What Is Sony Thinking?

Other Games
181

I know this is only elaboration on the point Abadd already allowed, but it’s still usually overlooked. In I think every major territory but Japan XBOX has a higher average software attach rate than PS2. To be clear total PS2 numbers are higher but not by very much and it’s had a couple extra years to achieve that.

I’m sure Abadd or someone will correct me if I’m off about that but in general terms I’m quite sure I’m not. In addition there are various reasons (including the very fact of the attach rate) to believe the hardware attrition is a little higher for PS2, as in more of those units are “dead” by now. The only real point is that the cumulative console base, while being the most commonly thrown about measure of success, is a very misleading guage for the living state of a market.

One other very simple factor is that PS2 being the more mainstream success a lower percentage of owners are likely be vocal hard-core gamers.

182

I should add that for all my dislike of SONY, I still want them to stay inthe industry as both them and M$ are the only ones willing to spend millions on R&D and give us top spec consoles (really pushing the boat out), NCL sure as hell aren’t (up to them we still be on carts)
Like it or not we need both M$ and Sony inthe market place . Not even SEGA in its hey day had the money needed to fund next gen console development (well I don’t think so).

I just hope that the market place gets close to 50/50 or 60/40.

183

Eh, how did Sega have no money for it? They did introduce the Dreamcast you know, it was next gen at its time… And so was the Saturn… And they had pushed other failed consoles before the Saturn so they had wasted money on top of that… Sounds like they were more than capable to me.

As for Nintendo, they did introduce the N64. Sure the cartriges were a bad choice in some ways (and in others were awesome, namely loading times) but the console overall was next gen at the time in my opinion, even though it didn’t manage to compete with the well established last-gen consoles (and didn’t even last until the next generation after that).

And what about the GameCube? It didn’t really lack in anything compared to the other consoles of its time. Better than a PS2, worse than an X-box. Add the price and it was competitive in every aspect.

It’s not like Sony’s consoles haven’t had short comings in many areas, so if Sony is good to go despite the shortcomings of their past (and more than likely future) systems then why is Nintendo different?

As for the R&D money Microsoft and Sony spend, well, maybe Sony spent a lot on the cell cpu but don’t all of them (including Nintendo) use the technology of established firms for the components? IBM, Nvidia, Ati, Intel, AMD, whatever they use. I don’t think any part is 100% new, rather based on some existing chip by one of those companies and modified for the needs of a console. How fast the chip they’re based on was is a different matter, it still existed already and was modified for a console so probably similar amounts of money were spent for all consoles R&D, including the Wii. Researching something that will be sold relatively cheap doesn’t mean the actual research was cheap too.

Finaly, well, your hatred for Nintendo is known and I don’t really care to argue about that at the moment, I’ll just say that next-gen has become very subjective for this round thanks to them and I’m certain they had to spend quite a sum to develop what they have developed. Whether you like it or not that’s your business, but many do.

But I guess unless we actually get some official numbers on how much each company spent on everything (and then objectively how well spent each was) we end up simply doing speculation and using it to either fuel flames or counter them. With no real value in either case.

PS: If you were reffering to the HD, Blu-Ray and what not deals I’ll say that those are neat (I guess, for some) but that as far as a GAMES console is concerned they are not significant. And Sony certainly didn’t spend the money for Blu-ray in order to make a better games console.

184

I should have explained it a bit better, I meant that I?m not sure that even when SEGA was in its hey day in terms of doing well, could it really fund projects that would be the equal of the 360 or PS3 in terms of R&D costs and then be able to sell the console @ a mass market price . I think that would kill off most corps myself.

I’m talking now though, after the CUBE and even with the Cube to a point NCl have never really pushed the boat out. Both the Wii and DS should have far better tech inside them imo .

Looks it not hard to be better than the PS2 , Given that the CUBE came along @ te same time as the X-Box its tech was miles off really. No support for 5.1 sound, widescreen , limited amounts of Ram . It was a nice machine but miles off what the X-Box could do imo.

Even if you’re using established parts they still have to be a altered to work in the console set up and the likes of the 360 GPU are really designed to for the console environment that all still costs. DC used off the shelve parts so to speak (given that the SH-4 and Power VR were already developed pretty much) still cost SEGA some 80 to 100 million big ones to develop the DC and that was some 8 years ago . Thats has to nothing then trying to sell it @ a massmarket price and making a loss on every unit you sell (for the console 1st couple of years).

Will you please stop going on about my dislike of NCL. You do know I bought all thier consoles since the Snes . Saying a corp can and should do better with its hardware/software or finding faults with them is no out and out hatred .

I don’t really get that point . BluRay or DVD was ever made with games in mind, I doubt CD Rom was too. Point is the momnent you put then inthe console when it’s still new tech , it all adds to the cost of the console (why the Mega CD was so expensive and the N64 so cheap for the tech)
Sony must have been lossing loads on every PS2 sold @ the start thanks to the DVD drive .

The only one that will be making money offf its hardware for the 1st year of its life is NCL, M$ or SONY won’t that much is for sure. And its playing that mass market kind of game that all but killed SEGA

185

I can agree with a lot of that TA, though I don’t know if it all necessarily adds up to meaning what you think. As example I’m sure Sony directly spent quite a bit more on PS2 development than Sega did for the Dreamcast, but in practice Sega arguably got a better return on their investment for the relative price point. PS2 has a lot more power and a few unique tricks but Dreamcast has it’s own easily accessed tricks and efficient processes that PS2 will need to waste a lot of it’s power on to directly compete with.

In the larger sense I agree that at this point we may well need a company as big as MS to realistically challenge Sony, and vice versa, but Nintendo could have easily spent just as much as the other two if they really wanted to, they just never want to and they’ve never needed to. Since calling the Wii architecture a supercharged Gamecube is pretty close to the truth I’m sure they haven’t spent too much on that part. But they also have some added costs for the controller and they’ve probably spent a lot on manufacturing design, I will say that I fully expect the Wii to have the lowest defect rate again this gen.

If nothing else this should hopefully be the first N console that’s not tragically compromised within it’s own design. Gamecube and N64 both have some niggling memory issues that hold them back from making full use in practice of all their features. Super Nintendo was quite advanced for it’s time but had an underpowered CPU. Even the Famicom/NES was a hamstringed version of their arcade board. There even seems to be a story in every case involving late cost saving decisions being made over many objections by project members and/or development partners. But this time the console is right up front about being cheap.

186

No doubt SONY did, On paper the PS2 is one powerfull piece of kit it just how they went about getting the machine to push so many polygons thats the problem with a poor GPU.

One thing with the DC it may have cost SEGA dear inthe home, but it sure as hell paid for its self inthe Arcade market. NA@MI got to be one of the popluar Arcade boards ever made .

That what really gets me about NCL, They have the cash to spend on R&D but they’re so penny picthing that they never really push the boat out even on thier number one games.
Zelda by now should be having a full Orchestra music score and fully voiced dialect imo, but not doubt that would cost too much for NCL .
I might be the only one, but the Wii controler looks cheap and nasty , I doubt much money went into that to say the truth.

That’s thinking just like me mate. That’s always been my beef with NCL they have to cut a corner here or they to save on costs , never fully go for it . Snes had some of the most powerfull 2D Hardware around yet NCL had to use a sh8t CPU and low Videoram to save on costs . N64 had some nice 3D Hardware but no hardware for sound and limited memory for textures ect. Cube a great machine just really held back for me with no support for Widescreen, 5.1 and a pathetic Ram limit .

I think its worse for the Wii, No support for High Def is a joke as is the rubbish Ram limit, which in my eye’s will really hold it back in a few years time. Still I take my hat off to NCL a better run corp there is not, they’ll see us all out and will be making millions even if the Wii just sells 10 million units

187

Well see what I meant about Wii is that since they aren’t pushing for HD resolutions or the bleeding edge meta-imaging 360 and PS3 are capable of then 1/4 gig (or even if it was 128 megs) should be more than enough memory to make the most of what is in there, as one example.

And yeah I’ll echo the sentiment about PS3 having a decent GPU, at least this will be the first Sony console without any outright imaging defects to overcome. But what’s funny to me is that it’s also the least cohesive design they’ve had, I see some amusing similarities to the Saturn situation in that it will be the hardest to tap PS3’s theoretical power and even the fact that the design seems to have been pressured by Sony’s failure to correctly read market trends and demands until the last minute.

I’m sticking by my forecast that 360 will ultimately demonstrate a noticeable edge in visual panache. Not that it will mean much in and of itself this gen excepting that the more problems Sony has such as delays the more it will mean for them if they can’t prove PS3 is “better” in a meaningful way.