The bad economy killed the PS3

Reserved for modern gaming discussions.
N64Dude1
Posts: 1242
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby N64Dude1 » February 6th, 2009, 7:40 pm

If the economy killed the PS3,then it also killed SNES in the 1992 recession and Genesis won becuase SNES was more expensive and only released a few months ago.That's pretty much what Stalin is arguoing here.

PS3 can still win[I doubt it and I hope not]

PS3 was killed because it wasn't marketed with 95% crap,instead it only had 40%.No dominating console company lasts more than 12 years lets take a look

Atari (1977-1984)  - 7 year life span Atari 2600 leads Atari with 30 million
Nintendo (1985-1995) - 10 year life span with NES taking twice the Atari at 60 million with NES
Sony (1995-2006) 11 year life span with PlayStation 2 which has currently sold 140 million nearly 5 times the Atari

Did I forget to mention each dominating console tried to go technological and hardcore after that [Affects of Atari 7800,Nintendo 64,and now PlayStation 3]

Odds are the outcome will look like

Nintendo Part 2 (2006-2017/2018)

Microsoft seems to be following the SEGA cycle which is

Step1 : Make a flop that does in well in one region (Xbox to Master System)
Step 2: Come in even closer to the dominator but sill fail to be #1 (Xbox 360 isn't actually doing that bad against Wii but not quite as solid as Genesis,...close enough)
Step 3: Make a lot of peripherals for the successful system (Instead of having add-ons like SEGA,you have reednition like Arcade,Elite, and all these GB drives plus the HD-DVD add-on]

If the cycle keeps going we'll see something like
Step 4: Make a failed console that does well in one region (Xbox 720? to Saturn)
Step 5: Make an extremely loved console that lasts 1.5 years but only the extreme hardcores love [Xbox 4 to Dreamcast]

History does repeat itself and holy crap I've just typed up my creepy theory well most of it






Kim

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Kim » February 7th, 2009, 7:52 am

For anyone who does not know, I used to post here as Stalin on this thread.
 
I now post as Kim, but I am still the owner of this thread and the guy who is conducting a one-man war against videogame cynics.
 
The Genesis almost won the console wars of the early 1990s, but the SNES marginally won out in the end because Sega discontinued the Genesis in 1995 and sales for the SNES really picked up in that year.
 
Thus that only helps to support my argument: perhaps Nintendo may have dominated with the SNES as it did with the NES if there was no recession in the economy!
 
I truly appreciate this support.
 
If I posted a thread blaming the failure of the PS3 on the Wii, then my argument would have come out a lot weaker.
 
This is because: many people were skeptical of the Wii in the first place
 
(I personally cannot believe how it has sold well in the past few years. Either those who bought it were stupid and out of their mind, or because it was boosted by the bad economy due to its cheaper price)
 
and because I myself cannot explain how a Nintendo console with far worse graphics and utilizing a remote controller for controlling games can out-sell a Sony top-of-the-line console with Blu-ray and outstanding graphics.
 
The only answer to that seems to be the bad economy.
 
I suppose the marketing of the PS3 sucked, but by now Sony had become so well-known worldwide that many gamers would have still bought the console if it was sold for like $299 at launch.
 
In the "Dreamcast failed" thread, some said that the PS2 would have succeeded regardless of marketing, because in their words it was supposedly the "most highly anticipated console of our time".
 
I find it amusing that those who said this now argue that the PS3 failed because of bad marketing.
 
The original high price tag of the PS3 is a part of my argument, and the direct reason why the bad economy helped to kill the PS3.
 
People could afford the Wii, but few could afford buying the PS3.
 
I thought this was obvious.
 
The PS3 does not lack high quality exclusive titles, and I really like the games line-up of the PS3.
 
Since I must list them again: Uncharted, Motorstorm, Resistance, Heavenly Sword, Metal Gear Solid 4.
 
The Xbox 360 has a lot more games, but one could expect that since it was released a year earlier than the PS3.
 
The 360 also has a lot of shovelware, and the console itself is not reliable.
 
Finally, the 360 uses DVDs for gaming.
 
Imagine: if the PS2 used CDs when it was released rather than DVDs, then would so many people have bought the console?
 
Some have already stated that people bought the PS2 at launch because it utilized DVDs and because it was backwards compatible with PS1 games.
 
The same can be applied to the Xbox 360 using DVDs and the PS3 using Blu-ray.
 
If Blu-ray had been successful in the movie industry, then many more gamers would have felt the initiative to buy the PS3 rather than the 360.
 
This would have been the case even if there was no noticeable graphical difference between the PS3 and the 360.
 
Look at what happened to the Dreamcast: it had almost the same graphical quality in its games as the PS2, but it backfired because it did not use DVDs
 
(I am using the argument of some people back against them. In my mind I will always blame the failure of the Dreamcast on its early launch date).
 
And for the amazing success of the Wii: I think it has to do with the bad economy, at least partially.
 
I know that some people really do appreciate innovation in the Wii and using (idiotic) motion controls, but people bought it because it was affordable.
 
If the Wii was priced the same as the PS3 at launch, then would people have purchased the Wii?
 
Of course not!
 
Those who had the money would have chosen the PS3 instead of the Wii, because the former had far better technology.
 
There was also a post about the sales of PS2, but in my opinion it does not help to explain why the PS2 was so successful from its launch.
 
I have noticed that these sales charts only record sales from 2005 onwards, so that there is no data on how many units of the PS2 were sold in 2001, or so on.
 
This means that the PS2 may as well have been considered a flop in its early years, and that it did achieve mediocre sales at first.
 
2004 was the year when sales for the PS2 peaked, and it was the year when many critically-acclaimed sequels were released.
 
These include Metal Gear Solid 3, Devil May Cry 3 and Burnout 3.
 
Thus it is no surprise why Sony decided to record sales for the PS2 in early 2005, as it really helps to present the view that the PS2 was phenomenally successful.
 
Company bias is regarded a fact in the videogame industry if that company wins.
 
Thus it is no surprise why the PS2 is worshipped by so many gamers today.
 
So in that case, what truly is a fact in the videogame industry?
 
Sometimes well-argued opinion supported by logic makes a lot more sense than so-called facts.
 
This is especially so as the history of the PS2 is still very recent.
 
For the argument on VHS and DVD, I will merely list what I have seen and heard.
 
I have rented VHS tapes from 2002 up to 2005 and I have rarely ever encountered a VHS tape which did not produce color or which had chronic problems so that I could not watch it.
 
Since most VHS tapes that I rented were probably rented by men and women at least 7 times before I did
 
(unless it was a new release, which I hardly ever rented because it cost twice as much as old VHS tapes to rent),
 
I am sure that VHS tapes are more durable than some are claiming it to be on this thread.
 
Moreover, when I played a VHS tape, it did not pause after every five minutes.
 
I think the idea is very absurd.
 
The part about machines eating tapes, tracking, no rewind and scene selection are secondary features that came along with the DVD.
 
The DVD's primary purpose is still to play movies, which was also the primary purpose of the VHS.
 
I am also sure that it is cheaper to acquire a dozen VHS tapes today than to acquire a DVD player.
 
Aren't I right?

User avatar
VideoGameCritic
Site Admin
Posts: 11019
Joined: April 1st, 2015, 7:23 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby VideoGameCritic » February 7th, 2009, 11:08 am

Kim,
Do us a favor.  Could you please not put every freakin' sentence on a new line?  Also, stop rambling so much.  Nobody wants to read all that!!  Your messages are hurting the flow of the threads.
Thanks
Dave


m0zart1
Posts: 3117
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby m0zart1 » February 7th, 2009, 11:11 am

[QUOTE=Kim]I am also sure that it is cheaper to acquire a dozen VHS tapes today than to acquire a DVD player. 
 
Aren't I right?[/QUOTE]

I can get a durable DVD player, even one that upscales to 1080p and hooks up through HDMI, for less than $40.

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10378916

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10771165

I can get a baseline model for under $30:

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=7958349

So, no.  You aren't "right".  Besides that, most of the newer movies aren't being released on VHS anymore.

steer

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby steer » February 7th, 2009, 12:43 pm

(I personally cannot believe how it has sold well in the past few years. Either those who bought it were stupid and out of their mind, or because it was boosted by the bad economy due to its cheaper price)
 
and because I myself cannot explain how a Nintendo console with far worse graphics and utilizing a remote controller for controlling games can out-sell a Sony top-of-the-line console with Blu-ray and outstanding graphics.

 
The answer is software. The answer is always software.


Emehr

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Emehr » February 7th, 2009, 1:52 pm

[QUOTE=Kim]Either those who bought <the Wii> were stupid and out of their mind, <snip>[/QUOTE]
Argument FAIL
 
[QUOTE=Kim]and because I myself cannot explain how a Nintendo console with far worse graphics and utilizing a remote controller for controlling games can out-sell a Sony top-of-the-line console with Blu-ray and outstanding graphics.[/QUOTE]
Epic Argument FAIL
 
[QUOTE=Kim]Moreover, when I played a VHS tape, it did not pause after every five minutes. [/QUOTE]
Comprehension FAIL

[QUOTE=Kim]The part about machines eating tapes, tracking, no rewind and scene selection are secondary features that came along with the DVD. [/QUOTE]
Nonsensical WIN

N64Dude1
Posts: 1242
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby N64Dude1 » February 7th, 2009, 1:56 pm

But Kim all these "games" are aimed at hardcore people that don't enjoy simplicity

Wii however is loaded with glut and casual games that non-gamers enjoy just like the PS2 [Casual gamers tend to like some multimedia like listening to music and playing DVD's].Non gamers buy consoles for movies if they can which is why Dreamcast lost.So in a what Kim,your right but it was still casually targeted.

The whole Genesis vs SNES thing was the one exception to this theory.In which case the technological console actually did win out [and somehow the only tech. console that managed to be casual]

VHS tapes are actually cheaper,they haven't gotten so old they're valuable retros worth $100.VHS has been dead in the movie cycle for shorter than GameCube has in the console cycle and I've seen GameCubes cos $20 and Xboxs at $50.


Luke

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Luke » February 7th, 2009, 2:36 pm

[QUOTE=Kim] I personally cannot believe how it has sold well in the past few years. Either those who bought it were stupid and out of their mind, or because it was boosted by the bad economy due to its cheaper price)   and because I myself cannot explain how a Nintendo console with far worse graphics and utilizing a remote controller for controlling games can out-sell a Sony top-of-the-line console with Blu-ray and outstanding graphics.   The only answer to that seems to be the bad economy. [/QUOTE]Oh Lord, spare us! A lot of people buy Nintendo because they like Nintendo and their style of gameplay. And to some small extent it's fanboyism, but not quite. I would attribute it more towards the fact that they'd rather have their children under 10 years old play a cutesy, fun cartoonish game like a Mario or Zelda rather than an ultra-violent game like a Doom or Dead Space.

Luke

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Luke » February 7th, 2009, 2:45 pm

[QUOTE=Kim] I suppose the marketing of the PS3 sucked, but by now Sony had become so well-known worldwide that many gamers would have still bought the console if it was sold for like $299 at launch.   In the "Dreamcast failed" thread, some said that the PS2 would have succeeded regardless of marketing, because in their words it was supposedly the "most highly anticipated console of our time".   I find it amusing that those who said this now argue that the PS3 failed because of bad marketing.   The original high price tag of the PS3 is a part of my argument, and the direct reason why the bad economy helped to kill the PS3.   People could afford the Wii, but few could afford buying the PS3.   I thought this was obvious.   [/QUOTE]It is obvious. But what you're missing is that $499 and $599 has ALWAYS been considered a lot of money to the average consumer. It's not just because this economy is in a slump right now. So please get off of this bad economy gig!

I respect your opinions. But you're just wrong, I wish you'd see or admit that

And what's with all these aliases on the board now? Sheesh

Roperious1
Posts: 248
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Roperious1 » February 7th, 2009, 7:07 pm

I quite enjoy my Wii. I own 10 games for it (including AAA titles such as Mario Galaxy, Smash Brothers Mele, Twilight Princess, Metroid), however, I'd say the Wii receives about 1/10th the playtime compared to my PS3. I don't regret buying the Wii, but I certainly feel that it fails to fill the role as my "primary" console.

Kim's last post jumped around so much, I decided it was not worth responding to. But I will offer an observation-

Kim, you failed to qualify your conditions based on your argument. Using the term "failed" in conjunction with "bad economy" opened you up to too much criticism. You may have argued that perhaps, "The PS3 is not selling as well as it could be due to the downturn in the global economic environment". This would have been easier. Using the term [I]failed[/I], however, makes it impossible to reach a conclusion. Honestly, what is failed? Simply not selling as many systems as your competitors? Or is it taking a utilitarian approach and adding up the individual successes and failures and coming out with a "fail/Succeed" outcome? You've used too broad a term, and quite frankly, a term that isn't even applicable yet. It is too soon to make such a claim and you would do better just avoiding such an absolute term.


Return to “Modern Gaming”