PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => PS3 Discussion => Topic started by: FatalXception on April 05, 2006, 08:09:18 AM
-
In a stunning revelation, a Sony representative who forgot the rule about keeping their damn mouth shut said that the PS3 will probably cost between 499 - 599 EUROS. (LINK HERE (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/04/05/scee-vp-says-ps3-will-cost-499-to-599-euros/) That\'s 600-730 USD, or 660-800 CDN (bleh). Lets hope this is way high, or just the cost for Europe. :moped: :D
This coming after last week\'s revelation (link) (http://palgn.com.au/article.php?id=2745) that Kutaragi said the PS3 would be very expensive, not aimed at everyone.
I\'m aware that with all these technologies, the PS3 can\'t be offered at a price that\'s targeted towards households. I think everyone can still buy it if they wanted to," said Kutaragi to a mostly Japanese crowd. "But we\'re aiming for consumers throughout the world. So we\'re going to have to do our best [in containing the price].
Lets all hope is like the $500 USD PSP pre-launch talk, so that when the price is actuallly announced, it is seen as a welcome surprise (even though it\'s expensive).
-
I wonder if this "price leak" is part of their launch plan to get people hyped or something then release it for a lot less. I dunno.
-
Agreed. Either way, I\'ve only got one arm and leg left after the 360.
-Dan
-
I have enough money to buy PS3 but I wanted to buy a couple more and sell them. I guess taht\'s not gonna happen with the prices they\'re selling at.
-
600..holy dog shit..
cant help but question getting one..
I doubt it\'s a marketing ploy titan. If anything its false info. I dont see the "hype" in announcing a super expensive console. The only way that would work is make people expect it to be 600, then sell it for 500 er something..but i think that would hurt more because people would buy a 360 thinking the PS3 will be too expensive, then they wont be able to get both.
-
didn\'t they project a 10 year life cycle for PS3?
-
If Sony has a smart marketing team (which they do), they\'d casually announce an inflated price, then consumers would be pleasantly surprised to see it on the shelves for $399 - $449.
Just something to think about.
-
already thought about
-
f*ck i gotta stop skimming sry m8
-
dont worry. were both brilliant so itll take everyone else reading it twice to go "hmmmmm"
-
Lets all hope is like the $500 USD PSP pre-launch talk, so that when the price is actuallly announced, it is seen as a welcome surprise (even though it\'s expensive).
I can see nobody read to the \'editorial\' part of the post.
-
already thought about
You did?
-
Based on past precedent I forsee two possibilities:
1) Based on almost every other system, the price in Europe seems to closely match the price in the US, numerically, not through exchange. So perhaps it\'ll come in at 499 USD in the US (and if I\'m really lucky 499 CDN here :p ).
2) When the PSP was in the equivalent stage of development/launch, the talk and rumors were all over that it was going to be a $500 USD ultimate machine with media and everything, and we all know what it\'s price of release and shortly thereafter was.
I just hope than Sony remembers to focus on the imporant thing with this system, the games. Second for me is the Blu-ray, cause I would like one, and finally the media/blog/internet aspect to the box.
-
Based on past precedent I forsee two possibilities:
1) Based on almost every other system, the price in Europe seems to closely match the price in the US, numerically, not through exchange. So perhaps it\'ll come in at 499 USD in the US (and if I\'m really lucky 499 CDN here :p ).
If thats true and i was in Europe..id be SOO pissed off,lol
-
I don\'t see how they can do it that way if it\'s truly region free and supports different outputs as stated.... cause then Euros would just use the wonderfull free market system and order from the cheapest global location....
-
If thats true and i was in Europe..id be SOO pissed off,lol
The PS2 was ~$600 here when it launched... so X360 seems a helluva bargain compared to that. Sony sucks if they try to pull that shit again.
-
Yeah but no one cares about shipping things to Denmark :p
-
I really do see ps3 being $600 usd. And I bet everything that this will be one of the biggest launches ever. Ps3 is being marketed as this powerful superbeast. When people see the price they will think it is the most powerful thing ever.
I say the price will fuel people hype to get because they will think it is the most powerful console ever. This is a move only sony could make. If ps3 has the right games ready when it launches success!!!
I think that price is way too high. But I still want one and will probably get one.
-
It was false information ; http://eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63780 (http://eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63780)
I\'d say a 450 USD price is still possible.
-
damn french people..lol.
$450 would be awesome.
-
It was false information ; http://eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63780 (http://eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63780)
I\'d say a 450 USD price is still possible.
Fake or not at that price it would still sell.
-
I sure hope Sony aims to hit the same price point as the premium 360. After all, it has the same functionality, as far as I understand (HDD, Wireless, Online)
-
id\'s still pay 5450 for the consoe.
-
I\'d pay more too, but I *hope*
-
id\'s still pay 5450 for the consoe.
Damnit, Titan is drunk again...someone get this kid AA
-
didn\'t they project a 10 year life cycle for PS3?
haha right
-
PS2 has been out over 7 years and at the peak of it\'s life..
-
PS2 first launched in March 4, 2000 in Japan. Now, PS3 is expected to come out in around 8 months from now, or in Nov. So that makes it 6 years 8 months. Or a little over 6 years compare the U.S. launch between PS2 and PS3. But I think I know what you mean when you say PS2 will be at it peak at its 7th year since launch which is next year, as developers will slowly stop making games for it, as more new games will be make on ps3...
heh, I could be wrong at what you mean though...:D
-
PS2 has been out over 7 years and at the peak of it\'s life..
For all this talk about certain systems not matching up to the PC I don\'t understand how you could stand a system for 10 years. I can\'t imagine the PS2 for another 3.
-
maybe because a console that was released 6 (7, i guessed) years ago was not compared to a PC in any shape or form? where were PC\'s 6 (or 7) years ago? thats right, we were gaming on Pentium 3\'s and GeForce 2\'s, baby.
plus i don\'t see most of the A+ PS2 titles ported to superior PC versions
feel free to correct me if i\'m wrong
what\'s wrong with PS2 for another 3 years? do we really need to pay for the same games + 15% better graphics?
-
well, the playstation one was still going strong even after the launched of ps2. The sales of PSOne were still pretty strong for a couple of years after the release of PS2, so were the games if my memories serve me correctly...
i still bought some games for PSOne after the launched of PS2 in the U.S. where I didn\'t have a PS2 yet, and even after I got a PS2, I still bought a few of PSOne gems. Games like Chrono Chross, Castlevania: SOTN, Final Fantasy Tactics, Mega Man X4, and Mega Man 8...
thanks goodness the PS2 is backward compatible with PSOne games, because not long after I got a PS2. My sister wanted the PSOne for her kids, so I give it away and still enjoy any PSOne games on my PS2 when i feel like playing old school games...
Added: so, what\'s my point?
I can see PS2 may still sell well, even after the launch of PS3. Why? Well, for one, I can imagine PS2 will have a price drop around the time the PS3 launch. Say, now its still cost $150 to get a ps2, who knows, maybe by the time PS3 comes out, it might drop down to $130, or even down $100 to draw buyers who still haven\'t got a PS2 yet or wanted the new slim design to replace the bulky one so they can plug it in the car...who knows...
but what really makes ps2 still doing well for a couple more years are the games. Old and new. By the time PS3 are going to launch worldwide, doesn\'t means there won\'t be any more great titles coming to PS2, there still will be a few more great titles coming to PS2, just not a lot, but still a few before it die out. And some great games might be re-release for ps2 in "greatest hits" price drop to keep it alive for a while. A game I will definately going to get for PS2 sooner or later in the future even after the launch of ps3 is FFXII, which can keep me busy for a while.
-
If I buy a game, it\'s either X360 or DS at this point.
To me, I feel like getting a PS2 game is an expensive step backwards. Maybe I would get a cheap one, but probably I\'d get a DS game instead.
And that type of consumer mindset it why it\'s time to move on to PS3.
-Dan
-
well, that\'s because you are more hardcore gamer i say and you are more financially secure i suppose...
Not many people are rich enough to buy first generation consoles of xbox 360 nor do xbox 360 really interested them enough to buy the first generation.
PlayStation 3, on the other hand, are very good with its add on features, and #1 biggest add on features that will interest many videogames developer are support of Blu Ray. Add that with hype of its processing power and performance, and a reasonably cheap price tag and consumers will be drawn into it. Sooner or later, they are more likely to get PS3 than XBOX360 or Revolution.
-
A console lifespan of 10 years is BS.
I\'d say 6 or 7. The remaining 3 years
it\'ll sell remaining stock and production
has ended.
-
I kind of agree, the difference between the PSOne and PS2 when its first launch were 5 years, 3 months. With the PSOne still doing okay for a couple more years. That makes it about 7 good years of lifespan it have...
The timeline difference between the launch of PS2 and PS3 is longer. PS3 officially announced a launch date in Nov of this year. Then that would make it 6 years 8 months difference between the launch date of ps2 and ps3.
That\'s about 17 months longer than the launch between psOne and PS2 and the ps2 is still doing all right. I could image ps2 still doing okay after the launch of ps3 till 2008, where it may reach it peak. and that would make it 8 years of lifespan it have.
PS3, I am not really sure about its lifespan. Back in 2002, I was guessing that the PS3 won\'t come out until 2006 instead of 2005 to include a Blu Ray drive because I believe Blu Ray Players won\'t come out until 2006. Also, by delaying the launch date to 2006, the PS3 can get an extra year of more powerful graphical performance.
Why was I guessing that the ps3 is likely to include a Blu Ray built in is because I look at the patterns between PSOne and PS2.
PSOne use CD-ROM drive and support CD-Audio discs too.
PS2 support CD-ROM and Audio too, but its also include DVD-ROM built in, and can play DVD-Video too.
By looking at that pattern I suspect the future ps3 will include a Blu Ray drive built in and can play back Blu Ray Video too. And knowing quite sure that Blu ray playes won\'t comes out until 2006, I have a feeling the PS3 will not launch in 2005...
A very welcome suprise about ps3 that I wasn\'t sure and doubt that the ps3 will include was a Hard Disk Drive. But I was pleasantly surprised when sony announced that the ps3 will include a detachable 60 Gbytes HDD.
Why I didn\'t think the ps3 will include a HDD is because PS2 didn\'t include it and have to be bought seperatedly. Also, because PS3 with blu Ray and HDD might increase the cost of the console. I guess Sony realized that add-on bought seperatedly usually don\'t do well. So, this time around, Sony is more serious about Internet and online gaming and download, that they have to include the HDD for the ps3. Which is a good thing. But now, that makes me curious is just how much will the ps3 going to cost?
I used to think ps3 might cost $500, but now that it will include a 60 Gbytes HDD. I wouldn\'t be surprise if it be sell at $600. But anything higher, Sony is really in trouble.
Sorry for this long post, but anway. If Blu Ray is going to come out in 2006, then next generation optical disc after blu ray might come out in 2015. So, you can expect PS4 to come out in 2015 as the earliest, or maybe a year later to include that newer next generation optical disc, which is holographic versatile disc, again assuming if sony is willing to include HVD for ps4. So, that would make the launch date between ps3 and ps4 about 10 years difference...
unless next generation optical disc after blu ray comes out earlier than 2015...say 2013, then...
-
well as long as they are makin\' great games for ps2, why not keep supportin\' it? i agree with mm, ps2 has been producing some excellent games late in it\'s life cycle..god of war plays great and graphic wise it can compare to some of the higher end xbox games, also to a lesser extent res evil 4..the ps2 supposedly couldn\'t handle a game like that, and given the system\'s age, that game looks incredible. If they can continue to put out AAA games for it, i say let the cycle continue for as long as it can go...only real upgrade at this point for purchasing a new system is the graphics, and to be honest, at this point graphics really isn\'t an issue anymore...
-
I\'d pay $499 for a PS3 if but that\'s my cap.
IMO the PS3 will be worth it, but I fully suspect a more conservative # like $449, or $399
People need ot remember that it\'s much more beneficial to get more PS3\'s into homes then for Sony to try and reduce the profit loss on the system itself. Sony wants to make money of the online portion of the PS3 this gen, and they can\'t do that unless there are plenty of PS3\'s sold.
Sony also owns more then double the market share as MS, so they can afford to taek double the hit on profit loss per system sold, because the marketshare Sony has will easily make up the difference and easily make Sony lots of profits by 2008.
ALso MS lost 4 billion on the Xbox so if anyone has somethng to worry about its MS and the Xbox 360 whicn IMO is a real good system, but will probably go down as Xbox 1.5
-
A console lifespan of 10 years is BS.
I\'d say 6 or 7. The remaining 3 years
it\'ll sell remaining stock and production
has ended.
let me know when PS2 production stops
by the way, PS1 production just stopped recently
it was launched dec 94\'...that makes it\'s lifespan.....:eek:
-
IF the Blue Ray Drive is a perfectly good option as a stand alone HD player, then the unit is worth every penny. You are not going to find an HD Blue Ray player below this price for quite some time.
Only thing I\'m screwed with is because I\'m an early adopter, my TV doesn\'t have HDMI support, only DVI and RGB. So thanks to Hollywood, I won\'t be able to play movies on my Hi Def set because of encription.
Not too much of a biggie though since I will be getting a front projection system anyway, but for now it kind of blows.
-
Disagree with you videoholic.
Sony have said it themselves that their studios won\'t set the down-resolution flag via analog connection for their blu ray movies. The flag is optional instead of manditory, so it\'s up to other studios to decide if they want to implement down-rezz flag for their movies. Sony at the moment, have no plan to do so. So, for HDTV owners that doesn\'t have a digital video connection, rest assure as you still can get all the 1920 x 1080i resolution or 1280 x 720p resolution via component video cable.
Also, since you say your hdtv have DVI, you shouldn\'t need to worry either. HDMI and DVI are backward compatible and vice versa. As long as your DVI is HDCP, then you should have no problems using the HDMI connection on the blu ray player, or in this case the PS3.:D
Just get a cable with HDMI on one end and DVI on the other end, or DVI to HDMI adapter and you should be fine.
-
You do know that last week they just stopped production of the PSONE. It was still a viable console in some area\'s. The same will happen with the PS2 and PS3. The PSONE is over ten years old.....
-
Now that the PS2 is almost dead I feel that overall, it wasn\'t as cool as the PSX.
I blame lack of original games.
-
i\'ll just leave that one alone on the basis of pure stupidity
-
/me agrees.
*edit*
/me reads Halberto\'s statement again... /me shakes head.
-
Pwned :p
-
/me agrees.
*edit*
/me reads Halberto\'s statement again... /me shakes head.
vertically or horizontally?
-
Heh that cracked me up. Who asks "are you shaking your head vertically?"
For the record: head shaking = no, head nodding = yes.
-Dan
-
Heh that cracked me up. Who asks "are you shaking your head vertically?"
For the record: head shaking = no, head nodding = yes.
-Dan
What he said.
-FatalXception.
-
What is so stupid? Do you have a different opinion or is it that I think the PS2 is almost dead?
-
that you outright fail to acknowledge the abundance of \'original games\'
did you even own a PS2?
-
Plus, without checking, I\'d be surprised if PS2 wasn\'t still the top selling console in Japan, and possibly in America and other countries where Microsoft can\'t produce systems quick enough to hold a candle to the aging console.
-Dan
-
Disagree with you videoholic.
Sony have said it themselves that their studios won\'t set the down-resolution flag via analog connection for their blu ray movies. The flag is optional instead of manditory, so it\'s up to other studios to decide if they want to implement down-rezz flag for their movies. Sony at the moment, have no plan to do so. So, for HDTV owners that doesn\'t have a digital video connection, rest assure as you still can get all the 1920 x 1080i resolution or 1280 x 720p resolution via component video cable.
Also, since you say your hdtv have DVI, you shouldn\'t need to worry either. HDMI and DVI are backward compatible and vice versa. As long as your DVI is HDCP, then you should have no problems using the HDMI connection on the blu ray player, or in this case the PS3.:D
Just get a cable with HDMI on one end and DVI on the other end, or DVI to HDMI adapter and you should be fine.
I\'ve read numerous articles stating Hollywood Blue Ray discs will not be playable on any tvs without an HDMI connector because of copy protection. I just did a search for some articles and it does look like Sony is going to support full resolution to a DVI input. THat\'s pretty cool. But are other studios going to folow suit? Kinda doubt it.
-
Now that the PS2 is almost dead I feel that overall, it wasn\'t as cool as the PSX.
I blame lack of original games.
More like it wasn\'t as cool due to the fact that the whole 3D craze was over.
-
I\'ve read numerous articles stating Hollywood Blue Ray discs will not be playable on any tvs without an HDMI connector because of copy protection. I just did a search for some articles and it does look like Sony is going to support full resolution to a DVI input. THat\'s pretty cool. But are other studios going to folow suit? Kinda doubt it.
You got the information somewhat wrong though.
If you have an HDTV with either a DVI or HDMI that have HDCP, then any Blu Ray movies you are watching will work on those connections.
Unless you are one of those very early generation HDTV owner that doesn\'t have any Digital Video connection with HDCP like DVI-HDCP or HDMI-HDCP, then you won\'t get any video signal from blu ray movies with copy protection via the digital connection.
And on the analog connection like component video, you still can watch the movies. Depending on the movies and on the studios, some studios might be strict and implement the down-resolution flag on the analog video connection. Meaning, if you hook up your blu Ray player via component video connection, and if the disc is encoded with the down-res flag, then the video will be down rez from 1920 x 1080i/p to 960 x 540p. Again, this used to be mandatory, but recently, Sony become more open mind about it and decides not to implement the down-res flags for analog connection for their Blu Ray Movies and make it optional.
-
You are saying what I already told you I have read in the earlier post.
I\'m an early adopter.
My DVI does not have copy protection.
I know about the down rez. Why buy a 1000 player to get no rez gain?
This is not much of an issue for me since I will be getting a front projection unit.
-
oh, i see. I thought your DVI have HDCP. I didn\'t know it doesn\'t have it.
-
Now that the PS2 is almost dead I feel that overall, it wasn\'t as cool as the PSX.
I blame lack of original games.
:stick:
-
PS2 has tons of original titles thats for sure. I wouldnt say it lacked original titles though.
Its just that PSX had more original franchises, and that was mainly because it shifted to the 3D era which brought much more possibilities.
-
You guy\'s are overlooking the main thing.
The PSX was popular because of..
3D craze.
No real competition (in America).
Did everyone forget when Sony refused to allow any 2D games on the PSX? I do. Sony knew that if they just kept pumpin\' out 3D games, people would flock to it and they did and eventually, Sony lifted the ban on 2D games.. The PS2 can\'t live up to that, as it didn\'t herald in a new way of gaming like 3D did.
-
yeah, the jump from 8 bits to 16 bits era were mostly better graphics, and sound. But they are still 2-D, which is still big for difference.
But when the jump from 16 bits to 32 bits ear, this is where the leap is very big, because of 3-D gaming world and how much different and amazing 3-D gaming can be since it\'s the first.
Compare FFVI and FFVII and one can see how much different the game look between the two. Beside a graphic and sound leap between the two, one is 2-D sprite base with limited animation, and the other is 3-D polygonal world base with a lot more animation and how great the camera zoom, rotate on those fight scenes can look and they are very well done.
I didn\'t know Sony refuse to allows any 2-D as there were some 2-D titles for the psone. Like Mega Man X4, Castlevania:SOTN.
-
I didn\'t know Sony refuse to allows any 2-D as there were some 2-D titles for the psone. Like Mega Man X4, Castlevania:SOTN.
Thats a BS rumor IMO.What Sony did was prevent developers from ending up the PSX like the 3DO and the Jaguar which were bombarded with SNES, Genesis and other old or low quality games that didnt take advandage of the hardware.
People didnt prefer the PSX just because they said "hey thats 3D and the other is not" (Other consoles had their own share of good 3D titles). The experience was simply different and people were generally interested on 3D consoles (and I mean on all consoles).PSX stood out though because SONY made sure the PSX got some superb original franchises and support something others lacked.
Proof is that the PSX did better in all territories.
But the reason why the PSX still feels a better experience than the PS2 for most is the fact that it was a new experience as you said as it shifted from 2D to 3D which opened new doors to new franchises.
-
^True.
Once again the release schedule differences between NTSC & PAL regions make some differences.
Sega Saturn initiated pretty well in PAL land and early adopters picked it up, really. However, after some time the anticipation for N64 started to build up.
It took Nintendo long to launch N64 in Europe. \'Suddenly\' Sony PSX was there
and ppl gave it a chance becuz it featured better & more 3D graphics games
than Saturn. So, in fact the PSX got ppl better 3D graphics, and thus more true 3D gameplay, at a pricepoint about the same as Saturn (which\'s games didn\'t really evolve anymore).
N64 innovated with the analogue stick control paving the way for Sony. It\'s a funny history ; Sega innovates with true 3D gaming, Virtua Racing & Virtua Fighter. However, the Saturn didn\'t handle 3D games as well as the Sega Arcade machines. PSX took and ran with the concept becuz Sony designed hardware capable enough to churn out 3D easy enough.
From PSX to PS2, Sony took the analogue stick up from N64 and made it dual stick. We all know who had the most commercial succes....(also becuz of the N64 cartridges and hefty N64 license fees on third party devs)
Which isn\'t necessarily a bad thing ; the huge installed user base and the dvdrom system gave cinematic influenced games like FF & MGS flourishing grounds and it catered for room for diversity.
I never had a PSX myself, but I can almost certainly say the PS2 experience tops my N64 experience and the PSX envy i had while not having it.
-
Thats a BS rumor IMO.What Sony did was prevent developers from ending up the PSX like the 3DO and the Jaguar which were bombarded with SNES, Genesis and other old or low quality games that didnt take advandage of the hardware.
People didnt prefer the PSX just because they said "hey thats 3D and the other is not" (Other consoles had their own share of good 3D titles). The experience was simply different and people were generally interested on 3D consoles (and I mean on all consoles).PSX stood out though because SONY made sure the PSX got some superb original franchises and support something others lacked.
Proof is that the PSX did better in all territories.
But the reason why the PSX still feels a better experience than the PS2 for most is the fact that it was a new experience as you said as it shifted from 2D to 3D which opened new doors to new franchises.
I would hardly consider it a rumor when Sony itself said they was focusing on 3D and 2D titles didn\'t appear until Sony saw that 2D titles could still pull in massive sells (Street Fighter Alpha and CastleVania:SOTN). I am not complaining, but trying to pass it off as a rumor is insane. The whole point is this.
The PSX ushered in 3D gaming for the masses, even with all the hype, the PS2 or even PS3 can\'t match that. It doesn\'t bring a new way to gaming, it simply fine tunes it.
As for other consoles having 3D of their own - no shit, sherlock. Let\'s look at \'em.
Saturn - Surprise launch and over priced.
N64 - Didn\'t launch until way after the PSX.
3DO - Full Motion Video games, almost all. Oh and expensive.
Jaguar - No one cared. Atari was dead in the water.
The whole point is Sony didn\'t have competition and that allowed them to bring 3D gaming to the masses.
-
I would hardly consider it a rumor [SIZE="4"]when Sony itself said they was focusing on 3D [/SIZE]and 2D titles didn\'t appear until Sony saw that 2D titles could still pull in massive sells (Street Fighter Alpha and CastleVania:SOTN). I am not complaining, but trying to pass it off as a rumor is insane. The whole point is this.
originally posted by me:What Sony did was prevent developers from ending up the PSX like the 3DO and the Jaguar which were bombarded with SNES, Genesis and other old or low quality games that didnt take advandage of the hardware.
The PSX ushered in 3D gaming for the masses, even with all the hype, the PS2 or even PS3 can\'t match that. It doesn\'t bring a new way to gaming, it simply fine tunes it.
Didnt say anything different. If you mean PS2&3 by "it" that is
As for other consoles having 3D of their own - no shit, sherlock. Let\'s look at \'em.
Ofcourse but the point is they failed to offer the quality Sony did. Lets see your points
Saturn - Surprise launch and over priced.
Thank you. Sony offered a price that matched the quality it offered. Didnt say anything different
N64 - Didn\'t launch until way after the PSX.
But Sony took on SEGA and Nintendo, who already had their popularity built in the games industry, had their dedicated fans and their own popular established franchises from the previous generations. When the N64 launched Sony wasnt totally alone in the market. The thing is Sony was doing a better job so they still continued at the top because they playied well their cards with both the developers and the consumers. Still by difference*shrugs*
3DO - Full Motion Video games, almost all. Oh and expensive.
Jaguar - No one cared. Atari was dead in the water.
Ofcourse no one cared. Its their fault. As I said previously they were bombarded with NES, Genesis and other old or low quality games. WHo was gonna care about these games? They didnt play their cards well from the beginning. Unlike Sony who tried to prevent this from happening with the PSX.
The whole point is Sony didn\'t have competition and that allowed them to bring 3D gaming to the masses.
its just that Sony did a better job than them. You described this in your own points. Its not like the others werent targeting the masses. All companies target the masses if they want to succeed. They just "sucked" at being competitive enough to match the quality Sony was trying to offer. *shrugs*
Btw I agree fully with Knotter8
-
Idiot.
That\'s all i can say.
But Sony took on SEGA and Nintendo, who already had their popularity built in the games industry, had their dedicated fans and their own popular established franchises from the previous generations. When the N64 launched Sony wasnt totally alone in the market. The thing is Sony was doing a better job so they still continued at the top because they playied well their cards with both the developers and the consumers. Still by difference*shrugs*
Like that is an accomplishment.
Let\'s see here...
Sega - Launches Saturn with incomplete development tools, suprise launch and a $400 dollar price tag. No one cared due to Sega\'s faults.
Nintendo - Launched late and with the cartridge format.
Sony didn\'t have any real competition in the 32bit generation. That is how they was able to be the ones who brought 3D gaming to the masses, not to mention the name brand "SONY" which made it "cool" to own a videogame.
:Rolleyes:
-
^There\'s a little more to it than that.
Like I said, the Saturn launched pretty well here and it was received pretty well, especially by the early adopters. Whereas SNES\'s 3D gaming innovated but couldn\'t take it further than Starfox, Sega took it that step ahead with the true 3D games like the Virtua games on their arcade machines & Saturn.
Then a sort of hiatus came ; Sega\'s Saturn games didn\'t really get better from that point on. In fact they were getting a bit worse, repetitive. Slightly analogue to the drag Atari 2600 bumped into. It also didn\'t help Saturn\'s launch price didn\'t really go down.
Ppl were getting aware of 3D graphics also becuz of 3D pc videocards which were a bit too expensive for the masses ; exclusive to pc enthusiasts with alot of money. So, the market in PAL land was a bit in a slump anticipating the delayed N64.
Et voila, there the Sony PSX was at a price point cheaper than Sega Saturn.
And here\'s my point ; for that time, the PSX games innovated. Imho, they took 3D games where Sega stuttered. Rave reviews were given to games like Tekken, Ridge Racer, Wipe Out, FF7 etc.
Don\'t mention 3DO or Atari Jaguar becuz here in Europe they got crushed by Sega\'s Megadrive & Saturn and SNES, not PSX.
Indeed, if Nintendo would have brought N64 quicker to market, PSX would have had a tougher time. Still, the cartridge format would have been a major factor anyway...
-
In my opinion, like what the above poster have said, what really hurt Nintendo64 was the cartridge based format. Hence, making some loyal 2nd party developers to Nintendo to jump ship, like Squaresoft where as soon as they heard Nintendo64 is going to be catridge based, they immediatedly jump to a disc base console, and the PlayStation is the answer. I guess Sega Saturn doesn\'t stand a chance because of its more expensive price tag and something about harder to make games on.
-
Like that is an accomplishment.
Let\'s see here...
Sega - Launches Saturn with incomplete development tools, suprise launch and a $400 dollar price tag. No one cared due to Sega\'s faults.
1)If it wasnt for the PSX, Sega would have stayied with a 2D console.
2)PS2 came with incomplete tools as well. And it was even worse.
3)People cared. Until Sony kept improving while SEGA remained static.
4)That doesnt proove that there was no competition. You only prove that SEGA was making the wrong decisions while Sony was making the right ones
Nintendo - Launched late and with the cartridge format.
So?A NINTENDO 64-bit console, with cardridges, and non-developers freindly enviroment
You described what I said earlier. Sony had better strategies than others. You didnt say anything different.
You admit indirectly that Sony did a better job.
Sony didn\'t have any real competition in the 32bit generation. That is how they was able to be the ones who brought 3D gaming to the masses, not to mention the name brand "SONY" which made it "cool" to own a videogame.
:Rolleyes:
If the PSX never came SEGA would have stayied with 2D games while Nintendo would have stayied with an expensive cardridge based console with limitations.
No one would have done a better job than Sony at bringing the 3D gaming era to the masses.
The only thing you are doing is tell us how much better Sony\'s decisions and strategies were compared to its competitors
You still support my and the others\' arguements the more you try to argue
on the "Sony"&"cool" part: *sheesh* what a childish arguement
-
PSM (unnofficial) (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/04/26/psm-reveals-ps3-release-date-price/) says $399 US, 322 Euro. Not an official announcement, but you gotta think a mag entirely devoted to Sony consoles would have pretty good sources.
-
/mourn xbox 360
-
/mourn xbox 360
You really are obsessed. Meanwhile I\'ll enjoy my 360 and pick up a PS3 when it comes out. Not really concerned about the price.
-
one console per gen is my motto,..and i gotta roll with the ps3,...399 for a console is actually pretty steep,...i can afford it, but i probably won\'t be runnin\' out the door to get one,..it\'s kinda hard for me to put down 400 on a console,..regardless of the tech that comes with it...i\'ll most likely wait for the second batch of ps3\'s or wait until they launch with some titles that interest me.
-
Regarding the mourning of the 360... I haven\'t played mine in a while, after the initial fun of the launch wore off. It\'s been all DS for me. I use my 360 for DVDs.
They priced themselves out of contention for me. Same with PS3. I\'m looking forward to Revolution.
2K Sports sent me NCAA and MLB. I played NCAA once and it sucked. I have yet to even try MLB. The 360 has been that enticing for me... I wish I could get motivated to at least finish Condemned.....
-
In contrast to the earlier rumours, this one sounds cheap and affordable.
-
You really are obsessed. Meanwhile I\'ll enjoy my 360 and pick up a PS3 when it comes out. Not really concerned about the price.
i\'m enjoying all its A+ titles on my PC
:thumb:
-
In contrast to the earlier rumours, this one sounds cheap and affordable.
tru...no doubt...those earlier rumors had the price in the "neo geo" range...:(..