Top
950°

Sony on the new PS3, Vita sales, the decline of 3D and the threat of the Wii U

Eurogamer:
"Yesterday Sony launched a new, lighter, slimmer PlayStation 3 just in time for Christmas. The PlayStation 3 super slim, or the super duper slim as Bertie called it during our live report of Sony's Tokyo Game Show press conference last week, comes in two flavours in the UK: a mammoth 500GB edition (out now) and a teeny tiny 12GB edition (out 12th October). Sony doesn't set the price of its hardware in the UK (more on that later), but shops are live now with their offers (GAME has the exclusive on the PS3 500GB FIFA 13 bundle for £250)."

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
The story is too old to be commented.
RivetCityGhoul1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

-Sony on 3D
"It's fair to say consumers have decided it's not hugely important at this time."

oh but evidently people wanted so much. i got so much crap for saying that no one cares about 3D but even sony admits no one cares about 3D. instead of shoehorning the 3D they could put those resources and manpower into making a better game in the long run.

http://n4g.com/news/1088425...

iamnsuperman1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

Thats because you called the Move and 3D usless crap. It isn't. For example people want to be able to game in 3D however getting a 3D tv and glasses are really expensive, having to wear glasses, and it has a profromance hit stop people getting into 3D. Gaming in 3D is cool and people will jump onto it when these disadvantages are resolved. That is what they meant by "It's fair to say consumers have decided it's not hugely important at this time." (note read the last bit of this quote

PopRocks3591395d ago

Move is 100% optional with few (mostly crappy) games tailored for it. No one cared for glasses-free 3D on 3DS. What makes you think paying extra to wear lousy hunks of plastic on your face for 3D on your TV is any more appealing?

As long as these things require spending extra money and/or are not bundled initially with the experience, it won't catch on.

LOGICWINS1395d ago

"Move is 100% optional with few (mostly crappy) games tailored for it. No one cared for glasses-free 3D on 3DS. What makes you think paying extra to wear lousy hunks of plastic on your face for 3D on your TV is any more appealing?"

Someone making sense on N4G?

*looks out window to see if pigs are flying*

Silly gameAr1395d ago

@Logicwins

You're right. He could have been totally obnoxious and felt the need to moan about something or go against the grain everytime he post a comment.

WrAiTh Sp3cTr31395d ago

"Thats because you called the Move and 3D usless crap."

I wouldn't call the Move crap, but it is useless. Sony should've made it to where the PS3's entire interface could be controlled by it. By the way, I love 3D...

Eyeco1395d ago

@iamnsuperman

@Poprocks59

But the thing they never added anything to the core gameplay, both motion and 3d were are the most interesting gimmicks.

Let me start with motion control, i think the Wii is best example of this, i think the console is great but the motion control just didnt add anything to games period using the wii mote in a "unique" "innovative" way in gaming just resulted in waggle, the best game on the console and what is considered the best game this Gen is Super Mario Galaxy, would that game be any less of a great game without motion control ? Hell no it would still be an amazing game , the wii mote added nothing to the core experience, and the same thing can be said with Move the best thats ever been said about a Move controls is how responsive they are , they never made the actual game any better than it was.

Lets look at 3d, the best game to my knowledge that utilizes 3D was Killzone 3 ,did that really add anything to the core experience ? hell no, did critics give the game a point for having 3D ? No do most ps3 owners have 3D ? No what about move ? No now look at what that game needed that all ps3 owners would have used , Online co-op would you have rather had 3d/move instead of online co-op ?

My point being most developers didn't care for these gimmicks, and even if they did most never used them properly and ended up sucking (cod 3d), or detracted them from using there resources on much more important aspects of the game.

GrahamGolden1394d ago

VR is sony next for playstation forget glasses its overrated

ShinMaster1394d ago (Edited 1394d ago )

""What makes you think paying extra to wear lousy hunks of plastic on your face for 3D on your TV is any more appealing""

Who are you responding to?
'iamsuperman' already talked about that ...but without being obnoxious.

pixelsword1394d ago

"What makes you think paying extra to wear lousy hunks of plastic on your face for 3D on your TV is any more appealing"

Hey, it's like I always said: that stuff needs to be in the console from day one to be successful.

Move, 3D, and Kinect are largely useless to the hardcore gamer, even more so if it's an afterthought.

Nobody's talking about Move just like no one is talking about Kinect, just like Robby the robot for the NES, or 32X for Sega or jaguar CD.

Add-ons always fail in the end.

b163o11394d ago

They just haven't figured out how to break that barrier(Glasses). 3D gaming is cool but if some friends come over and you don't have enough glasses, it'll kill the moment.

stragomccloud1394d ago

@pop rocks
What are you talking about? The 3D on the 3DS is great, and one of it's best selling features, it really does breath life into the games. That said, I also own a 3D television, and the Team ICO PS3 collection looks amazing!

tokugawa1394d ago

the problem with 3D is active 3D! not only that, when you have companies like sony that knowingly shafted all their customers in 2010/11, ofcourse people are going to be wary.

google, sony 3D and crosstalk to see what i mean.

but, once the manufacturers dump active and all go passive, i am sure 3D will be accepted more. the price of active glasses is another barrier.

whereas passive is cheaper, performs better (dont talk about the resolution hit because it is very difficult to see), and is easier to watch.

i went from a sony active to a 2012 lg passive, and the difference is bigger than night and day

mewhy321394d ago

Well I tend to agree with 3D being a gimmick that Sony tried to use to gain market share against Microsoft and Nintendo. It failed. The Move was also another gimmick and I'd go as far as to say a blantant copy of WiiMote. I won't say it's useless just a little shameless. Personally I didn't buy the Move because I already have a Wii. 3D can be played on Xbox or PS3 now so that gimmick edge is gone for Sony. However 3D is still an option for Blu Ray playback. I use it often when not playing DeadSpace 2. AWESOME btw. LOL

Wh15ky1394d ago

@eyeco

"would you have rather had 3d/move instead of online co-op ?"

As an owner of a 3d tv and move, hell yes!
Move support on that game is the sole reason I have clocked up more hours on it than KZ2, considering KZ2 is the better game in every other way. The 3D is a bonus, as it looks fantastic, I've only ever played KZ3 in 3d since buying my 3d tv.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1394d ago
iamnsuperman1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

i.e. not ihugely mportant at this time

RivetCityGhoul1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

you honestly think that sony is just gonna flat out a say its no one cares? i mean of course they are gonna use a different sense of words. put it to you this way i may have been harsh with my use of words but at the same time 3D and move are just stuff that probably stopped alot of games from reaching their full potential and actually stopped alot of games from coming and or stopped DLC from coming out for already released games. like heavy for instance which was supposed to have 4 DLC packs that tie up loose ends. but all of them never came out because sony decided move controls were more important.

LOGICWINS1395d ago

"you honestly think that sony is just gonna flat out a say its no one cares? i mean of course they are gonna use a different sense of words."

Your 100% right.

dark-hollow1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

i dont think the fact that it have a 3D display is main part of why its selling very well, even if its nintendo main advertising point. for me, i dont even turn the 3d effect on for 90% of my time playing on it.

its more likely because of the software and the price of the system.

longcat1395d ago

My 3d slider is set on off as well. not worth the hassle. was cool for a few hours though.

wnek91395d ago

same me and everyone i know dont even turn 3d on.

belac091395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

the only game i have ever used the 3d for on my 3ds is Kingdom Hearts, they did an amazing job on theyre 3d, it didnt hurt my eyes all the way up. other than that i dont use the 3d, i just like the 3ds for the power. i have a vita too so dont even start trolls.

miyamoto1395d ago

the reason 3ds sells is because its the cheaper handheld game machine compared to vita or whatever. not because of 3d

Gen0ne1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

Not me. That 3D slider is on MAX. Always. And to be honest, that was and still is the selling point for me.

Highlife1394d ago

My kids play their 3ds with the slider set to off. They could careless if the games are in 3d or not. They thought it was cool the first week but after that they just don't bother with it.

Summons751394d ago

but haven't you noticed once the 3ds price dropped happened NIntendo stopped focusing on 3d and focused now games.....now there are games to justify the purchase.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1394d ago
MostJadedGamer1395d ago

Yea I remember a couple of years ago Sony was absolute surely that 3D would be the next big thing. Just shows that nobody can predict the future on things like this.

Eyeco1395d ago

I agree 110% the amount of times i said 3d was a pointless costly gimmick and a waste of time and resources by sony, i got allot of flak on this site. I was constantly saying 3d was a pointless addition to gaming but the mindless fanboys were convinced 3d was a way forward for Sony, it never was it was just a waste of resources , time, and publicity for the most pointless gimmick ( next to motion controls) of the last 10 years and didn't add anything to core gameplay.
Now look

neogeo1395d ago

Your still wrong. 3D TV's are not even getting warmed up yet.

zebramocha1395d ago

From a hardware perspective 3d didn't do so well,but it allow GG to have slit screen in killzone 3 and motion are not bad if done well it's just dev didn't know or didn't want to use it plus most lack accuracy until ps move and razor hydra hit the scene.

Eyeco1395d ago

3D is dying gimmick , public interest is waining, look at 3D ticket sales at the movies, then look at t.vs i think Sony finally realised this.

kenoh1395d ago SpamShow
Imalwaysright1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

3D technology has existed for more than 100 years and never became mainstream or the standard. What makes you think that it will now?

NBT911394d ago

The people who say 3D is a gimmick have clearly never played a game that does 3D well on a 3DTV. Basically, to be blunt - its people who can not afford it.

I played the majority of Shadow of the Colossus in 3D... Yes the frame rate takes a bit of a beating but grabbing onto that flying colossus as it flies literally at you was generally terrifying the first time I played it - and true the game still look gorgeous without 3D but when games execute 3D well it DOES add to the visuals very nicely and that was just one example of when a game gets it right.

I mean its the same with films... Some films you may as well not bother because 3D has clearly been tacked on in a "me too" fashion, but some of them use it to actually enhance the look and feel of the film and those are the ones worth sticking plastic on your face for.

Kurt Russell1394d ago (Edited 1394d ago )

^ You start by saying...

"The people who say 3D is a gimmick have clearly never played a game that does 3D well on a 3DTV"

and then go on to say...

"I played the majority of Shadow of the Colossus in 3D... Yes the frame rate takes a bit of a beating"

I personally would rather have a good framerate for a game like that over 3D. And that goes for every single game I can think of.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1394d ago
tubers1395d ago

Or at least create more competitive 2D displays at very competitive pricing. :P

QSPR1394d ago

believe me, i work @ sony store on PR, when SONY stop making 3D tv's or 3D displays ppl wanna co e to the store and they gonna say: where are the 3D tvs, well sir sony stop making those because ppl don't want it... ohh no and now i wnt one.!!!! yeah righ.

Axecution1395d ago

Hey guys! I uh, still love my 3D TV and watch a lot of 3D movies on it, and play a lot of 3D games on my PC through my TV. It's a uh, enjoyable experience.

Sorry if that offends you. >.>

BaconBits1395d ago

I like the IDEA of 3D but I would rather just have a nice panel for the extra dollars. Glasses-less on 3DS is cool at times but if you are playing games like mario kart you tend to move the 3DS around a bit which throws off the 3d. Obviously this is not a problem with tv's and I thought they were coming out with non glasses ones that let more than one person watch. If passive 3d came out with better frame rates I would be in for that since the glasses are cheap and light. I think it will just become a slight add on/bonus for tv's in the future.

So I wouldn't say I don't CARE about 3d but I certainly don't want to pay a premium price for it.

ReservoirDog3161395d ago

I'm so glad this 3D fad is ending.

It was so stupid that people were so excited about it. It just made everything look bad.

GrandTheftZamboni1395d ago

I don't know which 3D TV you got, but on my TV, 3D makes movies and games look better. It's like ... they got an extra dimension ...

ReservoirDog3161394d ago

@ GTZ

That extra artificial dimension ruins the integrity of every scene in a movie. Every single one. It changes everything and dumbs down the cinematography.

If you understand movies, you'll know why not using film to shoot your movie is a slap on the face to every cinematographer out there.

Jockamo1394d ago

Yes. That's why Christopher Nolan decided against 3D in The Dark Knight Rises. He said he doesn't know anyone that really likes 3D...

Wh15ky1394d ago

@Jockamo

It would have taken more than 3D to save that movie. Such a dissapointing end to what could have been a great trilogy.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1394d ago
forestfrog1395d ago

Who's played it? I want to play uc3 in 3d, but I need a new tv to do that!

IRetrouk1394d ago

U wouldn't believe the effect in uc3, really has to be experienced, the plane and boat bits are really good, so is the trippy bit and the sand June's, plus it adds something extra to the in game movies, really has to be experienced.

doogiebear1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

Wii U is not a threat to Playstation 3.

ConstipatedGorilla1394d ago

This is what Fergal says regarding Wii U: " But we feel very confident that in the PlayStation and we won't be going after the same niche early adopter market they'll be going after this Christmas. I think we're sitting in separate camps at this stage, so it won't be head to head.

If they gain real traction next year it becomes a more important factor in the mix. They've been a very key player in the market overall as you well know in recent years. So we have to respect that, watch that and do our best to compete with that."

I wish fanboys could be this level headed and logical too.

edgeofsins1394d ago

Is not hugely important =/= no one cares.

geddesmond1394d ago

Thats not what they said. Hugely unimportant and nobody gives a crap are 2 different things. A lot of people do want 3d but just can't afford the move yet. You do realise 3D TVs cost 2 grand when they first came out and they are still pretty expensive now. People already spent a grand or 2 on HDTVs a few years ago. How rich do you think most people are.

Also you call people replying with their opinions giving you got crap? You got 3 replys. 1 dude telling you its not crap to him, another dude agreeing about the crap but saying not everyone shares your opinion and another dude stating the move sold 10 mil lol. Giving your crap ROFLMAO. Time for a rag change princess.

In future when your going to say somethings a waste of resources give reasons to back it up. You couldn't possibly know what type of resources sony use to make 3D. I doubt the resources used to turn games 3D is enough resources to make even 1 Vita game.

Picnic1394d ago (Edited 1394d ago )

Motorstorm Apocalypse is superb for its 3D and as a game.

Tapewurm1394d ago

It's really a shame that the masses can't afford to get everything needed for 3D. Anyone that has played Motorstorm Apocalypse in 3D knows how good 3D gaming can be. (Killzone 3, Resistance 3, Uncharted 3, Socom 4, Gran Turismo 5,Sonic Generations, House of Dead Overkill, and many other games that are in 3D are just simply amazing to play IN 3D!)

It's not dying or being unsuccessful because people don't want it...... the ONLY reason it has not been widely adapted is price....the economy is killing everything. I can't tell you how many times I have heard people say things like... "I would get it if I could afford it." or "It's too expensive for the 3D TV I want to get."

It's truly unfortunate that so many are missing out and ignorantly dismissing 3D gaming as they have been.

evilunklebud1394d ago

3D is such a cash crab......

Megaton1394d ago

Completely agreed. How could they not see that no one cared about 3D TVs? If I, some internet jack-off, could see the writing on the wall, how could a mega-corp like Sony not see it?

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 1394d ago
black9111395d ago

The problem with 3D is not enough People have it.

TheFinalEpisode1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

And that is because of a few reasons:
1)Good 3D displays are too expensive
2) A lot of people either just got HDTVs and/or are still happy with their HDTVs
3)The 3D craze wore off
4)People don't like headaches

Anon19741394d ago

1) That was one of the biggest complaints about HD as well. Same thing with color TV's when they first came out. People complained about the expense and not enough content. Guess what happened.

2) That's a good point. There are still plenty of households without 3d TV's, and most don't see a reason to upgrade. But when it comes time to upgrade, more and more will pick up 3D because so there's just so many of the sets out there now.

3) The 3D "craze" has far from worn off. Hollywood is still putting huge money into 3D. When you look at falling 3d movie sales, the main culprit is Avatar did incredible business that inflated 3D figures so now that there hasn't been a monster 3d hit like Avatar, everything pales in comparison. 3D re-releases of films like Titanic and Finding Nemo is still packing them in to see movies everyone has already seen and there's no doubt the Hobbit in 3D is going to be a monster hit. I imagine that'll move a few 3D sets right there.

4) It's not normal to get headaches from 3d. The American Optometric Association has flat out stated that if you have issues viewing 3d, you need to get to checked out. "3D viewing can help identify and even treat undetected problems."

http://www.3deyehealth.org/

Imalwaysright1394d ago (Edited 1394d ago )

The only reason HDTVs took off was because if you need a new TV you kinda are forced to buy one. When was the last time Samsung, LG or Sony made a SDTV? Aside from console gamers and movie buffs no one gives a shit about HD or 3D for that matter. The only way for 3D Tvs to take off is if TV manufacterers stop making HDTVs like they did with SDTVs. The mainstream consumer wont ditch their HDTVs just to buy a guimmick and wont buy a new TV unless they strictly need one.

chukamachine1395d ago

Nothing wrong with 3D or MOVE.

Move fighting game destroys all others.(lights out), Start the party 2 is sweet as well for family fun. As is house of the dead. Granted i don't use it for shooters. I much prefer kb/mouse or gamepad.

3D in movies is sweet, and in some games works very well. But 3d is asking alot of PS3 or 360. To be done properly, not that bullshit version crysis2 did.

All in all, 3d games will be fine in prob 5 years.

DivineAssault 1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

Is wii u competing with PS3 or is it next gen? Seems as if theres competition already when PS4 isnt even around.. I think sony is going to take it easy for now.. If wii u takes away from PS3 sales, theyll drop the price again nx yr.. I doubt theyre taking it seriously if they kept the slim model price the way it is..

dark-hollow1395d ago

"Wii U is late to this race by about 6 yrs.."

most average people dont care about this, they see a new system with games they want, they buy it.

the 3ds is "late" to the specs race compared to the vita, but it sold very well and have a solid library of games.

BaconBits1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

I love new tech and flashy graphics but only to a certain extent. For example, I liked the Wii but it definitely needed better graphics and less lag in the control. Other than first party games, it got little play. If the Wii U can fix that then it will hold me over until the next from MS or Sony. I would love it if it was a power house of graphics but I knew it would not be. Maybe it is just me but I spend a lot on games so dropping $350 on the Wii U does not seam like much of a risk. I might have passed it by if there was any real info or release date for the next xbox or ps4 but there is not.

darx1395d ago

They can add blu-ray to the mix also.