Is the gig up for PS3?

[Retodon8]

Originally Posted by Dem

Worry about what then exactly? I didn't even know PC sales still existed...

PC (Windows) video games sales are on top if you include casual games (and why wouldn't you) and digital distribution.

[rabb1t]

Originally Posted by Dem

But that didn't save Dreamcast from failing horribly now did it. Just because I think a system is great, doesn't mean it's selling like it should.

Many forget that Dreamcast launched right around $600 (I'm pretty sure on that figure). It failed because it was way too high of a price. $600 is a lot today, but it was even more back 12 years ago.

They also had a lot of tech ideas which were similar to the PS3 (in that it had a thing you could connect to the controller which could play remote games and act as a second screen).

They jumped the gun a lot with Dreamcast. It's not really a direct comparison to PS3 in terms of 'bleeding edge'.

A wish list? Is that the same as buying them? I don't really don't know... But I don't see how this contributes to your love for blu-ray? A correct statement would be: "I have like over 50 blurays at home, and I love 'm all!" Having them on some wish list... really doesn't count.

If I had a job and was not homeless for the past 6 months, yes, all of the ones on my wish list would be bought by now, and all of the NetFlix movies would have been watched.

Yes, it counts.

But hanging outside the Best Buy all summer? Really?

Among other places. Had you clicked my sig you'd have seen I've been homeless for nearly 6 months.

With only 3 hours of access to computer time and only working 5 hours per week, what would you have recommended I do with the remaining >86 hours per week I was awake that does not involve spending money?

[revlazaro]

Funny thing. I'm not really a PS3 atm; but I have known more friends to decide to buy them this year than Xbox 360 or Wii. I really couldn't tell you any titles PS3 even has unique to its system; but, I can give a list of friends who are victims of all the problems the 360 has.

And now apparently in some court cases it's coming out the Microsoft knew about some these faults prior to release:
http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/...ations/1274293

[Jodou]

Originally Posted by revlazaro

And now apparently in some court cases it's coming out the Microsoft knew about some these faults prior to release:
http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/...ations/1274293

That's just some idiot trying to capitalize off poor warning labels. It's common sense to not shake, move, or re-orientate a disc drive while in use (unless otherwise built for shock).

He's putting the McDonald's hot coffee lady to shame.

[tibbon]

I don't think this has any real bearing in the long run, nor is this the death notice for the PS3.

The PS3 doesn't have to compete against the Xbox 360 and Wii to be successful, as they don't effect the profitability of the system. They are in essence competing against themselves.

If the PS3 overall is profitable for Sony is the question. If it's profitable then it will keep going, if not, then not. I think that Sony's invested too much in the overall brand to pull it overall. I'm guessing that its doing ok for them, but I could be wrong.

I don't see where people get off saying that Blu Ray doesn't matter or make a difference. The audio AND video are so horridly compressed on a DVD. A DVD cannot playback uncompressed 5.1 (let alone 7.1 or 10.2) audio and also have high quality photo at the same time. If you've ever authored a surround DVD you'll know that this becomes readily apparent very quickly. The resolution isn't so bad, but the compression used on the DVD for the video becomes evident as well. Cheaper Blu Ray players will not be Blu Ray 2.0 compatible, but the PS3 will be. It's still a great deal for a media center/blu ray player that happens to play games and can do Folding@home like no other.

You don't have to have 60" TV for this to be quickly apparent. Colors, sharpness, contrast and resolution are all superior in HD by far. I 'only' have a 37" TV at home and the difference between DVD and HD is pretty big.

Sony isn't living up to what it should, and they need to work on their stuff for sure, but I don't think its the end of the line for Sony's PS3 at all.

[Dem]

Originally Posted by rabb1t

Many forget that Dreamcast launched right around $600 (I'm pretty sure on that figure). It failed because it was way too high of a price. $600 is a lot today, but it was even more back 12 years ago.

They also had a lot of tech ideas which were similar to the PS3 (in that it had a thing you could connect to the controller which could play remote games and act as a second screen).

They jumped the gun a lot with Dreamcast. It's not really a direct comparison to PS3 in terms of 'bleeding edge'.

I didn't mean it as a direct comparison of systems. I see now that I wasn't clear what I meant, but I'll try to explain myself anyway.

"I own a PS3 and a Wii and I don't really give that article much weight. Why? Because despite the fact that PS3 may have fewer sales compared to last year at this time, there aren't any games I really want for any of the systems right now."

What I meant was that personal opinions won't save a console. The fact that there aren't any games that appeal to you in particular, doesn't mean that a game is doing good or bad. If you experience a machine as a success (as I did with the dreamcast), there's no assurance that the machine actually is or will actually become a commercial success. Personally I've often been part of niche markets when it comes to games, music, movies or whatever, but for a system that needs numbers to stay alive it doesn't work. Which is imo also the reason why so many games are shit these days as devs are too afraid their game will not be a big hit ;(

Also, on a side note, the dreamcast cost $200 at launch in the US, and at the time was the most powerful console...

Among other places. Had you clicked my sig you'd have seen I've been homeless for nearly 6 months.

I have no interest in clicking people's signatures as experience has taught me that it usually redirects to boring blogs about shit I couldn't care less about. But since I don't know any homeless people who own PS3's and keep a blog about computer hardware... I'll check out yours...

5 minutes later and I already found the best part....

There are an awful lot of cuties on campus today.

So besides hanging outside best buy, you stalk college girls? I kid I kid

With only 3 hours of access to computer time and only working 5 hours per week, what would you have recommended I do with the remaining >86 hours per week I was awake that does not involve spending money?

Well. I guess that's a valid excuse to hang outside the best buy.

Also question:

Originally Posted by tibbon

The PS3 doesn't have to compete against the Xbox 360 and Wii to be successful, as they don't effect the profitability of the system. They are in essence competing against themselves.

Please elaborate tibbon ;( Of course they have to compete against the x360 and wii to be successful....

[Armaya]

We own everything BUT a PS3.

Seriously, when it costs this much just for the base system, and another $60+ a title, it had better have some damn good titles you can ONLY get for the PS3.

At its price range, you could almost buy a new laptop/pc and just play the hundreds of thousands of PC games that are out there and have been out forever. So regardless of its graphic capabilities, with the cost and limited titles, forget it for now. We'll wait and get it when it's a relic and $200 at a game resale shop!

[dyl]

I wish I knew who at Sony thought pricing a gaming platform 50% higher than the competitor's would drive sales and encourage developers to sell fewer games to a smaller market with higher production costs yet retail for $60 just like the other system.

PS was only successful as a brand because sega was retarded from day one and there's always room for #2... especially when #1 is for the most part very family oriented and not at all cool or hip in an adult way. Now where's Samsung... we need a third player that deserves its place.

[tibbon]

What I mean in saying that the PS3 doesn't have to compete to be successful, is that their success or defeat isn't just purely about the raw number of sales. It's about the profit/loss per unit, and gains made via digital distribution, licensing, and game sales overall.

Its very possible for the best selling system to lose a ton of money, and for the worst selling system to outprofit them handily. Great example, Apple sells less units than Dell, but has greater profit per unit. They don't have to outsell Dell to be successful. They indirectly compete with them, but at the end of the day to compete and be successful they are against themselves as much as they are against anyone else as long as they continue to make a product that people buy.

[Mumbo]

I don't think the PS3 has been a failure so far even though I personally don't like the system as a gaming system. Sony did a great job of using the system as a way of getting Blu-Ray into homes and it helped them win the new format war against HD-DVD. Sony was shooting for a lot more than just a gaming system with this generation and so far I think some things have worked for them while others haven't.