May console sales #'s

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This is what I was thinking about earlier. Failure rates on the 360 appear to be unacceptably high, yet it still outsells the PS3 rather easily. Exacly what does this say about the PS3 as a system?

In the past I've been an impulse buyer when it came to console systems. Preordered both the PS2 and the XBox after walking into a store intending to pick up a PC game. I picked up a Wii on impulse this time around and I've strongly considered a 360 several times. Not one time has the thought of buying a PS3 entered my mind.

It's very simple. It's priced $200 too high. Nothing more. The PS3 has been very reliable from a failure rate standpoint. Some will tell you that there's no games. That's only a problem because the console is too expensive, therefore they don't sell as many consoles, therefore the developers don't make games for a smaller installed base. If the PS3 were $400, we'd have a much different situation. But it's not $400, it's $600.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Other people have slammed you already, but I'll pitch in.

No one is slamming anyone. This is a discussion, not a competition. I'm fully aware that a small sample size doesn't mean anything when considering the overall console population and noted that in my post.

[Marc Vaughan]

Just to defend the 360's ability to survive continual play - when I had one in the UK mine used to be used mainly as a DVD player (sorry but very few of the games on it outside of Live arcade).

My wife and kids would continually forget to turn it off and thus leave it playing a movie 'intro' continually for a 8 hours or so until I'd return home and turn it off - I never had a problem with it and it was simply mounted in time honoured tradition balanced on top of the tv (ie. no special fans or placement for airing).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't believe that the rate is that high and the sample size is obviously quite small, but even a small sample of consoles should never reach that level of failure.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

No one is slamming anyone. This is a discussion, not a competition. I'm fully aware that a small sample size doesn't mean anything when considering the overall console population and noted that in my post.

These two statements cannot co-exist. It is either one or the other.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

These two statements cannot co-exist. It is either one or the other.

Fair enough. The first statement was a bit too absolute. I should have said 'rarely' rather than 'never' as any bell curve situation is going to allow for that occasionally anomoly, but it shouldn't happen very often at all.

But I still believe that a discussion can also exist without 'slamming' other posters.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Just to defend the 360's ability to survive continual play - when I had one in the UK mine used to be used mainly as a DVD player (sorry but very few of the games on it outside of Live arcade).

My wife and kids would continually forget to turn it off and thus leave it playing a movie 'intro' continually for a 8 hours or so until I'd return home and turn it off - I never had a problem with it and it was simply mounted in time honoured tradition balanced on top of the tv (ie. no special fans or placement for airing).

Consoles work similarly to computers in that sense though, do they not? For example, I can leave my laptop on for hours (or even days) at a time without any heating issues as it just sits there. I'm thinking that a DVD menu wouldn't require much processing power to run.

However, if you have a game on my laptop that you run for long periods of time (coincidentally, it's FM on my laptop), that constant processing is going to heat up the laptop in a pretty big hurry. If you play a 8 hour marathon of Halo online, I'm guessing you're going to heat up your console a lot quicker than if you were just playing a DVD menu over and over.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

unless the 360 catches on fire and starts attacking the gamer

That I'd pay to see

SI

[Kodos]

I think my 360 had one ring of death when I was playing NCAA Football 2007 last fall. Other than that, it's been fine. I have the intercooler and I keep the 360 out in the open air (either on the TV or a stand).

I've barely touched it recently, but that's more of a function of not having the time (and trying to finish Resident Evil 4 before the next crop of football games arrives). I did finish Gears of War recently, which I thoroughly enjoyed, although probably not as much as some other guys have.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Fair enough. The first statement was a bit too absolute. I should have said 'rarely' rather than 'never' as any bell curve situation is going to allow for that occasionally anomoly, but it shouldn't happen very often at all.

But I still believe that a discussion can also exist without 'slamming' other posters.

I slammed your opinion and your ridiculous method of dealing with statistics. I didn't insult you or slam you personally. If your opinion was wrong, it deserved to be slammed. If you strongly believe in your opinion, defend the damned thing. But stop acting as though I called you names and said mean things about your mother.

Get off the cross, we need the wood.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I run my PS3 24/7 and have had no issues at all. I run the Folding@home program on it.

Seeing this makes me laugh. Not a personal slam against you, but I've seen these programs as screensavers on the PC for years. As far as I know, we've yet to cure cancer or anything (who knows, maybe someday we will because of this), but people wonder why the cost and demand for energy continues to soar and then go home and leave their PS3s on 24/7.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Seeing this makes me laugh. Not a personal slam against you, but I've seen these programs as screensavers on the PC for years. As far as I know, we've yet to cure cancer or anything (who knows, maybe someday we will because of this), but people wonder why the cost and demand for energy continues to soar and then go home and leave their PS3s on 24/7.

So you think that distributed computing is not a cost-effective use of energy.

Does this apply to all scientific computing? If a researcher at Stanford is trying to model some statistics, you would say that he should not do it, but should instead keep his computer off and save the energy.

If you would not say that, then please explain your position. Looking at it from a black and white perspective, either using computers for science is an auspicious use of energy, or it is not. If it is, then people should do it. If it is not, then people should not do it. You are against people doing it at home, so ergo you are against people doing it at all.

Now, you may say that you live in a world of grey in which you are not against scientists using computers, but you are against distrubuted computing applied to scientific problems. That seems logically tight to me if one accepts your axioms. But then I have to ask, is your only evidence supporting your axiom that these programs don't work the fact that no one has told you, personally, that we have yet to cure cancer because of it?

Do any distributed computing programs work? If not, why not? If some of them do work, then which ones and why?

Sorry if this comes off as a bit of an attack, but your statment just struck me. Humans do a lot of things that one might say are not worth the energy that they cost. It never occured to me that using computers to solve scientific problems would be one of those things.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Seeing this makes me laugh. Not a personal slam against you, but I've seen these programs as screensavers on the PC for years. As far as I know, we've yet to cure cancer or anything (who knows, maybe someday we will because of this), but people wonder why the cost and demand for energy continues to soar and then go home and leave their PS3s on 24/7.

I know a few doctors personally at Stanford who are amazed at how much they have already achieved using the Folding@home project. The energy to run a PS3 constantly for one month ends up being about $4/month. For me personally, that's a small price to pay if there's any chance that it may help doctors treat patients in the future.

Also, my 4 month old daughter is mesmorized by the spinning globe that is displayed by the program, so there's an added incentive there as well.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

So you think that distributed computing is not a cost-effective use of energy.

Does this apply to all scientific computing? If a researcher at Stanford is trying to model some statistics, you would say that he should not do it, but should instead keep his computer off and save the energy.

If you would not say that, then please explain your position. Looking at it from a black and white perspective, either using computers for science is an auspicious use of energy, or it is not. If it is, then people should do it. If it is not, then people should not do it. You are against people doing it at home, so ergo you are against people doing it at all.

Ouch-a-rama!

No, I'm not against all distributed computing. I'm just not so sure of the value in folding@home or the screensavers I've seen. Hey, if it actually works, I certainly stand corrected.

I just found a certain irony in the global warming, "my energy costs are too high", and "I leave my PS3 on 24/7".

If it cures cancer, how can anyone be against that?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I just found a certain irony in the global warming, "my energy costs are too high", and "I leave my PS3 on 24/7".

If Al Gore reduces his carbon footprint below mine at any point, I'll turn off my PS3 to save the environment and stop curing cancer.

[CraigSca]

If Al Gore does that, I'll buy a PS3 the next day

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

If it cures cancer, how can anyone be against that?

I'm only against curing cancer when the AI civ does it before me.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I slammed your opinion and your ridiculous method of dealing with statistics. I didn't insult you or slam you personally. If your opinion was wrong, it deserved to be slammed. If you strongly believe in your opinion, defend the damned thing. But stop acting as though I called you names and said mean things about your mother.

Get off the cross, we need the wood.

Is the wood for when the 360 starts catching fire and attacking gamers?

[stevew]

I'd strongly consider a PS3 at 400ish. Right now my DVD player recently shit the bed, so I wouldn't mind an upgrade to a BD player. And I never had a ps2, so I'm sure there are hundreds of games I could play for the first time. Most of the "console exclusives" are games I'd never buy anyways. I primarily play Madden and NCAA. Occasionally a game like GTA as well. Wii just doesn't have NCAA or online play, so that kind of dissapoints me.

Maybe they'll do a price drop at E3, I'm already looking at spending about 120 on a DVD player anyways.

[Kodos]

For $400, I would probably get one tomorrow.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'd strongly consider a PS3 at 400ish. Right now my DVD player recently shit the bed, so I wouldn't mind an upgrade to a BD player. And I never had a ps2, so I'm sure there are hundreds of games I could play for the first time. Most of the "console exclusives" are games I'd never buy anyways. I primarily play Madden and NCAA. Occasionally a game like GTA as well. Wii just doesn't have NCAA or online play, so that kind of dissapoints me.

Maybe they'll do a price drop at E3, I'm already looking at spending about 120 on a DVD player anyways.

One thing to remember is that there's usually a weekend each month where Best Buy offers 12% off coupons. If they ever drop the price by $100 to $500 and you tack on a 12% coupon, you're looking at a $440 PS3. That's not ideal, but it's 25% off the current price, which is a pretty good start.

Obviously, you could do the same with other consoles as well. 360 would be just under $360 for a premium and $420 for an Elite.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

One thing to remember is that there's usually a weekend each month where Best Buy offers 12% off coupons. If they ever drop the price by $100 to $500 and you tack on a 12% coupon, you're looking at a $440 PS3. That's not ideal, but it's 25% off the current price, which is a pretty good start.

Obviously, you could do the same with other consoles as well. 360 would be just under $360 for a premium and $420 for an Elite.

I get a 10% discount at work which comes in handy in situations like this. I'd still like to pay less than 400...i know it's all pyschological, but it makes it easier to sell to the wife.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by Kodos

For $400, I would probably get one tomorrow.

I'd still wait until there was a game out that I want to play on it. The cost is much less a factor for me than the fact there's no games that I am interested in that's not also available for a system I already have. I also know that I'm probably not the norm.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Bee

I'd still wait until there was a game out that I want to play on it. The cost is much less a factor for me than the fact there's no games that I am interested in that's not also available for a system I already have. I also know that I'm probably not the norm.

I think you are the norm and steve is the exception. (I think sales numbers show this to be the case)

Steve loves the blu-ray and because he didn't own a PS2, there are going to be a TON of available new games for him to play.

Most gamers owned a PS2, so that's not a concern. Most die hard gamers don't care about Blu-Ray at the moment. And most die hard gamers want to play games on their systems. These were all things I said back before the PS3 was released.

Does it mean I'm right? I dunno, just a theory, but I don't think the lone reason for the PS3's failure to this point is only a price point issue. I think that's a BIG thing, but that it goes far deeper than that. And the big issue is the amount of games you can play on the system.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Bee

I'd still wait until there was a game out that I want to play on it. The cost is much less a factor for me than the fact there's no games that I am interested in that's not also available for a system I already have. I also know that I'm probably not the norm.

By the time the console is down to $400, there should be plenty of games to play, likely sometime next spring. There's a direct correlation between installed base and number of games produced for the system. At this point, there's not enough of a installed base to force a large amount of game production.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by stevew

Wii just doesn't have NCAA or online play, so that kind of dissapoints me.

The 08 EA games for Wii will be online.

[Daimyo]

I'd buy a PS3 for $400 tonight and there aren't any PS3 games that interest me. It would be worth it just to have a relatively small footprint blu-ray/DVD player and second PS2 in the bedroom with the ability to play FF13, etc in the future.

[Eaglesfan27]

I'd also buy a PS3 tonight if it was down to 400 dollars. I was slightly tempted because of The Show at its current price. At 400, the Show and having Blu-Ray capability would be enough to take the plunge.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

The 08 EA games for Wii will be online.

What's coming out though....Madden and Tiger Woods?

[MJ4H]

and FIFA. These arent far away. You should check out the Ronaldinho Mii in the Wii version of FIFA 08. Looks fun!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Bee

Is the wood for when the 360 starts catching fire and attacking gamers?

No, it's a self sustaining flame, like the burning bush variety (oh, look, I've injected religion into our political discussions on console gaming ).

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Arles

No, it's a self sustaining flame, like the burning bush variety (oh, look, I've injected religion into our political discussions on console gaming ).

And the PS3 is like Hitler, because...

[Eaglesfan27]

Rumor floating around now is that not only will NCAA Football 08 only run at 30 FPS on the PS3, but that it is going to be significantly delayed and will not release on the 17th when the other versions will.

[Kodos]

It's kinda funny - last generation, the user base made developpers release an assload of games for PS2. This generation, the user base is making them go away. Good fortune is a fickle mistress in console gaming.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by KWhit

And the PS3 is like Hitler, because...

Couldn't be. The PS3 is black, and Hitler was a proponent of the Master Race, remember?

Maybe it could be his little toothbrush mustache, though. That might work.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Couldn't be. The PS3 is black, and Hitler was a proponent of the Master Race, remember?

Maybe it could be his little toothbrush mustache, though. That might work.

So the Wii or 360 could still be Hitler... how to decide which.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

So the Wii or 360 could still be Hitler... how to decide which.

That's easy. If the Wii is slaughtering the other two, doesn't that...sorry, I can't even finish that.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Rumor floating around now is that not only will NCAA Football 08 only run at 30 FPS on the PS3, but that it is going to be significantly delayed and will not release on the 17th when the other versions will.

It almost makes you feel sorry for Sony. They are like the fallen giant. They probably never imagined this generation could start so very badly for them.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

One thing to remember is that there's usually a weekend each month where Best Buy offers 12% off coupons. If they ever drop the price by $100 to $500 and you tack on a 12% coupon, you're looking at a $440 PS3. That's not ideal, but it's 25% off the current price, which is a pretty good start.

Obviously, you could do the same with other consoles as well. 360 would be just under $360 for a premium and $420 for an Elite.

El wrongo.

El wrongo gigantico.

The 10% off coupons only work on games and accessories. The 10%/12% coupon seldom works even on those.

Best Buy does not accept coupons on video game hardware.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

El wrongo.

El wrongo gigantico.

The 10% off coupons only work on games and accessories. The 10%/12% coupon seldom works even on those.

Best Buy does not accept coupons on video game hardware.

That's what I thought, but I didn't want to go spouting off about it because I wasn't positive.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Kodos

That's what I thought, but I didn't want to go spouting off about it because I wasn't positive.

Having worked there the better part of six years, I AM positive. Those coupons automatically take x% off of an approved product. Occasionally we have to override it when it flags the bundle and doesn't actually apply the discount, but that's the only time we apply those coupons by hand.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by stevew

What's coming out though....Madden and Tiger Woods?

Yeah as MattJones... said FIFA will come out on the Wii this year along with EA's awful awful NBA Live game.

2k Sports still nowhere to be found other than The Bigs which I am not interested in. I want a baseball sim for Wii.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Having worked there the better part of six years, I AM positive. Those coupons automatically take x% off of an approved product. Occasionally we have to override it when it flags the bundle and doesn't actually apply the discount, but that's the only time we apply those coupons by hand.

Thanks for clearing that up. I had seen a deal where Buy.com is currently offering a coupon to save about $50 off a PS3. I assumed that the Best Buy coupons would work similarly, but I was obviously mistaken. Guess Buy.com is the better option in that case then.

[Hoya1]

I wonder where this discussion will be in 3-5 years. I personally think that once the PS3 gets their games out there, people will be drawn. I'll hold out for GTA and FF.

The thing about the console football games framerates can be summed up in one opinion. If you're going from a PS2 to a PS3, it's still going to be better. I'll get NCAA for sure, and maybe Madden. The lower fps will not bother me because I won't know any different. It will still be better than NCAA on my ps2.

[MizzouRah]

You want $400

http://stlouis.craigslist.org/ele/356161469.html

Search craigslist, they are plenty more just like this in the $400-$450 range.

Even at $300 I wouldn't buy one right now, I'd rather spend that on upcoming games for the 360. In fact, I just spent $120 tonight on NCAA 08 and Madden 08 on preorders.

[Marc Vaughan]

I think a lot depends on market share and how much penetration Wii and 360 can make before PS-3 starts to pickup.

If it loses publisher support (and thus games) then it will continue to struggle imho - the Dreamcast was imho the best console at the time it came out, but lack of support for it killed its chance ...

I always fin businesses faith in 'brand loyalty' amusing to be honest - imho brand loyalty only exists while the 'brand' in question is the best in its area .... simple as that.

[DeToxRox]

When PS3 first came out I promised myself I'd get one as I always loved PS products and didn't find XBox too much fun. Then I played Xbox 360 at my buddies and I started to become a 360 fan. Then I saw GTA 4 and Assassins Creed leaving PS exclusive and it sealed it for me. The games I want to play are on both systems, and for me personally, there is not a 150 or so dollar difference between the two.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Thanks for clearing that up. I had seen a deal where Buy.com is currently offering a coupon to save about $50 off a PS3. I assumed that the Best Buy coupons would work similarly, but I was obviously mistaken. Guess Buy.com is the better option in that case then.

Yep. You're gonna give probably half of that back in shipping, but...

[TroyF]

The PS3 will eventually make a run. I don't think there is any question about that. But this year is critical for the overall race. It's really, really tough to overcome a horrific start in a console war. The thing everyone needs to realize is that the 360 isn't just going to stop pumping out quality titles.

The PS3 is ALWAYS going to be behind in the price war for this gen. MS will be able to constantly drop the pricing on itself deeper than Sony will ever be able to go. The longer the PS3 waits for their big titles, the tougher it is going to be to build up an install base.

This fall/winter has the potential to fall into complete devastation for the PS3. MS has at least 5 A+++ titles that are going to be released, and at least 3 of those are exclusives.

They are currently behind by close to 5 million consoles in the US. If this Christmas season ends up how I expect it is going to, Sony may have a 6-7 million console deficite to deal with. That's not something you can just close up with a system seller or two. Even FF isn't going to cause that big of a gap to close in the US. (as incredible as the Wii has been this year, they are still 3 million consoles back in the US market)

As I said above, the 360 isn't just going to suddenly plunge into a lake and stop selling units after this Christmas. To get back in the game, Sony is going to have to have an incredible, incredible run.

I'm not saying it isn't possible. We could very well be talking in 3-5 years about Sony dominating again. But I think it becomes less likely with each passing day that is going to be the case.

2 thoughts:

1) I think it's going to be a long time before anyone realizes how good the PS2 really was. Seriously, in 75 years, that console may still be considered the best of all time. The amount of games and duration of the system is unbelievable.

2) I don't think a lot of people really understand how bad this launch has been for the PS3. When you factor in the success of the PS2, this is almost unfathomable. This is one of the biggest product release disasters of all time. They took a product everyone wanted and turned it into something die hard gamers, even in Japan are laughing at close to a year after launch. That's monumentaly bad. Even if they recover and take over the lead in 5 years, it does nothing to bring back the fact that they allowed 2 of their competitors back in the console race and decimated a large part of their fan base in the process.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm not saying it isn't possible. We could very well be talking in 3-5 years about Sony dominating again. But I think it becomes less likely with each passing day that is going to be the case.

That's, like, ten or fifteen generations.

Or three times as long as the Nintendo gaming era has lasted.

I ain't saying you're WRONG, just that you might be a smidge overenthusiastic in your assessment.

PS2 is a great console, but still the greatest of all time when video gaming's centennial rolls around?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That's, like, ten or fifteen generations.

Or three times as long as the Nintendo gaming era has lasted.

I ain't saying you're WRONG, just that you might be a smidge overenthusiastic in your assessment.

PS2 is a great console, but still the greatest of all time when video gaming's centennial rolls around?

Again, I'mnot talking in terms of graphics or horsepower or anything like that. I'm talking aoubt overall quality of titles, length of service, overall popularity.

I could be wrong, it happens more than I'd like to admit. But you are looking at a system that is now over 7 years into its life cycle and has sold over 120 million units. (more than the NES and SNES combined) There have been nearly 1500 games released for the system. It was massive all over the world and produced hits from all corners of it.

One thing I can promise you: Whoever knocks it off its perch is going to get a ton of money from me.