By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
WilliamWatts on 09 July 2010
Edit Thread
snfr said:
WilliamWatts said:

If the PS1 didn't finish first it wouldn't have given the PS2 such a massive lead over all the other consoles in terms of early adoption and early exclusives. By the time the Gamecube and Xbox 1 got to market the battle was already lost. Now consider the 3DS and how people say that before the PSP2 even gets to market its already lost, its the same deal. The Xbox next will definately not dawdle out of the gate like the Xbox 360 did and the Wii will definately get a huge supply of third party attention, exclusive third party attention at that. No third party will want to get left behind on Nintendos next home console, especially if the 3DS does as well as expected.

The instant a next generation console comes out the PS3 is going to be 'old news'. It will damage the sales of the current PS3 and potentially weaken the future PS4 if it isn't on the market in short order and cause some of the userbase which consists of quite a few hardcore gamers and technophiles to consider strongly changing allegience. Even a Wii 2 with rediculous profit margins and a $249 price tag in 2011 could easily outperfom the PS3. Without even trying hard it could have double the memory and bandwidth, double the drive speed, and triple or quadruple the GPU performance.

1. Just because people say it it won't automatically come true. Those people want the PSP2 to fail before it is even announced. They wish that it will fail. And by looking at the Wii you should recognize that 3rd party support isn't everything. Wii is the best selling console although it has the weakest 3rd party support.

2. Third partys won't give too much attention to the Wii or its' successor, simply because they know that Nintendo's own first party games beat third party games easily.

3. Because it's longer on the market than upcoming consoles it doesn't mean that it's 'old news'.  Look a few years back and you'll recognize that the PS2 outsold the PS3 and the Xbox360 in 2007 (look especially at November and December 07), although the 360 was already in its' second year. I know what you think about this: the PS2 was more popular. But why should the PS3 not reach the mass market and sell the shit out of next gen consoles with... let's say... a 149$ price?

1.No the PSP2 is already behind the 8 ball, Sony is the third place handheld competitor and they risk slipping even further behind as Android becomes increasingly important in handheld gaming in response to Apple. It doesn't take a stretch to see the PSP2 is facing an uphill battle. Sony's own games are nowhere near as platform driving or defining as Nintendos own. Nintendo has published more 20M sellers than Sony has 5M games.

2. The 3DS says otherwise. Sure the DS didn't do the third party thing as well but the third parties are there in force for the 3DS so the same will likely apply to the Wii successor.

3. The PS2 was the leading console by far, it was the highest selling home console, the PS3 is not the PS2. It will also likely never get to $149 because Sony owned the majority of the I.P of the PS2. whereas they have a lot of fixed costs with the PS3. They have to pay: Blu Ray royalties, DVD royalties, Rambus for XDR, IBM/Toshiba for Cell since they divested their interests, Nvidia for RSX and they have to put in a $30 HDD, finally Blu Ray is nowhere near as mature a technology as DVD so they will still pay a premium for the next 2-3 years at the least.