Posted May 30, 2010 Because it's logical. The Wii is the first console to blow its competitors out of the water since the SNES(?). It's obvious the mass market don't care for expensive cutting edge hardware and that also means a lower price point for both Nintendo and the consumer. It's not a sudden a change, either. The DS is technologically weak too compared to the PSP. Nintendo is very much about the implementation. Well, regarding the PSP, that thing was just overkill (just like the PS3). You make a good point on the next Nintendo console being affordable but surely, MS and Sony will also price their consoles at a more affordable price. By making all three consoles even in terms of power, This will benefit the consumers and the developers. Another thing, hasn't Sony lost billions of dollars on the PS3? Why would they repeat the same mistake and release another over priced console? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 30, 2010 Well, regarding the PSP, that thing was just overkill (just like the PS3). You make a good point on the next Nintendo console being affordable but surely, MS and Sony will also price their consoles at a more affordable price. By making all three consoles even in terms of power, This will benefit the consumers and the developers. Another thing, hasn't Sony lost billions of dollars on the PS3? Why would they repeat the same mistake and release another over priced console? Billions? LOLLLLL When Sony say they were making losses on every PS3, I find that hard to believe. They must have been taking developing/marketing/designing into that. Now they're probably making a decent profit margin with the decrease in resource prices and slim version, plus the game sales are only ever going to make them profit (unless first party titles start failing, when they aren't currently). Billions... That's just funny, if anything was making losses in billions... Well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 30, 2010 Billions? LOLLLLL When Sony say they were making losses on every PS3, I find that hard to believe. They must have been taking developing/marketing/designing into that. Now they're probably making a decent profit margin with the decrease in resource prices and slim version, plus the game sales are only ever going to make them profit (unless first party titles start failing, when they aren't currently). Billions... That's just funny, if anything was making losses in billions... Well. First the bad news: Sony's recently released FY Q2 2009 financial report included some pretty upsetting figures for investors to witness -- namely, that the company's "Networked Products and Services" division, which includes video game hardware and software sales, reported a ¥58.8 billion (or $654 million) operating loss during the quarter. The drop off was attributed to "a decrease in PS2 hardware and software unit sales, and the impact of the appreciation of the yen." Indeed, the PS2 took a hit this quarter to the tune of 600,000 units year-over year. Now, the worse news: The financial report included enough data for various GAFers and VG247ers to slap a number on the amount of money that the PS3 has lost Sony: $4.695 billion. Sure, that number seems outrageously high -- because, well, it is -- but it's hardly an apocalyptic loss. Actually, it's reminiscent of losses incurred by Microsoft with the release of the original Xbox, which drained the company of $4.202 billion over a similar four-year period. Finally, the good news: Shortly after the financial report was published, Sony CFO Nobuyuki Oneda claimed the PS3 was getting cheaper to produce, stating, "the difference between sales and materials cost has been reduced to between 10 and 20%. Within the year, it could be in the single digits." He later added, "we'll be able to reach profitability at some point in the next term." Considering PS3 sales jumped 800,000 year-over-year with the launch of the Slim, we've got a bit of advice to aid in this endeavor: Keep making it skinnier. Source: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/30/ps3-has-lost-sony-4-7-billion-may-be-profitable-next-year/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 30, 2010 I don't believe that. I was thinking maybe 100 million possible loss, but 4 billion? That's fucking crazy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 30, 2010 I don't believe that. I was thinking maybe 100 million possible loss, but 4 billion? That's fucking crazy. I know, I wish they would send some of the wealth my way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 30, 2010 Well, regarding the PSP, that thing was just overkill (just like the PS3). You make a good point on the next Nintendo console being affordable but surely, MS and Sony will also price their consoles at a more affordable price. By making all three consoles even in terms of power, This will benefit the consumers and the developers. Another thing, hasn't Sony lost billions of dollars on the PS3? Why would they repeat the same mistake and release another over priced console? Well the PSP has sold over 50 million units so it hasn't exactly done that bad. You make it sound like these three companies would try and make their consoles the same. Obviously that's not going to happen, these companies don't want to share. Sony would have lost a lot of money on the PS3 to start but that's not unusual. R&D costs a bomb. What they get in return, however, is a console that isn't showing it's age and a won format war - not to mention, along the same lines, however many million 3D ready Blu-Ray/Games machines already in the wild to spurn demand for 3DTV and another point of contact for their video store (which is being expanded into other devices now). I don't think anyone can call that a mistake although I won't argue that they could have gone about things a little smoother. The Playstation 3 wasn't over priced. It was very expensive but it wasn't over priced. There's a difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 30, 2010 The Playstation 3 wasn't over priced. It was very expensive but it wasn't over priced. There's a difference. It was overpriced. Claiming the component costs within the system proved its value when there was next to no good software at launch and blu-ray hadn't taken off is ridiculous. As an all-round system it was too expensive, and sales reflected that. When it dropped to around £300 it was just about acceptable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 30, 2010 There's a difference between price and value. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 30, 2010 (edited) That $4 Billion figure isn't really the full story. That's including R&D costs, which will have been sky-high. Cell, Home, PSN, the boomerang controller and the PS3 itself will all have cost a lot of money to make. Factor in the loss they made initially on each unit sold (around $100) and it's not surprising that the figure adds up to $4bn. It's very much similar to Microsoft's first Xbox, they made a huge loss on it but at the same time they put down a lot of the ground-work for future products. Sony aren't loosing money on the PS3 now and that $4bn loss is behind them. They're arguably stronger for it. Cell is the big mistake though, that thing cost billions, caused Sony to have to cut the GPU down on the PS3 and has so far proved useless for anything else. Now that Intel have caught up it was a pretty useless venture full stop. Edited May 30, 2010 by McPhee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 30, 2010 (edited) There's a difference between price and value. That's what I'm pointing out. The PS3 wasn't valuable because it didn't actually do much. It just had potential. Plus you said 'it wasn't overpriced'. You could use the definition of overpriced, but it was definitely overpriced. Sony might not have been able to do much about it, but it was bad value, because what you were paying for didn't amount to anything that substantial. Edited May 30, 2010 by dwarf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 30, 2010 Don't shed a tear when a big company posts losses for each console sold. Remember the original xbox? It was to generate a userbase for teh second generation console. Besides that, once you have a consumer with a console in their lounge -- once you've paid that $30 to get the machine in their hands, you have a near-guarenteed income from the consumer as they buy their monthly game, or whatever. It's just a different policy to that which nintendo has always operated by, which is why it's safe to agree with what Daft says about a future nintendo console that isn't going to attempt to pick a fight hardware-styleé with the other two big dogs. Nintendo has always, especially with the Wii and DS, pushed innovation with current technology rather than any sort of emphasis on pure brute power. While this undercuts a lot of the market who can already look back at games like Gears of War and scoff at the so-called 'graphics' that once were ground-breaking, this allows nintendo to not be risky and to play it safe, ensuring their profit is healthy. My personal speculation/dream is for either a XBLA Blast Corps or a sequel. So many games in the last two generations of consoles have taken teh BC idea and pushed it, so I'd love to see the original, or a Rare take on it (which would suck, of course). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 31, 2010 You have to remember that Nintendo is dissociating itself from the others in their target market though. They will continue to press the minimalistic art style of games like Wii Sports because it's easy on the eye and seems less like an alienating videogame and more of a simple simulator. The developers have established relations on either the HD consoles or the Wii, with very few cross-overs. I don't think that's down to graphic power disparity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 31, 2010 You have to remember that Nintendo is dissociating itself from the others in their target market though. They will continue to press the minimalistic art style of games like Wii Sports because it's easy on the eye and seems less like an alienating videogame and more of a simple simulator. The developers have established relations on either the HD consoles or the Wii, with very few cross-overs. I don't think that's down to graphic power disparity. That happened because a lot of developers were writing off the Wii before it even released. A lot of publishers and developers ended up blowing it all on the HD twins and then when they realised their mistake it was too late. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 31, 2010 That happened because a lot of developers were writing off the Wii before it even released. A lot of publishers and developers ended up blowing it all on the HD twins and then when they realised their mistake it was too late. Has it been a mistake? Look at Modern Warfare 2 for example. You have to remember there are companies that are passionate about making great looking, great online and great gameplay experiences. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 1, 2010 (edited) I've deleted some of my original messages on the account of I sound like a prick. Simply put, we'll have to agree to disagree. Edited June 1, 2010 by The Lillster Automerged Doublepost Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 1, 2010 Rockstar Games aren't attending E3 this year. http://news.bigdownload.com/2010/06/01/rockstar-games-pulls-out-of-e3-2010/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 1, 2010 ah balls I was hoping their new LA Noir game would be there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 1, 2010 What's that? Exclusive game for PS3 from Rockstar North. A damn shame Rockstar won't be attending, but there's a chance Sony could show it, I suppose.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 1, 2010 GameTrailers Top 10 Most Anticipated Games Voiceover at the same time as Socom 4 is shown "No core games announced for Natal nor Move". :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 1, 2010 Exclusive game for PS3 from Rockstar North. A damn shame Rockstar won't be attending, but there's a chance Sony could show it, I suppose.. Didn't Rockstar skip last year's event as well? I'm sure I remember them saying they wouldn't be attending but Sony still got to mention The Agent during their conference so it's entirely possible that they'll still show it off. As for what I'm expecting, not a lot. Learning from previous years, it's best to tune down the hopes. Sony and Microsoft will probably both show off a load of sequels to their big franchises, which I'm not against as I'm sure I'll get many of them when they see a release, while giving quite a bit of focus to making their new controller tech 'essential'. In all honesty, I think if there are any big announcements to come from E3, and I'm sure there'll be some but not a crap tonne of them, they'll come from the third parties. For example, Nomura says there are three Kingdom Hearts games on the go, or at some stage of progress. Two will no doubt be spin offs but the third will presumably be KH3 and while that definitely won't show up, what platforms the spin offs turn up on will certainly be a big announcement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 1, 2010 Rockstar Games aren't attending E3 this year. http://news.bigdownload.com/2010/06/01/rockstar-games-pulls-out-of-e3-2010/ Rockstar has not canned E3 announcements. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 1, 2010 So nobody looking forward to the announcement of a spell-casting gesture based game for Natal then? :p I'm actually very excited about what Natal and Wave (is that what its called?) but unfortunately you know that devs and pubs are not going to put the TripA budget or development into anything that isn't a hardcore title. You know.... unless it's made by Sony London or Rare Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
