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

Forums - Sony - will ff13 revive ps3?

Kasz216 said:
totalwar23 said:
 
What, that's not what he told me. According to him, the PS3 will win because it's on a ten year plan and by the time the next generation consoles will come out, the PS3 will hold an advantage over those more powerful consoles due to being cheaper to develop for (due to its lower specs) and having a higher install base but the PS3 won't be harmed by the Wii because people want more powerful consoles to play more technically impressive games. Go ahead and read his posts, that's what I got from him.

 


The question is... why would they? Why would Nintendo release another console if Sony hasn't? It kinda seems like the Wii is going to end up being the NES all over again. They aren't going to bother replacing it until it needs to be replaced.


Which would be either when Sony releases a new console or the new Xbox becomes successful. Which would defeat Sony's point either way.

I mean, it's all explained up their mostly. The Mega Drive wasn't a big hit in America because it was higher specced. It was a big hit because their advertising campaign convinced America it was the "Cool" system. That's not going to work of a system that's been out 5+ years.

Had Sega not done so and the Master System failed... Nintendo probably would of rode the NES even longer then it did. A strategy like that... where their is no PS4 in 5-6 years just gives microsoft a big advantage. Eventually PS3 will be forced to move.

Thats all true as well.  The idea the the PS3 will have a PS2-like tail (or even close) doesn't make sense from any angle.  The console just won't have the flexibility in price, games and support required to survive at anything more than game-cube like tail levels once all three (or any two) manufacturors have their next consoles out.

 



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network

FF13 (any one game alone) won't change the PS3's status in Japan permanently, what It'll do is spike the sales and create some momentum, what Sony can do with the momentum FF13 creates is another story and will be more crucial to turning the PS3's success. Either way, It doesn't look like the PS3 will pass the Wii in Japan, but that doesn't mean that the system will have failed.



FF13 will obviously help, and so will MGS4. Things will only increase in Japan after that...but I dont' believe it will ever get to PS2 status in Japan

but you never know



FJ-Warez said:
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
FJ-Warez said:
MikeB said:
@ FJ-Warez

Do you realise this threadis about Japan and how bad is the PS3 loosing the market against the Wii???


I view the Wii and PS3 as two very distinct platforms, I don't see them directly competing for the long run.

If 3rd parties would suddenly put the bulk of their efforts behind the Wii it could become a problem. But currently however it's mainly just Nintendo and they never supported the Playstation brand well.

I know about your point of view, but is clear how the market is choosing one console, and how some devs are starting to choose it for more games than shovelware, if the Wii wasn't a thread for the PS3 in Japan why the jump of Monster Hunter???Even DQ could end up on the Wii after the DS version... those are big games...

And do I need to remind you how many of those "games" FF, MGS, DMC or RE5 started their dev time before the launch and success of the Wii??

If the devs doesn't port those games are due to several factors, but mostly for the money invested in those dev kids and developers, thats the bigger obstacle for the Wii... if those games were announced and developed after the clear succes of the WIi I would share your point of view, but thats not the case...

 

Edit

@ Loud_Hot_White_Box:

So do you believe that the succes of the Wii has nothing to do with the low sales of the PS3???


PS3 sales can jump from the factors I listed independently of Wii sales, just like PSP sales jumped from MH/slim even though DS is/was kicking butt. Maybe Wii sales might be harmed by PS3 successes; likely not by much.


I want to bold this for the world... thanks for showing who jumped in fanboy mode here :P 


What?  I NEVER considered this about PS3 vs Wii.  Then, consistent with that, I said that PS3 will see huge gains in Japan due to certain factors and won't harm the Wii directly by doing so.

Sigh... you can't think straight, evidently.  I like Nintendo just fine.  It's just that, to say that this is some PS3/Wii issue, whether PS3 sales will rise due to certain PS3-specific factors, was wrong, and I'm calling you out for suggesting it.



starcraft said:
totalwar23 said:
starcraft said:
Kasz216 said:
 

It's never been about the specs. Even back with the NES.

The Sega Mega Drive was a failure in Japan because of the NES. The thing was dead in Japan before the SNES ever came out. Japan, you've got to have the goods upfront.

Ironically the Genisis was the HD console of it's era. As even then the other companies tried to paint Nintendo as kiddy... partially due to Nintendo backing down to the senators, while Sega kept it bloody and invented terms like "Blast Processing" to suggest the Mega Drive was way more impressive.

The whole thing worked... with the teen audience. But failed elsewhere... and eventually the SNES prevailed in America.

Sega I believe captured the undeveloped Europeon market though. Europe's never really been Nintendo land.

I agree. I think MikeB believes that the slimmest of processor advantages over the Xbox 360 is going to result in some sort of enormous eleventh hour boost for the PS3 to the detriment of Microsoft and Nintendo, but making this assumption belays everything we know about how the industry works and the success-breeds-success principle.

 

What, that's not what he told me. According to him, the PS3 will win because it's on a ten year plan and by the time the next generation consoles will come out, the PS3 will hold an advantage over those more powerful consoles due to being cheaper to develop for (due to its lower specs) and having a higher install base but the PS3 won't be harmed by the Wii because people want more powerful consoles to play more technically impressive games. Go ahead and read his posts, that's what I got from him.

 

He says both things, both in this thread and in others. Each are fundamentally illogical assumptions. The former ignores the fact that the most powerful console hasn't won in the last two generations, and the latter (and this is quite a contradiction) attempts to make a comparision between the PS3 and the PS2 with regard to lifespans and sales.

The problem is MikeB is assuming the PS3 will have the same kind of tail the PS2 did saleswise, even though every indicator (be it sales, price or third party support) we have dictates that this will not be the case.

 


 Sales indicators show that the PS3 is tracking not all that far behind PS2 and favorably vs PS1, even with PS3's higher price and competition out alone for a year ahead of it.  What's that tell you about tails, again?

Re: "most powerful console hasn't won"...you're right, the Sony console has.  If we're just stating history.  Wii will sell more units than PS3 this time, but income from PS3, games, Blu-Ray victory, PSN movie downloads, will be quite significant.



Around the Network
starcraft said:
Kasz216 said:
 

It's never been about the specs. Even back with the NES.

The Sega Mega Drive was a failure in Japan because of the NES. The thing was dead in Japan before the SNES ever came out. Japan, you've got to have the goods upfront.

Ironically the Genisis was the HD console of it's era. As even then the other companies tried to paint Nintendo as kiddy... partially due to Nintendo backing down to the senators, while Sega kept it bloody and invented terms like "Blast Processing" to suggest the Mega Drive was way more impressive.

The whole thing worked... with the teen audience. But failed elsewhere... and eventually the SNES prevailed in America.

Sega I believe captured the undeveloped Europeon market though. Europe's never really been Nintendo land.

I agree. I think MikeB believes that the slimmest of processor advantages over the Xbox 360 is going to result in some sort of enormous eleventh hour boost for the PS3 to the detriment of Microsoft and Nintendo, but making this assumption belays everything we know about how the industry works and the success-breeds-success principle.

 


The Cell, Blu-Ray and default harddrive advantages over the 360 (and of course Wii, for which I think such technology would have been overkill considering its simplistic cartoon-like low-end non-HD toylike approach) are just there for developers to tap into to create far more impressive games. This is what's pushing the market forward in general and a reason why we aren't playing Zaxxon 10 on a Coleco Vision or Pong 10 nowadays.

It's however the games which make a dedicated game system sell (albeit consoles are now becoming more multi-dimensional with regard to entertainment in a broader sense), sure the specs of the Amiga played an important role in its victory over the Atari ST and the release of Doom and Quake caused PC gamers to upgrade their hardware en masse (yes, specifications do matter!, like the original Playstation's CDROM drive played a crucial long term role towards its success). The NES and later to a lesser extend Snes was mainly successful due to the Mario Brothers hype.

Nintendo has been very succeful pushing for the lower-end simple kid orientated cartoon-like games. They don't have an image of being able to play the best version of Doom or Quake. So IMO Wii Sports is a great match for Nintendo's image, much better than a game like Killzone 2, God of War 3 or Metal Gear Solid would be for them. That has far more become Sony's domain, as can be judged from the success of PS1 and PS2. For the broader entertainment image Sony has specs play a far greater long term role.

With regard to Mega Drive vs Snes, IMO Super Mario World was simply the best game of the era. Sonic looked pretty but overall there wasn't much difference there between the two platforms. Neither system provided really cutting edge technology and were viewed mainly as simplistic kid toys, the console market has changed a lot since then but there's still a lot of potential like the Wii demonstrates.



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

Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
starcraft said:
totalwar23 said:
starcraft said:
Kasz216 said:
 

It's never been about the specs. Even back with the NES.

The Sega Mega Drive was a failure in Japan because of the NES. The thing was dead in Japan before the SNES ever came out. Japan, you've got to have the goods upfront.

Ironically the Genisis was the HD console of it's era. As even then the other companies tried to paint Nintendo as kiddy... partially due to Nintendo backing down to the senators, while Sega kept it bloody and invented terms like "Blast Processing" to suggest the Mega Drive was way more impressive.

The whole thing worked... with the teen audience. But failed elsewhere... and eventually the SNES prevailed in America.

Sega I believe captured the undeveloped Europeon market though. Europe's never really been Nintendo land.

I agree. I think MikeB believes that the slimmest of processor advantages over the Xbox 360 is going to result in some sort of enormous eleventh hour boost for the PS3 to the detriment of Microsoft and Nintendo, but making this assumption belays everything we know about how the industry works and the success-breeds-success principle.

 

What, that's not what he told me. According to him, the PS3 will win because it's on a ten year plan and by the time the next generation consoles will come out, the PS3 will hold an advantage over those more powerful consoles due to being cheaper to develop for (due to its lower specs) and having a higher install base but the PS3 won't be harmed by the Wii because people want more powerful consoles to play more technically impressive games. Go ahead and read his posts, that's what I got from him.

 

He says both things, both in this thread and in others. Each are fundamentally illogical assumptions. The former ignores the fact that the most powerful console hasn't won in the last two generations, and the latter (and this is quite a contradiction) attempts to make a comparision between the PS3 and the PS2 with regard to lifespans and sales.

The problem is MikeB is assuming the PS3 will have the same kind of tail the PS2 did saleswise, even though every indicator (be it sales, price or third party support) we have dictates that this will not be the case.

 


Sales indicators show that the PS3 is tracking not all that far behind PS2 and favorably vs PS1, even with PS3's higher price and competition out alone for a year ahead of it. What's that tell you about tails, again?

Re: "most powerful console hasn't won"...you're right, the Sony console has. If we're just stating history. Wii will sell more units than PS3 this time, but income from PS3, games, Blu-Ray victory, PSN movie downloads, will be quite significant.

Your sales indicator needs a little work considering that the PS2 was selling in Japan for months before being available in other territories. Take a look at the launch sales in individual territories and tell me if the PS3 is tracking "not that far" from the PS2? In short, history tells us that if a consoles doesn't sell well at the beginning, it won't just pick up steam at the end.

Considering the Sony has lost billions on the PS3, I'm not too sure if profits will offset cost. The income from games depends on how many PS3s are sold and its not looking to well especially when the 360 is furiously competing with it in software sales (that includes digital movie distribution where Xbox Live will crush PSN). Bluray right now is showing slow growth which might not be mainstream until the next generation of consoles and if that happens, well it makes the benefit of the PS3 having one not all too great. 

 



Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
FJ-Warez said:
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
FJ-Warez said:
MikeB said:
@ FJ-Warez

Do you realise this threadis about Japan and how bad is the PS3 loosing the market against the Wii???


I view the Wii and PS3 as two very distinct platforms, I don't see them directly competing for the long run.

If 3rd parties would suddenly put the bulk of their efforts behind the Wii it could become a problem. But currently however it's mainly just Nintendo and they never supported the Playstation brand well.

I know about your point of view, but is clear how the market is choosing one console, and how some devs are starting to choose it for more games than shovelware, if the Wii wasn't a thread for the PS3 in Japan why the jump of Monster Hunter???Even DQ could end up on the Wii after the DS version... those are big games...

And do I need to remind you how many of those "games" FF, MGS, DMC or RE5 started their dev time before the launch and success of the Wii??

If the devs doesn't port those games are due to several factors, but mostly for the money invested in those dev kids and developers, thats the bigger obstacle for the Wii... if those games were announced and developed after the clear succes of the WIi I would share your point of view, but thats not the case...

 

Edit

@ Loud_Hot_White_Box:

So do you believe that the succes of the Wii has nothing to do with the low sales of the PS3???


PS3 sales can jump from the factors I listed independently of Wii sales, just like PSP sales jumped from MH/slim even though DS is/was kicking butt. Maybe Wii sales might be harmed by PS3 successes; likely not by much.


I want to bold this for the world... thanks for showing who jumped in fanboy mode here :P 


What?  I NEVER considered this about PS3 vs Wii.  Then, consistent with that, I said that PS3 will see huge gains in Japan due to certain factors and won't harm the Wii directly by doing so.

Sigh... you can't think straight, evidently.  I like Nintendo just fine.  It's just that, to say that this is some PS3/Wii issue, whether PS3 sales will rise due to certain PS3-specific factors, was wrong, and I'm calling you out for suggesting it.


 You, yes never considered this, the market thinks the opposite...consistent evidence shows how this market choose just one console... still you believe that the success of the Wii has nothing to do with the low sales of the PS3... I asked you about this (The PS3 suffering due to the Wii success) and your response was about something irrelevant to the question, than maybe still supports my point of view, an small jump or success of the PS3 will not affect the Wii sales...

 I'm sorry but the one who can't think straight is you, the topic clearly is about the PS3 suffering and on need for a great come back, ignoring the Wii factor like the major cause of this low performance only shows how biased is your point of view...



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
 

Sales indicators show that the PS3 is tracking not all that far behind PS2 and favorably vs PS1, even with PS3's higher price and competition out alone for a year ahead of it. What's that tell you about tails, again?

Re: "most powerful console hasn't won"...you're right, the Sony console has. If we're just stating history. Wii will sell more units than PS3 this time, but income from PS3, games, Blu-Ray victory, PSN movie downloads, will be quite significant.

Haha.  Your looking at Crazzyman's thread huh?  Check his launch dates

 



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS