| MikeB said: @ starcraft Better for who? Sony? Or for the consumers that would be forced to buy a very expensive console to play Ghostbusters? The PS3 will eventually have a much bigger install base and lower entry pricing. IMO a more impressive version of Ghostbusters would be better for consumers, if the publisher/developing company doesn't have to deal with some sort of financial issues. Sony produced a system that is economically unsustainable The install base will increase like you can see at a healthy pace and production costs will come down further through improved middleware, this roadmap is perfectly sustainable for Sony. Creating simpler games distributed on the PSN is a cheap alternative for smaller companies. PS3 owners expect much more from full price Blu-Ray releases, a Wii or PS2 like game would be (rightly so) unacceptable. proven unnecessary for large scale high definition games Games will become far more demanding in the upcoming years, you don't make such judgements this early in a console lifecycle. Those tapping into the potentials and those devs who complain about the 360 specifications, see the value in the long term potential of the default harddrive and the default Blu-Ray drive. Some multi-platform developers complain about the CPU differences between the PS3 and 360, but all acknowledge the Cell is potentially far more powerful just like IBM the manufacturer of both chips also underlines. IMO they have themselves to blame, taking the easy route early on isn't always the better route for the long run. It is OBVIOUSLY in direct competition with the Wii, and it is failing. Do you really think those who bought a Wii would have flocked en masse to the PS3 if there was no Wii? I don't think so and even if that would be the case, Sony would not have produced enough hardware to meet demand. |
The PS3 will have a lower entry price, the much larger install base idea is very much up in the air. Certainly it will never be as big as the Wii's, or significantly larger than the Xbox 360's. I agree that a more impressive version of Ghostbusters would be better for consumers. But history tells us this is just as easily done on the Xbox 360 exclusively. Not only would the game be more impressive (presumably) than a multiplatform title, but the publisher would stand a higher chance of significant profit versus PS3 exclusivity which would involve a lower attach rate and higher development costs. In the end, damage to a publisher results in lower quality titles for consumers.
The roadmap hasn't proved sustainable for Sony so far. Finance-wise, Sony has proven to be the Microsoft of this generation. They are too this day losing substantial amounts on the PS3 hardware. When combined with the knowledge the PS3's tail won't be nearly as prolonged or successful as the PS2's, it becomes unlikely that the PS3 will be a profitable console overall. Never mind the damage the console has done to many smaller developers that have been forced to succumb to acquisitions. To a smaller extent, the Xbox 360 has been guilty of that same sin, though it mitigates it to a large extent through ease of development and ease of cross-development with PC. The greater relative success of Xbox Live Market Place relative to PSN, and the strong launch of Wiiware, make these platforms more enticing for small, indie developers. Given the Wii has an equal number of titles above 90% on Metacritic to the PS3 and it DIDN'T have the benfefit of the doubt from third-party developers the PS3 had (and quickly lost) early on, I don't think its at all reasonable for you to say Sony fans clamouring for games would deem Wii quality titles unacceptable.
Actually, "taking the easy route" is all that allowed some developers to survive Sony's flawed business model. Your talking as though domination of the industry is something Sony is entitled to, and that developers that haven't jumped at the opportunity to struggle with complicated hardware with the mildest of power advantages and huge financial pitfalls are simply naughty little boys and girls that didn't play by Sony's rules. At this stage, the PS3 has already seen the limitations of its inferior graphics chip, small amount of RAM and insufficient Blu-Ray drive speed (even 3 or 4x would have GREATLY mitigated this problem). At the end of the day, you still make the fundamental flaw of assuming third-party developers have the incentive to fully tap the PS3's potential like they did the PS2 (but didn't the Gamecube or Xbox). That is simply not the case. The PS3 is third, it will never be a meaningful second. It can only ever hope to be viewed by third-parties as a platform homogenous with the Xbox 360. The Xbox 360's substantial lead in NA ensures it will always be a necessary platform for Western developers making HD games, and Japanese developers are all either going to the Wii or being bought by Microsoft. Once Microsoft stops paying for exclusives from Japan (which may never happen. I thought they'd given up before SO4 and Last Remnant timed-exclusivity were announced) all Japanese games of note that weren't already in development for PS3 will go to the Wii.
If the Wii didn't exist, overall next-generation console sales would have been much slower, due to poor pricing strategies from Sony and Microsoft. Microsoft would have taken many, many consumers from Sony due to the price differential, and many people would have held onto their PS2's much longer until the PS3 and Xbox 360 got cheaper. However, the PS3's prospects would be FAR stronger, whilst the industry as a whole would be FAR weaker.
If you choose to respond, stop cherry-picking and properly engage with my arguments, rather than ignoring that which you struggle to refute.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
