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

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS3, The Loser That The Fans Think Is Winning.

Black RL on 09 May 2010
MaxwellGT2000 said:
Black RL said:
Facts (according to VGChartz):

Wii - 70.78 millions
XBOX360 - 39.64 millions
PS3 - 34.39 millions

Wii wins in all markets. In the HD market XBOX360 wins USA (very important market by the way), PS3 wins Japan (dominated by NINTENDO and Japanese companies) and in Europe it's a stalemate (+-).

E3 is coming, NATAL is coming, MOVE is coming, XBOX360 Slim is coming. All the big franchises are already out for both consoles (only GT5 missing).

We are in the middle of 2010, this generation is reaching it's end (maybe 2012?).

The winner is XBOX360 because it came from behind, no install base, no fans, no franchises no nothing, they have made a hell of a job. The surprise is the Wii, nobody was expecting it (admit it!) and the looser is the PS3, it had all the fans, all the install base and now is fighting for second place.

As simple as that.

I really wouldn't say most of that myself, PS3 isn't a "loser" in the sense of a console, its done quite well for itself as far as userbase goes.  Is it losing in a console sales race between the other consoles yeah it is, was it likely a poor business choice on Sony's part, yeah it was.  Mostly because numbers are facts that you cannot sway with personal opinion as much as people try to.

Also the gen isn't ending anytime soon, 2012 seems a bit soon to me, maybe 2013, but I don't really see much of a leap going into "next gen".  I'm predicting that future gen lines will be a lot more blurry as far as technology goes especially power.  Basically you'll want it to be something that is safe to invest in, right now it's okay cause just like in the Atari days people are being convinced they need that new pong console that is a lot like the others... all because the owner really needs to make his money back.  Budgets are simply too high to have another HUGE leap, it would simply be too much for publishers, they're doing a so-so job with that this gen, many devs and publishers dying off quickly, another spike in dev costs could drive a steak through the heart of some companies. Ex. Namco Bandai, they've released a good number of decent titles, and for last gen standards would be decent sales that would have broke even, yet they're posting a huge loss, same situation with even BIGGER budgets... namco-bandai would be dead.

Quoted for the truth.

PS3 isn't a looser if we look at it as a new console, but it's a franchise with more than 10 years, it goes all the way back until 1994, the first Playstation. Looking at all it's installed base it's easy to analize what Playstation lost this generation, to NINTENDO and MICROSOFT. But yes, it's still a successful console.

Yep, you're right about all that, I'm just sad that some people can't see things how they are. Regarding generation ends it all depends in the HD war, if the PS3 is able to catch the XBOX360 the generation will end because MS will launch a new console, And at this moment, I believe nobody want's that, not SONY or MS, it's too expensive.

Maybe this new engine will help this generation last for more time:

http://unlimiteddetailtechnology.com/




Around the Network
psrock on 09 May 2010
MaxwellGT2000 said:
psrock said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
psrock said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
psrock said:
The PS3 is special to us fans because it can stand toe to toe with the winner this GEN game wise, something very difficult to achieve. I had to have the PS1, PS2, NES, SNES , BUT I don't have to buy the Wii this Gen and I can still get the big games.

That's really all personal taste, I know a number of people that never owned the lead platform, often times getting their big games as well, they didn't care fo the exclusives for the other platform so why buy it?

So basically what you're saying is the console is special because you like it, just like every other successful console ever be it that gens winner or not, hell many people still loved the dreamcast long after it died a horrible death and they had pretty special games too... just saying!

I owned the dreamcast, xbox before buying the PS2 which I did not want because they broke a lot, but to play the big games, and the sheer amont of support the ps2 got, I  took a chance on the PS2. I  had a thread about how I felt the xbox was better as a console than my ps2 which still today wont play either GOW games, but I got the PS2  because that's where the games were. This gen, I don't really have to buy the Wii unless I want Nintendo games.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's fact. Besides MH3 and Dragon Quest, the major games aren't Wii games, they are elsewhere and that's kind of weird for a console winner, but as a PS3 owner, I am loving it.

You see what you're not seeming to understand is that exactly what you're saying is opinion... "big games" are a matter of perception... just like leo-j talking about "AAA games" earlier.  As for this gen there have been a lot more "big games" on the PS3 and 360 because that's what they're hyped and marketed to be, same teams, same ideas, same games last gen, would never get the same kind of marketing budget or be hyped like they are, this gen it's just publishers protecting their investments.  Not really sure why people don't see this.

Anyway opinions are not facts, simple, what is a big game to you is not a big game to me, is not a big game to *throws random user out there* MakingMusic476, is not a big game to the average joe. 

The Thing is we all know what a big game, just because we may not like them or buy them. We know Assasin's Creed, Super Mario , COD, hALO, MARIO Kart, Gears, Final Fantasy, GTA, Monster Hunter, Pokemon, we know they are big games. And I am saying the Wii is not getting them as the winners usually get these games. Yes, the Wii get support, but they are small to medium games that are usually niche titles anyway.

*shrug* I dunno mike, I'm just your average joe I couldn't tell you what those games out of the ones you've listed is really "big". 

*shakes head* What you've just said and listed off just proves my point, Assassins Creed being a big one, since it was a new IP this gen, had no fanbase prior, and when the publisher invested so much money into the game they decided that marketing it as an awesome new super cool game (AKA one of your "BIG titles") when really it was like theres this so-so game that we put a lot of money into, we need to market it to people to protect the investment, then we green lit a trilogy because guess what?  That helps just break even and then make more money with reducing investments.  It's all really a business tactic that has been in use since forever.

Now if your definition of "big games" was done by popular opinion, which is tangible, cause sales are a pretty direct correlation to popular opinion and what they want, AKA demand.  But I'm guessing that would only work for some of those games you've listed, and in all likelyhood make some games you wouldn't want to be seen as "big games" into "big games" simply defeating your own argument.

So right now psrock you've got two ways to go with this man, "my definition of big games is this, cause this is what I believe popular opinion is, though I'm simply representing the "hardcore" definition of big games" (which is all opinion) or you can go by something tangible and backed up by numbers, which would contradict the statements you've made :-

That still does not proove the Wii get these games which previous console winners have gotten. No matter what definition you use, these games still end up elsewhere. The games they put effort, money, marketing and the best talent are for the non winners and big games or not,god or not the Wii  does not get the support which it deserve. No matter how good Assassin Creed is, I and many fans I have them, we have tons of these games which the Wii does not get.

And I am repeating this, unless you really  like Ninendo games, the other reason to get the Wii is pretty slim.

Final Fantasy, Call of Duty, GTA, Resident Evil, MGS these are games usually found on the winning console. Use any definition you want, if Iwant thses games, I wont find them on the Wii.



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
Kage848 on 09 May 2010
psrock said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
psrock said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
psrock said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
psrock said:
The PS3 is special to us fans because it can stand toe to toe with the winner this GEN game wise, something very difficult to achieve. I had to have the PS1, PS2, NES, SNES , BUT I don't have to buy the Wii this Gen and I can still get the big games.

That's really all personal taste, I know a number of people that never owned the lead platform, often times getting their big games as well, they didn't care fo the exclusives for the other platform so why buy it?

So basically what you're saying is the console is special because you like it, just like every other successful console ever be it that gens winner or not, hell many people still loved the dreamcast long after it died a horrible death and they had pretty special games too... just saying!

I owned the dreamcast, xbox before buying the PS2 which I did not want because they broke a lot, but to play the big games, and the sheer amont of support the ps2 got, I  took a chance on the PS2. I  had a thread about how I felt the xbox was better as a console than my ps2 which still today wont play either GOW games, but I got the PS2  because that's where the games were. This gen, I don't really have to buy the Wii unless I want Nintendo games.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's fact. Besides MH3 and Dragon Quest, the major games aren't Wii games, they are elsewhere and that's kind of weird for a console winner, but as a PS3 owner, I am loving it.

You see what you're not seeming to understand is that exactly what you're saying is opinion... "big games" are a matter of perception... just like leo-j talking about "AAA games" earlier.  As for this gen there have been a lot more "big games" on the PS3 and 360 because that's what they're hyped and marketed to be, same teams, same ideas, same games last gen, would never get the same kind of marketing budget or be hyped like they are, this gen it's just publishers protecting their investments.  Not really sure why people don't see this.

Anyway opinions are not facts, simple, what is a big game to you is not a big game to me, is not a big game to *throws random user out there* MakingMusic476, is not a big game to the average joe. 

The Thing is we all know what a big game, just because we may not like them or buy them. We know Assasin's Creed, Super Mario , COD, hALO, MARIO Kart, Gears, Final Fantasy, GTA, Monster Hunter, Pokemon, we know they are big games. And I am saying the Wii is not getting them as the winners usually get these games. Yes, the Wii get support, but they are small to medium games that are usually niche titles anyway.

*shrug* I dunno mike, I'm just your average joe I couldn't tell you what those games out of the ones you've listed is really "big". 

*shakes head* What you've just said and listed off just proves my point, Assassins Creed being a big one, since it was a new IP this gen, had no fanbase prior, and when the publisher invested so much money into the game they decided that marketing it as an awesome new super cool game (AKA one of your "BIG titles") when really it was like theres this so-so game that we put a lot of money into, we need to market it to people to protect the investment, then we green lit a trilogy because guess what?  That helps just break even and then make more money with reducing investments.  It's all really a business tactic that has been in use since forever.

Now if your definition of "big games" was done by popular opinion, which is tangible, cause sales are a pretty direct correlation to popular opinion and what they want, AKA demand.  But I'm guessing that would only work for some of those games you've listed, and in all likelyhood make some games you wouldn't want to be seen as "big games" into "big games" simply defeating your own argument.

So right now psrock you've got two ways to go with this man, "my definition of big games is this, cause this is what I believe popular opinion is, though I'm simply representing the "hardcore" definition of big games" (which is all opinion) or you can go by something tangible and backed up by numbers, which would contradict the statements you've made :-

That still does not proove the Wii get these games which previous console winners have gotten. No matter what definition you use, these games still end up elsewhere. The games they put effort, money, marketing and the best talent are for the non winners and big games or not,god or not the Wii  does not get the support which it deserve. No matter how good Assassin Creed is, I and many fans I have them, we have tons of these games which the Wii does not get.

And I am repeating this, unless you really  like Ninendo games, the other reason to get the Wii is pretty slim.

Final Fantasy, Call of Duty, GTA, Resident Evil, MGS these are games usually found on the winning console. Use any definition you want, if Iwant thses games, I wont find them on the Wii.

I just want to say this back and forth here is great. You both make excelent points and I'm not sure who I agree with.

One thing I will say is FF, up untill this gen, and MGS are not fair to say they only show up on the leading consoles because they are only on Sony consoles. Again excludeing this gen for FF. But I see your point and it's very interesting. But. This just seems to show the job Nintendo has done this gen is even more impressive. They have done with without thoes kind of games. I refuse to call them big games as I kinda agree with Max on his points.

Games that are worth getting on Wii that are not Nintendo games:

No More Heroes

No More Heroes 2

Monster Hunter Tri

Madworld

Little Kings Story

Tatsunoko vs Capcom

Red Steel 2

Resident Evil 4

Okami

Sin and Punishment 2

Muramasa The Demon Blade

ect. There are more but I don't feel like listing all of them lol. Plus this year is going to be great as well. Now maybe you don't like most of thoes games? Thats fine you don't have to but they are on the Wii and are not Nintendo and are all worth owning to many many Wii owners. It's just all opinion and tastes.

@Black RL:

I really don't like useing the tearm "loser" when it comes wo the PS3 this gen. But you're right in everyway. The Sony brand is the loser this gen. Now don't hate me ps3 fans. I own one and I love it, it's a fantastic system. But From there numbers last gen, consoles sold and there market share, they have really taken a hit. Now some of that is because they reached such hights in the first place. Kinda like how the Wii's consoles sold has fallen since , what 08? Its hard, almost impossible to keep up that kind of success. But even with that said they still have fallen hard this gen.

But really what does any of that mean? The PS3 is still very healthy and is acually making a profit now! The PS brand ain't going anywhere and if the PS3 was a huge hit from day one we would be paying god knows for it today, $400? $500? Lets be thankfull that Nintendo and MS has gievn the Sony brand a fight. It's good for everyone involved, especially us gamers.



psrock on 09 May 2010

@Kage848

Come on dude, you can make a better list than that, RE4, Okami, No more heroes are on other consoles, and the first two are ports.



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
Gnac on 09 May 2010

The winning console has Kororinpa. All other games can only run and hide from its bigness.



WHERE IS MY KORORINPA 3

Around the Network
Doobie_wop on 09 May 2010
MaxwellGT2000 said:

*shrug* I dunno mike, I'm just your average joe I couldn't tell you which of those games out of the ones you've listed is really "big". 

*shakes head* What you've just said and listed off just proves my point, Assassins Creed being a big one, since it was a new IP this gen, had no fanbase prior, and when the publisher invested so much money into the game they decided that marketing it as an awesome new super cool game (AKA one of your "BIG titles") when really it was like theres this so-so game that we put a lot of money into, we need to market it to people to protect the investment, then we green lit a trilogy because guess what?  That helps just break even and then make more money with reducing investments.  It's all really a business tactic that has been in use since forever.

Now if your definition of "big games" was done by popular opinion, which is tangible, cause sales are a pretty direct correlation to popular opinion and what they want, AKA demand.  But I'm guessing that would only work for some of those games you've listed, and in all likelyhood make some games you wouldn't want to be seen as "big games" into "big games" simply defeating your own argument.

So right now psrock you've got two ways to go with this man, "my definition of big games is this, cause this is what I believe popular opinion is, though I'm simply representing the "hardcore" definition of big games" (which is all opinion) or you can go by something tangible and backed up by numbers, which would contradict the statements you've made :-

I think psrock's point wasn't that the Wii doesn't have any huge franchises, but that it has much less in comparison to the other consoles. If we were going by your argument (sales = popular opinion) then that mean's that the Wii only really has about 7 huge franchises on the system (Super Smash Bros., Wii series, Mario Kart, Carnival Games, Mario & Sonic, Mario Galaxy and NSBW). The Xbox 360 and PS3 have many more 'big' games to choose from and they also vary in comparison to the Wii titles. 

I also never liked the whole Wii argument that sales = quality and that it's the best way to see how good a game is. There are so many factor's that go into what make's a game popular that it isn't as black & white as you make it. Marketing, price of the software, price of the system, brand recognition, positive reviews, accesibility and replayability. Nintendo are lucky that they've been able to nail all these objectives with their large games, but is Game X any worse because it offer's all those features except for marketing?. Why should the amount of money a company throw's behind a product's Ad campaign determine the quality of the product itself?.

I've studied Marketing + International Trade for two year's and I can tell your right now that just because a company tell's you, you want our product, it doesn't mean you really want it, it's just that to the average Joe it's the only thing he know's is available. Apple, Microsoft and Sony have used this system of marketing (Ipod, Windows and PS1 + PS2). Not many people would know what Linux is, or what an M:Robe  is and I doubt anyone even knew that the Dreamcast and Gamecube existed, but it doesn't make them inferior product's, it just mean's that the their creator's did not have the mean's of pushing a huge marketing campaign to inform the public on what they should buy and who to buy it from. This is what Nintendo has done, it's not bad, but it kinda takes away from your whole 'Sales = quality' argument.

Determining the quality of a product is better suited to the online gaming community (this site for example) than just looking at sales and falling into the marketing hype. I know that if I had a choice of choosing between listening to people on VG Chartz for game recommendations or asking the average Joe who picked up Mario Kart Wii for his 12 year old son because he saw it on TV, I'd definitely choose to listen to people on the VG Chartz forum.

Sorry..... that was a long rant..



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

Kyuubi Ricky SSJ2 on 09 May 2010

I get all the honies with the PS-triple.



ZenfoldorVGI on 09 May 2010
Skeeuk said:
JerzeeBalla said:

Excuse the thread title, I couldnt get what the topic is into words. 

My question is this. I have been registered here for a while now, but this is my first (and probably last) thread. In the last couple of months I have seen numerous complaints about the behavior of Sony/PS3 fans (or fanboys more specifically.) I thought about why people are so upset at Sony fans seemingly superhuman ability to ignore that its in 3rd place and continue to speak as if it is indeed winning the console war. Almost every thread I enter turns into a back and forth between a group of Sony enthusiasts, and a group of people who swear that this site is run by Sony Nazis and the mods dont care. 

I personally think, and this is based on no kind of factual evidence, that the behavior is irritating because the PS3 is the last place console. This kind of behavior was present last gen, just in reverse. XBox fans talked as if it was God's gift to gamers, even though it was utterly destroyed sales wise. Ditto for the Gamecube. Sony fans hated when those camps had the audacity to place their "pitiful" consoles in the same breath as the almighty PS2.

Jump to this gen, and everything is switched. The Wii is crushing all comers, and the 360 is smacking Sony around in NA. Yet PS3 fans talk as if its the single most important gaming related creation ever. I think this really bothers, or annoys, a lot of people. Can anyone confirm this for me? Or tell me I am very stupid if thats the case? I just want to understand why everything that goes wrong on this board is blamed on Sony fans/fanboys. Are they the cause of every thread derailment? Are they the only ones trolling? The only ones creating threads designed to start trouble? I just want to make sense of what I am reading.

i think your missing the point.

wii is selling more than ps3, but ps3 has better games and is a better console.

if you prefer better sales fair enough, most on here prefer better games.

the best console is the one that gives the gamer the best games and best features, games are kinda comparable on ps360 and features wise ps3 is better, but i think overall ps3 will have the better games this gen.

judging from your post your obviously a little hurt!

That is an overly biased post, and it is EXACTLY what the OP was talking about. Ironic, it is obviously you who missed the point.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

CitizenOfVerona on 09 May 2010

I don't get console wars at all. It's probably up there with some of the most stupid things in life. It all comes down to personal preference. As you can tell, I own a Wii and I'm not disappointed in it at all. My old roommate had a 360, I didn't play it much, but I did like it. I also like playing Halo 3 with some of my friends. My new roommate got a ps3 now, and it's my least favorite of all 3 consoles.
But does that mean ps3 sucks? No, it just means I prefer Wii and 360 over it. If you want to reply to me saying how Wii sucks, or I'm a retard cause ps3 is my least favorite, then your message will fall on blind eyes cause I do not care for your stupid comments.
We're gamers, we all have a similar passion, why must we argue constantly about it, how come we can't be happy for each other about our decisions? What I find mind boggling is how some people say Killzone 2 sucks because it's on ps3, or how Wii is not current gen. Some people are seriously missing brain cells.



xrobx on 09 May 2010

i've had all 3 consoles since they launched, i haven't got a wii game since brawl, 360 has no exclusives i'm interested in besides alan wake which i'll probably get if i don't get RRoD again first, and ps3 has good exclusives pouring out every week or so and has had the GoTY (imo) for the last 3 years, so i can understand why someone would be happy to own one even though it's last in sales



i will always stay cold