How rapidly? About every six years or so (playstation1/2/3 shipped in 1994, 2002, 2006).
If that pace is maintained, PS4 in 2012.
PS1 sold 102 million. PS2 sold 120 million (and counting). So far Wii has only hit 20 million, typically sales ramp up over the lifetime of a console as prices drop and the game library gets bigger.
Do you honestly think that only 1.5 years after release, and with the top console only at 20 million, AND with bluray winning the HD battle, there's no way for PS3 to catch up over the next FOUR YEARS?
Really?
As a gaming console? Possibly. They have a very good chance. You know where I think that Sony needs to focus on? Their online community. If they pull off something as fun as XBox Live they certainly can catch up. Online play is really what makes gaming fun. And you can definitely pull that off relatively quickly. Like I said, gamers would have no problems buying both. (Except for those seriously afflicted by fanboyism). But I'll say it again, if Sony gets their online community to boom like XBox Live it would be a homerun for them.
I don't think Blu Ray will make a significant impression as far as how games will be developed though. Developers will be smart enough to make games that run well enough on as many platforms as possible to make as much of a profit as possible. Also, please do some net searches on just how good games are looking on both consoles right now. There are actually many games that look better on XBox 360s when in theory the console has less potential. Why? Because the limits of even the XBox 360 haven't been reached as far as game development. So the marketing hype of Blu Ray for games is premature at this point.
Please don't think that I am saying that a PS3 is a piss poor console. It is a great gaming console. It's just that if you have to buy one or the other as a gamer you have to go with an Xbox360 right now for more options and better game selections (and sometimes even better game performance).
On a side note, I also get a chuckle out of people boasting how Wii will take over the gaming world and render all other systems obsolete. Has anybody who is saying this actually played a game on a Wii? Wii's are a whole other genre of games. They are simple games similar to what you would play on a cell phone but with body movements thrown in. Great fun at parties but not what serious gamers would buy as their sole system. Wii buyers for the most part are parents buying for their kids, or Xbox 360 and PS3 owners buying a second console or people buying them for the novelty factor. The latter being a group that would not consider buying either a PS3 or an XBox 360. I especially like how the Wii is being used with stroke patiients and at retirement communities. The movement offers a lot more to them than any ordinary console could.
The PS3 will likely outsell the 360 in 2008 worldwide sales. The interesting questions are, by how much? And can it catch the Wii?
Yes but there's no doubt the sales will be coming more from it's capabilities as a Blu Ray player more than as a gaming console. As new Blu Ray players hit the market those numbers will slow down. You then have to look at the overall numbers of new games being purchased by PS3 owners compared to the numbers purchased by XBox360 owners to say how significant it is as a gaming console. It is those numbers that will decide just how much extra attention game developers will be willing to give to PS3 game development. That then will determine just how important it will become as a gaming console.
Quote:
I think we're in for one helluva three-way console war, and it won't be resolved any time soon.
There are actually many games that look better on XBox 360s when in theory the console has less potential. Why? Because the limits of even the XBox 360 haven't been reached as far as game development.
Actually, that's an argument that the 360 HAS reached its potential, or near, as far as how good games can look on it. You have games that max out the 360 competing with PS3 titles that don't fully utilize the higher limits of the PS3.
Which makes sense, if you think about it... the 360, like the Xbox 1 before it, uses Direct X and is relatively easy/straightforward to program for. Which is why you saw stuff like Halo, an Xbox 1 launch game, be pretty close to the best-looking game that system ever saw. Halo 2 did not look significantly better, despite having a sky-high budget and many years of development time.
The PS3, on the other hand, is relatively new, difficult to program for, and we haven't really seen anything close to its limits yet. And we probably won't, until truly 'AAA' 1st-party titles like Gran Turismo 5 start hitting the shelves.
Quote:
On a side note, I also get a chuckle out of people boasting how Wii will take over the gaming world and render all other systems obsolete.
Oh, on the contrary, the Wii will never take over the hardcore gaming world... and it really isn't intended to.
What it is doing really well is to create and take over a new market which is potentially larger than the hardcore one... casual gamers and former non-gamers. I gotta hand it to Nintendo, I was skeptical that their strategy would work, but it has.
Yes but there's no doubt the sales will be coming more from it's capabilities as a Blu Ray player more than as a gaming console. As new Blu Ray players hit the market those numbers will slow down.
I don't know about that. New Blu-Ray players showing up won't really change the value equation of the PS3, which is either, "I want a good Blu-Ray player... oh and wow, with the PS3, I get that, plus a games console for free/cheap." Or, "I want a good console... oh and wow, with the PS3, I get that, plus a Blu-Ray player for free/cheap."
It's the same calculation I made back in spring '02 when I bought a PS2 for $199. DVD player prices back then were around $150, so I was getting that, plus a good console for just 50 bucks more... a LOT less than a Gamecube or Xbox at the time.
Quote:
That's great news for us.
Yeah, I agree. The intense competition is going to be VERY nice for gamers, in a lot of ways.
The only downside is possible 'balkanization' of many of the best games, since exclusives are so important now... but with the market likely to be split more or less evenly three ways long-term, its hard for a console maker to pay a developer enough to ignore the other two-thirds of the market, in most cases.
The only real way around that is to buy the developer itself outright... but that sometimes backfires, as much of the great talent tends to walk if the buy-out is sudden or somewhat hostile. Then you've ended up overpaying grossly for a name/brand, and little else, like MS did with Rare.
Which makes sense, if you think about it... the 360, like the Xbox 1 before it, uses Direct X and is relatively easy/straightforward to program for. Which is why you saw stuff like Halo, an Xbox 1 launch game, be pretty close to the best-looking game that system ever saw. Halo 2 did not look significantly better, despite having a sky-high budget and many years of development time.
PLEASE... I beg you not to use any Halo title as an example of great graphics. The last one especially looked so terrible compared to games like Gears Of War which were released PRIOR to Halo 3. I sold my copy of Halo 3 to GameStop. I think Bungie is highly overrated.
You want to look at good XBox 360 graphics you look at COD4 or Bioshock, Mass Effect and Orange Box. Not the Halo series.
The only downside is possible 'balkanization' of many of the best games, since exclusives are so important now... but with the market likely to be split more or less evenly three ways long-term, its hard for a console maker to pay a developer enough to ignore the other two-thirds of the market, in most cases.
The only real way around that is to buy the developer itself outright... but that sometimes backfires, as much of the great talent tends to walk if the buy-out is sudden or somewhat hostile. Then you've ended up overpaying grossly for a name/brand, and little else, like MS did with Rare.
.
I don't think that will happen too much. It is too expensive for console makers to do and game developers can make more of a profit selling to both consoles. Also, there is the "breathing down our necks factor" that happens to developers when making an exclusive game. It sure seems like it was no fun to be one of the Bungie crew making the last 2 Halos with MS constantly nagging about something and telling you to hurry the hell up. I don't think it was a coincidence that there was a Bungie exodus after Halo3 was released.
PLEASE... I beg you not to use any Halo title as an example of great graphics. The last one especially looked so terrible compared to games like Gears Of War which were released PRIOR to Halo 3. I sold my copy of Halo 3 to GameStop. I think Bungie is highly overrated.
And yet, a lot of ppl absolutely loved how Halo 1 and 2 looked. I'm sure if you had a poll on what the best-looking game on Xbox 1 was, Halo would win.
Your point on the 360 is well taken, but I was mainly referring to Halo 1 and 2 on the Xbox 1.
And yet, a lot of ppl absolutely loved how Halo 1 and 2 looked. I'm sure if you had a poll on what the best-looking game on Xbox 1 was, Halo would win.
Your point on the 360 is well taken, but I was mainly referring to Halo 1 and 2 on the Xbox 1.
I don't think that will happen too much. It is too expensive for console makers to do and game developers can make more of a profit selling to both consoles.
Also, there is the "breathing down our necks factor" that happens to developers when making an exclusive game. It sure seems like it was no fun to be one of the Bungie crew making the last 2 Halos with MS constantly nagging about something and telling you to hurry the hell up. I don't think it was a coincidence that there was a Bungie exodus after Halo3 was released.
Yep, that's what a bad publisher/owner does... it strangles the golden goose. You've GOT to treat your 1st-party studios well. \
But MS has been fumbling on many fronts of late, nothing much they do surprises me anymore.
But don't forget that exclusives are still with us. MS has been doing that with the 360 from the very beginning. If you've got a major hit on your hands, it could sell a lot of consoles, and lock people in for the foreseeable future.
Yep, exclusives still matter. But one big enough to be a true game-changer in the console wars usually only comes along once every few years. FF 7, GTA 3, and Halo are those games... three in the past 11 years. Before that... various flavors of Mario, maybe the first Sonic, kinda sorta. That's about it.
Right now, I don't see any single console game having that kind of impact, with the possible exception of a console exclusive of World of Warcraft-- and even then, only if it were done exceedingly well, i.e. was not crippled or watered down significantly.
My daughter has had two floor pads for DDR for years, replacing them as they wear out. That didn't come with the PS2, but are very popular, and new disks are still coming out.
There are definitely controllers that do well. But none have had the effect of boosting a platform across the board like the Wii has seen - a controller that people have embraced and is supported ALL games on the platform. A copycat from MS or Sony just wouldn't have the same effect on consumers.
As for exclusives, are there any killer exclusives for 360 on the horizon? They had some decent ones in the first couple years, but I haven't heard much going forward.
There are definitely controllers that do well. But none have had the effect of boosting a platform across the board like the Wii has seen - a controller that people have embraced and is supported ALL games on the platform. A copycat from MS or Sony just wouldn't have the same effect on consumers.
As for exclusives, are there any killer exclusives for 360 on the horizon? They had some decent ones in the first couple years, but I haven't heard much going forward.
The thing is that the Wii is biased towards a certain gamer. While many gamers in their 20's have bought into the platform, it's mostly intended for a younger (and much older) crowd.
The games my daughter, and her friends (including boys) play are not the games most other gamers on the 360, PS3, or PC play.
For Sony or MS to come out with a similar controller for the games that warrant it, would be enough. It doesn't have to be standard, as it must be on the Wii.
The Wii has nothing of value to a gamer right now EXCEPT for the controller. The Wii is really the previous generation game machine, gussied up with a slightly more powerful version of the same old processor, and a slightly more powerful version of the gpu. It has no HDD either.
It sells on price, and the controller, that's about it.
Neither the 360 or the PS3 need to have a controller like that to sell most of their games. Both do far more, with the PS3 being the most universal product of the three.
As to the exclusives, I don't really pay too much attention to that. But, it was the exclusives for the 360, and the lack of good exclusives for the PS3 when it first came out that determined the early directions of the consoles sales trajectories. That's changed for various reasons, but the concern for the 360 was that if it didn't have good exclusive games right out of the gate, people would wait for the PS3 instead of buying.
The fact that the PS3 didn't have much of the same when it did come out slowed adoption as much as the price.
For Sony or MS to come out with a similar controller for the games that warrant it, would be enough. It doesn't have to be standard, as it must be on the Wii.
I'm not sure what you mean by "enough". Sure, they could do a Wii ripoff, and sure, it would sell. But I don't think it would boost them, or cut into Wii sales much at all.
The Wii can't do everything the other platforms can. It won't capture the hardcore gamer market. But it doesn't need to - the potential audience of casual gamers is huge, and they're satisfied with what the Wii can do. PS3 will be successful with a different (and I think smaller) audience, but I don't think they have much shot at all at competing for casual gamers.
I'm not sure what you mean by "enough". Sure, they could do a Wii ripoff, and sure, it would sell. But I don't think it would boost them, or cut into Wii sales much at all.
The Wii can't do everything the other platforms can. It won't capture the hardcore gamer market. But it doesn't need to - the potential audience of casual gamers is huge, and they're satisfied with what the Wii can do. PS3 will be successful with a different (and I think smaller) audience, but I don't think they have much shot at all at competing for casual gamers.
Potentially it would. If Sony added a Wii like controller to do sports and other casual games then it could handle all the needs in one console (Blu-Ray + Casual party games + hardcore games). That reduces the value of owning a Wii except for Nintendo exclusives if you don't already own one.
But I'll say it again, if Sony gets their online community to boom like XBox Live it would be a homerun for them.
Home looks interesting. I wonder how much is ready in comparison to the trailer. There's been quite a bit of negativity but its hard to say if its from 360 zealots or if the service really is as borked as some claim.
It certainly has far greater potential than Live and some of the criticisms are just plain dumb.
I'm not sure what you mean by "enough". Sure, they could do a Wii ripoff, and sure, it would sell. But I don't think it would boost them, or cut into Wii sales much at all.
The Wii can't do everything the other platforms can. It won't capture the hardcore gamer market. But it doesn't need to - the potential audience of casual gamers is huge, and they're satisfied with what the Wii can do. PS3 will be successful with a different (and I think smaller) audience, but I don't think they have much shot at all at competing for casual gamers.
I wouldn't use the word rip-off, after all, the Wii controller is just a rip-off of the Gyro mouse, which itself is a rip-off of older models.
It's just a matter of advancing technology.
You might even say that the Wii controller is a rip-off of the IBM sensor that is in Mac portables, and has been used by some to control games by tilting the computer.
Where does it start?
And, by extension, every game machine is a rip-off of the Atari 2600.
I prefer to just hope that innovations get spread around. There's nothing unique about the technology in the Wii.
The Wii doesn't appeal to casual gamers either. Those are people like my wife, who plays Java and Flash games on her computer, that are available for free from numerous sites.
I've read articles that say that the PS3 will eventually be the number one console, though not by a huge amount. I tend to agree.
If Sony added a Wii like controller to do sports and other casual games then it could handle all the needs in one console (Blu-Ray + Casual party games + hardcore games).
Yes, but only if Sony could provide as many casual games as the Wii has. And I don't see that happening, mostly because of the chicken/egg thing.
Not to mention that many casual gamers don't care about hardcore games and just want a great casual gaming device at a low price).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
There's nothing unique about the technology in the Wii.
The technology doesn't need to be unique. The Wii just has the right games and the technology implemented in the right way. I didn't intend to use the term "rip-off" to disparage sony, I just was just talking about Sony trying to duplicate what the Wii does (and why it appeals to players).
[The Wii] sells on price, and the controller, that's about it.
It's not just that though. It also sells on the strength of Nintendo 1st-party exclusive games, which are among the biggest and longest-lasting franchises in the gaming world (Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros, etc).
I honestly don't see Wii sales starting to lag a lot until pretty late in the current console cycle, when 1) its price advantage will be eroded (as you say), and 2) the PS3 and 360 will have so many games that are both great and take full advantage of their greater graphical horsepower.
Potentially it would. If Sony added a Wii like controller to do sports and other casual games then it could handle all the needs in one console (Blu-Ray + Casual party games + hardcore games). That reduces the value of owning a Wii except for Nintendo exclusives if you don't already own one.
I guess it's easily forgotten, but the PS3 controller does have a gyro and accelerometer, which is much of the Wiimote functionality. It's required use for some games. If you have a PS3, download the Super Rub-A-Dub demo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
Yes, but only if Sony could provide as many casual games as the Wii has. And I don't see that happening, mostly because of the chicken/egg thing.
Not to mention that many casual gamers don't care about hardcore games and just want a great casual gaming device at a low price).
There are quite a few "casual" games available for download on the PS3, made just for the PS3. Most of them are very cheap, much cheaper than you will find of a packaged console game at a retail store.
Comments
How rapidly? About every six years or so (playstation1/2/3 shipped in 1994, 2002, 2006).
If that pace is maintained, PS4 in 2012.
PS1 sold 102 million. PS2 sold 120 million (and counting). So far Wii has only hit 20 million, typically sales ramp up over the lifetime of a console as prices drop and the game library gets bigger.
Do you honestly think that only 1.5 years after release, and with the top console only at 20 million, AND with bluray winning the HD battle, there's no way for PS3 to catch up over the next FOUR YEARS?
Really?
As a gaming console? Possibly. They have a very good chance. You know where I think that Sony needs to focus on? Their online community. If they pull off something as fun as XBox Live they certainly can catch up. Online play is really what makes gaming fun. And you can definitely pull that off relatively quickly. Like I said, gamers would have no problems buying both. (Except for those seriously afflicted by fanboyism). But I'll say it again, if Sony gets their online community to boom like XBox Live it would be a homerun for them.
I don't think Blu Ray will make a significant impression as far as how games will be developed though. Developers will be smart enough to make games that run well enough on as many platforms as possible to make as much of a profit as possible. Also, please do some net searches on just how good games are looking on both consoles right now. There are actually many games that look better on XBox 360s when in theory the console has less potential. Why? Because the limits of even the XBox 360 haven't been reached as far as game development. So the marketing hype of Blu Ray for games is premature at this point.
Please don't think that I am saying that a PS3 is a piss poor console. It is a great gaming console. It's just that if you have to buy one or the other as a gamer you have to go with an Xbox360 right now for more options and better game selections (and sometimes even better game performance).
On a side note, I also get a chuckle out of people boasting how Wii will take over the gaming world and render all other systems obsolete. Has anybody who is saying this actually played a game on a Wii? Wii's are a whole other genre of games. They are simple games similar to what you would play on a cell phone but with body movements thrown in. Great fun at parties but not what serious gamers would buy as their sole system. Wii buyers for the most part are parents buying for their kids, or Xbox 360 and PS3 owners buying a second console or people buying them for the novelty factor. The latter being a group that would not consider buying either a PS3 or an XBox 360. I especially like how the Wii is being used with stroke patiients and at retirement communities. The movement offers a lot more to them than any ordinary console could.
The PS3 will likely outsell the 360 in 2008 worldwide sales. The interesting questions are, by how much? And can it catch the Wii?
Yes but there's no doubt the sales will be coming more from it's capabilities as a Blu Ray player more than as a gaming console. As new Blu Ray players hit the market those numbers will slow down. You then have to look at the overall numbers of new games being purchased by PS3 owners compared to the numbers purchased by XBox360 owners to say how significant it is as a gaming console. It is those numbers that will decide just how much extra attention game developers will be willing to give to PS3 game development. That then will determine just how important it will become as a gaming console.
I think we're in for one helluva three-way console war, and it won't be resolved any time soon.
That's great news for us.
There are actually many games that look better on XBox 360s when in theory the console has less potential. Why? Because the limits of even the XBox 360 haven't been reached as far as game development.
Actually, that's an argument that the 360 HAS reached its potential, or near, as far as how good games can look on it. You have games that max out the 360 competing with PS3 titles that don't fully utilize the higher limits of the PS3.
Which makes sense, if you think about it... the 360, like the Xbox 1 before it, uses Direct X and is relatively easy/straightforward to program for. Which is why you saw stuff like Halo, an Xbox 1 launch game, be pretty close to the best-looking game that system ever saw. Halo 2 did not look significantly better, despite having a sky-high budget and many years of development time.
The PS3, on the other hand, is relatively new, difficult to program for, and we haven't really seen anything close to its limits yet. And we probably won't, until truly 'AAA' 1st-party titles like Gran Turismo 5 start hitting the shelves.
On a side note, I also get a chuckle out of people boasting how Wii will take over the gaming world and render all other systems obsolete.
Oh, on the contrary, the Wii will never take over the hardcore gaming world... and it really isn't intended to.
What it is doing really well is to create and take over a new market which is potentially larger than the hardcore one... casual gamers and former non-gamers. I gotta hand it to Nintendo, I was skeptical that their strategy would work, but it has.
.
Yes but there's no doubt the sales will be coming more from it's capabilities as a Blu Ray player more than as a gaming console. As new Blu Ray players hit the market those numbers will slow down.
I don't know about that. New Blu-Ray players showing up won't really change the value equation of the PS3, which is either, "I want a good Blu-Ray player... oh and wow, with the PS3, I get that, plus a games console for free/cheap." Or, "I want a good console... oh and wow, with the PS3, I get that, plus a Blu-Ray player for free/cheap."
It's the same calculation I made back in spring '02 when I bought a PS2 for $199. DVD player prices back then were around $150, so I was getting that, plus a good console for just 50 bucks more... a LOT less than a Gamecube or Xbox at the time.
That's great news for us.
Yeah, I agree. The intense competition is going to be VERY nice for gamers, in a lot of ways.
The only downside is possible 'balkanization' of many of the best games, since exclusives are so important now... but with the market likely to be split more or less evenly three ways long-term, its hard for a console maker to pay a developer enough to ignore the other two-thirds of the market, in most cases.
The only real way around that is to buy the developer itself outright... but that sometimes backfires, as much of the great talent tends to walk if the buy-out is sudden or somewhat hostile. Then you've ended up overpaying grossly for a name/brand, and little else, like MS did with Rare.
.
Which makes sense, if you think about it... the 360, like the Xbox 1 before it, uses Direct X and is relatively easy/straightforward to program for. Which is why you saw stuff like Halo, an Xbox 1 launch game, be pretty close to the best-looking game that system ever saw. Halo 2 did not look significantly better, despite having a sky-high budget and many years of development time.
PLEASE... I beg you not to use any Halo title as an example of great graphics. The last one especially looked so terrible compared to games like Gears Of War which were released PRIOR to Halo 3. I sold my copy of Halo 3 to GameStop.
You want to look at good XBox 360 graphics you look at COD4 or Bioshock, Mass Effect and Orange Box. Not the Halo series.
The only downside is possible 'balkanization' of many of the best games, since exclusives are so important now... but with the market likely to be split more or less evenly three ways long-term, its hard for a console maker to pay a developer enough to ignore the other two-thirds of the market, in most cases.
The only real way around that is to buy the developer itself outright... but that sometimes backfires, as much of the great talent tends to walk if the buy-out is sudden or somewhat hostile. Then you've ended up overpaying grossly for a name/brand, and little else, like MS did with Rare.
.
I don't think that will happen too much. It is too expensive for console makers to do and game developers can make more of a profit selling to both consoles. Also, there is the "breathing down our necks factor" that happens to developers when making an exclusive game. It sure seems like it was no fun to be one of the Bungie crew making the last 2 Halos with MS constantly nagging about something and telling you to hurry the hell up. I don't think it was a coincidence that there was a Bungie exodus after Halo3 was released.
PLEASE... I beg you not to use any Halo title as an example of great graphics. The last one especially looked so terrible compared to games like Gears Of War which were released PRIOR to Halo 3. I sold my copy of Halo 3 to GameStop.
And yet, a lot of ppl absolutely loved how Halo 1 and 2 looked. I'm sure if you had a poll on what the best-looking game on Xbox 1 was, Halo would win.
Your point on the 360 is well taken, but I was mainly referring to Halo 1 and 2 on the Xbox 1.
.
And yet, a lot of ppl absolutely loved how Halo 1 and 2 looked. I'm sure if you had a poll on what the best-looking game on Xbox 1 was, Halo would win.
Your point on the 360 is well taken, but I was mainly referring to Halo 1 and 2 on the Xbox 1.
.
Ah, gotcha.
I don't think that will happen too much. It is too expensive for console makers to do and game developers can make more of a profit selling to both consoles.
Also, there is the "breathing down our necks factor" that happens to developers when making an exclusive game. It sure seems like it was no fun to be one of the Bungie crew making the last 2 Halos with MS constantly nagging about something and telling you to hurry the hell up. I don't think it was a coincidence that there was a Bungie exodus after Halo3 was released.
Yep, that's what a bad publisher/owner does... it strangles the golden goose. You've GOT to treat your 1st-party studios well.
But MS has been fumbling on many fronts of late, nothing much they do surprises me anymore.
.
Right now, I don't see any single console game having that kind of impact, with the possible exception of a console exclusive of World of Warcraft-- and even then, only if it were done exceedingly well, i.e. was not crippled or watered down significantly.
.
My daughter has had two floor pads for DDR for years, replacing them as they wear out. That didn't come with the PS2, but are very popular, and new disks are still coming out.
There are definitely controllers that do well. But none have had the effect of boosting a platform across the board like the Wii has seen - a controller that people have embraced and is supported ALL games on the platform. A copycat from MS or Sony just wouldn't have the same effect on consumers.
As for exclusives, are there any killer exclusives for 360 on the horizon? They had some decent ones in the first couple years, but I haven't heard much going forward.
There are definitely controllers that do well. But none have had the effect of boosting a platform across the board like the Wii has seen - a controller that people have embraced and is supported ALL games on the platform. A copycat from MS or Sony just wouldn't have the same effect on consumers.
As for exclusives, are there any killer exclusives for 360 on the horizon? They had some decent ones in the first couple years, but I haven't heard much going forward.
The thing is that the Wii is biased towards a certain gamer. While many gamers in their 20's have bought into the platform, it's mostly intended for a younger (and much older) crowd.
The games my daughter, and her friends (including boys) play are not the games most other gamers on the 360, PS3, or PC play.
For Sony or MS to come out with a similar controller for the games that warrant it, would be enough. It doesn't have to be standard, as it must be on the Wii.
The Wii has nothing of value to a gamer right now EXCEPT for the controller. The Wii is really the previous generation game machine, gussied up with a slightly more powerful version of the same old processor, and a slightly more powerful version of the gpu. It has no HDD either.
It sells on price, and the controller, that's about it.
Neither the 360 or the PS3 need to have a controller like that to sell most of their games. Both do far more, with the PS3 being the most universal product of the three.
As to the exclusives, I don't really pay too much attention to that. But, it was the exclusives for the 360, and the lack of good exclusives for the PS3 when it first came out that determined the early directions of the consoles sales trajectories. That's changed for various reasons, but the concern for the 360 was that if it didn't have good exclusive games right out of the gate, people would wait for the PS3 instead of buying.
The fact that the PS3 didn't have much of the same when it did come out slowed adoption as much as the price.
For Sony or MS to come out with a similar controller for the games that warrant it, would be enough. It doesn't have to be standard, as it must be on the Wii.
I'm not sure what you mean by "enough". Sure, they could do a Wii ripoff, and sure, it would sell. But I don't think it would boost them, or cut into Wii sales much at all.
The Wii can't do everything the other platforms can. It won't capture the hardcore gamer market. But it doesn't need to - the potential audience of casual gamers is huge, and they're satisfied with what the Wii can do. PS3 will be successful with a different (and I think smaller) audience, but I don't think they have much shot at all at competing for casual gamers.
I'm not sure what you mean by "enough". Sure, they could do a Wii ripoff, and sure, it would sell. But I don't think it would boost them, or cut into Wii sales much at all.
The Wii can't do everything the other platforms can. It won't capture the hardcore gamer market. But it doesn't need to - the potential audience of casual gamers is huge, and they're satisfied with what the Wii can do. PS3 will be successful with a different (and I think smaller) audience, but I don't think they have much shot at all at competing for casual gamers.
Potentially it would. If Sony added a Wii like controller to do sports and other casual games then it could handle all the needs in one console (Blu-Ray + Casual party games + hardcore games). That reduces the value of owning a Wii except for Nintendo exclusives if you don't already own one.
But I'll say it again, if Sony gets their online community to boom like XBox Live it would be a homerun for them.
Home looks interesting. I wonder how much is ready in comparison to the trailer. There's been quite a bit of negativity but its hard to say if its from 360 zealots or if the service really is as borked as some claim.
It certainly has far greater potential than Live and some of the criticisms are just plain dumb.
I'm not sure what you mean by "enough". Sure, they could do a Wii ripoff, and sure, it would sell. But I don't think it would boost them, or cut into Wii sales much at all.
The Wii can't do everything the other platforms can. It won't capture the hardcore gamer market. But it doesn't need to - the potential audience of casual gamers is huge, and they're satisfied with what the Wii can do. PS3 will be successful with a different (and I think smaller) audience, but I don't think they have much shot at all at competing for casual gamers.
I wouldn't use the word rip-off, after all, the Wii controller is just a rip-off of the Gyro mouse, which itself is a rip-off of older models.
It's just a matter of advancing technology.
You might even say that the Wii controller is a rip-off of the IBM sensor that is in Mac portables, and has been used by some to control games by tilting the computer.
Where does it start?
And, by extension, every game machine is a rip-off of the Atari 2600.
I prefer to just hope that innovations get spread around. There's nothing unique about the technology in the Wii.
The Wii doesn't appeal to casual gamers either. Those are people like my wife, who plays Java and Flash games on her computer, that are available for free from numerous sites.
I've read articles that say that the PS3 will eventually be the number one console, though not by a huge amount. I tend to agree.
If Sony added a Wii like controller to do sports and other casual games then it could handle all the needs in one console (Blu-Ray + Casual party games + hardcore games).
Yes, but only if Sony could provide as many casual games as the Wii has. And I don't see that happening, mostly because of the chicken/egg thing.
Not to mention that many casual gamers don't care about hardcore games and just want a great casual gaming device at a low price).
There's nothing unique about the technology in the Wii.
The technology doesn't need to be unique. The Wii just has the right games and the technology implemented in the right way. I didn't intend to use the term "rip-off" to disparage sony, I just was just talking about Sony trying to duplicate what the Wii does (and why it appeals to players).
[The Wii] sells on price, and the controller, that's about it.
It's not just that though. It also sells on the strength of Nintendo 1st-party exclusive games, which are among the biggest and longest-lasting franchises in the gaming world (Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros, etc).
I honestly don't see Wii sales starting to lag a lot until pretty late in the current console cycle, when 1) its price advantage will be eroded (as you say), and 2) the PS3 and 360 will have so many games that are both great and take full advantage of their greater graphical horsepower.
.
Potentially it would. If Sony added a Wii like controller to do sports and other casual games then it could handle all the needs in one console (Blu-Ray + Casual party games + hardcore games). That reduces the value of owning a Wii except for Nintendo exclusives if you don't already own one.
I guess it's easily forgotten, but the PS3 controller does have a gyro and accelerometer, which is much of the Wiimote functionality. It's required use for some games. If you have a PS3, download the Super Rub-A-Dub demo.
Yes, but only if Sony could provide as many casual games as the Wii has. And I don't see that happening, mostly because of the chicken/egg thing.
Not to mention that many casual gamers don't care about hardcore games and just want a great casual gaming device at a low price).
There are quite a few "casual" games available for download on the PS3, made just for the PS3. Most of them are very cheap, much cheaper than you will find of a packaged console game at a retail store.