90: The PlayStation 3 Deadpool

"Some call the PS3 launch 'disastrous,' but even with the body count to date, it's not a genuine disaster - yet. Sales are sluggish, but a genuinely terrible product launch scorches the earth, annihilating hope of recovery. This hasn't happened to the PS3 - yet. In contrast to past launch disasters - the Ford Edsel, the Susan B. Anthony dollar - the PS3, as a product, has earned from neutral parties a measure of respect, if not enthusiasm. The New York Times called the console 'over-engineered,' not the worst insult imaginable."

Allen Varney reports on the state of the PS3 launch.

The PlayStation 3 Deadpool

Now I wonder if I can word this in such a way as to avoid looking like a PS3 fanboy and starting a flamewar in the forum? Only one way to find out...

First, the article chooses to compare PS3 sales with XBox360 and Wii sales across the same month. An alternative might be to compare the PS3's sales with its competitors during an equivalent window after launch. I would do this comparison, but 1UP have done it for me:

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3158204

Interestingly (though not necessarily significantly) the PS3 comes out ahead.

Why might we prefer this comparison? Well, as Allen Varney points out, the PS3 is short of great titles right now. One year after launch, presumably there will be more.

As for Europe, even with the console being worse and the price being higher, the launch here in the UK was the most successful in history according to Joystiq:

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/27/uk-ps3-launch-saw-10m-in-cancellations-still-1/

...and that's even with people like me refusing to buy one until the price drops.

As for Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD, it would be a brave man who still thought HD-DVD likely to win at this point. Certainly the sales figures are favouring Blu-Ray as much as two to one according to IGN:

http://uk.gear.ign.com/articles/772/772518p1.html

If Blu-Ray doesn't win, the other two smart bets are "both" (via dual-format players) or "neither".

Not trying to say the article is outright wrong here, but it presents what I see as a rather skewed picture.

Dom Camus:
Now I wonder if I can word this in such a way as to avoid looking like a PS3 fanboy and starting a flamewar in the forum? Only one way to find out...

First, the article chooses to compare PS3 sales with XBox360 and Wii sales across the same month. An alternative might be to compare the PS3's sales with its competitors during an equivalent window after launch. I would do this comparison, but 1UP have done it for me:

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3158204

Interestingly (though not necessarily significantly) the PS3 comes out ahead.

Why might we prefer this comparison? Well, as Allen Varney points out, the PS3 is short of great titles right now. One year after launch, presumably there will be more.

This comparison is not really too meaningful. Rather than that, it doesn't show a good future for Sony. The Xbox360 already has a large lead NOW. The PS3 needs to outsell the 360 NOW in order to catch up. If it doesn't, the gap in userbase between the two consoles will simply grow bigger. If Sony simply follows or only slightly beats the 360 sales pattern in the equivilent windows, it will simply mean that in the same time next year, the 360 will still have a significant lead. Of course, with the 360's larger userbase, it'll only get more support while the PS3 receives less(overall speaking). Less support -> Less sales -> Less support -> Less sales. Time isn't on Sony's side here.

I won't go into your other points now but with this alone, it's not hard to see that Sony's going to an uphill battle.

The key to your argument there seems to be the claim that development houses will put more effort into 360 titles than PS3 titles (I assume this is what you mean by "more support"?). With the majority of big titles going cross-platform I'm not sure it's clear that this will be the case.

Certainly Microsoft seem to like being a year ahead, but it's not obvious to me that it even matters anymore.

Dom, the PS3 has competeting figures with the x360, but when you say "comeptitors" it implies the Wii as well. Neither the PS3 or x360 come close to Wii sales.

As far as the PS3 launch in Europe, all I can is that I'm not at all impressed with launch figures. Generally, consoles sell out their first wave of stock immediately. They had more consoles to put out becuase they launched in Europe 5 months after they launched in the US. They had their problems sorted out by then, and they were able to deliver a greater number of units on day one. People always get turned away at launch, they just had to turn away fewer.

I don't think the PS3 is out of the game yet, but they aren't going to be the big winners this round. Nintendo has already captured back almost 50% of the market in the first 5 months of the console's life span. The 360 has a year head start and has the highest market saturation. Sony's console has to make it into homes in order to compete and maintain developer support. They will make it over time, but I firmly believe that their reign is over.

Blaxton:
Dom, the PS3 has competeting figures with the x360, but when you say "comeptitors" it implies the Wii as well. Neither the PS3 or x360 come close to Wii sales.

As far as the PS3 launch in Europe, all I can is that I'm not at all impressed with launch figures. Generally, consoles sell out their first wave of stock immediately. They had more consoles to put out because they launched in Europe 5 months after they launched in the US. They had their problems sorted out by then, and they were able to deliver a greater number of units on day one. People always get turned away at launch, they just had to turn away fewer.

I don't think the PS3 is out of the game yet, but they aren't going to be the big winners this round. Nintendo has already captured back almost 50% of the market in the first 5 months of the console's life span. The 360 has a year head start and has the highest market saturation. Sony's console has to make it into homes in order to compete and maintain developer support. They will make it over time, but I firmly believe that their reign is over.

Blaxton where are you getting your numbers? I haven't seen or read anything about the Wii taking 50% of the market. I have read that the Wii sales numbers out doing MS and Sony worldwide by a large margin but I think it's to early say they have 50% of the market.

And as far as the PS3 launch according to the BBC, they broke the UK sales record selling over 165k units. Which I think isn't too bad for the first two days.

I don't know, I think a lot of people got caught up in the blogoshere and jumped on the hate Sony bandwagon which taints our view of the PS3's situation in the market.

Blaxton:
They will make it over time, but I firmly believe that their reign is over.

Depending on what you mean by "reign" I think we agree there.

As with many things it depends on expectations. Was the PS3 ever going to repeat the PS2's near complete dominance? Depends whether you believe Microsoft's claim that they never expected the original XBox to "win" since it was their first attempt at a console. They would say this generation is their first serious attempt to dethrone Sony.

As for Nintendo, the Wii's a superb game product, but without taking anything away from that it's not clear whether it really does compete with the PS3 in the same sense that the 360 does.

Did Sony screw up this generation? Well, if we're talking about their PR efforts I think the answer is clearly "yes"! But the machine? The design? The strategy? Not so clear-cut in my view.

The Wii is at about 6 million units, the x360 is at about 9-10million, and the PS3 (when I had posted my response) was looking at a little over 2 million. Those are figures in one of the Escapist articles this week. So Nintedno might be closer to about 33% right now, but considering the rate of climb, they should be at 50% marketshare pretty soon.

By reign I mean the utter dominance of the comeptitors.

I think the consoles are for gaming. Even if it is weak as far as processing specs go it is still a part of this generation. Their success might be showing that gamers don't need prettier graphics as long as the games are good. Sure, they three systems all offer a slightly different package, but they all compete. Also, he top poster compared the three systems in the sentence right before using the term "competitors" which is why I compared all three.

There is no doubt that the PS3 is a sweet piece of machinery, but peronsally I can't afford one. I'd love to have one, but I can't see myself paying that much for a game machine. And, I'd rather not get a x360 because I'm really put off by the breakages and Microsoft in general, but it fits my budget significantly better. I think a lot of people just feel like 500-600 is too much for game machine that is claimed to be more than that.

Dom Camus:
Did Sony screw up this generation? Well, if we're talking about their PR efforts I think the answer is clearly "yes"! But the machine? The design? The strategy? Not so clear-cut in my view.

In my opinion, they did screw up the machine in their strategy... which is Blu-ray. Sure, it holds more, but I don't think we'll see a bunch of games that "actually require" all that extra storage space beyond what HD-DVDs store (and apparently Blu-ray discs read slower).

If Sony's strategy of Blu-ray (an attempt at media storage format dominance) wasn't their primary focus, the PS3 would have been released much, much earlier. It would also be a lot cheaper. It would have also kept more exclusives from third party developers.

It will be interesting to see how Sony's gamble on Blu-ray pans out.

Echolocating:
It will be interesting to see how Sony's gamble on Blu-ray pans out.

My theory is that both HD-DVD and Blu-ray will be eclipsed by digital distribution before either truly takes off as a video storage format. I don't think either HD-DVD or Blu-ray will ever get anywhere near the market penetration of regular DVD.

Consequently, I think Microsoft made the right choice by not building an HD-DVD or Blu-ray drive into the Xbox 360, and followed that up with another sound decision in creating the Xbox Video Marketplace to sell and rent SD and HD video. Having said that, I think they were stupid not to include a hard drive in the Core system, and have priced their standalone 20GB and 120GB hard drives far too high. On the hard drive front, I think Sony made the right call, especially since you can upgrade it yourself.

Dom Camus:
The key to your argument there seems to be the claim that development houses will put more effort into 360 titles than PS3 titles (I assume this is what you mean by "more support"?). With the majority of big titles going cross-platform I'm not sure it's clear that this will be the case.

Certainly Microsoft seem to like being a year ahead, but it's not obvious to me that it even matters anymore.

Having the cheaper system, cross-platform titles is only really beneficial to Microsoft. The PS3 needs exclusives to justify its higher cost. If the PS3 can't secure enough exclusives to justify its higher cost, fewer and fewer people will be buying the system. If the desparity becomes great enough, developers might be less inclind to spend the extra effort to make their games multi-platform, and simply make then exclusive to the 360. This is one possible scenario.

Another possible scenario is that the PS3 does get enough exclusives to justify its cost. In this scenario, I can see the PS3 going toe-to-toe with the 360. I can't really see a scenario where the PS3 outright wins, however. Not anymore, not unless Microsoft makes a large error.

If you can, maybe you can paint it out for me.

We may actually see three strong competitors this generation, rather than one console outright dominating. That would be an interesting outcome.

Skipping all of this directly to Sony-Hatred (:D), as far as their gaming division -- this company is stagnant, overly pompus and lost touch with the customers years ago.
If they die, it is by their own undoing and they've earned it.

I'm a bit late on this.

I'll leave Nintendo and their cheap plastic consoles aside, and just voice my thoughts on the PS3.
Sony tried to take a piece bigger than their stomach. They talk about a console which will gradually become a highlighted figure over 8 or 10 years, but that's absurd.
With the exclusivities dropping like flies, with components which are overpriced because they're too new, it's largely expectable than in three to four years, a new next-gen console, from a competitive company, will challenge what remains of the PS3, with possibly similar technological abilities, if not slightly better, like cheaper but more powerful blu-ray, which may be fairly and sufficiently implanted then, which is not the case now. The hardware will likely be more rounded, more efficient, with a couple of years of experience to max out capacities equal or superior to a PS3 without reaching absurd prices.

I have a nauseous feeling about the PS3. It feels like it's going to age very badly, just like a vast majority of futuristic movies made in 90s, which look embarassing and absurd now, by trying to predict something, putting all their marbles in one basket by taking conceptual "risks", and getting it absolutely wrong in the end.

It's almost like if Sony says that the PS3 is what consoles will look like in near future.

The PS3 might remain as what it tried to seem through over the top presentations in those fancy TV ads, that is, a super powerful posh console, ahead of her global contemporary league, akin to the status of the Neo Geo compared to the rest of home consoles of that respective era.
Of course, Sony will try to adapt, probably release a PSthree, or something like that, with better hardware, but it will only be made to match with new competitive hardware that will come out in half a decade, or only to avoid being too far behind in the race.

Right now, I think a good combo would be PS2, Wii and Xbox360 for the next-gen.

I don't see any significant room left for the expensive PS3 vanilla (yes, let's not forget that it comes with almost no add-on for now), and I don't think that it's only a very few IPs which wil help. The console will need a huge high quality catalogue to compensate for the price, and this doesn't even warrant the console's safety.
The Dreamcast had a very good catalogue as well, but this didn't help overcome several crucial difficulties.

With the PS2 being so well spread (more than 100 millions console sold over the world IIRC), and with high quality games which prove that she still has lots to offer (God of War I & II, Burnout Dominator being hits I can quickly think of), still being supported by Sony, much more than Microsoft's first console, it's like heaven for any small to medium structure aiming at producing a game, at reduced costs, with people who know enough about the capabilities of the machine, and for the potentially highest sales possible at the moment, at least for one or two years to come, and maybe still there to a significant level around 2010, since the Wii seemed to slow down the pace.

Just look at how long the GBA kept selling even long after the DS tank was out.

Arbre:
I'm a bit late on this.it's largely expectable than in three to four years, a new next-gen console, from a competitive company, will challenge what remains of the PS3, with possibly similar technological abilities, if not slightly better, like cheaper but more powerful blu-ray, which may be fairly and sufficiently implanted then, which is not the case now. The hardware will likely be more rounded, more efficient, with a couple of years of experience to max out capacities equal or superior to a PS3 without reaching absurd prices.

It is interesting to look back with some hindsight on these things. I think you're right, in that what should have been a knock on the XBox--that the original came out after the PS2 and was obsolete before the PS3--has become a strength: people looking 'long term' are thinking that even if XBox comes out with three consoles to every two Sony puts out, they still break even:

Xbox360, 720, & 1080 @ $400 (adjusted) = $1200
PS3 & 4 @ 600 (adjusted) = the exact same.

And people looking short term...buy a Wii.

Looking back, I'd say Sony suffered a perfect storm, some of their own making, some not. I'd say (besides the loss of exclusives, which has been discussed by others better than I can):

(1) Telling people rumble is last gen, and then putting it back in. It really undercut Sony's credibility, speaking of which:

(2) Sixaxis, after calling the Wii's motion sensing a gimmick. Since credibility is everything when you're trying to sell a product for $200 more than your competitor, especially based on another feature like Blu-Ray. I think Sony appeared to be flaky when it came to trumpeting its own features, and killed the ability of Blu-Ray to sell the player. Speaking of...

(3) Blu-Ray was not the next DVD. For two reasons. One, I think Sony--strangely--failed to realize that people like buying electronics. It's not like when the PS2 came out and people wanted a combo VHS/DVD if they were getting one at all. Now, people want everything but the cat to be hooked up to their TV in the living room. Two, I have to wonder if Blu-Ray is actually making people *pass* on the PS3. Unlike DVD, there's a format war going on. I wonder if a lot of people feel like the Blu-Ray player in the PS3 is actually a gamble rather than a value. What happens if Blu-Ray loses? When you bought a PS2, you knew you were good for years, buying the same technology as everyone else. With the PS3, you took a stand in a format war. With the 360, well...

(4) XBox spoiled on Sony's launch. One, in releasing that HD-DVD add-on drive. I really think it wasn't so much about getting people into HD-DVD *right now* as making it look like buying the 360 now means that if HD-DVD wins, you can join the party later. If Blu-Ray wins, it'll be long enough down the road that you can justify buying a PS3 even if you bought a 360 now. Two, that one commercial for _Gears of War_. Remember the one with the cover of "Mad, Mad World" from Donnie Darko playing in the background, and that huge friggin' alien rises up out of the darkness? I really feel like that killed Sony, because Sony's best game at launch was _Resistance_ and, well, _Gears_ wound up stealing all of that game's thunder.

(5) They launched *too early*. Mmm hmm--and this is why hindsight is great. Sony's launch actually deflated interest in the console, because there were too few and people got frustrated. They should have launched later, and all those PS3's that are sitting on shelves right now would have sold in the first week. Also, they would have avoided the Wii, which turned out to be a juggernaut, and instead the PS3 would have come out in the middle of a Wii shortage, instead of vice-versa. Again, this one is really about hindsight, but, I still think Sony could have seen that it should have waited the three or four months it would have taken to have a good launch, and that it was worth leaving Christmas to the Wii, because the Wii actually could have been its ally: even if the PS3 came out in the new year, XBox still wouldn't of had Christmas all to itself again because of the Wii. Finally,

(6) They told you they were launching too early. They told you this thing is for your HDTV. So people without an HDTV think 'hmm, maybe I should wait on that PS3 until I get an HDTV'. Xbox on the other hand never pushed the HDTV--they just pushed it as ready for HDTV when it gets here, but in the meantime it's still great with your existing TV.

People joked about how Sony should give everyone an HDTV like at the Virgin Megastores launch, but, it makes one wonder what would have happened if Sony had included a $200 rebate for a Sony HDTV with each PS3...maybe that's how the PS3 might save itself: rather than dropping the price--and watching XBox drop too while further turning off early adopters--they should drop the price of the whole package you need to enjoy the PS3, and especially Blu-Ray. Maybe the answer is that now that Sony has tied its fortunes to Blu-Ray, it's time to really throw their weight behind it. Sony's HDTV line could use this kind of shot in the arm anyway.

1 & 2: Yes, they really screwed up on those.

3: Blue-ray is a funny thing. Out of the video game market, it is said that the Blu-ray is winning. Maybe because it sounds and feels next-gen, but also probably because it can actually contain much more DVDs, and is the largest public ROM format.
I, for one, am totally for getting the biggest burnable support possible (there's a difference of 20 GB between both formats, with a 12 cm large single layer disc), because it's much more reliable than a frakin' HDD that crumbles every two years or so if you transport and use it too much. So the more room the better.
But, well, I look at the advances made for the HD-DVD... it's promising. It will always be under what a Blu-ray can contain, sure, but when they talk about 10 layered discs which can provide 150 Gb for a HD-DVD (and 250 Gb or a Blur-ray), I must wonder if, on the console plane, Microsoft has really lost anything at all.
150 Gb will be insanely huge. You won't need that for a game of this next-generation, unless you try to cramp as many HD FMVs as you can, and garanty to sell games which require 200 hours to be completed, devlopped by batteries of designers.
Even middlewares can't help fill the void.

4: It's true that Gears rally hit the scene with much aura. But I can't deny the avalanche of ads for this game as well. Coupled to the positive appraisal, it really helped. A good campaign. At the same time, I've seen nothing worth of it to show that the PS3 had something to offer.

5 & 6: Your last idea about the cut out on the package, is it a "1 PS3 + 1 HD TV", for a reduced price, right?

Mh, I think that might not work. It's true, Sony's almost stuck, if not totally stuck, and they need to make a daring move, but they have to make the right one, and there's just plenty of them which are false indicators, tempting suicidal gambles, which would doom the console even more.
Putting such a package in place, saying that the only way to have a significant cut on some "true" (to be debated) piece of next-gen, is to acquire the whole lot, or nothing, is not going to work I'm afraid.
If in theory, it means that either the HD TV or the PS3 will cost significantly less, it also means that you have now to pay for an even greater total of money.
This would feel like forcing people to buy expensive stuff, especially in a climate where it doesn't feel necessary. Or doable.
It could shoot backwards at Sony's face.
That's the problem, they so heavily associated the PS3 with the living room commodities of a real next generation, especially with HD, that it feels like, instinctly, that you're castrating the PS3 on anything that's not HD.
That said, I'm not sure Microsoft ever claimed that they didn't require HD for their Xbox360, but to me, it doesn't look like they ever made it an urge to enjoy the power of their console.
It almost seems to play another song, right now, in parallel to Sony's overpompous parade, where you feel like you can perfectly enjoy Microsoft's next-gen on the house equipment you already own, which strikes a cord to many of us I bet.
The fact that the HDMI/DVI-D outputs were not present from go actually supports this overall feeling.
In the european country I live, those HD screens, even if they start to sell, are still simply way too expensive.
Saying you're ready for HD, is smart. Letting time to the consumer to decide when he's or she's ready to make the jump is, well, kind (but let's cut the naivety there).
Now, saying that you must have the HD to really experience the power of an expensive console... it actually feels like it's either both or none. A gamble. Unfortunately, as I said above, having both is even more expensive, despite any eventual bundle at a reduced cost.

The PS3 is, to me, simply too high end at the moment. Trouble is that it could actually remain out of reach for quite a while.

Plus there's the developpers' side. It's very important to Sony to convince editors, no matter their various weights in the industry, to produce for the PS3, above all under exclusive contracts.
However, there's a problem. I've read, just so many times, how the 360 is easier to code for.
That's the trick, because assuming it's true, then I suppose that if Microsoft keeps the same kind of architecture, if it's possible, it will be as easy to code for the next Xbox (I liked your 720) as it is now for the 360.
This next Box will likely pop in during the PS3's mid years (on a scale of ten years). This could turn out to be a death blow to the PS3/three.
Question is, how much into the PS4 Sony already is? Do they intimately think they have to pass this turn?

Plus there's Nintendo behind, and god knows what they'll come with in the two 2-3 years to come, considering the gross income they're experiencing now. And yes, the Wii is also very expensive for what it is. But the price still is far below anything else, so the pill is swallowed without a second thought.

Arbre:
1 & 2: Yes, they really screwed up on those.

Yeah, especially how I have *no* idea what the Sixaxis is for. I know the Wiimote is for when two guys from Japan show up and want to dive around the the living room playing tennis so they can get in shape to kill Skylar with an ancient sword, or whatever, but I have no idea what the Sixaxis is for.

Maybe part of what Sony needs now is the Best Hockey Game Ever showing people checking each other by pushing forward on the Sixaxis. That's I think a big part of Sony's problem: we know it does all this great stuff, but we have no idea what we'll do with it once we get it home. Just *something* that makes me think 'wow--I should get that for this weekend'.

Arbre:
5 & 6: Your last idea about the cut out on the package, is it a "1 PS3 + 1 HD TV", for a reduced price, right?

Sort of, less about reducing the price and more about making people think 'this is a good time to make the leap' with a temporary price break. Here in America, this seems to be the year HDTV is finally catching on. The faster it gets here, the better for Sony. Maybe for the market here in America, run it from the Christmas season through the Superbowl. Also because Sony is losing out in the HDTV war to companies like Vizio it might be time to take a gamble on all their electronics, using Blu-Ray, the PS3, and Sony HDTVs to leverage each other.

I just get the feeling that people won't get a PS3 when they get HDTV if they've gotten an XBox in the meantime. Maybe Sony can take some solace in the high sales of the Wii and the PS2. Wouldn't that be funny, if the Wii saved the PS3 by cutting into XBox numbers long enough for people to delay getting either an XBox or PS3 until they got an HDTV and Blu-Ray finally wins the format war (if it wins, of course).

And yeah, I agree--the PS3 is looking more and more like a bridge to the PS4. Kinda like what the Game Cube was to the Wii. If Sony is lucky.

+1, just picking on those news:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.43017
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=25843
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=25821

Just as much as I'd like to see the PS3 price drop so low, and have the Sony's newer hardware in my living room, what makes people so sure that a cut down to $200 will make the PS3 the de facto "winner" in this battle?
It's not that we should really be concerned about what wins, really, but those claims still puzzle me to some extent.

If Sony can afford such a bold move, so soon (we're talking about a reduction from 2/5 to 1/3 of the initial price for Christmas apparently), despite the real high production price of their console, just how "expensive" do you think the 360 will still be then?
The HD-DVD/Blu-ray battle is almost irrelevant, since I don't even think that a PS3 game could fully exploit the whole storage space on a last generation HD-DVD, and quality wise, they're perfectly equal. Right now, devs are likely to make games for the machines which are easier to code for, and which offer the highest potential sales figures.
Aside from the Wii, right now this means the 360.

Once again, the 360 is more likely to make the drop sooner (season holiday, september '07, etc. ).
The 360 is still gaining exclusivities. Not later than the 15th of this month, we learn that the 360 will be the only console to offer episodic content for GTA 4 (2008). Do we need to babble on how powerful this licence is?

I really don't believe in the supermassive price cut argument, in the idea that this alone will save the console. What about the IPs? They don't talk about them. That's what attracts people in the end.
Should Sony already campaign on the future big hits, and eventually draw a large attention towards those games, to eventually slow down the further advance the 360 may take? Maybe they could literally flood the TV spots with ads for Final Fantasy for example, just to make people suspend their spending plans, and think that they should pile bucks for the game's release. Sony could also put an emphasis on a "cheaper PS3 + Final Fantasy" bundle.

And again, how is Sony going to battle against that Halo 3 steamroller? The official release date is september, which could also see the reduction of all 360s' prices by a significant percentage.
I really hope for Sony that they have some powerful secret IP that will steal the show!

I know this is about long term planning, but a good start actually helps for a longer battle, and right now, I'm not sure how Sony plans to invert the situation to gain the necessary extra boost.

27 Mar 2007 11:02 pm, Allen Varney, most likely a fanboy, points out one of the most obvious things in gaming history, and pushes me to make an account on the escapist. most likely because he is relieved that sony looks to be losing this round, and/or is getting in as many insults as possible before sony comes around and comes out on top.

sure the ps3 is all about the future and what's GOING to happen.
but point out ONE console war that sony lost.

The Escapist asked me to write that particular article, and I had (and still have) no reason to advance one console over another; I don't own any of the current-gen consoles. I like to think my article does get at some reasons for the remarkable passion gamers show in the console wars, a passion that provokes some to dredge up eight-month-old articles in order to shout groundless insults.

AK3515:
27 Mar 2007 11:02 pm, Allen Varney, most likely a fanboy, points out one of the most obvious things in gaming history, and pushes me to make an account on the escapist. most likely because he is relieved that sony looks to be losing this round, and/or is getting in as many insults as possible before sony comes around and comes out on top.

sure the ps3 is all about the future and what's GOING to happen.
but point out ONE console war that sony lost.

Not wanting to take any side here, I'd say that it's hard to make such statements when each console has been different. The PS2 probably was the most helped console. PS3 is a great deal different from the others, notably for certain design choices and possibly certain marketing errors.
That said, it's a very long term console, and the things are getting better for the console. I don't think you can kill it off. It's a very slow starter that's all.
That DMC limited bundles the Japanese are getting makes my nervous.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here