Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sony's plan was pompous because they assumed everyone would buy their high price solution and so it would demolish the competiion, which turned out to be drivel. There was a real arrogance there, and it has already not worked for them.But I cannot divine the motivation behind Microsoft's move. A new console in two years time, making the 360 six years old, not bad, could have utterly destroyed Sony's entire stance by being embarrassingly better than the PS3.
It literally demolished the competition; the original XBOX sales were nowhere near the the PS2's, it's not even a close competition.
Even though the PS2's initial price was higher than the XBOX's.
And now the PS3 has had price drops. It's it's only about $20 more than the XBOX Elite. And you get a console with better build quality and better graphics and features.
The 360 sells more since it's a title-grabber. Microsoft has been negotiating with a lot of developers so that they could demolish the competition against the PS3 and Wii.
This deceiving marketing tactic worked for them though.
Uhhh, Sony dropped the price on the PS3 so many times because of the fact that no one was buying. And Sony's success with the PS2 has not followed them to the PS3.
And Microsoft hasn't had to negotiate to destroy the PS3 (nor would they bother in trying to destroy the Wii, as that is aimed at a totally different audience). Developers will go where they think they'll earn the most money.
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Sony had great success with the PS2, though.It literally demolished the competition; the original XBOX sales were nowhere near the the PS2's, it's not even a close competition.
Even though the PS2's initial price was higher than the XBOX's.And now the PS3 has had price drops. It's it's only about $20 more than the XBOX Elite. And you get a console with better build quality and better graphics and features.
The 360 sells more since it's a title-grabber. Microsoft has been negotiating with a lot of developers so that they could demolish the competition against the PS3 and Wii.
This deceiving marketing tactic worked for them though.
Well, for sure! The PS2 annihilated all competition by a considerable margin. And the PS1 did amazingly well for the first effort of what was meant to be a Nintendo add-on. No-one can deny that the Sony back then got it dead right. The PS1 was affordable and finally got the marketing of games to the 20+ generation that had grown up on them correct; the PS2 was a little pricey but had just enough features, quality and decent games to justify it so the whole thing went stratospheric.
But Sony made the same errors then that others had in the past- theyn assumed that usccess always breeds success; that their massivle lead would follow them anywhere they went. In fact, there were reasons they had won big before, and many of those reasons were forgotten. Not quite all, but enough to put them from being far enough ahead to beat all competitors combined, down to third place.
The fact is, the PS3 was over-priced at launch (over-priced literally that is; it had reason to be that price because it was so pricey to make, but that was Sony's own fault) and still hasn't done enough to distinguish itself in comparison. Those 'better graphics' you mention still have not become apparent. There's no point you trying to deny that- it is simply factual that there is no perception of better graphics on the PS3. And the Elite is the top Xbox model.
You have to ask yourself- Sony was in a monopoly position with virtually all of the major non-Nintendo franchises exclusive to itself. Xbox had Halo and that was about it. How could they possibly have let Microsoft get the software advantage?! It's becuse the PS3 compared to the Xbox scared the devlopers away.
I think alot of what the continuing lack of sales for the PS3 has to do with the online gaming community. I mean, I think I know maybe 2 or 3 people I hang out with who have a PS3. If you're in the mindset to buy a new console, I'd probably go with one that all my friends have, so I can play with them - and that's the 360.
Originally posted by Peach
Uhhh, Sony dropped the price on the PS3 so many times because of the fact that no one was buying. And Sony's success with the PS2 has not followed them to the PS3.And Microsoft hasn't had to negotiate to destroy the PS3 (nor would they bother in trying to destroy the Wii, as that is aimed at a totally different audience). Developers will go where they think they'll earn the most money.
M$ is obviously trying to steal or take advantage of the crowd Nintendo created. They won't destroyed them, but to say they won't bother with Nintendo is playing blind.
Natal is clearly aimed at such crowd.
They are a company hungry for money, they always will be, but you can't blame them for that, it's their philosophy. You won't go into a business a be buddy-buddy with your competition. They same can be said about Sony, they just haven't been trying as hard.
And Microsoft did negotiate exclusive contracts, they needed them badly... and will continue to do so whenever possible.
Sony dropped the price, because it was a necessity. they wouldn't sell with such high price.
...but they also dropped other features and it proved successful despite what many said
I never understand when somebody says, "MS is hungry for money".
Every game company from MS, to Sony, to Nintendo to EA are in the industry to make money.
Nintendo went the direction they did because of money. They didn't create the Wii to give entertainment to casual fans. They created it because they had too.
Originally posted by Smasandian
I never understand when somebody says, "MS is hungry for money".Every game company from MS, to Sony, to Nintendo to EA are in the industry to make money.
Nintendo went the direction they did because of money. They didn't create the Wii to give entertainment to casual fans. They created it because they had too.
Everyone is in it for the money. I didn't mean it just for Microsoft. Nintendo is cashing in on the "casual" crowd, which they single-handedly created. So everyone else will try to get a piece of that. EA is doing big bucks out of their fitness game on Wii (more so than any other IP on 360/PS3, if I'm not mistaken)
So Microsoft will go after it as well, as others will.
Sony will too, it just they are not trying as hard (as they should be) as M$ is.
Originally posted by BackFire
Yep. Nintendo took a big risk with the Wii, if their current gen console had failed like the Gamecube and to a lesser extend the N64 they may have thrown in the towel with home consoles outside of handhelds. But alas, we know how that turned out.
They just got lucky this time around. In the past, they were way behind the console wars. The Gamecube was evidence of this failure.
Sony had the majority of the console gamers, thanks to the combined sales of the PS1 and the PS2. The PS2 sold like hotcakes, and still remains the best selling console of all time. The PS1 didn't do bad either, and is the 2nd best selling console of all time.
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
I agree.They just got lucky this time around. In the past, they were way behind the console wars. The Gamecube was evidence of this failure.
Sony had the majority of the console gamers, thanks to the combined sales of the PS1 and the PS2. The PS2 sold like hotcakes, and still remains the best selling console of all time. The PS1 didn't do bad either, and is the 2nd best selling console of all time.
They didn't get 'lucky', they got it right. It is ridiculously partisan for you to insist that the PS2 did well because it was good but the Wii only because it was lucky.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It is ridiculously partisan for you to insist that the PS2 did well because it was good but the Wii only because it was lucky.
You cannot argue the fact that the PS2 has the highest sales in any console.
The PS2 got it 'right'. It didn't have those fancy motion controllers or useless add-ons. People bought it because of it's high qualilty build, its simplicity and the vast number of OUTSTANDING games that cater both hardcore and casual gamers alike.
How the heck does any of your post there support your statement that 'the facts say otherwise'?
What the facts say is this- Sony got it right with the PS2. Nintendo got it right with the Wii. The method is irrelevant- what is ridiculous is your claim that the Wii was just 'lucky' whilst Sony were competent. That is backed by nothing other than simple bias from you towards Sony.
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
The facts say otherwise.You cannot argue the fact that the PS2 has the highest sales in any console.
The PS2 got it 'right'. It didn't have those fancy motion controllers or useless add-ons. People bought it because of it's high qualilty build, its simplicity and the vast number of OUTSTANDING games that cater both hardcore and casual gamers alike.
Sony stuck a useless motion control feature in the SixAxis, and filled the PS3 with enough add-ons to call it a "media center" instead of a game console. Now they're pushing for a new motion controller. "Fancy motion controllers or useless add-ons."
"High quality build." I honestly cannot attest to the PS3's physical integrity, but I've already pointed out the quality failure in the Cell processor's architecture.
"Simplicity." With its myriad additional features and, again, the frustrating build of the hardware, the PS3 is anything but simple.
"Vast number of outstanding games." The PS3 lost the majority of its lucrative exclusives, which are now either cross-console or have jumped to other consoles exclusively. The number of games the PS3 has going for it alone is a mere handful.
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
The facts say otherwise.You cannot argue the fact that the PS2 has the highest sales in any console.
The PS2 got it 'right'. It didn't have those fancy motion controllers or useless add-ons. People bought it because of it's high qualilty build, its simplicity and the vast number of OUTSTANDING games that cater both hardcore and casual gamers alike.
Sony got it right with the PS2, yes. So what? Nintendo also got it right with the Wii. They kept things simple, and tapped into a section of the market that's always been largely ignored, despite the fact that casual gamers far outnumber the hardcore gamers.
Also, the fact that the PS2 is the highest selling console is pretty much irrelevant. It's also been out for nearly nine years, so it's had quite a bit of a decent lead, and it only reached that point about a year or two ago anyway. ALSO not mentioning the fact that the PS2 is such a fragile system that it's not unusual for someone to go through two of them (my family has, at this point, owned four different PS2s).