Bill Gates: "Nintendo is our biggest competitor"

[Radd]

Originally Posted by Sole

I think PS3 needs time, I can tell some of the bad things about the console and MS is really doing a great job with their 360, but I still think ps3 can still do really good just like they did with the ps2, I didn't think ps2 was such a good console compared to the other 2, but it had the biggest library of games, that was when I stopped caring about system spec and actually cared about the quality of the games developed on the system, at least in a customer standpoint.

But you have to look at why the PS2 succeeded. It basically rode the Sony name after the success of the PS1, and it also arrived amidst incredible hype. Between Sony's PS1 auccess, and the promise of movie quality graphics, the PS2 buried the Dreamcast and dominated the market before the Xbox and Gamecube arrived a full year or so later, despite not having a gaming library worth talking about at the time (the Dreamcast had better, and better looking, games than the PS22 could boast in its entire first year). Since the PS2 had such incredible market saturation, and neither of the other systems could catch up even after a year, developers put most of their efforts into the one machine they'd likely see the most returns on, the PS2.

The PS3 is in a very different situation. This time, the PS3 is a year bahind the 360. The only reasons Microsoft's machine doesn't have the insurmountable head start on market saturation is because of the original Xbox's lacking showing, versus Sony's name, and once again the hype of graphics far and away superior. Basically, people expect the PS3 to have a larger library, and they expect those games to look much better.

However, price is the main factor holding sales of the PS3 back right now. Sony made the Sega/3DO mistake. The market is only willing and able to pay so much for a home console, releasing the PS3 with such a high price tag puts it out of the realm of financial feasability that a $200-300 system has. Many complained the $400 Xbox 360 was too much.

Add to that developement costs. Because it costs so much to create the visuals Sony is selling their system on, and just the added cost of working with the PS3 hardware, developers need to see more sales of their games to turn a healthy profit than they did in the previous generation. Since the console already isn't likely to see the same sort of success as the PS2, that means it will be more difficult to achieve those numbers.

Add to that, smaller developement houses are right out. Hence, we see Mistwalker focusing on Microsoft and Nintendo's machines. Treasure and Grasshopper have both said they pretty much plan to stand by Nintendo since it's the only system they can really afford to develope for. And in general we're seeing developers shift to a more multi-platform take on the industry.

Now, I personally think the PS3 will do well, it's just that all the evidence seems to show it will not single handedly dominate the industry like the PS2 did. Comparisons between the Sony now with the PS3 and the Nintendo a couple generations ago with the N64 are not unfounded.

But this gen seem to have a lot more elitist fanboys out of all gen I think, it might had something to do with Sony promising more than they should've, so more people bash them interms of graphics than all their previous consoles, and a lot more Sony haters.

I don't think this is neccessarily true. In fact, I'm quite sure it's not true at all. First, I've yet to see anyone "bash" the graphics of the PS3. I've seen people point out that games are not looking quite as good as the still shots and pre-rendered videos seen well before the system launched. I've seen people point out that the graphics seen so far are not really all that more impressive than what we've seen with the 360. But I have not seen anyone say that the PS3 has poor graphics. In fact, the universal opinion seems to be that it has the best graphics of this generation. The question is, is it worth an additional $100-200 over the 360's already expensive price tag?

Also, if anything Sony has seemed downright conservative in their hype of the PS3's graphics capabilities when compared to the market-crushing hype of the PS2 (which at times promised graphics better than what we're seeing on the PS3).

Finally, while I see a lot more people either writing off the PS3 due to price, or planning to hold off until a price drop brings it under $400, I don't actually see any more Sony "haters" than there were in the past.

Competition is a good thing for us gamers, and we should encourage a healthy view of it, rather than encouring the view of clinging to a single brand name no matter what they do, and denouncing the others despite their merits.

[Radd]

Originally Posted by kayos

Maybe Sony should have pulled a Microsoft and sold the PS3 as a core system with an option to purchase the hard drive separately. It's the hard drive that people have to drop another hundred or two on.

That would have been a terrible move for Sony. First of all, it would have made it impossible for developers to rely on the presence of a hard drive, meaning it wouldn't see nearly the support it will since it comes standard. Second, it's not the hard drive that's really pushing the PS3 price, it's BluRay. However, that is pivotal to Sony's attempt to push BluRay as the new media format.

Really, I'm just glad that they changed their minds about gimping the $500 version, and made it actually worth getting rather than the $600 version.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Radd

But you have to look at why the PS2 succeeded. It basically rode the Sony name after the success of the PS1, and it also arrived amidst incredible hype. Between Sony's PS1 auccess, and the promise of movie quality graphics, the PS2 buried the Dreamcast and dominated the market before the Xbox and Gamecube arrived a full year or so later, despite not having a gaming library worth talking about at the time (the Dreamcast had better, and better looking, games than the PS22 could boast in its entire first year). Since the PS2 had such incredible market saturation, and neither of the other systems could catch up even after a year, developers put most of their efforts into the one machine they'd likely see the most returns on, the PS2.

The PS3 is in a very different situation.

Yep, I agree, I said this in this thread. http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=41510

I think it will be like this this gen, more or less. PS2 launched a year earlier than the competition, and sold great from launch through the end of 2000 and into 2001 based on four things(primarily): 1) Successor to the highly successful and favored PSX 2) DVD movie players started to gain momentum as the choice movie player 3) Developers giving it major backing from the start, so people new lots of games were coming, and 4) This machine that offered all these things came at a mainstream price of $300. Also, once the competition launched, Sony was lucky to have had a year head start to be able to offer big hits in the holiday season of 2001, from Gran Turismo 3 to GTA III to Final Fantasy X and Devil May Cry.

And there was also the hype for PS2, which added a lot to it bolting out of the gate. And the dev costs is important to note. Devs aren't throwning themselves at the PS3, especially after the launch and the sales and the software sales. Some devs will focus more on Wii and X360 because of dev costs (like Treasure) and many companies are trying to spread out support more rather than give most of their support to Sony. Even Square-Enix says it wants to spread out support more, and Kojima keeps saying how he can't wait to develop for the Wii; he just has to finish MGS 4 first (which I am highly anticipating, btw).

[Radd]

Does the 20Gig for the 360 cost that much on its own? I know the version that comes with it is a hundred dollars more, but it also includes wireless controllers, a headset, and other things to justify that price. You can buy a 120Gig hard drive for about 90 bucks, new (better deals if you look around, even). By my understanding, with Sony you can just buy a SATA hard drive and plug it into the console, and that pretty much invites you to buy the $500 model and simply upgrade the hard drive at your leisure.

[Papaya]

http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-360-20GB-.../dp/B000B6ML32

It's $90 new at Amazon.com, so I guess that's the retail price for it.

Yeah, ~$100 for a standalone 20 gb hard drive is a ridiculously overpriced ripoff, but I guess they have to be manufactured specifically for the 360.

And yes, you can install your own hard drive for the 360. The instructions even show you how :O

EDIT:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...SubCategory=14

Newegg.com has several 320 gb PC hard drives for the same amount of money. So I guess it really is a ripoff :O

[Radd]

Originally Posted by kayos

True but you wouldn't get the wireless connection that only comes with the 60gb. But how about the card readers, does that come with the 20gb as well?

Depends on how important all of that is to you. Also, you can buy them seperately if you really wanted them, of course then the console would wind up costing you more than the 60Gig version in the first place.

The only thing that was not going to be upgradable with the 20Gb version was the HDMI, and Sony rectified that.

[Lyannea]

People were complaining about ps2 when it came out. - too expensive - games are too hard to code, it will cost more to produce games - etc. (all the same crap people are saying now... Exactly the same.) I say time will tell who's the winner. All the analysis means nothing right now since the ps3 and the wii just came out.

[Radd]

Lyannea, time will tell who's the "winner". However, you forget that it was a small minority of people making those complaints you speak of, while much of the market was swayed by the hype surrounding the PS2. You also forget that the PS2 launched at $300, same as the PS1, even fewer people were complaining of price because it simply was not an issue. In fact, saying that people were complaining about price is really stretching matters in no small way.

You must also keep in mind that the only reason the PS2 "won" the previous generation was its its early domination of the market and a year head start on the Gamecube and Xbox. The PS3 is in a very different position than the PS2. This time the PS3 is coming in a year late. These differences have been laid out in detail.

But you are quite right it is far too early to say this system or that will dominate the generation. It will be at least a year before anyone can say that with any credibility. Even then there is still the strong possibility that no console will dominate like the PS2 did. That doesn't mean we can't make observations in the mean time, while people are trying to decide which console they'd like to get sooner rather than later.

[TheMadMan]

This message can be interpreted two ways
1. No one cares about the PS3, poor launch, too expensive, no games, blah, blah, blah
or...
2. The PS3 is such a big competitor that it will eat up like 50% of the market anyways, so realisticly, Microsoft has to fight the Nintendo Wii for the other 50%

the 360 and the PS3 are the only real next gen consoles, the Wii appeals to a different group

[Urzu 7]

How I honestly see things playing out is that there is no console with a huge lead like PS2.

By the time X360 rolled around, it was something like 23 million GCNs sold, 25 million XBox sold, and over 70 million PS2s sold (worldwide sales). The PS2 is like over 90 million now.

I think the total sales will be closer together 4 years from now rather than the lead console having a +50 million units sold gap.

[Spirit Chicken!]

The only way any of the consoles this generation will wind up with a massive lead would be a particular surge of must-have, watershed moment games to pop up on any one system. Depending on when the Wii train slows down post launch on the likes of Wii Sports and whatnot in Japan especially...the games will dictate all.

The better question of this generation will be which company's business model and design philosophy will be the one emulated and further refined by the others in the generation after this one....IMO.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Spirit Chicken!

The only way any of the consoles this generation will wind up with a massive lead would be a particular surge of must-have, watershed moment games to pop up on any one system. Depending on when the Wii train slows down post launch on the likes of Wii Sports and whatnot in Japan especially...the games will dictate all.

The better question of this generation will be which company's business model and design philosophy will be the one emulated and further refined by the others in the generation after this one....IMO.

Well, Sony already tried to start copying Nintendo. Sometime after Nintendo unveiled the secret new controls, Sony announced the Six Axis controller.

[Knightmare213]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Well, Sony already tried to start copying Nintendo. Sometime after Nintendo unveiled the secret new controls, Sony announced the Six Axis controller.

This was one of the biggest rip-off I had ever seen. I mean...c'mon! I rather have my rumbler attached to my PS3 controller than a bloody failed copy of Wii's uniqueness!


And right now, what Bill Gates said is true. After seeing how it affects the non-gamers and me, and with my bank account already having enough money to buy Wii, I'm starting to give up saving up money to buy PS3 and get Wii instead.

[Theclow]

Originally Posted by Knightmare213

This was one of the biggest rip-off I had ever seen. I mean...c'mon! I rather have my rumbler attached to my PS3 controller than a bloody failed copy of Wii's uniqueness!

I think I'd rather have the boomarang then the sixiaxis, but that's just me. I don't own a PS3 at the moment but I plan to buy one before summer.

[Onizuka-GTO]

i'll buy one when i can afford one which will be....in two years time....

[Sides]

Originally Posted by Theclow

I think I'd rather have the boomarang then the sixiaxis, but that's just me. I don't own a PS3 at the moment but I plan to buy one before summer.

No joking, me as well.
The boomerang design look way more comfortable,
than the dualshock/six-axis design.
Too bad that sony did listen to the femeboys (^^) that time.

Nevertheless, i think Gates has too much time now
and nothing to do ...

[Theclow]

Originally Posted by Sides

No joking, me as well.
The boomerang design look way more comfortable,
than the dualshock/six-axis design.
Too bad that sony did listen to the femeboys (^^) that time.

Hmm it's nice to see some people agreeing with my opinions(But it's odd for me )

Nevertheless, i think Gates has too much time now
and nothing to do ...

Gates and too much time go together like apple pie and whipping cream.

Originally Posted by kayos

That's the thing I want to know, what was wrong with the first version of the ps3?

Absultley nothing IMO, I think they thought "If we mash the Wii's controller with the 360's graphics We will rule the world!". I think kaz was a few clowns short of a circus when he made that decision .

[Radd]

Originally Posted by TheMadMan

This message can be interpreted two ways
1. No one cares about the PS3, poor launch, too expensive, no games, blah, blah, blah
or...
2. The PS3 is such a big competitor that it will eat up like 50% of the market anyways, so realisticly, Microsoft has to fight the Nintendo Wii for the other 50%

Actually, given the context we can only interpret this statement by #1. Or, rather, that Gates is hoping to reinforce this impression. The PS3 hasn't sold poorly, per se, but it's not selling enough to dominate the market. Right now, the 360 is the market leader, by virtue of a year head start, with the Wii closing rapidly. The PS3 is also closing on the 360, but at a much slower pace.

the 360 and the PS3 are the only real next gen consoles, the Wii appeals to a different group

Not really true at all.

[Knightmare213]

@TheMadMan: Your comment on Wii not being a next-gen console and appealing to another group...that's half-right.


Officially, Nintendo Wii is a full-fledged next-gen (or Seventh Generation) game console, despite 'poor' it's graphic and sound quality compared to the PS3 and the Xbox360. However, Wii does appeal to a different group: the non-gamers.

As I stated before, Wii is being enjoyed by both gamers and non-gamers such as parents, grandparents (seriously, no jokes on that one) and other groups of non-gaming people.

We should all take into the account that the definition of the word "next-generation video game consoles" does not only mean better graphics and sound, but how it revolutionizes the current video game industry. Xbox360 will probably focus on their online capabilities, better graphics and sound quality (and perhaps develop upon their own online capability as well) for PS3, and for Wii, it will be focusing on how we play the game.

In other words, MS and Sony will focus on the presentation while Wii will focus on something that was not developed ever since the rise of Pong, the gameplay and the experience of holding those controllers in your hands.

[Theclow]

Originally Posted by Knightmare213

In other words, MS and Sony will focus on the presentation while Wii will focus on something that was not developed ever since the rise of Pong, the gameplay and the experience of holding those controllers in your hands.

I find it funny how some people don't realise this, and even though you said it still refuse to realise this , worded like a pro.(AKA I agree)