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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Everyone wins this generation except Sony! Y cant people get it??


Jordahn said:

 

First off, welcome to the forums...

Second, maybe it's you who don't get it (along with several others...)

Looking at gaming since 1977, EVERY generation of consoles have been a whole new ball game from the previous one. You can always compare successes and failures from one gen to the next, but each new generation can never depend on the successes of the last generation when you look at Atari, Nintendo, and to a lesser extent SONY since each new generation has always offered a signifigant difference from the previous one. Also, the only consistancy in the console market until this generation is that CONTENT IS KING. The Xbox 360 has the most content. But hardwarewise the Wii has already surpassed it in sales, and the PS3 has been erradicating the 360's 10 million units shipped lead with the PS3 still having aces up its sleeves. Because the "CONTENT IS KING" concept doesn't apply to this gen so far, it's safe to say that the only single consistancy has been trounced by lower prices (Wii) thus supporting that each new generation has something relatively new to offer where last generation CANNOT be heavily depended on. And even you said...

"The PS3 outselling the Xbox 360 is no accomplishment by any means..."

So doesn't the above quoted statement also implies that the 360 didn't win??? If it's of "no accomplishment" that means that the 360 is in worse position than the PS3. Your statement is either subjectively faulty logic or outright biased fanboyism/fangirlism. Take your pick. And what does...

"It was always 'supposed to'" suppose to mean??? Is this suppose to mean that both SONY and Microsoft joined together to plan this from the start? Is this suppose to mean that the Xbox 360 was doomed to be beaten by the PS3 rom the start, still implying that the 360 ALSO didn't win this generation? Or is this suppose to mean that you cannot take the fact that there is still demand for the PS3??? The PS3 is in last place, BUT it ISN'T in dead last. Consumers still want that the PS3, there is still sufficent demand for it, 3rd parties are still supporting it some using it as a lead developing platform, it still has its share of 3rd party exclusives, and SONY is pushing both their old and new IP's for the system. In a lot of ways ALL systems have won this generation as well as the PS3 which also allow gamers to win as well.

"Y cant people get it??"

 

Perhaps the real question is, "Is Sony doing well this generation compared to last?"  The answer is obviously no.  They dominated last generation, but are struggling to get into a distant second this generation.

Does this mean they will not dominate next generation?  No.  They just don't have a chance to do it this generation.

They've fallen far, but I wouldn't count them out.  They're just no longer the company with the "must-have" console, now.

 



Around the Network
MontanaHatchet said:
Squilliam said:
leo-j said:
Chrizum said:
leo-j said:
Dude this gen isnt over yet..

And even with that said the PS3 is still overpriced and until it gets to a similar wii price range it wont dominate anything.


So you admit the PS3 isn't worth its money?

 

 Yea I do, as long as it doesnt have firmware 2.40, or more games it to me is an overpriced machine. Same thing in the consumers eyes, they dont buy it because its over priced for a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE, since thats what it should be.

Until it costs $1 it will be overpriced to many people in the world...

 

 

*Sigh*

So will every console. Please stop.

 

 

 Sorry, i've been up all night, can't sleep.

"Until it costs $1 it will be overpriced to many people in the world..." - Unsaid "Because there are always people for whom no price is good enough." For example - There are people in this world, especially now for whom food is difficult to come by. These people certainly aren't in the market for a console at any price.



Tease.

Okay, Sony isn't dominating, but it's hard being the king.

Really, Microsoft, and especially Nintendo had nowhere to go but up in the last generation. But PlayStation had to outdo itself, again. I think they buckled under pressure, which is understandable coming from a company that sold 220 million consoles in ten or eleven years. No other gaming console has been as successful as the PS2, and the PS1.

So yes, Sony is doing bad compared to the PS2, but that's like saying that an athlete is bad when s/he doesn't win a championship one year, but does the one before. You can only stay on top for a certain period of time.



crumas2 said:

 

Perhaps the real question is, "Is Sony doing well this generation compared to last?"  irrelevant.

Does this mean they will not dominate next generation?  No.  They just don't have a chance to do it this generation.

They've fallen far, but I wouldn't count them out.  They're just no longer the company with the "must-have" console, now.  doesn't mean they "lost" like the OP is implying.

 

 



crumas2 said:

 

Feylic said:
Doesn't anybody think it would be a good idea to wait for this generation of consoles to be over before declaring "winners" and "losers"

It's more of a qualitative assessment than a quantitative one. Using Sony's console business as the yard-stick, they're doing much more poorly this time around.

There are a number of reasons for this:

1. The PS2 hardware was a definite leap ahead of the competition until the xbox came along, and MS was brand new and late to the party

2. The PS3 came to market a year after the 360

3. The Wii has "enough" horsepower for great 480p games, and the new control scheme is very innovative

4. Sony is now driven to a large extent by their media division. This is why they damaged their image by introducing a root-kit level music-CD DRM approach, and why the PS3 sold very poorly in 2007 due largely to it's stratospheric price-tag, which was in part due to having a built-in Blu-ray player.


Overall, Sony isn't run by morons, so I expect they will lick their wounds and come back with a vengence next generation.

 

 

Interestng points, but the only ones I have to sincerely agree with are points 3 & 4 in which $500-$600 for what was perceived as just a game console made even some hardcore gamers think twice.  For the one's I humbly disagree...

1 - There was the Dreamcast before the PS2.

2 - Yes, the PS3 came after the 360, but the 360 did NOT extend their 10 million unit shipped lead after both the Wii and PS3 were released.



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

Around the Network

Yea, we knew that a year ago. But the PS3 did so horribly last year, that making a recovery this gen is more of the new mesure of success. We can't just ignore any accomplishment the PS3 has made and say, "It was in first last gen, nothing else matters."



crumas2 said:

Jordahn said:

 

First off, welcome to the forums...

Second, maybe it's you who don't get it (along with several others...)

Looking at gaming since 1977, EVERY generation of consoles have been a whole new ball game from the previous one. You can always compare successes and failures from one gen to the next, but each new generation can never depend on the successes of the last generation when you look at Atari, Nintendo, and to a lesser extent SONY since each new generation has always offered a signifigant difference from the previous one. Also, the only consistancy in the console market until this generation is that CONTENT IS KING. The Xbox 360 has the most content. But hardwarewise the Wii has already surpassed it in sales, and the PS3 has been erradicating the 360's 10 million units shipped lead with the PS3 still having aces up its sleeves. Because the "CONTENT IS KING" concept doesn't apply to this gen so far, it's safe to say that the only single consistancy has been trounced by lower prices (Wii) thus supporting that each new generation has something relatively new to offer where last generation CANNOT be heavily depended on. And even you said...

"The PS3 outselling the Xbox 360 is no accomplishment by any means..."

So doesn't the above quoted statement also implies that the 360 didn't win??? If it's of "no accomplishment" that means that the 360 is in worse position than the PS3. Your statement is either subjectively faulty logic or outright biased fanboyism/fangirlism. Take your pick. And what does...

"It was always 'supposed to'" suppose to mean??? Is this suppose to mean that both SONY and Microsoft joined together to plan this from the start? Is this suppose to mean that the Xbox 360 was doomed to be beaten by the PS3 rom the start, still implying that the 360 ALSO didn't win this generation? Or is this suppose to mean that you cannot take the fact that there is still demand for the PS3??? The PS3 is in last place, BUT it ISN'T in dead last. Consumers still want that the PS3, there is still sufficent demand for it, 3rd parties are still supporting it some using it as a lead developing platform, it still has its share of 3rd party exclusives, and SONY is pushing both their old and new IP's for the system. In a lot of ways ALL systems have won this generation as well as the PS3 which also allow gamers to win as well.

"Y cant people get it??"

 

Perhaps the real question is, "Is Sony doing well this generation compared to last?" The answer is obviously no. They dominated last generation, but are struggling to get into a distant second this generation.

Does this mean they will not dominate next generation? No. They just don't have a chance to do it this generation.

They've fallen far, but I wouldn't count them out. They're just no longer the company with the "must-have" console, now.

 

The question "Is Sony doing well this generation compared to last?" I think is relative from person to person.  I personally think the PS3 still as a lot to offer because I for one try not to concentrate on marketshare and/or units sold/shipped as long as there is a demand and a fair amount of offerings on a console, which I think all have succeeded in its own way.

 



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

PooperScooper said:
crumas2 said:

 

Perhaps the real question is, "Is Sony doing well this generation compared to last?" irrelevant.

Does this mean they will not dominate next generation? No. They just don't have a chance to do it this generation.

They've fallen far, but I wouldn't count them out. They're just no longer the company with the "must-have" console, now. doesn't mean they "lost" like the OP is implying.

 

 

 

Ditto.



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

jenny said:

My opionion

        opionion

I don't know why, but this put a smile on my face.

(Welcome to VGChartz, and by the looks of things, I'm sure you'll make a lot of new friends here...)



This whole thread sucks. Lock plz. Its pointless and silly and its been covered about as many times as the Cell has flops to spare running MGS4.

Damnit, lock every damn fanboyish thread running and give this place a reset for a while.

I would like to see VGchartz with all the fanboi crud locked, like someone posted in this thread I think "I came here to talk about games not see these stupid fanboi wars"

Im guilty of helping continue this crud too! But I can't sleep and its 9am without a wink of sleep... so show mercy?

LOCK THEM ALL UP!!!! :) Oh, I probably deserve to be banned for a couple of things I posted too most likely, so if banning me for a week or a month is payment for locking all these damn fanboi threads... DO IT PLEASE!!!



Tease.