Its official, PS3 DELAYS Production Cut 50% [Archive]

Woochifer

09-08-2006, 07:29 AM

According to the Wall Street Journal, (9-7-06)Sony admitted yesterday that there are significant problems in production with the laser that controls the Blu-Ray player. I will provide links when I can get them together.

In a nutshell, the laser production was great in small scale production, but now that it is in full swing, quality cannot be contained in the numbers demanded. Worldwide production is estimated to be at best 50% for the holiday season. US units are estimated to now be about 400,000 units down from over 800,000 units.

This is bound to cause some heartache for PS3 customers, and could cause the XBOX 360 to cut into Sonys marketshare.

Stay tuned.

Not a good development for Sony. I've read a couple of articles opining that Sony might have made a mistake in tying the PS3 to the Blu-ray format, and so far, the Blu-ray launch has not gone well with substandard discs and manufacturers unable to get the dual layer function to work right. We'll see how it plays out. Your subject heading is a bit misleading though because the introduction date has not been pushed back. Only the projected number of units available at launch has changed. I posted an article previously that Sony had started PS3 production back in July. Obviously, they have yet to get volumes up to where they had projected earlier.

What's the deal with that cool new Nintendo system with the stupid name?

The Nintendo Wii will launch around the same time as the PS3, and it has created a buzz because of its two-piece motion controller (the PS3 will have a similar motion control feature, though not with the same wand design as the Nintendo controller). I think Nintendo might be the dark horse here, because they decided not to get into a technological arms race with Sony and Microsoft, and focus more on changing the gaming experience.

The Wii will not go HD, nor will it include digital media center features. It's a basic gaming console with a new controller design and more processing power than the previous gen Xbox and PS2. But, with a projected price of $200, it undercuts both the X360 and the PS3. In addition, the cost of developing games for the Wii will be a lot lower.

Groundbeef

09-08-2006, 07:42 AM

Not a good development for Sony. I've read a couple of articles opining that Sony might have made a mistake in tying the PS3 to the Blu-ray format, and so far, the Blu-ray launch has not gone well with substandard discs and manufacturers unable to get the dual layer function to work right. We'll see how it plays out.

Your subject heading is a bit misleading though because the introduction date has not been pushed back. Only the projected number of units available at launch has changed.

I posted an article previously that Sony had started PS3 production back in July. Obviously, they have yet to get volumes up to where they had projected earlier.

.

Wasn't trying to mislead. I should have headed it---It's official, PS3 DELAYS; Production Cut 50%.

You are correct in that the distribution date is unchanged. However, a cut of at least 50% of available units would be considered a "Delay" for those who had pre-ordered and now need to wait unitil after the holidays for their unit.

I figured you would be posting Woochifer, this topic is like honey to bees for you. I half posted just to draw you in.

For all of you looking for a PS3 for a cheap Blu-Ray player, doesn't look good for the holidays. If last holiday season is an indicator, (When 360's sold for 8-900 on ebay) the PS3 street price will no doubt be close to $1000 or more. Especially considering the demand for units with only half the stock.
When I say "Street Price" this is AFTER retail purchase. Yes, as shocking as it sounds, people like me snap up retail units and resell on Ebay for schleps who don't want to wait in the cold all night. If you don't think its fair, wait in line and get one for retail.

Woochifer

09-08-2006, 07:50 AM

Looks like Sony is going to loose another format war.

Imagine that. If it were any other company, they would be out of business by now.

I priced an HD DVD player on the internet at a little less than US$405.00 yesterday.

Aren't you being a tad premature here, given that Sony hasn't even introduced its Blu-ray player yet? (nor have Pioneer, Panasonic, or other members of the Blu-ray group) Might want to wait until more players and titles are available before sounding the death knell for the format. If you had judged the DVD format after only two months on the market, it too would have been viewed as a failure.

HD-DVD has had its share of issues at launch as well (before the release of the 2.0 firmware a couple of weeks ago, most of Toshiba's HD-DVD players had bugs aplenty and key features disabled), but on the whole has had a better set of titles so far.

Blu-ray has mostly disappointed so far (video quality hasn't been great, no dual layer media, etc.), then again, only that Samsung player introduced in July and a few titles have hit the market so far. Way too early to project what will happen when most of the major manufacturers haven't launched their players yet, and most of the studios on board with Blu-ray haven't rolled out their titles yet.

Besides, by this time next year, it might all be moot, given that LG has already developed a laser capable of reading both HD-DVD and Blu-ray discs, and the Broadcom decoding chip that Toshiba uses on its HD-DVD players can already decode Blu-ray as well.

Woochifer

09-08-2006, 08:08 AM

I figured you would be posting Woochifer, this topic is like honey to bees for you. I half posted just to draw you in.

I would hope that you have better reasons for posting than trying to goad a response out of me! Given that you're the resident Microsoft fanboy on this board, it would seem that any bad news on the PS3 would be motivation enough.

For all of you looking for a PS3 for a cheap Blu-Ray player, doesn't look good for the holidays. If last holiday season is an indicator, (When 360's sold for 8-900 on ebay) the PS3 street price will no doubt be close to $1000 or more. Especially considering the demand for units with only half the stock.
When I say "Street Price" this is AFTER retail purchase. Yes, as shocking as it sounds, people like me snap up retail units and resell on Ebay for schleps who don't want to wait in the cold all night. If you don't think its fair, wait in line and get one for retail.

Thanks but no thanks. My billing rate is worth more than that, and I'd rather sleep in. :) PS3 and Blu-ray can wait.

Groundbeef

09-08-2006, 08:23 AM

I would hope that you have better reasons for posting than trying to goad a response out of me! Given that you're the resident Microsoft fanboy on this board, it would seem that any bad news on the PS3 would be motivation enough.

Ouch....the claws are out today ladies and gents. Thought we had buried the hatchet long ago after you were so bloodied and sent home weeping. I think at one point you called me a "whipper snapper".

Anyway, for your info, I like MS, but am also a fan of Sony, my plasma, upstairs sound system, dvd-video recorder, Tivo unit and various other entertainment devices are all Sony. So I really don't hate Sony.

I do prefer MS gaming machines XBOX v PS2. Sony may have had more games, but XBOX was a better machine. Although you personally are not a big proponent of online gaming, that's where its headed. And XBOX kicks Sony's ass in this arena. And yes, I must admit a problem with the PS3 did sort of make me giddy.

Woochifer

09-08-2006, 10:34 AM

Ouch....the claws are out today ladies and gents. Thought we had buried the hatchet long ago after you were so bloodied and sent home weeping. I think at one point you called me a "whipper snapper".

Nope, that would not be me.

Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

I do prefer MS gaming machines XBOX v PS2. Sony may have had more games, but XBOX was a better machine. Although you personally are not a big proponent of online gaming, that's where its headed. And XBOX kicks Sony's ass in this arena. And yes, I must admit a problem with the PS3 did sort of make me giddy.

Truer fanboy words have never been spoken! :D

Groundbeef

09-08-2006, 10:41 AM

Truer fanboy words have never been spoken! :D

? Not sure I follow that one. Please explain.

Woochifer

09-08-2006, 10:44 AM

? Not sure I follow that one. Please explain.

Just messin' with you. No harm, no foul.

Groundbeef

09-08-2006, 11:02 AM

You are correct again o'master. You didn't refer to me as a whipper snapper. You used the even older term "Teenybob Gamer" back in an earlier post.

BTW did you see the post about Sony not putting a HDMI cable in with the $599 package?
Thats nice of them.

Woochifer

09-08-2006, 11:55 AM

You are correct again o'master. You didn't refer to me as a whipper snapper. You used the even older term "Teenybob Gamer" back in an earlier post.

Right, and your "noodle head" terminology is oh-so-current. :rolleyes: But, the fanboy references still apply. :cool:

BTW did you see the post about Sony not putting a HDMI cable in with the $599 package?
Thats nice of them.

Not worth responding to, given that the Xbox 360 doesn't even have HDMI capability to begin with.

Groundbeef

09-08-2006, 12:54 PM

Right, and your "noodle head" terminology is oh-so-current. :rolleyes: But, the fanboy references still apply. :cool:

Not worth responding to, given that the Xbox 360 doesn't even have HDMI capability to begin with.

Wow, with this banter, people are going to think that we are an old married couple.

As far as HDMI goes, I don't think that we will ever see eye to eye. I will conceed that 1 cable would be nice for wiring purposes. However, (big caveat) as far as GAMING is concerned it doesn't add a thing for resolution, or gameplay. Sony has let it out that NO current games in development will be in 1080p. It has also stated that games will not use the anti-piracy that is supposed to be with HDMI to work properly. This would lead people to conclude (myself included) that composite cables will work quite nicely.

For HD DVD, the HDMI might be a plus, but for most that use the machine for gaming, it will be a non-issue. In fact it has to be as the $499, and $599 play the same games at the same resolution. At least Sony has not stated that the 2 machines will play games any differently.

Anyway it appears that 50% less people will be getting one under the old tree this year.

Woochifer

09-08-2006, 01:54 PM

Wow, with this banter, people are going to think that we are an old married couple.

FWIW, my wife and I don't banter like this. :ihih:

As far as HDMI goes, I don't think that we will ever see eye to eye. I will conceed that 1 cable would be nice for wiring purposes. However, (big caveat) as far as GAMING is concerned it doesn't add a thing for resolution, or gameplay. Sony has let it out that NO current games in development will be in 1080p. It has also stated that games will not use the anti-piracy that is supposed to be with HDMI to work properly. This would lead people to conclude (myself included) that composite cables will work quite nicely.

Well, there's the cost factor to consider as well. You're asserting that Sony's nickeling and diming its customers by not including the HDMI cable. But, at the same time, I don't know anyone who includes a digital audio cable with a DVD player or gaming console. The generic HDMI cables cost about the same as a Toslink cable, but the HDMI cable can carry both audio and video signals through the same connection. If you want DD or DTS audio from your games or your movies, you would need to buy a digital audio cable anyway.

Plus, the PS3 will use the new HDMI 1.3 spec, which can carry more video bandwidth and allow for 48-bit deep color. HDTVs and home theater equipment supporting the new standard will start appearing by the end of this year, just in time for the PS3 introduction. All that, plus HDMI 1.3's native support for lossless 7.1 Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD put more tools into the PS3's box for movie viewing and gaming, and keeping the hardware viable for future home theater upgrades. By this time next year, HDMI 1.3 will be everywhere.

As far as the copy protection goes, it might not be there with video game output, but it does matter with both Blu-ray and HD-DVD. For now, the studios are playing nice with analog component vid, but that can change at anytime since all they have to do is activate the forced downsampling on the analog video outputs for all their new releases.

And then there's the TVs themselves to consider as well. How do you know for sure that HDTVs will include HD component video connections indefinitely? The studios have been pressuring manufacturers (not to mention Congress) to plug the "analog hole" on all new video hardware (including video players, and video switching home theater receivers) and it wouldn't take much for them to comply as the majority of new DVD players, and set top boxes already include digital video outputs. Better hang onto your current TV if you're counting on an analog future for your HD viewing.

Groundbeef

09-08-2006, 02:08 PM

Well, there's the cost factor to consider as well. You're asserting that Sony's nickeling and diming its customers by not including the HDMI cable. But, at the same time, I don't know anyone who includes a digital audio cable with a DVD player or gaming console. The generic HDMI cables cost about the same as a Toslink cable, but the HDMI cable can carry both audio and video signals through the same connection. If you want DD or DTS audio from your games or your movies, you would need to buy a digital audio cable anyway.

Plus, the PS3 will use the new HDMI 1.3 spec, which can carry more video bandwidth and allow for 48-bit deep color. HDTVs and home theater equipment supporting the new standard will start appearing by the end of this year, just in time for the PS3 introduction. All that, plus HDMI 1.3's native support for lossless 7.1 Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD put more tools into the PS3's box for movie viewing and gaming, and keeping the hardware viable for future home theater upgrades. By this time next year, HDMI 1.3 will be everywhere.

As far as the copy protection goes, it might not be there with video game output, but it does matter with both Blu-ray and HD-DVD. For now, the studios are playing nice with analog component vid, but that can change at anytime since all they have to do is activate the forced downsampling on the analog video outputs for all their new releases.

And then there's the TVs themselves to consider as well. How do you know for sure that HDTVs will include HD component video connections indefinitely? The studios have been pressuring manufacturers (not to mention Congress) to plug the "analog hole" on all new video hardware (including video players, and video switching home theater receivers) and it wouldn't take much for them to comply as the majority of new DVD players, and set top boxes already include digital video outputs. Better hang onto your current TV if you're counting on an analog future for your HD viewing.

Ok, a couple of points here.

1. The PS3 is primarly to be a Gaming rig. It also happens to have the next gen video playback player installed (Blu-Ray). IMHO if you are selling game machines to promote your kick-a ss video playback system don't you think that perhaps you ought to provide the cable to show it off best? I am not arguing that it is needed. BUT Sony has been hyping this system as offering the best graphics, processing speed etc. Turns out that HDMI is NOT needed for optimal gaming experience. The devil is in the details. They hinted around that resolution would be 1080p. Nothing is being developed that uses that spec yet for games. Nor is it forseen any time soon.

2. My crystal ball is broken. I have no idea when they will stop supporting the use of non-HDMI cable. But I would be willing to bet at least for games, it will not be any time soon.

This is not an arguement about need, its about perception. It is just one more thing that is not included in the system.

Lensman

09-09-2006, 09:24 AM

I've been a huge fan of Sony's game systems starting from about a year before they released the original PlayStation. I picked up my prepurchased PS1 on September 9, 1995 - the first day it was released in the US. I couldn't wait to get it home - not just to play the games I'd bought with it (Toshinden, Twisted Metal, and Ridge Racer) , but also to finally be able to SEE the "Hear It Now! Play It Later!" Developers Demo Disc I'd had for months. Going head-to-head with giants Nintendo and Sega was risky enough. Stepping out on a limb to build the first console based on a 3D graphics engine made it a colossal gamble.

But the graphics on Sony's console were absolutely stunning, and the gameplay with that weird (now considered revolutionary) new controller was outstanding. The game content was also decidedly more adult oriented. Sega and Nintendo were caught flat-footed. They eventually responded, but the Dreamcast and Gamecube were no match. Upstart Sony obliterated it's rivals. Sega no longer makes consoles. Were it not the Game Boy and the Pokemon franchise, Nintendo probably would not be in business today.

So then Microsoft decided to take a page out of Sony's playbook and build a Sony-style console (disc based, plays videos, adult oriented game focus, same style controller, etc.) only better. When Microsoft released their Xbox, Sony just laughed. Though the machine was technically superior, Microsoft was unable to come anywhere close to the sheer volume of Sony's library of superior games. Microsoft lost a lot of money.

The PS3 was the machine that should have put Microsoft in its place once and for all. But this time, it was Microsoft that took the big risks with their 360 and Sony who has stumbled in development (and not just once) of their PS3. Whether you like the company or not, Microsoft now has THE gamers platform and they learned enough from the Xbox to make the 360 a exceptional contender in the field. Not since the days of Atari has a US company been able to so successfully compete in this field. Even so, Sony still has a powerhouse machine to release and a strong network of developers to supply it with software.

The two companies are suiting up to meet on the battlefied of living rooms everywhere to duke it with they're vibrating controllers. But as they do, Nintendo (remember them?) has been quietly working on a new game machine. And with little fanfare, they're taking the biggest risk of all. The new machine has no media server. It doesn't play videos. It doesn't do anything except play games. And it has this weird new controller technology that allows intuitive gameplay the likes of which no one's seen before. Nintendo continues to produce kid-oriented games, but the overwhelming majority of titles readying to release for their new Wii console are decidedly adult oriented (such as Splinter Cell). Even vintage titles like Zelda and Metroid have made disconcertingly mature transformations. There's a good chance these games will be good. Though Nintendo has been dismissed by many as a kiddie-company, few have ever dared criticized them for producing games with poor gameplay. The Wii will sell for around half what Sony and Microsoft ask for their systems.

Speaking purely as a gamer and not as an HT enthusiast looking for a transport, guess which system I'm betting on to do well?

Groundbeef

09-10-2006, 04:28 AM

The two companies are suiting up to meet on the battlefied of living rooms everywhere to duke it with they're vibrating controllers. But as they do, Nintendo (remember them?) has been quietly working on a new game machine. And with little fanfare, they're taking the biggest risk of all. The new machine has no media server. It doesn't play videos. It doesn't do anything except play games. And it has this weird new controller technology that allows intuitive gameplay the likes of which no one's seen before. Nintendo continues to produce kid-oriented games, but the overwhelming majority of titles readying to release for their new Wii console are decidedly adult oriented (such as Splinter Cell). Even vintage titles like Zelda and Metroid have made disconcertingly mature transformations. There's a good chance these games will be good. Though Nintendo has been dismissed by many as a kiddie-company, few have ever dared criticized them for producing games with poor gameplay. The Wii will sell for around half what Sony and Microsoft ask for their systems.

Speaking purely as a gamer and not as an HT enthusiast looking for a transport, guess which system I'm betting on to do well?

As a gamer myself I think that you raise an interesting arguement. I would have to agree that the Wii will most likely do well in the market. Indications are that any loss that Nintento will suffer will be small and shouldn't last more than a year if that. (On the hardware side).

Games do make or break a system, and Nintendo has had some solid games over the year. I think that the stable is getting a bit empty though. How many Mario games, or Zelda games, or Pokemon games can you play? I think that after a while games suffer a bit of "Burnout" if the theme is the same every time. A bit of been there, done that.

The lack of HDTV support may make the difference even more striking for gamers as well.

I think that the Wii would make a great backup system, but I am willing to bet sales will not eclipse the PS3 or 360. I am even considering it as a backup system as well.

Lensman

09-10-2006, 09:03 PM

As a gamer myself I think that you raise an interesting argument. I would have to agree that the Wii will most likely do well in the market. Indications are that any loss that Nintendo will suffer will be small and shouldn't last more than a year if that. (On the hardware side).

Agreed. It's certainly a better economic model than the ones offered by Sony (heavy-duty hardware = heavy duty price) or Microsoft (let's take a huge loss and hope licensing eventually saves us in a few years).

Games do make or break a system, and Nintendo has had some solid games over the year. I think that the stable is getting a bit empty though. How many Mario games, or Zelda games, or Pokemon games can you play? I think that after a while games suffer a bit of "Burnout" if the theme is the same every time. A bit of been there, done that.

This is precisely why I think the Wii will do well. Burnout is a prevalent problem everywhere you turn. How many first-person shooter/driving/fighting/RPG/skateboard/sports games have you played on your various console/handheld/PC machines? Have any of them ever offered substantially different features or gameplay mechanics? Halo's gravity gun may be fun, but is it really anything more than a repackaged BFG 9000 from Doom? Was Lara Croft's enticing new freedom-of-motion enabled through controls different from Doom? While I'll grant you the games announced for the Wii are superficially the same, the Wii's controller at least offers the possibility of playing these tired old genres in a whole new way.

Consider a game where the character uses a sword. Currently any system you can think of handles a sword fight via a series of button presses or stick pushes. The Wii's motion-sensing controller allows a different approach. Gamers can hold the controller like a sword and move it around as such to fight.

This opens up many new possibilities for how games can be played: the controller can be held and used as if it were a golf club, or a tennis racket, or a fishing rod, etc. This puts a whole new spin on the tired, old genres. Better still, it gives developers an opening to come up with innovative new games that could not be done with conventional controls.

The potential is difficult to dismiss when you consider things historically. Konami's DDR with it's dance pad is hugely popular, and of all the games available, the undisputed king of revenue generation in the arcade world is the Buck Hunter franchise with it's shotgun. Even light gun games persist in their popularity despite the fact that they, almost without exception, offer poor gameplay. And heck, who can forget Missile Command's trackball?

The innovation is sufficient to encourage hard-core gamers to consider the Wii as a second system. But the intuitive control system's biggest potential is in luring casual gamers to purchase - who are the majority of the market. The Wii is squarely aimed at this audience and the fact Nintendo has a reputation for quality kids games is NOT a handicap to these people, many of whom have families. The feature is also highly marketable. Just think about the coverage the news media's likely to give it this Christmas.

The lack of HDTV support may make the difference even more striking for gamers as well. I think that the Wii would make a great backup system, but I am willing to bet sales will not eclipse the PS3 or 360. I am even considering it as a backup system as well.

The lack of HD resolution is certainly a weakness. But how much of one is debatable when you consider the mindset of the market the Wii is aimed at. When the original PlayStation was released, it's new controller got as much buzz as it's 3D graphics. With 110 million units sold, the PS1 is still the top-selling console ever. Though the PS2 offers superior graphics, speed, and backwards compatibility, it hasn't managed to outsell its predecessor. And the Xbox, with its even better capabilities sold a mere 24 million units. Graphics simply aren't a big hot button to most consumers anymore, and with good reason.

When video games first came out graphics were exceedingly crude, but the capabilities made quantum leaps every few years. There's no contest between the look of 1987's original Super Mario Brothers

http://feeds1.wazap.de/products/images/8241/18127/nes_classics_super_mario_bros_,1.jpg

and 1998s PS2 release of Metal Gear Solid.

http://www.gameroobie.net/img/art/metal_gear_solid1.jpg

But compare Metal Gear Solid to the Xbox 360's Quake 4.

http://andurilclovis.blog.jeuxvideo.com/images/mn/1139304822.jpg

Of course the Xbox 360 is better. But is the difference enough to convince Joe Casual he needs to buy one, much less shell out $600 for a PS3 plus another $2000 for the TV to make that work? (Remember, HDTVs are still only in a small percentage of homes and few consumers will be stopping to consider, much less understand, the limitations of 480p in a gaming console). And will Joe really think the Wii will look that much worse? Especially when he can pick up a Wii for around $200 and it'll look like this:

http://digilander.libero.it/mariomagazine2/images/zelda-poste3-17.JPG

I'd argue the gameplay will be the more significant factor. Think how many fewer untis the original Xbox would've sold without Halo. So who'll sell more? Only time will tell. But I believe Nintendo's innovative controller puts it on a level playing field with its competitors despite the fact their machine is technically inferior.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

09-11-2006, 04:36 AM

Looks like Sony is going to loose another format war.

Imagine that. If it were any other company, they would be out of business by now.

I priced an HD DVD player on the internet at a little less than US$405.00 yesterday.

You are waaaaay to early to come to this conclusion. $405 is for a player that is not format complete. Boot times are still too slow, and it still can only produce a 1080i output. From what I have read online, the players still freeze and cannot remember where it last stopped so it could pick the video point up again. This is post firmware updated. This price is also a considerable loss for Toshiba, which cannot be good for the only manufacturer of the player.

I read that Bill Hunt says that the PS3 is going to be the most tested bluray player and game machine to come to the market. I would rather have a delayed well tested product that rolls out than have a player full of bugs that comes to market on the release date.

Why doesn't everyone just wait to see what's going to happen rather than try and lamely predict it?

Groundbeef

09-11-2006, 06:16 AM

I read that Bill Hunt says that the PS3 is going to be the most tested bluray player and game machine to come to the market. I would rather have a delayed well tested product that rolls out than have a player full of bugs that comes to market on the release date.

Why doesn't everyone just wait to see what's going to happen rather than try and lamely predict it?

Well for starters, what fun is there in not speculating? It's always fun to pick sides and predict what may or may not happen. This is not the only topic on this forum where people choose sides on a particular topic. Speaker wire, gold connections, Bose/Non Bose, paper vs plastic, etc. Everyone has a favorite.

As far as PS3 being most tested? Sure you have one person say that it is going to be "most tested" and then you have some other expert say its not going to be all peaches and cream. The PS3 that has been tested no doubt was an initial batch product. Now it seems that they are having trouble with mass-producing the laster required for quality control to pass. Does this mean that some of those initial units may fail? Certainly. Did the 360 have problems? Sure, in fact my initial unit failed and was replaced.

At what point should a company release a product? Ideally it should be done only after through testing is completed. But we do not live in an ideal world. Sony is betting the farm on this product. Remeber, for every 360 sold, most likely a PS3 will not be sold. Sure, we all know someone who has every gadget under the sun, but for MOST people this holiday season, it will be either a 360 or PS3. For us gamers over 18, if we need to wait until Feb-March 07, thats fine. But there are plenty of folks who want to get a system for Christmas (or Hanauka sp) and don't want to dissapoint their child.

Sony is well aware of this issue, and will do everything to release it by Nov 17. If there are some issues with performance, they can be dealt with at a later date.

audio_dude

09-11-2006, 02:07 PM

ok, as i gamer, i'm going to put in my two cents:

first, about the game war, PS3, its going to bomb, it will be at the bottom of the ladder for this generation, the XboX 360 will hold a nice market share due to the fact that its a pretty decent console (PS, i HATE control pads, they're ok for racing and rpgs and that sort of thing, but garbage for most FPS games...) and in my opinion, nintendo will hold top spot, or stay even with the 360. just take a look at the wii, what is nintendo doing? they're breaking the mold, yet again, shaking off all the other companies that have copied it over the years... oh ya, and i'm in disgust at you people that are still stuck in 1999 with the "nintendo is for kids" attitude, the gamecube has had its fair share of adult oriented games, certainly not as much as the XboX or PS2, but that doesn't matter... have you even looked at the game list for the Wii? yes, there are the usual Mario, Zelda and typical nintendo awesomeness there, but have any of you seen or heard about "Red Steel"? if you haven't check it out, it may just change your opinion of the Wii.

if i want to play an ultra high end graphics games, i'll use my PC, thats what its for, the Wii isn't about cutting edge 3D super graphics, its ALL about the gameplay, sure, graphics make a game look nice, but would you rather have a game that looks spectacular, but plays like a piece of sh it? no? thats what i thought, why do you think the original Super Mario World was, and still is so popular? because it was a GREAT game, the controls were perfect, the game was a perect blend of stategy and action, and just hard enough, it would be challenging without being frustrating. oh ya, and the Wii is still only 200 smackers, and the games are still gonna be 40-55 bucks, nothing compared to the $400 for a 360 PLUS $60-70 bucks on a game!! its ridiculous, and i'm not even going to start on the PS3...

and so ends my rant on these consoles, so check the Wii out, i'm not telling you, not forcing you, just asking, yes, i do have a small bias, but i just don't see the value in one a PS3 (although if i had the money and a wii, i would probably get the 360)

Groundbeef

09-11-2006, 02:34 PM

ok, as i gamer, i'm going to put in my two cents:

first, about the game war, PS3, its going to bomb, it will be at the bottom of the ladder for this generation, the XboX 360 will hold a nice market share due to the fact that its a pretty decent console (PS, i HATE control pads, they're ok for racing and rpgs and that sort of thing, but garbage for most FPS games...) and in my opinion, nintendo will hold top spot, or stay even with the 360. just take a look at the wii, what is nintendo doing? they're breaking the mold, yet again, shaking off all the other companies that have copied it over the years... oh ya, and i'm in disgust at you people that are still stuck in 1999 with the "nintendo is for kids" attitude, the gamecube has had its fair share of adult oriented games, certainly not as much as the XboX or PS2, but that doesn't matter... have you even looked at the game list for the Wii? yes, there are the usual Mario, Zelda and typical nintendo awesomeness there, but have any of you seen or heard about "Red Steel"? if you haven't check it out, it may just change your opinion of the Wii.

if i want to play an ultra high end graphics games, i'll use my PC, thats what its for, the Wii isn't about cutting edge 3D super graphics, its ALL about the gameplay, sure, graphics make a game look nice, but would you rather have a game that looks spectacular, but plays like a piece of sh it? no? thats what i thought, why do you think the original Super Mario World was, and still is so popular? because it was a GREAT game, the controls were perfect, the game was a perect blend of stategy and action, and just hard enough, it would be challenging without being frustrating. oh ya, and the Wii is still only 200 smackers, and the games are still gonna be 40-55 bucks, nothing compared to the $400 for a 360 PLUS $60-70 bucks on a game!! its ridiculous, and i'm not even going to start on the PS3...

and so ends my rant on these consoles, so check the Wii out, i'm not telling you, not forcing you, just asking, yes, i do have a small bias, but i just don't see the value in one a PS3 (although if i had the money and a wii, i would probably get the 360)

Ok, 1st things first. Even a fanboy like myself for MS is not niave enough to think that the PS3 will "Bomb". There's just simply too much pent up demand for it to think it won't sell. Granted there are too many things I think that it has against it to do as well as it could, but it will sell, and sell huge.

2. PC games used to be my forte for games as well. It has a lot going for it as well. Controls are better for FPS and flight games, but I gotta admit my 360 is changing my mind. You cannot get the same graphics that I get on my 360 on a widescreen Plasma, on any computer that costs close to $400. More like $2000 or more. Some alienware go for $5k plus. The continued hardware upgrades and requirements are making PC games less attractive compared to the hardware that a console offers today.

3. The wii may be worth a look, but as a 2nd system. Nintendo is still a kids platform. Always been, always will be. An adult game here or there doesn't make it a playstation or 360.

Lensman

09-11-2006, 08:28 PM

ok, as i gamer, i'm going to put in my two cents:

first, about the game war, PS3, its going to bomb, it will be at the bottom of the ladder for this generation, the XboX 360 will hold a nice market share due to the fact that its a pretty decent console ... and in my opinion, nintendo will hold top spot, or stay even with the 360.

If history is a lesson, you may well be correct about the PS3. The next-generation console that gets market share first has traditionally gone on to dominate. The Sega Genesis took the lion's share of the market from Nintendo by going to 16 bits first. The Playstation allowed Sony to take the crown from Sega (though the Saturn actually came out a few weeks earlier, Sega had been caught asleep at the wheel and the rushed console was not at the same next generation level of Sony's machine). The PS2 reached the market ahead of the Xbox or Gamecube. The notable exception was the 3DO - the first disk-based machine and one that was a technological quantum leap over its competition. It sold for $700. It was expensive and had so-so games for the most part. It sold poorly and the company no longer exists.

if i want to play an ultra high end graphics games, i'll use my PC, thats what its for, the Wii isn't about cutting edge 3D super graphics, its ALL about the gameplay, sure, graphics make a game look nice, but would you rather have a game that looks spectacular, but plays like a piece of sh it? no? thats what i thought, why do you think the original Super Mario World was, and still is so popular? because it was a GREAT game, the controls were perfect, the game was a perect blend of stategy and action, and just hard enough, it would be challenging without being frustrating. oh ya, and the Wii is still only 200 smackers, and the games are still gonna be 40-55 bucks, nothing compared to the $400 for a 360 PLUS $60-70 bucks on a game!! its ridiculous, and i'm not even going to start on the PS3...)

Well said. What's the point of having a superior audio system if you're bored with or hate all the music available for it or if there are only a few types of music available for it? One could easily argue the best audio system is the one with the best library. The Wii is likely to have some very solid games on relaes. And though the hardware specs are inferior to the Xbox, the features of the Wii are revolutionary enough that there's a reasonable chance the average public could actually percieve it as a next-generation machine beyond the Xbox2.

Ok, 1st things first. Even a fanboy like myself for MS is not niave enough to think that the PS3 will "Bomb". There's just simply too much pent up demand for it to think it won't sell. Granted there are too many things I think that it has against it to do as well as it could, but it will sell, and sell huge.

This depends on your definition of failure. Microsoft succeeded in selling 24 million Xboxs. But they lost $4 billion doing it. The economic model for the PS3 is, if anything, worse. The hardware is much more expensive, limiting consumer entry. The production of units will be drastically below needed levels, the machine is over a year behind schedule for release, and the game technology is not sufficiently different from the Xbox 2 for the machine to be considered an advancement over it. Sure the machine will sell in the millions - just as the Xbox did. But will it be profitable for Sony?

2. PC games used to be my forte for games as well. It has a lot going for it as well. Controls are better for FPS and flight games, but I gotta admit my 360 is changing my mind. You cannot get the same graphics that I get on my 360 on a widescreen Plasma, on any computer that costs close to $400. More like $2000 or more. Some alienware go for $5k plus. The continued hardware upgrades and requirements are making PC games less attractive compared to the hardware that a console offers today.

Yes, games are likely to look best on an Xbox 2. But gameplay is critical and the Xbox 2 has yet to have a "killer app." The Wii could have several on release. See my earlier post on the relative importance people place on gameplay and game control vs. graphics.

3. The wii may be worth a look, but as a 2nd system. Nintendo is still a kids platform. Always been, always will be. An adult game here or there doesn't make it a playstation or 360.

Nintendo has always had a solid reputation as a kids platform and it's nothing to be ashamed of. They could be extinct today were it not for Pokemon. This is a company that knows the importance of catering to this market. But their reputation for NOT being an adult platform (deserved as it is) wasn't part of their master plan. Their insistence on lording over licensing and placing massive burdens on game developers by forcing them to pay for expensive cartridges with the N64, while the PS and Saturn were based on cheap disks forced them into the position. Their ecenomic model didn't win them many friends and they were forced to rely on their in-house developers more than intended who, you guessed it, specialized in kids games. Nintendo tried to lure developers back with the Gamecube. But the machine didn't have enough wow factor to impress anyone. This time things are different. Nintendo has learned from its mistake and the Wii does have some wow. The result is a system that will be released with a respectable range of titles for adults as well as children that makes it hard to argue it's not a platform for adults. Here's a list of games in development:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_games

Groundbeef

09-12-2006, 06:29 AM

:
Well said. What's the point of having a superior audio system if you're bored with or hate all the music available for it or if there are only a few types of music available for it? One could easily argue the best audio system is the one with the best library. The Wii is likely to have some very solid games on relaes. And though the hardware specs are inferior to the Xbox, the features of the Wii are revolutionary enough that there's a reasonable chance the average public could actually percieve it as a next-generation machine beyond the Xbox2.
Ummm, no, that is not likely. Although the controls on the Wii may be revolutionary, being able to "cast" your line for fishing or "swing" your club for golf my be exciting; if your graphics look like 2D sprites next to the 360 or PS3 you will NOT be considered beyond the 360 or PS3. Again, it is an exciting concept, but it will never be next gen beyond MS and Sony.

[/QUOTE]
This depends on your definition of failure. Microsoft succeeded in selling 24 million Xboxs. But they lost $4 billion doing it. The economic model for the PS3 is, if anything, worse. The hardware is much more expensive, limiting consumer entry. The production of units will be drastically below needed levels, the machine is over a year behind schedule for release, and the game technology is not sufficiently different from the Xbox 2 for the machine to be considered an advancement over it. Sure the machine will sell in the millions - just as the Xbox did. But will it be profitable for Sony?[/QUOTE]
Maybe, if they can get the volume up enough, we will see.

[/QUOTE]
Yes, games are likely to look best on an Xbox 2. But gameplay is critical and the Xbox 2 has yet to have a "killer app." The Wii could have several on release. See my earlier post on the relative importance people place on gameplay and game control vs. graphics.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry. Please elaborate your outlandish claims of no "killer" apps? Have you heard of Oblivion-The Elder Scrolls? This one game sold 1.7 million copies back in MARCH for the 360 alone. That is huge.
http://www.emergent.net/index.php/homepage/news/news?action=news-detail&id=387

And Fight Night 3? Have you played it? The 360 version, not the ps2 or Xbox version. Dead Rising is out and sold huge. These games are moving systems. And there are so many more up coming. Gears of War, Halo 3, Viva Pinata (my kids want it).

I will conceed that on FPS and Flight simulation the PC has the advantage. However there are plenty of games that do not require the precision of a mouse and ASWD controls. I used to think that controllers were terrible, but they are actually pretty intuitive to learn and use. And with driving simulations just like the PC you can now hook up a USB steering wheel and pedals and drive just like a PC.

For the money and graphics presentation, the current gen consoles are kicking butt. The key advantage is that there is not upgrading of hardware. If I have my computer for 3 years by the end of the cycle I can hardly play any new games. Console? Slip in the disc and go to town.

[/QUOTE]
Nintendo has always had a solid reputation as a kids platform and it's nothing to be ashamed of. They could be extinct today were it not for Pokemon. This is a company that knows the importance of catering to this market. But their reputation for NOT being an adult platform (deserved as it is) wasn't part of their master plan. Their insistence on lording over licensing and placing massive burdens on game developers by forcing them to pay for expensive cartridges with the N64, while the PS and Saturn were based on cheap disks forced them into the position. Their ecenomic model didn't win them many friends and they were forced to rely on their in-house developers more than intended who, you guessed it, specialized in kids games. Nintendo tried to lure developers back with the Gamecube. But the machine didn't have enough wow factor to impress anyone. This time things are different. Nintendo has learned from its mistake and the Wii does have some wow. The result is a system that will be released with a respectable range of titles for adults as well as children that makes it hard to argue it's not a platform for adults. Here's a list of games in development:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_games[/QUOTE]

We shall see. I can tell you that the reputation preceeds them, and it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Lensman

09-12-2006, 10:50 AM

Ummm, no, that is not likely. Although the controls on the Wii may be revolutionary, being able to "cast" your line for fishing or "swing" your club for golf my be exciting; if your graphics look like 2D sprites next to the 360 or PS3 you will NOT be considered beyond the 360 or PS3. Again, it is an exciting concept, but it will never be next gen beyond MS and Sony.

“Exciting” is an emotional state, not a reasoning one. Be that as it may, excitement is a very powerful cahce to have. Excitment the prime motivating factor in product selection and purchase among consumers.

If what you said about the graphics was factually accurate, you’d be correct because the Wii’s graphics would not be exciting. However, while graphics capabilities have continue to improve, the perceptible improvements have continued to become smaller, and as a result, less important to the nondiscerning general public. (Much as it is in the audio world – consider the iPod.) Hardcore gamers are driven to see the last little detail possible. This is not the case with average consumers. They are much more interested in how fun, involving or different the gameplay experience will be.

Graphics are better on the Xbox 360 than on the Xbox, PS2, or Wii. But “better” is not “exciting”, nor is it “different”. And gameplay mechanics on the Xbox 360 is none of the above. The graphics on the Wii are inferior to the Xbox 360, but not to predecessors – in short, not better, different, or exciting. But the gameplay is very different. And different is exciting. Let’s consider a current example of graphics versus gameplay in motivating consumers to buy:

In 21 months the Xbox 360 has sold around 5.5 million units (we’ll call it 262,000 per month). The Nintendo DS, an infinitely inferior platform technically, but one with gameplay via a different dual touch-screen mechanism has sold in excess of 22 million in 27 months (nearly 815,000 per month) – a three to one per month margin. The lower price point of the DS certainly doesn’t hurt either.

Maybe, if they can get the volume up enough, we will see.

Yes But we’ve seen there are a lot of factors now working against Sony and it will be an uphill battle. But they could succeed with a killer app. It worked for Sega when the Super NES was released.

I'm sorry. Please elaborate your outlandish claims of no "killer" apps? Have you heard of Oblivion-The Elder Scrolls? This one game sold 1.7 million copies back in MARCH for the 360 alone. That is huge.
http://www.emergent.net/index.php/homepage/news/news?action=news-detail&id=387

And Fight Night 3? Have you played it? The 360 version, not the ps2 or Xbox version. Dead Rising is out and sold huge. These games are moving systems. And there are so many more up coming. Gears of War, Halo 3, Viva Pinata (my kids want it).

Okay, a killer app is a game that is unique to a console and is so good it makes the general public buy the machine just to play it. Killer apps are games that transcend niche market sales to hardcore gamers and become commonly recognized namebrands to the general public. These games include titles such as Superior Mario Bros, Sonic the Hedgehog, Pokemon, Tetris, The Sims, Madden NFL, etc. These games move in substantial volume and continue to sell well long after release. Super Mario Bros. sold over 40 million copies. Not having a killer app doesn’t mean a system won’t sale or that there won’t be brisk sales for a tile when it’s first released. But it will severely limit the total volume of consoles sold.

The killer app for Microsoft so far has been Halo 2 with 7.7 million sales. Excluding Halo: Combat Evolved, no other Xbox or Xbox 360 game has sold more than 3 million copies. But sales could arguably have been much higher had it not been a PC game, which could have pushed Xbox sales much higher. If everyone who bought Halo had had to buy an Xbox, Microsoft would have sold another 6.5 million machines. Oblivion is indeed doing well and could be Microsoft’s new killer app. But its too early to tell how well the game will continue to sell. But it’s dropped off the top ten lists and it’s predecessor, Morrowind, only managed 4 million in combined PC and Xbox sales. Oblivion is also available on the PC, which accounted for half a million of the 1.7 million sales you mentioned. Half a million who did not decide to by an Xbox 360 to play it. Of the other titles you mention, only Fright Night 3 has cracked the top ten in videogame sales in recent weeks. It’s number 9. And, as you’ve pointed out, its also available on competing platforms. Once again, I don’t need an Xbox 360 to play it. The number one game for the last several weeks has been the non-graphic intensive, educational, problem-solving game Brain Age for the Nintendo DS – which requires a DS to play.

I will conceed that on FPS and Flight simulation the PC has the advantage. However there are plenty of games that do not require the precision of a mouse and ASWD controls. I used to think that controllers were terrible, but they are actually pretty intuitive to learn and use. And with driving simulations just like the PC you can now hook up a USB steering wheel and pedals and drive just like a PC.

At significant additional expense, forcing gamers to choose between a wheel or a new game. And requiring special conditions - a table of adequate height with a lip, suitable chair, and families that don’t mind wires running across the living room floor. What is a casual gamer likely to choose? The Wii’s controller can work well as a sword, tennis racket, golf club, etc. with additional equipment. Inexpenisve plastic wheel and gun frames the controller can clip into are cheap enough they may be packaged with certain games. The controller remain wireless.

For the money and graphics presentation, the current gen consoles are kicking butt. The key advantage is that there is not upgrading of hardware. If I have my computer for 3 years by the end of the cycle I can hardly play any new games. Console? Slip in the disc and go to town.

This has been argued before. The 3DO had graphics that kicked but as well. And $700 wasn’t outlandish for the features it offered at the time either especially compared to prices of PCs at the time. This is obviously a formula that does not guarantee success or longevity.

We shall see. I can tell you that the reputation preceeds them, and it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

The Wii is squarely targeted at the casual gamer – a much larger market than niche hardcore gamers. The reputation will probably help them in reaching this audience.

Groundbeef

09-12-2006, 11:21 AM

[QUOTE=LensmanIf what you said about the graphics was factually accurate, you’d be correct because the Wii’s graphics would not be exciting. However, while graphics capabilities have continue to improve, the perceptible improvements have continued to become smaller, and as a result, less important to the nondiscerning general public. (Much as it is in the audio world – consider the iPod.) Hardcore gamers are driven to see the last little detail possible. This is not the case with average consumers. They are much more interested in how fun, involving or different the gameplay experience will be.

Graphics are better on the Xbox 360 than on the Xbox, PS2, or Wii. But “better” is not “exciting”, nor is it “different”. And gameplay mechanics on the Xbox 360 is none of the above. The graphics on the Wii are inferior to the Xbox 360, but not to predecessors – in short, not better, different, or exciting. But the gameplay is very different. And different is exciting. Let’s consider a current example of graphics versus gameplay in motivating consumers to buy:

In 21 months the Xbox 360 has sold around 5.5 million units (we’ll call it 262,000 per month). The Nintendo DS, an infinitely inferior platform technically, but one with gameplay via a different dual touch-screen mechanism has sold in excess of 22 million in 27 months (nearly 815,000 per month) – a three to one per month margin. The lower price point of the DS certainly doesn’t hurt either.
.[/QUOTE]

You are being overly simplistic in your opinion of graphics vs gameplay. The current generation of games are more "exciting" BECAUSE of increased use of 3D modeling, graphics acceleration, anti-analising, etc. Game enviroments are becoming more immersive because they are looking more lifelike, and AI is becoming more intelligent due to increased CPU horsepower, and utilization.

Look back at one of the biggest sellers of all time DOOM. It was hands down the undisputed king of the FPS when it debuted. Then Quake, SWAT, and others came along using similar (or the same) formula. The difference is the graphics engine and programming code. Go back and play the original DOOM. For a few minutes its fun, but not really so much today. People are excited about fancy graphics.
Madden sells because it looks real, and is fun to play.

Second. Where are you getting your numbers? The 360 Debuted on November 22, 2005. Thats about 9 months give or take a few days, far short of your 21 months in your example.

And to compare a hand held game machine and a living room console is in a word stupid. If we follow your example I would suggest that cell phones that play games are far bigger seller than the DS, so the DS must be inferior to my Sanyo Sprint phone that plays Tetris. A better example would have been the PSP vs DS. I don't know sales #'s for either so I can't give a comparison.

""Of the other titles you mention, only Fright Night 3 has cracked the top ten in videogame sales in recent weeks. It’s number 9. And, as you’ve pointed out, its also available on competing platforms. Once again, I don’t need an Xbox 360 to play it. The number one game for the last several weeks has been the non-graphic intensive, educational, problem-solving game Brain Age for the Nintendo DS – which requires a DS to play.""

No you dont NEED a 360 to play FN3, but your not playing the same game if you don't. Please don't think that it is the same game, as it is coded differently for all platforms. Even the 360 vs Xbox title is different. Yes, they are both boxing games, but gameplay is vastly better on the 360. If you haven't tried it in HD, you are missing out.

As for Brain Age, more DS are on the market, it would stand to reason that it would sell more copies than a 360 game. Again, different market, different device.

""At significant additional expense, forcing gamers to choose between a wheel or a new game. And requiring special conditions - a table of adequate height with a lip, suitable chair, and families that don’t mind wires running across the living room floor. What is a casual gamer likely to choose? The Wii’s controller can work well as a sword, tennis racket, golf club, etc. with additional equipment. Inexpenisve plastic wheel and gun frames the controller can clip into are cheap enough they may be packaged with certain games. The controller remain wireless.""

Again, apples to oranges. If you want to play a Flight Sim on a PC, you need additional hardware as well. If you want an immersive enviroment, you get the tools to experience it. It is nonsensical to think that waving the Wii around will approximate a driving simulation, or a flight simulation. Flight paddles, Flight sticks, and Driving gear are not just for the rich and famous. They are not all expensive (some ring out for over $200, but most can be had for less than $50.00) So whats the differnce? You buy a steering wheel, or an attachment for your Wii (hehe...)

""This has been argued before. The 3DO had graphics that kicked but as well. And $700 wasn’t outlandish for the features it offered at the time either especially compared to prices of PCs at the time. This is obviously a formula that does not guarantee success or longevity.""

At the time $700 was considered an OUTLANDISH sum considering consoles were selling for $150-$200. Consoles now cost $250-400 (next gen). Again, a COMPARABLE costing computer to power the games in production would run $2000 plus. Don't kid yourself and think that the $499 Dell is going to work. Its not, and you know it. The power available in consoles today surpasses the power in most desktop computers and they are only coded for playing graphics intense games. No word, no quicken, no fancy GUI interface that hogs memory. Just straight gameplay.

ON a side note. How do you do the "Quote" thing? My posts look like crap because I cannot get the quote thing down.

westcott

09-12-2006, 11:39 AM

My predictions are based on two things. BluRay is more expensive and provides an inferior image. It uses older compression technology and current transfers reflect it.

So if you are less expensive and produce better video quality, then you sell more players.

All you have to do is go to the Amazon site to see the difference in sales numbers. Believe me, it is no contest so far. BR has 2644 sales rank, HD DVD has a rank of 292.

Lensman

09-13-2006, 10:12 AM

You are being overly simplistic in your opinion of graphics vs gameplay. The current generation of games are more "exciting" BECAUSE of increased use of 3D modeling, graphics acceleration, anti-analising, etc. Game enviroments are becoming more immersive because they are looking more lifelike, and AI is becoming more intelligent due to increased CPU horsepower, and utilization.

I’m afraid you’re beginning to confuse me with the point I’m making. Like you, I’m in the “hardcore gamer” category, having owned many consoles over years and multiple platform at the same time. Neither of us are “casual gamers”. I understand and agree with everything you’re saying about graphics, horsepower, etc. But people like you and I are a small percentage of the overall market.

For a machine to sell in the large volumes necessary to be an economic success in the market, it must appeal to the much larger market of casual gamers. I do know a $499 Dell won’t play graphic and processor intensive PC games well and you know I know it. But I also know most average consumers will buy a $499 Dell and not realize they can’t play Quake 4 on it. And I know you know that.

Graphics acceleration, 3D modeling, anti-aliasing, etc. are great things. And they've gotten better over the years. But do you really believe casual consumers will think Madden NFL 07

http://www.cheatcc.com/imageswii/madden07_00.jpg

is so much more exciting than it’s 8 year old predecessor Madden NFL 99

http://www.xbox-modchips.com/img/sony-psx-madden-nfl-99-screenshot-big.jpg

because of the graphics?

When you played Batman on the Atari 2600, he was a blue square. When you played Mario on the NES he actually looked like a little man. That was exciting. That was the time when graphics meant everything. But over the years, the evolution of graphics has slowed down. All the technology you mention as being exciting has been around since the orginal PSX. Casual gamers have seen it and done it. Current next gen machines have just made refinements. Sure, refinements can occasionally be exciting. But in light of the diminished differences between graphics on recent platforms, most people are more likely to be swayed by other, more prominent factors – such as the potential of Wii’s controller to change how games are played. This alone is sufficient for the casual market to consider the machine next gen – despite the graphics being not quite as good.

Look back at one of the biggest sellers of all time DOOM. It was hands down the undisputed king of the FPS when it debuted. Then Quake, SWAT, and others came along using similar (or the same) formula. The difference is the graphics engine and programming code. Go back and play the original DOOM. For a few minutes its fun, but not really so much today. People are excited about fancy graphics.
Madden sells because it looks real, and is fun to play.

Do people still play Pac Man and Missile Command? Do they still buy game machines to plug into their TVs to play Galaga (you know, those battery operated joysticks you see everywhere)? Do people install emulators on their PCs to play Atari and Gameboy games? Do people still play Doom’ predecessor Wolfenstein? Yes they do. And I’ll bet if you ask these people why when the graphics are so unacceptably pathetic, they’ll tell you it’s because the games are FUN. As for Madden, there's been a number of times over the years the new game has gotten poor reviews because, while the graphics were better, the gameplay was worse than the prior version.

Gameplay can be just as exciting as graphics. In a “pick only one” decision, many will choose better gameplay over better graphics. Gameplay could in fact be considered more important by most gamers. I’m sure you’ll agree that if a game is really bad, no amount of flashy graphics will save it. There are countless examples of this and their sales figures show the result. The Nintendo console is focused on gameplay and the company has an established reputation of producing games with quality gameplay. This is likely to be a powerful draw for gamers - casual or otherwise.

Second. Where are you getting your numbers? The 360 Debuted on November 22, 2005. Thats about 9 months give or take a few days, far short of your 21 months in your example.

Sorry, you’re correct. The Xbox came out 1 year after the Nintendo DS (November 21, 2004). The total units sold is correct. That makes it 550,000 Xbox 360s per month vs. 1 million per month of the DS. Did it in my head. Bad, bad, math.

And to compare a hand held game machine and a living room console is in a word stupid. If we follow your example I would suggest that cell phones that play games are far bigger seller than the DS, so the DS must be inferior to my Sanyo Sprint phone that plays Tetris. A better example would have been the PSP vs DS. I don't know sales #'s for either so I can't give a comparison.

Is it? The Xbox 360 and DS have different focuses (portable vs. family room), but both are sold to gamers exclusively as gaming platforms. Cell phones are not sold exclusively to gamers, casual or otherwise. Cell phones are not sold exclusively on their merits as game machines.

No you dont NEED a 360 to play FN3, but your not playing the same game if you don't. Please don't think that it is the same game, as it is coded differently for all platforms. Even the 360 vs Xbox title is different. Yes, they are both boxing games, but gameplay is vastly better on the 360. If you haven't tried it in HD, you are missing out.

And you’re telling me a casual gamer would do the research needed to determine this?

As for Brain Age, more DS are on the market, it would stand to reason that it would sell more copies than a 360 game. Again, different market, different device.

Yes, it’s aimed at the larger casual gaming market. You’re making my point for me.

Again, apples to oranges. If you want to play a Flight Sim on a PC, you need additional hardware as well. If you want an immersive enviroment, you get the tools to experience it. It is nonsensical to think that waving the Wii around will approximate a driving simulation, or a flight simulation. Flight paddles, Flight sticks, and Driving gear are not just for the rich and famous. They are not all expensive (some ring out for over $200, but most can be had for less than $50.00) So whats the differnce? You buy a steering wheel, or an attachment for your Wii (hehe...)

You and I will buy the items to enhance our experience whether they’re for a Wii or anything else. But most casual gamers don’t buy expensive input peripherals. They will buy a machine and expect it to provide all the quality gameplay with what it came with. The Wii’s out-of-the-box controller has the protential to offer a radically different and thus, more exciting, experience than the controllers that come with the Xbox 360 or PS3.

At the time $700 was considered an OUTLANDISH sum considering consoles were selling for $150-$200. Consoles now cost $250-400 (next gen). Again, a COMPARABLE costing computer to power the games in production would run $2000 plus. Don't kid yourself and think that the $499 Dell is going to work. Its not, and you know it. The power available in consoles today surpasses the power in most desktop computers and they are only coded for playing graphics intense games. No word, no quicken, no fancy GUI interface that hogs memory. Just straight gameplay.

In 1993, the 3DO was $700 and an entry level PC (33Mhz 486, 8MB RAM, 210MB hard drive, 15-inch monitor) was $2,200 - a difference of $1,500.* 486s could run up to 100Mhz and Pentiums were released that year, so this PC was nowhere near a gaming level machine in power or price either. If anything, it was easier to choose a 3DO to get a top quality game experience based on price.

*Producer Price Indexes, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics – since I’m using numbers here and you inquired.

ON a side note. How do you do the "Quote" thing? My posts look like crap because I cannot get the quote thing down.

Set it up like this without the asterisks:
[*QUOTE=Lensman*]Stuff I want to quote.[*/QUOTE*]

Groundbeef

09-13-2006, 11:21 AM

Do people still play Pac Man and Missile Command? Do they still buy game machines to plug into their TVs to play Galaga (you know, those battery operated joysticks you see everywhere)? Do people install emulators on their PCs to play Atari and Gameboy games? Do people still play Doom’ predecessor Wolfenstein? Yes they do. And I’ll bet if you ask these people why when the graphics are so unacceptably pathetic, they’ll tell you it’s because the games are FUN. As for Madden, there's been a number of times over the years the new game has gotten poor reviews because, while the graphics were better, the gameplay was worse than the prior version.

Yes of course people still play the older games. However, old games are played for nostalgia (sp), and a few other tangibles. There is something about sitting down and playing Missle Command for a while. No saves, no pauses, no "easy" setting. Its just straight gaming at its core. But for games looking for story and depth they cannot replace the new games that are out and coming out.

Gameplay can be just as exciting as graphics. In a “pick only one” decision, many will choose better gameplay over better graphics. Gameplay could in fact be considered more important by most gamers. I’m sure you’ll agree that if a game is really bad, no amount of flashy graphics will save it. There are countless examples of this and their sales figures show the result. The Nintendo console is focused on gameplay and the company has an established reputation of producing games with quality gameplay. This is likely to be a powerful draw for gamers - casual or otherwise.

You seem to be making the point that it's always and either/or choice. Either I get a system with less horsepower and better games, or more horsepower and poor games. I think that is incorrect. Of course you can have flashy graphics and a piss poor story, but not always. Look at System Shock (1 and 2) very undersold, but at the respective release dates they had both. GTA (like it or not) was a hugely fun game with graphics and freedom NEVER experienced in gaming before, and not matched nearly as I would like lately. Oblivion is also an example of open-ended environments where the player chooses the path to take, not the invisible "rails" that ruined Doom 3 (very pretty, but boring). I think that there are many more innovative games on the horizon that will have both the graphics/gameplay matched. All the good games have not been made yet.

Is it? The Xbox 360 and DS have different focuses (portable vs. family room), but both are sold to gamers exclusively as gaming platforms. Cell phones are not sold exclusively to gamers, casual or otherwise. Cell phones are not sold exclusively on their merits as game machines.

No, your right, so compare apples to apples DS vs PSP. Not living room console vs handheld gaming device.

You and I will buy the items to enhance our experience whether they’re for a Wii or anything else. But most casual gamers don’t buy expensive input peripherals. They will buy a machine and expect it to provide all the quality gameplay with what it came with. The Wii’s out-of-the-box controller has the protential to offer a radically different and thus, more exciting, experience than the controllers that come with the Xbox 360 or PS3.

Assuming that it is used, and implemented properly. I can also see it becoming a "1 trick pony" where after the excitement of the fishing "casting" and "batting" (baseball) wears off, people will grow tired of the constant motion. Who wants to wear themselves out playing a game? I will lay money down that Nintendo has a standard controller in the works as well if it doesn't revolutionize gaming.

And you’re telling me a casual gamer would do the research needed to determine this?.

With regards to new games such as FN3? Yes, I do belive that gamers DO research games and systems before purchase. XBOX, PS, and PC gamer magazine and the countless other gamer rags are in business because people don't shop willy-nilly for games just blindy tossing $40-60 games in their carts. Maybe around the holidays when mom or dad go shopping they may rely on what they think looks "fun".
And as far as additional "research" I can't think of a single game store that doesn't have a kiosk with the latest machines to test before buying a game. Heck, even my local Target/Meijer/Walmart have machines set up. Certainly any game store such as EB, Game Crazy, BB Games all are set up for people to play and try out games. And yes, visually it should only take about 1 glance at the screen to see the difference between the PS2 version of FN3 and the 360. A friend of mine has it for his PS2, and about crapped when he saw it on HD in my living room. He said it is night and day, and PLAYS better. Better animations, better movement, and gameplay was smoother.

audio_dude

09-13-2006, 01:37 PM

ok, guys, this is hilarious to read...

oh, you can adjust the sensitivity of the Wii controller so its almost the same or less movement than using a mouse! ya, i know for a fact that nintendo will make a bunch of little attachments for the wii controller (case in point, they already have a "zapper" shell [remeber the zapper for the NES?] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_Remote#Wii_Zapper ) oh ya, and it works with Gamecube controllers...

finally, why don't we discuss the online capabilities of these consoles, for starters, the Wii has a FREE online game connection service, lets see microsoft of sony do that!

Groundbeef

09-13-2006, 04:38 PM

finally, why don't we discuss the online capabilities of these consoles, for starters, the Wii has a FREE online game connection service, lets see microsoft of sony do that!

OK, I'll bite. What are you contending? That Free is better? Better than what? Here are the 3 services as they stand now.

1. MS XBOX/XBOX 360 LIVE 2 levels of service "Silver" and "Gold"

Silver has all connections to "Marketplace" where game updates/patches, free demos, free video, and the XBOX LIVE arcade is located. You cannont play multiplayer enabled games with a silver account online except for special dates set up by MS.

Gold costs approx $49.99 for 1 year and that works out to about $4.07/ month. This has all the benefits of silver plus unlimited playablilty of multiplayer enabled games.

Keep in mind that MS has set up a set of standards that programmers must work within to make their games work on the MS network. This prohibits several standards and conflicts. The service only works with DSL or Cable connections. XBOX / XBOX 360 doens't come with wireless connections enabled. However, you can connect directly to your LAN with wire or purchase wireless connections.

I have used both and wired is better. Suffered some signal conflicts in my house that made wireless not satisfactory.

2. Sony

Sony is p issing an opportuinity away here. They are opting for a non-unified service and programming structure for its developers. This leaves gamers in the lurch without assurance that they will not have to have several accounts to play games online. This also makes development difficult for programmers who need to make their own standards for each game.

Currently there is no pricing guidence for Sony online play as it will be up to the indiviual game developers to determine if players will need to "pay to play"

Wireless connection is "in" the box. However, it will be to the /g/ standard. This standard is being moved away from for /N/ and MIMO. Both offer better speeds and signal quality. There may be compatibility issues with routers as well, but that is speculation.

3. Nintendo

Currently appears to be "Free" Again, no word on standards and who develops them. Unsure if individual companies can charge gamers to "play".

Wireless is "in" the box. /g/ standard.

I am biased for MS, and don't mind paying for the service. It is rock solid and has never gone down. Your milage may vary.

audio_dude

09-13-2006, 05:49 PM

i think nintendo is going to have a unified standard... and other companies will NOT be able to charge for online service...

Groundbeef

09-13-2006, 06:18 PM

i think nintendo is going to have a unified standard... and other companies will NOT be able to charge for online service...

Based on what? There is nothing that I have been able to find currently to support that theory. There isn't much disputing it either to be fair. However, if they follow the path of Sony, there isn't much they can do if developers want to charge for service.

Currently the only "online" type of service that nintendo offers is with the DS. And it is not a "true" online situation. From what I have gathered you have to know who you are joining with to play together. There really are not any "pick-up" games.

This is from some online readings I have seen. If you have any other sources please divulge.

Lensman

09-13-2006, 08:21 PM

I think there's a fundamental fact that you're just not getting:

In the universe you've established for your arguments there are two types of peope: non-gamers and gamers. Non-gamers don't play. Gamers are into everything related to gaming absolutely and unreservedly.

In reality there are three types of people: non-gamers, casual gamers, and hard-core gamers. The first type, non-gamers, don't play so are irrelavent to the discussion.

The second type, the hard-core gamers, are just as you describe. They are tech saavy, have the latest next gen machines and top level PCs, and are willing to pay top dollar for consoles, games, and services. They prefer games that are complex, deep, action-oriented, and violent. They hunger for game-related information (often knowing vast amounts of information about a system before it's released), and (surprise!) enjoy discussing their hobby with friends and on forums.

The third type appears to be unfamiliar to you because you persist in ignoring them in my posts. These "casual gamers" are the rest of the folks who buy and play console games. They can be anybody from the sports fan who only plays Madden to the dad who plays Cars to connect with the kids to your mom who takes a break from her Quicken bookkeeping to play Zuma. These people are not tech saavy. The do not always buy the latest, greatest console or PC. They may have strong aversions to adult, violent, or edgy content. They are more likely to rent a game, play it a few hours, and never touch it again. They don't buy gaming magazines or search out info on upcoming systems. And they'll never read anything you and I have written to each other. These individuals vastly outnumber the "hardcore gamers". These people are the target market for Nintendo.

If this rendition of reality just doesn't sound right, Google "casual vs. hardcore gamer" and start checking out the 831,000 links on the subject.

Yes of course people still play the older games. However, old games are played for nostalgia (sp), and a few other tangibles. There is something about sitting down and playing Missle Command for a while. No saves, no pauses, no "easy" setting. Its just straight gaming at its core. But for games looking for story and depth they cannot replace the new games that are out and coming out.

The "other tangibles" you refer to is "gameplay". They play these games because they LIKE them. They LIKE them because they are FUN to PLAY. They wouldn't PLAY them if they were NOT FUN to play. The way a GAME is PLAYED is referred to as GAMEPLAY. The "something about sitting down and playing Missle Command" is "gameplay". When you say "Its just straight gaming at its core" you mean the game "has good gameplay".

Any game system that has games with great gameplay will succeed, regardless of their graphics capabilities because games that play well appeal to everyone. That's why the Atari 2600 is still sold. It's why the 3DO isn't. Which would you rather play today, Pitfall or Night Trap? It's why you'll never hear anyone respected in the gaming industry dissing Super Mario Bros. despite the fact that it's a "kids game."

The graphics on the Xbox 360 are great. But Microsoft won't be out of the woods until they have at least one title with outstanding gameplay and thematic appeal that can reach the "casual gamer" market. They need a Mario, or a Sonic. Then they'd truly crush the competition. Until then, they'll be susceptible to the PS3 and Wii.

You seem to be making the point that it's always and either/or choice. Either I get a system with less horsepower and better games, or more horsepower and poor games. I think that is incorrect. Of course you can have flashy graphics and a piss poor story, but not always. Look at System Shock (1 and 2) very undersold, but at the respective release dates they had both. GTA (like it or not) was a hugely fun game with graphics and freedom NEVER experienced in gaming before, and not matched nearly as I would like lately. Oblivion is also an example of open-ended environments where the player chooses the path to take, not the invisible "rails" that ruined Doom 3 (very pretty, but boring). I think that there are many more innovative games on the horizon that will have both the graphics/gameplay matched. All the good games have not been made yet.

No. I am saying that that are two main considerations people take into account when they consider a system: 1. Graphics. 2. Gameplay. Any system that has both will rule. I am also saying that of the two, graphics are the less important aspect to the "casual gamer". Remember, these are NOT the "hardcore gamers" The hardcore gamers won't stand for graphics that fall below the standard of bleeding edge. The casual gamers won't care as long as the graphics are "pretty good". The Wii's graphics are not great. They are pretty good. For "casual gamers" the graphics on the Wii will be considered good enough.

Nintendo has placed great emphasis on gameplay. Much more than either Sony or Microsoft. This doesn't mean the Wii will have great gameplay. How the games make use of the Wii's controller's capabilities will determine that. What I am saying is the Wii has the potential to have better gameplay than either the PS3 or the Xbox 360.

No, your right, so compare apples to apples DS vs PSP. Not living room console vs handheld gaming device.

It's an irrelevant comparison to the discussion. The point of which was that people will play games they want to play and that decision will be reflected in the number of units sold.

Assuming that it is used, and implemented properly. I can also see it becoming a "1 trick pony" where after the excitement of the fishing "casting" and "batting" (baseball) wears off, people will grow tired of the constant motion. Who wants to wear themselves out playing a game? I will lay money down that Nintendo has a standard controller in the works as well if it doesn't revolutionize gaming.

Yes, Nintendo's odd new controller could fail abysmally. But when one considers the success of effort intensive games like Dance Dance Revolution, one can see how it could also succeed greatly.

With regards to new games such as FN3? Yes, I do belive that gamers DO research games and systems before purchase. XBOX, PS, and PC gamer magazine and the countless other gamer rags are in business because people don't shop willy-nilly for games just blindy tossing $40-60 games in their carts. Maybe around the holidays when mom or dad go shopping they may rely on what they think looks "fun".
And as far as additional "research" I can't think of a single game store that doesn't have a kiosk with the latest machines to test before buying a game. Heck, even my local Target/Meijer/Walmart have machines set up. Certainly any game store such as EB, Game Crazy, BB Games all are set up for people to play and try out games. And yes, visually it should only take about 1 glance at the screen to see the difference between the PS2 version of FN3 and the 360. A friend of mine has it for his PS2, and about crapped when he saw it on HD in my living room. He said it is night and day, and PLAYS better. Better animations, better movement, and gameplay was smoother.

Sorry to disappoint. But again, "casual gamers" do NOT research. Who do you think keeps buying horrifically bad movie tie-in games year after year? Let's take your magazine example. By 2004, Sony had sold 29 million PS2s. Microsoft had sold 8.6 million Xboxs. Plus another 39 million PSXs were floating around (I'll point out here that Sony continued to sell the PSOne after they released the PS2. Who do you think bought those inferior machines?). That's a grand total of 76.6 million machines. So how many people bought PSM and Official Xbox Magazine on an averaged month? The answer is 1.1 million. That less than 1.5% of the number of console owners. Now you could argue that the other 98.6% of the gamers (call it 75.5 million) conducted research by standing in front of display at Wal-Mart and Best Buy or by going over to a friend's house. But I think you'd have a difficult time proving your case. In actuality, the majority (the "casual gamers") didn't do any research because they just didn't care enough. Again I refer you to Google, where you can do your own research.

ok, guys, this is hilarious to read...

Thank you. Glad I can provide some entertainment - even if it's not graphics intensive.

Groundbeef

09-14-2006, 05:42 AM

I think there's a fundamental fact that you're just not getting:

In the universe you've established for your arguments there are two types of peope: non-gamers and gamers. Non-gamers don't play. Gamers are into everything related to gaming absolutely and unreservedly.

In reality there are three types of people: non-gamers, casual gamers, and hard-core gamers. The first type, non-gamers, don't play so are irrelavent to the discussion.

The second type, the hard-core gamers, are just as you describe. They are tech saavy, have the latest next gen machines and top level PCs, and are willing to pay top dollar for consoles, games, and services. They prefer games that are complex, deep, action-oriented, and violent. They hunger for game-related information (often knowing vast amounts of information about a system before it's released), and (surprise!) enjoy discussing their hobby with friends and on forums.

The third type appears to be unfamiliar to you because you persist in ignoring them in my posts. These "casual gamers" are the rest of the folks who buy and play console games. They can be anybody from the sports fan who only plays Madden to the dad who plays Cars to connect with the kids to your mom who takes a break from her Quicken bookkeeping to play Zuma. These people are not tech saavy. The do not always buy the latest, greatest console or PC. They may have strong aversions to adult, violent, or edgy content. They are more likely to rent a game, play it a few hours, and never touch it again. They don't buy gaming magazines or search out info on upcoming systems. And they'll never read anything you and I have written to each other. These individuals vastly outnumber the "hardcore gamers". These people are the target market for Nintendo.

If this rendition of reality just doesn't sound right, Google "casual vs. hardcore gamer" and start checking out the 831,000 links on the subject.
Oh, I've been schooled everyone, take note. I am argueing the same people you are. Non-gamers are as you said "irrelevent".

The "other tangibles" you refer to is "gameplay". They play these games because they LIKE them. They LIKE them because they are FUN to PLAY. They wouldn't PLAY them if they were NOT FUN to play. The way a GAME is PLAYED is referred to as GAMEPLAY. The "something about sitting down and playing Missle Command" is "gameplay". When you say "Its just straight gaming at its core" you mean the game "has good gameplay".

Any game system that has games with great gameplay will succeed, regardless of their graphics capabilities because games that play well appeal to everyone. That's why the Atari 2600 is still sold. It's why the 3DO isn't. Which would you rather play today, Pitfall or Night Trap? It's why you'll never hear anyone respected in the gaming industry dissing Super Mario Bros. despite the fact that it's a "kids game."

The graphics on the Xbox 360 are great. But Microsoft won't be out of the woods until they have at least one title with outstanding gameplay and thematic appeal that can reach the "casual gamer" market. They need a Mario, or a Sonic. Then they'd truly crush the competition. Until then, they'll be susceptible to the PS3 and Wii.

If you do a search for who the "nostalgia" market is aimed at it is males 25-35 that grew up with those games. If I were to fill an arcade in the local mall with game machines that were popular in 1980, and none of the games of today, I might as well just light my cash on fire. People play old games because they grew up with them. If you give a young "new" gamer 10-14 an atari 2600 to play now, you would be laughed out of the living room. You are correct that gameplay IS important. But if you have NEVER experienced the "WOW" that you got when the 2600 was new, you will NEVER feel it now.

No. I am saying that that are two main considerations people take into account when they consider a system: 1. Graphics. 2. Gameplay. Any system that has both will rule. I am also saying that of the two, graphics are the less important aspect to the "casual gamer". Remember, these are NOT the "hardcore gamers" The hardcore gamers won't stand for graphics that fall below the standard of bleeding edge. The casual gamers won't care as long as the graphics are "pretty good". The Wii's graphics are not great. They are pretty good. For "casual gamers" the graphics on the Wii will be considered good enough.

Nintendo has placed great emphasis on gameplay. Much more than either Sony or Microsoft. This doesn't mean the Wii will have great gameplay. How the games make use of the Wii's controller's capabilities will determine that. What I am saying is the Wii has the potential to have better gameplay than either the PS3 or the Xbox 360.

Who are you to speak for everyone? This is conjecture on your part. Maybe graphics are not as important for you, but for others it is paramount. This is a TOMATO, TA-MA-TOE arguement. And the Wii has potential to have better gameplay? Sure it does. As does the 360, or PS3. And all things being equal, if all have the same gameplay, graphics trump less quality graphics.

It's an irrelevant comparison to the discussion. The point of which was that people will play games they want to play and that decision will be reflected in the number of units sold.
That is NOT the point and you know it. It is impractical to carry around a flat panel TV, Power supply, XBOX 360 console, and controllers to play a game on the way to work, or to keep the kids quiet traveling. Quit trying to muddy the waters on your weak argument.

You are dodging the question asked. Again, compare apples to apples. Your example is like asking what car is better, the Porche 911, or the Dodge Caravan. Oh, looks like the caravan is WAY BETTER because it sold way more. If you compare similar systems the numbers are much closer:

DS has sold 22 million world wide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS Released 12-02-2004
Sony has sold 20.2 million world wide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_PSP Released 12-12-2004

In the HAND HELD game machine, the DS has sold approx 10% more. Keep in mind that its price is more than $100 cheaper as well. Now the advantage is a bit murkier.

Sorry to disappoint. But again, "casual gamers" do NOT research. Who do you think keeps buying horrifically bad movie tie-in games year after year? Let's take your magazine example. By 2004, Sony had sold 29 million PS2s. Microsoft had sold 8.6 million Xboxs. Plus another 39 million PSXs were floating around (I'll point out here that Sony continued to sell the PSOne after they released the PS2. Who do you think bought those inferior machines?). That's a grand total of 76.6 million machines. So how many people bought PSM and Official Xbox Magazine on an averaged month? The answer is 1.1 million. That less than 1.5% of the number of console owners. Now you could argue that the other 98.6% of the gamers (call it 75.5 million) conducted research by standing in front of display at Wal-Mart and Best Buy or by going over to a friend's house. But I think you'd have a difficult time proving your case. In actuality, the majority (the "casual gamers") didn't do any research because they just didn't care enough. Again I refer you to Google, where you can do your own research.

Again, conjecture. This is not true. People may not "research" as much as you or I, but there is some research in ANY purchase with the exception of the very small (IE, candy bar at gas station). It may not go to the depth of others, but there is some. Talking to friends, reading ad copy, playing it by rental, playing it at a friends house. There is much research that can be done without surfing the web or reading a magazine. You are fooling yourself if you think that kids don't talk about what games are coming out or who has what system. Go to a school sometime, (I sub teach) it is amazing how much kids in Jr High/High school talk about games. Just because YOU think a game is bad, doesn't make it so. If a game sells a million copies, someone must like it.

Thank you. Glad I can provide some entertainment - even if it's not graphics intensive.

:ciappa:

Lensman

09-14-2006, 09:58 AM

Oh, I've been schooled everyone, take note. I am argueing the same people you are. Non-gamers are as you said "irrelevent".

Sorry if I came off too forward. It was late when I wrote the last post, I have a cold, and for fun, I threw some Nyquil in the mix. I enjoy debating this with you and I assume you’re still having fun speculating (as you told Sir TT). If so, I’ll continue.

I still don’t have the impression from the views you attribute to all gamers that you understand the gaming market is not one homogenous group unified with the same set of priorities (in your case graphics). If anything it is even more fragmented than the simplified non-gamer, casual gamer, hardcore gamer model I present.

If you do a search for who the "nostalgia" market is aimed at it is males 25-35 that grew up with those games. If I were to fill an arcade in the local mall with game machines that were popular in 1980, and none of the games of today, I might as well just light my cash on fire. People play old games because they grew up with them. If you give a young "new" gamer 10-14 an atari 2600 to play now, you would be laughed out of the living room. You are correct that gameplay IS important. But if you have NEVER experienced the "WOW" that you got when the 2600 was new, you will NEVER feel it now.

Yet the games are still sold in mass-market retail outlets everywhere. These games are still in machine form or sold in special collections for high-end consoles. They are still being produced in coin operated arcade machine format to be mixed in with the new games. Are all these companies “lighting their cash on fire”? I’d wager the companies selling them aren’t so foolish and there’s a market buying them that’s large enough to merit them sold at so many big box retailers. I’d wager they’re not just bought by a small niche market of old hardcore gamers looking for a bit of nostalgia.

Who are you to speak for everyone? This is conjecture on your part. Maybe graphics are not as important for you, but for others it is paramount. This is a TOMATO, TA-MA-TOE arguement. And the Wii has potential to have better gameplay? Sure it does. As does the 360, or PS3. And all things being equal, if all have the same gameplay, graphics trump less quality graphics.

I never said graphics aren’t important. If the Wii had graphics no better than a Pac Man game it wouldn’t sell.

You say if games have equal gameplay, the one with better graphics will sell better.

I’m saying if gameplay is UNEQUAL, the game that’s considered more fun will sell better – even if the graphics are not as good.

I am saying Nintendo is more focused on gameplay than Microsoft or Sony. I am saying the Wii’s advertised graphics are not alarmingly bad to h majority of gamers.

This does, of course, begin with the assumption that the Xbox 360 does infact have superior graphics – a position I’m willing to go along with on. But it may not even be true. Consider some of the recent news on the Wii such as:

“NEC has revealed that Nintendo Wii will use the same NEC eDRAM for its graphics processing, which powers the Xbox 360 as well.

With 10MB of fast RAM embedded in the graphics chip, the NEX eDRAM allows enough buffer space for anti-aliasing to be added to graphics ‘for free’.

The same technology is used in Xenos, the graphics chip for the Xbox 360, and Wii is following Xbox 360 footsteps by including it in their ‘Hollywood’ graphics chip. Note that both graphics chips are developed by ATI.

Whilst some have been speculating that the Wii will lack the visual quality of the Xbox 360 and the PS3, this latest announcement seems to suggest that Nintendo is serious about graphics.

What’s slightly odd is that the Wii is rumoured to lack high-definition outputs, which is really where anti-aliasing is needed - AA on standard definition isn’t really a good use of hardware. Could this mean the eDRAM is being used for something else?

Games journalists at E3 were generally underwhelmed with the Wii’s graphics, but this is because Nintendo had the games running on Revolution-ised Gamecubes with the Wiimote attachment.”

And:

“According to our source the Nintendo Wii will be visually on par with the Xbox 360 and may even exceed it slightly. This “mole” also says that the Wii will not be comparable with Playstation 3, which will be a vastly technically superior machine. The Wii has no HD capabilities but it connects to a computer monitor, the informer says this means something…”

Whether you believe the implications of these reports or not, I’d say Nintendo appears to have learned from past mistakes and made some wise choices on what to emphasize in terms of console features and target market. These choices could make it a strong competitor.

That is NOT the point and you know it. It is impractical to carry around a flat panel TV, Power supply, XBOX 360 console, and controllers to play a game on the way to work, or to keep the kids quiet traveling. Quit trying to muddy the waters on your weak argument.

You are dodging the question asked. Again, compare apples to apples. Your example is like asking what car is better, the Porche 911, or the Dodge Caravan. Oh, looks like the caravan is WAY BETTER because it sold way more. If you compare similar systems the numbers are much closer:

DS has sold 22 million world wide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS Released 12-02-2004
Sony has sold 20.2 million world wide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_PSP Released 12-12-2004

In the HAND HELD game machine, the DS has sold approx 10% more. Keep in mind that its price is more than $100 cheaper as well. Now the advantage is a bit murkier.

I do not compare the DS to the PSP because the point was not to compare equivalent systems by different manufacturers. Nor am I attempting to imply an Xbox is worse than a DS. It was instead an illustration to the point that casual gamers have different expectations of their gaming machines (as you say “to play a game on the way to work, or to keep the kids quiet traveling”, to be “cheaper”, etc.) than hardcore gamers and, by the numbers, to show this group of people are the larger of the two target markets.

Again, conjecture. This is not true. People may not "research" as much as you or I, but there is some research in ANY purchase with the exception of the very small (IE, candy bar at gas station). It may not go to the depth of others, but there is some. Talking to friends, reading ad copy, playing it by rental, playing it at a friends house. There is much research that can be done without surfing the web or reading a magazine. You are fooling yourself if you think that kids don't talk about what games are coming out or who has what system. Go to a school sometime, (I sub teach) it is amazing how much kids in Jr High/High school talk about games. Just because YOU think a game is bad, doesn't make it so. If a game sells a million copies, someone must like it.

Granted your position as a substitute teacher affords you a unique insight into a portion of the potential market. But it’s not a good one to base your perception of the total buying public on. According to the Entertainment Software Association, 83 percent of the current buyers of console games are OVER the age of 18. Also, parents are involved when games are purchased, with players under the age of 18 saying their parents were present at the point-of-sale 89 percent of the time. These people are the ones who make the final buying decisions.

In actuality, the current average game player is 33 years old. But more interestingly, the average age of the most frequent game buyer is 40 years old. I never said this is a demographic that conducts no research in a casual fashion such as you mention above. I am saying this demographic consists primarily of casual gamers who will more likely NOT conduct the research needed to know that FN3 plays differently on different platforms, nor will they care enough if they did know it to consider buying another multi-hundred dollar console as a result.

Also, I never said a game that sells a million copies is bad. In today’s numbers, it’s quite good. But a single game selling a million copies, or even multiple games selling a million copies will not give any particular console dominance. Simply look at the first Xbox. I’m saying we’re about to be in another three-way battle and the Xbox 360 (or the PS3 or the Wii) will need at least one title (and preferably more than one) that sells in numbers much higher than a million if it is to establish a position of market dominance. This could be critical as the industry has never successfully had three system coexist.

Groundbeef

09-15-2006, 06:48 AM

I never said graphics aren’t important. If the Wii had graphics no better than a Pac Man game it wouldn’t sell.

You say if games have equal gameplay, the one with better graphics will sell better.

I’m saying if gameplay is UNEQUAL, the game that’s considered more fun will sell better – even if the graphics are not as good.

I am saying Nintendo is more focused on gameplay than Microsoft or Sony. I am saying the Wii’s advertised graphics are not alarmingly bad to h majority of gamers.

I think we are in agreement on this point. If gamplay is UNEQUAL, then most likely the better playing game will sell more. This kinda works against Nintendo though. Because of the large stable of in house games, many gamers may not try the Wii. If Madden is Madden across the lines, I think that they will go to the better machine. They must have better gameplay in their exclusive titles to draw new customers in.

This does, of course, begin with the assumption that the Xbox 360 does infact have superior graphics – a position I’m willing to go along with on. But it may not even be true. Consider some of the recent news on the Wii such as:

“NEC has revealed that Nintendo Wii will use the same NEC eDRAM for its graphics processing, which powers the Xbox 360 as well.

With 10MB of fast RAM embedded in the graphics chip, the NEX eDRAM allows enough buffer space for anti-aliasing to be added to graphics ‘for free’.

The same technology is used in Xenos, the graphics chip for the Xbox 360, and Wii is following Xbox 360 footsteps by including it in their ‘Hollywood’ graphics chip. Note that both graphics chips are developed by ATI.

Whilst some have been speculating that the Wii will lack the visual quality of the Xbox 360 and the PS3, this latest announcement seems to suggest that Nintendo is serious about graphics.

What’s slightly odd is that the Wii is rumoured to lack high-definition outputs, which is really where anti-aliasing is needed - AA on standard definition isn’t really a good use of hardware. Could this mean the eDRAM is being used for something else?

Games journalists at E3 were generally underwhelmed with the Wii’s graphics, but this is because Nintendo had the games running on Revolution-ised Gamecubes with the Wiimote attachment.”

And:

“According to our source the Nintendo Wii will be visually on par with the Xbox 360 and may even exceed it slightly. This “mole” also says that the Wii will not be comparable with Playstation 3, which will be a vastly technically superior machine. The Wii has no HD capabilities but it connects to a computer monitor, the informer says this means something…”

I think that you must have pulled that article off of CNET. There a number of innacuracies cited to CNET and they were aware of complaints, but still let the article stand. I dug up some more info and have some links for you.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=24983058
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=24963332

This was suprising for a couple of reasons. It appears that they are comparing the Wii to the CURRENT gen XBOX, not the 360. So it looks like the Wii will be SLIGHTLY better than the original XBOX, but not as crisp as the 360. I think that HD and Flat Screen will really seperate the men from the boys on this one. On a SD tv with the yellow video cable, maybe not so much.

As far as graphics go, ATI is holding its purse strings tight. They are developing (developed) the chip for the Wii, but are not releasing details. Nintendo is also being tight lipped. If they are equal or better, I am not sure why they are not tooting that horn. Graphics cards alone will not produce better graphics though, and as a hardcore gamer (proclaimed-by yourself) even the BEST graphics card will scale down to the power of the CPU powering the whole machine. The 360 has 3 CPU running, the Wii has 1. So identical graphics boards would scale down.

Whether you believe the implications of these reports or not, I’d say Nintendo appears to have learned from past mistakes and made some wise choices on what to emphasize in terms of console features and target market. These choices could make it a strong competitor.

Currently they (Nintendo) is emphisizing the "revolutionairy" control features. Little else. No hard specs, no hard details on the actual hardware. Online capabilities are also very vauge and hard to pin down specifics. Why they are waiting so long to release is a bit of a mystery.

I do not compare the DS to the PSP because the point was not to compare equivalent systems by different manufacturers. Nor am I attempting to imply an Xbox is worse than a DS. It was instead an illustration to the point that casual gamers have different expectations of their gaming machines (as you say “to play a game on the way to work, or to keep the kids quiet traveling”, to be “cheaper”, etc.) than hardcore gamers and, by the numbers, to show this group of people are the larger of the two target markets.

You are the one with the confusion. Hardcore gamer or not, the DS is a PORTABLE option to game. Unless you are stating that ONLY casual gamers own a DS and Hardcore Gamers lug the 360 around top play? It is a different market (portable vs home based). You introduced portable gaming into the mix, not me. So compare markets that compete, not complement each other.

Granted your position as a substitute teacher affords you a unique insight into a portion of the potential market. But it’s not a good one to base your perception of the total buying public on. According to the Entertainment Software Association, 83 percent of the current buyers of console games are OVER the age of 18. Also, parents are involved when games are purchased, with players under the age of 18 saying their parents were present at the point-of-sale 89 percent of the time. These people are the ones who make the final buying decisions.

In actuality, the current average game player is 33 years old. But more interestingly, the average age of the most frequent game buyer is 40 years old. I never said this is a demographic that conducts no research in a casual fashion such as you mention above. I am saying this demographic consists primarily of casual gamers who will more likely NOT conduct the research needed to know that FN3 plays differently on different platforms, nor will they care enough if they did know it to consider buying another multi-hundred dollar console as a result.

Also, I never said a game that sells a million copies is bad. In today’s numbers, it’s quite good. But a single game selling a million copies, or even multiple games selling a million copies will not give any particular console dominance. Simply look at the first Xbox. I’m saying we’re about to be in another three-way battle and the Xbox 360 (or the PS3 or the Wii) will need at least one title (and preferably more than one) that sells in numbers much higher than a million if it is to establish a position of market dominance. This could be critical as the industry has never successfully had three system coexist.

Well, you are correct on the last paragraph. Interestingly though, it has only been touched on briefly, but I do wonder how online gameplay will affect the mix.

Although some readers of this section are averse to online gaming, I think that IT has the potential to make or break the next system as well. I do think that SONY and NINTENDO are making a HUGE mistake by not setting up standards and protocal like XBOX live. As a PC gamer, I am sure you are aware of what a headache it is to get a online game going if the server system sucks. LIVE has been rock solid and very easy to use.

Your thoughts?

Lensman

09-16-2006, 09:33 PM

I think we are in agreement on this point. If gamplay is UNEQUAL, then most likely the better playing game will sell more. This kinda works against Nintendo though. Because of the large stable of in house games, many gamers may not try the Wii. If Madden is Madden across the lines, I think that they will go to the better machine. They must have better gameplay in their exclusive titles to draw new customers in.

First, I'm not sure why you think Nintendo's house games would be a disadvantage to the Wii. Nintendo's titles are some of the most popular in history. Super Mario Bros for the NES is the official Guinness Book of World Records record holder for best-selling game, at over 40 million carts sold. The Mario series is the top-selling series, with over 200 million games sold in the series. If we discounted the original game because it was packaged with the NES (even though it was the killer app that sold the system), that's still 160 million sales of what you consider the same game over and over again. That's more than the total number of Playstation 2, Xbox, and Xbox 360 game systems combined.

Second, the game releases by Nintendo at launch are in the minority - only three. The other 13 titles are from third parties.

Thid, Madden is Madden across all lines except the Wii. The gameplay on the Wii is significantly different because the Wii controller's motion-sensitive capabilities are used for passing, kicking, juking, stiff arms, etc.

Fourth, Nintendo has gone totally for gameplay. That is the whole point of the unconventional controller. Nintendo considers gameplay of paramount importance and graphics of less importance. Sony considers graphics to be of paramount importance. This is why the PS3 has significantly better graphics than either the Wii or Xbox 360.

I think that you must have pulled that article off of CNET. There a number of innacuracies cited to CNET and they were aware of complaints, but still let the article stand. I dug up some more info and have some links for you.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=24983058
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=24963332

This was suprising for a couple of reasons. It appears that they are comparing the Wii to the CURRENT gen XBOX, not the 360. So it looks like the Wii will be SLIGHTLY better than the original XBOX, but not as crisp as the 360. I think that HD and Flat Screen will really seperate the men from the boys on this one. On a SD tv with the yellow video cable, maybe not so much.

As far as graphics go, ATI is holding its purse strings tight. They are developing (developed) the chip for the Wii, but are not releasing details. Nintendo is also being tight lipped. If they are equal or better, I am not sure why they are not tooting that horn. Graphics cards alone will not produce better graphics though, and as a hardcore gamer (proclaimed-by yourself) even the BEST graphics card will scale down to the power of the CPU powering the whole machine. The 360 has 3 CPU running, the Wii has 1. So identical graphics boards would scale down.

All of which I agree with you on. ATI is being very tight-lipped on the Wii's true graphics capabilities, only saying demos that have been seen are "only the tip of the iceberg." However, most industry analysts believe the Wii's graphics are only about 2X those of the Gamecube. I'm inclined to agree, especially considering the system is backwards compatible to the Gamecube. If you'll remember, this is what started our whole "importance of graphics vs. gameplay" argument.

Currently they (Nintendo) is emphisizing the "revolutionairy" control features. Little else. No hard specs, no hard details on the actual hardware. Online capabilities are also very vauge and hard to pin down specifics. Why they are waiting so long to release is a bit of a mystery.

I believe Nintendo is being so secretive about the inner workings because they don't want a lot of advance comparisons of Wii specs vs. competitors' specs overshadowing the way the system actually plays games. Think about how much fun Goldeneye was despite the N64's hardware specs. If you don't know the system is inferior in graphics capability, you can't start authoritatively panning the system because of it. I think it's part of a very carefully planned marketing strategy. Consider, while Nintendo doesn't talk about the main board, they have released a lot of information on the controller, so most speculation is on how the Wii plays in comparison to the competition. I think that's exactly what Nintendo wants.

You are the one with the confusion. Hardcore gamer or not, the DS is a PORTABLE option to game. Unless you are stating that ONLY casual gamers own a DS and Hardcore Gamers lug the 360 around top play? It is a different market (portable vs home based). You introduced portable gaming into the mix, not me. So compare markets that compete, not complement each other.

I'm not saying it's an either/or choice. I am saying more of what could be considered the casual or non-gaming mainstream buy portables like the DS. As you say, it is a different market. According to Nintendo, the market for game systems grew by 8% last year, but if sales of the DS were taken out, the market would have grown by only 2%. Nintendo says the DS made such a difference because 39% of the total number of DS systems sold were bought by traditional non-gamers (the ones playing stuff like Brain Age). The Wii is not Nintendo's attempt to convert Xbox and Playstation 2 owners. It is aimed at the nongaming mainstream that don't own either.

Well, you are correct on the last paragraph. Interestingly though, it has only been touched on briefly, but I do wonder how online gameplay will affect the mix.

Although some readers of this section are averse to online gaming, I think that IT has the potential to make or break the next system as well. I do think that SONY and NINTENDO are making a HUGE mistake by not setting up standards and protocal like XBOX live. As a PC gamer, I am sure you are aware of what a headache it is to get a online game going if the server system sucks. LIVE has been rock solid and very easy to use.

I think online gaming is pretty significant for hardcore gamers. I know most of the industry considers it a major revenue generator in the future and emphasis in the industry is being placed on converting a larger number of game sales to subscription-based services. I think Xbox Live has played a big factor in the success of the Xbox 360. I think this is an area where Microsoft's expertise surpasses Sony.

Nintendo appears to feel nongamers will be less interested in playing online against strange people they don't know than in downloading games to play themselves, and they could be right. From what I've seen of their online service, it's more like cable - download games to play, look at Internet sites, catch up on news and weather, etc. It's a much more casual, personal service.

Your thoughts?

I don't think the minor graphic innovations that have been made over the last few years are significant enough to make or break a system. And while the Wii's graphics aren't the best, I don't think the market Nintendo's after really cares. Currently only 5 million people on the planet know the Xbox 360 has superior graphics and decided to buy one since it was first released. Nintendo states it intends to sell 4 million inferior looking Wii systems in the 43 days from launch to December 31.

Graphics attracts hardcore gamers and the PS3's superior capabilities will likely do well with this audience. This will mean Microsoft and Sony are about to duke it out again. But Sony will have to sell to more than this audience if they're to succeed economically. One Japanese finance show recently predicted that by next year Sony will have lost $85 billion while Nintendo will make $1 billion in profit. With better price point, quality online service, more than a year advance into the market, and graphics that are inferior, but not significantly so, the odds may favor Microsoft in securing a decent portion of the market. The Wii is likely to do well with everyone else.

Groundbeef

09-17-2006, 10:59 AM

First, I'm not sure why you think Nintendo's house games would be a disadvantage to the Wii. Nintendo's titles are some of the most popular in history. Super Mario Bros for the NES is the official Guinness Book of World Records record holder for best-selling game, at over 40 million carts sold. The Mario series is the top-selling series, with over 200 million games sold in the series. If we discounted the original game because it was packaged with the NES (even though it was the killer app that sold the system), that's still 160 million sales of what you consider the same game over and over again. That's more than the total number of Playstation 2, Xbox, and Xbox 360 game systems combined.

Second, the game releases by Nintendo at launch are in the minority - only three. The other 13 titles are from third parties.
I am not saying that their inhouse games WILL be a detrimental to sales, but to pull in new gamers I think that they will need games that people outside of the Nintendo Circle will be aware of. I had no desire to play Goldeneye because there were hundreds of FPS for the PC (I played at the time) and it really didn't interest me enough to purchase a system. Why do you think it was such a coup that MS is getting GTA 4 the same time as PS3.

Thid, Madden is Madden across all lines except the Wii. The gameplay on the Wii is significantly different because the Wii controller's motion-sensitive capabilities are used for passing, kicking, juking, stiff arms, etc.
Is this speculation or do you have documentation on this?

Fourth, Nintendo has gone totally for gameplay. That is the whole point of the unconventional controller. Nintendo considers gameplay of paramount importance and graphics of less importance. Sony considers graphics to be of paramount importance. This is why the PS3 has significantly better graphics than either the Wii or Xbox 360.
Cough...Cough....do you have documentation on the PS3 VS 360? And the page of the PS3 Cheerleaders handbook you quoted the above from doesn't count. From all other legit readings on the 'net the PS3 has either a small advantage or small disadvantage depending upon the readings. Nowhere has "Significant" been used in describing the advantage/disadvantage of either system. Screen shots from E3 are not to be used as SONY only used PRE-rendered CGI cutscenes, and didn't actually have the PS3 pushing polygons in the demos. Also, no games are to be released, or are currently being programed for the 1080P resolution. So, infact the HD quaility of the 360/PS3 should be about the same. Keep in mind you are paying for the Blu-Ray, not some app killing graphics card in the PS3.

All of which I agree with you on. ATI is being very tight-lipped on the Wii's true graphics capabilities, only saying demos that have been seen are "only the tip of the iceberg." However, most industry analysts believe the Wii's graphics are only about 2X those of the Gamecube. I'm inclined to agree, especially considering the system is backwards compatible to the Gamecube. If you'll remember, this is what started our whole "importance of graphics vs. gameplay" argument.

I believe Nintendo is being so secretive about the inner workings because they don't want a lot of advance comparisons of Wii specs vs. competitors' specs overshadowing the way the system actually plays games. Think about how much fun Goldeneye was despite the N64's hardware specs. If you don't know the system is inferior in graphics capability, you can't start authoritatively panning the system because of it. I think it's part of a very carefully planned marketing strategy. Consider, while Nintendo doesn't talk about the main board, they have released a lot of information on the controller, so most speculation is on how the Wii plays in comparison to the competition. I think that's exactly what Nintendo wants.
Or the controller is smoke and mirrors. Again, if people do not like it, or it doesn't work as proposed, the console will go down the drain.

I think online gaming is pretty significant for hardcore gamers. I know most of the industry considers it a major revenue generator in the future and emphasis in the industry is being placed on converting a larger number of game sales to subscription-based services. I think Xbox Live has played a big factor in the success of the Xbox 360. I think this is an area where Microsoft's expertise surpasses Sony.

Nintendo appears to feel nongamers will be less interested in playing online against strange people they don't know than in downloading games to play themselves, and they could be right. From what I've seen of their online service, it's more like cable - download games to play, look at Internet sites, catch up on news and weather, etc. It's a much more casual, personal service.

The plans for online gaming go FAR beyond online-head to head competitions. MS and SONY are setting up the consoles to be in-living room entertainment centers. I can pull movies off my basement computer and play them upstairs in HD quality. MS is also working on a deal w/DirectTV for d/l HD movies off the sats. This is not for "Hardcore" games. This is for parents who have kids, but want to use the system for other uses.

In fact Logitech makes a remote for the 360 that is AWESOME. It controls the console as well as every other gadget in the living room. Makes watching server based movies a snap. This goes well beyond gaming. I think that MS will power the way on this section, and leave SONY and Nintendo in the dirt.

I don't think the minor graphic innovations that have been made over the last few years are significant enough to make or break a system. And while the Wii's graphics aren't the best, I don't think the market Nintendo's after really cares. Currently only 5 million people on the planet know the Xbox 360 has superior graphics and decided to buy one since it was first released. Nintendo states it intends to sell 4 million inferior looking Wii systems in the 43 days from launch to December 31.

Graphics attracts hardcore gamers and the PS3's superior capabilities will likely do well with this audience. This will mean Microsoft and Sony are about to duke it out again. But Sony will have to sell to more than this audience if they're to succeed economically. One Japanese finance show recently predicted that by next year Sony will have lost $85 billion while Nintendo will make $1 billion in profit. With better price point, quality online service, more than a year advance into the market, and graphics that are inferior, but not significantly so, the odds may favor Microsoft in securing a decent portion of the market. The Wii is likely to do well with everyone else.

MINOR graphics innovations? Are you kidding? This is not a graphics vs gameplay issue. Go back to the PS1 and now look at a 360/PS3. Minor is not even close to what type of revolution in graphics there has been.

Also, as one poster put up this discussion has been hilarious. Here is a clip that is hilarious. There is no porn, or other bad stuff, but listen to the words....it is FUNNY.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1329362959167995041&q=tripod

Lensman

09-17-2006, 01:41 PM

I am not saying that their inhouse games WILL be a detrimental to sales, but to pull in new gamers I think that they will need games that people outside of the Nintendo Circle will be aware of. I had no desire to play Goldeneye because there were hundreds of FPS for the PC (I played at the time) and it really didn't interest me enough to purchase a system. Why do you think it was such a coup that MS is getting GTA 4 the same time as PS3.

For new types of games, the Japanese companies have a significant edge over US developers. Where's Microsoft's answer to DDR or PaRappa the Rapper? How about Brain Age? Does the Xbox have titles like that? I don't think Nintendo (or Sony) will have a problem here. As for the "Nintendo Circle" thing, if you look at the titles announced for the Wii, you'll see it has all the same non-kid oriented categories of games all other systems have.

Is this speculation or do you have documentation on this?

In an interview with IGN, John Schappert, EA's senior VP and group studio general manager, had this to say:

"Well first, it's a separate code base altogether. The great thing is that we have a long-standing heritage of excellent Madden games. We've got great Madden code that plays a great game of football and has a lot of depth. So we can take from that and make sure we're not spending our time saying, "Hey, let's make sure defense is great." We've got a lot to rely on. So our focus has been, how do we make this unique for Wii? How is this game going to be seen as innovative and, if you will, a Wii original? That's what we focused on.

When you first play it, it's completely different. When you go to hike the ball, for instance, as opposed to pressing a button you simply jerk the controller up. Boom, you snap the ball. When you want to pass the ball, you gesture a throwing motion while holding the button down to the intended receiver. When you want to stiff-arm left or right, you juke with the nunchuck controller literally. When you want to kick, you gesture the kick motion.

It's not like we said, "Oh, here's a different controller, how can we kind of finagle Madden on it?" It was, "Hey, here's a completely unique controller that we've never seen before. What's the best way to play Madden on this machine?""

Cough...Cough....do you have documentation on the PS3 VS 360? And the page of the PS3 Cheerleaders handbook you quoted the above from doesn't count. From all other legit readings on the 'net the PS3 has either a small advantage or small disadvantage depending upon the readings. Nowhere has "Significant" been used in describing the advantage/disadvantage of either system. Screen shots from E3 are not to be used as SONY only used PRE-rendered CGI cutscenes, and didn't actually have the PS3 pushing polygons in the demos. Also, no games are to be released, or are currently being programed for the 1080P resolution. So, infact the HD quaility of the 360/PS3 should be about the same. Keep in mind you are paying for the Blu-Ray, not some app killing graphics card in the PS3.

As for demos, since all games so far are written in conventional single-threaded code, neither machine is currently making true use of their multi-core processors. Current comparisons place them about about equal with each other, and games on well equipped PCs are still better than either one. This will change as multi-threaded game engines are predicted to be more widely available by the end of next year. Still, many analysts consider Sony's cell processor with its seven Synergistic Processing Elements to have more potential than the Xbox's three conventional CPU cores, especially in it's ability to accelerate heavy physics calculations - making movement and collision physics much more realistic. That said, the cell processor is also much more difficult to program for. So there's no telling when a PS3 might actually look better than an Xbox game.

But no HD games on the PS3? Not right now, perhaps. But not never. The PS3's Nvidia RSX GPU does support 1080p while the Xbox 360 is hardware limited to 720p. And this is not merely to play Blu-Ray discs and CGI cut scenes. Though the RSX may be little more than an overclocked 7800 GTX, Doom 3 is able to run at 2048x1536 at almost 70fps on the 7800 GTX. At it's clock speed of 550MHz, the RSX GPU should have no problems handling both 720p and 1080p resolutions for games.

Or the controller is smoke and mirrors. Again, if people do not like it, or it doesn't work as proposed, the console will go down the drain.

A gamble on whether the masses will like it? Yes. Smoke and mirrors? I think industry heads like John Schappert disagree with you.

The plans for online gaming go FAR beyond online-head to head competitions. MS and SONY are setting up the consoles to be in-living room entertainment centers. I can pull movies off my basement computer and play them upstairs in HD quality. MS is also working on a deal w/DirectTV for d/l HD movies off the sats. This is not for "Hardcore" games. This is for parents who have kids, but want to use the system for other uses.

In fact Logitech makes a remote for the 360 that is AWESOME. It controls the console as well as every other gadget in the living room. Makes watching server based movies a snap. This goes well beyond gaming. I think that MS will power the way on this section, and leave SONY and Nintendo in the dirt.

Yes, the "subscription-based services" I mentioned earlier. Microsoft has a "let me do it all for you" approach. Nintendo has a less intrusive "I can make a few things convenient for you, if you like." approach. Sony is trying a variation of the Microsoft approach. Again, I think it's an either/or between Sony and Microsoft and I think Microsoft has the edge here. I also think Nintendo's not competing in the same field.

MINOR graphics innovations? Are you kidding? This is not a graphics vs gameplay issue. Go back to the PS1 and now look at a 360/PS3. Minor is not even close to what type of revolution in graphics there has been.

Yes, MINOR. The graphics look better. They do not do anything "revolutionary." Better speed and higher resolution are not innovations. What can the hardware do today that it could not do slower and at lower resolution before? There's not a night-and-day amount of difference between an Xbox (remember the Wii's likely to be about equal to this) and the Xbox 360. Still waiting for you to look at the screenshots I've posted which are much more extreme.

Also, as one poster put up this discussion has been hilarious. Here is a clip that is hilarious. There is no porn, or other bad stuff, but listen to the words....it is FUNNY.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1329362959167995041&q=tripod

That's definitely funny. Have you seen the Coke commercial spoofing GTA that's circulating through movie theaters nationwide right now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_uEMwDFnOU&eurl=

Groundbeef

09-17-2006, 03:58 PM

In an interview with IGN, John Schappert, EA's senior VP and group studio general manager, had this to say:

"Well first, it's a separate code base altogether. The great thing is that we have a long-standing heritage of excellent Madden games. We've got great Madden code that plays a great game of football and has a lot of depth. So we can take from that and make sure we're not spending our time saying, "Hey, let's make sure defense is great." We've got a lot to rely on. So our focus has been, how do we make this unique for Wii? How is this game going to be seen as innovative and, if you will, a Wii original? That's what we focused on.

When you first play it, it's completely different. When you go to hike the ball, for instance, as opposed to pressing a button you simply jerk the controller up. Boom, you snap the ball. When you want to pass the ball, you gesture a throwing motion while holding the button down to the intended receiver. When you want to stiff-arm left or right, you juke with the nunchuck controller literally. When you want to kick, you gesture the kick motion.

It's not like we said, "Oh, here's a different controller, how can we kind of finagle Madden on it?" It was, "Hey, here's a completely unique controller that we've never seen before. What's the best way to play Madden on this machine?""

As to my point earlier w/regards to FN3. You stipulated that it is the same game...its not. Its coded differently, and will no doubt play differently. As far as the controller is concerned for the Wii, I am not sure if that will be an advantage. I DONT want to simulate a full game for 4 quarters, I want to push a button to pass etc. But your milage may vary. But the point is, that games are programmed differently for different consoles. And if consumers are as you stated "non-hardcore" gamers, I think that graphics will TRUMP a control setup.

As for demos, since all games so far are written in conventional single-threaded code, neither machine is currently making true use of their multi-core processors. Current comparisons place them about about equal with each other, and games on well equipped PCs are still better than either one. This will change as multi-threaded game engines are predicted to be more widely available by the end of next year. Still, many analysts consider Sony's cell processor with its seven Synergistic Processing Elements to have more potential than the Xbox's three conventional CPU cores, especially in it's ability to accelerate heavy physics calculations - making movement and collision physics much more realistic. That said, the cell processor is also much more difficult to program for. So there's no telling when a PS3 might actually look better than an Xbox game.

But no HD games on the PS3? Not right now, perhaps. But not never. The PS3's Nvidia RSX GPU does support 1080p while the Xbox 360 is hardware limited to 720p. And this is not merely to play Blu-Ray discs and CGI cut scenes. Though the RSX may be little more than an overclocked 7800 GTX, Doom 3 is able to run at 2048x1536 at almost 70fps on the 7800 GTX. At it's clock speed of 550MHz, the RSX GPU should have no problems handling both 720p and 1080p resolutions for games.

All indications are that games WILL NOT be coded for 1080p resolution. This is one reason that SONY is not putting a HDMI cable in the $599 package. The official statement is that games are not coming out in 1080p and none are in the works. Does this mean NEVER? I cannot say for sure. But in the intrim, graphics are going to be equal between them. As far as clock speed, the 360 runs @ 500mhz, vs 550mhz for the Sony. Developers are complaining about the techinical difficulties for programming for the "Cell" chip as well. I think that MS will have an edge here. 1080p gaming just doesnt seem to be in the cards right now.

Yes, the "subscription-based services" I mentioned earlier. Microsoft has a "let me do it all for you" approach. Nintendo has a less intrusive "I can make a few things convenient for you, if you like." approach. Sony is trying a variation of the Microsoft approach. Again, I think it's an either/or between Sony and Microsoft and I think Microsoft has the edge here. I also think Nintendo's not competing in the same field.
I agree.

Yes, MINOR. The graphics look better. They do not do anything "revolutionary." Better speed and higher resolution are not innovations. What can the hardware do today that it could not do slower and at lower resolution before? There's not a night-and-day amount of difference between an Xbox (remember the Wii's likely to be about equal to this) and the Xbox 360. Still waiting for you to look at the screenshots I've posted which are much more extreme.

Its not just what you see, but what goes on behind the images as well. MOST AI has gotten better due to increase in horsepower, as well as tighter programming.

That's definitely funny. Have you seen the Coke commercial spoofing GTA that's circulating through movie theaters nationwide right now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_uEMwDFnOU&eurl=
Thanks for the link.

Please post your picture link...I cannot find what you were talking about, and I would like to see them. Please post the hyperlink again! Thanks

Lensman

09-18-2006, 03:51 PM

As to my point earlier w/regards to FN3. You stipulated that it is the same game...its not. Its coded differently, and will no doubt play differently. As far as the controller is concerned for the Wii, I am not sure if that will be an advantage. I DONT want to simulate a full game for 4 quarters, I want to push a button to pass etc. But your milage may vary. But the point is, that games are programmed differently for different consoles. And if consumers are as you stated "non-hardcore" gamers, I think that graphics will TRUMP a control setup.

You may not like the Wii’s control system, but I don’t think most gamers will subscribe to your view that pressing buttons is the most fun one can have. Controllers have always played a big part in the success of game machines. Missile Command just isn’t the same without the track ball. Sony changed gaming enough with its addition of analog sticks and different way of holding the controller that Microsoft followed in their path. Today, a lot of casual gamers like DDR because they can dance to play it instead of pressing a few buttons.

If I was a guy who liked to get with friends for a little flag football, I’d much more interested in a football game where I could make passing and strong arm motions to play than I would be to press a few buttons. If I was a housewife who liked to bowl, I’d much rather be able to stand up and bowl than I would to sit and press a few buttons. If I was a business executive who loves golf, I’d much rather stand and putt to play a golf game just like I did in my office than I would to press a few buttons. Heck, as a hardcore gamer, I’ve always preferred to hold a steering wheel to drive than press a few buttons, and I’ve always preferred a joystick to fly a plane to pressing a few buttons. So I can’t help but be intrigued by the idea that I could hold the controller like the handle of a sword and thrust and parry instead of pressing a few buttons like I have to now. The Wii's controller allows for all of that.

As for graphics…

All indications are that games WILL NOT be coded for 1080p resolution. This is one reason that SONY is not putting a HDMI cable in the $599 package. The official statement is that games are not coming out in 1080p and none are in the works. Does this mean NEVER? I cannot say for sure. But in the intrim, graphics are going to be equal between them. As far as clock speed, the 360 runs @ 500mhz, vs 550mhz for the Sony. Developers are complaining about the techinical difficulties for programming for the "Cell" chip as well. I think that MS will have an edge here. 1080p gaming just doesnt seem to be in the cards right now.

Reports are that no games currently in development for the PS3 are 1080p – not that games for the system will never be 1080p. That doesn’t change the fact that the hardware can do it. The hardware for the Xbox 360 cannot. Games for the PS3 in 1080p may not be in the cards right now. Games in 1080p for the Xbox 360 will never be.

Sony’s seven dedicated processor core is more capable of handling complex real-world physics and motion calculations than the Xbox 360’s three general PC CPU core. It is also generally considered to be more difficult to program. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done or that game companies won’t do it.

All PS3 games will be released on Blu-Ray discs, giving game developers 50 gigs of space to work with. This allows much more room for high-quality pre-rendered CGI for cut scenes, backgrounds, etc. than is available for the Xbox 360. Programmers may not use it, but the space is available on the PS3. It is not on the Xbox 360.

All point to the PS3 having the potential to be the superior graphics platform. Whether the PS3 achieves any of it doesn’t change the fact that the Xbox 360 does not have the same potential, period. Will this make the PS3 the superior platform? Only if you believe graphics TRUMPS gameplay.

I'm not part of that camp. So when you tell me:

Its not just what you see, but what goes on behind the images as well. MOST AI has gotten better due to increase in horsepower, as well as tighter programming.

I'll say that's what I’ve been telling you over and over again. People are going to buy the system they think is the most fun to play – not the one with the best graphics. The Xbox had graphics that were superior to the PS2. The PS2 sold 106 million units. The Xbox sold 24 million. If graphics was so overwhelmingly important, the Xbox should have done much better. The PS2 did better because it was perceived as being the system that was the most fun. This had a good bit more to do with the variety of games available for it than it did with how the games looked on it. The steep price of the Xbox didn’t help things either.

This, not the graphics, is why I think the Xbox 360 has a good chance of dong well. It's also why I think can Wii will do well too.

Please post your picture link...I cannot find what you were talking about, and I would like to see them. Please post the hyperlink again! Thanks

I’ll post links when I get home.

Groundbeef

09-18-2006, 05:53 PM

Reports are that no games currently in development for the PS3 are 1080p – not that games for the system will never be 1080p. That doesn’t change the fact that the hardware can do it. The hardware for the Xbox 360 cannot. Games for the PS3 in 1080p may not be in the cards right now. Games in 1080p for the Xbox 360 will never be.

Sony’s seven dedicated processor core is more capable of handling complex real-world physics and motion calculations than the Xbox 360’s three general PC CPU core. It is also generally considered to be more difficult to program. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done or that game companies won’t do it.

All PS3 games will be released on Blu-Ray discs, giving game developers 50 gigs of space to work with. This allows much more room for high-quality pre-rendered CGI for cut scenes, backgrounds, etc. than is available for the Xbox 360. Programmers may not use it, but the space is available on the PS3. It is not on the Xbox 360.

All point to the PS3 having the potential to be the superior graphics platform. Whether the PS3 achieves any of it doesn’t change the fact that the Xbox 360 does not have the same potential, period. Will this make the PS3 the superior platform? Only if you believe graphics TRUMPS gameplay.

Actually, there may never be games 1080p for the PS3. It appears that the budget system doesn't have the HDMI out (and it cannot be added later). I suppose that they could release the games for both systems. However, just because the PS3 has the space to use, it remains to be seen if they can use it, or will it just be a repeat of when CDroms came out. Remember how much crap developers put on the disc just because they had room?

Also, don't forget that the blu-ray drive is ONLY a 2X drive. Can't be having gamers sit for 2 minutes while the next scene loads up.

As far as capacity goes, yes the PS3 can hold more. Currently games are not hitting capacity of the DVD platform. When and if they do, then I guess multiple discs may be in order. As you state, if the gameplay is superior, it really shouldn't matter if you need to switch discs once during play right?

I'm not part of that camp. So when you tell me:

?

I'll say that's what I’ve been telling you over and over again. People are going to buy the system they think is the most fun to play – not the one with the best graphics. The Xbox had graphics that were superior to the PS2. The PS2 sold 106 million units. The Xbox sold 24 million. If graphics was so overwhelmingly important, the Xbox should have done much better. The PS2 did better because it was perceived as being the system that was the most fun. This had a good bit more to do with the variety of games available for it than it did with how the games looked on it. The steep price of the Xbox didn’t help things either.

This, not the graphics, is why I think the Xbox 360 has a good chance of dong well. It's also why I think can Wii will do well too.

I’ll post links when I get home.

Well, if steep price doesn't help, then the PS3 has got an uphill climb. Just for grins, last week CompUSA was running fully loaded 360's for $350 (had a $50 rebate). I can only think that MS may consider a price drop right before Nov 17. That would be beautiful!

Lensman

09-19-2006, 02:37 PM

Actually, there may never be games 1080p for the PS3. It appears that the budget system doesn't have the HDMI out (and it cannot be added later). I suppose that they could release the games for both systems. However, just because the PS3 has the space to use, it remains to be seen if they can use it, or will it just be a repeat of when CDroms came out. Remember how much crap developers put on the disc just because they had room?

Also, don't forget that the blu-ray drive is ONLY a 2X drive. Can't be having gamers sit for 2 minutes while the next scene loads up.

As far as capacity goes, yes the PS3 can hold more. Currently games are not hitting capacity of the DVD platform. When and if they do, then I guess multiple discs may be in order. As you state, if the gameplay is superior, it really shouldn't matter if you need to switch discs once during play right?

The lack of HDMI port on the $500 PS3 is indeed troubling – but only for watching Blu-Ray movies in HD because of the loss of HDCP. The unit still has a component video connection can do the full HD spec. Personally, I think it’s a poor sales tactic on the part of Sony, but it won’t affect how developers create games.

As for the drive, load times have always been an issue with any console since they moved away from carts. Game developers will certainly have to be careful with how they use it, but the capacity is still there. As far as whether the extra space will be filled up with crap, that’s in the hands of the game developers – just as it’s always been. Microsoft is no less prone to this.

And yes, I’d gladly switch out discs if the game was compelling just as did with Final Fantasy. If someone comes out with a killer app for the Xbox 360, no one’s going to make an issue of swapping discs.

?

I don’t think graphics are the end-all be-all of gaming. Processors have gotten faster, Graphics has gotten better. And games? Well, games are about the same. For example, there are cool-looking new driving games. But I’ve played driving games before. Many, many times. On many different systems. And I’ve played flight sims, and fighting games, and platformers, and RPGs, and first-person shooters, etc., etc, ad infinitum.

Oh I’m sure Halo 3 will look great. But I played the first FPS, Wolfenstein, when it came out. I played Doom and Duke Nukem and marveled at how they perfected the concept. I enjoyed how Quake’s multiplayer added a fun new way to play. I loved FPS games, and I kept playing them. But everything else that’s ever been released has been little more than some a variation of these. I still play them and they kill time acceptably well, but they don’t excite me anymore.

I may not have played some of the exact same games you have. But I’ve had every experience. I’m done with playing the same stuff over and over again. This is more the fault of software developers than hardware manufacturers. But I want something new. I want something different. That’s why I’m so interested in the Wii’s control system. Nintendo’s got something that’ll push game developers to do different things. Plus the Wii’s control system is intuitive: use the same motions you would in real life. That’s why I think it’ll resonate with the masses. Because the method of game control isn’t like any that’s come before it, I think people will be excited by it.

So the graphics are a bit worse? So what? Since you can’t see the images I included previously, click on this to see Madden 99:

http://www.xbox-modchips.com/img/sony-psx-madden-nfl-99-screenshot-big.jpg

Now take a look at Madden 07:

http://www.cheatcc.com/imageswii/madden07_00.jpg

Eight years of graphics development has gone by. Think 07 with a standard controller’s going to give me a football experience like nothing I’ve ever experienced before?

Well, if steep price doesn't help, then the PS3 has got an uphill climb. Just for grins, last week CompUSA was running fully loaded 360's for $350 (had a $50 rebate). I can only think that MS may consider a price drop right before Nov 17. That would be beautiful!

Six hundred dollars is a lot of money for a product relying on mass market sales. It’ll still sell, but getting it to sell in the quantities needed is the biggest hurdle Sony faces. According to Merrill Lynch figures, every PS3 sold at launch will be costing Sony $900. This comes on the heels of the $2 billion they paid for development of the cell processor. As you gleefully point out, a price drop by Microsoft before launch of the PS3 could cost Sony dearly. But the chances of Microsoft doing it is remote because they are in the same boat. In addition to the staggering $4 billion loss from their first Xbox, Microsoft continues to lose money on the Xbox 360. Microsoft’s Home and Entertainment division lost $414 million just last quarter. Microsoft has gone so far as to officially state they won’t do a price drop in advance of Sony’s launch (although they don’t rule out doing some kind of special holiday bundle).

Still, this compares starkly with Nintendo, who has consistently turned a profit on their gaming hardware because they’ve never made a decision to lose money selling high-powered units below cost in order to make it back with game sales and third-party license fees. While it may be easy to dismiss them as a has-been kiddie gaming company, it’s important to remember they’re the only console game company from the old guard that’s still around. Former powerhouses Coleco, Atari and Sega are gone.