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

Forums - Sales - PS3 may never catchup to the 360

Kyros on 29 December 2007

"One of these patters is that the system which builds a rapid early lead tends to extend this lead throughout the generation"

Yes because of this 360 and Dreamcast did so well. Now you say but their lead was not big/rapid enough but in this case we again have no clear measure. Let's wait and see. If having the lead would always be so great console manufacturers would always make small incremental additions to their consoles to keep down prices and have games from the last generation. Its not that easy and we haven't had enough generations to establish clear rules. It comes down to many many many factors playing together. And often cause and correlation are not the same.



Around the Network
crumas2 on 30 December 2007
PDF said:

@crumas - just to clear something up.  Warhawk is not just a flying game.  In matter of fact i hardy fly in it at all.

@crumas - i got another thing to say to you(warning racist joke.  I am actualy not racist at all)

  Sony wont blink 1st or atleast you wont be able to tell they blinked because their asian and there eyes are already like that.


 Concerning the first item, when I played around with it at a friend's house he had me flying around for a bit.  I just assumed this was essential to the game.  If I ever got a PS3 and Warhawk, I would definitely need to skip the flying part.

 

Concerning the second item... not going anywhere near that one...

 



Sri Lumpa on 30 December 2007
PDF said:
Sri Lumpa said:
PDF said:


You run on the idea that both consoles will remain alive. If so the ps3 will have a hard time catching up. It may make the lead shoter but it may also always remain there. However the idea that both consoles will live a full life this gen is probably not gonna happen or atleast that is what ast rends tell us. If the 360 is the one to die the ps3 will have no trouble apsing the dead console.

And you seem to run on the idea that one of them will stay alive while the other will die off but that is not what past trends tell us.

Past trends tell us that you generally get a very strong victor and the rest of the competitors limp along with poor sales until they either die off (Dreamcast) or are replaced by their successor (Saturn, N64, GC and Xbox).

Now I don't think that the 360 and PS3 will do as poorly as the GC and Xbox due to the bigger technical differences between Wii and PS360 so they both could do respectable numbers (30-40 millions consoles) but neither is likely to set the sales on fire and overtake/increase-the-lead over the other.

It is unlikely that either will die off as they have powerful interests behind them but if your scenario was to happen the PS3 would be the one most likely to die off as it seems to need to cut its price just to keep up with the 360 which make it becoming profitable anytime soon doubtful and Sony is not in as good a financial shape as Microsoft is with its Windows/Office monopoly.

Hopefully neither will die off and both will come back with better engineered consoles (360 because of RROD, PS3 because it is overengineered and thus too expensie -> Sony should learn the KISS principle) next gen to give nintendo so real competition (I love their consoles and games but I wouldn't want them to have monopoly as it is never good for us).

@sir lumpa - the saturn,xb,gc,n64 in my mind died. You say limp and maby that would be a better dicription but they were no longer competitive. I meant that specific console died not the company. All 3 companies will make another system.

If you use that definition of dying then either the hardcore market will not move to the Wi and both can survive on cross-platform games plus 1st/2nd party exclusives orthe Wii snatches enough of the hardcore market to be dominant there and make both of them irrelevant and have both of them die. It is unlikely that only one of them will survive on harcore titles only and if only one did X360 has got more potential as it has already proven that it can sell software to hardcore gamers very well.

you say they wont die off because they each have strong intrests behind them. I dont think a console has been made without a strong interests but that hasnt stopped them from dying before.

Not as strong at those interests. Sony has got the Blu-Ray interest and Microsoft is afraid that a future PS console might take enough tasks away from the PC to make them obsolete and their Windows and Office monopolies irrelevant (the same reason they forced Internet Explorer on all Windows users and fought tooth an nails their antitrust trial). If Sony pulled a Sega I could see Microsoft taking it easy as they don't see Nintendo as such a threat (as they make game centric machines) but as long as Sony is willing to sink money to make the PS3 successful MS will be willing to sink money to keep its success in check.

The only way I see the 360 and Ps3 both living till the end is if the market completly splits. Others and Japan go to ps3. Na goes to 360.

you are right a monopoly isnt normaly good but i see it like EA sees it. One console would allow everyon to have the same games instead of forcing us to buy multiple consoles to get every game.

I think it will happen eventually but as long at there are significant generational leaps there will be room for different consoles to differentiate themselves and thus there will be competitors. Once the power of consoles is high enough that you cannot see any difference between them and the price difference at the start of a gen is minimal then you will see a consolidation, probably through a standardisation like the 3DO tried 10 years ago (the idea was sound but the timing was off by a couple decades at least). 

I believe 360 has had a price cut, and some new sku. They have also released thier flagship halo 3 which was suppose to kill the ps3 and it isnt dead yet. MS doesnt have much left. The ps3 hasnt even started releasing its big titles.

Having big titles didn't save the N64 and GC, it made it sell better but it couldn't overcome the momentum of the PS1/PS2. Maybe these title will be enough for the PS3 to overcome the momentum of the 360 but even if it does it would pass it too far in the generation (halfway through) for the difference to be significantly greater than the difference between GC and Xbox as sales of less successful consoles slow down in the second half of the generation.

 

 At thebeginning of the year I thought that the PS3's survival depended on how fast Sony could cut the price and by how much. I must say that I am impressed by their ability to cut it so much so fast but I am unimpressed that it is barely besting the Xbox360's performance given that they had the advantage of theEuropean launch boosting numbers (won't happen again) and a much bigger brandname (which they still have but damaged by high price and Wii hype).

For this year I still feel that PS3's future depends on whether they can cut the price down to $300 or at least $350 to match the 360. If they can and MS only cuts the price modestly (to try to be profitable for once) then they should do very well; if they can't (lost too many cutting it to $400) then they will not perform significantly better than the 360 overall (within 10-20% of the 360's performance).

 '08 will be very interesting indeed.



"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"

 

NeoRatt on 30 December 2007

I guess we will start seeing soon. First major conference is in February I think. I'm sure both Sony and Microsoft will have many things to tell us...



ChronotriggerJM on 30 December 2007

@above poster, Sony hates to lose? I'm a major Sony supporter mind you, but you think they don't know how to handle a loss by now? How many proprietary formats have bitten the dust in the name of Sony?

Sony as a company makes some great business descisions, for as many times as they've lost in the past, still managing to be ahead nowadays impresses me more than any other company. Anyone who thinks the PS3 will be Sony's deathbed is just batshit insane XD 



From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.

Around the Network
ChronotriggerJM on 30 December 2007

@lost tears, sorry to get to you late, but too much reading >_>;

So far sadly, the best looking game on the 360 in my opinion is still Gears of wars :/ And that game was abysmally short, shorter than heavenly sword ><; In terms of graphics I'm judging on Textures, frame rate, animation, etc.

Bioshock was good, but it was art direction that saved that game, nothing more, the characters were not very detailed, same with textures.

Mass Effect was littered with problems... and it's textures were pretty sloppy in some areas, esp in certain cut scenes. I didn't care too much for the lip syncing either :(

The 360 has more "AAA" status titles as far as ratings go, but I don't feel like it's a better experience than what the PS3 can offer. I just think they got a more solid title out. Then again a lot of that comes down to preference, oh and for the record, Ratchet and Clank is pretty damn big XD, a pretty long game for it's genre, and I'd definitely consider it a showpiece. 

 In terms of "solid games", I'd say the 360 has the upper hand thus far. But in terms of "next gen console", I'd say it's currently getting spanked pretty bad. Most of the games I buy have been giving me so many luxuries that I'm just becoming accustomed to, like native 720p, 5.1 or 7.1 uncompressed, and a bunch of cut scenes/extras. Not to say that they're better games by any means, just if I saw the two next to each other on the same display area, I'd know which console to pick in a heartbeat. 



From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.

Kyros on 31 December 2007

"the best looking game on the 360 in my opinion is still Gears of wars"

I would say Call of Duty4 has far better graphics than Gears. But I am not very impressed by the Unreal Engine shaders anyway. They have the Doom3 shiny-disease.



Sri Lumpa on 31 December 2007
PDF said:
Sri Lumpa said:

So you think there is enough room for 3 consoles.  One unique(wii) and 2 very similar (ps3,360).  There is normaly only room for one but the wii is different and fits a different niche while the 360 and ps3 fill another.  If you got rid of either the ps3 or 360 I think it would be very easy for both consoles.  Wii+(ps3 or 360) would both sell very well.  It's like survival of the fittest or the cowboy movie saying "this town aint big enough for the 2 of us"

It depends on whether the Wii can sway the hardcore market as much as they did the casual one. If Nintendo does then there will be only one worthy competitor, the Wii. If they don't then you will have the wii with casual + non-HD harcore games one one side and a HD hardcore submarket with the PS3 and 360 doing a war similar to the SNES/Genesis (one victor but no domination).

 I will agree both companies will fight very hard but no matter how strong the interests are it wont save them.  Only consumers can do that =)

 That depends of their expectations. If they expect 100+ then they won't get itbut if they try to carve a high-end niche of hardcore HD games then their probably is enough hardcore gamers to make it viable (they have sold 25 millions combined already after all so it is not like nobody wants what they offer).

 I dont believe the 3DO was trying to set a monopoly and drive up the price they just builst to expensive of a machine

 I do not think that you understand my point. 3DO did not try to make a monopoly, they tried to create a standard (like DVD or VHS but for games) but it was way too early in the history of consoles to standardise (like today you mostly can use the same tools on different brands of cars but 80 years ago you needed different tools for different brands; eventually the hassle of it was hindering the industry and standardisation took place).

If this was like a sports game where nomraly one team has the momentum I would have to give it to the PS3, but if you mean momentum like in physics where they both can have momentum goin in the same direction then ps3 momentum is moving faster than the 360 it jsut not moving that much faster.   Yes I do think the 360 and ps3 will both do better than GC and XB.

Exactly! While the PS3 is going a little bit faster it is also coming from way behind so it might not be fast enough to pass the 360. Also this is holiday sales so maybe in a month or two the picture will be clearer as to whether the PS3 momentum is high enough to have a chance to overcome the 360's headstart +momentum. 

 Last year, the Wii's momentum was huge but it still took it the best part of the year to overtake the 360 because of that huge headstart. PS3 does not have such a huge momentum sothey either need to build it more or wait much longer before passing it.

The playstation brandname is a powerful one but the 360 belongs to a company with a pretty huge brandname of its own Microsoft. That is one of the reason why the XB had so much more success in the States and why the 360 is doing better. It is American company and a Powerful Brandname to. At the beggining of the year sony made me mad with their arrogance but I think they have changed since they been knocked off their high horse.

True and true and i am also hapy that sony seems to have stopped being overly arrogant (being a bit cocky is one thing, being "in your face, we ownz ya" arrogant is another) however while MS has a big brandname that helped them they did not (and still do not) have as big  a brand name in Gaming as Sony does with Playstation IMO. With the greater success of the 360 vs PS3 compared to the failure of Xbox vs PS2 it is changing and might be different next gen but I believe that it still holds true.

Sony is prepared for the long haul and will be willing to lose more money on their Gaming division if it means staying in the race or winning. Sony hates to lose, they came out with the ps1 just to spite nintendo from goin back on their word. If Sony needs a price cut they will take one.

Sony seems content to have the PSP lose against the DS and did not choose to have a huge price drop on it to make it win. Also, Sony sees gaming as a big profit maker thanks to the PS1/PS2 so they are willing to invest a lot to make the PS3 the same, but:

1) MS views Sony's moves on the living room with the PS line to be a danger to their core business, not just a lucrative division.

2) With the wii demolishing both consoles it seems unlikely that either 360 or PS3 will generate as much profit as the PS1/PS2 so there likely will come a point when Sony will not see it profitable to sink good money after bad just to try to be number 2 and at that point they will likely take a path similar to the PSP: try to make it profitable and wait for next gen.

 

'08 will be very interesting indeed.


 


 



"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"

 

Bitmap Frogs on 31 December 2007

Loss leader only works if you eventually become leader. The PS3 is failing to gain enough traction to overcome the losses. I wonder when will the sony execs stop pretending the ps3 is gonna magically explode in sales.





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

AntiFanTard on 31 December 2007

Still can't understand why people start these useless threads instead of playing their beloved video games.



______________________________

VGChartz forums: the new gamefaqs