Imperial said: If the XBOX 360 wasn't arround then all development would have been geared towards the PS3 , The PS2 has a great track record and against 1 competitor ( the Wii) the developers would have been queing up for a guaranteed profit and a reliable platform. Without the 360 the PS3 would most definetley have had MORE sofware.  Your making the assumption that devleopers would see the PS3 in the same light they do now , Most development resources would have been allocated to the development of PS3 games (you keep on forgetting about the PS2's dominance in a market with only one competitor even the least talented of Analysts would have predicted the demise of the Wii, they would have made round about the same number of PS2 games however.)

January 1st 2005, Rockstar just finished production of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas the PS3 is rumored to be released in late in 2006 but there are no solid details; do you begin development of Grand Theft Auto 4 for the PS3 under the assumption that Sony launches it in 2006 and its userbase is a decent size late in 2007, or do you begin work on Grand Theft Auto: Big Easy for the PS2 knowing that its userbase will still be huge?

It is not about "how developers see the PS3" ... the simple fact is there is almost no chance that any developer would have began PS3 projects when they began XBox 360 projects, they would have (most likely) started PS2 projects in their place, and the PS3 would have had a much worse first year library. Why is this so hard to understand?

gebx said: I'm sure a few games would of been pushed back, but released eventually... Bioshock and Mass Effect would of been on the PS3, Gears of War- maybe or not, we'll never know, and the PS3 userbase would be at least 10 million higher. So I don't see how you can say (I might be taking your words out of context) that the PS3 would be a worse shape now if the 360 hadn't been released... Because that's (obviously) false..

Except (of course) that developers do not sit around doing nothing waiting for hardware to be released ... When these developers became idle it is very likely that many of them would have began making PS2 games rather than XBox 360 games and may not have became idle again until mid/late 2007.

Certainly, the PS3's userbase would have been higher but I don't think more than 1/2 of existing XBox 360 owners would have bought a PS3 yet; and I'm not sure if (more than) 75% to 80% of current PS3 owners would have bought a PS3 yet.

HappySqurriel said: Imperial said: If the XBOX 360 wasn't arround then all development would have been geared towards the PS3 , The PS2 has a great track record and against 1 competitor ( the Wii) the developers would have been queing up for a guaranteed profit and a reliable platform. Without the 360 the PS3 would most definetley have had MORE sofware. Your making the assumption that devleopers would see the PS3 in the same light they do now , Most development resources would have been allocated to the development of PS3 games (you keep on forgetting about the PS2's dominance in a market with only one competitor even the least talented of Analysts would have predicted the demise of the Wii, they would have made round about the same number of PS2 games however.) January 1st 2005, Rockstar just finished production of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas the PS3 is rumored to be released in late in 2006 but there are no solid details; do you begin development of Grand Theft Auto 4 for the PS3 under the assumption that Sony launches it in 2006 and its userbase is a decent size late in 2007, or do you begin work on Grand Theft Auto: Big Easy for the PS2 knowing that its userbase will still be huge? It is not about "how developers see the PS3" ... the simple fact is there is almost no chance that any developer would have began PS3 projects when they began XBox 360 projects, they would have (most likely) started PS2 projects in their place, and the PS3 would have had a much worse first year library. Why is this so hard to understand?

Like I heard a developer say (maybe it was Kojima ) you can't wait for consoles to have big enough install bases to sell games on them , that's just going to cost you in the long run . Games like GTA 4 have apeal regardless of when they are released , they effectivley create install bases.

 Rockstar would have had a good idea of what hardware would be around now , I'm pretty sure it would be safe assume that they'd start production of GTA IV after they finished San Andreas if they where sure the PS3 would come out with no HD competitors.

In the first year of the PS3's release it would have sold 22 million units ( assuming it sold both it's own and the xbox 360's entire stall base, possibly more if the consumer felt conformted by a unified format)  Why wouldn't this be a good enough reason to develop for the PS3 ?  Granted there would have been those  that wanted to make games for the PS2 to exploit the huge user base but I don't think that would have got in the way of PS3 development . What could rockstar offer with another iteration of GTA on the PS2 ?.

There is also no way of quantifying the effect of there being no XBOX 360 , all we can do is assume . However one thing that can be guaranteed is that the PS3 most definetley would have had more support than it did in this reality , it's possible that the PS2 would have also had support but that doesn't take anything away from the PS3. 

Imperial said: *bleu-ocelot* said: Quote: I'm very happy we didn't get into it, because launching a handheld platform is like launching another Xbox 360. You have to be fully committed, as an organisation, from a resource standpoint, to doing that. Frankly we've got a lot on our plate with Xbox 360 and Xbox Live. We don't have any experience in that space. Our content assets don't naturally lend themselves to driving success in that particular market. Shank Him http://kotaku.com/390689/microsoft-so-happy-it-didnt-make-a-handheld-console Fixed. Microsoft's PR deparment is award winning.

That's really inappropriate and hardly relates to the topic.  Please don't do that anymore.

HappySqurriel said: Imperial said: If the XBOX 360 wasn't arround then all development would have been geared towards the PS3 , The PS2 has a great track record and against 1 competitor ( the Wii) the developers would have been queing up for a guaranteed profit and a reliable platform. Without the 360 the PS3 would most definetley have had MORE sofware. Your making the assumption that devleopers would see the PS3 in the same light they do now , Most development resources would have been allocated to the development of PS3 games (you keep on forgetting about the PS2's dominance in a market with only one competitor even the least talented of Analysts would have predicted the demise of the Wii, they would have made round about the same number of PS2 games however.) January 1st 2005, Rockstar just finished production of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas the PS3 is rumored to be released in late in 2006 but there are no solid details; do you begin development of Grand Theft Auto 4 for the PS3 under the assumption that Sony launches it in 2006 and its userbase is a decent size late in 2007, or do you begin work on Grand Theft Auto: Big Easy for the PS2 knowing that its userbase will still be huge? It is not about "how developers see the PS3" ... the simple fact is there is almost no chance that any developer would have began PS3 projects when they began XBox 360 projects, they would have (most likely) started PS2 projects in their place, and the PS3 would have had a much worse first year library. Why is this so hard to understand?

I'm afraid I have to tentatively call bullshit on this (until you back up with evidence), which is a shame as the person you're rebutting has plenty of weak points* IMO. 

To begin with, weren't the rumors for SPRING 2006 release of the PS3?  That didn't happen but as I recall it was what we thought would happen.  And the assumption was also that the PS3 would rule the next gen (this one) much as the PS2 did, so it probably wouldn't take until "late" 2007 to get a decent userbase (unless I mistake what you reckon "reasonable").  Which also didn't happen but was widely assumed to be foreordained. 

Next, in point of fact Rockstar did always plan to have the game out on the PS3 with a good userbase. 

As for the argument that the PS3's first year benefited greatly from having ports from the 360's first year, well, that may be true but doesn't it kind of undermine your argument that nobody wants to develop for an HD system in its first year?  The biggest effect would probably be that the PS2 would have had one more year in the sun -- and yes, that would have helped the Wii to some extent, considering the amount of PS2 ports it's gotten, but it would also have helped Sony. 

Just because some of those projects would have gone to the PS2 doesn't mean that a vacuum would exist on the PS3.  All those people making games for the 360 in its second year?  Yeah.  A lot of them would have been doing it on the PS3, the heir apparent to the PS2, and when E3 2006 told us different it would be too late for them to switch to the Wii. 

Now, for some stuff outside the quoted post: 

A big factor I think gebx overlooks is the effect that the 360's year-long head start had on the 2v1 "HD vs. Wii" battle.  If the PS3 and Wii were to launch side by side in that other scenario as they did in actuality, that extra userbase would not exist.

Also, gebx's war analogy makes a fundamental error:  The countries in the analogy are preexisting.  The consoles, conversely, build up over time.  The analogy assumes that every resource of the 360 -- exclusive developers, userbase, all of it -- would be arrayed with the PS3 against the Wii.  In reality, of course, the Wii would gobble up quite a bit of that. 

Overall, I think that the effects gebx is looking at and those that HappySquirrel is looking at would more or less cancel out, but with th edge going to the Wii.  (How on earth do you figure that 20-25% of PS3 buyers would NOT have bought it if the 360 didn't exist??)

*(must ... resist ... joke ...)

Final-Fan said: HappySqurriel said: January 1st 2005, Rockstar just finished production of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas the PS3 is rumored to be released in late in 2006 but there are no solid details; do you begin development of Grand Theft Auto 4 for the PS3 under the assumption that Sony launches it in 2006 and its userbase is a decent size late in 2007, or do you begin work on Grand Theft Auto: Big Easy for the PS2 knowing that its userbase will still be huge? It is not about "how developers see the PS3" ... the simple fact is there is almost no chance that any developer would have began PS3 projects when they began XBox 360 projects, they would have (most likely) started PS2 projects in their place, and the PS3 would have had a much worse first year library. Why is this so hard to understand? I'm afraid I have to tentatively call bullshit on this (until you back up with evidence), which is a shame as the person you're rebutting has plenty of weak points* IMO.  To begin with, weren't the rumors for SPRING 2006 release of the PS3?  That didn't happen but as I recall it was what we thought would happen.  And the assumption was also that the PS3 would rule the next gen (this one) much as the PS2 did, so it probably wouldn't take until "late" 2007 to get a decent userbase (unless I mistake what you reckon "reasonable").  Which also didn't happen but was widely assumed to be foreordained.  Next, in point of fact Rockstar did always plan to have the game out on the PS3 with a good userbase.  As for the argument that the PS3's first year benefited greatly from having ports from the 360's first year, well, that may be true but doesn't it kind of undermine your argument that nobody wants to develop for an HD system in its first year?  The biggest effect would probably be that the PS2 would have had one more year in the sun -- and yes, that would have helped the Wii to some extent, considering the amount of PS2 ports it's gotten, but it would also have helped Sony.  Just because some of those projects would have gone to the PS2 doesn't mean that a vacuum would exist on the PS3.  All those people making games for the 360 in its second year?  Yeah.  A lot of them would have been doing it on the PS3, the heir apparent to the PS2, and when E3 2006 told us different it would be too late for them to switch to the Wii.  Now, for some stuff outside the quoted post:  A big factor I think gebx overlooks is the effect that the 360's year-long head start had on the 2v1 "HD vs. Wii" battle.  If the PS3 and Wii were to launch side by side in that other scenario as they did in actuality, that extra userbase would not exist. Also, gebx's war analogy makes a fundamental error:  The countries in the analogy are preexisting.  The consoles, conversely, build up over time.  The analogy assumes that every resource of the 360 -- exclusive developers, userbase, all of it -- would be arrayed with the PS3 against the Wii.  In reality, of course, the Wii would gobble up quite a bit of that.  Overall, I think that the effects gebx is looking at and those that HappySquirrel is looking at would more or less cancel out, but with th edge going to the Wii.  (How on earth do you figure that 20-25% of PS3 buyers would NOT have bought it if the 360 didn't exist??) *(must ... resist ... joke ...)

Why must everyone take every situation to the absolute extreme?

I never once implied that "no developers want to produce games for HD consoles in their first year" ...

What I am saying is that a lot of games that were released for the PS3 started development as early as they did, and were released when they were, in a large part BECAUSE THE XBOX 360 EXISTED. People who were drawn to the XBox 360 because of Gears of War of Bioshock may not have bought into a HD console yet because these games would not have been released for the PS3 yet; at the same time, people who bought either console to play Burnout paradise, Devil May Cry 4, or Grand Theft Auto 4 wouldn't have bought either system because these games would not have been released yet.

People seem to have this really poor memory where they forget that the PS2 launched in Japan in March of 2000 and didn't receive many (really) good third party games until Christmas of 2001; with the longer development times of the PS3 and XBox 360, along with the delays that many of these games received, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the PS3 would have had a similar delay in the release of its big games.

Without the XBox 360 you have to wonder whether Sony would have bothered to even reduce the price of the PS3 last year; how many people who bought a PS3 or XBox 360 at $400 or less would have really spent $600 for the same experience?

 

Beyond that, I'm just going to give up this argument ... Being that there were three times as many high quality third party games released in 2007 than 2006 for the HD consoles, I'm certain you guys are correct that third party publishers would have favoured the PS3 with all of those games and the existing 10+ Million XBox 360 owners had absolutely nothing to do with publishers choosing to make games for those platforms; after all, publishers are not for profit agencies who are only interested in making games which have superior graphics and they never consider sales or userbases.

of course, they choose either to compete with PS 70% plus console market share over Nintendo's 80% plus handled market share back early this decade. They decided to go with the console business.

I know you're not interested in further debate, but I really feel the need to respond to a few key points.

Why must everyone take every situation to the absolute extreme?

I never once implied that "no developers want to produce games for HD consoles in their first year" ...

It's called exaggeration. Obviously you didn't say that literally "nobody" wants to develop for a system in the first year.

As for whether Sony would have dropped the price as aggressively: they would still be getting absolutely stomped by the Wii and thanks to extra PS2 sales be more able to do something about it than they were in actuality. Every single game that you say the PS3 would "lose" to its predecessor would only be making Sony stronger.

As for the final paragraph: I'm sure that the higher game sales in 2007 have nothing to do with the fact that there were THREE systems were selling all through the year instead of just in the final month and a half; and at ever increasing rates in the Wii's case. I'm also glad you decided to exaggerate and dismiss my arguments in exactly the same way you accuse me of doing to you. I wonder if the irony is intentional.