http://www.firingsquad.com/features/next_gen_console_war/

That is probably the most on-point, unbiased article I have ever ridden on the current state of the 3 consoles.

I agree with it 100%.

Someone care to cut-and-paste? Proxy here is blocking it...

Yup great article and I agree with everything they have said, but I would have added more things sony needs to do in a hurry.

Best article I've read on the three yet too. Oh also I didn't know the Wii doesn't offer online gaming! WTF

Someone care to cut-and-paste? Proxy here is blocking it...

I sent it to you in a PM. I didn't want to spam the forum with a 4 page article.

Good, solid article that tells it like it is. Although it's nothing new -it's a solid read.

Tons of detailed, specific praise for the X360 and all negative statements about the PS3. What's new?

Firing Squad is a well known and respected hardware/gaming review site, but in the past it has often been accused of playing favorites, especially regarding a bias for preferring ATI products over NVIDIA. I guess you could say XBOX/MicroSoft falls into the ATI camp while Sony/PS3 falls into the Nvidia camp?

I think they're correct in their criticisms of the PS3, I also think the PS3 has alot of great potential.

I really dont see what more can be done with the PS3 this year to spur sells and increase its market share than what the article mention.. which is why I agree with pretty much everything it had to say. The 2 most prominent concerns we hear about the PS3 is the high price and lack of games. I've said a few times.. ALOT consumers are just couple $100 price drop & few great released games away from getting a PS3.

The article suggested lowering the price immediately which addresses the price. But the games arent something that will come over night. A game announced right now, under any circumstances wouldnt be available until 2008, probably 2009. By that time the market share will have already been decided and the 'war' will have been over.

About the only thing Sony can do now to guarantee the games come, is ensure titles that were promised get delivered on time and stop with the string of delay announcments we've been seeing ever since the PS3 was launched.

The article did kinda address that point by saying making 3rd party demo's available. If people can get their hands on a demo, and its worthy. It will keep customers loyal, build up much needed worth of mouth hype, and ensure big selling titles.

The article is a decent snapshot of right now. However, I doubt Sony launched a console with no plans whatsoever for new games, online service, eventual price cuts etc....

The article is a decent snapshot of right now. However, I doubt Sony launched a console with no plans whatsoever for new games, online service, eventual price cuts etc....

Yeah but I don't see any blockbuster games that will set a standard coming this year besides maybe metal gear solid, if it comes out this year.

They are right, there needs to be more games. I could care less about the price, I just want some incredibly badass games to play. So far there is fight night, which is also on xbox and resistance. I really don't see what all the hype over resistance is for, but hey people love it so I'll give them that.

Under promise and over deliver is a key to great sucess, not the oposite as sony has done.

I love my PS3, but I want more good games a MUCH better online interface

**UPDATE** Just saw this release of upcoming games for 07 here... http://ps3.ign.com/index/release.html?constraint.eq.game.locale=us

Looks like quite a few games that could turn out great! Lets just hope they make it sooner than later.

This was a good summary of the state of things right now. I am, in fact, in agreement with pretty much all of it. I don't think it was biased against Sony at all.

I don't think that anyone can deny that Microsoft has done a pretty good job at executing on its gameplan with the 360 or that Sony has hit a few bumps.

It is still very early in the game. Sony has plenty of time to change course. The most important thing is that good new games need to be released. A price cut would also help.

I only own an Xbox and only since Christmas. I have jumped from Gears of War to Lost Planet and expect that Crackdown will be my next undertaking. There are tons of demos and free tv shows and clips to keep me busy. There are lots of games on the horizon that I am looking forward to. Microsoft is finding ways to keep me interested in the console.

Sony has to do the same for each of you who own a PS3.

PRICE CUT PRICE CUT PRICE CUT!!!!!!! I am not paying 600 for the PS3.......there are 3 of them sitting in my towns Wal-mart right now and they can't kee the Wii in stock. Hell they aren't even selling on Ebay like the article said. I know I check the PS3's out on Ebay every day looking for a steal. So with that said and not many games for the PS3 I'll stick with my PS2 for now.

Seems very fair to me. Yes there is more X360 praise, but to be fair, the M$ camp is far ahead of Sony *at the moment* in terms of online integration and price. Hopefully Sony will heed some of their suggestions which I am positive could hurl the PS3 to the head of the pack, including dropping price and better integration of online play/features.

Just because there is a collection of facts that most can agree with doesn't mean that there is no slant present. I can write an article about your brother by saying his breath smelled bad this morning, he dresses sloppily, and that he got a ticket for speeding yesterday. All may be true, but does that tell everything about him?

For instance, perhaps your brother's breath smelled bad this morning because the scent sample was taken just as he woke up. Also, wouldn't it be only fair to point out he's almost finished getting his Master's, he donates some of his time to help at a Boy's Club and that he's has three promising career offers on the table?

It's kind of a goofy comparison on the surface, but that's why I said what I did briefly in the post above. That article is comparatively VERY generous to Microsoft's machine. The first of the two pages about the XBox 360 is literally a love letter. They even go out of their way to defend it from one (minor) criticism of catering too much to the hardcore by interpreting the XBox Live offerings as proof that is not the case ("no, his breath doesn't really smell bad, it's just...").

All points, big and small, may indeed be true, and I'm not so much arguing any point made throughout the piece in this particular post. I'm saying that the format and selective presentation is slanted IMHO. I mean, the two pages for the X360 machine (love letter, then the suggestions) is a page more than the cramped page for the analysis of the other two.

Don't try to say it's because of the earlier release of the X360, because a fair good or bad comparison of all three can easily take up to 5-7 pages each if one wants to provide enough detail. There's plenty to say.

They call that section a "XBox 360 Battle Report", but a battle involves conflict, which is 95% absent for the XBox 360 analysis. They merely offer two challenges there for the system (lack of hard drive, early technical problems), one of which they show has been addressed to allay any concerns. There are certainly more negative issues that could have been mentioned for a more balanced write-up.

So then you go to the PS3 page. Every sentence is neutral or negative, mostly negative. The rare positive word or two (i.e. the free online gaming) is immediately followed by a negative twist before the sentence even ends.

Again, that's not to say that none of the bad news doesn't deserve a mention, but to not have really anything positive to say? Are we to believe that the PS3 is 100% negative with nothing of note to make it worth a mention (without a backhand slap)?

For instance, how about the early promise of the PSN games, headed by the excellent upgrade of the #1 fighting game in the world (T5: DR)? For all the praise given to 20+ year old arcade games for XBLive on the first page, surely a polished port of a 2 year old arcade game as a great early step for the service deserves SOME mention in an "unbiased" article, right?

They have the audacity on the suggestion page at the end to ask Sony to emulate Microsoft's service of offering movies/TV programs over the network? It's been well known for years now that this was a major planned service for the PS3, and is further evidenced by a built in HD and 1080P trailer downloads on day one of launch. It seemed like a silly way to suggest this is Microsoft's idea and Sony should run with it when nothing is further from the truth. We all know music, TV, and movies in full are on the way.

No mention of the +700% surge in Blu-ray movie sales since the PS3 launched, threatening to help end the hi-def format wars early. No mention of built in HDMI, which is even more significant now that the XBox 360 is getting 1080P games - and if a new X360 comes out with HDMI does that mean the current owners should feel slighted?

No mention of the PS3's perfect compatibility with 98% of PSOne and PS2 games (over 8,000 titles) at launch, further improved even more with the latest firmware updates. A year after the X360 launch they have no where near that amount of compatibility with the XBox library, but nothing is said in either section about the comparison. Remember, your brother has good points that I should point out too, right? However it's that courtesy isn't present for the PS3 in this article.

So selective analysis is the problem I have with this primarily-PC website. A more balanced write up could indeed end up more favorable to the X360 - I have no problem with that. It could end up mentioning more troubles for Sony than Microsoft - I have no problem there either. I too feel that by far the PS3's biggest issue is the price, and have felt that since the figure was announced.

That being said, I think that what Firing Squad did was heavily slanted and lacking plenty of worthy information to consider, whether intentional or not. 98% pro-X360 and 99% anti-PS3 is ridiculously unbalanced for a so-called fair analysis.

I still disagree. I think it was a far anaylsis. THey mentioned things that sony should do to take control of the market and I agree with every point they made.

What about the article do you not agree with? Do you think there shouldn't be more games or that the price is affecting its marketability? Do you think the online communication and store front is fine the way is?

All of those aspects go to the 360 without a doubt. Now dont think i'm an xbox fanboy, I have wrote here many time and have stated I like my PS3 better than my xbox for varies reason, but they DO need more games and do need a better way to communicate and invite friends to games, etc. They also do need to consider dropping the price to a price where a kid can save up and buy one, or get one for his birthday. Not too many parents are going to drop $500-$600 on this for little timmy.

The price doesn't effect me and I dont care about that personally, but I don't see a comment in the article I would disagree with. I understand if your saying they leaned too hard on the 360, but maybe that is their opinion right now? I found it a pretty honest article.

I see what he's saying but I also think that to write a critical article to address this you need some kind of a benchmark. Right now the 360 is it in almost all areas. Granted it came out first so it has a head start but that's just the way things are and there's no changing it. It doesn't do much good to benchmark to something that doesn't exist as it's a non-factor and no one is doing it but rather talk about areas for improvement.

Granted that can be construed and may come off as glowing praise or lack of critisism but in all honesty, the 360 is the benchmark right now and Sony needs to advance in many areas to get even with it. Those areas don't include stock BR playback, aesthetics or quality control though - but related to the gaming experience available today...they are not insignificant.

You don't need a bench mark except in formatting IMHO. Just report the facts good and bad. All three should get one page or all three should get two pages, not double up for the X360 since he clearly prefers it IMHO. If he's going to provided specific details on what is going right with the X360 in certain areas, then do the same across the board.

He can favor a machine of course, but it shouldn't skew supposed "fair" analytical articles as he did here. I'm not saying the article is completely wrong, just woefully incomplete and significantly weighted to one side more than the reality out there. Go back to the brother analogy I wrote above to clearly understand my point.

Despite the price, the PS3 still sold more world wide in the first two months of launch than did the X360's first two months.... before even releasing in Europe. They have already far surpassed the X360 full year in sales after only a few months in Japan. Even the PSP in the UK significantly outsold the X360 in 2006. That's a lot of major information covering the three major sales regions not even hinted at in the article.

The total number of pro and con points made for each may differ between the machine, but the ratio he has is incredibly one sided. Again, the "Battle Report" sections are a joke to compare... 95% pro X360 and 99% anti-PS3? C'mon. I'm no journalist but I easily provided a couple of worthy points of mention that he could have used if he wanted a true fair assessment. The end report can still put the X360 in the best light (currently) while remaining fair to its main, direct competitor if he wanted to.

Two Things,

1. The PS3 has only been out for 2+ months. It's a little early to judge it a success or failure. It's a console ahead of its time. If Sony hangs in there and brings the price down it will be a very competitive platform.

2. How can Microsoft be happy with the Wii outselling the 360 by hugh margins. I seems to me that the 360 should be doing better than it is.

I only own a PS3 but I'm not really a big Sony fan. If anything I'm cheering for Nintendo to stay in the game.

I see what he's saying but I also think that to write a critical article to address this you need some kind of a benchmark. Right now the 360 is it in almost all areas. Granted it came out first so it has a head start but that's just the way things are and there's no changing it. It doesn't do much good to benchmark to something that doesn't exist as it's a non-factor and no one is doing it but rather talk about areas for improvement.

Granted that can be construed and may come off as glowing praise or lack of critisism but in all honesty, the 360 is the benchmark right now and Sony needs to advance in many areas to get even with it. Those areas don't include stock BR playback, aesthetics or quality control though - but related to the gaming experience available today...they are not insignificant.Agreed. I thought the article fair. It avoided getting into the"yeah, but the potential of the PS3 is like soooo great" arguments. I don't disagree that, I just have yet to see that materialize. I also agreed about the need for a near term price drop the PS3.

They hit the nail on the head regarding the 360's hard drive size, or lack there of too.

Nothing but wishful thinking.

Firing Squad is a well known and respected hardware/gaming review site, but in the past it has often been accused of playing favorites, especially regarding a bias for preferring ATI products over NVIDIA. I guess you could say XBOX/MicroSoft falls into the ATI camp while Sony/PS3 falls into the Nvidia camp?

I was pretty sure that the original Xbox had a Nvidia chip in it?

I was pretty sure that the original Xbox had a Nvidia chip in it?

It did.

I was pretty sure that the original Xbox had a Nvidia chip in it?

It did. This gen switched to ATI.

I think the PS3 is priced right for what you get. I think people get hung up the price without really thinking what other products cost and what they spend cash on. If anything, they might need to make a really stripped down version for people who think they cant afford it, but go blow lord only knows how much a month on... nothing. Its a great unit, worth every penny to me and alot of other people. The Xbox I have costs me $400.00 dollars. The HDDVD add-on, which I think is kind of hokey, but it works cost $200 more. Why is 5-600.00 too much? Bought a I pod lately? The Wii is what it is. $300.00 unique, different. Its going to take a part of the market no matter what, because it here now and works. It isnt a PS3 and the PS3 isnt a Wii. The PS3 has been beat on from day one. So much so I was scared to buy one. Im glad I did its a great machine We use everyday and enjoy immensely.

Price matters because to maximize its success it is to be more of a game player that plays movies, not a movie player that plays games. The masses will have more and more Blu-ray player options, so even if the format is a hit there's no way Sony will sell 100+ million PS3s to people who want it as a movie player first and foremost. As for selling 100+ million game players, they've done it twice, and for them that's where their best chance of success will remain.

So if the most sales are to come from gamers, it needs to be around their price range, which is about $300 IMHO before it'll really start reaching that potential with the masses. For the PS2, this happened at the $200 price mark.

Considering the quality of the PS3 as a game player (better than the PS2, relatively speaking) and movie player (far better than the relative DVD capabilities of the PS2), it is indeed worth the $$$, but it has to get close to $300 over the next few years to start selling like the past two Sony consoles.

Price matters because to maximize its success it is to be more of a game player that plays movies, not a movie player that plays games. The masses will have more and more Blu-ray player options, so even if the format is a hit there's no way Sony will sell 100+ million PS3s to people who want it as a movie player first and foremost. As for selling 100+ million game players, they've done it twice, and for them that's where their best chance of success will remain.

So if the most sales are to come from gamers, it needs to be around their price range, which is about $300 IMHO before it'll really start reaching that potential with the masses. For the PS2, this happened at the $200 price mark.

Considering the quality of the PS3 as a game player (better than the PS2, relatively speaking) and movie player (far better than the relative DVD capabilities of the PS2), it is indeed worth the $$$, but it has to get close to $300 over the next few years to start selling like the past two Sony consoles.
I read somewhere that Sony sold 80% of its PS2's at or below $200.

The 80% number is true.

The plot thickens......

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/07/19/video-nintendo-vs-sony-vs-microsoft-console-war/

Price matters because to maximize its success it is to be more of a game player that plays movies, not a movie player that plays games. The masses will have more and more Blu-ray player options, so even if the format is a hit there's no way Sony will sell 100+ million PS3s to people who want it as a movie player first and foremost. As for selling 100+ million game players, they've done it twice, and for them that's where their best chance of success will remain.

So if the most sales are to come from gamers, it needs to be around their price range, which is about $300 IMHO before it'll really start reaching that potential with the masses. For the PS2, this happened at the $200 price mark.

Considering the quality of the PS3 as a game player (better than the PS2, relatively speaking) and movie player (far better than the relative DVD capabilities of the PS2), it is indeed worth the $$$, but it has to get close to $300 over the next few years to start selling like the past two Sony consoles.

Makes sense for sure.

I read somewhere that Sony sold 80% of its PS2's at or below $200.

That's what I'm saying. I think the PS3 can start getting a significant increase in demand at $300 because of a combination of inflation and a perceived sense of quality as better exclusive PS3 games come out. It'll likely not sell as much as the other two PlayStation since the competition is stronger than last gen and the price will remain an issue for some time.

However I think there's still a great chance for it to sell more than the Wii (if the wand novelty wears off, the console technology won't hold up) and the X360 (Europe and Japan will likely remain strong Sony supporters over the MS console). We'll see what happens.

There are some things in life that should be defended at all cost: wives, girlfriends and children are among them. In my opinion, game consoles are things that people should evaluate objectively.

The primary purpose of a game console is to play games. This is so obvious that this point tends to get lost when the debate shifts to things like the quality of the online interface or the merits of bluray. It is also obvious that things that are cheaper tend to find their way into more customer's hands. The recipe for success thus appears to be an easy one: lots of good games and a low console price point. The firingsquad article hit these two points pretty squarely in my opinion.

Many of you were not around for the golden age of the Atari 2600 and its battle with Intelivision. Both consoles' games looked horrible by today's standards but at the time, Intelivision looked much better. Atari was cheap. Intellivision was not. Both consoles enjoyed success, but Atari was far more successful. Today the graphical difference between the xbox and PS3 is essentially non-existent. Xbox is cheap. PS3 is expensive. MS has a year headstart. Sony has to make up for these things.

The most technologically advanced console often does not win. Examples are Intellivision, Colecovision, the Atari 5200 and Atari Jaguar. Cheaper consoles tend to do better. How can this not explain the success of the Wii?

It is still very early in the game. Sony can make up for some its initial mistakes. The 360 launch was far from perfect. MS had the luxury of time. Sony does not. We see Sony now starting to admit that it needs to change course a bit. Some here think that any admission of a flaw either in Sony or the PS3 means defeat. This is obviously not true. It is simply a matter of survival of the fittest. Sony needs to adapt to the marketplace.

We need games..period.

I think the PS3 is priced right for what you get. I think people get hung up the price without really thinking what other products cost and what they spend cash on. If anything, they might need to make a really stripped down version for people who think they cant afford it, but go blow lord only knows how much a month on... nothing. Its a great unit, worth every penny to me and alot of other people. The Xbox I have costs me $400.00 dollars. The HDDVD add-on, which I think is kind of hokey, but it works cost $200 more. Why is 5-600.00 too much? Bought a I pod lately? The Wii is what it is. $300.00 unique, different. Its going to take a part of the market no matter what, because it here now and works. It isnt a PS3 and the PS3 isnt a Wii. The PS3 has been beat on from day one. So much so I was scared to buy one. Im glad I did its a great machine We use everyday and enjoy immensely.
Ok so how many games are out for the PS3 and if you want to add the arguement how many Blu-Ray movies are out? I can't see spending 600 bux to play games that cost 70 or 80 apiece and have shyt to choose from. Thats ME, Thats my OPINION. So PRICE DOES MATTER to me at least

Ok so how many games are out for the PS3 and if you want to add the arguement how many Blu-Ray movies are out? I can't see spending 600 bux to play games that cost 70 or 80 apiece and have shyt to choose from. Thats ME, Thats my OPINION. So PRICE DOES MATTER to me at least

When did the price of PS3 games rise to $70-$80? Last time I checked, both new 360 and PS3 games were $60. Are you in Canada?

Ok so how many games are out for the PS3 and if you want to add the arguement how many Blu-Ray movies are out? I can't see spending 600 bux to play games that cost 70 or 80 apiece and have shyt to choose from. Thats ME, Thats my OPINION. So PRICE DOES MATTER to me at least

And that's a valid point. Consoles have always had thin choices right after launch, it's inevitable that both 1st and 3rd party developers will need some time to get those killer titles to market. How long did it take Microsoft to get a truly killer app to market? I think the only true title that counts (and my opinion is subjective) is Gears of War. How long had the console been out before that?

If you're not satisfied with the available titles yet, don't buy the console. My PS2 was on it's last leg, I had an interest in Bluray titles, and a 1080P capable set. The PS3 fit the bill on all counts, and I still get to look forward to new games launching.

And that's a valid point. Consoles have always had thin choices right after launch, it's inevitable that both 1st and 3rd party developers will need some time to get those killer titles to market. How long did it take Microsoft to get a truly killer app to market? I think the only true title that counts (and my opinion is subjective) is Gears of War. How long had the console been out before that?

This whole situation makes one realize how much of an advantage a one-year head start is. One console is hitting its stride when other systems suffer through the inevitable post-launch drought.

Before someone says the word "Dreamcast", realize that Sega burnt up just about every bit of their brand equity with the Sega CD, 32X, and Saturn. You can't say that about the PS3 - the Playstation name came into this generation with most brand equity be a mile.

Many of you were not around for the golden age of the Atari 2600 and its battle with Intelivision. Both consoles' games looked horrible by today's standards but at the time, Intelivision looked much better. Atari was cheap. Intellivision was not. Both consoles enjoyed success, but Atari was far more successful. Today the graphical difference between the xbox and PS3 is essentially non-existent. Xbox is cheap. PS3 is expensive. MS has a year headstart. Sony has to make up for these things.


Atari won that race by being the first high-profile game system out of the gates, but you can't compare that situation (a market in its infancy) versus the market we have today. Back in those days, no parent was going to buy their child a "new videogame system"...since they already all had Atari from last year.

Also, expectation levels were lower. Intellivision looked better than Atari, and Colecovision looked better than both of them......but the market was crashing for videogames. Given time, the Colecovision would have eaten Atari's lunch....but the arcade/console crash of the early 80's sealed all their fates.

But ultimately, the Atari won for one reason, and it wasn't its price, it was because Atari had the games. Tons and Tons and Tons of games to choose from.
By comparison, Intellivision had mattel-developed properties only. Colecovision was just too late to the game...again, no crash, Colecovision would have pulled the Atari crowd.

Anyhow...today, upgrading is a fact of life. Kids want a new iPod every year, even though the device is 90% functionally the same as the one from the previous year.
Parents accept this and (sadly), mostly cave in to it...hence our electronics are considered commodities to be disposed of. Back in 1979, you bought a TV, a Stereo, a Videogame system...you expected to be using it 10 years later.


The most technologically advanced console often does not win. Examples are Intellivision, Colecovision, the Atari 5200 and Atari Jaguar. Cheaper consoles tend to do better. How can this not explain the success of the Wii?


I think you're painting with too broad a stroke here. The Wii, if sold at $400 dollars, would probably still outsell the others because it is a "different kind of game experience", with a brand name that people still trust.

Sony is priced prohibitively out of the market, above and beyond even what many seasoned gamers feel comfortable about embracing. Their lack of stellar software titles is crippling them at this point in time.


This is obviously not true. It is simply a matter of survival of the fittest. Sony needs to adapt to the marketplace.

Sony can keep its pricetag if it starts to deliver the software experiences they promised. But the blu-ray drive is a hinderance not a help, the lack of good BD titles is also a real problem. So no software on either front.....thats bad.

ps: This is pure IMHO, but the 3DO didn't fail because it was expensive, it failed because it had no software. Atari didn't win because it was cheaper, it won because it had the most software. In the end the price mattered....in 1987 you could still walk into a toys R us and buy a nintendo, a Sega master System, but there on the shelf were the super-tiny compact Atari 2600 systems. You could still buy atari's off the shelf almost into the 1990's. There were no carts available for it, but Toys R us was selling the systems. That blew my mind since by that time, home computer graphics by the late 80's had made the original 8 bit atari titles look like cave-drawings.

I loved my 5200 (and 2600). I don't know why the market crashed, it was almost as if we all subconsciously got tired of video games all at once or maybe it was failing and there wasn't enough marketing and new products to keep us interested. I still remember the huge arcades that were all the rage, the one in the Contemporary Hotel basement in Disney World comes to mind. Actually watching Tron brings back some nostalgia especially seeing Flynn's arcade that he set up after he bailed from the corporate world.

HeadRusch,

There is no question that Intellivision had fewer games. The question is why is that so? I believe that there were fewer games because there were fewer Intellivisions in homes. This is so because it cost more.

The 2600 was introduced in 1977 at a cost of $199. Intellivision was released in 1979 at a cost of $299. By the time Intellivision was introduced, only about 1.5 million Atari's had been sold. Atari sold 8 million in 1982 alone. In contrast, Intellivision sold only 2 million in 1982.

Intelliviison did not get any third-party games from companies like Activision or Coleco until 1982. Atari has third-party support earlier but Atari actually sued other developers to keep them from developing for it (it was a different era!).

I believe that the lack of games for Intellivision resulted from lack of developer interest due to the much smaller base of Intellivisions as compared to 2600s. This, in turn, was caused by the 1/3 price difference between the consoles.

Therefore, if history is any guide, Sony needs to everything it can to make sure that it has the largest number of PS3s in circulation as it can. This can be accomplished by reducing the priece of the system. More units means more games.

HeadRusch,

There is no question that Intellivision had fewer games. The question is why is that so? I believe that there were fewer games because there were fewer Intellivisions in homes. This is so because it cost more.

I dont think its as easy as that. This is chicken and the egg. Intellivision developed most of their properties in house. But they missed the videogame rush, when everyone got Atari. A year later parents weren't going to be buying "another atari". Remember, even the Atari 5200 and 7800 sold poorly. By that time, many more kids were moving to home computers, and videogames were being dismissed as a Fad as the market crumbled.


The 2600 was introduced in 1977 at a cost of $199. Intellivision was released in 1979 at a cost of $299. By the time Intellivision was introduced, only about 1.5 million Atari's had been sold. Atari sold 8 million in 1982 alone. In contrast, Intellivision sold only 2 million in 1982.


I propose this was because Mattel never grasped the concept of the Arcade Port and the 3rd party license. Atari's arcade games were reigning supreme, and Intellivision never had a PacMan or an Asteroids. True, they had B17 Bomber, Microsurgeon (3rd party app), Discs of Tron.....but they didn't know how to market their system. Releasing the thing in a gold color with fake wood trim (UGH) was one example of them not really knowing what the hell they were doing.


Intelliviison did not get any third-party games from companies like Activision or Coleco until 1982. Atari has third-party support earlier but Atari actually sued other developers to keep them from developing for it (it was a different era!).


True, but I'm coming back to marketing again. You feel the deciding factor was cost, I feel it was marketing and software.


I believe that the lack of games for Intellivision resulted from lack of developer interest due to the much smaller base of Intellivisions as compared to 2600s. This, in turn, was caused by the 1/3 price difference between the consoles.


I was the only kid I knew who had an Intellivision...but I knew several kids who had ColecoVision (along with Atari, which everyone seemed to have). Now, Colecovision was the most expensive of all......but seemingly more people owned it. So, I'm not sure its all about cost.


Therefore, if history is any guide, Sony needs to everything it can to make sure that it has the largest number of PS3s in circulation as it can. This can be accomplished by reducing the priece of the system. More units means more games.

More software sells more systems at any price, I think. Yes, lower price always means more interest, but right now the question would be what do I do with this thing once I buy it. Right now, theres not alot of reason to own a PS3.

Remember, even the Atari 5200 and 7800 sold poorly. By that time, many more kids were moving to home computers, and videogames were being dismissed as a Fad as the market crumbled.

5200 was released right before the crash in response to the rising popularity of colecovision which was largely billed as a "just like the arcade" system and they concentrated heavily on securing arcade ports (although some of the games were less than A titles, Lady Bug, Wizard of Wor, etc... - Donkey Kong was the killer app though). It did really well because it offered the expansion unit to allow for 2600 games to be played, it was significantly more capable graphics-wise, they worked HARD on sports games even with custom controllers (baseball was impressive, rocky (boxing), victory (soccer)), and it came out in a kind of lull for the other consoles but still at the video game peak. Basically at the right time without next gen competition but still with enough time before the crash. All those factors were the big ones.

Releasing the thing in a gold color with fake wood trim (UGH) was one example of them not really knowing what the hell they were doing.
Original Atari 2600 had significant wood panneling (hey it's the 70s!) but also black plastic. Intelevision had those funky gamepads. I don't know anyone who liked them.

I was the only kid I knew who had an Intellivision...
I sense some bitterness. They did have the D&D franchise though as I recall but it wasn't too impressive. I had always wanted to play Oddyssey 2's Quest for the Rings - they also had the sued PacMan clone KC Munchkin.

My Atari had fake wood trim on it as well. It was a late 70s early 80s thing. My parent's station wagon did too.

The thing I remember as a kid was that if you liked sports games (and could afford it), you bought an Intellivision. For everything else you got an Atari.

This was true until I saw Donkey Kong as it appeared on the 2600 and as it appeared on Intellivision. It was night and day. I don't know why I remember this so clearly.

I still believe that the lower cost of entry on the 2600 helped it to achieve a critical mass allowing it to become the ubiquitous console of the era.

You are right that most kids moved on to computers. I did after my Atari 5200 went nowhere. I just came back to consoles two months ago with the 360.

http://ps3.ign.com/index/release.html

http://ps3.ign.com/index/release.html
Thanks for the link. Those are all PS3 games? Cause I am a FPS gamer and I see some good ones on there that would edge me into paying 600 for the PS3. Titles like Medal of honor, Brothers-in-arms, Vegas 6, and so on. But then they are months away from being released also.

**UPDATE** Just saw this release of upcoming games for 07 here... http://ps3.ign.com/index/release.html?constraint.eq.game.locale=us

Looks like quite a few games that could turn out great! Lets just hope they make it sooner than later.

This came out of nowhere...Age Of Conan for the ps3. Considering it's a MMO, I thought something like FFXI expansion ++ would be the first.

EDIT: oops, I didn't see the other 2 MMO's from sony (untitled) and cryptic's as well (untitled).

From someone who hasn't purchased one game since buying on launch day I wish they would offer a refund to those who are not satisfied. Outside of blu-ray movie watching there isn't much else to do with this thing right now! I just hope they come out with something soon so I can use it. Motor Storm may be the ticket. I hope! My problem may very well be owning so many systems that the PS3 gets put off because the 360 seems to get the better version of cross-planform games. Even Virtua Tennis 3 has more features to a game that was suppossed to be a PS3 exclusive. Anybody else agree?

Nope. lol

Nope. lol

LMAO!!! :D

The question is why didn't you just wait to get a PS3 until the games you wanted were released. Was it because you didn't expect them to meet shipping before this time?

That's what I'm saying. I think the PS3 can start getting a significant increase in demand at $300 because of a combination of inflation and a perceived sense of quality as better exclusive PS3 games come out. It'll likely not sell as much as the other two PlayStation since the competition is stronger than last gen and the price will remain an issue for some time.

However I think there's still a great chance for it to sell more than the Wii (if the wand novelty wears off, the console technology won't hold up) and the X360 (Europe and Japan will likely remain strong Sony supporters over the MS console). We'll see what happens.

What year do you think you will see a $300.00 PS3, 2010-11?

We need games..period.

Exactly...bring plenty of terrific games and the PS3 will sell.

Ranting - Look, the people complaining are most likely the people sleeping outside these stores for 3 days waiting for PS3 to drop (like fools). They expected all these great games to be available to them just because they've been waiting and waiting and the hype was great. All that hype did was make you look like a loser waiting outside of a store and most likely get a cold (cuz it was freezing on those days before the launch) ... next time do some research and find out the actual status of games, etc. and quit being such a noob holiday shopper ... lmao at the shootings and people running like roaches into these stores on launch day and Black Fridays ... /Ranting
The PS3 is a game system that was intended to be much more than just a game system. Just like Nintendo is mainly targeted at kids, the PS3 was targeting an older audience. The Blu-Ray player alone is worth the $600 price tag. Don't expect to see a dramatic price cut (besides the upcoming price cut with the slower processor or whatever it is that they are revising to cut costs). I don't have a link to the article, but it costs Sony $814 to produce one PS3 unit. They took a gamble by selling the PS3 at 600 hoping to makeup for it through game sales.
Xbox 360 $399 + HD DVD Player $200 = PS3's price tag.
Yes, the system is expensive but you're getting a next-gen system at a next-gen price. I hate the fact that the system was so expensive but after I think about what I'm getting out of it, its worth it imo. Those who are just in for the gaming ... well, maybe the system is a bit too expensive for that purpose but that is something you will have to weigh out on your own.
Yes, the features on the 360 such as background downloading, etc. are better than what PS3's UI has to offer. However, PS3 just came out and Sony, imo, is doing a deascant job of updating the system (Background Downloading in March's update WOOT!).
Yes, we don't have many games to play right now. However, PS3 is new ... the technology is new even to game developers ... give them some time to work with it. How do you expect these developers to really tap into the system's capabilities when they are being rushed to throw something out into the market? You're not going to get what should be delivered.
Personally, I have the 360 and the PS3. I bought the 360 ONLY because of Gears of War ... I was anxiously waiting for that game to come out. And thankfully, the 360 had a follow up game, Rainbow Six: Vegas, that was great. Besides, those 2 games and some sports games, nothing else was really worth playing in a while. I bought the PS3 because I am a PS fan and it seems that the PS3 is a great investment ... meaning I'm putting my money into something that I will get my money's worth. I bought it knowing that I might not be playing a true PS3 game for sometime but instead playing 360 conversions (and watching Blu-Ray movies which are beautiful).
Let me wrap this up cuz I just noticed this is getting too long ... all I'm saying is, give the PS3 some time. If you're thinking about buying one, be aware that true PS3 games won't be available for some time or just wait until the games you want are out - its not like PS3s are going to get more expensive. If you have one and are not satisfied ... well, rethink about what you really bought or if that doesn't do it .. tough =) ... Oh and one other thing ... true hardcore gamers buy both systems. All this competition just makes us, consumers, winners with great games after another so let the Consoles wars continue (but stop complaining).

PS3 owners: the 360 is great system ... its been a year ... give the PS3 a year and lets see where it stands then.

I guess I am not a "true hardcore gamer" then because I wont buy a 360.......sigh :rolleyes: . Does that just make me a "softcore gamer"? ;)

I guess I am not a "true hardcore gamer" then because I wont buy a 360.......sigh :rolleyes: . Does that just make me a "softcore gamer"? ;)

more halfa$$ then "softcore" :p

more halfa$$ then "softcore" :p
LMAO :D I guess its better to be a halfa$$ than a whole a$$ :cool: