IGN: Japan picks PS3

[Soulquarian]

According to Famitsu (The leading Japanese Gaming Mag/aka Gaming Bible) poll

Metal Gear Solid 4 won the vote across all consoles as the game people are most looking forward to. It beat Final Fantasy XIII, Zelda Twilight Princess, Blue Dragon and Smash Bros. X. The portable vote was topped by Pokemon Diamond & Pearl, which beat out Gyakuten Saiban 4, Monster Hunter Portable 2nd and Final Fantasy V.

The PS3 came out on top in the vote for which next generation system players are most looking forward to. 58.3% selected the PS3 as the next generation system they most want, compared to the Wii's 33.8% and the Xbox 360's 7.9%. It's worth noting that the Wii didn't have an official presence at the show, which is not attended by Nintendo, and was only shown being played by company reps (often scantily clad company reps) in the various 3rd party booths.

It's important to note that while the PS3 has the most interest, more people are opting to buy a Wii at launch. The Wii showed a 3% increase over Sony in that area. However, many people boted that they'd make a PS3 purchase if software was impressive. Currently there are 22 games listed to launch with the PS3.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/738/738630p1.html

[sir clinksalot]

Re: IGN: Japan picks PS3

There are always 2 constants we can count on here at MiceChat:

Soulquarian to be anti-Nintendo and Darkbeer to be anti-DCA.

And MiceChat wouldn't be the same without it!!!

Seriously, I've had no interest in the PS3 since the beginning ... but SoulQ is actually starting to Pique my interest a bit. I'm still getting a Wii when it comes out, but maybe in a year or so we will consider a PS3 as well.

[Soulquarian]

Re: IGN: Japan picks PS3

There are always 2 constants we can count on here at MiceChat:

Soulquarian to be anti-Nintendo and Darkbeer to be anti-DCA.

And MiceChat wouldn't be the same without it!!!

Seriously, I've had no interest in the PS3 since the beginning ... but SoulQ is actually starting to Pique my interest a bit. I'm still getting a Wii when it comes out, but maybe in a year or so we will consider a PS3 as well.

I'm hardly anti-Nintendo. I have every system with the exception of the GC and the DS. I like to hear both sides of the story, and all I've heard for months on end is how the Wii is going to take over the world like a digital Godzilla. Doesn't really seem to be the case.

I'm definitely going to get a Wii, but I forsee the PS3 being the leader in the next generation.

[sir clinksalot]

Re: IGN: Japan picks PS3

^ I totally agree 100%. I think the Wii will do infinately better than the GC did before the started giving them away. But PS3 will most likely be the winner. I'll concede that.

[Mr Ness]

Re: IGN: Japan picks PS3

There is no way the PS3 is not going to take this generation market share wise.

However, the margin will be much closer between all the consoles. I wouldn't be surprised if the market share is almost evenly split between the three consoles as they all have successfully developed their own identity.

The PS3 is the hard core gamers machine.

The Xbox360 is the mainstream, reasonably priced machine.

The Wii is the machine for gamers who want a different experience as well as for families and non-gamers.

However, there is no way I don't see Nintendo winning this generation as it has every generation it has been in. While Nintendo might not always have the biggest market share, they have always made the most profit off of each console. The N64 made over 8 times as much money for Nintendo as the Playstation did for Sony.

[Soulquarian]

Re: IGN: Japan picks PS3

There is no way the PS3 is not going to take this generation market share wise.

However, the margin will be much closer between all the consoles. I wouldn't be surprised if the market share is almost evenly split between the three consoles as they all have successfully developed their own identity.

The PS3 is the hard core gamers machine.

The Xbox360 is the mainstream, reasonably priced machine.

The Wii is the machine for gamers who want a different experience as well as for families and non-gamers.

However, there is no way I don't see Nintendo winning this generation as it has every generation it has been in. While Nintendo might not always have the biggest market share, they have always made the most profit off of each console. The N64 made over 8 times as much money for Nintendo as the Playstation did for Sony.

Personally I think the X360 is going to be last. It serves no real purpose. It's a watered down PS3, and once the games come out for the PS3, it's going to show. Japanese support is extremely important in the videogame industry. Most of the best developers are Japanese, the release the most innovative games, and their market represents a huge share. The whole reason why Microsoft designed its X360 to look like it does was to appeal to the Japanese, who hated the bulky design of the original. Fast forward to almost a year after its release, and the Japanese still don't give a rats but about the 360.

Microsoft reminds me a lot of Al Bundy and his high School football stories. "Remember HALO?!?!? Wasn't that great!" Yeah, but what have you done recently?

Xbox Live is its saving grace, but rest assured Sony is aggressively trying to trump it after studying it for so long. If you have a PSP and browse the internet, you know what I'm talking about.

It's definitely true that Nintendo routinely rakes in the most money per generation. That's because they make bare bones products and release a minor upgrade a year later. True to form, many people double dip and buy the new version as well. Their first party lineup is always insanely top notch.

Sony and Nintendo make money through software. The main reason why the PS3 is so cheap (think about what you GET with a PS3), is because Sony knows that if a lot of people get one, they'll buy Blu-Ray movies. Blu-Ray movies are going to be a nice source of profit for Sony since it's a proprietary format. If it becomes standard (which it has no real reason not too), and that format still exists by the time the next generation of console wars roles around, the next Xbox system will probably be using Blu-Ray. So for every game sold by Microsoft, Sony gets a little.

I think we need both Sony and Nintendo. They both serve important purposes in the gaming community. Nintendo innovates, Sony pushes the envelope of technology. Microsoft just tags along for the ride.

[Mr Ness]

Re: IGN: Japan picks PS3

It's definitely true that Nintendo routinely rakes in the most money per generation. That's because they make bare bones products and release a minor upgrade a year later. True to form, many people double dip and buy the new version as well. Their first party lineup is always insanely top notch.

Or you could say that their consoles are very smart. Sure they don't have many features, but they aren't going after the consumer that needs all of those features. We discussed this before, and I believe ever company (save for possibly Microsoft) is just as bad as Nintendo at releasing upgrades. Nintendo has been around in video games longer, so obviously there are many more examples.

Sony and Nintendo make money through software. The main reason why the PS3 is so cheap (think about what you GET with a PS3), is because Sony knows that if a lot of people get one, they'll buy Blu-Ray movies. Blu-Ray movies are going to be a nice source of profit for Sony since it's a proprietary format. If it becomes standard (which it has no real reason not too), and that format still exists by the time the next generation of console wars roles around, the next Xbox system will probably be using Blu-Ray. So for every game sold by Microsoft, Sony gets a little.

True, which is why Square ended up leaving Nintendo. Nintendo, going into the N64, didn't want to pay Sony for every game they sold if they printed on CD. So they stuck with Cartridge.

I think we need both Sony and Nintendo. They both serve important purposes in the gaming community. Nintendo
innovates, Sony pushes the envelope of technology. Microsoft just tags along for the ride.

I disagree. I don't think we need Sony. We need Nintendo and a company like Sega in the early 90's. The reason I am so hard on Sony so much of the time is that I believe Sony is what is wrong with the gaming industry. They push technology over gameplay, looks over substance.

Whereas Nintendo, because of the lack of competition in quality of games, is getting lazy, knowing that they will make a profit because of their fans from the early 90's.

When Nintendo and Sega were battling it out, we had two very talented developers trying to one up each other in terms of quality of games. Nintendo had Mario, so Sega came up with a platform character whose game had better gameplay (arguable). So Nintendo one upped Sega by contiuously increasing the quality of their Mario games.

Now, Nintendo has no developer that can match wits, and fewer and fewer consumers as Sony shifts the focus of the video game industry away from gameplay, and more towards style and story.

With the Wii, Nintendo is making a bold statement in that the console does not have significantly better graphics than the original Xbox. If the Wii succeeds, then this will show that, unlike what Sony has been pushing the last 4 years, graphics and style are not the only thing that sells video games. If the Wii fails, then it will prove that Sony has successfully steered the industry away from gameplay.

I'm not saying that Sony systems do not have games that have good game play. I am saying that without Nintendo, Sony would only have endless sequels of the same games, without any great improvements in gameplay.

I'd also disagree with the opinion that Sony innovates technology in any other way than graphics. Nintendo is the one coming up with innovating technology by way of interface and immersion.

Edit: Okay, now that I've thought about it for a longer period of time, I will take back what I said about Sony being everything that is wrong with the industry. I will say that Sony and Microsoft are not taking enough steps to move the industry forwards, and at this rate, the industry will eventually implode on itself like it did in the early 80's.

[Soulquarian]

Re: IGN: Japan picks PS3

Or you could say that their consoles are very smart. Sure they don't have many features, but they aren't going after the consumer that needs all of those features. We discussed this before, and I believe ever company (save for possibly Microsoft) is just as bad as Nintendo at releasing upgrades. Nintendo has been around in video games longer, so obviously there are many more examples.

Nintendo is so bad at releasing a minor (or common sense) upgrade in a relatively short time. The DS is smaller, brighter, and came out a year after the original DS. The same goes for nearly every GB system! Worst of all, Nintendo fans are notorious for buying multiple versions of the same system. I can name at least 10 people who have bought several Nintendo handhelds within the past 5 years. Sony releases an upgraded system close to END of the system's cycle. The slimmer PS2 came out around the time of the original PS3 release date (obviously it was pushed back).

Because Nintendo successfully double dips and makes relatively straightforward consoles, they make a nice profit. Personally I'd rather pay upfront for a nice system then to keep buying a new one that does something my old one should have.

I disagree. I don't think we need Sony. We need Nintendo and a company like Sega in the early 90's. The reason I am so hard on Sony so much of the time is that I believe Sony is what is wrong with the gaming industry. They push technology over gameplay, looks over substance.

I don't believe so at all. If anything, they bring together those qualities. The Final Fantasy series are arguably the best RPG's on the market. Gran Turismo represented a level of quality and detail in a simulator game that to this day is still unmatched. Devil May Cry ushered in a new era of Action/Adventure games. The Ratchet & Clank/Jak & Daxter series are unparalleled in term of original ideas, mixture of gameplay styles, and platforming. The list goes on.

If anything Microsoft pushes technology over gameplay. the original XBOX was a powerhouse with no games.

When Nintendo and Sega were battling it out, we had two very talented developers trying to one up each other in terms of quality of games. Nintendo had Mario, so Sega came up with a platform character whose game had better gameplay (arguable). So Nintendo one upped Sega by contiuously increasing the quality of their Mario games.

Now, Nintendo has no developer that can match wits, and fewer and fewer consumers as Sony shifts the focus of the video game industry away from gameplay, and more towards style and story.

The market is different than what it was in the early 90's. For one thing, the majority of gamers don't sit and watch cartoons, eating fruity pebbles in Transformer pajamas (er, well, some don't! ). Gamers want variety, which is not one of Nintendo's strong suits. Sony has a top rated game in nearly every genre of gaming, wheras Nintendo excels in quirky products and platformers.

With the Wii, Nintendo is making a bold statement in that the console does not have significantly better graphics than the original Xbox. If the Wii succeeds, then this will show that, unlike what Sony has been pushing the last 4 years, graphics and style are not the only thing that sells video games. If the Wii fails, then it will prove that Sony has successfully steered the industry away from gameplay.

Not true at all. Graphics and gameplay are not mutually exclusive? It's a bad decision to imply that they are. A recent study has shown that in 5 years, over 60% of televisions in American Households will be HDTV's. The Wii is going to look like absolute crap on a High Def set. Even Nintendo has admitted so by saying it will look on par with current systems on a standard television set. There's no reason why people should have to choose between playing a game that looks fantastic and playing a game that's incredibly engaging and fun.

That's as dumb as when Reggie Fils-Aime sayed gamers don't want to play games online...

I'm not saying that Sony systems do not have games that have good game play. I am saying that without Nintendo, Sony would only have endless sequels of the same games, without any great improvements in gameplay.

I disagree. I've seen consistant improvements in Sony titles. The only difference is that Nintendo doesn't excel in conventional genres. Like I said before, Gran Turismo is unmatched, The Grand Theft Auto series is still on it's own level because of the innovation and non-linear gameplay style, the PSP has pushed the envelope of portable gaming with it's online capabilities...

It really depends on what you're looking at. Nintendo is good at creating sub-genres, but I don't believe it excels in the main ones.

And nobody has more sequels than Nintendo. I've lost count of how many Super Mario, Donkey Kong, Zelda, etc. games there are. Personally, sequels don't bother me. If it's a fun game, so what?

I'd also disagree with the opinion that Sony innovates technology in any other way than graphics. Nintendo is the one coming up with innovating technology by way of interface and immersion.

Immersion? Interface? With the exception of the Wii's controller, what is really that innovative? Nintendo borders on innovative and gimmicky. I think they hop across it from time to time. The Gameboy Camera was probably the most fun I've ever had on a portable... It was never widely supported. The Virtua Boy flopped. The e-card reader was a gimmick. The only games I can really say immersed me are Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Final Fantasy VII-X, and Kingdom Hearts.

Edit: Okay, now that I've thought about it for a longer period of time, I will take back what I said about Sony being everything that is wrong with the industry. I will say that Sony and Microsoft are not taking enough steps to move the industry forwards, and at this rate, the industry will eventually implode on itself like it did in the early 80's.

Now that I can agree on. Sony tends to stick with what works, and they don't take enough risks. Nintendo does what it wants, and it shows. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Wii takes off. By now, we know that graphics are not the deciding factor in the gaming community. The PS2 outsold the other consoles by a staggering number, yet it was the weakest in terms of hardware. The DS is outselling the PSP, despite being less technologically brawny.

Nintendo needs to really support the Wii and not make it just an after thought. They seem to have ADD. They focus on something for a while, then introduce something new. While their fans will remain loyal (almost a Disney-ish loyal!), they alienate a large portion of the gaming community.

Sony on the other hand really needs to pioneer some things rather than improve on aspects of the other companies. They're losing a lot of exclusive titles (Grand Theft Auto & Final Fantasy being MAJOR ones).

[Mr Ness]

Re: IGN: Japan picks PS3

Nintendo is so bad at releasing a minor (or common sense) upgrade in a relatively short time. The DS is smaller, brighter, and came out a year after the original DS. The same goes for nearly every GB system! Worst of all, Nintendo fans are notorious for buying multiple versions of the same system. I can name at least 10 people who have bought several Nintendo handhelds within the past 5 years. Sony releases an upgraded system close to END of the system's cycle. The slimmer PS2 came out around the time of the original PS3 release date (obviously it was pushed back).

First of all, you are mistakingly assuming that what you have observed holds true for everyone. The DS lite came out two years after the original DS was released. You are also making the mistake of assuming that the DS is the successor to the GBA. The DS and the GBA stand apart from one another.

Because Nintendo successfully double dips and makes relatively straightforward consoles, they make a nice profit. Personally I'd rather pay upfront for a nice system then to keep buying a new one that does something my old one should have.

You mean like paying several times for a system that breaks half way through it's life cycle, for which you must buy a new system?

I don't believe so at all. If anything, they bring together those qualities. The Final Fantasy series are arguably the best RPG's on the market. Gran Turismo represented a level of quality and detail in a simulator game that to this day is still unmatched. Devil May Cry ushered in a new era of Action/Adventure games. The Ratchet & Clank/Jak & Daxter series are unparalleled in term of original ideas, mixture of gameplay styles, and platforming. The list goes on.

You are mixing up Nintendo EAD and all games released for Nintendo. You are comparing what EAD develops to everything all 3rd parties release for PS2. The Final Fantasy series was once arguably the best RPG on the market. Back when Final Fantasy was on the SNES was when it was in it's prime. Ratchet and Jak are both derivative of the Sonic style of thinking, whereby taking on Mario by infusing the game with more attitude. I saw nothing original or exceedingly in either. Devil May Cry was a decent game, and Gran Turismo is a game I have never played. Of course, this is all just my opinion, like your list is yours.

If anything Microsoft pushes technology over gameplay. the original XBOX was a powerhouse with no games.

No argument.

The market is different than what it was in the early 90's. For one thing, the majority of gamers don't sit and watch cartoons, eating fruity pebbles in Transformer pajamas (er, well, some don't! ). Gamers want variety, which is not one of Nintendo's strong suits. Sony has a top rated game in nearly every genre of gaming, wheras Nintendo excels in quirky products and platformers.

This is just from my personal experience, but every game player I've ever known would prefer a return to the games of the early 90's. Of course I can't expand this observation to any larger population of gamers, but I think it is telling that not a single gamer I've ever known prefers where the industry is now to where it was 15 years ago.

Also, once again, you are comparing a single developer to what is released for an entire system. Square doesn't have much variety in their games.

Nintendo develops:

-Platformers
-Real-Time Strategy
-Turn-Based Strategy
-Arcade Racing
-Arcade Fighting
-1st Person Action
-Arcade Sports
-Real Time RPG
-Turn Based RPG
-Pet Simulation
-1st Person Shooters
-Puzzle
-Action
-World Building (Black and White genre?)
-Adventure
-Arcade Aerial Shooter

That is a pretty diverse set of games.

Not true at all. Graphics and gameplay are not mutually exclusive? It's a bad decision to imply that they are. A recent study has shown that in 5 years, over 60% of televisions in American Households will be HDTV's. The Wii is going to look like absolute crap on a High Def set. Even Nintendo has admitted so by saying it will look on par with current systems on a standard television set. There's no reason why people should have to choose between playing a game that looks fantastic and playing a game that's incredibly engaging and fun.

However, I also see very little point in paying an extra $300 for a system simply for better graphics. Sony is not currently marketing a system that is for the 60% of households that will be buying an HDTV. Sony is marketing to poorer college students and young adults who will be less likely to be able to afford an HDTV within the next five years.

I disagree. I've seen consistant improvements in Sony titles. The only difference is that Nintendo doesn't excel in conventional genres. Like I said before, Gran Turismo is unmatched, The Grand Theft Auto series is still on it's own level because of the innovation and non-linear gameplay style, the PSP has pushed the envelope of portable gaming with it's online capabilities...

Nintendo invented the conventional genres. Realistic racers and games like GTA do not fall in conventional genres.

It really depends on what you're looking at. Nintendo is good at creating sub-genres, but I don't believe it excels in the main ones.

Once again, Nintendo invented the genres. How are action/adventure, platform, puzzle, etc. not main genres?

And nobody has more sequels than Nintendo. I've lost count of how many Super Mario, Donkey Kong, Zelda, etc. games there are. Personally, sequels don't bother me. If it's a fun game, so what?

I've kept count. There have been 9 main Mario games, 5 DK games, and 8 Nintendo made Zelda games. Still fewer than Final Fantasy. The major difference between Nintendo sequels and sequels by other companies is that every sequel by Nintendo innovates and turns the original game on it's head. Every Mario game is different from one another. Each DK game uses different characters, which changes how each game plays. The Zelda games are the closest Nintendo comes to being derivative, yet each introduces different items and utilzies each for completely unique puzzles within the game.

Immersion? Interface? With the exception of the Wii's controller, what is really that innovative? Nintendo borders on innovative and gimmicky. I think they hop across it from time to time. The Gameboy Camera was probably the most fun I've ever had on a portable... It was never widely supported. The Virtua Boy flopped. The e-card reader was a gimmick. The only games I can really say immersed me are Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Final Fantasy VII-X, and Kingdom Hearts.

The controller is what is innovative. I think a completely unique interface is completely innovative. The DS was pegged as being gimmicky before it came out, but now, dozens of unique games are being released for the system. True, many of the lesser 3rd party companies only utilize the unique interface in gimmicky ways, but the truly decent 3rd party developers have utilized the interface is completely original ways.

It is odd that you single out Zelda 64 as the most immersive of the series. For me, Zelda 64 is the second worst (and least immersive) of all the Zelda games. I thought Majora's Mask was the better of the two N64 Zelda games.

Now that I can agree on. Sony tends to stick with what works, and they don't take enough risks. Nintendo does what it wants, and it shows. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Wii takes off. By now, we know that graphics are not the deciding factor in the gaming community. The PS2 outsold the other consoles by a staggering number, yet it was the weakest in terms of hardware. The DS is outselling the PSP, despite being less technologically brawny.

Interestingly, the system with the lesser graphics in every generation has "won" in terms of market share.

Nintendo needs to really support the Wii and not make it just an after thought. They seem to have ADD. They focus on something for a while, then introduce something new. While their fans will remain loyal (almost a Disney-ish loyal!), they alienate a large portion of the gaming community.

Sony on the other hand really needs to pioneer some things rather than improve on aspects of the other companies. They're losing a lot of exclusive titles (Grand Theft Auto & Final Fantasy being MAJOR ones).

Sony also needs to develop their own franchises aside from what their 3rd parties give them. If 3rd parties every ditched Sony like they ditched the N64, Sony would be screwed without any major 1st party titles.

[Soulquarian]

Re: IGN: Japan picks PS3

First of all, you are mistakingly assuming that what you have observed holds true for everyone. The DS lite came out two years after the original

My mistake. Two years.

[Modern Folly]

Re: IGN: Japan picks PS3

I've finally decided that i'll betray my precious Playstation. I'm buying a Wii, I gots to have Zelda Twilight Princess. I'll buy a PS3, when Metal Gear Solid 4 and Assassins Creed is released.

[Soulquarian]

Re: IGN: Japan picks PS3

I've finally decided that i'll betray my precious Playstation. I'm buying a Wii, I gots to have Zelda Twilight Princess. I'll buy a PS3, when Metal Gear Solid 4 and Assassins Creed is released.

I hear you, I'm not in a hurry to get a PS3 either. No company has my loyalty to a point that I'll buy a system without first seeing what it can do.