Has Sony Officially Lost this Generation?

[noobz02240]

I think the price point for the PS3 was and will be their downfall this generation. They overestimated what people wanted and what they were willing to pay for it. Plus they mortgaged Blu Ray on this generation of Playstation. Sure they won the battle against HD-DVD, but they have definitely lost this generation's console war.

I don't think any of this is console bashing BTW. The reality is that the PS3 has been dead last the entire generation and at this point the reasons this happened are becoming more and more clear.

[flki9812]

"Bashing" is thrown around way too easily around here just anytime there's a discussion comparing consoles and something negative is said.

I agree with this. IMO there's a difference between a mature discussion of a system's shortcomings and someone going into a Yar's Revenge announcement thread saying "ATARI 2600 SUXXXX!!! U SHOULDVE BOOUGHT ODYSSEY 2!"

On topic, there's still room for Sony to grow, even if they never eventually 'win' the war.

[ice37]

to answer the question, yes they lost. not based on console sales. they lost because several of their exclusive properties have gone dual format.

[ice37]

Halo wars did beat killzone 2 in sales in what i was able to find...so, that's factual.

And they have what to do with each other?

true.

Wow. Noted.

[ice37]

that's not the post he quoted, but thanks for the brilliant moderation.

[ice37]

What?

You asked what KZ2 and HW had in common. I answered.

referring to prior post...look at the post times.

[flki9812]

*turns his head to the right and looks at 6 different consoles hooked up to his office TV and chuckles.

It's proven time and time again that owning multiple consoles is hardly a proof of lack of bias. Anyway, the word bias is overused in this context, of course everyone is going to have a favourite console, and even favourite company, totally natural. It's more a matter of how you voice your bias. I think if you make arguments to support your case and don't attack others for their opinions then you're doing fine.

Anyway, I like my 360 but think the Wii is a POS. So clearly I am biased against the Wii, but I try not to stir up shit in any Wii threads (more than necessary ).

[ice37]

thank you
this is not the olympics ....Sony is not seeking gold or silver medals
Sony made a long term investment into BD and it will pay off big time in the long run
they already have the #1 selling BD player

Like talking about sales numbers, some people just enjoy the discussion. Of course Sony being 3rd in sales doesn't effect people's enjoyment of the games (at least I hope not). Of course there are going to be lots of people who just don't care about the topic but the same goes for any topic.

That's why. I don't understand why people who hate these discussions bother clicking on the thread. Generally, people just like to talk about them and play armchair analyst. It's fun to predict where companies might try and go where their current positions and how they react. I don't see why someone interested in video games wouldn't be at least a little bit interested in what the console manufacturers are doing :shrug:

[ice37]

Unless Sony lowers the price of the PS3 drastically and really starts pumping out tons of games they will remain in last. Face it - neither Microsoft or Sony will catch up to the Wii and the way things are going the PS3 won't top the 360. It's just not possible. Too many times I have heard "Just wait until xxxxxxxxxxxx game comes out...the system will fly off the shelves", well, they won't. A 4 year hyped game like Killzone 2 can't even sell 1 million copies in 3 months! It is last.

Even if the PS3 drops it's price, is it too late? I mean alot of people already pulled the trigger on this generation's system. Many people/families only buy one system and the more time that passes means more families that pulled the trigger already, so a price drop may be too little, too late, for many.

I think they should've stopped production on the PS2 (and software for it). Look how many PS2's sold. Would it be a fair assumption to think that alot of those people may have bought the low-end PS3 instead of the PS2 if the PS2 wasn't available? Sure the PS2 generates some dollars, but is it at the expense of the PS3 numbers? Why didn't they ever release a PS3 without a BR player and almost full backward compatability? To me, that would've kept them in the race if they would've came out of the gate that way. Instead, we have to play the SKU game of 20/40/60/80/120gb models, and which one does this or that?

I think if Sony launched with the (awesome) 60gb and a Blu-ray-free 20gb with the same backwards-compatability as the 60gb, this race is alot closer.

[ice37]

Had Sony forgone Blu-ray, the price would have been dead even with the 360 and Nintendo aside, would have at least wiped the floor clean with the 360.

Do you really think so? Looking at both, 360 exclusives have been as strong or stronger (in my opinion) than the PS3's exclusives. And you can't count out Live. It simply blows away the PSN in every facet. When I play on the PSN or even navigate thru it, it's like the dark ages compared to playing and navigating thru Live. I tend to think they would be neck and neck with the Wii still, of course, blowing the doors off of both of them.

The PS2 was a cultural phenomenon...much like the Wii, the NES, and the Atari 2600. Everyone owned one (except me ). History shows that doesn't seem to happen back to back with the same company for some odd reason.