Romier S Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Gamespot has a short Q&A with the current men in charge of the new next gen consoles. It gives you a good snapshot of where each company stands really (Sony's shrugging off the high price, Microsoft playing down the PS3, and Nintendo pushing entertainment for the family). Nothing terribly new but it will no doubt make for some interesting debate: http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/05/31/news_6126725.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camp Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Robbie Bach: The other two companies' presentations [at E3] weren't surprising. Sony's [PS3's] capabilities are the same as ours That's a surprising, almost refreshing, statement. Almost like he forgot his interview coaching for a moment and let truth spill out. Ken Kutaragi: It isn't a bad thing to have a high price. When we released the original PlayStation at 39,800 yen ($368), Nintendo's Super Famicom was in the 10,000 yen range ($100 range). Still, everyone went for the PlayStation. This time, ours [the PS3] will be like a BMW that's equipped with a Ferrari engine. Nintendo's [Revolution] will be something like a new model of a family car. Some people might want it, but if it was me, I'd want to advance to the next level. Is there a better display of Sony's reported arrogance than this quote? Granted, there's a lot of hyperbole in this but come on, the two systems aren't nearly as different as his analogy suggests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFo Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 I still find this attitude from Nintendo's president, Satoru Iwata, most refreshing: We're not about selling new kinds of TVs or taking control of the living room. Amen! While I may not agree with Nintendo's approach to unveiling the Revolution at E3 this year, I still love hearing them push the games as the primary reason people buy consoles. Sony and Microsoft can push the extra features their systems possess all they want, but in the end, these extra capabilities are completely irrelevant to me. Don't have a game I want to play? Too bad, because I'm not buying your system. I don't care if it plays mp3s, acts as a DVR, or can make toast. Unless I'm having fun with the software, you programmed for it, I'm not going to waste my money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyN Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 acts as a DVR Well none of the next gen consoles acts like one anyway But its very true about them trying to push new tvs and stuff. Sony's guy pretty much admitted it in that Q&A. They want to push there blu ray format and try and get more people to buy HDTV's because of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnemaEms Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Sony......3DO. 3DO......Sony. I waited over a year to get a PS2...why...no games. It was GTA 3 and Silent Hill 2 that finally got me to buy one. Now the PSP on the other hand....I am so in love with this system it is not even funny. I hope the PS3 will be affordable and I hope there will be good game on release day, if not....I'll hold off on a price drop and/or good games. If Sony thinks they will dominate with a $500 console, I think they are insane. They have to come in well under $400, IMHO, if they want to continue their dominance. MS needs to make sure that they have Gears of War and Halo 3 ready to go by PS3 launch. -Dean- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyN Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Xbox also has to be under $350 IMO. That way when PS3 launch's they can drop the price to $299 or $249 capt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberwoo Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Interesting read. Man Sony sure comes across as being really arrogant in that interview. He basically said the Xbox is a one hit wonder and Microsoft not a threat to them. : Whatever. This whole notion that the PS3 is going to be leaps and bounds better (technically speaking of course) than the 360 is rediculous. The proof will be in the games of course but I just dont see the PS3 having games that will look/perform that much better than the 360. I think hardware is getting to the point where games are going to look kickass on any system out there (including the next Nintendo). Its going to be less about the raw hardware specs and more about the games and other features on each console (online component, HDTV support, ability to play mp3s, movies, etc). And as always if multiple consoles wind up proving me with different forms of entertainment (different types of games and features) that I will enjoy than I'll buy multiple consoles. I really wish Microsoft and Sony would just shutup and let their systems sell themselves by showcasing some kickass games. All this speculation and beating on the chest is lame. Meanwhile Nintendo is pimping DS and Nintendogs. This quote cracks me up: ""I'm feeling a real sense of danger about the decline in the Japanese gaming population. Patting a dog and telling it to stay [in Nintendogs] is something that anyone can enjoy. We're aiming to increase the population of game players with these new kinds of games." It still amazes me there is a market for that type of thing but considering how popular games like The Sims can be it shouldn't surprise me I guess. Different strokes (pun intended) for different folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foogledricks Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Sony and Microsoft can push the extra features their systems possess all they want, but in the end, these extra capabilities are completely irrelevant to me. Don't have a game I want to play? Too bad, because I'm not buying your system. I don't have an ounce of concern that Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo might not have games that I want to play. My concern is that between the three of them, they'll have more games than I could actually play. Therefore, all those "Extra features" are just gravy that will distinguish them from each other, thus helping me make a buying decision. The common marketing message I get from all three companies is that they all want to capture customers they haven't previously connected with. If this pushes gaming further into the mainstream, increases competition, and therefore spawns advancement as companies push billions of dollars into the industry, I think this is a great thing for we gaming fanatics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberwoo Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Ya competition is a great thing. I just worry that in the midst of all this hardware compeition that the gameplay will take a backseat to graphics, sound and whatever else makes people say "gee wiz". Hell its already happening. I just fear its going to get worse and worse and before you know it the game industry is like the movie industry is today. 2 or 3 must see movies a year and the rest are mediocre or just plain crap. Also games will not cater to a specific niche audience but rather try to appeal to everyone. Less risk taking in game development for sure (unless you've got big bucks). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlot Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Wow. Ken Kutaragi is an arrogant ass. Talk like that makes me want to NOT buy a PS3. In fact, if the MS representative said the same thing about the 360 vs the PS3, I'd feel the same way. (just wanted to point that out even though I'm a bit biased towards the 360) Is it me or is he trying to credit the PS2 for pushing DVD technology? The current DVD [format] had a slow growth during its first three years of release, but it dramatically penetrated [through the market] after the release of the PS2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoisonJam Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 It's not you. Not by that translation anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrJames Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Could he be referring to the Japanese market? Didn't many people in Japan buy the PS2 strictly for a DVD playback? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whooter Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Yeah, everyone knows that it's the Porn industry that really blew up DVD... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFo Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Well none of the next gen consoles acts like one anyway[/qutoe] None of them functions as a working toaster either, but I figured I'd still throw it in there. I don't have an ounce of concern that Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo might not have games that I want to play. My concern is that between the three of them, they'll have more games than I could actually play. Oh, I don't doubt that there will be good stuff on all three systems. I simply appreciate that Nintendo's rhetoric focuses on software and fun, not hardware and power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Surprising responses from a group of early adopters and HD lovers like this group is. Really surprising. I read that interview as Sony being the ones pushing the technology envelope, taking risks (MS even says as much), and presenting us with new technology while the other two took defensive stances regarding their less-powerful technologies as a way to get in bed with Joe 6-pack and his 19" color TV. Both are fine arguments, and from a business standpoint the MS / Nintendo argument is sensible, but the response here is surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foogledricks Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 but the response here is surprising. Not mine. I will suck up whatever cool features Microsoft and Sony can think up. I can't wait to order snapfish prints from my PS3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Zot Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Yeah Josh, but to tell you the truth the only big advantage I see (for myself) in the PS3 is the Blu-ray drive included. I don't typically have 6 other people over to play games (maybe 1-2?) and I definitely don't have (or can see buying) two HDTVs for the same room in my house. I'm a huge gadget whore, like most here, but those features just simply don't apply to the way I play games. So if all that stuff pushes the PS3 to the $399 range, and the Revolution releases at the same time in the $199 range, I'll likely snag the Revolution first. I don't know though, none of the three is a clear winner or loser yet. Different market pitches, different strategies. Eventually I'll have all three, so what the hell do I really care? Hehe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnemaEms Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Surprising responses from a group of early adopters and HD lovers like this group is. Really surprising. I read that interview as Sony being the ones pushing the technology envelope' date=' taking risks (MS even says as much), and presenting us with new technology while the other two took defensive stances regarding their less-powerful technologies as a way to get in bed with Joe 6-pack and his 19" color TV. Both are fine arguments, and from a business standpoint the MS / Nintendo argument is sensible, but the response here is surprising.[/quote'] All I am saying is that Sony thinks they can release a 'game" machine in the USA for a high pricepoint and still be dominant. I personally think they are wrong. I want a good game machine that has games that will now be in HD....thats all. I think Sony is just being very arrogant thinking they can succeed with an expensive system. I may be worng, but I do not recall any console being a success, in the USA, that cost more than $300. -Dean- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Zot Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 The PS1 cost around $400 when it hit the market. It seemed to do ok... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solitice Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Totally agree, SONY is going to have to look at the price in order to take the lead. There are still a lot of parents that buy these machines for their teenage kids. Sure The hardcore gaming community will eat it up at the elevated price but with the Xbox already out there with a good head start and will most likely be timing a system seller release like Halo 3 to deflate the PS3 hype bubble just before launch (you know they will) SONY is going to find selling boat loads of consoles quite difficult. "but all of my friends have a Xbox 360" will be said a lot I'm sure. Nintendos statement scares me, sounds like they want to get back to more simple "dumbed down" games just to increase sales. Nintendogs is neat, but only for 10 min, then its on to something a bit more stimulating on the brain. They need to start moving on and coming up with some new characters too. They are over using the current ones, it hasn't happened yet but if they keep milking their established franchises people will start to get sick of them. MS has got a lot going for them, proven price point, love the custom face plates, its funny how something that simple could actually sell someone on the console but just watch, it will...brilliant design idea IMO. Sure seems like the gaming community has learned to look at SONY's stuff with a grain of salt. Good launch time, pretty solid line up of launch games. Is it November yet? As far as really caring who dominates this time, sorry but life's too short. Let them battle it out and enjoy playing the games. :tu Dean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 The PS1 cost around $400 when it hit the market. It seemed to do ok... The PS1 was $299 on its US release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnemaEms Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 You beat me to the punch Brian. -Dean- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foogledricks Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 The PS1 was $299 on its US release.Actually, wasn't it around $370 when it was first released. It was first released in Japan for $368 I believe. Then a year later it was released in the US for $68 less. Read that recently I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whooter Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Actually, wasn't it around $370 when it was first released. It was first released in Japan for $368 I believe. Then a year later it was released in the US for $68 less. Read that recently I think. Maybe, but we are specifically talking about US release price, which was $299. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Yup. But that's still $300 US release. Few people actually bought the thing alone, though, as places were doing megapackages. I was lucky enough to get one for $300 alone because I knew someone who worked at a WalMart three states away. Otherwise I would have had to pay $500+ for a package. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.