View Full Version : Microsoft sides with Nintendo in fight vs Sony
Teuthida
05-11-2006, 11:27 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051100612.html
Interesting. Very interesting.
Canyarion
05-11-2006, 11:43 AM
"Tell me why you would buy a $600 PS3?" Peter Moore, a Microsoft vice president, said in an interview. "People are going to buy two (machines.) They're going to buy an Xbox and they're going to buy a Wii ... for the price of one PS3."
Good on Peter.
And it looks like Ken Lobb has done good in their offices. :sneaky:
Typhoid
05-11-2006, 03:10 PM
"Tell me why you would buy a $600 PS3?" Peter Moore, a Microsoft vice president, said in an interview. "People are going to buy two (machines.) They're going to buy an Xbox and they're going to buy a Wii ... for the price of one PS3."
But what people dont seem to understand is that the PS3 is retardedly powerful compared to a Wii, or 360.
Yes, they can buy both of those systems. But if they are looking for stunning graphics, they wont get them.
The Wii (in that sense) can barely be called Next Gen. It looks barely anything different other than ridding a few rough edges, than a Gamecube.
The 360 has made an improvement, but it's an Xbox. Xbox.
Plus nomatter what Microsoft puts out, they dont have to charge the actual cost, because they're a huge wealthy company, so if they want to make it all "lolz we shipped more dan uuuuuu" they can cut the price, because they can make the money up in Computers or software.
Canyarion
05-11-2006, 04:13 PM
I wonder if people will really see the difference between 360 and PS3. Not that I've looked into the graphics, the consoles haven't interested me so far.
its hard to say at this point... graphics will probably be like that of ps2 vs xbox... but later on ps3 will have the advantage of having better versions of games just like the xbox did over ps2.
infact, the most visually good looking game actually being PLAYED that i saw, was Gears of War for Xbox360, while the PS3 game Resistance or something whatever its called was closely followed. but then agian i expected that from the engine is running on ;)
the best looking game was MGS4 hands down, however running in real time it may have been, it just wasnt phisically being PLAYED in any of the vids i saw.
GameMaster
05-11-2006, 05:44 PM
I think his extension of friendship toward Nintendo is cool. You have to remember though, if Nintendo was the leader and Sony was behind with Microsoft, Peter would've found a way to isolate Nintendo and lash out at them. That's business.
I was thinking of an interesting situation last night. With Microsoft's early lead right now, and with GTA IV no longer being a PS3 exclusive, and the PS3's high price point, I see Sony possibly slipping. This would open the door for Microsoft to gain the top console ranking, with Nintendo naturally falling second, and Sony slipping all the way to third. I think it's a very real possibility.
Sony may very well slip. however with the lead (fanbase wise) they arleady have, i really cant see it happened in a single console gen, it may open the doors for a MS lead next gen, but i couldnt see it happening in 1.
the only thing that doesnt make sense with what you said is "nintendo naturally falling second" what does that mean? why would they fall second naturally? there would have to be some reason, why wernt they naturally second this gen?
(not that they couldnt be second or even first. its just that you said it like its a given with no reason what so ever)
Canyarion
05-11-2006, 07:43 PM
I think that even when mor Wiis are sold than 360s, people will still consider Nintendo second. :unsure: Some don't take the Wii seriously.
Comparable: I think Nintendo made the most money on their consoles/games this generation, but they're still 3rd...
MuGen
05-11-2006, 08:20 PM
the whole concept of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd is mostly and solely based on units sold, and not profit margin. I probably would agree with you, if you turned in sole profit margins Nintendo would probably be in a clear first.
but according to units sold, PS2 this gen was the clear number 1 with Microsoft in 2nd and Nintendo in third.
I honestly don't think PS3 would so easily slip down to third this generation. It's got a bunch of fans that are dying to purchase it, and as one of them the price has not shaken my resolution. I mean, there are those who think it's expensive and overpriced, and there are those who see it as a smart purchase, considering what's in the machine.
If your into games and just that, I'd say get the Wii........ but I've always been a very technological person and always loved having the latest... so spending $600 on a PS3 with a Next-gen blu-ray player and all the other bells and whistles is a good bargain for me, and not just over priced. Later developers will make good use of the 50 gig BDR's and eventually it will present Microsoft with a huge problem as Developers flock to the BDR to create more extensive content and compelling gameplay. Microsoft will now have to add an HD-DVD peripheral which according to analysts could be another $199... now add that on top of the premium Xbox 360 and you've got yourself $599....
Now... spend another $200 on a HD-DVD add on, or spend $600 initially for a great console with an HD disc reader already, along with connectivity with the PSP and don't forget the possibilities of having LINUX on the HDD. Can you imagine the dev tools that could ship with games on the PS3?
Jonbo298
05-11-2006, 09:01 PM
I had an unbiased reply typed up earlier today, but yannow, with this beyond annoying "Server is too busy" message, I'm getting tired of this. The boards aren't even that heavily used, comeon.
Good for MS, maybe good for Ninty. Sony will do its own thing.
In 2-3 years, a 2x Blu-Ray player will be bleh I imagine. 2x dvd players are bleh. 2x cd-rom players are crippling.
Its too early...
Dylflon
05-11-2006, 09:08 PM
Dear fanboys,
PS2 had a pretty high release price as well. That didn't stop it from having a greater quantity of great games and moving millions of units. Didn't PS2 win the last generation?
Anyways, I'm not trying to be a Sony fanboy or anything but Sony always manages to get great games exclusive and I'm sure the price will eventually come down so it's not so easy to count them out.
I had an unbiased reply typed up earlier today, but yannow, with this beyond annoying "Server is too busy" message, I'm getting tired of this. The boards aren't even that heavily used, comeon.
Good for MS, maybe good for Ninty. Sony will do its own thing.
In 2-3 years, a 2x Blu-Ray player will be bleh I imagine. 2x dvd players are bleh. 2x cd-rom players are crippling.
Its too early...
jonbo... thoes arent measured in the same way... the #X is just the speed at which the disc is spinning. DVD's take in a lot more data in 1 spin then a CD can... so it doesnt need to spin as fast as a CD. thats like saying a 16X DVD is way way slower then a 56X CD. its just totally different.
granted a 2x does sound slow, but bluray reads much much faster. so the disc doesnt need to spin as fast and the system doesnt need to work to keep it spinning at that speed. it helps everything. i think a 2x bluray is pretty much equal to a 16xDVD. i had read something on it being faster.
now no doubt they'll prolly make a 4x Bluray drive eventually... but i dont see it going that much higher. wouldnt do it any good to spin that fast.
PS2 had a pretty high release price as well. That didn't stop it from having a greater quantity of great games and moving millions of units. Didn't PS2 win the last generation?
There's some confounding conclusions to this line of thinking, though.
For one, the PS2 launch was HALF that price. Wikipedia shows,
US$299.99 (October 26, 2000, Launch Price) (CAD$344.99)
But I remember it being $400-$450 here in Canada, due to the horrible dollar at the time, and even more because most of the systems at first were being bundled with GT3. Maybe that's why you're under the impression it was expensive. At that point in time, if the PS2 was $600, it would very well be $800 up here, at least.
PS2 was also released earlier (albeit later than Dreamcast) than the other two, which gave developers time to make great games. PS3 is launching later. Meanwhile, kickass Xbox 360 games are coming out, and the Wii is showing an extremely good launch with Metroid, Zelda, AND possibly Mario.
As well, Bluray is not an established format yet. PS2 had DVD, which, from "Twister"'s pressing in 1996, made it a four-year format at that point. DVD was one of the big reasons PS2 sold so well, but Bluray is totally questionable right now, what with its uncertain future against HD-DVD.
The PS2 is almost extraneous in this situation, disregarding brand loyalty and games. If MGS4 moves to 360 like Microsoft is heavily pointing to right now, and the price does not drop, this could very well be bad news.
Perfect Stu
05-11-2006, 10:01 PM
The PS2 is almost extraneous in this situation, disregarding brand loyalty and games. If MGS4 moves to 360 like Microsoft is heavily pointing to right now, and the price does not drop, this could very well be bad news.
good news for GameTavern, though :)
Jonbo298
05-11-2006, 11:01 PM
jonbo... thoes arent measured in the same way... the #X is just the speed at which the disc is spinning. DVD's take in a lot more data in 1 spin then a CD can... so it doesnt need to spin as fast as a CD. thats like saying a 16X DVD is way way slower then a 56X CD. its just totally different.
granted a 2x does sound slow, but bluray reads much much faster. so the disc doesnt need to spin as fast and the system doesnt need to work to keep it spinning at that speed. it helps everything. i think a 2x bluray is pretty much equal to a 16xDVD. i had read something on it being faster.
now no doubt they'll prolly make a 4x Bluray drive eventually... but i dont see it going that much higher. wouldnt do it any good to spin that fast.
Yes and I do know that the read rates are higher with Bluray because its a larger format.
I'm not that idioitic to not realize that a 2x cd-rom drive doesnt read at the same speed as a 2x dvd drive.
Canyarion
05-12-2006, 04:35 AM
I think Sony had expected Bluray fully up and running at this time, but development took longer. So they had a problem: they already promised Bluray so they didn't want to take it out.....
They had to solve it by giving people a Bluray player for an idiotic price.
manasecret
05-12-2006, 05:24 AM
I don't understand why anyone wants either one of the new movie formats. The switch from analog to digital was what was so nice about DVDs. Spending $600-$1000 and $30 for each movie for somewhat better visuals (if you have the right TV)? Who cares?
To me, even if all of the companies had decided on one standard and their wasn't a looming format war, I still don't think anyone would care. I think this new format is useless and a huge waste of money. My opinion of course.
BlueFire
05-12-2006, 09:13 AM
I don't understand why anyone wants either one of the new movie formats. The switch from analog to digital was what was so nice about DVDs. Spending $600-$1000 and $30 for each movie for somewhat better visuals (if you have the right TV)? Who cares?
To me, even if all of the companies had decided on one standard and their wasn't a looming format war, I still don't think anyone would care. I think this new format is useless and a huge waste of money. My opinion of course.
I agree. :-o
I don't understand why anyone wants either one of the new movie formats. The switch from analog to digital was what was so nice about DVDs. Spending $600-$1000 and $30 for each movie for somewhat better visuals (if you have the right TV)? Who cares?
To me, even if all of the companies had decided on one standard and their wasn't a looming format war, I still don't think anyone would care. I think this new format is useless and a huge waste of money. My opinion of course.
i agree to a certain point. But these arent 'somewhat better visuals' the difference with a true 1080p picture is huge. i mean it looks NICE.
but i dont care at all if they're $30 each. as i said in another post, if both hddvd, and bluray are going to cost that, then screw em both. i wont even pay a full normal price for current dvd's. ($20) i'll either buy em right away at $15 or wait till they're $10
Wait, has anyone considered the cost of Bluray PS3 games?
If DVDs are going to be $30 instead of $20, how much are games going to be?
Would they be $60/$70 or what.
i'd highly doubt it, games are already marked up a lot more then dvd movies. seems like Xbox360 has tried marking some games up to 60, and it doesnt look like its catching on.
marking the games up in price would hurt sony a lot more then an expensive system price. Howver that said, i also dont think we'll be seeing games at 39.99 anymore like sony was trying to do with ps2 games.
If you think about it, GAMES is where they're going to be making their money. If $600 is cutting back for them, and then they go and release $49 games, they're going to need fantastic sales to turn a profit.
But I can see them trying to hold out until the big-name games come.
its no different then gen then any other, they always lose money on the consoles. they are turning a very big profit on games.
when i say hurting sony for raising game prices i dont mean money wise, i mean it would hurt them in the console war.
Perfect Stu
05-12-2006, 03:56 PM
PS3 game prices will most likely be US$59.99...that's just speculation on my part but I would bet it's either that or very close to it
manasecret
05-12-2006, 04:00 PM
i agree to a certain point. But these arent 'somewhat better visuals' the difference with a true 1080p picture is huge. i mean it looks NICE.
It's really that big of a difference, huh? Well, I guess if I had an HDTV (especially a big one) I'd definitely be excited about the new format. Even if they were $30 I'd just start it slow, get a couple high-action movies to show it off. Now I see why people want this.
Canyarion
05-12-2006, 05:59 PM
Lucky bastards, games are €60 here, that's around $70. Or maybe more? :(
GameMaster
05-13-2006, 02:09 AM
I think games can never be more than $50
I think games can never be more than $50
But they were for N64.
Professor S
05-13-2006, 12:51 PM
My Thoughts
The Playstation isn't going away any time soon. Sony has a huge hardcore base that are strict Playstation users. They will save their money, shun all other systems, and get the PS3 no matter what. They will also torment their parents until they finally get one. The price increase is not going to turn the tide of console sales.
But...
It will even the playing field. Nintendo and especially MS are going to gain considerable ground.
1) Price - It is a factor. By the time that the PS3 comes out I'll almost guarantee a 360 price break or about $30-50. Wii is much cheaper than the PS3 from the word go. While many Sony loving kids may scream and moan, a lot of parents aren't going to spend that much money on a "toy". They will get their kids a cheaper system, though, if just to shut the kid up.
2) Established Library - This is going to help out the Xbox especially. By the time the PS3 comes out, you're going to see Gears of War released (which looks absolutely sick) along with a lot of other titles, and most likely Halo 3 or it will at least be imminent. This is going to help out MS a lot in the sales department.
I see the field evening with the 360 and PS3 moving into a tie (at least in European and North American sales, which are the only ones I care to examine) with the Wii gaining the ground that the Gamecube lost and reaching a strong 3rd.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.