"Playstation Meeting" Vids

Gamespots got a report up and a few vids, but they dont show any of the demos I’d most like to see (like the Unreal Tech one)

Anyone see any links to other vids? Surely there has to be some shakeycams out there.

Kad

Then Kutaragi issued a somewhat ominous warning. “I’m not going to reveal its price today. I’m going to only say that it’ll be expensive,” he stated.

Um. If XBox360 comes in at a substantially lower price, that could be a huge advantage.

Sony learned their lesson with PSX.

Evidently not, judging from the PSP and this statement about the PS3.

Evidently not, judging from the PSP and this statement about the PS3.[/quote]

The PSP is not outrageously priced at all.

Evidently not, judging from the PSP and this statement about the PS3.[/quote]

The PSP is not outrageously priced at all.[/quote]

Oh I get it.

Evidently not, judging from the PSP and this statement about the PS3.[/quote]

The PSP is not outrageously priced at all.[/quote]

Oh I get it.[/quote]

So do I. You we’re trolling and José bit.

He’s hardly trolling; his examples were borne out.

Kutaragi’s statement makes me leery. Looks like a lot of us will have to hold off on buying one. We all know that the announced 10-year life cycle is bullshit.

That depends a lot on whether he means “Expensive compared to what current gen consoles sell for”, “Expensive compared to what we expect the X360 to sell for”, or “Expensive compared to the insane prices we’ve released other consoles for.”

Of course, my best guess is the last statement. But I also suspect that they’ll be looking for the Japanese market to eat most of the early expense, and by the time it releases in the US/global, it’ll be back down to something akin to “1st adopter’s” price for the previous consoles. (The PS2 launched at, what, $350?)

I’m not so sure that’ll be true.

For one, the PSP launched at about $70 more in the US than it did in Japan. And as far as I know, the other consoles have never had some huge price difference at launch either. The PS2 was only $60 less here than in Japan at launch, and at that price point, major shortages occurred.

I don’t think PS2 sold at much of a loss, if at all, for Sony. This would make it different from PS3, which supposedly will sell at some ginormous loss. In that case, it’s harder for Sony to justify losing even more money per unit sold. If anything, Sony would lower the US launch price to compete more with the 360, not out of some deep love for Americans, but I’m not holding my breath. I can see this US-only price shift happening because the interest level for the 360 in Japan, last I checked, was 2% of the population, which isn’t threatening at all.

Yeah, I don’t think it’s normaly a “love for the US” so much as it is that prices (especially on brand new, very expensive silicon) drop rather precipitously as manufacture processes get the kinks worked out. In a perfect (for Sony) world, they’d use the markup to help recoup losses/insufficient profit from the first run where this wasn’t true.

Unfortunately for Sony, this is going to be a more significant battle (at least in the US) than their consoles have ever faced. The PS1 launched against a truly (pathetically) anemic Saturn. The PS2 launched against a decent Dreamcast that just didn’t have the marketing dollars to dig deep and combat the PS2 hype machine onslaught. I really don’t expect either of those situations to happen with X360. Microsoft’s pockets are every bit as deep as Sony’s (probably far more so, but we’ll be generous). They have enough clout to simply muscle through production on the 360 to make sure software comes out reasonably well, buying up publishers whole as necessary to get exclusives (where DC couldn’t really even pay publishers for exclusives). That’s a much tougher nut to crack for Sony. Plus they’ll be a year later. Unless the PS3 really does blow the 360 away performance wise (which none of the informed industry pundits are expecting) that’s a potent combination, against which Sony basically has momentum. I don’t see them having the luxury to come in against the 360 at $100-$150 more than the 360 will cost. I also expect that the 360 will be able to ramp down costs more quickly than the sony; their processor, while specialized, is closer to generic than Sony’s and will have the benefit of having been a year or so ahead in production cycles.

Should be interesting to see. I expect Sony’s relative market share in the US to equalize more with the XBox frankly, unless sony has some uber-coup planned or the 360 really stumbles somehow. I also expect the Revolution share to dwindle further. (I’d say I expect Nintendo to disappear as a hardware maker this cycle, but they have a non-traditional market approach I think, which could keep them afloat much longer than trying to run against the big dogs.)

Both PlayStation and PlayStation 2 launched for $299 here.

I think Nintendo will stay afloat for the entire next-generation. Many people still have SNESs around and may purchase a Revolution just to play the games without having the old console. Once they have the console, it wouldn’t hurt to buy some new games, right?

I don’t think Revolution will be anyone’s primary console, but it will make a great secondary console. PS3 and Xbox 360 are likely to share games even more than they did in this generation to cut losses.

The only thing that may hurt them is the supposedly weird controller. This may not even be that big of a problem, see: Nintendo DS.

Both PlayStation and PlayStation 2 launched for $299 here.[/quote]

Could have sworn it was higher. Did it hit at $299 and there was enough shortage that people bought them all and marked them up speculatively? Maybe that’s what I’m remembering.

I think Nintendo will stay afloat for the entire next-generation. Many people still have SNESs around and may purchase a Revolution just to play the games without having the old console. Once they have the console, it wouldn’t hurt to buy some new games, right?

It’s going to have to be a damned cheap system with damned cheap games to make me want to buy it to play older games. And I live with videogame nostalgia all the time. That’s just not a viable business market, sorry. It’s a decent value add for some folks, but it’s not going to sell on the strength of the back-library, I don’t think. Like I said, though, Nintendo’s business approach is markedly different from Sony and XBox, so that works in their favor. Effectively, I think they realize they’re a niche market and are focusing on making that niche profitable, which will keep them afloat far longer than trying to win the console race like Sega did.

Yup. Crazy shortages, over $1000 eBay prices.

How many copies of The Famicom Mini Series did Nintendo sell in Japan? Even the NES Classic series (which don’t have nearly the same collector’s value) sold well here, along with all the other SNES ports Nintendo has released.

How many copies of The Famicom Mini Series did Nintendo sell in Japan? Even the NES Classic series (which don’t have nearly the same collector’s value) sold well here, along with all the other SNES ports Nintendo has released.[/quote]

Big difference between buying a classic game to play on a system you already own, and buying a new, shiny, expensive system primarily to play classic games. While I bought some GB/GBC games for my SP when I got it, I don’t play them with anything near the same regularity that I play SP games. I think the fact that the NES classic line is, what, 10 titles deep (throw in another 4 or 5 for the various SM Advance things if you like) says that while there’s a market there, it’s not one to turn to in order to support a whole platform.

Like I said, classic games are a great value add, but I can’t imagine them being sufficient to sell a console to any but the most hardcore gamer. Nintendo will need some very solid first party games that at least vaguely compete with 360/PS3 stuff. And even then I don’t think Revolutions are going to fly off the shelves any more than Gamecubes did.

I wonder what insider info it is you’re privy to that told you the Revolution will focus on nostalgia. That’s entirely wrong and a horribly biased thing to say. In addition to third-party support, Nintendo will naturally support its console with its incredible first-party games. And it can actually profit while MS and Sony slog it out. I won’t be surprised if they lead in profits for the next six years, as they have for the past six. How many generations of losing money would MS put up with? Would anyone put up with? And Sony took Microsoft’s XBOX business model and ran with it even farther; it could be hard to even break even. MS bled money every quarter for years until Halo 2.

Nintendo’s here to stay for the future thanks to its conservative business model. You act like the Gamecube is gathering dust on retailer’s shelves, but it’s sold almost as many worldwide as the XBOX. It’s not hard to see it even eclipse the XBOX with Zelda this fall, not to mention the XBOX’s pending cease in production. There won’t be a rerelease of it like the PS2 slim; MS would just be losing more money.

If there is one thing that Nintendo can be counted on for its “solid first party games.” It’s the third party games (or lack thereof) that cause most to worry.

If there is one thing that Nintendo can be counted on for its “solid first party games.” It’s the third party games (or lack thereof) that cause most to worry.[/quote]

Very true. Don’t know how much difference being late to the party will make though, considering they tend to be slow about putting such out. I do imagine a nice super-slick Mario, Metroid, and Smash Brothers title on or near launch would go over quite well though. I don’t think Nintendo is a threat to 360 or PS3 though; it’s just not in line with what their model has seemed to be for the last two cycles. They seem content to just sit off on their own, not making a huge splash, but making quality games and a profit, and that’s enough. Frankly, I’m all for it too, as long as they don’t get so far into the shadows that they can’t maintain profitability and continue making great games.

Not a threat? Not in line with their model? The N64 had about 40% US marketshare before the Dreamcast came in, and as I said the Cube has almost matched the XBOX. This is to say nothing of the complete domination of the handheld market the GB and GBA have had for seventeen years now, a dominance that is holding so far. I fail to see why you are so insistent on minimizing Nintendo. Nintendo’s hardly a niche company. They are the industry leaders in profits, if not in sales, and won’t be going anywhere.

Spurned by Princess Peach one too many times, the cold bitch. Nintendo sucks!*

[size=1]Or something like that. Whatever let’s you continue your crusade, y’know?[/size]