Quantcast
PS3 performing better than PS1?!

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS3 performing better than PS1?!

MikeB said:
Falcon095 said:
MikeB said:
Falcon095 said:
MikeB said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
MikeB said:
mundus6 said:
Ps3 never been a complete failure not even when it launched for $600. The thing is that Sony really went overboard with PS3, they should just had made a console with similar specs to Xbox 360 and slapped on a Blu-ray drive on there and they would have won this generation hands down (over M$ anyway).

Although a lower specced PS3 would probably have been positive with regard to short term sales, I think it would have been bad regarding console sales in general. It would probably have eaten more into XBox 360 sales and to a lesser extend Wii sales and have resulted in a more juvenile userbase than is currently the case.

But I think from a grand perspective the current specs helps widen the console market as well as the console's long term potential (the 10+ year plan Sony talked about way before the PS3's release). Certainly also scientists and militaries are certainly more happy with the current specifications. From Sony's perspective not only short term sales are of importance, but also what the console provides to help advance the consumer electronics market.

Lower specs means a more juvenile userbase?

Than the ps1 and ps2 userbase were run by juveniles going by your theory.....

Yes, that was clearly more the case for the PS1 and PS2.

Higher specifications and higher entry pricing go hand in hand, thus more expensive devices are much better affordable to people who earn more money. Also making optimal usage of the PS3 requires an upgrade in home electronics like a surround sound setup and HDTV and not all kids are allowed easy internet access by their parents (for online only gaming like the excellent Warhawk or MAG, or excellent online only distributed content like Super Stardust HD or Trine). Most kids seem to have to settle with their parent's yesteryear's SDTV.

Of course the sales damage which would result from this was heavily invested on by Sony, so the PS3 faired much better than for instance the 3DO despite based on the specs the PS3 ought to have been priced higher in comparison. Probably the 3DO had a relative mature gaming audience of early adopters as well compared to for instance the PS1.

Are you saying that Sony did the right thing with the PS3?

For me personally, absolutely. (Not everything, but in general)

For dissapointed kids, probably not.

How is it better than the PS2 or the PS1 for you?

Who would fit in you disappointed kids description? Would Sony investors or people who expected the PS3 to be the PS1 or PS2 fit too?

I was a PC gamer last gen. I love FPS games. Both PS1 and PS2 were weak consoles for that. But in hindsight having bought God of War 1 & 2 for my PS3, I underestimated what could be accomplished with that console, I should have given it more consideration. For me now the PS3 is much better for FPS and TPS gaming than the PC was. I also love well presented story telling like with the Uncharted and God of War series, PC games are usually not that great in this regard. The PS3 being much technically capabable than a PS2 in combination with a HDTV and a good surround audio set and the online and media functionalies are much improved as well.

Well there haven been other consoles that have been doing those stuff that you're mentioning of the PS3, actually most people think that the X360 is the king of shooters and online. So I don't think the PS3 has started anything like that, like you seem to be saying.

You didn't answer me.. Would Sony investors or people who expected the PS3 to be the PS1 or PS2 fit too?

 

 



||Tag courtesy of fkusumot - "Heaven is like a Nintendo theme park!"||Join the Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 American League HERE!||

Around the Network
BMaker11 said:
It can't possibly be outperforming the PS1. PS3 is domed, after all

Your first sentence is correct, the second one is not.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

NJ5 said:
BMaker11 said:
It can't possibly be outperforming the PS1. PS3 is domed, after all

Your first sentence is correct, the second one is not.

 

are you willing to make a bet that if PS3 lasts on market for 10 years it will outsell PS1?



BladeOfGod said:
NJ5 said:
BMaker11 said:
It can't possibly be outperforming the PS1. PS3 is domed, after all

Your first sentence is correct, the second one is not.

 

are you willing to make a bet that if PS3 lasts on market for 10 years it will outsell PS1?

That is an irrelevent statment.

PS3 could sell 50 million consoles tommorrow because a Saudi trillionaire had a stroke...

It still wouldn't change the fact that the PS3 is not outperforming the PS1... or even performing to it's level... at current.  Which you know... is what the thread is about.


It's like saying "Switzerland can't beat the US in a war."  True now... and it's still true now... no matter how much stronger Switzerland gets or weaker the USA is.



Falcon095 said:
MikeB said:
Falcon095 said:
MikeB said:
Falcon095 said:
MikeB said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
MikeB said:
mundus6 said:
Ps3 never been a complete failure not even when it launched for $600. The thing is that Sony really went overboard with PS3, they should just had made a console with similar specs to Xbox 360 and slapped on a Blu-ray drive on there and they would have won this generation hands down (over M$ anyway).

Although a lower specced PS3 would probably have been positive with regard to short term sales, I think it would have been bad regarding console sales in general. It would probably have eaten more into XBox 360 sales and to a lesser extend Wii sales and have resulted in a more juvenile userbase than is currently the case.

But I think from a grand perspective the current specs helps widen the console market as well as the console's long term potential (the 10+ year plan Sony talked about way before the PS3's release). Certainly also scientists and militaries are certainly more happy with the current specifications. From Sony's perspective not only short term sales are of importance, but also what the console provides to help advance the consumer electronics market.

Lower specs means a more juvenile userbase?

Than the ps1 and ps2 userbase were run by juveniles going by your theory.....

Yes, that was clearly more the case for the PS1 and PS2.

Higher specifications and higher entry pricing go hand in hand, thus more expensive devices are much better affordable to people who earn more money. Also making optimal usage of the PS3 requires an upgrade in home electronics like a surround sound setup and HDTV and not all kids are allowed easy internet access by their parents (for online only gaming like the excellent Warhawk or MAG, or excellent online only distributed content like Super Stardust HD or Trine). Most kids seem to have to settle with their parent's yesteryear's SDTV.

Of course the sales damage which would result from this was heavily invested on by Sony, so the PS3 faired much better than for instance the 3DO despite based on the specs the PS3 ought to have been priced higher in comparison. Probably the 3DO had a relative mature gaming audience of early adopters as well compared to for instance the PS1.

Are you saying that Sony did the right thing with the PS3?

For me personally, absolutely. (Not everything, but in general)

For dissapointed kids, probably not.

How is it better than the PS2 or the PS1 for you?

Who would fit in you disappointed kids description? Would Sony investors or people who expected the PS3 to be the PS1 or PS2 fit too?

I was a PC gamer last gen. I love FPS games. Both PS1 and PS2 were weak consoles for that. But in hindsight having bought God of War 1 & 2 for my PS3, I underestimated what could be accomplished with that console, I should have given it more consideration. For me now the PS3 is much better for FPS and TPS gaming than the PC was. I also love well presented story telling like with the Uncharted and God of War series, PC games are usually not that great in this regard. The PS3 being much technically capabable than a PS2 in combination with a HDTV and a good surround audio set and the online and media functionalies are much improved as well.

Well there haven been other consoles that have been doing those stuff that you're mentioning of the PS3, actually most people think that the X360 is the king of shooters and online. So I don't think the PS3 has started anything like that, like you seem to be saying.

You didn't answer me.. Would Sony investors or people who expected the PS3 to be the PS1 or PS2 fit too?

Yes, that's what interested me in the XBox 360 at first, despite I was already far more excited by the PS3's technical specifications. I had a 360 in the past, but for me it left a bad taste for various reasons. I did have fun with games like Kameo though.

I completely skipped the previous gen consoles and I probably will never get a Wii (despite loving Nintendo's rich gaming history).

I am not a Sony investor, but from the grand perspective I think Sony's investment in the platform are very good for the company for the long run. We consumers just benefit when Sony sells the PS3 below actual costs. Investors can worry if they want, but the situation is pretty solid at this point, the division is generating profits and this will very likely improve further in course of time.

 



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

Around the Network
NJ5 said:
BMaker11 said:
It can't possibly be outperforming the PS1. PS3 is domed, after all

Your first sentence is correct, the second one is not.

 

Nope his second sentece is correct.

PS3 & PS3 slim, are both domed.

 



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Kasz216 said:
BladeOfGod said:
NJ5 said:
BMaker11 said:
It can't possibly be outperforming the PS1. PS3 is domed, after all

Your first sentence is correct, the second one is not.

 

are you willing to make a bet that if PS3 lasts on market for 10 years it will outsell PS1?

That is an irrelevent statment.

PS3 could sell 50 million consoles tommorrow because a Saudi trillionaire had a stroke...

It still wouldn't change the fact that the PS3 is not outperforming the PS1... or even performing to it's level... at current.  Which you know... is what the thread is about.


It's like saying "Switzerland can't beat the US in a war."  True now... and it's still true now... no matter how much stronger Switzerland gets or weaker the USA is.

If PS3 sells more in 10 years than PS1 in 10 years it means it outperformed PS1. Period.

No spinning crap like launch dates in Japan and US and price comprassion. Are you willing to make a bet?



BladeOfGod said:
Kasz216 said:
BladeOfGod said:
NJ5 said:
BMaker11 said:
It can't possibly be outperforming the PS1. PS3 is domed, after all

Your first sentence is correct, the second one is not.

 

are you willing to make a bet that if PS3 lasts on market for 10 years it will outsell PS1?

That is an irrelevent statment.

PS3 could sell 50 million consoles tommorrow because a Saudi trillionaire had a stroke...

It still wouldn't change the fact that the PS3 is not outperforming the PS1... or even performing to it's level... at current.  Which you know... is what the thread is about.


It's like saying "Switzerland can't beat the US in a war."  True now... and it's still true now... no matter how much stronger Switzerland gets or weaker the USA is.

If PS3 sells more in 10 years than PS1 in 10 years it means it outperformed PS1. Period.

No spinning crap like launch dates in Japan and US and price comprassion. Are you willing to make a bet?

Which is still irrelevent.

What he said was "It can't possibly be outperforming the PS3"  present tense.

It in fact is not currently outperforming the PS1 or even performing on an even level with it.

Also, I don't make bets.  I find them juvenile.

 

The PS3 isn't and hasn't outperformed the PS1.  Period.  Whether it does or not in the future is irrelevent.

Which you know... is what i posted in the post you replied too... which makes your reply that much stranger.



BladeOfGod said:

If PS3 sells more in 10 years than PS1 in 10 years it means it outperformed PS1. Period.

No spinning crap like launch dates in Japan and US and price comprassion. Are you willing to make a bet?

No, it means it outsold the PS1. It doesn't mean it outperformed it.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

NJ5 said:
BladeOfGod said:

If PS3 sells more in 10 years than PS1 in 10 years it means it outperformed PS1. Period.

No spinning crap like launch dates in Japan and US and price comprassion. Are you willing to make a bet?

No, it means it outsold the PS1. It doesn't mean it outperformed it.

 

Even so in raw numbers the PS3 hasn't matched or surpassed the PS1...

"Inflation" is another altogether issue which in of itself not needed to confuse things since the PS3 hasn't even reached the PS1.

If "From Paris with Love" doesn't pass Titantic (well I guess Avatar now) there is no need to adjust for inlation... since inflation is only going to make the loser lose more.

 

I'm not sure if you can use inflation in terms of userbase either... I mean, the market is bigger now, but is the Wii less successful then other systems that it will sell more in yet have a lower userbase?

It's hard to think since the Wii itself expanded the market.  I suppose it could be argued that the PS3 isn't expanding the market like the Wii, yet one still has to wonder then if you could hold  the Wii's expansion against it because of that.

 

Then again with the markets just naturally expanded in other markets and population growth i suppose SOME form of inflation should be considered but it's hard to figure how much would be "positive" inflation and how much would be "Systematic inflation."

It would take some fairly complicated equations involving purchasing power vs historic systems sold in similar levels of purchase power etc for different areas.

Would be really hard to pull off... probably the kinda thing you could do a statistics paper on.