When did Sony or MS say they would have the new consoles on store shelves by years end? Last I heard, Sony said they wouldn't release PS3s successor until 2015.
-
Welcome Back to Digital Pinball Fans - please read this first
Will There Be Pinball Arcade On The Next Gen Consoles?
- Thread starter lettuce
- Start date
N
Nik Barbour
Guest
+1 I'm happy playing emulators since xbox1 died in 2005, just haven't felt the urge the same.
Only modern game I occasionally play is GTA, and that's rare.
kimkom
Member
- Jan 28, 2013
- 914
- 1
Ha ha, Sumez, I like where you are coming from. Will we really be able to resist that shiney new box though?
Yeah, a good 5 years is "pulling the carpet out". To be honest, MS HAD to. The original Xbox was holding back Live development - and for what? So 1000-odd players (yes, 1000) could go and play Halo 2. (#1 game on original Xbox was Halo 2 at 1000. #2 barely cracked 100 players. #3-10? Forget it - they barely got over 50 players!). At a time when there were hundreds of thousands of people playing (and way more playing Halo Reach and Halo 3), how much do you hold back much demanded features for under 1% of your players? And most were playing on 360s with emulation on.
Now, it's true the Xbox was killed pretty quickly after the 360 came out (about a year after). Plus, unlike say, Sony, you still can play the few emulated games on today's Xbox360 - it's sitll supported (no Live, though). Then again, Sony may have still made PS2s for long into the PS3's history (probably why they dropped PS2 support in PS3), but no one was making PS2 games nor were stores stocking them. Hell, Sony killed the PSP pretty damn quick after the Vita came out - the ones you see in the stores are old stock hanging around.
That's because the PS3 was a joke at the time - it was being creamed by the Wii, and the Xbox was cheaper. PS3 sales were... disasterous initially, so many devs saw that the PS2 was not only still viable, but necessary. Also, PS2 was a very competitive platform into the next gen because it is still the top selling console. No one today can still top that (unless you count mobile).
Basically if you were developing a game, your only platforms were Wii, Xbox360, and PS2. You did a courtesy PS3 port.
Basically if you were developing a game, your only platforms were Wii, Xbox360, and PS2. You did a courtesy PS3 port.
Sumez
New member
- Nov 19, 2012
- 985
- 0
Nobody resorted to PS2 because of the PS3 "failing" - would make more sense to stick to X360 or Wii on that account.
The "post-humous" PS2 activity was mainly based on an entirely different target audience. I know plenty of people who picked up a cheap PS2 well into the lifetime of the PS3, not because they are looking for specific "older" games of that generation, but because they are casual gamers looking for a cheap shot of entertainment.
The "post-humous" PS2 activity was mainly based on an entirely different target audience. I know plenty of people who picked up a cheap PS2 well into the lifetime of the PS3, not because they are looking for specific "older" games of that generation, but because they are casual gamers looking for a cheap shot of entertainment.
Rafie
New member
- Jul 17, 2012
- 336
- 0
+1 This! I find it humorous when people downgrade the PS3 because they find it inferior. The PS2 was still being manufactured because the demand for it was still high. Mainly in the east where third national countries are concerned. No one did a "courtesy port" to the PS3. It was just a port. Devs already said that the PS3 was too difficult to develop on, which is why everything is developed for the 360 (as its easier).
- Feb 22, 2012
- 4,158
- 1
Maybe this is why we see visual consistency across the first 10 tables on the Xbox 360 while the visual consistency across the same 10 tables on the PS3 is all over the place.
Sumez
New member
- Nov 19, 2012
- 985
- 0
Yeah, porting to PS3 is definitely a challenge. Maybe if the tables were developed for PS3 and then ported to X360, it would have seen better results, but I think using the X360 as your main dev platform is a lot easier, especially when it comes to making the other ports.
It confuses me that people talk about PS3 like it was a huge failure though. As far as I know it sold quite well (even if not as well as X360), and you still see stores packing just as many PS3 games as X360, though usually the secondhand ones go a tiny bit more expensive, as they get more 360 games traded in.
It's definitely a succesful platform, despite the fact that this generation cost Sony their lead.
It confuses me that people talk about PS3 like it was a huge failure though. As far as I know it sold quite well (even if not as well as X360), and you still see stores packing just as many PS3 games as X360, though usually the secondhand ones go a tiny bit more expensive, as they get more 360 games traded in.
It's definitely a succesful platform, despite the fact that this generation cost Sony their lead.
Rafie
New member
- Jul 17, 2012
- 336
- 0
Agreed! I won't lie, I played on the 360 tables more than the PS3. It looked better overall and played better. Ever since the hold up with the DLC, I have been playing the PS3 version. It has problems. Hopefully when we get our new format, we won't see the same bugs.
The PS3 isn't that far behind the 360 in sales. Its still a close race as far as sales is concerned. I definitely don't want to start any console wars as they are old and tiresome. The 360 definitely has the upper hand this time around. For some reason though, I can't shake the feeling that both successors to the previous consoles will be a very close tie to one another. I guess time will tell. I'll have all of them anyway.
DarkAkatosh
New member
- May 23, 2012
- 674
- 0
360 has twice the RAM of the ps3 so that explains it
brakel
New member
- Apr 27, 2012
- 2,305
- 1
I don't think Sony realized what a barrier to development that their PS3 architecture was going to cause. Rather than have games that were optimized for the PS3 they were left with sloppy seconds. Almost all cross console titles in this generation were developed for the Xbox and ported over to the PS3. Most had minimal, if any, optimization in order to take advantage of the things that the PS3 did well and to compensate for those things that it did not do well.
I hope that the new consoles will be close enough in architecture and performance that this is no longer an issue.
I hope that the new consoles will be close enough in architecture and performance that this is no longer an issue.
Tabe
Member
- Apr 12, 2012
- 833
- 0
The top-selling console in this generation is the PS3. Sony passed Microsoft in 2012. It's worth noting that a LOT of 360 sales are from people buying a second (or third or fourth) one after their initial system got the RROD. That's a nice testament to brand loyalty but it also artificially inflates sales numbers. Sony had similar issues but to a far lesser extent.
Tabe
Tabe
Member
- Apr 12, 2012
- 833
- 0
Also, on the issue of backward compatibility, I can't see PSN titles for the PS3 *NOT* working on the PS4. I would be really, really, REALLY surprised if that came about. And, because PSN includes full retail titles, I suspect that we'll see backward compatiblity for ALL PS3 titles. There's a chance they'll do something to make physical discs not work but I absolutely expect all PSN content to transfer to the PS4.
Tabe
Tabe
Butterkins
New member
- Apr 6, 2012
- 111
- 0
Do you have any figures on this?
Because RROD was a LONG time ago, MS set aside a billion against reparations, and extended the repair period. The vast majority of RROD customers got their machines fixed for free.
And a billion sounds like a lot, but not against the whole life cycle of the 360. It's a fraction of their total division revenue over the period.
By any standard, MS have achieved a major success this generation. Which is good, because Sony needed the competition. Bad, because I don't like MS's business practices. (Nor Sony's for that matter, or Apple's.)
Sumez
New member
- Nov 19, 2012
- 985
- 0
Like the "posthumous" PS2, most of the Wii sales were a different target group.
But yeah, from a purely marketing standpoint, Wii was a way bigger success than either PS3 or X360, especially considering they made money from each console sold, compared to Sony and MS who didn't have much of a profit on console sales, using them mainly to boost the game sales.
As a consumer, the important factor to me, however, is the availability of good games on the console, and though Wii does have a few hits for me, I've been using my X360 way more, and the only reason I haven't used my PS3 as much as my X360, is that I got most of my multiplatform titles for the 360.
If these numbers are something to go by (vgchartz isn't 100% reliable, but based on trustworthy sources), 360 far outsold PS3 in America, but PS3 is ahead in other parts of the world resulting in a total with PS3 right behind the 360.
http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/
Game sales are also pretty close, but with X360 ahead with around 100 million:
http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/Software/Global/
Tabe
Member
- Apr 12, 2012
- 833
- 0
You'll get no argument from me on this point, that's for sure. 360 has been a huge success. I've said this before but I don't have a single friend in my real life - as opposed to online - that has a PS3. I've got at least a dozen that have 360s.
On IGN, there's been speculation that, in the generation after the 720/PS4 generation, that we'll see a unified platform for console gaming. I could totally see that happening. And how awesome would that be? Mario, Metroid, Halo, Forza, Uncharted, God of War, and so on all on one platform? Um, yeah, that would kinda rock.
Tabe