By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

Squilliam on 06 February 2010
MikeB said:
@ Squilliam

Expensive relative to performance


Objectively not, scientifically that the PS3 hardware has been proven to provide a performance/pricing ratio second to none.

Objectively a GPU can completely obliterate the Cell in SP/DP flops per $, per watt, per silicon area and pretty much any metric you'd care to compare it with. Objectively the PS3 was expensive and cost Sony a lot of money with immature technology which will only yield a marginal improvement over the Xbox 360 in terms of performance when you need many orders of magnitude difference in performance to yield a result which a layman can appreciate and only in a few exclusives which have become rare due to the nature of the business.



Tease.

Around the Network
MikeB on 06 February 2010
RolStoppable said:
MikeB said:
@ RolStoppable

There's nothing dubious about investing massively into a platform. It's probably financially interesting to Sony from the grand perspective as a consumer electronics company from a long term and wider perspective.

My point is that the PS1 would have sold much, much more in the same timeframe if Sony had been willing to lose $5 billion on it. Or the other way around, the PS3 would have sold much less if Sony intended to keep it as profitable as the PS1.

The PS3 benefited from an enormous advantage compared to the PS1 (this isn't even including brand awareness), yet it still only performed about on par in the same timeframe. So why should this be seen as an achievement of the PS3?

Of course, but the goals with the PS3 are very different than the goals back then. The PS1 did nothing to really advance consumer electronics. The PS3 does more so than the PS2 as well.

I already recognized Sony would most likely invest huge amounts in the PS3 for the short run (we don't need another 3DO or Atari Lynx, which were techincally excellent but were failures commercially). Sony has the resources and talent to make gaming consoles even more ambitious than those succeed.



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

jesus kung fu magic on 06 February 2010
MikeB said:
RolStoppable said:
MikeB said:
@ RolStoppable

There's nothing dubious about investing massively into a platform. It's probably financially interesting to Sony from the grand perspective as a consumer electronics company from a long term and wider perspective.

My point is that the PS1 would have sold much, much more in the same timeframe if Sony had been willing to lose $5 billion on it. Or the other way around, the PS3 would have sold much less if Sony intended to keep it as profitable as the PS1.

The PS3 benefited from an enormous advantage compared to the PS1 (this isn't even including brand awareness), yet it still only performed about on par in the same timeframe. So why should this be seen as an achievement of the PS3?

Of course, but the goals with the PS3 are very different than the goals back then. The PS1 did nothing to really advance consumer electronics. The PS3 does more so than the PS2 as well.

I already recognized Sony would most likely invest huge amounts in the PS3 for the short run (we don't need another 3DO or Atari Lynx, which were techincally excellent but were failures commercially). Sony has the resources and talent to make gaming consoles even more ambitious than those succeed.

"Goals"?

The name of the game mike is to make money......businesses could give a damn if they try to advance consumer electronics if it gets in the way of making a buck.

In the ps3's case they thought that consumers would go to them because of their brand and their specs.....in the process however their brand faltered and it became apparent that their machine was just a little powerful if not equal to the 360.



N64 is the ONLY console of the fifth generation!!!

MikeB on 06 February 2010

BTW it's interesting to note RJ Mical (co-inventor of the Lynx, Amiga and 3DO) is working on PS3 projects. He's also in the Uncharted 2 credits. I love it talents like him get enough resources from Sony to realize their aims and flourish their talents.



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

MikeB on 06 February 2010
RolStoppable said:
MikeB said:
BTW it's interesting to note RJ Mical (co-inventor of the Lynx, Amiga and 3DO) is working on PS3 projects. He's also in the Uncharted 2 credits. I love it talents like him get enough resources from Sony to realize their aims and flourish their talents.

You say he was the co-inventor of the Lynx and 3DO, isn't that kinda speaking against his talents?

Technical talents. He's an engineer.

The Amiga was the technically most amazing computer ever released for its time. The Lynx and 3DO were very advanced consoles, but great technicals mainly enhance potentials. To realize optimal market potential you need good managers, resources and advertising in addition to technical talents.



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
N.Genckel on 06 February 2010
RolStoppable said:
MikeB said:
@ RolStoppable

There's nothing dubious about investing massively into a platform. It's probably financially interesting to Sony from the grand perspective as a consumer electronics company from a long term and wider perspective.

My point is that the PS1 would have sold much, much more in the same timeframe if Sony had been willing to lose $5 billion on it. Or the other way around, the PS3 would have sold much less if Sony intended to keep it as profitable as the PS1.

The PS3 benefited from an enormous advantage compared to the PS1 (this isn't even including brand awareness), yet it still only performed about on par in the same timeframe. So why should this be seen as an achievement of the PS3?

Not to mention the huge factor that PS1 was an unknown, while PS3 came in with the name of the best selling home console ever in it's back. There is just a huge, huge difference.



Check out my DS site.

MikeB on 06 February 2010
RolStoppable said:
MikeB said:
RolStoppable said:
MikeB said:
BTW it's interesting to note RJ Mical (co-inventor of the Lynx, Amiga and 3DO) is working on PS3 projects. He's also in the Uncharted 2 credits. I love it talents like him get enough resources from Sony to realize their aims and flourish their talents.

You say he was the co-inventor of the Lynx and 3DO, isn't that kinda speaking against his talents?

Technical talents. He's an engineer.

The Amiga was the technically most amazing computer ever released for its time. The Lynx and 3DO were very advanced consoles, but great technicals mainly enhance potentials. To realize optimal market potential you need good managers, resources and advertising in addition to technical talents.

Wait, now it's getting confusing. According to you, RJ Mical is a talented engineer. But he also needs good managers, resources and advertising in addition to his technical talents to realize optimal market potential for the products he is working on. So which of these three things does Sony lack?

None.

I think I understand your logic, like for example the PS2 and Wii outperforming the PS3 saleswise early on.

It usually happens a low spec PC outperforms a high spec top grade gaming PC on the market. It's not like the cheap PC is a better product than the expensive PC. Customers will more easily buy cheaper products and decide it's just good enough (even when of course preferring a better PC). Does this mean high spec PCs shouldn't be made? Of course not. We would like to see the market advance.



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

forest-spirit on 06 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
Why is everyone ignoring the fact that the PS3 isn't in fact selling like the PS1?

You, sir, are a party crasher!



Falcon095 on 07 February 2010
MikeB said:
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.

 

So what you are saying is that the PS3 is better for shooters than the X360?

So crating a machine that has made them lose bilions and have made them spend the profits of the PS1 and even of the PS2 was good for the company? And what if the PS3 was a disappointing for somebody who loved the PS1 and the PS2?



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

the_lonely_gamer_123 on 07 February 2010

I like the PS3 as much as the next person, but wasn't the PS1 profitable aster three years?



Human contact, the final frontier.