Sony has lost over $3 billion on the PS3

yahoo games ^ | 27 June 2008 | Ben Silverman

[CarrotAndStick]

Are you implying that the PS3 was more easily available than the Wii, in the early days?

[antiRepublicrat]

I’m just stating the fact that the PS3 came out first. But now that you mention it, after the short-term initial hype PS3s were far more easily available than the Wii, which was still hard to find in stores a year later while you could always find a PS3 on the shelf.

[CarrotAndStick]

Perhaps, but the main thing was that the PS3 was too expensive to appeal to the masses the way the Wii did.

But, if both consoles were given away free, which one would most enthusiasts have chosen, in your view?

[antiRepublicrat]

But, if both consoles were given away free, which one would most enthusiasts have chosen, in your view?

I'm not sure. Now that I've played the Wii I have a problem going back to joysticks for any shooting-type game. I thought driving would be better on the PS3, but Mario Kart showed driving is a blast on the Wii (the remote sticks in a small steering wheel). OTOH, the awesome graphics of the PS3 are pretty impressive, with games like Heavenly Sword basically being a playable HD movie.

[Salamander]

I know but their believing that would've gotten it fixed.

Last year I was shopping for a larger LCD TV and went to Sears to check out their sale and the one I was interested in looked terrible.

The saleskid, with a totally straight face, told me that the pitiful image quality was due to the “magnetic interference of all the other TVs on display.”.

And I when I basically said “Oh, BS!” he actually argued the point for a good 15 minutes.

I left and went elsewhere.

Wound up with a nice Sharp Aquos 52” I found on clearance at another store, instead.

Truly, I don't care if they think aliens caused the screen aberrations, so long as they fix it.

[Kozak]

That’s why I bought mine.

[windcliff]

ping

[BillyBoy]

>> I was a video game reviewer in the '80's, and I can tell you that the demographic of the buyer is as important as the sheer number of units. Just as Corvette owners are more likely to but certain kinds of fancy add-ons than a Buick Century owner. Nintendo went for the broad family demographic, women overwhelmingly prefer Wii, and the unit has a more family friendly reputation. 17-35 year old single guys go for the PS3 (and custom PC rigs). They spend a LOT more money on games and will spend more per game, and they tend to go more for the first person shoot-em-ups. Oh, and if the new Nintendo is anything like the old Nintendo, they make things hard on 3rd party companies. <<

>> Because some games need powerful processors and realistic graphics to look right, and the Wii doesn't have that. The Wii also doesn't have enough storage for very large games (8.5 GB max vs. 50 GB for PS3) and less included in-console storage space, especially for downloaded add-ons. BTW, I have both so I'm talking from experience. I can't say which I like better because it's more like they complement each other. <<

Well, speaking of built-in demographic, alot of us who grew up on Nintendo in the 1980s and are now Wii owners are disappointed to see formerly flagship Nintendo titles going to other systems and not on the Wii. You can't say there's little interest among Nintendo gamers for the Final Fantasy, Castlevania, Metal Gear, Ninja Gaiden, etc., franchieses when these game series got their start on the Nintendo console and developed a huge fan base over the years from loyal buyers of the Nintendo brand. The people who were kids in the 80s and played those games are now the "adult gamers" you are referring to, like myself. I don't want to go out and blow another $600 on a "more advanced" system from a rival company that has little success just to play a $40 game from an independant third party compajny.

Final Fantasy I (Nintendo Entertainment system, 1987)
Final Fantasy XIII (Playstation 3, 2008)

Castlevania (Nintendo Entertainment System, 1987)
Castlevania: Lament of Innocence (Playstation 2, 2003)
(In Komani's defense, they're still making lots of Castlevania games for the portable Nintendo units)

Metal Gear (Nintendo Entertainment System, 1988)
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (Playstation 3, 2008)

Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System, 1988)
Ninja Gaiden Stimga (Playstation 3, 2007)

Also, Capcom refusing to release Resident Evil 5 on the Wii is a real slap in the face to their loyal Nintendo fanbase, given than Resident Evil Zero, 1, 2, 3, 4, and Code: Veronica were all huge best selling games on the Nintendo Gamecube/Wii consoles. To this day, Resident Evil Zero is still an exclusive "Nintendo only" title.

I realize that PS3 has a "much more powerful and far advanced hardware system", but it's not the internal components that count, it's how the companies ultilize their stuff. Nintendo made a landmark photorealistic 32-bit looking game when they created Donkey Kong Country for the 16-bit Nintendo in 1994. A Wii port of Resident Evil 5 might not have the same polished graphics as the PS3 version, but it would probably ultalize Wii's unique controls for a far more interactive and exciting gameplay experience. When you look at the last generation console wars, the little supported Nintendo Gamecube often created much better versions of the same game that appeared on its PS2 rival system, as my above post shows.

It would be a little tricky trying to scale some PS3 intended games to fit onto a Wii console, but I've seen far more difficult situtations. Atari used to have to try to scale Nintendo's 8-bit games onto their technological dinosaur the Atari 2600, due to the fact the 2600 still had a huge base of gamers in mid to late 80s. Have you ever seen some of those ports, like the Atari 2600 version of Double Dragon turning all the people into chunky square block stick figures?

If they can do it, you can certainly get XBox 360 and PS3 games on a Wii. Bottom line, companies like Capcom and Konami are ignoring the best selling console now, and they're losing money because of it. I think they're starting to take notice though. The formerly Playstation-only "Fatal Frame" game series announced a huge change over: Fatal Frame 4 is going to be a Wii-only release. ;-)

[Dr. Sivana]

I realize that PS3 has a "much more powerful and far advanced hardware system", but it's not the internal components that count, it's how the companies ultilize their stuff.

You are absolutely right. (I will be forced to use '80s examples as I have not kept up with the industry) For instance, while an IBM AT might have much more raw computing power than a Mattel Intellivision, BurgerTime looked and played better on the Intellivision.

I was warned in 1984 that the Nintendo unit was going to be huge. When the ColecoVision and Atari 2600/5200 supersaturated the market and games were marked down 75% and more, Nintendo decided to wait until the video game depression had worked its way through. They also did their homework on preparing for the American market, the Japanese NES was a much smaller unit, as it was surmised that Americans would not see much value in a pint sized player. (Remember the extra large wedge shaped Atari 5200?).

What amazed me is that Super Mario Bros. was such a huge hit on the Nintendo, when it was only a modest and quickly forgotten game in the arcade. It simply took too many quarters to get involved. I hated the Nintendo controllers so much (I wanted an adult size joystick, not a horizontal baby version of the Intellivision controller) that I didn't pay much attention to the next wave of video games consoles when they hit (Nintendo, Commodore 64, Sega, NEC, Atari Jaguar, etc.). Evem though the graphics had gotten better, many of the games had worse playability. Instead of the simple, "if it touches you, you die", ginned up games meant more firepower, which meant more attacks on your figure, and first person shooters always gave you an amorphous amount of "energy" that seemed to go down almost randomly, as you shoot crazily before you run out of it. (Those games always existed but they started to dominate by the early '90s).

You mention Capcom, a company I only knew for arcade games. In fact, they avoided the Atari 2600 entirely in favor of computer systems and niche players in the 80's according to Wikipedia.) Making games for the MSX (early 80s Z80 system), PC, 3DO, Sinclair ZX, and Amiga!

These days, it would seem that the biggest units (Wii, PS3 and Xbox) would be the recipient of every major hit. However, game selling cycles are short, game writing cycles are long. If the last game for the Wii sold poorly, Capcom and Konami may have decided to pull the plug on the next version. While you stuck with Nintendo, as it matured with you (and I do agree that the Wii controllers added to playability as much as the orignal NES controllers detracted), the folks with the biggest action game libraries have opted for NES.

If you look at Capcom's history, they leaned heavily towards the Japanese market (the Sinclair ZX and MSX systems barely sold here. I believe the PS3 is presently outselling the Wii over there. I also believe that PS3 owners buy more games for their units than Wii owners do. I believe that if you look hard at the games available for Wii, you will find enough to keep you gaming (and your wallet empty) for the foreseeable future. I made a number of reviews that I later regretted because the game grew tiresome shortly after the review was submitted. I was taken in by (at the time) clever graphics are an interesting twist. Other games are picked up time and again. The Wii's controllers encourage the creation of games that are not simply played out movies where a series of moves must be memorized, like a modern day Pac-Man or Dragon's Lair. I am sure there are plenty of games that play to the Wii's strength in that regard.

[antiRepublicrat]

I grew up on the Atari 2600, and I still have one (well, a 7800, but it’s compatible). Other than that I don’t have any platform loyalty, I just like some and don’t like others. I don’t feel “slighted” if something doesn’t come out for “my” platform. If a multi-platform game comes out, I’ll read the reviews and choose which one to buy it for.

[antiRepublicrat]

I am sure there are plenty of games that play to the Wii's strength in that regard.

You just hit on an important part of Wii gaming. Some games just suck, being regular games with a bit of Wii remote functionality quickly tacked on. Red Steel comes to mind, as it would be better with a regular controller than it is on the Wii. Others are designed with the Wii remote in mind and use it to the fullest (Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3), while others are in between, not designed for the Wii, but care was still taken on the use of the remote (Zelda).

More than the other platforms, I always have to read several revues for Wii games to make sure they're not category one above.

[HamiltonJay]

Yes Sony is still losing money on each PS3 sold, but I wouldn’t worry about it. The PS3 is well on target to outperform the 360 quite comfortably (though the 360 fan boys particularly in the US won’t accept it).

Don’t worry, PS3 is in the 2nd year of a 10 year run, it will be quite profitable by the end of it all. They are on very solid footing for 2nd place finish this console generation. Wii clearly has this generation locked up as the first place installed base console. 360 will end the day in third with a total installed base worldwide of around 30-35 million.

The PS3 is past the point of worry, of which much of that was media created to begin with. Remember, the PS2 is still selling quite quite well. With at least 8 years of lifespan left, and BD winning the format war, Sony is sitting quite pretty on this thing. Only people fretting are folks who think short term.