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

Forums - Gaming - So Ps3 basicly becomes Wii+Xbox360...What reason not to buy Ps3 then?

CGI-Quality said:
WilliamWatts said:

You do realise I hope that games like Zelda, Gears of War etc came out when the userbases were extremely tinsy winsy? Now the PS3 has as many sales as the Xbox 360 did last year and yet they don't have nearly the same impact in terms of key franchises.

Nintendo would still have 5 10M sellers if both Wii Sports and Wii Play weren't packed in with hardware. Wii Sports would still be a 20M+ seller on its own and Wii Fit would have sold well regardless of whether it was packed in with hardware or not.

No PlayStation has ever had an attacthment rate as high as the 360's, if we want to get real technical. End of the day, it's irrelevant, the brand wasn't built on extremely high sellings IPs, but many IPs in general. In some instances, the PlayStation brand is still the biggest in the industry. It's just that in other areas (lots too) the brand has been significantly weakened by Sony's own errors, which they now have to work hard to rectify, but as of late, seem to be doing in spades.

That of course doesn't slight Nintendo's nor Microsoft's success at all this gen. Nintendo is particularly  so successful because they followed nobody. Innovation was key, and it's something Sony (and perhaps to a lesser extent Micorosft) is now displaying as well.

As for which of the company's between Nintendo & Sony have the higher quality 1st Party software, that's all opinion. But neither is hurting in quality, and that's what matters.

Sony never had the means for getting an attach rate as high as the 360 or Wii. Its because they take the easy way out. Its easier to make a game focusing on a niche that it is to get a wide swathe of people to enjoy a game. Its easier to create a decent story and a decent gimmick than it is to truely craft a truely huge franchise. Gameplay is the hardest to craft which is one very good reason why they are as deserving of their current standing as Nintendo are.  Nintendo are truely masters of the gameplay experience which is why they have so many games which sell so much and yet they cannot be copied. People play games, not movies.

As for brands it probably goes DS > Wii >>> Playstation >> PSP with Xbox being roughly equal to Playstation. You just keep telling yourself that the Playstation brand is the biggest but that was a long time ago.

Sony haven't done jack for innovation. What have they successfully innovated? Nothing really stands out as being grasped by the general public. Their biggest games have been clones or inspired by other games with the only exception being Gran Turismo which was innovation a couple of generations ago.

Nintendo has the highest quality 1st party developers. Sony have Jack. High quality developers create phenomenoms and Nintendo have: Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Mario Kart, Mario 2D or 3D, Nintendogs, Brain Age, Pokemon, Animal Crossings. The ones in blue were created for just this current generation. Sony has no phenomenoms so they cannot compare at all.



Around the Network
Carl2291 said:
Maynard_Tool said:
Carl2291 said:
Maynard_Tool said:
Carl2291 said:
Chrizum said:
For the same reason PS3 is in last place since the dawn of time: lack of compelling software.

Or, as everyone else seems to know - Price.

Yeah, price. That's why the Gamecube, since it was cheaper, sold way more than the ps2.... oh wait ....

Nah, nevermind

PS2 launched at $299. Gamecube was launched at $199. Difference of $100.

PS3 launched at $600. Xbox 360 launched at $300/$400. Wii launched at $250. Differences of $200 to $350...

I don't really have to say anything else.

Really??? B/c right now, Ps3 = $300 and Wii = $200, and I don't see the ps3 getting close to the wii....and, the X360 is cheaper than the wii, and still.... not even close to the wii.

Yeah, there's not much to say =D

What's your point? PS3 has been in last position since the start of the gen because of launch price.

I can understand that the Wii is winning because of compelling software and launch price.. But a lack of compelling software isn't why the PS3 is currently in last place.

My point is that price is not a huge factor. At the end, people will get the console they prefer, b/c of the software that's available



Maynard_Tool said:
Carl2291 said:
Maynard_Tool said:
Carl2291 said:
Maynard_Tool said:
Carl2291 said:
Chrizum said:
For the same reason PS3 is in last place since the dawn of time: lack of compelling software.

Or, as everyone else seems to know - Price.

Yeah, price. That's why the Gamecube, since it was cheaper, sold way more than the ps2.... oh wait ....

Nah, nevermind

PS2 launched at $299. Gamecube was launched at $199. Difference of $100.

PS3 launched at $600. Xbox 360 launched at $300/$400. Wii launched at $250. Differences of $200 to $350...

I don't really have to say anything else.

Really??? B/c right now, Ps3 = $300 and Wii = $200, and I don't see the ps3 getting close to the wii....and, the X360 is cheaper than the wii, and still.... not even close to the wii.

Yeah, there's not much to say =D

What's your point? PS3 has been in last position since the start of the gen because of launch price.

I can understand that the Wii is winning because of compelling software and launch price.. But a lack of compelling software isn't why the PS3 is currently in last place.

My point is that price is not a huge factor. At the end, people will get the console they prefer.

When you launch at $600 and your competitors are $200-$350 cheaper than you... Price is a factor, no matter what you say.



                            

Carl2291 said:
Maynard_Tool said:
Carl2291 said:

What's your point? PS3 has been in last position since the start of the gen because of launch price.

I can understand that the Wii is winning because of compelling software and launch price.. But a lack of compelling software isn't why the PS3 is currently in last place.

My point is that price is not a huge factor. At the end, people will get the console they prefer.

When you launch at $600 and your competitors are $200-$350 cheaper than you... Price is a factor, no matter what you say.

The price was reasonable between 6-12 months after launch. 6 being Europe and 12 being U.S/Japan.



It only does everything!



Around the Network
WilliamWatts said:
Carl2291 said:
Maynard_Tool said:
Carl2291 said:

What's your point? PS3 has been in last position since the start of the gen because of launch price.

I can understand that the Wii is winning because of compelling software and launch price.. But a lack of compelling software isn't why the PS3 is currently in last place.

My point is that price is not a huge factor. At the end, people will get the console they prefer.

When you launch at $600 and your competitors are $200-$350 cheaper than you... Price is a factor, no matter what you say.

The price was reasonable between 6-12 months after launch. 6 being Europe and 12 being U.S/Japan.

"Ok" It still costed more than the launch PS3 did in the USA before the slim came. Now its still $200 more expensive than a PS3 in the USA. And more than $100 more expensive than a 360 over here. PS3 has always been overpriced here in Europe, cause it seems that Sony fanboys are blind over here.



mundus6 said:
WilliamWatts said:
Carl2291 said:

When you launch at $600 and your competitors are $200-$350 cheaper than you... Price is a factor, no matter what you say.

The price was reasonable between 6-12 months after launch. 6 being Europe and 12 being U.S/Japan.

"Ok" It still costed more than the launch PS3 did in the USA before the slim came. Now its still $200 more expensive than a PS3 in the USA. And more than $100 more expensive than a 360 over here. PS3 has always been overpriced here in Europe, cause it seems that Sony fanboys are blind over here.

It was still affordable. Since it was under the PS2 launch price at that first price cut so I don't think price was ever a factor in Europe. As for America, the Xbox 360 was $50 cheaper @ $350 and being tarnished by reliability problems. I don't think price hurt the PS3 nearly as much as a lack of quality games vs the Xbox 360 at the time. Consumers don't take promises from companies very seriously and they judge what is available at the time. Microsoft got out Halo 3 and Sony got out nothing much in particular by the end of 2007 and the rest is history.



Carl2291 said:
Maynard_Tool said:
Carl2291 said:
Maynard_Tool said:
Carl2291 said:
Maynard_Tool said:
Carl2291 said:
Chrizum said:
For the same reason PS3 is in last place since the dawn of time: lack of compelling software.

Or, as everyone else seems to know - Price.

Yeah, price. That's why the Gamecube, since it was cheaper, sold way more than the ps2.... oh wait ....

Nah, nevermind

PS2 launched at $299. Gamecube was launched at $199. Difference of $100.

PS3 launched at $600. Xbox 360 launched at $300/$400. Wii launched at $250. Differences of $200 to $350...

I don't really have to say anything else.

Really??? B/c right now, Ps3 = $300 and Wii = $200, and I don't see the ps3 getting close to the wii....and, the X360 is cheaper than the wii, and still.... not even close to the wii.

Yeah, there's not much to say =D

What's your point? PS3 has been in last position since the start of the gen because of launch price.

I can understand that the Wii is winning because of compelling software and launch price.. But a lack of compelling software isn't why the PS3 is currently in last place.

My point is that price is not a huge factor. At the end, people will get the console they prefer.

When you launch at $600 and your competitors are $200-$350 cheaper than you... Price is a factor, no matter what you say.

Then how come we don't see ps3 destroying the competition now? It's the same as in the last gen. Wii is $200 and Ps3 is $300. How come we don't the ps3 selling more than the wii?



CGI-Quality said:
WilliamWatts said:
CGI-Quality said:

No PlayStation has ever had an attacthment rate as high as the 360's, if we want to get real technical. End of the day, it's irrelevant, the brand wasn't built on extremely high sellings IPs, but many IPs in general. In some instances, the PlayStation brand is still the biggest in the industry. It's just that in other areas (lots too) the brand has been significantly weakened by Sony's own errors, which they now have to work hard to rectify, but as of late, seem to be doing in spades.

That of course doesn't slight Nintendo's nor Microsoft's success at all this gen. Nintendo is particularly  so successful because they followed nobody. Innovation was key, and it's something Sony (and perhaps to a lesser extent Micorosft) is now displaying as well.

As for which of the company's between Nintendo & Sony have the higher quality 1st Party software, that's all opinion. But neither is hurting in quality, and that's what matters.

Sony never had the means for getting an attach rate as high as the 360 or Wii. Its because they take the easy way out. Its easier to make a game focusing on a niche that it is to get a wide swathe of people to enjoy a game. Its easier to create a decent story and a decent gimmick than it is to truely craft a truely huge franchise. Gameplay is the hardest to craft which is one very good reason why they are as deserving of their current standing as Nintendo are.  Nintendo are truely masters of the gameplay experience which is why they have so many games which sell so much and yet they cannot be copied. People play games, not movies.

As for brands it probably goes DS > Wii >>> Playstation >> PSP with Xbox being roughly equal to Playstation. You just keep telling yourself that the Playstation brand is the biggest but that was a long time ago.

Sony haven't done jack for innovation. What have they successfully innovated? Nothing really stands out as being grasped by the general public. Their biggest games have been clones or inspired by other games with the only exception being Gran Turismo which was innovation a couple of generations ago.

Nintendo has the highest quality 1st party developers. Sony have Jack. High quality developers create phenomenoms and Nintendo have: Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Mario Kart, Mario 2D or 3D, Nintendogs, Brain Age, Pokemon, Animal Crossings. The ones in blue were created for just this current generation. Sony has no phenomenoms so they cannot compare at all.

Sony has games that are innovative, this isn't an opinion either. Also, I said in SOME instances ( that means places in the world) the PlayStation is still the biggest brand, sorry you can't understand nor accept that. That wasn't even the basis of my argument. It's that yes, Nintendo does have high quality software/companies, but so does Sony. Doesn't matter which one of them sells more, in fact, it hasn't mattered the past two gens that Nintendo's 1st Party IPs wipe the floor with Sony's, the Playstation always had something for everyone which is one of the ways it became so successful in the first place.

Luckily, most of what you say is your opinion, and such behavior isn't reflected throughout the entire industry. Try not to see things from such a one-sided point of view and you might actually be a decent poster.

Innovation? I said effective innovation, not some nichified game. Effective innovation is a game which stands proud at the top of its genre. Copyers get 2nd best or worse in most cases and Sony aren't top of the game anywhere. Sony are at best Pepsi to the Coke which is Nintendo. The third parties to which you ascribe the 'Playstation diversity' aren't going to help Sony one bit. They will go where the money is and since Sony doesn't make games which stand out too far from the crowd you can replace one Sony game with pretty much any substitute third party game if you wanted with few exceptions.

Sony has nothing in comparison to Nintendo. Quality is a word has no actual meaning on its own. Its an undefined word which means quality is a meaningless concept for games. Sony would do a hell of a lot better if the dropped their goal of making everything a graphical masterpiece and tried some real gameplay for a change. Noone bats an eyelid that the Master Chief fights alone except when in Coop and yet they neglect this important feature. Millions played through Gears of War in Coop from beginning to end. Noone outside of a select few believe that pretty = fun for games.

Edit: Funny coincidence! My copy of Heavy Rain just arrived as I clicked 'post'. Sorry im out as I have a game to play.



Severance said:
IT HAZ NO GAEMZ

This. We need software!