"Sony: Game wars are over--we win"

[Ferocious]

"The console wars are over," Hirai said. "I liken the gap with our competition to the Grand Canyon."

cocky?

 

[Rallispec]

im sure it has nothing to do with the fact that PS2 was out an entire year more than the competetion.

 

[Evadman]

I am sorry to say that XBox will win this war of attrition. When you have that much money, it is no longer possable not to win.

Soon they will start bundling a XBox with every copy of XP they give out. Or maybe even a free XBox with every controller purchace

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Evadman
I am sorry to say that XBox will win this war of attrition. When you have that much money, it is no longer possable not to win.

Soon they will start bundling a XBox with every copy of XP they give out. Or maybe even a free XBox with every controller purchace

your wrong when they start dooin that teh X box will become one of thoes annoying AOL cd that everyon has and no one wants

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Rallispec
im sure it has nothing to do with the fact that PS2 was out an entire year more than the competetion.

That would be the case if competition was killing PS2 in sales. But they are not. PS2 still sells really well when compared to it's competitors.

 

[Supermercado]

I have a Gamecube, so I'm obviously somewhat biased. I haven't read all the stuff about E3 yet, but my friend was watching some news conference or montage of footage or something or other, not sure, yesterday. Anyway, he said "Dude, you're going to be really happy that you have a Gamecube very soon." Take that as you will, but I don't see any mention of Nintendo in this thread yet, but from what I'm hearing about the games that they have lined up, I would definitely not count them out of the race.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

It is pretty obvious that Sony has won this round. I don't like Sony but you can't deny the fact that the PS2 is still outselling the GC and XBox combined, even during the lucrative holiday season. All in all, it's now a battle for second between MS and Nintendo. MS and N were too little too late to go up against the PS2 a year later

 

[virusag11]

I think this is a little cocky, but they do have room to talk. If they can convince the public that they have won with just pure numbers (despite release dates), they will continue to sell high volumes of PS2 units. I like all my systems, ps2, dc, gc, and xbox, but I think the PS2 has the lasting power because of their library. Xbox and Gamecube I think have the better games coming out this year though.

 

[randomlinh]

the real question is, who will win the next round...

 

[JingP]

let me say this...microsoft should have taken a few of those major bucks they spent on marketing and thrown it towards the design. I had an xbox. That is one ugly console.

Classic American Raw Power vs. Sleek Japanese design.

 

[zimmie6576]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Rallispec
im sure it has nothing to do with the fact that PS2 was out an entire year more than the competetion.

That would be the case if competition was killing PS2 in sales. But they are not. PS2 still sells really well when compared to it's competitors.

I don't think that Sony can declare themselves the winner yet. That's like a someone bragging they won the 100 m sprint when they started out at the 50 m mark.

It may be true what you said in your post, but of all the people I've talked to/heard from who claim the PS2 is the best, or why they are buying one, the reason they always give is "because it has more games". This is true because of the year headstart.

I was at Gamespot yesterday (picking up GTA3 for the PC), and was talking with the guys there. They said that the one that will surprise everyone is the Gamecube. There are tons of games coming out for it over the next year (the one guy said over a hundred, though that sounds high). The one guy mentioned that he played Eternal Darkness at some sort of expo thing in New York City, and it was the best game he has ever played.

I don't keep up on XBox news, but I would assume that there are lots of games coming out for that too. The XBox and Gamecube have only been out for 5 or 6 months. Weren't people complaining that after the PS2 had only been out for that long that there weren't any good games for it?

 

[A5]

I don't know why everyone talks about M$ having so much more cash than everyone else...last time I checked, Nintendo had over 1 billion in CASH reserves; not to mention they've turned a profit for God knows how many years in a row...

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: A5
I don't know why everyone talks about M$ having so much more cash than everyone else...last time I checked, Nintendo had over 1 billion in CASH reserves; not to mention they've turned a profit for God knows how many years in a row...

Microsoft has about 40 billion dollars IN CASH.

 

[royaldank]

I think online play might play a big role in the console wars. Once all of them get online, a new war should be starting. If XBOX can deliver all online games for 1 price (or free), then they will have a shot. I don't think people are crazy about Sony and having to buy time with each developer's servers. That could get crazy if you start having 6-10 bills a month for the 6-10 games you play online. Nintendo might be able to get a foot in the door as well, but they still seem to be far behind in number of games.

I think the fiercest competetion is yet to come.

 

[Hammer]

Its obvious Sony has one this round, trying Nintendo's record for generations wins at 2. I don't think Sony can pull off an unprecedented 3 wins though when the PS3 comes out.

 

[EvilYoda]

Oh well.....I'll admit that Sony's done a good job with their systems, but I'm still more than happy with my NGC, and I think these coming months will be even better, game-wise.

Damn Nintendo for letting Sony use their Super-CD drive to make the Playstation. stupid stupid stupid.

 

[zimmie6576]

Originally posted by: royaldank
I think online play might play a big role in the console wars. Once all of them get online, a new war should be starting. If XBOX can deliver all online games for 1 price (or free), then they will have a shot. I don't think people are crazy about Sony and having to buy time with each developer's servers. That could get crazy if you start having 6-10 bills a month for the 6-10 games you play online. Nintendo might be able to get a foot in the door as well, but they still seem to be far behind in number of games.

I think the fiercest competetion is yet to come.

Sheer number of games means nothing. I would prefer to have a system that had 15 games, each of them great, as opposed to one that had 100, with 95% of them being crap.

I'm generalizing here, btw. But my point is that all people look at in the "who is winning the console war" debate is the number of games available for a system. By that logic, since the original Nintendo had over 600 games, so that means it would be the all time champ. Best. Console. Ever.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: zimmie6576

Originally posted by: royaldank
I think online play might play a big role in the console wars. Once all of them get online, a new war should be starting. If XBOX can deliver all online games for 1 price (or free), then they will have a shot. I don't think people are crazy about Sony and having to buy time with each developer's servers. That could get crazy if you start having 6-10 bills a month for the 6-10 games you play online. Nintendo might be able to get a foot in the door as well, but they still seem to be far behind in number of games.

I think the fiercest competetion is yet to come.

Sheer number of games means nothing. I would prefer to have a system that had 15 games, each of them great, as opposed to one that had 100, with 95% of them being crap.

I'm generalizing here, btw. But my point is that all people look at in the "who is winning the console war" debate is the number of games available for a system. By that logic, since the original Nintendo had over 600 games, so that means it would be the all time champ. Best. Console. Ever.

i still play me NES and SNES along with PS2 and GC love them all. only reason i swicted from nointendo to PS was because Nintendo 64 had crap for games and no good RPGs had to but a PS when FF7 came out

 

[Angrymarshmello]

Originally posted by: hammer09
Its obvious Sony has one this round, trying Nintendo's record for generations wins at 2. I don't think Sony can pull off an unprecedented 3 wins though when the PS3 comes out.

Technically Nintendo owned everyone with the original Gameboy release too, so it's 3 for them (Neo Geo Pocket, Atari Lynx, Sega Game Gear) That's the one area that Nintendo will dominate without fear of Sony, MS, or anyone else. Considering you can play every GB game on the GBA, it has an unprecedented amount of titles. That's why Sony isn't stupid enough to release a handheld portable.

 

[royaldank]

Sheer number of games means nothing. I would prefer to have a system that had 15 games, each of them great, as opposed to one that had 100, with 95% of them being crap.

I'm generalizing here, btw. But my point is that all people look at in the "who is winning the console war" debate is the number of games available for a system. By that logic, since the original Nintendo had over 600 games, so that means it would be the all time champ. Best. Console. Ever.

No, that's not what I'm saying. It's pretty much a given that Sony is winning right now, and that is largely due to the number of games available. The general consumer walks into a store and sees a wall full of PS2 games and then a little side cabinet with the GC and XBOX games. Obviously, they are picking the PS2. I doubt that if you took the best 15 games on the PS2 (if there are that many) and sold only those and no other games, that it wouldn't be flying off the shelf. The general consumer wants a selection because tastes differ. A game may suck to you and me, but if someone really like Britney Spears, then the Britney dance game might be good for them.

I know your generalizing, but you are overlooking the fact that more games probably means better games. Granted, most miss the target, but when you are throwing a hundred darts compared to 15, more are likely to stick.

I'm suggesting that over the next year, the selection on all three will be taking shape and wont be much of a factor in consumers minds. At that point, the hardware and features will start selling machines. That is when Sony starts taking punches left and right. Graphics will be lagging and their online plan might end up being a giant hassle to gamers. But, if they have a PS3 ready in time, then they could once again take the crown by jumping out of the gate first. Don't tell me you haven't read numerous threads that point out buying a PS2 gives you a much larger library to choose from.

At any rate, I think the gamers are going to win, no matter what they own. The business is currently booming and lots of money is being generated.

 

[spanky]

who needs a PS2 when i have a sega genesis

 

[XZeroII]

If Sony actually believes that, they've already lost. The #1 reason why most places lose when competing against MS is that MS will not give up. They will keep innovating and making their product better and better. The competition has an early lead, so they decide to milk their product for all they can get instead of upgrading and innovating. MS catches up and passes them during this time and the competitor is blown away by what they have to compete with now. This is the exact thing that happened to Netscape and if Sony actually believes what they said, they have already lost just like everyone else that has tried to beat Microsoft.

 

[StageLeft]

He's right.

 

[dionx]

right now PS2 gets my vote and recommendation by far.

huge library of games does not win the console war. but it sure does help. the playstation 2 titles and original playstation titles combined make up a huge assortment of games. the larger the assortment, the more variety the game genres have. because of this variety, sony has a larger appeal to more ppl than xbox. two genres that stand out in mind that sony will always rule over xbox are RPG and music genre. xbox seems too focused on reaching the 16-24 age group, so the best games for xbox seem to only be shooters and actions. granted FPS such as halo (although i greatly hate this game with a passion from its boredom it brought when i played it 6 hours straight because of its ridiculous ease) is better in terms of control on an xbox, those few genres wont make xbox appeal to the masses, therefore unable to make a dent into sony's targeted audience. nintendo isnt trying to take away from sony's audience since they already have a niche for children <14 years old.

 

[Desturel]

Technically Nintendo owned everyone with the original Gameboy release too, so it's 3 for them (Neo Geo Pocket, Atari Lynx, Sega Game Gear) That's the one area that Nintendo will dominate without fear of Sony, MS, or anyone else. Considering you can play every GB game on the GBA, it has an unprecedented amount of titles. That's why Sony isn't stupid enough to release a handheld portable.

Gameboy would be 2 generations. NES then Gameboy. The Genisis outsold SNES in the US and Japan so you couldn't say that counted towards the Nintendo domination.