baer, since those bastards commercialized videogames to begin with.

-- Z.

[Berserker]

THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE.

I've chosen to Edit this post, maybe I'll bring this out again in a more suitable topic.

[Daria]

Of course, these days, Square Enix is the only major-league RPG developer/publisher in the States, so RPGs don't really have a chance of leading the U.S. charts.

So was that a jab at Square or Square and Enix? Or did you just mean that there aren't enough major publishers jumping on the RPG bandwagon to really push the genre to new heights of popularity?

[RCM]

ZMWeasel Wrote:

Some of the Sony hatred seems to be fueled by the PlayStation having taken videogames "mainstream," which conveniently ignores that the Atari 2600 and NES weren't exactly underground items.

And anyone who hates Sony must REALLY hate Nolan Bushnell and Ralph Baer, since those bastards commercialized videogames to begin with.

I agree with you. I think people get that whole "mainstream" issue wrong. If anything, Sony changed gamers and gamings images. Sony made gaming acceptable to the masses. It's "cool" to play videogames because of Sony. But for anyone to say that they took gaming into the mainstream reads too much fucking Game Informer. That was a slap to GI if anyone was confused by that last comment! Still, my biggest question is: does anybody remember the print ads for Jeopardy for the Sega CD?

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[goatdan]

I was merely showing the increase in sales. The launch numbers were an example. I knew the launch numbers off the top of my head. Actually Sony has done videogames before, they just never launched hardware. As for the PS2 sales numbers slowing, I think the sales were up over 200% since the price drop, which wasn't unexpected. Being an established hardware manufacturer or not wasn't the issue. THe issue was that sales of the PS2 far outpaced that of the PS. By the way are you comparing sales of the PS or PSX? Those are 2 different systems if you didn't know.

Uh... Making a game console and having the distribution system to get it to market isn't something that a company can just do overnight. Sony had to build the infastructure with the original Playstation before it could become a hit. That is no different than any other first-generation console release, with the possible exception of Microsoft who worked at developing that infastructure with the examples that had been set before it and was willing to invest tons and tons of money into it. And you can't use Atari as an example here because they had to develop the internal system too.

The issue is that initial sales of the PS2 *should* outpace the sales of the PSX because of the infastructure. I'm positive that sales of the SNES for the first year or so outpaced the initial sales of the NES. That is because there was a distribution channel set up and everything was ready to go from the first success.

And I don't understand what you are saying about the PS and the PSX being different systems. I, along with much of the world have used the PSX abbreviation for the Playstation for a long time. If you are seperating the original Playstation with the PS One hardware, I think that is odd considering they are the same machine underneath it all. If not, please fill me in because I'm really confused.

The PSX doesn't even come close to the installed base of the PS2. THe PS2 has outpaced the sales of the Playstation by far. Sony reached 70 million units faster with the PS2 then they did with the PS. I actually said sometimes it can take 1 title to turn the tides. Final Fantasy VII comes to mind. Sony blew Sega away but was being outsold by Nintendo with their N64 consistently month by month. After FFVII was released there was no contest, Sony ruled. So with that example my statement holds true. I could name a bunch more but wont even if you ask! Ha! I don't know If I agree with the statement you made about a unique line-up of new titles coming along to sway the public. Sequels seem to rule the day. They rule b/c that's what people want I guess. I agree that graphics arent that important, just look at the PS and PS2. They have ruled while systems that are clearly more powerful have come out. I totally agree.

Again, I'm not arguing the point that Sony sold units quicker. All that I'm stating is that should be expected in this day and age. Sony is an older company (in the video game hardware world) and therefore should be doing more quicker.

My other point with this is that I don't think that the public is going to run out and pruchase a new system this year or even next when the untapped potential of the current line-up is still huge. And really, if I can get an Xbox, PS2 or GameCube for $150 or less with a well-established library of titles, I am not going to look into upgrading to the "next generation" until something that is unique can sway me.

We are to the point with consoles that I don't think people will need to upgrade. In the past, each new generation has come with a new feature. For instance:

2600 - Played relatively simple games
NES - Added side scrolling and much deeper games like Zelda that were not possible on the 2600
Geni / SNES - Added more speed and better graphics that offered new styles of games -- Like Mario Kart, Sonic and so on.
Playstation / N64 - Took gaming into a 3D world
Dreamcast / Xbox / GameCube / PS2 - Offered gamers 'net connectivity (although GameCube doesn't count) and much better 3D graphics.

What will the next generation offer that the current systems don't have? 3D graphics can't get that much better from here to be the only reason that people are going to upgrade...

Thanks for the information. I really thought that the next generation CPUs were going to be 5948 bit! That actually was an attempt at humor, I guess it didnt translate well on the board!

I apologize for this. I guess I've been jaded by the people who talk about how their 256 bit and 512 bit PS2 and Xbox systems are just awesome.

[zmweasel]

Of course, these days, Square Enix is the only major-league RPG developer/publisher in the States, so RPGs don't really have a chance of leading the U.S. charts.

So was that a jab at Square or Square and Enix? Or did you just mean that there aren't enough major publishers jumping on the RPG bandwagon to really push the genre to new heights of popularity?

Not a jab. I love Square Enix on both a personal and professional level. They've just raised the bar so high on RPG production values that no one can seriously compete. They dominate the RPG genre like EA dominates the sports genre.

That being said, RPGs and S/RPGs are about the last niches in which smaller publishers can still make a buck. Just ask Nippon Ichi.

-- Z.

[Captain Wrong]

Heh. Zach, your posts about mainstream and FFVII, excellent. Man, I've been trying to make those points myself (espically about FFVII, I really think people over-estimate the importaince of that game) but never quite get the words right. I know people will hear what they want (and ignore what they want ) but it's still nice seeing it up there anyway.

[ManekiNeko]

If Sony's numero tres, well.. I dunno what Sony would do. They've never been out of first sadly.

You know how long Sony Computer Entertainment has been around? They put the original Lode Runner on the MSX computer. They've been around quite a while, and not always in first place

Yeah, just look at Last Action Hero on the Genesis, or Hudson Hawk on the NES! Oh, how I pine for the days when Sony was an industry joke, rather than an industry powerhouse...

Anyway, I think it's gotten to the point where the first console out of the starting gate is usually the last one to reach the finish line. Sega gained an important advantage in 1989 by releasing the Genesis two years before the Super NES, but since then, early console launches have become a liability. I think Sega's next two flagship systems are proof enough of that.

I don't think it will hurt Sony to wait a few years to release the Playstation 2. I think there's still a lot that can be done with the system, even though it is technologically inferior to its competitors. Game consoles are more powerful than they've ever been before, and any new console release would be negatively affected by the law of diminishing returns.

Until we see the next monumental paradigm shift that changes gaming forever (ie the larger rounds and increased complexity in NES games, or the evolution from 2D to 3D first set into motion by the Playstation), the only benefits a new console would have to offer is a higher clock speed and prettier polygons. I just can't see people paying three hundred dollars for slightly improved graphics... they're going to want more a lot more bang for their buck.

JR

[RCM]

goatdan wrote:

Uh... Making a game console and having the distribution system to get it to market isn't something that a company can just do overnight. Sony had to build the infastructure with the original Playstation before it could become a hit. That is no different than any other first-generation console release, with the possible exception of Microsoft who worked at developing that infastructure with the examples that had been set before it and was willing to invest tons and tons of money into it. And you can't use Atari as an example here because they had to develop the internal system too.

I agree with you. What's the problem? My statements had nothing to do with Sony launching a system for the first time. Again, I was merely stating that the PS2 outpaced the PS in sales. That's it. I wasn't and am not concerned with the situation of each launch. You clearly missed the point.

And I don't understand what you are saying about the PS and the PSX being different

They are very different. The PS and PS1 are compatible. They can only play Playstation games. THe PSX is a sort of do everything miracle system that SOny launched in Japan within the past year. It has TiVo liike functions along with dvd playback and PS2 compatibilty (i think it does more). I presume it plays PS titles as well. You just lost a bit of credibilty with me, the PSX isnt exactly an industry secret. I am aware that PSX was the development name for the Playstation. I am of the opinion that people should not refer to the PS as the PSX anymore for the fact that there is a piece of hardware called the PSX!

All that I'm stating is that should be expected in this day and age. Sony is an older company (in the video game hardware world) and therefore should be doing more quicker

.

Huh? I dont get it.

My other point with this is that I don't think that the public is going to run out and pruchase a new system this year or even next when the untapped potential of the current line-up is still huge. And really, if I can get an Xbox, PS2 or GameCube for $150 or less with a well-established library of titles, I am not going to look into upgrading to the "next generation" until something that is unique can sway me.

We are to the point with consoles that I don't think people will need to upgrade. In the past, each new generation has come with a new feature. For instance:

2600 - Played relatively simple games
NES - Added side scrolling and much deeper games like Zelda that were not possible on the 2600
Geni / SNES - Added more speed and better graphics that offered new styles of games -- Like Mario Kart, Sonic and so on.
Playstation / N64 - Took gaming into a 3D world
Dreamcast / Xbox / GameCube / PS2 - Offered gamers 'net connectivity (although GameCube doesn't count) and much better 3D graphics.

What will the next generation offer that the current systems don't have? 3D graphics can't get that much better from here to be the only reason that people are going to upgrade...

Wow, are you the editor-in-chief of Gamepro? Nintendo is said to be working on a system that almost completely defys your statements about the next generation. They are said to be developing a system that will "upgrade" the way people currently play games giving them a compelling reason to upgrade a new system. ANd actually, 3D graphics can get better then what is out on the current systems. Look at the current graphic accelerators on PC as evidence. By the way, I love your razor sharp examples of new features introduced by each system. Truly classic! How old are you? Please don't take my request for your age as an insult. I am just very curious.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[goatdan]

I agree with you. What's the problem? My statements had nothing to do with Sony launching a system for the first time. Again, I was merely stating that the PS2 outpaced the PS in sales. That's it. I wasn't and am not concerned with the situation of each launch. You clearly missed the point.

You stated that the PS2 was doing so incredibly much better than the original Playstation straight out of the gate, and I was simply stating a reason that this makes sense. You say that you agree with me, but you were trying to give reasons why that made the PS2 the "end-all" system. I'm not saying that it is a bad system or has poor performance or anything like that. I'm simply stating that it makes sense that the launch was better, and comparing the sales charts for both systems is comparing apples to oranges.

You'll be able to make a much better comparison after the XBox 2 comes out and can see how it's sales do versus the Playstation 2, just like it is more fair to compare initial Playstation sales to Xbox sales -- both the first gaming console hardware released by two giants in different aspects of technology that had no foothold in the industry before their consoles were released.

And I don't understand what you are saying about the PS and the PSX being different

They are very different. The PS and PS1 are compatible. They can only play Playstation games. THe PSX is a sort of do everything miracle system that SOny launched in Japan within the past year. It has TiVo liike functions along with dvd playback and PS2 compatibilty (i think it does more). I presume it plays PS titles as well. You just lost a bit of credibilty with me, the PSX isnt exactly an industry secret. I am aware that PSX was the development name for the Playstation. I am of the opinion that people should not refer to the PS as the PSX anymore for the fact that there is a piece of hardware called the PSX!

Oh, because there is a system that Sony dubbed the PSX released in a different country, those of us who have referred to it as the PSX for the last eight years suddenly have to change how we refer to the original Playstation or we lose credibility with people like you? If that's the case, I guess who cares. Be realistic. You couldn't have thought that I was refering to the Japanese system in my original post, and if that is what you were thinking of, you just lost a TON of credibility with me.

All that I'm stating is that should be expected in this day and age. Sony is an older company (in the video game hardware world) and therefore should be doing more quicker

.

Huh? I dont get it.

The first time you try to organize a softball team, it would be a little rough. You would have to figure out where everyone would play, who plays in what positions are and who bats in what order. After you did it once, the second time you assemble the team it is a little easier to make the same decisions.

Right?

A company with experience in a field should be able to put plans in motion a lot quicker the second time around. That shouldn't be a huge surprise.

Wow, are you the editor-in-chief of Gamepro? Nintendo is said to be working on a system that almost completely defys your statements about the next generation. They are said to be developing a system that will "upgrade" the way people currently play games giving them a compelling reason to upgrade a new system. ANd actually, 3D graphics can get better then what is out on the current systems. Look at the current graphic accelerators on PC as evidence. By the way, I love your razor sharp examples of new features introduced by each system. Truly classic! How old are you? Please don't take my request for your age as an insult. I am just very curious.

Wow, do you have to make negative statements about me when I was completely respectful of you? Don't be a troll.

Read my statements again. Read your statements about how Nintendo is trying to ""upgrade" the way people currently play games giving them a compelling reason to upgrade a new system." and realize that you just stated what I did in the same types of terms -- a simple graphical upgrade will not compel people to upgrade without a change of some sort in gameplay -- as this "young dumbass" just outlined for your "mighty wise" self.

Act like an adult when you reply, or don't reply to me please. I won't waste my time with you if you are just trying to be a fanboy.