Resident_Hazard said:
This is at least a more intelligent response to my post than the fanboyish ones appearing above, sans proper writing. I'll try to address some of your issues:
I don't attribute Sony's increased sales entirely to Blu-Ray's success. But no doubt that added to it. The sales increase came at a time when there were no new system-selling PS3 exclusives, but it did coincide with HD-DVD's demise. You assume that I attribute all of the PS3's sales to Blu-Ray, which is just absurd. Don't just assume the illogical. I know full well that Heavenly Sword and Uncharted didn't totally fail like Haze and Lair. But the fact remains that Heavenly Sword scored lower than anticipated--and was one of the most commonly used titles prior to the PS3's launch to show off it's graphical capabilities. The fact that it's sequel has been axed is telling as well. Uncharted simply sold below expectations. Honestly, I think that's one of the more attractive PS3 titles because it's easy to pick out of the crowd, so to say. It also looks the way I think a modern Pitfall game should (not like that horrifying sack of crap they're developing for the Wii).
What do you mean, closing in on by 2 million? The PS3 is still 5 million behind the Xbox360. Dammit, if I could only remember the thread I posted in where I calculated total sales by December 2010, based on current monthly average sales. The Xbox360 still came out on top. Not by a whole helluva lot, but it still sold more based on that model.
Here's a more pressing question: Do you actually believe that studios didn't drop the PS3? Because money is a major factor in this. Games cost a small fortune to make these days (unless you're Square-Enix, then they cost the GDP of an average-sized country), and the PS3 has the lowest install base. No game is 100% appealing to an audience. Hell, the biggest selling PS2 (GTA:SA) game still only appealed to about 15% of the PS2's audience. If your game costs 5 million bucks to make, you run a serious risk on the PS3 because the install base is so low. 500,000 copies on the Wii can be a success because it costs one-half to one-third as much to develop on the system. But only selling 500,000 copies of a 5 million dollar game on the PS3 is barely breaking even. You don't think companies looked at the high cost of HD production and the low adoption rate of the PS3 and got nervous? Even Square-Enix got nervous. Some companies dropped PS3 support. Some merely compromised, and decided to go multiplatform to make the money back. Some did both.
Now, granted, my post is largely theory. This is practically a hobby to me: Game industry analysis. It was my belief long before even the launch of the Xbox360 that this generation needed to do something brand new the way the NES did brand new things when it came out and the 32/64-bit generation did things brand new in their time. Whoever did something brand new would succeed. Nintendo did things brand new, and they succeeded. The sad truth is that Sony fucked up in quite a few ways this generation. Not that the other two didn't--but Sony is the company that got hit the worst. In fact, I think everyone came into this generation more half-assed than any other generation was started before. Never did we have the level of hardware issues we had this time--and not just the RROD, but Wiis bricking from firmware updates, or not being able to read Smash Bros, PS3's wireless controllers bugging out, SIXAXIS wasted, etc. Nintendo, no harddrive. Sony, too many SKU's, too much cost. Microsoft, launched too early, initial games barely an improvement over Xbox, no Wi-Fi. Sony's ego. Nintendo licensing every flash-in-the-pan shitwad that wanted money. Damn near every single company lost money in the last fiscal year, except Nintendo, Activision, and I'm sure someone else. Yes, you're right, there were a lot of changes inside of Sony after the PS3 launched. But they were the embarassing kind of changes that come with failure. Like Gunpei Yokoi being "kindly asked to resign" after the Virtual Boy's colossial failure. 1. When a console starts in a bad place, they tend not to leave that bad place. The N64 started on shaky ground and, while it survived, it never really competed against the highly successful PS1. Atari was never able to repair the shattered image of the Jaguar. 2. When a company abandons a console, they tend to stay away for the remainder of the generation. When Lucas Arts dropped the GameCube, they didn't bother even trying to go back. In a worse bit of history, when companies dropped support of Sega because of the Saturn, some stayed away into the launch of the Dreamcast. Now, I doubt the PS3 will leave the kind of scar on Sony that the Saturn left on Sega. I get that you're all upset because maybe it looks like I'm selling short your baby. Rest assured that, unlike histories other gaming quagmires, the Playstation brand is still strong and the PS3 will in no way turn into the Jaguar or Saturn. But dismissing the upcoming line-up of the Xbox360 is a matter of taste. I wouldn't be surprised if 2009 is made up of the X360 and PS3 sharing the vast, vast majority of their games due to the similarities of the systems, their closeness in sales, and the high cost of development for them. But I wouldn't be surprised if 2010 ends up awash in highly competitive exclusives on both systems (well, by then, the Wii will have it's fair share as well) because no doubt, MS and Sony will both be desperate to usurp the other. It's entirely possible that the Wii could manage to capture 50 or higher percent of market share leaving the other two fighting over who controls the most of the remaining 50%. That will likely spur on some creative exclusive development. Just because I can see how the PS3 could end up finishing out the generation in Saturn/N64-like droughts doesn't mean it will happen. I don't doubt the PS3 is gaining support in the way of ports from Xbox360 games, but I think at this state, exclusives for the system will be fewer and far between--and many of the upcoming ones were probably in the works when it was still believed the PS3 would be a runaway success and the dominator of the generation. Financially, for a lot of companies, developing a grounds-up exclusive on the PS3 at this point may be prohibitive. I could be wrong, who the hell knows? I'm sure you totally think I'm wrong, and maybe you still believe the PS3 will overtake the Wii, which looks nigh impossible at this stage. Time will tell. Again, though, this isn't just something I guess at. I spend a lot of energy--probably too much--just watching, reading about, and analyzing the gaming industry. That doesn't mean I know more than you, it means that my analysis doesn't come from nothing. |
Wow, this is one lengthy conversation.....carry on.
For the record, I didn't read any of what I just quoted.
For the record part 2, no console or handheld has ever made the comeback the PS3 has made, from fighting with the GBA to outselling the 360....
