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.
RivetCityGhoul1787d ago (Edited 1787d 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...

iamnsuperman1787d ago (Edited 1787d 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

PopRocks3591787d 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.

LOGICWINS1787d 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 gameAr1787d 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 Sp3cTr31787d 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...

Eyeco1787d 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.

GrahamGolden1787d ago

VR is sony next for playstation forget glasses its overrated

ShinMaster1787d ago (Edited 1787d 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.

pixelsword1787d 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.

b163o11787d 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.

stragomccloud1787d 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!

tokugawa1787d 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

mewhy321786d 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

Wh15ky1786d 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 1786d ago
iamnsuperman1787d ago (Edited 1787d ago )

i.e. not ihugely mportant at this time

RivetCityGhoul1787d ago (Edited 1787d 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.

LOGICWINS1787d 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-hollow1787d ago (Edited 1787d 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.

longcat1787d ago

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

wnek91787d ago

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

belac091787d ago (Edited 1787d 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.

miyamoto1787d ago

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

Gen0ne1787d ago (Edited 1787d ago )

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

Highlife1787d 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.

Summons751786d 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 1786d ago
MostJadedGamer1787d 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.

Eyeco1787d 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

neogeo1787d ago

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

zebramocha1787d 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.

Eyeco1787d 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.

1787d ago
Imalwaysright1787d ago (Edited 1787d 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?

NBT911787d 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.