Analyst: The Year Of The PlayStation 3 Unofficially Delayed To 2009

[wraggster]

The BBC has weighed in on the year in gaming, surveying the console war casualty count, highlighting the Wii's success and the dead heat between the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. But what about 2009?

One analyst, Piers Harding-Rolls from Screen Digest says that his firm thinks that next year could be Sony's year. "We always felt that 2008 was the year that PS3 kicked off - but we think that will now be 2009,"

http://kotaku.com/5118805/analyst-th...elayed-to-2009

[F9zDark]

The BBC has weighed in on the year in gaming, surveying the console war casualty count, highlighting the Wii's success and the dead heat between the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. But what about 2009?

One analyst, Piers Harding-Rolls from Screen Digest says that his firm thinks that next year could be Sony's year. "We always felt that 2008 was the year that PS3 kicked off - but we think that will now be 2009,"

http://kotaku.com/5118805/analyst-th...elayed-to-2009

While it isn't hard to deduce that fact, since Sony cannot cut the price now, and getting the price down will be the most important thing they do.

However, I still believe it will be an uphill battle. Microsoft has been earning profit on the 360 since day one (obviously at the expense of hardware quality). Sony will have to cut the price drastically to get to the point where MS cannot respond with an equal price cut on its Elite model (the only truly comparable 360 to the PS3).

[DPyro]

While it isn't hard to deduce that fact, since Sony cannot cut the price now, and getting the price down will be the most important thing they do.

However, I still believe it will be an uphill battle. Microsoft has been earning profit on the 360 since day one (obviously at the expense of hardware quality). Sony will have to cut the price drastically to get to the point where MS cannot respond with an equal price cut on its Elite model (the only truly comparable 360 to the PS3).

Actually, Microsoft lost money since day one...and were still paying off their debt from the previous console.

[Eviltaco64]

The only profitable console out on the market right now is the Wii.

I remember hearing when it was first released that it only costed around $95 to manufacture one.

Microsoft used to make heavy losses on the 360, and as $n!pR said, they were still paying off their $4 billion loss from the original Xbox. I'm sure dropping the price to $199 didnt help (even though it did get rid of the HD).

Playstation 3 needs a price cut if Sony wants it to surpass the Xbox 360 in sales. It has games now, it has a lot to offer, but the price is still very high, even though a price drop would hurt the company a lot.

[ICE]

I dont think Sony can drop the price. If they could I think they would have already dropped it to compete with the 360's price point. The good news is you can clearly see the ratio of AAA titles begin to balance out between the two and we might just see it tilt the PS3's way in 09.

[F9zDark]

Actually, Microsoft lost money since day one...and were still paying off their debt from the previous console.

I don't know about that, maybe this source isn't accurate, but I do remember similar news doing the rounds early on during the PS3 launch.

From Videogamesblogger.com: dated November 16, 2006

"In contrast, the HDD-equipped Xbox 360 has a manufacturing and materials total of $323.30, based on an updated estimate using costs in the fourth quarter of 2006. This total is $75.70 less than the $399 suggested retail price of the Xbox 360."

If true, their early on profits has cost them billions of dollars now in extended warranties.

[cool9918]

i remeber in 2005 when sony said their ps3 (b4 they released it of course) would murder the competition Microsoft said something similar and nintendo said their console isnt competing with the others now sony is fighting to hold on for dear life microsoft is recalling a billion or so consoles each day and nintendo even 2 years later has a soldout console isnt it ironic

[F9zDark]

i remeber in 2005 when sony said their ps3 (b4 they released it of course) would murder the competition Microsoft said something similar and nintendo said their console isnt competing with the others now sony is fighting to hold on for dear life microsoft is recalling a billion or so consoles each day and nintendo even 2 years later has a soldout console isnt it ironic

Quite ironic, but there are other factors here than simply "competition". From a technological standpoint, most everyone who has analyzed the technology in the PS3 said it "should" murder the 360 due to the hardware.

However, we don't see this because hardware and the games run on it, have many variables at work:

-Programmer knowledge and/or experience
-Efficiency of the game's engine and/or game's programming
-Developer's drive for success
-The game itself

Programmer knowledge and experience really make the game what it is. Most games coming out towards the end of last generation looked great on all systems. Because the programmers built a repertoire for the consoles they worked on; they knew what worked and what didn't work and how to maximize the hardware given to them.

No developer, unless said game console is 100% based on a COMMON PC architecture (no console is, for whatever reason), will run into snags the first couple of years of the console's life. This also runs into the next point of code efficiency.

The efficiency of the code plays a huge role; again last generation, the hardware didn't get better as it aged, the efficiency of the code simply got better. Allowing developers to do a lot more with what was available.

Developers who don't care about making a great game, and simply about making sales won't put the same time, effort and energy into a game company truly trying to deliver the best possible product. This is seen with the differences between "Movie-Tie-In" games and original IPs.

Lastly the game itself plays the most role. Why is that? Well, graphics and how well or how bad they look, largely depend on the 1)The target audience, 2)The overall design/feel of the graphics, and 3)What type of game it is.

Games geared more towards a young audience will have cartoonish graphics, which might look good for its style game, but doesn't look as realistic as, say, Crysis or FarCry 2. The same goes for games that have an intended stories.

A true to life war game, may be seriously lacking in colors (for good reason, its a warzone with smoke, soot and ash lingering in the air, sticking to everything, etc) and although this wargame may look awesome, some players may not think it looks so, because it doesn't jive with their reality (bright vibrant colors akin to life outside of war).

Another factor that greatly played a role in PS3's lack of domination and the Wii's total domination of the market is price.

The reason why the Wii isn't a true competitor is because Nintendo priced it and sells games for it, that quite simply do not compete with the other consoles; for instance the Wii is cheap enough to buy that AND another console for instance.

As well, the games don't compete because the Wii's best games are all casual, so players can simply play them when they wish to take a break from another game (like MGS4, Resistance 2, etc) or quickly play a game before going out somewhere or even play a game with friends when they drop by.

This doesn't truly effect the "hardcore gamer consoles" because nowadays most hardcore games don't support the social play schemes as they used to. (Aside from Warhawk is there any other 4 player, split screen FPS? Even though the days of HD and large screens at that more than greatly trump the small, expensive SD-TVs of the days of Goldeneye on N64).

A combination of having the Wii and a PS3/Xbox360 really can let a gamer have his cake and eat it too. Friends come by, throw a disc in the Wii and have a few hours of fun all together. Friends leave throw in MGS4 or Resistance 2 and have some great fun all alone.