Support NeoGAF

[Watchtower]

Halo defined the X-box that you know and love. Are you going to argue with yourself? Because I'd enjoy that at this point.

Wii Sports defined this console generation more than any other game. Period. Whether you like the game or not, it still holds true.

You are right man, you win too. Keep fighting the good fight.

 

[Watchtower]

True, but even that game came out on Wii as well. But yea, that would definitely be one of the games defining the generation. As would probably Mass Effect and Gears of War. But the casual stuff would no doubt be on top.

THIRD PARTY!!! Where the hell have the majority of all the high budget, highly anticipated, major third party games been this entire generation?


How the fuck can you guys argue this shit? No seriously if that's what you all believe, you win and I'll just agree to disagree.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

But hey if you want to believe that three years from now when we look at the games that defined this generation everyone's going to be making huge lists of DS games...then yeah, I'll just live in my own "ignorance" for the time being.

How can you compare two different platforms software libraries when you are explicit in saying you have no idea what is available on one of them?

I mean, Hip-hop is clearly the best fucking genre of music ever made, I don't ever need to have heard anything except hip-hop to state that as an absolute fact.

The games that have defined this generation:

Call Of Duty
Wii Fit
Just Dance
Wii Sports
Brain Age
World Of Warcraft

And obviously I'm talking third party sales but, never the less, if you want to put everything on sales then perhaps you should realize that it's this exact NPD thread that made Call of Duty the best selling video game in history in the USA.

Hmmm?

What was the title it just dethroned then?

What console has the most entries in the top ten best selling games in the US of all time?

PROTIP: It ain't the 360.

THIRD PARTY!!! Where the hell have the majority of all the high budget, highly anticipated, major third party games been this entire generation?


How the fuck can you guys argue this shit? No seriously if that's what you all believe, you win and I'll just agree to disagree.

Okay, what exactly are you trying to argue here?

Because descriptors like 'high budget' and 'highly anticipated' and 'major' are pretty fucking slippery goalposts if you are trying to argue on quality grounds of a software library (which you previously were).

I mean, if your criteria are 'what console has the most expensive third party titles released on it?' then you've predetermined your result through your selection criteria.

So, er... go you?

 

[Watchtower]

How can you compare two different platforms software libraries when you are explicit in saying you have no idea what is available on one of them?

I mean, Hip-hop is clearly the best fucking genre of music ever made, I don't ever need to have heard anything except hip-hop to state that as an absolute fact.

The games that have defined this generation:

Call Of Duty
Wii Fit
Just Dance
Wii Sports
Brain Age
World Of Warcraft



Hmmm?

What was the title it just dethroned then?

What console has the most entries in the top ten best selling games in the US of all time?

PROTIP: It ain't the 360.



Okay, what exactly are you trying to argue here?

Because descriptors like 'high budget' and 'highly anticipated' and 'major' are pretty fucking slippery goalposts if you are trying to argue on quality grounds of a software library (which you previously were).

I mean, if your criteria are 'what console has the most expensive third party titles released on it?' then you've predetermined your result through your selection criteria.

So, er... go you?

Like I said man, you guys win. I'm just an ignorant junior. Don't mind me.

 

[Arpharmd B]

This thread sure proves that there are still some bitter people as to how this gen has played out. I love the fact that worldwide numbers keep popping up in NPD threads yet it is never the other way around in the other sales threads. It goes to show that there quite a few people from other regions that absolutely hate the fact that the Xbox brand has been so successful this gen. It is very entertaining though that there are so many passionate people that care about what sales here in the states. I, for one, could not care less what sells in Japan or Europe because it doesn't affect this market in the least. I probably am not the only one to think this way and as a result the other sales threads don't get shit up like the NPD does on a monthly basis. Just my 2 cents.

So much truth here.

Could u imagine what would happen if people shitted up Media create sales with USA numbers? They'd be banned.

Lots of straw grasping and anger in this thread. Glad some posters get what's really going on.

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

Like I said man, you guys win. I'm just an ignorant junior. Don't mind me.

well i dunnoh, but despite the wiis success, i would say ps3 and 360 are the home of the 3rd parties.

PC has had starcraft and warcraft and basically broken all records, but one always gets the impression that ps360 is whereisat, even if it is just an illusion like a mirage in the desert.

 

[donny2112]

The guy clearly wasn't referring to sales and you know that.

Only having read what you quoted from doicare, it seems pretty clear he was talking about sales. Besides, you're talking about doicare. do-i-care. He is usually talking about sales in the sales threads.

Europe+everything not named Japan/USA post

See! :lol

Could u imagine what would happen if people messed up Media create sales with USA numbers? They'd be banned.

Depends on how it's done. Dragona gave the go-ahead to discuss general sales in the MC threads, probably in large part due to the caliber of discussion in that thread. Doesn't mean there's free reign to take over MC threads with NPD discussion, though.

well i dunnoh, but despite the wiis success, i would say ps3 and 360 are the home of the 3rd parties.

If you're going to define "success" as where the third-parties go, then yeah, it sort of gives the Wii the shaft due to third-parties not really taking the system seriously or planning to support it seriously (e.g. Ubisoft's "DS/Wii shovelware will fund real PS360 games", Capcom's "every game's a test game!"). If you're just talking about sales of games, then it's incredibly stupid to ignore first-party output, and Wii/DS happen to have about the biggest software publisher in the world making games exclusively

Spoiler

(minus that Pico game, Stumpokapow)

for the system. Hopefully third-parties either won't be as dumb next-generation and/or Nintendo will take more drastic steps to bring them on board next generation. :lol

 

[Cels]

MvC3 facebook page has this picture. They claim NPD puts them at #1 and not COD?

 

[xbhaskarx]

MvC3 facebook page has this picture. They claim NPD puts them at #1 and not COD?

I was confused by the numbers in the OP:

Software:

1.) Call of Duty: Black Ops (Activision Blizzard: 360, PS3, WII, NDS, PC) [Now the best selling game in the U.S. ever]
2.) Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds (Capcom: 360, PS3) - 790.2K

Wedbush Numbers:

Call of Duty: Black Ops - 775,000

Isn't 790.2K more than 775K?
Why is MvC #2 and CoD #1?

 

[Kenaras]

Isn't 790.2K more than 775K?
Why is MvC #2 and CoD #1?

I'd guess that 775K is console sales only; adding PC sales pushes it above MvC. Any other possible explanations?

 

[jvm]

I was confused by the numbers in the OP:



Isn't 790.2K more than 775K?
Why is MvC #2 and CoD #1?

Asked and answered several times already. With PC CoD:BO is #1. Without PC, MvC3 is #1.

 

[Gaborn]

I wonder how many more months people are going to fight about 360 vs PS3 sales.

1) The US Standings for all three consoles is set in stone at this point. There will always be a large gap between the Wii and 360, and the 360 and PS3. The most exciting change on that front will be whether the gap will expand or contract by a few 10k units in a given month.

2) The 360 and the PS3 will most likely be withing 10-15% of each other worldwide. Why are people so invested in which one ends in second place and which ends in third? Both are a far cry from the leading console, and both are doing very well for secondary and tertiary consoles (which, before this gen, never broke the 35M barrier).

This is pretty much entirely correct and inarguable.

3) Sony pissed away their market share at the beginning of this generation, in the US especially. However, there marketshare has been increasing steadily over the last couple of years, which is about the best result they can hope for at this point. To Date, the PS3 has about a 21% share of all home consoles sold in the US this generation. However, since the introduction of the PS3 slim, the PS3 has done better than 21% of home consoles sold in every month except Dec 2009 (where the PS3 managed almost exactly a 21% share due to extremely high Wii sales). So, even in holiday months, PS3 has kept or increased its overall hardware marketshare standing. And more importantly, software marketshare has increased substantially in the last 1.5 years.

Bottom line is this: PS3 was a major screw up on Sony's part. Especially in the US (which this thread is about). Console standings are set in stone this far into the generation. However, Sony has managed to consistently increase their marketshare percentage over the last couple years, leading to a higher share of software sales, and closer sales performances between multiplatform 360 and PS3 titles. This is a good thing for Sony, Third Parties, and people who bought the PS3, because it guarantees continued software support.

I think this, especially the bolded sentence is probably wrong however. Now, let me preface this with a couple of caveats. First of all, I'm going to say that I much prefer Nintendo's overall business model, it's worked consistently and it's allowed them to flourish in good times for their hardware sales and the lean years. With that said, I think the problem with your point, and particularly the statement you made is that Sony is not focused on what you and I and most people are naturally going to be focused on here.

This is an NPD thread so we're going to talk about US hardware/software sales for game systems and that's totally fair and it's inarguable looking at the narrow issue of PS3 sales versus say, PS2 sales Sony screwed up in the same way Nintendo did with N64 compared to the SNES because it lost them significant market share from their predecessor when the goal should be to grow your user base.

However, Nintendo as is often pointed out IS a gaming company at this point. They've done many other things over the last 120 years but that's been their business for a while now. That isn't all Sony does (though it's certainly a significant part of it, particularly from a brand name perspective) however so I think it's important to remember the context of the PS3's launch circumstances.

I think the biggest reason that Sony's PS3 was sent to die is the $599 price point and the inclusion of Blu-ray which contributed to that (even though it did create a market separately for people that just wanted a reasonably high quality blu-ray player in that price range which it was both at the time). It's important then to remember why Sony went that route and not a more traditional route as Nintendo has done primarily focusing on the gaming.

I think Sony made a calculated and conscious decision to give this generation of gaming away to whoever could grab it just so long as it absolutely solidified Blu-ray as the dominant media format. I think odds favored Blu-ray winning the fight against HD-DVD even before the PS3 but I think the PS3 adopting that format allowed Sony to gain major market share significantly faster than the normal gradual adoption process most consumers go through (My dad STILL uses DVDs and shows no sign of going near Blu-ray, and he only adopted DVDs really in the last 5 or so years).

As I said, although the PS3 was expensive for a gaming system it was relatively cheap for a Blu-ray player at the time. Sony lost mind share with the average gamer but gained it with the techies with the inclusion.

Now, does that mean Sony shouldn't be roundly criticized for giving away their dominance in gaming in exchange for a media format that probably would have become the industry standard either way (even if not as fast)? No, especially in this kind of thread it's appropriate. However I seriously doubt Sony would consider the PS3 a failure because I think it did what they wanted to do, land a killing blow against HD-DVD that it wasn't going to recover from.

 

[StevieP]

Do you honestly, really think there were people in boardrooms at Sony going
"Well, looking at these figures - our gaming console is going to suck the bag marketshare wise, and that's OK with us!" ?

Revisionist history. Read Sony's PR before the launch of the PS3, and look at what third parties were saying (and why most of their top efforts weren't on Wii from the get go).

 

[V_Arnold]

Oh, Sony definitely dropped the ball at every single holiday season. They did not have GT5 being redied at 2009, they did not have proper bundles in that time - they just did not do what they could have done to further increase sales in the most important quarter of the year. Repeatedly.

If that is not a major fuckup, I do not know what is. On top of the price issues, obviously.

 

[FoneBone]

I think the biggest reason that Sony's PS3 was sent to die is the $599 price point and the inclusion of Blu-ray which contributed to that (even though it did create a market separately for people that just wanted a reasonably high quality blu-ray player in that price range which it was both at the time). It's important then to remember why Sony went that route and not a more traditional route as Nintendo has done primarily focusing on the gaming.

I think Sony made a calculated and conscious decision to give this generation of gaming away to whoever could grab it just so long as it absolutely solidified Blu-ray as the dominant media format. I think odds favored Blu-ray winning the fight against HD-DVD even before the PS3 but I think the PS3 adopting that format allowed Sony to gain major market share significantly faster than the normal gradual adoption process most consumers go through (My dad STILL uses DVDs and shows no sign of going near Blu-ray, and he only adopted DVDs really in the last 5 or so years).

As I said, although the PS3 was expensive for a gaming system it was relatively cheap for a Blu-ray player at the time. Sony lost mind share with the average gamer but gained it with the techies with the inclusion.

Now, does that mean Sony shouldn't be roundly criticized for giving away their dominance in gaming in exchange for a media format that probably would have become the industry standard either way (even if not as fast)? No, especially in this kind of thread it's appropriate. However I seriously doubt Sony would consider the PS3 a failure because I think it did what they wanted to do, land a killing blow against HD-DVD that it wasn't going to recover from.

Goddamn, there's revisionist history and then there's revisionist history. And as has already been pointed out, there's not a prayer that Blu-Ray revenue achieved by winning the format war is even close to enough to make up for Sony's PS3 losses.

 

[poppabk]

I think Sony made a calculated and conscious decision to give this generation of gaming away to whoever could grab it just so long as it absolutely solidified Blu-ray as the dominant media format. I think odds favored Blu-ray winning the fight against HD-DVD even before the PS3 but I think the PS3 adopting that format allowed Sony to gain major market share significantly faster than the normal gradual adoption process most consumers go through (My dad STILL uses DVDs and shows no sign of going near Blu-ray, and he only adopted DVDs really in the last 5 or so years).

I think you are reaching here. Including blu-ray was a part of Sony's plan, but I don't think they expected that it would cost them their console business. Establishing blu-ray as the dominant media format wasn't worth that.

 

[Gaborn]

Do you honestly, really think there were people in boardrooms at Sony going
"Well, looking at these figures - our gaming console is going to suck the bag marketshare wise, and that's OK with us!" ?

Revisionist history. Read Sony's PR before the launch of the PS3, and look at what third parties were saying (and why most of their top efforts weren't on Wii from the get go).

No, but I think Sony was probably ok with whatever the PS3 did so long as Blu-ray was dominant. No one is going to SAY their product is overpriced or isn't going to sell or isn't going to gain market share or whatever even if it's true. I think Sony would have been THRILLED if the PS3 sold very well and was as dominant as the PS2 - but I don't think that was their primary objective.

Fone - Really? I haven't seen those figures. I could very easily be wrong but I haven't seen those numbers.

Poppabk - No, I don't think they expected it to be this bad and this down probably, they probably expected consumers to still respond to the brand name. But they probably were willing, in my view (pending seeing the actual revenue numbers) to give up first place now in exchange for multi-media dominance later.

 

[GregLombardi]

No, but I think Sony was probably ok with whatever the PS3 did so long as Blu-ray was dominant. No one is going to SAY their product is overpriced or isn't going to sell or isn't going to gain market share or whatever even if it's true. I think Sony would have been THRILLED if the PS3 sold very well and was as dominant as the PS2 - but I don't think that was their primary objective.

Fone - Really? I haven't seen those figures. I could very easily be wrong but I haven't seen those numbers.

Poppabk - No, I don't think they expected it to be this bad and this down probably, they probably expected consumers to still respond to the brand name. But they probably were willing, in my view (pending seeing the actual revenue numbers) to give up first place now in exchange for multi-media dominance later.

I will give your argument the benefit of the doubt that at some point, Sony may have realized the situation post launch and made the decision that Blu-ray was more important. But I think its really difficult to believe that pre launch this was their strategy.

 

[FoneBone]

Fone - Really? I haven't seen those figures. I could very easily be wrong but I haven't seen those numbers.

I don't have exact numbers, but this is the best summary I've seen:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26486779&postcount=626

total DVD patent royalties on disc sales amounted to only hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and DVDs were significantly more lucrative overall than BRDs are now. The likelihood of Sony recouping the full costs of tanking their video game business over a reasonable span of time based on BRD royalties are quite low.

Not saying that pursuing BluRay was a bad choice for Sony overall, of course -- obviously it's a great business to be in -- only that if it was impossible to win that format war without trashing the PS business in the process, it wasn't worth doing so.

 

[StevieP]

I think Sony would have been THRILLED if the PS3 sold very well and was as dominant as the PS2 - but I don't think that was their primary objective.

No, it WAS their primary objective. Without a doubt. And they failed at this objective.

 

[CadetMahoney]

ps3 did more for blu-ray than vice versa. They didn't have a 3rd place gameplan in mind coming from the PS2. In fact the PS2 success skewed their grip on reality. 2 jobs etc. No one imagined 360 would be as successful as it is.

 

[Alexios]

Wow @ De Blob 2. At least this one can't be blamed on Wii. What a shame though. What went wrong this time? I liked the first. But I do think they should have made Blob move faster and more akin to a normal platforming character, while retaining the blob characteristics.

 

[BowieZ]

No, it WAS their primary objective. Without a doubt. And they failed at this objective.

Exactly. It's hard sometimes to reason that something with so much money and so many resources can make poor decisions and ultimately fail to achieve certain goals.

 

[Nirolak]

No, but I think Sony was probably ok with whatever the PS3 did so long as Blu-ray was dominant. No one is going to SAY their product is overpriced or isn't going to sell or isn't going to gain market share or whatever even if it's true. I think Sony would have been THRILLED if the PS3 sold very well and was as dominant as the PS2 - but I don't think that was their primary objective.

Fone - Really? I haven't seen those figures. I could very easily be wrong but I haven't seen those numbers.

Poppabk - No, I don't think they expected it to be this bad and this down probably, they probably expected consumers to still respond to the brand name. But they probably were willing, in my view (pending seeing the actual revenue numbers) to give up first place now in exchange for multi-media dominance later.

I'll just bring back legend166's excellent post on this.

Blu-Ray royalties won't save the PS3 from being marked as a failure. They aren't as lucrative as you might think.

I mean, it's good in the sense that it's basically free money because all the development work is a sunk cost they probably paid off awhile ago.

http://www.myce.com/news/Blu-ray-pr..._campaign=email_newsletter_activestories_week

The licence fees are:

$9.50 per player
11c RO disc
15c RW disc

According to this, Sony own less than 30% of the IP: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9874317-7.html

Let's say they own 1/3. So for each player, Sony gets ~$3, and for each disc, they get ~4c.

According to this, 177 million Blu-Ray discs have been sold in North America to the end of 2009. So Sony will have taken $7.08 million in royalty revenue for discs in North America to the end of 2009.

Clearly that doesn't give the whole picture (I can't find solid numbers for the players, and that's North America only), and it will definitely grow. But to make up for the billions they lost, it's going to be difficult.

I'll try and find some numbers on DVD royalty revenue for comparison. I don't think Blu-Rays will ever reach the point that DVDs did.

 

[A Human Becoming]

No, but I think Sony was probably ok with whatever the PS3 did so long as Blu-ray was dominant. No one is going to SAY their product is overpriced or isn't going to sell or isn't going to gain market share or whatever even if it's true. I think Sony would have been THRILLED if the PS3 sold very well and was as dominant as the PS2 - but I don't think that was their primary objective.

I think you're both right and wrong. It seems to be more of a conflict between the objectives of company leaders and the gaming division. Of course the gaming division wanted to retain dominance; that's what all company's aspire. Why else would Sony and Microsoft jump on motion controls? I'm sure winning the HD optical disc format war was driven by headquarters and was a factor in the high cost of the PS3, but the overall horse power had to have been decided by the gaming division. I thought their failure to continue as the market leader was purely caused from arrogance, but the NGP only gives further credence that the gaming division puts too much emphasis on pure power instead of consumer interests. It's like there was a change of management after the PS2 and before the PSP launched who set it as their new priority.

 

[Gaborn]

I'll just bring back legend166's excellent post on this.

Ok, fair enough. I think that settles that point then.

 

[poppabk]

I will give your argument the benefit of the doubt that at some point, Sony may have realized the situation post launch and made the decision that Blu-ray was more important. But I think its really difficult to believe that pre launch this was their strategy.

I am sure pre-launch at some point someone gave the figures for what blu-ray was going to cost Sony and the consumer and I bet there were serious doubts about its feasibility to be included in the PS3. But I think that adding blu-ray was justified as a value add to the PS3, not just a trojan horse to get blu-ray dominance, but something that would propel PS3 sales as a cheap blu-ray player that also played games. The problem was that the demand for blu-ray just wasn't there, so it wasn't a desired feature, at least not for the price.

 

[TheOddOne]

I'll just bring back legend166's excellent post on this.

The more you know! Damn.

 

[Watchtower]

I think people forget that the Cell's failure to pan out is just as much at fault for the PS3's cost as Blue-Ray. Cell was supposed to be a part of anything and everything, remember?

That was a bunch of wasted R&D money. They could have just as easily spent a little more money on a better Intel/Amd CPU and still saved money while still edging out the 360 so they could make the claim they have the most powerful hardware(the 360's CPU was middle of the line from inception).

 

[StevieP]

I think people forget that the Cell's failure to pan out is just as much at fault for the PS3's cost as Blue-Ray. Cell was supposed to be a part of anything and everything, remember?

That was a bunch of wasted R&D money. They could have just as easily spent a little more money on a better Intel/Amd CPU and still saved money while still edging out the 360 so they could make the claim they have the most powerful hardware(the 360's CPU was middle of the line from inception).

Little known fact: the IBM PPE CPU in the PS3 (the main CPU in Cell) is extremely extremely similar to the 3 PPE's in the 360 CPU.

 

[FoneBone]

I think people forget that the Cell's failure to pan out is just as much at fault for the PS3's cost as Blue-Ray. Cell was supposed to be a part of anything and everything, remember?

That was a bunch of wasted R&D money. They could have just as easily spent a little more money on a better Intel/Amd CPU and still saved money while still edging out the 360 so they could make the claim they have the most powerful hardware(the 360's CPU was middle of the line from inception).

Yeah, it was really a lack of restraint from both the game division and the execs on top - trying to push the envelope at the same time. And then you end up with a $599 price tag while taking $200-300 losses per unit.

 

[apana]

Blu-Ray royalties won't change a whole lot. Besides you can't say 100 percent of revenue from Blu-Ray is the result of PS3, just doesn't make sense. PS3 is a financial disaster no matter how you try to spin it.

 

[Watchtower]

Little known fact: the IBM PPE CPU in the PS3 (the main CPU in Cell) is extremely extremely similar to the 3 PPE's in the 360 CPU.

Exactly, so what was the point? Couldn't have they just struck a deal with Intel to make the new PS3 CPU while saving a ton of cash?

If they had no intention of competing with Intel/AMD in the long run, I still don't see the point of spending that much money to develop a chip that would become obsolete in a matter of months or a year at best.

 

[Rad Agast]

http://thesaurus.com/browse/consistently
Better tell them they've got it wrong.

:lol

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0173570#m_en_gb0173570

consistent

Pronunciation:
/kənˈsɪst(&#601nt/

adjective
1 acting or done in the same way over time , especially so as to be fair or accurate:
the parents are being consistent and firm in their reactions
a consistent worldwide application of its policies
unchanging in nature, standard , or effect over time:
he is Rangers' most consistent player this season
the mixtures are of consistent quality

2 (of an argument or set of ideas) not containing any logical contradictions:
a consistent explanation

3 [predic.] compatible or in agreement with something:
the injuries are consistent with falling from a great height

Derivatives
consistently
adverb

And from your link:

Main Entry: consistently
Part of Speech: adverb
Definition: usually
Synonyms: always, as usual, constantly, customarily, frequently, habitually, normally, per usual, persistently, regularly, routinely, steadily, typically

Read my post again, how did I get it wrong? Any ways, this is pretty silly. It's more entertaining to read the main discussion going on in this thread.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

I'll just bring back legend166's excellent post on this.

So if Sony only owns 30% of the Blu-ray IP and makes $3 per player sold that means that not only do they not earn that $3 on the PS3 since they are the maker of the unit but have to pay 70% of the royalties to the other IP holders for each PS3 sold?

 

[poppabk]

Exactly, so what was the point? Couldn't have they just struck a deal with Intel to make the new PS3 CPU while saving a ton of cash?

If they had no intention of competing with Intel/AMD in the long run, I still don't see the point of spending that much money to develop a chip that would become obsolete in a matter of months or a year at best.

I believe the aim was to produce a chip architecture that could be used in other consumer electronics devices. Not competing with Intel and AMD for the computer market but more so with ARM and whoever else for the TV and other 'intelligent' devices. Like a lot of things with their plan for the PS3 it didn't pan out, and now Sony's smart TV's are using Intel chips.

 

[StevieP]

Exactly, so what was the point? Couldn't have they just struck a deal with Intel to make the new PS3 CPU while saving a ton of cash?

If they had no intention of competing with Intel/AMD in the long run, I still don't see the point of spending that much money to develop a chip that would become obsolete in a matter of months or a year at best.

While there is no question that the cell was wasted r&d, microsoft's usage of the same main IBM core (which also costs in r&d to put it in a 3-core package) was equally short-sighted. With that said, this generation will have been a clear indicator to both companies next gen in terms of hardware expendatures and using the "razor blade" model for consoles. Microsoft is still overall in the red over their many years of investment in the business, and Sony's tanked every single bit of their previous' generations profits.

 

[poppabk]

While there is no question that the cell was wasted r&d, microsoft's usage of the same main IBM core (which also costs in r&d to put it in a 3-core package) was equally short-sighted. With that said, this generation will have been a clear indicator to both companies next gen in terms of hardware expendatures and using the "razor blade" model for consoles. Microsoft is still overall in the red over their many years of investment in the business, and Sony's tanked every single bit of their previous' generations profits.

I think esoteric hardware will be a thing of the past for consoles. I think the PS3/360 proved that more familiar hardware is a plus and that consumers don't care about unrealized power they just care what is up on the screen and at what price.

 

[Watchtower]

While there is no question that the cell was wasted r&d, microsoft's usage of the same main IBM core (which also costs in r&d to put it in a 3-core package) was equally short-sighted. With that said, this generation will have been a clear indicator to both companies next gen in terms of hardware expendatures and using the "razor blade" model for consoles. Microsoft is still overall in the red over their many years of investment in the business, and Sony's tanked every single bit of their previous' generations profits.

Wasn't that mainly because of the whole multi-core, multi-threading fashion statements that were going on at the time?

I don't think Sony was completely wrong in trying to have a very powerful CPU. Just the fact that they opted to do it themselves. My bet is that's what's going to be the main difference between next gen and this gen. GPU kind of became the star these past two generations, but now, developers can't ignore physics anymore. There's only so much more graphical fidelity difference they are going to get from shaders.

At some point, they will all be back to actually creating geometry to be manipulated by a physics engine. That's the only thing that I can actually see making a difference, not graphics/image quality. They can't keep "faking it" forever. We have all become aware they cannot do real water

 

[poppabk]

Wasn't that mainly because of the whole multi-core, multi-threading fashion statements that were going on at the time?

I don't think Sony was completely wrong in trying to have a very powerful CPU. Just the fact that they opted to do it themselves. My bet is that's what's going to be the main difference between next gen and this gen. GPU kind of became the star these past two generations, but now, developers can't ignore physics anymore. There's only so much more graphical fidelity difference they are going to get from shaders.

At some point, they will all be back to actually creating geometry to be manipulated by a physics engine. That's the only thing that I can actually see making a difference, not graphics/image quality. They can't keep "faking it" forever. We have all become aware they cannot do real water

GPU's have their uses in physics calculations as well though.

 

[Watchtower]

GPU's have their uses in physics calculations as well though.

Yes I know. And that was probably the biggest road block for Cell. It clearly wasn't powerful enough for developers to start messing around and do real time ray-tracing and the kind of geometry polygon pushing they needed to recreate certain things such as fluids while getting anywhere near the level of image quality they could get by efficiently and cheaply "faking" it with GPUs.

That's my view of it anyway without getting into a technical field I know very little about. The point is Cell, Blu-Ray, a gazillion USB and other slots that ended up being removed with each new re-design(maybe I'm mistaking but wasn't even backwards compatibility only possible because of its own dedicated chip that was later removed?) were all things that added up to make the PS3 expensive, not just Blu-Ray alone.

 

[lemon__fresh]

I think esoteric hardware will be a thing of the past for consoles. I think the PS3/360 proved that more familiar hardware is a plus and that consumers don't care about unrealized power they just care what is up on the screen and at what price.

The 360 proved that familiar hardware is a plus, the CELL was very esoteric to developers when it was originally released.

 

[Watchtower]

Add another million seller to the Kinect line-up. This is most likely world wide.


"The Zumba Fitness game has surpassed a million units sold in less than 4 months. This red hot work out is red hot at retail"


http://twitter.com/Majesco/status/47638474966310912

I'm guessing Kinectimals is next.

 

[Chris1964]

Add another million seller to the Kinect line-up. This is most likely world wide.

One million among three platforms with Wii the leading one doesn't mean one million for Kinect.

 

[Blimblim]

I'll just bring back legend166's excellent post on this.

These numbers don't take into account the fixed fee for each blu-ray master, last I heard it was quite a lot (more than 5000 euros iirc). Not that it makes a difference in the long run for Sony's margin, but it's the main reason why we almost never get anime blu-rays (outside of ghibli stuff) here in France, that fixed fee makes it almost impossible to make a profit for such a small market.

 

[Busaiku]

Add another million seller to the Kinect line-up. This is most likely world wide.


"The Zumba Fitness game has surpassed a million units sold in less than 4 months. This red hot work out is red hot at retail"


http://twitter.com/Majesco/status/47638474966310912

I'm guessing Kinectimals is next.

Zumba Fitness is on Wii and PS3 as well.
In January, the bulk of its sales were from the Wii game, and I'm assuming that still holds true.

I see now that I was beaten to the punch.

 

[Why For?]

Judging by the last couple of pages, I didn't realise how insignificant Blu-ray has ended up being to the PS3, obviously, not the other way around though.

But wouldn't Sony have KNOWN that it was going to cost them so much with a very good chance they wouldn't recoup those losses?

Is there a chance Panasonic backed them in some way to be the face of Blu-ray and take the hit with the PS3?

Or were the higher ups at Sony so warped from reality due to the success of the PS2?

 

[doicare]

:lol

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0173570#m_en_gb0173570

And from your link:

Read my post again, how did I get it wrong? Any ways, this is pretty silly. It's more entertaining to read the main discussion going on in this thread.

Congratulations you just proved my point, different places give a different definition and my example i posted gives the definition as usually which is how i used the word.

 

[Watchtower]

One million among three platforms with Wii the leading one doesn't mean one million for Kinect.

I see thanks. Still pretty crazy to see the sales of these casual titles. Who would have thought the market could support so many different dance and fitness games.

Casual market not so casual when it comes to game buying?

 

[painful fart]

Add another million seller to the Kinect line-up. This is most likely world wide.


"The Zumba Fitness game has surpassed a million units sold in less than 4 months. This red hot work out is red hot at retail"


http://twitter.com/Majesco/status/47638474966310912

I'm guessing Kinectimals is next.

You really should read up on the games on the Wii and PS3 platforms, so you don´t have to embarrass yourself with posts like this.

Spoiler

And also read up on on the DS while you are at it.