View Full Version : King of the Consoles

10-01-2002, 16:30:01
Sony have already sold 1.7 million PS2s in the UK, at the same time in the product lifespan of the Playstation they had only sold 700,000 playstations but they still easily became the most successful console, seeing off the Saturn, N64 and Dreamcast in the process.

Can the X-Box or Game Cube have any hope of challenging Sony market dominance when they launch here?

10-01-2002, 16:42:00
1) I don't think that the ps saw off the dreamcast - the dreamcast died because of a combination of sega screw-ups, public ignorance and ps2 anticipation

2) gamecube will be a niche console like the n64, but xbox has a good chance of a decent market share. Nothing can challenge ps2 now though. It'll be the next generatin of consoles before someone can have another pop.

10-01-2002, 16:48:11
I thought the Dreamcast comment might prove contraversial. :D Great console, good games, terrible marketing. One thing that it seems unlikely Microshaft will do wrong.

Playstation marketing was very clever, targeting young adults rather than kids. You'd see PS in clubs running Wipeout 2097 or Tekken. People would get back from clubs and play computer games.

Problem with Nintendo is that their games don't tend to appeal to people like us who have a lot of disposable income to get rid of on games. It has a reputation of being a kids console, kind of like the Disney of consoles, sure they do some stuff adults can enjoy but sometimes you want some decent sex and violence as well.

I have heard rumours that M$ aren't planning to really make money on X-Box series until they release X-Box 2 and they certainly have the money to do that. Anyone know what sales have been like of X-Box in the US?

10-01-2002, 16:50:57
I don't know the exact numbers, but while I'm sure they're ok, I'll sum it up like this.

I know a lot more people with PS2's than I do with X-Boxes

10-01-2002, 16:52:11
I am really surprised how many people I know have PS2s, they are spreading really quickly.

10-01-2002, 16:53:28
Once the X-Box gets a few more good games I'll probably get one of those. My neighbor has a PS2 so I can play that any time I want.

10-01-2002, 18:13:08
they're planning on losing on the x-box and making it up on the games - don't know if it will be to be break even or a profit in the end.

10-01-2002, 18:32:16
They do that on all consoles, not just the X-Box. I think that they are in it long term, ie 2 consoles before they start making serious money.

10-01-2002, 22:12:41
MS doesn't expect to break even on the Xbox until 2004. Off game royalties.

The Xbox^2 will probably be a digital cable/satellite receiver, CD player, DVD player, DVD-audio player, MP3 player (one of them wireless thingies you can stream music on your PC and listen on the stereo with), and video game console.

More importantly: It'll probably support MS' Pay Per View, Video on Demand, etc. That's where their money will come from. :) The video game thing is just a trojan horse.

Although a very effective one.

I think what will happen is the following in terms of market share for North America at least:
1. PS2
2. Xbox
3. Gamecube

Current numbers support this theory anyway. There's something like 8 Million PS2s in North America, 1.5M Xboxes, and 1.2M Gamecubes so far.

11-01-2002, 09:37:15
The X-Box hasn't been out as long though has it?

I didn't realise the Gamecube was out there already too.

11-01-2002, 09:48:39
it's america mike, everything is out there :)

those bastards have already got final fantasy X:mad:

11-01-2002, 09:58:58
Yeah, good point. :D

I'm going to wait for Final Fantasy XXX. ;)

11-01-2002, 11:42:21
Consoles are always sold at a loss - the hardware inside an X-Box is equivalent to a high end pc right now, so you could probably say they should sell it for 4x what they're charging, but of course it's the game licences that make the profit. PS2 games are not exactly cheap right now in the UK but look how they're selling - hot cakes would be the metaphor. Sony must be absoloutely reaping in the cash right now.
The licence factor is presumably why PC games are usually 10 quid less per game than a console game?

I'm considering breaking my 12 year love affair with PC gaming and getting a PS2.

12-01-2002, 05:45:56
Originally posted by MikeH
The X-Box hasn't been out as long though has it?

I didn't realise the Gamecube was out there already too.
Xbox came out November 15, 2001. Gamecube came out November 18, 2001.

Xbox has managed to outsell the Gamecube by 300,000 units by Dec. 31, despite being $300US while the GC is $200US.

PS2 has been out since sometime in October of 2000. That's why the game library is already huge and why the install base is as well.

Current estimates put the Xbox at 4.5-6M by the end of March, after the Euro and Jap launches.

12-01-2002, 11:50:56
Correction: X-Box = Middle PC. Not High End.

Pentium 3 Intel running at 800Mhz. That's not high end. Nothing in it is 'high end'. When they first laid it out on paper, maybe, but not 6 months after that.

Sony would only be raking in the money if they are moving LOTS of games. They all lose money on the hardware. Its just how they do it. It would be like... you buy a car that only runs on their brand of gas. They sell you the car for $200, and rake in the profit by charging $20 per gallon on the gas.

MS gets NOTHING for games sold on the PC, except for the shops they own/back/distribute. But they'll get ~%50 of the money off every game on the Box. THAT'S why console games cost so much more then PC games... the game developers have to get their cut, and with the license fee ranging from ~40% for the BEST game shops to ~75% (it's ~80% on some consoles) for the licensing fee for NEW shops... you end up charging HUGE just to get a few bucks in your pocket, if you are the game developer.

12-01-2002, 12:34:41
Game retailers in the UK reported something like a 15% increase in sales this Christmas and they put that down to the PS2, I think they are shifting a lot of games, at least in this country.

12-01-2002, 19:55:00
Originally posted by Darkstar
Correction: X-Box = Middle PC. Not High End.

Pentium 3 Intel running at 800Mhz. That's not high end. Nothing in it is 'high end'. When they first laid it out on paper, maybe, but not 6 months after that.

It's not really fair to compare it just like that.

The difference between the Xbox and the PC is that the Xbox CPU doesn't have to deal with overhead that Windows usually does. No GUI, no backround tasks, etc. And probably most importantly: The games all take advantage of the GeForce 4 chip built in (that's what it is, essentially). Most of the games released today spend a lot of time doing things on the CPU, wasting cycles, that can be done on a GeForce 3. But GeForce 3s are relatively rare, so there's no point in optimizing for that yet.

The Xbox CPU actually does surprisingly little, all it does is AI, physics, etc. The Dolby Digital encoding is done on a seperate DSP chip, all of the 3D sound effects (reverb, etc) are done on a seperate DSP chip, all of the graphics are done on the GPU chip. This really differs from most PCs.

Most developers actually say a 733MHz P3 is overkill for how the Xbox is currently designed, but they're so cheap now they may as well use it.

Similarly, the Gamecube's CPU is a modified 485MHz G3, but it is by no means a low-end Mac. But it does have to do a lot of graphics still on the CPU, which the Xbox can forgo.

THAT'S why console games cost so much more then PC games...
The price difference here is $10CDN. Not much at all.

12-01-2002, 21:29:50
I have an N64, and I’ll buy a GameCube. Why? Because Nintendo are pretty much the only major developers out there whoever try stuff. Look at the new Zelda—you may not like it, but it’s still different.

And they have the best multi-player games. Anyone can play Mario Party (1, 2, or 3) without knowing how to play games. You split into teams (assuming you have more than 3 friends) and have great fun. Mario Tennis is a good laugh in doubles mode, too, especially when you first try it.

I’ll also get my hands on a PS2 for Pro Evolution Soccer. ISS (1 or 2) is a great game if you can get several people who can play at a decent standard.

12-01-2002, 21:34:15
I'm one of those people who think games like Goldeneye (and now Halo) have the best multiplayer.

I was never into Mario Party or Super Smash Brothers. Just not my type of games.

Nintendo makes great stuff, but it's just not the type of stuff I personally enjoy. I really do hope they're successful though, I know tons of people who love them.

12-01-2002, 23:29:24
I might get a Gamecube at some point- I love those 3d Platform games... :D

King of the consoles: Game Boy Advance

13-01-2002, 09:59:25
Let's see... here, if you DO NOT rush out and buy a new PC game in 'Premium' time, the price of the game will settle down at about $20 for a good long while (before they move it to the bargain bin). Here, games for consoles settled at $45 to $50. That's a SERIOUS difference. Buy an NEW hot title, and it can range up to $80 from what I've seen on the shelves. If a GAME cost me 1/3 of what I payed for the console, that's awful pricey in my thinking.

Even with dedicated hardware processing, the game consoles are behind the curve on tech and power. It IS a far comparison, especially when the new models are all going to be Windows CE or Linux for Embedded Systems, etc. They are STILL running all that basic crap. That's how they have 'built in networking' to them. And so many other things.

I could yank out my X Box development resources, and make my PC pretend it's an X Box so I can dig through what first release has running on the CPU precisely. But I won't bother. It's not really IMPORTANT to me. Consoles are about fun little games to me. It's not like I'm going to ever use a console for anything else as long as I have a PC. And as long as the PCs are actually what sits on people's desks for work, the PC isn't going to just vanish, or turn into something you have to hunt very much to find.

What consoles have going for them... you don't get 'This game for your console brand won't run on YOUR particular graphics chips'. Standardized hardwire, standardized drivers. They know what you have, so it's no trouble to really go for it and use all that stuff inside it. No guessing involved. No need for layers of translation software. That is where you gain the 'speed'. But in actual processing power, consoles will never match a PC. Not until Apple starts making the iConsole... which is just a PC that pretends it is a console, but you go out and buy extra external HDs and what not. In the past, those sorts of things always bombed. Not enough customer base. I suppose ONE DAY, we might have them be successful. But that will only happen once PCs are not setting on the workers desks.

13-01-2002, 10:07:40
The main selling point of consoles is that it's a static hardware base that will continually have good games pumped out for it for at least 3 years, without having to upgrade anything. Not only that, but the power you get buying a console is REALLY good for the price you pay. To get a PC that can handle the games the Xbox is pushing out, you'd need a (not yet released) GeForce 4 which will cost an inordinate amount of money, people are estimating between $400 and $600 for that piece alone. You can get an entire console for $299. That's the big deal about consoles.

14-01-2002, 09:25:58
Originally posted by sean—temp
I’ll also get my hands on a PS2 for Pro Evolution Soccer. ISS (1 or 2) is a great game if you can get several people who can play at a decent standard.

Pro Evo Soccer is a great step up from ISS, only problem with it is that it takes work to get up to a decent standard even if you have a lot of experience with ISS.