Will the launch of PSV affect PS3 sales in Japan?

[Michael-5]

MARCUSDJACKSON said:

Michael-5 said:

If you took off virtual console cause Wii has it, then you should take off a second analog stick cause PS3 has it. It's only fair. This is also the first time virtual console has been on a handheld too. 3DS Virtual console is different from Wii because it does GBC and GBA games, were Wii does not (at least not GB/GBC games). Both PSV and 3DS have their own unique features, all I am saying is I feel PSV vs. 3DS will mimic the sales pattern PSP and DS did. So PSV will Rock out in Japan, but world wide, nostaligia and good old Nintendo quality will win. ok but if i add the virtual console then i got to bring back the on screen buttons for PSV. hey i'm not beating you down. just having alittle fun. i'm not sure about the sells thing. nostalgia is a good arguement for a 3DS win, but i'm just not sure about the sells thing, but its a great argument that holds weight.

As for FPS's on a handheld, maybe some will sell alright on PSV, but not Call of Duty. I only see single player FPS's taking off on handhelds, and the market will be much smaller then the console market. see the thing is that vita can play like the big boy's so i can see COD working well on vita. even in online multiplayer but we don't have enough info and haven't seen it in action so thats another one we'll have to drop for now.

Do I agree that PSV has more control options then 3DS. Yes, but I don't think most games will take advantage of that. Wii for instance has a gamecube controller as a backup control method, but how many games use it? When I play Mario Kart I stick with the nunchuch and Wii-mote option, and never pkay with another one. I think the back touchpad is great, but I don't see many games taking advantage of it, and if they do, people people won't notice. but wht buts? i don't see any buts! well i'm sure there will be games that only have touch pad and on screen buttons as the only option. it all about building the game around the options and i believe dev will take that advantage as they do on home consoles. bulletstorm for PS3 only allows you to shoot with R1 and not R2. theres no way i've seen to change that option, but looking at Resistance one where Insomniac let you customize controls catering to your play style.

Sony has been making profit on PS3 since 2009, and it probably costs them <$200 to develop now, but think how much does a 360 cost? I read Kinect costs $60 to build, but they sell it for $150, and if I had to guess, the 360 itself is an $80-$100 system. Selling it at $300 is too much profit for MS. thats a business arguement. considering most reports i here MS is taking a lose on the 360 division as a whole so somethings wrong with that area of oporations but we won't know wht that is until theres a leak.

Inflation matters! $200 now is worth less then $200 10 years ago. Where I live, Mimimum wage now is $10 an hour, 10 years ago it was $7. This means 10 years ago it would take 29 hours at minimum wage to buy a $200 console, now it takes 20. once again it matters to us because we see it. the average consumer doesn't. they see $100 as $100 even if its $200 cause the average consumer doesn't see inflation. they see price, and $199 is the price.

Inflation is why parents can buy their kids a $250 3DS handheld. I remember being a kid and having to wait for the Gameboy to drop to $100 before it was affordable to get. wait are we talking about the the reason for the cost of goods or the need for price drops? your lossing me on this one. ok. so your saying cause of inflation parents make moree money so there able to buy higher priced thing as when inflation was lower they waited for price drops right? heres a small counter for you. wht has happend since PS3DS had there price drop? a pick up in sells right!. that shows the visual price is whts important, bot inflation.

As for Nostalgia, I think we come to an agreement. doesn't surprise me lol.

What are on screen buttons? Is this just touch screen with buttons on the screen? DS and 3DS are touch screen too, and many games use the touch screen as a button pallet.

You don't have to agree PSV and 3DS will follow a similar sales pattern to PSP and DS. You're a smart person, and you clearly have reasons to believe future sales patterns will fall the way they do.

For FPS... I get where you are coming from, but I just don't see FPS's working well for online play. PSV might be able to play FPS's as well as the consoles do, but I can't imagine seeing some of my crazier multiplayer friends holding the screen. FPS players are very figidy. To hold a screen and play a FPS, you need to be very calm, get excited and the screen shakes, making it harder to aim. Also I can't picture FPS players who want to play a FPS anywhere, but their couch.

I think FPS's on handhelds will be limited to campaign based games. Online multiplayer will be there, but I don't see CoD taking off on PSV. For single player FPS's, you don't need a second analogue stick either. The best FPS I have ever played on a handheld would be Metroid Prime Hunters, and to play, you actually use the bottom touch screen with the stylus to aim. This gives you Wii-mote like accuracy with the shooter, and is fun to play. Only drawback is zooming with the sniper (have to use your pinky to click the other shoulder button, while holding the stylus). Two analog sticks will definatly be an improvement, Resistance plays no better then a gamecube shooter, but the DS with two screens is actually just as good.

For controls, what about my buts? I did use one! It's better sentance construction when you don't make run on sentances. Anyway, I agree with you, there will be games that require touch controls only (games like little deviants). However these games will not sell in large numbers, and won't exactly be system sellers. Bulletstorm for PS3 had terrible sames. I mean, picture a game like Pikmin for Gamecube. Was that a system seller? It's a well appreciated game, but definatly not something that makes people think " I must get a gamecube now." If it pushed systems, it only helped during launch, and that's it.

For Microsoft's profit. MS made a loss with the original X-Box in order to make a name for itself. I remember reading something way back that Microsoft has been profitable for wuite some time now. They are just greedy bastards, and you know it. It's really a matter of national values. Most American companies (Nike, Chevrolet, Apple, Microsoft) build their products under the cheapest conditions possible. Apple, and Nike both make products in sweat shops, and charge a ridiculous amount of money for higher profit margins. GM used to make cars which would work perfectly for 3 years, then all the parts would break down, forcing you to buy a new car every 3 years (planed obselence, back in the 60's when GM's still looked good), and now they save money by implementing cheap building techniques (which I still consider planned obselence). Wall-Mart also has some really nasty neoliberalistic marketing strategies which force more and more people to work under mimimum wage or slave labour considtions, while driving out small buisnesses and generation billions of more dollars for CEO's (message me and I'll explain this one). I could go on...

Japanese companies are very different, they care about what the customer wants. Nintendo for instance won't build consoles in factories which don't have the capability to build their product up to their high reliability standards (but they still employ slave labour, everyone does), and both Nintendo and Sony have given away free games in the past, when they feel that have not met up with peoples expectations (PSN down gave free games, 3DS mega price cut ditto). However I know the price of a Sony console is usually not much above costs.

For Sony and Nintendo, public image, quality, and overall sales are more important then profit and fairness. MS is opposite.

I can say all this bad stuff about Microsoft because I always defend MS on this website. hehehehe For once, I can say something harsh without getting ripped apart by 10 users.

For inflation, what are you basing your arguement on? Most average consumers have not been playing games for 10 years or longer. So $200 to a person now is different to a person 10 years ago. It's not some magical price tag that promotes sales. People make xx dollars an hour, and they judge their purchases based on their income. If people made $50 an hour, and everything cost 5x more, everything would sell just the same. Making $10 an hour and charging $200, versus making $50 an hour and charging $1,000 makes no difference. I would imagine this is how housing works. In major cities, houses cost more, but income is also generally higher, so it's sustainable. Otherwise people would all move out to rural areas. This happens to an extent, suburbs, but my point is if people make more, they are willing to spend more. Sorry about the terrible analogy.

Okay inflation. Sorry if I lose you, I'm really good with math and economics (take it in school, but it's not my subject post).

I'm saying if people make more money, they are willing to spend more money. A price cut is a very sharp cut in price, of course sales rise. That case you mention is a sharp cut in price, while people still make the same amount of case.

Inflation is a gradual process. Say we were going into recession again, and the average income dropped in half in 10 years (extremly unlikely, this would actually create a depression, but this is hypothetical). If Nintendo launched a new console at $200, it would not sell as well as it does now. That new system would sell significantly less because people have less money. However if they sold a new console at $100, sales in this hypothetical future would mimic sales of a new console, priced at $200 now.

In reality, we are always going through inflation. Inflation encourages spending (because stored money depreciates in value since you can buy less with it in the future), and this helps the economy.

One thing which I do know from economics, is that general market trends heavily depend on the amount of expendable income the average person has (How much money people have after they pay their rent, bills, and other living costs). So if the cost of living (food, rent, bus fair/gas, heat, electricity, etc) remains constant, but the average income a person makes increases (or the price of goods decreases), then people spend more. The philosophy is "I have more, so I can afford more, so I'll spend more." This is why there is always a jump in sales after a price cut (goods dropped in price), so it becomes more affordable to people.

However if the cost of living and income have increased proportionatly, then in order to maintain the same level of retail sales, prices must increase proportionatly too. Basically, this is my point, if people make more they are willing to spend more. So $200 in 2001 translates more like $250 in 2011.

Just as an example, if $3,000 means $3,000 to a consumer, regardless of era, then how come per capita, automotive sales are not drastically higher now then they were in the 1960's? You can't buy a new car for $3,000 like you used to, so why are cars even selling at all? This is the same logic you present me under a shorter timeline. Televisions also follow this trend, the average price of a purchased tv now is a lot higher then in used to be in the 60's.