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

Forums - Microsoft - How Microsoft defeated Sony.

Pristine20 on 08 March 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pristine20 said:
slowmo said:
A famous idiom for you "fool and his money are easily parted", that would quite easily descirbe the person who paid $15,000.

The PS3 is the true successor to the PS2, just this time they didn't have a year head start and spend a fortune on securing third party exclusives. The only criticism I level at Sony is they completely cocked up their analysis on what people would be willing to pay for a console and the penalty is a overpriced product versus peoples perceived value.

I can say with 120% confidence Sony will not release their next console a year after Microsoft do. Microsoft set the value expectations the PS3 had to follow and ever since then its been catch up.

I can guarantee that 90% of the people who bought a 360 before the ps3 launched had an xbox. Why does this matter? M$ headstart didn't really do anything to sony's brand. Most simply waited for the ps3 to launch. It was the year 2007 when everyone realized that even after the price was a no-no, 3rd parties weren't supporting the ps3 like the ps2 so they just bought 360s for cheaper instead. Some loyalists like myself stuck with the ps3 though.

2007 was the fall of sony in the console market. After that year, most wouldn't ever pre-approve of them and be willing to spend $15, 000 on their consoles again

 

Your guarantee is incorrect. I would be willing to bet that it's split right down the middle between the PS2 and the Xbox owners of last gen. The 360 is the only affordable hardcore system with various genres and multiplatforms that the PS3 already has.

 

Why would a ps2-only owner have bought the 360 early? To play Perfect Dark Zero or Lost Planet or maybe it was Enchanted Arms? LMAO. Go back to the ps2's history, you'd find that FPS games were essentially irrelevant on the console. 360 carried that "shooterbox" logo on it's head for a while till it was proved otherwise but that definitely didn't happen in it's first year.

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Around the Network
slowmo on 08 March 2009
Pristine20 said:
slowmo said:
A famous idiom for you "fool and his money are easily parted", that would quite easily descirbe the person who paid $15,000.

The PS3 is the true successor to the PS2, just this time they didn't have a year head start and spend a fortune on securing third party exclusives. The only criticism I level at Sony is they completely cocked up their analysis on what people would be willing to pay for a console and the penalty is a overpriced product versus peoples perceived value.

I can say with 120% confidence Sony will not release their next console a year after Microsoft do. Microsoft set the value expectations the PS3 had to follow and ever since then its been catch up.

I can guarantee that 90% of the people who bought a 360 before the ps3 launched had an xbox. Why does this matter? M$ headstart didn't really do anything to sony's brand. Most simply waited for the ps3 to launch. It was the year 2007 when everyone realized that even after the price was a no-no, 3rd parties weren't supporting the ps3 like the ps2 so they just bought 360s for cheaper instead. Some loyalists like myself stuck with the ps3 though.

2007 was the fall of sony in the console market. After that year, most wouldn't ever pre-approve of them and be willing to spend $15, 000 on their consoles again

 

 

My point was that the price of the PS3 wouldn't have been as much of an issue if Microsoft hadn't released another HD console with so many similarities to make the big price a issue.  The PS3 was pretty much having to argue the point that Bluray was worth the extra big price hike which simply was never going to be a workable scenario when people looked at the titles on each and Microsoft's cheaper console could do the same.  Good old Ken believed the perceived value of the PS3 would mean people wouldn't mind buying the PS3, Microsoft had moved these goal posts though and Sony were left high and dry.

I agree that a large percentage of early 360 owners were probably xbox owners too but Microsoft did contribute to the early struggles of Sony.  If there were only Sony and Nintendo in the market now I think things could have been very different, arguably for the worst for many gamers.  Third party devs were heavily supporting the 2 HD consoles back in 2007 as they suspected the Wii to flop but because the PS3 had a smaller userbase it could no longer argue the case for exclusives as well, the year headstart they gave Microsoft directly caused this.



S.T.A.G.E. on 08 March 2009
Pristine20 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pristine20 said:
slowmo said:
A famous idiom for you "fool and his money are easily parted", that would quite easily descirbe the person who paid $15,000.

The PS3 is the true successor to the PS2, just this time they didn't have a year head start and spend a fortune on securing third party exclusives. The only criticism I level at Sony is they completely cocked up their analysis on what people would be willing to pay for a console and the penalty is a overpriced product versus peoples perceived value.

I can say with 120% confidence Sony will not release their next console a year after Microsoft do. Microsoft set the value expectations the PS3 had to follow and ever since then its been catch up.

I can guarantee that 90% of the people who bought a 360 before the ps3 launched had an xbox. Why does this matter? M$ headstart didn't really do anything to sony's brand. Most simply waited for the ps3 to launch. It was the year 2007 when everyone realized that even after the price was a no-no, 3rd parties weren't supporting the ps3 like the ps2 so they just bought 360s for cheaper instead. Some loyalists like myself stuck with the ps3 though.

2007 was the fall of sony in the console market. After that year, most wouldn't ever pre-approve of them and be willing to spend $15, 000 on their consoles again

 

Your guarantee is incorrect. I would be willing to bet that it's split right down the middle between the PS2 and the Xbox owners of last gen. The 360 is the only affordable hardcore system with various genres and multiplatforms that the PS3 already has.

 

Why would a ps2-only owner have bought the 360 early? To play Perfect Dark Zero or Lost Planet or maybe it was Enchanted Arms? LMAO. Go back to the ps2's history, you'd find that FPS games were essentially irrelevant on the console. 360 carried that "shooterbox" logo on it's head for a while till it was proved otherwise but that definitely didn't happen in it's first year.

 

Who said they had to buy it early. I have gone back to PS2's history and PS1's as well and looked at the exact reason why they had so many buyers. It's because they were the cheaper systems which had the most 3rd party support which resulted in larger libraries. It's not that hard really (split second thought) and Microsoft did the exact same thing. I have alot of Japanese-centric friends who bought a 360 just because as far as JRPG's are concerned it has the most JRPG's. They have no respect for Microsoft as a corporation or Sony anymore. The 360 was the affordable HD system with the larger library with the diverse titles just like the PS2 was the more affordable system with the larger library before. Cutting the exclusive 3rd party support from Sony is what made it come down to price for games to the majority of last gen consumers.

 



SickleSigh on 08 March 2009

Wasn't Ps2 more expensive then Dreamcast and Gamecube? I think the Ps2 owners waited to see how Ps3 launched before buying a new system. Ps2 was still selling strong when 360 was released and games like GoW 2, Guitar Hero and Rockband made it so Ps2 owners didn't have to make a choice immediately. 360 sales weren't that good it's first year but once Ps3 flopped 360 still gained momentum.



Pristine20 on 08 March 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pristine20 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pristine20 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pristine20 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pristine20 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pristine20 said:

Sony defeated themselves right off the bat this gen. M$ only gained from what sony did to themselves. If sony had plaaned right (launch price especially) before coming in, nothing M$ has done so far would leave the gen looking like this except they just gave the 360s away.

So you're saying  that Microsoft didn't have a good plan at all? Sony spoonfed them everything? Thats some strong loyalty you have their soldier.

 

Soldier? lol. I'm simply the type of person who simply saves money to get what they want. I'm not rich by any scale imaginable. I bought a ps3 for $500 simply because I preferred it. Even at the higher price point. With the price difference now. Even a sony loyalist like myself am not too sure if I would have gone ps3. Maybe I would because of hidden 360 costs but I would never know.

M$ certainly had a good plan. However, if you ask me, this was similar to the plan last gen without the early launch. Remember that games like GTA still came to xbox just not early enough. The only "new plan" M$ really had this gen was the JRPG stimulus package for Japan which hasn't done much. If you ask me, many 3rd party parties were convinced to develop for 360 after the epic fail of the ps3 in 2007. That was worse for public perception than anything M$ ever did to sony. that was also the period where many decided to just get 360 instead of waiting to get a ps3 like they did after the 360 launched. This was also the time period where sony's last place in America was set in stone.

Yeah, sony basically spoonfed them the win because the main advantage M$ has (price) won't be a factor had sony not handed it to them on a silver platter to begin with.

 

If Sony had the "JRPG Stimulus Package" fanboys would've given them all the credit in the world. MS needed to diversify and if that helped JRPG's then so be it. Microsoft is a very strongheaded coporation. They will keep trying in Japan regardless of the ignorance. Microsoft has the moto this gen of giving the Japanese what they so eagerly need despite the fact that they don't want it from us.

 

Fanboys are very vocal but they're really not that many and are very irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. How many copies does your average JRPG sell again? Thats right, they're not that important. M$ probably won't have even acquired the "JRPG stimulus package" so easily had sony not already failed themselves. Even with the price difference, the ps3 is now selling close to the wii in Japan every week. Had this been the case from the start, all those niche Japanese RPGs would be on ps3 not wii and the ps3 would still fare better than the 360 in the JRPG dept. because M$ only courts the "big shots".

 

Sony would've still been side by side with MS with JRPG's if they would've launched at a fair price. My reasoning for this is because MS increased the size of their library by launching early and getting more third parties (Regardless of genre) on their side. Their plan was to strip Sony of their biggest weapon which is third party devs. Sony did a good job of picking out American and European companies to make new games for them. I applaud them for that...because thats what saved them.

 

I'm not too sure about that. 360 just seems to have a few of the bigger names. There are many JRPGs with zero hype on wii and others on the psp and DS. I believe that had the ps3 pulled of a ps2, most of these games would be on ps3 thus pushing it ahead of the 360 amongst the JRPG crowd

The 360 has ok names but at the helm is still SE with the majority of the JRPG's. The PSP and DS really are JRPG central right now. The PS3 should've pulled a PS2, but they were more worried about controlling formats again (As always) than making things easy on themselves. Microsoft pulled a PS2 but fucked it up with RROD. Still...Microsoft is doing amazing in setting itself up for next gen. The PS3 mentally is still ahead of the 360 as far as the JRPG crowd are concerned. The smart JRPG fans bought a 360. The ignorant ones stayed exclusive. The Japanese I can understand though since they have nationalistic pride.

 

Now another questionable thing is the quality of the JRPGs. So far, there are only two 360 JRPGs I know  to mostly receive acclaim from fans: LO and ToV (note that I go by users not reviews). Check my game list for the games I still possess from last 2 gens. They're mostly JRPGs. Why haven't I bought a 360? Even I bought the xbox last gen.  S-E so far this gen only seems good at making rehashes and remakes (except TWEWY). It looks like almost all their talent is lost.

I'll agree that the quality of JRPG's has dropped significantly, but SE will fix that with the FF franchise. If only for that game and versus, you'll still get your fill. As I said though, it's not about the quality of JRPG's as to why the sales are low. It's because the PS3 isn't as affordable as it could be for the Japanese and at the same time having the majority of the JRPG's. When Sony realizes how to please the Japanese section again, you'll see the sales rise from the ashes. I am not threatened at all by the loss in sales for JRPG's because I know exactly why they fell and how this can be mended.

 I don't wan't to launch this argument again but M$ didn't pull off a ps2.

MS pulling a PS2

-------------------

1. Came out a year earlier than the competition.

2. Gathered 3rd party titles straight out of the gate.

3. Had the cheaper console.

4. Focused more on diversity.

5. Gunned for the GTA series first.

....theres more but this should do.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure that Japan is more complex than you think. Many 360 fans have this idea that if you like JRPGs and you don't have a 360, you're crazy when the truth is that most 360 jrpgs suck and better and more plentiful options can be found elsewhere. The old ps2/ps1 JRPGs, I'm still trying to get for reasonable prices even outnumber the total number of 360 jrpgs. The idea that ps3>360 mentally among the JRPG crowd exists only amongst an irrelevant group. Using a negligible minority to argue points makes your points weak.

 

I doubt it's as complex as you think. Of course there are many reasons and gaps to fill, but I think I have the common idea. 360 rpg's don't suck, they just have a majority that are ok or just good and a few that are exceptional. I wouldn't call Sony JRPG fanatics a negligible minority. If you look want to say that, then lets look at the correllation of low sales on JRPG's on the PS3. The most vocal ones are the ones who could afford the systems. The ones who cannot afford the PS3 in Japan, America and Europe are the voice we have yet to hear. These voices will increase the sales of the PS3 from $299, to the $199 period. The JRPG will crowd will increase before the end of the PS3 and Sony will finally realize where their bread and butter comes from in that genre.

 

 

As for FF, I hope so too. JRPGs are my fav genre. As you can see from my sig, I'm also playing through Ar Tonelico II. I bet most of you never heard of it. It's not just quality or the ps3's sales though. Most JRPGs are niche so the costs of HD games is beyond most of these companies at least for now. Sony themselves don't have any money to give out so there's really nothing they can do there.

M$ not pulling a ps2:

1. xbox live

2. attach ratios

3. lots of shooters

4. lack of WW dominance

5. Higher launch price

6. Western games dominate

7. very minor casual audience

I could go on as well. Xbox 360 = Xbox with more Japanese support and RROD. Thats all there is to it. Western 3rd parties were there during the xbox era as well. Some (the PC devs) were even exclusive to xbox. Using ps3 as a point of reference for price wars isn't useful because the ps3's launchprice was beyond ridiculous.

I really doubt JRPGs are as relevant as you think. Even though I played lots of them last gen, I didn't know a single person who did as well until I forced my cousins to try FFX. I know A LOT of gamers. In fact, I don't think I have any friends/male relatives who don't play games. With that said, the ps3's price would be more relevant to it's success than even FFXIII in Japan because FFXIII won't be breaking much more than 3 mil sold there. I'm glad you have such a belief in these people who are willing to wait for an $199 ps3 because in my eyes, most are buying 360s(except JP) but I'll be glad for the increased ps3 userbase.

 

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Around the Network
Pristine20 on 09 March 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pristine20 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pristine20 said:
slowmo said:
A famous idiom for you "fool and his money are easily parted", that would quite easily descirbe the person who paid $15,000.

The PS3 is the true successor to the PS2, just this time they didn't have a year head start and spend a fortune on securing third party exclusives. The only criticism I level at Sony is they completely cocked up their analysis on what people would be willing to pay for a console and the penalty is a overpriced product versus peoples perceived value.

I can say with 120% confidence Sony will not release their next console a year after Microsoft do. Microsoft set the value expectations the PS3 had to follow and ever since then its been catch up.

I can guarantee that 90% of the people who bought a 360 before the ps3 launched had an xbox. Why does this matter? M$ headstart didn't really do anything to sony's brand. Most simply waited for the ps3 to launch. It was the year 2007 when everyone realized that even after the price was a no-no, 3rd parties weren't supporting the ps3 like the ps2 so they just bought 360s for cheaper instead. Some loyalists like myself stuck with the ps3 though.

2007 was the fall of sony in the console market. After that year, most wouldn't ever pre-approve of them and be willing to spend $15, 000 on their consoles again

 

Your guarantee is incorrect. I would be willing to bet that it's split right down the middle between the PS2 and the Xbox owners of last gen. The 360 is the only affordable hardcore system with various genres and multiplatforms that the PS3 already has.

 

Why would a ps2-only owner have bought the 360 early? To play Perfect Dark Zero or Lost Planet or maybe it was Enchanted Arms? LMAO. Go back to the ps2's history, you'd find that FPS games were essentially irrelevant on the console. 360 carried that "shooterbox" logo on it's head for a while till it was proved otherwise but that definitely didn't happen in it's first year.

 

Who said they had to buy it early. I have gone back to PS2's history and PS1's as well and looked at the exact reason why they had so many buyers. It's because they were the cheaper systems which had the most 3rd party support which resulted in larger libraries. It's not that hard really (split second thought) and Microsoft did the exact same thing. I have alot of Japanese-centric friends who bought a 360 just because as far as JRPG's are concerned it has the most JRPG's. They have no respect for Microsoft as a corporation or Sony anymore. The 360 was the affordable HD system with the larger library with the diverse titles just like the PS2 was the more affordable system with the larger library before. Cutting the exclusive 3rd party support from Sony is what made it come down to price for games to the majority of last gen consumers.

 

In my guarantee, I said "before the ps3 launched"...thats early. 360 had no competition then with which to even infer it's relative cheapness. $500/$400 is not cheap. If those friends of yours bought the xbox 360 before the ps3's launch, I say they were psychic and should take Pachter's place.

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Pristine20 on 09 March 2009
slowmo said:
Pristine20 said:
slowmo said:
A famous idiom for you "fool and his money are easily parted", that would quite easily descirbe the person who paid $15,000.

The PS3 is the true successor to the PS2, just this time they didn't have a year head start and spend a fortune on securing third party exclusives. The only criticism I level at Sony is they completely cocked up their analysis on what people would be willing to pay for a console and the penalty is a overpriced product versus peoples perceived value.

I can say with 120% confidence Sony will not release their next console a year after Microsoft do. Microsoft set the value expectations the PS3 had to follow and ever since then its been catch up.

I can guarantee that 90% of the people who bought a 360 before the ps3 launched had an xbox. Why does this matter? M$ headstart didn't really do anything to sony's brand. Most simply waited for the ps3 to launch. It was the year 2007 when everyone realized that even after the price was a no-no, 3rd parties weren't supporting the ps3 like the ps2 so they just bought 360s for cheaper instead. Some loyalists like myself stuck with the ps3 though.

2007 was the fall of sony in the console market. After that year, most wouldn't ever pre-approve of them and be willing to spend $15, 000 on their consoles again

 

 

My point was that the price of the PS3 wouldn't have been as much of an issue if Microsoft hadn't released another HD console with so many similarities to make the big price a issue.  The PS3 was pretty much having to argue the point that Bluray was worth the extra big price hike which simply was never going to be a workable scenario when people looked at the titles on each and Microsoft's cheaper console could do the same.  Good old Ken believed the perceived value of the PS3 would mean people wouldn't mind buying the PS3, Microsoft had moved these goal posts though and Sony were left high and dry.

I agree that a large percentage of early 360 owners were probably xbox owners too but Microsoft did contribute to the early struggles of Sony.  If there were only Sony and Nintendo in the market now I think things could have been very different, arguably for the worst for many gamers.  Third party devs were heavily supporting the 2 HD consoles back in 2007 as they suspected the Wii to flop but because the PS3 had a smaller userbase it could no longer argue the case for exclusives as well, the year headstart they gave Microsoft directly caused this.

They didn't really. Sony did it themselves. There's no way do determine how it could have been with only sony and nintendo because M$ was already obviously here to stay. People also can't afford what they can't afford so ps3's price would've killed it anyway. If anything, M$ helped them by making "HD consoles" a viable platform for 3rd parties. Otherwise, the wii would've kicked off while ps3 was left behind warming up.

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

sinha on 09 March 2009

Sony's incompetence defeated Sony.



We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that they [developers] want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so the question is what do you do for the rest of the nine and half years? It's a learning process. - SCEI president Kaz Hirai

It's a virus where you buy it and you play it with your friends and they're like, "Oh my God that's so cool, I'm gonna go buy it." So you stop playing it after two months, but they buy it and they stop playing it after two months but they've showed it to someone else who then go out and buy it and so on. Everyone I know bought one and nobody turns it on. - Epic Games president Mike Capps

We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games. - Activision CEO Bobby Kotick

 

S.T.A.G.E. on 09 March 2009
Pristine20 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pristine20 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pristine20 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pristine20 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pristine20 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pristine20 said:

Sony defeated themselves right off the bat this gen. M$ only gained from what sony did to themselves. If sony had plaaned right (launch price especially) before coming in, nothing M$ has done so far would leave the gen looking like this except they just gave the 360s away.

So you're saying  that Microsoft didn't have a good plan at all? Sony spoonfed them everything? Thats some strong loyalty you have their soldier.

 

Soldier? lol. I'm simply the type of person who simply saves money to get what they want. I'm not rich by any scale imaginable. I bought a ps3 for $500 simply because I preferred it. Even at the higher price point. With the price difference now. Even a sony loyalist like myself am not too sure if I would have gone ps3. Maybe I would because of hidden 360 costs but I would never know.

M$ certainly had a good plan. However, if you ask me, this was similar to the plan last gen without the early launch. Remember that games like GTA still came to xbox just not early enough. The only "new plan" M$ really had this gen was the JRPG stimulus package for Japan which hasn't done much. If you ask me, many 3rd party parties were convinced to develop for 360 after the epic fail of the ps3 in 2007. That was worse for public perception than anything M$ ever did to sony. that was also the period where many decided to just get 360 instead of waiting to get a ps3 like they did after the 360 launched. This was also the time period where sony's last place in America was set in stone.

Yeah, sony basically spoonfed them the win because the main advantage M$ has (price) won't be a factor had sony not handed it to them on a silver platter to begin with.

 

If Sony had the "JRPG Stimulus Package" fanboys would've given them all the credit in the world. MS needed to diversify and if that helped JRPG's then so be it. Microsoft is a very strongheaded coporation. They will keep trying in Japan regardless of the ignorance. Microsoft has the moto this gen of giving the Japanese what they so eagerly need despite the fact that they don't want it from us.

 

Fanboys are very vocal but they're really not that many and are very irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. How many copies does your average JRPG sell again? Thats right, they're not that important. M$ probably won't have even acquired the "JRPG stimulus package" so easily had sony not already failed themselves. Even with the price difference, the ps3 is now selling close to the wii in Japan every week. Had this been the case from the start, all those niche Japanese RPGs would be on ps3 not wii and the ps3 would still fare better than the 360 in the JRPG dept. because M$ only courts the "big shots".

 

Sony would've still been side by side with MS with JRPG's if they would've launched at a fair price. My reasoning for this is because MS increased the size of their library by launching early and getting more third parties (Regardless of genre) on their side. Their plan was to strip Sony of their biggest weapon which is third party devs. Sony did a good job of picking out American and European companies to make new games for them. I applaud them for that...because thats what saved them.

 

I'm not too sure about that. 360 just seems to have a few of the bigger names. There are many JRPGs with zero hype on wii and others on the psp and DS. I believe that had the ps3 pulled of a ps2, most of these games would be on ps3 thus pushing it ahead of the 360 amongst the JRPG crowd

The 360 has ok names but at the helm is still SE with the majority of the JRPG's. The PSP and DS really are JRPG central right now. The PS3 should've pulled a PS2, but they were more worried about controlling formats again (As always) than making things easy on themselves. Microsoft pulled a PS2 but fucked it up with RROD. Still...Microsoft is doing amazing in setting itself up for next gen. The PS3 mentally is still ahead of the 360 as far as the JRPG crowd are concerned. The smart JRPG fans bought a 360. The ignorant ones stayed exclusive. The Japanese I can understand though since they have nationalistic pride.

 

Now another questionable thing is the quality of the JRPGs. So far, there are only two 360 JRPGs I know  to mostly receive acclaim from fans: LO and ToV (note that I go by users not reviews). Check my game list for the games I still possess from last 2 gens. They're mostly JRPGs. Why haven't I bought a 360? Even I bought the xbox last gen.  S-E so far this gen only seems good at making rehashes and remakes (except TWEWY). It looks like almost all their talent is lost.

I'll agree that the quality of JRPG's has dropped significantly, but SE will fix that with the FF franchise. If only for that game and versus, you'll still get your fill. As I said though, it's not about the quality of JRPG's as to why the sales are low. It's because the PS3 isn't as affordable as it could be for the Japanese and at the same time having the majority of the JRPG's. When Sony realizes how to please the Japanese section again, you'll see the sales rise from the ashes. I am not threatened at all by the loss in sales for JRPG's because I know exactly why they fell and how this can be mended.

 I don't wan't to launch this argument again but M$ didn't pull off a ps2.

MS pulling a PS2

-------------------

1. Came out a year earlier than the competition.

2. Gathered 3rd party titles straight out of the gate.

3. Had the cheaper console.

4. Focused more on diversity.

5. Gunned for the GTA series first.

....theres more but this should do.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure that Japan is more complex than you think. Many 360 fans have this idea that if you like JRPGs and you don't have a 360, you're crazy when the truth is that most 360 jrpgs suck and better and more plentiful options can be found elsewhere. The old ps2/ps1 JRPGs, I'm still trying to get for reasonable prices even outnumber the total number of 360 jrpgs. The idea that ps3>360 mentally among the JRPG crowd exists only amongst an irrelevant group. Using a negligible minority to argue points makes your points weak.

 

I doubt it's as complex as you think. Of course there are many reasons and gaps to fill, but I think I have the common idea. 360 rpg's don't suck, they just have a majority that are ok or just good and a few that are exceptional. I wouldn't call Sony JRPG fanatics a negligible minority. If you look want to say that, then lets look at the correllation of low sales on JRPG's on the PS3. The most vocal ones are the ones who could afford the systems. The ones who cannot afford the PS3 in Japan, America and Europe are the voice we have yet to hear. These voices will increase the sales of the PS3 from $299, to the $199 period. The JRPG will crowd will increase before the end of the PS3 and Sony will finally realize where their bread and butter comes from in that genre.

 

 

As for FF, I hope so too. JRPGs are my fav genre. As you can see from my sig, I'm also playing through Ar Tonelico II. I bet most of you never heard of it. It's not just quality or the ps3's sales though. Most JRPGs are niche so the costs of HD games is beyond most of these companies at least for now. Sony themselves don't have any money to give out so there's really nothing they can do there.

M$ not pulling a ps2:

1. xbox live

2. attach ratios

3. lots of shooters

4. lack of WW dominance

5. Higher launch price

6. Western games dominate

7. very minor casual audience

None of these things have anything to do with MS copying the launch pattern of Sony during the PS2 era. Xbox live is an attribute of the Xbox so that was  a horrible suggestion. You're only talking about fallout. I see exactly why you're not getting the point now. I'm speaking completely about how MS copied Sony (Which also means "pulled a Sony"). The Wii did nothing like the PS2, the only thing they got that was anywhere near the fallout where they gained market dominance.

Ways that the PS3 resembles the Xbox

1. Overpowered system.

2. Focused less on games, but more about being a multimedia monster.

3. Launched at the highest price of the gen.

4. Took notes from last gens Xbox Live for why PSN makes sense this gen (Except for being free).

5. Is narrowed down to survival by first party.

 

I could go on as well. Xbox 360 = Xbox with more Japanese support and RROD. Thats all there is to it. Western 3rd parties were there during the xbox era as well. Some (the PC devs) were even exclusive to xbox. Using ps3 as a point of reference for price wars isn't useful because the ps3's launchprice was beyond ridiculous.

You could go on, about things that have nothing to do with the copycat aspect.

Differences between the Xbox 360 and the Xbox:

1. The Xbox 360 is more about games where the Xbox was more about multimedia hardware.

2. Diversified their library where last gen they only focused on Western-centric games.

3. More consumer friendly and less abraisive.

4. Superior Xbox Live.

5. Is more about the element of surprise as far as the exclusives are concerned instead of boasting like last gen.

 

I really doubt JRPGs are as relevant as you think. Even though I played lots of them last gen, I didn't know a single person who did as well until I forced my cousins to try FFX. I know A LOT of gamers. In fact, I don't think I have any friends/male relatives who don't play games. With that said, the ps3's price would be more relevant to it's success than even FFXIII in Japan because FFXIII won't be breaking much more than 3 mil sold there. I'm glad you have such a belief in these people who are willing to wait for an $199 ps3 because in my eyes, most are buying 360s(except JP) but I'll be glad for the increased ps3 userbase.

JRPG's are extremely relevant to Sony. It is a symbol of what brought them to the notable state that they are in the gaming industry today. My advice to Sony is to not fix something that isn't broken.

 

 

 



madskillz on 09 March 2009
Pristine20 said:
hatmoza 2.0 said:
Pristine20 said:

Sony defeated themselves right off the bat this gen. M$ only gained from what sony did to themselves. If sony had plaaned right (launch price especially) before coming in, nothing M$ has done so far would leave the gen looking like this except they just gave the 360s away.

Hold on ! So your saying... Sony gave life to the 360 or made it what it is !!??

 

No. However, if the ps3 didn't lauch for $600 and stay so expensive for so long. It may actually be neck-in-neck with the wii right now because the wii for one won't have gotten as much attention. I know people who bought it simply because it was the cheapest way to go nex-gen. Some of them have since become bored though unfortunately.

If you had both the xbox and ps2 last gen, you'd realize that xbox was much better than the ps2 especially hardware-wise. However, sony won hands down because they'd essentially built a hardware legacy like nintendo seems to have built with it's games. This is also why the 3rd parties mosly flowed to ps2, giving it the superior library which a few would even argue against.

 

I don't think you get it, Pristine. The Wii is selling because a lot - and I mean a lot - of nongamers feel comfortable with the Wii. They can interact with WiiSports, WiiFit and WiiPlay. They can play other games - that aren't M rated and really, the word of mouth is selling it more than anything. Go to a friend's house, see a Wii in action, folks are thrilled and leave wanting one. Guess what? Only hardcore types see a PS3 and nearly ejaculate. Seriously, the soccer moms, the seniors, the folks down with playing cards could care less about Solid Snake, Master Chief and Helghast. They could care LESS.

Really, this battle is for HD supremacy. And MS is holding off last-gen's champ. It's doing it doing the same thing Sony did last gen - faulty hardware (now gone), a ton of exclusives and winning the hardcore, as well as some casuals with Lips, Scene It and RockBand and etc.