Top
360°

For Sony, To Be First Could Mean Coming in Last

Ruser Saldana of Game Kudos writes an interesting article on the obstacles Sony's latest generation of consoles have faced and what the future may hold for them.

Read Full Story >>
gamekudos.com
The story is too old to be commented.
MisterNiwa3035d ago

I don't care if Sony is 3rd.

I only care for the games that Sony has brought us so far and will bring us in the future, this Year, Sony is burning.

Can't wait for the TGS to finally see some Japan Game Studio love.

dredgewalker3035d ago

Yeah, I don't really feel that Sony is in 3rd place. I've been having a blast since we bought it and with all the great games coming out I have no complaints. I'll stick to the motto that sales don't mean quality and this is very true with the PS3.

8-bit3035d ago

I agree with both of you, Sony is #1 in my book. I am not a share holder so sales mean shit to me. What I care about are games and that is what Sony is bringing to the table

ExplosionSauce3035d ago (Edited 3035d ago )

But that doesn't keep them from being the best burgers, IMO.

Nah, they're all great anyways, right?
It's all down to personal opinion, as long as you keep common sense.

CameronL993035d ago

The PS3 isn't competing for the same market share as the Wii. People who bought a Wii didn't buy one in lieu of buying a PS3, that isn't their market, so there really is only a one on one race with the PS3 and the 360 for the same market.

Also, the title of this article is completely misleading and is an obvious cheap attempt at getting hits. The first part is a pointless history lesson that displays just another whiney immature gamer complaining about the PS3's price tag. For the record I think PS3 should have been $850 at launch, thats what it cost to make, and it was selling out in every story at $599, people were paying thousands for it on ebay, so why not make it 850? Early adopters are crazy, and the PS3 was sold out everywhere the first 8 months to a year, which would have occured no matter what price it was at.
But you learn nothing from this article that you didn't already know, and that hasn't already been iterated and reiterated a hundred thousand times now. It was a long way to go to make the point that if sony's utilization of the latest tech would backfire, which is stupid since everything was going HD, it wasn't exactly a new technology. Blu Ray just made sense being the disc with the biggest capacity, it wasn't like people weren't going to want HD movies with their HDTV's.

SilentNegotiator3035d ago

I've had all 3 consoles at one time or another (Don't have Wii anymore) and I have easily had the most fun with the PS3.

0mega43035d ago

enough of the console wars as long as each system is successful thats all that matter
and yet it is the competition which brings out the best or worst in the companies

along with the fact that sony took a huge gamble on blurry
as microsoft did with hddvd

and sony gamble payed off

as i think will 3d
as with technology it quickly become cheaper and easy to incorporate

and the 360 has a 3.6 million lead I don't see that as much of a difference
and i think they've taken this lead and relaxed as there not working as hard to secure exclusive and remain faithful to there core audience

this is so fitting of "if you're not first you're last" with the wii somehow selling asinine amounts of consoles

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3035d ago
Guy12345673035d ago (Edited 3035d ago )

I have a ps3 but I HATE them for making a system that is so hard to makes games on. I had to play so many games this gen that should NOT have played better on xbox but did! BUT WHY!?:(I have GOW and Uncharted2 great games.

Go to digital foundry and see for yourself. Bioshock, Dead Space, Mafia 2, Kane and Lynch 2, GTA 4, Bayonetta, Red Dead, Bad Comapny 2, And even Modern Warfare etc. all played better on 360. With better lighting and frame rate with the same resolution! And you can add Mass Effect to the list when it comes out! Thanks Sony for the great 1st party games. BUT suck it for the rest!

ZombieAutopsy3035d ago (Edited 3035d ago )

I somewhat agree, I like the fact that if a dev actually takes the time to make a game for it the end result is amazing. At the same time though not all devs have the funding/time/talent to do so and wish they would of made it a little easier to dev for.

I believe Sony has noticed though and that's why they have stated for the Ps4 they are going to have a lot of developer input on the specs.

With games like Uncharted, Killzone, Gow, GT5 i don't really seem to care because i know what a devloper CAN do with it so when i see a multiplat perform bad i'll at least know its not the ps3 fault.

asyouburn3035d ago

all play much better on pc than even xbox 360, actually, theres a bigger quality jump between 360 and pc than 360 and ps3, so wheres the 360 hate? seriously. you act like 360 has the premier version of all those games, when in fact pc rapes it. if you were so interested in playing the best versions, your on the wrong machine

ExplosionSauce3035d ago

Dead Space performed great on the PS3. You kind of make it sound like it's horrible.
There's very little difference between them.
Bioshock 2 was pretty great too.

GTA4 had better explosions and particle effects in PS3(slightly). But then again I only played that game for a week and then I got bored. So I could care less now.
Does Kane and Lynch really matter to you?

If you're going to nit-pick certain differences instead of enjoying your games, then your going to be an angry person.
I could barely tell any differences on my TV, unless they're truly major otherwise.

SilentNegotiator3035d ago

"Dead Space"? Inferior on the PS3?
That's subjective.

The PS3 version had the banding on some lighting effects, but the static shadows in the 360 version looked like legos.

TerrorCell3035d ago

Gee man get over yourself we are talking consoles not the pos pc mate. F&[email protected] pc leg humper

RageAgainstTheMShine3035d ago

Art takes time and the PS3 is a much bigger canvas to paint on and more time needed to finish a master piece than the PS2. Artists need a different kind of approach to the task of painting on a much bigger project. And the PS3 require a more talented, committed and skilled team of artists to finish their master piece. Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, Gran Turismo 5 are proof of that. These games will stand the test of time and will go down in history as some of the best games that pushed the envelope.

The PS3 separates the true masters from the commercial artists that's in there mainly for the money, that's for sure.

You say the PS3 tkes a long time to make games on but that's okay. I have a life and so many other stuff to do. I have no problem waiting for master piece games that are worth the wait.

Make mine PS3.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3035d ago
lazysey3035d ago

In the end there will only be CONSOLE EXCLUSIVES.

infekt3035d ago

I agree. I get so much enjoyment from their games and blurays it doesn't matter what the competition or the fanboys think.

CameronL993035d ago

The PS3 isn't competing for the same market share as the Wii. People who bought a Wii didn't buy one in lieu of buying a PS3, that isn't their market, so there really is only a one on one race with the PS3 and the 360 for the same market.

Also, the title of this article is completely misleading and is an obvious cheap attempt at getting hits. The first part is a pointless history lesson that displays just another whiney immature gamer complaining about the PS3's price tag. For the record I think PS3 should have been $850 at launch, thats what it cost to make, and it was selling out in every story at $599, people were paying thousands for it on ebay, so why not make it 850? Early adopters are crazy, and the PS3 was sold out everywhere the first 8 months to a year, which would have occured no matter what price it was at.
But you learn nothing from this article that you didn't already know, and that hasn't already been iterated and reiterated a hundred thousand times now. It was a long way to go to make the point that if sony's utilization of the latest tech would backfire, which is stupid since everything was going HD, it wasn't exactly a new technology. Blu Ray just made sense being the disc with the biggest capacity, it wasn't like people weren't going to want HD movies with their HDTV's.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3035d ago
Blackpool3035d ago

to me sony was 1st from the beginning all they needed was games and now we have them.

Sitdown3035d ago

a video game console was #1 to you despite not having any games? Please explain...as those are your words, not mine.

Blackpool3035d ago

yea it was cause back then it had uncharted,heavenly sword, and resistance keeping me occupied..

ExplosionSauce3035d ago

I think he means that most previous PlayStation fans already knew that the PS3 would come out with several games.
And they have proved so, game after game.
I mean, the 360 didn't have that many good exclusives on its launch year either.

Stop trying to hate.

iceman063035d ago

I completely agree with what you are saying. Console launches have been notorious for not having a slew of great games. Sure, there are usually 2-3 out of about 20 that are top notch. Then, there is the 3rd party glut. Finally, those that are just trying to cash in on the fact that there is new hardware and people want to buy new games for it. The 360 launched with 21 titles and 6 shortly thereafter. The PS3 launched with 30 in Japan and 21 in the US. Seems pretty even to me. I think the price of the PS3 at launch just created a bunch of jaded journalists and gamers. That anger carried into perception and reception of the lineup. With the 360 having a quality library a year ahead, there was a LOT of comparison WITHOUT consideration.

jetlian3035d ago

considered good. 360 had cod2,doa4,fnr3,TRlengend, hitman, TC splinter cell,tc graw, TC rainbow 6 and gears of war and elder scrolls all before its first year was up

Dellis3035d ago (Edited 3035d ago )

Sony being 3rd is their fault, bringing out 599.99-499.99 PS3s consoles just when we were entering the worst financial period in NORTH AMERICA???...

SONY killed themselves and have been trying to get out of a grave they put themselves in almost 4 years ago now, at this point if they didn't have great exclusives they would had been the next sega.

I hope they learned their lesson this gen and bring out PS4 just as an updated PS3( add more RAM) and sell it for 199.99, then they will be in competition.

ATLGAMER3035d ago

is the only reason MS is ahead of them....far as nintendo goes who knows what would have happen

8-bit3035d ago

Yeah now that the PS3 is at a more competitive price, it is selling better than ever. I bought mine when it was $399 and it was worth every penny.

Anon19743035d ago (Edited 3035d ago )

Because everyone knew back when they were making the PS3 in 2005-2006 that 2008-2009 we were going into a worldwide economic crisis. /s

The article even mentions that even with the high price point, the PS3 still managed to sell better than the 360 did when it launched. An now they look rock solid, ready to overtake the 360's worldwide lead by year end. You want to explain to me again how Sony killed themselves with the PS3? Check the sales...rethink...post again. Your comment just aren't supported by the facts.

As for the article - can someone explain to me how the PS3 slim is "gimped". I didn't get that one. Do fewer USB ports mean the system's "gimped"? That's the only main difference I can think of compared to the models being sold just prior to the Slim's release. Then the article spends half the time ranting about the PSP Go. Can someone show me where Sony said the PSP Go was failure? Last I checked, the PSP had moved about 60 million units - pretty impressive considering how much more expensive the platform was compared to the competition.

I've re-read the article and I'm a little confused at the point it's trying to make. I hate when articles come out with a headline that they don't even attempt to address. Someone want to read the article and explain to me how for Sony "Coming in first could mean coming in last"? I just don't get it.

Edit below: But who said that? I'm sure some loony fans thought the PS3 would storm the beaches right out of the gate - but no one else thought that. Sony certainly didn't say that when they put out their projections for the console. They knew how it would sell and aside from one adjustment to their forecasts the PS3 sold exactly as they expected as laid out in their financial reports. And where do you get that the Xbox is lead on 90% of multiplats? That just sounds like BS to me. If you want to talk about being "intellectually dishonest" how about not making up false stats you have no proof of?

lowcarb3035d ago

Even if there wasn't a financial crysis Sony should have looked at failure consoles like the 3do before coming out at such a high price point. It was definitely Sony's fault but now it's seems to be paying off in some ways. N4G is plagued wit h fanboys who don't want competition but for me I want Sony and MS to battle it out not MS and Nintendo next gen in the casual realm.

Sitdown3035d ago

but addition to the usb ports, you are also forgetting memory card slots, decreased backwards comptability, and now the lack of the other OS. Again, I am not saying the slim is gimped....but perhaps these are additional reasons for that statement.

ExplosionSauce3035d ago

I agree that the PS3 has managed to pull itself through quite well.

38 Million does not sound like anything close to failure. 70% of systems online.
It's all good.

Mr Marbles3035d ago (Edited 3035d ago )

You need to keep in mind it was xbox against what was once a behemoth in the industry, playstation. NO ONE expected Playstation III to have any trouble outselling xbox 360. Year head start or not PS3 should be ahead of 360.
You're being intellectually dishonest to say anything to the contrary.

The fact that not only did PS3 not outsell 360 after launch, it still has not done so years after launch is a huge failure on Sonys behalf, and a massive victory for MS. Xbox is now the lead platform for 90% of multiplats, and Xbox sells more of almost every multiplat released. This is huge, so to down play this industry upset by saying, "bu bu the year headstart" is just a failure of an argument.

ColJessup3035d ago

Kindly provide proof that 90% of multiplats are lead on the 360. While you're at it - I'd love to see the reports that predicted the PS3 should have overtaken the 360 right out of the gate. Like DR66 pointed out, those forecasts certainly didn't come from Sony.

You're being intellectually dishonest to say anything to the contrary.

Guy12345673035d ago (Edited 3035d ago )

He is right i went to Videogame chartz ill put link at the bottom. But every big multiplat i could think of did sell alot better on 360. Not by little either. ALOT. I looked up Red Dead, Modern Warfare 1 and 2, Bad Company 1 and 2, GTA 4 etc

http://www.vgchartz.com/wor...

Mr Marbles3035d ago

Im thinking it was a pretty accurate guess.

And I never said Sony said that, Sony knew right after PS3 launch they were in deep do do. It was the media and PS3 fans making the claims.

Sitdown3035d ago

You will not find reports saying the ps3 should have over taken the 360 out the gates...because it was a logical assumption. In addition to the console market being Sony's as of last gen, you can't look pass the comment of people going to get a second job so that they could afford it.

I agree with Marbles that regardless of where the 360 ends up this generation, they come out with a W because they have gained a bigger foot hold in the console gaming market. My only concern is what does Microsoft have in store next..

ColJessup3035d ago (Edited 3035d ago )

First off, he said the Xbox 360 is the lead console on 90% of multiplats, not that the 360 multiplats outsell. Please take a second and read carefully before you comment on other's posts. If you want to offer a counter argument, the least you could do is take an extra second to make sure you understand what was posted.

Secondly - Vgchartz is hardly a reliable source for sales stats. Their numbers have been off on the PS3 by almost 2 million for over six months when that data is readily available. If they can't get their numbers right when anyone with a working knowledge of Google can disprove their figures - do you really want to be quoting them as a source on software sales that aren't easily verifiable?

Thirdly - Congrats. You looked up every big multiplatform title you could think of, and they're all shooters. How about you try Final Fantasy, Batman AA, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Street Fighter. Then, try looking at the financial breakdowns for company's that release a lot of multiplats like EA or Ubisoft and see how close the numbers are. You might want to then update your comment.

That is, unless you can't handle the truth.

@ Sitdown: A logical assumption made by who? Certainly not Sony. Certainly not by the financial analysts looking at the market. Sony knew damn well the PS3 wasn't going to storm right out of the gates simply due to it's price point - and it was never meant to. It was a high end product and the PS2 was their low end product. They do the same thing with their TV's. Anyone who assumed the PS3 was going to march to dominance right out of the gate need to stop and ask themselves what on earth they based that off of. Do you also think when Sony releases their most expensive TV's that they're going to overtake the entire market because they once held a more dominant position? That false assumption certainly wasn't based in reality, and it certainly wasn't common sense to anyone that bothered to follow the industry.

Mr Marbles3035d ago (Edited 3035d ago )

I think Sony did expect the PS3 to sell better than it did out of the gate, no they did not expect PS2 sales for PS3 right away, but they did expect it to at least outsell and or easily catch the Xbox 360, after all, we didn't expect anyone to buy the new Xbox, the old model sold what 30 million before MS abandoned it? vs PS2s over 100 million. Sony thought they had a cake walk against the competition, but I agree they didn't expect PS2 numbers right away.

There is evidence in the fact that Sony had to slightly redesign the PS3 by removing features, in order to lower the price in a record breaking short time after release of the console. Had they been expecting the sales to be slow as you claim, they would have built the price drop into the price structure of the console, and they would not have dropped the price so soon after launch.

ColJessup3035d ago

Still waiting for you to provide your link to 90% of multiplats lead on the 360, by the way. Oh, you're out of bubbles I see.

As for your other comments - per speculation. You say Sony expected to outsell the 360 with the PS3 right away but you have zero evidence nor do you even attempt to back up the claim. Go to Sony's investor relations site. You can easily see their ship forecasts from previous financial updates and they absolutely show that Sony WAS NOT anticipating the PS3 to overtake the 360 in the first few years. Verify it yourself. Here's the link.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInf...

As for your claim regarding the cheaper PS3 right after launch, they also released a more expensive PS3 right at the same time, offering a higher priced and a lower priced alternative. Then, right about 3 1/2 years into the PS3's life cycle (right about the same time the PS2 got the PS2 slim) they released the cheaper PS3 slim, just like they did with the PS2. Of course they wanted to spur more sales as the price of the tech came down - but it doesn't prove your point about Sony anticipating higher sales right out of the gate. My link to Sony's Investor Relations site shows EXACTLY what they were anticipating sales were going to be - and it proves you're simply incorrect.

It seems, like Guy1234567....ahem.....YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Sitdown3035d ago

why did the ps3 price drop come soon...and the reshuffling of the Sku, and why did you choose to ignore the quote by Ken? Are you saying nobody in Sony expected the ps3 to do what the ps2 had done to the dreamcast. Your inability to support your point is displayed through your tv comparison. How much do top of the lines tv cost in comparison to consoles? How often are tvs released as oppossed to consoles? How many companies produce tvs versus that of consoles? How many games are exclusive to specific consoles....what content is tv specific?

mcvuk.com/news/29430/Reeves-P S3-will-overtake-360-by-summer

lowcarb3035d ago

"You can easily see their ship forecasts from previous financial updates and they absolutely show that Sony WAS NOT anticipating the PS3 to overtake the 360 in the first few years."

I think everybody even 360 fans were anticipating Sony to over take 360 especially after the bluray victory. Those who have been around long enough really don't need to dig and provide links for comments we all know about. MS and Sony both made heavy claims while some have came true but many just never happened. I'm not sure what the actual percentages are MR Marble was guessing on but it's known developers have had a hard time making games on PS3 in comparison to 360 resulting in higher sales for the dominant version. Now with that said PS3 also has games that outsell 360 with a smaller install base so what does it even matter?

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3035d ago
Persistantthug3035d ago (Edited 3035d ago )

When the economy really started doing bad in 2008, that was when the PS3 went down to 399.

And hardly any system is going to release for $199....the dreamcast and Gamecube days are over.

I do agree $600 is a hard pill to swallow, and that's why I didn't get one until late 2008 at $399.

The funny thing is, PS3's were still selling at $599 and $499.

SoapShoes3035d ago

That's stupid... If you want it to stay behind the times to be cheap, why not make it as powerful as the N64 and sell it for $99 just with all of the media features of the PS3?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3035d ago
Paradise Lost3035d ago

But now the ps3's are at a good pricepoint and there is no reason for people to yell out "it's too expensive".

Guy12345673035d ago (Edited 3035d ago )

lol ok? And the nintedo and xbox just sold 10,000,001. Still in last place :) Make that 10,000,002 cause I might just spend $120 on a used 360 at Gamestop for Reach.

gamingisnotacrime3035d ago

OMG!
PS3 being outsold, but what am i going to do, my life revolves around Sony being #1, oh i know i will turn on my PS3, pick one of its sweet exclusives and forget about all this.
GT5, LBP2 cant come soon enough, those will be heavy hitters on the last placed, 10 miilion conosole selling/year, poor PS3