Sony is like the TO of gaming. :0

[Eric]

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3155895

[M'k'n'zy]

ok seriously, how is Sony still in buisness?

[Flip]

because they friggin rule.

[Zeus]

because they friggin rule.

Nintendo friggin' ruled up until 1996 when their arrogance caught up to them. You're starting to see that with Sony now.

What was really shocking to me is in that link, the fist quote was August 2005. I could understand Sony thinking that way; heck, I'm a Nintendo fan and I thought the DS was a gimmick (that was less than a year after release of the original DS). But the second quote, which is basically sayin' that the DS is a flash-in-the-pan that's going to eventually slow down as it's losing its market, was from September 2006. Three months ago, what are they fucking nuts? They've been getting their ASSES handed to them repeatedly since the Lite came out....and the discrepancy is getting larger all the time. Month by month the ratio of DS sales to PSP sales is increasing, yet they have the gall to come out and say "we're expanding the market, the DS is just a niche"? What world do these guys live in? It's essentially been proven that the DS is the one expanding the market while the PSP is for the hardcores (if you want some proof, I'll repeat what's been reported for the last 6 months).

This is EXACTLY what happened to Nintendo in the early days of the PSX; they were full of themselves from past successes (two generations, like Sony) and blind to what was going on and they got wasted for the next two generations. Really, Nintendo would have been dead faster than Sega if it wasn't for their insanely popular IPs, which is the reason they survived. With their arrogance, Sony won't be able to react to the changes in the market before its competitors gain a strong foothold. That is not good for them from a business point of view.

Not to say Sony's lost this generation; I still think they're going to come out on top. But with that kind of mentality throughout the company, they're going to be in a dogfight with the others. They had a supremely dominant position going into this generation and they'll come out of it, in my opinion, with only a small lead, allowing both Microsoft (I'm trying VERY hard, Lotus) and Nintendo back in the game they had been winning by a wide margin.

Basically, Sony is going to become the Leafs :-)

[Flip]

Im not worried. All Sony needs is 2 or 3 good games a year for me, which they provide, and a lot of people my age think the same.

Nintendo is great at coming out with good short games. With the little time i have to play nowadays i'm only in need of 2 AMAZING games, which Playstation and PSP are the king of.

It sounds shallow, but when i only buy 2 to 3 games a year, i want good graphics, good voice, good gameplay, and something that can last. Nintendo cant do that for me.

[Kupek]

Funny, I play at the same frequency, and I like Nintendo because they can do that for me.

[Julius Seeker]

As it stands, the DS is the #1 system for 2006, that cannot be disputed considering it won every single market in sales. The PSP was the #5 system (now #6 with the Wii release), behind DS, PS2, GBA, and Xbox 360.

Games like Metroid, Mario Kart, NSMB, Animal Crossing, Phoenix Wright, Zelda, Castlevania, Dragon Quest and others will probably yield as many and more gameplay hours as Vice City Stories. The thing about the DS is for every average game the PSP gets, the DS gets 2-3, for every good game the PSP gets, the DS gets 10. That is why it is more successful. It is also not a price thing either, in Japan the DS Lite is more expensive than the PSP, and still outsells it 10 to 1. I also think that the multiplayer culture behind the DS is also a major reason for its success: if you go to the Student Union buildings in most any University, you will find people playing DS multiplayer games (depending on the time of day); it is so easy to just pull out your DS Lite and jump in.

Will PS3 be as successful as Sony hopes? I'm going to say: Like the PSP, not even close.

[Zeus]

Regardless of personal preference on the types of games, what Sony's doing from a business point of view is beating their chests arrogantly by not paying attention to the industry around them. This is EXACTLY what Nintendo did after the SNES (they ended up winning against the Genesis here, too) and it cost them. Sony is repeating history with the way they're acting ("people will wait for the PS3, the Wii and the Xbox 360 are just flashes in the pan" - doesn't that sound familiar?) and thinking ("regardless of the DSs success, they will eventually lose since they are only catering to the Nintendo hardcore market, which is shrinking, while the PSP is catering to everyone" - this can only be described as delusional). And from the way they're talking and acting, I don't think this is just a ploy to look good even though they know they're in trouble. It sounds like they honestly believe it. Why else wouldn't they pony up the money for GTA4 and/or Assassin's Creed?

I eventually get everything, so to me, it's a matter of when I feel it's worth it to me to buy. I only got the 360 'cause I got it at 41% of the price. If i didn't get it that cheap, I wouldn't have gotten it yet. I got the Wii 'cause a) Zelda was the killer app, b) I have regained my faith in Nintendo after being proven wrong with the DS, c) have never really been disappointed with the product and d) the price was right. Simply put, the PS3 is FAAAR too expensive with nothing right now worth getting it for. MGS4 is the ONLY thing on the horizon that may sway me, but that's in October and NO game is worth $800 Cdn. Hence my desire to rent.

But, if I get a deal on the PS3 like I did on the 360, well, then I may accelerate my purchase timeline. I wasn't expecting to get a 360 for another 2 years. PS3, right now, looks like no less than 2 years, maybe 3

[Julius Seeker]

Right now I have no plans for 360 or PS3, but as it stands PS3 has Assassin's Creed. Xbox 360 also has Assassin's Creed, Blue Dragon, and Banjo Kazooie 3. Right now Xbox 360 looks more appealing to me. Add on the fact that Xbox 360 also costs significantly less than PS3.

[Flip]

The problem is, i would buying only Zelda, Metroid, Mario, and DQ every year with Nintendo. They have other good 3rd party games, but nothing that has really excited me.

These few games ive bought over the years for PS2 are all pretty much spectacular and different.

[Zeus]

The problem is, i would buying only Zelda, Metroid, Mario, and DQ every year with Nintendo. They have other good 3rd party games, but nothing that has really excited me.

These few games ive bought over the years for PS2 are all pretty much spectacular and different.

But the real question is: do you like those 4 games (or more) enough (remember, Mario has LOTS of offshoots) to spend the extra $250 on the system than the 4 games that you would get instead for the PS3 (don't forget, the Wii games are $10 cheaper at least; so make it $200 more)? There's nothing that says you can't have both systems you know and just enjoy the best of both.

That's what I've been doin' since the N64-PSX days. I pick one in the beginning then get the other(s) when the price drops to a reasonable level, often 1 year after the system drop. That's when I used to be able to get it for half the launch price or about $150 or less Cdn. With the prices of the 360 and PS3, that's a much longer time now, likely 2-3 years before I get them for $200 Cdn or less.

[Julius Seeker]

That's what I've been doin' since the N64-PSX days. I pick one in the beginning then get the other(s) when the price drops to a reasonable level, often 1 year after the system drop. That's when I used to be able to get it for half the launch price or about $150 or less Cdn. With the prices of the 360 and PS3, that's a much longer time now, likely 2-3 years before I get them for $200 Cdn or less.

It pays to own multiple consoles =)

I have been a multi-console supporter since I was 4 or 5, C64 and NES =)

Then PC (I think this was a 286), MSM,
Genesis, Gameboy, Game Gear, New PC (286 or 386, forget now), SNES,
New PC (486), Saturn, PSX, N64, New PC (400mHz),
Dreamcast, An iMac (1ghz), New PC (1.2 GHz),
PS2, GC, GBA, Xbox, New PC (2.4 gHz), and DS,
another new PC (3.6 gHz).
In this order.

[Zeus]

It pays to own multiple consoles =)

No man, what I've been trying to prove is that you pay to own multiple consoles, especially with the prices nowadays :-)

[Julius Seeker]

It pays to own multiple consoles =)

No man, what I've been trying to prove is that you pay to own multiple consoles, especially with the prices nowadays :-)

Well nowadays there is a certain console that costs more than all three combined used to =P