PS3 Games on Mac?
Yes there's been a lot of speculation on the reason Sony was so highly represented at MWSF last month.
When you think about the possibilities, one sort of lingers in the mind more than others.
Sony's PS3 (who's processor will be revealed later today) will almost definitely be using a PPC processor.
The way consoles are generally sold is similar to printers: they're sold at almost no margin or even at a loss, in hopes that the losses will be recouped and then some by future sales of complements (or products that are used along with it, like printer cartridges or video games in these cases).
Sony, therefore, doesn't care what the hell it's PS3 games are used for. People could be flinging them in the air and using them for skeet shooting. As long as Sony is selling games, they're happy. They don't care if nobody's buying the PS3, and stores are using them as door stops. The important thing is the game sales.
So the question is: Is it possible Sony will allow Apple to make a computer compatible with PS 3 games? Obviously they have a close working relationship, it would benefit both parties, and they both already use PPC.
When you think about the possibilities, one sort of lingers in the mind more than others.
Sony's PS3 (who's processor will be revealed later today) will almost definitely be using a PPC processor.
The way consoles are generally sold is similar to printers: they're sold at almost no margin or even at a loss, in hopes that the losses will be recouped and then some by future sales of complements (or products that are used along with it, like printer cartridges or video games in these cases).
Sony, therefore, doesn't care what the hell it's PS3 games are used for. People could be flinging them in the air and using them for skeet shooting. As long as Sony is selling games, they're happy. They don't care if nobody's buying the PS3, and stores are using them as door stops. The important thing is the game sales.
So the question is: Is it possible Sony will allow Apple to make a computer compatible with PS 3 games? Obviously they have a close working relationship, it would benefit both parties, and they both already use PPC.
Comments
Thats a good one!!!!
In short, no!
Thats a good one!!!! In short, no!
Why not? His reasoning seemed sound to me.
I would love this to happen - I would get rid of my PS2, and hook my mac mini directly up to my CRT projector.
Doing this would simplify projector based home theater quite a bit. Right now I need a seperate "line quadrupler" in order to hook a DVD player and my PS2 to my projector - it would be great to hook up just one box. It would cost less and have better video quality than my current setup.
Originally posted by slughead
Sony, therefore, doesn't care what the hell it's PS3 games are used for. People could be flinging them in the air and using them for skeet shooting. As long as Sony is selling games, they're happy. They don't care if nobody's buying the PS3, and stores are using them as door stops. The important thing is the game sales.
Wrong. Look up Connectix Virtual Game Station, (ie. Connectix v. Sony circa 2000).
Originally posted by Existence
Wrong. Look up Connectix Virtual Game Station, (ie. Connectix v. Sony circa 2000).
The difference here is that Sony can trust Apple to make a version of the software that is fairly safe (i.e. will not play pirated playstation games), which was their objection to Connectix.
Also, Sony lost the connectix lawsuit and bought the emulator. The Xbox 2 will also be powerpc - maybe we could get emulation for that as well...
The problem is they convince the big game software houses to make big name games for their platform based on either A) initial cash outlay or
Now don't argue "well they could charge royalties for every copy of the emulator," "by reaching a broader market installed base would be larger," etc., because while these are all viable and logical reasons, they don't break the overriding fear that drives large corporate decisions.
Large Corporations like Sony, MS, etc. like to play in sandboxes that are as small and allow them as much control as possible. Not always the best policy, but it's the safest, and when you are a big corporation, conservative is the name of the game.
Also note, while XBox was nearly identical, spec wise, to a PC, you couldn't just take an XBox game and play it on a PC.
Originally posted by e1618978
The difference here is that Sony can trust Apple to make a version of the software that is fairly safe (i.e. will not play pirated playstation games), which was their objection to Connectix.
Also, Sony lost the connectix lawsuit and bought the emulator. The Xbox 2 will also be powerpc - maybe we could get emulation for that as well...
Good call on both counts.
I was thinking of some sort of modified motherboard that would not allow ripping of PS3 games, and was necessary for PS3 use.
A further stretch would be to use IBM's dual OS CPU (not yet out) and boot the PS3 OS and OS X at the same time--further complicating the piracy process. That way you could run OS X and a games-only OS and not even have to reboot.
Apple obviously doesn't mind dealing with DRM, so Sony has no reason not to at least allow a partnership in this area to form.
In any event, none of the developers have had any interest in doing something like this before. In theory, MS would be most interested as they have a vested interest in the PC business as well. Still, the PC and console game markets are largely mutually exclusive. Demographically it doesn't make that much sense, as well as the issue of segmenting the market with multiple platforms playing the games.
Compared to the 40+ million playstation 3's that will be sold in its lifetime, which they will eventually profit from, nobody would buy emulation hardware/software just for Apple's 2%.
Originally posted by nowayout11
If Sony didn't care what platform the games were played on, they would be a 3rd party developer. It's not really that simple. There is a great deal to appreciate in owning the platform. Besides, all 3 consoles will use some PPC variant. That's the only common demoninator. The rest of the game hardware is entirely too customized and specialized.
In any event, none of the developers have had any interest in doing something like this before. In theory, MS would be most interested as they have a vested interest in the PC business as well. Still, the PC and console game markets are largely mutually exclusive. Demographically it doesn't make that much sense, as well as the issue of segmenting the market with multiple platforms playing the games.
Compared to the 40+ million playstation 3's that will be sold in its lifetime, which they will eventually profit from, nobody would buy emulation hardware/software just for Apple's 2%.
Your argument is a little disingenuous - Apple ships 2 million computers a year - Sony ships 8 million playstations. The mini will bring Apple's number higher - the 2% (actually 3.7% as of July 2004) is of total PC sales, and non PPC pcs do not matter in this thread.
There are 70 million PS2s, not 40 million.
Sony makes consoles because they want a lot of consoles out there for games to run on. They make their earnings on games, not consoles. If somebody out there would also make consoles, and let sonly still have the game royalties, I'm sure that they would have no problem with that - but nobody would do that so they have to make their own consoles.
Finally, regarding your specialised hardware argument - if it is so hard why was Connectix successful?
You are correct on the 70 million PS2's. I was thinking U.S. numbers. That sort of amplifies the point all the more, though. That's less reason to "lease" the platform.
The notion that Sony doesn't care what you do, as long as you buy games for their platform, is not true. I know where the profits come from. There are other business reasons why its beneficial to own the platform that the games run on. Leasing the platform out has never been of interest to any of the console developers, because of those reasons.
Re: Connectix. Depends what you consider success. Sales, or simply being able to do it. Emulating a 33MHz, 3MB RAM PSOne is one thing, and not all games worked as you might recall.
Originally posted by nowayout11
....
The notion that Sony doesn't care what you do, as long as you buy games for their platform, is not true. I know where the profits come from. There are other business reasons why its beneficial to own the platform that the games run on. Leasing the platform out has never been of interest to any of the console developers, because of those reasons.
....
You are absolutely correct. The game console business depends on constrained supply. You don't just write a game for the PS2 or Xbox and put in on the market. You need a license from the console vendor. Even if you get the license, it limits the number of copies that you can sell. Artificially constrained supply supports artificially high prices which leads to artificially high profits on each game title. If a console maker permitted clones of its platform, certain renegade game makers would surely develop games that don't require the console makers' license. They could be sold cheaper than the licensed games, which would put downward pressure on the prices of all games. The end result would be the death of the goose that laid the golden egg.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
You are absolutely correct. The game console business depends on constrained supply. You don't just write a game for the PS2 or Xbox and put in on the market. You need a license from the console vendor. Even if you get the license, it limits the number of copies that you can sell. Artificially constrained supply supports artificially high prices which leads to artificially high profits on each game title. If a console maker permitted clones of its platform, certain renegade game makers would surely develop games that don't require the console makers' license. They could be sold cheaper than the licensed games, which would put downward pressure on the prices of all games. The end result would be the death of the goose that laid the golden egg.
Just because the games can be used on different platforms doesn't mean sony couldn't still license out the compatibility rights. The system could work, logistically and legally speaking, the same way it does now, just adding in Apple as a licensed hardware manufacturer. Anyone else making the hardware would be a violation of the DMCA.
Everyone stop playing up the Sony rumors. Apple has almost always been on the good side of sony. Audio chips, cellphones, AV, and such. There is no partnership, no music store partnership or anything like this. It's not in the works. There WILL NEVER BE ever PS3 games on the mac unless somebody hacks an emulator.
Originally posted by slughead
Yes there's been a lot of speculation on the reason Sony was so highly represented at MWSF last month.
When you think about the possibilities, one sort of lingers in the mind more than others.
Sony's PS3 (who's processor will be revealed later today) will almost definitely be using a PPC processor.
The way consoles are generally sold is similar to printers: they're sold at almost no margin or even at a loss, in hopes that the losses will be recouped and then some by future sales of complements (or products that are used along with it, like printer cartridges or video games in these cases).
Sony, therefore, doesn't care what the hell it's PS3 games are used for. People could be flinging them in the air and using them for skeet shooting. As long as Sony is selling games, they're happy. They don't care if nobody's buying the PS3, and stores are using them as door stops. The important thing is the game sales.
So the question is: Is it possible Sony will allow Apple to make a computer compatible with PS 3 games? Obviously they have a close working relationship, it would benefit both parties, and they both already use PPC.
Originally posted by webmail
There is no partnership ... or anything like this.
That's what they said about Apple and IBM. They were rivals in the 80's, IBM was even supposed to be "big brother" in the '84 commercial.
Originally posted by webmail
As someone who attended macworld I can tell you that the idea is stupid.
Everyone stop playing up the Sony rumors. Apple has almost always been on the good side of sony. Audio chips, cellphones, AV, and such. There is no partnership, no music store partnership or anything like this. It's not in the works. There WILL NEVER BE ever PS3 games on the mac unless somebody hacks an emulator.
This post reminds me of another post a month or so ago. I asked if dual-dvi could be offered on the powerbook so that it could drive the 30" monitor, and I got pretty much the same answer "I can tell you the idea is stupid".
So, based on the past success of the nay-sayers, I welcome our new PS3 games on the mac...
Originally posted by webmail
As someone who attended macworld I can tell you that the idea is stupid.
Everyone stop playing up the Sony rumors. Apple has almost always been on the good side of sony. Audio chips, cellphones, AV, and such. There is no partnership, no music store partnership or anything like this. It's not in the works. There WILL NEVER BE ever PS3 games on the mac unless somebody hacks an emulator.
how does attending macworld with the other thousands of people who have attended make one an expert on the internal workings of apple and sony?
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
The major difference there of course is that both IBM and Apple stand to gain from their partnership. Sony doesn't see opening their closed system a gain, no matter what people may choose to believe.
What do you mean? Sony doesn't care about selling PS3s, it's the PS3 games that matter to their bottom line. The PS3 is a means to an end, and Apple using PS3 games would help Sony as Macs with this feature would become a compliment to PS3 games.
Further more, I'd argue it's almost definite that Sony will be losing money on every PS3 sold, so if they can sell games WITHOUT having to lose money, that would be a huge help.
Someone said the PS2 sold 70 million units. If such a PS3-Mac hybrid came out and sold even a million units, that's a HUGE deal, especially when there's no "means to an end" tax on each one.
It's straight out of an economics textbook. My next mac would certainly have PS3 compatibility if it were possible, and I'd even buy the games occasionally too.
Just because it makes logical sense doesn't mean I think it will happen by any stretch. I'm just convinced it makes logical sense.
Consider MS's gambit to control the HALO release. While it wasn't exculsive to the platform, MS certainly controlled the fact that PC and Mac versions trailed considerably. The mere fact that HALO was only available on XBox sold hundreds of thousands of the boxes. Similar scenario with Grand Tourismo and Grand Theft Auto on PS2.
Because console manufacturers sell their consoles based on software available for that console. Now if there was an emulation system that allowed you to play one of these big ticket games without buying the console, you erode a major market indicator and bargaining chip for the console, because the next time a company wants to bring a big name game to your console, your bargaining positioned is weakened.
Don't underestimate the complexity of the business arrangement for making these software deals; a console's software library makes it or breaks it, and the vendors know this, the software developers know this.
Sony:
"Well, yes the XBox 2 has an installed base of 2.4million, which is smaller than our 2.2million, but we have an extra 300,000 in emulation sales because of the latest GT 5 release."
Software Developer:
"Well, we don't care, because our game is going to be released simultaneously for PC/Mac so your installed base is effectively 200k shy of MS."
Now let's analyse that hypothetical situation. It assumes the emulation is a standalone product, because it'd be disaster if it were built in to every Mac. The reason is that if every Mac could emulate PS3 games then the number of active PS3 games customers would be Totally Unquantifiable which would mean Sony couldn't even bluff the numbers effectively.
Note also that to get better terms on the "license" the software vendor could be completely BSing the PC/Mac release plans.
Since the profitability of the licenses is the driving force behind the console business, explain to me again why Sony would like to sell fewer consoles?
[edited for clarity]
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
Controlling the hardware means you can control the software; in fact, a small company hacking an emulator would be more desirable than a larger company with its own resources.
....
Thank you. You have written an excellent explanation of the economics of the video gaming business.