View Full Version : Is the PS3 A Flop?
Scott Tortorice
22 Feb 07, 19:36
As I post the daily news, I have begun to notice something interesting: most of the daily console news is concerned with either the XBox 360, Wii, or the DS. There is very little news about the PS3 and when there is a new title for that platform, it is invariably released in conjunction with editions for the 36O or Wii. In other words, there just doesn't seem to be very many exclusive titles for the PS3. This begs the question: what is the point in investing in a very expensive PS3? Now, mind you, I am not saying that the PS3 is doomed to failure, I just think that is seems apparent that Sony did not plan very well when it came to giving people a reason to hand over so much cash for their uber-console. I really think that they thought people would line up to buy their console just because it was the newest Playstation.
I am curious what you console gamers think about this. Is Sony just biding its time until they launch their PS3 assault and conquer the market? Or did they just drop the ball?
Well I have seen numbers bandied about by fans as well as detractors, but I'm just not interested in reseaching who's right to be honest.
The Wii is only a game console. Doesn't do anything else more or less. Might have a few online options glued on to it eventually.
The PS3 is a console, but is capable of morphing into a weird computer if you know what your doing. And of course, the much ballyhooed Blueray drive. Although I would rather just wait 2-3 years and just buy a Blueray drive (if I ever want one in the first place) assuming it beats out MS HD. And this all requires I have bought a HD tv, because I have no use for a Blueray drive until I have a point to having one.
I understand, according to a friend, that the Euro launch PS3 are being sold such that you have to get a PSP with them as well. That sounded weird, and you can correct that if wrong, but I will require a link to verify the comment refuting it. Personally, if true, that means the PSP is what has bombed.
I still say, that until Sony is making money off the sale of a PS3, who cares how many have sold, or how fast, or how many pre orders yet exist. You don't measure a success, off of a product you made no money on. So, if that means we have to wait till 2010 to declare the PS3 a success looooooooong after the fact, then I guess we have to wait.
But the Wii will have been making money for 3 years beforehand, and in the console industry, does that seem logical to be called a failure? And it will have 3 years of sales from games made for it.
I am not following the sales of PS3 games myself, nor am I following other machines games for that matter. I just know, that the Wii won't be pushing game sales to recoup from losing what is hundreds of millions of dollars in the case of the PS3 from non profit sales of the PS3 unit itself.
All positive hype aside, and no amount of positive hype will matter, the PS3 while a well enough made machine, isn't making Sony a cent yet.
I really think that they thought people would line up to buy their console just because it was the newest Playstation.
They are in Europe. ;)
I think there's so little news about the PS3 for you guys at the moment because they rushed to get it out. I think they didn't want to be last to release their next-gen console so they made it available to the US market the same day as the Wii was being launched. So of course that 'next-gen doesn't start till we say so' was a load of rubbish. They could've held off until March like they have for the Euro launch, which is looking to have a number of great games available at launch, but instead they chose to rush it so the Wii wouldn't have a headstart like the 360 did. I guess the lack of news is them paying for their mistake.
Correct me if i'm wrong though: i haven't been paying much attention to PS3 news because i can't afford one. :p
I understand, according to a friend, that the Euro launch PS3 are being sold such that you have to get a PSP with them as well. That sounded weird, and you can correct that if wrong, but I will require a link to verify the comment refuting it. Personally, if true, that means the PSP is what has bombed.
It was HMV doing that stupid preorder. They got so many complaints about it that they've now removed this and refunded the price of the PSP to those that did preorder it anyway. You probably won't find that link now, but it was true.
Scott Tortorice
23 Feb 07, 00:08
I think there's so little news about the PS3 for you guys at the moment because they rushed to get it out. I think they didn't want to be last to release their next-gen console so they made it available to the US market the same day as the Wii was being launched. So of course that 'next-gen doesn't start till we say so' was a load of rubbish. They could've held off until March like they have for the Euro launch, which is looking to have a number of great games available at launch, but instead they chose to rush it so the Wii wouldn't have a headstart like the 360 did. I guess the lack of news is them paying for their mistake.
That makes a lot of sense to me. It would have been an amateurish mistake for Sony to fail to see that they would actually need games to make the PS3 popular. :) So the more logical explanation is that the PS3 was rushed out the door with the games to follow later. Still, I think this could hurt Sony no matter how many great games are coming out later this year. People are forking over cash for the Wii and 360 in the absence of good PS3 titles and I doubt they are going to fork over some more later when Sony decides to get things into gear.
Aries:
The PS3 is a console, but is capable of morphing into a weird computer if you know what your doing. And of course, the much ballyhooed Blueray drive. Although I would rather just wait 2-3 years and just buy a Blueray drive (if I ever want one in the first place) assuming it beats out MS HD. And this all requires I have bought a HD tv, because I have no use for a Blueray drive until I have a point to having one.
I think the Blueray is only going to succeed in making Sony blue. :cry: :D I haven't been hearing any excitement over it. And with the PS3 limping along, I doubt we will see any soon. Blueray could well turn out to be the 21st Century Betamax.
Adamaniac 791
23 Feb 07, 06:08
Y'know the Blu-Ray drive isn't just there for movie playback, it allows for larger games too as Blu-Ray disks have a much higher capacity than regular DVDs and so you can cram more content onto the disks.
The Blu-Ray drive is there to benefit the games as well as to help push the Blu-Ray movie format. ;)
And I don't think it is fair to say that it has flopped yet as it has only been released in North America and Japan so far, plus the big exclusive games it has got coming (MGS4 and FF13) should shift many units.
I think using the Blueray drive as a means to make games bigger is a bit odd.
True, you can't put a game on a single cd any more (unless it's one of our dull boring wargames that isn't dripping eye candy crap)
But I don't see much reason for the massive data potential of the Blueray where games are concerned.
True, technology doesn't stand still, the storage potential was inevitable. But, was it inevitable we needed it for games?
True, a Blueray movie disc is handy, as the amount of data in a Blueray HD movie is a lot more than a DVD format film, but, I have seen the difference in data size, it's roughly double if my observations are correct.
Are our games really in need of a full doubling of data capacity from DVD to HD format? That implies, that an HD game should look twice as good. Or at least that is the claim where films are concerned.
Does anyone truely expect game makers are going to be good on the promise of a game that is fully twice as good looking as the very best in current dvd type games?
I personally am skeptical, that games will leap that far forward.
I think the Blueray's storage capacity belongs on a computer, where storage capacity actually means something. And then next on a player so you can play movies that might at least give an excuse to owning an HD tv, but for games, I think it is a good few years earlier than anyone will need.
In the past, it seems all you get with massive data storage capacity in gaming, is game makers cramming all sorts of valuless crud into the game, sloppy poorly done code where space is considered simply not an issue, and a disc that just never needed all that space.
It will serve Sony right, if the PS3 turns out to be something no one actually needed right now.
If I had a choice of a Sony made Blueray player for a few hundred bucks, or a PS3 worth double the cost, but with a game machine dumped on the player, I think the plain Blueray player would make more sense.
I don't recall anyone ever claiming the PS2 was inadequate actually.
I'm actually glad that Sony is not making a bloody cent on PS3 sales.
Never try to sell what no one needed and no one asked for.
Adamaniac 791
23 Feb 07, 11:36
I think using the Blueray drive as a means to make games bigger is a bit odd.
True, you can't put a game on a single cd any more (unless it's one of our dull boring wargames that isn't dripping eye candy crap)
But I don't see much reason for the massive data potential of the Blueray where games are concerned.
True, technology doesn't stand still, the storage potential was inevitable. But, was it inevitable we needed it for games?
True, a Blueray movie disc is handy, as the amount of data in a Blueray HD movie is a lot more than a DVD format film, but, I have seen the difference in data size, it's roughly double if my observations are correct.
Are our games really in need of a full doubling of data capacity from DVD to HD format? That implies, that an HD game should look twice as good. Or at least that is the claim where films are concerned.
Does anyone truely expect game makers are going to be good on the promise of a game that is fully twice as good looking as the very best in current dvd type games?
I personally am skeptical, that games will leap that far forward.
I think the Blueray's storage capacity belongs on a computer, where storage capacity actually means something. And then next on a player so you can play movies that might at least give an excuse to owning an HD tv, but for games, I think it is a good few years earlier than anyone will need.
In the past, it seems all you get with massive data storage capacity in gaming, is game makers cramming all sorts of valuless crud into the game, sloppy poorly done code where space is considered simply not an issue, and a disc that just never needed all that space.
It will serve Sony right, if the PS3 turns out to be something no one actually needed right now.
If I had a choice of a Sony made Blueray player for a few hundred bucks, or a PS3 worth double the cost, but with a game machine dumped on the player, I think the plain Blueray player would make more sense.
Well if you look at the PS2 as an example, games were originally released on CDs, however developers had to soon start releasing DVD based games to get the best out of the PS2. I guess it would be the same with the PS3 in that if games were released on the DVD format it would be impossible for developers to get the best out of the system, sure you could have good looking games but at the expense of game content and length. Blu-Ray however allows developers to add more to their games and to get the most out of the system, meaning players can experience even better graphics, better sound and deeper games with more content.
MGS4 director Hideo Kojima has been saying that he needs the extra capacity of the Blu-Ray disk to allow him to create a more "natural" game world rather than the "sets" seen in other games, not because he is a graphics whore but because creating a "natural" game world will undoubtebly tie into the main themes of the game (the differences between what is real and what isn't), therefore meaning that to get the game experience he wants to create he needs the extra capacity that Blu-Ray would give him.
I don't recall anyone ever claiming the PS2 was inadequate actually.
I'm actually glad that Sony is not making a bloody cent on PS3 sales.
Never try to sell what no one needed and no one asked for.
I strongly disagree with you here. There is no way in hell that Sony could just say "right, there is nothing wrong with the PS2 as the sales are good now, lets not bother making a next gen console" as then they would drastically fall behind Microsoft and Nintendo once people want to jump into the next generation of gaming.
I'm still not convinced entirely.
I think producing a few years more worth of decent PS2 games would have been more logical that going several hundred millions into debt to do the penis envy thing with MS and their equally underwhelming 360.
As for content, I've already heard it discussed in numerous conversations for PC platform as well. Games that become "more" will take longer to make, and cost substantially more and more to create.
Maybe it's time people stopped pretending hardware can make a better game. maybe it's time software makers actually made better games. I know I'm getting bored trying to get excited by the same game, but with a prettier view. It's still always the same damned game in the end, you merely got to pay slightly more, for more prettier looking versions of the same damned game.
Occasionally you get to pay yet again for the same damned game, it's just another company's same damned game, only they didn't sell you the previous same damned game, so naturally because you never bought THEIR same damned game that makes it ok.
Take for instance Strategy First just mentioned that "Making History" has just gone gold. Oh I must definitely buy that, I mean so what I have GGWaW AWD, its not reeeeeeally the same damned game. Ok maybe it is as far as this argument goes. But Strategy First didn't make GGWaW AWD, so that makes it ok I suppose.
I think it's time for a lot of people to realise, the companies like Sony and MS are really only interested in you continuing to buy, as long as you continue to buy, it's about you continuing to buy eh. The software makers are not so much interested in selling you "new" they just want to sell to you THEIR version of the same damned game. They don't actually want to be the guy that actually had to start with something fresh eh. They want to sell the same damned thing.
I think the PS2 could remain a very useful system if only the game makers could think for themselves instead of being cloners for the most part.
The biggest reason for the PS3 is likely it allows the game makers to pretend that the PS3 version of the same old game is actually a new game entirely.
Eventually all you are buying, is the same thing you get when you watch a remade film that has been refilmed for the third time, but still the same damned film.
I think a lot of consumers are best thought of as mindless cattle some days.
More bad news for European PS3 owners? (potential and current)
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/02/23/reduced_backwards_ps3_compatibility/
Ouch, not only do you Euros get treated like second rate customers, but you even get a second rate version.
"Software will take over some of the functionality that was originally taken care of by dedicated chips, which means far fewer PlayStation 2 games can be played on a European PS3 compared with the Japanese and American PS3 models, which play 98 percent of old games.
"Rather than concentrate on PS2 backwards compatibility, in the future, company resources will be increasingly focused on developing new games and entertainment features exclusively for PS3," Sony Computer Entertainment said in a statement."
I think this partially supports my recent opinion. Screw you if you have a nice collection of PS2 games, it's time to give us a lot of your money yet again.
Adamaniac 791
23 Feb 07, 15:41
Yes, this has got me pretty damn annoyed. I don't want to have to hook up my PS2 and fiddle about around the back of my TV every time I want to play a PS2 or PS1 game that isn't yet supported by the PS3. :mad:
Also the backwards compatibility was one area where the PS3 had an advantage over the Xbox 360, in that the PS3 can play almost all PS2 (and PS1) games due to having part of the PS2 hardware incorporated into it, whereas for the 360 to play Xbox games it has to emulate them meaning a sizable amount of Xbox games won't work on Microsoft's next-gen gaming hardware. But now with the decision to remove the PS2 hardware from the PS3, PS2 (and PS1) games will have to be ran via emulation, meaning the PS3 in all regions except Japan and North America will have far less backwards compatability with PS2 and PS1 games.
This of course gives people less of a reason to buy the PS3 over the 360, well done Sony, it looks like you have shot yourselves in the foot. ;)
"PS3 is first and foremost a system that excels in playing games specifically designed to exploit the power and potential of the PS3 system. Games designed for PS3 offer incredible graphics quality, stunning gameplay and massively improved audio and video fidelity that is simply not achievable with PS and PS2 games. Rather than concentrate on PS2 backwards compatibility, in the future, company resources will be increasingly focused on developing new games and entertainment features exclusively for PS3, truly taking advantage of this exciting technology."
This is total crap, what he really means is "We are removing the PS2 hardware from the PS3 in order to lower production costs, although you suckers in Europe are actually being charged more for the console than elsewhere! You are paying more to get less!". :p
However this isn't all just to spite European PS3 owners, they will also start making North American and Japanese PS3s like this at some point too.
Its not a second rate PS3...in fact it was their intentions to begin with. They always wanted software emulation but due to time constraints, they were forced to toss the emulation hardware into the JP and NA product. They always stated they would go back to software emulation. I kind of wish I got a software emulation model myself. With the software emulation, I imagine the upscaled PS2 games will now become a possability.
Also because its emulated...most likely all region coding will be removed so imports will play easier.
Above and beyond that...if you buy a PS3 or an Xbox 360 to play the older games...then why are you buying it at all? We all have PS2's laying around. No need to huff and puff over a new product that doesn't play the old stuff out of the box. Even still...they said the games will be eventually supported over time...just not out of the box.
NeedPSPNow
24 Feb 07, 07:27
I have a question, how many times have you played a ps1 game on the ps2? I have only ever done it once to test it out or maybe that's only me. But if I had the choice to play my new playstation 3 games or my old ps2 or 1 games I would definately pick the PS3 games. I know that backwards compatability just isn't enticing for me. Although it would be cool to play those PS2 games online that I never got to providing there's still anyone playing.
Adamaniac 791
24 Feb 07, 09:02
I play PS1 games on my PS2 quite a lot, I was playing Crash Bandicoot 2 the other day. ;)
Even after I get a PS3 and PS3 games I will still want to play my PS2 and PS1 games, so it would be an annoyance if I had to dig out my PS2 if a certain title is yet to be supported by the PS3.
Sure, it would be nice to play PS2 games in HD, however it will be very annoying if you have to wait for your favourite games to become compatible. If the rate at which PS1 games are released for the PSP via emulation is any indicator we will be waiting a very long time for titles to become supported. :(
I have a question, how many times have you played a ps1 game on the ps2? I have only ever done it once to test it out or maybe that's only me. But if I had the choice to play my new playstation 3 games or my old ps2 or 1 games I would definately pick the PS3 games. I know that backwards compatability just isn't enticing for me. Although it would be cool to play those PS2 games online that I never got to providing there's still anyone playing.
It all depends on the game, and if the game had repeat value.
My son had a 100 disc spindle nearly full of PS1 games. It's not used much, but it does get used. Usually gets used when we dump company on him in the way of young people (kids of friends visiting). But occasionally he plays some for his own interests.
I have noticed, that the predominant response to ANY game, and this will include PS3 titles, is they are played to death for a solid week or month, and then the disc might as well be a drink coaster. Most console games are played once to completion and then drop in value to nearly no value.
That's also another reason I have nearly no love for console games.
I'd gladly still play Allied General or Panzer General on a Playstation (if I had had the chance to get one the 5 minutes they were on sale.
If the game has unlimited replay value, and was worth the money you spent on it, chances are it will still be fun.
I still play plenty of PC games that almost predate the PS1. But in the case of some, that won't run proper on a modern PC, it's the modern PC and OS that made the decision in most cases, not the game itself.
Again, this is just the manufacturer ensuring you need to buy buy buy in order to play new. I can imagine PS3 sales would be even better, if your old games were still an option. But then again, the PS3 is expecting to recoup money on new game sales, so don't hold your breath with Sony promising to get around to making your old games playable. nothing in it for them eh. They made the sale, they want you to buy buy buy NEW GAMES.
If what you say were true...they would have waited until after the initial preorders were already bought after release before saying anything about the emulation.
As of now..people can cancel their preorder with ease.
Scott Tortorice
24 Feb 07, 20:19
But I don't see much reason for the massive data potential of the Blueray where games are concerned.
True, technology doesn't stand still, the storage potential was inevitable. But, was it inevitable we needed it for games?
Does anyone truely expect game makers are going to be good on the promise of a game that is fully twice as good looking as the very best in current dvd type games?
I personally am skeptical, that games will leap that far forward....
In the past, it seems all you get with massive data storage capacity in gaming, is game makers cramming all sorts of valuless crud into the game, sloppy poorly done code where space is considered simply not an issue, and a disc that just never needed all that space.
Well said! I completely agree! I remember when the first CD-ROM games were made available for the PC---they were awful, filled with lots of cut-scene bunk. It was only years later that the space available on a CD was actually used to make new, innovative games and not just filled with eye-candy. I have no doubt that, at some future point, the storage capacity of a DVD will prove inadequate, but I think that day is still a few years away. Heck, in my opinion, PC gaming (I claim no expertise on console gaming) has been stagnant for the last two years (if not longer). And unless Supreme Commander is as good as the hype suggests (I'm waiting to read Don's review), I see no innovative PC gaming for quite some time.
PS: For clarification, I roughly describe "innovative gameplay" as a game that provides a gaming experience that has not been duplicated elsewhere. I think Rome: Total War (or, perhaps, Take Command: First Bull Run) was the last "innovative" game I have played (yes, I am that strict in my interpretation).
I actually do still play the PS1 Panzer General a lot on the PS2. Guarantee that is one which will not carry over to the PS3 through emulation, so what happens when the PS2 finally carks it.
As to the title of the thread, the PS3 looks like a flop at the moment but I do not think that will be the case overall. I think it will take 2 - 3 years to be a force and will take 1 probably 2 price reductions for it to start being so.
I do however think Sony are looking far further ahead than some people are thinking and suspect they have designed this console to actually last 3 - 4 years longer than the traditional time span of a console. If that speculation is the case will the 360 be able to last similar amount of time? Not being very familiar with the specs of either machine will Microsoft be able to introduce a directX 10ish update through their update system, if so the answer would be definately yes. If no, it still may be able to have a similar time span as the PS3. Only time will tell.
Scott Tortorice
24 Feb 07, 20:45
I actually do still play the PS1 Panzer General a lot on the PS2. Guarantee that is one which will not carry over to the PS3 through emulation, so what happens when the PS2 finally carks it.
As to the title of the thread, the PS3 looks like a flop at the moment but I do not think that will be the case overall. I think it will take 2 - 3 years to be a force and will take 1 probably 2 price reductions for it to start being so.
I do however think Sony are looking far further ahead than some people are thinking and suspect they have designed this console to actually last 3 - 4 years longer than the traditional time span of a console. If that speculation is the case will the 360 be able to last similar amount of time? Not being very familiar with the specs of either machine will Microsoft be able to introduce a directX 10ish update through their update system, if so the answer would be definately yes. If no, it still may be able to have a similar time span as the PS3. Only time will tell.
Good points all. It took a few years for the XBox to catch-on as well. It could be that Sony is banking on a *very* longterm investment with the PS3. In that case, the PS3 could emerge as the last console standing.
The rationale that Sony is willing to wait in my view gets increasingly bad thinking.
In the 80s progress was a decades thing. In the 90's progress came in batches of 5 or more years. Today, inovation is NOT going to take several years.
In 5 years, the PS3 will be as "cool" then, as the PS1 is now. So this thinking that they are planning to be cool in the long run, assumes that technology is moving at a steady pace. It isn't.
Tech moves forward almost exponetially.
I would not be surprised, if something completely reinvents our electronic entertainment in the next 5 years.
Today, your phone can do so much more than just allow a phone call.
I think the days of being stuck in front of a monitor or console might be about to see a major upset.
I actually DO see a future where all your electronic amusements fit inside a pocket.
The PS3 might not be the last console standing, it might end up being the last console period.
Scott Tortorice
24 Feb 07, 23:48
I actually DO see a future where all your electronic amusements fit inside a pocket.
The PS3 might not be the last console standing, it might end up being the last console period.
You're so dark....:cool:
I think you are correct: clearly gaming is heading towards the mobile entertainment concept (as exemplified by the PSP, DS, etc.). However, I think we have a long while to go before a handheld, portable device can replicate the gaming experience that is currently associated with sedentary consoles. Miniaturization and portable power supplies still have a ways to go before they can deliver on all their potential.
The rationale that Sony is willing to wait in my view gets increasingly bad thinking.
In the 80s progress was a decades thing. In the 90's progress came in batches of 5 or more years. Today, inovation is NOT going to take several years.
In 5 years, the PS3 will be as "cool" then, as the PS1 is now. So this thinking that they are planning to be cool in the long run, assumes that technology is moving at a steady pace. It isn't.
Tech moves forward almost exponetially.
I would not be surprised, if something completely reinvents our electronic entertainment in the next 5 years.
Today, your phone can do so much more than just allow a phone call.
I think the days of being stuck in front of a monitor or console might be about to see a major upset.
I actually DO see a future where all your electronic amusements fit inside a pocket.
The PS3 might not be the last console standing, it might end up being the last console period.
You could very well be right. As I said total speculation on my part and although I do not know much about the specs of either machine, my speculation was based on something I read about only a couple of the 7 cells the PS3 has, being used at the moment. Granted the other cells may mean diddly squat if things bottle neck in other areas of the system, don't know enough about the architecture to know if this would be the case.
Will be interesting though to see how it all pans out a few years down the track.
The SPE's are being used mostly for redundancy at the moment in the PS3. Very few games are using them to take over particular tasks. The only game I know of that does right now is Resistance which uses 2 SPE's for collisions. You can definetly see what and where. Insomniac also said they are not using either SPE to its full potential.
There is alot of doom and gloom and naysayers..but the PS3 is already on target to being successful. They already have the sales lined up, they already have the games lined up. The 2 will come together around the same time.
Even the cheap in price Wii has had some small issues selling as of lately with sales ruducing over 50% from what they were due to the lack of games.
Xbox 360 can't move any units in Japan and barely scratched Europe with a little over a million sales.
Its easy to write any of the systems off..but all 3 are already starting to be successful.
Don Maddox
25 Feb 07, 11:56
I think it is too early to tell how successful PS3 will be. I believe it is safe to say Sony has lost market share to Nintendo and Microsoft over the past year. But I also think it is safe to say PS3 will be a success over the long term. It is the most powerful of the three current console platforms, and that play an important factor in the minds of developers.
I do not yet own a PS3, but the main reason for that is the lack of quality titles. As more and more games are released and the price of the system comes down (and it eventually will), PS3 will be a force to contend with.
Could it be that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will all end up with 33% of the console market? Surely such fierce competition will be a win-win for consumers.
Scott Tortorice
26 Feb 07, 21:00
What do you guys think about this report from Screen Digest (http://www.gamesquad.com/index.php?option=com_sections&id=9&sid=791)?
I think its missing one important factor. Nintendo has attracted a nice sized group of third party devs...but still not enough. 3rd Party devs are afraid to developed for the Wii for one simple reason.....they will NEVER be number 1 on the charts. No matter what game they develop, you can expect Mario, Metroid, Zelda etc to kick it in the head on its way up the chart.
That didn't make sense. That would be like saying no one feels comfortable developing for Sony out of fear of competing with Final Fantasies.
No..thats not what its like. What I posted wasn't my opinion..it was stated by several 3rd party Wii devs. They simply can't compete with Nintendo's first party games.
Besides it falls back to simple supply and demand. If there is a Mario game out, it will be number 1 on the charts...no and, if, or buts about it. That means everything that is #2 and lower will have less sales due to Mario being out.
Final Fantasy isn't a Sony IP. It is made by a 3rd party developer that can develop for any console they choose.
Nintendo is just too strong of a first party developer and you can probably attribute that to them having no 3rd party support the last couple generations.
Looks like I misundertood you ehandlr, thanks for that second comment.
Don Maddox
27 Feb 07, 14:53
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4804&Itemid=2
Interesting article, but it still comes out to me as "TFB for the Euros", meanwhile the Japanese and North American gamers didn't get hit.
And Sony's reasoning, our money is more important to us than you.
I don't think Sony made a lot of friends in Euroland.
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4804&Itemid=2
Lets agree completely with what is said there.
It is reputation that has also taken a hit here.
1/ A year ago Sony made a big song and dance about BC to try and persaude people to hold out for their console. They must have had an inkling back then of their plans.
2/ How long does it take to retool a production run to manufacture enough machines for the European/Australasian release? Depending on answer to this I would suggest they were aware of this back when they released in US/Jap in late November.
3/ A 4 - 5 mnth wait for an inferior (compared to US/Jap console) that cost more. $1000 AU converted to $US aprox $760 US.
It seems like blatant we knew about all this, but we will weather any small backlash, they will eventual buy our console anyway. It is there reputation that has taken a hit.
Aye their reputation will take a hit depending on the size of the catastrophe. They are only removing the EE chip not the GC so alot, if not most of the PS2 games will be BC before they emulate the rest.
If this allows upscaling on PS2 games....NA and JP will be the jealous ones.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.