WiiLoaded.com - Wii Forum and News

Pop quiz time, readers. Guess what product a Salon author was referring to in the following quotes:

*   "Whether or not Sony was sincere in its claim that a supply crisis led it to cut its initial shipments ... there's little question that the corporation was successful in the arena of hype marketing. Lines of obsessed PlayStation fans were a news staple ..."

    * "Don't get me wrong; it's definitely the most powerful video-game machine on the planet right now. But that's not enough. ... There's just not much software available that can take advantage of it."

    * "Sony is also under the mistaken impression that including the ability to play ... movies is a huge selling point. ... I'd rather pay less and get a machine that just plays games instead."

If you guessed the PS3, you'd be wrong. No, the October 2000 column that the above quotes come from was talking about the then-recent launch of the PlayStation 2. Careful readers might remember the PS2 as the system that went on to sell over 115 million units worldwide and dominate the console market for the better part of the decade. At the time, though, Salon recommended hardcore gamers opt for the cheaper, easier-to-develop-for Dreamcast and wait on the PS2 for the time being.

Why are we posting this? Mainly because it's always fun to point out just how different media opinion and popular opinion can be, but also as a way of tempering the gloomy predictions that are still surrounding the PS3 nearly five months after its launch. Remember, Sony has come back from negative media attention before, and there's still a chance it could do it again.

source

*I don't think many people can argue with the fact that the PS2 was/is a great selling machine.  Those of us who have good memories remember how much trash was talked about Sony's second system, and see the same being said about it's 3rd the PS3.  If we're to believe that history repeats itself, then Sony has a chance to turn this whole PS3 turmoil around...just like they did for our beloved PS2.

I think the main differences this time around are the fact that the Sega folded the Dreamcast very quickly, and unexpectantly, while Microsoft and Nintendo have less chance to withdraw from the market than Sony does. Who is to say that the Dreamcast would not have been a dominant force had they pushed harder last time around (or at least held off Sony until MS and Nintendo pulled out their guns)?

Another profound difference is that the PS3 was very, very hyped before release, and the media expected another runaway success. It was only after they announced the price, blotched the launch, and failed to capture the market that the negative publicity started the build and favor swung towards the competition.

Is there a chance to come back? I'd say no, not at this price point. By the time the price drops enough to be in the average person's home, the other two systems will have too much momentum. What Sony failed to realize is that demand is based on people's willingness and ability to purchase their product. When you ask who is willing to purchase a $600 video game system, you eliminate a large portion of the market. When you consider how much of those willing are then able to spend $600 on a console, you trim your potential customer base even thinner.

I have to give MS credit for putting together a nice package at a reasonable price point, and Nintendo for going against "gamers" and building a system for the average person, which is opening up the market to loads of more people than was possible before (which they also did with the NES).

As for Sony, the one thing they might have done is to sacrifice their cash cow for a larger one. They used the PlayStation brand to push their proprietary Blu-Ray format on the masses, and while the costs associated with it might have killed the PS3, it might give Blu-Ray enough leverage to become the dominant format this time around. Of course, their history shows they don't have very good luck at securing formats, so they might have taken an awful gamble against the house. I would not be surprised if they pulled out of video games if both the PS3 and Blu-Ray fail, as they are a publicly traded company and investors do not like (big) investments that do not pay off.

Great post, gft77.

I'll admit, even though I am a Nintendo fan(boy) through-and-through, I remember playing good games on my friend's PS2. Mostly sports game, but they were good. The features really got me playing this thing.

The only other game I remember playing on this thing was a crime-stopping game, where you catch villains and collect evidence linking them to the crime. It was cool, because you could play from standard police car to something as silly as an ice cream truck with interchangeable songs.

The PS2 basically dominated last gen, partially due to the success and exclusives it had, and partially due to the fact that it came out earlier than the Xbox and GCN.

thanks NBbowler and joker for your comments. whether people love, hate, or just haven't gotten their hands on a PS3, I think we could agree that Sony is into taking risks. As joker stated, if Sony would have left out the Blu Ray player and kept the PS3 media to standard DVD, they could have saved a lot on cost.

It's always kind of odd....if a company takes a big risk and is successful out of the gate we give them kudos, but if they struggle then we point our fingers at them and ask why they didn't conform to the same old that everyone else is doing.

What's different here is that the Xbox 360 has a much better marketing campaign than the DC, with an unlimited budget. The XBox 360 also has much better 3rd party support, as well as a better name, and has sold much better. The other fact is that right now, the 360 has better games, and undoubtedly, better graphics. Many people are arguing the PS3 does not have the upper hand when it comes to the system's power for games. Plus, release dates were way different here. This generation will likely turn out ot be
PS2-Xbox 360
GCN-Wii
Xbox-PS3

Just look at the US sales charts posted in this forum, the X360 outsold the PS3 almost 3:1.

Question sc7...If the Xbox 360 and the Nintendo Wii would have launched at the same time, how different do you think the Xbox 360's numbers would be?

My observations on the differences between the ps3 vs. ps2 launches, 6 months removed:
(I'll mainly focus on Sony and Microsoft)
- The ps2 launched nearly 1 year (well 8-10 months anyways) before the Xbox/GC.  It was the only game in town other than the already defunct DC.  When the Xbox came out, we saw it was superior graphically in every way, but Sony had the strangehold.  The 360 has this position currently (although it's not quite a stranglehold), and had a similar release of titles.
- The ps2 used an already established medium.  DVD's had been out for years and selling at Walmarts in the years prior to the launch of the ps2.  Sony's shoving an untested (market-wise) format down consumers throats with the required blu-ray drive.  This takes the option away from consumers as to which format they feel is better.  Plus as many said before, sony's track record ain't the best... betamax.
- Pricepoint.  The ps3 is heads and tails above the competition ("But it's a Blu-ray player too!!!" -- see above).  The ps2, while pricey back then, was not out of reach for even your average high schooler.  The ps3 costs more than many people's first car!
- Exclusivity.  Sony lost a ton of exclusive games to Microsoft, and let's face it, the ps2 was such a smashing success in large part due to 3rd party games (FF, MGS, GTA!!!), some of which are no longer Sony exclusive.  
- Microsoft's reputation.  Sony was the video game industry's darling after the ps1.  Sony could do no wrong.  Microsoft was the new guy to a notoriously loyal industry.  Microsoft got TONS of bad PR at first on the Xbox, and not until Halo got widely accepted the Xbox was a joke.  People wanted them to fail.  Now the shoe's on the other foot with Sony.
- PS2's were difficult to find throughout the year and long after the launch (much like the wii is).  This has not been the case for either the PS3 or the 360.  The ps3 could be found on shelves a month later, and the 360 a few months after it's launch.  This tells us that the market was not ready for the next gen, especially not with the relatively small leap in technology.  The ps2 to ps3 leap in graphics and hp is no where near the leap from ps1 to ps2, or the 64 to the GC.  I really believe this next gen came a year or two early in large part to stiff competition.
- The Wii.  Who'd have thunk it?  This thing is selling, and while I doubt it'd impact sales of the other two systems dramatically, it does have an effect.  There is a select group of gamers who wanted a new system (ps3 or wii), but only had limited cash flow.  They make there choice to the detriment of the other.  The 360 didn't have this competition cause at the time the wii was shrowded in secrecy pretty much.
- Public/customer relations. Sony has been awful in dealing with their customers issues as well as the media. Kuturagi (sp?) has been quoted as saying some horrible things about sony fans, the competition, etc. They deny problems, and do little about them. The other 2 have done decent to great jobs in dealing with customer's issues, not to mention their PR has been INFINITELY better than Sony's. Sony has an elitest attitude, the other two (while not modest by any means) will own up to mistakes and at times acknowledge their competition.


Overall
I'm guessing when all is said and done, the 360 and ps3 will be infinitely closer in terms of units sold, even if blu-ray takes off.  It's a toss-up at this point as to which system wins head to head (ps3 vs 360) at the end of the generation.  I think blu-ray will ultimately win out, despite seeming imo that it's not the better overall of the two mediums.  Now where the wii ends up, I really can't say.  If 3rd party people learn how to develop for it and it really catches non-gamers, then it'll be #1 hands down.  One thing I think it did due is wake up sony and microsoft from their arrogance (despite what they say in interviews), and we may see PS3.5's and Microsoft 540's.  lol  We already saw sony's knee jerk reaction with the 6-axis rip-off after the boomerang calamity.

What I'm doing and recommend to others:  Take a wait and see approach if you're on the fence about any of the systems.  I bought the Wii cause I had little/no doubts about the launch games I wanted (Zelda and Wii Sports), and I'm 99% sure I'll end up with a ps3 or 360.  Nothing has enticed me enough to purchase either, but I'm keeping an eye on things for when the time is right for me.  I've played all of them, and right now my personal preference is Wii, 360, then ps3.  But last gen at this relative time I'd have said my preference was GC, Xbox, ps2, and man did that change.

Hope you got through all that, it's a novel.  lol  I love video game history and speculation.

actually I'd have to disagree with you Harmonica, when the PS2 launch the Dreamcast was already out, but DVD wasn't all that big, especially in Japan. It wasn't until the Japanese bought PS2's that the DVD thing exploded in that country.

DVD players were already exploding before the ps2 came out. I know first hand from working in an electronics dept store in that era. If that's not good enough, according to Consumers Electronics Association,

~350,000 dvd players were sold in '97
~1.1 million in '98
~4.0 million in '99
~8.5 million in '00 (ps2 launches towards the end of the year)
~12.7 million in '01

As you can see DVD had already taken off before the ps2 launched (more than doubling every year). The increase in unit sales is also accompanied by the decrease in average unit price. It's typical household electronics consumerism. The ps2 did not usher in the DVD era, rental places and electronic stores did by not stocking VHS tapes as much anymore, and in a few cases at all. You give the ps2 too much credit.

Now if blu-ray wins out this generation because the ps3 sells well, that'll be another story. But then again, DVD never had stiff competition.

What your not getting is that DVDs WERE NOT big at all in Japan. That's what pushed the PS2 so hard. G4 did a show on it a while back that explained how the Sega Dreamcast would have done so much better and perhaps even beaten the PS2 in the Japanese market if it had a DVD player.

No, I got it. I just chose to ignore it. I personally could care less about what's popular in Japan. lol If it's something worthwhile, it'll come to the states/rest of the world eventually.

It's hard to make any type of argument or point if you choose to exclude one of the largest video game purchasers on the planet. That's cool though, I just think it makes any type of point a little less credible.

I dont think my argument is less credible than yours. You using the japanese market as an example is worse than me using the US imo. Using the 3rd most populated country is a much better representation than the 10th. Also, the Japanese market is a niche market, much more than other countries.

It doesn't matter anyways. All my points are valid to at least some degree, but the only thing that matters is sales. In 5 years we'll see who speculated better. I'm still impartial between ps3 and 360. I don't own either, and am still waiting for games to come out on both before I buy anything.

I agree with joker about how the price point is what messed Sony up as well as them trying to push Blu-Ray on the consumers. Maybe the PS3 can turn things around in time, we just have to wait and see.

I think many people probably thought Sony was trying to push the DVD format on people with the PS2 also, but we all know the difference in room from a CD to a DVD. The same can be said about a DVD to a Blu Ray disc.

Here's the thing about Japan. They don't make up nearly as much of a market as the US/UK do. If Xbox 360 wins world sales, but comes last in Japan, it's still a success. Microsoft is an American corporation, and their games target the UK/US type consumer. Heck, if Microsoft does well in the US, but poor everywhere else, they could still consider is a success. Sony and Nintendo, on the other hand, are based out of Japan for a lot of day to day operations, and Japanese success is critical to them.

CD to DVD is not the same as DVD to Blu-ray. CD to DVD was needed, and allowed us to store more content on one disc. While Blu-ray allows us to do that, we don't need it as much as we did back then. We can still fit tons of Media on DVD-9, and for almost all purposes, it's fine now. Blu-ray and HD-DVD cater to a small market with 1080p, HDCP, HDMI monitors. What's different here is also the rest of the market. Xbox also had a DVD player at the same price. This time, PS3 is the only one, out of 3 with that technology, and it's far more money...

I'm not sure why your still on this "forget Japan" thing.  No one is talking about Japan, just about the history of Sony systems and how they're not well recieved at the beginning but do well as time goes on.

btw DVD is made in 480p and upscale with a max size of 8.5gb.
Blu Ray can have content actually made at 1080p and thus far a max capacity of 50gb.

In this HD world...you need more room

lots of really good posts all around,

i still think sony may eventually catch on and if that happens that could hurt the 360...developers arent giving up on the ps3 and just keep cranking out the titles for it...think it was what, 90 titles by the end of the year, pretty solid number

i like that wii went against the grain and is basically sitting the horsepower war out

Sony just lost FF as an exclusive. "The" RPG.
There goes the only reason I wanted a PS3 :/
If this keeps going, I'm gonna have to say it is dead.

8.5 GB is plenty of room.
I can't think of a single game havng more then 3GB of memory in it.

But then again, I know nothing about HD. I'm content with DVD, and I don't understand the need for HD. Does it really use that much memory?

Yes, 90 titles, but how many unknown titles are good? or even decent? I'm guessing out of those 90 games, they'll have 5 - 10 worth buying.

But hey, anything can happen.